Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: nottambula on November 14, 2018, 09:25:18 PM

Title: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: 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. (http://edwardpentin.co.uk/monsignor-bux-pope-francis-must-urgently-issue-profession-of-faith/)

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.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula 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/
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Neil Obstat 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 "Ecumenical 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!          
.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: 2Vermont on November 15, 2018, 04:48:22 AM
The key to everything, and the solution lies in Pope Benedict’s failed attempted partial abdication.

:sleep: :facepalm:
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula 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. (https://pjmedia.com/faith/noted-vatican-theologian-calls-for-examination-of-validity-of-pope-benedicts-xvis-resignation/amp/?__twitter_impression=true)

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/
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on November 19, 2018, 12:03:10 AM
Noted Vatican Theologian Calls for Examination of Validity of Pope Benedict’s XVI’s Resignation
(https://static.pjmedia.com/trending/user-content/51/files/2015/11/debra-heine.sized-50x50xf.png)
BY DEBRA HEINE (https://pjmedia.com/columnist/debra-heine/) NOVEMBER 16, 2018
CHAT 195 COMMENTS (https://pjmedia.com/faith/noted-vatican-theologian-calls-for-examination-of-validity-of-pope-benedicts-xvis-resignation/#comments)

(https://static.pjmedia.com/faith/user-content/52/files/2018/11/Msgr.-Nicola-Bux.sized-770x415xc.jpg)
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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, (https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2018/10/13/monsignor-nicola-bux-lunita-si-fa-nella-verita/) the same reporter who interviewed Archbishop Carlo Viganò  (https://pjmedia.com/faith/archbishop-vigano-in-hiding-fearing-for-his-life-after-bombshell-letter-accusing-pope-francis/)before he accused the pope of covering up clerical sexual misconduct in a stunning eleven-page letter back in August.
Writing on his own blog, (http://edwardpentin.co.uk/monsignor-bux-pope-francis-must-urgently-issue-profession-of-faith/) 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 “cumbersome 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 (https://pjmedia.com/faith/pope-francis-likens-himself-to-suffering-christ-who-responded-to-great-accuser-with-silence/) 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/
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on November 19, 2018, 01:17:23 AM
https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/2018/11/18/media-resignation-questionable/

Media: Resignation Questionable
Posted onNovember 18, 2018 (https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/2018/11/18/media-resignation-questionable/)by gladstone2 (https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/author/gladstone2/)
(https://cognitivegateway.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/headline-resignation.png?w=748)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.

(https://cognitivegateway.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/pound-the-table.png?w=748)

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 (https://pjmedia.com/faith/noted-vatican-theologian-calls-for-examination-of-validity-of-pope-benedicts-xvis-resignation/) 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]
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: JJkul on November 19, 2018, 02:01:12 PM
[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."
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: 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/
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Last Tradhican on November 19, 2018, 03:30:27 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)
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula 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 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/the-validity-of-pope-benedict-vxis-resignation-must-be-questioned/)
by The Editor (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/author/marcianusaristides/)
(https://fromrome.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/resignation.jpg?w=640)

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Recently, the noted Vatican theologian, and former member of the Congregation for the Faith, Msgr. Nichola Bux publicly opined (https://pjmedia.com/faith/noted-vatican-theologian-calls-for-examination-of-validity-of-pope-benedicts-xvis-resignation/) 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 (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html).

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 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PN.HTM), 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 (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/archbishop-gaenswein-recalls-dramatic-struggle-of-2005-conclave) 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 (https://abyssum.org/i-believe/) 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 (https://www.barnhardt.biz/2017/05/05/another-public-endorsement-of-the-canon-188-substantial-error-position/), 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 (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html), 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 (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html). 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 (http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html), 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 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P16.HTM) 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 (https://www.lastampa.it/2014/02/25/vaticaninsider/ratzinger-my-resignation-is-valid-speculations-are-simply-absurd-nM4DttQk4owMXqUzr4GRWO/pagina.html). 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 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/yes-a-pope-can-be-canonically-deposed/), 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.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula 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 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/the-validity-of-pope-benedict-vxis-resignation-must-be-questioned/#comment-575)
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 mecum 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.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: 2Vermont 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..... :laugh1:
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: 2Vermont on November 20, 2018, 07:15:14 AM
I wonder...do you all think they will actually tell the world when Ratzinger dies?
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Ladislaus 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.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: 2Vermont on November 20, 2018, 09:35:03 AM
How is there any ambiguity in this:
I guess it's another example of people seeing what they want to see.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on November 23, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
How is there any ambiguity in this:

"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."

Except from the comment I copied above, the person has put in bold what they claim is "a more precise translation" of Benedict's Declaratio (not saying I'm certain either way):

Quote
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.


However, the main point being made is, one cannot validly resign an office by renouncing only its ministry (active exercise of the duties of the office), and that is what Benedict attempted to do.

Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on November 23, 2018, 12:23:14 AM
[Reposting this since I noticed the author has included additional information and hyperlinks within.]

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 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/the-validity-of-pope-benedict-vxis-resignation-must-be-questioned/)
by The Editor (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/author/marcianusaristides/)
(https://fromrome.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/resignation.jpg?w=640)

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Recently, the noted Vatican theologian, and former member of the Congregation for the Faith, Msgr. Nichola Bux publicly opined (https://pjmedia.com/faith/noted-vatican-theologian-calls-for-examination-of-validity-of-pope-benedicts-xvis-resignation/) 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 (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html).

Msgr. Bux was not the first to raise this issue. There was a very noteworthy study published by a Professor in canon law at the Theological Institute of Legano, Switzerland, in 2014 by Fr. Stefano Violi, which discussed canonically the renunciation: The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI Between History, Law and Conscience (http://archive.fatima.org/news/newsviews/newsviews031315.pdf), without, however, raising the question of its invalidity. (Its a must read on account of its rich citation to the canonical history of papal resignations.)

However, on June 19, 2016, Anne Barnhardt raised specifically the question of a doubt arising from canon 188 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PN.HTM), 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 (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/archbishop-gaenswein-recalls-dramatic-struggle-of-2005-conclave) by Pope Benedict’s personal Secretary on May 20th earlier, in which he claimed that Benedict still occupied the Papal Office.

Msgr. Henry GracidaBishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, in the United States, and a former member of Opus Dei, has also sustained this same doubt (https://abyssum.org/i-believe/) 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 (https://www.barnhardt.biz/2017/05/05/another-public-endorsement-of-the-canon-188-substantial-error-position/), in the following year, Attorney Chris Ferrara and Mrs. Anne Kreitzer also sustained this same doubt. The historian Richard Cowden Guido (https://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2017/05/guest-post-invalid-abdication.html) opined the same on May 11, 2017. And, the famous Italian controversialist, Antonio Socci quoted Violi (https://benedettoxviblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/il-canonista-stefano-violi-studiando-la-declaratio-di-benedetto-xvi-concluse-benedetto-xvi-dichiara-di-rinunciare-al-ministerium-non-al-papato-seco/) at length on May 31, 2017 and sustained the same thesis.

Finally, Pope Benedict XVI in his private letters to Cardinal Brandmueller (https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/9764/benedict-xvi-defends-resignation-in-leaked-letter) openly asks for suggestions for a better way to resign, if he did not do it correctly.

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 seems that he did not:

1. First, because substantial error, in 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 (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html), Benedict XVI renounces the ministerium 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 (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html). 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 ministerio, 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 (http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html)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. But in public statements (https://www.lastampa.it/2014/02/25/vaticaninsider/ratzinger-my-resignation-is-valid-speculations-are-simply-absurd-nM4DttQk4owMXqUzr4GRWO/pagina.html) Pope Benedict XVI after March 2013 says only that he has renounced the ministerium. Therefore, he is in substantial habitual error as regards what is required in an act of resignation of the office of the Bishopric of Rome.  Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

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 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P16.HTM) 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 (https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/9764/benedict-xvi-defends-resignation-in-leaked-letter)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. Therefore, if he says, “I have renounced eating bananas, to vacate the See of Rome”, he is in substantial error as to the effect of his act.  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, for to be the Bishop of Rome is the first act of its being [esse primum], to exercise the ministries of the Bishopric of Rome is the second act of its being [esse secundum]. Therefore, since the second act of being is in potency to the first act, and potency is divided from act as accident to substance, to renounce a or all ministries of an office is an act regarding the accidents not the substance of the office. Therefore, 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 (https://www.lastampa.it/2014/02/25/vaticaninsider/ratzinger-my-resignation-is-valid-speculations-are-simply-absurd-nM4DttQk4owMXqUzr4GRWO/pagina.html). 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.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
In Conclusion:[/font][/size]
Though there can be many kinds of substantial error in an act of resignation, there is NONE more SUBSTANTIAL than the one which involves confusing the accidents of the office to be resigned as sufficient terms to signify the substance of the office itself. Now, according to canon 188, where substantial error is present in such an act, the act is invalid in its effect “by the law itself”. Therefore, the text of Non solum propter, of Benedict XVI does not effect validly his resignation from the office of the Bishopric of Rome. Wherefore, he is still the one and only and true Roman Pontiff.

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 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/yes-a-pope-can-be-canonically-deposed/), 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.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on November 23, 2018, 12:26:48 AM
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/11/21/new-barnhardt-video-presentation-the-bergoglian-antipapacy/

New Barnhardt Video Presentation: The Bergoglian Antipapacy
(High Definition version will be available soon. See dedicated Top Menu page “Bergoglian Antipapacy” above.  More links and citations to come as the page is constructed.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXe76S2lkK8

TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 Intro and acknowledgments
01:42 Why make this video?
03:25 If anything in this presentation is illogical, irrational or detached from reality, let me know
05:03 THE False Premise: Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope.
06:48 WHY isn’t Bergoglio the Pope?  What happened?
08:16 The principle of Reversion to the Status Quo
11:37 Canon 188 – the text of the law
16:09 The plain sense of the law is the last line of defense against tyranny
18:04 SUBSTANTIAL ERROR: the key criterion
19:51 Pope Benedict XVI in his own words: “Always and forever…I remain in the enclosure of St. Peter.”
23:24 Essential precision: Pope Benedict’s mind is NOT the arbiter of reality, nor does his substantial error change the ontological reality of his status as Pope.
25:47 We know from logic that a Pope can commit substantial error in the context of an attempted resignation and still retain his office
27:18 Archbishop Georg Ganswein’s approved remarks from 20 May ARSH 2016 in his address at the Gregorianum in Rome
35:02 There cannot be a “Pope Emeritus”.  Either a man occupied the Petrine See, or he does not.
36:37 Yes, Popes absolutely CAN resign.  The issue here is the VALIDITY of the attempted partial resignation in February ARSH 2013
37:44 +Ganswein. Who is this omnipresent guy that is playing both sides?
38:35 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “But both Pope Benedict and +Ganswein are sub-verbal and don’t understand the words they are saying!”
40:10 The most intelligent people (and angels) make the biggest mistakes
41:13 The second invalidating criterion: FEAR
43:00 Just vs. Unjust Fear
45:28 Never underestimate the viciousness and violence of the sodomite.
46:32 Satanism is real and its global nexus today is inside the Vatican
48:41 Archbishop Viganò is in hiding for fear of his life.
49:03 The Southern Italian Mafia: longtime mercenaries of the Freemasons and sodomites
50:26 Fear of blackmail by the sodomite mafia using PAID false witnesses
53:05 “Pray for me, that I may not FLEE for FEAR of the WOLVES.”
54:22 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “The fact that Pope Benedict resigned is proof that he wasn’t coerced!”
55:57 MASSIVE BODY OF VISUAL EVIDENCE, the conscious retention of visible signs of the Papacy by Pope Benedict XVI after 28 February ARSH 2013
01:02:50 Prophecies: Apostasy from the Top
01:05:17 Pope Benedict XVI, worst Pope ever, notorious for quitting.  The 300 page dossier on the sodomite/satanist infiltration of the Church, delivered to him on 11 December ARSH 2012
01:07:15 Pope Benedict’s warped metaphysics of “meaning”, not “being”
01:08:26 Pope Celestine V in the mind of Pope Benedict XVI
01:09:12 Pope Benedict’s mind is NOT the source nor arbiter of reality.  He needs to be told this, not asked.
01:09:54 VALID YET ILLICIT – an essential precision
01:11:11 What anyone WANTS is not germane to the question. Binary objective reality.
01:13:35 Charity should immediately cause us to ask, “Holy Father, what did they do to you?”
01:14:55 What if Pope Benedict VALIDLY resigned tomorrow? It would confirm that the February ARSH 2013 attempt was invalid
01:16:58 STUPID TROPE ALERT “We can’t know who the Pope really is, and it doesn’t matter anyway!”
01:18:09 Why won’t people even discuss this? EFFEMICACY and SLOTH
01:25:20 The Sedevacantism Red Herring
01:30:00 “But what if Pope Benedict dies…?” Binary Objective Reality.
01:31:58 “What is Bergoglio dies or goes away somehow?” Any “conclave” called while Pope Benedict is still alive and occupies the See will be invalid, just as the March ARSH 2013 conclave was invalid
01:33:27 We MUST get thi 100% right.  Half-right won’t cut it. The Parable of the seven demons.
01:35:00 Jorge Bergoglio
01:36:33 Electioneering of ARSH 2013 “conclave” is completely irrelevant because THERE WAS NO CONCALVE IN ARSH 2013.  The only relevance the faux-concalve of ARSH 2013 served was to expose the corruption and criminality in the College of Cardinals and Curia
01:38:43 Jorge Bergoglio: arch-heretic.  Informative but not germane to Bergoglio’s status as antipope. Only a confirming corollary.
01:40:35 STUPID TROPE ALERT “There have been heretic Popes before!”
01:44:17 Ann misspeaks – John the XXII, not John XXIII
01:44:34 Bellarmine and Suarez believed that the Petrine Promise precluded a heretic or man who had lost the Catholic faith to be the Pope.
01:46:27 Having faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ and His promises is being viciously attacked on a daily basis by “conservative” and even “Trad Catholic” “thought leaders” as “papolatry”.  The only way to hold the false premise that Bergoglio is the Pope is to ruthlessly attack the Papacy, and thus the Virtue of Faith itself.
01:48:20 Papolatry has NOTHING to do with the global cult of Bergoglio.  It is 100% ideological tribalism driven by the fact that Antipope Bergoglio RATIFIED PEOPLE IN THEIR SINS AND APOSTASY
01:52:07 Attributes and characteristics of the False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist
01:53:30 MORE visible confirmations that Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope
01:57:07 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “Papal Infallibility only applies to those things the Pope says that are true!”
01:58:05 It is precisely the AUTHENTIC authority of the Papacy that will be needed to fix this mess – and everyday “conservative” and “Trad” Catholic “thought leaders” attack the Papacy in order to continue to hold their false premise that Bergoglio is the Pope.
02:00:10 The concept of “Popular Acceptance”is NOT in play because the See was never vacant in ARSH 2013.  The Mob/Vox Populi can not change ontological reality.
02:03:15 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “We believe that Novus Ordoism is a completely different religion to whose authority we MUST SUBMIT!”
02:04:42 The mystery of how “even the Elect would be deceived…” We are living it. Right now. The Elect are being deceived.
02:09:32 The greatest act of violence against the Papacy is to call a man who is not Peter, “Peter”.
02:10:12 Antipope Bergoglio has ZERO AUTHORITY.  What will you do, Father, is Antipope Bergoglio tries to abrogate the Mass of the Ages?
02:12:21 What to do? Speak up. Man up. Defend Pope Benedict! Fast and pray – Matthew 17:20 Initiative
02:13:45 Deepen your relationship with Jesus Christ. “Jesus, I know that you love me.”
02:14:57 Conclusion. Please mirror, copy and spread this video. Closing prayer.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on November 23, 2018, 12:38:20 AM
I wonder...do you all think they will actually tell the world when Ratzinger dies?

Good question. If Benedict is indeed the prophesied pope to flee Rome and die a cruel death in exile (prophecies of St. Pius X, Fatima, John of the Cleft Rock, etc.), then it's anyone's guess on whether or not we may actually know when he dies. However, in Yves Dupont's "Catholic Prophecy", it's worth considering his comment that was made in response to one of the prophecies listed in his book.


Quote
Comment: From this prophecy, it is clear that the true Church will be faithful to the Pope in exile; whereas, the new
Pope in Rome will be, in fact, an anti-pope. But, since a
number of other prophecies tell us that the true Pope will die
in his exile, it follows then that the true Church will be lead-
erless for some time. Then, it is not difficult to anticipate what
the anti-pope and renegade hierarchy and clergy will say:
"See, your so-called Pope is dead; and who can give you a
new Pope now? Our cardinals have already elected the new
Pope, he is here in Rome." And, indeed, since the true Church
will be completely disorganized, and the faithful Cardinals iso-
lated, no new true Pope could be elected, and thus a large
number of Catholics will be misled into accepting the leader-
ship of the anti-pope. Such a schism could not happen if the
Pope followed A. C. Emmerick's advice "to stay in Rome".
"But", she said, "the Pope is still attached to the things of the
earth." And, as is said elsewhere, "He will want to save what
he thinks can be saved." In other words, the true Pope, who-
ever he is at that time, will use his human judgment and leave
Rome, instead of remaining firm in the face of the invaders.

I interpret "the anti-pope and renegade hierarchy and clergy" to be those leading the "false Church of darkness" (the coming One World Religion), distinct from the "new heterodox Church of Rome" (Vatican II sect) -- both prophesied by Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich.


Also of interest:
Quote
|i 67. Helen Wallraff ( 19th century). "Some day a pope will
flee from Rome in the company of only four cardinals . . .
and they will come to Koeln [Cologne]."

Comment: This prophecy lends credibility to what I have
said before: only four cardinals will be with the Pope. The
other faithful cardinals will be isolated in various countries,
and unable to communicate because of the chaotic conditions
prevailing then, and they will be in no position to elect a new
Pope when the Pope of that time dies in his exile. As a result,
the Roman anti-pope will be able to persuade many Catholics
that he is the true Pope. This prophecy says that the Pope
will come to Cologne (Koeln in German). There are others,
too, which say that he will go to Germany; but many more
insist that he will go overseas. Perhaps, he will go to Germany
before going overseas.

"Catholic Prophecy - The Coming Chastisement"
https://archive.org/stream/CatholicProphecy/CatholicProphecy_djvu.txt
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on November 23, 2018, 05:42:05 PM
https://fatima.org/news-views/fatima-perspectives-1253/

Thursday November 22nd, 2018
Another Socci Bombshell on November 27
by Chris Ferrara (https://fatima.org/author/fatima-ferrara/)
Fatima Perspectives #1253
In my column of November 15 (https://fatima.org/news-views/the-pope-francis-travel-ban-hint-it-doesnt-apply-to-muslims/) I noted the opinion of Monsignor Nicola Bux, no less than a former consultant to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Benedict XVI, that it would be useful to “examine the ‘juridical validity’ of Pope Benedict’s XVI’s resignation and ‘whether it is full or partial.’” This was Bux’s suggestion for addressing “problems that today seem insurmountable to us.’” Meaning the problems of a pontificate that seems to be devoted to undermining the constant teaching of the Church in several areas, flatly contradicting even the teaching of both Benedict and John Paul II.  How does one explain such a Pope given the promises of Christ concerning the indefectibility of His Church?

