Tag Archives: Resignation

Archbishop Lenga: Benedict XVI’s renunciation is invalid & strewn with errors (English)


Many cite Archbishop Viganò who talks around the issue, but here is a true successor of the Apostles who speaks directly on the most urgent issue of our day. You won’t hear his voice in the controlled Catholic Media, who have a secret alliance with the Globalists, Modernists or Secret Services never to put in doubt Bergoglioàs authority.

Is the Abdication of Pope Benedict XVI questionable?

by Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga, M.I.C., D. D.

Ordinary Emeritus of the Diocese of Karaganda, Khazikstan

I would like to go into the history of a the Catholic Church a little bit from the time Jesus Christ established His Church. He chose his twelve apostles and, looking at His choice from a human point of view, as God he could have made a better selection. Rejected as the Messiah by Judaism he built His Church with his chosen apostles. These included Judas who would betray Him for money, and Peter, whom he entrusted with full authority for His Church, who would also betray Him. He disowned Him three times in a cowardly way when challenged after the arrest of Jesus. While he was sitting at the fire in the hall of the high priest’s house a servant woman said: “This man was also with him” and Peter denied Him, saying “Woman, I know him not”. Peter denied that he knew Jesus three times but Christ still handed the authority over His Church to Peter.

When Jesus nominated Peter as the head of the apostles, He said “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee that they faith fail not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren”. (Luke: 31-32) Jesus gave this task to Peter whom we can see was not the wisest or strongest of men and who did not demonstrate faithfulness even at that time before His crucifixion and death when simply asked if he knew Jesus.

So over the course of centuries the Church of Christ has chosen many weak shepherds who sometimes through human weakness betrayed the Church, who were cowards and who were prone to be influenced by, and gave in to, various external pressures such as heresies, schisms and contrary opinions.

In the history of the papacy there have been several serious scandals, some “Lothario” popes, some with wives and children. The Church is composed of human beings with human weaknesses and has to trust in Christ who is its head. If that trust is lacking, especially in the pope, then damage and confusion are inevitable. The human element can have a crippling effect. In the past there have been abdications from the papacy but those abdicating retired to private life or assumed non-papal roles. They certainly did not continue to wear white soutanes.

During the Western Schism, there were three claimants to the papal office, each supported by different political allegiances. The matter was resolved by the Council of Constance (1414-1418) when two of the claimants abdicated and the third was excommunicated. A new pope was elected to resolve this imbroglio. This, of course, is a matter for historians and I only mention it here to indicate the confusion that can be caused in the Church by human interests. It must also be said that there have been many saintly popes from the first century of the Church’s existence and onwards. There have been many martyrs for the faith, killed for their faithfulness to Christ. The good are attacked because Satan never wants the Church to be the lodestar of this world, showing people the way to salvation.

To conclude these comments, the Church is structured using weak human nature but God is its foundation. The problems arise through humans acting according to human nature and not focusing on God. We remember when Christ strongly rebukes Peter, who knows that Jesus is to go to Jerusalem and to die there and says “Do not go there Lord”. Jesus replies, “Get behind me Satan, thou art a scandal unto me because thou savourest not the things that are of God but the things that are of men” (Matt: 16, 22-23). This confirms that we need to think in God’s terms and not in human terms. The successors of Peter often act like Peter who told Christ “Do not do this” but when Jesus rebuked him and prayed for him he was strengthened by the Holy Spirit.  After the rebuke Peter goes and preaches and three thousand are converted instantly through his being strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit. Without this strength he is weak, like us. Likewise with Peter’s successors.

I have not denied Christ in front of some mob like Peter. I am not saying this out of pride, boasting that I am stronger than Peter. I have avoided this denial thanks to God’s grace. But Peter has shown me that I could do it. We do not know when we might do it and in what circumstances. As Holy Scripture says: “Wherefore, he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians: 10,12). Thus we cannot put on human airs and graces but we must rely on God’s grace which He wishes to give us in abundance.

We now know that since the first half of the 19th Century Freemasonry has plotted to destroy the Catholic Church by infiltration. In 1820 the Italian masonic lodge “Alta Vendita” produced a plan called The Permanent Instruction. In this document it says: “The Pope, whoever he is, will never come to the secret societies; it is up to the secret societies to take the first step towards the Church, with the aim of conquering both of them”. It also stated: “The task that we are going to undertake is not the work of a day, or of a month, or of a year; it may last several years, perhaps a century. . . .Now then, to assure ourselves a pope of the required dimensions, it is a question first of shaping for this Pope a generation worthy of the reign we are dreaming of. Leave old people and those of a mature age aside; go to the youth, and if it is possible, even to the children. . . .You will contrive for yourselves, at little cost, a reputation as good Catholics and pure patriots. This reputation will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years by the force of things, this young clergy will have over-run all the functions; they will form the sovereign’s council, they will be called to choose a pontiff who should reign”.

At the beginning of the 20th Century, following the death of Pope Leo XIII, the Conclave was going in favour of a candidate suspected of masonic contacts. After the third ballot Cardinal Jan Puzyna de Kozielsko of Kraków who had asked Emperor Franz Joseph to use the veto which was the right of The Holy Roman Emperor, used his veto. As a result of this intervention Pope Pius X was elected. This was a good example of a difficult situation being resolved through the influence of a good cardinal.

Then we had the Second Vatican Council which was the Council that damaged everything, actually damaging the concept of the Divinity of Christ, and shattered the foundations of the Catholic Church. And after fifty years we can see what degradation has befallen the Catholic Church through the popes who conducted the Second Vatican Council. Such a situation for damage had begun earlier. In his last three years before his death, Pius XII was not really in charge of the Church. In fact the governance within the Church was administered by Archbishop Montini till 1954. However, the most dangerous modernist was Cardinal Bea from Germany who was Pius XII’s confessor. Even as a hypothesis he knew the pope’s aspirations and using the power of such a close relationship with the pope he applied the most damaging Modernist influences.

Another Modernist was responsible for the Church’s external relations during the later years of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII when he was no longer effectively in control. The liberal Montini was meeting the most influential freemasons in the USA and what he was concocting with them God only knows; Eternity and the Final Judgment will show. We must not place too much emphasis on this but neither can we ignore it.

And then, after the death of Pope Pius XII, when the very conservative and faithful Italian Cardinal Siri of Genoa was the foremost candidate for the papacy, influential organizations like the KGB and the CIA were allegedly influencing the various cardinals engaged in the conclave. They did not just fly from Heaven to have a conclave. Each one of them was in some way under scrutiny and influence during their careers in their various countries, be it the USA, Germany or elsewhere. And they finally decided not for Cardinal Siri but for Cardinal Roncalli, John XXIII.

As we know, in Poland, Communists erected a monument in city of Wrocław in honour of John XXIII. No eggs were ever pelted at that monument. In contrast, eggs are thrown at John Paul II. His teaching is mocked. We can draw our conclusions, using the brains we have been provided with.

Such was the situation in the Catholic Church.

The first leader to greet John XXIII after his elevation to the papal throne was Nikita Khrushchev, the General Secretary of The Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Was that telling us something? Nothing simple, extraordinary. Communism, an entirely Godless organization, on the surface had nothing to do with the papal election, but everything was . . . as it was.

In his memoirs John XXIII wrote that he did not know why he had called the Council. He was ill and soon to die. His successor, Paul VI could have put the Council on hold but chose to continue it. Malachi Martin claims that in a Satanic ceremony held in the USA and participated in in the Chapel of St Paul  in the Vatican, Satan was enthroned on 29 June, 1963. This was at the beginning of the reign of Paul VI.

And that was the shape of matters during the whole pontificate. The Paul VI carried on for 10 years in a way that destroyed the traditional liturgy and then he said that

 “From some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God”. And who introduced this smoke? If not himself with the actions of his pontificate? Today he is a saint just by the will of Bergoglio as there is no significant miracle that can be attributed to him. In the same way John XXIII was canonized without a significant miracle. Canonization requires certain conditions. I am saying what is known to the whole world. I am not rediscovering America.

Whereas Cardinal Ratzinger was chosen to be Pope as Benedict XVI the freemasons in the Church were already planning for Bergoglio to be Pope but because they considered it too early and that it would raise objections from various bishops and also the faithful they allowed Benedict to rule for a period of time (surely with a heavy heart). But when they saw that he was intending to rule maintaining the policies of John Paul II, at least as far as possible, they began causing various crises, especially with the Vatican Bank but also with some of his statements. They ignored him at all levels. We remember when Benedict XVI visited Germany and they did not welcome him. They refused to shake him by the hand, displaying their ignorance and pride. That indicated the true state of affairs. We may acclaim “the Pope, the Pope” but the Pope needs his army of supporters. A general needs his troops. He cannot just brandish a sabre on his own. He had to carry out his pontificate without loyalty.

When Benedict abdicated he gave tiredness as a reason. But was he so tired that he had to abdicate? He does not appear to have been ill and is still alive today. After eight years of Bergoglio’s pontificate Benedict is still alive and can see all the effects of his abdication. He can see that the Church has been damaged during these eight years even more than it was damaged during the pontificates of the popes that preceded him.

When he abdicated Benedict read the text of his abdication in Latin and in the text Latin scholars have identified about twenty grammatical errors. Admittedly Benedict was not speaking Latin every day. Perhaps if he had written the abdication text in German it would have been faultless. But Benedict is an excellent Latin scholar.

