Tag Archives: Archbishop Georg Ganswein
Boniface VIII’s teaching on fraudulent Renunciations explains Gänswein’s denial of a Pretext
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
At present, in the Vatican, there are two persons whose followers call, “the Pope.” I will leave aside the fact that one of them ordered the Annuario Pontificio to no longer call him the pope, but that’s too great a fact to convince one party that something is awry in the Vatican City State.
For this reason, FromRome.Info has been featuring news about the Vatican since it was launched more than 8 years ago. And in that time I have published a good number of articles about the controversies over the Conclave of March 2013 and the Renunciation of February 2013. You can find extensive collections of articles about each, under the rubric, Team Bergoglio and The Renunciation of Pope Benedict.
Now, as regards the latter, FromRome.Info was the first and only site to publish an English translation of the Rescript of Pope Boniface VIII about papal renunciation, which is the foundational historic document in the tradition of Canon Law. In that article, I briefly mentioned the crucial textual problem which led the Code of Canon Law of 1917 and that of 1983 to use the verb, “renuntiare”, to renounce, rather than “resignare”, to resign.
But in the source for this Rescript, one finds a lot more, and that is what I will now publish, because those who sustain Bergoglio is the pope often make wild unsubstantiated claims that the tradition of Canon Law is in their favor. And this is clearly not so.
PRELIMINARY NOTE ON SEMANTICS
First, as regards questions of law, one cannot appeal to traditions of law, unless they regard the same legal concept. Now, when concepts regard legal acts, one must have recourse to the rules of verbal signification first of all to clarify the nature or essence of the legal act about which one is speaking. One classifies things according to genus and species. The genus is the common notion of all the things which are of the same formal reckoning, but the species is the notion which applies only to more restricted classifications of those things. So the genus is dog, but the species is a German Shepherd. Notice, that here I am not speaking according to biology, but according to logic. Because biologically both German Shepherds and dogs are both of the same species.
As regards legal actions, then, since these are expressed in words, one divides them according to verbs and objects, because when speaking of walking your dog, “to walk” as a transitive verb speaks of the genus of the action, whereas “dog” as the object of the transitive verb speaks of the species of the action.
So as regards, Papal Renunciations, “to renounce the papacy”, is studied under the generic notion of renunciations, and under the specific notion of renunciations of the papal office. Now textually this may not be evident in a document, since if the chapter deals with the papal office, the section on renunciation does not need to specify the object of the act, since the context supplies that tacitly.
Thus, in the Sixth Book of Decretals, published by Pope Boniface VIII, papal renunciation is found under Book I, Title VII, “De Renunciatione”, that is, “On Renunciation”, without any specification.
READ / DOWNLOAD THE SIXTH BOOK OF DECRETALS
Above I offer you the opportunity to read or download the 225 MB PDF which contains the entire Sixth Book of Decretals. In this way, you can follow the discussion below, where I will transcribe and translate the sections I refer to. I will be quoting from PDF pages 108-9, or columns 197-200 in the original work.
As I have already published Chapter I, here, I will proceed to transcribe and translate Chapter II, which is very interesting in regard to the present controversy.
Si te praebendam vel dignitatem, in aliqua ecclesia proximo vacaturam auctoritate Apostolica expectante, aliquis praebendam seu dignitatem tenuem obtinens in eadem, fraudulenter ei renunciet, ut illa prima sic vacante, praecludatur tibi via per consequens ad obtinendum praebendam, vel dignitatem aliam pinguiorem, quae per mortem alicuius, vel alias in ipsa ecclesia creditur verisimiliter in proximo vacatura: per renunicationem huiusmodi (dummodo de praemissa fraude appareat, saltem per aliquas probabiles coniecturars: ut quia dictae renunciationis tempore, is qui praebendam vel dignitatem pinguiorem habebat, infirmitate gravi detinebatur: vel aliquid aliud imminebat, propter quod illius praebenda, seu dignitas vacare in proximo probabiliter credebatur) nullum tibi volumus obstaculum interponi, quo minus (praebenda vel dignitate praedicta sic fraudulenter renunciata, omissa) possis dictam pinguiorem, cum eam vel aliam si prius ipsam vacare contigeret, auctoritate praefata libere petere veluti tibi debitam, & habere.
Caeterum si praedicto renuncianti huiusmodi praebenda vel dignitas pinguior forsitan confereatur: eo ipso dicta fraus in / telligatur esse probata: & idem renuncians habita omnino careat, & ambita.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
If, you when expecting a prebend and/or dignity, to be vacated in any church on Apostolic authority, anyone holder of a lesser prebend or dignity in that regard, fraudulently renounces it, so that the first thus vacated, precludes you by way of per consequens to obtain another greater prebend, and/or dignity, which through the death of someone, and/or otherwise in the church itself is believed verisimilarly to be about to be soon vacated: through a renunciation of this kind (so long as it appears under the aforementioned fraud, at least through some probably conjectures: that according to the time of the said renunciation, the one who held the greater prebend and/or dignity, was held back by grave infirmity: and/or something else was pressing, on account of which the vacating of his prebend, or dignity was probably believed to be imminent) We will that no obstacle interpose itself, by which you under the aforesaid (Apostolic) authority (when a prebend and/or aforesaid dignity be thus fraudulently renounced), may freely seek, as due to you, and have, the aforesaid greater one, when it has happened that it and/or the other has been vacated beforehand.
Otherwise, if there be conferred upon the aforesaid renouncer a prebend and/or dignity of this kind perhaps greater: by this very fact the said fraud is to be understood to be proven: and the same one renouncing lacks entirely the one had, and its appurtenances.
First, note that a prebend, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is “the portion of the revenues of a cathedral or collegiate church formerly granted to a canon or member of the chapter as his stipend”, though here I believe it is intended in a wider sense of any benefice, that is, office held out of authorized grant from a superior. A dignity is another word for title.
As is clear from this passage, then, when the Holy Father grants an office to a cleric, as a successor to one who is about to or is to be expected soon to renounce that office, to make it available to the new nominee, if the renunciation of the office by the previous holder be fraudulently done, then the new nominee can still take possession of it.
What is fraud in a legal act?
And here, let us keep in mind, that “fraudulently done” means that the juridical act, in its doing or positing, has been intentionally done invalidly. It is called “fraud” because in jurisprudence, a legal act ought to be an act which is valid according to the law. To craft an act, which appears to be juridical, but which is invalid in of itself, because of its non conformity with the law, AND do to this intentionally, is thus a fraud.
Why did Gänswein’s deny that the Declaratio is a pretext?
This may seem to be a very unimportant legal concept, but actually, it explains the will behind the illegal usurpation of the Papacy by Bergoglio, because his supporters regard the renunciation of ministerium rather than munus, as done by Pope Benedict XVI, to be merely a fraudulent way of renouncing, and on the basis of that groundless assertion, are holding that Bergoglio has the right to take possession regardless of the legal error in the Declaratio.
But they never speak of this, in my opinion, because if they did cite such a legal reasoning they would have to admit that a renunciation of ministerium is not legally appropriate or valid.
I believe that Archbishop Gänswein referred to this theory of theirs when, in his phone call to the brother of Father Gebhard, in September, he expressly denied that the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI was a “pretext”. Because a pretext is a fraudulent reasoning or explanation for one’s actions. Thus by denying that it was a pretext, the Archbishop, who holds a doctorate in ecclesiastical jurisprudence, is affirming that the act is a valid act, not done to pretend to be something other than what it is.
Andrea Cionci, thus, in interpreting everything else in the phone conversation as Ratzinger Code for approbation of what the priests, especially Don Minutella, were doing, in asserting Benedict XVI was still the pope, happily also interpreted this phrase correctly. But the meaning was even more profound, as I hope the above exposition now shows.
Also, in the often quoted statements of Pope Benedict XVI, where he gives great emphasis to the validity of his act, he likewise attests that he did what he did freely. The legal consequence of such testimony — which Bergoglians claim means he validly resigned the papacy (changing the object of the verb like con artists) — is to safeguard against the claim that the act was invalid, and thus a subterfuge, and thus fraudulent.
The Legal Strategy behind claiming the status of “Pope emeritus”
Not to be overlooked here is that Pope Boniface VIII says above that the claim of another office by the one renouncing is ipso facto proof of fraud in an apparently invalid renunciation (cf. 2nd paragraph in translated text: “Otherwise ….”). This explains, in my view, why the Bergoglian canonists are so feverish over establishing the canonical status of a Pope emeritus. They need to make it an actual office, so that they can claim that Benedict XVI de facto resigned the papacy!
And thus we see the absolute legal brilliance behind what Pope Benedict XVI did, because his renunciation of ministerium is perfectly valid, and by claiming the status of Pope emeritus, which is a non existent office, and can only mean that he remains the pope, he prevents anyone conferring upon him another office or dignity, by which conferral they could claim he has renounced the papacy!
This is the legal equivalent of castling your King in a game of fourth dimension chess!
Way to go, Pope Benedict !!!
LifeSite runs patently false arguments to defend Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy
REPRINTED FROM FEB. 2019
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
February 14, 2019 A. D. — Today Diane Montagna’s article, entitled, “Did Benedict really resign? Gänswein, Burke and Brandmüller weigh in,” was published at Life Site News.
First, let me say a big thank you to Diane Montagna for bringing the controversy to the greater attention of the general public. In this way, all Catholics, who have a right to know of its existence, can at last be informed.
However, I do not praise the article’s author for the article itself, which in all frankness, I must say is full of sophistic arguments: that is false manners of argumentation, and even false assertions, all marshaled in an attempt to demonstrate that Pope Benedict XVI did validly resign, and that everything His Holiness and his private secretary have said about this, is to be ignored!