Now, after months of almost total silence concerning this Pope, Antonio Socci emerges with a new book entitled “The Secret of Benedict XVI: Why He is Still Pope” to be released on November 27 by Italy’s Rizzoli publishing house.  As Socci explains (https://www.antoniosocci.com/martedi-27-novembre-esce-il-mio-nuovo-libro-il-segreto-di-benedetto-xvi-perche-e-ancora-papa-rizzoli/): “The Church is going through the most serious crisis in her history.  Why?  What really happened in 2013?  And what type of ‘renunciation’ is that of Benedict XVI? Why does he call himself ‘pope emeritus’? What is his current mysterious mission?”

Rizzoli’s promotional blurb (http://www.rizzoli.eu/libri/il-segreto-di-benedetto-xvi/) offers a tantalizing hint of the contents, suggesting that this will not be a mere rehash of the arguments that some, including Socci himself (https://www.antoniosocci.com/non-e-francesco/), have previously advanced for the invalidity of Benedict’s curiously worded resignation:

Quote
“The author conjectures that that there could be supernatural events at the origin of his [Benedict’s] decision. Then there is the deciphering of an ancient prophecy concerning Benedict XVI and finally a new revelation which arrives from Fatima. That regards not only the Church, but the whole world.”
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
What I said concerning the view expressed by Msgr. Bux I say as well concerning this new book of Socci’s, which I expect to review for The Fatima Center: I have no comment on the merits of the contention that Benedict is in some way or other still the Pope — a contention made possible only by the ambiguous and confusing manner in which he resigned the papacy by declaring “I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome” only to retain his papal title, papal garb, and residency in the Vatican.  Nothing like this has ever been seen in 2,000 years of Church history.

What I would say is this: that sober and highly intelligent observers of the ecclesial scene like Bux and Socci are driven to such speculations, and driven as well to air them publicly, is symptomatic of the utterly astounding behavior of the current occupant of the Chair of Peter, who seems, incredibly enough, intent on attacking rather than defending the Church of which he is the earthly head.

Both of these men are grappling in good faith with an historical realization of the hypothetical scenario described by Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, in response to the claim that a wayward Pope may be deposed by his subjects for the same reason that, in self-defense, they could kill a Pope who unjustly aggressed against them with deadly force:
[/font][/size]
Quote
“I respond firstly by denying the consequent, because no authority is required to resist an invader and defend oneself, nor is it necessary that the one who is invaded should be a judge and superior of the one who invades; rather, authority is required to judge and punish. Therefore, just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so is it lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more if he should endeavor to destroy the Church. I say, it is lawful to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and by blocking him, lest he should carry out his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior. See Cajetan on this matter, and John de Torquemada. [Controversies of the Christian Faith, trans. Ryan Grant (Mediatrix Press: 2015), p. 303.]”
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
To one who regards as outlandish the claim that Pope Francis is endeavoring to destroy or at least seriously harm the Church (no matter what his subjective intentions, which are for God to judge), I would respond by quoting Francis’ own words in Evangelii Gaudium (n. 27):
[/font][/size]
Quote
“I dream of a ‘missionary option’, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation.”
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
When has the Church ever witnessed the spectacle of a Pope who sees an opposition between his “dream” and the Church’s self-preservation, which he openly declares he is prepared to risk for the sake of his “dream”? Perhaps Socci’s book will shed new light on how we have arrived at this absolutely unprecedented state of affairs — a state of affairs the Blessed Virgin cannot have failed to mention in Her still-suppressed explanation of the visional aspect of the Third Secret of Fatima.[/font][/size]
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on November 24, 2018, 04:15:44 AM
I am not on Twitter, but have been reading the "Veri Catholici" account for a few days now. Some may find it of interest in regards to the topic of this thread. 

https://twitter.com/vericatholici?lang=en
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: hismajesty on November 24, 2018, 05:41:37 AM
Let's get somethings clear here.

-The Pope has the right to resign. The Pope has done so in the past, and it is outlined very clearly in the law and practice of the Church.

-Secondly, and most importantly, he is the supreme legislator of the Church. He can dispense/override parts of the law if he so wishs. If he does want to be Pope, one cannot force him. It is not a sacrament which leaves a mark. It is an office of Church. His priesthood will never go away.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: BTNYC on November 24, 2018, 09:36:49 AM
How is there any ambiguity in this:

Yes, the wording of the declaration of abdication was clear and unambiguous. There was also a subsequent statement of reiteration from the "pope emeritus" that was absolutely airtight. In fact, these statements are notable for a clarity which is otherwise all but nonexistent in conciliar church documents and pronouncements. Nice to know they're still capable of it, when it suits their needs.

However, it's not at all inconceivable that Benedict was strong-armed out by the sodomite cabal. In fact, knowing what we now know about how extensive the queer infestation of the curia is, and in light of statements like "pray for me that I do not flee for fear of the wolves," it seems all but certain that Benedict's brand of "conservative" Hegelian dialectic modernism (complete with the outer trappings of a traditional pope) became intolerable for the "fruits of Vatican II" in the curia, who, wanting to see their perversion receive the same stamp of approval from the Church that it was rapidly receiving in the secular forum, brought to bear every weapon of coercion at their disposal to get Ratzinger to abdicate. Presumably, if they could successfully pressure him to renounce the papacy, they would see to it that the pronouncements effecting that renouncement would be sufficiently clear and unambiguous.

So, short of an armed extradition / liberation of the aged "pope emeritus" from the clutches of the sodomite cabal that is presumably holding him prisoner, the sedebenediceplenists really have no options open to them. Their only real hope now lies in Bergoglio's own abdication - or death - and the election of another "conservative" modernist in the Ratzingerian mold.  I don't see that happening, though. Nor should anyone hope for it, in my opinion. The Bergoglian pontificate has been a blessing in disguise, shocking many a stultified neocath into cognizance by merely rapidly bringing many conciliar errors to their logical conclusions. To use a metaphor appropriate to the subject, the conciliar church, under Bergoglio, went from a half-century long period of HIV infection, with outward symptoms too subtle to be noticed by the average untrained eye, to full-blown, bedridden, skeletal, sarcoma-lesioned AIDS, impossible to ignore, and horrifying enough to render more than a few wayward souls "scared straight." Before long, I trust that even some of the sedebenediceplenists will abandon their nostalgia for the "glory days" of 1978 - 2013, and come to the realization that nothing short of a full-scale restoration of Catholic Tradition will suffice, and that the impending death of the bedridden, AIDS-infected imposter church is necessary to bring about that restoration.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: 2Vermont on November 24, 2018, 09:56:25 AM
Before long, I trust that even some of the sedebenediceplenists will abandon their nostalgia for the "glory days" of 1978 - 2013, and come to the realization that nothing short of a full-scale restoration of Catholic Tradition will suffice, and that the impending death of the bedridden, AIDS-infected imposter church is necessary to bring about that restoration.
I actually don't think this will happen until another heretic "pope" (that is at least as bad as Bergoglio or worse) is elected within the impostor church.  I think there are way too many folks who still think this is only about Bergoglio...that he's merely a blip.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Ladislaus on November 24, 2018, 11:24:07 AM
Yes, the wording of the declaration of abdication was clear and unambiguous. There was also a subsequent statement of reiteration from the "pope emeritus" that was absolutely airtight. In fact, these statements are notable for a clarity which is otherwise all but nonexistent in conciliar church documents and pronouncements. Nice to know they're still capable of it, when it suits their needs.

If nothing else, Benedict/Ratzinger still knew the traditional theological and canonical language of the Church; he had been well schooled in it.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Ladislaus on November 24, 2018, 11:25:42 AM
However, it's not at all inconceivable that Benedict was strong-armed out by the sodomite cabal.

This is certainly not impossible, that he was pressured out (but this has not been proven) ... though I highly doubt it was by the sodomites.  I found it rather disturbing the way he was looking at those nearly-nude male acrobats.  And I also found the nature of Ganswein's presence to be rather disconcerting.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Ladislaus on November 24, 2018, 11:28:15 AM
it seems all but certain that Benedict's brand of "conservative" Hegelian dialectic modernism (complete with the outer trappings of a traditional pope) became intolerable for the "fruits of Vatican II" in the curia, who, wanting to see their perversion receive the same stamp of approval from the Church that it was rapidly receiving in the secular forum,

That's possible, but I believed that his conservative Hegelian served its purpose well in lulling many Traditional Catholics into believing that he was a friend of Tradition.  But, then, when the reabsorption of the SSPX, IMO his chief mission in this conservative "good cop" act, failed, they felt that it was time to move on to Bergoglio.

"Ratzinger, your main job was to re-absorb the SSPX, and you failed; time for us to move on."
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on November 26, 2018, 08:04:29 PM
https://nonvenipacem.com/2018/11/27/shut-up-they-explained-gaslighting-fake-news-and-the-bergoglian-antipapacy/

“Shut up,” they explained: Gaslighting, Fake News, and the Bergoglian Antipapacy
Posted onNOVEMBER 27, 2018 (https://nonvenipacem.com/2018/11/27/shut-up-they-explained-gaslighting-fake-news-and-the-bergoglian-antipapacy/)
If you have finally come to terms with at least investigating the Barnhardt Theory, or one of the many variants, congratulations. Please know that there are a whole lot of people who consider Jorge Bergoglio to be an antipope. If you are new to this blog, you can read around the dozens of posts on this topic to see where I stand. Look up Canon 188 and meditate on the foresight of the Substantial Error provision, which I’m convinced was Divinely inspired.
The purpose of this post is to point out some of the unpleasantness for which you need to prepare yourself, as well as some common errors to guard against.
First up: Casting aspersions.
(https://nonvenipacem.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/image1.jpeg?w=702)
And then this past weekend, from an FSSP priest to his parishioners, tweeted out by Kansas Catholic: (emphasis mine)

Quote
“It has become fashionable in places to question both the validity of Pope Benedict’s papal resignation and the validity of Pope Francis’ papal election. Both of these suppositions have no clear basis in discernible reality and, within the context of what is clearly known, they border on insanity.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
These are examples of Gaslighting. No, you are not crazy. You are quite correct in examining the evidence and drawing conclusions. You are beginning with the true premise that all scripture is inerrant, including Matt 16:17-19, Luke 22:32, and you can’t help but invoke John 10:5, “They will not follow a stranger, but they will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.”
Do your research. Don’t be bullied. Don’t be intimidated.
Then there is the Fake News blackout at nearly every mainstream and even “conservative” and trad sites. Sites that wont print any articles nor op/eds on the subject, and that comb their comboxes to delete any mention of what is really going on. Sites that publish commenting rules whereby strict censorship is promoted and enforced, like this:[/font][/size]
Quote
(Rule) 7. Unless your name begins with “pope”, don’t declare anyone else whose name begins with pope an antipope. This is not your job… 
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
A direct corollary to this is the matter of “knowing your place,” aka “Shut up, you non-theologian laynothing.” Because yeah, the theologians, Catholic academics, cardinals and bishops are doing such a terrific job with everything. Speaking up, and all that. Bravo.
Dymphna had a nice little riff on this kind of thing yesterday: HERE. (http://dymphnaroad.blogspot.com/2018/11/random-thoughts-on-sunday-evening.html)[/font][/size]
Quote
Monsignor Nicola Bux is the theologian consultor of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints in Rome but if you want to make him some stationery with his title on it I suggest you hurry because he probably won’t be there much longer. Msgr. Bux is questioning the validity  (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/11/for-record-msgr-bux-questions.html)of Pope Benedict’s abdication. He’s not the only one (https://nonvenipacem.com/2018/11/22/socci-the-secret-of-benedict-xvi-because-he-is-still-pope/) but instead of just moaning about it in private he’s made his query in public.
A number of public Catholics (Ann Barnhardt  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=37&v=UXe76S2lkK8%20%E2%80%A6)uses the term “thought leaders”) have reacted poorly to Monsignor’s  doubts…These people say that the only thing we can do is wait for Francis to die and try to keep our Faith. They may have point but they go too far when they  the hurl the epithets, “rad trad”, “stupid”, “schizophrenic”, “weird” “unhelpful”  and “sedevacantist”  at people for not believing  (https://abyssum.org/i-believe/) or daring to doubt that  Benedict’s abdication was valid. When I think of all the heretical garbage  I’ve heard seen freely spewed about in these last few years alone I don’t see why this subject is taboo. Monsignor. Bux may be wrong but I’ve had enough of people telling us what we can’t even discuss in public.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Well said!
Okay, now let’s move on to the law of unintended consequences. This happens when someone holds a conviction to be true because the data set seems to confirm it, but doesn’t think through the logical implications. The madness we are swimming in can make smart people operate in strange ways.I paste here a couple examples.
(https://nonvenipacem.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/img_0162.jpg?w=702)
This person thinks neither Benedict nor Bergoglio is pope (de facto sedevacantism). They think Bergoglio is an antipope because of his myriad heresies, but that he really was the pope at one point. Which means the See is currently vacant. But they don’t really want to say so, and they certainly don’t want to try to do anything about it. We have to “carry on” doing nothing, saying nothing. It doesn’t matter that millions of souls are at risk, either by losing their faith or by being ratified in their sins by this wretched regime. Better to lie low, you know.
(https://nonvenipacem.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/img_0160.jpg?w=702)
This person is taking the position of the Old Catholic movement: They reject the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as defined at the First Vatican Council. Since it doesn’t make sense that a true pope can be so very fallible, this person wonders if it is solemnly declared settled doctrine that’s wrong. Don’t do this. Don’t let the raging heresy of Bergoglio lead you to question previous magisterial teaching. Don’t become a heretic because a heretic “pope” is leading you to question everything you previously believed.
Keep the faith.
Don’t panic.
God knows what He is doing, and He doesn’t keep the truth hidden.[/font][/size]
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on November 30, 2018, 05:24:38 AM
https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/2018/11/27/true-pope-false-opposition/

True Pope, False Opposition

Posted onNovember 27, 2018 (https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/2018/11/27/true-pope-false-opposition/)by gladstone2 (https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/author/gladstone2/)

New vigor surges in the veins of Catholics cognizant of the objective reality of regnant Pope Benedict XVI, a topic already too well-read and known by (https://cognitivegateway.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/b161.png?w=143&h=150)concerned pilgrims to warrant additional description here. Simple lessons can so glorify God in His perfect simplicity! No Pope has the authority to alter the nature of the Papacy. A pope renounces his office, or he does not. Truth, like well-honed steel, mows through the tangled web of conciliar lies.  What deserves further attention; in addition to authentic, restorationist resistance and leadership, is a greater understanding of how Catholics can recognize the horrendously, intentionally counterproductive effect of controlled opposition.

Catholic Men Purporting to Lead: Please Mind the Maiden
A perennial lesson of the ages is that when men of a realm fall into gross dereliction, Our Lord sends holy women to remind them of who they are. Reminder alert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXe76S2lkK8

Quote


Real Deal: Portrait of Authentic Resistance and True Leadership
All the hallmarks are present for Miss B:
1. Speaking the truth precedes human respect.
2. Zero financial interest.
3. Open to new and creative means of fighting the fight.
4. No Fear.
5. Men will follow.
6. Illegitimate power structure cannot ignore.
7. Leaps with total abandon into the Wounded Hands of Our Savior.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Another rock solid personage appears below.
(https://cognitivegateway.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/veri.png?w=519&h=313)[/font][/size]
Veri Catholici: Latin for Catholic Men

We also like this guy, linked here (https://nonvenipacem.com/)  and creativity shown here. (https://meddlingcatholics.com/)Additionally and with great pleasure in reading his post written with both courage and clarity is Deus Ex Machina: https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/ockhams-razor-finds-benedict-still-pope-francis-is-false-pope-universal-church-in-state-of-necesity-since-24-april-2015/
(https://cognitivegateway.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/deus.png?w=748)


Of course, there are stalwarts on the Bergoglio side with whom we may now dispute, but whose authenticity is never in doubt. Read one word of what they publish week in and week out; there is no denying a Catholic mind and heart at work: Vox, Mundabor, Tancred at EF, TIA.  Readers will know many others. While brethren who may be mistaken, none of the above are trying to defend turf, subscribers, donations, or income. Catholic to the core.

Is Controlled Opposition Present?
Doubt it not for one instant!  Just as authentic leadership and opposition possesses recognizable attributes, so does the phony version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

Quote


Quintessential Controlled Opposition: Looking Out for Numero Uno!
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
How can controlled opposition be recognized? Simple, observable facts shall declare. Does the suspect operate for personal gain and profit? Does suspect suppress alternate viewpoints advancing original ideas? Does suspect attack and gaslight? {Saying BXVI is Pope is crazy talk of deranged minds!} Subtler signals may arise. Does the suspect manufacture excuses for avoiding new approaches to the fight? Write books affirming the anti-pope that split hairs to a degree that is utterly maddening?  Does the suspect call down condemnation on opponents? {Excommunicate Benevacantists!} Step one in breaking through controlled opposition is recognizing not only its existence, but its true purpose. Phony opposition gets paid to ensure the complete ineffectiveness of any resistance to the illegitimate regime. Hence the snarling, claws out ambush of Catholic commenters and bloggers who deviate from the party line can be jarringly contrasted to the hum-drum grog ration for the somnambulant reader. “Oh that Francis, he’s so bad. Here’s what he did today. Isn’t that horrible? Just pray for him though, because only sedes say that Benedict is Pope. Sedes get banned and excommunicated. Please donate to my I want-a-bigger-house fund. Again.”
(https://cognitivegateway.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/jorgevacantist.png?w=748)
Additional steps include robbing it of support and publishing what it says when it attempts to shut down or redirect authentic leadership and opposition. Of course, whatever support can be given authentic opposition should be brought.

The Battle Devolves Unto Us
We are in a viciously contested psychological war. The world’s money and media powers have thrown down their shekels on the Berg-Bag. Controlled opposition in the Opus Dei Catholic media has a job – remember that the objective of psy-war is to convince the enemy (that’s you and me) to give up on his own. They want you to feel silenced, alone, abandoned, without hope, and even that God and His Church have moved on from you. Never give in to them!

The battlefront for the Church has been brought to our hearts and minds. The Catholic Church is founded on Logos. The false church is founded on gnosis. All the fallen crowns, thrones, kingdoms and nations map the path to ourselves, and our possessing of the Holy Faith. All the ruined orders, bishoprics, cloisters and monasteries leave their legacy now to us. The legacy of the Incarnation is in your hands. The testimonies of the martyrs are on your lips. No one can take your faith from you. Smash the controlled opposition in its teeth. One does not equal two. The Catholic Church can never command assent of the faithful to a fact She cannot explain. Benedict XVI is Pope of the Catholic Church, closing in on year fourteen of his papacy.[/font][/size]
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Ladislaus on November 30, 2018, 09:05:18 AM

Catholic Men Purporting to Lead: Please Mind the Maiden
A perennial lesson of the ages is that when men of a realm fall into gross dereliction, Our Lord sends holy women to remind them of who they are. Reminder alert!