In the abdication speech he says he is withdrawing from the pontificate because he is ill and infirm and therefore cannot fulfill the duties any more so it would be better to hand over to someone else. But he distinguishes between the “administration” of the papacy and the “munus”, the Divine “gift” of the papacy. He does not decline the munus but retains it. I can clarify this with an example. If the bishop of a diocese is ill he can entrust the auxiliary bishop with the administration of the diocese (for example: confirmations, visiting parishes, ordaining priests etc) while he retains his role as the Ordinary, and this is right.

It would appear that Benedict XVI, seeing that he still wears the white soutane, the papal fisherman’s ring, the red shoes, and all the papal outfit, as he is not an ignorant person who does not understand what he is doing but he wears these clothes and symbols without explanation. These are external signs that suggest that, in the Polish saying, “somewhere a dog is buried” meaning there is a hidden reason. When we remember when John Paul II was in the last years of his pontificate quite ill and looking unwell, the freemasons in the Church wanted to change him. And when John Paul II was giving his speeches from the balcony of St Peter, we could see millions of people out there, watching this agonising but still manful statesman who would not surrender to abdication, but was fighting until the end to pass at least something along to people. And people were coming in even greater numbers to see this elderly  man who from the window of his room speaking God’s words to the whole world. It was said that there were more people there than at the dances and concerts of Michael Jackson.

However it was ascertained between John Paul II and, at that time, Cardinal Ratzinger, that a pope who abdicates from the papal ministry, has to say in his statement: “I renounce the munus”. When one renounces the munus, one renounces the ministry too. But if one renounces the ministry but not munus, one remains the pope. That’s how it is. Moreover, when cardinal Sodano heard Benedict XVI reading his “pseudo “ abdication, he straight away replied : “ What a pity, Holy Father, for all the cardinals, that you are abdicating the papacy” and so on. He already had prepared text to read things other than those prepared by Benedict XVI. That is how it all stands.

Then, as we know, Saint Gallen Mafia, who are enemies of the Church, mainly governed by freemasons, those who surrounded the pope and did everything to impede the pope in his decisions and force him to act more liberally instead of conservatively, chose Bergoglio as successor. And we see what have been the consequences of that.

From the beginning Bergoglio has not lived in the apostolic palace, where previous popes before have lived. Bergoglio from the start has not worn red shoes – an apparently unimportant matter – but the red shoes are not simply some insignificant choice between, say, black shoes or red shoes. Red shoes recall the story of Peter’s flight from Rome when he met Jesus and asked “Quo vadis Domine?” (“Where are you going, Lord?”) And Jesus replied: “ I am going back to fight and die for those people, because you are running away. Go back to support those poor martyrs”. Then Peter walked barefoot on the blood of the martyrs, and that is why the Pope wears red shoes. This is not a question of the choice of shoes: this is the symbol of walking on the blood of the martyrs. If the Pope does not wear them, that means he denies this tradition.

And such was the situation.. when most probably the pope could see that he could do nothing in the environment that was so aggressive against him and was doing everything to destroy him, so he gave the power to those who wanted to have it. They have the power, but only the executive power. They have the power of damaging the Church but he, as the real pope, still has the power of the papacy.

And that’s why this prophecy at Fatima that there will be a pope killed and many (many) more will be killed with him, I believe, could apply to Benedict XVI, who is still alive. And as we see, the Devil is getting close enough these days and it may be a year or two away, not more. The whole Church may be destroyed and all the people will be locked up in ghettos for this reason: to prepare them for allegiance to this Antichrist that will come. Therefore abdication of Benedict XVI looks, in my understanding, in this way.

And to add, in 2015, I had already written the letter stating that I reckoned that Benedict’s XVI abdication was doubtful. And that he resigned only because of the external pressures that he may not have revealed, as it happens.. all the more as it was in the past.I already said about when the pope Pius XII didn’t rule the Church in his later years for some time but instead Archbishop Montini did. Then pope Paul VI. Same way Bergoglio can act as a person acting “as a pope”, but the real pope?


Abdykacja, która budzi wątpliwości?

Arcybiskup Lenga: Chciałbym wejść troszku w historię w ogóle Kościoła katolickiego. I od tego czasu, kiedy Jezus Chrystus, ustanawiając swój Kościół, odchodząc od judaizmu, widząc, że to wszystko nie da się poprawić, Żydzi nie przyjmują go jak Mesjasza, zakłada swój Kościół i wybiera dwunastu apostołów takich, jakich chce. Patrzymy na to, na ten wybór Jezusa Chrystusa apostołów. Wydaje się, że Chrystus jako Bóg mógłby wybrać lepszych, tak po ludzku myśląc. Przecież wybiera takiego, który zdradza Jego – Judasz. Powiedzmy, zdradza za srebrniki, a był w gronie apostołów. Natomiast Piotr, któremu potem powierzył władzę w swoim Kościele, też zdradza Jego. Trzykroć odmawia się od Chrystusa, i to w takich błahych rzeczach, kiedy jakaś tam niewiasta jego pyta: „Czy ty byłeś z nimi, z Chrystusem?” – „Nie, nie, Jego nie znam”. Trzykroć wymawia się, że on zna się z Chrystusem. I jednak Chrystus nie rezygnuje z tego, żeby temu apostołowi w końcu końców przekazać władzę w swoim Kościele. Ale Chrystus, kiedy wybiera jego na Księcia Apostołów, mówi jemu tak: „Piotrze, diabeł chciał was przesiać jak pszenicę. Ja modliłem się za ciebie, żeby nie ustała twoja wiara, a ty, nawracając się, żebyś utwierdzał swoich braci w wierze”. Takie zadanie powierza Jezus Chrystus Apostołowi Piotrowi. Widzimy, że nie był najmądrzejszy. Znaczy, najmądrzejszy i najmocniejszy. I nie wykazał się wiernością, w chwili gdy jeszcze jego nie krzyżowali, nie zabijali, a prosto tylko spytali, czy on zna się z Nim, czy nie. I tak na przestrzeni wieków jeżeli Chrystus wybrał takich słabych, to jednak Kościół znajduje się przy takim słabym, ludzkim elemencie pasterzy, którzy nieraz zdradzali w różnych sytuacjach, które byli i tchórzami, i poddawali się różnym presjom ludzkim. Między herezją, między schizmami, między jakimiś różnymi wypowiedziami. I w historii papiestwa można widzieć masę głupich wyrazów, można widzieć rozpustników papieży. Można widzieć tych, którzy mali (mieli) żony, mali (mieli) dzieci i tak dalej. To pokazuje, że Kościół jest bardzo słaby na elemencie takim, ale ten Kościół musi zaufać Chrystusowi, który jest Głową tego Kościoła. Jeżeli nie zaufa każdy na swoim miejscu, a papież szczególnie, kiedy będzie poddawał się emocjom, kiedy poddawał się tym wszystkim, którzy będą jemu doradzać niewłaściwie. Tak jak będzie doradzać jemu serce napełnione wiarą w Boga. To wtedy nic się nie zmieni w tym wszystkim i zawsze będą błędy i Kościół zawsze będzie okaleczony, ciągle będzie… Nigdy się z tego nie wyleczy. W historii Kościoła byli ci, którzy byli papieżami, potem abdykowali, ale oni, odchodząc do innego stanu, nie papiestwa już, przyjmowali dalej funkcje kardynałów, a nie nosili białej sutanny. To znaczy, nawet w historii papiestwa byli trzej papieże z różnych terytoriów Europy. No, ale był prawdziwie wybrany, a dwa reszty to byli tylko tak pod emocjami, pod ludzkimi krzykami i wrzeszczeniem, byli wybrani na takich, bo każdy myślał sobie, że to ma ludzki wymiar, a nie Boży. Jednak ten, który był po Bożemu wybrany, zawsze miał więcej praw i obowiązków do tego, żeby wykonywać te funkcje. Takie zamieszania był w historii Kościoła. Nie będę teraz mówił lat, to trzeba historyka specjalnego. Ja tylko mówię, naświetlając, jakie rzeczy się dzieją, jakie rzeczy się działy w Kościele. Mamy wielu świętych papieży, szczególnie z pierwszych wieków. Ci, którzy naprawdę byli męczennikami za wiarę, którzy byli zabijani za to, że byli wierni Chrystusowi. A diabeł nigdy nie chciał, by Kościół był przewodnią gwiazdą w tym świecie, wskazywał ludziom drogę do zbawienia. I tak robiąc, powiedzmy, wniosek z tego, co powiedziałem przed chwilą, Kościół jest pobudowany na słabym elemencie, tylko na ludzkim, ale fundament ma Boży. Dlatego te wszystkie upadki pochodzą od tego, że nieraz ci ludzie nie postępują po Bożemu, a postępują po ludzku. Pamiętamy, jak Chrystus, kiedy mocno strofuje Piotra, który Mu mówi, wiedząc, że Chrystus ma pójść do Jerozolimy, tam zginąć, mówi: „Niech chodź tam, Panie”. I Chrystus mu mówi: „Idź precz, diable, ode mnie!” Trzeba myśleć po Bożemu, nie po ludzku. Widzimy jednak pozycję Chrystusa i pozycję Piotra. Dlatego każdy Piotr, następca Apostoła Piotra, raz postępuje tak jak Piotr, kiedy mówi Chrystusowi: „Nie rób tego”. Kiedy Chrystus strofuje i jeszcze się modli za Piotra, wtedy Piotr jest wzmocniony Duchem Świętym. Idzie i głosi. Trzy tysiące od razu się nawracają, kiedy wzmocniony Duchem Świętym. Kiedy niewzmocniony, takie byle co jak my wszyscy, jeszcze gorszy od nas. Ja Chrystusa trzy razy się nie zapierałem przed jakąś babką czy dziadkiem, a Piotr to zrobił. Nie mówię z pychy, że ja jestem mądrzejszy od Piotra, ale tego nie zrobiłem dzięki łasce Bożej. Ale Piotr to zrobił. To znaczy, pokazuje, że jeden może tego nie zrobić, ale nie wiemy, kiedy możemy to zrobić, w jakiej chwili, nawet w lada chwili. Pismo Święte mówi: „Kto myśli, niech pamięta, może upaść”. Dlatego nie możemy się pysznić, tylko polegać na łasce Bożej, którą Pan Bóg obficie chce nam dawać. Widzimy, że szczególnie z czasów tej połowy dziewiętnastego wieku, kiedy masońska loża… Ja pamiętam, że nazywała się Venta. Może inaczej, to nieważne. Z (W) 1820 roku ona postanowiła wszystko zniszczyć w Kościele, zniszczyć Kościół katolicki. Oni mówili tak, że: „My może papieża masonem nie zrobimy, nie łudźmy się na ten czas. Nasze sprawy na sto lat. Ale my tak wejdźmy do seminariów, wyrzućmy starych ludzi, bo ich się nie da nawrócić. Wejdźmy do seminariów z naszymi liberalnymi ideami. Zróbmy wszystko, żeby nasze liberalne idee były w księżach, biskupach, w otoczeniu papieża. I oni będą wpływać na papieża na tyle, że on będzie podpisywał rano czy późno nam wygodne różne postanowienia. No, ale powiedzmy tak, że papież je podpisywał, ale potem z tych wszystkich, którzy w otoczeniu papieża się znajdują, przez te wieki, gdzie masoneria postanowiła zniszczyć Kościół, to rano czy późno stawali się ci kardynałowie, z których potem wybierali papieży. Tak było na początku dwudziestego wieku, kiedy wybrali papieża masona, tylko że na szczęście dekretem i weto (wetem) cesarza austro-węgierskiego nie doszło do jego wstąpienia na tron świętego Piotra i dzięki kardynałowi z Krakowa, który naszeptał na ucho, jeżeli tak można powiedzieć, temu imperatorowi austriackiemu, że nie wolno jego naznaczać na ten tron. I tak się wydarzyło i przyszedł Pius X. Dlatego widzimy, jakie trudne sytuacje nieraz wychodzą w Kościele. Kiedy już masoni triumfują, to nagle jakaś ingerencja jednego z kardynałów może zmienić wszystko na dobrą drogę. Powiedzmy, sobór watykański drugi, który był takim soborem, który wszystko zniszczył, faktycznie boskość Chrystusa. Który zniszczył do szczętu fundamenty Kościoła katolickiego. I za pięćdziesiąt lat widzimy, jaka degradacja Kościoła katolickiego. A to było przeprowadzane przez papieży, którzy właśnie prowadzili sobór watykański drugi. Taka sytuacja, kiedy był Pius XII, trzy lata przed swoją śmiercią on już nie władał, ażeby rządzić Kościołem. Faktycznie wszystko w Kościele, rządy w Kościele wykonywał kto? Wykonywał arcybiskup Montini, następny… Paweł VI, papież Paweł VI. On wykonywał trzy lata władzę w Kościele, wewnętrznym Kościele. Natomiast największym modernistą był kardynał Bea z Niemiec, który spowiadał Piusa XII. I na pewno nie mówię wprost, ale jako hipoteza: mógł wiedzieć jego dążenia i jednak korzystając z tej władzy tak bliskiego stosunku do papieża jednak największe wpływy modernistyczne zrobił. Jeszcze jeden modernista, który był na zewnątrz Kościoła – Kościół jako państwo ma i zewnętrzne stosunki z państwami – który był modernistą i liberałem, Montini spotykał się za trzy lata swojej władzy w Kościele przy byciu już papieża Piusa XII, który już nie wykonywał urzędu, a był taki… Jak to powiedziałeś?

