Author Topic: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation (Read 8209 times)

nottambula · « **on:** November 14, 2018, 09:25:18 PM »

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/11/14/edward-pentin-reports-respected-vatican-theologian-questions-juridical-validity-of-pope-benedicts-attempted-partial-resignation-calls-for-in-depth-study-and-investigation/

Edward Pentin Reports: Respected Vatican Theologian Questions “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation, Calls for In-depth Study and Investigation

Edward Pentin reports on this bombshell which was dropped in the Italian press in the middle of the October Kabuki Synod Theater and thus was overloooked.

Note that Pentin had to release this on his private blog, not through his employer, which is a property of EWTN.

Here is the money quote:

“More useful” than a fraternal correction, [Msgr. Bux] said, would be to examine the “juridical validity” of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation and “whether it is full or partial.” Jesus, [Bux] said, did not give the keys of heaven to Peter and Andrew but “said it only to Peter.” Such an “in-depth study” of the resignation, [Bux] said, could help to “overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.”

Msgr. Bux hits the nail on the head, and I have been repeating this ad nauseum for over two years now: This situation is actually very, very easy to fix. We don’t need to put Antipope Bergoglio on trial for heresy, nor do we need a day-by-day, event-by-event sifting of the past five and a half years to fix this. All that need be done is acknowledge publicly that Pope Benedict’s attempt to bifurcate the papacy and transform the Petrine See into a “collegial, synodal” office by only partially abdicating the administrative aspect of the Papacy was INVALID per Canon 188, and thus Pope Benedict XVI never ceased to hold the See of Peter. When a juridical action is invalid, the situation reverts to the status quo by definition. The one and only living Pope since April of ARSH 2005, whether he likes it, you like it or anyone likes it or not is Joseph Ratzinger. Thus the “conclave” of ARSH 2013 was invalid COMPLETELY IRRESPECTIVE OF WHOM IT “ELECTED”, WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY “ELECTIONEERING” OR THE “ELECTED” MAN’S ORTHODOXY. Bergoglio never has been the Pope – not for one second. Not even close. He has NEVER for one second held the authority of Peter, and thus EVERYTHING he has said and done as Antipope is completely, totally null and void. The Venn diagram of “Papacy” and “Jorge Bergoglio” has ZERO OVERLAP.

This is why Msgr. Bux says, quite rightly, that the issue of the failed attempted resignation is “more useful” than a “fraternal correction” – and note the term there, folks – FRATERNAL, not FILIAL. Fraternal means “brother”, which in this context communicates an equality of state. Filial means “son”, which does not apply to Bergoglio because Bergoglio is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN “The Holy Father”. In saying “fraternal” and not “filial” in this context, Msgr. Bux makes his position clear with regards to Bergoglio’s rank.

The key to everything, and the solution lies in Pope Benedict’s failed attempted partial abdication. Acknowledge that REALITY, and absolutely everything subsequent to that is immediately nullified. There is no need to study and “correct” the “Bergoglian Magisterium” because there IS NO BERGOGLIAN MAGISTERIUM. This is what Msgr. Bux is communicating when he says, “overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.” This is classic understatement.

PLEASE SPREAD THIS FAR AND WIDE. ALL THAT IS NEEDED IS FOR A FEW PEOPLE TO SPEAK UP.

Pray for the Pope, Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger, whether he likes it or not.

nottambula · « **Reply #1 on:** November 14, 2018, 09:33:05 PM »

See also:

AGAIN, IN HOPES THAT IT HELPS: They are ALL blackmailable, and many of them HATE GOD.

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/11/13/again-in-hopes-that-it-helps-they-are-all-blackmailable-and-many-of-them-hate-god/

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #2 on:** November 15, 2018, 01:32:08 AM »

.
The Venn diagram of “Papacy” and “Jorge Bergoglio” has ZERO OVERLAP.
...
The key to everything, and the solution lies in Pope Benedict’s failed attempted partial abdication. Acknowledge that REALITY, and absolutely everything subsequent to that is immediately nullified. There is no need to study and “correct” the “Bergoglian Magisterium” because there IS NO BERGOGLIAN MAGISTERIUM. This is what Msgr. Bux is communicating when he says, “overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.” This is [a] classic understatement.

.

.
Curiously, something similar could be said for Vat.II -- that the Venn diagram of "Ecuмenical Councils" and "Vatican II" has zero overlap, insofar as all that would be required is to re-convene Vatican I (which was never closed but rather was temporarily adjourned with the understanding that it would be re-convened later and then closed), with perhaps passing mention of the bad dream of the so-called Vat.II, which would thereby be a dead issue. Of course, to do so with the present collection of cardinals would be well-nigh impossible. So that's another problem that might take divine intervention.
.
There is no need to study and correct the unclean spirit of Vat.II or its malicious effects, because it is not the spirit of God.
We would thereby overcome problems that may seem insurmountable to us, i.e., making a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
.