:facepalm:

Men need to alert the "Maiden" to the fact that she's being strung along into constructing false arguments from her emotion ... wishful thinking stemming from a contempt for Bergoglio.

Ratzinger resigned.  Period.  Unless evidence can be brought forth that he was practically forced out of office, he made it very clear that he was stepping down as pope.

And Ratzinger has embraced nearly as many heresies as Bergoglio.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: JJkul on November 30, 2018, 09:18:23 AM

Ratzinger resigned.  Period.  Unless evidence can be brought forth that he was practically forced out of office, he made it very clear that he was stepping down as pope.

But there isn't actually any forcing a pope out, is there? Even if a pope is threatened into resignation, it would be his own freely-willed act to give into the threat.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Ladislaus on November 30, 2018, 09:26:44 AM
But there isn't actually any forcing a pope out, is there? Even if a pope is threatened into resignation, it would be his own freely-willed act to give into the threat.

No, Canon Law indicates that resignations made under threat are not considered to have been freely given and are null and void.  Yes, ultimately, no one forces any human being to act against his free will.  But that's not on the level at which the law operates.

So, for instance, someone goes up to a Pope-elect and says, "If you don't resign, I'm going to start torturing your nephews and nieces to death."  Would resignation under those conditions really be "free"?  Sure, he could resist and refuse to resign.  But if he does give in, is that really a free choice?  Not really, and that's the way it's looked at by law.  Now, this can obviously get blurry.  How much pressure is required in order to compromise this freedom?
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on December 01, 2018, 01:52:26 AM
Quotes pulled from the comments section of the "non veni pacem" blog.
https://nonvenipacem.com/

Quote from: Islam_Is Islam
I don’t even believe it was a “serious error” per 188 and Miss Barnhardt. Benedict did not make a mistake. He knew what he was doing and NEVER intended to and never did split the papacy. He didn’t even renounce the ministry rather he announced his inability to “administer rightly” two of the powers. We know his inability stemmed not from a lack of vigor on his part so much as the malfeasant disobedience of subordinates. Benedict is Pope but not because of error and not because of a faulty conclave or Bergoglio’s heresy. By his “triumphal decision”, Pope Benedict cooperated with God thus moving the diabolical network to gloatingly reveal itself. Benedict has been heroically and prayerfully waiting for us to figure out that he never stopped being the one and only Holy Father. Please see my comment on an earlier post that shows the precise translation of Benedict’s Feb 11th, 2013 announcement. Here: https://nonvenipacem.com/2018/11/16/bux-for-the-win-helping-to-overcome-problems-that-today-seem-insurmountable-to-us/


Quote from: Islam_Is Islam
"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."


Quote from: Islam_Is Islam
I agree with your explanation, docmx001. Unlike you, Miss Barnhardt reasons that Canon 188 is applicable because part of the serious error is that Benedict thinks that becoming Pope leaves an indelible mark. That’s how she seems to interpret his use of “always” and “for ever”. Your explanation even more convincingly shows that Benedict knows he did not surrender the office or even the power to govern that belongs to the office (nor did he create a diarchy). Rather he announced to everyone his de facto situation: I have the office; thus, I have the power to govern and teach. But because of others’ disobedience I am unable to “administer rightly” those powers; so I am going to set them aside.

Benedict understands rightly that the powers to govern and to teach still belong to the office itself and he is reassuring us that he holds the office “always” and “for ever” because he never did and never intends to resign from it. Until he dies, Benedict is Pope. He “retains the keys irrevocably” because he will never resign the office. In order to protect the Spotless Bride of the Lamb, he’s made the “difficult yet triumphant decision” to hold on to the office, even if it kills him. He is the Holy Father that little Jacinta Marto of Fatima saw weeping and praying in the big house.

The rarely referenced vision Sr. Lucia mentions in her third Memoir describes a mysterious scene that no one seems to want to touch. The possibility cannot be denied that Benedict’s residence in the Vatican seems to fit the bill.

“One day we spent our siesta down by my parents’ well. Jacinta sat on the stone slabs on top of the well. Francisco and I climbed up a steep bank in search of wild honey among the brambles in a nearby thicket. After a little while, Jacinta called out to me:
“’Didn’t you see the Holy Father?’
“’No.’
“’I don’t’ know how it was, but I saw the Holy Father in a very big house, kneeling by a table, with his head buried in his hands, and he was weeping. Outside the house, there were many people. Some of them were throwing stones, others were cursing him and using bad language. Poor Holy Father, we must pray very much for him.’”

Just because the powers to govern and teach have been set aside, someone who does not hold the Papal Office cannot come along and use a power that’s only to be used by the office holder. Even if that someone has been “elected” at an unnecessary conclave. Someone who does that is a usurper. Canon 188 does not apply because there has been no serious error since there has been no resignation.

Exchange of comments between the blog owner "docmx001" and "Islam_Is Islam" can be read here: https://nonvenipacem.com/2018/11/28/tosatti-via-socci-he-has-intended-to-remain-still-pope/
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Ladislaus on December 01, 2018, 07:56:04 AM
Quote
"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."

Nice try.  In that same declaration, he CLEARLY STATED that he was vacating the office to the extent that a new Pope needed to be elected by Coclave.  He stated that precisely so that there would be no ambiguity about what he was doing.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on December 01, 2018, 08:05:25 PM
Nice try.  In that same declaration, he CLEARLY STATED that he was vacating the office to the extent that a new Pope needed to be elected by Conclave.  He stated that precisely so that there would be no ambiguity about what he was doing.

I just don't know if it's as clear cut as you state. See my next post where the two gentlemen discuss the actual translation of the Latin (each believing Benedict is still the true pope). 

Also, since this deception happened, is there any wonder why the rest of Benedict's Declaratio shouldn't be more thoroughly dissected?

Quote from: Veri Catholici
The Vatican, worried to Hell, that anyone will notice that the Latin text of B16 abdication contains both words, munus and ministerium, but renounces only ministerium, has translated both into modern languages with the word "ministry" thus falsifying the document!
https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1064193700643913729
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on December 01, 2018, 08:16:57 PM
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/11/23/litteral-english-translation-of-benedict-xvis-discourse-on-feb-11-2013-a-d/

Literal English Translation of Benedict XVI’s Discourse on Feb. 11, 2013 A. D.
 
Nov23 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/11/23/litteral-english-translation-of-benedict-xvis-discourse-on-feb-11-2013-a-d/)
by The Editor (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/author/marcianusaristides/)
(https://fromrome.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/07-ratzinger-ciao-or.png?w=640)

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

There being few in the Church today who know the Latin tongue well enough to read an analyze a canonical text, I offer here my own translation of the discourse which Pope Benedict gave during the Consistory of Feb. 11, 2013 A. D. (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html).  You can find modern translations of this discourse at the Vatican Website (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html), with notable errors and seemingly purposeful misrepresentations.  Compare my own with theirs, if you like, to know which words have been altered in the vernacular versions.

Declaration of Pope Benedict XVI, Feb. 11, 2013 A. D.

Not only for the three canonizations have I called you to this Consistory, but also so that I may communicate to you a decision of great moment for the life of the Church. Having explored my conscience again and again before the Lord, I have arrived at certain recognition that with my advancing age my strengths are no longer apt for equitably administering the Petrine Office [munus Petrinum].

I am well aware that this office [munus], according to its spiritual essence, ought to be exercised not only by acting and speaking, but no less than by suffering and praying.  Moreover, in the world of our time, subjected to rapid changes and perturbed by questions of great weight for the life of faith, there is more necessary to steer the Barque of Saint Peter and to announce the Gospel a certain vigor, which in recent months has lessened in me in such a manner, that I should acknowledge my incapacity to administer well the ministry [ministerium] committed to me.  On which account, well aware of the weightiness of this act, I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals on April 19, 2005, so that on February 29, 2013, at 20:00 Roman Time [Sedes Romae], the see of Saint Peter be vacant, and that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those whose duty it is [ab quibus competit].

Dearest brothers, I thank you with my whole heart for every love and work, by which you bore with me the weight of my ministry [ministerii], and I ask pardon for all my failings.  Moreover, now We confide God’s Holy Church to the care of Her Most High Shepherd, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and We implore His Mother, Mary, to assist with Her maternal goodness the Cardinal fathers in electing a new Supreme Pontiff.  In my own regard, I wish to serve in the future by a life of prayer dedicated to the Holy Church with my whole heart.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
[From the halls of the Vatican, Feb. 10, 2013]

As can be seen from Ganswein’s talk at the Pontifical Gregorian University in May of 2016, and from the other comments made by Benedict XVI afterwards, this text regards the resignation of ministry, not office. If one were to say it effects the resignation of office, he would be in substantial error, as I have demonstrated elsewhere (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/the-validity-of-pope-benedict-vxis-resignation-must-be-questioned/).

Unlike Archbishop Ganswein, when he spoke at the Pontifical Gregorian University in May of 2016,  I translate munus as office, following not only all the Latin Dictionaries which I have at my disposal, but the Latin text of Canon 145, which defines every office in the Church as a munus. See also, Pope Paul VI’s decree, Christus Dominus, which uses the same term for office. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_lt.html)

Having spoken with one of the most eminent Latinists who has worked at the Vatican, I note that the Sedes Romae refers to the time Zone, and is not an appositive to Sedes Sancti Petri. Note there are 2 things declared:  that I renounce… and that a Conclave be convoked….  Note also, that in the original text the commisso in the phrase, “committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals” was erroneously written and spokenas commissum.  (Cfr. Pope Gregory XIII’s 1582 edition of the Decretales Gregorii IX. Book. I, Tittle III, de Rescriptis, c. XI.)

**********
[/font][/size]
Quote
Islam_Is Islam says:
November 24, 2018 at 12:11 am

Great, Brother Alexis! Thank you. Your translation is similar to the one below except for the “could be vacant” phrase which seems rather important.



Dear Brothers,

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.

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 rightly administrating the Petrine office.



I am well aware that this office according to its spiritual essence must be executed not only by being active and by speaking [administering] but not less than by suffering and praying [sanctifying, atoning, supplicating]. 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 governing the Barque of St. Peter and for proclaiming the Gospel, 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 teaching) committed to me. For this reason well aware of the seriousness of this act with full freedom I declare that I abdicate with regard to the ministry 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] and that a Conclave would have to be convoked by these whose competence it is.



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. 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. 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.



From the halls of the Vatican, the 10th day of the month of February 2013



Quote
The Editor says:

November 24, 2018 at 3:36 pm

There is no could be in the Latin where you put it. The subjunctive form of vacet is such because its in a subordinate clause of purpose, not because its in a condition or contrary to fact assertion.



Quote
Islam_Is Islam says:

November 25, 2018 at 4:55 am

Thank you for your explanation. I don’t mean to be argumentative; I am only trying to get to the bottom of Pope Benedict’s meaning and its implications. You mentioned the lack of subjunctive voice for competit to be a discrepancy. Would you please remark on the following as a possible explanation for the translation as “could be”? “Since the use of the subjunctive actually provides for a ‘condition’ based on Gildersleeve and Lodge, ‘provided the See of Peter be vacant . . .,’ which takes the burden off using the Subjunctive for ‘competit’ which, because it is in the Indicative Mood (may appear to be a discrepancy).” [More specifically,“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”.) “The infinitive clause becomes subjunctive by the principle of ‘Attraction of Mood’” (Gildersleeve-Lodge Latin Grammar, p. 424)] {From footnotes 11 and 12 of an earlier comment under The Validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s Resignation Must be Questioned posted on November 19th at From Rome}



Thank you again; you are the first to even allow a discussion of these fine points. It is a great relief.



Quote
The Editor says:

November 25, 2018 at 5:00 pm

Your citation of the Latin Grammar is inconclusive, because you have to give examples. In Ecclesiastical Latin ita ut introduces a subordinate clause of purpose. Its a grave error found in many modern Latin grammars in English to attempt to reread into Latin the expansin of moods and tenses which we have in Modern English. There is no conditional mood in Latin, you can never translate the subjunctive of any verb as could, unless it be the verb “can” [posse]. You can only use the English subjunctive or may or might, depending upon the Latin construction. I explain this in my Latin Grammar published by The Francisan Archive. But as is said in argument 13, If you renounce something, which is of itself not the substance of the thing which is to be renounced, you have not renounced the substance of the thing. Just as if a Father renounces acting like a Father, he remains the Father. Only a phenomenologist would disagree. But the Church is Thomistic and Aristoelian in its laws, because the Church is founded on realities not appearances. If you reject only the accident of a thing, you still have the thing. Christ shows us this in the Eucharist, when He has renounced all the accidents of His Humanity to appear as Bread. But its still Him.






Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: King Wenceslas on December 04, 2018, 03:56:07 PM

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.

O ya, definitely, 100% for certain that Benedict did NOT intend to resign. Yep, this is a no brainer. Got the absolute truth from God through Barnhardt. The new house theologian for trads. 
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: King Wenceslas on December 04, 2018, 04:01:25 PM
O ya, definitely, 100% for certain that Benedict did NOT intend to resign. Yep, this is a no brainer. Got the absolute truth from God through Barnhardt. The new house theologian for trads.

Sometimes people out smart themselves to the point of becoming stupid.

Bergoglio is not the Pope for the simple reason he is not a Catholic. No one needs Benedict to have a false abdication in order for Bergoglio not to be a pope.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on December 08, 2018, 10:02:27 PM
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/12/08/the-official-latin-of-pope-benedicts-attempted-failed-abdication-says-the-see-could-be-vacant/

The Official Latin of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Failed Abdication Says “the See COULD Be Vacant”.

Years ago I had a bunch of people all saying the same thing to me:  “Ann, you MUST learn and use the Subjunctive mood.  Use of the Subjunctive is a social sorting mechanism, and if you want to be taken seriously and sound like an intelligent person, you have to learn, understand and use the Subjunctive.”

And now, here we are, and all of those seemingly random admonitions from years ago are sounding downright prophetic.

The Subjunctive mood in language is the grammatical form of the hypothetical.  In English it is fading fast from American mainstream usage, due largely to the fact that grammar is no longer taught to American school children, and also due to the fact that Americans are largely unread, and that which they do read tends toward teenaged vampire novellas.  I know that Americans do not know or understand the Subjunctive mood because whenever I use it in writing, I generally get an email or two from a reader trying to correct me.

Look at the following two sentences and tell me which one is grammatically correct:

If I was her, I would not put up with that.
If I were her, I would not put up with that.

The second sentence is grammatically correct.  “If I WERE”.  Every time I use the Subjunctive in writing, I get emails from people saying, “You don’t say ‘I were’, you say ‘I WAS’!”

The “strange” shift from I was/He was to I were/He were AFTER the signal word “if” is the Subjunctive verb form conjugation.  Other words that signal this hypothetical mood and thus the use of the Subjunctive include “maybe”, “perhaps”, “I think that”, “I hope that”, “I wish that”, “in such a way that”, etc.

In Latin, the present Subjunctive has its own unique conjugation form, and it sticks out like a sore thumb – far more than the Subjunctive sticks out in English.  When the Subjunctive appears in Latin, it is a huge red flag.
 Here is an explanation of the Present Active Subjunctive mood in Latin: (http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Alternative_Grammars/Harris_Grammar/Latin-Harris_13.html)

Quote
From here on, I will use the traditional term Subjunctive, although I would prefer to call it a Conditional as used in most modern foreign languages. I want to impress on your mind the sense of these new forms rather than their formal traditional title. When I say Conditional, I am calling forth all the associations that go with unreality, possibility, potentiality, in the English words “may” and “might” and “could be” and ” if it were…”. These are in a different world from the world of fact, where things “are”, where “is” can be counted upon to “be”, where facts are facts when you get down to brass tacks.

In short the Indicative is the world of Western Civilization and American practical hardheaded ability to take the world as fact. In contradistinction, what we are going to discuss is the shadowy world of the unknown, the unreal and the un-factual.

It feels good to take a positive, factual view of the world, but no one can go very far into living without observing that there are various levels of reliability and truthfulness. On a scale of one to ten I could outline the following:


       1       2       5       6       7       8       9       0

Engl.=
       is
              perhaps
                      maybe
                             just possibly
                                     might be
                                            might possibly be
                                                   could  possibly be

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

Now, let’s look at both the text AND the video of Pope Benedict’s attempted partial abdication announcement:
[/font][/size]
Quote
Fratres carissimi
Non solum propter tres canonizationes ad hoc Consistorium vos convocavi, sed etiam ut vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita communicem. Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum.

Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus subiecto et quaestionibus magni ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est, qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam. 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 ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis pro omni amore et labore, quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis. 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 materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim.

Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII

Here is the video, and the key timestamp is 01:28 when Pope Benedict clearly says, “sedes Sancti Petri VACET”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-NJNSBNsyk

So there is absolutely no debate, we have the official text in writing AND we have video of Pope Benedict clearly saying the words of the text.

Here is the problem.  Every translation of this that I have seen, including the Vatican website and the subtitles on the video above, as well as all of the thought leaders out there arguing that Pope Benedict said, “the See of St. Peter WILL BE VACANT” are wrong.  That is NOT what “sedes Sancti Petri vacet” means.  “Vacet” is NOT the future indicative tense.  The future indicative “WILL BE VACANT” in Latin is “VACABIT”.

Pope Benedict wrote and said “sedes Sancti Petri VACET”, which is the present SUBJUNCTIVE, and we have further confirmation of the intentional use of the subjunctive mood in this sentence by the signal particle “ita ut” in the previous clause, which means “in such a way that”, which not only throws up the red flag signal of the subjunctive mood, but signals a specific type of subjunctive mood called the POTENTIAL SUBJUNCTIVE. In English, the Potential Subjunctive must be translated as “COULD BE…”

So what is the actual, accurate translation of the Potential Subjunctive “sedes Sancti Petri VACET”?

“THE SEE OF SAINT PETER COULD BE VACANT”

I couldn’t make this up in a thousand years if I tried, folks.

Here is the full conjugation table for the Latin verb “vaco”. (http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.php?D1=9&H1=109&T1=vaco)

Why does this matter?  Well, let’s think about how well the Potential Subjunctive would go over in other juridical contexts.  Let’s start with marriage vows.

Impressive Clergyman: Do you Wesley, take Buttercup to be your lawfully wedded wife?

Wesley: I COULD….

That isn’t assent, folks.  Wesley and Buttercup would NOT be married if either of them said, “I could” instead of “I do.”

