Category Archives: News

Catholics must now Rebuild the Church

Screenshot_2019-11-22 800px-Bernardus_van_Clairvaux_bekeert_Willem_van_Aquitanië jpg (JPEG Image, 800 × 461 pixels)

LET US STOP SAYING THAT NOTHING CAN BE DONE

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Schism started 6 years and 8 months ago, when the Cardinals seeing that Pope Benedict’s Act of Renouncing the “ministry committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals”, took advantage of his age and weak constitution by announcing to the world that he had resigned the Papacy. — If they had an ounce of respect for Our Lord, Who is Truth and Justice and His gift of the Office of St. Peter, they would have pointed out to him the numerous grammatical and legal and logical problems with the text he read.

Was he coerced or forced to renounce? Was he threatened? Was he confused? Did he just want to retire and not resign? Was he just utterly disgusted with the corruption of the Vatican?

Those are important historical questions, but THEY ARE IRRELEVANT, because as it stands HE NEVER RENOUNCED THE PAPAL OFFICE.  And anyone who does not know this can simply read PPBXVI.org or the From Rome Blog to know it. And if any Catholic refuses this, they are either intellectually incapable of understanding that two words can mean different things, or they are volitionally indisposed to separate themselves from Bergoglio and thus must be presumed to be heretics and schismatics, regardless of what mass they go to!

So, let’s first ennumerate the massive crimes being committed on a daily basis:

Numerous Canonical Crimes committed by nearly the entire Hierarchy who knows this

Cardinal Sodano and everyone else who went ahead and pretended he did are guilty of violating numerous Canons of Church Law, among which are:

  1. Canon 40, which declares NULL AND VOID any action taken by anyone before determining that the Act of one’s superior is authentic and integral — This act is full of errors and thus not integral.
  2. Canon 41, which grants the exception to all subordinates in the case of an administrative act which is NULL — and there is none more null than announcing the renunciation of the ministry of an office without renouncing the office or the ministry! — and which precepts all subordinates TO CONFER with their superior about any inconsistencies in the Act. FAILURE TO DO THIS results in the USURPATION OF POWER, because the subordinate who puts into act an Act which is canonically NULL has in fact arrogated power to himself which he does NOT have.
  3. Canon 1381, which forbids the usurpation of any ecclesiastical office, because if you proceed to elect another Pope when the present Pope has not resigned, you are collaborating in the usurpation of office.
  4. Canon 1382, which punishes with latae sententiae excommunication ALL bishops who consecrate bishops without a Pontifical Mandate (when the Apostolic See is not impeded), which is what anyone who collaborates with the usurpation of the Papal Office does.
  5. Canon 1384, which punishes all who are involved in the usurpation of any ministry, which kind of usurpation includes ALL the persons presently working in the Roman Curia, since the Roman Curia cannot operate without the express mandate of the Roman Pontiff, nor can any post there be filled except by express delegation of authority of Pope Benedict XVI. This also involves anyone who goes along with accepting Episcopal nominations or resignations after Feb. 28, 2013.
  6. Canon 1386, which punishes all those who promise a quid pro quo to obtain or omit illegally an ecclesiastical act or function. This includes everyone who is pretending to grant jobs or offices so long as they go along with the coup d’etat.
  7. Canon 1389 §1, which directly punishes ALL the Cardinals who participated in the Conclave of 2013, for an abuse of power, since Canon 359 forbade that they take any action so long as Benedict XVI had not resigned.
  8. Canon 1389 §2, which punishes ALL Cardinals and Bishops for neglecting to address and resolve the problem of the Renunciation, by acting as if Benedict XVI is not the pope.
  9. Canon 1390 §2, which punishes all Bishops and Cardinals for damaging the reputations of those who remain in communion with Pope Benedict XVI, when such calumny is brought to their legitimate superior (pre Bergoglian).
  10. Canon 1391 §1, which punishes ALL involved in concealing the canonical invalidity of the Act of Renunciation through falsified translations, articles or canonical studies.
  11. Canon 1391 §2 and 3, which punishes ALL who assert in ecclesiastical documents that Bergoglio is the Pope or that Benedict resigned validly.

Canonical Basis for taking Action against All of them

Now, from Canon 1399, it is clear that all these crimes are sufficiently grave as to require punishment. And Canon 1401 clearly puts these matters under the jurisdiction of the Church, in as much as regards faulting particular persons or imposing punishment. Nor does Canon 1405 prevent action against the Cardinals and Apostolic Legates for their part in this crime, because inasmuch as the resolution of the problem requires only a public confirmation of its existence and the removal of criminals from the claim to power which they have no right to, the Church has the right in ALL of Her members to take Canonical action, on account of the Apostolic See being impeded.

This is established by the principle, that the Salus animarum in Ecclesia suprema lex est (cf. Canon 1752). It is moved on the basis of justice in fulfillment of the observance of the Seventh Commandment of the Decalogue (Thou shalt not steal).

The example of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Norbert of Xanten shows the way. During the schism of Anacletus II who usurped the Papacy, they called on the Kings of France and Germany to convene imperfect Synods and declare in favor of Pope Innocent II the rightful Bishop of Rome. — Their example and their canonization means that the Church wants us to imitate them in this!

The solution of the problem does not require a Canonical judgment in Tribunal, however. And therefore any group of Bishops in any part of the world can hold an imperfect Synod and declare their position on the matter. Each Synod should be directed to petitioning the government of their nation state to recognize Pope Benedict XVI as the Pope. This will liberate the local Church from the malign influence of the Apostate Revolutionaries.

The mere enumeration of these crimes should induce any Bishop, priest, deacon, religious or layman or lay woman to take notice and examine the facts, and if not, they should be presumed to be simply too corrupt to care. Move on to the next Bishop, priest, deacon, religious or lay person and try to convince them.

Even if the Bishops of your locale will not act, this does not prevent Clergy, Laity and Religious to hold public meetings to declare the same thing, which the objective to urging their Bishops to act or reproving those bishops in the local for their complicity in the revolution.

SO LET US STOP SAYING THAT NOTHING CAN BE DONE. I have shown you that it needs to be done, How it can be done, and That it can be done without the violation of any Canon of Church law.

So I ask all Catholic bloggers, writers and website publishers, to take the first step and republish this article of mine, and join with The From Rome Blog in an alliance calling for action and the formation of action committees in every nation to do what we can do to stop the Apostasy. Each of you can start by declaring yourself for Pope Benedict XVI AND for the Canonical resolution of the Schism and punishment of the criminals. — Stop being wussies and lamenting each day that nothing is going to be done, or nothing can be done, as if you lived on another planet, had no personal responsibility, or are busy with something, in Heaven, Earth or Hell, which is more important!

And do not tell me that you are risking more than me. I live not a kilometer from the Vatican, at Rome, and the Vatican reads my blog daily. I could be arrested at any moment. — You know what? — I DO NOT CARE. I KNOW THAT THE CAUSE IS GREATER THAN MYSELF. I EXIST TO SERVE JESUS CHRIST!

The Feast of Saint Cecilia gave a sign from Heaven about all of this. Bergoglio being out of town in Thailand, the world capital of sex trafficking for minors: at Rome, the two weeks of clouds and rain broke, and God’s sun returned. The unnatural pairings which were so common in recent weeks disappeared and nature reasserted herself, in a way that gives hope, that if WE only collaborate to exorcise the darkness, the Church will return to Holiness in her members and rulers. See video below:

A Nonsensical Act: What the Latin of the Renunciation really says

hqdefault

Let us read Non solum propter
according to the rules of Latin grammar

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In my previous article, Pope Benedict’s Forced Abdication, I spoke of the evidence which seems to indicate that Pope Benedict’s resignation was demanded and that the text of Renunciation was hurriedly prepared, which left it full of errors: at the end of which, I promised to examine the text and expose these errors. I did this yesterday in my article entitled, Clamourous Errors in the Latin of the Renunciation, wherein I detailed and identified more than 40 grammatical and canonical errors in the text.

Now, I will fulfill the promise I made yesterday to give an English translation of what the Latin really does say, rather than what most translators (including myself here) attempt to make it say, to make it intelligible. So, I warn my readers, what follows is a discourse, written by someone with scarce knowledge of Latin, and thus, that the English translation will appear to be a poor translation, when it is in fact an exact rendering of the sloppy and erroneous Latin.

Since I am a published translator, however, I will try to give the document the best possible English syntax within the rules of Latin grammar, without however altering the Latin signification.

The Translation

Not solely for the sake of three acts of canonization, have I convoked you towards this Consistory, but also to communicate on behalf of the life of the Church a thing of great importance: your being cut-off. Having scouted out my conscience again and again before God, I have arrived at certain cognition — my strengths by my worsening age are no longer apt — to administer the Munus petrinum equitably. I am well conscious that this Munus according to his spiritual essence ought to be pursued not only by doing and speaking, but no less by suffering and by praying. Yet, however, in the world of our season, subjected to hasty acts of change, and perturbed by questions of great value on behalf of the life of faith, a certain vigor of body and soul is necessary to steer the Barque of Saint Peter and the Gospel to announce, which (strength) in me in these furthest months is lessening in such a manner, that to well administer the ministry committed to me, I ought to acknowledge my incapacity. On which account, well conscious of the weight of this act I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals on the 19th of April, 2005, to vacate from the 28th of February, at 20:00 hours, Rome time, the See of Saint Peter, and that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those who are competent.

Dearest Brothers: from my whole heart you I thank for all your physical love and the work, by which you bore with me the weight of my ministry and I ask pardon for all my failings. Moreover, now We completely trust the Holy Church of God to the care of the Most High Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and We implore His holy Mother, Mary, to assist with Her maternal goodness, the Cardinal fathers in electing a new supreme pontiff. As far as regards myself, may I also wish to serve with my whole heart in a future by a life dedicated to prayer for Holy Mother Church.

DISCUSSION

The Act is confused by switching between the first person singular and plural. It is signed with the name of the We, the Pope, but most of it is said by the I, who is Ratzinger. It contains the glaring errors which render the act canonically nullus (null), namely, it is a declaration of the man, Ratzinger, that he is going to renounce on Feb 28. But he never did renounce on that day.

It is also canonically, invalid, because it refers to a renunciation, never made, of the ministry received from the Cardinals. But what is that. That is canonically nothing, since a ministry flows from an office, or if it does not flow from an office, it is like being a lector or acolyte. Neither of which is the Papal Office.

It is also canonically, irritus, that is improperly manifested, because what on earth does it say and mean and why is the man who is the Pope saying that which has no effect in Canon Law?

It is also a nonsensical act of declaration by the man, Ratzinger, that a Conclave must be called. And that he is going to renounce to make the chair of Peter vacant or go on vacation (the Latin is ambiguous). Why add the consequences or intent of the act of renunciation, which is going to be made, but which was never made, UNLESS there is some doubt that the act you are making will cause the Chair of Peter to be vacant and necessitate a Conclave?

The Latin text obviously was NEVER shown to a Latinist who had the authority and opportunity to correct it. The Latin text was also obviously never shown to a canonist, who had the authority and opportunity to correct it.

