In case you missed it…
https://twitter.com/jeffcimmino/status/1138458413283860482
Full story HERE.

“There are some issues that have such moral clarity, that we as a society have decided that the other side is not acceptable.”

This is a sitting U.S. Senator, proclaiming that baby murder is such an absolute moral good, that we’ve now reached the point where anyone opposing baby murder should be excluded from the public forum. Or perhaps imprisoned/loss of citizenship/deported.
Think I’m kidding? Watch the video.
Do you understand the connection between abortion, contraception, and sodomy? Do you understand the logical fallacy of thinking contraception is okay, but sodomy isn’t? Do you understand that acceptance of contraception, abortion, and sodomy by western civilization is AT THE CORE of the devaluation of human life and the overall nosedive of morality? If you really want to understand, and in a way “make sense” of the accelerating insanity in our midst, you can learn all about it HERE and HERE.
In a nutshell, Satan’s battlespace is anti-reality itself. All of these attacks coming at us from all sides are his attempt, since he is incapable of creating anything himself, to replace God’s creation, that is, REALITY, with an anti-reality.

“The final battle between God and Satan will be about marriage and the family.” – Sister Lucia of Fatima, in her letter to Cardinal Caffarra

We are upon the (belated) second anniversary of Cardinal Cafferra’s address to the Rome Life Forum, 19 May 2017, four months prior to his death. I reprint here an excerpt from his speech, and encourage you to read the whole thing HERE. It’s a sobering reckoning of what we are really up against.
This excerpt is from the second part of his talk, after he has already laid out how creation history, and the resultant human condition, “must necessarily give rise to two cultures: the culture of the truth and the culture of the lie.”

I would like to respond to the following question: in our Western culture, are there developments which reveal with particular clarity the confrontation between the attraction exerted over man by the Crucified-Risen One, and the culture of the lie constructed by Satan? My response is affirmative, and there are two developments in particular.

• The first development is the transformation of a crime [termed by Vatican Council II nefandum crimen], abortion, into a right. Note well. I am not speaking of abortion as an act perpetrated by one person. I am speaking of the broader legitimation which can be perpetrated by a judicial system in a single act: to subsume it into the category of the subjective right, which is an ethical category. This signifies calling what is good, evil, what is light, shadow. “When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies”. This is an attempt to produce an “anti-Revelation”.

What in fact is the logic which presides over the ennoblement of abortion? Firstly, it is the profoundest negation of the truth of man. As soon as Noah left the floodwaters, God said: “Whoever sheds the blood of a man, by a man shall that person’s blood be shed, for in his own image God made man” [Gen. 9, 6]. The reason why man should not shed the blood of man is that man is the image of God. Through man, God dwells in His creation. This creation is the temple of the Lord, because man inhabits it. To violate the intangibility of the human person is a sacrilegious act against the Sanctity of God. It is the Satanic attempt to generate an “anti-creation”. By ennobling the killing of humans, Satan has laid the foundations for his “creation”: to remove from creation the image of God, to obscure his presence therein.
St Ambrose writes: “The creation of the world was completed with formation of the masterpiece which is man, which… is in fact the culmination of creation, the supreme beauty of every created being” [Exam., Sixth day, Disc 9, 10.75; BA I, page 417]. At the moment at which the right of man to order the life and the death of another man is affirmed, God is expelled from his creation, because his original presence is denied, and his original dwelling-place within creation – the human person – is desecrated

• The second development is the ennoblement of homosexuality. This in fact denies entirely the truth of marriage, the mind of God the Creator with regard to marriage.

