How to remove Bergoglio

Anthony Hopkins stars as a priest, performing an exorcism, in a scene from the 2010 movie “The Rite.” (CNS photo/Warner Bros.)

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

What follows here are the canonical steps by which Bergoglio can be peacefully, easily and lawfully removed from his position of power.

First, any Catholic Bishop or Cardinal, whether holding jurisdiction or not, whether of the Latin Rite or not, in his capacity as a member of the College of Bishops needs to make this public declaration, or its equivalent:

As member of the College of Bishops, whose unity with the Successor of Saint Peter is essential to its proper function in the Church for the accomplishment of the will of Christ, to continue His Salvific Mission on Earth, I hereby declare that I have examined the official Latin text of Pope Benedict XVI’s act of renunciation of February 11, 2013 A.,D., which begins with the words Non solum propter, and I have found that it is not in conformity with the requirement of Canon 332 §2, that states explicitly that a papal resignation only occurs when the Supreme Pontiff renounces the Petrine Munus.  Seeing that Pope Benedict renounced only the ministerium which he received from the hands of the Cardinals, and seeing that he did not invoke Canon 38 to derogate from the obligation to name of the office in a matter which violates the rights of all the Faithful of Christ, and even more so, of the members of the College of Bishops, to know who is and who is not the Successor of Saint Peter, and when and when not he has validly renounced his office, I declare out of the fullness of my apostolic duty and mission, which binds me to consider first of all the salvation of souls and the unity of the Church, that Pope Benedict XVI by the act expressed in Non Solum Propter never renounced the Papal Office and therefore has continued until this very day to be the one and sole and true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor of Saint Peter.  I therefore charge the College of Cardinals with gross negligence in the performance of their duties as expressed in Canon 359 and n. 37 of Universi Domini Gregis by proceeding in February and March of 2013 to the convocation and convening of a Conclave to elect Pope Benedict’s successor when there had not yet been consummated a legal sede vacante. And thus I do declare the Conclave of 2013 was uncanonically convoked, convened and consummated and that the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergogio as Successor of Saint Peter is null and void and irritus by the laws themselves of Holy Mother Church, as established by Pope John Paul II.

Second, Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and indeed all the Faithful should personally examine the text of February 11, 2013 according to the norms of Canons 332 §2, canon 17, canon 38, canon 145 §1, canon 41, canon 126, and in particular canon 188. (see ppbxvi.org for more information.)

Third, the Cardinals and Bishops should hold spontaneous regional or universal Synods to confirm the same and publicly affirm the same.

Fourth, the Bishops and Cardinals should call on the Swiss Guard and Vatican Police to arrest Cardinal Bergoglio and detain him and obtain from him public affirmation of the same.

Fifth, the Cardinals should approach Pope Benedict XVI and ask if it is now his intention to resign the Petrine Munus or not. If not, they should convey him to Saint John Lateran’s and acclaim him with one voice as Pope and ask his forgiveness publicly for having defected from him and elected an antipope. If so, they should ask him to redo the renunciation, this time renouncing the Petrine Munus; and then they should convene a Conclave to elect Benedict’s legitimate successor.

 

Benedict said in every way that He did not resign! — An Examination of His Testimonies

_66133919_66133918

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

One of the most common canards used to discount that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope is that, regardless of all the Canonical Evidence that he did not, He has never publicly affirmed that he did anything other than resign the papacy.

This bold assertion is the kind of propaganda used by intelligence agencies to confuse the Enemy. And if you have not yet considered the evidence, you should take note not to be led astray.

In propaganda of the kind which is used in psychological manipulation, the first characteristic sought is to lie and lie boldly. As Rousseau affirmed, “Lie, Lie and Lie, and something will come of it”, or as Adolf Hitler said, the biggest lie is the most effective:

All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[1]

The Big Lie: Benedict Resigned

The Big Lie operative in the Church today says that “Benedict resigned”.  As I pointed out in my previous post on the Vatican Coup d’etat of Feb. 11, 2013 (see link here), the Vatican has NEVER affirmed by a canonical document or press release that Pope Benedict resigned or renounced the Papacy. They merely confirmed a TWEET by a pool reporter, who knew some Latin.