I think it is safe to presume, therefore, that the text was never shown to anyone to be recognized according to the norm of Canon 40 nor acted upon according to the norm of Canon 41. For Canon 40 requires that all subordinates determine whether the written administrative act of their superior is authentic and complete. And this act is so rife with errors one can doubt a Pope wrote it, seeing that he has dozens of experts to help him write his acts. On that basis, one should have asked if he was handed this act and forced to sign and read it! Also, on account of Canon 41, since it is an actus nullus, one has no obligation to put it into effect, and if he does put it into effect he is guilty of the usurpation of power; likewise, by the same Canon, every subordinate is obliged to omit its execution until he confers with the superior who posited it regarding the inopportune commands contained in it, such as seeming to call for a Conclave when you have not yet renounced the Papal office.

Finally, if the act meant something, it meant that on Feb 28, 2013, the Pope was going to renounce the Petrine Ministry. Since the Pope never did that at that hour, it does not even effect a renunciation of ministry!

Thus, Pope Benedict XV remains the only true Pope with all his rights an privileges as before Feb 11, 2013. This act will go down in history as an embarrassment to the papacy. That the Cardinals pretend nothing was or is wrong with it, either means that they certainly are not competent to elect a Roman Pontiff, or that they were complicit in forcing his resignation. Both may explain the ‘what’ they have not been doing since Feb. 11, 2013.

Clamorous errors in the Latin of the Renunciation

Resignation

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Thus read the headlines in the newspapers within days of the publication of the official Latin text of the Act of Renunciation made by Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013: Clamorous Errors in the Latin text of the Renunciation. (here and  on point, here). These articles only spoke of the errors of commissum not commisso and vitae instead of vita.

And in this case, the headlines were not misrepresenting the reality. For I have discerned at least 40 errors!

Yet, the propaganda machine immediately went to work and anyone who on social media in 2013 began talking about errors was immediately and viciously attacked as judging the pope! — The real purpose was that the Lavender Mafia was very worried about anyone questioning the validity. I remember my professor in Canon Law diverting the lectures he made in February and March of that year to teach things about certain canons in an erroneous way so as to stifle any consideration of the invalidity. But he did it with such subtlety that only after all these years do I recognize what he did. — The other voices shouting down criticism of the Latin are all part of the circles of those conservative Cardinals who just impaled their reputations by demanding unquestioning obedience to Bergoglio after his acts of idolatrous worship and reverence. That was when the controlled opposition of Trad Inc. was born. It was their first act of loyalty to the regime. And it indicates they were positioned to respond and were told what to do.

So for the sake of a more exact historical truth, I will discuss here these errors and give an English translation of what Pope Benedict XVI’s Latin said (in a Later post, since there are too many errors to be discussed). I do this to correct any misunderstanding given by my previous English translation of the Act of Renunciation, in the article I entitled, “A Literal English translation of Benedict XVI’s Discourse on Feb. 11, 2013“, where by “literal” I mean faithful to the sense, not to the grammar of the Latin employed.

I base my comments on the Latin text on my own knowledge of the Latin tongue garnered in 14 years of translating of some nine thousand Letter sized pages of medieval Latin ecclesiastic texts into English. I will be the first one to say that I do not think I am an expert in the matter, but I do think it would be no exaggeration to say that there are only a handful of men alive today in the Church who have translated more Latin than myself. I also wrote a popular Ecclesiastical Latin Textbook and Video series, which I produced for Mansfield Community TV, in Massachusetts, USA, and which The Franciscan Archive distributed for some years after the publication of Summorum pontificum.

And thus, conceding I can always learn from others, I will also draw from two German Scholars who publicly critiqued the Latin text: the professor of Philology, Wilfried Stroh (see here) and those of Attorney Arthur Lambauer, a Vienese lawyer, whose comments are recorded in part here.

I can also give personal witness to the fact that the Latinists who have worked in the Vatican during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI are aware of all of these errors (and probably of more) and have only been reticent for personal reasons, from what I gather from having had the occasion to dine with one at an Agritourismo, at Bagnoregio, Italy, in the summer of 2016.

First, the Latin Text in Black, with RED indicating the errors of expression (numbering each), after which I will comment on each error section by section, because there are so many. The official Latin text can be found at the Vatican Website (here).

Fratres carissimi

Non solum propter tres canonizationes (1) ad hoc Consistorium (2) vos convocavi (3), sed etiam ut vobis (4) decisionem (5) magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita (6) communicem (7). Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata (8) ad cognitionem certam (9) perveni (10) vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse (11) ad munus Petrinum aeque (12) administrandum.

  1. To say propter tres canonizationes is to mean for the sake of or on account of, three acts of canonizing. This grammatical structure in Latin means, not that the Pope has called the Cardinals together to conduct or announce the canonization of three groups or individuals, but that somehow the Cardinals have been convoked to honor the acts of canonizing or because the acts themselves cannot be completed without them. But the act of canonization is a papal act which does not require the Cardinals. Therefore, the correct Latin should be in trium canonizationum annuntiationem, that is, to announce my decision to decree three acts of canonization, as the Latin construction beginning with the preposition in is used to express purpose. This is a common error of those who have never carefully read any Latin text and who impose a modern meaning upon what they think a Latin preposition means.
  2. To say ad hoc Consistorium may very well be the custom of the Papal court — to this I cannot comment — however, in Latin, since consistorium is an act of standing together, not a place to which the Cardinals are convoked, but a solemn way of gathering together, the correct grammatical structure should be in hoc consistorio.
  3. A pope when he acts, speaks in the first person plural, that is, with the royal “We”. The man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man and not the pope, speaks with the first person singular, “I”.  Therefore, the correct form of the verb here should be convocavimus.
  4. The Latin verb communicem takes the preposition cum not the dative of reference, and thus vobis should read instead vobiscum. As it stands, the only possible grammatical function of vobis would be as a dative of possession for decisionem!
  5.  I agree here with Dr. Stroh, that the word should be consilium not decisionem, because this latter Latin word means a “act of cutting off”, or at best an “act of making a decision”, which clearly is not apropos to the thing at hand, because the Pope has not included them in the decision making process, only declaring a decision which he has already made. And consilium is the proper word for such a thing as that, when done by a superior with authority.
  6. This is the most absurd error of them all. The person who wrote this does not even understand that in Latin you use the dative of reference not a phrase beginning with a preposition as in modern languages. This should read Ecclesiae vitae, for as it stands it says on behalf of the life of the Church or for the sake of the life of the Church; unless of course he is making a reference to a grave threat to the life of the Church for which this act is intended to defend that life. This may be, but as nearly all modern computer programs which do translations into Latin get this wrong in just this way, I will presume it is ignorance, not a hint.
  7. Since the renunciation is by the person, not the pope, we see in the next sentence that He begins speaking in the first person as the man, but I think since this subordinate clause is still that part of the text said by the Roman Pontiff, as the Pontiff, it should be in the first person plural. communicemus. The sentence which follows, therefore, in the first person, should begin a new paragraph, to show this distinction of power.
  8. This is entirely the wrong word. Because this word in Latin refers to the exploration of a place or region or the investigation into a thing which physical dimensions or size, or is the military term for spying or watching something to gain information. It is never used with spiritual things, for certainly your conscience is not a world unto itself, it is a faculty of knowing. The correct term should be one which means exposed or settled, on account of the reference to being before or in the presence of God.
  9. These words are not only badly chosen but insufficient to precipitate the indirect discourse which follows. The correct Latin way of saying this is to write nunc bene cognosco quod (I now recognize well that) instead of ad cognitionem certam perveni (I have arrived at certain knowing).
  10. This verb does not have the sense of arrived, in matters which deal with knowledge. It rather means to attain, which would make sense if you were spying on the enemy, but to say you have attained certain knowledge by examining your conscience is absurd, because the conscience only recognizes moral truths, it is not the fount of knowledge or certitude.
  11. Here there is a clause in indirect discourse following cognitionem certam. The correct form, if such an expression be kept at all (cf. n. 9 above) should be introduced with quod and be in the nominative, not accusative, because the object of the certain knowledge is a fact known, not a knowing that. And thus, on account of the error in n. 9, the verb here should be sunt, the whole phrase reading vires mihi ingravescente aetate non iam aptae sunt. I think the emphatic dative of possession mihi should be used rather than the possesive adjective meae, because the strength spoke of is intimate to his physical being, not just some exterior possession.
  12. Doctor Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong adverb. The correct one should be recte or apte or as I suggest constanter (rightly, aptly, or consistently).

Bene conscius sum (1) hoc munus secundum suam (2) essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo (3) et loquendo exsequi (4) debere (5), sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis (6) rapidis mutationibus subiecto (7) et (8) quaestionibus magni (9) pro vita fidei (10) perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium (11) etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae (12) necessarius est, …

  1. The use of conscius is more common of knowledge had with others, but when of oneself, in the rare usage of the Latin poet, Terrence, this construction must be formed thus: mihi sum conscius, and not conscius sum, to show that the knowledge is of oneself but that the adjective precipitates indirect discourse. And thus a comma should be placed after conscius to conform to modern standards of punctuating Latin.
  2. Here there is simply the error of someone who thinks in Italian, because the possessive adjective for the third person, in Latin, is NEVER used for a thing in a sentence, only for the subject of a verb. The correct Latin, therefore should be eius though it could be omitted entirely since the phrase secundum essentiam spiritualem is a standard of measure and its object is implicitly understood. Dr Stroh rightly points out that naturam should be used instead of essentiam. I agree, because St Bonaventure says nature refers to the being of a thing as a principle of action.
  3. Here whoever wrote the text is ignorant that in Latin agere refers to all actions, physical or spiritual, and thus is an improper pair with loquendo which is also an act. It is difficult to understand to what the writer is referring, since nearly everything a pope does is by speaking. It is not as if he cleans toilets or does manual labor. Perhaps, the better word would be scribendo, that is writing.
  4. The Latin verb here is badly chosen, because exsequi refers to a work done, but the subject is not a work but a munus or charge, which is a thing. The proper Latin would be geri that is, conducted in the sense of the modern fulfilled or executed.
  5. This is the wrong verb to express what is intended. It is proper or necessary that the duties of the office be fulfilled. But it is not a debt, which is what debere means. The correct Latin should be oportere that is, that it is proper or necessary so as to reach the goal intended.
  6. Whoever wrote this has no experience reading Latin, as tempus refers to seasons. The concept of time in Latin is not the same as with moderns. The idea that seems to be the intent of the expression is in our our contemporary world, but Latin would say that as in saeculo nostro, because saeculum is the Latin term for the world in the sense of time, this generation, or culture, not mundum, which refers to the cosmos as a physical reality or place.
  7. And on account of error n. 6, this phrase must be rewritten entirely, as velocium or celerium mutationum using the genitive of description not dative of reference, and hence there is no need for subiecto. The Latin rapidus is used for hurried or swift changes, which is simply not historically accurate.
  8. And thus, likewise, on account of the dropping of subiecto this conjunction can be entirely omitted.
  9. Here the magni, of great value, seems hardly appropriate, because the questions of faith in modern times are nearly all the product of unbelievers fretting over their imagination of a world without God; magnis to agree with quaestionibus or magni momenti would be more correct. But magni can stand because it is so Ratzingerian as anyone can tell from his writings.
  10. Here there is the same error as before, and thus the Latin should read fidei vitae or fidei.
  11. Here you have the error of a First year Latin student who forgets that object go before verbs in Latin, not afterwards: the reading should be Evangelium annuntiandum.
  12. Here the wrong word is chosen, because clearly the soul does not grow old or weak by age, but the spirit does. And thus the correct Latin should be animi. Dr. Stroh agrees with me.