The Divine Revelation has told us how God thinks of marriage: the lawful union of a man and woman, the source of life. In the mind of God, marriage has a permanent structure, based on the duality of the human mode of being: femininity and masculinity. Not two opposite poles, but the one with and for the other. Only thus does man escape his original solitude.
One of the fundamental laws through which God governs the universe is that He does not act alone. This is the law of human cooperation with the divine governance. The union between a man and woman, who become one flesh, is human cooperation in the creative act of God: every human person is created by God and begotten by its parents. God celebrates the liturgy of his creative act in the holy temple of conjugal love.
In summary. There are two pillars of creation: the human person in its irreducibility to the material universe, and the conjugal union between a man and woman, the place in which God creates new human persons “in His image and likeness”. The axiological elevation of abortion to a subjective right is the demolition of the first pillar. The ennoblement of a homosexual relationship, when equated to marriage, is the destruction of the second pillar.
At the root of this is the work of Satan, who wants to build an actual anti-creation. This is the ultimate and terrible challenge which Satan is hurling at God. “I am demonstrating to you that I am capable of constructing an alternative to your creation. And man will say: it is better in the alternative creation than in your creation”.

Please click the link above and read the whole thing.
The reckoning is coming. Are you prepared?

Our Lady of Akita to Sister Agnes, 13 October 1973:

“As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests.”
“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.
“The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them”

This just in…

June 27, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, one of the two remaining dubia cardinals, today issued a strong critique of the Vatican’s working document (Instrumentum Laboris) for the upcoming Pan-Amazon Synod, calling it “heretical” and an “apostasy” from Divine Revelation. He called upon Church leaders to “reject” it with “all decisiveness.”
“It is to be stated now with insistence that the Instrumentum Laboris contradicts the binding teaching of the Church in decisive points and thus has to be qualified as heretical,” the 90-year-old German prelate wrote…
“Inasmuch as even the fact of Divine Revelation is here being questioned, or misunderstood, one also now has to speak, additionally, of apostasy,” Cardinal Brandmüller, who is a world renowned-scholar of church history, stated…
Brandmüller stated that “we are witnessing a new form of the classical Modernism of the early  20th century” in this document, which is linked with a false understanding of the development of dogma, which “is sharply opposed to the genuine Catholic understanding.” Thus, certain aspects of the working document have to be assessed as either “heretical,” or even as a form of “apostasy,” he stated.
“The Instrumentum Laboris for the Amazon Synod constitutes an attack on the foundations of the Faith, and in a way that has not heretofore been thought possible. Thus it must be rejected with all decisiveness,” he added.

Read the rest over there.
 

“As regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind, and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed.” Pope Leo XII, Immortale Dei #41, 1 November 1885

Are you obedient to the Roman Pontiff Francis (sic)? Because he’s 100% totally the pope, right? Do you “hold his opinion with firm grasp of mind?” Will you “openly profess” this:
—————————————————————-

Pope Francis: Church Must Learn to Abandon Old ‘Traditions’

It is a mistake for the Church to try to hold onto old traditions or to have clear answers for everything, Pope Francis said.

Jesus intentionally omitted telling his disciples many things so that the Church would learn to renounce the desire for clarity and order, the pope told participants in the 21st general assembly of Caritas Internationalis… By not always giving “clear rules” that would quickly resolve issues, Jesus was protecting the Church from the temptation of “efficientism,” Francis said, which is the desire for the Church to have everything under control, avoiding surprises, with its agenda always in order. This is not the way the Lord acts, he continued…
“Jesus does not want the Church to be a perfect model (STRAIGHT UP DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF INDEFECTIBILITY. More precisely, this is the diabolical INVERSION of the doctrine: Not only is the Church NOT indefectible, its actually THE WILL OF GOD that she be imperfect), satisfied with its own organization and able to defend its good name,” he said… Living like Jesus demands the “courage of renunciation,” the pontiff said, a willingness to abandon traditions that are dear to us… In the end, they did not need a bunch of doctrines and traditions. but the simple announcement that “God is love,” Francis said, and in the face of this great truth, “even convictions and human traditions can and must be abandoned, since they are more of an obstacle than a help.”
THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D. 23 May 2019 HERE
——————————————————————–
Are you obedient to this?
Read the rest at the link. There is plenty more to the article.
And now a word from Our Savior:

“Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and straight is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.”  Matt. 7:13-20

Have you heard about the mysterious case of Archbishop Ganswein and the obscure, “unpublished,” 41 year old sermon by Joseph Ratzinger, then Cardinal Archbishop of Munich-Freising, delivered at his Frauenkirche Cathedral (Cathedral of Our Lady) on 10 August 1978? Well, pull up a chair!
First, here is an excerpt from +Ganswein’s infamous speech at the Greg, 20 May 2016, in which he mentions the mystery sermon:

Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member. This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, or the white cassock. This is why the correct name by which to address him even today is “Your Holiness”; and this is also why he has not retired to a secluded monastery, but within the Vatican — as if he had only taken a step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy which he, by that step, enriched with the “power station” of his prayer and his compassion located in the Vatican Gardens.
It was “the least expected step in contemporary Catholicism,” Regoli writes, and yet a possibility which Cardinal Ratzinger had already pondered publicly on August 10, 1978 in Munich, in a homily on the occasion of the death of Paul VI. Thirty-five years later, he has not abandoned the Office of Peter — something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005. By an act of extraordinary courage, he has instead renewed this office (even against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers), and with a final effort he has strengthened it (as I hope). Of course only history will prove this. But in the history of the Church it shall remain true that, in the year 2013, the famous theologian on the throne of Peter became history’s first “pope emeritus.” Since then, his role — allow me to repeat it once again — is entirely different from that, for example, of the holy Pope Celestine V, who after his resignation in 1294 would have liked to return to being a hermit, becoming instead a prisoner of his successor, Boniface VIII (to whom today in the Church we owe the establishment of jubilee years). To date, in fact, there has never been a step like that taken by Benedict XVI. So it is not surprising that it has been seen by some as revolutionary, or to the contrary as entirely consistent with the Gospel; while still others see the papacy in this way secularized as never before, and thus more collegial and functional or even simply more human and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.

You can read the unabridged English translation of the speech from Diane Montagna HERE. The original reportage from Ed Pentin is HERE.
There is a lot to unpack just in this brief excerpt, starting with “demythologized the papacy.” This concept appears over and over in the +Miller book, which lays out the desired end result of transformating the nature of the papacy, dissolving the monarchy into a synodal ministry, that was being pushed around all the best German cocktail parties of the 60s and 70s. In particular, this idea was the pet project and lifetime work of Cardinal Walter Casper, antipope Bergoglio’s “favorite theologian” HERE . Are you telling me +Ganswein had no knowledge of this fact, and randomly pulled a fifty dollar word like “demythologized” out of thin air?
I’ve already written several posts on this speech that I won’t rehash here. Just read the plain words that the man spoke. Read the headline of this post. It’s right there in front of you.
Now, about that sermon he referenced; what exactly was the “possibility which Cardinal Ratzinger had already pondered publicly on August 10, 1978 in Munich…” What in the word was he talking about, and how would he have ever known about it or remembered it unless someone (cough) tipped him off that there was some stunning clue left there 41 years ago?
Guess what? Someone conveniently made it readily available, in the strangest way. Not only was I able to dig it up in five seconds, in English, but it also turns out that it had remained unpublished until… June of 2013, three months into the Bergoglian Antipapacy. That’s quite a coincidence, folks.

Well, yes, it would have indeed been possible. Nowhere is it written in canon law that the word “office” must be used. Canon law simply says the resignation must be “properly manifested” per Can. 332.2 (which is a canon specifically regulating PAPAL resignations, so to anyone using the “pope is above canon law” thingy… that dog won’t hunt).
So how could Pope Benedict have properly resigned without specifically using the word “Office?”
Let’s take a trip down memory lane. Here is an excerpt from President Nixon’s resignation speech, 8 August 1974:

From the discussions I have had with Congressional and other leaders, I have concluded that because of the Watergate matter I might not have the support of the Congress that I would consider necessary to back the very difficult decisions and carry out the duties of this office in the way the interests of the Nation would require.
I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as President, I must put the interest of America first. America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad.
To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home.
Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow.