~~Just draw a line through Vatican II!~~

.

2Vermont · « **Reply #3 on:** November 15, 2018, 04:48:22 AM »

The key to everything, and the solution lies in Pope Benedict’s failed attempted partial abdication.

nottambula · « **Reply #4 on:** November 18, 2018, 11:59:48 PM »

It’s All Happening: PJMedia Picks Up the Invalid Resignation Story. God bless Msgr. Nicola Bux for Speaking Out Manfully

The PJMedia piece goes into greater depth than Edward Pentin’s piece.

And they’re getting it right: the key is the SUBSTANTIAL ERROR clause in Canon 188 as applied to Pope Benedict’s intent to “fundamentally transform” the papacy into a “collegial, synodal” office, consisting of both “contemplative and active” members.

Nope. The Papacy cannot be bifurcated nor transformed, even by the Pope himself. Thus the attempted partial faux-abdication was invalid, and the situation reverted to the status quo: Pope Benedict XVI reigning. And so has it remained since.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope.

The truth WILL out.

Have faith in Our Lord and His promises.

Pray for Pope Benedict XVI, the one and only living Pope, whether he likes it or not.

More to come….

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/11/18/its-all-happening-pjmedia-picks-up-the-invalid-resignation-story-god-bless-msgr-nicola-bux-for-speaking-out-manfully/

nottambula · « **Reply #5 on:** November 19, 2018, 12:03:10 AM »

Noted Vatican Theologian Calls for Examination of Validity of Pope Benedict’s XVI’s Resignation

BY DEBRA HEINE NOVEMBER 16, 2018
CHAT 195 COMMENTS

Msgr. Nicola Bux. Image via Facebook.

In an important interview that was overlooked last month, a Vatican theologian said that unless Pope Francis corrects himself and reaffirms Church teaching on morals, the faith, and the sacraments, "the apostasy will deepen and the de facto schism will widen."
To address the current crisis, he suggested that an examination of the “juridical validity” of Pope Benedict’s XVI’s resignation was in order to “overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.” The theologian consultor to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints was implying that further study of the situation could reveal that Francis is not and has never been a valid pope, but is, in fact, an antipope who could be removed from the papacy, thus nullifying his "insurmountable" errors.
Msgr. Nicola Bux, a former consultor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Benedict XVI, made the remarkable comments in an in-depth interview with Vatican reporter Aldo Maria Valli, the same reporter who interviewed Archbishop Carlo Viganò before he accused the pope of covering up clerical sɛҳuąƖ misconduct in a stunning eleven-page letter back in August.
Writing on his own blog, National Catholic Register reporter Edward Pentin says that Bux warned that the current pope is issuing statements that are generating “heresies, schisms, and controversies of various kinds” and that the pontiff should issue a profession of faith to restore unity in the Church.

Quote

In the interview, published Oct. 13 but overlooked due to the Youth Synod taking place in Rome last month, the theologian consultor to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints said “heretical statements” on marriage, the moral life and reception of the sacraments are now “at the center of a vast debate which is becoming more and more passionate by the day.”

Msgr. Bux said the origin of many of these questioned teachings — highlighted in a September 2017 filial correction and at a Rome conference in April on doctrinal confusion in the Church — is the Pope’s post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, but they have since become “considerably worse and more complicated.”
He said this has led some senior prelates, such as Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, one of the four cardinals to sign the dubia in 2016, to reiterate a call for a “profession of faith on the part of the Pope.”
But Msgr. Bux said this would be difficult to achieve given the Pope’s vision of the Church as a federation of ecclesial communities — something Msgr. Bux described as “a bit like the Protestant communities.”

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]

The theologian said that after the last two synods on the family, teaching on faith and morality has become inconsistent on the question of whether to give Holy Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics.
"Not a few bishops and parish priests, therefore, are in great embarrassment, because of an unstable and confused pastoral situation," he said.[/font][/size]
Msgr. Bux said some kind of profession of faith -- like the one St. Paul VI made in 1968 reaffirming what is Catholic “in the face of the errors and heresies” that came immediately after the Second Vatican Council -- is required of the pope to remedy the situation.
“If this doesn’t happen,” he warned, “the apostasy will deepen and the de facto schism will widen.”
Msgr. Bux said the situation had "become even more urgent as a result of the latest changes introduced by the pope, such as that concerning the definition of 'anti-evangelism' of the death penalty."
"And the problems, I said, are notable, because either we admit that the Church has taught the legitimacy of something anti-evangelical practically for two thousand years or we must admit that it was Pope Bergoglio to err, considering anti-evangelical what, at contrary, it is at least abstractly compliant with Revelation," Bux said. "This is a very sensitive issue, but sooner or later he’s going have to put this right. And not just for the death penalty.”

