(Latin text is the Clementine Vulgate. The English translation of each paragraph by Br. Bugnolo)
 Hominis est animam praeparare, et Domini gubernare linguam.  Omnes viae hominis patent oculis ejus; spirituum ponderator est Dominus.  Revela Domino opera tua, et dirigentur cogitationes tuae.  Universa propter semetipsum operatus est Dominus; impium quoque ad diem malum.  Abominatio Domini est omnis arrogans; etiamsi manus ad manum fuerit, non est innocens. Initium viae bonae facere justitiam; accepta est autem apud Deum magis quam immolare hostias.
1. It belongs to man to prepare the soul, and to God to govern the tongue. 2. All the ways of a man lie open to His eyes; a weigher of spirits is the Lord. 3. Reveal to the Lord thy works, and thy thoughts will be set aright. 4. Each and every thing has the Lord wrought for Himself; the impious, too, for the evil day. 5. An abomination to the Lord is every arrogant (man); even if it be done hand in hand with others, he is not innocent. The beginning of the good way is to work justice; it is, moreover, more accepted before God than the sacrifice of holocausts.
 Misericordia et veritate redimitur iniquitas, et in timore Domini declinatur a malo.  Cum placuerint Domino viae hominis, inimicos quoque ejus convertet ad pacem.  Melius est parum cum justitia, quam multi fructus cum iniquitate.  Cor hominis disponit viam suam, sed Domini est dirigere gressus ejus.  Divinatio in labiis regis; in judicio non errabit os ejus.
6. By mercy and truth is iniquity redeemed, and in the fear of the Lord does one turn away from evil. 7. When the ways of a man are pleasing to the Lord, He also converts his enemies to peace. 8. Better is a little with justice, than the enjoyment of much with iniquity. 9. The heart of a man arranges his own way, but it belongs to the Lord to direct his steps. 10. Divination is on the lips of the king; in judgement there shall not err his mouth.
 Pondus et statera judicia Domini sunt, et opera ejus omnes lapides sacculi.  Abominabiles regi qui agunt impie, quoniam justitia firmatur solium.  Voluntas regum labia justa; qui recta loquitur diligetur.  Indignatio regis nuntii mortis, et vir sapiens placabit eam.  In hilaritate vultus regis vita, et clementia ejus quasi imber serotinus.
11. Weight and balance are the judgements of the Lord, and His works all the weights for the measure. 12. Abominable the kings who act impiously, since the throne is made firm by justice. 13. The will of kings, just lips; he who speaks upright words shall be loved. 14. The indignation of the king, the messengers of death, and the wise man shall placate his wrath. 15. In hilarity, the face of the king, life, and his clemency as an evening downpour.
 Posside sapientiam, quia auro melior est, et acquire prudentiam, quia pretiosior est argento.  Semita justorum declinat mala; custos animae suae servat viam suam.  Contritionem praecedit superbia, et ante ruinam exaltatur spiritus.  Melius est humiliari cum mitibus, quam dividere spolia cum superbis.  Eruditus in verbo reperiet bona, et qui sperat in Domino beatus est.
16. Take hold of wisdom, because she is better than gold, and acquire prudence, because she is more precious than silver. 17. The paths of the just turn aside evils; the guardian of one’s own soul keeps his own way. 18. Pride precedes destruction, and before a ruin the spirit is exalted. 19. Better is it to be humbled with the meek, than to divide spoils with the proud. 20. The learned in word shall find good things, and he who hopes in the Lord is blessed.
 Qui sapiens est corde appellabitur prudens, et qui dulcis eloquio majora percipiet.  Fons vitae eruditio possidentis; doctrina stultorum fatuitas.  Cor sapientis erudiet os ejus, et labiis ejus addet gratiam.  Favus mellis composita verba; dulcedo animae sanitas ossium.  Est via quae videtur homini recta, et novissima ejus ducunt ad mortem.
21. He who is wise in heart shall be called “prudent”, and the one sweet in speech shall perceive greater things. 22. A fountain of life, the erudition of the one possessing her: the doctrine of fools is fatuousness. 23. The heart of the wise man shall teach his mouth, and shall add grace to his lips. 24. A comb of honey, well ordered words; the sweetness of the soul, the health of one’s bones. 25. There is a way which seems right to a man, and his last steps on it lead to death.
 Anima laborantis laborat sibi, quia compulit eum os suum.  Vir impius fodit malum, et in labiis ejus ignis ardescit.  Homo perversus suscitat lites, et verbosus separat principes.  Vir iniquus lactat amicum suum, et ducit eum per viam non bonam.  Qui attonitis oculis cogitat prava, mordens labia sua perficit malum.
26. The soul of the one laboring labors for itself, because his own mouth compels him. 27. The impious man digs up evil, and on his lips a fire burns. 28. A perverse man incites arguments, and the verbose sows division among princes. 29. The iniquitous man milks his own friend, and leads him through a way which is not good. 30. He who with stunned eyes thinks of depraved things, as one biting his own lips perfects evil.
 Corona dignitatis senectus, quae in viis justitiae reperietur.  Melior est patiens viro forti; et qui dominatur animo suo, expugnatore urbium.  Sortes mittuntur in sinum, sed a Domino temperantur.
31. A crown of dignity the old age, which is found upon the ways of justice. 32. Better is the patient one to the strong man; and he who dominates his own spirit, than the victorious besieger of cities. 33. Lots are cast into the lap, but they are sorted out by the Lord.
There is more than ample doctrine here to put in proper perspective how evil it would be to presume to dispose of the Petrine Munus in a divided or bifurcated papacy, and how such an act of pride would bring destruction upon everyone in the Church. Also, how humility does NOT consist in being patient with the evils one has brought upon the Church, but rather in undoing the evil done and returning to the example of all previous popes, who served until death, or resigned the whole papal office and ministry, keeping nothing for themselves.
CREDITS: Latin text, from the Clementine Vulgate, online. Photo from https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/monastic-views-lectio-divina-2162 an article on Lectio Divina, showing a Benedictine monk of Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery, Silver City, NM.
Don’t let anyone tell you to shut up, when you point out that some are saying the renunciation of Pope Benedict was or could be invalid.
Don’t let them coerce you by telling you that it is absurd to suppose that a Papal act be invalid.
Don’t let them get away with such a claim!
Because, no less that Pope John Paul II declared that a papal resignation could be invalid!
First, the FACTS of the Laws
And not only declared, but he enshrined the possibility into the Papal Law on Conclaves: Universi dominici gregis, n. 3, where it says in Latin:
3. Praeterea statuimus, ne Cardinalium Collegium de iuribus Sedis Apostolicae Romanaeque Ecclesiae ullo modo disponere valeat, nedum de iis sive directe sive indirecte quidquam detrahat, quamvis agatur de componendis discidiis aut de persequendis factis adversus eadem iura perpetratis, post Pontificis obitum vel validam renuntiationem.(14) Curae autem sit omnibus Cardinalibus haec iura tueri.
Which in good English is:
3. Moreover, We establish, that the College of Cardinals not be able to dispose in any manner of the rights of the Apostolic See and Roman Church, much less to detract anything from them either directly or indirectly, even though it be done concerning the resolution of disputes or the prosecution of deeds perpetrated against the same rights, after the death and/or valid renunciation* of the Pontiff. (14) Moreover, let it belong to the care of all the Cardinals that these rights be watched over.
* The reference to a “valid renunciation” is to Canon 332 §2, which lays down 2 reasons for an invalid renunciation (lack of freedom in renouncing the petrine munus, and lack of due manifestation of the renunciation of the petrine munus).
Some would like to have it that Canon 332 §2 is merely laying down the requisites to be observed in a papal resignation, and that it does not exist to be used by anyone, let alone a layman, to discern or determine when a resignation is valid or not.
The assertion is a perfect form of gas-lighting: You cannot let the masses use the Code of Canon Law, you cannot let them read the Papal Law on Conclaves, but if they do, you must convince them that what they see does not mean what it says or that what they read there is something they cannot use in an argument or apply to any particular case! Thus might be the counsel of any modern day Screwtape to his Trad inc. minions.
This objective is supported by the absurd arguments being used to attack those who are examining the resignation, such as that argument evinced by Mr. Sammons the other day:
As much as one might want to think Benedict XVI didn’t really resign, there’s three main problems:
1) What you want doesn’t matter. 2) It would mean Benedict is one of the most horrible people to ever live. 2) You have to accept some crazy-level conspiracy theories. pic.twitter.com/CPnWvDmCo0
Evidently, if we take Mr. Sammons at his word, he must rail against Pope John Paul II, against the Papal Law on Conclaves and against the Code of Canon Law of 1983, all which admit the possibility of an invalid renunciation! — Evidently railing against Popes is o.k., so long as you recognize that they are popes. — This seems to be the new dogma of Trad Inc. Even though Catholic Tradition holds that in nothing can a pope be judged but faith.
Having seen this form of gas-lighting, we must begin to ask ourselves, “Whom we should listen to or obey? A Layman or Pope John Paul II?”
After all, to turn Mr. Sammon’s rhetoric against him: What does it matter what Mr. Sammons wants?