See how clear and simple that is? Notice anything similar to the Benedictine Declaratio? Notice anything different? I was only seven years old, but I don’t recall there being any Nixovacantists in the aftermath of this, so even though he didn’t use the word “office” in the essential clause of the text, he must have done his resignation properly.
Why?
Because he NAMED the office he was resigning. The Presidency IS the office. He speaks earlier in the passage of the DUTIES of the office, and the difficulties in his carrying out those duties, due to current circumstances (as did Pope Benedict in a very similar way). But then when it got down to actually, you know, RESIGNING, he did not say, “I shall resign the DUTIES of the Presidency,” because if you only resign/delegate the duties, then you’re still the President. For the resignation to be effective, you have to resign the Presidency itself.
It was also helpful that when Nixon left on his helicopter ride, he really left. Benedict, not so much.
Remember, this is an issue because Pope Benedict only attempted to resign/delegate the ministry/duties, not the Papacy/office. If Benedict had simply said, “I resign the Papacy,” then it would have been finished, because the Papacy is synonymous with the Office. “The ministry of the Bishop of Rome,” is clearly not synonymous with the Office. Check the Latin Declaratio; he didn’t even bother to capitalize “ministry:”

Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

There is just so much to talk about in this sentence. First we see that he is intending to delegate the “ministerio” or the duties (Active Ministry) of the Office, but every reader of this space knows from Canon 131.1 that delegating the duties does not confer the Office, HERE.  Notice that he also inserts “Successor of Saint Peter,” which seems strange, because Benedict remains such whether he is present pope or retired pope. He forever will have been Successor of Saint Peter. We also have the controversy surrounding the Future Indicative vs Potential Subjunctive (“ita ut a”, “vacet”) where the notion that the See will be vacant goes from being a statement of fact to merely an opinion or possibility, depending on which Latinist you consult. See HERE and modified HERE. The phrase that I first latched onto, the one that first raised my eyebrow and nudged me to dig into this whole mess, was that he attached “ita un a,” (meaning, “in such a way”) as a modifier to to the resignation in connection to the (possible?) need for a conclave. If you really are resigning, why is the phrase even needed? But if you are only attempting to resign/delegate the duties, well then you might have to be splainin’ how even though you are retaining the office, you’re doing it “in such a way” that we might need a conclave and a new pope anyway. Is it plain enough that this entire paragraph is utter chaos?
The idea of the exactness and correctness of the Latin text being crucial to the validity of an act is ancient and well-documented. The following is from an article titled, “A Null Act?” printed two days after the Declaratio HERE. It provides several examples worth considering. Forgive the horrible google translate from Italian French:

It is a certain principle in traditional canon law that any rescript, brief or papal bull that contains a Latin fault is null. St. Gregory VII ( Registrum 1.33) declared a privilege granted to a monastery by his predecessor Alexander II, “because of the corruption of the Latin” , which constitutes “a very obvious sign” .
The decretal Ad audientiam of Pope Lucius III, which appears in the body of canon law (Decretals of Gregory IX, I, Title III, Rescriptis , v. XI) posits that ” the false latinity invalidates a rescript of the pope” . The pope forbids to believe a pontifical letter “since it contains an obvious fault of construction” . The gloss (in the official corrected text published on the order of Pope Gregory XIII in 1582) explains in this respect that a rescript of the pope “must contain no fault” , since it is “elaborated with a lot of time”. A Latin fault constitutes such a presumption of nullity that no evidence to the contrary can be admitted.

