“A situation never before seen in the Church’s history”

Tell me more about how all of this is no big deal, this too shall pass, we’ve had lots of heretic popes, he hasn’t done anything SUPERbad yet, the catechism doesn’t have any magisterial weight, and we even had Alexander VI with seven children and twenty concubines. Besides, the question of Benedict’s abdication is a matter of infallible certainty, you know, yet we cannot possibly know what infallibility really is nor how it works nor what Christ really meant in Matt 16:19 nor Matt 18:18, and anyhoo nearly the entire Church was Arian at one point, so shut up.
I’m sorry, no. We have a Marxist/Globalist/non-Catholic usurper in white, a not dead not retired pope in white, and all of the filthy heretics being finally exposed – nay – exposing themselves, willingly. Prophesies being fulfilled left and right. Amazonian time bomb set to explode one month from today. If only I had a dime for every time I’ve written these words: The current situation is entirely unprecedented in the history of the Church. 
And guess what? The foremost living expert on Church history agrees.
Thank you, Cardinal Brandmüller.

“Some points of the synod’s Instrumentum laboris seem not only in dissonance with respect to the authentic teaching of the Church, but even contrary to it. The nebulous formulations of the Instrumentum, as well as the proposed creation of new ecclesial ministries for women and, especially, the proposed priestly ordination of the so-called viri probati arouse strong suspicion that even priestly celibacy will be called into question,” the cardinal wrote.
“We must face serious challenges to the integrity of the Deposit of the Faith, the sacramental and hierarchical structure of the Church and its Apostolic Tradition. With all this has been created a situation never before seen in the Church’s history, not even during the Arian crisis of the fourth and fifth century,” Brandmüller added.

Read the rest, as well as Cardinal Burke’s contribution, HERE
Lighting-at-Vatican-012.jpg (640×360)

Was Christ a liar, or would a true pope have been prevented from inserting heresy into the Catechism?

Steel Cage Death Match!
In the white corner, Christ and his Petrine Promises from Matt 16:19, 18:18.
In the black corner, Bergoglio the Destroyer inserting heresy into the Catechism.
Who wins?
The following was left by an anonymous “Someone” in the combox this morning. The natural beauty of rational thought on full display.

someone says:
Cardinal Burke, Roberto De Mattei and others have always tried to save both Vat. I and the claim that “Francis is Pope” by stating that not everything that a pope utters is protected by infallibility. This seems pretty sensible to me.
A validly elected pope (e.g. John XXII) can say at table that the saints will not see God until the end of the world. But he would never be able to proclaim it as a dogma.
Between a dogmatic definition (like those of the Immaculate conception or of the assumption of Our Lady) and chatter at table there are lots of different types of utterences: private letters, public speeches, declarations, encyclicals, exhortations (like Amoris Laetitia) etc.
Here is the thing. EVEN IF we were to grant, with cardinal Burke, that Amoris Laetitia has no magisterial authority (pace Bergoglio’s letter to the Argentine bishops), how can we say that Bergoglio’s revision of the CCC is not an act of the universal magister (under the hypothesis that Bergoglio were to be pope)?
Vatican I says that a pope is infallible when he
“speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals [chapter 4:9]”.
So a pope has to:
(a) exercise of office of teacher;
(b) define a doctrine concerning faith and morals
(c) address the whole Church
in order to be infallible.
Even if we were to concede that one of these conditions is not met by Amoris Laetitia (i.e. we should grant that either he was not addressing the whole church – but he was – or that he was not speaking of faith or morals – but he was – or that he wasn’t exercising his alleged office of teacher – this is the tricky part, where Burke’s might have a point, cf. AL 3), how could we possibly say that in revising a cathechism for the universal church a validly elected pope is not exercising his office of teacher, addressing the whole church on matters pertaining to faith and morals?
John Paul II was certainly doing it while he promulgated the CCC.
Now “Francis” has inserted an obvious heresy in the CCC. Hence, he cannot be the pope, otherwise Vatican I is false (which it isn’t).
Cardinal Burke’s remarks that “Francis” is speaking as a private man while condemning the legitimacy of death penalty “won’t float”

Acute False Base Premise Syndrome: Someone needs to work on a vaccine

Fred Martinez over at Catholic Monitor has really been nailing it lately HERE.
He draws some high quality commentary, too.
This one today is priceless. I hope he doesn’t mind me posting it.