I find it shocking that two Cardinals, to defend the validity of the resignation, have resorted to telling the whole world not to pay attention to what the Pope has said about the meaning and effect of his own act! This is tantamount to rebellion against the papacy, in my mind!
I also wish to contradict the attempt by the article to smear Catholics who hold that the resignation is invalid as persons who are NOT knowledgeable about Church Law, the text of the papal resignation, or who are excessively scandalized by Bergoglio. As I pointed out in my previous article on How Usurpation of the Papacy leads to Excommunication, all those involved in asserting an invalid resignation is valid are risking excommunication for schism and positing acts which only a pope can do. So they have a lot of reasons to ignore a serious and just consideration of the facts, especially if they just went along to get along.
But enough of preamble. let’s examine the sophisms in Montagna’s Article, in order of their appearance.
- Archbishop Gänswein dismisses the argument as making no sense. So since he confesses not to understand it, there is really nothing proved by quoting him. I will observe that in German, which is the Bishop’s ancestral tongue, there is no equivalent of ministerium, munus and officium except by one word. So its easy for a German thinker to miss the problem of saying ministerium instead of munus. What the Archbishop says previously contradicts what he says now, so he probably was thinking in German then or is now. But surely he can understand the controversy, seeing that I sent him last month, with proof of delivery, a printed copy of my entire Disputed Question on the topic. But then again, maybe he cannot read English?
- Later on in the article, after quoting Archbishop Gänswein as saying openly that Benedict did NOT resign the PAPAL OFFICE, Montagna quotes an anonymous theologian as sustaining,
supporters of this opinion need to show that Pope Benedict understood the munus and the ministerium as referring to two different realities.
Ugh, what can one respond to such ignorance? Other than that Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 §2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 §1 and canon 41, which reading amply demonstrates that the Supreme Legislator Himself, Pope John Paul II, in promulgating the new Code of Canon Law requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things. — Those who are faithful Catholics, therefore, already know they refer to two different things, because the Pope orders us to do so!
- Then the same anonymous theologian quotes canon 15 §1 (actually he quotes §2, but I think that is an error), as saying that the resignation must be presumed valid. But that canon says that a law, which expressly invalidates an act, invalidates even if the one positing the act is ignorant of the law. Thus this canon argues against the validity of the resignation, not for it!
- Then the same anonymous theologian confuses the annulment process with this controversy, saying that Catholics who think the resignation is or may be invalid, must wait for the judgement of the Church! Actually, canon 188 says that resignations made in substantial error are invalid by the law itself. That means, they are invalid before any sentence of any court determines the facts: they are null, void and never had any legal effect.
- Then, the article quotes Dr. Roberto de Mattei, who cites Canon 124 §2. — As an aside, I would ask that Dr. de Mattei respond to my criticism of his previous error of attempting to raise an opinion of late scholasticism to the level of an interpretative principle of canon law, in contradiction to the obligation of canon 17 — But that canon also contradicts Dr. de Mattei, because it regards only acts which are manifestly conform to the obligations of the law, when in the present controversy one deals with a prima facie non conformity! That is, with the fact that at first glance at the Latin of Non solum propter (Text of apparent resignation) and canon 332 §2, they are not speaking of the same things! For the former renounces the ministerium, but the latter refers to resignations of munus.
- Then Dr. de Mattei attempts again to flip a canon. This time its canon 1526 §1, the burden of proof is upon him who asserts. Seeing that it is the Cardinals and Dr. de Mattei who long ago asserted first of all that the resignation is valid, the burden of proof is rather on them! That is why, the mere fact that the Cardinals and the entire Vatican have never published a canonical affirmation of the validity is a strong argument they have NEVER examined if it was. But in the case of a resignation, a Cardinal Elector is gravely bound to personally verify that the resignation is valid, because otherwise he will participate in an illicit Conclave and elect and Anti-Pope!
- Then, Cardinal Brandmuller attempts to flip two sound dicta: de internis non iudicat praetor (a praetor does not judge of things internal) and quod non est in actis, non est in mundo (what is not in the act does not exist in the world). I say this, because he cites these to argue that those who doubt the validity of the resignation are in error. However, since those who doubt the validity, as I do, do not base our arguments on interior intentions, nor on suppositions, but on the text of the act of renunciation itself, we are acting in perfect harmony with those dicta. Nay, rather, its Cardinal Brandmuller and Burke and Gänswein who violate these, because they say the Pope intended to resign the munus, therefore he did resign the munus, and that ministerium means the munus which is not renounced in the text, because the Pope intended to resign the munus, they judge the Pope’s intention not the act itself!
- Then, Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying: “I believe it would be difficult to say it’s not valid.” This, I will admit — for those who have not read the Code of Canon Law and studied this question of substantial error on account of not saying munus nor referring to the office — might be difficult to prove, because many are ignorant of the Canon Law and its obligations. But for those who do, or should know it, it is not! — Just see my disputed question on it. You can find it in Spanish translation here. In that Question, I carefully examine and refute the 19 reasons alleged for the validity and marshal 39 arguments, drawn from Canon Law, Theology, Philosophy, etc. against the validity.
- Finally, Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying: “It seems clear to me that Benedict had his full mind and that he intended to resign the Petrine office.” — Having given no argument but his speculation about the intention of what Pope Benedict XVI intended to say, other than to deny what he expressly has said on other occasions, the opinion of this eminent Canonist must be disregarded as any gratuitous unproven declaration which runs counter to the facts is disregarded.
In conclusion, I would ask these three eminent prelates to read Canon 17. Therein, Pope John Paul II obliges all Catholics to understand canon 332 §2 in a specific manner. In that manner, it can be seen that there is no question at all that the renunciation of Benedict is invalid by reason of substantial error (canon 188) in thinking that a renunciation of ministerium effects a renunciation of the papacy.
I believe that the Cardinals in particular, perhaps out of their familiarity with the Annulment process which focuses on the intention as the formal principle of the validity of the bond of Matrimony, are missing the point of the teaching of Pope Boniface VIII (Decree of Boniface VIII (6th vol), 1.1, T.7, Chap. 1: De Renunciatione:) that papal renunciations deal formally with the verbal signification of the act, not on the intention of the one renouncing. Also, they differ significantly in this, that the power to tie the bond of marriage consists in the ones who take marriage vows. But the power to remove the munus of the papacy is held exclusively by Christ the Lord in glory, who has promised Peter to uphold the letter of Canon Law promulgated by his successor, Pope John Paul II, in canon 332 §2, and Who cannot act unless the renunciation expressly conform itself to that canon.
Ratzinger vs. The Benedict Bot: A case in point: The 3rd Secret of Fatima
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
After my revelations that I had been threatened over the phone by Archbishop Ganswein, the revelations which burst out from Archbishop Viganò and others in January about the duplicity of the private secretary of Pope Benedict XVI, shed real light on the need to review all the statements alleged to be from Pope Benedict XVI after February 2013, as to their authenticity. (See links in this paragraph for pertinent articles about this).
Editor’s Note: The phrase, “The Benedict Bot”, as used above in the title of the present article, is a term coined by Frank Walker, editor of Canon212.com, and used to characterized the apparently manufactured and artificial statements by others in the Vatican, which are attributed by the Vatican Press Office to the Roman Pontiff, in such wise as to raise grave concerns whether they are in any way an authentic expression of his mind. Thus the Benedict Bot is the persona created by the Vatican. This term obviously refers to a theory of interpretation, because without video confirmation that Pope Benedict XVI has said something, the matter is always capable of doubt, especially after the Vatican has been caught twice falsifying the letter and statements of Pope Benedict, as FromRome.Info has reported previously, not to mention every translation of his Declaration of Feb. 11, 2013.
Now, on the fourth anniversary of the controversy over the Third Secret of Fatima which exploded in Catholic Media in May of 2016, I think that time has come to compare the real Ratzinger with the Benedict Bot. So lets examine what Cardinal Ratzinger is alleged by a close friend on 3 occasions to have said, BEFORE February 2013, and what he is alleged to have said by the Vatican Press Office in 2016.
Cardinal Ratzinger on the Third Secret
Here is the testimony of Father Paul Kramer, in his interview in the Fatima Crusader edition of 2009, where he reports the testimony of Father Ingo Dollinger, regarding the Third Secret of Fatima, and his conversations with Cardinal Ratzinger.
Then on June 26, 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger published for the world the document [on the Third Secret] contain-ing the vision of a “bishop in white”, claiming that the en-tire Secret is set forth in this document. Yet it can only be understood that way if we say that he is using a mental res-ervation; that what is set forth by Our Lady in Her words is already implicitly contained symbolically in the vision. The elderly German priest, Ratzinger’s long-time person-al friend, took note of the fact that when this vision of the Third Secret was published it
The Fatima Crusader 10 May 2009May 200911 The Fatima Crusader did not contain those things, those elements of the Third Secret that Cardinal Ratzinger had revealed to him nearly ten years earlier. The German priest — Father Döllinger — told me that his question was burning in his mind on the day he concelebrated with Cardinal Ratzinger. Father Döllinger said to me, “I con-fronted Cardinal Ratzinger to his face.” And of course he asked Cardinal Ratzinger, “how can this be the entire Third Secret? Remember what you told me before?” Cardinal Ratzinger was cornered. He didn’t know what to say and so he blurted out to his friend in German, “Wirklich gebt das der etwas” which means “really there is something more there,” meaning there is something more in the Third Secret. The Cardinal stated this quite plainly.
I have tracked down the original article, here. Christopher A. Ferrara refers to this interview in his commentary on the events of 2016, here.
