Tag Archives: Canon Law

Canon Law

What does Pope Francis have to do, to validly Abdicate?

5 Comments

A Canonical Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Having written more about the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI than perhaps any other author in any language, and having spent 6 years in its study, having spoken with some of the top legal experts at Rome, I will here lay out what is required to validly renounce the papacy, and what are the problems Pope Francis has to avoid, to do this without creating a new controversy over who is really the pope and who is not.

Canon 332 §2

Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestatur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

IF IT HAPPEN THAT THE ROMAN PONTIFEX RENOUNCE HIS MUNUS, FOR VALIDITY THERE IS REQUIRED THAT THE RENUNCIATION BE MADE FREELY AND THAT IT BE MANIFESTED RIGHTLY, BUT NOT THAT IT BE ACCEPTED BY ANYONE.

REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW

Canon 332, section 2, in the Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II on January 25, 1983, is the only law of the Roman Church which governs the abdication of the Pope. While it is brief in its verbal formulations, its signification is profound, and great attention must be placed upon the rules it lays down for a valid renunciation.

TERMS

To understand this, it is first necessary to understand that in the Roman Church, the supreme earthly hierarch, is called in law, the Roman Pontiff, according to the dignity of the office. That is, the man who is the pope is called “Roman Pontiff”, as his official title. This title pertains according to ecclesiastical tradition to the Bishop of Rome. Consequent to this title are his other titles such as “Vicar of Christ” and “the Pope”. These latter titles are theological and popular, respectively speaking. “Pope” can be used also in regard to other Patriarchs, such as the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt. And “vicar of Christ” is a generic term for any bishop or priest acting in the name of Christ, though in English, as a proper title, “the Pope”, is used by Catholics to refer solely to the Bishop of Rome.

Secondly, the papal office (officium papalis) is signified in Canon Law by one term only, the petrine munus (munus petrinum: cf. Canons 331-334), with “petrine” (petrinum) being only an adjective of clarification in theological discourse or popular writing. That is, to say “the Pope’s munus”, simply speaking, using the definitive article in English to name the singular special attribution signified by the expression which follows, refers to the petrine munus, to the munus of the Roman Pontiff, the reception or renunciation of which either makes a man the pope or causes him to abdicate, respectively speaking. “Munus” is used in the New Code of Canon Law because it correctly and precisely signifies as a term, a gift of grace received (munus) from Christ Jesus Our Lord, when the one who accepts his election to be the Roman Pontiff, receives this grace from Christ in that very same moment, if he already be a Bishop, or in the moment of his episcopal consecration, if he not already be a bishop. No other term completely and entirely signifies this grace immediately and directly. However, other terms can cosignify this by completely and entirely signifying the canonical or legal effects of receiving such a grace: these are officium, onus, and dignitas, each of which would require an adjective or phrase to precisely signify solely and only that of the Roman Pontiff, such as papalis, petrinus -a -um, or episcopi Romae (“of the Bishop of Rome”). “Ministerium” cannot do this, since “ministerium” in Latin implies its co-relative, “magisterium”, both of which would have to be mentioned along with one of the other three, since they are juridical consequences of holding the petrine munus, they do not co-signify that munus in its entirety. “Onus” in Latin means “the burden”, that is the full weight of the duty, and “dignitas” refers to the full importance or dignity or preeminence obtained by accepting that duty. The use of these latter two terms is sanctioned in the act of renunciation of Pope Saint Celestine V (see below). “Officium” means office, and thus completely signifies the juridical authority and title obtained in receiving this duty.

This, the abdication of the Roman Pontiff in canonical tradition is called a “renunciation”. This term is a highly technical one and has a precise meaning. “To renounce” (renuntiare) means ‘to announce backwards’, that is, to withdraw completely the act of acceptance posited when the duty was accepted, after a juridically valid election. ‘To renounce’, therefore, logically, etymologically and juridically, as well as legally, requires a verbal statement personally made by the one who claims the munus received and names the munus received.

Thus, according to Canon 332 section 2, the entire juridical fact and notion of a papal abdication is signified by the terms “renounce” and “munus”. In Latin the verb “to renounce” (renuntiare) takes an indirect object, unlike in English, where it takes a direct object. Thus “to renounce an office” in Latin requires one to say “renuntiare officio”. “Muneri” is the dative in Latin for this construction of “munus”.

REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ACT OF THE RENUNCIATION BY A ROMAN PONTIFF

Thus, Canon 332, section 2, requires that the man who claims the office, dignity, ministry of or the grace to be the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus. This is the person who alone can make the renunciation. If he be in a coma or impeded, he cannot make this renunciation through legal representative. He is the juridical subject of the act.

This renunciation is the renunciation which is spoken of immediately afterwards in the second clause of the Canon. Canon 332 section 2 only becomes operative when it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus. If he renounce anything that does not signify or co-signify completely or simply that munus, Canon 332 section 2 does not apply, and the juridical act has only an administrative and temporary value, if any at all. Thus, the Roman Pontiff must verbally say that he renounces his munus or use a completely equivalent expression which signifies the totality of what munus signifies. This is the juridical form (renunciation) and matter (petrine munus) of the act of the juridical act of renunciation.

Next, for the validity of such a renunciation, besides the words needed to be said, “I renounce my munus”, or the equivalent, this renunciation of munus must be made freely. This first condition is that the Roman Pontiff speak only out of a deliberate personal act not under the duress or violent coercion of anyone else. By duress, there is meant a constraint against his own will. By violent coercion, an urging which contains threats to be imposed, not simply warnings of future evils. — Thus, if the Pope’s confessor urge him to renounce because he, the confessor, judges that there is no other way the man who is the Pope can observe the moral law necessary for the salvation of the man who is the pope, such a counsel is not a violent coercion. But if the counsel be given with a person accompanied by weapons or threats of physical violence, for example, whether to himself or others, the liberty of the act can be doubted.

For more on what the text of a valid abdication looks like, see the Renunciation by Pope Saint Celestine V, in Latin and English, here.

This verbal announcement of a renunciation of the petrine munus must be made in the presence of at least 2 other Catholic Bishops, who are not under ecclesiastical penalties of any kind. This is what the Canon means by “rightly” (rite), that is, according to the ritual requirements. It cannot be made electronically or telematically, via television, without such qualified witnesses present. These witnesses should be the 2 or 3 officers of the College of Cardinals, at the very least, who know the Pope personally and can certify that it is truly him, and by conversing with him BEFORE the act can ascertain that he is acting without duress or violent coercion. At least one Apostolic Notary should also be present to witness the signing of a document containing a valid text of renunciation, since if the verbal expression spoken is in any way faulty, the signed and witnessed document containing a valid formula for resignation would suffice to make the act juridically valid.*

Finally, if all such conditions are met, the act must be considered valid in law by all Catholics, and no amount of persons of whatsoever dignity who refuse it causes it to be doubtful or invalid. Contrariwise, if any one of these conditions are not met, no amount of persons of whatsoever dignity who accept it, cause it to be made valid or certain.

However, in accord with the norms of Canon Law, every Catholic is obliged not to accept the renunciation until he sees the act or knows by certain communications that it has been accomplished. Thus, a Catholic who neglects this, and years later comes to know that it was not done correctly, can licitly and lawfully hold that it is doubtful or invalid, and cannot be sanctioned for speaking about it.

Thus, in summary, if Pope Francis renounces, he must say so; in the presence of at least the officers of the College of Cardinals or two Catholic Bishops, and he must document the act with a signed document, witnessed by the same witnesses. He can televise his renunciation.

OTHER CONDITIONS OF JURISPRUDENCE

The renunciation must be made in simple syntax, it cannot be made in indirect discourse, such as when one says, “I declare that I renounce”. Also, it must be made without any sort of delimiting or limiting factors such as time or place or condition, such as would happen if a pope verbally said that he would renounce in the future, or at a certain place other than he is, or on the condition of any future event or fact. Nor can he renounce on the condition that he receive any benefit, such as would appear to be a sale of the office. Nor can he renounce by expressing a motivation for his action which objectively speaking appears to be irrational, untrue, unfounded, fictional, such as if he were to say, “I renounce the petrine munus, because an alien abducted me last night”.

Also, he ought NOT put any subordinate clauses in his act of renunciation, by which the terms he uses might be understood to be constrained in their signification, as would happen if he said, “I renounce the munus which the Cardinals gave me” etc.., or “I renounce the office which is” of a kind not precisely that of the petrine munus, such as if the Pope said, “I renounce the office which is the most important in the eyes of all Christians and world leaders etc..”.