Quote

Asked by Valli if this sets a precedent for the Pope to change more of the Catechism if he wishes, the theologian said this is a “very disturbing question,” and that another “legitimate concern” is to keep the deposit of faith from “sensitivities contingent on today’s or tomorrow’s society.”

The Pope cannot “impose his own opinion” on the Church, Msgr. Bux stressed, quoting Joseph Ratzinger, because on matters of faith, morals and the sacraments, the Church can “only consent to the will of Christ.” And yet he said “many points” in Amoris Laetitia are “cuмbersome and contradictory” as well as contrary to the thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas, despite the exhortation asserting otherwise.

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]

Msgr. Bux also addressed the pope's tendency to be silent in the face of criticism, and refusal to engage the charges of heresy or apostasy by pointing out St. Pius X’s warning in his 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis: That never “clearly confessing one’s own heresy” is “typical behaviour of the modernists, because in this way they can hide themselves within the Church.”
The monsignor went on to suggest that if found guilty of heresy, Pope Francis could be removed from office.
"In the Decree of Gratian (pars I, paragraph 40, chapter VI) there is this canon: 'No mortal will presume to speak of the pope's guilt, since, appointed to judge everyone, he must not be judged by anyone unless you deviate from faith,'" he said.
Msgr. Bux explained that "the distancing and deviation from the faith is called heresy" and "in the case of manifest heresy, according to St. Robert Bellarmine, the pope can be judged."
He added that "the pope is called by the Lord to spread the Catholic faith, but to do so he must prove capable of defending it." [/font][/size]
Valli asked the monsignor if he was saying a pope found to be heretical would "cease to be the pope and head of the ecclesial body, and he loses all jurisdiction."
"Yes, heresy affects the faith and the status of a member of the Church, which are the root and foundation of jurisdiction," Msgr. Bux replied. "Every faithful, including the Pope, with heresy separates himself from the unity of the Church. It is well known that the Pope is at the same time a member and part of the Church, because the hierarchy is within and not above the Church, as stated in Lumen gentium (No. 18)."
Msgr. Bux noted however that it is difficult “identifying the exact contours of a heresy” because theology “is no longer reliable,” but has become a “sort of arena” where "everything converges and its opposite."
"So, affirmed a truth, there will always be someone willing to defend the exact opposite. As you can see, there are many practical, theological and juridical difficulties to the question of the judgment of the heretical pope," the theologian lamented.
He suggested that from a practical point of view, "it would be easier to examine and study more accurately the question concerning the juridical validity of Pope Benedict XVI's renunciation," for example, examining whether it was "full or partial ('halfway')." Msgr. Bux added that "the idea of a sort of collegiate papacy seems to me decidedly against the Gospel dictate."
Msgr. Bux pointed out that Jesus did not, in fact, tibi dabo claves [give the keys of heaven] to Peter and Andrew, but only to Peter!
"That's why I say that perhaps a thorough study of renunciation could be more useful and profitable, as well as helping to overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us," the theologian declared.
He quoted Saverio Gaeta, Fatima, the whole truth, saying: "It was written: 'There will also come a time of the most difficult trials for the Church. Cardinals will oppose cardinals and bishops to bishops. Satan will put himself in their midst. Also in Rome there will be great changes.'"
Msgr. Bux argued that with Pope Francis, "great change" in the church is "palpable," along with a clear intention to "break with the previous pontificates."
"This discontinuity -- a revolution -- generates heresies, schisms and controversies of various kinds. However, all of them can be traced back to sin," he said. Quoting 3rd century Church Father Origen of Alexandria, he added: "Where there is sin, there we find multiplicity, there schisms, there heresies, there the controversies. Where virtue reigns, there is unity, there is communion, thanks to which all believers were one heart and one soul."
As an encouragement to faithful Catholics, Msgr. Bux quoted St. Athanasius of Alexandria’s address to Christians who suffered under the Arians:

Quote

You remain outside the places of worship, but faith dwells in you. Let’s see: what is more important, the place or the faith? True faith, of course. Who has lost and who has won in this fight, the one keeps the See or observes the faith? It is true, the buildings are good, when the apostolic faith is preached to you; they are holy if everything happens there in a holy way… You are the ones who are happy, you who remain within the Church because of your faith, who keep its foundations strong as they have been passed down to you through the apostolic tradition. And if some execrable jealousy tries to shake it on various occasions, it does not succeed. They are the ones who broke away from it in the current crisis. No one, never, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers, and we believe that God will make us one day return our churches. The more violent they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church, but in reality they are the ones who are, in turn, expelled from it and go off the road.

