Gänswein, Brandmüller & Burke: Please read Canon 17!

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

 

kardinal-burke-brandmueller-1030x438

February 14, 2019 A. D. — Today Diane Montagna’s article, entitled, “Did Benedict really resign? Gänswein, Burke and Brandmüller weigh in,” was published at Life Site News.

First, let me say a big thank you to Diane Montagna for bringing the controversy to the greater attention of the general public. In this way, all Catholics, who have a right to know of its existence, can at last be informed.

However, I do not praise the article’s author for the article itself, which in all frankness, I must say is full of sophistic arguments:  that is false manners of argumentation, and even false assertions, all marshaled in an attempt to demonstrate that Pope Benedict XVI did validly resign, and that everything His Holiness and his private secretary have said about this, is to be ignored!

I find it shocking that two Cardinals, to defend the validity of the resignation, have resorted to telling the whole world not to pay attention to what the Pope has said about the meaning and effect of his own act!  This is tantamount to rebellion against the papacy, in my mind!

I also wish to contradict the attempt by the article to smear Catholics who hold that the resignation is invalid as persons who are NOT knowledgeable about Church Law, the text of the papal resignation, or who are excessively scandalized by Bergoglio. As I pointed out in my previous article on How Usurpation of the Papacy leads to Excommunication, all those involved in asserting an invalid resignation is valid are risking excommunication for schism and positing acts which only a pope can do.  So they have a lot of reasons to ignore a serious and just consideration of the facts, especially if they just went along to get along.

But enough of preamble. let’s examine the sophisms in Montagna’s Article, in order of their appearance.

  1. Archbishop Gänswein dismisses the argument as making no sense.  So since he confesses not to understand it, there is really nothing proved by quoting him. I will observe that in German, which is the Bishop’s ancestral tongue, there is no equivalent of ministerium, munus and officium except by one word. So its easy for a German thinker to miss the problem of saying ministerium instead of munus. What the Archbishop says previously contradicts what he says now, so he probably was thinking in German then or is now. But surely he can understand the controversy, seeing that I sent him last month, with proof of delivery, a printed copy of my entire Disputed Question on the topic. But then again, maybe he cannot read English?
  2. Later on in the article, after quoting Archbishop Gänswein as saying openly that Benedict did NOT resign the PAPAL OFFICE, Montagna quotes an anonymous theologian as sustaining,

    supporters of this opinion need to show that Pope Benedict understood the munus and the ministerium as referring to two different realities.

    Ugh, what can one respond to such ignorance? Other than that Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 §2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 §1 and canon 41, which reading amply demonstrates that the Supreme Legislator Himself, Pope John Paul II, in promulgating the new Code of Canon Law requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things. — Those who are faithful Catholics, therefore, already know they refer to two different things, because the Pope orders us to do so!

  3. Then the same anonymous theologian quotes canon 15 §1 (actually he quotes §2, but I think that is an error), as saying that the resignation must be presumed valid. But that canon says that a law, which expressly invalidates an act, invalidates even if the one positing the act is ignorant of the law. Thus this canon argues against the validity of the resignation, not for it!
  4. Then the same anonymous theologian confuses the annulment process with this controversy, saying that Catholics who think the resignation is or may be invalid, must wait for the judgement of the Church!  Actually, canon 188 says that resignations made in substantial error are invalid by the law itself. That means, they are invalid before any sentence of any court determines the facts: they are null, void and never had any legal effect.
  5. Then, the article quotes Dr. Roberto de Mattei, who cites Canon 124 §2. — As an aside, I would ask that Dr. de Mattei respond to my criticism of his previous error of attempting to raise an opinion of late scholasticism to the level of an interpretative principle of canon law, in contradiction to the obligation of canon 17 — But that canon also contradicts Dr. de Mattei, because it regards only acts which are manifestly conform to the obligations of the law, when in the present controversy one deals with a prima facie non conformity! That is, with the fact that at first glance at the Latin of Non solum propter (Text of apparent resignation) and canon 332 §2, they are not speaking of the same things! For the former renounces the ministerium, but the latter refers to resignations of munus.
  6. Then Dr. de Mattei attempts again to flip a canon. This time its canon 1526 §1, the burden of proof is upon him who asserts.  Seeing that it is the Cardinals and Dr. de Mattei who long ago asserted first of all that the resignation is valid, the burden of proof is rather on them! That is why, the mere fact that the Cardinals and the entire Vatican have never published a canonical affirmation of the validity is a strong argument they have NEVER examined if it was. But in the case of a resignation, a Cardinal Elector is gravely bound to personally verify that the resignation is valid, because otherwise he will participate in an illicit Conclave and elect and Anti-Pope!
  7. Then, Cardinal Brandmuller attempts to flip two sound dicta: de internis non iudicat praetor (a praetor does not judge of things internal) and quod non est in actis, non est in mundo (what is not in the act does not exist in the world). I say this, because he cites these to argue that those who doubt the validity of the resignation are in error. However, since those who doubt the validity, as I do, do not base our arguments on interior intentions, nor on suppositions, but on the text of the act of renunciation itself, we are acting in perfect harmony with those dicta. Nay, rather, its Cardinal Brandmuller and Burke and Gänswein who violate these, because they say the Pope intended to resign the munus, therefore he did resign the munus, and that ministerium means the munus which is not renounced in the text, because the Pope intended to resign the munus, they judge the Pope’s intention not the act itself!
  8. Then, Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying: “I believe it would be difficult to say it’s not valid.” This, I will admit — for those who have not read the Code of Canon Law and studied this question of substantial error on account of not saying munus nor referring to the office — might be difficult to prove, because many are ignorant of the Canon Law and its obligations. But for those who do, or should know it, it is not!  — Just see my disputed question on it. You can find it in Spanish translation here. In that Question, I carefully examine and refute the 19 reasons alleged for the validity and marshal 39 arguments, drawn from Canon Law, Theology, Philosophy, etc. against the validity.
  9. Finally, Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying: “It seems clear to me that Benedict had his full mind and that he intended to resign the Petrine office.” — Having given no argument but his speculation about the intention of what Pope Benedict XVI intended to say, other than to deny what he expressly has said on other occasions, the opinion of this eminent Canonist must be disregarded as any gratuitous unproven declaration which runs counter to the facts is disregarded.

