Tag Archives: Cardinal Brandmuller

A Meditation for the 11th Anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI’s Renunciation of Ministry

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

It was 11 years ago, on February 11, 2013 A. D., at shortly after 11:30 A. M., that his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI read his now famous declaration, “Non solum propter”. — Above, if you click the image, you can access FromRome.Info’s complete Index to the history, debate and controversy over the events of that day and the meaning or effect of that declaration.

By that act he clearly and manifestly intended to retain the petrine munus and renounce only the petrine ministry, so that by retiring but not abdicating he could retain the Papal Dignity and Mandate, while conceding to his opponents the other powers of governance. While there are many, many opinions about the morality, intention, cause, motives and purpose of such an act, the juridical value of it was NOT and abdication.

But, for today’s anniversary, I want to offer a reflection on the moral errors committed in the Vatican before and during that controversy, which might help explain why even to this day, notable clergy incardinated at the Vatican, such as Cardinals Burke and Mueller, Brandmuller and Sarah, and even Archbishop Viganò seemingly find it impossible to admit their error in thinking he declared that he would abdicate from the Pontificate on that day.

As I have shown in my Index to Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, there are more than 53 errors in the Latin text Pope Benedict XVI read on that day. And why it has been admitted by experts at the Vatican, that Pope Benedict XVI wrote the text without any consultation with Canon Lawyers or Latinists, even Archbishop Gänswein admits there are errors in the text — though he has not yet had the charity to the Catholic world to admit which ones he recognizes.

Thus, the national Catholic newspaper in Italy, Avvenire, which is run by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference there, though they called me an “idiot” for claiming there are errors in the text, now has to eat crow. And yes, I still await an apology for their calumny, for the sake of removing the scandal they have placed before millions of souls.

But that they resorted to the services of a defrocked priest to gaslight the Catholic world about the deficiencies in the text, showed how desperate they were to keep the narrative of an abdication going, and how they knew all in their hearts, at least by 2021 that Benedict XVI never abdicated.

This collective sin and guilt and complicity is the principal embarrassment of the Catholic Hierarchy, not only in Italy but round the world. These men are pragmatic, and they realize that their moral authority over the faithful will be utterly destroyed when it comes to be known that they collectively were incapable of understanding how Canon 332 §2 worked and what was necessary for an abdication — a thing which should be a basic concept taught in a general Canon Law class on juridical acts.

So individuals who have doctorates in Canon Law such as Archbishop Gänswein really have no excuse. And there are 1000s like him, who were all silent. Though the worst sin was of those who should have known and attempted to defend the indefensible, namely, that a renunciation of ministerium in Latin signified a renunciation of munus.

But it was not I, but Cardinal Burke himself who immediately recognized that the declaration did not contain what it should contain to effect a valid abdication. He himself spoke to friends and acquaintances from Rome to Arizona about this. But he otherwise hid this opinion of his from the press. And I surmise that if he attempted to speak with Pope Benedict XVI before February 28, 2013, he failed in his request, because Pope Benedict XVI was not wont to speak with him about “canonical details”. The other Cardinals and clergy at the Vatican also failed, either out of human respect, or complicity in the plot by Hilary Clinton to push Pope Benedict XVI from power and have a new “spring time” in the Catholic Church.

I will guess too, without any evidence, that if there were a group of Cardinals and Bishops who realized the errors in the text in February 2013, they became conflicted in their private counsels, because they considered it somehow wrong to request that Pope Benedict XVI make a proper and correct renunciation on Feb. 28, 2013, to correct the errors of his Feb. 11th text. Indeed, for men like Cardinal Burke, it was his grave duty to make his way to Castle Gandolfo on Feb. 28th, with the proper text written on paper and carried in hand, to obtain an audience and insist Pope Benedict XVI sign the document in the presence of two other Bishops or Archbishops. Perhaps he was too unfit to climb to the balcony by rope ladder or thrown himself on the ground in front of the main door, to make a spectacle, to obtain this juridical rectification. We cannot judge the man on his personal sentiments, but all who knew of the defect should have had such a zeal.