Valli asked Bux whether heresy is not just about spreading false doctrines but also “silencing the truth about doctrine and morals.”
“Of course it is,” he responded. “Where there is no doctrine, there are moral problems — as we are seeing. When the pope and bishops do this, they use their office to destroy [doctrine].”
Quoting St. Augustine, he said, “they seek their own interests, not the interests of Jesus Christ; they proclaim his word, but spread their ideas.”
Quoting Cardinal Giacomo Biffi of Bologna, he added: "The name of Jesus Christ has become an excuse to talk about something else: migration, ecology and so on. Thus we are no longer unanimous in speaking (1 Cor 1: 10) and the Church is divided."

https://pjmedia.com/faith/noted-vatican-theologian-calls-for-examination-of-validity-of-pope-benedicts-xvis-resignation/

nottambula · « **Reply #6 on:** November 19, 2018, 01:17:23 AM »

https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/2018/11/18/media-resignation-questionable/

Media: Resignation Questionable
Posted onNovember 18, 2018by gladstone2

At a time when Catholics have been trained to deny the two popes cropping up on their screens over and over, to tell themselves that their eyes are lying, and to only pay attention to the smug and well-paid CEOs of certain online charitable organizations, along with other stalwart trad-servative subscription farmers, the secular media begins to notice.

Trad-servative Catholic Media’s Erudition: “Stupid Peasants! Benedict resigned: what don’t you get?!”

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Sooner or later, however, the self-selecting arbiters of reality find themselves directly disputing against reality itself. The mantra-like repetitions that Francis is Pope wear thin on Catholic ears finally growing weary of being told what and how to think. Is this the fruit of the apostate hierarchy’s spending the naive laymens’ treasure on rent boys and homo-porn during episcopal confabs? Perhaps the openly criminal, ongoing behaviors of protected players like Unkl’ Ted and Roger Mahoney tip the scales. Then again maybe it’s the Berg-Bag himself, that loathsome, feckless criminal who seems to care not one iota about kids getting raped in the past -and let’s face it folks- the potential that molester clergy still rampages is very high.[/font][/size]
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Whatever the reasons, or combinations thereof, the secular media is beginning to pick up the story that those on the Opus Dei payroll command us not to see.

The logic is quite simple.
Premise: To resign the office of Pope, while at the same time not resign the office of Pope, is impossible.
Subsumption: Benedict XVI attempted to simultaneously resign and retain the office of Pope.
Conclusion: That Benedict XVI resigned the Papacy is impossible.

Of course, that leaves us with the criminal anti-pope Berg-Bag. The thing to remember is this: the apostate hierarchs and their media minions must explain the resignation, but they are not stupid enough to try. So this is what should be demanded.

If they demand that Catholics, under obedience, must accept the Berg-Bag as Pope, then a full and complete, unabridged explanation is required. How exactly can a Pope resign only a portion of a singular office? The attempt is contrary to reason. The Catholic Church can never compel the faithful to accept under obedience that which is contrary to reason.

So how about it, clergy, bishops and trad-servative guardians of what Catholics are supposed to think? We’re five years down this road, and no one has explained a thing. Now secular media is noticing what a joke this whole thing is.[/font][/size]

JJkul · « **Reply #7 on:** November 19, 2018, 02:01:12 PM »

Quote from: nottambula on November 19, 2018, 01:17:23 AM

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
The logic is quite simple.
Premise: To resign the office of Pope, while at the same time not resign the office of Pope, is impossible.
Subsumption: Benedict XVI attempted to simultaneously resign and retain the office of Pope.
Conclusion: That Benedict XVI resigned the Papacy is impossible.[/font][/size]

The conclusion of the syllogism is incorrect because the predicate is incomplete.
Rewording it to agree with how it appears in the minor premise, the predicate of the Major Premise is "to simultaneously resign and retain the office of Pope."
So the conclusion must be "Pope Benedict XVI did not simultaneously resign and retain the office of Pope."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** November 19, 2018, 03:17:08 PM »

Sounds like an attempt at an "easy out" of the Bergoglio problem. Unfortunately, as Kasper recently pointed out, there's no difference in theology between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, and so the problem only deepens by reverting to Ratzinger. Either they're both heretics, or neither one is.

