Words matter, in law and in actions: Canon 131.1 and the retention of Office

Towards the end of my “Perverse opinions” essay, I wrote this:

“I don’t have a degree in canon law, nor any advanced degrees of any kind. I have a diploma from a public high school and a B.S. in Food Marketing (from a Jesuit institution, no less… AMDG, y’all). But I can tell you this: Words have meaning; in the law, and in actions. That words are to be taken at face value, both in the law and in specific acts, is actually part of canon law (more to come on this). Everything presented here is done so according to the plain meaning of words, and you don’t need to be a genius to decipher it. Otherwise, it would be Gnosticism.” HERE

Well, this here essay is the “more to come” referenced there. Let’s start with Canon 17:

Can. 17. Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

When it comes to the law, words matter; the plain and proper meaning of the words. This idea is so important, they wrote this canon specifically to address it.

In addition to the importance of words in the law itself, there is also the importance of words in any individual act, as found in Canons 36 and 38. These appear in the section of the code called:

TITLE IV. SINGULAR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS (Cann. 35 – 93)

Can. 36 §1. An administrative act must be understood according to the proper meaning of the words and the common manner of speaking. In a case of doubt, those which refer to litigation, pertain to threatening or inflicting penalties, restrict the rights of a person, injure the acquired rights of others, or are contrary to a law which benefits private persons are subject to a strict interpretation; all others are subject to a broad interpretation.

As we saw in Canon 17, the phrase “the proper meaning of the words” is used, but this time it’s about administrative acts. It then goes on to explain, more or less, that in juridical matters pertaining to persons, those words are subject to a strict interpretation, whereas in other matters they are subject to a broad interpretation.

Can. 38. An administrative act, even if it is a rescript given motu proprio, lacks effect insofar as it injures the acquired right of another or is contrary to a law or approved custom, unless the competent authority has expressly added a derogating clause.

Canon 38 seems to be stating the obvious… an act which is contrary to law lacks effect. But the kicker is the last clause, which stipulates that if the competent authority expressly adds a derogating clause, the act DOES take effect, despite it being contrary to the letter of the law.  This means an administrator, facilitating an act which he knows goes against some portion of the law, is able to validate the act by specifically (“expressly”) calling out the conflict, and exempting (“derogating”) his specific act from that aspect of the law, provided that the administrator has the “competent authority” to do so.

Now you may have heard it said that the pope is above the law; that canon law does not apply to him, because he is the supreme administrator. That notion is false. The law is of divine origin, it does apply to him, and we know this because we have canons that specifically apply to popes and no one else. However, as supreme administrator, the pope does have the “competent authority” to derogate whatever he wants, as we just saw from Canon 38. The thing is, he has to actually do the derogation.

Let’s take a look at two very specific canons related to Pope Benedict’s failed partial attempted resignation, and apply what we just learned to the proper words of Benedict’s act and the proper words of the law. Example #1:

Can. 332.2 If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

We’ve beaten this one to death, right? He did not resign the Munus, he “resigned” the ministerio, so the resignation did not take effect. The combined force of Canons 17, 36, 38 tells us that his proper words did not properly manifest resigning the Office according to the proper words of the law, nor did he derogate any portion of the law in the Declaratio. The effect of his act was, as eye can plainly see, a mere delegation of the power of governance. Which conveniently bring us to Example #2:

Can. 131 §1. The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself; delegated, that which is granted to a person but not by means of an office.

Canon 131.1 appears in the section of the code called,

TITLE VIII. THE POWER OF GOVERNANCE (Cann. 129 – 144)

This canon is very interesting in light of all the uncovered theological discourse about a “demythologized” synodal papacy, or a scenario where the ruling monarch might “delegate” part or all of his proper power of governance to a surrogate(s), in an arrangement akin to a Regency. In fact, I seem to recall that this notion was so widespread among contemporary theologians of the 1950s and 60s that someone actually wrote their doctoral dissertation on it, and then, the Gregorianum thought so highly of it, they published it as a book, which now can be yours for the low low price of USD$4.87.

Screenshot 2019-06-15 at 08.06.32

Free preview (pg. 197, parenthetical mine):

“When contemporary theologians (i.e. Kung/Rahner/Kasper/Ratzinger/Dulles/Neumann) apply ius divinum to Roman primacy they do not thereby imply that there can be no changes in the way papal authority will be exercised in the future.”