In conclusion, I would ask these three eminent prelates to read Canon 17. Therein, Pope John Paul II obliges all Catholics to understand canon 332 §2 in a specific manner. In that manner, it can be seen that there is no question at all that the renunciation of Benedict is invalid by reason of substantial error (canon 188) in thinking that a renunciation of ministerium effects a renunciation of the papacy.

I believe that the Cardinals in particular, perhaps out of their familiarity with the Annulment process which focuses on the intention as the formal principle of the validity of the bond of Matrimony, are missing the point of the teaching of Pope Boniface VIII (Decree of Boniface VIII (6th vol), 1.1, T.7, Chap. 1: De Renunciatione:) that papal renunciations deal formally with the verbal signification of the act, not on the intention of the one renouncing. Also, they differ significantly in this, that the power to tie the bond of marriage consists in the ones who take marriage vows. But the power to remove the munus of the papacy is held exclusively by Christ the Lord in glory, who has promised Peter to uphold the letter of Canon Law promulgated by his successor, Pope John Paul II, in canon 332 §2, and Who cannot act unless the renunciation expressly conform itself to that canon.

 

Advertisements

Christ regards Benedict alone, as His Vicar on Earth

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

ben+xvi+corpus+dni

In controversies, we often forget the higher principles and end up disputing only in regard to the minutiae. This is dangerous, because the chief motives, especially in controversies in the Church, should depend upon Eternal and Divine principles.

For this reason, it is important for us to remember that Christ Jesus founded the Catholic Church and is the Author and Grantor of all ecclesiastical offices: offices, which are of supernatural origin and to which He has affixed a gift of grace (munus) which cannot be alienated except by explicit renunciation.

We know this by Divine Revelation. For when He asked Simon bar Johan what men thought of Himself, Peter responded:  Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

To which Our Lord, Messiah and Redeemer responded:  Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Gospel of Saint Matthew, Chapter 16)

We often fail to recognize, that by a Divine Promise God, who cannot be bound and obligated to man, has nevertheless bound and obligated Himself to man in what He has promised.  In regard to the Petrine Office (munus petrinum), Christ has actually bound HIMSELF to the official acts of the Roman Pontiff and to the words thereof. He has thus WILLED as GOD not to act, if the Roman Pontiff does not allow Him to act, and to act when the Roman Pontiff allows Him to act.

While this binding of God to Peter is not universal, it nevertheless does regards Papal Acts, where the man who is Pope acts as pope.  It also regards the man who is pope, inasmuch as he is a man, in the matter of accepting and renouncing the Papal Office (munus petrinum). For when a man accepts his election or acclamation as Pope, Christ bestows on the man the office and gift of grace (munus) which he gave Saint Peter to be passed on to the Bishops of Rome until the end of time.  The Church in Her wisdom has signified this office and gift of grace with the only Latin word which means both office and gift, “munus”.

No other Latin word having such a meaning, Pope John Paul II, as legislator of the New Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1983, added munus to Canon 322 §2, as the fundamental condition to spark, as it were, the recognition of a papal resignation.

