Tag Archives: Sutri

Archbishop Viganò: Benedict’s Renunciation might be purposefully invalid

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Good Friday — April, 2, 2021: In a wide ranging interview by Aldo Maria Valli, published yesterday, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has openly conceded that the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI might be invalid, and intentionally crafted for that purpose.

Click HERE above to read the original.

The comments of the Archbishop regard a question posed by Aldo Valli, in response to the crusade by Andrea Cionci of Il Libero here in Italy (see HERE), who has published numerous articles in March, of this year, exposing the invalidity of the Renunciation and the precise meaning of it in the mind and writings of His Holiness, Pope Benedict. In Cionci’s latest piece, he reports that the Secretary of State had approved the text of the Renunciation with all its errors!

Here is an English of the key passage in that interview:

Valli: You may have seen, Your Excellency, that again the question of “who is pope and who is not pope” has been brought up. Some say: since Bergoglio was elected on the basis of the maneuvers of the Mafia of St. Gallen and perhaps with irregularities during the Conclave, he is not pope. But Ratzinger would still be, who would have renounced the throne not freely, but because forced by strong pressure, and would have deliberately written incorrectly the Latin text of the renunciation to make it invalid. Church-Fiction? Or is there some element to be taken into serious consideration?

Viganò: Several causes – strong and undue pressures from outside the Church and from prominent members of the Hierarchy, as well as Joseph Ratzinger’s personal character – might have led Benedict XVI to formulate a declaration of renunciation in a totally unorthodox way, leaving the Church in a state of grave uncertainty and confusion; machinations of a group of progressive conspirators might have indicated in Bergoglio the candidate elected later during a conclave marked by violations of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis that regulates the election of the Roman Pontiff: these elements might be such as to render Ratzinger’s abdication null and void, the Conclave of 2013 null and void, and the election of his successor. However, although widespread and undeniable, these elements require confirmation and above all a declaration by the supreme authority of the Church. Any pronouncement made by one who does not have the authority to do so would be reckless. I also believe that, at present, the dispute over who is the reigning Pope serves only to weaken the already fragmented healthy part of the ecclesial body, sowing division among the good.

Let us confidently pray to the Lord to bring the truth to light and show us the way forward. For now, strengthened by the virtue of Prudence that orders the means to the ultimate end, let us remain faithful and jealously guard what the Church has always believed: quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est.

To the Archbishop’s assertion that, “Any pronouncements made by one who does not have the authority to do so would be reckless”, I can only respond that, not only does every man by natural right have the authority to say munus does not equal ministerium, but every Catholic as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ knows that the only true and authentic unity of the Church is founded upon acknowledging the truth of things and of law, and not upon a political consensus!

But the Archbishop does point out, if in an obscure manner, that all roads now lead to another Synod of Sutri, to which all Catholics, but especially the faithful and clergy of the Diocese of Rome, have a right to ask to be convened and to have an official response.

Finally, however you regard the Archbishop’s position, his statements will leave ever honest Catholic the opportunity to at last put to rest and bury the “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” narrative, pushed by the controlled Catholic traddie media, so shamelessly and with so many fraudulent claims, arguments, reasons, during the past 5 years.

Bishop Schneider gets his Papal History wrong

henry-iii-called-the-black-holy-roman-emperor-synod-of-sutri-by-a-picture-id625398302
Henry III (1017-1056). Called the Black. Holy Roman Emperor. 3 Popes Deposed at the Synod of Sutri (1046). Engraving by A. Closs. Colored. (Photo by: PHAS/UIG via Getty Images)

In his recent article at Rorate Caeli, Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider writes a long article to quell the raging doubts Catholics now have regarding Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy.

But in that Article the learned Bishop gets his history lesson wrong, when he writes:

Popes were deposed several times by secular powers or by criminal clans. This occurred especially during the so-called dark ages (10th and 11th centuries), when the German Emperors deposed several unworthy popes, not because of their heresy, but because of their scandalous immoral life and their abuse of power. However, they were never deposed according to a canonical procedure, since that is impossible because of the Divine structure of the Church. The pope gets his authority directly from God and not from the Church; therefore, the Church cannot depose him, for any reason whatsoever.

(Emphasis added)

As I recited in my article, Yes a Pope can be canonically deposed, the history of the Papacy contradicts the Bishop’s assertion, for the Church does recognize as legitimate a Synod which canonically deposed 3 claimants to the papacy, one of which had to be the legitimate pope.

I quote my own article:

The events are summarized by John Cardinal Newman, and summarized in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes the events:

The proceedings of the Synod of Sutri, 20 December, are well summarized by Cardinal Newman in his “Essays Critical and Historical” (II, 262 sqq.). Of the three papal claimants, Benedict refused to appear; he was again summoned and afterwards pronounced deposed at Rome. Sylvester was “stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a monastery”. Gregory showed himself to be, if not an idiota, at least a man miræ simplicitatis, by explaining in straightforward speech his compact with Benedict, and he made no other defence than his good intentions, and deposed himself (Watterich, Vitæ Rom. Pont., I, 76); an act by some interpreted as a voluntary resignation, by others (Hefele), in keeping with the contemporary annals, as a deposition by the synod. The Synod of Sutri adjourned to meet again in Rome 23 and 24 December. Benedict, failing to appear, was condemned and deposed in contumaciam, and the papal chair was declared vacant. As King Henry was not yet crowned emperor, he had no canonical right to take part in the new election; but the Romans had no candidate to propose and begged the monarch to suggest a worthy subject.

Now, its not heresy to say that something happened, even if nutty Sedevacantists fell off their toilets when I wrote my article in September, accusing me of heresy. If the Church did depose a Pope canonically, its clearly not heresy to say that they did, or that the Church holds in practice that the Church can. Why since 2 of the deposed popes are depicted on the frieze of the Lateran (constructed in the 19th century), you could even argue the Vatican endorses both their papacies and their deposition, since Pope Clement II is also depicted there, who replaced all three.

Whether the Divine Constitution of the Church opposes such a notion or not, I think, is a concept of the constitution of the Church which excludes her history. Because if the Divine Constitution of the Church does make that impossible, then it’s also illicit, and thus immoral. But the Church has recognized the validity of the Synod of Sutri for 10 centuries, and the validity of the election of Pope Clement II for 10 centuries. So if anyone can quote a theologian or canonist after Sutri who said otherwise, quote him. But can we rely on his authority and not that of the Church by Her tacit acceptance? If we rely on such an opinion, are we not constrained to say the Church was in error for 10 centuries? And if we say that, are we not heretics?

As I said before, if Benedict IX did sell the papacy to Gregory VI, then the sale effected nothing, since you cannot validly sell an ecclesiastical office. That means that Benedict IX was the true Pope, because even if he did resign after the sale thinking he did sell the office, he was in substantial error and therefore his resignation was invalid. I suppose one could argue the Synod was in substantial error thinking it could depose Benedict or anyone for that matter, and that therefore Clement II’s election was invalid on account of substantial error, but the Church has never said that. The Frieze above the interior columns of the Lateran sill show Clement II as the one true valid Pope during the years of his reign.

I think its more probable, that whereas the Pope cannot be deposed as pope or for being pope, the man who is pope, who sins against the office by Simony or Heresy, can be deposed. But I admit that is my private fallible opinion. The Church’s Magisterium has not addressed such a specific case, to my knowledge, to handle the Synod of Sutri. The probability which causes me to hold such an opinion is that such an opinion avoids contradicting defined dogma and canons, by admitting an exceptional case in which the Law Maker Himself would not want otherwise unbending laws to prevail.