qui ultimis (1) mensibus in me modo tali minuitur (2), ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum (3) agnoscere debeam (4). Quapropter bene conscius (5) ponderis huius actus plena libertate (6) declaro (7) me ministerio (8) Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium (9) die 19 aprilis MMV commisso (10) renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae (11), sedes Sancti Petri vacet et (12) Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

  1. In Latin you signify recent things by saying praecedentibus not ultimis. Dr. Stroh suggests: his praeteritis since the emphasis is on recent in the past.
  2. Here the tense is wrong, since the reference is to what has happened in recent months, and is still happening, the correct tense is the imperfect minuebatur and take mihi as a dative of reference not in me.
  3. It is nonsensical to say that you are administering a ministry, the better word should be gerere, as before.  But the entire phrase is incorrectly formed, since incapacitatem should follow the rule of capax and take an infinitive in predications (as in the Vulgate) or a genitive (Seneca) with adjectives or gerundives, so the whole should read ministerii mihi commissi bene gerendi.
  4. Seeing that the text is being read as if a decision is already made, to say that you “ought to acknowledge” is contextually out of place, according to time. Also, as a clause subordinate to an imperfect, it must be in the perfect subjunctive. The phrase should read something like iustum fuerit, “it was just that”.
  5. Attorney Lambauer rightly points out that this construction with conscius takes the reflexive pronoun mihi before it. But in proper syntax the ponderis huius actus should precede conscius. Two errors here.
  6. Now come the errors which touch upon the nullity, invalidity and irregularity of the act. Because the renunciation has to be made freely. That it is declared freely is good too, but presumed and not necessary, unless there is someone apt to think it was being forced. Why say this? So this phrase, if kept, should be with the verb renuntiare, and both should NOT be in indirect discourse, because to announce or declare that you are renouncing, is not to renounce anything, but to announce something, and that is not the act specified in Canon 332 §2 which requires a renunciation as the essential act, not a declaration.
  7. This verb if left should introduce a phrase which prepares the listeners about intent or such like, not the act of the renunciation.
  8. This is the wrong object of the Act of renunciation, which according to Canon 332 §2 should be muneri. Dr Stroh, writing it seems in February 2013, notes that this error makes the renunciation invalid. I agree!
  9. The Petrine Munus and Ministerium are not entrusted to the elected pope, but received by him in the Petrine Succession immediately as he says, “Yes, I accept my election”. This is basic papal theology 101. If you get that wrong, it can sanely be questioned whether you were compos mentis at the time of the act. Unless of course the entire phrase ministerio … per manus Cardinalium … commisso is meant to rebuke the Cardinals for allowing him a ministry but not conceding him any real authority. Though such an intent would be both sarcastic and effect the invalidity of the resignation. So this should read in succesione petrina or something similar
  10. This should be a me accepto or a me recepto, that is, “accepted by me” or “received by me”.
  11. This is the one phrase which is correct, but which no one but an expert in the Secretariate of State would know, because, as an eminent Vatican Latinist told me, it is the customary way of indicating the Roman time zone in Latin. Dr. Stroh and Attorney Lambauer, writing from Germany, did not know this.
  12. Here the indirect discourse should end, or rather, the expression of the first person, I, should end, because the calling of a conclave is a papal act, the man who is pope, who just renounced, has NO authority to call one. So here the Latin should resume with the Papal WE, et declaramus.

Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis (1) pro omni amore et labore (2), quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis (3). Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus (4) sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro (5) vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim. (6)

Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII

  1. Again, the error of the First Year Latin student. The phrase should read gratias vobis agimus. First because of the proper word order of Latin, second because He is now thanking them as the Roman Pontiff, because they collaborated with him, not as a man, but as the Pope, the verb should return to the first person plural. Two errors here.
  2. If you are grateful for their service and collaboration, you do not say amore et labore, which refer to physical work and physical affection; you say, rather, omnibus amicitiabus operibusque to show that the friendship and works were multiple and united one with the other. Four errors here.
  3. Again, the First Year Latin student’s error of getting the word order wrong. It should read: pro omnibus defectibus meis veniam peto and the phrase should be introduced by de vobis or de omnibus. Two errors here. It is also awkward to return to the use of the first person singular here, even though it it necessary regarding the confession made.
  4. Dr. Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong verb, the correct Latin is committimus.
  5. Dr. Stroh again reminds that the correct Latin temporal expression is in futurum.
  6. In Latin there is no conditional. The subjunctive is used to express wishes, but not with the verb to wish! You say rather serviam, “may I serve” not servire velim, “may I wish to serve” which makes no sense, simply be more direct and say, “I wish to serve” (servire volo).

CONCLUSION

I think it would be no exaggeration to say, that if anyone saw even some of these errors and did not ask the Holy Father that they be corrected before the act was published, he sinned mortally against his duty of loyalty to the Roman Pontiff. I also think that the number of these errors is qualified forensic evidence that IF Benedict wrote this text and read it freely, that he was either not in a proper state of mind or did not act with mature deliberation.

Finally, if anyone says that the Act of Renunciation has no errors or must be accepted to be a Papal resignation, not merely a renunciation of ministry so as to devote oneself to prayer, then they are clearly talking about another document, because there are so many errors in this Act that no sane person could ever claim that it is binding on anyone. For if it was intended as an act of papal renunciation, and was written by the Pope, then clearly he has already lost too much of his mental faculty to renounce validly, because to renounce validly you at least have to know how to write an intelligible sentence, in whatever language you chose to renounce, and you have to name the office with a word which means the office. Duh!

Public Notice: I spent only 2 hours analyzing the text, so the Vatican surely had enough time to correct it before February 28, 2013, which was 17 days later. I speculate that they did not, because then someone would have objected that the word ministerio had to be changed to muneri, and the reality was that Pope Benedict was insisting that it not be, because He did not intend and had never intended to renounce the papal office or its grace.

 

 

Why Revolutionaries call their opponents Extremists

Or How one Eminent Canonist at Rome
Just Admitted that Bergoglio is a Usurper

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The salvation of souls is the most important thing. That is why in the time of perfidy and falsehood it is a grave moral obligation to warn the faithful of the imminent danger to their souls, from whatever quarter that threat comes.

I too, personally, cannot comprehend or contemplate the prudence that would keep silent while letting wolves gobble up sheep and ship them off in boat-loads to Hell.

That is why, I think every catholic who is struggling with the question of whether Berogoglio is the Pope or whether Benedict did not really resign, needs to read the report I file here below.

I say this because I have just had the occasion to talk with one of the most eminent and respected canonists in the Church and show him my Disputed Question on the Renunciation. He holds a doctorate in Canon Law and a very important position in the Academic world here at Rome. I met with him this morning, as he graciously granted me an audience despite knowing something about my writing on the subject.  I respect that.

And for that reason, since I am interested in truth, and not in damaging reputations, I won’t mention his name. But since what he said is important and needs to be heard by everyone in the Church, I will summarize as best I can remember. (I did not record the conversation, and what follows is not a transcript.)

I explained my academic background and preparation. Then I mentioned the comment of Mons. Nicola Bux, last year in October, about the possibility that in the Renunciation of Pope Benedict there was a substantial error which made it invalid to cause him to lose the office of the Papacy, then we discussed the problem according to canonical principles.

This eminent canonist in the course of our 20 minute conversation, agreed with me on the following points of law:

  1. A papal resignation falls under the category of legal acts which pertain to the cessation of power.
  2. The cessation of power is never presumed, it must be manifest in the legal act.
  3. The Roman Curia assists the Pope in the exercise of the Petrine Ministry, but no one in the Curia, not even the Secretary of State shares in the Petrine Munus.
  4. During a sedevacante there can be no innovation in the law.
  5. If Ratzinger did validly resign, then from the moment he did, there was a sede vacante.
  6. During a sede vacante the entire Church is obliged to judge who is not pope and who is pope based on the norm of the law, not on the hearsay or claims of anyone, let alone journalists.
  7. Canon 145 §1 does define every ecclesiastic office as a munus.
  8. Canon 332 §2 does require the Church to recognize that a papal renunciation takes place when there is a free and manifest renunciation of the Petrine Munus.
  9. Canon 1331 §2, n. 4, does not forbid an excommunicate to exercise or hold a ministry in the Church, and does not equate ministerium with dignity, office or munus.
  10. Christ’s promise and prayer for the Successor of Saint Peter is infinitely more important of a support for the Pope than all the prayers and good works of the Church for the Pope.
  11. It is necessary that the entire Church take care that a Petrine Succession, that is, the passing of the office of the papacy from one man to another, takes place in the way canon law and the will of Christ intend it.
  12. Our concern for the solution of this problem should be based on the highest charity and justice for both Benedict and Francis.
  13. There is no canon in the Code of Canon Law which says that ministerium = munus.

So much for what we agreed on. It was very substantial, and I much appreciated the occasion to speak with such a brilliant mind on the law.

However, we had fundamental disagreements. Here I will list those which I remember. These are positions which I do not hold, but represent substantially those of the canonist:

  1. Any questioning of the legitimacy of Pope Francis for the purpose of taking from him a legal claim to the Papacy is the greatest evil in the Church.
  2. Any canonical study or investigation which so questions Pope Francis’s claim if it is motivated by such a motive, is to be entirely refused before even being heard.
  3. Scholastic theology is not the mind of the Church and it does not determine reality.
  4. Canon Law does not determine reality.
  5. Munus is contained in ministerium, so he who exercises ministerium holds a munus.
  6. Canon 17, which establishes the legal norm for the interpretation of every canon, is not operative in any discussion of Pope Francis’ legitimacy or Benedict’s resignation.
  7. Catholics investigating either issue should read and accept the scholarly works of only those authors who sustain that Bergoglio’s claim is valid and the Benedict’s resignation is valid.

Discussion

The usurpation of power is an act whereby someone who does not have claim to a right, claims that right. We live in an age of usurpation, as can be seen from the daily news. But when you encounter a canonist who takes the position that the holding of power makes legitimate the claim to power, you are face-to-face with proof that there is no reason or legal obligation to support their revolution.

So, though we did not discuss the opinions of Cardinal Burke, when I consider that Cardinal Burke called all who question the legitimacy of Pope Francis’ claim to the papacy, “extremists”, I wonder what he would say on these same points. Because what is extremism, in the bad sense of the word, anyhow? Is it claiming that 2+2 must = 4, and that those who say it does not are wrong? Or is it saying that anyone who questions a legal claim, because it lacks a foundation in law and right, is nuts?