Contrariwise, if anyone knew that the act of Pope Benedict XVI did not validly cause an abdication, or that Pope Benedict XVI knew, understood or did not understand this they had a grave solemn duty to announce this to the world as soon as they knew of it. Cardinal Burke did not do this. Why? Did the Cardinals discuss this in the canonically invalid Conclave of 2013 ? We may never know. But shortly after they came out of that “Conclave” we know that they had formed a silent eternal pact to never speak of this fraud perpetrated upon the Catholic World, because immediately the Vatican began publishing falsified translations in all major languages of the world, to conceal this from 1+ Billion Catholics. And this is the greatest crime against the rights of the Faithful in the entire history of the Church!

However, the official canonical and juridical declaration that ‘Pope Benedict XVI remained pope until his death’ is a question about which the Catholic Bishops of the Roman Province are competent to judge in a Provincial Council. Anyone can request them to do it. And all honesty requires that they,  who know of it, make such a request. Moreover, if they fail to rectify the historical and juridical record, those who know of it, who could be influential to obtain this, will go to their graves to encounter a most Terrible and unforgiving Judge, Whose Immaculate Bride has been raped and sullied by such a great injustice.

And yet, all those who insist that Bergoglio has never been the pope, fail to avail themselves of the most important confirmation of the invalidity of the Conclave of 2013, which they could obtain by the convocation of such a Council. Why is this? Those who insist he has always been the pope, also fail to seek this solution. Why?

So as we commemorate and remember that fateful day 11 years ago, we should make a renewed effort to admit the truth, connect the dots and study the sources, if we have not yet understood what really happened on that day and who is at fault for it.

And I encourage all the Catholics who have had the grace of the Holy Spirit to do this and complete this necessary task, to pray for all those who live within the ideological limits imposed upon by the boy’s clubs and magic circles in which they move, who out of human respect have preferred not to ask the question or worse to denigrate the messengers of truth, whom God has sent to His Church in the last 11 years.

Many have urged me to write a book about Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, but I make all the articles and videos available for free, because as a Franciscan Brother I realize that my vocation is to give freely, when one has received freely, and to work for the repair of Christ’s Church. — Of everything I have written and mentioned, here, you can find reference and articles in the above index. Just click the top image in this post.


FromRome.info is an electronic journal chronicling the events of the Church without keeping silent about the duty of Catholics to respond with faith-filled action, rather than as mere spectators. This article is one of more than 10,000 published since September 2013 A. D.. For more information about our journal, see our About Page.

BREAKING: 5 Cardinals Question Pope Francis’ Catholicity, issue new Dubia

Letter of 5 Cardinals to all the Faithful

Notification to Christ’s Faithful (can. 212 § 3)
Regarding
Dubia Submitted to Pope Francis

TRADUCTION FRANÇAISE

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We, members of the Sacred College of Cardinals, in accord with the duty of all the faithful “to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church” (can. 212 § 3) and, above all, in accord with the responsibility of Cardinals “to assist the Roman Pontiff … individually … especially in the daily care of the universal Church” (can. 349), in view of various declarations of highly-placed Prelates, pertaining to the celebration of the next Synod of Bishops, that are openly contrary to the constant doctrine and discipline of the Church, and that have generated and continue to generate great confusion and the falling into error among the faithful and other persons of good will, have manifested our deepest concern to the Roman Pontiff. By our letter of July 10, 2023, employing the proven practice of the submission of dubia [questions] to a superior to provide the superior the occasion to make clear, by his responsa [responses], the doctrine and discipline of the Church, we have submitted five dubia to Pope Francis [select the link below to read them]. By his letter of July 11, 2023, Pope Francis responded to our letter.

Having studied his letter which did not follow the practice of responsa ad dubia [responses to questions], we reformulated the dubia to elicit a clear response based on the perennial doctrine and discipline of the Church. By our letter of August 21, 2023, we submitted the reformulated dubia [select the link below to read them] to the Roman Pontiff. Up to the present, we have not received a response to the reformulated dubia.

Given the gravity of the matter of the dubia, especially in view of the imminent session of the Synod of Bishops, we judge it our duty to inform you, the faithful (can. 212 § 3), so that you may not be subject to confusion, error, and discouragement but rather may pray for the universal Church and, in particular, the Roman Pontiff, that the Gospel may be taught ever more clearly and followed ever more faithfully.

Yours in Christ,

Walter Cardinal Brandmüller

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke

Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez

Robert Cardinal Sarah

Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun

READ THE NEW DUBIA

Canonical Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Finally, someone has taken action. The Dubia were proposed and Pope Francis evaded a clear response, putting him under the suspicion of heresy. Now the Cardinals have written Pope Francis again, and after more than 30 days, Pope Francis has failed to respond.