Dziennikarz: P.O.

Arcybiskup Lenga: Pełniący obowiązki. To on spotykał się z najgorszymi tam masonami w Stanach Zjednoczonych. I co on od nich czerpał, to jeden Pan Bóg wie. I wieczność to wszystko okaże, a i Sąd Ostateczny to wszystko okaże. Nie możemy do tego wszystkiego wsiąknąć na tyle, ale jednak nie możemy tego ignorować. I potem, kiedy, powiedzmy, po śmierci Piusa XII miał być wybrany kardynał, nie pamiętam jego nazwiska, włoski kardynał, który był bardzo konserwatywny po linii Kościoła i Chrystusa, natomiast wpływowe organizacje jak na pewno KGB i nie mniej Stany Zjednoczone… Nie wiem, CRU, Centralne Razwiedywatielnoje Uprawlenija (Centralna Agencja Wywiadowcza, CIA), to po polsku nie wiem. Nieważne.

Dziennikarz: Służby wywiadowcze.

Arcybiskup Lenga: Tak, służby wywiadowcze. To tam, kto będzie słuchał, to będzie wiedział, o co chodzi. To znaczy, oni naciskali na tych różnych kardynałów, którzy nie prosto sfrunęli z nieba na ziemię, żeby konklawe zrobić. Oni, każdy był w jakiś sposób inwigilowany w toku swego życia w różnych państwach, czy w Stanach Zjednoczonych, czy w Germanii, czy gdzieś tam w innych miejscach. I oni wtedy zdecydowali nie tego kardynała, a wybrali Jana XXIII. Jak wiemy, Janowi XIII komuniści postawili pomnik we Wrocławiu i nikt tego pomnika jajkami nie zarzuca, nie obrzuca. Natomiast Jana Pawła II obrzucają jajkami, wyśmiewają się z jego nauki i tak dalej. Możemy zrobić wnioski, jeżeli mamy troszku rozumu więcej w głowie czym w innych miejscach naszego ciała. Taka sytuacja w Kościele katolickim istniała. I pierwszy, który pozdrowił Jana XXIII z wyniesieniem na papieski tron, to był Nikita Chruszczow, generalny sekretarz partii komunistów Związku Radzieckiego. To chyba o czymś mówi, że to nie jest tak proste i nic wspólnego komunizm, który był zupełnie bezbożna organizacją, nic wspólnego nie miał z wyborami papieża na pierwszy rzut oka, ale to wszystko było tak, jak było. Następny papież już tylko w swoich memuarach, Jan XXIII wypisał, że on nawet nie wie, dlaczego ten sobór zrobił. Był chory, blisko śmierci i faktycznie rozpoczynając sobór, nie dociągnął do jego zakończenia. Faktycznie robił coś na ślepo i sam nie wiedział, o czym. I w memuarach o tym napisał. Dlatego potem, kiedy przyszedł Paweł VI i dalej kontynuował to wszystko, mógł to wszystko wstrzymać. Jak (niezrozumiałe) mówi Malachi Martin, diabeł postanowił, żeby przy papieżu Pawle VI oddać świat pod panowanie diabła. Wiemy takie z jego wypowiedzi, jak tam były złożone ofiary czy to w bazylice Pawła. I to było 29 czerwca 1963 roku, kiedy Paweł VI wszedł na namiestnika Chrystusa, na tron Piotrowy. I to masoni złożyli, diabłu oddali świat. Przy tym papieżu było im tak powiedziane, że to mają zrobić. A Matka Boża przez siostrę Łucję powiedziała, że papież 60 roku, który będzie, a to był właśnie Jan XXIII, żeby on poświęcił Rosję Niepokalanemu Sercu Maryi. On tego nie zrobił. Natomiast diabli, masoni zrobili poświęcenie świata diabłu przy papieżu Pawle VI. Znaczy, oni widzieli, kiedy to wszystko się zaczyna. Tak jak to było kiedyś w plagach egipskich, kiedy Bóg mówił Aaronowi: „Rzuć swoją laskę”. I stała się wężem. A magowie, czarodzieje egipscy faraonowi też rzucali swoje laski i nie stawały się one wężami. A jak pamiętamy, wąż z woli Bożej pożarł tych innych. Dlatego jeżeliby ci papieże byli poddani doskonale władzy łaski Bożej, nie byłoby tego stanu, do którego my dzisiaj dożyliśmy. I tak sprawy wyglądały przez cały pontyfikat. Potem Paweł VI dziesięć lat to wszystko robił i robił niewłaściwie, zniszczył liturgię. I potem powiedział, że teraz swąd diabła w Kościele. A kto ten swąd wprowadził, jeżeli nie ten sam to zrobił? Znaczy, to papież już, który, powiedzmy, wyrabiał niewłaściwe rzeczy. Dzisiaj jest święty z woli Bergoglio, a nie bez żadnego cudu, który jemu można by przypisać jako cud. To samo Jan XXIII bez żadnego cudu stał się świętym. Nie wiadomo z jakich przyczyn, kiedy do tego, żeby być świętym, trzeba przejść jakieś rzeczy zupełnie inne. Mówię to, co jest wiadomo na całym świecie, Ameryki nie otwieram (odkrywam), to, co jest. Natomiast kiedy był wybrany Benedykt XVI, już chcieli wybrać tego Bergoglio, a nie Benedykta XVI, tylko że ze względu na to, że widzieli, że na pewno jeszcze za wcześnie, że mogą się sprzeciwić różni biskupi na świecie i lud wierny, to jeszcze pozwolili Benedyktowi XVI na pewno z wielkim ciężarem serca ci masoni kościelni i światowi, pozwolili Benedyktowi XVI troszku porządzić w Kościele. Kiedy zobaczyli, że ten jednak nie poddaje się, próbuje się cofnąć i trzymać dalej linię Jana Pawła II, bynajmniej (przynajmniej) na tyle, na ile to się dawało, to oni mu robili wszystkie różne przykrości, szczególnie z Bankiem Watykańskim, z różnymi wypowiedziami, z różnymi… Ignorowali jego na wszystkich szczeblach. Pamiętamy, jak to było, kiedy do Niemiec przyjechał, jak tam ręki nie podawali mu biskupi, pokazywali swoją ignorancję i swoją pychę, w jakiej się znajdują. I w takim stanie, my myślimy sobie: „A, papież, papież”, ale papież potrzebuje też jakiegoś wojska. I generał potrzebuje wojska, nie sam będzie szabelką machał. Dlatego kiedy nie ma tych, którzy byliby wierni jemu, to znaczy, to było, co było. Widzimy, że Benedykt XVI abdykuje, ale kiedy abdykuje, nie był tak zmęczony, żeby tak zmęczony, żeby abdykować. Nie był najgorzej chory, bo dzisiaj, po dzisiejszy dzień jeszcze żyje, nie? Osiem lat pontyfikatu Bergoglio, a on jeszcze żyje i widzi wszystkie skutki swego abdykowania, że ten Kościół jest zniszczony za osiem lat, czym był przy tych papieżach, którzy byli wcześniej przed nim. I kiedy abdykuje, on po łacinie czyta swój tekst abdykacji, jakby abdykacji. I w łacińskim tekście latyniści znaleźli dwadzieścia pomyłek, słownych pomyłek.