The most egregious affirmations made by this canonist are contained in nn. 5 and 6.  To reject the norm of canon 17 in the reading of the Code is basically to throw in the dust bin any obligation to hold that the Code means what Pope John Paul II said it meant and what it itself or canonical tradition says it means.

To claim that munus is contained in ministerium is pretty much to reject the entire Incarnation, because that is the doctrine of those Christians who claim that the doing of a ministry gives you authority. It’s the protestant principle of office, as a very eminent historian of the comparison of ecclesiastical office in the Catholic Church and the churches of the Reformation recently affirmed to me in a private chat.

So, basically, if munus is contained in ministerium, then if anyone starts dressing like the Pope and acting like the pope, nominating bishops and consecrating them, THEN HE IS THE POPE! Because, after all the papal office is contained in the papal ministry, do the ministry and you have the office!

Finally, for a canonist to say that Canon Law does not determine reality in a discussion on the question of the canonical validity of the Renunciation is basically to concede that the Renunciation is clearly and manifestly NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE NORM OF CANON 332 §2.

So the next time anyone tells you that you must accept Pope Francis as the pope BECAUSE OTHERWISE you are a sinner or a heretic or a schismatic, maybe you should reply,

“In the Catholic Church only he is pope who has been canonically elected after the death or canonical resignation of the previous man. If one of the most eminent canonists of Rome, who supports Pope Francis, admitted to Br. Bugnolo on Nov. 19, that the Renunciation is not in conformity with the canonical requirements of the law, then I think I have an UNSHAKEABLE RIGHT by baptism to refuse Bergoglio as a usurper, for clearly, Bergoglio’s own supporters after nearly 7 years should have a canonical argument which proves his claim! And if they do not, there is none! And if there is none, why in Heaven or Earth, to I have to accept him without such a claim?”


POSTSCRIPT: It is VERY noteworthy that this eminent Canonist did not use certain arguments. He did Not:

  1. Cite the maxim referenced in Canon 1404, the First See is judged by no one (Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur), because he recognizes that an act of renunciation is of the man who holds the office, in as much as he is the man who accepted the office, not inasmuch as he is the man who holds the office.
  2. Appeal to universal acceptance: a crazed notion invented by some English speaking laymen, who having selectively quoted from John of Saint Thomas, want to apply a reflex principle, developed in an age before there was a Code of Canon Law, for troubled consciences in the time of a valid election, to silence honest inquiries into an invalid election which the principles of the Code of Canon Law clearly put it in doubt.
  3. Employ any ad hominems. That is, he did not insult me or question my motivation.
  4. Appeal to any meeting held in the Vatican after Feb 11, 2013 12 pm, noon, and before Feb. 28, 8 pm, when Benedict left the Vatican, in which there was an official determination or discussion of the canonical validity of the act to determine it was valid. Being an expert canonist at Rome, he would have heard of any, after nearly 7 years.
  5. And most importantly, perhaps, he made NO appeal to anything said by Benedict after Feb. 28, 2013, evidently because as a sane canonist, he recognizes that no testimony after the fact, regarding liberty or intention, has any bearing on the validity of a past act. Both need to be manifest in the act itself at the time of the act.

________

CREDITS: My photograph of the Holy Water fount at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls. The sculpture beneath it shows a cherub inviting the faithful to bless themselves with the Holy Water, while a demon cringes that anyone do something so extremist.

THANKS TO MY READERS: I wish to take this moment to thank all my Readers at this blog for encouraging me in my work and study to study the Renunciation. I would not have been prepared to debate the Renunciation with this eminent canonist, if I had not already learned a great deal from trying to answer your many questions and concerns during the last year.

 

Pope Benedict’s forced Abdication

HOW IT WENT DOWN

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As the long time readers of my blog, From Rome, know, I have extensively covered the Renunciation of Pope Benedict in articles analyzing it’s canonical value (here), who perpetrated the seizure of power from him (here), how it lead to his de facto imprisonment (here) and how, nevertheless, He has triumphed over all his enemies by it (here). Moreover, I have covered the signs he has given after the fact that he never resigned validly (here, here and here). And in many other articles.

Now I want to focus on how the Renunciation happened, that is who was behind it and how it went down, to show that in some respects it might have been a forced and in others, a free act, and how and why Benedict may have sound reasons to be continually hesitant to admit what he really did and why.

History is Context

Fred Martinez, of Catholic Monitor Blog, is doing some excellent work at cutting through the propaganda of the controlled Catholic media. In his post of Monday, October 29, 2018, entitled, “Is Francis our first gay Pope?” he laid out in great detail all the evidence that the core agenda of Bergoglio is to achieve the agenda of the LGBTQ movement.

Two days and one year later, Raffaela, who blogs at, Il Blog di Raffaela. Riflessione e Commenti fra gli amici di Benedetto XVI, published a very excellent historical chronical of Pope Benedict’s war against pedophilia in the Church, in a blog post entitled, “Le decisioni e l’esempio del Papa Benedetto XVI nel combattere la piaga della pedofilia nella Chiesa. Cronologia (English translation: The decisions and example of Pope Benedict XVI in fighting against the plague of pedophilia in the Church. A Chronology).

These two excellent contributions to Church history by lay bloggers are the necessary context to understand the forced abdication of Pope Benedict, or rather, to discern what I believe are the general and specific indications that in some way the Renunciation was demanded of Pope Benedict and in some way it was a free act.

Rules of Power

The first forensic criterion to employ is the common principle, often quoted here in Italy, of Cui prodest? This Latin maxim means, literally, Who is profiting from it? And the soundness of this principle in forensic investigations is based on the principle of moral theology, that no one does anything purposeful without a reason, and thus no one commits a crime unless something is to be gained by it.

So, Rafaella shows us that Benedict was a strong opponent of pedophilia in the clergy and was willing to remove Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, priests and even place Commissioners on large and powerful groups, to punish this abominable vice.

But after his abdication (I use this term to refer to a forced renunciation), there comes into power Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Mafia of St Gallen and the Lavender Mafia, who are pushing the gay agenda, openly and flagrantly.

The common sense inference, then, is that one of these three groups or all of them insisted on the removal of Pope Benedict.

This is less a conjecture than a simple application of the rules of power struggles. The Papacy since the time of the Italian Risorgimento, has lost all real temporal power. It can be invaded at any time, and the powers of the nations can at any time take away its status as an independent diplomatic entity. The result of this loss of temporal power, means in truth, that the Papacy is left with a small enclave which is populated only by the Roman Curia and ruled by the Cardinals.

Now while the Cardinals each do not have as much power as the Pope, all of them together, with all their political and financial connections round the world, do in fact have more power than the pope.  Therefore, it would not be surprising if in the century following the suppression of the Papal States, that the College of Cardinals would come to dominate the power structure of the Vatican and that the Pope might become simply the public pawn of an all male club of ecclesiastics.

Now if these political inferences are correct, it would be expected that if a Pope started to impose discipline upon the subjects of each faction of Cardinals, by booting out of the priesthood or suspending some of their best friends and supporters, who were pedophiles, that eventually a zealous pope might in fact undercut all the power structures which put him in and maintain him in power.

What was happening in the year prior to the Renunciation?

With these speculations as a preface, let’s consider just some of the groups that Benedict XVI penalized in the year prior to Feb. 11, 2013, and watch how the timeline supports the inferences of risk, which I just outlined.

  1. On Feb. 2, 2012, Mons. Scicluna (who now leads Bergoglio’s pro gay clerical investigation team) marks out Pope Benedict as the person responsible for punishing pervert priests.  This may sound like praise, but it also might be painting a bull’s eye upon the target to be removed.
  2. From Feb. 6 to 9, 2012, there is a Conference in Rome for Bishops and heads of religious orders on the need to remove perverts. Members of the Conference again finger Pope Benedict as being the prime mover of it.
  3. Feb. 16, 2012 onwards: The Legionaires of Christ, their Movement and their woman’s branch come under strictures and strong measures against sexual perversion and the evil role of their founder.
  4. Spring, 2013: Church of Ireland rocked by allegations.
  5. May, 2012: Members of the Legionaires of Christ are reduced to lay state, new strictures upon the institute imposed by Papal order. New investigations.
  6. Spring and Summer, 2012: Pope Benedict begins to demand resignations of bishops.
  7. July 2, 2012: Pope Benedict appoints Archbishop Muller to the CDF. Shortly after this, he begins considering a renunciation. Before the end of summer, he mentions it to Cardinal Bertone, the then Secretary of State, who was effectively the real monarch at the Vatican and who was blocking Benedict on many things. (Why mention this to your chief opponent?)
  8. October 2012: Don Oko publishes the book, Pope Benedict against the Homo-Heresy.
  9. October 11, 2012: The investigation into the Legionaries is put on pause, allegedly because the Cardinal assigned needs to rest.
  10. January 30, 2013: the Acts of the Conference from a year ago are published an presented to Pope Benedict.
  11. February 1, 2013: Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles announces that Cardinal Mahoney is banned from all public activities as a Bishop on account of his gross mishandling of cases of pedophilia in that Archdiocese. At the same time he names 126 priests of the Diocese as involved in such crimes. (Sicluna and Mahoney share the same episcopal lineage)
  12. Feb. 5, 2013: New promoter of Justice at the CDF, Fr. Oliver, mentions Sicluna in a statement wherein he fingers Benedict as the key man in the Vatican for punishing pervert priests.
  13. Feb 7, 2013 — From Rome Blog has it from a source at Rome, that on this day, Mr. Gotti, who had been dismissed from IOR the previous summer, without the knowledge or consent of Pope Benedict, had an hour long meeting at the Vatican with Cardinal Bertone, the then Secretary of State, in which the Cardinal affirmed Benedict’s decision to reinstate him fully and back him in his investigation of the Vatican Bank.
  14. Feb. 11, 2013 — On a single sheet of paper, to the surprise of nearly everyone, who is left speechless, except Cardinal Sodano, Pope Benedict reads out a statement of renunciation.

In short, in one year Pope Benedict had shown himself willing to take down the most powerful priestly institute in the conservative flank of the Church AND to take down one of the most powerful Cardinals in the liberal flank of the Church.

Further information on what was going on in the Vatican Bank is neatly summarized by the Blog, Informatii si mesaje, in their post of Dec. 18, 2018, entitled, “Cardinals’ Mafia — plot against Benedict XVI“, which excerpts reports by Edward Pentin, Marco Tosatti (Rorate Caeli translation), Maike Hickson and Louie Verrechio from 2015.

An Examination and Discussion

The decision to tell Mr. Gotti that he would be reinstated on Feb. 7, and the decision to renounce on Feb. 11 simply do not add up. You cannot have any real hope that you will reinstate someone if you are planning ahead to resign in 4 days. That makes no sense. Also, it makes no sense that Benedict was planning to resign since the summer (as Bertone claims in 2016), and never find the 14 errors in the Latin text you are planning to read out-loud in the Consistory of February.

We do know that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is ground zero of a  Jewish Gay Mafia with strong ties to the financial industry, and that the Archdiocese has strong ties with this Mafia. We know that on Jan. 5, 2013, the ATMs at the Vatican were shut down by Deutch Bank, a move many have speculated was a signal to Benedict that the financial powers wanted him out.