Let’s now consider a legal contract – say, a MORTGAGE.  How do you think it would go over if you arrived at a closing on a real estate transaction in which you were buying a house using a 30 year mortgage; the bank’s representative is sitting across the table and you, the borrower, take the mortgage agreement and strike out all instances of the future indicative tense, and replace it with the potential subjunctive.  So, for example:

”The borrower, John Smith, will pay 360 monthly payments of $1225.00 to the lender, “First National Bank of Springfield” becomes…

”The borrower, John Smith, COULD PAY 360 monthly payments….”

You should be laughing at the very notion.

Folks, this is what Pope Benedict did in his faux-abdication announcement.  And he CLEARLY went out of his way to do it.

I have been aware of this for over two years, but I intentionally did NOT cover it in my video because I wanted to really drive home the “Substantial Error” point, but also because I knew that my audience would be mostly American English speakers, and if I started in on Latin Grammar and the use of the potential subjunctive in Latin, I would lose 90+% of the audience.

But, after having been asked by multiple people to PLEASE post about this, I am happy to write this up and explain it.

The fact that even Trad priests who read and recite Latin every day aren’t even aware of this, and in fact use the incorrect translation “WILL. BE. VACANT!” as their primary rebuttal to the Barnhardt Thesis only proves that being able to read and recite Latin is NOT the same thing as being FLUENT in Latin.  Most Trad priests today only study Latin enough to make them comfortable in praying the Mass and the Divine Office, which is fine.  It does not make them Classicists, Latin scholars, nor even Latin speakers.  As an example, I can recite/pray large swaths of the Mass in Latin by now, and know the meaning of what I am saying just from the repetition of going to Mass every day for years and years.  HOWEVER, I literally couldn’t ask you to pass me the salt in Latin if my life depended on it.  I do remember from the Gospel that “salt of the earth” is “sal terrae”, so maybe the best I could do is point at the salt shaker, say, “SAL”, and then gesture towards myself.  So most Trad priests today don’t have sufficient Latin to recognize this use of the Potential Subjunctive “VACET”, and think that the future indicative “will be vacant” is accurate, when, in fact, it is wildly incorrect.

Now, if Trad priests who say the Mass in Latin every day miss this, imagine all of the Novus Ordo Cardinals, Bishops and Priests who have ZERO knowledge of Latin.  When Pope Benedict gave his faux-abdication speech above, almost NO ONE IN THE ROOM HAD ANY IDEA WHAT HAD JUST HAPPENED.  There was one person that we can see in the video that knew enough Latin to realize what Pope Benedict was saying.  It is the priest on the far right.  Watch his eyes and the stunned look on his face, and how he is looking out at the hall filled with Cardinals who have no clue what is happening… BECAUSE NONE OF THEM KNOW LATIN.

Latin is the language of the Church because it is an incredibly PRECISE language that leaves very little room for confusion or ambiguity.  Now do we see why satan HATES Latin, and why priority number one of the Freemasonic-Communist-Sodomite infiltrators was to purge the knowledge and use of Latin from the Church when they came to power in the 1960s?

So, this is YET ANOTHER data set in this bizarre situation pointing to the fact that Pope Benedict’s attempted partial resignation was invalid, and that he remains the one and only living Pope.

I hope this helps.

Mary, conceived without the stain of Original Sin, pray for us.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on December 09, 2018, 12:22:40 PM
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/12/09/update-to-the-latin-subjunctive-post/

UPDATE to the Latin Subjunctive Post!

I have received some of the best email feedback over the past 18 hours that I have ever received.  I have heard from a slew of Latinists, and what struck me was their kindness and gentility even to the point of being deferential.  I have, as of this writing, only received ONE nasty email, which resorted to the VERY tired “gaslighting” tactic, bandying about accusations of “insanity”.  Sadly, that correspondent was…wait for it…a priest.  Sigh.  But remember, folks, these priests in the various Ecclesia Dei communities know that Antipope Bergoglio WILL come after them and the Mass of the Ages itself eventually, and they are frightened.  That fear is why they are lashing out.  Although, I must admit that I do not understand how the whole “go along to get along and maybe the crocodile will eat us last” strategy can possibly be thought viable by anyone anymore.

While I have now at least FOUR different “theories” as to the nuance of the Latin subjunctive and the use of “vacet” in the February 11, ARSH 2013 attempted partial abdication statement, ranging from “Potential Subjunctive” (citing Gildersleeve) all the way to “Subjunctive as Indicative” and points in between (citing Allen & Greenough and Linnekugel), all the Latinists agreed that the nuance of this Latin grammar question is NOT something to hang one’s hat on with regards to the invalidity of Pope Benedict’s attempted partial abdication.  As per my video presentation, the crux of the matter is SUBSTANTIAL ERROR per Canon 188, not the Latin subjunctive.

One Latinist that I was especially pleased to hear from is a professor of Latin at a German university.  It turns out that he is one of the curators of a website that has been translating and posting my essays into both German and Polish for years now.  I was aware that this website existed, but I did not know whom the curators were.  Now I do.  This professor said in his email that if he were to include in an exam this example of the particle “ut” preceding the subjunctive, that he estimates that 95% of his students would, after a lesson on the particle “ut” and how it signals the subjunctive in various contexts, miss the nuance and get this translation wrong.

Given the quality of the feedback, I wish there were a way to get these Latinists together around a table to discuss it.  It would be a fascinating discussion indeed.  Maybe someone with a blog specializing in “slavishly accurate” Latin translations might oblige the group?  After all, I don’t think there has been this much excitement among Latinists since that time the raccoon got stuck in Reggie Foster’s copier!

Oh, and for the record:

DA MIHI SAL.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: 2Vermont on December 09, 2018, 12:50:13 PM
The worst part about these Resignationists is that even when Bennie dies, they still will not see the forest for the trees.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 09, 2018, 02:07:36 PM

And Ratzinger has embraced nearly as many heresies as Bergoglio.

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?
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Prayerful on December 09, 2018, 04:44:50 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/
Ratzinger is a Modernist who in Jesus of Nazareth questions the historicity of the Jews calling His blood on them in Matthew's Gospel, and says not to convert them, yet Bergoglio the active protector of sodomite Conciliar priests, versus someone who instituted procedures to defrock or laicise them, has to be worse. Frankly whatever gets rid of daily blasphemer Francis-Bergoglio is fine by me, short of the lawlessness he trades in (so there is not another dodgy resignation and Bergoglio has spoken occasionally of resigning, even it was probably insincere), is fine by me, and likely most devout Catholics.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on December 10, 2018, 12:36:45 AM


The "Veri Catholici" Twitter account is Br. Alexis Bugnolo, author of the "From Rome" blog, whose own translation of Benedict's Declaratio I have posted in this thread. Br. Bugnolo, Ann Barnhardt, the "non veni pacem" blogger, and "Islam_Is Islam" agree on Benedict maintaining the Papacy, but are in disagreement on this one part of the translation of his Declaratio; and also the premise of "substantial error" is disputed. Infighting amongst the "Resignationists"? ;)

Quote from: Veri Catholici
Here we must publicly decry the ignorance of all who say the present subjunctive of vaco, vacare in Latin can be translated with could. It just ain't so! There is no conditional mood in Latin!
https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1071799388002021376

**********

"Islam_Is Islam" continues to agree with the "could be" translation and offered more commentary on the "non veni pacem" blog.

Quote from: Islam_Is Islam
Along with the “could be” from the precise English translation, perhaps another data point that Miss Barnhardt might explicate in the near future will be Fr. Schweigl’s credible statement regarding a “difficult yet triumphal decision” of a future pope. She and others may even re-think the premise of a “serious error” having occurred since Pope Benedict’s purposeful decision was likely made in light of having read both the description of as well as Our Lady’s interpretation of the Third Secret. The decision which he announced in the Declaratio has kept both the indefectibility of the Church and the infallibility of the Papal Office safe from the diabolical rot that surrounds him.

More and more are becoming aware of the facts surrounding Fr. Schweigl’s statement. In 1952 at Pope Pius XII’s request, Fr. visited Sr. Lucia and asked her a total of 31 questions. He wrote an article that was published in a journal from the Russicum College in Rome in 1956 entitled, “Fatima and the Conversion of Russia”. In this article on page 15 he states, “The Third Secret [of Fatima] deals with a victorious, triumphal decision by the Pope, triumphal, yes, but also difficult and heroic”. That could definitely describe Benedict’s decision.

Quote from: docmx001
Source please

Quote from: Islam_Is Islam
docmx001: This information from Fr. Schweigl, SJ comes from Guido Del Rose in a talk entitled “Fatima and the ‘Last Times’ Apostasy”, Cassette Tape #4 of 11 tapes, ca. 2004. Mr. Del Rose was the Custodian of the U.S. National Pilgrim Virgin Statue of the Blue Army for many years. Having a great devotion to Our Lady from his youth, he also traveled to Europe on various occasions to Conferences, Lectures, other discussion meetings where Fatima experts spoke and reported on the Fatima Message. Fr. Schweigl’s statement can also be found in Vol. 3 of Frere Michel’s excellent trilogy The Whole Truth About Fatima on page 252 Footnote #39. Is this the source you are requesting?
https://nonvenipacem.com/2018/12/08/still-dont-know-why-benedict-used-latin-in-his-declaratio-barnhardt-knows/

**********

Over at "Fr. Z's Blog", Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (perhaps he's the priest who Barnhardt said got nasty with her?) wrote:

I have notes from people asking about something that my friend Ann Barnhardt wrote (https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/12/08/the-official-latin-of-pope-benedicts-attempted-failed-abdication-says-the-see-could-be-vacant/) about the Latin text of the address Benedict XVI gave when he announced that he was going to abdicate.  Ann contended that the Latin, as written and pronounced, indicated that Benedict did not truly resign.  She took a subjunctive vacet to to be potential and to mean that the See of Peter “might/could” be vacant, not that it “will/shall” be vacant.  What she didn’t know to account for was a pesky ut indicated the result of the action of resigning and, hence, the subjunctive was needed, vacet. In English, it has to sound future.  Blah blah.  She got out too far over her Latin skiis with this one but, to her credit, she posted an update HERE. (https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/12/09/update-to-the-latin-subjunctive-post/)
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/12/of-getting-latin-wrong-corrections-and-of-priests-and-their-latin-or-lack-thereof/

Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on December 10, 2018, 12:54:34 AM
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.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=posrESkEAp0&t=7s

Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on December 10, 2018, 01:25:51 AM
Grammatical Considerations

Concerning Pope Benedict’s Use of the Potential Subjunctive

By Fr. David R. Belland

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxeIwML8J8roZmljNWxEMUEtSGF0RlpvZnJURndOWEJkeXpj/view
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on December 19, 2018, 08:34:47 AM
https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/how-and-why-pope-benedict-xvis-resignation-is-invalid-by-the-law-itself/

BY VC EDITORS (https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/author/vc0staff/) | DECEMBER 19, 2018 · 14:29

How and why Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is invalid by the law itself (https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/how-and-why-pope-benedict-xvis-resignation-is-invalid-by-the-law-itself/)

(https://vericatholici.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Ben-Resign.jpg?w=500)

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 (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html) 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 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/latin/documents/cic_liberII_lt.html#SECTIO_I), 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.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on December 26, 2018, 10:26:29 PM
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
Dec26 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/12/26/the-validity-of-benedicts-resignation-part-ii-ad-contrarium/)

by The Editor (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/author/marcianusaristides/)

(https://fromrome.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/hqdefault.jpg?w=640)

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In the previous article, entitled, The Validity of Pope Benedict’s Resignation must be Questioned (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/the-validity-of-pope-benedict-vxis-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 (https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/how-and-why-pope-benedict-xvis-resignation-is-invalid-by-the-law-itself/), 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.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on December 28, 2018, 08:22:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: forlorn on December 29, 2018, 07:10:05 PM
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. 
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on December 30, 2018, 05:24:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: forlorn on December 30, 2018, 11:44:54 AM
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? 
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on December 30, 2018, 04:35:21 PM
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
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: King Wenceslas on December 31, 2018, 01:35:54 PM
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?

Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: forlorn on December 31, 2018, 04:26:59 PM
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. 
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on December 31, 2018, 10:22:37 PM
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. 
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: ggreg on January 08, 2019, 07:15:01 PM
I'll bet you $1000 he is not the last Pope.

Benny and Frank will die and there will be another elected.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on January 10, 2019, 05:36:23 PM
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/01/10/canon-law-itself-declares-pope-francis-antipope/


Canon Law itself declares Pope Francis, AntiPope
 
Jan10 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/01/10/canon-law-itself-declares-pope-francis-antipope/)
by The Editor (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/author/marcianusaristides/)

(https://fromrome.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/anti-pope-francis.jpg?w=640)


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” (https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/how-and-why-pope-benedict-xvis-resignation-is-invalid-by-the-law-itself/), 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 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/the-validity-of-pope-benedict-vxis-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 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/where-robert-de-mattei-is-wrong/), 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.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on February 09, 2019, 05:26:07 AM
Canon 188, which protects the Papacy, has a canonical bodyguard: Canon 332.2 (https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/02/08/canon-188-which-protects-the-papacy-has-a-canonical-bodyguard-canon-332-2/)

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/02/08/canon-188-which-protects-the-papacy-has-a-canonical-bodyguard-canon-332-2/
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on February 09, 2019, 10:46:36 PM
BOMBSHELL #TOLDYA: Open Sodomite Vatican Reporter Robert Mickens Confirms Agenda to Dissolve Petrine Office Through “Resignations” (https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/02/09/bombshell-toldya-open-sodomite-vatican-reporter-robert-mickens-confirms-agenda-to-dissolve-petrine-office-through-resignations/)

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/02/09/bombshell-toldya-open-sodomite-vatican-reporter-robert-mickens-confirms-agenda-to-dissolve-petrine-office-through-resignations/
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on February 13, 2019, 10:00:32 PM
Pope Benedict Still Gives the Papal (“Apostolic”) Blessing. Tell Me More About How His Attempted Resignation Wasn’t Intended To Be Partial. I’m All Ears. (https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/02/13/pope-benedict-still-gives-the-papal-apostolic-blessing-tell-me-more-about-how-his-attempted-resignation-wasnt-intended-to-be-partial-im-all-ears/)

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/02/13/pope-benedict-still-gives-the-papal-apostolic-blessing-tell-me-more-about-how-his-attempted-resignation-wasnt-intended-to-be-partial-im-all-ears/
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: 2Vermont on February 17, 2019, 06:27:06 AM
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/did-benedict-really-resign-gaenswein-burke-and-brandmueller-weigh-in


Time for the Benevacantists to give it up.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on February 18, 2019, 08:02:02 PM
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/did-benedict-really-resign-gaenswein-burke-and-brandmueller-weigh-in


Time for the Benevacantists to give it up.

Nice try. Lol  We ain't going nowhere.  ;)


Gänswein, Brandmüller & Burke: Please read Canon 17!

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/02/14/schneider-brandmuller-burke-please-read-canon-17/




(https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/02/14/schneider-brandmuller-burke-please-read-canon-17/)
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on February 20, 2019, 07:10:16 PM
Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
@VeriCatholici

(https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
If Chris Ferrara thinks, as he openly opines in his latest Fatima Center editorial, that there have been endless arguments over the validity of Benedict's resignation, he is very ill informed, since the side pro validity has engaged only in name calling and gratuitous assertions


Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)

@VeriCatholici

(https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
Wheres as the side against the validity has expounded in great detail the philosophical, theological, moral, forensic and above all canonical reasons that indubitably show that the resignation never took place in valid form.

https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1097486287848816640
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on February 20, 2019, 07:12:41 PM
Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
@VeriCatholici


#ppbxvi (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ppbxvi?src=hash) There is no Catholic position in any controversy, but that which is in harmony with and derived from the Natural, Moral, Divine and Evangelical Law: Canon 332 §2, says that a Pope resigns when he resigns his munus, not his ministerium, freely and publicly. B16 never did.
(https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)

Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)

@VeriCatholici


Those who contradict this and who urge you to ignore this fact, are advocates of the Devil, who was a Lawbreaker from the beginning. Cardinals who are clueless about these things, who elected Bergoglio in defiance of them, are thus certainly NOT sound judges of the matter.

https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1098128099621986304
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: CestMoiJeanneMarie on February 20, 2019, 08:44:27 PM
Have you all seen this? This came out on TIA recently, and it seems Veri Catholici is giving them some serious flack for it.
https://traditioninaction.org/religious/i043_Hyprocrisy.htm


Saving Benedict XVI - 
Schizophrenia or Hypocrisy?
Fr. Paul Alvarez Norton
In the Gospel of Luke we read that Christ told the crowds: "When you see a cloud rising from the West, presently you say: A shower is coming: and so it happeneth: And when ye see the south wind blow, you say: There will be heat: and it cometh to pass. You hypocrites, you know how to discern the face of the heaven and of the earth: but how is it that you do not discern this time?" (Lk 12: 54) 

Perhaps, there is no warning from Our Lord that it is more appropriate for the time in which we live today. 

For years now, and especially since the current phase of the calamitous project of the destruction of the Faith that moved to high speed with Pope Francis’ reign, many priests and laymen react surprised and scandalized over the buffoon we see sitting on the cathedra of St. Peter.


(https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/I043_UN.jpg)Benedict praises the United Nations (https://traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A257rcRatz_UN.html) in a speech later, Francis follows suit. No break, but continuity...
[color][size][font]
If I were to speak of surprise, I would like to say that the surprise is mine and also of many others like me who for years have been fighting Progressivism, this neo-modernism that managed to reach the highest places in the Hierarchy of the Church. "Felix qui pout rerum cognoscere cause" said Virgil (Fortunate is he who was able to know the causes of things). 

This surprise is due, today more than ever, to the emergence of absurd theories that claim to show that there is a radical break between Francis and the other Popes of the post-Vatican II Council, to the point of supposing that Francis would not be Pope. 

So, today I want to expound, on the one hand, on the almost delusional incoherence of this position and, on the other, on the danger there is in abandoning oneself to the guidance of those who, based on extravagant and arbitrary whims, claim to uphold superficially (or at times through a merely emotional fanaticism) a movement without its feet set in reality, like the ones who hate Francis (the consequence), but have nostalgia for Benedict (one of the causes of Francis' election). 

The words of Benedict himself 

Those who support such nonsense not only seem to act as schizophrenics, but are also publicly denied by Benedict himself who has repeatedly stated that his resignation has been well-deliberated and definitive.


[/font][/size][/color]
(https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/I043_Calcul.jpg)A deliberate decision to resign: 'If anyone had tried to blackmail me, I would not have gone'
[color][size][font]
In his book on his conversations with Benedict XVI titled Last Testament: In His Own Words,Peter Seewald reproduces the words of Benedict XVI regarding his resignation. He explains that Benedict's central statement is this: “But no one has tried to blackmail me. If that had been attempted I would not have gone since you are not permitted to leave because you're under pressure." (London, Bloomsbury, p. 72) 

Benedict XVI cannot be clearer when he says that: "So I wrote the text of the resignation, I cannot say with precision when, but at the most 14 days beforehand. I wrote it in Latin because i something so important you do in Latin." (Ibid., pp. 60-61) 

He adds: "A weak point is perhaps my lack of clear, purposeful governance and the decision that have to be made there.,. So, practical governance is not my forte, and there, I would say, is a certain weakness." (Ibid., pp. 255-256). 