To wit:

“In theory, the Petrine function could be performed either by a single individual presiding over the whole Church, or by some kind of committee, board, synod or parliament – possibly with a ‘division of powers’ into judicial, legislative, administrative, and the like” – Cardinal Dulles, 64 years ago

Let’s get back to Canon 131.1. Since we are talking about separating the governance of an office from the actual office itself, we better check the Latin to see if this really says what we think it says. It’s the only way to be sure.

Can. 131 — § 1. Potestas regiminis ordinaria ea est, quae ipso iure alicui officio adnectitur; delegata, quae ipsi personae non mediante officio conceditur.

Look. At. The. WORDS.

The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself. Now in the case of the Petrine Office, we are obviously talking about the active governance of the whole Church. So…. what if the power of governance for the Petrine Office was “delegated” from the monarch to a regent? What does Canon 131.1 say happens in such a case? Look at the words.

It says that in such a case of delegation, the power of governance is transferred to the person of the regent, but not by means of an office. The monarch fully 100% retains the office and fully 100% retains his monarchy. Remember, Benedict could have chosen to derogate this clause (delegata, quae ipsi personae non mediante officio conceditur), in accord with Canon 38 as explained above, when he attempted to “resign”/delegate the active governance of the Church, but he did not. And since he did not, the force of the law remains in effect: Benedict is the sole occupant of the Office, even though he is no longer exercising the power of the office for the governance of the Church. Here, let him explain it:

“The “always” is also a “forever”…My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life…I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.” – Pope Benedict, Last General Audience (so far), 27 February 2013

 

 

 

Remember…“The judge who fails the criminal in punishment himself incurs a greater guilt.”

ITEM #18726 FILED UNDER “WHAT’S IT GOING TO TAKE?”

——————————————–

image1 (1)

 

It would be INSANE to suggest a valid pontiff could reverse 2000 years of doctrine, AMIRIGHT?

It’s said that everyone has their breaking point. Anyone who continues on the “Pope Francis” train past this station should be prepared to start questioning their own sanity. How many times do you need to see the law of non-contradiction *seemingly* broken, before you start to scratch your head and think, “Wait, that can’t happen”?

You know how someone should have told Luther that you can’t just rip out the parts of the bible you don’t like, and you can’t change the verses to better suit your liking? Well, someone should have told the Argentinian the same thing about the Catechism of the Catholic Church, because not only did he change it, but now he has driven a stake through it.

Conveniently, Diane Montagna has put together a powerhouse follow-up to her initial reportage yesterday of the Bergoglian Faux Mercy Machine on the Death Penalty HERE.  Thank God for the work she is doing at LifeSite, since the general media blackout otherwise continues unabated. Her piece is a must read.

She first captures commentary by Edward Feser, and then she brings in an anonymous theologian: Dominican vs Argentinian in a steel cage death match. It’s a rather lopsided battle.  Next up is a Catholic historian, Dr. Alan Fimister, who ends the scene by quoting the great Elizabeth Anscombe. Turns out Anscombe vs Argentinian is pretty decisive as well.

God is immutable. The Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is immutable. It’s not that difficult a concept. When true popes teach, they document their orthodoxy by generously footnoting key points with references to Scripture, Fathers, Doctors, and past popes. A true pope goes out of his way to point out, “Hey, this isn’t new.” Go to vatican.va and pull up any document from any past pope. You will quickly see, this is how it’s done.

What can one say about a “Bishop of Rome” who claims the One True Faith was wrong – long on justice and short on mercy, with an immature conscience – from 33 A.D. to 2013 A.D. How could he contradict scripture, Tradition, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and all of his “predecessors’? How can he deliberately misquote Aquinas (as he did in Amoris Laetitia as well) in trying to get support for his utterly novel teaching (which a scholar of ten years old can discover in ten seconds that Aquinas teaches exactly the opposite, and he does it in Articles 2-3 of the very same Question 64 that the Argentinian cites HERE.)

Imagine how profoundly UNPROTECTED one must be from the supernatural graces our Lord and Savior promised to Peter and his successors, to wake up one morning and decide to take on Saint Thomas Aquinas and invert his teachings. Imagine then GETTING AWAY WITH IT, cue the accompanying endorphin rush, BECAUSE SILENCE.

Oh yes, BTW he is still Argentinian, you know. Renewed his Argentinian passport, even though he’s the purported Head of State of a different sovereign entity. It’s almost like a sign, or something. He also doesn’t live where popes live. He also doesn’t wear what popes wear. He also doesn’t give the apostolic blessing like popes do. He also likes to be called bishop, not pope. Nothing to see here.