This contradicts the expressed obligation of the Papal Law on Elections. Because in Pope John Paul II’s Law, Universi Dominic Gregis, n. 37, the Cardinals are obliged not to act if there has been no lawful vacancy of the apostolic see:

37. I furthermore decree that, from the moment when the Apostolic See is lawfully vacant, the Cardinal electors who are present must wait fifteen full days for those who are absent; the College of Cardinals is also granted the faculty to defer, for serious reasons, the beginning of the election for a few days more. But when a maximum of twenty days have elapsed from the beginning of the vacancy of the See, all the Cardinal electors present are obliged to proceed to the election.

And, thus, obviously, to observe that norm, the Cardinals MUST VERIFY whether there is in fact a lawful or canonical sede vacante.

In the present case, therefore, that means that they must verify that the norm of Canon 332 §2 was fulfilled.  But, again, as I have said before, the Vatican has never publicly affirmed that the resignation was canonically in conformity to Canon 332 §2, which is the only canon on papal resignations.

That Pope Benedict never resigned the petrine munus, as Canon 332 §2 requires, is a fact of history. Just read the Latin text of his renunciation and follow the norms of Canon Law on how to read it (see link here, and a discussion here; see an analysis of all the official Vatican translations, all fraudulent, which have attempted to present the Big Lie, here)

But, before we consider the testimonies from our Holy Father, let us first unpack the propaganda, of the Big lie, which is employed by nearly the entire Hierarchy, except Bishop Gracida.

Exposing the Fallacy of Resorting to the Big Lie

Therefore, the canard, that Benedict needs to affirm that he has not resigned the Papacy, before anyone can take seriously the canonical arguments that he did not do so validly are to be accepted — is a complete absurdity! It’s propaganda to support the Big Lie, because it takes as its first premise (though implicit) that the assertion that Benedict did resign has the pride of place, that is, the greater authority.

The international Association of Catholics, which is opposed to the Kasperites,  and called Veri Catholici, recently un-packaged the fallacy of resorting to the Big Lie, thus:

THE INSANITY IS UNENDING! — A supporter of Cardinal Burke told VC HQ that so long as Benedict does not confirm that he meant what he said, there is no evidence that what Cardinal Burke THINKS B16 meant is FALSE. Thus VC will discredit its own organization with truth!

The correct forensic principle, which a canonist SHOULD know, is that what someone says is prima facie what he means, and he who claims that the intention was such as to make it other than prima facie IS REQUIRED TO PROVE HIS INTERPRETATION by a first hand DENIAL of the prima facie.

THUS there is no necessity AT ALL that Benedict confirm that he resigned the ministry not the office, NAY there is the necessity for the Cardinals to obtain from Benedict the statement THAT HE NEVER INTENDED TO RENOUNCE THE MINISTRY BUT RATHER THE OFFICE OF THE PAPACY.
But this is impossible and contra factum, because FOR SIX YEARS BENEDICT HAS DRESSED LIKE THE POPE, SIGNED AS THE POPE, GIVEN BLESSINGS AS THE POPE DOES, AND ACCEPTED THE HONORS AND DIGNITY OF THE POPE! If that aint confirmatin of PPBXVI.org nothing is!
And if anyone should claim that he calls Bergoglio the pope and lets him run the church as a pope, nevertheless, though that could put in doubt the 6 year testimony, IT DOES NOT FORENSICALLY INVALIDATE THE PRIMA FACIE rather it argues for coercion or insanity, not validity!
Because FOR THE VALIDITY OF A PAPAL RESIGNATION there is required nothing but the DUE MANIFESTATION OF THE FORMAL SIGNIFICATION OF AN ACT OF RENUNCIATION OF THE PAPAL OFFICE: intentions not expressed are praeter rem!

though (a corruption of) liberty, (or) freedom (as can arise) from coercion or simony can corrupt a valid formal signification, cf canon 332.2 and 188.

(In this quotation I have corrected some typographic errors and elipsees in Italics)

With this preliminary introduction, let us proceed to the main subject then.

Pope Benedict’s Testimonies that He has not Resigned the Papacy

There are several things Pope Benedict did to signify that he never had the intention to resign and that he never did resign.

1. Normas nonnullas

First of all on Feb 22, 2013, he issued certain modifications of Pope John Paul II’s law on Papal Elections. In that Apostolic Letter, entitled Normas nonnullas (see link here), Pope Benedict did NOT make any changes to suit the occasion of a Papal resignation!

