Tag Archives: petrine munus

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.

Fundamental Theology

Only the one who holds the Petrine Munus can confirm the Bishops in the Faith

6 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

One of the primary and constant themes of the preaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ was that we should judge things according to the truth. And the truth regards not only what can be seen, but what cannot be seen, but inferred from looking at the facts with faith.

And He put us to the extreme test by what He did and suffered. Because if you only allowed yourself to be amazed at His miracles and to admire His teaching, His Passion was so much the utter contradiction of worldly logic, that mere human admiration would be shattered.

The other extreme test He put us to was to have faith that He was the Bread of Life come down from Heaven, and thus that He is truly, really and substantially there in the Blessed Sacrament. The eyes see bread and wine, but with faith, they see the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Many ask me what is going on in the Church right now, and I have written an essay about this before. But now I want to approach the same problem from a different point of view.

The Vicar of the Christ Who ascended into Heaven

When Christ was about to ascend into Heaven, He said some truly marvelous words:  All power in Heaven and Earth has been given to Me (Matthew 28:18 according to the Vulgate). This passage is often translated with the word, “authority”, not “power”, which if understood badly, as it often is, is understood to refer only to legal authority. But the Greek says, πᾶσα ἐξουσία, means the power to act. It is not just the right to act.

These words are tremendous because of their implication. Christ Our Lord, is not only God, but wields the Divine Power in all its fullness even as Man.

The import for us is that this God become Man is the author of the office of Saint Peter. Peter is not just the Vicar of Christ on earth. Peter is the Vicar of the Christ Who ascended into Heaven and wields all power to act, in Heaven and Earth.

This can be seen in the history of the Church. We Roman Catholics often boast about the Roman Church being superior to the other Apostolic Churches or more fecund in spreading the faith or having saints. We speak often as if this is because of the superiority of Western Civilization or of the Roman Culture, legal system, or philosophical or theological sciences in the West.

The Vicar of the Christ with all power to act

But the mystical truth is quiet other. It is not us, nor the work of our hands, it is the Office of Peter. For the Successors of Saint Peter hold the office of the Vicar of Christ. and not only of any Christ, but of Christ with all the power to act.

The man who in truth has this office, by his mere existence and our communion, with him, merits for us grace to act. He does not merit this by being a good pope or a bad pope, though if he be a good pope he manifests this more.  No he merits it in a higher sense, because the Office of St. Peter has this instrumentality in the order of grace by its very nature as the Vicarship or Vice-Roy of Christ Jesus, Who has all power to act.

In this way, the last words of Our Lord on Earth, were a profound catechesis on the the nature of the Church and the order of grace. Our Lord was promising, by these words, that those who remained in communion with His Vicar, Saint Peter and his successors, would have the grace to accomplish His Final and Greatest Commandment: Go make disciples of every nation, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all the things which I commanded you!

The Petrine munus cannot be hidden

It follows then, that you cannot hide the effects of the Papal Office. You cannot bury them in your sins or wipe out its force by your personal defects. It exists and is empowered on a divine level, the human cannot overwhelm it.  This is because as Vicar of the One who has all power to act, there is no greater instrument in all the cosmos to mediate that active power, than the Office of Peter.

And thus, all of us who are in communion with the true Successor of Saint Peter will have the graces to accomplish the will of God, not because we merit it for our personal good works, but because we obtain it by being in and remaining in communion with the Vicar of Our Lord and Savior.

Likewise, if you are not the true successor of Saint Peter you cannot hide it. It will be evident in the immorality, blasphemies, idolatries, loss of faith, loss of every virtue and finally total abandonment of the divine ministry. You can see that in the cult of Palmar, Spain, who claim to have the true pope, but whose popes leave office and marry women.

desolation

Interpret the signs of the times!

Likewise, if the man you follow as Pope is ordering you not to be a Bishop, not to be a priest, not to believe, not to pray, not to frequent the sacraments, not to have devotion, not to practice virtue, not to be chaste, not the resist the world, the flesh or the devil, in short, not to be a Christian…

Then I say you need to discern the signs of the times.  Christ Jesus did not say, All power to not act in Heaven and Earth has been given to Me.

Thus, the conclusion is inescapable. You’re mistaken. The one you think has the petrine munus, does not have it, because if he did, he would have the power to act and communicate this power to all the Bishops and clergy in communion with him. But it has been 7 years that he and they have been in formal schism with the one who does have that power, and now, their spiritual batteries have run down, and are dead. And the lights of the Church, that is the Sacraments, have gone out.