Conclusions

I believe, therefore, that the demand for the Pope’s resignation was most probably made after February 7, 2013 and before the consistory of Feb. 11, 2013. — If Giuseppe Auricchio, the seer of Avola, Italy, can be believed, he foresaw that Benedict would receive a demand he could not agree to. — If you examine the text of the renunciation, you will find a Latin rife with errors, of the kind which would result if a non expert wrote it and had only 4 days or less to find errors in it. So it is very possible that Benedict was given a text, and that He modified it to make it appear to be a valid resignation, but in fact rather to make it to be an invalid resignation. And that, not knowing who was behind those demanding his resignation, he has never admitted what he really did, so as to protect himself and the Church from this Mafia.

I have not proven a crime, however, I have only outlined a chronology that needs to be further investigated, a chronology which leads me to use as an operative hypothesis, that Benedict DID NOT write the original text of the Renunciation, only changed perhaps the word munus to ministerium.

In my next report, I will discuss the errors in the Latin text and what they show about who may have written it.

Meet Giovanna Chirri, mother of the notion that Benedict resigned the papacy

giovannachirri_904617

This is our English translation of the article published by ChiesaRomana.info yesterday.

How did it happen that the entire world
thinks that Pope Benedict XVI
renounced the papacy?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Behind every great man, there is a woman;
and behind every great act of a man, the insistence of a woman.

Today, nearly the entire world believes that Pope Benedict XVI renounced the papacy on Feb. 11, 2013.

And perhaps, dear readers, you think so too.

But the truth of what really happened that day has been obscured by the psychological presumption induced by the announcement made moments after the renunciation, by Mrs. Chirri. I am not kidding you!

Did you know that? The entire world thinks that way because of a single tweet, from a pool reporter for ANSA, known as Mrs. Giovanna Chirri. and here is that tweet:

In English, that reads:

B16 has resigned. He leaves the pontificate as of February 28.

This tweet is in fact the first announcement of the renunciation. It caused Giovanna Chirri to become immediately the most famous journalist in the world, for that moment. For the sake of posterity she subsequently gave several interviews so that we all might understand better the series of events which took place on that day.  Here is her testimony, given to the magazine, Familiga Cristiana, on the third anniversary of the Renunciation (Italian original here), the English translation of which is our own:

Though the Consistory should have concluded at that moment, the Pope remained seated, and began to read, again in Latin, from a white sheet which he held in his hand.  He said two things first of all: that he had not convoked the Cardinals solely to hear his approval of two decrees for the canonization of saints, but that he had to say something “important for the life of the Church”, and that he was growing old: his precise words were ingravescente aetate.  At these words I felt as if a hand was placed upon my throat and a ball was being inflated in my head: because Ingravescentem aetatem is the document whereby Pope Paul VI took from the Cardinals the right to elect a pope, after they obtained their eightieth year of age: they were words which signified retirement.  Benedict XVI continued to speak in a Latin, which fortunately was much more comprehensible than that of Cardinal Amato; he spoke for some time, saying that he no longer had the strength to govern the Barque of Peter in a world which is increasingly face paced.  He explained that in conscience he had decided to leave, that the Cardinals will have to hold a Conclave to elect a successor and that he was establishing the beginning of the sede vacante at 8 pm on February 28.

I heard what he said but as one who had not heard; I was breathless and my legs trembled as I sat. I could not hold my left hand steady, even when I tried with my right hand.  I began to make telephone calls seeking help and confirmations.  At the Vatican, where obviously, everyone had something else on their mind, no one picked up the phone.  I was prey to a sensation of terror which I had never experienced in my life.  At this point, Pope Ratzinger had finished speaking. Some of the faces of those present grew pale; Monsignor Guido Pozzo, sitting next to him, seem to have turned to stone; different Cardinals had fixed stares and the muscles of their faces were frozen.  In an unreal silence, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano, said in Italian: “This news strikes us as a bolt of lighting out of the blue”.

As you continue to read her testimony in Italian, you see immediately that after three years, she has understood in part the error she made that day, for she no longer speaks of a renunciation of the papacy, but expressly now speaks only of a renunciation of ministry.

Hence, if on February 11, 2013, Mrs. Chirri announced to the world one thing, and three years after in 2016, she explains that Benedict had renounced something else, perhaps we can shake off our presumption that what she said first was correct? One thinks so.

Compare what she said in 2014 on the first anniversary of the renunciation, when she was interviewed by Antonio Sanfrancesco, likewise of Famiglia Cristiana, in an article entitled, La Giornalista che diede la notizia, Non rispiravo, ero terrorizato (qui). A title – which in English, means: The Giornalist who broke the story, I could not breath, I was terrorized – which does not give the reader any confidence that she had a clear mind at the moment of her tweet.

This history and the alteration of the narrative is important for all of us because, according to the norm of Canon Law, there is no canon which regards a renunciation of ministry!  This is because in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, ministry is never associated with power or office, but only with action or the execution of a duty.  Moreover, in canon 1331 §2 °4, ministry is not even listed among those things which an excommunicated person is forbidden to acquire.  Hence, in the Code, an excommunicate can exercise a ministry.

Obviously, if the thing, according to its genus, which Pope Benedict renounced on Feb. 11, 2013 is something which someone not in communion with the Church or with the pope, can exercise, how can it be possible that in renouncing it Pope Benedict separated himself from the papal office? That does not make sense. It’s not even rational to contemplate.

Hence, it appears that in changing her story, Mrs. Chirri no longer agrees with what she wrote on that day:

Indeed, let us read that tweet with precision: it contains the words, dimesso, lascia and pontificato, which in English are resigned, leave and pontifcate.  But no where in the Latin text of the renunciation does Pope Benedict use any Latin words which mean these things!

Hence, if we are to speak properly and with precision, her tweet is not a report of news, but an interpretation of the event, an interpretation which arises out of the state of her mind in that moment in which she rushed to get the scoop on the news before any other journalist.

Now, at last, perhaps the time has come for the Church to recognize that none of us is obligated to understand that act of renunciation according to the state of mind of Mrs. Chirri, the Mother of the Papal Resignation. I call her, “the Mother of the Papal Resignation”, because in the understanding of the world, it was she who gave everyone to understand the act as an act of renunciation of the papacy, not merely of the ministry, an understanding and interpretation which all who study Canon Law are forcing themselves to find in the Code of Canon Law, but fail to do so, because it ain’t there.

ORIGINAL CREDITS: Testo di Famiglia Cristiana citato dall’articolo citato qui sopra. L’immagine in evidenza, della Sig.ra Chirri trovato sulla pagina di Famiglia Cristiana nel articolo di 11 Febbraio 2014, citato qui sopra, ma senza attribuzione di proprietà intellettuale. Si presume fair use per tutti due. Il tweet di Chirri è replicata dal suo conto su Twitter che è ancora in rete.

Feb 14, 2013: Pope Benedict warned Roman Clergy that He had not resigned

The evidence is there for all who want to see it. But you can only see it if you pay attention and think about what you are looking at and hearing.

Thus it was that 3 days after His declaration of renouncing the Ministry, Pope Benedict calls together all the Clergy of Rome to give them an impromptu talk, nearly an hour long.

On what?  His renunciation of the Papacy?

NO NOT AT ALL!

On what then?

On the history of Vatican II and how what it intended to do was overcome by the Conspiracy of the Main Stream Media of that day to present the Council as advocating and teaching something entirely different.

Sound familiar?

Yes, because that is what exactly happened THREE DAYS BEFORE, when upon announcing His decision to renounce the petrine ministry, so as to dedicate himself to prayer, the Main Stream Media depicted what he did as a renunciation of the Papacy!

Thus, on Feb. 14, Pope Benedict to correct this error speaks to the entire Clergy of Rome and explains how Vatican II was misinterpreted and how the truth must come out by presenting the reality of what it did and said and not repeating what the Media claimed had happened.

During which discourse he says explicitly, “Now that I have decided to retire…”!

Note what he says.

He never says, “Now, that I have announced my renunciation of the Papacy”.

He is speaking for nearly an hour with eyes raised in the air, NOT reading from a script.

Does that sound like someone who has to resign because of frailty?

In short, Pope Benedict was giving the Roman Clergy all the information and principles of discernment to realize one day in the future, that He had not renounced the Papacy and was still their Bishop.

This is the brilliant mind of a man who can think 10 steps ahead of his enemies, and spill the beans in broad daylight without them realizing that he is undermining their coup d’etat.

This is a man who also profoundly realizes that he does not know, whether anyone around him can be trusted with the truth, so he speaks in parables. And it fits perfectly with all the other things he did that fateful month of February, 2013, as you can see from my report, “Benedict said in every way that He he did not resign“.

Finally, he indicates His trust in the Clergy of Rome that they will discover the truth one day, when, while referring to the preparations for the Second Vatican Council, he points out that the real fruitfulness of that ecclesial meeting lay in the fact that all the Bishops took the responsibility to join in prayer, action and small group meetings to discuss what was to be done, thereby indicating that the Clergy of Rome will be able to resolve this problem when they begin to do the same.

The original talk of Our Holy Father was in Italian, but an English translation is available:

__________

La Stampa, one of the leading Marxist papers of Italy, did not realize it at the time, but as of the Spring of 2019, when the proof that the Renunciation was invalid was widely publicized, they removed their entire report and left only the photo of the event.

ChiesaRomana.info per la causa di Benedetto

I Cattolici di Roma hanno iniziato una nuova piattaforma informatica per i Cattolici di Roma in comunione con Papa Benedetto XVI, il vero papa.

ChiesaRomana.info

Come si dice nell’articolo, W Papa Benedetto, su ChiesaRomana.info:

La vera Chiesa di Roma è la Chiesa in comunione con il vero Vicario di Cristo, Papa Benedetto XVI.

Chi è il papa non è un dogma di fede ma un fatto canonico determinato secondo la norma di legge.

Un papa eletto canonicamente rimane il Vicario di Cristo fino alla morte naturale o fino a quando non rinuncia al suo ufficio secondo la norma del Canone 332 §2, che richiede la rinuncia al munus petrino.

Essendo che Papa Benedetto XVI non ha mai fatto tale cosa, rimane secondo il Diritto canonico e secondo il Diritto Divino, il Successore di San Pietro, Il Pontefice Romano, Il Vescovo di Roma, il Vicario di Cristo con tutti i suoi privilegi.

ChiesaRomana.info quindi è un sito di informazione per i Cattolici in comunione con Cristo e il Suo Vicario. — Diffondete la verità!

Per segnalare un evento ecclesiastico o con riferimento alla Chiesa di Roma, lasciare un commento con i dettagli o un collegamento ipertestuale. Grazie!

La speranza dei Cattolici fondatori è di organizzare la difesa della Chiesa di Roma contro le forze d’apostasia, d’idolatria e d’eresia che si stanno diffondendo dappertutto.

The Church of Rome Now Knows that Benedict is the Pope!