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/10/19/kasper-sees-no-substantial-difference-between-benedict-and-francis/

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #9 on:** November 19, 2018, 03:30:27 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 19, 2018, 03:17:08 PM

Sounds like an attempt at an "easy out" of the Bergoglio problem. Unfortunately, as Kasper recently pointed out, there's no difference in theology between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, and so the problem only deepens by reverting to Ratzinger. Either they're both heretics, or neither one is.

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/10/19/kasper-sees-no-substantial-difference-between-benedict-and-francis/

As they say in Spanish "misma mierda, diferente envase" (same dung in different packaging)

nottambula · « **Reply #10 on:** November 19, 2018, 11:16:30 PM »

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/the-validity-of-pope-benedict-vxis-resignation-must-be-questioned/

The Validity of Pope Benedict’s resignation must be questioned

Nov19

by The Editor

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Recently, the noted Vatican theologian, and former member of the Congregation for the Faith, Msgr. Nichola Bux publicly opined that the validity of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI should be studied in regard to the question of what appears to be substantial error in the formula of resignation.

Msgr. Bux was not the first to raise this doubt. There was a very noteworthy thesis — if I remember correctly — which was published in 2015 or 2014 by a canonist at Rome, which raised questions regarding the validity.

On June 19, 2016, Anne Barnhardt raised specifically the question of a doubt arising from canon 188, which cites substantial error as sufficient grounds to establish the grounds for a canonical determination of invalidity in any resignation. She did this following the remarkable comments by Pope Benedict’s personal Secretary on May 20th earlier, in which he claimed that Benedict still occupied the Papal Office.

Msgr. Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, in the United States, and a former member of Opus Dei, has also sustained this same doubt and others regarding the validity of the resignation. I understand that the Bishop has written many members of the Sacred Hierarchy and Curia about these matters urging action be taken (He suggests a public declaration by 12 pre-Bergoglian Cardinals).

According to Ann Barnhart, in the following year, Attorney Chris Ferrara and Mrs. Anne Kreitzer also sustained this same doubt.

There being a number of notable Catholics sustaining this doubt, and since Msgr. Bux called for an investigation of this matter, I will add here in Scholastic Form, the arguments in favor of sustaining it, in course of which will refute all substantial arguments against it.

[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?

[/font][/size]

And it seem that he did not.

1. Substantial error, in regard to an act of resignation, regards the vis verborum, or signification of the words, as they regard the form and matter of the act. But the act of renouncing a ministry regards one of the proper accidents of the office by which that ministry can be rightfully exercised. Therefore, if one renounces a ministry, he does not renounce the office. And if he believes to have renounced the office, by renouncing one of the ministries, he is in substantial error as to the signification of the words he has used. But in the text, Non Solum Propter, Benedict XVI renounces the ministrum which he received as Bishop of Rome, when he was elected. Therefore, to understand that act as a renunciation of the office is to be in substantial error as to the effect of the act. Therefore as per canon 188, the resignation is invalid.

2. Saint Peter the Apostle exercised many ministries in many places. But no one is the real successor of Saint Peter except the Bishop of Rome (canon 331). If one renounces a petrine ministry, therefore, he does not renounce the office of Bishopric of Rome (cf. canons 331 & 332), who has other ministries in virtue of his office. Therefore, if one believes he has renounced the Bishopric of Rome by renouncing a petrine ministry, he is in substantial error, and thus as per canon 188, the resignation is invalid.

3. According to Saint Paul (1 Corinthians 12) there are diverse graces, ministries and offices in the Church, inasmuch as the Church is the Body of Christ. Therefore, since the Bishop of Rome can exercise several of these ministries, it follows that one does not renounce the Bishopric of Rome if one renounces one of these ministries, since no one ministry is coextensive with the Bishopric of Rome. Ergo in such a renunciation, if one believes he has sufficiently signified the renunciation of the Bishopric of Rome, he is in substantial error. Therefore, as per canon 188, the resignation is invalid.

4. According to Seneca (Moral Essays, vol. 3, John W. Basore, Heineman, 1935), one must distinguish between benefices, offices and ministries. Benefices are that which are given by an alien, offices by sons, mothers and others with necessary relationships, and ministries by servants who do what superiors do not do. The Petrine ministry is a service to the Church. But the office of the Bishop of Rome is a duty to Christ. If one renounces the ministry of a servant, he does not renounce the office of a son. Ergo in such a renunciation etc…

5. The validity of an act of resignation cannot be founded upon the subjective definition of words, or the mere intention of the one renouncing. If that were the case, the interpretation would make the act an act of resignation. The act itself would not declare it. But the Church is a public society founded by the Incarnate Living God. Therefore, the renunciation of offices must be not only intentional but public, to give witness to the fact that the office was established by the Living and Incarnate God. But the office of the Bishop of Rome is such an office. Ergo in such a renunciation etc..