This is significant, because the Papal Law only tangentially refers to a sede vacante arising from a papal resignation, and clearly, if He had resigned the Papacy, he should have addressed that error in the Papal Law modifications which he enacted into law on Feb. 22, 2013! Not only did he NOT do that, but he modified a section of the law regarding PAPAL FUNERALS (n. 49). In this way he was giving a big sign that he was going to hold out as the Pope until death.

2. Final Audience of Wednesday, February  27, 2013: in Saint Peter’s Square

Next, In His Holiness’ final public audience to the Faithful, he confirmed this in extraordinary terms which cannot be reconciled with a papal resignation:

Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.

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. 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. 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.

(In this quotation I have added color to the text)

The Pope could not be more clear, he had resigned the active ministry of the office, not the office. He was resigning the power of governance, but remaining the pope.

All this refers not to a resignation, but a forced abdication or a voluntary retirement of someone who still retains the Papal dignity and office.

3. Pope Benedict leaves Vatican on Feb 28, 2013, as the Pope, not as Cardinal Ratzinger

The Final and loudest visible message was sent by the Pope on the following day, when he left the Vatican, but did NOT lay aside the symbols of the office of the Pope:

Even the New York Times affirmed that the Pope left the Vatican, not Cardinal Ratzinger.

ABC News shows what happened in this video:

 

 

Notice the facts, which are indisputable:

  1. Benedict is dressed as the Pope.
  2. All continue to treat him as the Pope.
  3. He is given official escort as a Head of State by the Italian Republic
  4. He flies, not to Munich, where his brother lives, but to Castel Gandolfo, the private residence of THE POPE.

Any objective observer must therefore conclude, that he remains the Pope, and is signaling that he remains the Pope. Because he is acting as the Pope, retiring from a Vatican that no longer wants him, but NOT as a Pope who has just resigned the Papacy.

Q.E.D.

 

______________________

NOTA BENE: Someone may say, But Pope Benedict recently said in June, 2019, that “There is only one Pope, and he is Francis”… That report was entirely false, and intentionally so. Here is more about that from Veri Catholici. Click on both links to read the two stories, the false claim by the Catholic Herald, and the debunking of the false claim by Life Site News:

How Benedict has defeated “Francis”

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Pope Benedict XVI, who has been lauded by many as a brilliant theologian, is in my opinion, a more brilliant chess player, for he has defeated the AntiChurch with the most incredibly subtle and effective manuever which could ever be conceived, and which takes a great deal of study to recognize, if you, like myself, took at face value the hearsay which has been put out for the last six years.

Admittedly, the honor and glory for it belong first of all to God, Who enlightens all men and inspires them at times to do things mere mortals could never conceive of. But also, thanks goes to God for sending Our Lady to Fatima to reveal to Sr. Lucia a secret which has until this day remained hidden, so as to give sound counsel to the true Successor of Saint Peter in the End Times.

How Pope John Paul II strengthened the Bulwark of the Church against the AntiChurch

I believe that with that knowledge, Pope John Paul II did 3 things: first, he chose Joseph Ratzinger to come to Rome and prepared him to succeed him (perhaps because he sensed that Ratzinger had the gift of prophecy); second, in 1983, he added the term munus to canon 332 §2, to constrain all of his successors to the obligation of renouncing the Petrine Munus so as to resign the papacy; and third, in 1996, he promulgated a new law on Papal Elections, which would nullify any attempt of the AntiChurch to usurp the Papacy or elect successors to AntiPopes (by requiring that all valid conclaves meet within 20 days after the death of valid popes).

Pope John Paul II warned the Church of the AntiChurch which was rising. He beatified Ann Catherine Emmerich (on the Vigil of St. Francis of Assisi, in 2004) to give papal approval to her own visions in this regard. It should not be surprising then, that in secret, or I should say, in the bright light of day, in papal acts he prepared the Church against that Evil to come!

By these three acts, Pope John Paul II set the chess board and enabled his chosen successor, Ratzinger to enact a stratagem of deception to defeat the forces of darkness.

The Forces of the AntiChurch struck quickly

No sooner than Pope John Paul II had died that the St Gallen Mafia, which had been meeting in that Swiss town for some years, mobilized to put Bergoglio on the Apostolic Throne in the Conclave of 2005. Bergoglio, as is now known, garnered the most votes after Ratzinger. In his campaign to get elected he promised radical financial reforms in the Vatican, so he could pose as a savior and reformer, though his agenda was that of Cardinal Martini, to make the Church into the Bride of the Anti-Christ.