Second, the Implications of the Law
As it has been amply proven that Pope John Paul II held that a papal renunciation could be invalid, we should use the intellects God gave us to use and think about what that means. We should not let the gas-lighting false apostles, out there, stop us from thinking.
First, if a papal renunciation could be invalid. That means that objectively speaking it could be invalid. That means that it can be recognized by men who are capable of knowing objective reality. That means that men should recognize it if it be, and should NOT harken to any propaganda to ignore the problem. Because, obviously, if Pope John Paul II wanted us to listen to propagandists who do not want us to see that a resignation was invalid when it was invalid, he would never have mentioned that there could be an invalid resignation.
Second, that means that the Church has the duty to recognize an invalid resignation is invalid, since the Code of Canon Law binds everyone in the Church. The Papal Law on Conclaves binds the Cardinals, and so they are also obligated to recognize an invalid resignation is invalid.
Third. Now how is anyone to do that? Pope John Paul II shows us how in canons 40 and 41, where everyone in the Church who has an office is obliged to examine the administrative act of his superior to see if it is effective and authentic. Though canon 41 speaks only of acts which are null or inopportune, clearly an invalid resignation is both.
That means it was the duty of all the Cardinals as of 11:45 AM, February 11, 2013, when the Consistory ended (approximately, as I do not know the precise minute of termination) until today to examine the act. If the act was invalid, they were obliged to omit the Conclave, and if they find now that it is invalid, they are obliged to say the conclave was invalid.
So you see, now, how wrong Cardinal Burke was, when he condemned a whole category of Catholics as “extremists” if they doubted that Bergoglio was the pope. Because if that doubt arises from an invalid resignation, then they are not only NOT extremists, they are the most faithful Catholics in the Church, and they are doing what all Cardinals should have done and still refuse to do!
No, your Eminence, there are No Extremists here, but there are a lot of Presumptuous Princes!
Now almost no one in the Church is a canon lawyer, but a good number of the Cardinals are. And if you have studied canon law or civil law, then you know a general principle of law which is applicable in this case:
A cessation of power is never to be presumed!
As I mentioned previously, this general principle of law is enshrined in Canon 21 (and implied in many other canons, such as canon 40). It is really a summation of common sense. Because if one presumed the cessation of power, then the rule of law would break down, because presumption has a way of inclining to disorder and chaos, in particular, to the kind of disorder and chaos we have seen in the Church for nearly 7 years.
Now a papal renunciation pertains to a cessation of power, as the learned and eminent Canonist I spoke with recently admitted. Therefore, we cannot presume a pope has validly resigned. The presumption, rather, is that he has not resigned. Presumption here refers to the inclination of our judgement prior to seeing the facts and evidence.
Now Canon 332 §2 says that a pope resigns when he resigns his munus.
But Pope Benedict in his act of Feb. 11, 2013, renounces the ministerium he received.
Therefore, at this point, before any further study, each and every Cardinal had the duty to presume that the renunciation was invalid. He had to presume this, because, the presumption of law requires that he hold that there has been no cessation of power, when a pope renounces ministerium instead of the required munus.
Canon 17 then requires the Cardinals to examine the Code of Canon Law (as I did here) to understand the proper sense of terms, or the canonical tradition (as I did here), or the mind of the Legislator (as was done by Father Walter Covens here). But all of these conclude the renunciation of ministry does not effect a renunciation of the papacy.
So who is the extremist now? The Catholic who holds, as he should, to what the law presumes? Or the Cardinal who did not do his duty nor his homework but rails at Catholics who have done what he neglected to do? Presuming against the very presumption of the law.
It almost seems as if the Cardinals were already inclined to rid themselves of Pope Benedict, and so, whether he was in error or not, whether he wanted to bifurcate the papacy or not, whether the renunciation was valid or not, they did not bother one iota to due their due diligence before convening in Conclave. — If there ever was a reason to doubt the validity of the Conclave of 2013, this is the first and prime of them all!
Third, Action Item:
Ask your favorite priest, Bishop or Cardinal, when did he apply canons 40 and 41 to the Papal renunciation?
Because in those 2 canons, all who hold an office in the Church — even the simple priest who is no longer mentioning Benedict in the Canon of the Mass, where the name of the Roman Pontiff is named — all, I say, had the duty to examine the Latin text of the Renunciation and determine whether it fulfilled the requirements of the Latin text of Canon 332 §2. So ask them, “On what day and hour, in what place and with what books and references did you do your duty specified in canons 40 and 41 as regards the declaration of Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013, called, “Non solum propter”?” — You have every right to ask this question, before listening to anything they say about the renunciation, because obviously, if they never did their duty, they have no moral right to tell you anything about what the Act of Renunciation means, let alone, to regard anyone else as the Pope, other than Benedict.
(For more information about Canons 21, 40 and 41 and what should have been done on Feb. 11, 2013, after Pope Benedict XVI read his Act of renunciation, see here).
CREDITS: The image of the Pope is from https://agrellcarving.com, who carved the Throne on which he is sitting and which produces other fine products of furniture (This is not a paid advertisement, but the image is copyright by Agrell Carving).
Who was the real John Knox? And why does it matter today?
To answer this question, The From Rome Blog republishes, with permission the Essay by Frank Dougan, on Edwin Muir’s Knox: an exposé of the person and life of the “Reformer” of the Catholic Church in Scotland in the 16th century.
Edwin Muir’s, John Knox.
by Frank Dougan
I found a copy of Edwin Muir’s book ( John Knox ) at The Andersonian Library within Strathclyde University where I was studying Scottish History.
I tried to obtain this book from City of Glasgow Libraries to no avail.
First published by Lowe and Brydone Ltd. London in 1929 “The Life and Letters Series No. 12.” ( John Knox: Portrait of a Calvinist. ) I find much of Muir’s work sympathetic to Knox, Robert Burns is quoted on the opening pages as writing; ‘Orthodox ! orthodox, wha believe in John Knox, Let me sound an alarm to your conscience’.
Edwin Muir wrote his preface;
‘For this biography I have gone chiefly to the writings of Knox himself, and to the usual contemporary records. The Reverend Dr. M’ Crie’s and Professor Hume Brown’s Lives have also been of help, but my particular gratitude is due to Andrew Lang’s ( John Knox and the Reformation ) the one biography I have found which attempts to be critical.
My reading of Knox’s life disagrees with that of most of his other biographers since M’Crie. It is on the whole supported, however, by the eighteenth century estimate represented by David Hume and Burns.
If I show bias it is not, at any rate, theological bias.
The object of this book is somewhat different from that of the biographies which I have mentioned: it is to give a critical account of a representative Calvinist and Puritan.
The temper in which I have attempted this may perhaps best be described as realistic; I have attempted to tell in contemporary terms how a typical Calvinist and Puritan lived, felt and thought.
With the historical figure I am not particularly concerned’.
As one may note the date of publication was similar to D. H. Lawrence’ banned book and at the height of Catholic persecution in Scotland at the hands of John White the Church of Scotland’s sectarian and racist moderator.
I will relate to a few examples from Muir he writes about Knox;
‘Between 1540 and 1543 we find him engaged as an ecclesiastical notary, and up to March of 1543 he was certainly in the Catholic Church.
Of the life he led during this time his fellow reformers tell us not a word, but the Catholics maintain that he was notorious for his immorality, and even assert that he was guilty of committing adultery with his step-mother ( his father’s second wife ). Such is the early Knox as history and scandal disclose him.
Archibald Hamilton claimed that Knox was distinguished as a young man by his licentiousness; that he had always three whores at his heels; and that moreover, he committed adultery with his step-mother.
There is finally the question whether or not Knox had any hand in the Rizzio murder. The evidence that he had is once more contained in one letter from Randolph to Cecil. In this letter Randolph gives a list of the accomplices of the murderers, and another marked ‘ all at the death of Davy and privy thereunto’.
At the bottom of this is written ‘ John Knox, John Craig, preachers’. It has been adduced as a confirmation of Knox’s guilt that he fled from Edinburgh on the same day as the murderers’.
Muir describes what was a new development in the life of Knox;
‘ At Berwick, too, one of those friendships with women began, which were to play such a great part in Knox’s life. In his congregation was a certain “ Mrs. Bowes”, the wife of Richard Bowes of Norham Castle, a fort about six miles up the Tweed.
She was the mother of five sons and ten daughters.
Her husband was not in favour of the new doctrines; her family, too, were in the main cold.
Her fifth daughter, Marjory, (13) came with her to hear the sermon, and presently the preacher ( Knox ) and the young girl became engaged.
She ( Mrs. Bowes ) was probably about fifty when Knox became intimate with her, till then Knox had thought that no creature had ever been as tempted as he; the beloved mother ( of fifteen children ) pursued him wherever he went with vivid descriptions of her fleshly weaknesses’.
I know I have related to these subjects on earlier passages by other writers though I feel that I must introduce Muir’s work and perhaps draw some conclusions as to why the Church of Scotland’s appointed fault finder Harry Reid takes pain to advise readers of (Outside Verdict) not to read Edwin Muir’s ( John Knox ) biography.