Jack said…
People who imagine that Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility is circular, tautological, or otherwise redundant imagine that the dogma goes like this: “Solemn papal definitions are infallible, because the pope has the power of infallibility.” Which is like saying, “it’s right because the pope says it’s right.”
This would be to set up the pope as a kind of god, since only God is truly self-justifying like this, right simply because He is right, because He is Truth itself by His very essence.
I think in the wake of liberalism and its undermining of all authority, Catholics rallied to the pope and after Vatican I made this kind of mistake, at least implicitly, that the pope is right because he is right. But this is just another human error, setting up a man in God’s place, undermining authority in an even more subtle way.
The pope is not right because he says he’s right, and he’s not infallible simply because he has the power of infallibility (although he is and he does). Vatican I is very clear. The pope is infallible BECAUSE Christ gave the keys to Peter and his Successors, and HE guaranteed by HIS divine power that the pope would never err in his solemn teaching capacity. This is perhaps a subtle distinction, but it makes a profound difference. It means that our faith is not centred on the person of the pope, but centred on Christ just has it has always been.
So when we come across a pope who appears to be erring in doctrine, the first thing we should ask is whether he is really erring or not. And if he is erring, the next thing to ask is whether his papacy is legitimate or whether he’s an antipope. But for people with a worldly mindset who are too willing to accept the world’s opinions and maintain their public image, and who’s faith is more centred on the person of the pope than on the person of Christ, they would rather deny Vatican I and become heretics than accuse a possible antipope (despite there having been many, many antipopes in history) and fall temporarily out of favour.
To be honest at this point I would not be surprised if Skojec is a kind of double agent and 1p5 a false-opposition operation designed to keep potential critics of the regime confused and pigeonholed. Keep traditionalists as a whining bunch of scandalmongerers rather than united in any useful purpose.

Jack’s comment would have been equally relevant with regard to another post which appeared today, which I mirror here for the sake of this combox:

The Dr. Pepper Tautology – How “Francis is Pope” Inevitably Leads to Heresy, Schism, and Apostasy

As people keep trying (with ever-more desperation and flailing) to defend the false premise that Jorge Bergoglio is or ever has been the Pope, which he obviously is not and has never been, one of the arguments that they keep having to make is the argument regarding Papal Infallibility.  Now, it is clear to any honest, clear-thinking person that Antipope Bergoglio is so far outside any possibility of the negative supernatural protection of Papal Infallibility that the only way people can reconcile the two is to make the standard of Papal Infallibility universally applicable, which is to say meaningless to the point of non-existence.
The current argument which you can see on a near-daily basis from most “Trad Catholic” sites, bloggers, pundits, whatever is this:

Papal Infallibility only applies to those magisterial statements which are true. Those statements are infallible, and are manifestations of the Petrine Protection.  All magisterial statements that are false are not infallible, and do not fall under the Petrine Protection, and thus in no way violate the Dogma of Papal Infallibility.

Now think about this, folks – and here is where the culture-wide inability to think in a logical progression rears its ugly head yet again.
Everything Bergoglio says that is true is infallible.
Stop.  Think about that.

Everything ANYONE says that is true is infallible.  The truth IS infallible.  It’s a completely circular argument. And thus, by logical extension, anything that is false is not infallible.

This argument, which actually says nothing at all, applies to every man, woman, child and angelic being that ever has and ever will exist.  Everything satan has ever said that was true was infallible.  Everything Hitler ever said that was true was infallible.  Everything Hillary Clinton has ever said that was true (and that set is SMALL) is infallible.  Thus, what we have here is a TAUTOLOGY, which is a statement that is true by virtue of its logical form.
The set of “truth” is infallible, because infallibility is freedom from error, which the truth, by definition ALWAYS IS.  The root of the word “infallible” is the Latin fallere, which means “to deceive”.  The truth cannot be both true and false. 

And so, once again, we see the wrong-headed defense of Antipope Bergoglio qua Pope accomplishing EXACTLY what satan wants, which is completely destroying the entire notion of the papacy itself.

If Our Lord’s promise to Peter was nothing more than an empty rhetorical trick, a TAUTOLOGY, and the Petrine Protection is actually a UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE AXIOM, then no real promise was ever made, and the Papacy has been a joke all along – which is EXACTLY what the various SCHISMATICS; Lutherans, Anglicans, all Protestants and the Orthodox, have all been saying all along. And satan squeeeeeeals with delight.