In the same article, you will read that the original Latin Declaratio currently posted on vatican.va is NOT the same document written and read aloud by Pope Benedict HERE.  Although the Vatican originally published the real document, it was quickly taken down because there were even more serious errors in the Latin than what remain in the version we see today. The two most glaring being:

1. Mixing tenses and grammatical incoherence, where declares was changed to declaro, and commissum was changed to commisso. The fact that these errors appeared in the crucial clause of the text is a serious matter.
2. The time at which Benedict stated he would resign was 28 February 2013 at the 29th hour.

Wait, what?
Yeah, he will totally not be the pope anymore at the 29th hour of the last day of February. (Keep in mind, the entire non-anglo world uses what we would call military-style 24 hour clock, with the addition of the colon. So what we in angloworld call “1:00 P.M.,” everyone else says “13:00”) So the syntax is not an issue, if only he would have actually written and read out “20th hour” or “20:00,” which is 8 P.M., which is what “they” amended the text to read. UPDATE, 11:09 MST 23 June: Although 29th Hour was in the written Declaratio, it sounds as if Pope Benedict stumbles a bit in the video, but then does say twentieth hour, “hora vicesima,” at the 01:24 mark.
Can you imagine if Nixon had said, “I shall resign the Presidency effective at 29 O’Clock tomorrow?” Do you think someone would have suggested to him that this was a nonsense statement, and that he needed to personally correct it, or else the resignation would not be properly manifested?

Mirroring Miss Banhardt’s most recent video here, for the sake of the combox. The content is very well put together; a veritable compendium of the knowable facts of the matter.  As you watch, keep reminding yourself that there are very prominent Trads who still insist that there is ZERO evidence that Bergoglio is an antipope.
Pro tip when commenting: If you start out with, “I haven’t watched the video, but…” just save yourself the time, because it’s getting deleted.
Enjoy!
———————————————-

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

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

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

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

When it comes to the law, words matter; the plain and proper meaning of the words. This idea is so important, they wrote this canon specifically to address it.
In addition to the importance of words in the law itself, there is also the importance of words in any individual act, as found in Canons 36 and 38. These appear in the section of the code called:
TITLE IV. SINGULAR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS (Cann. 35 – 93)

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

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

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

Canon 38 seems to be stating the obvious… an act which is contrary to law lacks effect. But the kicker is the last clause, which stipulates that if the competent authority expressly adds a derogating clause, the act DOES take effect, despite it being contrary to the letter of the law.  This means an administrator, facilitating an act which he knows goes against some portion of the law, is able to validate the act by specifically (“expressly”) calling out the conflict, and exempting (“derogating”) his specific act from that aspect of the law, provided that the administrator has the “competent authority” to do so.
Now you may have heard it said that the pope is above the law; that canon law does not apply to him, because he is the supreme administrator. That notion is false. The law is of divine origin, it does apply to him, and we know this because we have canons that specifically apply to popes and no one else. However, as supreme administrator, the pope does have the “competent authority” to derogate whatever he wants, as we just saw from Canon 38. The thing is, he has to actually do the derogation.
Let’s take a look at two very specific canons related to Pope Benedict’s failed partial attempted resignation, and apply what we just learned to the proper words of Benedict’s act and the proper words of the law. Example #1:

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

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

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

Canon 131.1 appears in the section of the code called,
TITLE VIII. THE POWER OF GOVERNANCE (Cann. 129 – 144)
This canon is very interesting in light of all the uncovered theological discourse about a “demythologized” synodal papacy, or a scenario where the ruling monarch might “delegate” part or all of his proper power of governance to a surrogate(s), in an arrangement akin to a Regency. In fact, I seem to recall that this notion was so widespread among contemporary theologians of the 1950s and 60s that someone actually wrote their doctoral dissertation on it, and then, the Gregorianum thought so highly of it, they published it as a book, which now can be yours for the low low price of USD$4.87.