RULE FOR DETERMINING VALIDITY

According to the ancient dictum, “Papa dubius, papa nullius” which is often written as “Papa dubius, papa nullus”, a doubtfully elected pope is the pope of no one, or, rather, a doubtfully elected pope is no pope, respectively. But as the acceptance of an election is the contrary of the renunciation of one’s election, the act of renunciation follows the contrary dictum: Papa dubie renuntiatus, iam papa omnium, that is, “A pope who has doubtfully renounced, is still the Pope of everyone.”

Therefore, if a Roman Pontiff in renouncing transgress any of the conditions or restrictions of Canon 332 section two, such that a reasonable doubt as to the signification of the act, or of its conformity to the requirements of that Canon arise, the act must be considered doubtful and thus the renunciation must be considered invalid, and it would be morally right and even a duty for Catholics to say so and demand that it be redone, if the Roman Pontiff actually and freely want to renounce. — If he fail to do either of these things, rightly, it must be assumed that he never had the intention or liberty to renounce and that he remains the Pope, regardless of whether the Cardinals think it is valid and regardless if he acts as if it is valid, or even assert that it is valid, in a non canonical way. Finally, he cannot after such an act attempt to repair it by any annexed document or verbal statement: he must redo it properly in its correct entire form and matter.

** A renunciation, being like jumping off a cliff, once it is done, it cannot be undone: a renunciation is valid whether it be by spoken word or written word: thus which ever of the two is valid, the renunciation is valid. This is because if the spoken renunciation is valid, the man who was the pope is no longer the pope and cannot take his renunciation back. And if the spoken renunciation is not valid, signing a written document which contains a valid formula, becomes of itself the act of a valid renunciation.

News

Cardinal Wojtyla ordained priests against will of Pope Paul VI

Editor’s Note: There are many excellent comments in this video on jurisprudence. The principal speaker agrees with Br. Bugnolo that it was not a good thing that Bishop Strickland accept being sacked by Pope Francis.

Start at 23:24 time stamp to hear the amazing news about what Pope John Paul II did before he was elected pope. — It remains stunning that such a man could excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre for having the same disagreement with him that he had with Paul VI.

Canon Law, News

My Letter to Cardinal Re

4 Comments

REPRINT FROM FEB. 9, 2020

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In January, it was announced by the Vatican, that Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re was named Dean of the College of Cardinals. Since it it the duty of the Dean to convoke the College, I wrote him a Letter in Latin to express my concerns, in accord with Canon 212, regarding the canonical status of Pope Benedict XVI, in the assumption that he may not be aware of them.

Here is the text of my letter, which he received more than 2 weeks ago:

Sua Eminentia,

Vobis scribo ex iure mihi concesso ab papa Ioanne Paolo II in canone 212, ad Vobis manifestandas inconvenientias graves in declaratione quae emissa est ab papa Benedicto XVI in Festo B. V. M. Lapurdensis anno Domini 2013.

In primis, ministerii eius renuntiatio non est conformans normae canonis 332 §2 qui renuntiationem muneris petrini requirit et hinc est actus nullus qui secundum canonem 41 neminem constringat.

Secundo, nemini licet ut interpres sit actus renuntiationis papalis, et hinc omnis interpretatio actus istius invalida ac illicita esto qui munus legat ubi ministerium scribatur.

Tertio, in dicendo ministerium et non munus vir qui est papa Benedictus XVI actum validum non ponere potest sine concessione derogationis secundum canonem 38 et hinc quia aliquid tale non fecit ut Romanus Pontifex actum irritum posuit ut vir qui est Pontifex.

Quarto, in ministerii renuntiatione et non muneris actus apparens papalis renuntiationis irritus est secundum canonem 188 per errorem substantialem quoniam essentia actus necessaria penes canonem 332 §2 est renuntiatio muneris non ministerii.

Quinto, non est libertas ad muneri renuntiandum quo renuntiatio ministerii fiat et hinc actus talis deficit ex debito canonis 332 §2 ad libere faciendum actum renuntiationis muneris et hinc invalidus est.

Sexto, non est ritualis manifestatio ubi non est manifestatio actus debiti, et quia impossibile est quod actus ministerii renuntiationis manifestet renuntiationem muneris, hinc est invalidus secundum canonem 332 §2.

Septimo, quoniam aliquot diebus post declarationis enuntiationem actus integer non habebatur, impossibile est quod actus Cardinalis Decani precedentis validus fuit ad renuntiationem papalis annuntiandam secundum normam canonis 40 et postea ad conclavem convocandam.

Octavo, omnes actiones papae Benedicti XVI per septem annos demonstrant quod Is apprehendat munus ut vocationem et gratiam nunquam abiiciendam et non ut ministerium seu officium ecclesiasticum rentuntiatum, et evidens est quod verum sit, quapropter ille nomen et indumentum et dignitatem papalem adhunc portat ut possessionem personalem, qui demonstratio est clare quod intentionem renuntiationis muneris non haberet et non habeat.

Ex totis rationibus ego supplex Vos precor Ecclesiae Sanctae Dei ut convocatio Cardinalium in praesentiae papae Benedicti XVI faciatis in tempore opportuno ad verum quaerendum in materia ista ita ut omne dubium de successione petrina tollatis pro Ecclesia Christi salute. Partibus omnibus in ista controversia eliminatio dubii istius ius et debitum est et nulli vulnera.

Gratias Vobis do pro tempore lectionis litterarum mearum,

In Sancto Francisco servus humilis papatus,

Fra’ Alexis Bugnolo

Here is my English translation of the Letter, for the benefit of the readers of FromRome.Info

Your Eminence,

I am writing you on account of the right granted me by Pope John Paul II in canon 212, to make known to you the grave problems in the Declaratio which was pronounced by Pope Benedict XVI on the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, in the year of Our Lord 2013.

First of all, His renunciation of ministry is not in conformity with the norm of Canon 332 §2 which requires the renuntiation of the Petrine Munus, and hence it is an actus nullus which according to canon 41 constrains no one.

Second, it is not licit for anyone to be the interpretor of a papal renunciation, and hence every interpretation of that act of His, which reads “munus” where “ministerium” is written, is invalid and illicit.

Third, in saying “ministerium” and not “munus” the man who is Pope Benedict XVI cannot posit a valid act without the concession of a derogation, according to canon 38, and hence because he never did any such thing, as the Roman Pontiff, he posited, as the man who is the Pontiff, an actus irritus.

Fourth, in renouncing ministry and not munus, the apparent act of papal renunciation is irritus according to canon 188 by means of a substantial error, since the essence of the act necessary under the terms of Canon 332 §2 is a renunciation of munus, not of ministerium.

Fifth, there is no liberty to renounce munus where a renunication of ministerium is made and hence such an act fails from what is due in Canon 332 §2 regarding a free act of renuncaition of munus, and hence is invalid.

Sixth, there is no due manifestation where there is no manifestation of the due act, and because it is impossible that an act of renunciation of ministerium manifest an act of renunciation of munus, hence it is invalid according to Canon 332 §2.

Seventh, since for some days after the pronouncement of the declaration the integral act was not had, it is impossible that the act of the previous Cardinal Dean was valid to announce a papal renunciation, according to the norm of Canon 40 and afterwards to convoke a conclave.

Eighth, all the actions of Pope Benedict XVI throughout the last 7 years demonstrate that he understands munus as a vocation and grace never to be rejected and not as a renounced ministerium or ecclesiastical office, and it is evident that this is true, because He bears still that Name and clothing and dignity of a pope as a personal possession, which is clearly a demonstration that he did not have nor has the intention of renouncing the munus.

For all these reasons, I humbly beg you for the sake of the Holy Church of God to call a convocation of the Cardinals in the presence of Pope Benedict XVI, at an opportune time, to seek the truth in this matter so as to bear away all doubt concerning the petrine succession for the sake of the salvation of Christ’s Church. The elimination of this doubt is the right and due to all the parties in this controversy and harms none of them.

Thank you for the time you have taken reading my letter,

In Saint Francis, a humble servant of the Papacy,

– – –

I have published this letter to encourage all of you to write to your own Cardinals and Bishops in your part of the world an urge them to the same thing. You have my permission to copy and paste the test of my Latin or English version of my letter.

As you can see, the reasons for holding that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope are the most profound and grave and are drawn entirely from Canon Law and historical facts. They are not based on unfounded opinion, misquoted texts or insults, as those of Trad Inc..