Harry Reid was a director with the Sunday Herald’s ‘Book Review’.
Strangely one has to search for this book as there doesn’t seem to be many copies around Glasgow libraries perhaps the publishers should re-print and let the world see why the former editor of the Glasgow based broadsheet the Herald advises censorship.
Edwin Muir writes about letters from Knox to Mrs. Bowes and vice-versa:
‘ When he was deprived of the comfort of her ‘ corporal presence’ Mrs Bowes fulfilled the conditions to perfection. She was older than he, she was already his prospective mother-in-law. His pride would have recoiled from an intimacy in which he received reassurance and gave none. He could luxuriate in the voluptuous relief which her weakness provided’.
The Protestant Church, that Knox founded, chained people by the neck and castigated them in the most horrendous manner for sexual discrepancies…. yet Scotland’s greatest hero as Harry Reid calls him….
Muir continues his examination of Knox’s correspondence:
‘ My wicked heart loveth the self, and cannot refrain from vain imaginations’.
Writing to Mrs. Bowes that his heart was ‘ infected with foul lusts’ she was beset by the recondite sins of Sodom and Gomorra, was a strange repository for Knox’s imperative confessions.
Fear was to become an instrument in his hands, an instrument which he rarely laid aside, and which sometimes got beyond his control.
He threatened when he could make good his threats; he threatened still more wildly when he could not. He threatened his friends when they disagreed with him; he threatened his enemies when they could afford to laugh at him. He threatened Mary ( Tudor ) of England when he was flying from her; he threatened Elizabeth when he hoped to get a favour out of her. Where insensibility was shown in his threatenings, he took refuge in hatred.
Three women, Mary of England, Mary of Guise, and Mary Stuart, were unimpressed by his lightenings; he revenged himself by slander and prophecies of plagues where he could not by civil wars’.
The more I research the life of John Knox I continuously have to reassure myself that Protestants and Presbyterians really believe that this man was a Christian?
Muir goes on:
‘ Ever since he had met Wishart nine years before Knox had been in the habit of prophesying. He prophesied on grave and on trifling occasions; he prophesied reasonably and unreasonably; he prophesied above all wherever he could not get his own way; he prophesied against Sir Robert Bowes because Sir Robert would not accept him as a suitor for 13 year old Marjory’s hand.
The prophecies arose to wild heights of fantasy; in ideal conditions he contemplated an orderly and exhaustive slaughter of the Catholics. Then the prophet had become the man; now all the passions, all the envies, the hatreds, the cruelties of the man were triumphantly subsumed in the prophet. These passions, envies hatreds, cruelties, by the same transmutation became the passions, envies, hatred, cruelties of God.
His search for God and for comfort, his perplexity over why he had fled ( from England ) his rage of resentment tipped him sheer into abysses of self-deception touched with Sadism which no other reformer had plumbed.
At their most grandiose his prophecies about the future of England were almost like the ravings of a madman.
Edwin Muir was an academic, novelist, poet, Norton Professor of English at Harvard University, he had also been Director of the British Council at Prague in 1946 and Rome in 1949, he has a long list of distinguished works to his credit with major book publishers which can be viewed on the web.
His book on John Knox should be read by anyone wishing to investigate Reformation history particularly the mis-doings of Knox’s philosophies.
Professor Muir wrote:
‘ The instrument ( Knox ) had cursed Mary Tudor ( the Queen of England ) and had publicly advised her assassination, Calvin and Bullinger, however, had refused to back him’.
He narrates about Knox at Frankfurt then moves to 1556 Knox had been in Scotland to marry Marjory for the purpose of concealing his affair with her mother Sir Robert Bowes was hunting for them.
Muir goes on:
‘ He arrived in Geneva with Mrs. Knox, Mrs. Bowes a servant, and a pupil called Patrick. He was now married to Marjory, and accordingly we hear nothing more of her, except that she bore him two children, ‘ and then she died’. The same silence henceforth covers the irrepressible Mrs. Bowes ?’
It seemed that Knox had found a safe haven in Geneva with his wife and her mother for a while:
‘ Yet, in spite of all this, in spite of his power in the congregation and the solace of Mrs. Bowes and Mrs Knox’s company, he still longed for the comfort which only other men’s wives, it seemed, could give him in full measure.
‘Ye wrote that your desire is earnest to see me’ he said in a letter to Mrs. Locke in London, a few months after he had settled in Geneva with his family.
‘ Dear sister, ( he addressed Marjory the same in his letter to her ) if I could express the thirst and languor which I have for your presence, I shall appear to pass measure. Yea, I weep and rejoice in remembrance of you; but that would evanish by the comfort of your presence, which I assure you is so dear to evanish by the comfort of your presence’.
What was the comfort which he longed for so earnestly ? It was the same which he had found once in Mrs. Bowes’ friendship, a friendship which, it was clear, however, no longer quite satisfied his needs. His urgent necessity during these years, in fact, seems to have been to surround himself with mothers. He secured Mrs. Bowes already; to secure another a trifling relaxation of principle would surely be justifiable’.
Unfortunately for the millions who have been indoctrinated into Presbyterianism who have had to suffer severe consequences over hundreds of years for any relaxation of principles, as this was a luxury only for their great leader and his disciples.
‘Mrs. Locke came to Geneva in the following May, in spite of the opposition of her ‘ head’ who was left behind in London. She appeared with her son Harry, her daughter Anne, and a maid called Katherine. The adventure began disastrously. Anne died a few days after arriving’.
Knox was about to write his book ( The first blast of the trumpet against the monstrous regiment of women ).
Professor Muir quotes him:
‘ How abominable before God is the empire and rule of a wicked woman, yea, of a traitoress and bastard’.
In this passage Knox is referring to Mary Tudor the Queen of England obviously he saw her as illegitimate. Actually Mary Tudor’s mother was Catherine of Aragon the first queen of Henry V111, she had previously been married to Henry’s elder brother, Prince Arthur, in 1501 ( the marriage allegedly being unconsummated ) and on his death in 1502 she was betrothed to Henry and married him on his accession to the throne in 1509.
Of the six children she bore only Mary survived, desirous of a male heir Henry divorced Catherine contrary to the law of the land regardless if it was also the law of the Church.
Perhaps Knox is referring to Henry and Catherine’s marriage as illegitimate because she had been married to his brother which was also illegal then and the only legitimate heir to the English throne was Mary Stuart whose grand-mother was Henry’s sister.
Professor Muir describes some of Knox’s views on women from his book:
‘ Knox began to look about him anxiously for all those proofs of woman’s infamy which the exordium promised. Man, he found, drawing on his knowledge, was strong and discreet. Woman, on the other hand , was mad and phrenetic. Was it reasonable that the passionate should rule the calm and the strong? Women, moreover, had been known to die of sudden joy, to commit suicide, to betray their country to strangers, and to be so avid of domination that they murdered their husbands and children. Knox reasoned ( about women ) ‘ where there was no head eminent above the rest, but that the eyes were in the hands, the tongue and mouth beneath the belly, and the ears in the feet’.
These are the writings of John Knox if a modern day psychiatrist were to examine these works and not know who the writer was, he could easily be seduced into thinking perhaps this was Adolph Hitler’s ‘struggle’.
Edwin Muir continues his narrative:
‘ Knox’s attitude to woman, it will be seen, sometimes changed with extraordinary rapidity. On Mary Tudor’s accession to the throne he had begged God to illuminate her heart with pregnant gifts of the Holy Ghost and to repress the pride of those who would rebel; after his flight his prayer was to send a Jehu to cut off her days.
When Mary of Guise was behaving with great toleration to the Protestants in Scotland she had been ‘ a princess honourable, endowed with wisdom and graces singularly,’ but now that he had heard about the pasquil she, like all other queens was a monster.
His mother had perhaps died when he was young; he had ‘ known’ his stepmother.
Two mothers were at present waiting for him in Geneva. Mrs. Bowes and Mrs. Locke ( and his child bride ) were obviously not real mothers. Mary of England and Mary of Guise ( and later Mary Stuart ), he was equally convinced, could not be real queens’.
It seems quite clear that Knox betrayed everyone around him including his own father by having an affair with his stepmother and anyone that he came into contact with including Wishart who he was with on the night of his capture, Knox was carrying his sword, Cardinal Beaton, Rizzio, Lord Darnley, Mary Stuart and the women who surrounded him in a Charles Manson maniacal devotion.
Calvin was also betrayed by him on the publication of the ‘First Blast’ as Knox had it secretly printed in Geneva with no writer or publisher’s names Calvin was outraged as condemnation poured upon reformers in Europe.
Professor Muir goes on to report the ideology of ‘Der Fuhrer’ of Scotland’s Presbyterian’s:
‘ Any Protestant had obviously, therefore, the right to kill any Catholic; it was the collective duty of the Protestants, however, to exterminate the Catholics ‘en masse’. His letters from Dieppe showed an ungovernable temper and an imagination delighting in cruelty. His Appellation from Geneva could only be the work of a mind corrupted by a monstrous doctrine. His letter showed not merely an extreme insensibility to human sufferings; it lingered sickeningly in a delighted contemplation of them. To the powerful he counselled violence and cruelty’.