All Leading Members of the Clergy have been informed

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

A Member of the Swiss guard on duty near the Palazzo Sant’Uffizio, who kindly paused his duty for a moment, this morning, so I could snap his foto. May the true Spirit of the Swiss Guard in defending the true Pope and him against all false claimants now take hold of the entire Church of Rome!

As of noon today, November 15, 2019, the Church of Rome has been informed that Pope Benedict XVI is still the Roman Pontiff and Successor of Saint Peter on account of having not resigned according to the norm of Canon 332 §2.

I can personally testify to this, in a court of law, because I have personally shared, in English or Italian, my scholastic question demonstrating conclusively, with 39 arguments, that Pope Benedict never renounced the petrine munus, as required by Canon Law, the Natural Law, the Moral Law, the Evangelical Law and Divine right. I have done this in printed version and or via email from my personal account.

I first personally shared the information with His Holiness in February of this year, in the English version, and again in April. Then in October, I shared it with him again in the Italian version. I have shared it with all the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, whom He has elevated to that dignity and who reside in Rome. I have shared it with all the men whom either are Cardinals or are thought to be such, who head the Congregations of the Roman Curia. I have shared it with the Cardinal Governor and the Head of the Swiss Guard, with Cardinals Mueller, Brandmueller, Sarah and Burke.

I have shared it with nearly all the clergy of the Roman Church: with the Cardinal Vicar appointed by His Holiness and with the man who exercises that ministry at the request of Bergoglio. I have shared it with all the auxiliary Bishops of Rome, having personally hand-delivered a printed copy to the Curia at the Lateran. I have shared it with all the clergy of the City, who are priests or monsignori, who have an email address which is published (more than 650).

I would share it with all the clergy and deacons who do not have an email address, but that would cost about 1000 euro fore mailing and printing costs, which I do not have (as a friar I have no money) nor is anyone offering at the present.

I NOW ASK THE ENTIRE CHURCH TO PRAY TO THE HOLY SPIRIT so that the clergy of the Church of Rome might recognize their GRAVE AND SOLEMN DUTY to adhere to Christ’s true Vicar and insist that the CANONS OF THE CHURCH be upheld AND THUS depose the USURPER who is raping HOLY MOTHER CHURCH on a daily basis!

For more information about this see ppbxvi.org

If you support the Church of Rome taking action on this information, please leave your comment below as a testimonial, and indicate the Diocese in which you live, so that your testimony can show that the entire Church of God wills this problem solved!

Pope Benedict XVI signals His blessing for efforts to restore Him to the Apostolic Throne

Rome, Nov. 14, 2019 — In another massive blow to the Bergoglian regime, there was published today, a letter written by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI on June 8 of this year which signals his approval of efforts to restore him to the Apostolic Throne. (see report here).

In his letter he closes with the prayer:

Lord, help us in these hours to remain and be true Catholics!

“True Catholics” (Veri Catholici, in Latin) is the name of the International Association working for the restoration of Pope Benedict (see their website here). They are THE Association which has publicly defended his claim to the papacy since November 2018, nearly a year ago.

The date of both his letter and its publication, is also significant, because this Spring many members of that Association had written to Pope Benedict — myself one of them (see my report here) — telling him that we recognized that in accord with the norm of Canon Law that he was still the true and only pope.

The mention of the term “True Catholics” in his letter just days before I reported on his tacit consent, and published just 2 days after my report, “Breaking — Evidence that Pope Benedict XVI intentionally pretended to resign” is an indubitable sign that the Holy Father approves of our efforts to restore him to power.*

The website for the official Movement to Restore Pope Benedict is:

ppbxvi.org

Finally, this closing prayer in his letter of June 8, puts to rest once and for all, all speculation that Pope Benedict XVI approves of what Bergoglio and his followers are doing, or had any intention collaborating with Freemasonry. — It’s a definitive statement that he wants the Cause of God to win and for us not to lose heart. But also a sign that he is, as I said, a de facto Prisoner in the Vatican and that the Cardinals are NOT his faithful allies.

To be truly Catholic or a true Catholic means first of all, after loyalty to God, loyalty to the Pope: loyalty to him when he is good health, or poor health; when he is brilliant and when he is mistaken, correcting him in his mistakes that harm the Church; remaining faithful to him and in his service even when and if all the Cardinals and Bishops abandon him or betray him. This is what the Church truly needs right now.

___________

* The From Rome Blog is read nearly daily from the Vatican. It’s author is even tailed by Italian Secret Police when he strolls around the Vatican. It’s no secret what is written on this blog. And that is the whole purpose. — If he did not want to signal his support, then he knows what not to say and when not to say it. That is how Rome works. Finally, remember, this is not my work or any work of any group of Catholics, it’s God’s work, because it is nothing other than upholding Canon Law and the Catholic Faith, and when you do that you know that you have all Heaven at your back!

 

From Rome Blog: Saint Peter’s Square, Nov 13, 2019 at 11 AM.

Gloria.tv reports today, that the numbers attending Bergoglio’s Wednesday Audience have plummeted with the growing recognition that the man is simply not even a Christian.

While I cannot confirm their report, since I did not attend the Audience, I can comment on what I saw, since I am a trained Anthropologist.

When Benedict was recognized by the entire world as Pope, the General Audiences were much like they were in the days of John Paul II: you would see many large organized groups of pilgrims, organized by their national delegations; hordes of priests, religious and Catholic associations all wearing their respective habits proudly and openly.

Today, however, as I examined the crowd, the difference was striking.

There were few if any priests to be seen, and mostly by themselves leading small groups of lay pilgrims.

There were fewer religious, and not in large groups, only two or three.

The nuns were particularly absent, only a few pairs here and there.

I saw no Catholic Associations at all, no banners, no chanting after the Audience as Catholics were wont to do in years past.

What I did see that was troubling but perfectly in accord with what is going on at the Vatican was this: many male gay couples, walking pleasantly and showing a sense of satisfaction in having attending the Audience.

In 2012, things were very different. If any such couples came to Saint Peter’s they were NOT seen at General Audiences. They would enter St Peter’s Square and do photo ops with their friends, usually in an aggressive in your face manner, often with obscene symbols, hand-signs or gestures.

Under Benedict they came to mock, now they come to adulate.

That is the Bergoglian Church in a nutshell.

THIS HAS BEEN A FROM ROME BLOG REPORT, St Peter’s Square, Nov. 13, 2011.

BREAKING! — Evidence that Pope Benedict intentionally pretended to resign

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Rome, Nov. 12, 2019 — This is earthshaking! I just had a long talk with Nino Oliva, the writer who has documented the events surrounding Giuseppe Auricchia and the messages from Our Lady of the Pine, which occurred at Mammanelli, near Avola, in the province of Siracusa, Italy, from 1990 til his death in 2012.*

The stunning news is this: Mr. Oliva confirmed for me that before his death, Giuseppe Auricchia was visited by Vatican officials sent by Pope Benedict in the summer of 2012,** when he made the decision to resign. Mr. Auricchia twice also visited the Vatican in previous years, including once in the first years of Pope Benedict.

This means that Pope Benedict had certain knowledge of the contents of these messages  BEFORE February 11, 2013 and BEFORE he made the decision to resign the ministerium, in an act which made it appear that he resigned the papacy, but which canonically was invalid.

On this basis, I can state with high probability THAT POPE BENEDICT PURPOSEFULLY FEIGNED A RESIGNATION TO DEFEAT THE FORCES OF DARKNESS spoken of by Our Lady of the Pine.

These revelations warned him of the plot and the objective. It was not simply a power battle in the Curia, it was a diabolic plot to take over the Church and the Petrine Succession so as to establish a Satanic Church within the Catholic Church which would consume it completely.

By feigning to resign he kept them from seizing the Papal Office, so that the faithful might not be deprived of Christ’s Vicar.  This was done as a spiritual assitance to the elect, though their number be very few, on account of Christ and Our Lady’s great love for Catholics who are faithful to God in heart, mind, lips and actions!

Read the stunning revelations for yourself, and consider how the feigned invalid resignation (see ppbxvi.org) brilliantly undermined their evil plans and protected the Church for those who want to remain faithful to Jesus.

This explains everything, why he never affirmed to have resigned the papacy, but at the same time why he made it look like he did. (See How Benedict had defeated “Francis”)

The Content of The Messages in regard to Pope Benedict

Among those messages there are these stunning revelations about our times in regard to Pope Benedict (see link here) — the English translation is my own:

Avola, April 15, 2008:  The Lord Jesus says: At Rome there exists a conspiracy of wicked men which seeks to remove My Vicar from the post of Peter. — O Rome, Eternal city of Hills, (contrary) forces have united together to see the post of Peter toppled, communism and atheism, but their time has not yet arrived.

Avola, May 11, 2008:  The Lord Jesus says: … I am the Good Shepherd Who suffers with My faithful sheep to keep the sheep who plot to leave and flee within My sheepfold.  The Catholic Church is My Sheepfold.  In this human world, the Shepherd is My Vicar.  Who listens and puts into practice his word, is with Me. Who does not follow the Church in the word of the Pontiff is outside of Me and hence against Me.  You priests who want to abandon My Way in name of a presumed justice, mind your steps, when they take false directions you will have set in motion the schism.  Then humanity will be placed under scourges and submit to ruin and God will gather the just to form them with the Pope, the priestly heart of the new Church.  Come to Me, to Jesus.  Come to your Shepherd, draw near to My Love and through this you will draw near the unfailing fountains of My Gospel Message: this is the Way, this contains the Truth, this will bring you My life.”

Avola, Sept 28, 2008:  Our Lady says: Remain close to Pope Benedict XVI, he is a holy man and is very close to My Maternal Heart.  Sons and daughters, you should pay attention, little by little the end times are approaching.  He will suffer much for My Son Jesus, he is always at the ready to preserve the teachings of the Church but will be persecuted.  Do you not see what is happening around you? I intercede with My Son to protect him from evil.  Do not be surprised if one day he is isolated, and this will be able to happen in the near future.  There will be in the world a political revolt of godless men, then one will see in Italy the hatred of those who are godless, in his (Pope Benedict) place they will enthrone a false prophet for the people of evil.  This event and other events will be verified before the triumph of My Son occurs, He who in His Glory will come in your midst, then all evil will disappear.  Pray, pray, pray for My son, Pope Benedict XVI.”

Avola, September 15, 2009:  Our Lady told Giuseppe:  The Holy Spirit asks the Pope to fulfill all which Our Lady has asked for at Fatima and in all the places of Her Apparizione, for Her elect in this last times.  Our Lady blesses all. Soon every home, every family will live in itself the joy of having seen the Lady clothed with the Sun and Her beloved Son.

Avola, March 25, 2010:  Our Lady says:  My most beloved sons, you need not change the scriptures or the sacred institutions to oppose those who want to destroy My Vicar.  The true way for you priests is to lead them back along the narrow path. — Saint Michael the Archangel says:  Your Vicar is surrounded by traitors, who have chosen his successor.  Great are his sufferings. Pray much so that Pope Benedict XVI is not taken from you.  Woe to the world! The mystical body of Christ will be crucified again!