Furthermore, in a letter addressed to the Secretariat (https://zenit.org/articles/entire-letter-of-pope-benedicts-letter-to-vatican-communications-prefect-msgr-vigano/) of the Prefect for Communication, Msgr. Dário Edoardo Viganò, which he writes on the occasion of the presentation of the Collection, The Theology of Pope Francis, Benedict XVI says that there is an "internal continuity" between his pontificate and that of Francis.


[/font][/size][/color]
(https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/I043_Union.jpg)Always praise and warmth for Francis and his 'mercy'
[color][size][font]
His words are: "I welcome this initiative which intends to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice according to which Pope Francis would be only a practical man deprived of particular theological or philosophical formation, whereas I was only a theoretician of theology who understood little of the concrete life of a Christian today." 

And he adds: "These small volumes rightly show that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation and, therefore, help us to see the interior continuity between the two pontificates, although with all the differences of style and temperament." 

Furthermore, on June 28, 2016, on the anniversary of the 65th priestly ordination of Benedict, a ceremony was held in Clementine Hall, where Pope Francis was also present. In his brief final greeting, Benedict XVI speaks again of mercy (https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/two-popes-share-vatican-stage-and-show-only-one-charge): "Thanks above all to you, Holy Father! Your kindness, from the first moment of the election, in each moment of my life here, really moves me inside." 


[/font][/size][/color]
(https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/I043_Mosque.jpg)Francis follows Benedict's footsteps (https://traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A184rcRatzMosque.htm) and prays with an iman at a mosque in Turkey
[color][size][font]
He continues: "More than in the Vatican Gardens, with their beauty, your kindness is the place where I live: I feel protected. Thanks also to the word of thanks, of everything. We hope that you can go forward with all of us on this path of divine mercy, showing us the path of Jesus towards Jesus, towards God." 

Finally, the letters of Benedict XVI to Cardinal Brandmüller - which have recently been published - absolutely destroy any dream of those Ratzingherians who pretend that he is still the Pope. In the first letter of November 9, 2017, Benedict XVI states (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/benedict-xvi-discusses-his-resignation-in-newly-published-letters) as clearly as possible that only Francis is the Pope. 

His words to the Cardinal are these: "As Pope Emeritus, I tried to create a situation in which I was absolutely inaccessible to the mass media and in which it was fully clear that there is only one Pope." 

We see that the Ratzingherians try to show that the resignation of Benedict XVI is invalid are baseless. The arguments put forward do not proceed. However, those "arguments," despite their variety, lead to a single result: Benedict XVI is still Pope and, so, Francis is not a true Pope. 

Self-delusional attempts to justify 'Pope Benedict' 

This speaks volumes about the real reason for these attempts: It is not so important to understand how things are, but rather what end they want to reach, which is to state that Francis is not a true Pope - in one way or another. 

So, with the clarification of the words of Benedict XVI himself declaring that he is not Pope and that the pontificate of Francis is in continuity with the preceding ones, what are we left to think? I believe that there are only two things we can think:


[/font][/size][/color]
(https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/I043_Cont.jpg)Clear continuity among the Vatican II Popes
[color][size][font]
1. Those who say Benedict is Pope are in a state of trauma because they cannot sincerely admit that Francis is an extension of Benedict. This would be something like a kind of spiritual schizophrenia that prevents them from reconciling cause and effect because they will not accept that Benedict has abandoned them. 

2. Or, those who promote this theory are hypocritical scoundrels who simply want to take advantage, confuse people and, through this confusion, constitute themselves as an infallible criterion for determining who is and who is not the Pope. 

If we give these people the benefit of the doubt and consider that they are innocent, then, they do what they do out of ignorance or from the painful disappointment they possibly have upon learning that "Saint Benedict" is an example far from what holiness is.


[/font][/size][/color]
(https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/I043_Circus.jpg)Benedict and Francis: hosting immoral performance and circus shows in the Vatican hall
[color][size][font]
Yes, it is not just Francis' fault if there is a decline of the Faith in the whole world. The catastrophic situation in which the Church finds herself is the result of years and years of attacks directed against the doctrine, the liturgy and, in general, everything that represents the Kingdom of Christ in society. 

For the sake of the argument, if we admit the hypothesis that Benedict resigned under the pressure of a mafia, this mafia could not have had power unless if had been bolstered by the previous conciliar Popes and by Benedict himself. Should we also blame Francis for this? 

At any rate, it does not seem a very honest or courageous position for a Pope who resigns and abandons the flock when the wolf is inside it. 

It is enough here to remember the following words of Christ: 

"But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep." (Jn 10: 12) 

In short, for decades our Pontiffs, wander around as if they were drunk. Their dependence on the absinthe of Progressivism and Modernism continually increase. They roam in the dark night of Humanism. Perhaps the Bavarian has better hidden his intention than the Argentinian, but at the end of the day, both walk hand in hand, singing the same tango and staggering in the same direction. 

It is up to us to not lose sight of what the Prince of the Apostles said: "Sobrii estote et vigilate: qui adversarius vester diabolus, tamquam leo rugiens, circuit quærens quem devoret: qui resistite fortes in fide." Be sober, be watchful! For your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goes about seeking someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith. (I Pet 5: 8-9) 


[/font][/size][/color]
Christus Rex - Adveniat Regnum Tuum


Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on February 20, 2019, 10:07:55 PM
Quote from: Fr. David Belland
TIA is radically opposed to Benedict, basically because they consider him a modernist.  Unfortunately, they have a bad case of AA Fever.  It is hard to blame them, however, because Dr. Guimaraes has been immersed in the errors of VCII--writing books, and very good ones, in order to expose them--and cannot conceive of a conversion for any of them--it is a sad state of affairs.  Furthermore, most people just cannot understand the operation of the demonic in the Vatican, in the Church or in the world.

I don't know Fr. Paul Norton nor his background, the author of the article on TIA, but apparently a friend of Dr. Guimaraes and closely involved with Our Lady Help of Christians traditional Church in Garden Grove, CA, if he doesn't live there.  However, he shows a great lack of knowledge about Benedict's renunciation and what he does know is superficial.  I really doubt if he really sat down to study the matter; he most likely just read a few documents and listened to what others were saying, including TIA, and took the ball from there.

*******

Fr. David R. Belland - April 9, 2017


The new psychology so prominent today seems to have been unwittingly absorbed by society today, even by traditional Catholics. The idea of conversion appears to be totally abandoned. the avant-garde AA has been one of the culprits convincing the poor alcoholics that they have a "sickness" that can't be cured and by means of transferring dependency on the bottle to dependency on the group actually keeps them "sick". But practically for all modern psychology there is no sin (indeed no such thing as a soul even), only sickness, and that as long as sin (of which a large portion of all the psychosis and neurosis being but the symptoms) is not treated properly, that field is perpetuating the "sickness" and the "patient" rather the penitent keeps coming back to increase the psychologist's or psychiatrist's bank account--the poor patient comes to believe he can't be cured.

And so goes society. Hence, Benedict, because he was a liberal can't be cured; he's always going to be a liberal. But anyone who has a conscience, while not involved with the B'ni B'rith (Cardinal Bea among others), Masons, Communism or some other secret society, cult, Lobby or Mafia, and is exposed to the 3rd Secret of Fatima IS going to be converted. Fr. Malachi Martin and Cardinal Luciani (the future Pope John Paul I) are just two examples of those who were directly acquainted with the 3rd Secret and converted; perhaps even John Paul II to a certain extent, for example, in his effort to consecrate Russia.

I challenge anyone, therefore, to prove that his knowledge of the 3rd Secret of Fatima did not change Benedict. He freed up the Old Mass; had the humility to admit that it had never been forbidden; lifted the excommunications of the SSPX; changed the vernacular editions of the Consecration of the Chalice to the proper wording ("for you and for many") and many other things he would not have done back in the '60's and '70's; he went against the Party Line of Sodano and Bertone concerning the Fatima Message. Furthermore, no one can make the claim that they know more about what is going on in the Church than Benedict--indeed he has more first hand knowledge in his little finger than everyone in the streets or on the internet! I exaggerate a bit, of course, but he does know what is going on. And going around publicly proclaiming the past liberalism of Joseph Ratzinger is still present today, even by insinuation if not by direct accusation, is tantamount to calumny, if one cannot prove what he says--a most serious sin and a grave injustice, especially when one takes into consideration the honor due to Benedict.

And only when one knows all the facts, all the circumstances and details of a situation can one make a proper decision concerning that situation. Let's face it, the work of the Devil HAS infiltrated the Church (Our Lady at Akita) and unless one understands how Satan works, and I mean has an in depth understanding of his tactics, he will never know how to handle the situation. And I can tell you that one man, even if he is Pope, will not be able to "clean up" the Church as it is today; it will have to be by a Divine intervention, such that there is a division within the Church so that the faithful Cardinals and Bishops can make the Consecration of Russia according to Our Lady's wishes--it's the only way. And under Francis, since it looks as if there is not going to be an effort to disinherit him, with all the Cardinals he's appointed it will be his modernist cohorts that will win any Papal election; the Consecration will NEVER be made under those circumstances! Let's face the FACTS.

I think it is time we start divesting ourselves of the cultural psychological brainwashing we've been subjected to for the last 60 years.

In the meantime we must be faithful to the Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the last two remedies for us, as Sr. Lucia told Fr. Fuentes.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on February 20, 2019, 10:09:14 PM
GottaGoBergoglio‏  (https://twitter.com/ProcessionsUSA)
@ProcessionsUSA


Father David Belland has his own very compelling view of the BXVI situation. If anyone would like to learn more email him at frdbelland@netscape.net. 


https://twitter.com/ProcessionsUSA/status/1097814373802917888
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on February 20, 2019, 10:37:05 PM
GottaGoBergoglio‏  (https://twitter.com/ProcessionsUSA)
@ProcessionsUSA


#PPBXVI (https://twitter.com/hashtag/PPBXVI?src=hash)
Pope Benedict, you worded your resignation in such a way as to render it invalid. I believe you did this to protect the Church’s indefectibility and to thwart the St Gallen mafia’s plan to validly elect an apostate to the papacy.

https://twitter.com/ProcessionsUSA/status/1097861715918811141




GottaGoBergoglio‏  (https://twitter.com/ProcessionsUSA)
@ProcessionsUSA


That’s where BXVI’s  skilled use of Latin comes in, which is analyzed brilliantly by Father David Belland. I will try to upload his analysis on twitter soon but it is longer than the space of a tweet ...so in the meantime he can be contacted at frdbelland@netscape.net. (https://twitter.com/ProcessionsUSA)

https://twitter.com/ProcessionsUSA/status/1097873544518778885



Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2019, 11:55:36 PM
Please post what Fr Belland has to say. 
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on February 20, 2019, 11:56:12 PM
Quote from: Fr. Paul Alvarez Norton - TIA
Furthermore, in a letter addressed to the Secretariat (https://zenit.org/articles/entire-letter-of-pope-benedicts-letter-to-vatican-communications-prefect-msgr-vigano/) of the Prefect for Communication, Msgr. Dário Edoardo Viganò, which he writes on the occasion of the presentation of the Collection, The Theology of Pope Francis, Benedict XVI says that there is an "internal continuity" between his pontificate and that of Francis.

This was that whole embarrassing "Lettergate" scandal that actually got Msgr. Dário Edoardo Viganò fired. Yet no mention of it at all in Fr. Norton's TIA article.


Quote from: Edward Pentin
Quoting an anonymous Vatican spokesman, the Associated Press reported Wednesday that the Vatican admitted to having “altered a photo sent to the media of a letter from retired Pope Benedict XVI about Pope Francis.” The AP added that the “manipulation changed the meaning of the image in a way that violated photojournalist industry standards.”

The report said that the Vatican admitted to blurring “the two final lines of the first page” where Benedict explains that he “didn't actually read the books in question” and “cannot contribute a theological assessment of Francis” as he had other commitments.

The AP added: “The Vatican didn't explain why it blurred the lines other than to say it never intended for the full letter to be released. In fact, the entire second page of the letter is covered in the photo by a stack of books, with just Benedict's tiny signature showing, to prove its authenticity.”

AP’s report continued that the missing content “significantly altered the meaning of the quotes the Vatican chose to highlight, which were widely picked up by the media.” The suggestion given was that Benedict “had read the volume, agreed with it and given it his full endorsement and assessment,” it said.

The news agency said the doctoring was “significant” because news media “rely on Vatican photographers for images of the Pope at events that are closed to independent media.”
The AP made the point that as with most independent news media, it follows “strict standards that forbid digital manipulation of photos” and that “no element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph.”

This episode is particularly embarrassing for the Vatican, coming barely a month since it issued Pope Francis’ message for this year’s World of Social Communications in which the Holy Father called for a “journalism of peace” in an era of “fake news.”
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-of-benedict-xvis-letter-to-mons.-vigano
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on February 20, 2019, 11:59:01 PM
Please post what Fr Belland has to say.

I posted the tweets that show Fr. Belland's email address for those who are interested in his Thesis.

I received it over a year ago. Just ask him for it.

(And no, GottaGoBergoglio is not my Twitter acct.)
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on February 25, 2019, 04:24:29 AM
Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
@VeriCatholici


The trad media, as well as all the trad priestly societies, have shown themselves very willing to be duped on the matter of Canon 332 and eager supporters of Bergoglio's claim to the papacy, despite all his public heresies, blasphemies and crimes. These make a joke of Tradition.
https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1099924353679015936


Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)

@VeriCatholici


#PPBXVI (https://twitter.com/hashtag/PPBXVI?src=hash) Our recent poll found that 99% of all those who read the canonical evidence that Pope Benedict's resignation was INVALID are convinced that it was invalid. That argues strongly that all Voices who hold that it is valid, are intentionally lying and/or refuse the evidence.
https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1099689355742978049


Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)

@VeriCatholici


#PPBXVI (https://twitter.com/hashtag/PPBXVI?src=hash) Its clear now by 4 polls that the CARDINALS are in SCHISM with the vast majority of the Lay Faithful. For while they unanimously accept B16's resignation as valid, the Laity hold that NO, #Benedictxvi (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Benedictxvi?src=hash) is the true pope by 60 to 95%
https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1099416233097814018
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on February 25, 2019, 05:40:20 PM
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/no-excuse-before-god-or-the-church/


No excuse before God or the Church!

Feb25 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/no-excuse-before-god-or-the-church/)
by The Editor (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/author/marcianusaristides/)
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
(https://fromrome.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/papa-con-paramenti-di-giovanni-xxiiie2808f1.jpg?w=640)His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, the true and only Pope of the Catholic Church, still.

The most disappointing reality in the Catholic Church today is not sexual perversion, however gross that is. Because while acts of sexual perversion are morally wrong, if a man retains the truth of the Faith, there is still a possibility of his repentance.

So, the greatest tragedy is, then, the loss of the Faith, the loss of truth.  When a mind comes to love lies, to love to lie, to live in mendacity and to defend and promote mendacity, the soul of the man has descended to infernal regions.

Such a soul has nothing of itself or in itself to dispose it to repent, for it has turned its back on truth.

This is why in the Controversy over Benedict’s resignation, those who say he validly resigned, have no excuse before God or the Church.

Because, as the Vicar of Jesus Christ, John Paul II decrees in Canon 332 §2, the validity of a papal resignation arises from only objective causes, it does not depend on you or me saying its valid or not.

Indeed, as that canon declares in its final clause, NO ONE IN THE CHURCH has the right or authority to say that a resignation which is not in conformity with that Canon is valid.

Canon 332 §2 — If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounce his MUNUS, there is required for validity only that he do so freely without unjust force and manifest it duly, but not that it be accepted or not by anyone at all.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Thus THE SOLE CRITERION for judging the validity of a papal resignation is in the objective facts of the act of resignation:

[/font][/size]
That means that NO ONE has the right to speculate WHETHER OR NOT a resignation is valid or not: it is only valid if it meets all THREE conditions simultaneously. It is NOT VALID, otherwise, that is if it fails to meet any one of those conditions.

Thus, every Cardinal, Bishop, priest, or talking head on Social Media, every journalist, layman, laywoman or consecrated religious, ARE BOUND BY THE CATHOLIC FAITH to judge the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI INVALID, BECAUSE


in fact, on Feb. 11, 2013, he said explicitly, I renounce the ministry which I received….

That makes his act of resignation NULL AND VOID, because its not in conformity with the obligation to renounce the papal MUNUS.

Thus, all the arguments in favor of the validity, all the rationalizations, all the speculations about intention to resign the office, ARE POINTLESS.  Those making such intellectual or verbal acts HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK, NO AUTHORITY TO JUDGE THE MATTER.

I therefore plead with all Catholics: do not go the way of Lucifer who rebelled in the beginning of time, because he wanted his own will, not that of God. Do not go the way of Adam and Eve who would not listen to God and would not mortify their minds and heart, but chose to rebel and tell God what was right and wrong.  Do not follow the faithless Jews, who having seen all the miracles of Jesus and His immaculate Holiness and integrity, chose to reject Him for the sake of doing their own will and following the elites of their own day.

I put you on notice. Reject the plain meaning of Canon 332 §2 and try to obviate it by speculations and excuses, and you will be damned, God will deprive you of the Light and every grace.

Because in doing such, YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE BEFORE GOD OR THE CHURCH.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on February 28, 2019, 01:02:33 PM
Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
@VeriCatholici



#PPBXVI (https://twitter.com/hashtag/PPBXVI?src=hash) The VATICAN KNOWS that Pope Benedict's resignation is INVALID and admits it by this:

EVERY Vatican translation of the text of renunciation translates both munus and minsterium as ministry, so as to conceal that Benedict did not renounce munus, which is the office.

https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1101105304182378496



Veri Catholici (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
(https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
@VeriCatholici


(https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
Those sustaining that Benedict's resignation is valid are ignorant of  logic. Because Logic tells us that every negation is understood  strictly, not broadly. So since a renunciation of office is a form  of negation, only what is renounced explicitly is renounced.


Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)

@VeriCatholici


(https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
But Pope Benedict in his act of Feb 11 2013 admits that he holds the petrine MUNUS and the petrine MINISTERIUM.  But he renounces only the ministry which he has received, not the munus. Therefore he retains the munus, which in accord with canon 145 is the OFFICE.

https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1101062987639590914







(https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 28, 2019, 01:44:35 PM
Isn't this overly complicated?  I mean, we're arguing about a person's intention and he's still living.  Why can't he clarify things?  The fact that he does not is a grave sin of ommission.  You can't be a secret pope.  If he doesn't admit he still holds the office, isn't that wrong?
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: 2Vermont on February 28, 2019, 03:17:12 PM
Isn't this overly complicated?  I mean, we're arguing about a person's intention and he's still living.  Why can't he clarify things?  The fact that he does not is a grave sin of ommission.  You can't be a secret pope.  If he doesn't admit he still holds the office, isn't that wrong?
You keep forgetting that Benedict does nothing of his own accord.  The "bad guys" are still silencing him!  :jester:
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on March 01, 2019, 12:04:43 AM
Quote from: Pax Vobis
If he doesn't admit he still holds the office, isn't that wrong?

