Words matter, in law and in actions: Canon 131.1 and the retention of Office

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:

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,
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.
Screenshot 2019-06-15 at 08.06.32
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


50 thoughts on “Words matter, in law and in actions: Canon 131.1 and the retention of Office”

  1. Thanks Mark. If people refuse to see the Hand of the Holy Ghost in Canon Law to navigate us through this crisis, they are fools.
    St. Bernadette; pray for us.

  2. Thank you for bringing more ammo. This is important.
    Let me expand a little on few of your thoughts. I will try to lay it out in simple language.
    Office and ministry are inseparable. If you hold the office you have duties to fulfill. Unless you have explicit rights you can not change that. “Office” is more that just sum of all ministries but you can not resign from ministries and hold whatever left.
    B16 by his act of ‘resignation’ introduced confusion an chaos, even if it wasn’t clear at the moment for everyone. By not following the law he caused to arise of three camps (simplifying a bit here):
    – those who say that he did not resign (I’m in this camp)
    – those who say he did resign (let’s use Mr O’Reilly as representative)
    – those who say he transformed or exploited new way of exercising Saint Peter’s Office (Myron, and I’m afraid, B16 himself are in this camp)
    I leave first two groups for now and focus on third one.
    B16 said he resigned from papal ministry.
    There ate two possibilities for this to be valid. First: he has the power to change the Office the way he wants. Second: he does not need ant ‘transforming power’ because papacy was created this way from very beginning, it just happened that this option was never used in the past.
    Lets consider for a moment that one of above options is in play. B16 resigned from ‘active ministry’. What the heck he means by that. Every single ministry is an active act, by accepting the Office one ‘accepts all duties. Does he mean ‘physical activity’? For example a pope is leading liturgist. Does B16 resigns from that or not? What ministry he exactly resigned from?
    On other note. What will happen if both B16 and BaF (Bergolio aka Francis) tomorrow will resign from their ‘daily ministries’? Then we will have four popes: one for active night ministry, second for passive night ministry, then third for active daily ministry and forth for passive daily ministry. Sounds like a joke but it is only logical consequence of accepting third option. Soon we may have 1425 popes. Why not?
    No, resignation from ministry is simply not possible. As Mark pointed pope can only delegate some (not all) of his ministries to other individuals or groups. Actually that happens all the time, but he alone holds the Office and he is responsible. Any attempt to ‘resign’ from even a single ministry is a transformation of Office.
    I did not study ‘German theologians’ and don’t know what they postulate. Do they think they can transform papal office or do they think it was possible from beginning for many individuals to hold office at the same time. If somebody knows I’m all ears. …actually this is just courtesy. I use simple method to solve such problems and am sure both views leading to multi-papacy are wrong. Mark showed that with legal approach.
    If I’m right we are left with first two options: resignation of B16 did took place or not. Lets wait for Mr O’Reilly to respond. I also ask for treating him gently. He is the only one who has the courage to defend his positions against whole bunch of guys with different ideas. He may not be able to answer everything we throw on him 🙂

    1. @MC wrote: “– those who say he transformed or exploited new way of exercising Saint Peter’s Office (Myron, and I’m afraid, B16 himself are in this camp) and “I did not study ‘German theologians’ and don’t know what they postulate.”
      It has never been *proven* that Pope Benedict intended to transform the Petrine Office. Perhaps it would be worth reading this exchange between PopeAuntie and Legris on I saw on Twitter last night.
      PopeAuntie: “I have to wonder how a man of such carefully chosen words as Benedict could have prepared such a sloppy letter of resignation, complete with grammar errors, invalid time and of course use of ministerium instead of munus, if he were not sending us a message.”
      Legris: “Ann Barnhardt talked about an essay of Card. Ratzinger in around 1978 which speculated on even the trifurcation of the papacy:1 Catholic, 1 Protestant (which one?) & 1 Orthodox (which one?). So he was trying to “start” the practice in 2013 himself…So mused AB.”
      PopeAuntie: “1/ This was Ratzinger summarizing the ecumenical ideas of the Russian author Soloviev. He did not endorse the ideas himself.
      The essay was in the journal Communio but what of interest is that in a series of published essays Dienst an der Einheit, our old friend Kaspar
      2/ had mentioned some arian/ trinitarian work by Eric Peterson from the 1930s. This same work was mentioned by Ratzinger in his essay later in the same book, but by means of an apparent rebuttal of Kaspar’s position.”
      Legris: “Thank you! I am glad you know that background so very well. I have to check AB’s “claim” once again. It is difficult for one person alone to amass such an amount of knowledge. Thank you again.”
      PopeAuntie: “This was a case of confirmation bias on Ann’s part. It’s hard to be detached when you are passionate about sth.
      Nobody knows what Benedict was thinking in Feb 2013. In the end we can only deal with facts.”