After some months in Dieppe, Knox returned to Scotland when Elizabeth had taken the English throne after Mary Tudor died, and he found himself in the midst of turmoil.
Muir creates a vivid picture of the nobles who were to work with Knox, the professor wrote:
‘ If one were to accept the description of the sexes in ‘The First Blast’, she (Mary of Guise) might stand as the masculine type and Knox himself as the feminine. In the battle between them calmness, self-control, reason, dignity were all on Mary’s side….. frenzy, vituperation and back-biting all on the side of Knox who was a man of notorious probity’.
Muir goes on about the destruction of the Catholic Churches and monasteries after Knox’s return to Scotland he wrote:
‘ The destruction of the religious buildings and works of art in Scotland has been debated by ( Protestant ) historians, antiquarians and theologians at length and with acrimony. Two examples, showing the fluctuations of opinion among Knox’s admirers, may be cited.
Dr. M’Crie’s apology is perhaps the most extra-ordinary.
He begins by treating the matter with elephantine facetiousness.
‘ Antiquarians,’ he said, ‘ have no reason to complain of the ravages of the reformers, who have left them such valuable remains, ( ruins ) and placed them in that very state which awakens in their minds the most lovely sentiments of the sublime and beautiful by reducing them to-ruins. The liberty which the Protestants demanded from the Regent ( Mary of Guise ), in fact, was twofold; they asked leave to worship as they liked, and to pull down monasteries and churches.
By open profession they considered both these claims equally legitimate.
It was only by the grace of God that British Protestants especially Scottish Presbyterians never ruled Italy, France, Spain, Prague, Austria, Russia, Greece etc. with all their wonderful ancient monuments and churches which would have been obliterated and destroyed by the serial Protestant-culture-wreckers who make the Barbarians and Huns look like pacifists.
Professor Hume Brown wrote about the desecration of Scotland’s heritage:
‘ In these blind outbursts, ‘ he said, ‘there was no expression of real religious feeling; it was simply the instinct of plunder, the natural delight in unlicensed action which in ordinary times is kept in check by the steady pressure of law’.
Muir disagrees with Hume Brown by writing;
‘ ( Hume Brown ) contradicts himself in another passage, for those blind outbursts had, he admitted, Knox’s ‘cordial approval’.
The destruction, then was essentially a policy rather than a blind outburst.
It began as early as 1540; it was continued by Paul Methuen, the first man in Scotland to set up a purified Church, Knox set the work going on a large scale.
Andrew Lang says bitterly: ‘The fragments of things beautiful that the Reformers overlooked were destroyed by the ( deranged ) Covenanters’.
A monument to Robert the Bruce among other things was destroyed in the religious frenzy.
Knox was the only reformer of great reputation who encouraged a general destruction of works of art, and he felt his isolation.
Calvin was severe enough in his reprobation of beauty, but robbery and pillage, even of Catholic property, his orderly mind could not abide’.
Professor Muir pursues the Knoxite desecrations:
‘ In his letter to Mrs. Locke he told, as we have seen, how the ‘ brethern had sacked the religious houses in Perth and threatened the priests with death. In his ‘History’ the priests were not threatened, and the looting was the work of the ‘rascal multitude’, not of the brethern. His mind refused to rest under such a monstrous accusation; the whole business in Perth now seemed more confused than ever, but the probability steadily grew that the mob had destroyed the monasteries. When he took up the pen they had destroyed the monasteries’.
The examination of the works, deeds and mind of Knox has baffled Scottish historians on how they could best present a picture of the ‘demented one’ into a picture of a responsible and Christian man whom so many of them depend upon as the founder of the Scottish Presbyterian movement, that they have staked their reputations on because of their involvement within Protestantism and the bitterness and hatred that it requires to keep its leaders in their mansions and palaces that they inhabit, not to forget their dedication to nepotism.
Edwin Muir explains about the (Book of Discipline) and some of his findings he wrote:
‘ Its most fundamental idea was the corruption of man’s nature, and its policy had necessarily, therefore, to be a policy of espionage and repression.
Its sole instrument for keeping or reclaiming its members was punishment.
It was to show its dual qualities to the full in the next century of Scottish history, with its ‘prophets’, its sadistic Kirk Sessions, its instances of intrepid constancy, its intolerance, its murders smiled on, its deeds of moderation execrated, its array of villains and of martyrs, but, above all, its stiff-necked blindness to the more spacious ideas which were moving mankind.
It is symbolical that the Book opened with a command to persecute, and almost closed with a plea for the extension of the scope of Capital punishment, its faults were a lack of understanding, an incapacity for human charity, and, above all, a consciously virtuous determination to compel and humiliate people for the greater glory of God’.
I ploughed my way through mountains of reference books and documents while attending Strathclyde University with other ‘mature’ students of various religious persuasions, I was shocked to hear that in the year 2003 many reasonable Protestants have been led to believe even in recent years that Roman Catholics had an inferior education, and many thought that was the reason why so many Catholics were refused employment with Protestant employers.
One could easily point the finger at Rangers Football club and the many world class Scottish Catholic footballers who were forced to ply their trade in England and abroad, who could have been performing and passing their talents on to Scottish kids, many of these great’s such as Billy Bremner, Joe Jordan, Lou Macari etc. would have been a bonus to Scotland if sectarianism was wiped out not only on sporting arenas, but in the general society where there are countless highly intelligent and well educated Catholics.
How can any nation on earth be successful when a large percentage of its population are discriminated against we have seen the brain drain from Scotland for centuries and the nation is impoverished in so many walks of life.
Professor Muir continues;
‘ As idolatry and adultery became feebler in Scotland, however, adultery rose in importance.
In the next few years there is scarcely a remonstrance of the ministers which does not contain a despairing injunction to Parliament to punish adultery with death’.
There is something that Muir wrote that intrigues me, he wrote that Knox arrived in Geneva with a student named Patrick on another page he writes this statement by John Knox:
‘ That great abuser of this commonwealth, that poltroon and vile knave Davie ( Rizzio ), was justly punished ( stabbed to death in front of 6 months pregnant Mary. Queen of Scots) for abusing of the commonwealth and for his other villainy, which we list not to express, by the council and hands of James Douglas, Earl of Morton, Patrick, Lord Lindsay, and the Lord Ruthven, with other assistors in their company, who all for their just act, and most worthy of praise’.
Was this the Patrick who was with Knox at Geneva that he congratulates for the heinous murder of Rizzio, who as one can clearly see from Knox’s pen that even after Rizzio was dead, the venomous hatred boiling and spitting from the mind of Knox.
If this was the same Patrick then this verifies Randolph’s letter to Cecil over Knox’s guilt in the murder. Muir concludes his biography of Knox and notes these items after he explained his last days he wrote:
‘ The man ( Knox ) who in England proclaimed that subjects were bound to obey their prince; who in Dieppe incited subjects to murder their prince; who in Geneva exhorted the faithful in Scotland to depose their prince; who in Scotland helped to drive one prince after another from the throne while loudly proclaiming his loyalty; who maintained that two brutal murders were admirable in the sight of God, and that a third, less brutal, must be wiped out by the execution of an unfortunate woman ( Mary Stuart ) who had no direct part in it, and whose guilt could not be proved; who pursued that woman to disgrace and destruction.
This man was clearly not that model of consistency and strength which history and his biographers have set before us.
He was rather a man who, when his object required it, was always ready to contradict himself, and used any means which suited him’.
Edwin Muir’s biography of John Knox is not well known in Scotland but thanks to Harry Reid highlighting his name in ( Outside Verdict ) and my determination of finding the copy that I have scrutinised from the Andersonian Library at Strathclyde University.
Professor Muir goes on;
‘ Another thing which may be reasonably attributed to Knox is the Kirk Session.
To describe the sordid and general tyranny which this fearful institution wielded for over two hundred years would be wearisome and would take too long.
It is only necessary to say that the time-honoured Scottish tradition of fornication triumphantly survived all its terrors’.
I have endeavoured to describe the sordid and general tyranny which the fearful institution wielded over Scotland for over four hundred years, along with the lies and propaganda that they have perfected to art form.
On the last pages of his informative biography Muir questions about the first hundred years of Presbyterianism in Scotland he writes that:
‘The ‘nearest-lying country’ could show Shakespeare, Spencer, Jonson, Marlowe, Donne, Milton, in poetry and the drama; Bacon, Browne, Taylor, Claredon, in prose; the beginnings of modern science; and music, architecture, philosophy, theology, oratory in abundance’.
Caustically Muir asks:
‘ Was it the influence of Calvinism which preserved Scotland from that infection’ ?
The infection of culture, arts, academia and every form of human enjoyment and liberty had been obliterated from Scottish society except for those who maintained the evil philosophies such as the leaders of Presbyterianism who are still trying to enforce these doctrines of oppression.
Edwin Muir continues with his conclusion:
‘ Calvinism, in the first place, was a “faith” which insisted with exclusive force on certain human interests, and banned all the rest.