Dziennikarz: Gramatycznych.

Arcybiskup Lenga: Gramatycznych, tak. Może, powiedzmy, nie na każdy dzień używał Benedykt XVI łaciny. Może by napisał po niemiecku, na pewno byłoby bezbłędnie. Ale on wypowiedział się przez łacinę. Natomiast kiedy słyszy się jego wypowiedź w łacinie, to tam się mówi, że on odmawia się od wypełniania magisterium (ministerium). Ze względu na co? Na to, że on jest chory, niedołężny, że on już nie może tego wykonywać, a chce, żeby ktoś to lepiej zrobił za niego. Ale on się nie odmawia od munus. Munus to jest obowiązek być papieżem. Powiem tak na przykładzie: jeżeli biskup diecezji jest chory, ale on pozostaje biskupem ordynariuszem, chory na jakiś czas, dopóki się nie ujawni, co z nim będzie dalej, jak choroba będzie się rozwijać, on może powierzyć funkcję wykonania ministerium, nie munus. A ministerium, tego, co on powinien wykonywać, powiedzmy, bierzmowania, nawiedzenia tam parafii i tak dalej, i tak dalej, i tak dalej. Święcenia księży powierzyć swojemu biskupowi pomocniczemu. I to jest właściwe. Wygląda na to, że Benedykt XVI ze względu jeszcze na to, że nosi sutannę białą, pierścień rybaka, na to, że nosi te czerwone buciki, na to, że wszystko papieskie ubrania, nie jest Benedykt XVI ignorantem i nie rozumie, co on robi. Ale jak musi to wszystko, nie mówiąc nikomu po co, na co i za co, zewnętrzne znaki mówią o tym, że coś tutaj jest, gdzieś ten pies zaryty, jak wy mówicie po polsku, tak?

Dziennikarz: Zakopany (pogrzebany).

Arcybiskup Lenga: Zakopany (pogrzebany), pies jest zakopany, który… Na zewnątrz nie da się tego zrozumieć. Natomiast kiedy, pamiętamy, kiedy Jan Paweł II był w ostatnich latach swego pontyfikatu dość chory, to też ci masoni kościelni wiedzieli, że trzeba jego zmienić, bo niedobrze wygląda. Natomiast pamiętamy, jak Jan Paweł II występował na swoich przemówieniach z balkonu świętego Piotra, to, widzieliśmy, miliony tłumów tam było, bo widzieli tego agonizującego, ale mężnego jeszcze męża stanu, który nie poddał się abdykacji, a do końca walczył za to, żeby coś jeszcze przekazać ludziom. I ludzie więcej przychodzili na niego, żeby zobaczyć staruszka, który z okna tej swojej rezydencji mówi do świata słowa Boże. Więcej, czym było młodzieży na potańculkach i śpiewach Michaela Jacksona. Tak niektórzy porównywali te różne proporcje. Natomiast było mówione między Janem Pawłem II i jeszcze kardynałem Ratzingerem, oni prowadzili do tego, że ten, który abdykuje albo chce abdykować od urzędu papieskiego, musi powiedzieć w swojej przedmowie (przemowie): „Zrzekam się munus”. Jak zrzekam się munus, to wtedy zrzekam się i ministerium. A jak zrzekam się ministerium, a nie munus, pozostaję papieżem. Taka, taka jest rzecz, tym bardziej że od razu kardynał Sodano, kiedy słyszał, jak czytał Benedykt XVI swoją jakby abdykację, on od razu zaczął swoje przemówienie: „Jak tam szkoda, Ojcze Święty, wszystkim kardynałom, że ty tutaj zrzekasz się papiestwa” i tak dalej. On już ma zagotowany (przygotowany) teksty czytania innych rzeczy, a nie tamtych, które przeczytane przez Benedykta XVI. Na tym to polega wszystko. Potem, jak wiemy, mafia Sankt Gallen, ci którzy byli przeciwnikami Kościoła, i ci, którzy byli wychowani raczej przez masonów, a nie… Raczej byli ci w otoczeniu papieża, którzy robili wszystko, żeby papież zmieniał decyzje i postępował coraz więcej liberalnie, a nie konserwatywnie, oni wybrali sobie Bergoglio i widzimy, jakie skutki tego wszystkiego. Najpierw Bergoglio nie mieszka w Pałacu Apostolskim, gdzie mieszkali wszyscy papieże wcześniej. Najpierw Bergoglio, który nie nosi czerwonych butów… Niby wzmianka nie tak ważna, ale czerwone buty to nie jest prosto jakiś atrybut, buty czarne, buty czerwone. To jest to, że on pochodzi od Apostoła Piotra, który wraca, uciekał z Rzymu, a Jezus mówi: „Idź z powrotem zbawiać tych biednych męczenników”. A Piotr woła: „Quo vadis, Domino (Domine)?” Mówi: „Idę z powrotem walczyć i umierać za tych ludzi, bo ty uciekasz”. Wtedy Piotr szedł tymi bosymi nogami po krwi męczenników i dlatego jest (są) te czerwone buty. To nie jest prosto symbol jakiegoś tam buta, a to jest prosto symbol tego, że to chodzi się po krwi. Jeżeli tego nie robi, to znaczy, też jest jakaś wymówka, ucieczka z tego wszystkiego. Nie podpisuje się „Pontifex Największy”, „ten, który łączy mosty”, a ten, który prosto Franciszek. To pokazuje też, że wszystkie te jego decyzje, które jest (są) podjęte, które nie pokazują rygoryzmów kościelnych, tylko wciąganie się w ekologię, wciąganie się w Paczamamę i różne „Tutti fratelli”, na płaszczyźnie ziemskiej próbowanie budowania jakiegoś New Age’u, a nie Kościoła katolickiego, niszczenia faktycznie duchowości najwyższej Bożej. To pokazuje, dlaczego dziś, na dzisiejszy dzień jeszcze można uważać, że Benedykt XVI, dopóki żyje, jest tym papieżem. Ja to powiem highly likely, w najwyższym prawdopodobieństwie jest, on jest papieżem. I dlatego kiedy nosi te wszystkie insygnia… I jeszcze jest taka sytuacja: kiedy widzi się, prawdopodobnie widzi się, kiedy papież widział, że nic nie może zrobić z tym otoczeniem, które było tak agresywne przeciwko niemu i tak wszystko robiło, żeby jego zniszczyć, on oddał władzę tym, którzy chcieli ją mać (mieć). Oni mają władzę, ale władzę tylko wykonawczą. Oni mają władzę niszczenia Kościoła, ale władzę ostatniej decyzji ma on jako prawdziwy papież. I dlatego ta fatimska mowa, że będzie papież zabity i wiele (wielu) z nim jeszcze będzie zabitych, jak uważam, może się tyczyć Benedykta XVI, który jeszcze żyje. A jak widzimy, diabeł na tyle zbliża się w dzisiejszych czasach i może to nastąpić rok, dwa, nie więcej. Może być zniszczony cały Kościół i wszystkie (wszyscy) ludzie będą zamknięte (zamknięci) w gettach dlatego, żeby ich przygotować na wierność temu Antychrystu (Antychrystowi), który przyjdzie. Dlatego abdykacja Benedykta XVI wygląda w moim rozumieniu w taki sposób. I jeszcze chcę powiedzieć, że w 2015 roku już napisałem swój list, że mnie się wydaje, że abdykacja Benedykta XVI jest wątpliwa, że on zrezygnował tylko z jakiejś presji zewnętrznych, o których on może i nie mówić, jak to jest nieraz… Tym bardziej jak to było… Już powiedziałem o tym, jak papież Pius XII trzy lata nie rządził Kościołem, a za niego rządził arcybiskup Montini, następny potem papież Pius (Paweł) VI. Tak samo może rządzić Bergoglio. Jak to? P.O.?

