Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation  (Read 3904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nottambula

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Reputation: +58/-32
  • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Veri Catholici
    @VeriCatholici



    #PPBXVI 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

    @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

    @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







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

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3742
    • Reputation: +2330/-1084
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4369
    • Reputation: +2006/-342
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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:
    **Gave up posting for Lent** If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 139
    • Reputation: +58/-32
    • Gender: Female
    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.
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 139
    • Reputation: +58/-32
    • Gender: Female
    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." 
     
     
     

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


    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 139
    • Reputation: +58/-32
    • Gender: Female
    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.
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 139
    • Reputation: +58/-32
    • Gender: Female
    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/
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 139
    • Reputation: +58/-32
    • Gender: Female
    https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/2019/03/05/state-of-the-debate/

    State of the Debate
    Posted onMarch 5, 2019by 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


    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 Romewho 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.


    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.


    This just in:

    Vatican Secretary of State Refers to His Holiness, Benedict XVI in official communiqué.


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


    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 139
    • Reputation: +58/-32
    • Gender: Female
    Siscoe’s Triple shell game
     
    by The Editor

    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“, and the second part of which is entitled, “For Each Objection, an answer why Francis is 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/
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 139
    • Reputation: +58/-32
    • Gender: Female
    "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
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 139
    • Reputation: +58/-32
    • Gender: Female
    "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
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson


    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 139
    • Reputation: +58/-32
    • Gender: Female
    https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/2019/03/24/anti-papabile/

    Anti-Papabile

    Posted onMarch 24, 2019by 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


    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. 



    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.


    [/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.

    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.

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

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3742
    • Reputation: +2330/-1084
    • Gender: Male
    +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.

     

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