While men can ignore that word in canon 332 §2, Christ cannot.

This is no exaggeration, no mere human opinion. Because since it is of Divine Faith that Christ promised to bind and loose according to the word of His Vicar. His vicar in adding that word to the canon regarding papal resignation, did bind Christ Himself not to withdraw the office and gift of grace (munus), if the munus were NOT renounced.

The Sacred Hierarchy, and especially the College of Cardinals, need to recognize this fundamental theological truth of Christology and Ecclesiology, and return to a correct recognition of the facts of the case.  They must ignore what men say about what happened on February 11, 2013 on the basis of what a pool reporter, with little knowledge of Latin thought Benedict signified. They must ignore what all who think what that act signified. They must attend solely to Canon 332 §2 according to what that canon says in its Latin official text. They must read it in accord with canon 17 and the text Non solum propter.

They must recognize, that when the Vicar of Christ does not renounce the office and gift of grace which Christ gave to him alone, Christ cannot transfer it to another, even if the whole Church wants Him to transfer it. He cannot act, until His Vicar acts. And even if His vicar is confused due to old age, He cannot act.

Thus, it’s indubitably true that Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope, and that Christ Himself regards Benedict alone as His Vicar on Earth. God Himself can do no other. He cannot break His promise to Peter.

Has Cardinal Brandmüller ever read Canon 332 §2?

merlin_136523103_e91aae9d-a184-4062-ad16-3d825ef6cc84-articlelarge

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As Saint Thomas Aquinas says, when the errors of our prelates are public and grave and constitute an imminent danger to the Church, we are obliged to break deferential silence and publicly correct them.

For that reason, I will take this occasion to publicly call upon fellow Catholics to ask Cardinal Brandmüller a simple question:  Have you ever read Canon 332 §2?

I understand, that the general public might consider such a question proposed in public on a blog to be unseemly and insulting, and so let me explain why asking that question is germane for the Cardinal and for every other Cardinal in the Church.

I take occasion here to address a question to Cardinal Brandmüller because of an article he wrote on 2016, of which I just recently came to know of:  Renuntiatio Papae. Alcune riflessioni storico-canonistiche, which appeared in Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, Rivista telematica (www.statoechiese.it), n. 26/2016, published by the Unviersità degli Studi: Milano.

In that article, the Cardinal discusses principally whether Papal resignations can be done and under what conditions. The article is a fine piece of scholarship, and I do not contest any other point of it, here. Rather, I wish to draw the reader’s attention to 3 glaring omissions in the text, which cause me to ask the Cardinal a public question.

The Cardinal cites Canon 332 §2 no less than 4 times in his Historico-Canonical Study, on pages 6, 7, 10 and 11. In the first case, in reference to a papal resignation being an extraordinary event; in the second, in reference to the conditions for a valid resignation,; in the third, that a papal resignation is morally licit; and in the fourth, again the conditions for a valid resignation.

In both cases, on page 7 and 11, the Cardinal declares that the only conditions for a valid resignation are, libere fiat et rite manifestetur, citing the Latin of the main clause of that canon, which Latin means: “be done freely and manifested according to the norm of law“.

Its not that he does not mention the introductory clause of both Canon 221 in the Code of Canon Law of 1917, and contextual affirms that the same introduction is had in Canon 332 §2. Nay, its rather that he misses the striking difference in the Canon of the New Code in comparison with the canon of the old code.  Namely, that in the New Code, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, during the time (1983) with the future Pope Benedict XVi was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) added words which is not found in the old canon:  suo muneri.

How, anyone can read a Canon speaking about when a papal resignation occurs and is valid, and miss the key word of the introductory and fundamental conditional clause, is beyond me. But it seems that if a man so learned as this Cardinal can do it, perhaps all the other Cardinals have also done it.  Maybe even Cardinal Burke, too?

And this is why my request that Catholics ask Cardinal Brandmuller a question is not disrespectful nor impertinent. Because has has been demonstrated by many others, and myself, the word munus takes on the condition of a sine non qua, that is, of a requirement for validity which cannot be obviated under any condition.  Thus its manifestly wrong to speak of only 2 conditions for a papal resignation, since in the New Code, papal resignations only occur when the Pope resigns the Petrine Munus.

This is important, because in regard to Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, the Latin text renounced only the or a ministerium received, NOT the papal munus. This is important, because if Pope Benedict never resigned his office, the conclave of 2013 was uncanonical and Bergoglio is an Anti-Pope in every canonical sense of the word.

____________

For those who want to understand the correct canonical argument, why Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope and why Bergoglio was never pope, supported by Canon Law and all the evidence, and put in simple terms, see “How and Why Pope Benedict’s Resignation is invalid by the law itself.”  For a scholastic argument demonstrating that the text of the resignation does not effect a resignation of office, see my disputed question, here at From Rome, linked under the words “many others” just above here.

For the text of the resignation, translations, other articles, etc., see the same link under the words, “many others”, where I recite the history of the controversy.

PHOTO Credits:  The New York Times, retrieved via Google Images.

 

Where Robert de Mattei is wrong

This week, Catholic Family News, the traditional private Catholic Newspaper founded by the late John Vennari, publishes an article entitled, “Socci’s Thesis Falls Short: Review of the Secret of Benedict XVI“, an English translation of an article which was published on Jan 8, 2019 online at Cooperatores Veritatis. The translator is a Giuseppe Pelligrino. (Socci’s book details facts and canonical arguments why Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope, and Bergoglio an Anti-Pope, that is uncanonically elected). I will comment on the English version of the article.

The author, Dr. Roberto de Mattei, I have long admired, and have had the occasion to meet in person. His foundation, the Lepanto Foundation does much good work, and thus I bear him no animus. Nay, if the author of that article was someone unknown or not influential at Rome, I would probably have paid it no attention at all.

Moreover, the purpose of this present article is not to defend Socci’s book.  Rather it is to address the grave errors contained in De Mattei’s article, which on account of his personal reputation are magnified in the minds of many, and thus represent a danger to souls.

Here, then, I will discuss the errors briefly in the order they appear in that English translation by Signor Pellegrino.

The first error of which is that De Mattei sustains that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is valid, because there has been a peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

I will put aside the fact that several recent polls (not scientific) have shown that as much as 70% of Catholics reject Bergoglio as pope, because there is a more serious error to address, than disputing whether there is in fact a peaceful and universal acceptance of Bergoglio’s election.

Signor De Mattei is learned enough to own a copy of the Code of Canon Law. So I humbly suggest he read Canon 359 and consider publicly withdrawing his assertion that a peaceful and universal acceptance of an apparent papal election establishes it to be held as valid by Catholics.  For, that canon reads in Latin:

Can. 359 — Sede Apostolica vacante, Cardinalium Collegium ea tantum in Ecclesia gaudet potestate, quae in peculiari lege eidem tribuitur.

When translated into English — here I give my own translation — that canon says:

Canon 359 — When the Apostolic See is vacant, the College of Cardinals only enjoys that power in the Church, which is granted to it in particular law.

This is the reference to the power of the College to elect the Pope.  So, according to Canon 359, when there is no pope, the Cardinals have the authority to elect a pope.

Now, if the resignation of a pope is in doubt, then obviously, there is a doubt whether the Apostolic See is vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have doubtful authority. And when a resignation of a pope has not taken place, or a pope is not dead, the Apostolic See is not vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have NO power to elect another.

So, it should be obvious then, that “the peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of a pope by a College of Cardinals” which HAS NO POWER to elect a pope, because the See is NOT vacant, DOES NOT MAKE THE ELECTION VALID.

Second, De Mattei claims this principal regarding the acceptance of the election of a pope on the basis of commonly held opinion. But if he has studied Canon Law, he should know that Canon 17 does not permit common theological or canonical opinions to be interpretative guides to reading any canon, when the text of the canon expressly forbids an act to take place by denying the body which acts the power to act. For in such a case the mind of the Legislator takes precedence.

Third, what is worse, De Mattei then cites the Vatican translation of Canon 332 §2, where he admits that it denies that a papal resignation is valid on the grounds that anyone accepts it (in its final condition)! How that squares with the theory of peaceful and universal acceptance is impossible to imagine, since it undermines the validity of its application to the case of a disputed resignation. It does so, because obviously a Conclave called during the life of a pope who has not resigned, is called either because that College knows he has not and does intend to elect an Anti-Pope, and then it does not matter who accepts him, his election is invalid; or in the case the College opines that a resignation is valid, and they proceed to act as if there is no pope. But as canon 332 §2 declares, that they think it is valid, does not make it valid. Therefore, even if they think it is valid, when it is not valid, they cannot appeal to Canon 332 §2 to claim the authority in Canon 359 to lawfully elect another. Rather, they must follow Canon 17 and apply it. And so, whether the subsequent election be accepted or not, in the case of elections which follow papal resignations, the principal cited by De Mattei is improperly cited at best because it pertains to another case.

Finally, De Mattei is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest, when he says that Violi’s canonical study of Pope Benedict’s act of Feb 11, 2013 contributes to the confusion. Because that study, which is cited in the preface of the Disputed Question, published here in November, is a very scholarly well thought out and precise study without any animus or polemic, which gives great clarity to the canonical signification of that papal act. To say that it causes confusion therefore is not based on Violi’s work, but rather seemingly on a desire to advance his own opinion by insulting a scholar who shows greater knowledge of Canon Law than himself.