6. As Msgr. Henry Gracida argues on his blog, abyssum.org: If Christ did not accept the resignation of Benedict as valid, because the act itself was not canonically valid per canon 188, then Christ would be obliged in justice to deprive Bergoglio of grace, so that his lack of being pope be MOST EVIDENT to all with Faith, Hope and Charity. But it is MOST EVIDENT to everyone, even non Catholics, that he has NOT the grace of God in him or in his actions. Ergo, either Christ is unjust, or Christ is just. He cannot be unjust. Ergo, Bergoglio is not pope!

7. Christ prayed for Peter that his faith might not fail, and so that he could confirm his brethren in the Apostolic College. Now this prayer of Christ must be efficacious, since Christ is God and the Beloved Son of the Eternal Father, and because of the office of Saint Peter is not something merely useful to the Body of Christ, but necessary in matters of faith and unity. Therefore, Christ’s prayer for the Successors of Saint Peter must be efficacious in some manner as regards the faith and unity of the Church. But Bergoglio manifestly attacks both the faith and unity of the Church. Far be it, therefore, to judge that in this one man Christ’s prayer was not intended to be effective. Ergo, Bergoglio is not a valid successor of Saint Peter!

8. From the text of the act of resignation. Pope Benedict admits in the first sentence that he holds the munus petrinum. But further down, he says he renounces the ministerium which he had received as Bishop of Rome. Therefore, he has not renounced the munus. But munus means office and gift of grace (cf. Canon 145 §1). Therefore, he has not stated that he has renounced the office and gift of grace. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

9.From the sense of the Latin tongue, which lacks the definite and indefinite article. When you say: Renuntio ministrum, you do not say whether you have renounced the ministry or a ministry. Therefore, you leave unsaid what ministry you have renounced. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

10.From the papal law Universi Dominici Gregis, on Papal elections: One is not elected to the Petrine Ministry, but to be the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, unless one renounce the Bishopric of Rome one has not vacated the See of Saint Peter.

11. From the Code of Canon Law: Canonical resignations are valid if 3 things are valid: liberty from coercion, right intention, unambiguous signification. This is confirmed in canon 332, § 2 which expressly denies that the acceptance of a resignation affects is validity or non-validity. But Pope Benedict admits in his letters to Cardinal Brandmueller that his intent was to retain something of the Pontifical Dignity. His private secretary also publicly has affirmed that he occupies the See of Peter. This is incontrovertible evidence that the act of resignation is ambiguous. For either it means he has renounced the See or has not renounced the See. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

12. From Pneumetology, that is, from the theology of the Holy Spirit. After Feb 2013 the whole Church still recognizes and accepts Pope Benedict with the title of pope and with papal prerogatives. All call him Benedict, not Ratzinger or Joseph. But the whole Church cannot be deceived. Nevertheless, according to Divine Institution, the Papacy cannot be held by more than one person at one time. And he who holds it first, has the valid claim to the office. Therefore, the Church does not understand the act as one which renounces the office. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

13. From insufficiency of intention: If a Pope renounces eating bananas, he has not renounced the office of Bishopric of Rome. If he says, “I have renounced eating bananas, to vacate the See of Rome”, he is in substantial error. But in his text of renunciation he says he has renounced the ministry so as to vacate the see of Saint Peter [ut sedes Sancti Petri vacet]. But that is a substantial error, since the ministry is only a proper accident of the Bishopric of Rome. One could just as well renounce any or all of its ministries and retain the office. Therefore, by renouncing a or the ministry he does not renounce the office. Indeed, in public statements, he explicitly affirms only to have renounced the ministry. Therefore, his insufficiency of expressed intention does not save the act from substantial error. Therefore, in such a renunciation etc..

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
In summation:
[/font][/size]

Hence, it appears, that if a Pope were to intend to retire from active ministry, but retain the Papal Office in all its fullness, that he could just as well read out loud the statement made by Pope Benedict XVI, Non solum propter, since the vis verborum of that text is that he renounced the ministry of the office of the Bishop of Rome, but not the office. Herein lies the substantial error, and thus that act of Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013 must be judged to be invalid, as per canon 188, if it be asserted to be an act of resignation of the office of Bishop of Rome. However, if one were to assert that it is only the act of renunciation of active ministry, not of office, then yes, it should be said to be a valid act, containing no substantial error.

