Next, let’s turn to Saint Catherine of Siena, 14th Century mystic and healer of schism. Her masterpiece, The Dialogue, is available online HERE. Much to her dismay, she was called to teach and instruct out in the real world, when all she wanted to do was be alone to contemplate our Lord. Among other things, it was left to her to publicly rebuke a bunch of scheming traitorous Cardinals who had invalidly faux “elected” an antipope after invalidly convoking a faux conclave while the throne was already occupied.
The Life of Catherine of Siena, written by her confessor and spiritual director, Blessed Raymund of Capua, reveals how Catherine discovered that she was to have a teaching role:
The virgin, lying prostrate at the feet of the Lord, had spoken more by way of tears than with her lips, He would reply: “Be quiet, sweetest daughter; it is necessary for you to fulfill your every duty, so that with my grace you may assist others as well as yourself. I have no intention of cutting you off from me; on the contrary, I wish to bind you more closely to myself, by means of love of the neighbour…
What is there to be astonished at or to lament about if I lead you to do what in infancy you desired to do?” And Catherine, somewhat comforted by this reply, would say, as once Blessed Mary had said, “How shall this thing be?” And the Lord: “According as my goodness shall ordain.” And Catherine, like a good disciple imitating her Master, would answer: “Let your will, not mine, be done in all things, Lord, for I am darkness and you are light; I am not, whereas you are He who is; I most ignorant, and you the wisdom of God the Father. But I beg you, O Lord—if it is not too presumptuous of me—how can what you have just said come about; that is to say, how can I, wretched and frail as I am, be of use to souls? My sex, as you know, is against it in many ways, both because it is not highly considered by men, and also because it is not good, for decency’s sake, for a woman to mix with men.”
To these words the Lord would reply, as once the Archangel Gabriel had replied, that nothing is impossible to God, for He said: “Am not I He who created the human race, and divided it into male and female? I spread abroad the grace of my spirit where I will. In my eyes there is neither male nor female, rich nor poor, but all are equal, for I can do all things with equal ease. It is as easy for me to create an Angel as an ant, and to create all the heavens is as easy for me as to create the merest worm. It is written of me that I made whatever I willed to make, for nothing is impossible to me. (Psalm 113). “Do you still remain doubtful? Do you imagine that I am unable to find ways of achieving whatever I have determined and predetermined on? However, I realize that you do not speak thus from lack of faith but from humility. Therefore you must know that in these latter days there has been such an upsurge of pride, especially in the case of men who imagine themselves to be learned or wise, that my justice cannot endure them any longer, without delivering a just chastisement upon them that will bring them to confusion. But since my mercy transcends all else I do, I shall first give them a salutary lesson, to see whether they will come to their senses and humble themselves; as I did with the Jews and the Gentiles, when I sent amongst them idiots whom I had filled with divine wisdom. To confound their arrogance, I will raise up women ignorant and frail by nature but endowed with strength and divine wisdom. Then, if they will come to their senses and humble themselves, I will behave with the utmost mercy towards them, that is to say, towards those who, according to the grace given them, receive my doctrine, offered to them in fragile but specially chosen vessels, and follow it reverently. Those who will not accept this salutary lesson, I shall with perfect justice reduce to such confusion that the world will look upon them as objects of contempt and derision.
The Life of Saint Catherine of Siena, Part Two, Chapter OneHERE
Ideologue liberals live a misty fog-brained existence where nothing makes coherent sense to those of us living in the real world with the ability to see the evil plans ideologues have concocted for us. It would all be hilarious if the ideologues weren’t the same people in control of our government, schools, universities, health care systems – and the Catholic Church – and therefore our lives in general. Plus there’s the Lucifer Factor – that being the obvious evil embedded within ideologue minds whipping up confusion among the populace to form mob thought control.
One must carve through thick walls of lies and half truths, propaganda and distortions, deceptions, deceit and dishonesty in everything today in order to emerge on the other side able to see at least a resemblance of truth somewhere. Just mention the word Ukraine or Russia and see the visceral vitriol cast one’s way when merely hinting that quite likely the media is leading the West down the path of error exactly as they did with their Covid-hype and see anger and confusion on people’s faces…
So my question is then, if US Democrats think that Nazis are such subhuman elements of mankind, why are those same Democrats sending billions of dollars in money and weapons to arm Nazis in the Ukraine – those Ukrainian Russian-hating, Jew-hating, LGBT-hating, Black-hating, Vietnamese-hating, Romany-hating Nazis in the Ukrainian government, military and the western Ukrainian population in general?