Recently an Argentine Priest revealed, that Pope Benedict, soon after his election in 2005, had asked Bergoglio to be Secretary of State (see report here). Benedict intended by this offer to diffuse the conflict which arose in the Conclave, and to draw out the real intentions of Bergoglio. Bergoglio’s refusal manifested his deceit, because all the reasons given in the Conclave for his election, which in truth could be done by a Secretary of State, if honest, would have spurred him to accept Benedict’s offer. But without the papal authority, his evil and malign agenda could not be advanced. — By this sign of offering the olive branch of peace, Benedict signaled to his own supporters, that after himself there would come an Anti-pope (cf. Prophecy of St Malachy).

With the threefold knowledge of the future had from the Third Secret, from Pope John Paul II and from his own experience in the CDF, Pope Benedict now knew what he had to do. He knew Bergoglio wanted power and would be blinded by its offer. He took preparations to defend the Church with tradition and as the pressure built from the St Gallen Mafia, he crafted their defeat in secret. At the same time, he openly warned the faithful, that the Message of Fatima was about to be fulfilled (On May 13, 2010, saying “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete…”).

Benedict knew that removing the Lavender Mafia from the Vatican was key to defending the Church. But as court documents revealed, in the WikiLeaks controversy, as that effort led to the destruction of the careers of many sodomites, they moved against Benedict to have him removed. His Pontificate had removed hundreds perverts from the clergy.

As I have written before, there was in my estimation a formal attempt at a Coup d’etat (see report here). And this was actually put in motion, with the intent to effectively imprison Pope Benedict (see Report here). — The Conclave pact in 2005 among the warring factions of Ratzinger (Church) and Bergoglio (Anti-Church) also prepared the way (see report here). But, with their cause lost at that conclave, the St. Gallen Mafia would have to wait for Benedict to resign, because being old, he revealed that he was inclined to resign in a few years, anyhow. As he lingered on, however, their rage and impatience exploded.

The restoration of the Ancient Mass (July 7, 2007) and the expansion of the permissions for its use (April 30, 2011) caused a general outburst among the wicked clerics. I myself know this took place in the Italian Bishop’s Conference in 2011, because a Bishop who attended told me how Cardinals and Bishops stood up, one after another, and said the most vile things against Benedict. I also know personally, from the testimony of a Sicilian Businessman, who was in Shanghai, that the Cardinal of Palermo had warned that Benedict could die within a year from poor health. The St Gallen Controlled Media expanded this and reported it as if the Cardinal has said that Benedict had a year to live or else. That report was published around Feb. 11, 2012! (note the date)

Benedict’s Master Stroke

Pope Benedict XVI then played his master stroke. In the Summer of 2012 he indicated to Cardinal Bertone that he was going to resign. He discussed the matter with no one but his secretary Ganswein and a few others. I believe that he wrote the text of abdication in the Fall of 2012. I also postulate that he intentionally showed the Latin text (the invalid one) and a faulty German translation (which makes it appear the Latin is a valid formula) to members of the St Gallen Mafia, to obtain their consent to it. By that act he sealed their doom.

Because only one who was fluent in Latin and knowledgeable about Canon Law and who accepted the traditional metaphysics of the Church would be able to see that the resignation by that formula would be invalid. Ratzinger further prepared the ground by emphasizing for years before, that his favorite theologian was Saint Bonaventure. This caused scholars, like myself, to start studying St. Bonanveture’s Scholatic method for textual analysis of the signification of expressions, which is unparalleled among all the Doctors of the Church.

On Feb. 11, 2013, he read out-loud in Consistory the text of the invalid formula. On Feb. 28, 2013 he explained that he had resigned the “active ministry”. The St. Gallen Mafia spread the word of a valid resignation. The rest is history.

The only thing is, that Benedict began to give signs of the truth, not only for the sake of the Faithful, but to annoy the St Gallen Mafia. He kept wearing the papal cassock, retained the titles of Your Holiness and signed with PP. Benedictus XVI, and continued to give the papal blessing. He did these things to get faithful Catholics to examine the text of resignation and discover it was invalid. — He did this also, because, I believe, he was obeying Our Lady’s word at Fatima, in which She had revealed that there would come a time in which the Catholic world thought there were 2 popes, but only one of which was the true pope. The one who was the true Pope would continue to wear white, the other would usurp the office; and that the Anti-Church would attack the true Pope and the faithful gathered about him.