      1. I could be wrong, but I don’t think Ann has claimed that Ratzinger ever confirmed his support for the idea of a synodal papacy in the 1960s, when the idea had widespread currency. Ratzinger was certainly in the thick of it, but I have yet to see anything from his hand in support of the idea back then. What’s more, the point is mute: Whether or not he supported the concept in 1968 is no grounds for what he did in 2013, either way. The indisputable point, proven by the material in the Miller dissertation, is that the IDEA has been in Ratzinger’s mind for at least 50 years. This point is not insignificant.

      2. It has never been *proven* that Pope Benedict intended to transform the Petrine Office.
        No, I believe it was not. I also believe it can not be proven at all,
        except type of prove where you show in series of calculations that 4=0. (In fact somewhere on the way you perform, not obvious, division by zero resulting in above “proof”.)
        Pope Benedict does not have the power to transform Petrine Office. He can try as much as he wishes, he can get all help of ‘German theologians” he wants. He has no power to do so.
        Thinking about that I’m getting very much inclined to thesis that it is indeed what is being pushed on us through backdoor.
        Also it really doesn’t matter what was Ratzinger’s positions in ‘German debate”. Whatever he’e position was he could change it in the meantime many times over. What is important is fact that ‘German debate’ really took place.
        Thank you for quote from discussion, I’m not on Twitter or Facebokk or anything (except Slack).

  3. Thank you for another article that is logical and reasonable and frankly, very difficult to refute.
    The more I read and research on this subject the more convinced I become that there is a diabolical element of idolatry at work, not so much of the individuality of a pope, but of the Office.
    And that would be an element the devil would be able to use over and over. And think how the different members of the Church might be affected by it. Bishops afraid to oppose the person of the pope for adoration of the office. Laity following blindly. Canonists knowing in their hearts that Canon Law has only the force of those tasked with enforcing it.
    Tragic and terrible. But God has given us many tiny mustard seeds that are beginning to sprout. The seeds will grow the Church again. I now see that in this age, the laity are the mustard seeds.

    1. We were literally told to be on watch for a deception so cunning, even the elect could be fooled, yet people think it’s impossible: “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.” Matt 24:24
      Surgent enim pseudochristi, et pseudoprophetae : et dabunt signa magna, et prodigia, ita ut in errorem inducantur ( si fieri potest) etiam electi.

    2. grandmaintexas says:
      “The more I read and research on this subject the more convinced I become that there is a diabolical element of idolatry at work, not so much of the individuality of a pope, but of the Office.”

      I’ve long thought that. And guess where the seeds of that idolatry were sown?
      Answer: The First Vatican Council

  4. Steven O’Reilly will be along any moment now to explain to you all how this doesn’t really say what it obviously says. Because Benedict’s words have the awesome magical power to change reality itself.
    Also, we should just trust that everything Benedict says (or rather writes) since his post retirement/status of the-not-quite-retired-Pope of the Emeritus-in-papal-garb-that’s-not-really-papal-garb office of the non-office.
    Even though O’Reilly openly admits the St Gallen Mafia “urged” Ratzinger to retire by 2012. NOT that they were coercing him in way – mind you! No no no. Just gently “urging” him see? Besides, old Ratzy had just planned on running away all along- you know. No coercion needed. Even though O’Reilly also can’t deny that Benedict’s pleas for prayers that he might not “flee from the wolves” early into his papacy certainly SOUNDS like coercion – but hey… there’s no reason that we need to prove that that was coercion or that it ever stopped. Let’s just ignore that and assume that it was just gentle “urging” or that it did magically stop even though we can’t prove that it did. We should just assume Benny would never bend to such a thing. Instead Ratzy did it all willingly. And it was ALL perfectly licit and perfectly keeping with Tradition – because Celestine V – even though Celestine V did NOT continue on with the papal trappings and actions that Benny has retained -oh but HEY – that is also NOT EVIDENCE!
    Now there. See? Steve doesn’t see any evidence for these wacky conspiracy theories.
    whew! *sips his scotch and passes out*

  5. Mark Docherty says:
    June 15, 2019 at 7:57 pm
    Be careful, LG. Vatican I is dogmatic. Its teaching may have used new language, but its substance is entirely aligned with Trent.”