Ukrainian Nazism is all so hush-hush that there’s no mention of even the word “Nazi” on Ukraine‘s Wikipedia page. One would have to be a complete ideologue to believe the wiki portion on Ukrainian current events which oddly has no mention of (Z)Elensky but just a picture of him as Ukraine’s current president. Naturally, cocaine addicted Z has his own wiki page, but one must be completely foolish with no solid thought process barriers to halt misinformation from crossing the boundary and entering into the territory of one’s own personal information space (our mind, our brain) to believe the rubbish there.
Russia’s two original objectives for going into eastern Ukraine 60 days ago were to demilitarize (because of Ukraine’s slaughter of 15,000 – 20,000 ethnic Russian Ukrainians in the Donbas over the past 8 years and the Ukraine military’s advancement on that territory two months ago) and de-Nazify Ukraine. Meanwhile the Biden Reich House and the Collective West’s objectives are to support Ukrainian Nazism and weaponize Ukraine by sending billions of dollars and what amounts to old weapons and ammunition, depleting our supply in order to make the Deep State oligarchs even more rich from government contracts for the manufacture of new weapons in the future.
The Collective West (EU countries, Biden Reich House, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) supports Nazis. The West supports killing of Russian women and children. The West supports their cocaine-addicted Zelensky-puppet. These are the same politicians who cried that MAGA patriots were fascists, nationalists, and Nazis who must be punished. Their hypocrisy is more than stunning. It’s depraved and evil.
There are videos on the Internet of captured Ukrainian soldiers being shown videos by the Russians of the horrifying genocide of 20,000 ethnic Russian Ukrainian civilians in the Donbas over the past 8 years by Ukrainian Nazis. The Ukrainian solders are shocked to see what their side did to innocent civilians, a secret kept from them by Zelensky and his puppet Reich House Western-backed regime…
It’s obvious to all but the Left’s psychotic ideologues, those sitting in the power of the Reich House, the sodomite psychos in the State Department and the EU that ousting Trump was one thing, but trying to oust President Putin – largely popular in Russia, holding the Russian economy on an even keel, winning the war against Ukrainian Nazis, and always one step ahead of the Collective West’s inhaling of the vapor of ideology then exhaling frightening “solid principles upon which to build the future” statements (like Biden’s statement last week in Seattle that “by 2035 all US military vehicles will be green”. Green energy tanks having to charge their batteries in the battlefield is a sure way to literally die on the hill of psychotic ideological dreams) – is another thing altogether.
The B.C. government has pledged $12 million in taxpayer money to fund streamlining the process of hiring foreign nurses.
VICTORIA, British Columbia (LifeSiteNews) — Amid a nursing staff shortage, British Columbia says it will make it easier for foreign nurses to get licensed instead of letting unvaccinated nurses return to work.
During a press conference on Tuesday, B.C. Health Minister Adrian Dix announced that the province is looking into ways to expedite the registration and licensing process for internationally educated nurses in order to combat the ongoing worker shortage. Despite the desperate need for nurses, the healthcare system is maintaining its policy that those fired over their COVID-19 vaccine status will still not be allowed to return to work.
“Our government is committed to addressing the province’s demand for nurses. That’s why we’re launching this comprehensive suite of supports for internationally educated nurses to help them put their skills to use here in BC,” Dix said.
“Removing some financial barriers and streamlining the assessment process will facilitate pathways to employment in the province and ensure British Columbians have access to the healthcare they deserve with even more nurses and healthcare assistants,” added Dix, referencing that the province has now allocated $12 million in taxpayer money to fund the effort.
While provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry rescinded the vaccine passport system for the public in early April, announcing B.C. is “in a place where we can go from mandated requirements to managing our own health,” she has nonetheless doubled down on the mandate for public healthcare workers despite the shortage… BC’s mandate did not allow for exemptions on religious or conscience grounds, and the medical exemptions were so narrow that one would have to have an adverse reaction to the first dose of the injection to be exempt from the second…
“The mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the public health crises of Covid-19. The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent. The many alterations in the vaccine mRNA hide the mRNA from cellular defenses and promote a longer biological half-life and high production of spike protein. However, the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that to a SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. Immune cells that have taken up the vaccine nanoparticles release into circulation large numbers of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis. We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines questions them as positive contributors to public health.”
Today is the Feast of St. Peter Canisius, Doctor of the Church. Out of an abundance of charity, he did not mince words when delivering the truth. He didn’t build bridges. He would have abhorred the Church of Nice. He understood that charity, justice, and yes, MERCY, demands that we deliver the unadulterated truth to sinners, for their benefit. As a Doctor of the Church, his teachings are considered part of the Magisterium. Consider also, it is not only the sodomites who are condemned, but equally so their enablers. Maybe someone can send this to Mark Wahlberg.
“Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents. Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.” -Romans 1:24-32
Sodomy: The Never Sufficiently Execrated Depravity
Today is the feast of St. Peter Canisius, Doctor the The Church.
“As the Sacred Scripture says, the Sodomites were wicked and exceedingly sinful. Saint Peter and Saint Paul condemn this nefarious and depraved sin. In fact, the Scripture denounces this enormous indecency thus: ‘The scandal of Sodomites and Gomorrhans has multiplied and their sins have become grave beyond measure.’ So the angels said to just Lot, who totally abhorred the depravity of the Sodomites: ‘Let us leave this city….’ Holy Scripture does not fail to mention the causes that led the Sodomites, and can also lead others, to this most grievous sin. In fact, in Ezechiel we read: ‘Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and the poor. And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me; and I took them away as thou hast seen’ (Ezech. 16: 49-50).
Those unashamed of violating divine and natural law are slaves of this never sufficiently execrated depravity.”
-St. Peter Canisius, Summa Doctrina Christianae, III a/b, p. 455
Note what St. Peter Canisius says here quoting Ezechiel: that the CAUSES that LED to this most grievous sin (sexual perversion) are, in a nutshell, a lack or absence of Charity. Sexual perversion is a DERIVATIVE PATHOLOGY. It doesn’t “just happen”. You have to have the self-purgation of love from the soul FIRST. Then the sexual perversion follows. This is why there is no such thing as a “psycho-spiritually healthy” sex pervert. Sexual perversion in any form is, by definition, a monstrosity. Yes, MONSTROSITY. This is why there is no such thing as a “benign” sodomite. Because of the antecedent pathology of lovelessness (aka Diabolical Narcissism), ALL SODOMITES, BOTH MALE AND FEMALE, ARE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to others, but most especially children.
And, this quote from St. Peter Canisius should probably be framed and hanging in every home:
“Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining many, desire as it were, to be in collusion with the Church’s enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith.”
I remain firmly in the camp that the primary cause of Pope Benedict’s failed abdication is Substantial Error, a violation of Canon 188 which rendered the resignation invalid by the law itself, because he thought he could remain in some way papal. If you are going to resign, you need to resign the whole thing. You don’t get to keep dressing like a pope, being addressed as His Holiness, living in the Vatican, keep your Fisherman’s Ring, give the Apostolic Blessing, etc. But someone who believes the Office “enters into your very being,” can’t really give it all up, so he invented “Pope Emeritus,” something which is impossible, and all all the visual trappings we’ve discussed over and over. The point being, his Substantial Error triggering of Canon 188 renders the Declaratio moot, because that is exactly the point of Canon 188.
Anyway, Dr. Briggs has published two essays by Fr. John Rickert focusing on the Latin of the Declaratio and the Munus/Ministerium debate. Today, a response from Dr. Mazza. Cross-posted here with permission:
Follow The Munus! Why Benedict Is [Likely] Pope — Guest Post by Edmund J. Mazza; Rejoinder by Fr John Rickert
Fr John Rickert had an article last week (with links to other sources therein) reasoning that Francis is Pope. Today, a response by Dr Edmund J Mazza, followed by a brief rejoinder by Fr Rickert.