Avola, March 28, 2010:  Our Lady says: Those who have wandered off will follow the imposter.  Pay attention! Do not follow him! Do not obey his words, in these times follow My son, Pope Benedict XVI, surrounded by enemies and traitors, pray, remain near to him with your prayers so that he not be substituted.  He will lead you to the salvation of your souls and of the whole Church.

Avola, April 9, 2010:  Giuseppe Auricchia speaks:  At these words the Holy Virgin showed me the Piazza and the Basilica of Saint Peter and then a room where the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, was slumped over in an arm chair. He seemed very sick and worried, while two prelates, clothed in reddish purple with round hats on their heads, after having entered, bring a document and seek to have the Pope sign it.  This document the Pope does not sign. The Holy Virgin explains:

“There are many traitors in the holy city who prevail much upon the Holy Father, who is surrounded by enemies, and has been put to a great test.  Those in whom he can trust can be counted on the fingers of a single hand.  It is strange to see your own house fallen into the hands of Satan, the house is the Church.”

Avola, April 11, 2010:  Our Lady says:  If you destroy the Vicar of Christ, Benedict XVI, you will destroy yourselves, because in this way you will constrain Me to send even sooner the Day of Judgement.

Avola, April 30, 2010: Our Lady says:  My faithful remnant follows the actual pope, Benedict XVI, whom they want to eliminate.  Continue to follow him and remain faithful to Him and to the teaching of My Church, established by the Apostles.  Do not allow yourselves to turn aside on account of apostasy and heresies.  I tell you that the next Pope will be an imposter and wicked forces are behind this schism.  My sons, be prepared, so that you might be able to follow the priests faithful to the Pope and to the teaching of the Church.  Preserve the holy missals and the books of the old Holy Mass, because the apostates will change the words in a dramatic way.

Avola, June 6, 2010:  The Lord Jesus says:  My faithful priests will remain united to Pope Benedict XVI and yet it will be difficult to find them.

Avola, August 5, 2010:  Our Lady says: The balance swings strongly to the left in the holy city of Rome.  There is being worked out a plan to destroy our most beloved Vicar and a man of black secrets is awaiting the moment to ascend upon the catthedra of Peter.  Many legions of demons have been unleashed upon the world and seek to destroy the capital.  Since for mankind sin is man’s kingdom, the faith wobbles and the candles are going out.  My Son, will He find a small glimmer of faith when He returns upon the Earth?  There are many problems today, which regard the House of My Son. There is not but one sole foundation and it is the House of My Son, with Peter as the first head and today He is represented by your Pontiff, Benedict XVI.

Avola, February 26, 2012:  Our Lady  speaks:  Dear Sons, it has been permitted to My messenger to say these words after he has received the secret message which he will publish on March 25.  The men who govern think themselves wise, they do not recognize that they are guided by Satan.  Among them there exists a group of planners who want to construct a universal republic.  Their plain is to eliminate the true Church of God.  They will obtain this swiftly if the Throne of Peter is abandoned, behold why I announce to you the death of the Pope, but know that they no longer know inside themselves how to save themselves.  Humanity finds itself with its feet in the dock and awaits its sentence before the Tribunal of God.

Avola, March 25, 2012:  The Lord Jesus speaks:  My Son, it is time that there be manifested at Rome the political upheaval which thrives and the internal battle among men, but more important is that there has been a conspiracy of error and deceit, which Satan and the princes of darkness will put in motion one day to destroy My House, so as to establish a union under one world government, one sole church of God which will be without God.  They want to take My Vicar out of it, so that those who hate the Son of God might rule it.

________

* These apparitions have never been formally approved or disapproved, from what I gather after having questioned Mr. Oliva at great length. While it is true that some of the Bishops have personally discounted them and that the local clergy pay them no heed, no formal investigation was undertaken nor has any canonical decree been issued, as I gather from Mr. Oliva. If you do a web search of the kind – Nostra Signora del Pino, Avola – you will find abundant references to these apparitions from long before the Synod on the Amazon. Also Note: These apparitions DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO with devotions to Our Lady under the title of “Our Lady of the Pine” anywhere else in the world. They are called, “Our Lady of the Pine” only for this reason, that the first message was received under a Pine tree at Mammanelli, Avola, Italy.

** For those who have never lived in Sicily, like I have for 3 years, I should tell you that summer begins in March and ends in November. You have to turn the heat on after Christmas, and whenever it rains, the Sicilians say, “Today it feels like winter”, because it rains like 3 days of the year. So if you think this never happened because Sig. Oliva said to me in Italian, “Credo di Sì, prima che è morto” (I believe so, before he died), when I asked, “Quando è successo, nell’estate di 2012? (“When did this happen, in the summer of 2012?”), you are grasping for straw. As you can see from the messages above, they were made before his death, and everyone knowledgeable about them knew of them when they were made, as they were not secrets. Some people are so anglo-centric that they think that unless an apparition occurred in English or was made known to the English speaking world, it never happened or is not from God. Being an Italian, I laugh at that. Being a translator who has published 2 critical English translations of medieval texts, I am however not scandalized that someone should think that he word summer means in Italian or Sicilian what it means in English, even though these languages are spoken in entirely different parts of the world and climates. It’s a lot like the problem Protestants have who read the King James version of the Bible and encounter the expression, “the Brethren of Jesus”, which in Greek can also be read, the Cousins of Jesus. They insist Our Lady had other children, because the refuse to accept that the Greek word does not mean by “brethren” what English means by that term. This problem arises also with the expression in the Gospels about Jesus being Crucified by nails being thrust into His “hands.” Some people without any knowledge of classical languages expect the nails to be in the palms of the hand, because in their modern language the term “hand” refers to what is beyond the wrist the of the arm. But in ancient languages, “hand” can refer to everything which is beyond the elbow. As someone who holds a B. A. in Cultural Anthropology I am aware of the problem, but it does not cause me to have doubts, because I understand that in each culture the definition of common things can vary.

 

 

 

 

Former Rector of Gregorian University: A Heretical Pope loses office immediately by the law itself

Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S.J, greets His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

There has been an ongoing debate as to whether a man who is the pope loses his office immediately after having taken a pertinacious and manifest position which is heretical.

Most of this debate regards citing authors in previous ages or decades, against the opinion of Bishop Athanasius Schneider and others, like Steve Skojec, who hold that he needs to be judged and/or that no one can judge him.

Here, however, is the opinion of Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S. J., former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University at Rome. Father Ghirlanda is one of the most highly respected Doctors of Canon Law in the City of Rome, if not in the Catholic Church. He still teaches at the Gregorian. Considering the opinions just given by Cardinal Burke which impinge on this controversy, I think it’s apropos to cite Father Ghirlanda’s position, not made in reference to the Cardinal’s comments, but from March 3, 2013, no less, in Civiltà Catiolica, the leading Jesuit publication in Italy:

The original Italian can be found here.  Here is that text quoted in part, on this subject:

Allora, se il Romano Pontefice non esprimesse quello che già è contenuto nella Chiesa, non sarebbe più in comunione con tutta la Chiesa, e quindi con gli altri Vescovi, successori degli Apostoli. La comunione del Romano Pontefice con la Chiesa e con i Vescovi, secondo il Vaticano I (3), non può essere comprovata dal consenso della Chiesa e dei Vescovi, in quanto non sarebbe più una potestà piena e suprema liberamente esercitata (c. 331; “Nota Explicativa Praevia” 4). Il criterio allora è la tutela della stessa comunione ecclesiale. Lì dove questa non ci fosse più da parte del Papa, egli non avrebbe più alcuna potestà, perché ipso iure decadrebbe dal suo ufficio primaziale. È il caso, ammesso in dottrina, della notoria apostasia, eresia e scisma, nella quale il Romano Pontefice potrebbe cadere, ma come «dottore privato», che non impegna l’assenso dei fedeli, perché per fede nell’infallibilità personale che il Romano Pontefice ha nello svolgimento del suo ufficio, e quindi nell’assistenza dello Spirito Santo, dobbiamo dire che egli non può fare affermazioni eretiche volendo impegnare la sua autorità primaziale, perché, se così facesse, decadrebbe ipso iure dal suo ufficio. Comunque in tali casi, poiché «la prima sede non è giudicata da nessuno» (c. 1404), nessuno potrebbe deporre il Romano Pontefice, ma si avrebbe solo una dichiarazione del fatto, che dovrebbe essere da parte dei Cardinali, almeno di quelli presenti a Roma. Tale eventualità, tuttavia, sebbene prevista in dottrina, viene ritenuta totalmente improbabile per intervento della Divina Provvidenza a favore della Chiesa (4).

This is my English translation, bold face added:

Now, if the Roman Pontiff does not express that which is contained in the Church, he would no longer be in communion with the whole Church, and hence neither with the other Bishops, who are successors of the Apostles. The communion of the Roman Pontiff with the Church and with the Bishops, according to Vatican 1 (cf. footnote 3 below), cannot be manufactured out of the consent of the Church and Bishops, inasmuch as it would no longer be a full and supreme power freely exercised (cf. canon 331; cf. the Nota Previa to Lumen Gentium, 4.). Thus, the criterion is the safeguarding of the ecclesial communion itself. There, where this might no longer be the case on the part of the Pope, he would no longer have any power, because he would fall by the law itself (ipso iure) from his primatial office.  This is the case, admitted in doctrine, for notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, in which the Roman Pontiff might fall, but as a “private teacher”, which does not require the assent of the faithful, because through faith in the personal infallibility which the Roman Pontiff has in the exercise of his office, and hence, in the assistance of the Holy Spirit, we are obliged to say that he cannot make heretical affirmations while willing to impose his primatial authority, because, if he were to do such a thing, he would fall ipso iure from his office.  Nevertheless, in such cases, since “the first see is not judged by anyone” (canon 1404), no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but there could only be a declaration of the fact, which would have to be on the part of the Cardinals, at least of those present at Rome.  Such an eventuality, however, though foreseen in doctrine, is considered to be entirely improbable through the intervention of Divine Providence on behalf of the Church (see footnote 4).

FOOTNOTES

3. Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3074.
4. Cf. F. J. Wernz. P. Vida., “Ius canonicum”, tome II, “De Personis”, Rome, 1933, 517 seqq.

When Father Ghirlanda says a heretic, who is pope, would fall ipso iure from the office – that is, would by that very fact immediately lose the office of the papacy — I believe he is speaking of Canon 1364 which imposes itself the penalty of excommunication for all apostates, heretics and schismatics, without limitation to what office they hold. But he might also be referring to the Divine Law, since as Scripture clearly teaches, no one who calls God a liar is in communion with His Son (cf. 1 John 1:5-6, for example). This not only applies to all popes, but to all Bishops and priests who hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church, that is any munus, as canon 145 §1 specifies.

What is noteworthy about the article in Civiltà Cattolica is that Father Ghirlanda is not writing an article on controversial points, he is merely reciting the received tradition, prior to the Conclave of 2013 regarding the loss of the papal office. His main thesis does NOT regard heresy in a man who is pope, but in what way a man who is pope holds or is united to the papal office, because he took the position that it is impossible for a man who was pope, but renounced the office, to be called “Pope emeritus” and that this title should NOT be accorded to Ratzinger. — He does not consider, however, the implications of the title, namely, as many have since opined, that its conferral signifies an incomplete or invalid renunciation.