    Trent never declared papal infallibility a dogma.

      1. @Mark Docherty
        I don’t care what Trent said or what VI codified – the hellish situation we’re living in right now has revealed the lie to that fallacy.

        1. Trent wasn’t wrong, and neither was Vatican I. What’s wrong is that an antipope is now falsely reigning, making it seem as if all those dogmatic proclamations were untrue.

    1. @Mark Docherty
      I don’t want to hijack this thread with this more salient topic, so I’ll keep it as limited as I can:
      No matter how you slice it – Benedict fled. The very best spin that can be slapped on this crap-fest of human weakness and self-centered sin – is that BXVI is a bonafide coward.
      Our Lord said “When the Son of man comes, will He find faith on the Earth?”
      Now Ann Barhardt has seen me mention this point numerous times in the comboxes – so she decided to address it recently – but her explanation is flawed. She maintains that Our Lord won’t be able to find faith – simply because people will be blind to it even though the Church is still there. Well, the problem with that theory is that it would ALSO include everyone IN the Church as well.
      Everyone. Including the Pope.
      Because Our Lord clearly poses this rhetorical question as an all-encompassing absolute involving all of humanity on the earth.
      It was Chesterton who first recognized that Our Lord picked Peter to build His Church upon – NOT because Peter was strong – but because he was weak. In fact – as Chesterton noted – Peter had the many weaknesses of ALL men. And why did Our Lord do that? As Chesterton noted: no chain is stronger than its weakest link – so Our Lord founded it on the weakest link of all men’s weaknesses embodied in Simon Son of Jonah.
      And it seems clear now, that “the Gates of Hell shall not prevail” could only have any real meaning IF the Gates of Hell actually occupied Peter’s Chair – and thus – the Church was truly tested by the full assault of Hell’s forces. Of course Hell won’t prevail because the Church will continue into eternity. But it will certainly disappear on this earth. Which is precisely why Our Lord will not be able to find it. And that is what will bring about the final Apocalyptic end to this world.
      Now this is going to stir people up – but there is no other way to logically account for Our Lord’s prophetic statement. And given what we’re seeing unfold before our stunned eyes in this very age of destruction – it is the only explanation that is viable. Because the papacy has been destroyed forever in this world. We have truly entered into the Final Days – even though these hellish “days” may last for decades – even centuries.
      But the Church will NEVER be the same again. And I think we ALL recognize that reality in the very pit of our souls. It’s just that most of us don’t want to face that unrelenting Truth.

      1. All seemed lost after our Lord’s death, but He Ressurected before Ascending into heaven….might that be the same for His Bride?
        Plus doesn’t your thesis deny the truth that Christ will be with us always, even into the consummation of the world?

      2. @Lazarus Gethsemane
        I also don’t want to jump into your exchange with Steven about forced resignation. (Maybe I do it later.)
        No matter how you slice it – Benedict fled
        No, not necessary. There are slices where he did not flee.
        Good Chestrton’s quote. Thanks.
        But the Church will NEVER be the same again.
        your other thesis as well

  6. @kono
    The verse says “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” ~ Matthew 28:20
    “end of the age” does not necessarily mean the end of this material world.
    And of course – He is only with His “believers” – but if there is no one left who has faith – then who is there to “be with”?

    1. If we step back for a moment and take this verse at face value – in the theological context of Catholic salvation of course – you will see that Our Lord’s statement IS literally correct – HOWEVER – the theological assumption that people are applying to it is fundamentally flawed.
      More to the point:
      “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age (or time or world… et-al)”
      – simply means that Christ is with us always, ready to grant us His graces of mercy and forgiveness until this world ends and thus His Hour of Mercy ends. And that is always true. But that is ALWAYS predicated on our will of faith.
      As such – that does NOT mean that WE are automatically WITH HIM.
      Now unless we resort to the unfounded paradigm of Calvinism in the form of “irresistible grace” – which is an inexplicable predestined salvation regardless of our will and actions – then we have to take Our Lord’s promise here within the universal limitations of our Catholic theology.
      And if you look at the preceding verse in this passage you will see that THAT is precisely the context in which Our Savior IS speaking to His Disciples:
      “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” ~ Matthew 28:19-20
      Now apply his prophetic warning:
      “But when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” ~ Luke 18:8
      AND the larger context of that verse is PERSISTENCE of faith:
      “The Lord said, “Pay attention to what the dishonest judge says. Will not God then secure the rights of his chosen ones who call out to him day and night? Will he be slow to answer them? I tell you, he will see to it that justice is done for them speedily. But when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” ~ Luke 18:6-8
      Again – his prophetic warning is predicated by OUR PERSISTENT FAITH.
      Now none of this in any way is a guarantee that His Church will have faith until the end of time. In fact – quite the contrary – as his final prophetic sentence clearly indicates.
      And if His Church ceases to have faith – hence He can find NO ONE on earth who has faith. Then there is nothing left for Him to do except end it all.