It lopped off from religion music, painting and sculpture, and pruned architecture to a minimum; it frowned on all prose and poetry which was not sacred.
Calvinism in short, was a narrow specialised “kind of religion”, but it was also a peculiar religion- a religion which outraged the imagination, and no doubt helped, therefore, to produce that captivity of the imagination in Scotland.
Looking down on the island of Great Britain in the century which followed Knox’s death, the Almighty, it seemed, had rejected Shakespeare, Spencer, and Donne, and chosen Andrew Melville, Donald Cargill and Sandy Peden ( John White, Ian Paisley and Jack Glass ).
And if His choice was restricted to the godly, it was equally strange, for He liked the translators of the Scots version of the Psalms, and rejected Herbert, Vaughan and Crashaw’.
Trying to understand Calvinists is a difficult chore especially in the 21st century where it is the Catholics that have all the pressure upon them over divorce, abortion, the birth pill and celibacy yet these issues are enshrined within the Catholic faith, and I don’t notice droves of Catholics flocking to join Protestant Churches which allow all of these questions to be freely accepted, while the Roman Catholics have to deal with the consequences of their conscience.
Protestantism is a follower of fashion and we all realise that there are so many different fashions and tastes as can be witnessed by the hundreds of Protestant sects who claim to be Christian and no doubt the ‘latest’ Jedi-Knights will soon be demanding recognition.
Professor Muir continues:
‘How could the country have avoided its fate of becoming for over a century an object-lesson in savage provincialism?
Hume, Burns, and men like them, it is true, lifted it from its isolation for a time during the next hundred years.What Knox really did was to rob Scotland of all the benefits of the Renaissance.
Scotland never enjoyed these as England did, and no doubt the lack of that immense advantage has had a permanent effect.
It can be felt, I imagine, even at the present day’.
The quotes from Dr. Muir’s biography of John Knox were written during the 1920s when Catholics were being persecuted on the streets of Scotland therefore I feel confident to credit him with first hand on site experience.
The work of Edwin Muir terrifies Presbyterian’s such as Harry Reid even though it was written during the 1920s, this shows the desperation that people such as he and his collaborators are in, because they know that their evil tyranny and subjugation of the Roman Catholic faithful, is about to be trampled into the annuls of extinction.
A Father of lies cannot be pope, because, since Christ prayed for Peter that his faith not fail, a man who is pope could not give himself up to perpetual lying about matters of faith and morals and everything else. Therefore, either one must call Christ a liar, in His claim to be God and the beloved Son of God, or one must hold that Bergoglio is not the pope. There is no middle ground.
The safer ground is to hold that Christ told the truth, and that the Cardinals, who hold Benedict’s resignation to be valid, are in error. As a rule of practical conscience, one must chose always that which is not evil, even if your peers consider it is politically incorrect. You may not particularly care if Christ is God, but on the chance that He is, you better not call Him a liar. Likewise, no one ever taught that the Cardinals are infallible on anything, so why believe their novel claim?
Unfortunately, after Feb. 11, 2013, a legion of false apostles sprouted up, or might I say, a legion of devils took possession of a lot of men’s minds and hearts.
There are a lot of false voices out there. Unlike Mr. Walker, in the video above, they want to gaslight you into not believing in what you see and hear on a daily basis, and they want you to idolize the Cardinals in their judgement of a canonical act, wherein the Cardinals have no more authority to judge than you or I do, and then they want you to draw the conclusion that Bergoglio is not the worst pope ever by comparing him with some evil man of he past (such as Dr. De Mattei recently attempted), so that you remain in communion with a public idolater, blasphemer, heretic and apostate. Because, as Mr. Walker says of these false apostles, to them “Nothing is more important than being in communion. …. Sounds like Hell, doesn’t it!”
I say, there is nothing more ignoble in a man, than that he be a boot-licker. Because such men to not worship God or Christ, they worship their career or their visible superior. And that is a sin of idolatry, even when your superior is or seems to you to be the pope.
As it stands, Bergoglio was never the pope, because Pope Benedict never resigned the papal munus, nor has he ever indicated that he has ever intended to resign it, because he considers the munus to be the grace and vocation of the Papal Office, to which he gave his irrevocable “yes”, never to be taken back (cf. Final Address, Feb. 28, 2013).
As Catholics begin the effort to make known to the clergy that they were defrauded of their loyalty to Christ’s Vicar on Feb. 28, 2013, it is important to have at hand a short summary of the canonical problems in Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Non solum propter. (Official text here at Vatican website)
Here is such a short summary.
6 canonical errors in the Act of Renunciation
In the Act, the Roman pontiff renounces “the ministry committed to him through the hands of the Cardinals” on the day he was elected. But canon 332 §2, in the official Latin text of that canon, requires that the renunciation be of the petrine “munus”, that is the Papal Office (cf. canons 331, 333, 334, 749). Therefore, the act is NOT a renunciation of the papacy. Thus, in regard to canon 332 §2, the act is an ACTUS NULLUS. And if it be said or thought to be an act of renunciation of the papacy, then the assertion or estimation is false by reason of Canon 188, which declares IRRITUS any renunciations of office vitiated by substantial error, that is by an error which touches the substance of the act (which, in this case, is constituted by the essence of the act as an act of renunciation of the munus, not of the ministerium).*
In the Act, the Roman Pontiff does not name the office by any proper canonical term, and thus the act is also an ACTUS INVALIDUS by reason of the requirement of canon 332 §2, that the act be duly manifested (rite manifestetur), since that which is not named is not manifest.
In the Act, the Roman Pontiff’s liberty regards that which he does, not that which he does not do, which, since he does not do it, whether he be free to do it or not, is not expressed. Therefore, the act is an ACTUS INVALIDUS by reason of the requirement of canon 332 §2, that the act be freely executed (libere fiat).
In making a declaration of renunciation, instead of renouncing, the act is also an ACTUS NULLUS, because canon law does not regard declarations to be canonical acts. They are merely announcements. (cf. Penal section on announcements regarding persons who have incurred latae sententiae excommunications ipso iure).
In making what appears to be a renunciation of the papacy, without naming the papal office as required by Canon 332 §2, the man making the declaration, inasmuch as he is the man, who received the office and who is attempting to separate himself from the office, had need to obtain from the man who is the Pope, an express derogation of the terms of canon 332 §2, in virtue of canon 38, and since he did not, since no concession of derogation of that requirement is mentioned in the act, then by reason of canon 38, the act, which is both contrary to the law of Canon 332 §2 and gravely injurious of the right of the faithful to know who is the true pope and when he has canonically resigned, is an ACTUS SINE EFFECTU, that is an act which lacks all effect.
Finally, in renouncing “the ministry”, the Roman Pontiff posits a legal act which is not foreseen in the Code of Canon Law, since no canon therein speaks of a renunciation of ministry. Therefore, the act is an ACTUS NULLUS according to the norm of law. Therefore, in accord with canon 41 no one with an office in the Church has any duty to recognize it.
* I do not include substantial error as one of the canonical errors in the Act, because the act was never one of a renunciation of the papal office. The argument that substantial error vitiates the act, technically, has more to do with the mis-perceptions or false claims made about the canonical value of the act, than with the act itself. Speaking of substantial error is thus necessary when discussing it with someone who is operating under the false premise that the Pope renounced the papacy, but eventually one must talk about the reality of what the Pope actually said on that day, and distinguish that reality from the misperception which was published to all the world.
POST SCRIPT: Note that in the title of this post I use the word “invalid” in the common sense of an act which does not effect what one thinks it effects, but properly speaking the term should be “vitiated” or “erroneous”, because as you can see from the list of 6 canonical errors, 3 regard nullity, 2 regard invalidity, and 1 regards being without effect.
As Catholics round the world write their Bishops and priests in regard to the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, it is becoming increasingly obvious that there is a crisis much more grave than pedophilia or homosexuality in the Catholic Clergy.
Time after time, Catholics are sharing with me the bizzare and even incoherent responses they are receiving from members of the clergy: arguments which range from sheer infantile petulance at loosing one’s rattle to absolutely diabolic attacks on God.
Underlying them all is a constant theme. The ecclesiastical club is the arbiter of truth, not God, not Christ, nor Canon Law, not the philosophy of Aquinas or Aristotle, not reason, not facts, not history, and especially not words.
As an Anthropologist, I would sum up the responses as evidences of faith in the god of the club: the concept that one should do everything to keep the club of the clergy afloat (in whatever decisions it makes for itself), no matter what you have to deny or what you have to affirm.
Not being a youngster, I have personal experience with members of the club over 40 years. This mentality is not accidental, it did not infiltrate into the Church. It was cultivated, invited and required. If young men believed in absolute, eternal unchanging divine truth, they simply were either not accepted into the club, or they were progressively harassed and attacked and destroyed or driven out. The club works this way, whether they worship in Latin or the vernacular.
I know priests who were kicked out of their diocese simply because they preached that abortion was evil. I know priests who were kicked out of their Traditional Latin Mass society simply because they hung a curtain in the confessional. I could go on and on about cases of absurdity. To punish priests for absurdly unjust reasons became a hallmark of the post Vatican II era.