By an invalid resignation Pope Benedict has canonically invalidated everything Bergoglio has done, can do, and can ever do! Bergoglio is now an AntiPope because of the clever trick Benedict played on him. And Bergoglio is so entangled by this stratagem of Benedict that he cannot admit its existence, because if he does, he must give up his claim to the papacy.

If Benedict should die, then there will be no valid Successor of Saint Peter unless the pre-Bergoglian Cardinals meet in conclave within 20 days. Otherwise, as Pope John Paul II declares in the promulgation of Universi Dominici Gregis, at the end of the text, any action the Cardinal Electors take will be invalid. If they fail to do this, the Church will not be bereft of a pope, because, as Pope John Paul II taught in UDG’s prologue, the institution of the College is “not necessary for a valid election” of the Roman Pontiff: there is still the ancient Apostolic Law regarding the right of the Roman Church to elect the Pope.*

Benedict has defeated “Francis”!

mrxwmdna


Note: I wish to publicly apologize to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for anything I have said in criticism of him, since it was not until today that I understood what he had did and why he had done it, nor that as Pope he was acting for the good of the Church in the best and only way he could see to do, acting on the  basis of the counsels of Our Lady and Pope John Paul II. — Finally, I entertain the possibility that some Cardinals know of this grand stratagem of Benedict and that is why they act so dumb when asked about the question of validity or invalidity of the resignation.

FOOTNOTE:

* The right of election will fall to those Catholics of the Diocese Rome, who recognize that Benedict always was the only true pope, and that Bergoglio was always and is only, and nothing more, an Antipope. See my Disputed Question on Defecting Cardinals, here.

 

 

 

 

The Vatican has now accepted that Bergoglio is an AntiPope

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Rome: September 9, 2019 A. D.:  The Vatican has conceded that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an AntiPope. The concession came tacitly as of Saturday, when, after 90 days since the publication of the news that Pope Benedict had accepted the arguments which demonstrated his resignation was invalid (as reported here), the Vatican took no action to discount the report.

The report was public knowledge at Rome, since it was 4 times accessed by computers at the Vatican (some of which were in the offices of the Secretary of State). In response, that office requested the Corriere della Sera to interview Pope Benedict in an attempt to get him to withdraw his tacit acceptance, with the admission on his part, that “The Pope is one, he is Francis”. The interview having failed to extract those words from Benedict — during an exchange of photographs in the Vatican Gardens in the 3rd week of June, or there abouts (the interview never gave a time or place which was specific) — the Vatican Press Office put out a teaser the day before its publication in the Marxist Newspaper, claiming Benedict HAD said those words (Catholic News Agency).

Veri Catholici, the international Association, discounted the report on Friday, after acquiring a copy of the Corriere della Sera’s actual printed interview (As reported here).  LifeSite News, which initially reported the false assertions of the Vatican Press Office, took back the claim a week later in a full article on July 4, 2019. (Veri Catholic also publicly asked Life Site News to investigate the WHY of it — As of today, they have failed to follow through)

The Corriere della Sera subsequently published the “interview” online (see here).

Even Antonio Socci on July 1st remarked the occurrence of the publicity debacle for the Vatican, as another gross fake news story (see end of Socci’s article, where he cites more evidence that Benedict knows he is stil the pope).

But the import of the event was ignored. Namely, that the Vatican was attempting to discount the report by From Rome of the tacit acceptance.

To which I say: Is everyone brain dead at Rome? Can you not put on your thinking cap and do some reasoning, like this?

  • Vatican Press Agency risks its entire reputation by making a false claim about what Benedict had said
  • Corriere della Sera was asked by the Vatican Secretary of State to attempt to extract such a statement from Pope Benedict
  • Pope Benedict refused to make such a statement
  • Pope Benedict had thus publicly reaffirmed he would not discount the assertion of the From Rome Blogger
  • Therefore, Benedict is aware his resignation was not canonically valid
  • Therefore Benedict is aware that he is still the only true Pope and Vicar of Christ

Now that 92 days have passed, the Vatican, not having discounted anything of the above, has conceded that Bergoglio is not the Pope. But at the same time allow him to keep pretending to be the Pope.

But a pretender to the Throne of Saint Peter is an AntiPope.