All history shows that the best of friends sometimes cannot come to agreement on certain matters. That will likely be true here. But I absolutely refuse that any of us should fall out over this. Again I say, we have more than enough true enemies to worry about.
Lastly, please do not feed the trolls.
Response by Edmund J Mazza
Follow The Munus! Why Benedict Is [Likely] Pope
For decades, millions of faithful Catholics have been defending the Traditional Mass, the Traditional understanding of Evangelization, the Traditional teaching on abortion, etc. against the all-pervasive and suffocating “spirit of Vatican II.” Fighting a war on so many fronts, one may be forgiven for not even being aware of another post-Conciliar “crisis” with stakes just as high—a crisis in Ecclesiology. It took the innovation of a “Pope Emeritus,” before even this university scholar found it on his radar.
Let us begin our analysis with a quote from Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts: “the problems which have arisen since the Council with regard to the public function and the notion of office are particularly reflected in the fluctuating use of notions such as “munus“, “ministry” and “office“, both in doctrine and in the official texts of the Church…notions close to that of public function, such as “munus“, “ministry” and “office”; terms which do not find univocal [synonymous] content in the documents of Vatican Council II, nor among the normative texts, being used indiscriminately by doctrine.”
Anna Slowikowska, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin in Poland, echoes Arrieta:
The Latin noun munus is an ambiguous word. In the teaching of the Second Vatican Council this word is present up 255 times, whereof 55 times in the Constitution Lumen gentium. The Council Fathers used this term in the meaning of: “office”, “function”, “mission”, “service”, “task”, “obligation”, “ministry”. In many places the translations of constitution from Latin language into Polish language in 1968 and 2002 are different. This can cause not only problems of interpretation, but also doctrinal problems.
You’re telling me!
The greatest confusion has arisen over the interpretation of Pope Benedict XVI’s peculiar use of “munus” and “ministerium” in his renunciation of February 11, 2013.
Canon Law (Can. 332 § 2) states that such renunciations CAN BE INVALID if the pope does not renounce his munus, or if it is not done freely, or if it is not manifested properly: “Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur…”
Let us then examine Benedict’s Declaratio:
…ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum.
Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando… ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam. Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae…renuntiare…
Benedict uses the term “munus Petrinum” to describe the essential spiritual nature of the “Petrine Office.” Indeed, he IS STILL able to passively put it into service through “suffering and prayer,” but is NO longer strong enough to actively do so through “words and deeds.” In the all-important concluding quote, he declares that he renounces the “ministerio Episcopi Romae.”
Why, may we ask, did he suddenly replace “munus” with “ministerio”? Why abandon the consistency of his narration? We may NOT simply ASSUME that “ministerium,” is equivalent to “munus.” As Slowikowska points out:
The knowledge of all the meanings of a given word – in this case munus – is not enough to correctly identify the thoughts of the author of the translated text.
The term munus is most often analyzed in the literature with two others: officium and ministerium. They are also synonymous with it. But at the same time each of them can mean something different.Their use, whether separate or synonymous, always depends on the context of the utterance, the author’s intention or the purpose for which they are used.”
Benedict makes it clear he is NOT renouncing the munus per se, because he IS STILL capable of passively exercising the munus: “prayer and suffering.” He renounced instead, the active service or ministerium.
Likewise, in his last General Audience on February 27, 2013, Benedict stated:
The “always” is also a “forever” – there is no longer a return to the private. My decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this [papal commitment to God]… I do not abandon the cross but remain in a new way with the Crucified Lord. I no longer carry the power of the office for the [active] government of the Church, but in the [passive] service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the precincts of St. Peter [i.e. Petrine munus/office]. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example to me in this. He has shown us the way to a life, which, active or passive, belongs totally to the work of God.
As in his Declaratio, Benedict explicitly renounces only the “active exercise” of the office, not the office itself and the consequent passive exercise of it. Indeed, he says St. Benedict will be a great example to him as he practices the “passive” aspect of the Petrine munus! “Ora et Labora!”
Is there still more evidence of authorial intent outside the Declaratio? Yes, Benedict’s 2016 interview with Peter Seewald, who threw the words of his own Declaratio back at him: “Is a slowdown in the ability to perform, reason enough to climb down from the chair of Peter?”
