Most of what follows appeared in an essay from 15 June 2019 HERE. I’ve reworked a few minor things and re-post it here, as the BiP Barnhardt Thesis continues to gain traction by the day.

———————————————–

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. 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.

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:

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.

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:

TITLE IV. SINGULAR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS (Cann. 35 – 93)

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. 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 abrogate or derogate whatever he wants, as we just saw from Canon 38. The thing is, he has to actually do the derogation. He has full power over the law, yet he is subject to the law as it is written. Father Brian Harrison has explained the concept this way:

“As supreme legislator, the pope may change any ecclesiastical law by officially and expressly abrogating it or derogating from it. But if he were to decree something which broke the law-that is, which acted against an existing ecclesiastical law without expressly adding a clause derogating from that law-then canon law itself (c. 38, 1983 Code; c. 46, 1917 Code) states that such a lawless action, even on the part of a “competent authority” (and that, of course, includes the pope) would have “no effect.””  HERE

Now 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.

Well. Isn’t that interesting?

Canon 131.1 appears in the section of the code called,

TITLE VIII. THE POWER OF GOVERNANCE (Can. 129 – 144)

Aside: 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.

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, 65 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

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.

Hey! Remember that time when a bunch of Latinists/canonists/theologians publicly called out the invalidity of Benedict’s “resignation” within DAYS of him pronouncing it? Yep.

Take the time. Read it all.

———————-

The Church Visible: How can a simple layperson ever figure out who is pope? Um, you have the internet, right?

https://nonvenipacem.com/2019/06/11/the-church-visible-how-can-a-simple-layperson-ever-figure-out-who-is-pope-um-you-have-the-internet-right/

You have to go read it all HERE. You won’t believe how racist you never knew you were.

Be sure to visit he site and click on those other links too, so you can teach your children just how much they are to blame for Cherokee Nation.

That’s another great link to go learn about plastic cups and fossil fuels, you shameless, commuting, air conditioning abusing, charcoal barbequing, whore.

Below is a glimpse of their episcopal certitude on the worst enviro sins you need to take political action on NOW, for the betterment of your community and all of humankind, you know. SEAMLESS GARMENT YOU HEATHEN.

Please contact Susan of the parish council to arrange group study for your family.

Trust me, you do NOT want to “discover the joys, the blessings and the power of the Spirit” of Pachamama.

Pro tip: If anyone, especially a priest, suggests to you that the truth can only be found by following a “spirit” that guides us BEYOND what we know to be “true, sacred, and holy,” then you are dealing with someone undergoing a preternatural disturbance. This is Teilhard’s demonic dream where creation, cosmos, and consciousness go forward together toward new mo’ better troofs, if only we are brave enough to set aside our fears and embrace the “spirit.”

They aren’t more enlightened than you are. They aren’t in possession of some acquired knowledge, blossoming as the fruit of docility to the “spirit.” Friends, the fullness of truth is already in front of you in the Deposit of Faith. It doesn’t change, because God never changes, hello Malachi 3:6. It doesn’t “go forward, always forward.” Anything contrary to this is satanic, and it’s only going to get worse. The lies will always be interwoven with truths like, “God is bigger than all of us.” Arm yourself.

May I suggest this little primer… it’s 59 pages that will change the way you look at everything, and it’s $3.16. HERE

Nothing like a little bait and switch. Yeah, get everyone worked up and worried about deaconesses and married priests, then go full frontal Pachamamamania.

73. Inculturation elevates and fulfills. Certainly, we should esteem the indigenous mysticism…

74. Similarly, a relationship with Jesus Christ, true God and true man, liberator and redeemer, is not inimical to the markedly cosmic worldview that characterizes the indigenous peoples…

78. A process of inculturation involving not only individuals but also peoples demands a respectful and understanding love for those peoples… Let us not be quick to describe as superstition or paganism certain religious practices that arise spontaneously from the life of peoples.

79. It is possible to take up an indigenous symbol in some way, without necessarily considering it as idolatry. A myth charged with spiritual meaning can be used to advantage and not always considered a pagan error.

Then Paragraph 81 kicks off a section titled The inculturation of the liturgy… Might want to go have a look at that HERE.

A great synopsis, short and sweet, a two minute read, from a new blog/blogger “Septina Buccina” HERE … I have only laid out a fraction of what he found, and it is a MUST READ as he has highlighted much more from the document and added much commentary. I beg you to click the link. A quick taste here:

In Article 74 he reduces the eucharist to some sort of pantheism, says that God is in everything like the earth worshippers believe & ACTUALLY TELLS YOU THAT A RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST ISN’T INCOMPATIBLE WITH PAGANISM. Let’s be very, very clear here: the man pretending to be pope says that Christianity and paganism are compatible.

Ann’s take HERE.

Hey! Remember when they did all this IN PLAIN SIGHT? THE ANTICHURCH VISIBLE?

Happy feast!

On his day, 11 Feb 1858, the Blessed Virgin made her first appearance to Bernadette in the grotto at Lourdes. Six weeks later, Our Lady would confirm to Bernadette that she was the Immaculate Conception, a fact that had been Dogmatically defined barely three years prior (8 Dec 1854 HERE).

