The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon of the Mass

Most priests do not know that they have a canonical right to stop naming Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass. They think wrongly that to do so would either be outside of their authority or would involve an act of schism. That it is not schism nor a sin, is proven thus:

Here is the canonical argument

First, a validly elected Pope must be named in the Canon of the Mass as a sign of communion. This is by tradition and liturgical law.

Second: Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected Roman Pontiff on April 19, 2005 A. D., just three days after his 78th birthday.

This is a dogmatic fact, which cannot be denied.

No validly elected pope’s name must be omitted from the Canon of the Mass during his lifetime, or before he validly resigns.

Third: Pope Benedict XVI did not resign on Feb. 11, 2013, he merely retired from the active ministry, as he himself said on Feb. 28, 2013 in his final Allocution (see other evidence here). For extensive canonical information about this see ppbxvi.org.

Fourth: That Pope Benedict XVI did validly resign was the falsehood which emanated from the Desk of Cardinal Sodano. (See explanation here)

Now just as Cardinal Sodano should have acted, is how all priest should act. Namely,

In accord with Canon 40, Priests who are to say mass hold a munus which is merely executory, in regard to whom to name at Mass in the Canon as Pope. This is because they do not decide on their own authority who is the pope and who is not the pope. They follow the command of a superior. That superior is above all the Pope.

If a pope therefore does not renounce his office in accord with canon 332 §2, because he renounces his ministerium instead, that renunciation has no canonical effect, because there is no canon in the Church’s laws which regard the renunciation of ministries.

Therefore, in accord with canon 40 and 41 A PRIEST IS FORBIDDEN to alter the name of the Pope in the Canon of the Mass. He cannot act on the basis of the declaration of Non Solum Propter in the same illegal manner Cardinal Sodano did. To do so would be to collaborate in his grave crime, deceive the faithful and enter into de facto schism with Pope Benedict. (see that article for a greater explanation of the crime and moral offence)

Therefore, a priest must continue to name Benedict in the Canon of the Mass.

Therefore, a priest must cease and desist naming Francis as soon as he recognizes the validity of this canonical argument.

(This argument is not that of the Editor of this Blog, who has merely expanded it for a fuller explanation — There are already a great number of priests who do not name Francis, but name Benedict instead, some openly, some secretly, some by saying for the Holy Father, without a specific name. God bless and strengthen and multiply these priests!)

_______________

NOTE BENE: There is a lot of misinformation out there, from Vatican News, which falsifies things attributed to Pope Benedict. Here is one glaring case from last June, WHEN Vatican News claimed that Pope Benedict said, “There is only one Pope, and he is Francis”, which never actually happened. Click the links in the Twitter Card, below, for more on this.

 

 

Advertisements

How Cardinal Sodano robbed the Papacy from Pope Benedict!

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As I have reported before, in February 2013 there was a de facto coup d’etat at the Vatican, the result of which was the imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI, and the convocation of an illegal, illicit and invalid Conclave, which resulted in the illegal, illicit and invalid election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Now, I invite the entire Church to examine more carefully what happened in the 58 minutes after the Consistory of February 11, 2013, which ended just before noon, Rome time, on that day.

According to Canon Law, it was the grave and solemn duty of the Dean of the College of Cardinals to approach Pope Benedict and ask for a written copy of his act of Renunciation.

Here are the relevant Canons of the Code of 1983 which regulate what should have been done:

Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.

Can. 41 — Exsecutor actus administrativi cui committitur merum exsecutionis ministerium, exsecutionem huius actus denegare non potest, nisi manifesto appareat eundem actum esse nullum aut alia ex gravi causa sustineri non posse aut condiciones in ipso actu administrativo appositas non esse adimpletas; si tamen actus administrativi exsecutio adiunctorum personae aut loci ratione videatur inopportuna, exsecutor exsecutionem intermittat; quibus in casibus statim certiorem faciat auctoritatem quae actum edidit.