Finally, I agree with Father Ghirlanda, that it is more probable the Divine Providence will prevent the final or ultimate defection of a pope (because Christ promised His prayer for Simon that his faith not fail). I would go so far to say that it is de fide, because of Scriptural support. But what exactly is that Divine Protection preventing? The event, the deviation, the pertinacity, the formal defection, the ultimate defection? All of these, step by step, with more grace the more the one who is pope deviates? That does not seem to be clearly explained by anyone, so far. But it would make a very interesting Doctoral thesis in the theology of Providence and Grace.

Contrariwise, if Christ’s prayer prevents a true Pope from final defection, then the final defection of a man whom one thinks is the pope would be an infallible sign that his canonical claim to the office was vitiated by some substantial error. This is substantially the argument of His Excellency the Most Rev. Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi, USA.

Pope Benedict XVI condemns Idolatry

The complete transcript of this Homily can be found in 7 languages (here).

Let us not imagine, that the St Gallen Mafia and their agenda were not already known to Pope Benedict in 2008. It has been shown in other cases that his entire Pontificate was one long preaching against their errors, heresies and apostasy, for he knew what was to come.

Here are some excerpts of his Homily on Sept 13, 2008, in front of Notre Dame, at Paris. What he said that day is perhaps the reason why the French government took the burning of that Church so lightly, because the Holy Father’s homily directly attacks the Satanism behind Globalism:

In the First Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, we discover, in this Pauline year inaugurated on 28 June last, how much the counsels given by the Apostle remain important today. “Shun the worship of idols” (1 Cor 10:14), he writes to a community deeply marked by paganism and divided between adherence to the newness of the Gospel and the observance of former practices inherited from its ancestors. Shunning idols: for Paul’s contemporaries, this therefore meant ceasing to honour the divinities of Olympus, ceasing to offer them blood sacrifices. Shunning idols meant entering the school of the Old Testament Prophets, who denounced the human tendency to make false representations of God. As we read in Psalm 113, with regard to the statues of idols, they are merely “gold and silver, the work of human hands. They have mouths but they do not speak, they have eyes but they do not see, they have ears but they do not hear, they have nostrils but they do not smell” (Ps 113:4-5). Apart from the people of Israel, who had received the revelation of the one God, the ancient world was in thrall to the worship of idols. Strongly present in Corinth, the errors of paganism had to be denounced, for they constituted a powerful source of alienation and they diverted man from his true destiny. They prevented him from recognizing that Christ is the sole, true Saviour, the only one who points out to man the path to God.

This appeal to shun idols, dear brothers and sisters, is also pertinent today. Has not our modern world created its own idols? Has it not imitated, perhaps inadvertently, the pagans of antiquity, by diverting man from his true end, from the joy of living eternally with God? This is a question that all people, if they are honest with themselves, cannot help but ask. What is important in my life? What is my first priority? The word “idol” comes from the Greek and means “image”, “figure”, “representation”, but also “ghost”, “phantom”, “vain appearance”. An idol is a delusion, for it turns its worshipper away from reality and places him in the kingdom of mere appearances. Now, is this not a temptation in our own day – the only one we can act upon effectively? The temptation to idolize a past that no longer exists, forgetting its shortcomings; the temptation to idolize a future which does not yet exist, in the belief that, by his efforts alone, man can bring about the kingdom of eternal joy on earth! Saint Paul explains to the Colossians that insatiable greed is a form of idolatry (cf. 3:5), and he reminds his disciple Timothy that love of money is the root of all evil. By yielding to it, he explains, “some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs” (1 Tim 6:10). Have not money, the thirst for possessions, for power and even for knowledge, diverted man from his true Destiny, from the truth about himself?

Dear brothers and sisters, the question that today’s liturgy places before us finds an answer in the liturgy itself, which we have inherited from our fathers in faith, and notably from Saint Paul himself (cf. 1 Cor 11:23). In his commentary on this text, Saint John Chrysostom observes that Saint Paul severely condemns idolatry, which is a “grave fault”, a “scandal”, a real “plague” (Homily 24 on the First Letter to the Corinthians, 1). He immediately adds that this radical condemnation of idolatry is never a personal condemnation of the idolater. In our judgements, must we never confuse the sin, which is unacceptable, with the sinner, the state of whose conscience we cannot judge and who, in any case, is always capable of conversion and forgiveness. Saint Paul makes an appeal to the reason of his readers, to the reason of every human being – that powerful testimony to the presence of the Creator in the creature: “I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say” (1 Cor 10:15). Never does God, of whom the Apostle is an authorized witness here, ask man to sacrifice his reason! Reason never enters into real contradiction with faith! The one God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – created our reason and gives us faith, proposing to our freedom that it be received as a precious gift. It is the worship of idols which diverts man from this perspective. Let us therefore ask God, who sees us and hears us, to help us purify ourselves from all idols, in order to arrive at the truth of our being, in order to arrive at the truth of his infinite being!

(Featured image for this post is from the Associated Press Report on this event, see here)

The Shameful Confession of Cardinal Burke: Those who doubt Bergoglio is the Pope hold an “extreme” position

U.S. Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, patron of the Knights and Dames of Malta, center left, and a group of priests pose with Pope Francis during his general audience in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican Sept. 2. (CNS photo/Paul Haring) See POPE-AUDIENCE-SMILE Sept. 2, 2015.

It has been six and a half years of blasphemies, insults against God and His Teaching, against His Son and His immaculate Mother, open attacks on the truth of Scripture, the Divinity of the Son, the Resurrection, the discipline of the Sacraments etc. etc., topped off by acts of open idolatry and apostasy in the Vatican and Saint Peters.

And now, Cardinal Burke chooses to speak on what he thinks of “Pope Francis”, In a November 9, 2019, Interview by Ross Douthat. Here is an excerpt (see the entire article here):

Douthat: I agree that the Catholic subculture you describes exists. But I also see, as this pontificate has advanced, a growing paranoia and alienation among conservative Catholics, a temptation toward conspiracy theories that shade into sedevacantism, the belief that the pope is not the pope. I’m curious whether you worry that criticism of the pope contributes to this.

Burke: It’s true that for all the good social media does, they also give a voice to these extreme positions. And in my criticism I’ve been deeply concerned not to call into question respect for the papal office.


Douthat:
You believe Francis is a legitimate pope?

Burke: Yes, yes. I’ve had people present to me all kinds of arguments calling into question the election of Pope Francis. But I name him every time I offer the Holy Mass, I call him Pope Francis, it’s not an empty speech on my part. I believe that he is the pope. And I try to say that consistently to people, because you’re correct — according to my perception also, people are getting more and more extreme in their response to what’s going on in the church.

Draw your own conclusions. But to help you do that I will merely cite the Code of Canon Law of 1983 promulgated by John Paul II, Vicar of Christ, which code is binding on earth and heaven. From my article, “Bergoglio definitively leaves the Catholic Church“:

According to Canon 1364… which reads….

PART II : PENALTIES FOR PARTICULAR OFFENCES

TITLE I: OFFENCES AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 – 1369)

Can. 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.

From my article, “The Monstrosity of Allegations against ‘Team Bergoglio‘”:

Canon 1329, § 2 reads, in the Latin:

Can. 1329§2. In poenam latae sententiae delicto adnexam incurrunt complices,qui in lege vel praecepto non nominantur, si sine eorum opera delictum patratum non esset, et poena sit talis naturae, ut ipsos afficere possit; secus poenis ferendae sententiae puniri possunt.

The official English translation of this, from the Vatican website is:

§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.

These canons apply both to those who perpetrate or participate in idolatrous worship but also those who are heretics or promote heresy, such as attacking the Teaching of the Christ against giving the Sacraments to public sinners.

As for the canons which demonstrate that the Renunciation of Benedict was invalid, see ppbxvi.org.

Just to make sure everyone recognizes the current context of events, according to my encounters with laypeople in Italy who do not work for the Church and speak freely to me in private, more than 60% of Catholics in Italy do not believe Bergoglio is currently the pope, either because he was never validly elected, or loss the office by heresy or apostasy. To Catholics, clergy included, to whom I present the contents of the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope  Benedict, there is 100% unanimity that Benedict is still the pope and that Bergoglio never was. So basically, Cardinal Burke’s comment needs to be seen as something impinging upon a majority of Catholics in Italy, at least. This makes his comments very newsworthy.

In Conclusion

The comment of Cardinal Burke clearly refers to Conservatives, not Sedevacantists, and therefore ostensibly to all Catholics who entertain or sustain the possibility that Bergoglio either never was validly elected or lost his office, on account of WHAT THE CHURCH HERSELF TEACHES about the nature of heresy, schism, apostasy, idolatry.

Therefore, there is no contextual way to explain this away, without recourse to the gratuitous assertion that the Cardinal did not mean what he said, and did not hear what Ross Douthat was saying. I find that incredible. Thus, I conclude:

Cardinal Burke has followed the lead of Cardinal Sarah and impaled his reputation* for the sake of supporting Bergoglio, jettisoning in the process not only the Code of Canon Law and any appeal to right reason in its understanding, but also the law of Charity enshrined in the Eighth Commandment of the Decalogue, and in the Greatest and First Precept of Jesus Christ: Love one another as I have loved you.

He has also jettisoned his reputation as a Canon Lawyer, because after the Academic Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict, to which the Cardinal was invited but did not attend, I was told the argument presented was very sound by a Canonist who works in Rome.

In fidelity to both Christ Jesus and Moses, I ask all to pray for Cardinal Burke, who does not realize in how great an error he has fallen simply to please a man. Let us hope that he apologizes for saying such a nasty thing about faithful Catholics and explain why it is he has adopted such a non-think position, when by profession and duty he should be an advocate for applying Canon Law equally to all.

Finally, I have moderated my own emotions in writing this post, but I will not censor the comments of those who believe it necessary to speak more pointedly. That is because (1) I have written Cardinal Burke offering to speak with him about the Renunciation, and do not consider it proper to say anything more about this matter in public, but (2) recognize the right of all Catholics in virtue of Canon 212 to make their voices heard, even if times what God might consider respectful, those needing correction might not think is respectful.

My Public Question for Cardinal Burke:

Q. Do you really mean to say that an apostate, heretic, schismatic, usurper, theoretically can be a member of the Church or the Pope? Or are you saying that you feel your loyalty to the man whom you think is the Pope is greater than your loyalty to seek and defend the truth of history? — I ask this because I want to know where you stand.

_________

* Anomianism is the error of thinking that Christian Charity frees the person from the obligation of following laws or rules. Saint Paul condemned this in his Letters to the Corinthians. — The Catholic position has always been that inasmuch as written law, promulgated by the State or Church, enshrines principles of the Natural, Moral, Divine or Evangelical Law, it requires our observance and obedience, because it is directly or implicitly invoking the authority of God.  All Church Law does this as regards the authority of Christ, Her Founder. Thus, to adopt an anomian approach to any question or dispute, and call those who honestly seek answers in the laws or teaching of the Church, extremists, is to completely reject the Divine Authority as the rule by which all things must be judged.