    2. kono says:
      June 17, 2019 at 6:19 am
      The Douay-Rheims’ notes on My:28:20

      The meaning of “end of the world” or “end of age” is no longer relevant as an antithesis to my thesis. Also – I already looked up the Douay-Rheims translation as well as the Koine Greek. And I agree – It is literally “end of the world” – But again – it’s not a contradiction to my premise.
      Please read my response at:
      (Lazarus Gethsemane says: June 17, 2019 at 6:00 am)

  7. LG….the DR on my phone says to the consummation of the world. I’ll check my Bible when I get home. The NIV, again on my phone says the end of the age.

  8. Amen to that. We serve the risen Lord and He is indeed with us. Popes can fail us. Christ and His Saints never will.
    “God is with us to the end of the age”. Christians should have a sense of peace about that, no matter the trial or deformity.

  9. MC says:
    June 16, 2019 at 6:43 pm
    (No matter how you slice it – Benedict fled)
    No, not necessary. There are slices where he did not flee.

    My assertion that Benedict fled is the “kindest” spin that could be applied to his heretical actions – AND ALSO – to the ensuing train-wreck of the Bergoglion (Anti-papacy of the AntiChrist) that Benedict’s novelty rupture with Sacred Tradition launched.
    Anything else would necessitate his collaboration as a co-conspirator – and logical deductive reasoning certainly indicates that that is the most *probable* explanation.

    1. Close, but the most charitable interpretation is a variant of Socci’s – that like our Lord, chose to take a third option when his enemies presented him with a fork. Instead of being skewered on the horns of a dilemma, he gave them exactly what they wanted – resigning the governance of the Church – while obscuring his true goal, the retention of the papacy. Now, he sits in the Vatican like a lump of rock – or more precisely, a lump of a Rock – and lets his enemies dash themselves against him. Malicious cooperation; his silence speaks.

      1. It is highly probable that B16 was ‘pressed’ for action he took. It is also very hard do provide proof of that. Luckily we don’t have to this because, by other means, we can see that B16 is the pope, that he did not resign Peter’s Office.
        If he indeed was ‘pressed’. The question arises what he was pressed to do? Prevailing opinion is that he was pressed to resign from papacy. Then, by his intelligence, he outsmarted enemies and retained the office. What’s more, B16 keeps punching them in the nose by continuously hitting that he still is the pope. This makes a little sense. Such thesis implies that enemies are dumb and really don’t know what they are dealing with.
        This is unlikely. Even if ‘German theologians’ were taken by surprise by ‘resignation’ test they should do everything to eliminate any doubts about validity of resigantion. For example they should show up on B`16’s doorstep and tell him to ‘pack your things’, (by order of BaF) and go to some monastery – ‘forever”. There would be no problems with proper manifestation.
        What if B16 was pressed to do exactly what he did. To ‘split papacy’. That was the plan altogether from many many years before. Ann showed (based on documents not speculation) that Ratzinger, with time, drifted away from hard core papacy dissolves. When time came he needed some ‘push’ to make the move. That what he was pressed to do. This interpretation explains why we see what we see. B16 is not punching ‘German theologians’ in the face but plays along all together. Splitting papacy in progress. Of course splitting papacy is impossible, but can have real effects on souls. When I think of what is going on, I don’t thing about Gt, or masons but rather Satan as spiritus movens.
        As usual I may be wrong. I don’t see solving this part of puzzle as particularly important.

      2. Take a look how nicely Gainswein fits into this theory. He is in close relations with B16 and BaF, so he serves as direct coordinator. Also his seemingly contradicting statements start making sense.
        Of course they can’t go fully open with splitting papacy (yet) as it will not be accepted easily and will trigger too much controversy. Some may even say it triggers ‘substantial error’ clause. No, it has to be entered to the Church (a church?) through backdoor. The same way as V2 was done.