You don't think he admitted that he still does hold it? In his last General Audience (February 27, 2013): "The "always" is also a "for ever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this."

Quote from: Fr. Paul Kramer
Pope Benedict XVI did not renounce the munus petrinum; and therefore, the question is, who is the true pope, Francis or Benedict? I have systematically analyzed (as did far more systematically and thoroughly, Canon Law Professor Fr. Stefano Violi) Benedict’s own words, in which he very carefully states his intention to renounce only the petrine ministry, but NOT the petrine munus. Benedict stated explicitly that he received his committment to serve (i.e. the munus) on 19 April 2005, which he said was “for always” and added, “my decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.” Thus it is clear that Benedict XVI did not validly resign the papacy, since to validly resign the office, the pope must correctly express his intention to renounce his munus: Can. 332 § 2.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on March 01, 2019, 12:19:05 AM
Quote from: Pax Vobis
Why can't he clarify things?  The fact that he does not is a grave sin of ommission.  You can't be a secret pope.

Did you email Fr. Belland for his Thesis? Here is an excerpt from it. Rather lengthy (written in 2016):

"Nevertheless, beyond what has already been said, there is one thing that I really think must be taken into consideration and this centers mainly around two verbs in Pope Benedict’s announcement of his renunciation (this is dealt with in much more detail in the portion of this work entitled Grammatical Considerations and Analysis of Latin Text). These verbs occur in the Latin version of the announcement, the actual version he read to the Cardinals on 11 February 2013.  
 
It must be admitted as certain that the abdication/renunciation announcement of Pope Benedict was not based on a reckless and spontaneous decision as a result of some embarrassing and distressing situations.  No, it was something that was considered over a period of time, most likely several years.  In other words it was a calculated decision—as the symbolic gesture during his visit to the tomb of St. Celestine, whereon he placed his Papal Pallium, testifies.  Also, the fact that he presented his announcement in Latin, a language which he knew very well and of which most of those to whom he presented it (Cardinals and Bishops) were ignorant or at least not thoroughly acquainted with.   
 
Since Pope Benedict’s decision was something he had contemplated for a quite a while and certainly not without seeking divine help in making that decision, his inability to continue on with the administration of the Petrine Office could not have been attributed any internal infirmity, although the pressure under which he worked was immense and could not but cause him to weaken.  In other words he did not intend to resign due to old age, physical frailty, or other internal debility.  No, his renunciation was due to external forces which were enough to weaken even the stoutest of men, nay, enough to prevent anyone from fulfilling his responsibilities. 
 
Then too, given his long tenure at the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith as well as the years of his Papacy, the last year bringing about an investigation by the 3 retired Cardinals Julian Herranz, Salvator De Giorgi and Jozef Tomco, which produced the 2 volume 300 page report on the corruption within the Vatican gave him more exposure to the deficiencies, the corruption and other evils that he was facing as Pope.  These cannot be ignored in any analysis of his renunciation.  There was also the recent biography of Cardinal Danneels wherein was revealed the existence of a “Mafia” group called Sankt-Gallen Mafia made up of the most liberal Cardinals and Bishops of Europe, in particular Cardinals Martini, Lehmann, Kasper and Danneels himself.  It was this group who tried to organize the election of Cardinal Bergoglio in the 2005 Conclave.  And although Cardinal Danneels denied that there had been any meetings of the Sankt-Gallen group since 2005, it is hardly believable that they were not interested in the election of Bergoglio in 2013. 

Pope Benedict, in considering his renunciation had to be aware of such liberal, to put it mildly, powers trying to manipulate a Conclave which would ensue upon his death or actual resignation from the Papacy.  And since their efforts in 2005 were almost successful, it seems reasonable to assume that Pope Benedict had to be concerned about the real possibility of successful efforts on the part of the Sankt-Gallen group to arrange the election of a modernist Cardinal, if not Cardinal Bergoglio himself, in a subsequent Conclave—having to be called because of his death, natural or otherwise.  I think it is legitimate to ask the question: Was Pope Benedict truly willing to allow Holy Mother Church or intending Holy Mother Church to be placed into the hands of a modernist, or worse yet, a member of the homosexual lobby or worst of all, someone involved in or with a Satanic cult?  In other words, wouldn’t it be reasonable to attribute to Benedict the intention of avoiding the risk of handing the Church over to the very ones who were preventing him from administering the Church properly? 
 
The renunciation of Pope Benedict, I maintain, can in no way be taken in isolation from the events surrounding it, which is what most persons, commentators, Vaticanists and editors seem to do.  We are living not only in mysterious times due to the secrecy of what is truly happening behind the scenes, but also because of the their diabolical nature—which cannot be denied.  Summarizing, there is/are: 
 
1. Not only the 3rd Secret of Fatima, which Pope Benedict had read and certainly had seriously pondered, but also the whole message of Fatima; 2. The revelations of Our Lady to Sr. Agnes at Akita, Japan; 3. The vision of Pope Leo XIII where he saw “demonic spirits who were congregating on the Eternal City (Rome).”  Some reports indicate that Pope Leo heard two voices: God and the Devil, the Devil asking for power to destroy the Church and God telling him “You have the power; you have the time, 100 years”.  One could ask if the power which was given to the Devil was only given in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution, which power would be demolished with a victory by Our Lady in 2017;  4. Pope Benedict’s announcement of his break with the “Vatican Line” concerning the message of Fatima during his flight to Fatima in 2010’ 5. The Report of the investigation by the 3 Cardinals that Pope Benedict ordered; 6. Pope Benedict’s actions before and after his renunciation—title, dress, residence, prayer, visit to St. Celestine’s grave, etc.; 7. The so called homosexual Lobby; 8. The recent revelation of the Sankt-Gallen group, mentioned above; 9. The apostasy in the Church which even Pope John Paul II referred to during his reign as a “Silent Apostasy” but which is much more apparent today cannot be denied; 10. The matter of the Consecration of Russia, now being relegated to the dust bin, especially with the death of Fr. Gruner; 11.  And many more items that could be mentioned which are more external to the Vatican as for example the pedophile scandals.

The elimination of these circumstances from any consideration of Pope Benedict’s resignation it like ignoring all the historical background to WWI or WWII.  Such disregard would not properly treat the matter, thereby covering up the true motive(s) for the Pope’s resignation or suggesting the possibility of a feigned resignation.  It would be absolutely unscholarly.   
 
It seems, therefore, that there may be some justification for saying that Benedict is still the real Pope.  And although this would certainly leave many problems to be solved (e.g. invalid acts on the part of Pope Francis), they wouldn’t be problems nearly as bad as the apostasy in the Church, which the “Pope Emeritus” may be trying to expose and/or confound and to thwart the enemies of Holy Mother Church.  The question remains: Why would he do such a thing? There are several truly reasonable motives.

1. In order to prevent being forced to accommodate the enemies within the Church who are able in some mysterious way effectively to prevent Benedict from properly administering the Church or maneuvering him to do things he in conscience cannot allow. 2. By maintaining the Papacy he would maintain the integrity of the Papacy and Church Doctrine by preventing practices which are dangerous or opposed to the Tradition and the perennial Teachings of the Church from being officially mandated—a means by which the faithful could refuse to obey Pope Francis, even on account of doubts and qualms of conscience.  Thus would be avoided the situation that arose with the imposition of the NOM. 3. He wishes to EXPOSE the enemy, the apostates, the Masons, the homosexuals and the Communists;  4. In so doing he is hoping to save souls who could be swayed by Francis to embrace apostasy; 5. It would be the means by which, in manifesting the apostates within the Church, the “Pope of Continuity” would also manifest the evils flowing from VCII:  the NOM, the heresies, the opening to the world, etc., i.e., he would be dividing the false “church” from the True Church of Christ or rather unite the True Church when a schism is evoked. 6. From this it follows that he would be preparing, given that the world is on the verge of a great catastrophe and, as it were gathering the good Bishops who would be willing to consecrate Russia to Mary’s Immaculate Heart in union with the Pope, either himself or, in the case of his death, with a validly elected Pope from the Faithful Church; 7. Instead of fighting against the enemies within the Church (without the SSPX, the attempt to “reconcile” them having failed on account of the machinations by the diabolical elements within the Vatican) and risking martyrdom in this way (by maintaining the active ministry of the Papacy and trying to fight the diabolical homosexual lobby), whereby, upon his martyrdom, a new Pope would be validly elected who if liberal, and most likely so, would do much to destroy the Faith by valid Papal Acts.  By “arranging for” and invalid election the Pope Emeritus would be preventing the further valid acts which could further harm the Church and risk the loss of many, many more souls; in short he would be God’s instrument in the preserving the Indefectibility of the Church—keeping official control of the Church from Satan through those who are under his domination. 8. For the time being, he gives the faithful the example of prayer and sacrifice for which Our Lady asked at Fatima in order to keep from losing the Faith. 9. Being that he sees himself as the Pope ascending the mountain toward a cross and eventually being killed (Antonio Socci’s Fourth Secret of Fatima), he would witness to the veracity of the invalidity of his Renunciation or confirm that he is indeed the true Pope, should there be doubt concerning his invalid Renunciation. 10.  Through a feigned resignation whereby the enemies of the Church are exposed, he hoped to put the “Final Battle” with Satan into the hands of the REAL Church Militant in an effort to cast out the destroyers of the Mystical Body of Christ, a “Battle” which he could not fight alone. 

In summary, I have hopefully sufficiently set out the circumstances upon which Pope Benedict would make a decision.  His long time presence in the Vatican, first as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Defense of the Faith; his knowledge of the 3rd Secret of Fatima, the words SPOKEN by Our Lady to the three children at Fatima and not just the vision which they were shown; his experience at the Conclave of 2005 when he was elected Pope; the troubles he experienced as Pope; all of these, and more, are going to be the impetus of his action.  The question then is:  What was Benedict intending when he announced his abdication?   
 
Was he in fear of his enemies?  This certainly cannot be admitted, for if he wished to shun those who were inimical to him, he wouldn’t have remained in the Vatican to “pray and do penance”; he would have retired to a monastery where he could be secure from his enemies. 
 
Was he then dissimulating, pretending to be Pope, as a means of placating those who were discouraged by his action?  I certainly can’t imagine Benedict “playing Pope” within the Vatican for any reason.  It cannot be out of fear, for as mentioned above, he would have distanced himself from Rome. 
 
Was he trying to establish a “Diarchy” as so many have alleged?  This too seems an absurdity, although he did publish a tract on the new teaching on ecclesiology issuing from the Bologna School— coauthoring an essay with J.Auer. Certainly the former Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Defense of the Faith, a position he held for many years, cannot be ignorant of the Church’s 2000 year teaching of the Papacy.  So that despite a certain flirting with the new theology, I believe that he has maintained the traditional teaching of the Church.  See also the section answering some objections from an SSPX priest and my comments on the Speech of Archbishop Gänswein.   

Since “actio sequitur esse”, one must take his name, attire and domicile seriously.  He wears the white soutane, demands to be called Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI against all caution from renowned canonists, he was determined to remain in Rome once he extracted himself from the exercise of the Office of the Papacy, and he has the Prefect of the Papal Household, Archbishop Gänswein, for his personal Secretary.  I cannot believe that someone of the stature of a Cardinal Ratzinger or a Pope Benedict would be so preposterous as to walk around looking like a Pope, having the name of Pope and living in the Vatican as if living in a world of make-believe; it just defies any rationality. 
 
These questions having been asked, we must consider then whether it is truly realistic to look at and analyze the Latin text of the renunciation of Pope Benedict.  The problems in the Church are great and evident, and they are bearing heavily on the minds of good people, they are undeniably connected with the Fatima Secret, and they are unprecedented--ones that not even the most perceptive theologians and canonists could have foreseen.  So what must one do in trying to solve it? How does one usually come to an understanding of the nature of things, of reality, and thence to undertaking some sort of action?  
 
The answer is of course through causes. We know also the ultimate remedy of the situation in the Church and the world is the consecration of Russia-a cause by the spreading of her errors, but it is evident that there seems to be no Pope or rather enough Bishops to fulfill Our Lady’s request. However, before that remedy can be applied there are more immediate ones that must be addressed in order to fulfill Our Lady’s request for the consecration of Russia. It seems, then, that the absolute immediate cause of the present situation is that which hatched Francis onto the stage of the Vatican, he who is causing so much division and confusion in the Mystical Body of Christ. Of course, only that direct, primary and immediate cause, the renunciation of Pope Benedict, can be blamed.  
 
But let me ask another question:  Can anyone in his right mind really believe that one with the mind of Cardinal Ratzinger and he (Gänswein) who was chosen by one with the mind of Cardinal Ratzinger (to my knowledge the only living individual familiar with the 3rd Secret of Fatima) to work shoulder to shoulder with him (Ratzinger) in one of the highest offices in the Church (Congregation for the Defense of the Faith), and then to work with him as Pope, truly say and intend something so stupid as which has been ascribed to them (Benedict & Ganswein) by the press? It certainly wasn't considered stupid when Pope Benedict freed up the Old Mass, lifted the "excommunications" of the SSPX Bishops, corrected the translation of "pro multis", challenged the "Party Line" regarding Fatima, among other things. He is not stupid, nor is he a coward. He does, however, have diabolical enemies within the Vatican as shown above. 
 
Now back to the "first cause", Benedict's renunciation. This alone must give the clue to Benedict's intentions and motives, as well as at least a partial solution to the problem; and he announced his renunciation IN LATIN for a purpose, although Italian has since VCII become as it were the "official" language of the Vatican.  In any case, in Latin or Italian--more so the Latin--the use of the Subjunctive Mood, the mood "contrary to fact" as English grammar books call it, is used regularly for diplomatic purposes and sensitive material.  Fr. Reginald Foster, former professor of Latin at the Gregorian University in Rome and considered as one of the world's foremost Latinists, has confirmed this in his classes. 
 
Furthermore, I dare anyone to deny that lawyers (and they’re very good at this), politicians (besides their blatant lies), journalists, indeed all professionals, but also common folk, use mental restrictions, mental reservations and ambiguities in trying to avoid speaking plainly, to hide something, or to keep a secret. This is quite often not used legitimately, but it can be.  Now I ask; “Wouldn’t it be a bit arrogant just to dismiss out of hand even the possibility that Pope Benedict and Pope Emeritus Benedict’s Secretary can use the Latin and Italian Languages, more precisely the Subjunctive Mood, in order to keep something hidden or for protection, e.g., the life of Benedict?” Dom Gänswein actually does the VERY same thing in his speech of 20 May 2016 at the presentation of a new biography of Pope Benedict by Roberto Regali (see my commentary on several paragraphs from this speech included as part of my paper)!  Of course, this speech caused quite a stir, for it seemed, from the English translations of small sections of the speech provided by reporters, that they understood that Dom Gänswein as saying that there was one Pope (Benedict) but two heads of the Church (one a monk and another the minister), a quasi “Diarchy”—something absolutely absurd.  There were also those who understood him saying that there two individuals where were both Pope. 
 
Now, since it is necessary to consider the primary cause to the situation in which the Church finds Herself, I present an analysis of the Latin text of Pope Benedict’s renunciation announcement (see the part of this paper entitled Grammatical Considerations and Analysis of Latin Text).  Pope Benedict as well as Dom Gänswein (in his speech) have used the Subjunctive Mood of the Latin and Italian languages, the former in order to maintain the Papacy while placing himself in a position analogous to a Pope in hiding, a Pope in captivity, or a Pope in exile (so as to keep the Papacy out of the hands of the diabolical Vatican mafia who wish to transform the Church from the Institution of salvation founded by Christ to a "church" of damnation), the latter, in order to protect Benedict from the enemies of the Church in the Vatican.  
 
It seems that it can be said, and with much truth, that there is no one in the hierarchy—at least openly—who seems to be concerned about the possibility of Francis being an anti-Pope.  The hierarchy as well as most of the rest of the world accepts Francis as Pope—without even considering there could be another explanation for what Benedict did.  No one seems even interested in looking seriously at the Latin version itself of Benedict’s renunciation, which is really the only Official document.  They are perfectly happy with the translations of the Latin version in whatever language they speak.  But it is clear that those translations are not at all faithful to the Latin text, whether intentional or otherwise.   
 
Our Lady at Akita told Sr. Agnes that in these times there would be many who would compromise, and unfortunately many of the hierarchy are doing precisely that, most probably out of fear.  What they need is for the laity, those faithful to the traditions and perennial teachings of the Church to rise up and give them a push in the right direction.  Such was often the case in very difficult time.  But even the laity are reticent to look into the matter of Benedict’s resignation.  Certainly, they rely on the translations, and most of the faithful today are not exactly knowledgeable when it comes to the Latin Language, as also most of the Clergy, including high ranking Prelates.  Hence, it is difficult for this effort to find any interest among Catholics anywhere.  Nevertheless, I believe it is necessary to alert the faithful not only to the possibility of Benedict being Pope, and the only Pope, but also, being totally convinced from my investigation that he is to make it known precisely what Benedict actually did. 
 
The other parts accompanying this study, taking into account also objections that have been made against this “hypothesis” attempt, therefore, to go into more detail in analyzing Benedict’s momentous, courageous and important decision and precisely what that decision effected." 
 
 
 

Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on March 01, 2019, 12:28:31 AM
Quote from: Fr. David Belland
The most convincing piece of information concerning the intention of Pope Benedict not to give up the Papacy, that is, his deliberate will to renounce only the Petrine Ministry is an article by Fr. Joseph Schweigl, S.J., a professor at the Gregorian University in Rome, entitled Fatima and the Conversion of Russia. This article was published in 1956 in a journal issuing from the Russicum College in Rome, where the Commission For Russia instituted by Pope Pius XII was operating. Fr. Schweigl was a member of the Commission For Russia and had been granted authorization by Pope Pius XII in 1952 to undertake a mission for interrogating Sr. Lucy concerning the message of Fatima. He had 31 questions which he presented to her and which she addressed candidly and amply. Before he left Portugal, however, he was instructed by the Holy Office through the Chancery at Coimbra, the Diocese where the Carmelite Convent where Sr. Lucy resided was located, that he could not reveal anything of the interview he had had with Sr. Lucia.

What Fr. Schweigl wrote, however, was definitely connected with the message of Fatima, though probably through paraphrasing or summarizing in his own words what Sr. Lucia said more directly, as others have done with information they have about the 3rd Secret, e.g., Cardinal Ciappi. In any case Fr. Schweigl stated on page 15 of his article: “The Third Secret [of Fatima] deals with a victorious, triumphal decision by the Pope, triumphal, yes, but also difficult and heroic."