As for Archbishop Ganswein’s discourse at the Gregorian University, at first glance it does seem to be confusing. But when you research, as Ann Barnhardt has done, what opinions regarding the mutability of the Papacy were being discussed at Tubingen, when Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was a professor of Theology there, then you would rather say its revealing, not confusing at all.

For those who want to understand the correct canonical argument, why Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope and why Bergoglio was never pope, supported by Canon Law and all the evidence, and put in simple terms, see “How and Why Pope Benedict’s Resignation is invalid by the law itself.”

The Downfall of Luciferian Pride

13015-Lucifer-Fall-of-by-Gustave-Dore-1866.630w.tn

The Fall of Lucifer, by Gustave Dore, 1866.

The Sin of our Age

It is often said that pride is the sin of our age.

So often said, that perhaps we have never meditated on what that means or surveyed how true that saying is.

The word, “pride” can signify a sin, a vice, or the esteem for a thing, as in “I take pride in my Alma Mater.”

Of the sin, it is true that pride was the first sin of the first created person: Lucifer.  “I shall not serve” (Jerimiah 2:20), is the scriptural phrase oft quoted by the Fathers and Doctors and Saints and attributed, by accommodation, to Lucifer’s sign of rebellion.

Saint Bonaventure gives a wonderful meditation on this, in his tract on demonology. Therein, he says that it was in the insistence not to serve God, that Lucifer consummated his sin of pride.  This is because pride is the vice which first moves the spirit to go out of its proper place and seek a higher place.  Since the Angels were created to serve God, there could be no rebellion or pride in an Angel except he refuse to serve God.

The first effect, therefore, of the vice of pride, is to omit the divine service or worship of God.

This is because, the proper and just relationship of every creature to the Creator is one of a just recognition of the dependence of the creature upon the Creator in all things, a generous expression and manifestation of gratitude to the Creator and a diligent and exact worship of God in mind and heart and action, and thus the zealous service or obsequium of God.

Contrariwise, the effects of the vice and sin of pride are first to consider that the creature is NOT dependent upon God, and thus to omit the just recognition of that dependence, to omit a generous expression and manifestation of gratitude as a dependent and subject creature to the Creator, and thus to omit a diligent and exact worship of God in mind and heart and action, and consequently to omit the zealous service of God.

The self-evident characteristics of pride, when recognized, are a powerful measure by which one can recognize pride in one’s self and in our present age.

Let us take these characteristics and use them to measure what has happened in the Church in the last 60 years, and let us follow these considerations to their most impolitical but true conclusions.

Pride is the cause of its own downfall

For his sin of pride, Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, and all those angels who followed him in that sin, with him.

This casting out was formally an act of the Divine Justice: God did actually order and command and expel them from Heaven.

But for mankind, after his fall, pride is the cause of his own downfall, even without the intervention of God — though God does intervene and punish it — because it leads of itself to the ruinous disorder of man in his own mind, in his own heart, in his own person and body and relation to human society and with God.

The effect of Pride in the Church

Thus, even in the Church, the sin of pride has its own effect, even though God spiritually and temporally and eternally punishes this sin, which is mortal ex genere suo and secundum se.

It is mortal from its own very genus (ex genere suo), because it directly opposes the Divine Will which orders all things wisely and puts all in their proper place. Its mortal according to itself (secundum se), because it of necessity destroys the spiritual life.

Now the truth of the Church, obviously, like all things which pride corrupts, must be directly attacked by the pride of Catholics.  The truth of the Church, however, is that She was founded by Jesus Christ as the ark of salvation and the only true religion for mankind.

When pride is introduced into the very life of the Church Militant, it must, humanly speaking, undo the truth of the Church. And the worst sin of pride which could be introduced into the Church is the pride which would attack Her most directly and intimately.

Vatican II as the consummate sin of Pride

Now the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, as Pope Pius XII taught, the Holy Spirit, Her quasi-soul.  As is seen in the history of the Church, in moments of crisis, the Holy Spirit has raised up holy Saints and Doctors and Popes who have called councils to condemn errors and restore disciplines.

Now a general principle of ever creature is that it depends upon God not only for its creation, or existence, but also for its essence, nature and form; and not only for these its first being (esse primum), but also for its second being (esse secundum), that is, its actions.  This does not mean that creatures are puppets who act when God commands, but that creatures on the natural level cannot do anything unless God either permits or commands; and in the supernatural world, creatures cannot do anything meritorious of eternal life unless God permits AND commands.