On which account, as a baptized Roman Catholic, Italian Citizen and legal resident of the City of Rome, I call upon the Italian Government to invoke its right, as a party to the Lateran Pact and its subsequent agreements, to convene the entire Clergy of the Diocese of Rome, to judge in tribunal, just as they did in A. D. 1046 at Sutri, at the command of the Germany King Henry III, the validity of the claim to office of Popes Benedict and Francis, namely, whether the act of renunciation of Benedict XVI was valid as to a renunciation of office, and if not, to declare the Conclave of 2013 canonically invalid ex radicibus.

nottambula · « **Reply #11 on:** November 19, 2018, 11:22:02 PM »

Comment made in the above From Rome blog post.

Quote

November 19, 2018 at 10:20 pm
I don’t think that Pope Benedict made a mistake. He made a triumphal decision in order to safeguard both the indefectibility of the Church and the infallibility of the Papal Office. A more precise translation of the Declaratio of Feb 11, 2013 shows that Pope Benedict did not intend to split the Papal Office. Neither did he abdicate the Papal Office, rather he announced his inability to “rightly administrate” or “administrate satisfactorily” two of the papal powers and thus he abdicated from using those powers. Abdicating the use of power is NOT the same as resigning the Papal Office. A pope who is imprisoned cannot use those powers although he still rightly has them since they belong to the office.
The “wolves” have control of the official translation and its dissemination. Here is a three part comparison that unfortunately doesn’t copy and paste in its three separate columns. However, it is possible to track the precise translation since it always immediately follows the Latin. You will find the precise translation in bold throughout. The footnotes is where the explanation of the non-abdication of Papal Office lies. Notice also that the choice of paragraph breaks in the official translation is different from the Latin text. This difference in paragraphs allows for a subtle change in meaning by making a contextual connection that is not actually found in the Latin. (See footnote 4)
**********************************************************************************
Official English Translation of Pope Benedict XVI’s Abdication Speech Official Latin Text of Pope Benedict XVI’s Abdication Speech Thesis Author’s More Precise English Translation of Pope Benedict XVI’s Abdication Speech1
Dear Brothers, Fratres carissimi Dear Brothers,
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three Canonizations, Non solum propter tres cononizationes ad hoc Consistorium,I have convoked you to this Consistory not only on account of the three Canonizations,
but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. sed etiam ut vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita communicem.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 adequate3 exercise of the Petrine ministry.4 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. Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque2 administrandum3. 4 After having examined my conscience again and again before God, I have arrived at the definite understanding that as my age advances my physical powers are no longer suitable for rightly2 administrating3 the Petrine office4.
Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. I am well aware that this office according to its spiritual essence must be executed not only by being active and by speaking5 [administering] but not less than by suffering and praying5 [sanctifying, atoning, supplicating].
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. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus sbiecto et quaestionibus magni ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubemandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et amimae necessarius est, qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam.However, in the world subject to the rapid changes of our time and shaken by questions of great consequence for the life of the Faith, indeed a certain vigor of body and soul is necessary for governing6 the Barque of St. Peter and for proclaiming the Gospel6, which [vigor] has diminished in me in such a way that I should recognize my incapacity for administrating satisfactorily the ministry (management or active duties and teaching7) committed to me.
8For 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. 8Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare9-10 ita ut a die 28 febraarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancte Petri vacet11 et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse. 8For this reason well aware of the seriousness of this act with full freedom I declare that I abdicate with regard to the ministry (Abl. of Respect)/I excuse/exempt myself from the ministry (Dative)9-10 of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter, entrusted to me through the hands of the Cardinals on the 19th day of April 2005 in such a way that from the 28th day of February 2013, at the hour 20:00, the See of Rome, the See of St. Peter could be vacant [provided/if the See of Peter be vacant]11 and that a Conclave would have to be convoked12 by these 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 minisry and I ask pardon for all my defects. Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis pro omni amore et labore, quo mecuм pondus minissterii mei portatis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis. Dearest Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and labor with which you have carried the weight of my ministry with me and I ask pardon for all my failings.
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. Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice matena sua bonitate assistat. But now we confide the Holy Church of God to the care of Its Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ and implore His Mother Mary, in order that She may assist the Cardinal Fathers by her maternal goodness 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.” Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim13. As far as I am concerned, I by all means wish in the future to serve the Holy Church of God most sincerely by a life dedicated to prayer.13
From the Vatican. 10 February 2013 Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII From the halls of the Vatican, the 10th day of the month of February 2013.