———————————————————————–

“The judge who fails the criminal in punishment himself incurs a greater guilt.”

If you don’t think CCC#675 is in play right now, think again. We’ve reached the point where the Vatican is attempting to deflect from the infestation of moral decay within the episcopate by publishing heresy in the Catechism. This is the Antichurch in ascendancy.

The death penalty is not unjust, it is just. It is not unmerciful, it is merciful. It is a means of repentance, forgiveness, and salvation. It forces the penitent (that’s why it’s called a ‘penitentiary’) to reflect more deeply on his sins as his time draws near, and hopefully experience a conversion. Justice demands this. Failing to dispense proportional punishment for a criminal act, is itself a criminal act. But for someone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural, doesn’t believe in the eternal life of the soul, none of this makes sense.

Anyway, I’m short on time, and Ann has already put up a bunch of proofs from Doctors or the Church and others. The title quote is from the brilliant John Senior, whom I’ve quoted many times on this site. Read it all HERE.

“At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture are the perverse opinions of those who distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church”

Many thanks to Miss B. for publishing this essay a few days ago at barnhardt.biz.  I am re-presenting it here for the sake of opening the combox. Enjoy!

——————————————————–

Note well the two-pronged attack on error, via proper Authority and Jurisdiction, woven throughout this quote:

“We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord.

“For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said, “You shall be called Cephas” (John 1:42), that the Lord, after the confession made by him, saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”, addressed these solemn words: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.” (Mt 16:16-19).

“And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus, after His Resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold, by the words: “Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17).

“At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter, in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.

If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same, directly and immediately, received from the same, Our Lord Jesus Christ, a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema.
Pope Pius IX, PASTOR AETERNUS, 18 July 1870

What can we learn from this?

-Pio Nono was never vague or squishy

-The form of government of the Church, and the primacy of juridical and jurisdictional authority of the Church, was dictated by Christ Himself

-Since it was established by God Himself, it is immutable; not to be messed with in any way, no matter what the majority of 1960s German theologians thought HERE

-The Papacy was then, is now, and ever shall be until the consummation of the world, a Divinely Instituted Monarchy with full and universal power

-The transfer of the keys is conferred directly from Christ to Peter and to his successors (not through the cardinals, not upon the Church, nor through the Church to Peter… if at one time this seemed like a distinction without consequence, recent events have borne out its extreme importance)

-Yes, the Cardinals have the authority to elect a new pontiff, provided that the See is vacant (ahem, canon 359). But even if the See is indeed vacant and they validly elect a new pontiff, the papacy is bestowed upon the new pope directly by Christ Himself, not by the Cardinals, and not by the Church.

Let’s assume for a moment for the sake of argument that the 2013 “conclave and election” were valid, in the sense that Benedict’s failed partial abdication was not at issue. Let’s say the Cardinal electors followed all the rules, and voted legitimately. But the man they elected is an arch-heretic Marxist masonic non-Catholic, avowed enemy of the faith, who operates only in the material, non-supernatural realm of politics, economics, sociology, and ecology, extolling mankind to strive towards an earthly utopia as the ultimate good.

If that were to happen, is Christ really bound to confer the crown? While we have had awful, immoral, degenerate popes in the past, we have never, ever had a man like this one-world government, one-world religion poseur, squatting on the Chair of St. Peter. Never.

Think about this.

Now if the election/conclave were invalid, or in fact was not merely invalid, due to some procedural violations of UDG 81/82, but did not even take place, what would that mean? Would Christ transfer the keys to a man who was faux-elected in a faux-conclave that didn’t really take place? We are talking about ontological reality, not appearances. Sometimes appearances have nothing to do with reality, because as we learned, “An act of deception, no matter how cleverly conceived or convincingly executed, cannot change the objective reality of a given situation” HERE.

So if someone were to tell you that “the Church” has the power to grant or deny the papal office out of some majority opinion, or even super-majority opinion, or even “Universal Acceptance,” they would go against settled doctrine, and it would mean any pope could be deposed by mob rule.