Benedict: “One can…make that accusation, but it would be a functional misunderstanding. The successor of Peter is not merely bound to a function; the office [munus] enters into your very being. In this regard, fulfilling a function is not the only criterion.”
What is this talk of “accusation”?? A simple “yes” or “no” would suffice. But Benedict characterized Seewald’s question as a “functional misunderstanding,” as if Seewald had missed the transcendent component of the Petrine munus by suggesting: “whenever he is not actively leading the Church, he is not papal.” Benedict corrects him by saying that the “office enters into your very being;” it as an ontological “always,” a “forever.”
Benedict once criticized Martin Luther precisely for misunderstanding the difference between office (munus) as jurisdiction or function and office (munus) as rite or sacrament:
[For Luther] the priest does not transcend his role as preacher. The consequent restriction to the word alone had, as its logical outcome, the pure functionality of the priesthood: it consisted exclusively in a particular activity; if that activity was missing, the ministry itself ceased to exist…There was purposely no further mention of priesthood but only of “office”; the assignment of this office was, in itself, a secular act.
As if all this evidence were not enough, we have it again from Benedict’s own lips, that there is a distinction between munus and ministerium, between the transcendent and the practical use of it. In the early 1980s, Ratzinger expresses his approval of the reform of the rite of ordination carried out in 1947:
Pius XII defines as the central words those spoken at the consecration by the bishop: ‘Send forth upon him, O Lord, we beseech thee, the Holy Spirit, by whom may he (the ordained) be strengthened to perform faithfully the work of thy service with the help of thy sevenfold gift’ ‘Emitte in eum, quaesumus, Domine, Spiritum Sanctum, quo in opus ministerii tui fideliter exsequendi septiformis gratiae tuae munere roboretur.’ Accordingly… ministerium or munus: service and gift.”
Ratzinger remarks that the key words now are “munus,” the divine gift which allows “ministerium,” the service (active or passive) to God and His People:
The rigid juxtaposition of sacrament and jurisdiction, of consecrating power and power of governance, that had existed since the Middle Ages and was one of the symptoms marking the Western separation of the Churches from the East, has finally been eliminated…In the eucharistic office, both the sacrament and the “ruling power” interpenetrate one another, and it becomes at once clear how inappropriate the words “rule” and “power” are with regard to the Church. We have no more right to speak of a quasi-profane ruling power, neatly separated from the sacramental ministry, than we have a right to speak of a separation between the mystical and eucharistic body of Christ.”
Benedict above is expressing his wholehearted approval of the novel teaching not only of Pius XII in 1947, but of the Second Vatican Council in 1963, that not only do bishops receive the power to administer sacraments when they are ordained, but sacramentally they also receive the power to govern the flock of Christ—even before they are assigned a juridical “office” such as Bishop of Paris, London—or Rome?
First, a directly sacramental root is established in the very act of a bishop’s consecration… Sacrament is no longer understood merely as an individual gift, but relates to the living unity of Church as an organism…collegiality is not based on a papally conferred jurisdiction, paralleling the sacrament of ordination as though that sacrament were merely an individual gift;
Ultimately, Benedict goes so far as to suggest that the governing power of the Roman Pontiff himself, is not so much jurisdictionally-based, as it is sacramentally. Expressing his sympathy for the view of the Orthodox churches of the East, Ratzinger writes:
In the [Catholic view]…the source of law appears to be the will of the sovereign, which creates on its own authority new laws that then have the power to bind. The old sacramental structure [Eastern view] seems overgrown, even choked, by this new concept of law: the papacy is not a sacrament; it is “only” a juridical institution; but this juridical institution has set itself above the sacramental order…
For Benedict, the Pope does not occupy “an office of jurisdiction,” which comes and goes, so much as a spiritual “office of rite” which is irrevocable. As scholar Roberto de Mattei complains:
Vatican Council II did not explicitly reject the concept of “potestas,” [“power”] but set it aside, replacing it with an equivocal new concept, that of “munus.” Art. 21 of “Lumen Gentium” then seems to teach that episcopal consecration confers not only the fullness of orders, but also the office [munus] of teaching and governing, whereas in the whole history of the Church the act of episcopal consecration has been distinguished from that of appointment, or of the conferral of the canonical mission. This ambiguity is consistent with the ecclesiology of the theologians of the Council and post-council (Congar, Ratzinger, de Lubac, Balthasar, Rahner, Schillebeeckx…) who presumed to reduce the mission of the Church to a sacramental function, scaling down its juridical aspects…
Ratzinger…distanced himself from tradition when he saw in the primacy of Peter the fullness of the apostolic ministry, linking the ministerial character to the sacramental (J.Auer-J. Ratzinger, La Chiesa universale sacramento di salvezza, Cittadella, Assisi, 1988).