Therefore, the Vatican has conceded that Bergoglio is an Antipope.

(BTW, for the record, the Vatican Secretary of State had already conceded that Benedict is the Pope; see the report here). And the Vatican has known the resignation was invalid since March 2013, when they tried to cover it up (see the report here).

For the complete canonical demonstration of the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation, see PPBXVI.org

FOR THE LOVE OF JESUS CHRIST, therefore, please spread the news to the whole Catholic World!

 

 

 

 

Come e perché la rinuncia di Papa Benedetto XVI non è valida secondo il Diritto canonico

Trascritto dal sito di Veri Catholici.

Offriamo qui di seguito un calmo e ragionato argomento sul tema circa la invalidità delle dimissioni di Papa Benedetto XVI, a beneficio dei Cattolici che desiderano conoscere la verità.

Perché un cattolico dovrebbe difendere la validità delle dimissioni di Papa Benedetto XVI?

Siamo obbligati a farlo secondo la legge canonica? – No,

Si commette peccato in non farlo quando sussiste l’evidenza di invalidità ?- No

Sussiste presupposto di legge circa la validità? – No.

Sussiste l’evidenza circa la non validità? -Si.

Perché le dimissioni di Papa Benedetto XVI non sono valide?

Per capire il perché richiamiamo il testo originale delle dimissioni e del Diritto Canonico;

Trascriviamo qui di seguito il testo della rinuncia nel testo originale in Latino:

Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare…

Quali sono i requisiti di validità per le dimissioni del Papa? –  Questi si trovano nel Codice di Diritto Canonico del 1983, Canone 332 §2;

§ 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

Qual’é quindi la prima condizione o requisito di validità , secondo il canone 332 §2 per la validità delle dimissioni del Papa? – Il requisito e’ che il Romano Pontefice rinunzi il suo munus (muneri suo renuntiet).

Ha il testo delle dimissioni rinunziato al munus? – No, dice chiaramente: declaro me ministerio…renuntiare.

Se la rinunzia non riguarda il munus, trova il canone 332 §2 applicazione? – Si e No. Si perché dal momento in cui non assolve alle condizioni per dimissioni entro I termini (in questo caso il munus) del Canone 332 §2, non è valida. E No, in quanto essendo un atto giuridico che e’ posto al di fuori dei termini del Canone 332 §2 non riguarda le dimissioni del Papa, ma meramente le dimissioni dal servizio attivo.

Possono le dimissioni di Papa Benedetto XVI essere interpretate come valide?

Alcuni dicono, apparentemente a ragione, che il Papa può rinunziare al munus nel rinunziare al ministerium. E’ questo un argomento valido? – No, non lo e’, perché non è materia di mera affermazione, la Legge stessa deve dichiararlo. Si ricorda che non vi può essere innovazione nella Legge della Chiesa in assenza di atto positivo di un superiore competente.

Ma non è un atto di rinunzia un atto giuridico che stabilisce  un nuovo modo di rinunzia? – No. Gli atti giuridici non sono atti tirannici, non possono auto-giustificarsi, ma devono trovarsi in accordo con la Legge della Chiesa. Ciò perché, come dichiarato dal Concilio Vaticano I, persino il Papa non ha autorità per inventare novità.

Ma se si dovesse sostenere che il ministerium si possa supporre o possa essere compreso quale munus, come si dovrebbe provare? – Come enunciato nel Canone 17, quando sia in dubbio il significato della Legge, si deve fare ricorso ad altre parti della Legge, e se non vi si trova chiarezza, si deve fare ricorso al legislatore.

Il Codice di Diritto Canonico autorizza a supporre il “ministerium” quale munus o il “munus” quale ministerium? – No, in nessuna parte del Codice si dice che il ministerium é munus o il munus é ministerium. Infatti, secondo il Canone 17, le definizioni dei termini contenuti nel Codice medesimo, devono essere accettate quale AUTENTICA espressione della mente del legislatore (Papa Giovanni Paolo II) nel promulgare il Codice di Diritto Canonico. Il Canone 145 §1 definisce ogni ufficio ecclesiastico (officium) quale munus, non ministerium.