The Fatima Crusader, on its FaceBook page, in on May 17, 2016, reported Father Kramer’s more detailed testimony thus:
STATEMENT FROM FATHER PAUL KRAMER
Regarding the Recent Confirmation by Fr. Ingo Döllinger<< Third Secret of Fatima Still Mainly Concealed; Warns Against an Evil Council and Changes in the Liturgy >>
“Fr. Ingo Döllinger is a several decades long close personal friend of Pope Benedict XVI. Cardinal Ratzinger told Dr. Döllinger around 1991 that the 3rd Secret speaks of an ‘evil council,’ and warned against changing and adulterating the liturgy of the Mass — literally against adding extraneous elements into the liturgy (which is exactly what Bugnini & Co. did by adding Protestant elements into the liturgy).
“The Secret, according to Döllinger, also speaks negatively about the Conciliar popes, according to what Ratzinger told Döllinger — comparing one pope to a chameleon, another to a serpent, etc.
“Dr. Döllinger spoke not only to me and Joseph Cain on what Ratzinger had told him, but he related even more details to the young clerics in the seminary of Anapolis (Brazil), where he had been rector. I myself and Joseph have spoken not only with Döllinger, but also with the priests and deacons in Brazil who had heard Dr. Döllinger relate to them the details of the Secret that had been told to him personally by Cardinal Ratzinger around 1991.
“After the publication of the ‘bishop in white’ vision of the 3rd Secret, Döllinger noticed that the details of the Secret that Ratzinger had revealed to him nearly a decade earlier were not in the ‘bishop in white’ version of the secret. When Döllinger had his next opportunity to meet with Cardinal Ratzinger (after a concelebrated Mass), Döllinger asked Ratzinger how it can be said that the whole Secret has been published, since the details of the Secret earlier mentioned to him by Ratzinger were conspicuously absent from the version of the Secret published by Ratzinger on 26 June 2000. Ratzinger was cornered, and therefore blurted out, ‘Wirklich giebt es da noch etwas.’ (‘Really there is more there.’) Dr. Döllinger also told Joseph and me that he had personally known (St.) Pio of Pietrelcina, and that he had made his confession to Padre Pio fifty-eight times.”
Andin 2016, Maike Hickson revived the story and started a firestorm by doing so, by quoting Father Dollinger thus, in her article at One Peter Five, published on May, 15, just two days earlier:
Not long after the June 2000 publication of the Third Secret of Fatima by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told Fr. Dollinger during an in-person conversation that there is still a part of the Third Secret that they have not published! “There is more than what we published,” Ratzinger said. He also told Dollinger that the published part of the Secret is authentic and that the unpublished part of the Secret speaks about “a bad council and a bad Mass” that was to come in the near future.
Thus, Cardinal Ratzinger before becoming pope.
The Benedict Bot Responds
Now for the Vatican Press office response of May 21, 2016:
Several articles have appeared recently, including declarations attributed to Professor Ingo Dollinger according to which Cardinal Ratzinger, after the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima (which took place in June 2000), had confided to him that the publication was not complete.
In this regard, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI declares “never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima”, clearly affirming that the remarks attributed to Professor Dollinger on the matter “are pure inventions, absolutely untrue”, and he confirms decisively that “the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete”.
The first thing to notice is that the Benedict Bot is calling a life long friend and confidant, of impeccable public reputation, a bold face liar. I do not know of any case in the entire personal history of Pope Benedict XVI that he calls anyone a liar, let alone a close friend. That is entirely out of character for Benedict. But not for Bergoglio and many who now rule the Vatican.
Second, the Vatican Press Office does not quote the sources of the reports they are attempted to rebut. Are they afraid that others might start analyzing the evidence?
Third, the Vatican Press Office does not say to whom Pope Benedict XVI made these recent statements, who was present, who witnesses them, nor reports their entire context, or even if they refer to his conversations with Father Dollinger, because if you notice how the quotations are spliced, important context has been left out to verify such a relation between them — even if they are authentic quotes — to Father Dollinger’s reported statements on the Third Secret.
For these three reasons, one can doubt that the statement from the Vatican Press Office is an authentic representation of anything Pope Benedict XVI said in 2016, if he said anything at all.
Finally, seeing how Archbishop Gänswein was caught in bold face lies when he denied that Pope Benedict XVI had collaborated in certain matters regarding the Book on Celibacy by Cardinal Sarah, I think we might be able to guess where the source of the Benedict Bot statements of 2016 may have come from.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
We need to re-examine the Renunciation minus Gänswein
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
So many lines of supposition, speculation, investigation, analysis and examination pursued theories and explanations of Pope Benedict’s actions in February 2013 and beyond, on the basis of what Georg Gänswein told us. We presumed he was telling the truth, that he was reliable, faithful, honest and expressed only what the Holy Father wanted him to say.
Now that the masque has been ripped off by multiple reports (Socci, Tosatti 1 2, Viganò, myself) the entire history of the Renunciation needs to be examined minus Gänswein, that is, without presuming he is telling the truth.
Here are some questions I propose for investigators as they reread the reports from 2005 to 2020, which talk about Pope Benedict, the opposition he faced, why he Renounced, what it all meant:
- Was Gänswein co-opted into the St. Gallen Mafia as early as the Conclave of 2005? I move this question on the basis of the testimony of Marco Tosatti’s source in the Curia, that something profoundly changed Gänswein with the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope.
- Is it Gänswein who put into the head of Benedict the idea that he should, could, or must renounce?
- Did Gänswein over several years psychologically condition Benedict to renounce?
- Did Gänswein encourage or foster ideas of renunciation at the request of Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
- Did Gänswein allow Pope Benedict’s letters to be stolen from his desk during the Vatileaks as a part of a plot by the St. Gallen Mafia to psychologically isolate, reduce and destroy Pope Benedict, inducing him to resign?
- Did Gänswein play a double role in the fall of 2012, so as to obtain from Benedict the elevation to Archbishop and Head of the Pontifical Household, precisely so he could serve the St Gallen Mafia as a prison warden after the Renunciation?
- Did Gänswein write the text of the Renunciation?
- Did Gänswein sign off on the concept of a renunciation of ministry, based on his recourse to the German translation of the code in canon 145 §1?
- Is Gänswein bitterly defending the validity of the Renunciation because of his role in procuring it, forming it, directing it?
- Is the presumption that the Renunciation means a renunciation of office something which Gänswein put into the head of Pope Benedict, in a weakened state, by means of gaslighting, as he tried to do with me via phone?
- Is the presumption of the Cardinals that the Renunciation is valid or means a renunciation of the papacy, based on Gänswein’s claim that this is what Benedict means and meant and wants?
- Is the refusal to clarify the questions after the Renunciation have everything to do with Gänswein and nothing to do with Benedict?
- Is Benedict BEING KEPT A VIRTUAL PRISONER AND ABUSED on a daily basis to prevent him from communicating to the world that he never intended to renounce the munus petrinum?
- Does Benedict know he is the pope and say he is the pope in private?
- Are the public statements attributed to Pope Benedict XVI after Feb. 2013 the creations of Gänswein and not at all the faithful expressions of the mind of Pope Benedict?
- Since we can now be morally certain that Benedict does NOT tell Gänswein everything, how can we be sure that Gänswein even understands or knows what Pope Benedict’s Intention was when he read out his Declaratio on Feb. 11, 2013?
These questions are devastating, but the Church and all historians who examine the Renunciation must NOW ask them and must find the answers.
+ + +
Marco Tosatti: Who is Gänswein Really? What Role Has He Played And Is He Playing?
By Marco Tosatti
15 January 2020
Authorized English translation of Italian Original by Giuseppe Pellegrino
Dear readers, we have received a message from an elderly high-ranking prelate of the Curia; he is retired, but because he has over forty years of experience working inside the Vatican walls, from time to time he is still given delicate assignments. What “Monsignor X” writes to us is extremely interesting, because it helps us to piece together some of the problematic aspects of the events of the last 72 hours. We are speaking, naturally, of the saga of the book; and we must say that it is difficult to not consider someone to be the co-author of a book that they have written more than forty pages of, as well as collaborating in writing the introduction and conclusion. Difficult…and a bit ridiculous.
But, remaining focused on the theme of the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus, we advise you to read La Verità on Thursday morning [January 16], which will contain another testimony of great value from an archbishop who has held many important roles in the Curia and also outside the Vatican and who has been in contact with Msgr. Gänswein for a long time. Trust my advice…
Monsignor X to Tosatti:
I ask you to print what I write here, with the intention of making a contribution in order to help ensure that there will not be muddling of either the figure of Benedict nor that of Sarah, who is more in danger in this whole affair.
What has been reported raises several questions:
- Why would a man like Sarah ever have done something so absurd and easily disproven? (It is unthinkable that this was a private and free initiative of Gänswein – he does not have the authority even to think about doing it, and it would be far too dangerous to actually do it).
- Who therefore asked Gänswein to give orders to Cardinal Sarah? Was it Benedict or Bergoglio? (These are Gänswein’s two superiors)
I think it is clear that it could not have been Benedict, who speaks with Sarah frequently and loves him as a brother.
But who is Gänswein? Georg Gänswein is a very intelligent man; he was the most faithful personal secretary for Benedict from the moment of his election as pope, replacing Msgr. Clemens, the former personal secretary of Cardinal Ratzinger, who remained the pope’s confidant, stirring up Gänswein’s jealousy, to the point of ending up literally getting punched for it!
My understanding is that during the period of the pontificate, Gänswein functioned as the loyal protector of the Pope and even operated as a sort of “alternative” Secretary of State, in opposition to Cardinal Bertone, with whom Benedict had bad relations.
After the resignation he was not, as people called him, “the caregiver” of Benedict XVI.
I fear that he was rather “the guardian.”
Having been a most faithful and most loyal secretary, something happened that caused a profound transformation in him.