Dziennikarz: Pełniący obowiązki.

Arcybiskup Lenga: Pełniący obowiązki papieża, a nie papieżem. Amen.

Pope Benedict XVI’s shell game against the Mafia of St. Gallen

“Ein Leben”: In the second book of Interviews with Pope Benedict XVI, we find another story about His resignation

by Andrea Cionci

Here is an unofficial English translation

A few days ago, we became aware of strange inconsistencies and the possibility of a shocking subtext in the interview book by Peter Seewald – Benedict XVI “Last Conversations” (Garzanti 2016) HERE .

On a deeper reading, the writing seemed to be able to coincide with a scenario now outlined by various theologians, journalists, Latinists and legally explained by the recent volume Benedict XVI: pope emeritus? By the lawyer Estefania Acosta HERE .

According to this thesis, Benedict XVI, now besieged by the internal modernist frond and by external globalist powers, never left the Petrine throne in 2013 : he only announced his resignation from the exercise of his functions, moreover without ever ratifying them. HERE

In this way he would have allowed his enemies to seize power, effectively constituting an anti-papal party . Why all this? It would be a strategic retreat to allow anti-Christ forces to manifest themselves and then be canceled, thanks to the recognition of the only true pope, Benedict, for a redemption-purification of the Church. Over the past eight years, Ratzinger, kept under control by the antipapal power, has thus sent us continuous messages through a subtly logical language to facilitate our awareness.

The question, incredible as it may seem, is serious and there are even priests who are excommunicated for their fidelity to Pope Benedict. The latest is Don Enrico Bernasconi , whose interview we propose HERE .

So we also went to read the second book by Peter Seewald ” Ein Leben – Una vita” of 2020 (Garzanti), of which few and disorganized fragments filtered out in the press.

The voluminous biography contains eight pages with new questions to Ratzinger . Let’s try to read them according to the above perspective and see if the sense can spin.

First of all, Ratzinger declares: “My intention was not simply and primarily to clean up the small world of the Curia, but rather in the Church as a whole” . And then: The real threat to the Church comes from the universal dictatorship of apparently humanistic contradicting ideologies, which entails exclusion from the basic consensus of society. [] Modern society intends to formulate an anti-Christian creed : whoever challenges it is punished with social excommunication. Being afraid of this spiritual power of the Antichrist is all too natural .

And so far we would be there . Benedict immediately after, underlines the differences with one of his illustrious predecessors.

The visit (2009) to the tomb of Pope Celestine V was actually a chance event; in any case I was well aware of the fact that Celestine V’s situation was extremely peculiar and that therefore it could in no way be invoked as (my) precedent .

One could read this as meaning: “Celestine V legally resigned in 1294 because he did not feel like taking on the burden of the papacy, which I absolutely did not do, since I did not resign as pope, but I only declared that I wanted to renounce to the exercise of practical power, for the purposes we know. Celestino and I have nothing in common “.

Then the Holy Father continues:

“It was absolutely not my intention to take an extreme distance from the conditions in which the Church finds itself. If you study the history of the popes, you will soon realize that the Church has always been a net in which good fish and bad fish end up. The Catholic conception of the Church and of the managerial roles within it excludes the adoption of an ideal Church as a parameter and instead foresees that one is ready to live and work in a Church besieged by the forces of evil .

Or rather: “I have not in the least abandoned the role of pope. We know that the history of the Church is full of antipopes and we must be ready to face the siege of the forces of evil”.

Seewald then tackles the key question: according to Church historians there is no “emeritus” pope , since there cannot be two popes . It is true that, since the 1970s, a bishop can resign and become an emeritus, but this – he asks – also applies to the pope?

Ratzinger replies: It is not clear why this juridical figure should not also be applied to the bishop of Rome. The formula manages to account for both aspects: on the one hand no concrete juridical mandate, on the other a spiritual charge that is maintained, even if invisible. Precisely the juridical and spiritual figure of the emeritus allows us to avoid even the idea of the coexistence of two popes, given that a bishopric can have only one holder “.

There is therefore only one pope. But when he says “the juridical and spiritual figure of the emeritus”, to which of the two does he refer, to the pope or to the bishop? The ambiguity does not seem accidental, but the Latinist Fr Alexis Bugnolo , an expert in canon law , explains :

If we mean BISHOP EMERITUS , the argument is invalid from the canonical point of view because a bishop receives an ecclesiastical office and, since his mandate as ordinary bishop has been created by the Church, two persons can be allowed in the dignity of the bishop. If we mean pope emeritus, the argument is still invalid since there is no juridical figure of pope emeritus and since the munus is not shared iure divino (by Divine insitution)”.

Also for the theologian Carlo Maria Pace , who HERE analyzed the invalidity of Ratzinger’s resignations due to their deferral, confirms: “Benedict XVI erroneously stated that a Pope who resigns remains Pope in the same way that bishops who resign remain bishops “.

In essence, the pope emeritus would himself be THE pope. In fact, if A bishop resigning (from the post of human origin) can become A retired bishop, IL Pope, renouncing the ministerium is always THE Pope, although retired, since it keeps the munus which is given directly by God. That’s why Ratzinger continues to say for eight years that the pope is only one and never specify that it is Francis.

Benedict seems to reiterate the concept, a few lines later, with an example: “A father remains so until death (even if he passes the management of the company to his son) and the human and spiritual meaning of being a father is not revocable”.

But what would be the spiritual purpose of these fake resignations?

An explanation is offered by Seewald’s own question:

The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben says he is convinced of the fact that the real reason for (Ratzinger’s) resignation was the desire to awaken the eschatological conscience (concerning the ultimate destinies of man). In the divine plan of salvation, the Church would also have the function of being together “the Church of Christ and the Church of the Antichrist” . The resignation would be a foreshadowing of the separation between “Babylon” and “Jerusalem” in the Church. Instead of engaging in the logic of maintaining power, by her resignation from office she would have emphasized his spiritual authority, thereby contributing to its strengthening .”

And here is Pope Benedict’s response:

“St. Augustine said that on the one hand many are part of the Church only in an apparent way, while in reality they live against it, and that, on the contrary, outside the Church there are many who – without knowing it – deeply belong to the Lord and therefore also to his body, the Church. We must always be aware of this mysterious overlap of internal and external, an overlap that the Lord has exposed in several parables. We know that in history there are moments in which the victory of God over the forces of evil is visible in a comforting way and moments in which, instead, the forces of evil obscure everything .

Let’s say, in conclusion, he doesn’t seem to have exactly denied Agamben’s opinion.

Where Robert de Mattei is wrong

This week, Catholic Family News, the traditional private Catholic Newspaper founded by the late John Vennari, publishes an article entitled, “Socci’s Thesis Falls Short: Review of the Secret of Benedict XVI“, an English translation of an article which was published on Jan 8, 2019 online at Cooperatores Veritatis. The translator is a Giuseppe Pelligrino. (Socci’s book details facts and canonical arguments why Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope, and Bergoglio an Anti-Pope, that is uncanonically elected). I will comment on the English version of the article.

The author, Dr. Roberto de Mattei, I have long admired, and have had the occasion to meet in person. His foundation, the Lepanto Foundation does much good work, and thus I bear him no animus. Nay, if the author of that article was someone unknown or not influential at Rome, I would probably have paid it no attention at all.

Moreover, the purpose of this present article is not to defend Socci’s book.  Rather it is to address the grave errors contained in De Mattei’s article, which on account of his personal reputation are magnified in the minds of many, and thus represent a danger to souls.

Here, then, I will discuss the errors briefly in the order they appear in that English translation by Signor Pellegrino.

The first error of which is that De Mattei sustains that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is valid, because there has been a peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

I will put aside the fact that several recent polls (not scientific) have shown that as much as 70% of Catholics reject Bergoglio as pope, because there is a more serious error to address, than disputing whether there is in fact a peaceful and universal acceptance of Bergoglio’s election.

Signor De Mattei is learned enough to own a copy of the Code of Canon Law. So I humbly suggest he read Canon 359 and consider publicly withdrawing his assertion that a peaceful and universal acceptance of an apparent papal election establishes it to be held as valid by Catholics.  For, that canon reads in Latin:

Can. 359 — Sede Apostolica vacante, Cardinalium Collegium ea tantum in Ecclesia gaudet potestate, quae in peculiari lege eidem tribuitur.

When translated into English — here I give my own translation — that canon says:

Canon 359 — When the Apostolic See is vacant, the College of Cardinals only enjoys that power in the Church, which is granted to it in particular law.

This is the reference to the power of the College to elect the Pope.  So, according to Canon 359, when there is no pope, the Cardinals have the authority to elect a pope.

Now, if the resignation of a pope is in doubt, then obviously, there is a doubt whether the Apostolic See is vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have doubtful authority. And when a resignation of a pope has not taken place, or a pope is not dead, the Apostolic See is not vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have NO power to elect another.

So, it should be obvious then, that “the peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of a pope by a College of Cardinals” which HAS NO POWER to elect a pope, because the See is NOT vacant, DOES NOT MAKE THE ELECTION VALID.

Second, De Mattei claims this principal regarding the acceptance of the election of a pope on the basis of commonly held opinion. But if he has studied Canon Law, he should know that Canon 17 does not permit common theological or canonical opinions to be interpretative guides to reading any canon, when the text of the canon expressly forbids an act to take place by denying the body which acts the power to act. For in such a case the mind of the Legislator takes precedence.

