If anyone should claim that Cardinal Burke and Monsignor Bux did NOT have the reality of Pope Benedict’s invalid abdication explained to them in excruciating detail, which they both acknowledged as intriguing if not incontrovertible, let him be anathema. I’ve seen the PowerPoints, y’all. It’s all in there.
Since a partial resignation is no resignation at all, the law (and plain reality) dictates that the situation reverts to the status quo. Hence the conclave of 2013 was wholly invalid, and could not have possibly elected a valid pope, since a valid pope yet lived, and continued to reign (whether he liked it or not). The burden of proof is so simple on this: If Benedict thought he remained “papal” in any way after 28 Feb 2013, his resignation was rendered invalid by the Substantial Error clause in Canon 188, the Properly Manifested clause in Canon 332.2, and quite possibly the Made Freely clause in the latter canon. Triple invalidation.
Miss B had multiple audiences, over a 22 month period, explaining all this. Email correspondence has been preserved. So now, after a respectful five years of holding all this in confidence, it’s time.
It’s worse for +Bux, whose deception has been laid bare in the past two weeks over Lettergate, wherein he stated in the Valli interview in 2018 that Benedict’s “resignation” was highly problematic and needed to be investigated, but now claims that Benedict had told him that idea was absurd, in a personal letter four years earlier in 2014. The man doesn’t seem to understand the inviolability of linear time. His enthusiastic encounter with Miss B was in early 2019, during which at no time did he inform her that Pope Benedict considered her thesis “absurd.”
As for ++Burke, at least he gets one thing right (Ann’s quote below):
“I have been personally assured by no less than his Eminence, the illegally deposed prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, that I am NOT schismatic nor in schism, and therefore neither are you “interregnists”. So we’ve got that going for us, which is nice.”
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943)
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
Should anyone claim that interregnists are schismatic or in schism, let him be anathema.
Have a listen!
Barnhardt Podcast #233: The Surreptitious Social Life of Ann
In this episode, Art and Ann are joined once again by NonVeni Mark and Dr. Mazza. Recorded on the feast of St. Augustine, Dr. Mazza shares some quotes and insights on the great Church Father. Then, as promised, Ann finally, after over five years of respectful silence, reveals her several extremely cordial and warmly-received presentations to high-level clerics and prelates regarding the invalid resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the Bergoglian Antipapacy. If the few remaining churchmen today won’t do their part to defend the Petrine See from usurpers, at least I know that I did mine given my state in life, by the unfathomable, and occasionally surreal grace of God. And I have been personally assured by no less than his Eminence, the illegally deposed prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, that I am NOT schismatic nor in schism, and therefore neither are you “interregnists”. So we’ve got that going for us, which is nice.
Dr. Mazza’s two archived courses on Sedevacantism and St. Augustine
NonVeni Mark’s piece on DEROGATION
Desperado: A Poker Analogy to Explain How the Pope and Canon Law Relate to Each Other
Feedback: the email address for the podcast is Ann@barnhardt.biz.
The Infant Jesus of Prague handles Ann’s financial stuff. Click image for details. [If you have a recurring donation set up and need to cancel for any reason – don’t hesitate to do so!]