Needless to say, I have added some color to the letters of the text to make it clear that, in the very 2 Canons which Cardinal Sodano should have carefully read and acted upon, there is made by the Code itself the distinction between munus and ministerium. And yet for 6 years, and especially during the last 12 months, those who have sustained that the renunciation was valid, dared use the argument that there no distinction between the terms!

It seems so true, that it is almost a law, that whatever one investigates about the Pontificate of Bergoglio, one uncovers nothing but lies and frauds. This is clearly the greatest.

The Laws which governed what Cardinal Sodano should have done

Because in that key moment, before Sodano through Father Lombardi gave the Sig.ra Chirri the go ahead to publish to the world that Benedict had resigned, He will leave the Pontificate on Feb. 28 (B16 è dimesso. Lascia il Pontificato Feb 28), he HAD TO read these 2 canons, or at least recall them.

Let us therefore take a closer look at these 2 canons, which regard what is to be done when someone, with mere Executive authority, receives notice from someone, with the jurisdiction to posit an adminstrative act, that he is to take an action.

My English translation of the Canons:

Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his office (suo munero), before he receives the documents (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) their integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of them has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.

Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry (ministerium) of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears to be null from (something) manifest [manifesto] or cannot be sustained for any grave cause or the conditions in the administrative act itself do not seem to be able to have been fulfilled: however, if the execution of the administrative act seems inopportune by reason of place or adjoined persons, let the executor omit the execution; in which cases let him immediately bring the matter to the attention of (certiorem faciat) the authority which published the act.

What Cardinal Sodano did

First, as Canon 40 states, Cardinal Sodano’s first duty was to ask Pope Benedict XVI for a written copy of the Act of Renunciation. This is because, as read out-loud, anyone fluent in Latin, as Cardinal Sodano is reputed to be, would have noticed multiple errors in the Latin, most grievous of which was the enunciation of commisum not commiso by the Holy Father. This touched upon the integrity of the act.

Second, in receiving the Act of Renunciation in the authentic Latin Text, and finding that it was as it was intended to be read, he was obliged to examine if the act was in conformity with Canon 332 §2, which reads:

Canon 332 § 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.

My translation:

Canon 332 §2. If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his office (muneri suo), for validity there is required that the renunciation be done freely and duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.

And thus, in this examination, the Cardinal had to confront the very Distinction between munus and ministerium that was founded in the Act of Renunciation, which contains the terms munus and ministerium, but renounces only the ministerium!

Clearly anyone reading Canon 40, would see that munus means office or charge! And in reading canon 41 that ministerium means execution of the duties of the office. Clearly he would as Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals realize that it is one thing to have a munus to do something, quite another to put into motion his ministerium to execute it. — He was acting on the very basis of that distinction, because before he acted, he held the munus to act, and in acting he executed the ministerium to act!

For this reason, Cardinal Sodano must be questioned if not publicly accused of having closed his eyes! That is, of having ignored the distinction and his own grave duty and invalidly executed his office, by declaring the act a valid act of renunciation of the papal office!

This is especially true, because Canon 41 forbids (“let him omit the execution“) and Canon 40 invalidates the action of the executor to proceed to any action, not only because the core act of renunciation was invalid, as per canon 188 (for substantial error), to effect the loss of papal office, but also because, being invalid, the Cardinal Dean could NOT recognize that the command to call a conclave was opportune.

There are other anomalies in the Act of Renunciation which also should have caused the Cardinal to stop and refer to Pope Benedict, namely:

  1. The Act of Renunciation is not an act of renunciation, but the declaration of an act of renunciation. As such it lacks the formal quality of a canonical act per se, since it is one thing to announce, another to enact!
  2. The Act of Renunciation contains what appears to be a command to call a conclave. But this command is NOT a command, because it is a declaration not a command, and it is made in the First Person singular, which signifies the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, NOT the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the pope. But the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, whether he has renounced or not cannot call a Conclave, since he has no authority to do so!
  3. The Act of Renunciation contains no derogation of any terms of canon law which it violates as is required by canon 38.
  4. The errors in the Latin demonstrated clearly that the Holy Father had prepared the Act in secret without the counsel of canon lawyers and Latinists, and that therefore, it may lack formal interior consent or be based on other errors of fact or law or comprehension of Latin.