**********************************************************************************
Footnotes:
1. The original English wording which reflects a correct translation is kept in the thesis author’s translation.
2. Aeque is not correctly translated as “adequate”; it is firstly an adverb, but furthermore its meaning in both Medieval and Classical Latin expresses the notion of fairness, impartiality.
3. The definition of “administro” is to manage, to guide, to direct, to govern, to act, attend to, to do one’s part, to serve, to wait upon; there is nothing inherent in the definition having reference to the essence of the Papacy.
4. In the original Latin Text the first paragraph ends here. It seems that the translator connected the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Latin Text to the end of the first paragraph in order to equate–by changing “administering the Petrine Office” (original Latin) to “exercising the Petrine ministry”–“ministry” with “Office”; and then with the first sentence of the second paragraph connected by the Official Translator to the end of the first paragraph, the essential nature of “ministry” becomes acting and praying/suffering, both of which the Official Translator has Pope Benedict admitting to being incapable of handling and thus renounces them in the second paragraph.
5. The explanation of the office (munus) of the Papacy seems either to be an artificial construct for Benedict’s purposes in this “abdication” announcement or else notions that are part of the new theology of the Papacy (Diarchy). Notice, however, how these means of executing the spiritual essence of the Petrine Office (being active and suffering/praying) are actually accidents and not properties of the Office.
6. Governing…and proclaiming the Gospel are the two powers that are most opposed by the enemies of the Church and which Benedict was most helpless to exercise or administer.
7. This would be another way for expressing “ministry”–after all, “ministrare” in Classical Latin in the first place means “to serve at table”.
8. NB The separation of the three sets of texts is for the greater convenience of examining the differences in the English translations. There are actually only three paragraphs in the original Latin text.
9. The word “renuntiare” can be translated variously: “to give up”, “to break off”, “to protect against”, “to disclaim”, “to renounce”, meanings given as a transitive verb in the Lexicon of St. Thomas Aquinas. Lewis & Short, the Cadillac of Latin Dictionaries, adds several other meanings to the ones already listed: “to revoke”, “to refuse”, “to put an end to”, “to excuse oneself”.
10. “Renunciare” is a transitive verb so it calls for a direct object (I renounce what?), but there is no accusative; instead, what one would think would be in the accusative is actually in either the Ablative or the Dative case (ministerio instead of ministerium). Hence if it be the Ablative of Respect it would be translated “I abdicate with the respect to the ministry”. Or if “ministerio” represents the Dative (with “renunciare” considered as an intransitive verb) it would be translated as “I excuse myself/retire from the ministry” (=Dative, with “myself” as the accusative being understood OR the Dative used with the verb of movement (figuratively) or Dative of Separation. In the article by Fr. Violi, The Resignation of Benedict XVI, Fr. Violi quotes from the “norm of Quoniam alicui of Boniface VIII which speaks of renunciation of the papacy (renuntiare papatui)”, which indicates that the Dative is used with “renuntiare”.
11. “Ita” and “sic”, although “usually antecedent to a consecutive ‘ut’, it may also be antecedent to a Final ‘ut’… when the design or wish intrudes … So not unfrequently when a restriction or condition is intended …” (Gildersleeve-Lodge Latin Grammar, P. 353.) This is what I believe Pope Benedict intended here in using “ita” with “vacet”. (The idea of condition, I firmly believe, is what Pope Benedict intended here in using “ita” with “vacet”.)
12. “The infinitive clause becomes subjunctive by the principle of ‘Attraction of Mood’” (Gildersleeve-Lodge Latin Grammar, p. 424).
13. This is the Final Subjunctive which is indicated by the word “velim” and hence Pope Benedict expresses his end as an objective, a goal rather than as a consequence, which is how the end is expressed in the Potential Subjunctive as a Consequence.
****************************************************************************
It is important to note that this more precise translation and the reasonings in the footnotes is only a small yet significant part of the whole thesis that shows the facts of the matter regarding Pope Benedict never having stopped being the pope.

2Vermont · « **Reply #12 on:** November 20, 2018, 06:18:58 AM »

Wow, these Vatican II "popes" have really pulled a fast one. As if they didn't know what would result from Ratzinger's actions.....

2Vermont · « **Reply #13 on:** November 20, 2018, 07:15:14 AM »

I wonder...do you all think they will actually tell the world when Ratzinger dies?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** November 20, 2018, 08:04:00 AM »

How is there any ambiguity in this:

Quote

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.

Author Topic: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation (Read 8209 times)

nottambula

“Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation

nottambula

Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation

Neil Obstat

Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation

2Vermont

Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation

nottambula

Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation

nottambula

Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation

nottambula

Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation

JJkul

Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation

Ladislaus

Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation

Last Tradhican

Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation

nottambula

Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation

nottambula

Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation

2Vermont

Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation

2Vermont

Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation

Ladislaus

Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation