Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation  (Read 3679 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nottambula

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • Reputation: +57/-32
  • Gender: Female
Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
« Reply #45 on: December 10, 2018, 12:54:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This.

    Also, the "Muh Fatima" cultists ignore the fact that Ratzo was involved in the "3rd Secret" lie "released" by Wojtyla in year 2000 and its cover-up thereafter...

    What do they do with all of that cognitive dissonance?

    Do you discount a conversion? 

    "We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete." -- Pope Benedict XVI, May 13, 2010

    Benedict XVI welcomes statue of Our Lady of Fatima to his home

    Quote from: Rome Reports
    The original statue of Our Lady of Fatima arrived to the Vatican by helicopter. From there, it was carried to Benedict XVI's residence, the former Mater Ecclesiae monastery. Benedict XVI welcomed the statue himself and walked along with it as it was taken to his nearby chapel.
     


    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 134
    • Reputation: +57/-32
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Grammatical Considerations

    Concerning Pope Benedict’s Use of the Potential Subjunctive

    By Fr. David R. Belland

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxeIwML8J8roZmljNWxEMUEtSGF0RlpvZnJURndOWEJkeXpj/view
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson


    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 134
    • Reputation: +57/-32
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/how-and-why-pope-benedict-xvis-resignation-is-invalid-by-the-law-itself/

    BY VC EDITORS | DECEMBER 19, 2018 · 14:29

    How and why Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is invalid by the law itself



    Here we offer a calm reasoned canonical argument for the invalidity of Pope Benedict’s resignation, for any Catholic who wants to know the truth.
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    Why should any Catholic defend the validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation?

    Are we obliged by canon law to do so? —No.

    Is it a sin to do so when there is evidence that it is invalid? — No.

    Is there a presumption of law that it is valid? — No.

    Is there evidence that it was invalid? — Yes.

    Why is Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation invalid?

    To understand this, lets us refer to the original texts of the resignation and Canon Law:
    Here is the text of the renunciation in the Latin original:
    [/font][/size]

    Quote
    Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare…

    What are the requirements for a valid Papal resignation? — These are found in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 332 §2;

    Quote
    § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

    What is the first condition or requirement, then, according to Canon 332 §2 for a valid papal resignation? — That it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus (muneri suo renuntiet).

    Does the text of Pope Benedict renounce the munus? — No, it says clearly declaro me ministerio … renuntiare.

    If the renunciation does not regard the munus, does canon 332 §2 even apply? — Yes and no.  Yes, because since it does not fulfill the condition of a resignation withing the term (in this case, munus) of Canon 332 §2, its not valid.  And no, inasmuch as being a juridic act which is outside the terms of Canon 332 §2 it does not regard a papal resignation, but merely a retirement from active ministry.

    Can the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI be construed as valid?

    Some say and seem to hold, that a Pope can resign his munus by resigning his ministerium. Is that a valid argument? — It is not, because its not a matter of mere assertion, the Law itself must declare it. Remember, there can be no innovation in Church Law without a positive act of a competent superior.

    But is not the act of the resignation a juridic act which establishes a new way of resigning? — No. Juridical acts are not tyrannical acts, they cannot justify themselves, but must be in accord with Church Law. This is because as Vatican I declared, even the Pope has no authority to invent novelties.

    But if one were to sustain that ministerium can supposit or be understood as munus, how would he have to prove it? — As canon 17 declares, when there is a doubt as to the signification of the law, one must have recourse to other parts of the law, and if there is no clarity there, then to the mind of the legislator.

    Does the Code of Canon Law sanction the supposition of ministerium for munus? — No. In no part of the Code is a ministerium ever said to be a munus, or a munus to be a ministerium.

    What about canonical tradition, does it require a renunciation of munus for a valid resignation of papal office? — Yes, this is clear. Because in all previous renunciations there is not only a mention of munus but there is also no mention of ministerium. Nor is there any canonical tradition that one can suppose terms which do not mean munus according to canonical tradition for munus. The pope is not the creator or inventor of language or linguistic forms of signification, otherwise nothing would be certain or objective in the Church.

    If both the text of the Code of Canon Law and canonical tradition require the mention of munus in a papal resignation, then in virtue of Canon 17, do those who claim Benedict’s renunciation of ministerium is valid, have any ground to stand upon? — No, one at all.

    Then, must all Catholics recognize that in virtue of the law itself, the resignation is invalid? — Yes.

    Does not the fact that the Cardinals all act as if it were valid, mean anything? — No, because according to canon 332 §2, even if the whole world held it to be valid, if it does not meet the conditions of Canon 332 §2, it is not valid. There is no wiggle room here.

    But does not the very fact a Conclave was held in March of 2013 to elect a new pope make the resignation of Benedict XVI valid? Does not his tacit consent to this make it valid? — No on both accounts. First of all, because nothing makes a resignation valid except its conformity to canon 332 §2. Second, because by Divine Institution, the Petrine Munus cannot be shared by more than one individual. Ergo, if Benedict did not renounce it, he retains it. If he retains it, its contrary to divine law to elect another pope so long as he lives. And in his act of renunciation he never ordered a Conclave to be called in his lifetime. That he consented to such a thing may be either because of fear or of substantial error as regards what is necessary to resign his office. If it is fear, it does not make it valid. If he is in substantial error, then in accord with Canon 188, its expressly invalid by the law itself.
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 134
    • Reputation: +57/-32
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/12/26/the-validity-of-benedicts-resignation-part-ii-ad-contrarium/


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

    by The Editor



    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.
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    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:
    [/font][/size]

    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 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 it 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 Cardinal, 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 was 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.
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    Ad obj. 7: I reply the same as for obj. 7.
    [/font][/size]

    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.
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    Ad obj. 9.: I reply the same, as to obj. 8.
    [/font][/size]

    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.

    12. Because, a Catholic in good conscience must presume, that if the resignation were not valid on account of the use of the word ministeriumnot 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 Article, 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 ” the kind of way which” (quomodo) or “in such a way as to” (in tali modo quod) it would have been a 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 metynomic 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 make the phrase signify taking a wife, so in an act of resignation a metynomic manner of signification renders the act invalid because it publicly does not duly manifest the intention.
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 134
    • Reputation: +57/-32
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The following was added to the above article:

    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.
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson


    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 802
    • Reputation: +354/-489
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't understand the obsession with Pope Benedict to be honest. He was barely better than Francis. Every Pope since John XXIII has been guilty of numerous modernist heresies, and Benedict was no exception. So even if Benedict's resignation was invalid, what difference would it make? It wouldn't explain Benedict's heresies or Vatican 2. 

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 134
    • Reputation: +57/-32
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't understand the obsession with Pope Benedict to be honest. He was barely better than Francis. Every Pope since John XXIII has been guilty of numerous modernist heresies, and Benedict was no exception. So even if Benedict's resignation was invalid, what difference would it make? It wouldn't explain Benedict's heresies or Vatican 2.

    So, is this a #notmypope without actually calling oneself a sedevacantist? :)

    I'm quite sure this doesn't come down to anyone's personal preference, if that's what you were inferring. And that which drives Catholics in their "obsession" in this regard, is love of truth. Plain and simple.

    I believe it does matter who, objectively, is the true Pope. Nothing says "let's make the Papacy irrelevant" with an attitude of indifference such as this; because by extension, once the Papacy is made irrelevant in the eyes of the world, then why not the Church also. Maybe Christ then becomes irrelevant. Hmm.

    ************

    BENEDICT vs. BERGOGLIO --  Father Paul Kramer

    There are among the cardinals some of them who still have the Catholic faith (even some whose understanding of it is sometimes gravely erroneous or even materially heretical on various points) -- they are giving subtle indications that there there is something very wrong with Bergoglio, and they are greatly disquieted. They certainly hold him under grave suspicion of formal heresy. I believe they are prudently waiting for the moment when the die will be cast in such a manner that there will be no longer any possibility for doubt or denial -- when "Pope" Francis will committ the Church formally into heresy. It will be clear that Francis cannot possibly be pope because he will commit an act that for a pope would constitute a formal act of defection of the Papacy.

    Then the greatest schism will take place when Bergoglio, the spearhead and standard bearer of the Apostasy will lead the stampede of the CINOs (Catholics in Name Only) into crass and manifest heresy. Then, finally, it will become clear to faithful Catholics that Bergoglio is the heretic and schismatic antipope; and the still Catholic cardinals will recognize the fact of the nullity of Bergoglio's election and the invalidity of Pope Benedict's "renunciation".