Thus, for Cardinal Sodano to proceed to act as if the renunciation were valid, violated the general principle of law, that the validity of the renunciation of power or right is NOT to be presumed.

This is a general principle of jurisprudence and is even found in Canon Law, in an applied form, in Canon 21:

Can. 21 — In dubio revocatio legis praeexistentis non praesumitur, sed leges posteriores ad priores trahendae sunt et his, quantum fieri potest, conciliandae.

Canon 21In doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws are to be compared with prior ones, as much as can be done, be reconciled to them.

In a word, Cardinal Sodano by acting was claiming a munus to act (Canon 40) and using that authority to exercise a ministry (Canon 41) to deny that the Pope had a munus which had to be renounced (Canon 332 §2)!

Thus the Act of Renunciation appeared to be null from MANY manifest aspects of the terminology and grammatical structure. Canon 41 therefore required that he confer with the Pope to have them corrected! Canon 40 invalidated any action he took prior to recognizing the act as authentic and integral, that is, not canonically invalid, irritus or null. — And in Canon Law, as per canon 17, to recognize something as valid, does NOT mean insisting it is valid, when it is not! That is fraud.

By omitting the honest fulfillment of his duties, he acted with reckless disregard for his own office as Dean. He exploited the canonical defects in the Act to perpetrate a horrible crime of misrepresentation. This was tantamount to robbing the Roman Pontiff of his office by exploiting his authority, so as to declare valid what was invalid to produce a papal resignation!

Thus, according to the terms of Canon 40 and 41, Cardinal Sodano should have acted differently. The act of renunciation was of ministry, not of munus, and therefore was NOT an act of resignation. Therefore the declaration of a resignation, which had to have emanated from Cardinal Sodano’s desk, was a canonical lie and fraud! And since, ignorance of the law in those who should know the law is not presumed, Cardinal Sodano cannot be excused from an abuse of his office (munus).

What Cardinal Sodano should have done!

Upon receiving the document of Renunciation, and noticing that the renunciation of ministerium was not the act specified by Canon 332 §2, he should have spoken with Pope Benedict in the presence of 2 credible witnesses and brought this to his attention, as Canon 41 requires. Then he should have asked whether it was his intention to renounce the Petrine munus or simply to renounce the Petrine Ministerium. In the latter case, he should have (1) asked the Holy Father to issue a Motu Proprio naming someone to be his Vicar extraordinaire who would have the potestas executionis but not the office of the Pope, during the remainder of his life, OR, (2) in the case that he indicated that it was his intention to resign the papal office, he then should have asked him to sign a corrected copy of the act, containing the word muneri instead of ministerio and correcting all the other errors, whether of form, of Latin, or grammatical structure etc.. To have done anything less would be a grave sin of disrespect for the Office of the Successor of St. Peter, to which the Cardinal was bound by solemn vow to protect and defend.

Simple. Easy. Legal, Legit. By failing to do that, he convened an illicit, illegal and invalid Conclave, and made Bergoglio an Antipope, not the Pope!

(Photo Credits: CTV)

 

Bergoglio declares to Scalafari: “I am the proof … that Jesus Christ was not God at all!”

Scalfari-Bergoglio

The Quote comes from his best friend Scalfari. The citation is discussed by the renowned Vaticanista, Marco Tosatti (link: here).

Schermata-2019-10-09-alle-10.25.19

Here is the English translation (by From Rome):*

When it happened that I discussed these phrases with him, pope Francis said to me:

I am the proven proof that Jesus of Nazareth, once he became man, though a man of exceptional virtue, was not God at all

The ego-mania of that is extraordinary. I would say, it is a totally diabolic boast.

Maybe Bergoglio is not the Anti-Christ, but he certainly seems to think he is!