For this reason, if God wills that a Council be called, He gives the grace; if it is accepted and is called, He will see that it accomplishes His will, though men must cooperate.  However, contrariwise, if God does NOT call a council, NO matter how many men collaborate, whether as saints or sinners, that Council cannot produce good fruit supernaturally speaking.

After 60 years, anyone with a sense of honesty must admit that something is wrong with Vatican II and its implementation.  That leads to the obvious conclusion that pride has entered into the mix somewhere.

As a matter of historic fact, however, it can be confirmed that pride had everything to do with Vatican II.

First, because a council to reunite all Christians was first promoted at the international Convention of Masonic Lodges in Istanbul, when Archbishop Roncalli was the Apostolic Nuncio in Greece. At that conference, the Greek Patriarch was persuaded to accept the suggestion. He visited with Roncalli and suggested it to him. And afterwards Roncalli admitted this to his private secretary.  Years later when Roncalli was elected Pope and took the name John XXIII he called Vatican II for precisely this reason.

So the inspiration for Vatican II came from the Masonic Lodges, whose three-headed God, is a devil. Hence, the inspiration for Vatican II does not come from God, but from a demon of pride. Hence the true spirit of Vatican II must be a demon of pride, not the Holy Spirit, because God does not baptize the work of demons.

Pride visible in the act by John XXIII to call Vatican II

That pride was visible at Vatican II is obvious to all who honestly look at the history of the Council.

First, John XXIII called the Council without any reason to do so.

Second, he called a Council which he personally knew was suggested to him by the Freemasons.

Third, he called a Council to change things which the Holy Spirit had already ratified in previous councils and through Sacred and Ecclesiastical tradition and the abundant fruitfulness of the Church living and promoting these things.

In this way, the pride of John XXIII offended the entire Holy Trinity.  Because God the Father is the author of order and reason, not of whims and chance; God the Son is the Head of the Church, not the Freemasons; God the Holy Spirit is the Lord and vivifier of the Church, not the Pope.

A pope cannot just will something to happen supernaturally and it happens. He is not God. And to act in this way is a sin of consummate pride, because it presupposes that one is God, when one is not God.

Pride visible at the Council

That pride was visible at the Council can be seen in this: that for the Bishops of the world to convene for a council when there was no reason and to consider changing what had no need to be changed, and to presume to do this without any sign of God, relying only on the whim of a pope who is not God, is consummate pride.

To abandon carefully prepared schemata for the Council on a whim vote, is consummate pride, because certainly the best theologians working for 2-4 years are more able to prepare texts than a mix of good and bad theologians working hastily for a compromise.

To insult learned and holy Cardinals during the Council by denying them the microphone and cheering their removal from the podium, is consummate pride, because it attacks the better and exalts the mediocre.

To vote on documents which are dozens of pages long in Latin, when one has little knowledge of Latin, and to do so in a few weeks before having accurate translations, is consummate intellectual pride and wilfulness.

To call such a council “ecumenical”, “dogmatic”, “sacred”, “sacrosanct”, “infallible” or “pastoral” is also consummate pride, because it is a lie to call such a gathering any of these things.

To approve such documents and insist they then become the very norm of ecclesial renewal, is consummate pride, because it exalts the whims and haste of clergymen over the Headship of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the Church.

Pride visible in the Conciliar Texts

Consummate pride is also visible in the very texts of the Council.

It is a work of pride to change discipline before defining doctrine.  But this is what Sacrosanctum concilium, the document on the liturgy did.

It is a work of pride to exalt Divine Revelation, all the while asserting one’s authority to change everything in the Church which was founded in fidelity to Divine Revelation.  But this is what Dei Verbum did.

It is a work of pride to praise the pursuit of the perfection of Divine Charity, all the while setting up roadblocks and instituting processes for the breakdown and dissolution of the very communities dedicated by vow to pursue this: religious communities. But this is what Perfectae Charitatis did.

It is a work of pride to assert anyone can be saved apart from Christ and apart from His Church.  But this is what Nostra Aetate did.

And one could go on and on about nearly all the Vatican II documents.

Pride visible in the Aggiornamento

Consummate pride is clearly visible in every aspect of the Aggiornamento.

First, it is visible in the very name of the renewal and application of the Council: “aggiornamento”, which is Italian for “updating”, as if the Church whose very quasi soul is the Lord and Vivifier, the Creator Holy Spirit, could be in need of updating, that is could be old or decrepit; or could be in need of being up to date with the world, though She is the immaculate Bride of God!

Second, consummate pride is visible in documents of the Aggiornamento, which cite only the Council or Scripture in the “light of the council”, as if the Catholic religion now consisted in living by the conciliar texts, just as the Church before Council lived by Sacred Scripture.