Third, what is worse, De Mattei then cites the Vatican translation of Canon 332 §2, where he admits that it denies that a papal resignation is valid on the grounds that anyone accepts it (in its final condition)! How that squares with the theory of peaceful and universal acceptance is impossible to imagine, since it undermines the validity of its application to the case of a disputed resignation. It does so, because obviously a Conclave called during the life of a pope who has not resigned, is called either because that College knows he has not and does intend to elect an Anti-Pope, and then it does not matter who accepts him, his election is invalid; or in the case the College opines that a resignation is valid, and they proceed to act as if there is no pope. But as canon 332 §2 declares, that they think it is valid, does not make it valid. Therefore, even if they think it is valid, when it is not valid, they cannot appeal to Canon 332 §2 to claim the authority in Canon 359 to lawfully elect another. Rather, they must follow Canon 17 and apply it. And so, whether the subsequent election be accepted or not, in the case of elections which follow papal resignations, the principal cited by De Mattei is improperly cited at best because it pertains to another case.

Finally, De Mattei is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest, when he says that Violi’s canonical study of Pope Benedict’s act of Feb 11, 2013 contributes to the confusion. Because that study, which is cited in the preface of the Disputed Question, published here in November, is a very scholarly well thought out and precise study without any animus or polemic, which gives great clarity to the canonical signification of that papal act. To say that it causes confusion therefore is not based on Violi’s work, but rather seemingly on a desire to advance his own opinion by insulting a scholar who shows greater knowledge of Canon Law than himself.

As for Archbishop Ganswein’s discourse at the Gregorian University, at first glance it does seem to be confusing. But when you research, as Ann Barnhardt has done, what opinions regarding the mutability of the Papacy were being discussed at Tubingen, when Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was a professor of Theology there, then you would rather say its revealing, not confusing at all.

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.”

The Validity of Benedict’s Resignation, Part II: Ad Contrarium


By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In the previous article, entitled, The Validity of Pope Benedict’s Resignation must be Questioned, I recited the history of the controversy over the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI on the topic of substantial error in the resignation and then proceeded to explicate 20+ arguments against the validity.

Here, I will list the arguments for the validity, inasmuch as I find and understand them. If you know of more, let me know in the comments section below.  After each argument pro-Validity, I will post, for the reader’s convenience the argument against it — deviating in this small manner from proper Scholastic form. There is no particular order among the arguments, but the strongest ones are at the end.

Whether Pope Benedict XVI by means of the act expressed in his address, “Non solum propter”, resigned the office of the Bishop of Rome?

Ad contrarium:

And it seems that he did:

1. Because, Pope Benedict XVI as pope is above Canon Law. Therefore, he does not need to resign according to the form of Canon 332 §2.  Therefore, he resigned validly.

Ad obj. 1: To argue that the Pope is above Canon Law, and therefore the resignation is valid, is a sophism, which when examined is equivalent to 2 other erroneous propositions, namely:  “The Pope as pope is above canon law, ergo etc.”, and “The Pope as the man who is the pope is above the Law, ergo etc.”  To the first, I say: In the first case it is true that the Pope as pope is above canon law. However, the Pope when renouncing his office, does not renounce as Pope, but as the man who is the pope. Therefore the argument is praeter rem.  To the second, I say: It is false to say the Pope as the man who is pope is above Canon Law, because the mind of the Legislator of the Code of Canon law, Pope John Paul II, in canon 332 §2, expressly declares when a papal resignation is such and is to be regarded as valid.  Therefore, if a pope resigned in a way which was valid, but which the Faithful had to regard as invalid according to the norm of that Canon, there would be chaos in the Church. However, in interpreting the mind of a legislator, one cannot presume any thesis which would make the law defective. Therefore, Pope John Paul II did intend to bind the man who is pope, in a papal resignation. Therefore, the second is false also.

2. Because it is clear that Pope Benedict wanted to resign. Therefore, he did resign. Therefore, his resignation is valid.

Ad obj. 2.: To argue that the Pope wanted to resign, therefore he did resign, is to employ a sophism which conceals an undistributed middle term. For if the pope wanted to resign the ministerium of the office, then he did resign the ministerium. But such a resignation is not conform with Canon 332 §2, since it does not resign the munus. Therefore, it is invalid.  Likewise, if the pope wanted to resign the munus, then he did NOT resign the munus if he said ministerium. And then even if he thought he did, its invalid, per canon 332 §2 according to the act, and according to canon 188 on account of substantial error.

3. Because Pope Benedict, after his resignation, publicly declared that he validly resigned. Therefore, he validly resigned.

Ad obj. 3.: To argue that the Pope resigned validly because after his resignation he publicly declared that he resigned validly, is to employ a subterfuge. Because in that public declaration he declares that he resigned the Petrine ministry validly. That he resigned the Petrine ministry validly, is not disputed. But if that is what he resigned, then he did not resign the munus. Therefore, that act did not effect a resignation of the office. Therefore if it be asserted to be a valid papal resignation, the assertion is false according to canon 332 §2.

4. Because, Pope Benedict, after his resignation, publicly declared that he freely resigned, therefore he resigned.

Ad obj. 4.: It is true that liberty in a resignation is one of the necessary conditions of a papal resignation according to Canon 332 §2, but it is not true that it is the only condition. The first condition is that it be a resignation of munus. It was not. Therefore, this argument is praeter rem.

5. Because, Cardinal Sodano, as Dean of the College of Cardinals, in convoking the College, acted as if it were valid, therefore it is valid.

Ad obj. 5: There is no Canon of the Church or special delegation by the Roman Pontiff which makes the decision of the Cardinal Deacon to call a conclave efficacious of the validity of an invalid resignation, or authoritatively determinative of the validity of a resignation. Therefore, that he did so, proves nothing. Nay, canon 332 §2 expressly denies this.

6. Because the College of Cardinals convened to elect a Successor of Pope Benedict, therefore by that act declared or made the resignation valid.

Ad obj. 6.:  There is no Canon of the Church or special delegation by the Roman Pontiff which makes the decision of the College of Cardinals to conclave or elect a Pope, efficacious of the validity of an invalid resignation, or authoritatively determinative of the validity of a resignation. Therefore, that they did so, proves nothing. Nay, canon 332 §2 expressly denies this.

7. Because the whole College of Cardinals after the resignation and after the Conclave of 2013 acts and holds that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the true and valid pope.

Ad obj. 7: I reply the same as for obj. 6.

8. Because the whole world accepts that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is Pope Francis.

Ad obj. 8: Canon 332 §2 in saying, “and not whether it be accepted or not by anyone whomsoever” in its final phrase, expressly denies this. Therefore, it is false.

9. Because, a Catholic must hold as Pope, whomsoever the Cardinals, or the Bishops, or the Clergy of Rome, hold to be the Pope.

Ad obj. 9.: I reply the same, as to obj. 8.

10. Because the election of a Pope by the Cardinals is a dogmatic fact, which all Catholics must accept.

Ad obj. 10.: While it be true that the valid election of a Pope by the Cardinals is a dogmatic fact which all Catholics must accept, it is not true if the election were invalid. But an election is invalid if the previous pope is still living and has not yet validly resigned. Therefore, this objection is invalid, inasmuch as the resignation be invalid. Therefore, of its self it is insufficient to prove the point argued.

11. Because the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is a papal act, which cannot be questioned, according to the addage: prima sedes a nemini iudicatur.

Ad obj. 11.: While it is true that the acts of the Roman Pontiff are juridical acts which cannot be questioned, it is not true that declarations made in the first person by the man who is pope, which are the matter of such acts or declarations, cannot be judged. That such an act can be judged is proven by Canon 332 §2 which judges such acts. That such matter of the papal act is not an act of the pope as pope, has already been proven above.  —  If you say, that the act of declaration (“I declare”) is a papal act, not the act of the man, therefore it must be held to be valid, since the Pope is the supreme legislator and arbiter of the meaning of canonical acts, it must be responded that the declaration is made in the first person singular, not the first person plural, so the supreme legislator has already explicitly renounced his role in the declaration of the resignation.

12. Because, a Catholic in good conscience must presume, that if the resignation were not valid on account of the use of the word ministerium not munus in the key phrase of the act, that the Cardinals, in accord with canon 17, either demonstrated to themselves that he sufficiently resigned the papacy, or held private council with the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, to know his mind and meaning, at which time he privately signified that he had resigned the papacy in resigning the ministry of the Papacy.

Ad obj. 12.: While it is true that a Catholic should be disposed to presume such, such presumption does not make an invalid resignation valid. Nay, in accord with Canon 332 §2, one must note that the final cause of an invalid resignation is that it not be manifested according to the norm of law (rite manifestastur). Which norm requires a public act, that is, an act witnessed by at least 2 witnesses and made verbally. Such an act has never been published. So even if it were made, its a secret act, and it would not make an invalid resignation, valid.

13. Because Pope Benedict said, “I declare that I renounce the ministry which I had received from the hands of the Cardinals, … so that the See of St. Peter be vacant on …”, he clearly indicated that his renunciation was to effect a loss of office (munus), therefore his resignation was in accord with Canon 332 §2, despite not explicitly using the word munus, as that Canon requires for validity. Therefore, the resignation was valid.