In the end, the preponderance of the evidence is that Pope Benedict believes that Sacred Power comes from the munus received in episcopal consecration and that it is an “always” and “forever” gift that remains even after the loss of the active “ministerium.”
And so we return to Canon 332 § 2 and ask: Was Benedict’s renunciation valid? The pope did not “renounce his munus;” it was hardly “manifested properly” if it contained such multivalent language (i.e. munus vs ministerium), and if Benedict’s intellect suffered from an erroneous Ecclesiology (thank you Vatican II), neither was his renunciation free (Cf. Canon 188 on “substantial error”).
Juan Ignacio Arrieta, “Funzione pubblica e ufficio ecclesiastico,” in Ius Ecclesiae, VII (1995), pp. 92-93. –
Anna Slowikowska, “Interpretation of the term munus in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium” Annals of the Humanities, 2015 (125-145) [ROCZNIKI HUMANISTYCZNE Tom LXIII, zeszyt 8 – 2015] –
Pope Benedict XVI, Declaratio, February 11, 2013. –
Slowikowska, “Interpretation of the term munus.” –
Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience, February 27, 2013. –
Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, Last Testament, (Bloomsbury Continuum; Reprint edition 2017). –
Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, M. F. McCarthy, Trans. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 248. –
In my last post, I said that quibbling on and on about the words munus and ministerium is actually a red herring. I stand by that. To address those, however, who are convinced that the word munus is a sine qua non, let us consider the following. (Cf. this link.)
For convenience, we repeat: Can. 332 Sec. 2 (Latin) — Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.
Can. 332 Sec. 2 (English) — 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.
Was the resignation freely made? Yes. The previous pope made this decision with full cognizance of the act and its consequences and with full freedom: bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro.
Is the resignation properly manifested? Yes. The AAS is the official journal of record for the Vatican.
As I argue in my last post, it is not prescribed for the pope to use any particular formula, phrase, or word. But for those who think so, look at the title: De muneris episcopi Romae, successoris sancti Petri abdicatione.
There it is, the second word: munus in the genitive singular, as required by the grammar. But I also draw your attention to the word abdicatio. Lewis and Short make it clear that this is a strong and unequivocal word; when applied to persons, it means to disown them.
Saint Mark’s Gospel is by far the shortest of the four. You can read it before you’ve finished your morning coffee. Its overall brevity is matched by the brevity of his style: Short, terse, to the point. Tradition has long claimed it to be the second Gospel to be written, shortly after Matthew, but there is strong evidence that it was actually the first, and that Matthew and Luke both drew from it. Mark was secretary to St. Peter after Peter had translated to Rome from Antioch, and it is believed that Mark’s Gospel is more or less a direct dictation from St. Peter, which would make sense. Peter relates the scene where Christ calls him Satan in Chapter 8. I suppose it was seared in his memory.
The most prominent theme in Mark is suffering and death, that of Jesus, and that of our own. The entire second half is a march to Golgotha. The need for suffering, and how it needs to be used as a tool to overcome sin and death. You can’t be a Christian without the Cross. The more suffering that is offered to you, the more grace is also offered, such that you might work these things and ultimately merit salvation through the victory of Christ’s death and Resurrection.
If you want a little side project, there has been some excitement in recent years over a very early fragment of the first chapter of Mark, called Papyrus 137. Possibly 1st Century. Check it out.
And give Mark a try over that cup of coffee.
And calling the multitude together with his disciples, he said to them: If any man will follow me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel, shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul? -Mark 8:34-36