Hundreds of new communities and societies were founded. But a vast majority had a single unifying principle: abnormality. I mean ab-norm-ality: that is, a society not founded around the observance of God’s Law (nomos in Greek) but around some other human law: whether the will of the superior, the will of the bishop, the will of the founders: whether or not that will conformed itself to God or to Church teaching or not. Violate the “will” and you are out. Defend the Will of God against the “will” and you are out. It did not matter whether you were expelled for stealing or for kneeling at communion, both were equally grave.
The end result is that well over 60% of the clergy today simply do not worship Jesus Christ in practice. They worship the god of the club.
The problem with this moral error, over and above that it is explicitly demonic and idolatrous, is that when you accept as Head of your club a freemason or satanist, then your club has no problems at all with that.
The silence of the rest of the clergy, is thus, perhaps not so much a sign of disagreement, as many of us hope.
A priest who is silent must be questioned. I think you have the right to eternal salvation, and that you have the right to know which god your local priest worships.
And a discussion about the invalid resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is proving to be the best revealer of which god your priest worships. It is absolutely stunning to see the responses of clergy on this topic. The truth frightens them. Literally.
I myself saw that yesterday, when, after asking to meeting with the Head of an important section of the Roman Curia, I saw the head run down the stairs to avoid being seen by me. I guess having read my scholastic question on the Renunciation, a copy of which I mailed to him a few weeks ago, he chose flight over dialogue.
(Credits: The Palazzo Roffia is a Masonic Lodge, the image is from wikipedia https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palazzo_Roffia,_galleria_00.JPG: Notice how much it looks like a “Catholic chapel”)
“Indeed,” he [Fr. Amorth] states, “One day Padre Pio said to me very sorrowfully: ‘You know, Gabriele? It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church.’”https://t.co/ABHMS8Gvg0
Now, as God has given us intellects by which we are able to think and understand, let us think about what Padre Pio said to Father Amorth, the chief exorcist at Rome for many years:
Satan. — Q. Which organizations worship Satan and are also known infiltrators of the ecclesiastical hierarchy? Hmm…… A. The Freemasons.
The bosom of the Church — Q. What could this refer to? Hmm.. A. Bosom is the center or heart. Many mistakenly think this refers to the womb, but it actually refers to the chest or thorax. The heart of the Church is without a doubt the Vatican.
Soon come to rule a false Church — Q. What does it mean to rule a Church? … Hmm. A. To control the leadership and especially the top leader.
Church — Q. What is the Church? Hmm. … A: A world wide hierarchical religious organization ruled by the Bishop of Rome and Bishops in communion with him, with clergy who show their communion by naming the Bishop of Rome in the Canon of the Mass, and who promote and spread his teachings.
False Church — Q. What is a false Church? Hmm. A. Not the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon truth, the power of the office of Peter and that of the Bishops, with the preaching of the Gospel and the Sacraments. A false Church, therefore, will have a false Bishop of Rome, a false Gospel and will show itself by naming the false Bishop in the Canon of the mass.
Now, of whom could Padre Pio be speaking, but an uncanonically elected man who is regarded by Bishops and clergy as the pope, but who attacks Jesus Christ, undermines His Gospel, teaches falsehood and worships demons?
The facts point clearly to whom that is. Those who have eyes can see it. Those who say they do not see it already worship the darkness, even if they worship it in Latin.
POSTSCRIPT: Compare what Archbishop Fulton Sheen said about the Anti-Church, as quoted here by the indomitable Ann Barhnardt.
Yes, in that direction, 350 meters, dwells Christ’s Vicar on Earth: Pope Benedict XVI, in the Mater Ecclesiae Monastery, which is nearly at the geographical center of the Vatican City State.
So close, yet so far, because if the faithful were only free to speak with Him, I am sure we could convince him to take up again the Petrine Ministry and exercise again the Petrine Office which He has never renounced.
Many ask, when the present crisis in the Church will come to an end, if ever.
Many fear that we are in the end times and that all will go downhill from here.
But as regards prophecies, the Saints remind us that we know neither the day nor the hour of the End. Thus, we cannot omit good works and even heroic works to solve the problems in our own times.
If we had 50,000 Catholics standing with me hear at the wall, and willing to walk prayerfully and humbly to the Vatican, to unveil there our Banners and Flags can call for Pope Benedict to return, then I think that crisis would be nearer to the end.
Because, until at least some of us show God that we believe in the truth of the Religion He gave us, that we are willing to come to Rome en mass and demonstrate that Faith, I really do not think we deserve it.
If we are not willing to do that, while we remain willing to march on our national capitals for this or that political purpose, then I think we can rightly be said to be hypocrites.
And God despises hypocrisy. He came down to Earth to destroy pride and hypocrisy and to save the humble. — And, alas, the problem is that so few know this truth, and those of us who do, know about it through social media, which is a medium inclined to inform but not to motivate anyone to action.
But all true motivation, has only one source, the Holy Spirit, Who has never inspired anyone to sit on a couch and do nothing about evil.
And if you want the gifts of the Holy Spirit, it is not sufficient to ask and presume, you need to pray humbly and in secret and with ardent perseverance and confidence, that, in the doing of any good any holy work, which is necessary for the salvation of souls, He is with us!
These are my thoughts and the subject of my prayers. — Br. Alexis Bugnolo
So much has been written about Pope Benedict’s renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013, that it is easy to forget or miss important articles. Since a lot of visitors who come to The From Rome Blog want to read about Benedict’s renunciation, it is helpful to have in one post, a list of all the Articles published here.
This is a topical, not chronological list: that is, it lists articles according to what aspect of the controversy they principally deal with, not according to the date they were published.
Br. Bugnolo’s Third Translation, attempting to reveal the authentic meaning by ignoring the narrative about what it is supposed to say, and rendering the text into English solely according to the grammatical sense.
Andrea Cionci:The Renunciation that was written to break the bank, English translation of the article which appeared in the Italian Daily, the Libero, June 11, 2020, and which shook the Church in Italy. The Bishop’s Daily responded only by personal attacks.
Andrea Cionci’s “Possible Reconstruction of Benedict’s Plan B”, published here in English as, “Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke against Globalism and Freemasonry” (PDF and Online Version), which is the MOST complete reconstruction according to the words and statements of Pope Benedict XVI. — A MUST READ, DROP EVERYTHING NOW!
What Pope Benedict says His resignation means and meant
Here at the From Rome Blog, my posts regard both history and conjectures about why that history came about or what it means.
Having recently viewed a video by someone who follows a man who claims to be Christ in His second coming, because the video referred extensively to posts at the From Rome Blog, I see that not everyone who reads my blog understands how to discern facts from conjecture.
A Blog, it must be said, is a very personal publication. As human beings we naturally seek to know the truth. Some of that we can know directly through the facts of history, and some of that we cannot know directly, so we must resort to interpretations. The weakest kind of interpretation is the conjecture, for a conjecture is an interpretation in which the facts (to prove it) and which are not know, are conjectured to exist.
Conjectures by their very nature tend to follow the sensibility as much as the rationality of those who write them. My conjectures do the same, and some of them might seem sensationalist. But I know how to distinguish my own conjectures from reality.
I write this post because I see that not everyone of my readers understand this.
So for clarity, I make this declaration.
That Pope Benedict XVI is the pope is statement which is not a conjecture, but rather the presumption of the law, because the law of the Church says that a pope resigns when he renounces his munus. And since Pope Benedict XVI has never done that in the way canon 332 §2 requires him to do it (fact), as the man who is the pope, we all must recognize that he is still the pope.
However, why he resigned the ministry and not the munus, and more so, why he even resigned, is something of which not a few Catholics do not see sufficient explanation in what has been reported, said, stated and repeated. This is because there is an inherent irrationality about saying Pope Benedict XVI resigned for this or that reason, and not finding the facts which make that evident (for example, in Non solum propter, he says he is resigning for health reasons, but he is still in rather good health after 6 years).
Since I seek the truth I understand that conjectures to complete the information lacking in what we know are possibly as much correct as incorrect, but at the same time I recognize that historically those who engage in such conjectures are more often wrong, because to make a conjecture which turns out to be verified by future revelations of facts, takes a great deal of familiarity with all the known causes which could have possibly influenced the event about which one is conjecturing. That is why insiders normally are better at conjecturing. And I am not an insider.
So please do not take my conjectures as dogma or history. They are not.
The fact is, that Pope Benedict XVI has never resigned according to the norm of Canon 332 §2.
But why he has or has not, is not certain to us. We would have to ask him, and he has not, to my knowledge, ever been asked why he renounced the ministerium and not the munus. So conjectures go on and on.
However, when it comes to canonical arguments, those arguments are as sound as the canons, principles and reasoning based upon them. Their certitude is thus much higher.
So when reading my blog, please keep this in mind.
Here is a new video explaining how and why Benedict XVI is still the pope.
Many thanks to Brian Murphy, the narrator and producer, as well as to all who worked on this Video.