If then they say that the super-majority (it’s certainly not “universal acceptance”) didn’t directly CAUSE the “resignation” to be valid nor CAUSE the subsequent “election” to be valid, but rather they invert the premise and say that the visible existence of the super-majority, while not causal, is in fact the PROOF SET of God accepting and acting, well then they would be claiming that the will of men forces the hand of God. God has NO CHOICE, and must act in accord with mob rule. Either this, or else they would have to claim that no no no, God accepts and acts on his own, of course, but then imposes His decision onto the minds of the super-majority, overriding their individual free will, and thus forcing the result of Universal Acceptance, in some sort of divine brainwashing.

These are circular arguments within circular arguments.

Note well, canon 332.2 is not a general norm, nor some kind of obscure/arcane law, but rather deals precisely with the occasion of a pope choosing to resign, and the required conditions for the validly of the resignation.

The majority of the Catholic world is operating as if this canon does not exist or does not matter:

Can. 332§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

This tells us that:

-A papal abdication depends upon the free and proper manifestation of the resignation itself.

-The Cardinals have no authority to “accept” said resignation – their acceptance or rejection of the resignation has zero bearing the on the ontological reality of its validity; rather, its validity depends on it being freely and properly manifested. Christ is the arbiter, and Christ has bound Himself to the Law specifically to preclude the possibility of an “unknowable chaos” and guarantee the visibility of the Church, including at its earthly head.

We also have canon 188 fully in play in this matter, as there is a mountain of evidence that Benedict intended to create, and today believes he is participating in, an “Expanded Petrine Ministry,” which would be a most colossal “substantial error:”

Can. 188. A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.

So again, if someone claims that “universal acceptance” of the election by the Cardinals, or even by the whole Church, guarantees both the acceptance of the election AND the acceptance of the antecedent resignation, remind them of a couple things:

-Whatever his reasons, Pope Benedict did not resign the Munus in his Latin Declaratio

-Pope Benedict (in his mind) created, defined, and executed his future role, which should have been at the sole discretion of the new Supreme Pontiff, had one actually been elected

-“Pope Emeritus” is not a real thing, is not provided for anywhere in canon law, and is an impossibility: When a bishop retires his office and becomes an ‘emeritus’ per can. 402.1, he becomes bishop emeritus of his diocese precisely because he remains a bishop but without the office… one cannot “remain pope” without the office

Benedict demonstrates his continued pontifical duties in various ways, including writing books and granting interviews, refusing to live in seclusion, imparting “MY Apostolic Blessing”, addressed as His Holiness, continuing to sign correspondence “HHPBXVI,” wearing the papal garb (because ahem “no other clothes were available”), prevented the fisherman’s ring from being destroyed, newly minted Cardinals are brought before him for his blessing…

-Benedict testified numerous times about his belief in the indelible nature of accepting the papacy, once pope always pope, that he is not fleeing but remaining “in a new way” in the enclosure of St. Peter, to fulfill the “essential spiritual nature” of the papacy as its contemplative participant, while delegating the governance aspect to the active participant

-All of the above point to an invalid non-resignation of the Munus per can. 332.2, and by “substantial error” per can. 188, and subsequently a “conclave” and “election” in March of 2013 that never happened. This is not a conspiracy theory, it’s not crazy, it’s not schismatic. It’s the truth.

I don’t have a degree in canon law, nor any advanced degrees of any kind. I have a diploma from a public high school and a B.S. in Food Marketing (from a Jesuit institution, no less… AMDG, y’all). But I can tell you this: Words have meaning; in the law, and in actions. That words are to be taken at face value, both in the law and in specific acts, is actually part of canon law (more to come on this). Everything presented here is done so according to the plain meaning of words, and you don’t need to be a genius to decipher it. Otherwise, it would be Gnosticism.

I’ll leave you with this little bit from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Church’s ultimate trial

675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.
676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.
677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.

The Church Visible: How can a simple layperson ever figure out who is pope? Um, you have the internet, right?

Don’t be intimidated, be thorough. The truth is never, ever, something to be afraid of.

Truth bomb: There were highly prominent canonists/theologians raising a stink about Benedict’s “resignation” WITHIN DAYS of it taking place. Not in 2017, not 2016, but within mere hours of his Declaratio being written and read out in Latin (and then mistranslated into several other languages).

