Brick by Brick: Socci, Magister, Tosatti, and now Valli openly opining on the antipapacy, and they’re getting it right

Aldo Maria Valli is the latest Vaticanista to utter public commentary regarding the faux resignation of Pope Benedict (per canons 332.2/188) and subsequent invalid conclave (per canon 359), wherein the Cardinals “elected” an antipope. Original reportage HERE and HERE.

“After my walk, I returned home, and turned on my computer and found an email with a message from a friend who for some time has invited me to reflect on the impossibility of having a pope emeritus. I will summarize it in my own poor words (I ask pardon of any canonist who is reading this): just as one does not receive a consecration to be the pope, when a pope renounces the pontificate he cannot become a pope emeritus, because he is no longer a pope. He does not even return to being a Cardinal, but a bishop. Period.  Consequently, Benedict XVI, with his renunciation of ministerium but not of munus (that is, of the active exercise, but not of the mandate) did something which he could not do and hence his renunciation is invalid. But if his renunciation is invalid, the Conclave which followed it is also invalid, and even the pope which came out of that Conclave.”

Note well that this isn’t some sort of vague hypothesizing. This is pretty much spot on, if you boil the reality down to its essence. When a bishop retires, he becomes bishop emeritus. He’s still a bishop, you see. But in the case of a pope, you cannot have a pope emeritus, because a truly retired pope cannot retain any of papacy. It’s a one man gig. You can’t still be some sort of semi-pope anymore. There is no indelible mark of consecration imparted to a recipient of the papacy. It’s not a degree of Holy Orders: It’s an Office. The Office itself is a state of being, a temporal juridical authority, like POTUS. When you’re POTUS, you’re POTUS. When you’re not, you’re not. It’s a binary set.

You can’t still be a little sorta non-active pope. You can’t “remain” pope in any way whatsoever, because only one man can be pope at one time. So if you intended to remain pope, in any way, this is Substantial Error, which nullifies the renunciation, which, oh by the way, was already invalid because you attempted to renounce the ministerium, not the Munus, and oh by the way, was almost certainly executed under grave fear, malice, and coercion. Invalid renunciation = invalid conclave = antipope “elected.” The fact that the Cardinals unanimously “accepted” the resignation has zero effect on the validity of the resignation. The fact that they convoked a conclave and “elected” someone, even if they did it in good faith, has zero effect on the validity of the “election.”

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.

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.

If you’re gonna resign the office, you need to actually resign the office. And there’s no sharesies.

People hurl ad hominems at us for supposedly throwing everything against the wall hoping something will stick. But honestly, have a thorough look at the data set and you will see ALL OF THE ABOVE in play. The resignation is invalid ten ways to Sunday.

As the truth continues to filter into the mainstream, at some point we will reach critical mass, and the trickle will become a flood. It will happen overnight, and you need to be prepared for this.  Putting the truth up in Klieg lights is going to elicit a response from the demons that will be… not pretty. Isn’t it interesting how this whole affair has lured all the cockroaches out into the open? Just seven years ago, most of us had no idea how deep and wide the rot went. It’s almost as if all this were Providential, no?

That light switch is about to get flicked on.


15 thoughts on “Brick by Brick: Socci, Magister, Tosatti, and now Valli openly opining on the antipapacy, and they’re getting it right”

  1. The thing is- it would have been so simple to just look up the proper formula for the resignation of the Papacy, write it that way and then sign it. If there were any questions, have the proper experts review it just to be sure. If Pope Benedict’s intention was to freely and completely resign the Papacy with no ambiguity or scandal attached, wouldn’t he have just wrote it the way that the law says to?
    There’s absolutely no reason not to do it the proper way unless something fishy is going on. It would be like a police officer making an arrest and then changing up the wording of the Miranda rights. The judge would ask him: why didn’t you just read them the way that the law says to? The arrest would be invalidated.

  2. There is only one fact that matters … only one regards the current infected Papacy:

    “There Are No Sharsies”

    That is the black hole error at the core that is sucking the Church into its ravenous gravitational maw of error. There are many, many errors … growing exponentially every day. But at the core, there is that.