    The invalidity of Benedict's "renunciation" is already patent in the fact that he explicitly declared his intention to partially retain the munus of the petrine office; which office cannot be vacated unless its holder fully and entirely relinquishes the munus, and thereby vacates the office. This is so because the petrine munus consists of the official duties of the pope, and thus pertains essentially to the papal office, and singularly resides in the person of the Supreme Pontiff. Hence, one who explicitly declares his intention not to entirely relinquish the munus thus expresses his intention to retain what essentially pertains to the office, and consequently does not vacate the office.

    The fact of the nullity of Benedict's renunciation will only be confirmed in the minds of faithful Catholics when the defection of Bergoglio into obstinate and manifest formal heresy becomes patently and immediately evident to all -- then the faithful Catholic cardinals in the Sacred College will be able to be secure in their rejection of Jorge Bergoglio and acknowledgment that Benedict XVI, in spite of his personal materially heretical opinions, still retains the munus, grace, and charism of the Papacy which have preserved him from any act of formal papal defection.
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 802
    • Reputation: +354/-489
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So, is this a #notmypope without actually calling oneself a sedevacantist? :)

    I'm quite sure this doesn't come down to anyone's personal preference, if that's what you were inferring. And that which drives Catholics in their "obsession" in this regard, is love of truth. Plain and simple.

    I believe it does matter who, objectively, is the true Pope. Nothing says "let's make the Papacy irrelevant" with an attitude of indifference such as this; because by extension, once the Papacy is made irrelevant in the eyes of the world, then why not the Church also. Maybe Christ then becomes irrelevant. Hmm.

    ************

    BENEDICT vs. BERGOGLIO --  Father Paul Kramer

    There are among the cardinals some of them who still have the Catholic faith (even some whose understanding of it is sometimes gravely erroneous or even materially heretical on various points) -- they are giving subtle indications that there there is something very wrong with Bergoglio, and they are greatly disquieted. They certainly hold him under grave suspicion of formal heresy. I believe they are prudently waiting for the moment when the die will be cast in such a manner that there will be no longer any possibility for doubt or denial -- when "Pope" Francis will committ the Church formally into heresy. It will be clear that Francis cannot possibly be pope because he will commit an act that for a pope would constitute a formal act of defection of the Papacy.

    Then the greatest schism will take place when Bergoglio, the spearhead and standard bearer of the Apostasy will lead the stampede of the CINOs (Catholics in Name Only) into crass and manifest heresy. Then, finally, it will become clear to faithful Catholics that Bergoglio is the heretic and schismatic antipope; and the still Catholic cardinals will recognize the fact of the nullity of Bergoglio's election and the invalidity of Pope Benedict's "renunciation".

    The invalidity of Benedict's "renunciation" is already patent in the fact that he explicitly declared his intention to partially retain the munus of the petrine office; which office cannot be vacated unless its holder fully and entirely relinquishes the munus, and thereby vacates the office. This is so because the petrine munus consists of the official duties of the pope, and thus pertains essentially to the papal office, and singularly resides in the person of the Supreme Pontiff. Hence, one who explicitly declares his intention not to entirely relinquish the munus thus expresses his intention to retain what essentially pertains to the office, and consequently does not vacate the office.

    The fact of the nullity of Benedict's renunciation will only be confirmed in the minds of faithful Catholics when the defection of Bergoglio into obstinate and manifest formal heresy becomes patently and immediately evident to all -- then the faithful Catholic cardinals in the Sacred College will be able to be secure in their rejection of Jorge Bergoglio and acknowledgment that Benedict XVI, in spite of his personal materially heretical opinions, still retains the munus, grace, and charism of the Papacy which have preserved him from any act of formal papal defection.
    So Kramer's willing to admit that most of the Cardinals aren't Catholic, but he won't even consider whether or not Benedict was really Catholic? 


    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 134
    • Reputation: +57/-32
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So Kramer's willing to admit that most of the Cardinals aren't Catholic, but he won't even consider whether or not Benedict was really Catholic?

    Well, I had posted the following excerpt from the "Servants of Jesus and Mary" Sept. 2018 newsletter on this forum once before, and so perhaps we're just going to have to wait until Fr. Kramer finishes Vol. II of his book in order to get a more complete 'defense' of Benedict's Catholicism. 

