Commentary with a History of the Sutri Initiative by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Many Italian Catholics are followers of Andrea Cionci and think that he is outstanding for recommending that they appeal to the Cardinals for a new Conclave to elect a true Pope. As I explained in my critical review of his excellent book, “The Ratzinger Code”, which struck a powerful cord with Italians in Italy, since it was published in Italian, here, to elect another pope is something to be done after removing the heretical pope. Otherwise the Church would schism into two.
So my proposal in October 2023 to remove the heretical pope first, is actually the most Catholic thing to do. But I am not the first to say this. This was said by Robert Siscoe back on September 18, 2014, in the above linked article (Click Image). Even Rorate Caeli called for a petition in the spring of last year, on May 2, 2024, to remove Pope Francis, though they did not say how this was to be done and even admitted they did not know. Evidently they do not know how to use Google to find the answer.
So Catholics in Italy should not think that the two most famous Italians criticizing Pope Francis, Andrea Cionci and Don Alessandro Minutella, pastor of Saint John Bosco Church, at Palermo, Sicily, are leading lights on this issue: neither chronologically nor canonically. Catholics from the U.S.A. are years a head of them.
Even the idea of petitioning Cardinals, was first launched by myself, using the nom du plum, Gaetano Romano, back in 2016 (see here). So any idea, that I am opposed to petitions to the Cardinals per se, is simply not true.
The whole dialogue about removing a heretical pope disappeared in 2016, when Ann Barnhardt make her first video about the invalid renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI. My own role in that debate, which I joined in 2018, put that controversy to an end on January 30, 2023, with the juridically valid election of a new pope, according to Apostolic Right, which caused an explosion of hate and the most vile insults, calumnies and declarations from so many who sustained that other investigation, all of which were refuted in Italian here, including the calumnious ones of Andrea Cionci, here.
But, I waited patiently after that and prayed with Jesus Christ for His new Vicar. Only after clear signs of heretical depravity, did I propose the Sutri Initiative again on October 19, 2023.
Nor am I the first to suggest that the imperfect Council which has the authority to remove a heretical pope is the Provincial Council of Bishops in the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome. This was first pointed out by the Ecclesiastical Historian from Poland, whose spoke about the First Council of Sutri, in 1046, back in August of 2018. And I followed immediately with an article on September 11, 2018, since I recognized immediately that this was the correct and historically verified way forward on this issue. Within days, the Remnant followed with its own article about the Council of Sutri, here.
I have stuck to the same opinion and proposed this long before Don Minutella could even explain canonically why the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI was invalid, or Cionci had even met me, and thus was spurred to begin his own investigations. I have stuck to the same position even though Robert Siscoe, the author of the top article, turned against those who understood that Pope Benedict XVI remained the true pope until death. I have stuck to the same opinion, even though the Remnant which talked about Sutri in 2018, keeps erasing comments which mention the Sutri Initiative for the last 18 months. I have stuck to the same position, even though Rorate Caeli refuses to say the word, “Sutri”.
Recently many are proposing an “imperfect council” to put Pope Francis on trial. But none speaks of Sutri any more nor speaks of the proper canonical way to do this, explaining the procedure and the canonical justifications for the manner of proceeding without violating the current norms of Canon Law. This is called the Sutri Initiative. — A provincial council at Rome is actually better than an “imperfect council” since it can be convoked in a juridically and canonically valid manner and need not have its acts approved by the Pope, since it is basically a quo warranto action, which is a form of formal communication of facts and testimonies, upon the validity of which alone the Council votes and judges.
And to all those who after 11 years won’t speak of what was spoken about 7 years ago, I can only ask, “Why now, after ‘Fiducia supplicans’ do you ALL insist on getting it wrong? “ Ask yourself whether that makes any other sense or serves any other purpose but keeping the Lavender Mafia in power?
So to all those who think that my apostolate “threatens” or “undermines” the apostolates of other, please be honest with yourselves and take a step back from your idolizing of men and start thinking about how the Church merits your love and your protection. You can go back to your YouTube channels after the problem is solved.
Lou,
You got the legal presumption wrong.
A renunciation is presumed invalid unless it clearly renounces that which it is supposed to renounce.
Just like a last testament is invalid, unless it clearly says it is leaving something to someone.
For those who know Bellarmine, a doubtful pope is not a pope, it is the application of the same legal concept of interpretation to the opposite circumstances.
All this has to do with the concept of Cessation of power. In law, the cessation of power is not presumed. Thus, the cessation of right is not presumed. Contrariwise, in the election of a man to the papacy, we have the right and the Church is bound by law, not to regard it valid unless it meets all the necessary requirements of validity and or legitimacy.
Thus, a doubtfully resigned pope is still pope.
So, since I have corrected an Italian American in the USA, I guess there is no harm correcting an Italian at Rome, who spent years in Brazil.
So Dr. De Mattei, if I can be so bold — and I will be — though it is contrary to what a Franciscan should so in normal circumstances — but now is not normal. Since the Rule of Saint Francis obliges us to hold fast to Roman Pontiffs canonically elected, I would point out to you by a personal note, that THE INVALIDITY OF THE RENUNCIATION MADE BY POPE BENEDICT
DOES
NOT
NEED
TO
BE
PROVEN!
It does not need to be proven, because according to ius testimentarie, that is the genus of right which regards testaments, THE INVALIDLY IS PRESUMED unless it is proven otherwise by a clear and certain statement!
For the Record, Mr. Verrecchio holds that the Renunciation is invalid, as a conclusion. Dr. de Mattei holds that it is valid as a presumption. Each is a different error, and Verrecchio is a better thinker, in my judgement. But until everyone gets the legal principle right, the problem wont be solved.
As I replied again to Louie, in the same post,
Dear Mr. Verrechio,
I did read your comment, you said that you conclude that the resignation is invalid until proven otherwise.
I said, the legal presumption is that a resignation is invalid until proven otherwise.
The point seems to be a fine one, but it is not. A presumption of law is a principle, not a conclusion. It does not exist under certain circumstances and in certain minds or as derived from certain beliefs or not. It exists a priori to all of these on account of the very nature of the legal act.
You do not have to prove it (the invalidity). You do have to accept it (the legal principle), to be a sane rational person…
I could have more easily commented on Dr. de Mattei’s piece by simply saying:
THE INVALIDITY OF THE RESIGNATION HAS BEEN PROVEN!
13 MONTHS AGO!
If you would only read sources which are found outside of the clique of approved outlets you read! >>
VERICATHOLICI.WORDPRESS.COM
And you do not need to take me at my word. Ask any attorney-at-law who practices Estate Law or simply peruse my notes from my meetings with 2 top Canon Lawyers at Rome:
_________
* Just a short note on what happens to a pope who validly resigns. If he was a Cardinal beforehand, he returns to being a Cardinal. This is shown by the statement drawn up by Pope Pius XII in the case of an invasion of the Vatican by Axis forces during World War II. In the case of Pope Celestine V, he returned to being a hermit, because that is what he was before he was the Pope, though he remained a bishop, having been consecrated such after his election (Not all popes were consecrated Bishops). Unless of course, before one resigns, he makes other dispositions, as certainly is within his power to do so. Thus, Pope Benedict, if he really wanted ever to resign validly, could have first established the canonical status he would adopt after resignation, declare his resignation would take place on a certain date, resign on that date, and then assume that status which as Pope he had granted himself as the man who would be soon NOT the pope.
THIS ARTICLE has been published simultaneously in Italian at ChiesaRomna.Info
CREDITS: The featured image is by the author of this article.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]