It is important, that though the Vatican issued a statement attacking the reputation of Scalfari, it did NOT repudiate the quote as unauthentic!

Here Bergoglio is Excommunicated, AGAIN, by canon 1364. — Honestly, one cannot name this man any more in the Canon of the Mass, anywhere or any time. Please read this article (link: here) on what to do now. Though it applies to the idolatry he practiced in the Vatican Gardens on Friday, it’s just as applicable now, for this latest outrageous apostasy.

(Image Credits: A montage of Scalfari and Bergoglio: AKA, Scalfari and Bergoglio: Close collaborators)

_____________

* A Note on this Translation:  The Italian main sentence lacks a pronoun for the verb, so it can be read either as translated here, or as They are the proven proof ….. Also, the final clause says in Italian:  is not at all a God. — Regarding the last clause, I have translated it without the indefinite article, “a”, because the adverb “affatto”, which I render as “at all”, expands the denial of ‘God’ to all senses. And since the sense of “God” is The Divine Nature, the phrase “a God”, refers to “The Divine Nature and Existence”, I have held it unnecessary to say “not at all a God”, since that would be a reduplicative denial. — As for the main verb, I understand it according to the context of the speaker, Scalfari, whom history shows is the real spokesman for Bergoglio when he wants to speak to his initiates of things which he does not yet want to say publicly and openly. This is because he uses Scalfari to emotionally drain those who oppose his heresy and apostasy, by speaking with programmed and intentional language which is capable of a plausible denial after the fact. This is a trick to blame his opponents so as to get them emotionally to be incapable or unwilling to publicly criticize him in the future when he does worse things. — To his initiates, who recognize the Scriptural form:  And he said to me, I am the Way, the truth and the Life, the main verb must be read in the first person singular. But for plausible deniability, Scalfari has inserted the quote without a subject into a discourse on the passages of the Bible in which, according to the doctrines of the Jehovah Witnesses (to which Bergoglio seems to be familiar, if not a believer) prove that Jesus is not God. — Being a hermit, who is more concerned with the theological signification of expressions than other senses, I have translated the phrase into English to manifest what more probably both Scalfari and Bergoglio intended it to mean, when they were speaking in private and discussing how to use it for maximum effect against his enemies, because, obviously, Scalfari and Bergoglio both could have included a subject of the main verb, either Esse (frasi) or something similar, to tie down the meaning to one sense only. So my translation could be called the translation of the Occult meaning as intended and formulated.

Historic Conference on Pope Benedict’s Renunciation: October 21, Rome

All the readers of this Blog are cordially invited to attend, this historic conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict, entitled, “Is Pope Benedict XVI still the Successor of Saint Peter?”

Note the term: Successor of Saint Peter. — The reason for this conference is that there is nearly universal confusion over the canonical value of the act posited by Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, when the Main Stream Media announced that he had resigned the papacy, or at least, acted as if that is what they announced.

What happened in the 58 minutes prior to the public announcement by Mrs. Chirri of ANSA press agency?

Did Pope Benedict resign the papal office?

Is he still the Pope? possessing all the powers and privileges of the Office of Saint Peter?

Is Jorge Mario Bergoglio, consequently, not the pope, and never was the pope?

These questions and more answered simply and matter of factly from the Code of Canon Law, without any private interpretations.

What did Pope John Paul II mean and intend by Canon 332 §2?

TO KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS, please attend the conference at

THE HOTEL MASSIMO D’AZEGLIO

Via Cavour 18

On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 6:15 PM

Free and open to the public. — There will be private security on duty. — Seating is limited, so arrive by 6 PM or you may not get a seat!

Here is the official Italian announcement:

Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi condemns Bergoglio for Vatican Garden Rituals

By Most. Rev. Rene Henry Gracida

With regard to the participation of Francis in the travesty in the Vatican Gardens you can quote me:

“The participation by Francis the Merciful in the pagan rites held in the Vatican Garden is further evidence of his lack of concern for the canonical penalties he is incurring by his repeated participation in heretical and even occult religious ceremonies forbidden to all Catholics, especially one who sits (invalidly ?) on the Throne of Peter. But then he does not seem to have let the excommunication incurred by him under the law of Universi Dominici Gregis bother him and so the penalties incurred by him with increasing regularity these days become easier to dismiss. A day of reckoning will come for him as it will for each of us.”

Blessings,
+The Most Reverend Rene Henry Gracida
Adhuc multiplicabuntur in senecta uberi et bene patientes erunt
Ut adnuntient quoniam rectus Dominus Deus noster et non est iniquitas in eo
(Source: Private Correspondence with the Bishop)

Cardinal Sarah’s shameful confession of impiety

Rome, October 8, 2019:  The much beloved and respected Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, gave an interview to the notorious Marxist Newspaper, here in Italy, the Corriere della Sera. (The very same paper which was asked by the Vatican Secretary of State to attempt to get Pope Benedict to deny his tacit acceptance that he was still the pope).

In his interview, Cardinal Sarah made this shameful confession of impiety:

First, just three days after the Apostasy in the Vatican Gardens, in which Bergoglio presided over the adoration of the idol of Pachamama (the Andean equivalent of Astaroth), the Cardinal made this outrageous statement, in reference to Bergoglio:

«Chi è contro il Papa è ipso facto fuori dalla Chiesa. La Provvidenza ci vede benissimo, sa?».

My translation:

He who is against the Pope is by that very fact outside the Church. The (Divine) Providence sees us very well, you know?”

In all my years as a Catholic I have never heard such an absurd form of papolatry stated. There have been many Saints who argued or disagreed with the pope. They are now in Heaven. Saint Paul, the first of them, and his opposition is approved of by the Holy Spirit in Scripture.

Arguably, then, What Cardinal Sarah has said is pure heresy. It is in the very least a false and gross misrepresentation of the Catholic Faith.

But the Cardinal, to utter this just after the wicked deed in the Vatican, is incredible. That he uttered it at all, after 6 years of Bergoglio’s daily heresies and opposition from many Cardinals and Bishops, is incredible. IS THE CARDINAL SAYING THAT BURKE, SCHNEIDER, BRANDMULLER, ETC. are OUTSIDE of the Church?

But Cardinal Sarah’s impiety does not stop there. In the same interview he says, immediately before the above statement:

« La verità è che la Chiesa è rappresentata sulla terra dal Vicario di Cristo, cioè il Papa ».

My translation:

The truth is that the Church is represented on earth by the Vicar of Christ, that is, the Pope.

One wonders if the Cardinal has ever been to seminary. Because for more than a thousand years the Church has taught:

That Christ Jesus is represented on earth by His Sacred Ministers who receive valid ordination and jurisdiction in the Apostolic Succession.

To say that the Church is represented by the Pope, is to make the Pope the Vicar of the Church, not the Vicar of Christ. It also excludes that anyone else represents the Church.

But when you add both these errors of the Cardinal together, what he is really saying seems to be:

The Church of Apostasy, which is the New Christ to be worshiped, is represented on Earth solely by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, its Pope

I think if you ever thought that Cardinal Sarah is papabile, that you better think again.

If he wants to retract these words, now that he realized what was done on Friday, then he now has the grave obligation to do so!

My letter to a Catholic Bishop requesting a Catholic ReAction to The Vatican Ritual

Your Excellency,

I write you because I know you in the past have shown yourself to be Catholic and to speak the truth, which few do these days.

I also write you because you have indicated that you know what transpired in the Vatican Gardens on Friday, October 4, 2019, when many Catholic Bishops and Clergy and religious attended a Pachamama ritual of adoration.

Something about myself: I hold a B. A. in Cultural Anthropology from the University of Florida (Class of 1986), where I studied the cultures of the native peoples of the Americas intensely. I graduated with honors and was nominated to Phi Beta Kappa. I am familiar with the rituals of the pagans of Latin America from academic study. I have read the Theologia Moralis of Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori in Latin. I am the translator of St Bonaventure’s Scholastic Treatise on the One and Triune God, published by The Franciscan Archive in 2014.