    THE PAPACY IN THE SECRET OF FATIMA PART XI -- Father Paul Kramer

    The argument that Pope Benedict can equally be accused of heresy is utterly fallacious. In the works of Ratzinger there is a profession of belief in dogma, but there is also a warped understanding of dogma rooted in theology based on a framework of modern philosophy; in Bergoglio, there is a patent malice of unbelief; a conscious rejection of the "absolute truth" of dogma and the "moral absolutes". 

    I will present a systematic exposition on the question of the Bergoglian "pontificate" vs. the true and valid pontificate of Benedict XVI, in Vol. II of this work. But to those who object saying, "Why on earth do you think he's (Benedict) any better than Francis?" I reply: The "god" of Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio is the "world soul" (anima mundi) of Shaftesbury, Teilhard de Chardin, and the 'ancient Mysteries' of the Pagans and Freemasons - i.e. the pandeistic Deus of Natura of Spinoza. The God Pope Benedict XVI professes is the God of Christians - the God of the apostles, prophets and philosophers; as he eloquently explained in his first part of his first major work, Einfuhrung in das Christentum.

    Bergoglio's religion worships the "god" of Spinoza in the reformed and dogma denying ecumenical "church" of doctrinal and moral relativism that is emerging out of the post-conciliar Church - the Bergoglian counterfeit "church" which apes the Catholic Church and usurps its name - and which is now seen to be in the process of visibly separating itself from the Catholicism of the past two millennia. Pope Benedict XVI professes and worships the true God of Catholic dogma, as does the remnant Church of which he remains the true pope and supreme Pontiff, in spite of the mass of confusion among the faithful and clergy concerning the identity of the true pope.

    Both men, the true pope and the false pope will die, but the false "church" and the true Church will survive their deaths. It does not suffice for salvation that a Catholic resist false doctrine and personally adhere to the true dogma of Faith; but one must remain within the fold of the true Church of Jesus Christ as a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. The Catholic must visibly separate himself from the organization of those who visibly separate themselves from the true Church by their public defection from the faith into heresy, but who remain as illegitimate squatters and usurpers within the material structural framework formerly occupied by the Catholic Church and identified pertaining to it.
    https://storage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-29953306/documents/5b8bd7790493bJaBjfkU/2018%20Sept%20Newsletter.pdf
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline King Wenceslas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 157
    • Reputation: +39/-64
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bishop Ratzinger in response to letter sent to him by the Vatican correspondent Andrea Tornielli of La Stampa on February 16, 2014:

    Quote
    “There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry,” Ratzinger wrote in his letter of reply. The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations regarding its validity are simply absurd.”

    Read his lips: Absurd.

    What are you poor poor people going to do when Ratzinger dies. Ratzinger sightings?


    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 802
    • Reputation: +354/-489
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bishop Ratzinger in response to letter sent to him by the Vatican correspondent Andrea Tornielli of La Stampa on February 16, 2014:

    Read his lips: Absurd.

    What are you poor poor people going to do when Ratzinger dies. Ratzinger sightings?
    Fr. Kramer would argue he's being forced to say that. 


    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 134
    • Reputation: +57/-32
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bishop Ratzinger in response to letter sent to him by the Vatican correspondent Andrea Tornielli of La Stampa on February 16, 2014:

    Read his lips: Absurd.

    What are you poor poor people going to do when Ratzinger dies. Ratzinger sightings?



    Quote from: Gloria.TV News
    Tornielli has been the editor of Vatican Insider, a webpage belonging to the Italian daily La Stampa which is owned by the leftwing oligarch Carlo De Benedetti. La Stampa is anti-Church but in favour of Pope Francis. Likewise, Tornielli turned Vatican Insider into a Francis mouthpiece. When Francis’ collusion with the McCarrick case was revealed Tornielli even claimed on Vatican Insider that – quote – "No, McCarrick did not have homosexual relations."