Therefore it is not surprising that it is supposed and said that Gänswein had not been told by Benedict about this book with Sarah. Is it possible that Gänswein no longer enjoys the confidence of the Pope Emeritus?
It could also be the case, after the mysterious and never-clarified arrest of the papal butler Paolo Gabriele, accused of having photocopied private documents of Pope Benedict taken straight off of Gänswein’s desk and giving them to journalists, without “anyone” knowing…
These documents accused Cardinal Bertone, with whom Gänswein, previously, had bad relations; but which curiously improved afterwards…
But above all it is curious that Pope Bergoglio confirmed him not only as personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus but also as Prefect of the Papal Household, which is not an honorary position.
The abrupt order given [on Monday] to Cardinal Sarah to remove Ratzinger’s signature from the book – which was not given explicitly in Benedict’s name, as should have been done – may reignite various suspicions and doubts about the figure and loyalty of Gänswein.
Here is a description of the duties of the Prefect of the Papal Household, taken from the Vatican website:
It is the task of the Prefecture of the Papal Household to coordinate the services of the Antechamber and to organize the official audiences granted by His Holiness to Heads of State, Heads of Government, Governmental Ministers and other dignitaries, as well as to Ambassadors who come to the Vatican to present their Letters of Credence.
The Prefecture takes care of the preparations for all audiences – private, special and general – and visits from those who are formally received by the Holy Father. It is also responsible for arranging Pontifical ceremonies – except liturgical celebrations – as well as the Spiritual Retreat of the Holy Father, the College of Cardinals and the Roman Curia.
In addition, the Prefecture oversees the appropriate arrangements required each time the Holy Father leaves the Apostolic Palace to visit the city of Rome or travel within Italy.
(For the Italian Original, click the link below)
Archbishop Viganò unmasks Gänswein
FromRome.Info has just published the entire TEXT in English Translation HERE
Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
BREAKING — Rome, January 16, 2020 A. D.: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in a front page leading article in today’s edition of La Verità, one of the leading conservative Italian Daily Newspapers, blasts Archbishop Gänswein as someone who has habitually put himself between Pope Benedict XVI and the Roman Curia, blocking and filtering things which he personally did not want Pope Benedict to see or respond to.
The revelations are personal and stunning. in a short article, written by Viganò himself, which follows on p. 2 of today’s edition. While I cannot legally give a translation of the whole article, I can summarize its contents:
- He characterizes Gänswein’s activity as the personal secretary of the Pope as “a control abusively and systematically exercised … from the beginning of his pontificate”.
- Viganò says that on April 4, 2011, when he personally met with Pope Benedict, he asked if he has received through Gänswein his complaints about the abuse and corruption of the Pontifical Household (which was not under Gänswein’s authority at that time). But Pope Benedict said that the information never arrived in his hands.
- On the occasion of the canonization of Marianne Cope and Kateri Tekakwitha, Viganò sought an audience with Pope Benedict, but was told by the Prefect of the Pontifical Household, Mons. Harvey, that Gänswein had told him “Monsigno Viganò is the last person to approach Benedict!”
For the full article, see La Verità at https://www.laverita.info/padre-georg-ha-isolato-il-pontefice-emerito-2644822455.html
For Marco Tosatti’s Discussion of this news, in Italian, see https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/01/16/ganswein-benedetto-sarah-un-intervento-di-mons-vigano/
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
Marco Tosatti — Cardinal Sarah and Benedict XVI Book controversy
By Marco Tosatti
January 14, 2020
Authorized Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino of the Original Italian
Published Dear readers, various people have asked me to try and shed light on the argument over the publication of the book “Des Profondeurs des nos coeurs” created by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah. Here we have brought together from extremely reliable sources a series of elements that we offer to you.
Apparently nobody in the Mater Ecclesiae monastery [where Benedict XVI lives] had seen the cover of the book, and this was one of the principal problems.
The central point however to clarify is the content of the polemic that the “Bergoglio Press Team” launched from the beginning: claiming that Benedict had not been involved in writing the book, that he only put his signature on it and other such miserable insinuations. The reality is that Benedict XVI edited all of the drafts of the book, obviously his own part, but also reading and editing the part written by Cardinal Robert Sarah.
Benedict also said, and wrote, to Sarah, that he approved both the introduction and the conclusion of the book.
George Gänswein has not read the book, and this has definitely caused a problem.
The entire operation remained in the hands of Benedict and Sarah, and also the editor Nicolas Diat, who obviously took a great interest in the job, seeing it as an occasion to make this book the “important” book of Benedict XVI and Sarah, all to his glory and merit.
Thus, when the bomb went off Monday morning [which had already begun to explode on Sunday night because in America they were awake], and people like Faggioli, etc. started shooting, with a very clear intention. The focused on the cover, which Diat had published, saying that here he wanted to make an “operation against the Pope,” that is, against Pope Francis.
The objective of Faggioli etc. was to have there be no discussion of the content of the book. On Monday morning at the Mater Ecclesiae monastery they did not realize the extent of the polemic that was taking place, despite having been warned. Gänswein finally got in touch with Andrea Tornielli, who wrote an article for L’Osservatore Romano and Vatican News, referring to the ideas of Pope Bergoglio on the importance of celibacy, and seeking to throw oil on the waters that various channels were agitating, claiming among other things that Benedict XVI and Sarah had not written the book together.
The latest development, which is frankly quite incomprehensible, has come to us from the declarations of Georg Gänswein, who told a German journalist that the title needs to be changed as well as the cover. For what reason, we don’t know. Perhaps in order to protect his own position, which is definitely a complicated one, as he is the person closest to Benedict and at the same time close to Bergoglio as the Prefect of the Papal Household. In passing, we can note that among the yelps and barkings of the pro-regime press in the first hours of this controversy they were speaking of a manipulation by the “entourage” of Pope Benedict. But actually, since Benedict’s “entourage” consists of Gänswein alone, it was in the dark about everything…. But the impression is that Gänswein is trying to avoid being crushed between a rock and hard place is strong; to the point of making people believe that if some sort of push was given to Benedict, well, it only happened now and not previously.
Undoubtedly Gänswein with his declarations today places Cardinal Sarah in a difficult situation that has nothing to do with him. Sarah has conducted himself in an extremely straightforward way. All of this work on the book, however, began before the Synod on the Amazon, in September.
In September, because of the pre-synodal polemics over priestly celibacy and the question of “viri probati,” Benedict had already written fifteen reflections on the theme of celibacy. These were then included in the book.
Note that the path taken seems very similar to what happened on the occasion of the summit on clergy sexual abuse [in February 2019]. Benedict had prepared a reflection, probably with the intention of offering it as a contribution to bishops directing the summit, sending it to the reigning Pontiff and the Secretary of State. But it remained there [and was never presented at the summit], and it was published a few months later in a German journal that focuses on the clergy.
Once again, it seems interesting and important to repeat: these paper polemics have moved all of our attention away from the contents of the book to its cover!
(For the Italian original click the link below)
Antonio Socci: The Furor of the Despot Against the Catholic Pope
by Antonio Socci
January 14, 2020
Reliable sources from inside the Vatican reconstruct the whole affair in this way. The book “Des profondeurs de nos coeurs” is clearly written by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah (as is indisputably demonstrated by the letters the two exchanged last fall made known by Sarah [on his Twitter account].) Everything was decided and agreed upon together from the beginning.
The other day – when the excerpt in defense of celibacy was issued [in Le Figaro] – the end of the world broke out in the Vatican because Bergoglio was furious. Such an authoritative pronouncement from Benedict XVI prevents him from smashing priestly celibacy, as had been his intention to do in the forthcoming Post-Synodal Exhortation.
And so BERGOGLIO PERSONALLY called Archbishop Gänswein, who is personal secretary to Benedict XVI but also Prefect of the Papal Household of Bergoglio and – furious – he ORDERED him take the name of Benedict XVI off the cover of the book (since he could not demand that the text of the book be changed).
Bergoglio demanded a complete and total disavowal. For this reason the first news that filtered through spoke of sources “close to Benedict XVI” saying that Benedict had not co-authored the book with Sarah, had not approved the cover (which said that he is the author of the work).
This however was not true and Benedict XVI could not accept saying something false, thereby implicitly accusing Cardinal Sarah of having involved him without his consent. Nor did Pope Benedict have any intention of taking back what he had written in defense of celibacy in the book.
Cardinal Sarah immediately revealed the letters the two had exchanged, which demonstrated that the book was planned by both of them, and certainly Sarah revealed these letters with the consent of Benedict XVI – in order to re-establish the truth.
On the other hand, Benedict also needed to shelter his secretary [Gänswein] from the South American “vendettas” since Gänswein had received a peremptory order from Bergoglio.
Thus a compromise solution was adopted: in the successive editions of the book the author of the book will be Cardinal Sarah “WITH THE CONTRIBUTION OF BENEDICT XVI.” The text of the book in any case remains the same.
With this messy solution the Bergoglian courtiers can tell the media that “Benedict XVI has removed his signature from the book” (even though this is not true) and yet the book remains as it was, with the signature of Sarah and the name of Benedict XVI as the author of the parts written together.
A most ugly story of clerical bullying that in the end led to the gagging of Benedict XVI.
THERE IS STILL THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION: IF BERGOGLIO, IN HIS EXHORTATION, STRIKES AT CELIBACY (BY PERMITTING THE ORDINATION OF “VIRI PROBATI”) HE PLACES HIMSELF IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH RESTATED IN THESE DAYS BY POPE BENEDICT XVI. THUS HE ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR A SERIOUS RIFT OF THE CHURCH FRAUGHT WITH CONSEQUENCES.