Apart from Ann Barnhardt’s videos on the failed renunciation, this is the first I know of which attempts to present the entire problem and is produced by those who understand its canonical, theological and political implications.
FOR MORE INFORMATION about how Benedict is still pope, see the Index all the Articles on that topic, here at the From Rome Blog.
The text of this video was produced to make this video a good introduction to every Catholic. I encourage all to share it on social media.*
The other websites for the Cause of Pope Benedict are:
Catholic Monitor (Exposing the contradictions of Benedict’s opponents with their own words)
Catholics need to share the information that shows Benedict is still the Pope. It is the truth and we are obliged to remain faithful to the Pope, no matter what — no matter if he is confused or lucid, no matter whether the Cardinals are faithful to him or not, no matter if the entire Church knows he is or is not the pope.
As I reported the other day, NOT EVEN ONE OF THE MOST EMINENT CANONISTS AT ROME can refute these facts and arguments. It seems unbelievable, but it is true. I can testify to it in court.
*The only thing I disagree about, is that in the video it says that Pope Benedict XVI intended to split the papacy. I am of the opinion, that the evidence can just as well indicate that he resigned only the ministry, after the example of the last Hapsburg Emperor of Austria, as both a sign that those demanding this of him, were Freemasons, and to prevent them obtaining the papal office. — Though, I concede that the sign might not apply, because that there is a sign here, is my interpretation based on a lot of conjecture, but that there is an effect here, is based totally upon canon law.
Finally, an unsolicited plug for Barnhardt’s latest post which is directed to all those who are praying that Bergoglio become a true holy father. — This is a must read for all who love Faith and rationality.
The Mafia of St. Gallen rules by lies. Their entire project is built upon a lie, which they were successful in passing off to the world and defending during nearly seven years.
I speak of the false notion that Pope Benedict XVI resigned the papacy, when in truth all he did was resign from active ministry.
The Mafia of St. Gallen should really have a second name, the Mafia of Holy Gall, because if they are anything, they are bold liars. Nevertheless, they are bold because being composed of those practiced in sexual abuse of others, they know how to gaslight the faithful.
These tactics they have used on the Bishops and clergy, and through them, by getting them to spread false ideas of virtue and prudence, they have succeeded in gaining control of nearly all Catholic Media.
For those Catholics, like myself, who have been trying to get the world see their lies, the most effective weapon this Mafia has against us is not to directly attack us, but to ignore us in public. Then to get other Catholic news agencies to ignore us in public. Then to get Catholic social media sites to ignore us.
The present sites have decided to ignore totally all which is published at The From Rome Blog: Church Militant, The Remnant, Rorate Caeli, Catholic Family News, Gloria.TV (since Nov. 19), Chiesa e Post Concilio, UnaVox, LifeSite News, National Catholic Register, etc. etc. etc., and nearly all sites for the Traditional Latin Mass. — There is no need to mention sites run by the clergy, as they ALL ignore The From Rome Blog. None of these groups do this by chance, its by a predetermined deliberate decision. In many cases they have been asked by members of the clergy or Cardinals to do this. In other cases its because of who funds them or their fear of losing funding or advertisement if they buck the Great Narrative.
This is important, and not merely a personal lament. Because, you see, all the work that investigators like myself do, is pointless if no one ever knows about it.
But there is something you can do, and that means you have to recognize that it is not enough that you visit sites which expose the Mafia for what they are, YOU NEED TO SHARE THAT NEWS ON SOCIAL MEDIA with others.
I have repeatedly seen that when I specifically ask 1 friend to share 1 of my blog posts, that The From Rome Blog will receive about 750 hits in the next 36 hours on account of that 1 friend sharing one post, on, let’s say, FaceBook.
At present, there is only one of the 20,000 sometime readers of my blog who share my posts on Facebook. I won’t name the other sites which regularly feature a link to one or more of my posts, lest they be attacked by the Mafia. (THOUGH I THANK THEM PROFUSELY).
But I think you can see, that YOU my readers need to step up and do your part.
Because, we must ask ourselves: Will the Mafia of St. Gallen succeed?
And, we must respond: YES, IF YOU LET THEM.
CREDITS: Many thanks to ComplicitClergy.com for the use of their graphic. They do excellent work exposing the Lavender Mafia, and you should be reading their site regularly to know how to avoid the tentacles of the ecclesiastical Mafia.
Confessions of a hard-headed and lazy-minded friar
Don’t give up on your brothers and sisters who uncritically accepted that Bergoglio is the pope. Keep trying to get through to them, and give them some time. Most people are either too busy with their own lives or not yet intellectually or emotionally prepared to hear that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope because he never resigned validly.
To help you understand this, I will confess myself till last fall to have been one of these Catholics.
On Feb. 11, 2013, I was in Rome. I was studying theology and canon law at the Faculty of Saint Bonaventure. When I returned from classes that afternoon, my landlady knocked on my door, and asked me: “Have you heard, the Pope resigned!” — “What, I said!?” — “Come see it on television.
I should have immediately sought to find out what the Pope actually did say.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
I should have immediately been suspicious that the journalists were playing with the facts.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
Feb. 12-16: The next days, I should have gone to the Vatican to get a copy of the Latin.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
In my Canon Law class, I should have asked a question about the Renunciation, or at least sought out my professor about it.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
I was, as the days passed, somewhat suspicious that the Latin text was not being published. I should have kept my suspicion and acted on it.
BUT I DISMISSED MY SUSPICION
Feb. 20: A friend on the internet sent me a copy of Prof. Radaelli’s appeal to the Pope to take back his Renunciation. I read it, and should have strove to understand it better.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
I should have payed attention to everything that was happening on Feb. 28.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
I should have gone to the Vatican to speak with some Cardinal or Bishop to understand what had happened.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
Then there was the Conclave and Bergoglio was elected. Rorate Caeli blog published immediately a denunciation, saying this man was a heretic an raving nutcase. I should have taken them more serious.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
I came to know more and more that Bergoglio was a left wing looney. That should have left me some motive to investigate how and why the Renunciation took place.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
The English translation of the Act was published near the end of March, 2013. I knew the delay meant that something was rotten in Denmark. I therefore should have looked at the Latin (I am nearly fluent in Latin).
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
I let the months pass.
I let the years pass.
2016: Someone told me that Ann Barnhart was saying the Renunciation was invalid. “Who is Barnhardt, I asked?” “She is the woman who burned the Koran on video”. “Oh, I said, Hmm”. I should have searched to know what she had said, for anyone who can burn a Koran is worth listening to.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
Then someone told me a few months later that Ganswein had said in his talk at the Gregorian that Benedict was till the pope. I should have investigated.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
In 2017, someone told me again about Barnhardt. I should have taken the time to find her blog.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
Someone then told me that Father Gruner said the Renunciation was invalid in some video. I should have looked into this, because I know that Fr. Gruner was no loony.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
In 2018, in the Spring someone told me about Barnhardt again. This time I found her blog and read a little of it. I should have read all of it and listened to her videos.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
In August of 2018, someone told me about Barnhardt again, and I read her core argument. She seemed to have a good argument. I should have opened up my Latin version of the Code of Canon Law and looked at what Benedict had said in Latin.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
In September 2018, the topic became more talked about, since Veri Catholici at the beginning of the Month was proposing a Second Synod of Sutri. So I looked more at the issue, but not enough. I was still reading the English translation of the Code, even though I had the Latin on my bookshelf. I could have opened it.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
In October 2018, I heard someone say that Pentin quoted Bux about there possibly being substantial error in the act of the Renunciation. I know of Bux and know he is a theologian of repute. So I read the Text of the Renunciation in Latin and the Code of Canon Law in Latin and saw immediately that the Renunciation WAS INVALID. I should have done something.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
In November, 2018, after burying my mom, I had more time, now that I was not carrying for all her needs during the night, to examine this problem of substantial error. I saw the issue was grave and needed to be studied. I finally resolved to do what Mons. Bux said and investigate the issue. So I wrote my Scholastic Question, gathering all the arguments on both sides of the debate.
I often wonder why it is so hard to convince others of the truth of the failed renunciation. And you may also. Maybe you are tempted to give up on others who simply do not want to listen or care.
I hope that this sincere confession of my own encourages YOU to realize that some of the greatest and most zealous souls to fight for Pope Benedict may be among those priests and religious who have on many occasions ignored you or this issue, have yet to seriously consider it. Just like I did for 6 years.
BREAKING! — The From Rome Blog has received notice from a native speaker of German, that the German translation of the Act of Renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013, has in its final redaction been CHANGED by a non-native speaker of the German language.
That means that both Pope Benedict and Archbishop Ganswein cannot be blamed for the fact that the German translation MAKES THE ACT APPEAR TO BE CANONICALLY VALID.
It also means that Pope Benedict and Archbishop Ganswein CANNOT BE CLAIMED to be in favor of an act of renunciation of the Papacy, since the German text as published by the Vatican has traces that the prior version announced only a RENUNCIATION OF MINISTRY not of office!
Here is the report from our Correspondent in Germany:
Dear Brother Bugnolo,
Regarding your question:
the German is definitely not the original text, nor is it a direct translation from the Latin. Rather it is a translation from another language, probably English.