This confirms the juridical doubt that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a Catholic. It has established a canonical fact that his heresy is pertinacious, manifest and public.

This questioning of the man by 5 members of the College of Cardinals, without a Catholic response on the part of Bergoglio, now demands a hearing in a PROVINCIAL COUNCIL to elicit an act of Catholic Faith from the man WHICH MUST CONTAIN A FORMAL AND EXPLICIT RENUNCIATION OF ERRORS.

I THANK THE LIVING GOD, THAT THESE 5 CARDINALS HAVE ACTED.

What can we expect now?

Pope Francis must answer the Cardinals within 60 days in a Catholic manner, or he must be publicly suspected of having separated himself from the Church by heresy. In such a case a Provincial Council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome MUST be convened to discern if he be a Catholic or not, and if he be not, declare him in virtue of canon 1364 to no longer hold the Papal Office. In which case the Council will pronounce the Apostolic See legally vacant, requiring the College of Cardinals to elect another.

This action of the Provincial Council must be undertaken, because a doubtful pope is no pope. That is, the Provincial Council will be the only way for him holding on to the office. If he obstructs its convening, the faithful can omit his name in the Canon, publicly admit he is a heretic, and refuse all his orders, even those legitimate, on the grounds that he does not appear to be a member of the Church. — If the Bishops of the province are asked to convene such a council and refuse, then the same results. (While private persons can request such a convocation, I think the Bishops of the Province are only canonically required to respond to Bishops holding jurisdiction, or other Provincial Councils called in other parts of the world, which demand this be done, to preserve the Unity of the Church).

As a side note, if you are such a Catholic, especially if you are a Bishop or priest, as doubts that Bergoglio is a Catholic, should should already have written to all the Bishops in the Province of Rome, and asked them to convene such a Council.

Many Catholics have long held that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a heretic, in virtue of their private judgement, discerning things spiritually and comparing his statements and actions with the rule of the Faith. But such private judgements have no canonical value as a fact to condemn a man. By the above action of the Cardinals, which has elicited an evasive response from Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the matter has entered into the canonical record, since as Bishops the Cardinals possess the charism of truth and can discern heresy in a manner in which the Church must hear their witness.

The only organ of the Church that can decide the matter juridically, however, is the Provincial Council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome (roughly co-extensive with the Region of Lazio, in the Italian Republic). These Bishops, and all the major superiors of diocesan institutes in that territory, as well as all Rectors of pontifical institutes and all Abbots of the Territorial Abbeys, constitute the juros in the matter. Technically the first phase of which is not a trial, but a Synod in the true sense where Pope Francis should be invited to attend and respond to the doubts of the Faithful. If he refuse, or if he attend and give unCatholic answers, then the Council can proceed to the trial phase, and vote whether his responses constitute an act which has undubitably shown that he is not a member of the Church in virtue of canon 1364, since the profession of manifest, public, pertinacious heresy ipso facto excommunicates a man. If he refuses to attend the Council can also proceed to the trial phase and declare him contumacious, and thus juridically guilty of all charges, and thus depose him.

UPDATE of October 3, 2023

THE GREAT DEFECT of the action by these 5 Cardinals, is that they have divulged the sin of Bergoglio to the public without apparently taking any action to convene a provincial Council. This is not the proper juridical procedure.

Perhaps they have failed here because they are following the erroneous juridical opinion of Cardinal Burke, who has stated in the past, that there is no way to resolve a crisis of a heretical pope. I have publicly corrected him several times on this matter, most fully (here) 2.5 years ago.

Cardinal Burke is an expert on annulments, so I do not expect him to have spent time in the past on this. But in the last 2.5 years he has had plenty of time. I theorize that he is stuck on the canonical problem that the New Code of Canon Law states that the Metropolitan of the province has the right to convene a Provincial Council. And thus it cannot be convened if he is the person to be put under trial. However, in the case of the Pope, such a reading is not valid, because a doubtful pope is no pope. Therefore, since in the above, the 5 Cardinals have shown that it is doubtful that he is the pope, since he has pertinaciously refused to give a Catholic answer to 10 dubia, the Bishops of the ecclesiastical Province of Rome have the liberty to elect one of their own to convoke the Council, on the grounds that the Metropolitan see can be rightfully held to be impeded by the unwillingness of the man who is the Roman Pontiff of solving this canonical crisis.