+ + +

News

The Road which the Cardinals avoid at the peril of the salvation of the world

1 Comment

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Why cardinals and bishops are up to “operation truth” on Ratzinger’s resignation

A verification, or will divert all suspicions from Francis, or will foil a coup

of the original Italian article (linked above in the image)
by

Andrea Cionci

In the array of orthodox Catholics opposed to Bergoglio, various positions coexist: many believe that Pope Ratzinger never resigned, according to some because he does not know canon law, others say that he organized everything on purpose, and still others that the election of Francis was favored by the same modernist Ratzinger after a slow and obscure process in place since 1962.

On Things of the Other World, we offered a hypothesis about Benedict XVI’s possible “Plan B” that would involve his specific willingness to create a “plan with false target and fake retreat.” HERE

The reconstruction, based on texts by theologians, Latinists, jurists, and evidence of indisputable weight, has so far not been refuted by solid arguments.

However, all this talk about the motivations that allegedly prompted Benedict XVI to resign, including ours about “Plan B,” COUNTS for NOTHING in regard to the validity of Ratzinger’s resignation.

In fact, any legal act may or may not be valid, completely independent of the intentions of those who produced it.

For example: if your dear uncle left you a will that was hard to accept. It does not matter if he did it on purpose to punish you, out of forgetfulness towards you, out of pity towards an unfortunate cousin… BUT if the original signature is missing at the bottom of the will (for example) the will is ALWAYS invalid. The rest are ancillary lucubrations. — Even if you should discover important indications that your uncle would have purposely made the deed invalid, that should give you further encouragement to challenge the will, but it changes little for the purposes of the technical legal question.

Therefore, it matters not one wit whether Benedict was forced, whether he did it willingly, whether he was distracted or had a headache that day. Nor does it matter whether Bergoglio is a holy pope, or the False Prophet of the Apocalypse.

If Ratzinger’s resignation is invalid, it is invalid, period. Full stop.

In this case, the “Pope Francis” and everything he has done in eight years would never have legally existed: it would be a dream, beautiful for some, a nightmare for others.

If Ratzinger did not resign, we need to turn the hands of the juridical clock back to February 28, 2013, and figure out today what the Holy Father Benedict wants to do. The options for him would be three.

1. If, as per the 2013 Declaratio, he confirms that he intends to renounce the ministerium, then he must appoint a cardinal or vicar bishop to exercise practical power for him. But he still remains the pope-holder of the munus. We will thus have a hermit pope – and not emeritus – because that title does not exist. Cardinal Whoever, his vicar, will go around the world proclaiming the Gospel and exercising administrative functions.

2. Benedict decides to return as pope in full operation and factually take back the exercise of ministerium, practical power. This is a somewhat difficult hypothesis, given his age and strength, but we must not forget that John Paul II remained on the throne until the very end, with munus and ministerium.

3. Or, Benedict this time REALLY resigns, ratifies a renunciation of the munus petrinum, and returns a cardinal, losing all papal prerogatives, as Cardinal Pell has rightly pointed out. Gone is the pontifical name, gone is the abbreviation P.P. (Pontifex Pontificum), no apostolic blessings! no residence in the Vatican, no white robe. Card. Ratzinger returns in a black cassock edged in red.

If Benedict chooses the third option, obviously it is not that Bergoglio can stay, but a NEW VALID CONCLAVE must be called with a college of cardinal electors obviously appointed before 2013, i.e. appointed only by Pope Ratzinger or John Paul II.

Who knows, maybe a new conclave will reappoint Card. Bergoglio, who will then reconfirm all his acts and appointments.

However, the matter cannot be passed over, to the cry of “so much by now…”. No. In the Church there is no such thing as usucaption, it does not work like that. Otherwise, the antipope Anacletus II, who governed the Church for eight years (1130-1138), would never have been deposed by St. Bernard of Clairvaux. At that time there were not even the stringent rules that there are today for the validity of a conclave and a renunciation.

What needs to be clarified imperatively is the question of Ratzinger’s resignation, otherwise there will never be any pope after Bergoglio who will be free from the suspicion of being invalid.

Even from a spiritual point of view, if Ratzinger had not resigned, not even in the next conclave would the Holy Spirit intervene and even if a holy, super-traditionalist and orthodox cardinal were elected, he would still not be the true pope because he would be elected by 80 invalid cardinals appointed by an invalid pope (Francis). All the popes in Bergoglio’s line of succession, even when holy, would be invalid.

So the verification of the resignation is also crucial for Francis, since this suspicion embarrassingly delegitimizes him. He himself should be the one to set up a commission of inquiry to shed light on Benedict’s resignation, prove that everything is in order and that he is pope for all intents and purposes.

Instead, he ignores the issue and, indeed, in his homilies he disapproves of “clerical legalisms”, as if they were Pharisaical trifles of no account: an attitude certainly not useful in dispelling suspicions.

And it is here that many object:  Just imagine, it is absurd that Ratzinger’s resignation can be questioned by cardinals and bishops, it would be like sawing off the branch on which they are sitting. This is, however, distrust: in any case, apart from the fact that one day they might have to explain to God why they allowed a coup d’état that would be fatal for the Church in order to keep a chair, but even if they were pro-Bergoglio cardinals, the operation-truth would be an ACT OF FAITH TO FRANCIS aimed at clarifying the legitimacy of his pontificate, to wipe out any suspicion and silence the traditionalists forever, at least on the aspect of the election.

All cardinals and bishops, pro-Bergoglio or pro-Ratzinger, must have the Truth as their only guide, and this will protect them as an infallible shield.

If, in fact, the canonical verification shows that Bergoglio is the true pope, the cardinals and bishops promoting the verification would have the merit of having saved FRANCIS from all suspicions and insinuations: the Holy Spirit is with him, period. Praise be to them.

If, on the other hand, it turns out that Ratzinger is still the pope, it is true that the cardinals and bishops appointed by Bergoglio would automatically lose the purple, but only temporarily, because they would surely be reappointed – or even promoted – for their courage and for having saved the true pope. The reappointment and/or promotion would come from Benedict XVI himself, reinstated in the ministerium, or from his legitimate successor.

Indeed, the promoter of the operation-truth would have all the qualifications to aspire to the role of the next pope. Both in case Francis remains (he has legitimized him in full) and in case Benedict returns (he has saved him from the coup).

In short, the courage for the truth of these cardinals would be rewarded IN EVERY CASE, whether by a legitimate Pope Francis, a legitimate Pope Ratzinger or their legitimate successors because “Veritas summa charitas est”. These clerics would be extremely deserving because they would have put their interest in the Church and Truth before their personal gain.

There is nothing to fear: in fact, if today one of them were to take the initiative to shed objective light on the resignation, in a pure spirit of truth and without necessarily having a prejudicial position, with what face could Francis excommunicate or punish him? IT WOULD BE A DIRECT ADMISSION OF GUILT. If Bergoglio has nothing to hide, he should BLESS a commission of inquiry that would free him from any distressing suspicion.

Vice versa, the silence of the cardinals damages them a lot in terms of image.

But BEWARE: if Bergoglio, in fact, is not the real pope, at this point, the only exit strategy for him would be to resign immediately (as he has often ventilated) before the question of Ratzinger’s resignation is examined, making it “pass by acclamatio”.

In this way, one of his cardinals would be elected from an invalid conclave and his design, whatever it is, would continue in “his” successors. He could say that he is resigning for the good of the Church, to avoid divisions etc. In that case the Catholic Church would be equally done away with.

In short: the only way forward is that of truth, for everyone, for Ratzinger, for Bergoglio, for their future successors and for all the cardinals pre and post 2013.

Otherwise, with what authority will the Church of the future be able to say that it announces the Truth to the world?

Canon Law, News

How to remove Bergoglio

3 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

What follows here are the canonical steps by which Bergoglio can be peacefully, easily and lawfully removed from his position of power.

First, any Catholic Bishop or Cardinal, whether holding jurisdiction or not, whether of the Latin Rite or not, in his capacity as a member of the College of Bishops needs to make this public declaration, or its equivalent:

As member of the College of Bishops, whose unity with the Successor of Saint Peter is essential to its proper function in the Church for the accomplishment of the will of Christ, to continue His Salvific Mission on Earth, I hereby declare that I have examined the official Latin text of Pope Benedict XVI’s act of renunciation of February 11, 2013 A.,D., which begins with the words Non solum propter, and I have found that it is not in conformity with the requirement of Canon 332 §2, that states explicitly that a papal resignation only occurs when the Supreme Pontiff renounces the Petrine Munus.  Seeing that Pope Benedict renounced only the ministerium which he received from the hands of the Cardinals, and seeing that he did not invoke Canon 38 to derogate from the obligation to name of the office in a matter which violates the rights of all the Faithful of Christ, and even more so, of the members of the College of Bishops, to know who is and who is not the Successor of Saint Peter, and when and when not he has validly renounced his office, I declare out of the fullness of my apostolic duty and mission, which binds me to consider first of all the salvation of souls and the unity of the Church, that Pope Benedict XVI by the act expressed in Non Solum Propter never renounced the Papal Office and therefore has continued until this very day to be the one and sole and true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor of Saint Peter.  I therefore charge the College of Cardinals with gross negligence in the performance of their duties as expressed in Canon 359 and n. 37 of Universi Domini Gregis by proceeding in February and March of 2013 to the convocation and convening of a Conclave to elect Pope Benedict’s successor when there had not yet been consummated a legal sede vacante. And thus I do declare the Conclave of 2013 was uncanonically convoked, convened and consummated and that the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergogio as Successor of Saint Peter is null and void and irritus by the laws themselves of Holy Mother Church, as established by Pope John Paul II.

Second, Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and indeed all the Faithful should personally examine the text of February 11, 2013 according to the norms of Canons 332 §2, canon 17, canon 38, canon 145 §1, canon 41, canon 126, and in particular canon 188. (see ppbxvi.org for more information.)

Third, the Cardinals and Bishops should hold spontaneous regional or universal Synods to confirm the same and publicly affirm the same.

Fourth, the Bishops and Cardinals should call on the Swiss Guard and Vatican Police to arrest Cardinal Bergoglio and detain him and obtain from him public affirmation of the same.

Fifth, the Cardinals should approach Pope Benedict XVI and ask if it is now his intention to resign the Petrine Munus or not. If not, they should convey him to Saint John Lateran’s and acclaim him with one voice as Pope and ask his forgiveness publicly for having defected from him and elected an antipope. If so, they should ask him to redo the renunciation, this time renouncing the Petrine Munus; and then they should convene a Conclave to elect Benedict’s legitimate successor.

Canon Law, Editorials

Pope Benedict’s Renunciation is invalid for 6 Canonical Reasons

2 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As Catholics begin the effort to make known to the clergy that they were defrauded of their loyalty to Christ’s Vicar on Feb. 28, 2013, it is important to have at hand a short summary of the canonical problems in Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Non solum propter. (Official text here at Vatican website)

Here is such a short summary.

6 canonical errors in the Act of Renunciation

  1. In the Act, the Roman pontiff renounces “the ministry committed to him through the hands of the Cardinals” on the day he was elected. But Canon 332 §2, in the official Latin text of that canon, requires that the renunciation be of the petrine “munus”, that is the Papal Office (cf. canons 331, 333, 334, 749). Therefore, the act is NOT a renunciation of the papacy. Thus, in regard to Canon 332 §2, the act is an ACTUS NULLUS. And if it  be said or thought to be an act of renunciation of the papacy, then the assertion or estimation is false by reason of Canon 188, which declares IRRITUS any renunciations of office vitiated by substantial error, that is by an error which touches the substance of the act (which, in this case, is constituted by the essence of the act as an act of renunciation of the munus, not of the ministerium).*
  2. In the Act, the Roman Pontiff does not name the office by any proper canonical term, and thus the act is also an ACTUS INVALIDUS by reason of the requirement of Canon 332 §2, that the act be duly manifested (rite manifestetur), since that which is not named is not manifest.
  3. In the Act, the Roman Pontiff’s liberty regards that which he does, not that which he does not do, which, since he does not do it, whether he be free to do it or not, is not expressed. Therefore, the act is an ACTUS INVALIDUS by reason of the requirement of Canon 332 §2, that the act be freely executed (libere fiat).
  4. In making a declaration of renunciation, instead of renouncing, the act is also an ACTUS NULLUS, because canon law does not regard declarations to be canonical acts. They are merely announcements. (cf. Penal section on announcements regarding persons who have incurred latae sententiae excommunications ipso iure).
  5. In making what appears to be a renunciation of the papacy, without naming the papal office as required by Canon 332 §2, the man making the declaration, inasmuch as he is the man, who received the office and who is attempting to separate himself from the office, had need to obtain from the man who is the Pope, an express derogation of the terms of Canon 332 §2, in virtue of Canon 38, and since he did not, since no concession of derogation of that requirement is mentioned in the act, then by reason of Canon 38, the act, which is both contrary to the law of Canon 332 §2 and gravely injurious of the right of the faithful to know who is the true pope and when he has canonically resigned, is an ACTUS SINE EFFECTU, that is an act which lacks all effect.
  6. Finally, in renouncing “the ministry”, the Roman Pontiff posits a legal act which is not foreseen in the Code of Canon Law, since no canon therein speaks of a renunciation of ministry. Therefore, the act is an ACTUS NULLUS according to the norm of law. Therefore, in accord with Canon 41 no one with an office in the Church has any duty to recognize it.

__________

* I do not include substantial error as one of the canonical errors in the Act, because the act was never one of a renunciation of the papal office. The argument that substantial error vitiates the act, technically, has more to do with the mis-perceptions or false claims made about the canonical value of the act, than with the act itself. Speaking of substantial error is thus necessary when discussing it with someone who is operating under the false premise that the Pope renounced the papacy, but eventually one must talk about the reality of what the Pope actually said on that day, and distinguish that reality from the misperception which was published to all the world.

POST SCRIPT: Note that in the title of this post I use the word “invalid” in the common sense of an act which does not effect what one thinks it effects, but properly speaking the term should be “vitiated” or “erroneous”, because as you can see from the list of 6 canonical errors, 3 regard nullity, 2 regard invalidity, and 1 regards being without effect.

 

News

Bishops who have shut down their Diocese have committed the crime of Schism, canon 1364

10 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I just watched Frank Walker’s News Commentary for March 18, 2020, and you should too: so I am embedding it in this article:

https://youtu.be/qs_Omn46FbM

Frank makes some superb theological comments about the treachery of the Bishops.

Canonical Consequences of shutting down churches and ending the Sacraments

Canon 1364 punishes with excommunication latae sententiae all Bishops who refuse communion with any part of the Church.

But the non-clerical members of the faithful in his diocese are part of the Church. Therefore, by denying the Sacraments to the faithful — during a non-existent plague and super-hyped influenza the mortality of which is far less than the normal winter flue —  the Bishops have committed the canonical crime of schism.

Therefore, they are excommunicated.  The priests who do the same thing, are also excommunicated.

I agree with the insight of Mr. Walker, which is so profound:  the Bishops who have shut down the church have shut down the Catholic Religion, and Why would they ever go back and undo what they did, since they never had a reason to do it in the first place?

Jules Gomes, writing at the Church Militant, in an article entitled, Starved of the Sacraments, makes an incisive observation about the Bishops’ treachery and Bergoglio’s promotion of it, when he writes:

… But the shutting down of churches and the televising of “virtual Masses” without access to the sacraments for the faithful lurks in a sinister manner as the precursor of a time “when there is no longer a community, with the atomized faithful closed in their homes or bent over their technological tools, with eucharistic adoration on YouTube and even confession via WhatsApp.”

Many will disagree with him. But I do not believe it is Christian to sit around waiting for them to restore the Sacraments. We should ask ourselves if such traitors to Christ and haters of the flock ever deserve to be taken back, if they do not repent.

Because the very name of the Church, as Church — ekklesia, in the Greek — means called together. If the Church can no longer come together to worship, the Church no longer exists. We are baptized into Christ as member of the Church. But if we can no longer get the sacraments, then we are the ones who have be ex-communicated.

I think you can see from how they handled the pedophile crisis, namely by ousting the true Pope who got rid of pedophiles and replacing him with a faker who promotes pedophiles and sodomites, that you should have enough evidence already to see that if the mythical plague is ever declared ended, that those who shut their churches will be promoted, not disciplined by these creeps.

Canon 1364 is the Magisterial Teaching of Pope John Paul II and the authentic perennial Magisterium of the Church: Schismatics are outside of the Church, they do not merit to be the pastors of the flock, nor to be take back without a public act of repentance.

And if you think they are going to repent, I think you have let your mind be kidnapped by the Big Lie.

Therefore, Catholics who are deprived of Catholic Clergy, now have the divine right to have recourse to Apostolic Right.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

Canon Law, Editorials

A 7th Anniversary of shame!

11 Comments

March 13, 2020

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Today is the seventh anniversary of a day that will live in infamy.

A day of wickedness and flippancy.

A day wherein the Cardinals of the Catholic Church showed their utter contempt for:

  1. Pope Benedict XVI
  2. The Catholic Faith in the Papacy
  3. The Canons of the Catholic Church
  4. The Papal Law on Conclaves
  5. Common sense

Let me explain why I say this, point by point, in reverse order.

The Cardinals betrayed common sense 7 years ago today

It is obvious by now, that if anyone on the planet ,who had common sense, sat down and talked to Bergoglio for 15 minutes, he would realize that he is not a fit candidate to be Roman Pontiff.

But the College of Cardinals had been housed together with him for two weeks prior to March 13, 2013.

Therefore, the last 7 years proves that God certainly did not approve of their judgement in selecting such a man. Indeed, it was an epic failure of the College of Cardinals, as I wrote, in 2015.

The Cardinals betrayed John Paul II’s law on Conclaves

The Cardinal Electors violated the papal law on conclaves, in several ways.

First of all, they violated the Law, Universi dominici gregis, as regards the requirement in n. 37, of that law, when they held a Conclave without verifying whether there was a legal sede vacante.

A legal sede vacante means that either the previous pope is dead, and they confirm that with a funeral, or the previous pope resigned according to the norm of Canon 332 §2.

I have it from no less than the Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legal Texts, Mons. Arrieta, whose commentary on the Code of Canon Law I keep at by desk, that there never was any meeting of canon law experts to verify if the Declaratio of Pope Benedict, of Feb. 11, 2013 — commonly called Pope Benedict’s Renunciation — was in conformity with the norm of canon 332 §2.

Second, the Cardinals violated n. 81, of the same papal law, by entering into agreements and promises to vote for Bergoglio, as Cardinal Daneels of Beglium admitted in his Biography composed of interviews he gave. But the College has never acted on the self admission, which in Canon Law tradition is an indisputable act of self imputation of a canonical crime. I have covered this issue in an extensive Chronology of Events, which still remains the most authoritative collection of facts on the matter, on the net.

Thrid, the Cardinals rushed to elect Bergoglio by violating the same Papal Law on the number of ballots permitted on each day: four, as is specified in n. 63, of the same papal law, regarding limit on the number of ballots to be taken on the 2nd day of balloting and all subsequent days.  Because, as has been confirmed by several testimonies in the last 7 years, Bergoglio was elected on the 5th ballot. And this has never been denied.

Fourth, while there has been much controversy over whether the Cardinals could proceed to a fifth ballot in the case of a 4th balloting which contained 1 more vote paper than the number of Electors present, there remains 2 legal questions which have never been addressed about this:

  1. The Cardinals could not lawfully proceed to a 5th Ballot unless they paused the election and held a discussion on the interpretation of the papal law, using the right conceded to them in that same law, in n. 5, for this purpose. If they proceeded to a 5th ballot without such a discussion and vote, then even if they interpreted it as valid, that omission made their interpretation illicit, and hence the entire election invalid.
  2. Whether the Auditors of the Papal Conclave, as specified in n. 70 of the same papal law, held any meeting or discussion in accord with the norm, there specified, regarding the auditing of the final vote. Because in the case that there was no meeting in accord with n. 5 of the same papal law, in regard to whether to proceed to a 5th ballot when only 4 ballots were permitted, then likewise if the Auditors did not meet, the election was canonically invalid. And if they did meet, they had to declare in the case of the lack of a vote in accord with n. 5, that the election was invalid.

Since the multiple reports about a 5th balloting are all silent about what should have happened as regards nn. 1 and 2, here above, it can be rightfully doubted the election was valid. Because a doubtful pope is no pope.

The Cardinals Betrayed the Canons of the Catholic Church

Seven years ago today, the Cardinals consummated their betrayal of the Canons of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II, in 1983, in the text known as the Codex iuris canonicis, or the Code of Canon Law.

First, the Cardinals violated canon 40, which required them not to take any decision in regard to Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013, until they had the Latin text in hand in its final corrected version. Since the Vatican Press office in the days following February 11 published at least 3 versions of the text, there is sound canonical evidence that Cardinal Sodano, through Father Lombardi, violated canon 40 in instructing Giovanna Chirri at 11:58 AM, on that morning, to announce to the world that Pope Benedict has announced his resignation from the Pontificate on Feb. 28.  Canon 40 declares invalid any act taken by a subordinate, before he has in hand the integral text of the act of his superior.

Second, the Cardinals violated canon 41, which required them to examine if the legal act contained in the Declaratio was an act specified by the Code of Canon Law and was in all its particulars a command to do something opportune.  But since in the entire Code of Canon Law there is no mention of an act of renunciation of ministerium, the act posited by Pope Benedict XVI was clearly an an actus nullus, and thus canon 41 required them not to act upon it. Also since a renunciation of ministerium does not effect the loss of the papal office, the fact that the Declaratio speaks of calling a Conclave is an inopportune detail or provision. Canon 41 requires that those with mere ministry of execution, in such a case, have recourse to the superior to correct these issues. Once again, according to Mons. Arrieta, nothing of the kind happened.

Third, the Cardinals violated canon 38, which required them not to interpret the Declaratio of Pope Benedict as being in conformity to Canon 332 §2, on the grounds that by naming the ministerium instead of the canonically required munus, the act would gravely injure the rights of the Faithful to know if the pope had validly resigned or not, would cause doubt and risk schism in the Church. For in such a case, Pope Benedict XVI would have had to granted a derogation of canon 332 §2 in his Declaratio, in conformity with canon 38, otherwise the act would have been irritus. He did not, so the act was irritus — a technical canonical term which means having not effect in law, void, on account of having not followed due procedure (ritus).

Fourth, the Cardinals violated canon 36 §1, which requires them to interpret strictly any papal act which violates the norm of any canon, let alone Canon 332 §2. To interpret strictly means that they had to read ministerium as exclusive of any signification of munus, and thus hold that the Declaratio was prima facie incapable of causing Pope Benedict to validly resign the papal munus, the papal office and the papal dignity.

Fifth, the Cardinals violated canons 126 and 188, which require that a juridical act of renunciation of office contain the proper or essential act specified in the law.  As is clear from the Code of Canon Law, which speaks of the Papal Office in canons 331, 332, 332, and 749, the proper term for the papal office is the petrine munus, not the petrine ministerium.  Hence, they were required in accord with canon 188 to judge the renunication irritus on the grounds of substantial error.

Sixth, the Cardinals violated canons 17 and 145 §1, which require respectively that the terms of all canons be understood in their proper sense, that ministerium and munus, when mentioned in any canon be understood thus, and to undertake a study of the entire Code of Canon Law and canonical tradition, in the case of the doubt as to whether ministerium can suppose for munus. They did no such thing in February of 2013, as Mons. Arrieta affirmed to me.

Seventh, the Cardinals violated canon 332 §2, which requires them to recognize a papal renunication only if the Pope renounces his munus, and does so freely and manifests this duly.  But since a good number of the Cardinal Electors were present in the Consistory of Feb. 11, 2013, they heard with their own ears that he made errors in Latin and that he said ministerium not munus, in the crucial core section of the Declaratio. They also heard him say munus twice before that. So they had indisputable canonical evidence that the Pope knew what he was doing, knew how to distinguish munus from ministerium, and did NOT intend to renounce his munus.

The Cardinals violated the Catholic Faith in the Papacy

Seven years ago, today, the College of Cardinals violated the Catholic Faith in the papacy. First, in the strict sense of the Faith, namely, that there can only be one pope. Because, it was clear already by March 3, 2013, that Pope Benedict XVI by his own decision was going to retain the papal dignity by using the title “Pope Emeritus”. There was at least one scholarly refutation of the validity of this published on March 3, 2013 by Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S. J., former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University at Rome. So they could not be ignorant of the fact. The same canonical scholar that week affirmed that a heretical pope loses office immediately. So in choosing an obvious heretic as Pope they also violated the Catholic Faith.

The Cardinals showed their utter contempt for Pope Benedict XVI

Seven years ago, today, the Cardinals consummated their utter contempt for Pope Benedict XVI, in that they responded with glee at his renunciation, and not with consternation and respectful attempt to dissuade him from it.

As reported in the press, in February of 2013, only one Cardinal, Cardinal Pell went on record as saying that the resignation should not happen. He said this before Feb. 28, 2013. He was also the first Cardinal the Vatican allowed to be prosecuted after February of 2013. Hmm.

Respect and reverence for the Holy Father, especially when frail and aged, requires first of all that the Cardinals assist him in executing his will, not obstructing it nor allowing it to be executed in an invalid manner.

Yet it also requires, out of gratitude, that they attempt to convince a good man not to resign. If they omit that, they are basically saying he is not a good man or that they despise him.

And they showed their contempt, not only in sentiment, but by positive canonical ommissions, in seemingly in several ways, because in February of 2013 none of them were under a pontifical secret, yet in 7 years they never have confirmed — to my knowledge — in any interview that they did not do the following:

  1. They did not ask Pope Benedict to explain to them why he made his decision or what it meant, to make sure he was resigning freely.
  2. They did not ask Pope Benedict to correct the 40 errors in the Latin text which he read, before it was published, so as to prevent the shame of such a thing staining the last act of his papacy and the Apostolic See.
  3. They did not investigate or question Archbishop Gänswein and those around the pope as to the circumstance of the act to be certain that he was not manipulated or coerced.
  4. They did not ask one another what they knew about the matter. If so, they would have discovered that Pope Benedict did not seek the counsel of others (according to Archbishop Gänswein) or refused the counsel of his better advisers (according to Archbishop Gänswein and Cardinal Brandmuller). If they had done this, they would have been altered to the necessity to examine the act further.
  5. The consummated their disrespect through all these things and for not treating the Holy Father with that due respect for an aged man, in which one presumes frailty and therefore double checks everything to make sure it is done rightly.

Conclusion

For all these reasons, I think it can be said, objectively, that today marks the 7th anniversary of a day which will live in infamy in the history of the Church until the end of time and for all eternity. The Cardinals gravely failed in their duty as Cardinals and as Electors and as Bishops and Catholics. They failed also deliberately and by omission. Their failure also was canonically imputable, since the Code of Canon Law holds as presumptive, the responsibility of men with such high office to know the law and follow it.

Hence, it is objectively and canonically certain, that Bergoglio is not the pope. Because a man whose claim to the papacy is vitiated by so many canonical doubts, is not the pope, according to the ancient maxim of St. Robert Bellarmine, S. J.: a doubtful pope is not the pope.

_________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a detail of the photograph by Tenan, which is used here in accord with the Creative Commons Atribution-Share Alike 3.0 unported license explained here.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

 

Canon Law, Editorials, Faith

Cherry-Picking Canon Law is a mortal sin

1 Comment

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

One day, while I lingered at the Convent of Saint Francis of Assisi, at Bagnoregio, in the spring of 2016, one of the Franciscan Fathers invited me to come with him to a Cherry orchard owned by a benefactor of the Convent. The owner said we could pick all the cherries we wanted. And the Conventual Father just loved cherries. I had never picked cherries and wanted to do some work to repay the Friars for their hospitality to me, so I eagerly went along.

In a Cherry Orchard

Cherries, in the province of Viterbo, Italy, grow in masses on the branches of trees which are nearly 20 feet high. So many cherries sprout from each branch that without supports the branches usually break.  But unlike many fruits, picking cherries is difficult, because they are so small and each one ripens at its own pace. So each cherry has to be picked on the basis of a decision to pick it or not. And this has to be accurate, because an unripe cherry can cause great gastric distress after you eat it.

We picked so many cherries, the old Friar was nearly taken to heaven. He was so happy, it reminded him of his youth. Alas, after letting them age a day in the refrigerator, they were found to be not very sweet and too watery. I found them fine and ended up eating too many of them. But Italians are very particular about food quality, and the old priest ate no more than a handful, which was a great disappointment to him.

The Expression, to Cherry-pick…

And thus the colloquial expression, in English, to cherry-pick.  To cherry-pick means to chose what you want and leave the rest. The expression is used to show the mendacity or malignancy in choosing what you want from something which is intended to be taken as a whole.

For example, Protestants cherry-pick scripture to propose to their congregations a Christianity without Bishops, priests and Sacraments. This is because they decide to believe and observe and thus recognize only certain passages from Scripture, not all of them.

Cherry-picking Scripture is a mortal sin, because it presupposes that you are a rebel against the obligation of faith to believe in all of Sacred Scripture as inerrant and equally inspired by God.

Canon Law

Imagine a Church where you only had to observe certain Canon Laws and not others. I can imagine that if I went to any medium or high security prison in the world, and proposed a society where you could chose which laws to keep and which you did not have to keep, that my proposal would win the wild cheers of all the inmates, for obvious reasons.

To cherry-pick a code of law is obviously wrong. But perhaps not so obviously more immoral and evil than breaking the law. Because the one who chooses to break a law does not necessary decide or judge that the law should not be observed, only that what he wants at that moment is more important. But someone who cherry-picks a Code of Law is setting himself up as an authority over the authority of the law itself and rejects in principle that the entire Code and the authority which issued it is his superior, which he must obey.

To cherry-pick Canon Law therefore is a very serious mortal sin of rebellion against the Pope and against Jesus Christ, from Whom the papal munus comes. It is thus diabolic, without any exaggeration.

True or False Pope?

I am continually amazed how many commentators stop by and say, What is wrong with obeying a false pope? Is not obedience what matters? People do not obey Francis because of Francis, but out of obedience to the papacy, no?

If we think we can cherry-pick Canon Law, then it does not matter, because then the Catholic Religion is up for the grab of everyone, everyone can make it into what he wants, and we have a New Gnosticism, where everyone has his own inner guiding secret principles for salvation: while the external visible Church is merely the living space for the wantonness of each. Pope, Antipope, Jesus or the Antichrist, it would all be equally good.

This is why it is absolutely essential to the salvation of each of us and of all of us to get Canon 332 §2 right. Whether you are the Pope or a Cardinal, or a Bishop or a priest, or just a layman, it makes a difference. We cannot pick and chose canons, we have to obey all the Canons of the Church.

What does it matter that Canon Law says we must obey the pope, if we refuse to obey the pope by rejecting Canon 332 § 2, and listen to the Cardinals instead who want to have an authority which Canon Law does not give them, to demand universal acceptance of their unfounded uncanonical opinion?  Is that obedience to the Pope? Does Unam Sanctam no longer matter to Trad Inc.? and if we do not have to submit to Canon Law, why do we have to submit to Pope Francis? — Will someone in Trad inc explain that to me?

And where on earth or in Hell comes the idea that the Holy Spirit does not care about our decisions in this matter, or that He won’t back up the Cardinals and Bishops to do the right thing, if we ask them to in Synod or Council?

This is the spirit which motivated me to write my recent letter to Giovanni Cardinal Battista Re, whom Bergoglio announced as his new Dean of the College of Cardinals. I showed 8 sound canonical reasons why the Declaration of Pope Benedict, which he made 7 years ago, tomorrow, at 11:30 AM Rome time, did not separate him from the Papal Munus, and that therefore Canon Law — which judges everyone and everything — says he is still the pope.

It’s been 7 years, and still those who say Benedict is not the pope anymore do NOT have a canonical argument. They can cite no canon as it reads, and at most grab for a canon and try to make it say the opposite of what it says, as those whom Diane Montanga interviewed last year tried to do.  I am still waiting for Life Site to print a retraction for their lies and misrepresentations. I am still waiting for Trad Inc to denounce Life Site for an article of propaganda and misinformation. I am still waiting for 750 Cardinals and Bishops and priests and 500 students of theology and canon law to get back to me with JUST ONE sound canonical argument that demonstrates Benedict is no longer the pope.

Still waiting…

________

CREDITS:  The Featured Image is a collage of images created by Google Image search, under the rubric of “Canon Law”, used here according to a fair use standard for editorial commentary.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Canon Law, News

My Letter to Cardinal Re

8 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In January, it was announced by the Vatican, that Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re was named Dean of the College of Cardinals. Since it it the duty of the Dean to convoke the College, I wrote him a Letter in Latin to express my concerns, in accord with Canon 212, regarding the canonical status of Pope Benedict XVI, in the assumption that he may not be aware of them.

Here is the text of my letter, which he received more than 2 weeks ago:

Sua Eminentia,

Vobis scribo ex iure mihi concesso ab papa Ioanne Paolo II in canone 212, ad Vobis manifestandas inconvenientias graves in declaratione quae emissa est ab papa Benedicto XVI in Festo B. V. M. Lapurdensis anno Domini 2013.

In primis, ministerii eius renuntiatio non est conformans normae canonis 332 §2 qui renuntiationem muneris petrini requirit et hinc est actus nullus qui secundum canonem 41 neminem constringat.

Secundo, nemini licet ut interpres sit actus renuntiationis papalis, et hinc omnis interpretatio actus istius invalida ac illicita esto qui munus legat ubi ministerium scribatur.

Tertio, in dicendo ministerium et non munus vir qui est papa Benedictus XVI actum validum non ponere potest sine concessione derogationis secundum canonem 38 et hinc quia aliquid tale non fecit ut Romanus Pontifex actum irritum posuit ut vir qui est Pontifex.

