https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/where-robert-de-mattei-is-wrong/
Where Robert de Mattei is wrong
Jan8 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/where-robert-de-mattei-is-wrong/)
byThe Editor (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/author/marcianusaristides/)
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 (https://www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2019/1/4/soccis-thesis-falls-short-review-of-the-secret-of-benedict-xvi)“, an English translation of some article or talk, the Italian title of which they do not report on line. The translator is a Giuseppe Pelligrino.
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 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/latin/docuмents/cic_liberII_lt.html#SECTIO_I):
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 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/the-validity-of-pope-benedict-vxis-resignation-must-be-questioned/), 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.
Dear Brothers,
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
From the Vatican, 10 February 2013
For 40 years Trads have complained about ambigous docuмents from the Vatican.
Finally, Ratzinger says and then reconfirms for clarity, something that even a 12 year old could read and understand, and we look for hidden meaning because we don't like the next Pope?
Answer this question and please TRY be honest. If a more conservative Cardinal had been elected and was restoring Tradition would a single traditionalist in the world question the validity of Ratzinger's resignation? Would they?
If a liberal made the same arguments that the new conservative Pope Pius XIII was not really Pope, would a single Traditionalist give it the time of day?
^^ Downvotes didn't come from me. I've only used that feature twice (don't plan to again), and the first time I regretted it because it was impulsive of me.
2Vermont - Laugh all you want. You say "anything but sedevacantism"; I say anything but the uncomfortable, if not inconvenient, truth that Benedict XVI does indeed remain our one and only Sovereign Pontiff (and very likely the last one for this Age). It's no secret that virtually all R&Rs (certainly the sedes) want nothing to do with him. We know conversion is totally out of the realm for a Pope who has read the Third Secret, right?
In my Thesis I have tried to impress upon readers the direct connection between the message of Fatima, more specifically the Third Secret, and Benedict's renunciation. Because of the liberalism of his early years, unfortunately many, including ones who supported and applauded him for what he had done during the active part of his Pontificate, now not only preclude any connection but actually disparage and calumniate him; I have also run into those who border on hatred of him.
Also, waiting around for Benedict to die gives no one any excuse to be indifferent towards this. We will be judged for refusing to investigate (or outright dismissing) the objective facts presented on the invalidity of Pope Benedict's resignation. And that these doubts were being raised immediately upon his announcement and continue to this day...
...doubts as to the validity of the act of resignation were raised immediately upon the news being made known. Flavien Blanchon, a French journalist working at Rome, writing only 2 days afterwards, cited an eminent Latin scholar (https://fr.novopress.info/132011/un-acte-nul-etranges-fautes-de-latin-dans-la-renonciation-de-benoit-xvi/) who pointed out errors in the text of abdication, and who noted that the presence of any error, according to canonical tradition, was held to be a sign of lack of deliberation, rendering the act null and void. These errors in the Latin were also reported by Luciano Canfora (http://www.chiesaepostconcilio.eu/dimissioni/errori-latino.htm), Corriere della Serra, Feb. 12, 2013, p. 17.
More importantly, the famous Italian Philosopher, Prof. Enrico Radaelli wrote a supplication to Pope Benedict XVI, on Feb. 18, begging him to withdraw the resignation, because, inasmuch as it was done in a secular fashion, it would result in the consequent election of an Anti-Pope. His article was entitled: Perché Papa Ratzinger-Benedetto XVI dovrebbe ritirare le sue dimissioni: non è ancora tempo per un nuovo papa, perché sarebbe quello di un Anti-Papa. (Link to text with commentary, here (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/04/03/i-owe-an-apology-to-professor-radaelli/)).
https://www.ppbxvi.org/quaestio-English.pdf (https://www.ppbxvi.org/quaestio-English.pdf)
https://www.ppbxvi.org/ (https://www.ppbxvi.org/)
...well, it is apparent that Catholics have had plenty of time to figure out which of the "two popes" is the true Pope (the situation today is not comparable to the time of St. Catherine and St. Vincent--the antipope wasn't a blaspheming, heretical non-Catholic), and to make their choice on whether to be a lover of lies or lover of Truth.
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/no-excuse-before-god-or-the-church/ (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/no-excuse-before-god-or-the-church/)