+ + +

[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

Barnhardt’s 2nd Video and the other Meaning of Benedict’s Tacit Consent

2 Comments

Yesterday, Ann Barhnhardt posted her second Magisterial Study of Pope Benedict’s Invalid Resignation and the theological currents behind it. See here. You have to listen to this entire video to understand anything about what is going on in the Vatican today.*

_______________

*There is only one small factual error in what Mrs. Barnhardt says in this video, namely, when she says that all the vernacular translations of Benedict’s Act of Renunciation were made from the Italian translation, that is not true, the German is unique, as I have shown previously.

Considerations

It’s rationally impossible to exclude, after Barnhardt’s marshalling of evidence, that Pope Benedict did not have a vicious and malign intention in renouncing only the Petrine Ministry, and not simply a substantial error of saying ministerium instead of munus.

This being the case, I can now offer a reasonable explanation of Why the Pope did NOT contest ANY of the 39 arguments I sent him?, which argue his resignation of ministerium did not effect a resignation of munus:  The surprising answer is that Benedict acknowledges that it was NEVER his intention to resign the petrine munus, and was in fact his intention to resign only the petrine ministerium.  — If you recall, in my Scholastic Question, which I sent him, I openly stated that I did not dispute the act effected a renunciation of ministerium.

There are 2 conclusions from this inference, which I say has sound probability on the basis of the 55 year history of Joseph Ratzinger in the speculations regarding transforming the papacy.

The first is that, if asked, Pope Benedict will admit openly and candidly before witnesses that he retains the Petrine Munus.  He will however, on account of his error, say he does not hold the Petrine Office or the Papacy.  This will seem to be an illogical self-contradiction, since it does not accord with the Latin text of Canon 145 §1: but in the Germanic School of theology to which Ratzinger belongs, the office of the Papacy is conceived as pertaining to the Petrine Ministry, that is, the active exercise of grace and vocation.

The second conclusion is, that every Catholic who accepts the teaching of Vatican I, will see that there are now 2 reasons for the renunciation of Benedict being null and void:*  namely, not only substantial error, but malign intention.  The malign intention (dolus) being to split the Papal Office.  Both causes are causes of  the act being null and void in canon 188.*

If these 2 considerations are true, then it will be difficult to understand from speaking with Benedict at any time, for a direct answer which indicates the renunciation was invalid to effect his no longer being the Pope.

The solution of the problem, therefore, must come solely from a canonical analysis, because neither as a private theologian, Joseph Ratzinger, nor as the Pope, does he have any authority to split the Papal Office from the Papal Ministry, nor to ascribe the office of the Papacy to the one who has the Papal Ministry, but not the Papal Munus.

Finally, I wish to praise Mrs. Barnhardt for her correct theological and moral characterization of those who have contested that the renunciation was invalid, arguing instead with a faulty notion of “universal acceptance”, as “demonic”, “satanic” and “free-masonic”.

For the Good of the Church, I will close by calling on all the Cardinals, Bishops, Clergy, Religious and Laity, especially of the Roman Church, to return to the norm of Canon 332 §2 and recognize that

  1. Pope Benedict is still the Pope, Bergoglio was never the Pope.
  2. His renunciation of ministry effects nothing in Canon Law.
  3. He is theologically confused as regards holding that the Papal Office is constituted by the one who exercises the Petrine Ministry, not the One who holds the Petrine Munus.
  4. His deliberate intention to renounce only the Petrine Ministry was morally reprehensible and should be reprehended.
  5. Anyone who speaks with Pope Benedict must resort to correcting him, because he not only committed a juridical error, but also a moral error, in renouncing only the Petrine Ministry.

_____________________________

* Barnhardt and myself, as well as nearly all the other commentators on this controversy, have been saying that Benedict’s resignation was invalid. The correct Canonical phrase, however, is that Benedict never renounced the Papal Office. Because, Benedict resigned nothing, in that he never used the verb resign.  (The English translation of Canon 332 §2 has “resign” in the place of the Latin “renounce”.)  Also, Canon 188 does not declare acts of renunciation invalid, it declares them “irrita“, that is, not properly done, or in other words, never done at all.

Can. 188 — Renuntiatio ex metu gravi, iniuste incusso, dolo vel errore substantiali aut simoniace facta, ipso iure irrita est.

The importance of the distinction in Canon Law regarding juridical acts which are invalid and juridical acts which are irrita is that, if a juridical act of the pope be in question, since one cannot dispute the legitimacy of papal acts, you cannot judge them valid or invalid. But if they were never done, never existed, that is, if they were irriti, then they never happened. And it’s no sin or crime, but true justice to say that they are such.