The German word order of the first sentence should match more closely to the Latin than to the English, so it should start “Nich nur wegen (non solum propter). Instead the German is a direct translation of the English word order, a standard translating error even by professionals:
“I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations….
“Ich habe euch zu diesem Konsistorium nicht nur wegen drei Heiligsprechungen zusammengerufen…”
This would be better put: “Nicht nur wegen drei Heiligsprechungen habe ich euch zu diesem Konsistorium zusammengerufen…”
(not only for three canonizations have I convoked you to this consistory….)
Note that correct German matches the phrase structure in the LATIN which begins “non solum propter” So it makes no sense to have the Engilsh phrase structure in the German if the German was first!
And the use of “Schifflein” for the Latin “navis” (ship) is wrong. Schifflein means “little ship”. (navicella). I can’t imagine Pope Benedict would have used such a word.
But there is another finding which is of great interest.
In German , the verb ausuüben and ausführen both mean “to carry out”.
However, you ausüben an Amt (office, munus) but you ausführen a Dienst (service / ministry /activity)
Now look again at the falsified words in the German text on the Vatican website:
A) “um in angemessener Weise den Petrusdienstauszuüben. Ich bin mir sehr bewußt, daß…
B) dieser Dienst wegen seines geistlichen Wesens nicht nur durch Taten und Worte ausgeübt werden darf
C) …… den mir anvertrauten Dienst weiter gut auszuführen.”
A) and B) as you noted in the article from April falsely translate Amt (office) as Dienst (ministry) but whoever did the falsification forgot in A) to change the term auszuüben to auszuführen, and in B) in change ausgeübt to ausgeführt.
C) remains correct of course, a Dienst is ausgeführt.
Or perhaps the translation was originally done correctly but Amt was changed for Munus quickly, and not by the original translator, since it neglects to match the appropriate verbs! I can’t imagine the original translator would have made such a blunder.
Might be worth examining the Italian, Spanish & French to see if a similar error is detectable.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Canon 1391 §1, which punishes ALL involved in concealing the canonical invalidity of the Act of Renunciation through falsified translations, articles or canonical studies.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 accompanying decisionem either as a dative of possession (your being cutt-off) or a dative of object with a verb of separation which begins with de- (a decision for you, a separation from you, etc.)!
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, if Benedict has this in mind. But if he is playing on the double meaning of decisio and decisione in Latin and English, then decision must stand, but then the meaning is very different.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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, …
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And on account of error n. 6, this phrase must be rewritten entirely, as velocium or celeriummutationum 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.
And thus, likewise, on account of the dropping of subiecto this conjunction can be entirely omitted.
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.
Here there is the same error as before, and thus the Latin should read fidei vitae or fidei.
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.
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 beneadministrandum (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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
This verb if left should introduce a phrase which prepares the listeners about intent or such like, not the act of the renunciation.
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!
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
This should be a me accepto or a me recepto, that is, “accepted by me” or “received by me”.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 devobis 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.
Dr. Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong verb, the correct Latin is committimus.
Dr. Stroh again reminds that the correct Latin temporal expression is in futurum.
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).
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.
Every devout Catholic has the dream — or maybe had the dream before Bergoglio — of visiting the Eternal City one day and venerating the tombs of 150 thousand Catholic Martyrs who are buried in it, chief of whom are Saints Peter and Paul. However, most Catholics never have the chance, because of the cost of travel or the lack of time, or simply because traveling to a foreign country where they speak a different language is too intimidating.
For that reason, thankful for all the help my readers have and do give me, I want to offer you a virtual tour of the Basilica of Saint Paul, outside the walls, here at Rome: one of the Seven principle Basilica’s of the Church of Rome, by sharing with you the photos and videos I took on the Feast Day of the Dedication of the Basilica, this Nov. 18, 2019.
The riches of the Church belong to us all, and so, I release all these photos and videos to the public domain so that any Catholic anywhere can use them on social media or elsewhere, as they wish.
Saint Paul the Apostle was a devout observer of the law. You might call him a fanatic. He was so incensed at what he believed was the heresies taught by the first Christians that he obtained letters of authority from the Sanhedrin to go around arresting us at will and hauling us off to the Temple prison.
The future Saint was then called Saul. He was of the tribe of Benjamin and named after the first King of Israel, Saul, a fiery man much devoted to God, who eventually fell out of pride.
The Fathers of the Church tell us that the first Catholics, though they feared Saul very much, prayed for his conversion. Our Lady was especially doing this.
Thus it was, one day, while traveling on horseback to Damascus in the Roman Province of Syria, about the year 34 or 35 A.D., that the Risen Lord Jesus descended from Heaven and appeared to Saul, knocking him off his horse and off his horse of pride, and revealing His Divinity to him.
The conversion of Saint Paul is one of the great moments of the Post Pentecost Church, and you can read the story in the Book of Acts. It is also one of the great events which give Catholics of all ages hope, that with our united prayers to God and supplications to Our Lady we can obtain the conversion of some of the greatest enemies of the Church in our own day.
Saul after his conversion spent 3 years in the Desert as a hermit and then returned to his home town in Tarsus, where Saint Barnabus found him, when the Church in Antioch had discerned that it was time for the Gospel to be preached with particular emphasis to pagans, that is to gentiles, the ancestors of nearly all Catholics of today. After a time, Saul and Barnabus were consecrated Bishops and sent to Cyprus and Asia Minor. At Cyprus, Saul preached effectively to the Roman Consul Paulus, its governor, and in gratitude for his hospitality changed his name from Saul to Paul.
After much labors and after founding many Churches in Asia, Greece, Illyria and Italy (maybe even in Spain), Saint Paul came to Rome at last to help Saint Peter spread the faith in the Imperial Capital, thus fulfilling a prophecy to both of them that they should work to established the center of Catholicism at Rome so as to chain the Spirit of the Antichrist until the end of time.
Saint Paul was martyred by the Romans during the persecution of Nero. He was taken to Tre Fontane, to the south of Rome, where an abundance of water from 3 fountains made it easy to wash iron swords. He was beheaded, and the Catholic faithful took his mortal remains and buried them at some distance, at the place where there now rises one of the Greatest Basilicas of the Catholic world.
Basilica, the word, comes from Greek, and it means Imperial. We call our largest and most beautiful churches basilicas because at one time their use was reserved especially for Catholic Emperors.
The Tomb of this Great Saint has been carefully guarded and preserved for 20 centuries. It has been progressively ornamented and built up from the 5th century onwards. A greast Basilica in wood stood on this spot until the 19th century, when a great fire destroyed it. Seventeen years later, it’s reconstruction was ordered by Pope Gregory XVI, whose statue, as a token of gratitude, stands outside the Atrium on the right flank.
Oh, the Magnificence!
When you enter the Basilica for the first time, your breath is taken away by its unbelievable enormity and magnificence. I have visited the Basilica on several occasions and still have the same experience. Here are some vidoes to share that with you. Beneath each video is a brief description of what you are looking at.
This video I took standing in the central nave, with my back to the left entrance door. It is the sight you see upon entering from the front of the Basilica.
This next video, I took with my back to the High Altar, facing the Apex of the nave.
Here is the same, from another position.
And finally, here is the High Altar from the Apex of the Nave, as I walk down into the very crypt where the Apostle of the Gentiles is buried. (Those are olive trees, which are common decorations in churches in Italy).
The Goal of Every Pilgrim
The goal of every pilgrim, is, yes, to kneel before the sarcophagus of the Saint and pray one’s heart out for the graces and help one needs. I prayed for all of you who read my blog, but most of all for the Church of Rome that She might be liberated from the forces of darkness which have take her hostage.
As you pause on this image, PLEASE PRAY for Holy Mother Church! Pray intensely, with all the faith, hope, and charity you can muster!
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:
A papal resignation falls under the category of legal acts which pertain to the cessation of power.
The cessation of power is never presumed, it must be manifest in the legal act.
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.
During a sedevacante there can be no innovation in the law.
If Ratzinger did validly resign, then from the moment he did, there was a sede vacante.
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.
Canon 145 §1 does define every ecclesiastic office as a munus.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our concern for the solution of this problem should be based on the highest charity and justice for both Benedict and Francis.
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:
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.
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.
Scholastic theology is not the mind of the Church and it does not determine reality.
Canon Law does not determine reality.
Munus is contained in ministerium, so he who exercises ministerium holds a munus.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Employ any ad hominems. That is, he did not insult me or question my motivation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Spring, 2013: Church of Ireland rocked by allegations.
May, 2012: Members of the Legionaires of Christ are reduced to lay state, new strictures upon the institute imposed by Papal order. New investigations.
Spring and Summer, 2012: Pope Benedict begins to demand resignations of bishops.
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?)
October 2012: Don Oko publishes the book, Pope Benedict against the Homo-Heresy.
October 11, 2012: The investigation into the Legionaries is put on pause, allegedly because the Cardinal assigned needs to rest.
January 30, 2013: the Acts of the Conference from a year ago are published an presented to Pope Benedict.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
News and Commentary on the Catholic Church