Frank Walker: Spat between Cardinal Sarah & Gänswein raises doubts about Benedict’s Liberty
https://youtu.be/EydxI4KM7LQ
In this video, Frank Walker says what everyone is thinking, but few have the honesty to say out loud. This is the must see video for 2020. Would that the Bishops have such a Catholic conscience.
2 Questions that Gänswein violently does not want to Answer
Or, how it happened that the Archbishop called me on the phone
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The world has seen two of the most outrageous usurpations of office in the history of humanity, and in the short space of six years, from 2007 to 2013. I speak of the unconstitutional election of a self-proclaimed Kenyan citizen to the Presidency of the United States of America, in violation of the natural born citizen clause (Article II, section 1, clause 5) and of the uncanonical election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Roman Pontiff on March 13, 2013 in violation of canon 359 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and Pope John Paul II’s law on papal elections, Universi Dominic Gregis, n. 37, which both forbid the election of a Roman Pontiff when a legal sede vacante has not occurred. (A sede vacante occures with the natural death of the Pope, or his resignation of munus in accord with Canon 332 §2). — For all my reports on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict and why that act did not cause him to lose the Papal Office, see my Index to the Renunciation of Pope Benedict.
It was a poignant moment, then, for the triumph of criminality over law, when Barrack Obama came to the Vatican to meet with Cardinal Bergoglio on Marcy 27, 2014. And in the midst was Father George, Gänswein, at Obama’s right hand (Photo care of the White House).
But the plans of men cannot be hidden from God, nor can they be hidden for long from God’s faithful, moved as they are by the Spirit of Truth who reveals hidden secrets.
Inspired by this Spirit many a faithful Catholic has voiced concerns, criticisms, objections and warnings over the strange happenings of February 2013, when Benedict issued a declaration in the Consistory of Feb. 11th, of that year — called to canonize the Martyrs of Otranto, slaughtered en masse by the forces of the Turks in the 16th century — which was publicized as a renunciation of the papacy, though it was nothing of the kind.
Present on that day, was also George Gänswein, now titular Archbishop of Urbs Salvia.
Mons. Gänswein has been seen as the faithful and devoted personal secretary to Joseph Ratzinger for more than 35 years. Ratzinger spotted him taking coffee at the German Collegium in the Vatican back in the 80’s and asked if he would like to be his secretary, since he needed someone fluent in German and Italian. Mons. Gänswein holds a doctorate in Canon Law.
For these reasons I have long confided in Gänswein to speak the truth, even if, after his talk at the Gregorian University in 2016, when he clearly said that Benedict XVI still occupied the petrine office and still shared the petrine munus and ministry, I shook my head, because it seems a totally insane thing to say, since at the time, I still operated under the fake news put out that day, that Benedict had resigned the papacy.
But in the Last 18 months, with intense research and investigation, I have come to agree with Gänswein on those same points, because the effect of renouncing the petrine ministry alone, is that Benedict retains the petrine munus and office, and hence, in virtue of these, also the petrine ministry and power of governance, whether he thinks he has or not, and whether anyone else thinks he has, or not.
My Two Letters to Archbishop Gänswein
So, in November, filled with this sense of trust and confidence in the Archbishop, whose personal motto is Testimonium perhibere veritati — To bear witness to the truth — I wrote him a personal letter, in Italian, on the 25th, the English translation of which, I will post here:
I am writing you to request a personal meeting with you so as to put to rest a common doubt, which many Catholics have, who love His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI.
This doubt regards whether He, in saying minstero in his act of Feb. 11, 2013, had the intention to say muneri.
This doubt lingers because, as much as I know, His Holiness has never been asked in public if he had this intention or not.
Many are of the opinion, that in renouncing the ministry, Pope Benedict’s intention was to retain the munus, because He thinks the munus is the grace and the vocation which he received for always.
Others are of the opinion that in renouncing the ministery, His intention was to renounce the papacy, but not having understood that the ministerium is not the munus on account of the error in the German translation of the Code of Canon Law, in canon 145 §1, He made a substantial error in the renunciation (cf. Canons 126 and 188), because Canon 332 §2 constrains the man who is the pope, in renouncing, to renounce the petrine munus. Since as Pope He did not concede to himself as Ratzinger a derogation by reason of canon 38, the renunciation remains vitiated. This is what they think.
For these reasons, and because I have written extensively on this topic at fromrome.wordpress.com and ChiesaRomana.info, I think a meeting with your Excellency will help all understand better what has happened.
I am not a journalist I am a consecrated person observing the Rule of Saint Francis, which obliges me in its second precept to uphold the Papacy.
Desiring only to know the truth, and dwelling at Rome, only 10 minutes from the Vatican, I am free at any moment to meet you wherever you like,
Sincerely,
Having received no response, I posted another letter to the Archbishop on January 9, at the Vatican Post Office. That letter got a phone response. Here is my English translation of that letter, the original of which was also in Italian:
Your Excellency!
I wish you best wishes on the Seventh Anniversary of your Episcopal Consecration at the hands of Pope Benedict! And I thank you for all that you do for the Holy Father!
I am writing for several reasons:
First, to remind you of my request for a personal meeting with your Excellency to understand better if the Holy Father had intended to renounce the petrine munus or whether he has ever said that he wanted to renounce the petrine munus, as I requested of you in my letter of Nov. 25th.
I make this request for the good of the Church, because I understand that the true pastoral care of the faithful, which save souls, is that which is established on the truth, not on hearsay.
…
I am also writing you to inform you, that on Dec. 19, I founded The League of Prayer for Pope Benedict XVI. Catholics all over the world are already signed up, by means of 7 blogs which are spreading the invitation. For an Italian explanation see
For an English version see:
https://fromrome.info/2019/12/19/join-the-league-of-prayer-for-pope-benedict-xvi/
Where you can find all the blogs listed who are participating in the English, Italian, Spanish and French speaking worlds.
I founded this League for the reasons described in the announcements and to share with other the grace the Lord gave me the day Pope John Paul II was shot in the Piazza S. Petro years ago, to pray daily for the Holy Father.
Lastly, having had the care of my own mother in her last years of life (she passed away on Nov. 2, 2018, from cortical dementia, her name is Doris) I learned well that the elderly need proper nutrition. I recommend a diet which is rich in protein. In the Bavarian State TV documentary the images of the Holy Father seem to show that he has lost a lot of weight recently, and so I am worried for his health. Also, seeing that my maternal grandfather was a barber, I cannot omit to say that if the Holy Father needs the services of a barber, I am willing to make a donation to pay the barber’s salary.
Sincerely in Saint Francis,
In both letters, at the end, I included contact information. My email and phone number. Little did I think I would ever get a response to my second letter. But I did, and it came by telephone at 10:43 A.M. on the morning of Saturday, January 11, 2020.
Archbishop Gänswein drops me a call
Though I missed the call, the Archbishop was kind enough to leave a message on my voice mail. Since my report here at The From Rome Blog, which is hosted on a website in the USA, is nevertheless readable in the European Union, I cannot share with you the recording of the call, nor give you a transcription of its contents, because that is prevented by privacy laws. However, I can describe in my own words, what I understood by the message left, so that everyone, especially the Cardinals and Bishops, understand how wrong it is to trust in anyone who claims to represent Pope Benedict, and how they need now to go to him in person and ask the most important questions.
I was trained in music as a youth, and so I have a keen ear to musical tones. Everyone’s voice has its own tone, and whether they speak in public or in private, on the phone or before an audience, it is the same tone. For that reason I can say the voice is that of the Archbishop. The voice also identifies itself as such.
My Italian contacts tell me it is clearly the voice of a German, but one which has spoken Italian for quite some time. I think the voice is suffering a little of the influenza that is hitting everyone at Rome right now. So I urge all to pray for the Archbishop’s health of body and soul.
However, sadly, the first thing the voice does is to attempt to gaslight me.
Gaslighting is a trick of mental persuasion usually used by tyrants or manipulators or even pedophiles, whereby the one in the position of power dictates to the one who is a subject how they should view reality. It is usually accompanied by insults or deprecatives which make the person inclined to doubt their own grasp on reality. If the Archbishop knew anything about me, he would know that that trick only works with weak minds who are seeking affirmation from power, which is not me in the least. The comment made also tried to characterize the entirely of my letter in such a light, which is really hard to justify even if you think Benedict is still the pope, because my letter was about much more than that.
To me, the gaslighting was totally uncalled for, and even cruel. I remain shocked that the voice of an Archbishop would be so uncharitable.
The second thing the voice does is to denounce my work of investigating the Renunciation. It says I am wrong and mistaken. This is a remarkable comment, since anyone who viewed the URLs in my letters would know that I am very thorough and back up everything I say with facts. I do not interpret facts, I let them speak for themselves. It then demands that I stop my work investigating the Renunciation.
Since I fear God alone, I can assure you that such a demand will have the opposite effect.
The third thing the voice does, as far as I understand it, is to demand that I and everyone in the League stop praying for Pope Benedict. The voice demands that I pray for Pope Francis. It seems to deny that Benedict is a pope or the pope.
And what is most remarkable, is what is not said by the voice. The voice does not say that it is acting at the bequest of Pope Benedict.
The voice is clearly of a man who is acting out of terror, rashness, imprudence. You can hear the anger and terror. There is even one grammatical mistake in the Italian used. From the logs at my blog, I can safely say that the Archbishop looked at, at least, 5 posts before the phone call came in. He was surfing to my blog using a VPN masking itself as being in the EU not the Vatican. (This is a standard practice at the Vatican now, after the computer raids made by the Vatican Gendarmerie in September). There were no background noises. A slam down of a phone handle can be heard terminating the call.