Were you aware of that? Well, it’s true: Classically trained, professional canonists and theologians called BS right away, and you are about to read all about it. Here are just a few names:

  • Manuel Jesus Arroba, a professor of canon law at the Pontifical Lateran University
  • “Leading light of canon law” and former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, the Jesuit Gianfranco Ghirlanda
  • Valerio Gigliotti, professor of the history of European law at the University of Torino
  • Fr. Stefano Violi, professor of law at the theological faculty of Emilia Romagna

I am pasting here a large chunk of Sandro Magister’s blog post from 15 September 2014, because it contains all the relevant links for you to click and investigate the original works of these canonists and why they came to the conclusion that they did. Don’t be lazy; click on the links!

One last note. If you’ve read Pope Benedict’s address from his last (so far) General Audience, 27 February 2013, HERE you know that he called himself out for what he was doing. He called it a “novelty.” That’s a big no no, kiddos, and it’s not like he didn’t know it.

“I have asked God insistently in prayer to grant me his light and to help me make the right decision, not for my own good, but for the good of the Church. I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty

It was immediately after this paragraph that he launched into his “Always and Forever” discourse, reflecting his apparent belief that popes can’t really resign, once pope always pope, the very idea that +Ganswein expounded upon in his speech at the Greg in May 2016:

“The “always” is also a “forever” – 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…I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.”

Anyway, here is the Magister post. CLICK THE LINKS AND LEARN!


Reigning and “Emeritus.” The Enigma of the Two Popes

It is an unprecedented innovation in the history of the Church. With many unknowns still unresolved, and with serious risks already in play. An analysis by Roberto de Mattei

by Sandro Magister

ROME, September 15, 2014 – That the figure of “pope emeritus” is an unprecedented innovation in the history of the Church, “instituted” by Benedict XVI himself in his act of resignation, has been recognized by Pope Francis himself, during the press conference on the airplane that brought him back from Korea to Rome last August I8.

This does not change the fact that from both the juridical and the doctrinal point of view it is by no means established that this new figure in the Catholic hierarchy has any real foundation. “Time will tell if it is right or wrong, we shall see,” Francis said prudently, although he is personally an enthusiast of the innovation.

Among theologians and canonists, in fact, the viewpoints continue to be highly discordant.

Just two days after the announcement of the abdication, Manuel Jesus Arroba, a professor of canon law at the Pontifical Lateran University, warned against the use of the title: “Juridically there is only one pope. A ‘pope emeritus’ cannot exist.”

But it was above all a leading light of canon law and former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, the Jesuit Gianfranco Ghirlanda, who refuted the legitimacy of the figure of “pope emeritus” in a long and thoroughly substantiated article published on March 2, 2013 in “La Civiltà Cattolica” and therefore – as for all the articles of this magazine – printed after review and authorization by the Vatican secretariat of state:

> Cessazione dall’ufficio di Romano Pontefice

At the end of his article, Fr. Ghirlanda drew this conclusion:

“To deal at some length with the question of the relationship between the acceptance of legitimate election and episcopal consecration, and therefore of the origin of the authority of the Roman pontiff, has been necessary precisely in order to understand more deeply that the one who ceases from the pontifical ministry not because of death, although evidently remaining bishop is pope no longer, in that he loses all of the authority of primacy, because this did not come to him from episcopal consecration, but directly from Christ through the acceptance of legitimate election.”

And he therefore ruled out the notion that the one resigning could continue to use the name of “pope,” even as emeritus:

“It is evident that the pope who has resigned is no longer pope, and therefore no longer has any authority in the Church and cannot interfere in any matter of governance. One might wonder what title Benedict XVI will retain. We think that he should be given the title of bishop emeritus of Rome, like any other diocesan bishop who steps down.”

Afterward, however, it was Ratzinger himself who took the title of “pope emeritus” and in a certain sense retained the trappings by continuing to wear the white cassock.

He enigmatically anticipated the meaning of this decision in the last of his general audiences as pope, on February 27, 2013, the eve of his effective abdication:

“Anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any private dimension. […] My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.”

(In other words, he attempted to split off or delegate the power of governance, while retaining the office itself.)

There are those who remember that Pius XII, when he prepared his letter of resignation that would go into effect in the event that the Germans should come to arrest him, said to his closest collaborators: “When the Germans cross that line, they will find not the pope, but Cardinal Pacelli.”

But this was not at all the case for Benedict XVI. In resigning, he had no thought of being able to go back to being “Cardinal Ratzinger.” It was and is his firm conviction that there is something of his election as pope that remains “forever.”

And this is what some scholars have been trying to identify and justify.