Ah, sweet Bernadette. She was but 14 years old.

Laywoman.

Illiterate.

Dirt poor.

Yet chosen by God to receive this miraculous message and teach it to the world.

Most of the depictions, paintings, statues of this miracle are wrong. The picture I posted above is all wrong. Bernadette was so poor, her family lived in a one-room windowless cellar with a dirt floor. Her first encounter with Our Lady was during a hunt for firewood, trudging through mud, so she would have been wearing not just rags, which is all she owned, but the worst rags she had.

The other illusory image is that of the Blessed Virgin. She actually appeared as a 14 year old, same age as Bernadette, and even shorter than Bernadette’s diminutive 4’7″… which was caused by malnutrition. Mary was appearing at the age when she herself conceived… which aligns with her pronouncement of her own Immaculate Conception on the Feast of the Annunciation, Christ’s conception, which took place at the grotto on 25 March 1858.

When these depictions began appearing even within her own lifetime, especially the statuary, Bernadette was very upset with their inaccuracy. She also despised her celebrity, and once she entered the convent, wanted only to pray and offer penances. She was chronically sick. Mary had promised her suffering in this life, but happiness in the next. Suffering is a tool to attain holiness, and Mary was no stranger to suffering in her own lifetime. These things are meant as examples for us. Bernadette died 16 April 1879, and was raised to the altars on 8 December 1933. Her famous quote, upon reflecting on her own fate while in this world:

“What do you do with a broom when it is done being used? You put it behind a door; and that is what the Virgin has done with me.”

Our Lady of Lourdes, pray for us.

Saint Bernadette, pray for us.

“O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counselor?” Romans 11:33-34

Premise A: Of the 36 Doctors of the Church, four are women

Premise B: “Doctor” is Latin for “teacher”

Conclusion with Logical Certainty: Women can be teachers in the Church

Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Siena, Therese of Lisieux, and Hildegard of Bingen were not sinful in daring to teach. They were not gravely in violation of 1 Tim 2:12 in real time, during their lifetimes, only to be exonerated centuries later by a declaration of the Church. Not only were their actions NOT sinful in real time, their actions were eminently meritorious.

Now, as Doctors of the Church, their teachings are literally part of the Magisterium.

It’s helpful if we take a look at some of the words used to describe the lives and works of these women. For today, I will limit myself to two. Let’s start with Saint Hildegard of Bingen, 12th Century mystic and visionary, named Doctor of the Universal Church on 7 October 2012 by Pope Benedict XVI just five months after her Canonization. Here are the words of Pope Benedict from the proclamation, emphasis mine:

A “light for her people and her time”: in these words Blessed John Paul II, my Venerable Predecessor, described Saint Hildegard of Bingen in 1979, on the occasion of the eight-hundredth anniversary of the death of this German mystic. This great woman truly stands out crystal clear against the horizon of history for her holiness of life and the originality of her teaching. And, as with every authentic human and theological experience, her authority reaches far beyond the confines of a single epoch or society; despite the distance of time and culture, her thought has proven to be of lasting relevance.

One of the salient points of Hildegard’s magisterium was her heartfelt exhortation to a virtuous life addressed to consecrated men and women. Her understanding of the consecrated life is a true “theological metaphysics”, because it is firmly rooted in the theological virtue of faith, which is the source and constant impulse to full commitment in obedience, poverty and chastity…

Hildegard’s eminent doctrine echoes the teaching of the Apostles, the Fathers and writings of her own day, while it finds a constant point of reference in the Rule of Saint Benedict. The monastic liturgy and the interiorization of sacred Scripture are central to her thought which, focusing on the mystery of the Incarnation, is expressed in a profound unity of style and inner content that runs through all her writings.

The teaching of the holy Benedictine nun stands as a beacon… HERE

Teaching, authority, magisterium, eminent doctrine, and praise of her exhortations to consecrated men.

How about that.

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.

Funny that.

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 One HERE

By the way, Saint Catherine was a laywoman.

Did I mention that?

Da roof, da roof, da roof is on fire! I suspect that anyone reading this has already noticed the rising wave of indignation sweeping trad social media in recent days, but ICYMI, Dymphna sums it up nicely. Or rather, not so nicely.

Something is happening in Trad land. That’s not a deep thought since something is always happening where there is life but I mean that something new seems to be stirring. People are talking back to the leaders of Trad Inc. and asking questions. Benedict Carter  has come out with his suspicion that the people we’ve been told represent and are the leaders of traditional Catholics are really controlled opposition who do it for the money, honey.

…

So, forgive me if I am aghast at college credentialed individual who has obvious talent and cleverness who wants me to donate to his cause so his kids can eat. Sir, go get yourself a job, handle the responsibility that God gave you and then come back to me. Finally there is one lay professional Catholic who writes on and on and on some more about stupid and worldly (you and me) people but wants us to send our worldly cash to him/her. I say again, you are by your claim, more righteous than me. You are by your claim, more holy than me. You are, by your claim, more educated and sophisticated than me so why exalted sir or madam do you not get a job and support your rent and food that way and run your site?

I like her.

Read the rest HERE.