    Tornielli is a Francis sycophant, and he lied when saying there were no campaigns organized in advance of the conclave to get Bergoglio "elected". Last month he called Archbishop Viganò the "Great Accuser", and the same of Cardinal Zen. And now he's the newly appointed director of Vatican communications. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/popes-new-editorial-director-for-vatican-media-called-vigano-the-great-accu

    So yeah, I'm sure Tornielli as a source is to be entirely trusted. But even if those really are the words attributed to Benedict, it's pretty much the truth, because the whole argument is that he did resign (only) the active exercise of the "Petrine Ministry" (or as Fr. Belland posits, he rather announced his inability to "administer rightly" two of the powers), and so either way, we know he didn't properly resign the Office. Interestingly, too, in the same letter to Tornielli, Benedict claimed to have retained the white cassock because there were no other clothes available at the moment of his resignation. Talk about "absurd". 

    And why do you mockingly ask your last question? I've already presented likely scenarios once he dies. Seriously, the outright hatred that is displayed for Benedict is alarming, especially considering that he may very well be the last pope. Is there anyone in Tradland who desires to pray for him? Sad. 
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline ggreg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3002
    • Reputation: +164/-169
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'll bet you $1000 he is not the last Pope.

    Benny and Frank will die and there will be another elected.

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 134
    • Reputation: +57/-32
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/01/10/canon-law-itself-declares-pope-francis-antipope/


    Canon Law itself declares Pope Francis, AntiPope
     
    by The Editor



    The clear, precise, and sound reading of the Code of Canon Law leads to the inescapable conclusion that Pope Francis is an “antipope” in every sense of the word, and that the law itself declares it.

    As has been demonstrated in the article, “How and Why Pope Benedict’s resignation is invalid”, there is no other authentic reading of Canon 332 §2 other than that the renunciation of munus is the necessary sine qua non condition of a papal resignation.

    This canonical argument is supported by 35 reasons, debated in Scholastic form, in the article, “The Validity of Benedict’s Resignation must be questioned, Parts I and II”, why a renunciation of ministerium, in the form had in the papal declarations of Feb. 11, 2013, cannot signify a renunciation of munus as per Canon 332 §2, Canon 188 etc..

    Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI remains the one and only true Pope of the Catholic Church with all the powers and prerogatives of that office.

    As I pointed out in my rebuttal of Roberto de Mattei, canon 359 guarantees that the College of Cardinals has no authority to convene to elect a pope, when there has been an invalid papal resignation.

    Therefore, the Conclave of 2013 is without any right in Canon Law to elect a successor to Pope Benedict. Therefore, the one it claimed to elect, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has no authority whatsoever conferred upon him by accepting that election. He is in truth a usurper of the papal office, and must be punished in accord with Canon 1381 §1 for that crime (if he knowingly has done this, otherwise upon demonstration of the delict, he must publicly disavow his claim to the office).

    Since Bergoglio never had any canonical authority as Pope, all his nominations to the  Roman Curia are null and void. Therefore, all actions taken by the Congregation of Religious against religious communities, or by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith against anyone, or the Secretary of State vis-a-vis treaties with nations, such as China, or appointments of Bishops, etc. etc. are NULL AND VOID.

    Since the papal resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is invalid, among other reasons, in virtue of containing a substantial error (canon 188) regarding what words must be expressed to conform to canon 322 §2, that resignation is invalid by the law itself (lege ipso). That invalidation spreads to the Conclave and all acts of Bergoglio as Francis, which are canonical, because they too are founded upon the same substantial error, though compounded.

    Therefore, since the invalidity of Bergoglio’s papacy depends upon the law of the Church itself (canon 188), there is no need for a judgement of any ecclesiastical office to intervene to establish that it is so. And thus, Catholics may and indeed are obliged BY DIVINE FAITH and OBEDIENCE to the Apostolic See and to Canon Law to hold Bergoglio to be an Anti-Pope and to insist to Cardinals and Bishops and civil authorities that he be driven from the Vatican as a usurper.

    Let all Catholics who love Christ, who are obedient to the Code of Canon Law and who seek the salvation of souls act now and today. Write your Bishop and the Cardinals. Write the Italian Government, which is bound to uphold only the canonically elected governments of the Vatican. Insist with all that the fact of Bergoglio’s invalidity be publicly affirmed and his usurpation denounced.

    Its either that, or the end of the Vatican as we know it, as being part of the Catholic Church.
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 134
    • Reputation: +57/-32
    • Gender: Female
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16