    No Papal Sharsies.

  3. The notion that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI did NOT resign his papal office is belied by the language he used in his resignation statement. He announced the date upon which he was vacating the Holy See(Feb. 28, 2013), AND called for a conclave to select his successor. Why he would do either while not resigning his office but only ministry defies common sense. What did he expect a conclave to do if not chose one to assume the office he had just vacated? Arguments suggesting Benedict XVI remains Pope clarify nothing and can only needlessly lead to confusion.

    Here are his own words in his official resignation statement of February 10, 2013. : “the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.”

    1. If his actual words of renunciation (which you don’t quote) we’re so crystal clear, in Latin, then why would he have needed to add the totally redundant instruction for a conclave to be convoked by the competent authorities? He didn’t resign the Office. Read the original in Latin. All the translations are faulty.

      1. I quoted from his resignation statement. What else do you want? Somehow the Latin would turn the meaning upside down? Benedict XVI resigned the papacy. Period. In total. Pope Francis IS Pope.

    2. The resignation formula is carefully spelled out in Canon Law. It is this. Or it is invalid.

      A part that you didn’t quote, Courtesy FromRome blog:

      Canon 332 §2 reads:

      “If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus, for validity there is required that the renunciation be made freely and manifested duly, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.“

      But Pope Benedict’s Declaratio reads, in part:

      “… I declare, that I renounce the ministerium entrusted to me through the hands of the Cardinals..”

      Nothing else in the resignation statement matters. The Munus is permanent until death, or until he specifically and solemnly resigns the Munus. That may be implied, in your mind, but it is not objectively stated. Quite the opposite. “I remain firmly and forever, safely within the enclosure of St. Peter”.


    3. Benedict was part of a German group of theologians who wrote that the papacy no longer needed to be seen as a medieval monarchial institution, but rather that it could be synodial, and shared. Benedict, as Ratzinger, was considered to be a conservative in this group because, although he agree that the papacy could be shared, he said that it could not be abolished altogether.

      This is why he could renounce the “magisterium” but not the
      “munus” and also why he could call for a conclave: if the papacy is going to be shared, someone has to be elected to share it.

      Since until the last year or so, people did not know about Benedict’s beliefs about a shared papacy, they naturally would not think of this explanation for his statements and his actions.

      Unfortunately, Benedict also lied. His reasons for “resigning” were flatly untrue. He had no impairment of his mind and intellect at all. Between his statement that he intended to resign, and the time of the “resignation” itself, he gave a half hour speech in Italian, with no notes. In addition, he has written books since then that show no sign of impairment.

      And the office of the papacy requires very little by way of physical strength, as John Paul II clearly showed in his last years.

      So the reasons Benedict gave for resigning were simply untrue.

  4. Did he resign properly according to law or not ?,… that is the question! He did not! His resignation is invalid , regardless of what anyone hypothesizes about anything further, after the fact. The fact is that he did Not resign properly, therefore, the (supposed) resignation is actually null and void. Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI should still be considered the Pope and the heretic, idolater, Jorge Bergoglio, along with the still living members who were part of the gang of nine, who illegally lobbied to make him “Pope”, should all be officially excommunicated.

  5. Regardless of what side of the fence you fall (I think I am still sitting in the middle ) if Benedict were still Pope and Francis an impostor, that would certainly explain a lot of the heretical sewage and the systematic dismantling of the Church we have seen from the Vatican as of late. Of course, this has been going on certainly since 1965 and even before – it has just gained an exponential increase in speed and effectiveness since Francis has been on the scene. An outsider looking in would easily see that, but we can’t see the forest for the trees. We want to be faithful Churchmen and so it goes against every grain of our being to consider that the man holding the See of Peter could be a heretical monster even though his words and actions seem to indicate otherwise. I pray that our Heavenly Father gives us what we need and not what we deserve.

      1. Its not intended to be an argument. It is intended to be a summation of facts. Though you are correct, he lists as facts some things which are merely assertions. But I look forward to your critique.

Leave a Reply

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