Sources:  This information comes from tape #4 of an 11 tape recording of a series of talks by Guido Del Rose (RIP) entitled Fatima and the Last Times Apostasy. A former Custodian of the National Pilgrim Statue for the U.S., Mr. Del Rose was attending conferences on Our Lady’s message by Fatima experts in Europe during the ‘60’s & ‘70’s. I
t can be found more formally in Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, The Whole Truth About Fatima: THE THIRD SECRET, Vol. III (1942-1960), Immaculate Heart Publications, Buffalo, 1990, p. 352 Footnote #39.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on March 01, 2019, 12:33:16 AM
Quote from: Giuseppe Pellegrino
The present crisis – unprecedented in all of Church history – has called for an unprecedented response. Benedict’s “choice to become ‘pope emeritus’ represents something enormous and contains a ‘secret’ of colossal importance for the Church” (p. 111). There is clearly, in Socci’s analysis, something that Pope Benedict is holding back and not saying, “a true and personal call from God,” “a mystery which he guards” of which at the present time he can say no more (p. 131). Socci proposes that this “secret of Benedict XVI” is “exquisitely spiritual,” rooted in wisdom “according to God” which the present world – and also the present Church – cannot understand.

See the thread: "The Secret of Benedict XVI: Why He is Still Pope by Antonio Socci"
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/antonio-socci-book-review-the-secret-of-benedict-xvi-why-he-is-still-pope/
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on March 07, 2019, 07:46:50 AM
https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/2019/03/05/state-of-the-debate/

State of the Debate
Posted onMarch 5, 2019 (https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/2019/03/05/state-of-the-debate/)by gladstone2 (https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/author/gladstone2/)

As year seven of this bathetic di-papal disaster has dawned, the only seeming new turns of events are -though beggaring belief- that things steadily worsen as the months and years transpire. The at first unknown Argentine quickly established himself first as a liberal, then progressive, followed by revolutionary. After that, as has become plain, he spewed his heresy while displaying a deeply malevolent animus delendifor the Church herself.  Now, of course, descriptors like fag, occultist fiend, and child-trafficking criminal are well within the realm of possibility.

Along the way, however, an undimmed brilliance has shone from certain minds within the Church’s bosom, which date all the way back to July 2014, the time at

(https://cognitivegateway.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/state-of-the-debate-big.png?w=300&h=296)
Like at a dead open mic night, non-existent are those Catholic opinion shapers willing to answer nagging questions about Benedict XVI’s alleged resignation.

which Stefano Violi’s considered opinion appeared in English. Violi, Professor of Canon Law, argued that Benedict’s resignation comprised an attempt to alter the nature of the Papacy itself. Furthermore, this Professor commented, this act was bereft of any basis in sound theology or Canon Law. Thus the reality of Benedict the bifurcator, from that point forward, gradually raised questions that not only have gone unanswered, but also are most assiduously avoided by those Catholic voices concerned with human respect and love of paycheck.

Another bright and loyal son of the Church has been Brother Alexis Bugnolo, blogging at From Rome (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/12/26/the-validity-of-benedicts-resignation-part-ii-ad-contrarium/), who from the outset has argued that the so-called conclave of 2013 was illegal per John Paul II’s Universi  Dominici Gregis, now has set forth detailed Canonical basis for the objective certainty of the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation.

Canon 332.2
The duty of every Catholic, to be ready to give reason for one’s faith is a standing obligation. In order to do so, of course, the mind must be duly conformed to reason itself. Gateway’sposition from its inception has been that the current state of affairs at the Church’s head is fundamentally, and prima facie, contrary to reason: common sense itself leads to the ineluctable conclusion that what we are told to believe and accept cannot possibly be the case- without doing violence to the intellect.

Common sense also leads us to the theological mooring that the Catholic Church is not only apostolic and holy, but that she is also one. The words of our adorable Savior have brought and do continue to sustain these, her sublime attributes. If the Catholic Church is one, then she can have one, and only onehead. This simple fact precludes the possibility of any man’s ever possessing power to alter the Papacy from a singular office, transforming it into a thing with two heads.

Protecting this singular nature of the Papacy is the legal principle delineated in Canon 332§2 of the Code of Canon Law.

(https://cognitivegateway.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/canon-332-1.png?w=748)
Key to the Latin text of the Canon is muneri, the nominative case of which is munus.

With the clear words of Brother Alexis, a Catholic can readily understand the meaning of the text as it applies to the all-too-imaginary resignation of 2013. The law requires that in order to resign, the Pope in resigning is bound by law to explicitly state his renunciation of office, or munus. Instead of resigning the munus, as the law requires, Benedict resigned the ministerium (or Petrine Ministry), which is accidental to munus, but not in fact, the office itself. Hence the invalidity of the resignation is proven by the law itself, an objective state of affairs readily recognizable by one’s faculty of reason. The law merely codifies what is easily comprehended by the intellect.

It is possible that John Paul II; by the grace of office, in spite of his Koran kissing, synagogue side trips, Assisi, and having had literal bullshit streaked across his brow; knew of the modernist desire to split the Papal office into rule by more than one, and that this Canon was written to prevent such an occurrence. Furthermore, and by similar grace of office, it is possible that the already aging Benedict XVI, completely alone in the face of communists, sodomites and no small number of crypto-Jews (all potentially homicidal), conceived of the idea to write his resignation in just such a way to protect the papacy, and the Church, at a time when paralysis caused by her internal enemies was reaching its height. Resignation of the ministerium would render all satan’s plans vis a vis Bergoglio, McCarrick, Soros and other hidden hands, all as words written in sand -effaceable with the stroke of the true Pope’s pen.

State of the Debate

With so much at stake, certainly there must be brilliant arguments confected by which Bergoglio’s claim may obtain at least the patina of legitimacy. Well, not so much. Here is a summative and just paraphrasing:

Quote
Invalidity: Benedict’s resignation is invalid by the law itself, according to Canon 332.2. Not one argument has been presented that confutes this position.
Jorgevacantists:   Benevacantist!
Invalidity: Actually, the suffix vacantist, as in denying a validly elected Pope applies more to your position than mine.
Jorgevacantists: You are crazy!
Invalidity: That’s an ad hominem fallacy.
Jorgevacantists: Others have already answered all your crazy arguments!
Invalidity: Please cite one.
Jorgevacantists: I simply will not engage with you!
Invalidity: Not one argument has been presented that confutes the position that Benedict’s resignation is invalid by the law itself.
(https://cognitivegateway.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/tia-hits-on-resignation.png?w=591&h=509)
(https://cognitivegateway.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/unam-s.png?w=748)
This just in:
(https://cognitivegateway.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/this-just-in.png?w=748)
Vatican Secretary of State Refers to His Holiness, Benedict XVI in official communiqué.


Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on March 21, 2019, 07:34:01 AM
Siscoe’s Triple shell game
 
Mar20 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/03/20/siscoes-triple-shell-game/)
by The Editor (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/author/marcianusaristides/)
(https://fromrome.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/hqdefault.jpg?w=640)
Recently at One Peter Five, a website which is subtitled, “Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition”, Robert Siscoe has published an article to quell the raging doubts Catholics have about the legitimacy of Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy: the first part of which is entitled: “Dogmatic Fact, the One Doctrine which proves Francis is Pope (https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/)“, and the second part of which is entitled, “For Each Objection, an answer why Francis is Pope (https://onepeterfive.com/objection-answer-francis-pope/)“.

There is nothing much to be said for his article other than it’s a lawyer-esque attempt to convince his audience using 3 different shell games.  As you may know, a shell game is where you put a ball under one shell and then quickly shuffle the shells on a table top so that the onlooker loses track of which of the shells contains the ball, and then you ask the onlooker to guess under which shell the ball is.  In American popular discourse, a shell game, therefore, is a trick whereby you pretend that something is one thing at one time, when it really is not.

Here are Siscoe’s 3 Shell games:


https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/03/20/siscoes-triple-shell-game/
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on March 21, 2019, 11:25:05 PM
"Its really quite aberrant that Siscoe should spill so much ink attempting to convince the world that when Canon 332 §2 says that the acceptance of a papal resignation is NOT a cause of its validity, that nevertheless the mass of those who are in substantial error does cause it!

If he knew ANYTHING at all about the codification of Canon Law under Saint Pius X or even had read that Code, he would know that his reflex principle was abrogated in its entirely by not being subsumed into the code. Likewise in 1983. So he is arguing on an inapplicable principle

It reminds us of the case which caused St Alphonsus to give up being a lawyer, in which he argued all his facts on the basis of one property law legal tradition, because he failed to recognize ab initio that the case regarded an entirely different legal tradition. Pray for him!

At the end of Siscoe's article, which by the way seems to PLAGIARIZE other authors, he cites that which he hopes you do not see, that a peaceful AND CANONICAL acceptance makes a candidate validly the pope. There is no such thing if a pope has not resigned as per canon 332 §2!

Indeed its clear that the sense in which the clear and universal acceptance principle has only and always its validity is when the acceptance is also Canonical.

That is why the principle is not taken up into Canon Law in the first place. Because in Canon Law its redundant to speak of universal or peaceful etc acceptance, because Canon Law deals with the truths of right, as the basis of all law, not with the psychological states of men.

We see the force of this in canon 38 which invalidates all acts which run contrary to the law EVEN IF THE ONE POSITING THE ACT IS IGNORANT OF THE LAW. By all, this includes even papal acts. Because in the Code JP2 requires the Church to live by the Law not by the whims of a pope

Finally, Siscoe suffers from the vice of many lawyers, who think there is no reality except what is admissible in court, that there is no truth but what is declared by a competent court of law. Its as if, if the Sun were eclipsed, your opinion that it was would be a fallible!

Oh the tortures applied to human reason by men who deny both Faith and Reality!"

https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1108309201036693504
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on March 21, 2019, 11:27:20 PM
"Siscoe's entire argument is a long diatribe against fallible personal opinions.
But, he fails to recognize that
That Benedict said ministerio, not muneri is a fact of history
Not an opinion
Nor even a fallible opinion.
That canon 332 requires renunciation of munus
is also fact

Now the assertion that facts are is truth, and its an infallible assertion, not an opinion. Like the assertion that 2+2+4 is not a fallible opinion, but an infallible assertion. No sane person can call such a thing an opinion, because an opinion is a judgement held in presence >

Of a probability that the counter opinion is true. You can opine whether there be life in the Andromeda Galaxy, & be quite rational, but U cannot opine that there is or is not life on the planet Earth, because that there is, is a fact. Unless of course you're a lawyer from Mars.

Thus THE ASSERTION OF FACTS is a proposition which is always infallibly true, not because the one who asserts is infallible, but because truth by nature is, and this truth in assertions regards their conformity to reality, assertions of facts are infallibly true. Thus >

Since Logic trumps the profession of Law, & since Logic saya the truth of propositions passes down in illations to the conclusions of every syllogism which is valid, it follows that B16 resignation was invalid is infallibly true, as a consequence of facts of history and law.

If Siscoe does not understand that, he should get a book on Logic. If he does not want to understand that he is spouting fallible personal opinions which can be disregarded. He if know this but argues on the basis as if he did not know it, simply to win his case, its dishonest.

HOWEVER, if like Siscoe you assert that a renunciation of ministerium effects a valid papal resignation, THATS A FALLIBLE PERSONAL OPINION unless you demonstrate syllogistically according to the principles of canon 17 that it is infallible because based on facts of law

So once again, as we did earlier today, we have shown that Siscoe is playing a shell game with words. For by fallible personal opinions he means opinions he disagrees with and by infallible personal opinions he means his own."

https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1108370568565403648
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on March 25, 2019, 11:36:35 AM
https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/2019/03/24/anti-papabile/

Anti-Papabile

Posted onMarch 24, 2019 (https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/2019/03/24/anti-papabile/)by gladstone2 (https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/author/gladstone2/)

You can hear the weary sound in the monetized trad-$ervative media’s house organs pumping away their propaganda points – peddling horse puckey that fewer and

(https://cognitivegateway.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/parolin.png?w=748)

Parolin: A more presentable modernist for anti-pope
[font={defaultattr}]
fewer peasant Catholics are willing to believe. So in recent weeks, almost as if timed in sync by persons unseen, various trad-for-ca$h operations just so happened to simultaneously start talking about the next pope.

Now why do such a thing? Certainly, with Catholics today being savvier than our parents, we are aware that Rome is a place where rumors precipitate into facts,  and that means that some curial queen has decided to drop into the mill a few hints about a new pope.

However, what cannot be discounted, especially since the carefully selected outlets just coincidentally are read by Americans of conservative and traditional orientations, is that the propagandists and their paymaster handlers have completely lost control over the narrative regarding the disgusting Berg-Bag’s alleged legitimacy. They know what peasant Catholics are saying and thinking, they can read the growing tide of opinion, and all their indicators tell them that people in the pews aren’t buying what they’re selling. 

(https://cognitivegateway.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/tagle.png?w=267&h=300)

Doubts and questions over the Berg-Bag abound, and no satisfactory answers are forthcoming.  And at least one increasingly unhinged writer is calling for our deaths by fire for not shutting up and going along with the 1 pope = 2 men insanity.

So they do what the arrogant power-elite always do when they lose the support of the masses: ignore the ass-whipping that they’ve just been handed, and manufacture a new narrative that bypasses their problem. Thus the blather about who’s next? If they can dump the Berg-Bag and find someone more presentable, and more amenable to their culture of embezzlement, hot-tubs and sodomy, then their problem will be solved. -Or so they think.

To convene a so-called conclave while Benedict lives and does not correct his invalid resignation, is to simply replace the Bergoglian embarrassment with another anti-pope. This, by the way, leads us to a hugely important point not only about the absolutely crucial issue of the invalid resignation, but moreover about how controlled Catholic money media and their clerical allies attempt to insidiously manipulate perception.


(https://cognitivegateway.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/marshall.png?w=748)[/font]
Almost as if following directions from an unnamed hierarchy, trad-servative media suddenly starts talking about the next pope, dodging the fact that any conclave held while B16 lives will simply elect another anti-pope.
[font={defaultattr}]
You see, when a trusted conservative prelate seemingly agrees with you about Bergoglio’s illegitimacy, and then uses illegal activity in the conclave as basis for saying so, then you are being played like an electric guitar at a novus ordo Saturday night vigil mass. This is because if you accept that the essence of the problem happened during the illegal conclave of 2013, then you must accept that the solution is to get the Berg-Bag to go away and hold another conclave, which is guaranteed to perpetuate the problem of the apostate hierarchy, unpunished criminality, satanism, and all the other raw sewage that Rome expects Catholics to swallow. Gateway has written about this previously. (https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/disinformation-bulletin-invalid-conclave/)

Now if the problem is understood as reigning Pope Benedict XVI’s failure to obey Canon 332§2 in resigning, then the criminals don’t get away so easily.  They would have to roll-back all sorts of the Berg Bag’s handiwork, from cardinals who aren’t really cardinals, to the suppression of traditional orders that were never really suppressed, to the installation of criminal prelates who are mere usurpers, the whole dumpster fire of the Bergoglian anti-papacy would, to a certain degree, need to be cleaned up.  Therefore we must be very careful and not accept expedients in our rightful desire to rid the Church of the bastard Berg-Bag.

Wider View: Controlled Opposition & Recognizing the Markers of the Pattern  

Among Gateway’s bedrock editorial positions is that there are no good guys in positions of power. There are no good guys in the Vatican. There are no good guys on earth among the episcopacy. There are no good guys in the monetized Catholic trad-$ervative media.  This premise is non-negotiable, and failure to acknowledge it is to condemn oneself to falling into one psy-op and scam after another, in perpetuity – guaranteeing that no activity will ever amount to authentic resistance to the Church’s enemy captors. Although there may be sympathetic figures; persons whom we want to be good guys, but are compromised; or those that we may personally like; the stark reality remains: there are no good guys in positions of power.

When applied to the present topic, it means that no one in any position of authority or influence in the world of Catholicism intends to address the actual problem of Benedict’s failed resignation. Any and all means will be used to deflect and distract, such as by talking about the next pope, but no serious resistance will ever arise from among them. They will stop pretending and fight for real only in order to unleash the savage treatment reserved for those Catholics who refuse to submit to their lies and intellectual violence.

(https://cognitivegateway.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/pathetic.png?w=748)[/font]
Pathetic: the narrative being lost, the loser wishes evil upon his opponents, those few who publically state that Benedict XVI’s resignation is invalid and therefore reigns as Pope.
[font={defaultattr}]

Accepting this premise, however, engenders a salutary irony. That is, in acknowledging the reality of a wholly corrupt power structure, Catholics can come to understand where our real power lies, and begin to develop authentic resistance entirely our own. Ideas begin to emerge, alternatives are found, the Holy Ghost enlightens, and the gatekeepers’ efforts are rendered futile. If power-structures are controlled, and opposition thereto is controlled, then it follows that so called “movements” or activist groups suddenly bursting onto the scene with high level exposure are either also likely controlled, or soon to be infiltrated and taken over. While we may  support a rare exception like Veri Catholici, for the vast majority of other organized movements or activist organizations such investments are unworthy of Catholics’ time or treasure. Energy is much better spent helping others (in truth the vast majority of brethren) to escape their mental enslavement that somewhere out there is a good bishop, a good petition and email list generator, a good Catholic donation farmer making money for the good of the Church alone.

We’ve awakened to the fact of the anti-pope, and to the worst ecclesiastical crisis in history. Now it’s time for us to use these observations to help ourselves orient, decide and act.  -And pray that Benedict doesn’t die of St. John Paul I “syndrome.”
[/font]
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 25, 2019, 12:33:04 PM
+Benedict is still alive.  If he doesn't make it clear, publically, that he is still pope, then he is guilty of a grave sin of omission.  All of these people who are pushing the idea that he's still the pope, unless they get +Benedict to confirm it, then it's just a theory.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on March 27, 2019, 07:21:05 PM
+Benedict is still alive.  If he doesn't make it clear, publically, that he is still pope, then he is guilty of a grave sin of omission.  All of these people who are pushing the idea that he's still the pope, unless they get +Benedict to confirm it, then it's just a theory.

Canon Law proves the invalidity of Pope Benedict's resignation, so it is not a mere "theory". Your personal demands can't make an invalid juridical act, valid. 


The Validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation must be questioned — Part I
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/the-validity-of-pope-benedict-vxis-resignation-must-be-questioned/

How and why Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is invalid by the law itself
https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/how-and-why-pope-benedict-xvis-resignation-is-invalid-by-the-law-itself/

The Validity of Benedict’s Resignation, Part II: Ad Contrarium
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/12/26/the-validity-of-benedicts-resignation-part-ii-ad-contrarium/

Christ regards Benedict alone, as His Vicar on Earth
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/christ-regards-benedict-alone-as-his-vicar-on-earth/

Canon Law itself declares Pope Francis, AntiPope 
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/01/10/canon-law-itself-declares-pope-francis-antipope/
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 27, 2019, 07:39:43 PM
I will check these links out.  
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on April 08, 2019, 07:34:54 PM
The Vatican has known all along that Benedict’s renunciation was invalid as written, and here’s the proof! (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/the-vatican-has-known-all-along-that-benedicts-renunciation-was-invalid-as-written-and-heres-the-proof/)
 
 
Apr8 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/the-vatican-has-known-all-along-that-benedicts-renunciation-was-invalid-as-written-and-heres-the-proof/)
by The Editor (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/author/marcianusaristides/)
(https://fromrome.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/ap_18073530041706.1521468116.jpg?w=640)
The Falsified Letter of Pope Benedict was not a novelty, the Vatican had already falsified all the translations of Benedict’s Act of Renunciation.

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/the-vatican-has-known-all-along-that-benedicts-renunciation-was-invalid-as-written-and-heres-the-proof/ (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/the-vatican-has-known-all-along-that-benedicts-renunciation-was-invalid-as-written-and-heres-the-proof/)



Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
@VeriCatholici

(https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
If the Vatican actually thought a resignation of ministerium effected a  resignation in conformity with canon 332 §2, then they would NOT HAVE  FALSIFIED the vernacular translations of the Act of Renunciation to hide the word MUNUS and replace it with MINISTRY! - This is a fact!
https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1115259994763669504 (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1115259994763669504)



Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)

@VeriCatholici

(https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
There is no UNIVERSAL nor PEACEFUL acceptance of Pope Benedict's Resignation when the VERY FIRST act of the Cardinals is to falsify the translation of the text of resignation to hide the fact that its not in conformity to canon 332 §2!
https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1115298158395973632 (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1115298158395973632)
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on June 11, 2019, 12:51:19 AM
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/pope-benedict-has-tacitly-accepted-that-his-resignation-was-canonically-invalid/ (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/pope-benedict-has-tacitly-accepted-that-his-resignation-was-canonically-invalid/)


Pope Benedict has tacitly accepted that his resignation was canonically invalid

Jun9 (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/pope-benedict-has-tacitly-accepted-that-his-resignation-was-canonically-invalid/)
by The Editor (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/author/marcianusaristides/)

(https://fromrome.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/pope-benedict-xvi-greets-pilgrims-outside-westminster-cathedral.jpg?w=640&h=480)

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

On January 30, 2019, Pope Benedict received at the Vatican, through the hands of Archbishop Georg Gänswein, the canonical brief I sent him demonstrating conclusively that the act contained in the declaration, Non Solum Propter, of Feb. 11, 2013 was not in conformity with the term of Canon 332 §2, which requires the renunciation of munus for a valid Papal resignation, and that therefore he remains the sole valid Roman Pontiff.

In my letter to the Archbishop, I indicated how the Holy Father could contact me in response to the brief. One Hundred and Sixty Days have passed without any objection to the arguments presented.

According to the norms of the Vatican itself, if no objection is made to a canonical assertion after 90 days, tacit consent is indicated.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Here is the proof of delivery, via FedEx: Shipping Slip (https://www.fedex.com/apps/fedextrack/?tracknumbers=898271231450)

Here is the text which I sent: in PDF (https://www.ppbxvi.org/quaestio-English.pdf)*
____________________
* The PDF contains the same canonical arguments, only slight differences in its introduction. Also, in April of this year, I sent to the Holy Father, by regular mail, the same brief, but containing the Ad Obj. 16-19, which I added after January of 2019.[/font][/size]
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on June 16, 2019, 05:52:27 PM
https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1139996604302278656 (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1139996604302278656)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/569880965690830848/7gH7-xzS_bigger.png)Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
@VeriCatholici
(https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)

Now that Benedict has tacitly indicated that he regards his resignation as possibly invalid, those journalists, bishops, cardinals and clergy who continue to regard Bergoglio as indubitably the Pope are living in a FANTASY world.
1:42 PM - 15 Jun 2019


Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
@VeriCatholici

(https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici) Jun 15 (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1139997167404421122)

Because, according to the norm of Canon Law, he who first possesses the papacy is the pope, therefore, if there is any doubt that Benedict's resignation was valid, there can be no lawful adhesion to Bergoglio's claim to the papacy UNTIL THE DOUBT IS RESOLVED!


Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)

@VeriCatholici

(https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici) Jun 15 (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1140000487804157952)

And there is NOW REAL AND AUTHORITATIVE Doubt to the validity, established not only by 39 sound arguments but by the decision by Pope Benedict not to CONTEST any of them demonstrating his resignation was and is invalid in law.

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/pope-benedict-has-tacitly-accepted-that-his-resignation-was-canonically-invalid/ (https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/pope-benedict-has-tacitly-accepted-that-his-resignation-was-canonically-invalid/)



Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on June 16, 2019, 05:57:37 PM
https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1140322762852093952 (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1140322762852093952)


(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/569880965690830848/7gH7-xzS_bigger.png)Veri Catholici (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
@VeriCatholici


The events which began and followed from Feb 2013 are without a doubt rightly characterized as as coup d'etat when the entire College of Cardinals and Vatican Curia decided to dump Canon 332 §2, right reason, canonical tradition, logic & metaphysics to remove Benedict from power.
11:18 AM - 16 Jun 2019


Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)
@VeriCatholici

For six years, despite numerous scholars (in Latin, Canon Law, Canon Law history) and public and private figures, who have all pointed out the same, namely the invalidity of the resignation, the Co-conspirators forge a Church of pretense, that sheer will can rule without right.


Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)

@VeriCatholici

Being a conspiracy of liars, the only thing that divides them is the truth each wishes to hold fast to, whether of his own making or not. For some want an Anti-Christ (Bergoglio), an idiot (Francis), and some a dual papacy (Francis & Benedict), but none want canon 332 §2.


Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)

@VeriCatholici

For the truth of canon 332 §2 condemns them all as the most vile and corrupt, proud and stubborn men on the face of the earth and in the history of the entire Church, who insist that ministerium = munus, as if men could alter the meaning of words spoken for 2500 years!


Veri Catholici‏  (https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici)

@VeriCatholici

O Most Holy Trinity, the One True God of Truth and Unity, illumine the ignorant, make fervent the cold, rebuke the proud and punish the guilty, so that Thy Faithful People might be delivered from this Nightmare of perfidy which has dragged on 6+ years to the damnation of so many!

https://www.ppbxvi.org/ (https://www.ppbxvi.org/)

Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: King Wenceslas on June 19, 2019, 06:32:55 PM

A horrible scandal to have two men dressed in white walking around the Vatican being called "Holy Father". Scandalous.

The worst situation anyone could have thought of. Especially with one of them being a raging heretic.
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: Nadir on June 20, 2019, 01:41:58 AM
A horrible scandal to have two men dressed in white walking around the Vatican being called "Holy Father". Scandalous.

The worst situation anyone could have thought of. Especially with one of them being a raging heretic.
One of them? Which one is the raging heretic?
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: King Wenceslas on June 20, 2019, 10:36:38 AM
One of them? Which one is the raging heretic?

You haven't heard about the latest garbage dump from the Vatican?

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2019-06/vatican-document-on-gender-yes-to-dialogue-no-to-ideology.html (https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2019-06/vatican-document-on-gender-yes-to-dialogue-no-to-ideology.html)

and the response to it.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/from-catholic-to-neo-pagan-sex-education-expert-offers-searing-critique-of-new-vatican-doc-on-gender-theory (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/from-catholic-to-neo-pagan-sex-education-expert-offers-searing-critique-of-new-vatican-doc-on-gender-theory)


Yes the raging heretic is Francis. Benedict is a modernist who didn't dare touch human sexuality.

Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: 2Vermont on June 20, 2019, 11:02:10 AM
You haven't heard about the latest garbage dump from the Vatican?

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2019-06/vatican-document-on-gender-yes-to-dialogue-no-to-ideology.html (https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2019-06/vatican-document-on-gender-yes-to-dialogue-no-to-ideology.html)

and the response to it.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/from-catholic-to-neo-pagan-sex-education-expert-offers-searing-critique-of-new-vatican-doc-on-gender-theory (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/from-catholic-to-neo-pagan-sex-education-expert-offers-searing-critique-of-new-vatican-doc-on-gender-theory)


Yes the raging heretic is Francis. Benedict is a modernist who didn't dare touch human sexuality.
Is touching human sexuality the only way to be a raging heretic?
Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: nottambula on June 28, 2019, 08:40:38 AM
The following comments were made on the Non Veni Pacem blog. https://nonvenipacem.com/ (https://nonvenipacem.com/)



Islam_Is Islam says:
June 21, 2019 at 9:15 pm (https://nonvenipacem.com/2019/06/19/the-final-attack-on-the-petrine-see-in-living-color/#comment-22227)
Mark, what of the Virtue of Equity/Epikeia that the commenter Fr. Belland suggested about a week ago? Is Equity the virtue that when applied by a pope to Canon Law for the Common Good does not require derogation? As noted by others here and elsewhere, the best we can do is to speculate on Pope Benedict’s mindset. He alone knows all the facts and players involved in the circumstances surrounding his decision and choice of words. Moreover, many of the same players and circumstances are still present with no overt signs of substantial change on the horizon.

And yet Benedict maintains the munus and that reality alone does not strike me as the action of one who has fled or colluded or redefined. Rather his not fleeing the “lion’s den” shouts loudly in the midst of this present turbulence. In the face of such unbridled, demonic rot and filth that has been and is yet to be exposed in the establishment church and the world, are we not naive to expect an engraved invitation and flashing neon signs in order to rally around Pope Benedict? Like he asked Cdl Brandmuller, what other way should he have affected the revelation of rot and at the same time protected the promises of Christ to His Bride?



frdbelland (https://nonvenipacem.com/) says:
June 21, 2019 at 11:27 pm (https://nonvenipacem.com/2019/06/19/the-final-attack-on-the-petrine-see-in-living-color/#comment-22228)
Before the faithful become totally confused concerning the nature of the Papacy and his relation to Canon Law, let us listen to one of the most renowned Canonists of the last Century, Amleto Giovanni Cicognani. In his book entitled “Canon Law” He teaches that “The Supreme Pontiff is THE CHIEF, THE ORDINARY AND UNDYING SOURCE OF CANON LAW, BOTH GENERAL AND PARTICULAR.
“(a) In proof of this we have only to read Canon 218 [Old Code]: § 1. As successor to the primacy of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff has not only the primacy of honor, but also supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, in matters of faith and morals as well as in those pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”
“(b) The pope’s plenary, absolute and strictly monarchical jurisdiction, manifesting itself in the exercise of judicial, administrative and especially legislative power, is restricted by NO HUMAN AUTHORITY. Accordingly, the Pope’s primacy of jurisdiction over the Church of Christ is not circumscribed by General Councils, by the College of Cardinals, by any group of Bishops, nor for a stronger reason, by the faithful, of by civil rulers, or by any human power whatsoever.”
“(c) The Power of the Pope is limited ONLY by Divine Law, both natural and positive. The Roman Pontiff cannot make any law at variance with this law, nor can he strictly speaking, dispense from it.”
“(d) The primacy of jurisdiction accounts for the vast power of the Roman Pontiff, whereby he has the right : (1) To make new laws, both universal and particular: hence the fact that a Pope enacts new laws, ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND NECESSITIES OF THE TIMES [INCLUDING WHEN INVOKING THE VIRTUE OF EPIKEIA], SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS SOMETHING STRANGE. (2) To interpret laws, both ecclesiastical and divine, for he is the Universal Doctor and the Supreme Teacher. (3) To safeguard laws and to enforce them, for he must be their defender against attacks (hence the Holy Father obliges bishops to bring him a report (Relatio) on the state of their dioceses, especially for the purpose of learning whether discipline prevails and the cannons are obeyed. (4) To abrogate, derogate, and change human ecclesiastical laws, whether they be laws of his predecessors, since, ‘an equal has no dominion over an equal’, or the laws of ecumenical or particular Councils, or even those of the Apostles. (5) To grant dispensations, privileges and indults. Rightly, therefore, did Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) assert that the Roman Pointiff has all laws in the Archives of his heart (in scrinio sui pectoris; c. 1, ‘De Constit.’, in VI).”

Concerning epikeia Archbishop Cicognano states: “EPIKY. We have enumerated certain cases in which this ars boni et aequi (equity) is to be applied. Frequently, however, we speak of equity only in reference to positive laws. A human lawgiver is never able to foresee all the individual cases to which law will be applied. Consequently, a law, though just in general, may, taken literally, lead in some unforeseen cases to results which agree neither with the intent of the lawgiver nor with natural justice, but rather contravene them. In such cases the law must be expounded not according to its wording but according to the intent of the lawgiver and the general principles of natural justice. Law in the strict sense (jus strictum) is,
therefore, positive law in its literal interpretation; equity, on the contrary, consists of the principles of
natural justice so far as they are used to explain or correct a positive human law if this is not in harmony with the former.30 Epiky (Gr. ‘Επιεικειεα, equity) is therefore defined: The benign application of the law according to what is good and equitable, which decides that the lawgiver does not intend that, because of exceptional circumstances, some particular case be included under his general law.”

My contention regarding Benedict’s renunciation is that the indomitable demonic forces within the Vatican, were both manipulating him to do what he knew was not good for the Church and preventing him from doing what he knew ought to be done. In other words, the very “exercise” of the powers of the Papacy became impossible, but he was also under pressure to resign the OFFICE. However, he, Benedict, would not allow the Petrine Office to be placed in the hands of a vicar of Satan (God using Benedict as a “secondary cause” for the preservation of the Papacy. So he retained the Petrine Office by giving up the “exercise” of those powers, which “exercise” is NOT the power itself. Hence, in my opinion, Benedict invoked Epikeia, and applied it to Canon 332 §2, (the Canon setting the requirements for resignation of a Pope), the situation in the Church demanding that Benedict retain the Papacy.

In resigning from the “exercise” of the Powers of Office, then, Benedict placed himself in a position analogous to a Pope in hiding (Caius), a Pope in exile (Pope Gregory VII, and a Pope in captivity (Pope Pius VII), all of whom had limited, if not total, deprivation of the “exercise” of the Powers of Office. Hence Benedict in no way changed the essence of the Papacy.

As far as the “expanded ministry” about which Abp. Ganswein speaks in his talk on 20 May 2016, he mentions that there are TWO MEMBERS involved in that “ministry” not two POPES. And since, as those previous three Popes were pretty much alone in their hiding place, their place of place of exile or place of captivity, Benedict added Abp. Ganswein, his Prefect of the Papal Household, to his “Apostolic See,” for tasks, housekeeping activities surely, but as will become manifest at the death of Benedict, most likely other more important acts ACTS by the Supreme Pontiff. As mentioned above, this is NOT a change in the nature of the Papacy, but only in the “exercise” of the Powers of the Papacy, especially that of Sanctifying, through Benedict’s prayers and sufferings as requested by Our Lady, by VIRTUE OF EPIKEIA, when the current laws and practices of the Holy See would only tend to the harm of Holy Mother Church.





Islam_Is Islam says:
June 22, 2019 at 10:47 am (https://nonvenipacem.com/2019/06/19/the-final-attack-on-the-petrine-see-in-living-color/#comment-22233)
@Fr. Belland: To be clear, you are saying that Pope Benedict both in his authority as Pope and in knowing more than any other person on earth about the several circumstances surrounding his own and the Church’s situation made his decision and chose his words without ignorance, negligence, or malfeasance. He did not split or redefine the papacy; he has not fled for fear of the wolves nor has he abandoned his sheep or Holy Mother Church. As I think Lazarus Gethsemane has stated, Satan in person or in the guise of a proxy can never and will never occupy the Chair of Peter. Thus, (per Fr. Belland) Pope Benedict’s use of the virtue of Equity (in line with the intent of the lawgiver of Canon 332.2 etc…) has insured this reality both temporally and spiritually. Is this a correct summary?



frdbelland (https://nonvenipacem.com/) says:
June 22, 2019 at 1:13 pm (https://nonvenipacem.com/2019/06/19/the-final-attack-on-the-petrine-see-in-living-color/#comment-22239)
Dear Islam_Is Islam, Yes, Benedict’s use of the virtue of Equity addresses a situation, the planned, ultimate Masonic attempt to destroy the Papacy, foreseen by him (Benedict), if not revealed in the still unpublished part of the Third Secret, prevented Satan’s vicar from officially occupying the Chair of Peter, and hence “insured this reality both temporally and spiritually.” Because the Popes throughout the 20th Century refused to obey Heaven’s demand for the Consecration of Russia and then Pope John XXIII disobeyed Our Lady’s command to reveal the Third Secret in 1960, God, as it were, turned to Plan B, that of using a SECONDARY CAUSE, namely, Benedict, to prevent that against which Christ protected His Church–that “the Gates of hell shall not prevail,” a tactic which God can use and has done throughout history, e.g., David showing up when the cowering Israelite army hesitated to attack the Philistines. Besides, I believe it is more fitting that God, in defeating an enemy, uses unheard of solutions which are legitimate rather than by using deceit (Benedict knowingly–given his acting as Pope right from the beginning– “making a mistake” to invalidate his ‘resignation’ and hence keep the Papacy), or that he lied when he said his resignation was valid (having emphatically repeating he was free and his resignation was valid). Let’s give God credit for He just doesn’t have to have his human “secondary causes” using subterfuge bring about something good–indeed, the end does not justify the means.



Islam_Is Islam says:
June 22, 2019 at 2:18 pm (https://nonvenipacem.com/2019/06/19/the-final-attack-on-the-petrine-see-in-living-color/#comment-22242)
@Father Belland: Yes!!!! The analogy of David as a second cause when the Church Militant of his time (so to speak) cowered before the powers that be. This fits well with my perception of the way God has so often shown us that the the battle is His as is the victory. Thank you for your insights. The possibility of Pope Benedict being deceitful or mistaken or an outright liar has never set well with either reason or my sense of what it means to be Catholic and a follower of Christ. Rather, I give God credit for bringing about good in His way and in His time which are seldom if ever mine. Thank you for your discussion of the virtue of Equity.




Title: Re: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation
Post by: King Wenceslas on June 28, 2019, 09:51:56 AM
Cased closed. Benedict is still the Pope:

Beten wir lieber darum, wie Sie es am Ende Ihres Briefes getan haben, dab der Herr seiner Kirche zu Hilfe kommt. Mit meinem apostolischen Segen bin ich.

Ihr

Benedict XVI


Translation:

Let us pray, as you did at the end of your letter, that the Lord comes to the rescue of His Church. I bless with MY apostolic blessing.

Yours

Benedict XVI

https://www.barnhardt.biz/page/2/ (https://www.barnhardt.biz/page/2/)


You can't divide the papacy into two parts. Benedict still thinks he kept the spiritual part and gave up the active part. What a delusion.

Pope Emeritus is impossible and will always remain impossible.