Quarto, in ministerii renuntiatione et non muneris actus apparens papalis renuntiationis irritus est secundum canonem 188 per errorem substantialem quoniam essentia actus necessaria penes canonem 332 §2 est renuntiatio muneris non ministerii.

Quinto, non est libertas ad muneri renuntiandum quo renuntiatio ministerii fiat et hinc actus talis deficit ex debito canonis 332 §2 ad libere faciendum actum renuntiationis muneris et hinc invalidus est.

Sexto, non est ritualis manifestatio ubi non est manifestatio actus debiti, et quia impossibile est quod actus ministerii renuntiationis manifestet renuntiationem muneris, hinc est invalidus secundum canonem 332 §2.

Septimo, quoniam aliquot diebus post declarationis enuntiationem actus integer non habebatur, impossibile est quod actus Cardinalis Decani precedentis validus fuit ad renuntiationem papalis annuntiandam secundum normam canonis 40 et postea ad conclavem convocandam.

Octavo, omnes actiones papae Benedicti XVI per septem annos demonstrant quod Is apprehendat munus ut vocationem et gratiam nunquam abiiciendam et non ut ministerium seu officium ecclesiasticum rentuntiatum, et evidens est quod verum sit, quapropter ille nomen et indumentum et dignitatem papalem adhunc portat ut possessionem personalem, qui demonstratio est clare quod intentionem renuntiationis muneris non haberet et non habeat.

Ex totis rationibus ego supplex Vos precor Ecclesiae Sanctae Dei ut convocatio Cardinalium in praesentiae papae Benedicti XVI faciatis in tempore opportuno ad verum quaerendum in materia ista ita ut omne dubium de successione petrina tollatis pro Ecclesia Christi salute. Partibus omnibus in ista controversia eliminatio dubii istius ius et debitum est et nulli vulnera.

Gratias Vobis do pro tempore lectionis litterarum mearum,

In Sancto Francisco servus humilis papatus,

Fra’ Alexis Bugnolo

Here is my English translation of the Letter, for the benefit of the readers of FromRome.Info

Your Eminence,

I am writing you on account of the right granted me by Pope John Paul II in canon 212, to make known to you the grave problems in the Declaratio which was pronounced by Pope Benedict XVI on the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, in the year of Our Lord 2013.

First of all, His renunciation of ministry is not in conformity with the norm of Canon 332 §2 which requires the renuntiation of the Petrine Munus, and hence it is an actus nullus which according to canon 41 constrains no one.

Second, it is not licit for anyone to be the interpretor of a papal renunciation, and hence every interpretation of that act of His, which reads “munus” where “ministerium” is written, is invalid and illicit.

Third, in saying “ministerium” and not “munus” the man who is Pope Benedict XVI cannot posit a valid act without the concession of a derogation, according to canon 38, and hence because he never did any such thing, as the Roman Pontiff, he posited, as the man who is the Pontiff, an actus irritus.

Fourth, in renouncing ministry and not munus, the apparent act of papal renunciation is irritus according to canon 188 by means of a substantial error, since the essence of the act necessary under the terms of Canon 332 §2 is a renunciation of munus, not of ministerium.

Fifth, there is no liberty to renounce munus where a renunication of ministerium is made and hence such an act fails from what is due in Canon 332 §2 regarding a free act of renuncaition of munus, and hence is invalid.

Sixth, there is no due manifestation where there is no manifestation of the due act, and because it is impossible that an act of renunciation of ministerium manifest an act of renunciation of munus, hence it is invalid according to Canon 332 §2.

Seventh, since for some days after the pronouncement of the declaration the integral act was not had, it is impossible that the act of the previous Cardinal Dean was valid to announce a papal renunciation, according to the norm of Canon 40 and afterwards to convoke a conclave.

Eighth, all the actions of Pope Benedict XVI throughout the last 7 years demonstrate that he understands munus as a vocation and grace never to be rejected and not as a renounced ministerium or ecclesiastical office, and it is evident that this is true, because He bears still that Name and clothing and dignity of a pope as a personal possession, which is clearly a demonstration that he did not have nor has the intention of renouncing the munus.

For all these reasons, I humbly beg you for the sake of the Holy Church of God to call a convocation of the Cardinals in the presence of Pope Benedict XVI, at an opportune time, to seek the truth in this matter so as to bear away all doubt concerning the petrine succession for the sake of the salvation of Christ’s Church. The elimination of this doubt is the right and due to all the parties in this controversy and harms none of them.

Thank you for the time you have taken reading my letter,

In Saint Francis, a humble servant of the Papacy,

– – –

I have published this letter to encourage all of you to write to your own Cardinals and Bishops in your part of the world an urge them to the same thing. You have my permission to copy and paste the test of my Latin or English version of my letter.

As you can see, the reasons for holding that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope are the most profound and grave and are drawn entirely from Canon Law and historical facts. They are not based on unfounded opinion, misquoted texts or insults, as those of Trad Inc..

+ + +

Canon Law, Editorials

Can the Cardinals create another Church?

7 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Catholic Church has been attacked by the enemies of truth from the very beginning. Christ healed the sick, restored sight to the blind, made the deaf hear and the lame walk. — But the enemies of truth said: He has a devil. It is by the hand of Satan that he casts out demons.

Christ, Who was meek and discrete in speech, nevertheless, reserved His maximum anger for these sons of Lucifer, saying that those who blaspheme the works of the Holy Spirit shall never be forgiven, not in this world, or in the world to come.

They crucified Him, but He rose from the Dead.  — But these enemies of truth said: His disciples stole the body and invented the story of the Resurrection. The guards, who were sleeping, are the witnesses of it all!

Liars simply cannot get their narrative to fit reality, because when you deny reality, your narrative no longer fits all the facts.

Such are the liars of of own age.

Pope Benedict XVI renounced the ministry that was entrusted to him. — But the enemies of truth say he renounced the papacy.

Canon 332 §2 says that a Roman Pontiff renounces, when he renounces his munus. — But they says ministerium = munus.

Canon 1331 says that an excommunicate cannot hold a dignitas, officium or munus. An affirmation which demonstrates that ministerium does not equal munus, and to renounce ministerium is not to renounce either office or munus or any dignity. — But they say that Canon law was never meant to be precise.

Canon 17 says that all words in the Code of Canon Law must be interpreted properly. — But they say that there are no definitions in Canon Law and if you read it like a book of theology, you will misinterpret it.

The Palmarian Church vs. the Bergoglian Church

The Catholic Church is founded upon truth, indeed, upon Truth Himself, because God is Truth and the Son of God is the Truth of God. This is why the Church exists where the laws of the Church say She exists. That is how we know that this man is a bishop and that man is a priest, but that that bishop is a schismatic and that priest is a fraud.

It’s in Canon Law.

But there are some “Churches” which appear to be Churches. Let’s compare and contrast them.

One is the Church of Palmar de Troya in Spain. It is little known and very secretive. Some of those who alleged to have visions went on to found an Order of Carmelites. Several of the men involved were ordained priests by a Catholic Bishop. Then, some of these were consecrated Bishops by the same Monsignor.  And one day, one of these illicitly consecrated Bishops said he had a vision of Christ in which Christ made him the Pope. Since that time there have been 3 successors. And it is no secret that the first one was well known among the sodomites of Madrid.

If we apply the Code of Canon Law to this phenomena, we see that this “church” is a schismatic Church. If you examine their beliefs and practices you will find perhaps — I have not done the study — that something they teach is contrary to the teaching of the Church.  In short, you can conclude by such a comparison, that the Church of Palmar de Troya is a false church. It is not the Catholic Church. It was not founded by Jesus Christ.

The other is the Church of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.  It is very well known and not very secretive. All of the Cardinals and Bishops involved claim that he was elected in a legitimate Conclave in 2013, even though Pope Benedict XVI was still alive and had not yet said to anyone alive on Earth, then or now, “I renounce the petrine munus”.

If you examine the beliefs and practices of the Bergoglian Church, you will find that at Mass they offer the ritual to Pope Francis, the name Bergoglio took after his allegedly valid election. They openly admit that the Eucharist can be given to public sinners, in defiance of the Council of Trent which excommunicated all who preach such a lie and do such a horrible thing. They are giving blessings to sodomites and are holding a Synod in Germany which wants to approve the ordination of married men and the Sacrament of Matrimony for sodomites and lesbians. — If you compare the official beliefs and practices of the Bergoglian Church it is clear that every year is it more in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church and that it recognizes someone uncanonically elected as its head, in defiance of everything written in the Code of Canon Law on the topic. Thus, it is a false Church, it was not founded by Jesus Christ.