Free preview (pg. 197, parenthetical mine):
“When contemporary theologians (i.e. Kung/Rahner/Kasper/Ratzinger/Dulles/Neumann) apply ius divinum to Roman primacy they do not thereby imply that there can be no changes in the way papal authority will be exercised in the future.”
To wit:

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

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

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

Look. At. The. WORDS.
The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself. Now in the case of the Petrine Office, we are obviously talking about the active governance of the whole Church. So…. what if the power of governance for the Petrine Office was “delegated” from the monarch to a regent? What does Canon 131.1 say happens in such a case? Look at the words.
It says that in such a case of delegation, the power of governance is transferred to the person of the regent, but not by means of an office. The monarch fully 100% retains the office and fully 100% retains his monarchy. Remember, Benedict could have chosen to derogate this clause (delegata, quae ipsi personae non mediante officio conceditur), in accord with Canon 38 as explained above, when he attempted to “resign”/delegate the active governance of the Church, but he did not. And since he did not, the force of the law remains in effect: Benedict is the sole occupant of the Office, even though he is no longer exercising the power of the office for the governance of the Church. Here, let him explain it:

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

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

 

Many thanks to Miss B. for publishing this essay a few days ago at barnhardt.biz.  I am re-presenting it here for the sake of opening the combox. Enjoy!
——————————————————–
Note well the two-pronged attack on error, via proper Authority and Jurisdiction, woven throughout this quote:

“We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord.
“For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said, “You shall be called Cephas” (John 1:42), that the Lord, after the confession made by him, saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”, addressed these solemn words: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.” (Mt 16:16-19).
“And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus, after His Resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold, by the words: “Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17).
“At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter, in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.
If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same, directly and immediately, received from the same, Our Lord Jesus Christ, a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema.
Pope Pius IX, PASTOR AETERNUS, 18 July 1870