E la tradizione canonica, richiede rinuncia di munus quale  valide dimissioni dall’uffcio papale? – Si, cio’é chiaro. perché in tutte le dimissioni precedenti non solo c’è rinunzia del munus (o sinonimi: onus, honor, dignitas, o nomi proprii: papatus, episcopatus) ma non c’e’ neppure menzione di ministerium. Neppure esiste tradizione canonica ove si possano supporre termini che non significano munus, quali munus secondo tradizione canonica. Il papa non crea o inventa lingue o forme di significati linguistici, altrimenti nulla sarebbe certo o oggettivo nella Chiesa. Anzi, come dice il canone 38, se un Papa agisce in qualsiasi modo contrario ai termini del Canone 332 § 2, il suo atto è valido solo se menziona esplicitamente la sua intenzione di agire con una deroga ai suoi termini.

Se entrambi il testo del Codice di Diritto Canonico e la tradizione canonica richiedono la menzione del munus in una rinunzia al papato, allora in virtù del Canone 17, coloro I quali sostengono che la rinunzia di Benedetto XVI sia valida, hanno valide ragioni? – No, nessuna.

Pertanto, devono tutti i cattolici riconoscere che in virtù proprio secondo il diritto, la rinunzia non è valida? – Si.

Significa qualcosa che tutti I Cardinali agiscano come se fosse valida? – No, perché secondo il Canone 332 §2 anche se il tutto il mondo sostenesse che la rinunzia è valida, se non incontra le condizioni del Canone 332 §2, non è valida. Non c’e’ la minima possibilità di distorsione.

Ma il fatto che si sia  tenuto un Conclave per eleggere un nuovo Papa, nel Marzo del 2013 non rende valide le dimissioni di Benedetto XVI? Il suo consenso tacito, non le rende valide? – No a tutte e due le domande. Prima di tutto perché nulla rende le dimissioni valide eccetto la conformità al Canone 332 § 2. Secondo perché per istituzione Divina il Munus Petrinum non può essere condiviso con altri, Per cui se Benedetto non lo ha rinunziato, lo detiene. Se lo detiene, eleggere un altro Papa è contrario alla legge divina fintantoché egli è in vita. E nel suo atto di rinunzia, egli non ha ordinato espressamente, che venisse convocato un Conclave in vita sua. Che egli abbia acconsentito a tale cosa, potrebbe essere dovuto a timore o ad errore nella sostanza riguardo a quanto necessario per rinunziare al suo Ufficio. Se dovuto a timore, ciò non lo rende valido. Se egli è in errore sostanziale, secondo il Canone 188, il suo atto è espressamente non valido iure ipso, cio’è proprio secondo il diritto.

Un governo falso per una agenda falsa!

di Frà Alexis Bugnolo

Come cittadino della Repubblica italiana non posso tacere di fronte a una farsa nazionale.

Questa Repubblica, che per sua costituzione è vincolata ai principi della rappresentanza degli elettori e dei valori italiani, non può essere rappresentata in alcun modo, giusto o onesto, dai parlamentari che intraprendono azioni per impedire le elezioni politiche con lo scopo preciso di evitare la propria perdita alle urne!

Ma al di là di questo fatto storico lampante, l’agenda di questo nuovo governo non ha interesse ad aiutare la promozione del bene comune del popolo italiano. È sostenuto da un marxista argentino che ha l’abitudine raccapricciante di raccogliere pervertiti sessuali intorno se stesso. È stato sponsorizzato da un uomo in Francia che ha sposato il suo insegnante di scuola e da una donna in Germania, con una gioventù marxista, che pensa che distruggere la cultura nazionale tedesca sia la cosa migliore che si possa lasciare come eredità alla propria nazione. — Su questa onda di disonestà, Nancy Pelosi e una delegazione del suo partito dagli Stati Uniti hanno ispirato la strategia politica per rovesciare l’ex governo, mentre Donald Trump, contrariamente a tutte le sue dichiarazioni di sostegno a Matteo Salvini, ha annuito alla cosa fatta!

Ora abbiamo un governo con un primo ministro che non è mai stato eletto dal popolo italiano. Un ministro per le famiglie dello stesso partito il cui sindaco nel Nord Italia ha promosso la presa forzata di bambini dai loro genitori e l’uso dell’elettrocuzione per far sì che andasse avanti. E tanti altri incapaci dittatori.