Ad obj. 13.: This objection was refuted in the arguments of the First Part, but its complexity deserves a fuller answer for those minds which cannot understand how it is invalid. First, as demonstrated in the First Part of this Disputed Question, a resignation is valid if it includes a resignation of munus; it is not valid if it does not. And according to Canon 17, if there is any doubt as to whether munus is included in canon 332 §2 as a sine non qua condition or according to its signification in a broader sense, one must have recourse to other parts of the Law, the canonical tradition, and to the mind of the Legislator (John Paul II) of the Code. As has been shown elsewhere, there is no basis for an argument from canon 17 that ministerium can mean munus. However, since ministerium is followed by 2 subordinate clauses, the argument that it is invalid, must respond to that condition. For in Latin, some subordinate clauses can alter the signification of the main clause. And it is true that there is a poetical form, in which part of a thing can substitute for the whole, as when at Mass in the Latin Rite we say, “Come under my roof” to mean “come into my soul”. However, as regards the Latin of the text of the renunciation, to say, “which I received from the hands of the Cardinals” imposes no necessity of reference to the Petrine Ministry per se, because Ratzinger also at that time received the Episcopal and Pastoral Ministry for the Diocese of Rome. The second clause, “so that the See of St Peter be vacant”, has been shown in Part I to necessitate no necessity. For those who do not understand Latin grammar, this needs to be explained. Because, in a subordinate clause such as “so that … be vacant”, the clause is a clause of purpose of the kind which begins with the particle “ut”, and thus is a pure clause of purpose which indicates only a goal. If the subordinate clause of purpose had begun with “in the kind of way which” (quomodo) or “in such a way as to” (in tali modo quod) it would have been a purpose clause of characteristic which has the power to alter the manner of signification in the main clause, and allow the use of metynomic signification, that is, when a part refers to the whole. Since Pope Benedict did not say anything of that kind, this way of reading the subordinate clause is not possible. Hence it remains invalid.  However, even if a metonymic signification was had, it remains invalid per canon 332 §2, since it would not be duly manifested. Because just as if one were to pronounce marriage vows by saying, “I take you to be my Viennese strudel” instead of saying “I take you to be my wife”, an interpretation would be necessary to be resorted to, to make the phrase signify taking a wife, so in an act of resignation a metonymic manner of signification renders the act invalid because it publicly does not duly manifest the intention.

14. In his act of resignation Pope Benedict XVI declared two things. The First regarding his resignation, the second regarding the convocation of a Conclave “that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those whose duty it is”. He would not have said this, if his intention was not to resign the office of the Papacy. Therefore, he did resign the office of the papacy.

Ad obj. 14.: This argument is a conflation of two arguments, one of which has previously been refuted, viz. that one which regards his intention, which was refuted in Ad obj. 2. Here I will respond to the other, that which regards the papal command to convene a Conclave.   That the Pope declared that a conclave be convened to elect a new Roman Pontiff forms the second independent clause of his verb, “I declare”. Thus, it is logically independent and bears no necessity in the alteration of the signification of the first clause, which regards the resignation.  Thus, if the resignation not be duly manifested in accord with Canon 332 §2, that the Pope declares a Conclave be called is a papal declaration which is totally vitiated by the substantial error in his first declaration. Thus canon 188 invalidates the execution of this command. This is especially true, because in the declaration of convocation he does not require the convocation to take place before or after he ceases to be pope, or on a specific date or even during his life time. To see this more clearly, recall the example from the arguments against the validity, wherein a hypothetical pope declares, “I renounce bananas so that on Feb. 28, at 8 PM, Roman Time, the see be vacant” and simply add, “and that a Conclave be convened to elect a new Roman Pontiff”.  As can be seen in this hypothetical, the second declaration does not make the first valid, it just continues the substantial error: a substantial error which also makes the Conclave of 2013 and all the acts of Bergoglio as pope invalid.

15. Canon 332 §2 does require the resignation of office. But ministerium also means office. Therefore, when Pope Benedict renounced the ministerium, he renounced the munus.

Ad obj. 15.: Canon 332 §2 reads as follows:  If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus, there is required for its validity alone that it be freely made and manifested rite, and not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.  As can be seen from this Canon — which is the only one dealing with papal resignations — the fundamental condition is that the Pope resign his “munus”.  Now while some modern translations translate that as office (English), others as charge (Spanish), others as function (Italian), its clear from the Code of Canon Law that its primary canonical meaning is office. This can be seen from its use in the headings of the New Code for chapters on ecclesiastical offices. This is confirmed by a direct citation of canon 145 §1, where every ecclesiastical office is called a “munus”, not a “ministerium”.  An examination of the Code also reveals that a ministerium is never called an “office”.  Now since the Code of Canon Law requires in Canon 17, that the Code itself be read in accord with the tradition of canonical texts, the sources of canon law and the mind of its legislator (Pope John Paul II), these facts should be sufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that “ministerium” can be read as munus. This is confirmed by the comparison of Canon 332 §2 with the corresponding canon in the Code of Canon Law promulgated under Pope Benedict XV, where it speaks of a Pope renouncing, but does not say what he renounces. Its evident and significant that Pope John Paul II in the 1983 code added the word “munus” to specify what must be renounced to effect a papal resignation. Its also evident that in that Code of Canon Law “ministerium” refers to the exercise of an office. Furthermore, if one examines all previous papal resignations for which there is textual evidence of the formula of resignation, the words which signify office are always found: onus, munus. Ministerium is not found. Proper names for the office are found, such as episcopatus or papatus. Or the dignity resulting from the office is named with the words honor or dignitas. Thus, in accord with Canon 17, all the sources of authoritative interpretation conclude upon 1 result: that a Pope only resigns when he resigns the munus, the office, not the execution of the office, ministerium. Therefore, even if Pope Benedict intended, and in private afterwards asserted or asserts or will assert, that he intended to use “ministerium” for munus, his act of renunciation is invalid on account of that substantial error, in virtue of canon 188, and it cannot be made valid by any subsequent act. It would have to be redone with the word, “munus”. So the argument is invalid by a sophistry, of reading “munus” in its major according to its Latin signification, but reading “ministerium” in the minor according to its vernacular usage. Thus, its conclusion is reached through an undistributed middle term, and thus is invalid also.

16. There is no petrine ministerium without a petrine office, for the two are inseparable according to right and being [secundum ius et esse].  Therefore, although Canon 332 §2 does require that a Pope renounce his munus to validly resign, nevertheless, a renunciation of ministerium is sufficient to effect this, because though “munus” names the papal office in relation to God’s gift of grace and duty, “ministerium” names the same office according to its relation to the Church. Therefore, to renounce the petrine ministerium, is to renounce the petrine munus.

Ad. obj. 16.:  It must be said, that this argument must be responded to by interemption, for it is false in both its major and minor propositions.  In its minor, it is false in being founded upon an error of interpreting the obligations of Canon 332 §2 according to the general custom of the science of theology, and not according to the norm of law. In its major, or premise, it is furthermore false in asserting that ministerium is not separable from office according to right and being [secundum ius et esse].  — In regard to the first, one must respond thus:  For in the science of theology, words can have differing significations in respect of the same or dissimilar things. But all this is praeter rem in regard to a discussion of the canonical signification of an act of resignation of ecclesiastical office, even more so, in regard to an office established by the Incarnate Word of God. For in such a matter, the argument must turn upon the office according to its being in the Divine Will and Intention, not upon the office as it is understood according to the personal theology of the man who is Roman pontiff. This is also true in regard to the Roman Church, whose Bridegroom is not the Roman Pontiff, but Christ Jesus Himself, now reigning in Glory. For that reason, not only is She bound to give the consent of Her will to the Redeemer, but also the assent of Her mind. Therefore, one would propose a manner of observing canon law which would be tantamount to adultery, if one held that it was licit for the Roman Church to regard the signification of a canonical act after the manner of the world, the flesh, or even private interpretation. Thus, not only is Christ by His promise to Saint Peter bound by canon 332 §2, promulgated by His Vicar, Pope John Paul II, to not withdraw the grace and office [munus] unless it be explicitly renounced, so also the Roman Church, which is His most faithful virgin Bride and virgin Spouse. Therefore, the Church must regard the obligations of canon 332 §2 as requiring a renunciation of munus, inasmuch as canon 17 requires that term to be understood in canon 145 §1. Nowhere in the Code of Canon law is a ministerium regarded as the office itself. So even if it was the intention of the author of Non Solum Propter, inasmuch as he was man, to signify the Papal Office in its relation to the service it renders, it does not by that fact alone become an act which the Church can accept as rite manifestatum, for an interpretation would have to be resorted to, and a reading of the text, outside the rules of signification of the Code of Canon law would have to be employed. And as such, it would not be canonically valid, even if one could sustain that it was theologically sufficient. Nevertheless, even if one were to grant that the words ministerium …. commissum spoke of the munus petrinum in its relation to the Church, since nothing is renounced but what is explicitly renounced, the act would effect nothing more canonically speaking than a renunciation of the office inasmuch as it is in such a relation, not of the office itself. And thus it would not be efficacious to renounce nor sufficient to signify the renunciation of the office in its relation to God and His gift of grace. But since this very relation refers to it according to its principle of being [secundum essendi principium] – for it is a gift immediately from Christ and established by an act of His will – such a renunciation does not effect what is essential to it. The act remains, therefore, vitiated by substantial error in its manner of signification, and thus is invalid ipso iure, by canon 188. — Finally, in regard to the premise of the argument, namely, that ministerium is not separable from office secundum ius et esse, it must be said that this is falsified by liturgical and canonical law. For since the suppression of minor orders, the state of the acolyte and lector are termed “ministries” [Canon 230 §1], yet such ministries confer no right to exercise such service at any time, but only the suitability to do so at the request of the celebrant of a liturgical act. Therefore, ministeria are separable in right and being from munus. — Thus, in conclusion, it appears obvious that the entire argument is false, since a conclusion which is drawn from a false premise and a false minor is entirely falsified.