What can we learn from this?
-Pio Nono was never vague or squishy
-The form of government of the Church, and the primacy of juridical and jurisdictional authority of the Church, was dictated by Christ Himself
-Since it was established by God Himself, it is immutable; not to be messed with in any way, no matter what the majority of 1960s German theologians thought HERE
-The Papacy was then, is now, and ever shall be until the consummation of the world, a Divinely Instituted Monarchy with full and universal power
-The transfer of the keys is conferred directly from Christ to Peter and to his successors (not through the cardinals, not upon the Church, nor through the Church to Peter… if at one time this seemed like a distinction without consequence, recent events have borne out its extreme importance)
-Yes, the Cardinals have the authority to elect a new pontiff, provided that the See is vacant (ahem, canon 359). But even if the See is indeed vacant and they validly elect a new pontiff, the papacy is bestowed upon the new pope directly by Christ Himself, not by the Cardinals, and not by the Church.
Let’s assume for a moment for the sake of argument that the 2013 “conclave and election” were valid, in the sense that Benedict’s failed partial abdication was not at issue. Let’s say the Cardinal electors followed all the rules, and voted legitimately. But the man they elected is an arch-heretic Marxist masonic non-Catholic, avowed enemy of the faith, who operates only in the material, non-supernatural realm of politics, economics, sociology, and ecology, extolling mankind to strive towards an earthly utopia as the ultimate good.
If that were to happen, is Christ really bound to confer the crown? While we have had awful, immoral, degenerate popes in the past, we have never, ever had a man like this one-world government, one-world religion poseur, squatting on the Chair of St. Peter. Never.
Think about this.
Now if the election/conclave were invalid, or in fact was not merely invalid, due to some procedural violations of UDG 81/82, but did not even take place, what would that mean? Would Christ transfer the keys to a man who was faux-elected in a faux-conclave that didn’t really take place? We are talking about ontological reality, not appearances. Sometimes appearances have nothing to do with reality, because as we learned, “An act of deception, no matter how cleverly conceived or convincingly executed, cannot change the objective reality of a given situation” HERE.
So if someone were to tell you that “the Church” has the power to grant or deny the papal office out of some majority opinion, or even super-majority opinion, or even “Universal Acceptance,” they would go against settled doctrine, and it would mean any pope could be deposed by mob rule.
If then they say that the super-majority (it’s certainly not “universal acceptance”) didn’t directly CAUSE the “resignation” to be valid nor CAUSE the subsequent “election” to be valid, but rather they invert the premise and say that the visible existence of the super-majority, while not causal, is in fact the PROOF SET of God accepting and acting, well then they would be claiming that the will of men forces the hand of God. God has NO CHOICE, and must act in accord with mob rule. Either this, or else they would have to claim that no no no, God accepts and acts on his own, of course, but then imposes His decision onto the minds of the super-majority, overriding their individual free will, and thus forcing the result of Universal Acceptance, in some sort of divine brainwashing.
These are circular arguments within circular arguments.
Note well, canon 332.2 is not a general norm, nor some kind of obscure/arcane law, but rather deals precisely with the occasion of a pope choosing to resign, and the required conditions for the validly of the resignation.
The majority of the Catholic world is operating as if this canon does not exist or does not matter:
Can. 332§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.
This tells us that:
-A papal abdication depends upon the free and proper manifestation of the resignation itself.
-The Cardinals have no authority to “accept” said resignation – their acceptance or rejection of the resignation has zero bearing the on the ontological reality of its validity; rather, its validity depends on it being freely and properly manifested. Christ is the arbiter, and Christ has bound Himself to the Law specifically to preclude the possibility of an “unknowable chaos” and guarantee the visibility of the Church, including at its earthly head.
We also have canon 188 fully in play in this matter, as there is a mountain of evidence that Benedict intended to create, and today believes he is participating in, an “Expanded Petrine Ministry,” which would be a most colossal “substantial error:”
Can. 188. A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.
So again, if someone claims that “universal acceptance” of the election by the Cardinals, or even by the whole Church, guarantees both the acceptance of the election AND the acceptance of the antecedent resignation, remind them of a couple things:
-Whatever his reasons, Pope Benedict did not resign the Munus in his Latin Declaratio
-Pope Benedict (in his mind) created, defined, and executed his future role, which should have been at the sole discretion of the new Supreme Pontiff, had one actually been elected
-“Pope Emeritus” is not a real thing, is not provided for anywhere in canon law, and is an impossibility: When a bishop retires his office and becomes an ‘emeritus’ per can. 402.1, he becomes bishop emeritus of his diocese precisely because he remains a bishop but without the office… one cannot “remain pope” without the office
Benedict demonstrates his continued pontifical duties in various ways, including writing books and granting interviews, refusing to live in seclusion, imparting “MY Apostolic Blessing”, addressed as His Holiness, continuing to sign correspondence “HHPBXVI,” wearing the papal garb (because ahem “no other clothes were available”), prevented the fisherman’s ring from being destroyed, newly minted Cardinals are brought before him for his blessing…
-Benedict testified numerous times about his belief in the indelible nature of accepting the papacy, once pope always pope, that he is not fleeing but remaining “in a new way” in the enclosure of St. Peter, to fulfill the “essential spiritual nature” of the papacy as its contemplative participant, while delegating the governance aspect to the active participant
-All of the above point to an invalid non-resignation of the Munus per can. 332.2, and by “substantial error” per can. 188, and subsequently a “conclave” and “election” in March of 2013 that never happened. This is not a conspiracy theory, it’s not crazy, it’s not schismatic. It’s the truth.
I don’t have a degree in canon law, nor any advanced degrees of any kind. I have a diploma from a public high school and a B.S. in Food Marketing (from a Jesuit institution, no less… AMDG, y’all). But I can tell you this: Words have meaning; in the law, and in actions. That words are to be taken at face value, both in the law and in specific acts, is actually part of canon law (more to come on this). Everything presented here is done so according to the plain meaning of words, and you don’t need to be a genius to decipher it. Otherwise, it would be Gnosticism.
I’ll leave you with this little bit from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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