The truth is, Papal infallibility is real, it is a supernatural promise and gift, absolutely intrinsic to the Papacy, proceeding necessarily out of Our Lord’s infinite love for His Holy Church, and for us as individuals, and the fact that Antipope Bergoglio so very clearly does NOT enjoy that supernatural protection, is just one more clear, obvious “red flag” sign that somehow his “election” was invalid.  With even the most superficial examination of events, it is perfectly clear to any who care to look with open, honest eyes that Pope Benedict XVI’s attempted partial resignation was Canonically invalid twelve ways from Sunday, and that Pope Benedict never validly resigned and has been the one and only Pope all along per
Canons 188,
359, etc. etc.  Like I said, twelve ways from Sunday.
The fact that Antipope Bergoglio is so flagrantly outside of the domain of the true definition of Papal Infallibility – which is real, as history AND the words of Our Lord in the Gospels attest – is a blinking neon sign of a red flag pointing BACK to the events of February ARSH 2013 and the faux-abdication, and thus total invalidity and nullity of the conclave of March ARSH 2013.

If your position always leads to the tearing down of the Papacy, and matches up EXACTLY with the founding objective of Freemasonry to destroy the Papacy, which has been satan’s goal since day one, then dontcha think that MAYBE your base premise – namely the IDENTITY of the Pope – is WRONG?

So, now that Trad, Inc. has pretty much fully embraced the Freemasonic agenda to discredit and destroy the Papacy in their own minds and the minds of the faithful, the next step, which one can see coming like a freight train across the Western Kansas plains, will be to start going after SCRIPTURE ITSELF, declaring certain passages and eventually entire books of the Bible to be wrong, useless, and to be ignored or disregarded.  Mark my words. The Luther-esque Bible editing will commence in 3..2..1…
I covered this in my Part 1 video presentation on the Bergoglian Antipapacy at the 01:57:07 timestamp, to which the embed below is cued, if you prefer video.
Pray for Pope Benedict XVI, the Papacy, and Holy Mother Church.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us!
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh_CIoVvaOk?start=7027&feature=oembed]
I’m infallible
He’s infallible
She’s infallible
We’re infallible
Wouldn’t you like to be infallible, too?
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvCTaccEkMI?feature=oembed]


++Burke says The Expanded Petrine Ministry simply won’t float. Um, no kidding!

From the Patrick Coffin interview with Cardinal Burke a couple weeks ago, through the lens of a shrieking @DawnofMercy:

I’m only covering a five minute clip of this interview. If you want a crack at the complete transcript intertwined with Dawn’s pearl clutching, go HERE.
First of all, forget about St. Gallen Mafia and the shenanigans at the “conclave.” Coffin starts in about that around 18:00, referencing Bishop Gracida’s claims, but this will get us nowhere. Since Benedict attempted a partial abdication, which was wholly invalid and therefore a null act, no conclave actually took place. The conclave was rendered invalid ipso facto the invalid abdication.  It was a Cardinals’ Retreat, nothing more. Think about this. Any effort to invalidate a conclave that is already invalid would, if successful, only result in another invalid conclave, because the one true living pope is still alive and kicking. The failed partial abdication is the True Premise from which the resolution must proceed.
So start at the 23:00 mark. ++Burke is addressing the question of the validity of the abdication. The audio is pretty terrible, so here is the transcript and commentary from Dawn; sorry, but it’s the only source available. Ignore the sections that she highlighted, and concentrate on the second and third paragraphs.

Burke reluctantly admits that Socci’s claim that the papacy is split between two popes “won’t hold water.” But as for whether Benedict is still the pope, “the whole matter is a bit confused.” And Socci is “an outstanding, … saintly man,” Burke adds; “it merits to read him.” …That’s enough to show Burke is too close to the schismatic rails. Given that @NCRegister@cnalive, and @EWTN often run stories portraying him as a guardian of orthodoxy (though @cnalive wisely ignored his Declaration of Truths), they owe it to their readers to report on this …

Do you see what’s going on here? He mixes truth with error. Frankly, though, he is so close to the whole truth that he is looking straight past it.
First, ++Burke asserts that a pope must govern in order to be pope. “There is only one pope and the pope must govern the Church.” Well yes, that’s how it’s supposed to work, governance being one of the three components of the ministry, the others being teaching and sanctifying. However, failure to govern does not unpope a pope. A pope in a coma, a pope in exile, a pope in prison… none of them can govern, but they still remain pope. This is not a difficult concept. Yes, a pope is SUPPOSED to govern, but the failure/inability to govern has exactly ZERO effect on the ontological reality of who is pope. Popes remain pope until they die or validly resign. Period, full stop.