Like Valerio Gigliotti, a professor of the history of European law at the University of Torino, in the book “La tiara deposta,” which http://www.chiesa covered last April:

> The Pope’s Third Embodiment

Or like Fr. Stefano Violi, a professor of law at the theological faculty of Emilia Romagna, in an article in the “Rivista Teologica di Lugano”:

> La rinuncia di Benedetto XVI. Tra storia, diritto e coscienza

According to Violi, in abdicating Benedict XVI indeed left the active exercise of the Petrine ministry, but not the office, the “munus” of the papacy, inalienable precisely because it was entrusted to him forever with his election as bishop of Rome and successor of Peter.

Those who know Ratzinger know that he would never subscribe to such a splitting of the papal office, which in his judgment can be only accepted or rejected as a whole.

But he has never said anything to clarify what he sees as the nature of his being “pope emeritus” even after the abdication.

The adjective “emeritus,” borrowed from bishops who have resigned, is of no help in understanding.

A bishop remains bishop forever, by virtue of the indelible character of the sacrament of orders, even after he no longer governs any diocese.

And a successor of Peter also remains bishop forever, after his resignation. But how can he still remain “pope,” after he has renounced all, not only a part, of what constitutes the specifically Petrine?

This silence of Ratzinger gives free rein not only to doctrinal conjectures that he certainly does not share – like the invention of an indelible “character” impressed by election as pope, as if it were a sacramental act – but also to the disorientation of not a few of the faithful, tempted to maintain that there can be two popes in the Catholic Church – perhaps on different levels, but still more than one – and to take sides for one against the other.

Full post is HERE. Be warned, it’s about 3500 words.

Now more than ever: “The plain sense of the words of the law are the last line of defense against tyranny”

Many thanks to Miss B. for sponsoring a guest post this morning HERE. If you happen to derive any value from it, please consider a small recurring donation directly to Ann HERE.  I will mirror the essay on this site tomorrow, for the benefit of allowing comments.

I was trying to decide the best way to thank her, and I think this might do the trick:

——————————————————

“The plain sense of the words of the law are the last line of defense against tyranny”

23:25 “The mind of Pope Benedict is not the arbiter of reality.”

Money!

If you don’t have two hours free to watch the whole thing right now, nor later today, nor even the entire weekend, stop what you are doing and take a look at the nine minutes I highlighted in the timestamps below. If those nine minutes seem to piece together a pretty solid argument, it would be an act of moral laziness not to make time to watch the whole thing.

Happy viewing!

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 occupies 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.

Ann’s Previously Posted Essays:

Vocem Alienorum: The Voice of Antipope Francis Bergoglio Is the Voice of A Stranger

Cutting the Crap: 32 Questions and Blunt Answers About The Catholic Church and Antipope Bergoglio

The Bergoglian Antipapacy: How It Happened, and How To Fix It

On the Feast of the Martrydom of Sts. Peter and Paul, Answering the Question, “Why Is God Letting This Antipapacy Happen?”

More Sound Reasoning on the Antipope Situation: Coercion and Lies

Black Guelphs Matter

Curial Bishops In Hiding, Priests Being Sent to Reprogramming Gulags, but DISCUSSION OF CANON 188 WILL NOT BE PERMITTED!

Matthew 17:20 Prayer and Fasting Initiative

“Conflating invective with argument:” Open letter to Mundabor, from the combox

Published with permission from the author, Paul Muessig:

Mark: I posted a response to Mundabor’s article “The Great Embarrassment” yesterday morning. In case he decides not to post it, I thought I’d include it here “for the record.”

Mundy:

I have followed your blog for a while now, and while you are a reliable detractor of all things Bergoglian (and rightly so), I fear your brusque dismissal of what has come to be known (derisively) as the “Benevacantist” position is premature and perhaps counterproductive of the goals you wish to achieve. A dispassionate review of the available data set suggests that there is more than just a prima facie case to be made that Benedict’s resignation was invalid. Many of the “definitive” refutations of this belief that I have seen are little more than derisive broadsides against selected caricatures of the underlying arguments and evidence: red meat for die-hard partisans on either side of the argument, no doubt, but hardly conducive to discerning the truths that must unite us against our common enemy.

The reasons I remonstrate with you on this are two. First, I assert that to misdiagnose the disease is to prescribe the wrong cure. It matters at a most fundamental level whether we are dealing with a valid, albeit heretical, pope or an anti-pope. Our goals and our approach depend on an accurate assessment of the enemy we are fighting, and Catholics who would come to the defense of Holy Mother Church have an obligation to come to agreement on WHAT they are fighting for and WHY. To get this wrong at the start is to fail at the start.