17. The peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope is caused by and is the effect of a valid papal election. Therefore, since 6 years have passed, even if the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI were invalid, his de facto silence at the usurpation of the Papal Office by Bergoglio is tantamount to a resignation. Therefore, whether the resignation was invalid or not, it now must be regarded as valid.

Ad obj. 17.:  Though, in common law, possession is nine tenths of right, and thus, usurpation can lead to acquisition of right; and though in Roman Law usucapione can obtain legal right to property after a long time, such a principle is not valid for two reasons. First, it is not valid theologically in regard to an ecclesiastical office which was established by Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, by an immediate personal act. Of which kind is the office of Pope. The theological reason is this: that no one can snatch anything out of the Hand of the Living God (John 10:28). And thus, no usurpation of the papal office can constrain the Godhead, Who is Infinite Justice and Omnipotence Himself, to transfer the grace of the Papal munus to another.  To hold otherwise, would be a theological impossibility and absurdity. — Second, it is not valid canonically, on account of Canon 359, which specifies that the College of Cardinals has authority to elect a Roman Pontiff only during a sede vacante.  Therefore, if the resignation of Pope Benedict XVi was invalid, there was no sede vacante, and therefore the College had no authority to elect a successor.  — As for tacit acquiescence: it is clear from Church History, that against the claims of an Anti-Pope no rightful claimant of the Apostolic See was considered to have relented merely for not prosecuting his right. Moreover, the argument of tacit acquiescence, however, has no application in the case under dispute, because that one acts on substantial error does not constitute tacit acquiescence, since tacit acquiescence requires the capacity of consent, a thing which is impossible through invincible ignorance in the case of substantial error. — Finally, as regards the universal and peaceful acceptance of a papal election: while this principle is certainly a valid reflex principle for troubled consciences in the case of a valid election, there is no possibility of a valid election when the College had no right to act, for it is contrary not only to Canon Law but to Divine Law to elect another Roman Pontiff while the Pope still lives and has not validly resigned. It is also not valid, as regards its implicit minor: namely, that there has been a peaceful and universal acceptance of the Papal resignation. There has not, as the preface to this disputed question demonstrates. Hence, the application of this reflex principle to the present case is at best praeter rem, and worse a subterfuge.

18. Benedict’s renunciation of ministerium validly effects a resignation of office, because, on account of Canon 10, which expressly says only those conditions of invalidity cause an act to be invalid, since canon 332 §2 speaks of invalidity only regard to liberty from coercion and due manifestation, not the naming of the office, since it was Benedict’s intention to name the papal office, as is evident from his accepting the title of Pope Emeritus, the naming of the ministerium instead of munus does not make the act of renunciation invalid. Furthermore, Benedict as pope is the supreme legislator, therefore he officially interprets the law (cf. Canon 16 §1), therefore he is able to resign the Petrine munus by resigning the Petrine miniserium.

Ad obj. 18.: While it is true that canon 332 §2 speaks of invalidity only in regard to the conditions of the act, nevertheless canon 188 speaks expressly of invalidity of resignations which are vitiated by a substantial error. Now, there is no more substantial of an error in resigning an ecclesiastical office, than to resign an accident of it or its second act of being (ministerium) and believe that in doing so one sufficiency signifies the office (munus). Furthermore, Canon 18 requires that the terms of canon 332 §2 be understood strictly, since the latter canon restricts the one who is renouncing. Therefore, the renunciation must explicitly regard the munus of the papal office, which in that canon and in canon 749 §1, like all episcopal offices (cf. Paul VI, Christus Dominus) in the entire Code, is referred to exclusively as a munus, because it is not merely an ecclesiastical office (officium) or service (ministerium) established by custom or the Church, but is a gift of grace and office (munus) established by the Living God by an immediate Personal Act (cf. Matthew 16:18 ff).  That each such office (munus) can exercise one or more ministeria is not only NOT an argument for the validity of Benedict’s resignation, but nay rather an argument against the validity, on account of canon 188, canon 17 and canon 41 (in the Latin), the latter of which expressly associates ministerium with the mere execution of an ecclesiastical office; and this, because the execution of an office or its services can be renounced by the infirm, who still wishes to retain the dignity of the office, as the history of the Church demonstrates. Thus, in virtue of canon 17, which explicitly requires that the texts of each Canon be understood according to the proper meaning of the words they contain as the context of the Code of Canon Law uses them, the argument drawn from canon 10, here, is invalid because it is praeter rem, that is, applicable only to the conditions of invalidity in canon 332 §2, not canon 188. — If you say, yes, Canon 10 applies only to the terms of validity expressed in Canon 332 §2 and thus allows a broad interpretation of the conditional clause which speaks of a resignation of the petrine munus: then it must be responded, that such a reading of canon 10 would nullify the requirements of canon 17, that terms must be understood properly, or at least fails from insufficiency, since the broad meaning of munus in the Code of Canon Law is officium not ministerium; which sense of officium refers to office, not execution of a ministry. — Regarding Canon 16 §1, it must be said, that yes, Pope Benedict as Pope is the supreme legislator and interpreter of canon law. But he is only legislator, when he legislates; whereas Canon 332 §2 was legislated by Pope John Paul II. Furthermore, though any Pope can officially interpret Canon Law, he must do so by a papal act, not by a substantial error. Thus, canon 16 does not apply in such a case. Nay, rather, Canon 38 expressly rules in this case, when it says: An administrative act, even if it be enacted by a rescript given Motu Proprio, lacks effect to the extent that it harms the rights of another or is contrary to the law or proven custom, unless the competent authority expressly has added a derogating clause. — Finally, as regards the Pope’s manifest intention to resign the papal munus, I have responded to this above in the reply to objections 2, 3 and 4.

19. As Dr. Taylor Marshall sustains on his video, “The Resignation of Pope Benedict: an Analysis”, “ministerium” and “munus” name the same thing: the papal office, therefore to renounce the one is to renounce the other. Therefore, the resignation is valid.

Ad obj. 19.: To a gratuitous assertion, no reply need be made, because it is not an argument. However, against this assertion, one must respond, since it attacks the very nature of reality itself.  For words have meaning, otherwise they would not be signs of communication. And different words can have different meaning, or there would be no reason to use them. Thus human language of necessity sustains the assertion that ministerium and munus can have different significations.  Any dictionary of Latin also sustains this, as anyone can demonstrate who has one. But that ministerium and munus in Canon Law mean the same thing, is entirely false, as has been demonstrated above by referring, in accord with the requirements of canon 17, to the Code itself which in canon 41 associates “ministerium” with the mere exercise of office, and canon 145 §1 which defines an ecclesiastical office as a “munus,” not a ministerium.  Thus, the Code of Canon Law itself uses the terms in different senses, and do not equate their significations as referring to an ecclesiastical office, in the sense that “bishopric” or “papacy” refer to an office. — This is a sufficient refutation according to the norm of Canon Law. But since the assertion conceals a grave error of the kind of Nominalism promoted at Tübingen, it merits to be refuted according to the science of philosophy. For just as there are 10 categories of being according to the Philosopher in his Praedicamenta, so words can be said in reference to one or more category of being. Now in canon 145 §1, the Supreme Legislator predicates munus of every ecclesiastical office. But no where in the Code does he predicate ministerium of any ecclesiastical office, only of roles or services rendered by one who holds an office or in his stead.  Therefore it is clear from canon 17 that this represents in the mind of the Legislator that munus signifies the being of something real, namely an office, but ministerium signifies the action or service rendered by one who holds such an office. Therefore, munus is said to be a substance itself, and ministerium is said of a substance in act. But this is the distinction of being and act, of substance and accident, according to the Praedicamenta.  Therefore, there is a real distinction between munus and ministerium, in the senses used in Canon 332 §2, 145 §1 and canon 41, just as there is a real distinction between any agent and the actions of the agent, though the latter inheres in the former. If this be denied, then the walking of Peter, which in Peter is Peter, when imitated perfectly by Paul would be just as much Peter in Paul as Peter in Peter, which is absurd.  Therefore, the walking of Peter in Peter is not a substance but an accident, like the color of Peter’s skin or the accent of his voice, which can be duplicated in other things, without making them Peter.  Likewise, the Petrine ministry, which is the action or service which the one who holds the Petrine Office should and can render, can be perfectly imitated in another, without making that other the Pope. This is the entire basis for the Roman Curia’s collaboration with every true Pope, when He delegates the execution of some part of his Petrine Munus to Cardinals and Bishops and priests at the Vatican or elsewhere. Therefore, to name the Petrine munus it does not suffice to name the Petrine Ministry (even if it be conceded that Benedict did this, which I have shown is not the case in the arguments of the first part), because just as when Peter renounces his walking, he remains Peter, so when the Pope renounces his ministry, he remains the pope. The semiotic rationale or ratio significandi for this is, that just as substance and accident are separable, so their unity is not necessary; therefore, the signification of the one which is the accident in the other signs no necessary or determinative reference to the one which is the substance. Therefore, in accord with canon 332 §2, which requires a manifestation of liberty and intention which is accord with the norm of law, such a manner of signification is invalid, because it requires an interpretation which the Law does not sustain as possible in accord with canon 17.