Author Topic: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation (Read 8210 times)

nottambula · « **Reply #90 on:** April 08, 2019, 07:34:54 PM »

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/

Veri Catholici‏

@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

Veri Catholici‏

@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

nottambula · « **Reply #91 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/

Pope Benedict has tacitly accepted that his resignation was canonically invalid

Jun9

by The Editor

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

Here is the text which I sent: in 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]

nottambula · « **Reply #92 on:** June 16, 2019, 05:52:27 PM »

https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1139996604302278656

Veri Catholici‏
@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

@VeriCatholici

Jun 15

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

@VeriCatholici

Jun 15

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/

nottambula · « **Reply #93 on:** June 16, 2019, 05:57:37 PM »

https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1140322762852093952

Veri Catholici‏

@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

@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

@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

@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

@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/

King Wenceslas · « **Reply #94 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.

Nadir · « **Reply #95 on:** June 20, 2019, 01:41:58 AM »

Quote from: 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.

One of them? Which one is the raging heretic?

King Wenceslas · « **Reply #96 on:** June 20, 2019, 10:36:38 AM »

Quote from: Nadir on June 20, 2019, 01:41:58 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-docuмent-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

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

2Vermont · « **Reply #97 on:** June 20, 2019, 11:02:10 AM »

Quote from: King Wenceslas on June 20, 2019, 10:36:38 AM

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

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2019-06/vatican-docuмent-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

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

Is touching human sɛҳuąƖity the only way to be a raging heretic?

nottambula · « **Reply #98 on:** June 28, 2019, 08:40:38 AM »

The following comments were made on the Non Veni Pacem blog. https://nonvenipacem.com/

Islam_Is Islam says:
June 21, 2019 at 9:15 pm
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 circuмstances surrounding his decision and choice of words. Moreover, many of the same players and circuмstances 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 says:
June 21, 2019 at 11:27 pm
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 circuмscribed 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 CIRcuмSTANCES 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 ecuмenical 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 circuмstances, 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
@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 circuмstances 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 says:
June 22, 2019 at 1:13 pm
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
@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.

King Wenceslas · « **Reply #99 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/

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.

Author Topic: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation (Read 8210 times)

nottambula

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

nottambula

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

nottambula

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

nottambula

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

King Wenceslas

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

Nadir

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

King Wenceslas

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

2Vermont

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

nottambula

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

King Wenceslas

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