“That someone could hold the office and someone else is actually carrying out the ministry — that simply won’t float.”

Pope Benedict’s faux partial abdication was based on delegating the governing aspect of the ministry, while retaining the office. This is Substantial Error, per Canon 188. Cardinal Burke correctly makes reference to the last Wednesday Audience and +Ganswein’s speech at the Gregorianum in 2016. There is also evidence in the original Latin Declaratio itself, where he fails to resign the Office. These actions nullified the abdication, per the very clear words of Canon 332.2, a canon which specifically addresses the conditions for a valid papal abdication. Therefore, the Cardinals had no jurisdiction nor authority to convoke a conclave, per Canon 359. You don’t need to be a canon lawyer to understand the plain meaning of the words of the law (a concept which itself is part of the law, as explained HERE).
What really is going on here is ++Burke falling headlong into the old False Base Premise trap. He first gets tripped up by the notion that whomever is governing must be pope, which frankly is just not very bright, in that it ignores the counterexamples I gave and the fact that we’ve obviously had antipopes who’ve governed the Church in the past. Then from the “Francis is pope” false assumption he proceeds to lay out the evidence that Benedict is pope, but he’s unable to apply said evidence back to the question of the effectiveness of the abdication.
Allow me to restate the block quote in the form of a rational argument, from ++Burke’s worldview, and you will see it more clearly:

  1. “Francis” is pope
  2. Socci provides evidence Benedict attempted an expanded petrine ministry
  3. Benedict laments inadequacy to GOVERN, retains vesture and remains in Vatican
  4. Ganswein in May 2016 defined the structure of a faux expanded petrine ministry
  5. Burke asserts there can be only one pope
  6. Therefore, “Francis” is pope

Do you see how that works?  All of your assumptions throughout the argument (#2 through #5) can be true, but it will never lead you to a true conclusion if your base premise is false.

  1. “Francis” is pope – FALSE
  2. Socci provides evidence Benedict attempted an expanded petrine ministry – TRUE
  3. Benedict laments inadequacy to GOVERN, retains vesture and remains in Vatican – TRUE
  4. Ganswein in May 2016 defined the structure of a faux expanded petrine ministry – TRUE
  5. Burke asserts there can be only one pope – TRUE
  6. Therefore, “Francis” is pope – F-A-L-S-E………….

I need to write a letter.
Dear Your Holiness Pope Benedict, c.c. Cardinal Burke,
Since you didn’t resign the Munus (violating can. 332.2), and you attempted to split off the governance aspect of the ministry while retaining the Munus (violating can. 188), quite possibly coerced (also violating can. 188), and you allowed a conclave to be convoked while you still held the Munus (violating can. 359), and you remain in the Vatican, wearing white, being addressed as His Holiness, signing your name Pope Benedict, bestowing your Apostolic Blessing, not smashing your fisherman’s ring, writing books, granting interviews, all while an antipope and likely False Prophet forerunner of the Antichrist has usurped the throne, endangering millions of actual souls…
…would you mind calling a press conference, and reclaiming your pallium? I would have it dry cleaned first; you never know where it’s been. You could clear up a lot of this mess of the past 6.5 years, and it might even reassure some people that the Church really is who She says She is, that Christ keeps his promises, pillar of fire pillar of truth, and all that good stuff. If not, and if CCC675 really is in play, could you at least do me a solid and have +Ganswein email me the Third Secret?

  1. Benedict is pope – TRUE
  2. Socci provides evidence Benedict attempted an expanded petrine ministry – TRUE
  3. Benedict laments inadequacy to GOVERN, retains vesture and remains in Vatican – TRUE
  4. Ganswein in May 2016 defined the structure of a faux expanded petrine ministry -TRUE 
  5. The papacy is a divinely instituted monarchy, which cannot be “demythologized” –  TRUE
  6. Burke asserts there can be only one pope – TRUE
  7. Therefore, Benedict is pope – TRUE
  8. All logical fallacies nuked from orbit DING DING DING

“You shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.”