Abbiamo un governo che pensa che l’unico bene per l’Italia sia la distruzione della nazione: l’importazione di popoli che non hanno abilità o talenti per lavorare in Italia, di culture e di religiosità che sono nemici dei valori italiani; la promozione delle perversioni sessuali e la persecuzione delle istituzioni naturali e divine della famiglia; il doppio parla senza fine di un nuovo umanesimo, che allo stesso tempo parli di abbassare e aumentare le tasse, e la generale baldoria che si riscontra tra i marxisti quando rovesciano qualsiasi nazione: i sogni di come derubare l’uomo comune per arricchirsi.

Né posso omettere di sottolineare che questo è un governo, non di nuove promesse, ma di vecchie bugie. — Il marxista ci predica da più di un secolo che solo loro possono realizzare veri progressi, che solo loro difendono i veri diritti dei popoli. Ma il progresso che cercano è il ritorno del neandertaliano alla sua caverna: cioè di una società senza alcuna umanità e solo gli avanzi della bestialità. — Chi con un cervello pensa davvero che il progresso economico o morale si ottenga dando potere ad un partito che pensa di discendere dagli scimpanzé ?!

No, non posso tacere! — E sarebbe ingiusto lasciare fuori che il più grande male che sostiene questo governo è l’incapacità mentale ecclesiastica di leggere il testo latino del Canone 332 §2: un impegno che chiunque con uno studio di due anni sulla lingua latina potrebbe capire se voleva. — Perché chiaramente quando si rinuncia ministerio non si rinuncia muneri in un modo che rite manifestatur.

Caro Signore Gesù Cristo, salva l’Italia dalla follia! Alza il tuo popolo in rivoluzione contro questo Teatro di ipocrisia e bugie! Salva il Suo vero e unico Vicario sulla terra, Papa Benedetto XVI!

Veri Catholici: An Open Letter to Cardinals Burke and Sarah

Their Eminences, Cardinals Burke and Sarah

The International Association « Veri Catholici » has published this open Letter to the Cardinals, on their twitter feed at @VeriCatholici. I post it here (in its unrolled format) for the sake of those who do not have a Twitter Account.

Here beings the Introduction, with the first paragraph of the Letter subordinated to it:

The rest of the text of the open Letter continues here:

“It’s also evident that canon 124.1 and canon 188 require that the proper object of canon 332.2 be posited, namely the renunciation of the munus, otherwise, in virtue of canon 188, the substantial error of doing otherwise invalidate the act ipso iure!

“Now if a pope should act in violation of Canon 332.2, since in doing so he would injure the rights of the whole Church to know who is and who is not the true Pope, he would have to apply canon 38 derogating from the discrepancy. But Benedict did not do anything of the kind!

“Therefore, he is still the pope, and canon 359 invalidated the Conclave of 2013. Also, on this account, all the Cardinals and Bishops ARE WRONG to reason from their presumption that Francis is the pope toward any conclusion. As he never was. He is an antipope, a usurper.

“Nor can one argue that the Pope, being above canon law, is above Canon 332.2, because that canon enshrines merely the principles of the Natural Law, which are superior to the Pope and from which he CANNOT dispense!

“One aspect of which is the semiotic law, whereby the being of a thing cannot in a forensic act be rite manifestatur by a term which signifies an accident of it.

“Take this example. A pope has the habit of calling the burden of his work, Bananas. And one day while shaving says, I am renouncing Bananas. Can the Cardinals lawfully proceed to elect another, if the Pope says nothing more? No, because Bananas is not a due term for a legal act.

“Even if he said, I am renouncing bananas, during a solemn Consistory of the Cardinals, they could not proceed to elect another. Not even if he commanded them or allowed them explicitly to do so, because until he says I renounce the Papacy, Christ does not remove the office!

“These Cardinals also need to recognize that the criteria employed to determine validity in contractual law is not the same in beneficiary law. For in contractual law, as is used in Annulments evidence regards whether there was a right intention, this is principal.

“But in beneficiary law, which regards bequests, the intention has no force, what matters is only the verbal signification of the act of bequest. Renunciations fall under beneficiary law, not contractual law. This is the fundamental legal error of the Cardinals and bishops.

“For just as it is impossible for anyone to be the Pope unless he succeeds to the Chair of Peter, the office, so it is impossible for anyone to renounce the Papal Office unless in a forensic act there is an explicit renunciation of that office.

“The case is analogous to property law, wherein no one is the rightful owner of the same single property, until the one who holds the property rights renounces them in a legal act. Renouncing only the usufruct (ministerium) does not grant the title to the successor in law.