I could say a thousand things about this phone call. But I will conclude by saying, that in my own judgement, it is a lot easier to answer 2 questions than to threaten someone over the phone. I won’t get into the fact that the voice used a burner phone to make the call, that is, a phone which leaves no trace as to which number was used to make the call. What on earth is an Archbishop doing with such a phone? Such things are used by drug dealers and mafiosi!
In the future, I recommend that if you want to write Pope Benedict, do not send your mail to the Archbishop. I myself now consider that Benedict is clearly imprisoned., and that the Archbishop should be considered a prison warden, more than a personal secretary. The purpose of the imprisonment is this: His captors do not want him to meet with the public or with Cardinals in private, where he is free to express himself, PRECISELY because they do not want him to be asked those 2 questions.
I know why. And I think you can guess too. Others, better than I, have already guessed it too:
https://twitter.com/Giusepp20826941/status/1216942393641009152
And that means, that Benedict is still the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter, because the essential act required by canon 332 §2, is a renunciation of the petrine munus.
Please share this article with all Cardinals and Archbishops and Bishops. I think it presents sufficient evidence that they should be concerned about the integrity of information regarding what he did and what it meant, on Feb. 11, 2013.
I will conclude this report by sharing a Video of the Archbishop, June 14, 2017, in which he says clearly the opposite of what he said on the phone to me: I am here principally to share with everyone the greetings of Pope Benedict XVI. (0:17 in the video, in Italian)
POST SCRIPT: Journalists who are in Rome or who come in person to Rome are welcome to hear the recording of the phone call, in my presence. Just leave your contact information in a comment below. — I have transmitted a copy of the phone call to my private attorney in the USA, so in case anything happens to me, there is legal evidence of the fact.
____________
* In this Article, I have used the English word, “question”, in the sense of a problem which is asked to be responded to, because, as you can see there are no question marks in my letters to the Archbishop.
____________
THIS POST HAS BEEN PUBLISHED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN ITALIAN at ChiesaRomana.info:
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
BREAKING: At Christmas, Gänswein recognizes Benedict as holding the Petrine Munus
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The devout and humble desire of a Catholic blogger to wish Pope Benedict “Merry Christmas” has resulted in another significant proof that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope and that the Prefect of the Pontifical Household recognizes him as the pope.
You can see the evidence yourself at A.J. Baalman’s, Christmas Wishes from Pope Benedict XVI, over at Ordo Militaris Radio Blog.
The blogger sent his Christmas Wishes at the beginning of Advent, and received a reply via the Apostolic Nuncio in Washington, D.C., USA, yesterday in an envelope mailed on January 2, containing the official stationary of Archbishop Gänswein in the form of a two-sided Christmas Card with the foto of a Christmas Creche on one side and these words in Italian on the other:
Un buon Natale e un buon Anno Nuovo 2020 ricco di benedizioni celesti. Georg Ganswein Segretario Particolare di Sua Santita Benedetto XVI, Papa emerito
Which in English is:
Whising you a good Christmas and a good New Year of 2020, rich in heavenly blessings.
George Gänswein, Special Secretary to His Holiness Benedict XVI, Pope emeritus
Significance
As anyone knows who writes to the Roman Curia or the Holy Father, a response, if received at all, is sent through official channels, by diplomatic courier to the Apostolic Nuncio in their own country, and then by regular mail to their address. This is the practice outside of Italy, at least, in the USA.
Private individuals do not receive mail through the Apostolic Nuncio. For example, I have on occasion written both Cardinals Sarah and Burke. Their response was NOT mailed to me via the Apostolic Nuncio, since it was private correspondence and not in virtue of their office in the Curia.
To receive a Christmas Greeting in response to one sent to Pope Benedict through the Apostolic Nuncio means that the Vatican has recognized that Benedict is still a member of the Roman Curia in the very least. I have it from the receiver that he did NOT write to Archbishop Gänswein, but to Pope Benedict, as pope.
The words of Archbishop Gänswein are also proof of the failed resignation. Because after a Roman Pontiff resigns, He can no longer be addressed as “Your Holiness”, because that title indicates that the person addressed is still the Pope, the holiness of which is derived from retaining the PETRINE MUNUS, which is first of all a gift of grace and then a vocation and special source of graces.
Why is this important? Because in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which governs the Roman Church, the papal office is termed a munus in Canons 331, 332 §2, 333 and 749. And in Canon 145 §1, the Code calls an ecclesiastical office a munus. Thus if Benedict is still “His Holiness”, and that unique holiness comes from the unique munus, that means the Benedict still holds the unique office of the Pope. And thus, no one else does, according to the divine institution of the papacy, which no one, not even a pope, can alter.
The statement of the Archbishop also shows the invalidity of the resignation on account of the confusion of substantial error, in that, despite addressing Benedict with the salutation “His Holiness”, the Archbishop nevertheless calls him “Pope emeritus”, which no “Holiness” can be.
Finally, one can safely presume that the Christmas Card received by the American correspondent was not printed up solely for him, but was produced in quantity. This means that Gänswein is sending the same message to all who wrote Pope Benedict. It is nothing short of a universal declaration. The fact that the Apostolic Nuncio is mailing such Christmas Cards out, means that the Nuncio also recognizes Benedict has holding the Petrine Munus, the Papal dignity, still.
There is no other Traditional Catholic explanation of these events. You can only explain it away by jettisoning the meaning of words Catholics have used for centuries. But that would be Modernism to even contemplate!
POST SCRIPT: If any other of the readers of the From Rome blog have written to Pope Benedict and received a reply, please let me know, if you would like to share what you received in reply. This will help the entire Catholic world understand better how the Pope is doing.
The Imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI
I will summarize in this article the suppositions and analysis which the volunteers and members of Veri Catholici have worked out in recent days about what really went on in the Vatican in 2012 — 2013. I will do so in a Timeline, which makes understanding what was going on easier. This will be a recitation of facts, with an interpretation which explains them all elegantly.
2012
In March 2012 Pope Benedict XVI established a Commission of Cardinals to investigate leaks of reserved and confidential documents on television, in newspapers, and in other communications media (in what is known as the Vatileaks scandal). It first met on Tuesday, 24 April 2012. Cardinal Herranz served as the Chair, and was accompanied by Cardinals Jozef Tomko and Salvatore De Giorgi. (Wikipedia: Vatican Leaks Scandal)
Fall
Someone leaks the results of the Vatican Commission on Gays in the Vatican to Team Bergoglio, which in response begins feverish activity at Rome (Documented by Dr. Sire in the Book, The Dictator Pope). This activity aims for the forced abdication of Benedict.
Early November: The Coup d’etat is hatched. Team Bergoglio demands the resignation of Pope Benedict to prevent the revelations of the Dossier to be presented by Vatican Commission on Gays in the Vatican. The contents of the dossier will implicate all the key members of Team Bergoglio and thus all force and expediency must be employed to stop its publication.
The conspiracy includes not only Team Bergoglio, but all named in the Dossier, the names of whom are given to Team Bergoglio by someone working in the Commission.
The terms of the Coup d’etat are as follows:
- Pope Benedict will resign
- Pope Benedict will not publish the contents of the Dossier
- Pope Benedict will continuously testify that he resigned willingly
If Pope Benedict refuses, Team Bergoglio threatens the Pope with assassination, citing the published testimony of an Italian Journalist on Feb. 11, 2012 saying that the assassination will be within 1 year. The date Feb 11, 2013 is chosen for the resignation to signal to the Lavender Mafia round the world, that the abdication has been forced precisely to defend their evil institution.
Pope Benedict, taking counsel from no one, because he trusted no one, decides to go along but to leave tell tale signs for the Catholic world, so that any intelligent observer will discern what is going on. He extracts the condition of the promotion of his personal secretary to the position of the Pontifical Household, believing this will keep him safe and to signify that after his resignation, He is still the only one true Pope.
Nov. 23: James Michael Cardinal Harvey, who had been the Prefect of the Papal Household under Benedict is named Cardinal Priest of Saint Paul outside the Walls, in an apparent reward for his role in allowing Benedict to be betrayed in the Vatican Leaks scandal and to make way for Ganswein.
Dec. 7: Father Georg Gänswein, the private secretary of Pope Benedict from the time he was a Cardinal, is named Prefect of the Papal Household.
December 17: The Pope received a report on “Vatican lobbies” prepared by Cardinals Julián Herranz, Salvatore De Giorgi, a former archbishop of Palermo, and Jozef Tomko. The same day, the Pope decided to resign. (Wikipedia: Vatican Leaks). This decision is forced and is Benedict’s sign to Team Bergoglio that he has accepted the terms given in the Coup d’etat.
2013
January 6: The Feast of the Epiphany. Father Gänswein is ordained Archbishop of Urbs Salvia. He becomes the only holder of the office of Prefect of the Papal Household to ever enjoy the dignity of an Archbishop. Another Papal sign that the renunciation would be invalid and that Benedict would retain the true dignity of Pope. The choice of the titular see, Urbs Salvia, which was a center of the Imperial Cult of Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, is another sign to the Catholic world that Benedict’s resignation would be invalid, as the Prefect will care for the Pontifex Maximus. (That Bergoglio does not have an officer of the Papal Household caring for him is another sign he is not pope.)
Feb. 11, 2013: Pope Benedict XVI, his capacity as Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter renounces “the ministry which he received at the hands of the Cardinals” and calls for a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff. The alternate use of titles Successor of Saint Peter for himself and Supreme Pontiff for the one who would follow him is another sign to the Catholic world of the coup d’etat and forced resignation. But in his act of resignation, in resigning the ministerium not the munus he makes his resignation canonically invalid and sends a BIG CANONICAL MESSAGE to the Church warning them of what is going on (cf. Canon 332 §2). He also includes several errors in Latin in the text as written and as spoken to show that he is being coerced and has not acted freely.