A Comparison

Both of these churches can easily be recognized as false churches by the same rule of measure: Canon Law. That is why, when Christ said, Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in Heaven, He was not only giving to Peter and his legitimate valid Successors a tremendous power, He was also giving all of His faithful an infallibly clear objective and visible criterion by which we can discern WHO is the true Pope and HOW to know it. We are not dealing with a circumstance or event about which Canon Law is silent. The renunciation of a Pope is defined in Canon Law as to what it is and when it happens validly. — If we ignore that, we will end up in a Palmarian Church founded by the former Cardinals and Bishops of the Catholic Church

A Necessary Conclusion

All Cardinals and Bishops and Priests who want to remain in the Catholic Church need to reaffirm their adhesion to Canon Law and begin to follow through with what it says. Just as in life, if we remain silent and do not profess our faith and act it out, we shall be judged damned for all eternity, because our silence is equivalent to a denial, so in regards to the false claims of the Bergoglian Church, if we fail to apply Canon Law, Christ will recall His words to Saint Peter, and then send us to the bottomless pit, were worms never die, and the flames are never extinguished.

___________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is of the YouTube video of the Pope of the Palmarian Church in 1991. It is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary. It was found in a lengthy article about the sect here.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Editorials, Faith, News

Separated from the True Pope, you won’t remain Catholic for long

11 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Pubblicato in Italiano a ChiesaRomana.Info

Saint Paul warned us long ago: Beware, he said, for not all men have the Faith! He said this at the end of his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, to whom he revealed so many things about the last days and the Anti-Christ(s) to come. Here is the Douay Rheims English version of 2 Thess. 3, which the Modernists do not preach on any more. But which I want to speak of in this article. The Apostle writes:

For the rest, brethren, pray for us, that the word of God may run, and may be glorified, even as among you; 2 And that we may be delivered from importunate and evil men; for all men have not faith. 3 But God is faithful, who will strengthen and keep you from evil. 4 And we have confidence concerning you in the Lord, that the things which we command, you both do, and will do. 5 And the Lord direct your hearts, in the charity of God, and the patience of Christ. 6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.7 For yourselves know how you ought to imitate us: for we were not disorderly among you; 8 Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nothing, but in labour and in toil we worked night and day, lest we should be chargeable to any of you. 9 Not as if we had not power: but that we might give ourselves a pattern unto you, to imitate us. 10 For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat.

11 For we have heard there are some among you who walk disorderly, working not at all, but curiously meddling. 12 Now we charge them that are such, and beseech them by the Lord Jesus Christ, that, working with silence, they would eat their own bread. 13 But you, brethren, be not weary in well doing.

14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed: 15 Yet do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

16 Now the Lord of peace himself give you everlasting peace in every place. The Lord be with you all. 17 The salutation of Paul with my own hand; which is the sign in every epistle. So I write.

18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Bad Company makes bad companies

God made us to know the Truth and the Truth will set us free, because God our Creator is the Truth. It follows then, that we exercise our minds and wills in that which is most essentially directed to our own perfection and destiny when we assent to any truth and will to find it and keep it and put it into practice.

But any member of the Clergy, religious or laity — any hermit — who would hide the truth from you, then, is clearly not being honest, is not doing that which the Creator wants. This is especially true if the truth they are hiding is a truth revealed by God or the importance of which depends directly from what God has said.

The enemies of Peter are the enemies of Christ

Christ said to Peter that whatsoever he would bind on Earth would be bound also in Heaven. All true Catholics accept that. All fake catholics ignore it.

The Catholic Church for more than a 1000 years took this doctrine as so central to true Christianity that it was willing to leave a schism with the Greeks in place and not back down on the duty of all Christians to regard the doctrinal and disciplinary decrees of the Roman Pontiff as obligatory, in virtue of these very words of Jesus Christ.

That is why, you cannot be honestly a Christian, if you are not honestly a Catholic who submits to the Roman Pontiff. And that is also why the enemies of Peter are the enemies of Christ, because if you refuse the one you are calling the other a liar or regarding Him as not God.

Peter has told us when Peter is and is not Peter

And lest anyone be confused, it is the Roman Pontiff who has established in Canon Law the terms by which all can objectively and easily know when a man is the Roman Pontiff and when he is not.  To ignore these rules of Canon Law is just as grave as to disobey the Roman Pontiff and go off into schism, because it is an act whereby you say, “Let’s make up our own way of being Christian, apart from submission to the Roman Pontiff.”

This is why we can be 100% absolutely and supernaturally certain that  Christ Jesus does not regard any man His Vicar on Earth, if that man’s claim to be pope is not in accord with the norms of Canon Law and papal law.

The corrollary is that, we can be 100% absolutely and supernaturally certain that Christ Jesus does not regard any Vicar of His on Earth no longer His Vicar, if that man’s renunciation is not in accord with the norms of Canon Law and papal law.

Because this is the Catholic Faith, I have extensively investigated both questions, the first in regard to Bergoglio, the second in regard to Benedict. I did not do this on a whim, I did it out of supernatural faith.

There is no doubt about this principle: A man is or is not pope, or is or is no longer the pope, based on the laws of the Church at the time he begins or ceases to be the pope. This legal principle was recognized in the antipapacy of Anacletus II and his defeat by Pope Innocent II, a defeat which was secured by Saint Bernard of Claivaux, who came to Rome to preach the facts of law about the disputed election of 1130 A.D..

All the books printed in the Catholic Church since 1130 up until Feb. 2013 were in agreement. Pope Innocent II was the valid pope, Anacletus was the antipope, because Pope Innocent was elected in accord with the law of his predecessor, who changed the terms of a papal election in the last weeks of his life. But Anacletus claimed to be elected to the prior norm.

For the Modernist, even if he claims to be a Trad ….

For the Modernist, there is not fixed nor lasting truth. What was true yesterday, may not and probably is not true today. Everything is in change and development. Everything mus be alive, they say, but they really mean, has to die.

All those who changed their concepts on what makes a true Pope, on Feb. 11, 2013, are deceived by Modernism or are modernists, even if they claim to be a Traditional Catholic. This includes all the publication of the so called Traditional Catholic Movement who hold that Benedict is no longer the pope. Because canon 332 §2 has not changed and it says a pope resigns when he resigns suo muneri, not  ministerio. The Vatican knows this and has tried to hide it, and I have proven that indisputably more than 6 months ago. (See the Index to Pope Benedict’s Renunciation)

Stunningly Ann Barnhardt, in her recent podcast, revealed that even Chris Ferrara, the famous attorney, who writes for several Trad publications, admitted to her, that she is probably right on the points of Canon Law regarding the failed renunciation. That was like back in 2016. But Chris still recognizes Bergoglio as the pope. The only honest assessment is that Chris is not being honest either with the public or his own conscience.

From my work here at Rome, I sense the same is true for all the experts. You just mention that Benedict is the Pope and they do not laugh, they attack. They want you to shut up, or to go away. These are signs of deeply conflicted consciences.

If it is not Catholic, it is not Catholic

Men who want to be seen as Catholics but who won’t be responsibly faithful to the duties of the faith, should not be considered faithful Catholics. Those who knowingly deceive the faithful about who is the true pope and who is not the true pope are NOT involved in a little or small controversy. They ARE ACTIVELY SCHISMATIC AND PROMOTING SCHISM.

Saint Paul warned us of such men, and he told us what to do about it.

The true Pope is the mystical Neck of the Church

If you are separated from the true Pope, you won’t remain a Catholic for long. Yes, these men who act like modernists — I do not imagine they are, but they are being constrained by their love of being accepted by errant men and errant men with money and power — have let go of essential truths of the Catholic Faith. But even you, if you follow those who deceive you in such matters, will soon lose your faith. The Church will become something like what the Anglicans have, an all-is-up-for-grabs Christianity, which keeps the names and outward appearances, but has long ago dumped doctrine, morality and faith.

The same thing we see happening with these fake Trads. They are now trying to reinvent the definition of papal infallibility and have totally ignored the teachings of Christ and the saints about papal indefectibility. They are bending doctrine to invent an excuse to remain in communion with an obvious fake and antipope, while refusing communion with the true Pope who defends celibacy. They even attack the true Pope to justify their falsehoods!

This is why all Schismatics lost the true Faith, because they are no longer in union with the mystical neck of the Mystical Body and hence no longer in communion with Christ the Head. Those who fall into such sins cannot be saved, because there is no salvation for those who die separated from Christ.

________

CREDITS: The Featured Image of the Piazza of St Peter’s at the Vatican, is by Br. Bugnolo.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]