  10. I want to frame my entire thesis of the Church’s eschatological disappearance – with this spiritual caveat:
    Please, PLEASE Dear Lord, have mercy on my poor ignorant soul IF my thoughts and words here are misguided by my sinful pride and ignorance. I beg of you Oh Lord to correct my mistakes with the Grace of Your gifts to mankind: intellect, the Truth of objective reality, discernment through the commonsense of logical reasoning of these hellish “fruits” before our eyes that assault Your Bride on Earth.
    I pray Oh Lord that my words do not deceive anyone – that they never offend You, Oh My Divine Master.
    I am a sinful man Oh Lord. My sins go before me always. Humble me in my mistakes My Lord. And then shelter my shame in the ruin of my despair with your saving Grace. Show me the Way Oh My Savior.
    Please, Show me Your Way.

  11. I think we are beating dead horse here. There is no need to show that BaF is not the pope anymore.
    I stepped into new (for me) site today where same thing is discussed. I didn’t look around much and hope it is not one of those sede-sites.
    They point out another serious ‘mistake’ in B16’s resignation. He said he that he received his papacy from hands of cardinals. No, he did not. Whole article with dogmatic quotes:
    From the same site: another stone to the garden of office or ministry, what difference does it make? gardeners (Mr O’Reilly).
    Long quote from response to some gardener arguing that munus and n=ministeriun are basically the same:
    (…) 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!
    Words do matter!

  12. @Jewel
    I think nobody can recommend book for you without knowing your present knowledge of the law and your particular interest.
    Author of pages I linked above is Br Bugnolo. He is from Franciscans of Immaculatae and he seems to know Canon Law in and out. Many interesting reads there. Maybe start there.

      1. Maybe so, I didn’t read him enough yet. I just spotted some good canonical points he brought up.
        By your opinion, I withdraw my suggestion to start there.

        1. Certain tactics have been counterproductive. It seems to be a common trait among those of us in this fight, myself included. Pope Benedict has “tacitly approved” BB’s detailed analysis because he hasn’t responded to a letter?

      2. I skimmed through some content of From Rome and see nothing wrong. Contrary.
        Sure we don’t have to agree with every detail, but last thing we need is to start arguing between ourselves..
        Better plan how to spread the truth for the good of souls. Ann’s initiative anybody?
        Seems that Mr O’R has no more time for us anymore, hopefully he’s processing info. Do you hear anything about Mr Kwasniewski or other good news? We have to spread the truth (or find proof that we are wrong – for our salvation).
        I can say, as Ann did, that I’m morally certain about B16. Now what? I don’t want just join the club and talk it all day long.
        Br. Bugnolo is a good ‘apologetic’ source. 🙂
        Sorry for this conscience stream – I’m busy with something and don’t have time ‘to make it short’.
        God bless.

      3. Totally makes sense.
        I guess I just see that as people being people. It doesn’t detract from his central message. At least to me.

      4. As for me antipapacy of BaF is clear enough that I’m not so much interested in finding other methods to derive to this fact. I’m more interested in opposite opinions to see if my position can hold. It is probable, although unlikely, that I’m missing something important.
        But we can just sit and wait. Some action is required. What about compositing open letter to some prominent figures, like Card Burke or Edward Peters, with layout clear argumentation about failed B16’s resignation. Just one or two solid proofs, not everything we can think of. Letter with respect but forcing them to answer. Any answer. Just to break deadly silence on their side. It can’t be amateur work but rather pro letter that can be easily dismissed and that can spark wider discussion – regardless of an answer we receive. Lack of formal answer will be an answer by itself.
        If nothing will be done, I’m afraid, situation will only get worse and Church will suffer because of inaction.
        Look at example: https://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-344.html?mc_cid=4bdbc6405e&mc_eid=91dcdb6ad8

  13. @Mark Docherty wrote: “Pope Benedict has “tacitly approved” BB’s detailed analysis because he hasn’t responded to a letter?”
    Someone on Twitter asked Veri Catholici (Br. Bugnolo) about his article: “Pope Benedict has tacitly accepted that his resignation was canonically invalid”
    “So if anyone anywhere makes a canonical assertion and it is ignored, does that prove the truth of the assertion?”
    Veri Catholici answered:
    “Canon law follows the addage, Qui taceat consentit. So in Canon Law, yes, to not take action on an assertion is to tacitly consent to it. But the English word “ignore” does not mean inaction, it means deliberate dissent in silence.
    If you are confused, watch, The Man for All Seasons, the last 15 minutes, which touches upon this precise point of law and legal interpretation.”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.