Upon Benedict’s finishing the reading of Non Solum Propter, Cardinal Sodano, a chief conspirator in the Coup d’etat stands up and shouts out: This takes us as a surprise, like a bolt of lightning from heaven. He then orders all in the Vatican to say nothing about what the Act of Pope Benedict means, because he notices that the renunciation is of ministerium, not munus, as agreed. Not wanting to show that he is a member of the coup, he refrains from saying Benedict resigns. He orders Father Lombardi to speak with Journalists and find one who thinks it means he abdicated. Having found Giovanna Chirri, Lombardi gives her the go-ahead to spread the fake news, and after the journalists of the world (prepared by Team Bergoglio) make it a fact, the Vatican Press Office confirms the fake news in the afternoon. — This is the Marxist tactic of using hearsay to repress truth. This hearsay is now the unquestionable dogma of the Lavender Mafia world wide. The sign that priests, bishops and cardinals, as well as laymen, will not question it is a tangible proof of their adhesion to the coup d’etat or beguilement by it.
Feb. 28: Pope Benedict, alarmed that no one has understood the signs he has given, gives his final address spelling out explicitly that he has resigned the active ministry, not the munus, in a last desperate attempt to stop the forced resignation. The lack of response from any Cardinals leads Benedict to believe that he has no friends among them and that they too are part of the Lavender Mafia. He flys to Castle Gandolfo where he hopes to be rescued by Catholic Forces who recognize his resignation is invalid.
Feast of Saint Joseph, Protector of the Church: March 19: At the papal inauguration of Pope Francis, Cardinal Tomko, a member of the Commission on Gay activity in the Vatican, was one of the six cardinals who made the public act of obedience on behalf of the College of Cardinals to the new pope at his papal inauguration. (Wikipedia: Cardinal Tomko) — In an act of obvious agreement to the coup d’etat. A sign, perhaps, that he was the one who leaked information of the investigation to Team Bergoglio in the late summer of 2012. — The date of March 19 was chosen to indicate to the Lavender Mafia that the coup had protected their evil institution.
March 23: Bergoglio, warned that Benedict’s residence at Castel Gandolfo may be to escape the terms of the Coup d’etat, meets with him there and orders his return to the Vatican as a prisoner.
2014
June 12 : Bergoglio awards Cardinal Herranz for his silence by raising him from the dignity of a Cardinal Deacon to that of a Cardinal Priest. (Wikipedia: Cardinal Heranz).
2016
April: Pope Benedict approves the up and coming talk by Archbishop Gänswein at the Pontifical University of St Gregory the Great, in which the Archbishop affirms that Benedict retains the petrine munus and ministry, as another desperate attempt to get Catholics to study the timeline of events. Bergoglio responds with force and orders them both to silence on these matters.
2019
February to May: Benedict having received a canonical brief demonstrating his renunciation was invalid as regards the petrine munus, tacitly accepts it to indicate canonically that he knows he is still the Pope, and politically, that he is under duress not to speak.
+ + +
In fine: His Holiness Pope Benedict, XVI remains a prisoner in the Vatican waiting patiently that someone in the Catholic world will read this timeline and realize what it means.
Pope Benedict has tacitly accepted that his resignation was canonically invalid
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
On January 30, 2019, Pope Benedict received at the Vatican, through the hands of Archbishop Georg Gänswein, the canonical brief I sent him demonstrating conclusively that the act contained in the declaration, Non Solum Propter, of Feb. 11, 2013 was not in conformity with the term of Canon 332 §2, which requires the renunciation of munus for a valid Papal resignation, and that therefore he remains the sole valid Roman Pontiff.
In my letter to the Archbishop, I indicated how the Holy Father could contact me in response to the brief. One Hundred and Sixty Days have passed without any objection to the arguments presented.
According to the norms of the Vatican itself, if no objection is made to a canonical assertion after 90 days, tacit consent is indicated.
Here is the proof of delivery, via FedEx: Shipping Slip
Here is the text which I sent: in PDF*
____________________
* The PDF contains the same canonical arguments, only slight differences in its introduction. Also, in April of this year, I sent to the Holy Father, by regular mail, the same brief, but containing the Ad Obj. 16-19, which I added after January of 2019.
Investigating the causes of Pope Benedict’s invalid Abdication
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
As is now notorious, Pope Benedict’s act of resignation of February 11, 2013 was invalid on account of not being in conformity with Canon 332 §2. Here at, the From Rome Blog, I have written about this extensively and subjected the text to a Scholastic analysis, demonstrating, I believe, conclusively, that the signification of the text can not be rationally said to conform to the norm of the law.
As a Latin translator of Ecclesiastical texts, I have wondered daily for six months how a mind such as that of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict, could fall into such a grievous substantial error of mistaking the very object (cf. 126) of the act of a papal resignation, which is a renunciation of the Petrine Munus, to be rather a renunciation of the Petrine Ministry.
Ann Barnhardt sees malice in this, in an attempt to bifurcate the papacy. Her collaborators in Germany have found much evidence to this effect. But as a Franciscan, who is obligated by the Rule of Saint Francis to recognize the canonically elected popes and show them respect, I consider it my duty to investigate other causes which involve less or no culpability. I take the position of the international Association, Veri Catholici, that we need not presume malice, ignorance suffices, if ignorance can be demonstrated.
In my recent article, the other day, on the Falsification of the Vernacular translations of the text of Renunciation, I showed conclusively that the Vatican has misrepresented the signification of the Latin Text of the act, which is the only official canonical text.
In that study, however, it was evident that the German translation was anomalous, that is, that it had entirely different errors than the other translations. These anomalies led me to today’s investigation.
Archbishop Gänswein and the German Translation of the Code of Canon Law
In the German translation of the Act of Renunciation, the anomalies are as follows:
- The Latin word, munus, is translated as Dienst.
- The Latin word, ministerium, is translated sometimes as Amt, sometimes as Dienst.
- The syntactical association of the act of renunciation is followed by the correct translation of ita ut.
Following the forensic principle of Aristotle, that where there are 2 differing consequences there are 2 different causes, but when there is the same consequence, there is a unity among causes, I am led by comparison to conjecture why this may be the case.
Recall, if you may, the speech given by Archbishop Georg Ganswein at the Pontifical University of St Gregory the Great, in 2016, which sparked so much amazement, because in it, he said that Pope Benedict still shared in the Petrine Ministry and held the Papal Office.
Recently, however, Archbishop Gänswein, to both a German journalist and a journalist working for Life Site News, withdrew his assertions, claiming that he had misused the words for office and munus, in his German text.
Now, supposing that the Act of Renunciation, in the German translation, was overseen by Archbishop Gänswein, we might conclude that he has something to do with the anomalies it contains
This consideration alone, however, did not satisfy me, so I examined the causes for the Archbishop’s errors in German. Naturally, therefore, I went back to the Code of Canon Law in the Latin (the official text) and to the Vatican’s German translation (unofficial, but in practice used by German Speakers).
At the Vatican Website, you notice immediately that the German translation of Pope John Paul II’s Code of Canon Law is better linked than the English. In the German, the index contains links from each line of text, but in the English, the index contains links only in the titles to the books. This gives one to think that some German speaker was using the German translation of the Code quite frequently and has the authority to get the Vatican webmaster to add all the referential URLs, to make that edition more facile in its use.
This argues that Archbishop Gänswein, if not Benedict himself, frequently used the German translation.
O.K., that appears to be an obvious assumption, but there is a problem. THE GERMAN TEXT IS ERRONEOUS. And not in a small way! In a very crucial manner: it gets the translation of Munus WRONG! And that in a way that anyone using it, as a guide on how to Renounce the Papal Office, would write an invalid formula of resignation!
Let me explain, therefore, Why and How, Perhaps, Pope Benedict got his Act of Renunciation wrong in the Latin, and thus never in fact or before God resigned.
The key Canons which one must consult regarding how to write a valid act of renunciation of the papal office are canon 332 §2 and canon 145 §1. This is because in the former, the conditions for a valid resignation are stated, and in the latter, the nature of every ecclesiastical office are defined.
Let’s look at each in the German:
Can. 332 — 2. Falls der Papst auf sein Amt verzichten sollte, ist zur Gültigkeit verlangt, daß der Verzicht frei geschieht und hinreichend kundgemacht, nicht jedoch, daß er von irgendwem angenommen wird.
The error in this German translation is minor: it renders the Latin, Pontifex Romanus (Roman Pontiff) with the German, Papst, (Pope). However, it correctly translates the sense of the Latin, munus, as Amt. Because, in this canon, the Latin, Munus, has the sense of office, which is what the German, Amt, means.
It must be noted, here, that in the German translation of the Act of Renunciation, the author of that text in the crucial act of renunciation uses the correct German word for a VALID renunciation, Amt! — The only problem is, Pope Benedict XVI did NOT resign in German, he resigned in Latin!
But this anomaly of the German translation of the Act of renunciation does reveal, that at least ONE German speaker, the author of the translation, THOUGHT the act was a renunciation of the Papal MUNUS.
Now, let’s look at the other canon:
Can. 145 — § 1. Kirchenamt ist jedweder Dienst, der durch göttliche oder kirchliche Anordnung auf Dauer eingerichtet ist und der Wahrnehmung eines geistlichen Zweckes dient.
The importance of canon 145 §1 in the Code of Canon Law is this, that it DEFINES the nature of an ecclesiastical office (officium) as a munus. As I have discussed in my commentary on Boniface VIII’s Quoniam, the Latin word, munus, is the perfect word for an ecclesiastical office, since it signifies both that the office is a dignity, a charge or burden, and a gift, which upbuilds the one who receives it with grace. There is no 1 word in any modern language, to my knowledge, which has all the senses of the Latin word, munus.