Third, consummate pride is visible in the very history and course of the Aggiornamento, in which though despite 70 years of statistical and moral proof of failure and sterility, the Sacred Hierarchy pursues loyalty to the Council even to the destruction of all souls and institutions.

Fourth, consummate pride is the very spirit of the Aggiornamento, because all addicted to it refuse to repent, to recognize their spirit as prideful, and to admit any change of course is now a moral obligation.

In short, Vatican II allowed to enter into the Church the spirit of luciferian pride and the Aggiornamento and the Sacred Hierarchy have made this diabolic spirit the official religion of the Catholic Church.

Some examples of Pride in the daily life of the Church

It is consummate pride to offer the Divine Sacrifice while turning your back to God (versus populum).

It is consummate pride to obstruct, prevent and forbid that a priest offering sacrifice to God face God (ad orientem).

It is consummate pride to put any temporal need or activity before the worship of God, by not opening Churches as early as possible, having mass in the morning, or opening them in the evening to end the day thanking God.

It is consummate pride for priests and religious to spend more time watching TV or eating than praying to God.

It is consummate pride to assert and insist that the laity receive the Most Blessed Sacrament in the hand, or in the Latin Rite, while standing.

It is consummate pride to move the Tablernacle which contains God, off the central axis of the Church and/or to hide it away from the faithful.

It is consummate pride to use secular or worldly music or instruments during Divine Worship.

It is consummate pride to use translations or liturgical texts which are ideologically manipulated in a sense incoherent and or opposed to Scripture, Tradition or the working of holiness in the Church as it has been for 1965 years prior to the close of Vatican II.

It is consummate pride to alter the Sacraments and to alter the rituals of the Mass.

It is consummate pride to alter marriage vows and the rules of religious orders founded by Saints and fruitful with numerous saints.

One could go one, endlessly, I think, but you get the idea.

What are you going to do about it?

Well, obviously, only to lament these problems, would be an act of pride, because as Catholics and God’s creatures we are obliged in justice to oppose pride and undo the works of pride.

But it would also be a work of pride to leave the Church.

It is a work of pride too to want only to manage the problem, or milk the problem, without seeking to cure the problem, as many groups and “Catholic” publications do without realizing it, perhaps.

It is also a work of pride to think or attempt to negotiate with a devil or compromise with pride and the works of pride.

The humble thing to do is 1:  to completely reject what has come forth and been conceived in pride and to live one’s Catholic life as good Catholics lived before the Council, and 2: to strive to convince all other Catholics to do the same.

 

 

Ad orientem, the Catholic & Apostolic thing to do!

4345cardinalsar_00000003864

Rome, July 8, 2016 A.D.:  His Eminence, Cardinal Sarah, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, has called upon all priests of the Roman Rite to return to praying the Mass ad orientem.

Ad orientem, is the Latin for “facing the East”.  In matters liturgical, it means facing the Tabernacle placed at the center of the narthex of the Sanctuary, that is the point on the central axis between the High Altar and the back of the Church.  Though, technically, in Major Basilicas, the doors of which open to the East, it means facing the main doors, as the Pope does at the Basilica of St. Peter and St. John Lateran, at Rome.

Ad orientem, means, thus, that the priest when he offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, would be facing away from the congregation, in most churches, and showing them his back.

Here are some sound reasons, to heed the Cardinal’s invitation:

  1. He is the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, hence it must be presumed he has the Pope’s permission to issue this invitation, therefore, not to, would signify disrespect at the least, for proper ecclesiastical authority.
  2. He is the most eminent member of the College of Cardinals from Africa, so not to heed his invitation might make some thing that one is a racist, like Cardinal Kasper.
  3. Catholics and even all the Orthodox, have faced ad orientem, during Mass for 1965 years.  The practice only was attacked after Vatican II, by the bad example of Paul VI, who tolerated and practiced this.
  4. Ad orientem, has always been the liturgical law in the Roman Rite, even the rubrics presuppose this, but priests have been constrained by political forces in the Church, and often threaten gravely with spiritual, legal and physical violence if they kept this tradition.
  5. This practice is more biblical, because when Our Lord Ascended into Heaven, He ascended into the East, and the Apostles and Disciples gazed for a long time to the East to see if Our Lord would immediately come back.
  6. This practice is more eschatological, for when the Mass is offered in this direction, the whole congregation of the faithful show that they are awaiting the imminent return of the Lord, at the end of time.
  7. This practice is more theological, because the Priest faces the Son and the Father, in the Holy Spirit, and the congregation worships the Triune God with the Priest.
  8. This practice is more mystical, because the priest, and the congregation with him, turns to God, face to face, as Moses did on Mt. Horeb, when the living God revealed Himself for the first time, face to face to a human being.
  9. This practice is more prayerful, since by facing in this way, there are less distractions, and the dialogue of prayer, which should be directed solely to God, is directed solely to God.
  10. This practice is more priestly, because the priest has the intimacy of praying to God without distractions and with his own face veiled to the people, as it were, since they cannot see him face on; while the faithful join him in the same attitude of prayer, sharing in it in their own way.
  11. This practice is more ecclesiological, because priest and faithful pray in the same direction in unity.
  12. This practice is more pastoral, because it manifests evidently to all the faithful that the Mass is a prayer to God.
  13. This practice will promote vocations, because men and altar boys will recognize more clearly that the role of the priest is not to be an actor before men, but a priest before God, and that the Mass is a solemn act of sacrifice and worship, not a stage for entertainment.
  14. This practice will promote reverence, because facing God in this way removes all need for showing off to the congregation, and obstructs it.
  15. This practice will promote mass attendance, because the faithful, wearied throughout the week by their mundane duties, will at last have the most important moment of their week, the prayer of the Canon of the Mass to themselves as a prayer time with God, their Lord, Savior and Redeemer, without distractions.
  16. This practice will promote the restoration of the Ancient Liturgies of the Church, because the silly language and non reverential rubrics promoted by the Aggiornamento will be more easily seen for the discordant realities that they are.
  17. But most importantly of all, Catholics always have prayed the Mass in this way, and if that or all these reasons are not enough, there is something gravely lacking in the faith of the local church and her pastors.

Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s revelations point to Conclave Pact to elect Bergoglio

Archibishop Georg Gänswein of the Pontifical Household, former private secretary to Pope Benedict XVI

Archibishop Georg Gänswein of the Pontifical Household, former private secretary to Pope Benedict XVI

Rome, May 24, 2016:  The recent revelations by Archbishop Georg Gänswein point to a stunning possibility, that during the Conclave of 2005, which elected Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI,  Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio and his supporters consented to his rival’s election, on the condition that after a fixed number of years, he would resign, and the next conclave elect himself Pope.

This theoretical postulate is based on the following reasoned speculations:

  1. There is precedent in the history of Conclaves for deals among rival factions:  As we noted in the article, “Team Bergoglio” and the legacy of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro, during the Conclave which elected Saint Pius X, there was the curious consequence that Rampolla’s supporters were consecrated Bishops by Pius X following his election, and Pius X’s supporters, bishops, by Cardinal Rampolla.
  2. Archbishop Gänswein confirms the existence of the St. Gallen group, a self-named “mafia” organization in the Church which worked actively to promote the election of Cardinal Bergoglio in 2005. This confirmed what Vaticanist Paul Baade admitted last year.
  3. Pope Benedict XVI explained his reason to retire for reasons which do not seem credible:  namely for poor health, even though he has not lost the capacity to speak, think, walk or make decisions.
  4. Pope Benedict XVI planned his retirement well in advance:  according to Cardinal Bertone, as much as 7 months in advance; according to publish reports, the former Cardinal of Palermo knew more than 2 years before, a fact which he revealed during a dinner in a restaurant in China.
  5. Pope Benedict XVI has not issued one word of criticism of Pope Francis’ outrageous statements and scandalous actions.
  6. The supporters of Pope Benedict XVI have not personally criticized Pope Francis in public for any of his heretical, erroneous or scandalous words or actions during the latters’ pontificate.
  7. There is constant emphasis, by Pope Benedict XVI and now Archbishop Gänswein that in some way both Benedict and Francis share the Petrine ministry.

None of this seems possible to From Rome without there having been a formal agreement among the Cardinals in the conclave of 2005 to share the Papacy among the 2 rival candidates.

Finally, if such a pact were made, it is not clear whether it would violate UDG 81 or canon law. But seeing that there is yet no firm evidence of the existence of such a pact, we will omit speculating as to its effect in law on the basis of UDG 81 (read more about this in the series of articles published here).

However, if this pact to elect Bergoglio did in fact happen, it would be more than sufficient explanation why none of the Cardinals have made any objection or heard any petitions regarding the Team Bergoglio scandal, in which it appears that up to 20+ Cardinals canvassed for votes for Bergoglio, most likely with his consent, in the 2013 Conclave, in violation of UDG 81, the violation of which is an excommuncate-able offense. For, if the College made an pact regarding votes in 2005, they might very well have been excommunicated, in virtue of the Papal Law, since that time. This might explain the utter breakdown of public virtue and faith which is spreading like a wild fire among the Sacred College, as a spiritual punishment for that most occult crime.