If the Church has you dejected, you’re sinning against Hope. If you are considering apostatizing, you’re sinning against Faith. If you question the Truth or you encourage others to question the Truth, you’re sinning against Charity.
Truth is a Person. He speaks to us in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21.
Of course, no one knows if we are in the run-up to the Big Show or not. The point is, gird yourself and be prepared. I’m pasting here from biblehub because of the spiffy links they provide between the verses in these three gospel chapters. The formatting looks a little wonky, but oh well.

Mark 13

Temple Destruction Foretold

(Matthew 24:1-4Luke 21:5-9)

1And as he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him: Master, behold what manner of stones and what buildings are here. 2And Jesus answering, said to him: Seest thou all these great buildings? There shall not be left a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown down.

3And as he sat on the mount of Olivet over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him apart: 4Tell us, when shall these things be and what shall be the sign when all these things shall begin to be fulfilled? 5And Jesus answering, began to say to them: Take heed lest any man deceive you. 6For many shall come in my name saying, I am he: and they shall deceive many. 7And when you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, fear ye not. For such things must needs be: but the end is not yet. 8For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places and famines. These things are the beginning of sorrows.

9But look to yourselves. For they shall deliver you Up to councils: and in the synagogues you shall be beaten: and you shall stand before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony unto them.

Witnessing to All Nations

(Matthew 24:9-14Luke 21:10-19)

10And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached. 11And when they shall lead you and deliver you up, be not thoughtful beforehand what you shall speak: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye. For it is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost. 12And the brother shall betray his brother unto death, and the father his son; and children shall rise up against their parents and shall work their death. 13And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.

The Abomination of Desolation

(Matthew 24:15-25Luke 21:20-24)

14And when you shall see the abomination of desolation, standing where it ought not (he that readeth let him understand): then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains. 15And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house nor enter therein to take any thing out of the house. 16And let him that shall be in the field not turn back to take up his garment. 17And woe to them that are with child and that give suck in those days. 18But pray ye that these things happen not in winter. 19For in those days shall be such tribulations as were not from the beginning of the creation which God created until now: neither shall be. 20And unless the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh should be saved: but, for the sake of the elect which he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. 21And then if any man shall say to you: Lo, here is Christ. Lo, he is here: do not believe. 22For there will rise up false Christs and false prophets: and they shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce (if it were possible) even the elect. 23Take you heed therefore: behold, I have foretold you all things.

The Return of the Son of Man

(Matthew 24:26-31Luke 21:25-28)

24But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light. 25And the stars of heaven shall be falling down and the powers that are in heaven shall be moved. 26And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds, with great power and glory.27And then shall he send his angels and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

The lesson of the Fig Tree

(Matthew 24:32-35Luke 21:29-33)

28Now of the fig tree learn ye a parable. When the branch thereof is now tender and the leaves are come forth, you know that summer is very near. 29So you also when you shall see these things come to pass, know ye that it is very nigh, even at the doors. 30Amen, I say to you that this generation shall not pass until all these things be done. 31Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my word shall not pass away.

Be Ready at Any Hour

(Genesis 6:1-7Matthew 24:36-51Luke 12:35-48)

32But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.

33Take ye heed, watch and pray. For ye know not when the time is. 34Even as a man who, going into a far country, left his house and gave authority to his servants over every work and commanded the porter to watch. 35Watch ye therefore (for you know not when the lord of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cock crowing, or in the morning): 36Lest coming on a sudden, he find you sleeping. 37And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch.

Douay Rheims Version – Bishop Challoner Revision
Bible Hub

I have great news about the newly announced Consistory!

Great news! On 5 October 2019, there will still be exactly ZERO laywoman active lesbian Cardinals. None! I mean, the Cardinaliate is not a clerical state. Sure, the current discipline is that only ordained men can wear red, but that’s only since the 1917 code. There is no reason we can’t revert to laymen, and in this day and age, laywomen. Give it time. Give it time. Keep bowing down to the Heretic in Chief and Argentinian usurper.
Or, check your false base premise at the door, and keep your faith.

  1. Benedict’s renunciation was a null act, per canons 332.2 and 188
  2. When a juridical act is null, the situation reverts to the status quo
  3. If you hold that Benedict has delegated the Governance, he stills hold the office, per canon 131.1
  4. Since the See was never vacant, the conclave was ipso facto invalid, per canon 359

The following re-post lays out the foundation of why we are where we are. It’s three months old, but it got some unexpected traction on twitter yesterday, and some people got excited. It’s coherent and linear. Happy Sunday.

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 effectinsofar 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 officeThe 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