In regard to what happened, I have never seen such an outcry on social media about Bergoglio’s scandals like this one. The Laity are right, this was a pagan ceremony.

Bergoglio invited, participated, approved and attended. He was not just a witness.

  1. There was employed an idol of Pachamama, the Andean Earth Mother Goddess.
  2. The Idol received the veneration of latria, when all those in the circle bowed down to it.
  3. Bergoglio showed respect for the ceremony by inclining his head on occasion.

When one recalls that during the Decian persecution Bishops were considered apostates, with loss of all office and right to communion, for merely procuring a document which said they had sacrificed to Mars, even though they had not, this goes way beyond that.

A lot of laity, myself included, think that the Faith needs to be protected by the Bishops by a formal act.

I am only a brother. But if I were a Bishop, I would think like this:

I am a successor to the Apostles, whom Our Lord rebuked when He said, “When I return, will I find Faith on earth?”

By “faith”, Our Lord always mean, faith in Himself, the true God.

As a Bishop it is my duty to prevent public scandal which arises from the sins of the faithful. This duty is more incumbent upon me, when the sin is by a fellow Bishop. Because if the Bishops remain silent when another publicly sins, the faithful and general public conclude that no Bishop has the Faith, and that the Catholic Church is merely a farce.

To avert such a scandal and to put things in true light, I therefore must make a public statement.

Canon 1364 already declares excommunication latae sententiae. Therefore, I do not need jurisdiction or office to publicly declare that this man, Bergoglio, has incurred excommunication for formal and material participation in the ritual of adoration of a false God, on sacred soil, participated in by priests and religious consecrated to Christ, into which ceremony there was mixed in, by the perpetrator, Bergoglio, the Our Father.

The Public Scandal is notorious. The actions are undeniable. The sin and crime are committed by the person not the office he holds. Therefore action can be taken by anyone who has grave moral responsibility, whether he holds jurisdiction of office or has a grave duty as a successor of the Apostles.

Apostasy by means of a pagan ritual of this kind is not a canonical crime which requires a trial or court to declare. Because apostasy of this kid is principally in the external act, consent to which is presumed. Unlike the canonical crime of heresy, which exists formally not only out of public expression but manifestation of pertinacity of the mind, the pertinacity must be investigated because the state of the mind, which is hidden, must be made manifest. Therefore in a public act of false worship, no investigation need be made. The Divine Faith requires that we do not attend such ceremonies and as soon as we detect that we are present at one, we must get up and leave. Moreover, we cannot invite priestesses or priests of pagan religions to our homes or properties to perform an act of false worship of an idol. Nor can we receive, as Bergoglio did, the idol as a gift after the pagan ritual. Therefore, the consent to the act is indisputable. This is a clear case of a canonical crime running contrary to the entire obligations of the Faith (Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me), against Hope (There is no other Name by which men are to be saved) and against Charity (Thou shalt love Me with all thy heart, and mind and soul).

Therefore, Bergoglio has incurred the excommunication in the canonical sense..

Therefore, I as a successor to the Apostles have the right and duty to publicly declare it.

Having read the book by Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest, and knowing that the failure to speak out for Bishops and priests is a mortal sin and the chief reason for their damnation, considering my state of life in the Church as a Bishop, I must act if I do not wish to be damned and share in giving scandal about this horror.

Therefore, I will declare that Bergoglio has incurred latae sententiae excommunication for his formal and material participation and cooperation in an act of false latria rendered to the idol of Pachamama in the Vatican Gardens.

 

These would be my thoughts, if I were a bishop.

I humbly petition, in virtue of Canon 212, that you think similarly and take action to stem the grave scandal and put to end once and for all the pretense of this man to be called a member of the Catholic Church.

Sincerely in Saint Francis,

 

Br. Alexis Bugnolo