Second, you have done yeoman’s work in the vineyard of the Lord in bringing to light the horrors of the Bergoglian regime and its origin in Modernism and its bitter fruit, the Second Vatican Council. What you say makes a difference to people, and this influence must be wielded wisely in the service of our common objective to restore Catholic Christianity to its rightful place in the spiritual and temporal orders.

I urge you with heartfelt charity and sincerity to reconsider your editorial position with regard to those who question the legitimacy of the Bergoglian papacy. This is not to suggest that you adopt the “Benevacantist” position tout court, nor is it to suggest that you retreat in any way from supporting your conviction that Bergoglio is pope. It is, however, to suggest that there are already enough “traditional” Catholic web sites that conflate invective with argument. To join their number is to miss an opportunity to restore sanity to the current donnybrook over the Bergoglian papacy.

Many thanks for your kind consideration.

The Doctrine of Chaos and Rejection of Order: “It is an error to impose order”… do you submit to this?

“If in the difficult times in which Our lot is cast, Catholics will give ear to Us, as it behoves them to do, they will readily see what are the duties of each one in matters of opinion as well as action. As regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind, and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed.”

Pope Leo XII, Immortale Dei p.41, 1 November 1885

Keep those words in mind as you read the following, while remaining totally convinced that Bergoglio is 100%, obviously, absolutely zero evidence to the contrary, the pope.

—————————————–

ROME — Christians must embrace the “imbalance” of the gospel rather than trying to put everything in order, Pope Francis said, which leads to a “dictatorship of functionalism.” HERE

It is an error to try to “fix” things and impose order on the world or the Church, the pope told participants in a diocesan assembly in Rome, adding that it is a “temptation” to think we can “reorganize the city, reorganize the diocese, put everything in order.”

Having everything in order converts the Church into a “museum,” Francis said, which would mean “taming things, taming young people, taming people’s hearts, taming families” and making everything “perfect.”

“But this would be the greatest sin of worldliness and of the anti-evangelical worldly spirit,” he said.

“Today we have been called to embrace the imbalance. We cannot do anything good or evangelical if we are afraid of imbalance,” he said. “We must grasp the imbalance in our hands: this is what the Lord tells us, because the Gospel — I believe you understand me — is an ‘unbalanced’ doctrine. Take the Beatitudes: they deserve the Nobel Prize for imbalance!”

The apostles did not get this, Francis suggested, because they had fallen into the clericalism of right thinking and a desire for order and balance.

“This is the illusion of the balance of ‘Church’ people,” he said.

We do not need “a beautiful, functionalized diocese,” he said, where “clericalism and functionalism” reign. The pope says he knows of a diocese that has more employees than the Vatican, and “that diocese is getting further away from Jesus Christ because it worships ‘harmony,’ harmony not of beauty, but of functionalist worldliness.”

“And in these cases we have fallen into the dictatorship of functionalism,” he said. “It is a new ideological colonization that tries to convince us that the Gospel is a wisdom, it is a doctrine, but it is not an announcement, it is not a kerygma.”

“We need the Holy Spirit,” he continued, “and the Holy Spirit gives the table a kick, knocks it over and starts over from scratch,” he said.

That last sentence really drives the point home, doesn’t it? Welcome to the Doctrine of Chaos. As a layman, do you submit to this? Or as a priest? Or as a bishop, or as a Cardinal…DO YOU SUBMIT TO THIS?

When the divine Founder decreed that the Church be one in faith, and in government, and in communion, He chose Peter and his successors in whom should be the principle and as it were the center of unity. . . . But, order of bishops, as Christ commanded, is to be regarded as joined with Peter, if it be subject to Peter and obey him; otherwise it necessarily descends into a confused and disorderly crowd…there is absolute need of true authority and a supreme authority which the entire community should obey. . . . Hence those special expressions of the ancients regarding St. Peter, which brilliantly proclaim him as placed in the highest degree of dignity and authority. They everywhere called him prince of the assembly of disciples, prince of the holy apostles, leader of that choir, mouthpiece of all the apostles, head of that family, superintendent of the whole world, first among the apostles, pillar of the Church. . . . But Roman Pontiffs, mindful of their office, wish most of all that whatever is divinely instituted in the Church be preserved…

Denz. n.1960, 1962