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.

  1. 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?
  2. 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!

  3. 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!
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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!
  7. 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!
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

Gänswein, Brandmüller & Burke: Please read Canon 17!

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

 

kardinal-burke-brandmueller-1030x438

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.

  1. 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?
  2. 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!

  3. 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!
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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!
  7. 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!
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

 

Has Cardinal Brandmüller ever read Canon 332 §2?

merlin_136523103_e91aae9d-a184-4062-ad16-3d825ef6cc84-articlelarge

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As Saint Thomas Aquinas says, when the errors of our prelates are public and grave and constitute an imminent danger to the Church, we are obliged to break deferential silence and publicly correct them.

For that reason, I will take this occasion to publicly call upon fellow Catholics to ask Cardinal Brandmüller a simple question:  Have you ever read Canon 332 §2?

I understand, that the general public might consider such a question proposed in public on a blog to be unseemly and insulting, and so let me explain why asking that question is germane for the Cardinal and for every other Cardinal in the Church.

I take occasion here to address a question to Cardinal Brandmüller because of an article he wrote on 2016, of which I just recently came to know of:  Renuntiatio Papae. Alcune riflessioni storico-canonistiche, which appeared in Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, Rivista telematica (www.statoechiese.it), n. 26/2016, published by the Unviersità degli Studi: Milano.

In that article, the Cardinal discusses principally whether Papal resignations can be done and under what conditions. The article is a fine piece of scholarship, and I do not contest any other point of it, here. Rather, I wish to draw the reader’s attention to 3 glaring omissions in the text, which cause me to ask the Cardinal a public question.

The Cardinal cites Canon 332 §2 no less than 4 times in his Historico-Canonical Study, on pages 6, 7, 10 and 11. In the first case, in reference to a papal resignation being an extraordinary event; in the second, in reference to the conditions for a valid resignation,; in the third, that a papal resignation is morally licit; and in the fourth, again the conditions for a valid resignation.

In both cases, on page 7 and 11, the Cardinal declares that the only conditions for a valid resignation are, libere fiat et rite manifestetur, citing the Latin of the main clause of that canon, which Latin means: “be done freely and manifested according to the norm of law“.

Its not that he does not mention the introductory clause of both Canon 221 in the Code of Canon Law of 1917, and contextual affirms that the same introduction is had in Canon 332 §2. Nay, its rather that he misses the striking difference in the Canon of the New Code in comparison with the canon of the old code.  Namely, that in the New Code, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, during the time (1983) with the future Pope Benedict XVi was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) added words which is not found in the old canon:  suo muneri.

How, anyone can read a Canon speaking about when a papal resignation occurs and is valid, and miss the key word of the introductory and fundamental conditional clause, is beyond me. But it seems that if a man so learned as this Cardinal can do it, perhaps all the other Cardinals have also done it.  Maybe even Cardinal Burke, too?

And this is why my request that Catholics ask Cardinal Brandmuller a question is not disrespectful nor impertinent. Because has has been demonstrated by many others, and myself, the word munus takes on the condition of a sine non qua, that is, of a requirement for validity which cannot be obviated under any condition.  Thus its manifestly wrong to speak of only 2 conditions for a papal resignation, since in the New Code, papal resignations only occur when the Pope resigns the Petrine Munus.

This is important, because in regard to Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, the Latin text renounced only the or a ministerium received, NOT the papal munus. This is important, because if Pope Benedict never resigned his office, the conclave of 2013 was uncanonical and Bergoglio is an Anti-Pope in every canonical sense of the word.

____________

For those who want to understand the correct canonical argument, why Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope and why Bergoglio was never pope, supported by Canon Law and all the evidence, and put in simple terms, see “How and Why Pope Benedict’s Resignation is invalid by the law itself.”  For a scholastic argument demonstrating that the text of the resignation does not effect a resignation of office, see my disputed question, here at From Rome, linked under the words “many others” just above here.

For the text of the resignation, translations, other articles, etc., see the same link under the words, “many others”, where I recite the history of the controversy.

PHOTO Credits:  The New York Times, retrieved via Google Images.