For this reason, its difficult to translate munus properly, which is why I use the Latin word even in English prose. (The German Translation of the Code, which appears on the Vatican Website, seems to be that by Father Winfried Aymans, JCD, an eminent doctor of Canon Law from the Diocese of Bonn, Germany. Who however, does not seem to be a Latinist per se, though, to his merit, he be a signer of the Correctio Filialis)
So in this German translation, we see the TERRIBLE error: Every ecclesiastical office (Kirchenamt) is defined as a Dienst! But Dienst as every German speaker knows, means what we in English mean by service, and what every Latin speaker means by ministerium. So the German translation of canon 145 says: Every ecclesiastical office is a ministry! When the Code of Canon Law in Latin actually says: Every ecclesiastical office is a munus!
In fact, in the code of Canon Law, in the Latin, Pope John Paul II never speaks of any ecclesiastical office as a ministry (ministerium), but always as an office (officium) or munus.
This means, that if any German speaker read canon 145 §1 in the German, as found on the Vatican Website, and probably in most German translations of the Code of Canon Law, he would be mislead into thinking that to resign an ecclesiastical office its sufficient to renounce the ministry of that office! — But this is precisely the error in the Papal Resignation!
If we go back to the other vernacular translations of the Act of Renunciation, which I analyzed in my previous post, we see that all of them follow the erroneous German translation of munus in the German Translation of the Code of Canon Law! But, illogically and inconsistently, also follow the erroneous Latin text of Pope Benedict when he says ministerium in the Act of resignation. Thus the vernacular translations (excepting the German) are reading in some places the Latin original of the renunciation, in other places, the German translation of the Code and Act of resignation! This is the scientific reason why the vernacular translations are worthless if not maliciously contrived.
The error in canon 145 §1 might also explain why Pope Benedict thought that in writing ministerio in the Latin text of his renunciation, he thought he was writing munus, because the erroneous translation makes it appear that the German for munus is the same as the Latin, ministerium. For the German of Canon 145 §1 says that every Amt is a Dienst (which in Latin is a ministerium, but in canon 145 §1 is the German translation for munus), and the German of Canon 332 §2, says a Pope resigns when he renounces his Amt. So it appears that Benedict was mislead into thinking that in Latin, if he renounced his Amt, he could sufficient signify that by renouncing his ministerium!
I pray to God, therefore, that SOMEONE in the Church, who can speak with Pope Benedict XVI in person, makes this known to him!
Gänswein, Brandmüller & Burke: Please read Canon 17!
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
February 14, 2019 A. D. — Today Diane Montagna’s article, entitled, “Did Benedict really resign? Gänswein, Burke and Brandmüller weigh in,” was published at Life Site News.
First, let me say a big thank you to Diane Montagna for bringing the controversy to the greater attention of the general public. In this way, all Catholics, who have a right to know of its existence, can at last be informed.
However, I do not praise the article’s author for the article itself, which in all frankness, I must say is full of sophistic arguments: that is false manners of argumentation, and even false assertions, all marshaled in an attempt to demonstrate that Pope Benedict XVI did validly resign, and that everything His Holiness and his private secretary have said about this, is to be ignored!
I find it shocking that two Cardinals, to defend the validity of the resignation, have resorted to telling the whole world not to pay attention to what the Pope has said about the meaning and effect of his own act! This is tantamount to rebellion against the papacy, in my mind!
I also wish to contradict the attempt by the article to smear Catholics who hold that the resignation is invalid as persons who are NOT knowledgeable about Church Law, the text of the papal resignation, or who are excessively scandalized by Bergoglio. As I pointed out in my previous article on How Usurpation of the Papacy leads to Excommunication, all those involved in asserting an invalid resignation is valid are risking excommunication for schism and positing acts which only a pope can do. So they have a lot of reasons to ignore a serious and just consideration of the facts, especially if they just went along to get along.
But enough of preamble. let’s examine the sophisms in Montagna’s Article, in order of their appearance.
- Archbishop Gänswein dismisses the argument as making no sense. So since he confesses not to understand it, there is really nothing proved by quoting him. I will observe that in German, which is the Bishop’s ancestral tongue, there is no equivalent of ministerium, munus and officium except by one word. So its easy for a German thinker to miss the problem of saying ministerium instead of munus. What the Archbishop says previously contradicts what he says now, so he probably was thinking in German then or is now. But surely he can understand the controversy, seeing that I sent him last month, with proof of delivery, a printed copy of my entire Disputed Question on the topic. But then again, maybe he cannot read English?
- Later on in the article, after quoting Archbishop Gänswein as saying openly that Benedict did NOT resign the PAPAL OFFICE, Montagna quotes an anonymous theologian as sustaining,
supporters of this opinion need to show that Pope Benedict understood the munus and the ministerium as referring to two different realities.
Ugh, what can one respond to such ignorance? Other than that Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 §2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 §1 and canon 41, which reading amply demonstrates that the Supreme Legislator Himself, Pope John Paul II, in promulgating the new Code of Canon Law requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things. — Those who are faithful Catholics, therefore, already know they refer to two different things, because the Pope orders us to do so!
- Then the same anonymous theologian quotes canon 15 §1 (actually he quotes §2, but I think that is an error), as saying that the resignation must be presumed valid. But that canon says that a law, which expressly invalidates an act, invalidates even if the one positing the act is ignorant of the law. Thus this canon argues against the validity of the resignation, not for it!
- Then the same anonymous theologian confuses the annulment process with this controversy, saying that Catholics who think the resignation is or may be invalid, must wait for the judgement of the Church! Actually, canon 188 says that resignations made in substantial error are invalid by the law itself. That means, they are invalid before any sentence of any court determines the facts: they are null, void and never had any legal effect.
- Then, the article quotes Dr. Roberto de Mattei, who cites Canon 124 §2. — As an aside, I would ask that Dr. de Mattei respond to my criticism of his previous error of attempting to raise an opinion of late scholasticism to the level of an interpretative principle of canon law, in contradiction to the obligation of canon 17 — But that canon also contradicts Dr. de Mattei, because it regards only acts which are manifestly conform to the obligations of the law, when in the present controversy one deals with a prima facie non conformity! That is, with the fact that at first glance at the Latin of Non solum propter (Text of apparent resignation) and canon 332 §2, they are not speaking of the same things! For the former renounces the ministerium, but the latter refers to resignations of munus.
- Then Dr. de Mattei attempts again to flip a canon. This time its canon 1526 §1, the burden of proof is upon him who asserts. Seeing that it is the Cardinals and Dr. de Mattei who long ago asserted first of all that the resignation is valid, the burden of proof is rather on them! That is why, the mere fact that the Cardinals and the entire Vatican have never published a canonical affirmation of the validity is a strong argument they have NEVER examined if it was. But in the case of a resignation, a Cardinal Elector is gravely bound to personally verify that the resignation is valid, because otherwise he will participate in an illicit Conclave and elect and Anti-Pope!
- Then, Cardinal Brandmuller attempts to flip two sound dicta: de internis non iudicat praetor (a praetor does not judge of things internal) and quod non est in actis, non est in mundo (what is not in the act does not exist in the world). I say this, because he cites these to argue that those who doubt the validity of the resignation are in error. However, since those who doubt the validity, as I do, do not base our arguments on interior intentions, nor on suppositions, but on the text of the act of renunciation itself, we are acting in perfect harmony with those dicta. Nay, rather, its Cardinal Brandmuller and Burke and Gänswein who violate these, because they say the Pope intended to resign the munus, therefore he did resign the munus, and that ministerium means the munus which is not renounced in the text, because the Pope intended to resign the munus, they judge the Pope’s intention not the act itself!
- Then, Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying: “I believe it would be difficult to say it’s not valid.” This, I will admit — for those who have not read the Code of Canon Law and studied this question of substantial error on account of not saying munus nor referring to the office — might be difficult to prove, because many are ignorant of the Canon Law and its obligations. But for those who do, or should know it, it is not! — Just see my disputed question on it. You can find it in Spanish translation here. In that Question, I carefully examine and refute the 19 reasons alleged for the validity and marshal 39 arguments, drawn from Canon Law, Theology, Philosophy, etc. against the validity.
- Finally, Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying: “It seems clear to me that Benedict had his full mind and that he intended to resign the Petrine office.” — Having given no argument but his speculation about the intention of what Pope Benedict XVI intended to say, other than to deny what he expressly has said on other occasions, the opinion of this eminent Canonist must be disregarded as any gratuitous unproven declaration which runs counter to the facts is disregarded.
In conclusion, I would ask these three eminent prelates to read Canon 17. Therein, Pope John Paul II obliges all Catholics to understand canon 332 §2 in a specific manner. In that manner, it can be seen that there is no question at all that the renunciation of Benedict is invalid by reason of substantial error (canon 188) in thinking that a renunciation of ministerium effects a renunciation of the papacy.
I believe that the Cardinals in particular, perhaps out of their familiarity with the Annulment process which focuses on the intention as the formal principle of the validity of the bond of Matrimony, are missing the point of the teaching of Pope Boniface VIII (Decree of Boniface VIII (6th vol), 1.1, T.7, Chap. 1: De Renunciatione:) that papal renunciations deal formally with the verbal signification of the act, not on the intention of the one renouncing. Also, they differ significantly in this, that the power to tie the bond of marriage consists in the ones who take marriage vows. But the power to remove the munus of the papacy is held exclusively by Christ the Lord in glory, who has promised Peter to uphold the letter of Canon Law promulgated by his successor, Pope John Paul II, in canon 332 §2, and Who cannot act unless the renunciation expressly conform itself to that canon.