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.

 

Advertisements

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.

Amoris Lætitia: An Apocryphal gospel for the 21st Century

Reblogged from https://en.denzingerbergoglio.com/2016/05/16/amoris-laetitia-the-bergoglian-apocryphal-gospel-for-humanity-in-the-21st-century/

______________________________

escribiendo

From Rome, for the Denzinger-Bergoglio

Saturday afternoon. Preparations are in place for the whirlwind of weekend pastoral activities… leaving certain responsibilities on hold…when suddenly I start receiving so many cell messages that I will never have time to answer… “Father, did you see the latest?” “Father, now concubines can receive Communion!”, “Father, is there no such thing as mortal sin any more in the Church?”, “Father – is it a sin to live as brother and sister now?”, and so on.

I end up opting to put the device on airplane mode, to get a moment to write a few lines about the new Bergoglian encyclopedia “Amoris Laetitia”: The “joy of love”. It is an encyclopedia that attempts to be a Gospel, the “Gospel of the Family” … of the Bergoglian family, that is. The word-count of the four Gospels of Christ, inspired by the Holy Spirit, comes to a total of approximately 76,000 words, in the Jerusalem version. The new “Bergoglian Gospel” (which we can consider an authentic 21st century apocryphal gospel), is over 60,000 words long, much longer than the three Synoptic Gospels all together. It’s confused verbosity – that, above all, causes confusion – has left all commentators, including the writer of these lines, in doubt as to whether or not it was worthwhile reading the whole thing, or to write anything about it…

To use the term “gospel” with respect to the recent document was not my idea, but rather what the author himself called it: “the Gospel of the Family” (AL 60, 63, 76, 200, 201). And we qualify it as “apocryphal”, since this is the term used for texts containing that mix realities and true doctrines with errors, lies and outright heresies. In the first centuries, they were normally the conceited writings of the Gnostics or Nicolaitans; for which reason their authors would attempt to ‘hide’ their identity in anonymity, as well maintain secrecy about their writings – hence the use of the Greek term ‘hidden’ to identify these writings: apókryphos (all hidden). But the Church has always witnessed the existence of apocryphal texts – full of verboseness, like certain dishes in which one notes nutritious and tasty ingredients buoying together with venomous elements in the same nauseating stew.

(Read the rest at the URL above:   Many thanks to the priest from Rome, for this handy summary and refutation of Amoris Laetitia)

___________________

Nota Bene:  While it is good to critique the errors and deceits of this document, ‘Amoris Laetitia’, it remains morally necessary that these errors be condemned and the Document be recinded, its authors called to repentance and the Bishops of the world urged to these things.

And now there is a means to urge this:  the #AL Conference in Rome, on June 25th, see Veri Catholici for more info.

How Bergoglio’s permanence signifies the Apostasy of the Flock

The False Shepherd, an detail of the illumination from the manuscript Douce 266 in the Bodleian Library

The False Shepherd, a detail of the illumination from the mss. Douce 266 in the Bodleian Library

Rome, May 12, 2016 A.D:  There is no greater and more radical challenge for the Christian believer than to take another as his Master.

Indeed, Christians are recognized by the fact that they regard Jesus Christ, and Him alone, as their Master, in accord with the scripture verse, in which Christ condemned the religious leaders of ancient Israel, Matthew 23:10 ff:

10 Neither be ye called masters; for one is you master, Christ. 11 He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Indeed, its very tempting, in today’s world in which truth is up for grabs and violent political clashes are being waged on all sides, for the Christian to take an “I’m ok, you’re ok” view, that is, a “get along with everyone” kind of attitude, in which truth does not matter, only co-existence.

The Loadstone of Hope

The only problem is, that there is a vast difference between the man who thinks Christ is a religious teacher and the man who is loyal to Christ no matter what.  First first regards Him as one might regard a philosopher:  taking the man’s teachings here and there, according to his personal tastes and likes, but not as a rule of life.

The second regards Him as the Incarnate Son of God, apart from Whose teaching No man on Earth can escape eternal and perpetual damnation in the fires of Hell.

As St. Augustine said, “If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.”

Indeed, what distinguishes the Christian from all other men is Hope.

Hope is that theological virtue least spoke of today, because in modern times a proper understanding and appreciation of it has been so attacked in the minds of men, that nearly nobody appears to have it or cultivate it or use it.

Hope is that theological virtue which puts full faith and confidence in the promises of God for those who keep them.  Its the most essential and key Christian virtue, given to us in Baptism, but cultivated only with good works.  If you do not really hope that God will reward you for fidelity to Christ, then obviously you will not be faithful to Him.  Likewise, if you think that you can manage for yourself the rules by which you will get into Heaven, there is no need for you to have hope in God’s promises, you can presume for yourself — a presumption which is both your ultimate self-deceit and the absolute guarantee of your own damnation.

All of this has an ecclesiological impact, that is, all of this effects the Church, what She is and your place in or outside of Her, who alone is the ark of Salvation, the Pillar of the truth, apart from AND outside of which no man woman or child can be saved.

The Temptation of Bergoglio

The great temptation presented by the election and presence of Bergoglio on the Apostolic Throne, then, is precisely this: the offer of a Church, of a Christianity, in which Christ is no longer The master, but merely a guide post from which one can wander here or there and remain a “christian” without fidelity and without the need to practice hope.

This temptation is offered the Cardinals, the Bishops, the priests, the religious and the laity, is offered thus to the whole Church, because in Bergoglio they have, without any shadow of a doubt, a man who does not believe in Christ as his Sole Master, who does not love or tolerate the Church as Christ founded it or gave it, does not suffer the rules the Apostles, the Faithful Disciples of the Lord handed down to us, and is filled with compassion and love for the traitor who sold Christ for 30 shekels of silver.

To have a public manifest heretic on the throne of the Apostle Peter, and tolerate him, presents for every true Christian, the opportunity of pretense, to keep the name “Christian” or “Catholic” without any more obligation to Christ.  Its the ultimate game-plan of Lucifer.

Either Bergoglio must Change or the Church has changed

Finally, if one were to accept this situation and the principles which erroneously lead to it, as have been briefly described here, it would be enough to end this article with the usual lament.  Because with faith it is possible to lament these things, but with hope it is not possible to tolerate them.  Nearly every author on the Internet today, and as far as we know, all the Cardinals and Bishops of the Catholic Church since April 8, 2016, the date on which “Amoris Laetitia” what released, do not have or are not acting faithfully to Christian Hope.

For the man with Christian hope, would declare and manifestly insist and demand that Bergoglio be canonically reprimanded, and if refusing 3x, be declared to be in open schism with Christ and His Church, and self-deposed by reason of his malice and heresy against Him and His Bride, the Church, whose first duty is to keep herself immaculate and worthy of Him.

Either Bergoglio must change or the Church has in fact changed, because if he repents, the Church is saved in Her fidelity to Christ, and Christ is glorified above all human whim, even the human whims of the Roman Pontiff. But if Bergoglio does not change AND the Church tolerates him, it is the Church which has changed, She has committed adultery with Bergoglio, accepting him rather than Jesus Christ as Her spouse, the God above all other gods…