How Cardinal Sodano robbed the Papacy from Pope Benedict!

Oct11by The Editor

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As I have reported before, in February 2013 there was a de facto coup d’etat at the Vatican, the result of which was the imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI, and the convocation of an illegal, illicit and invalid Conclave, which resulted in the illegal, illicit and invalid election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Now, I invite the entire Church to examine more carefully what happened in the 58 minutes after the Consistory of February 11, 2013, which ended just before noon, Rome time, on that day.

According to Canon Law, it was the grave and solemn duty of the Dean of the College of Cardinals to approach Pope Benedict and ask for a written copy of his act of Renunciation.

Here are the relevant Canons of the Code of 1983 which regulate what should have been done:

Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.

Can. 41 — Exsecutor actus administrativi cui committitur merum exsecutionis ministerium, exsecutionem huius actus denegare non potest, nisi manifesto appareat eundem actum esse nullum aut alia ex gravi causa sustineri non posse aut condiciones in ipso actu administrativo appositas non esse adimpletas; si tamen actus administrativi exsecutio adiunctorum personae aut loci ratione videatur inopportuna, exsecutor exsecutionem intermittat; quibus in casibus statim certiorem faciat auctoritatem quae actum edidit.

Needless to say, I have added some color to the letters of the text to make it clear that, in the very 2 Canons which Cardinal Sodano should have carefully read and acted upon, there is made by the Code itself the distinction between munus and ministerium. And yet for 6 years, and especially during the last 12 months, those who have sustained that the renunciation was valid, dared use the argument that there no distinction between the terms!

It seems so true, that it is almost a law, that whatever one investigates about the Pontificate of Bergoglio, one uncovers nothing but lies and frauds. This is clearly the greatest.

The Laws which governed what Cardinal Sodano should have done

Because in that key moment, before Sodano through Father Lombardi gave the Sig.ra Chirri the go ahead to publish to the world that Benedict had resigned, He will leave the Pontificate on Feb. 29 (B16 è dimesso. Lascia il Pontificato Feb 28), he HAD TO read these 2 canons, or at least recall them.

Let us therefore take a closer look at these 2 canons, which regard whats is to be done when someone with mere Executive authority receives notice from someone with Jurisdiction to posit an adminstrative act, that he is to take an action.

My English translation of the Canons:

Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his office (suo munero), before he receives the document (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) their integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of them has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.

Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears manifestly to be null or cannot be sustained for any grave cause or the conditions in the administrative act itself do not seem to be able to have been fulfilled: however, if the execution of the administrative act seems inopportune by reason of place or adjoined persons, let the executor omit the execution; in which cases let him immediately bring the matter to the attention of (certiorem faciat) the authority which published the act.

What Cardinal Sodano did

First, as Canon 40 states, Cardinal Sodano’s first duty was to ask Pope Benedict XVI for a written copy of the Act of Renunciation. This is because, as read outloud, anyone fluent in Latin, as Cardinal Sodano is reputed to be, would have noticed multiple errors in the Latin, most grevious of which was the ennunciation of commisum not commiso by the Holy Father. This touched upon the integrity of the act.

Second, in receiving the Act of Renunciation in the authentic Latin Text, and finding that it was as it was intended to be read, he was obliged to examine if the act was in conformity with Canon 332 §2, which reads:

Canon 332 § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

My translation:

Canon 332 §2. If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his office (muneri suo), for validity there is required that the renunciation be done freely and duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.

And thus, in this examination, the Cardinal had to confront the very Distinction between munus and ministerium that was founded in the Act of Renunciation, which contained used the terms munus and ministerium.

Clearly anyone reading Canon 40, would see that munus means office or charge! And in reading canon 41 that ministerium means execution of the duties of the office. Clearly he would as Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals realize that it is one thing to have a munus to do something, quite another to put into motion his ministerium to execute it. — He was acting on the very basis of that distinction, because before he acted, he held the munus to act, and in acting he executed the ministerium to act!

For this reason, Cardinal Sodano must be questioned if not publicly accused of having closed his eyes! Of having ignored the distinction and his own grave duty and invalidly executed his office, by declaring the act a valid act of renunciation of the papal office!

This violated the general principle of law, that the validity of the renunciation of power is NOT to be presumed.

As is enshrined, in an applied form, in Canon 21:

Can. 21 — In dubio revocatio legis praeexistentis non praesumitur, sed leges posteriores ad priores trahendae sunt et his, quantum fieri potest, conciliandae.

Canon 21 — In doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws are to be compared with prior ones, as much as can be done, be reconciled to them.

In a word, he was claiming a munus to act and using that authority to deny that the Pope had a munus which had to be renounced!

This was tantamount to robbing the Roman Pontiff of his office by exploiting his authority to declare valid what was invalid to produce a papal resignation!

What Cardinal Sodano should have done!

Upon receiving the document of Renunciation, and noticing that the renunciation of ministerium was not the act specified by Canon 332 §2, he should have spoken with Pope Benedict in the presence of 2 credible witnesses and brought this to his attention, as Canon 41 requires. Then he should have asked whether it was his intention to renounce the Petrine munus or simply to renounce the Petrine Ministerium. In the latter case, he should have asked the Holy Father to issue a Motu Proprio naming someone to be his Vicar extraordinaire who would have the potestas executionis but not the office of the Pope, during the remainder of his life, OR, asked him to sign a corrected copy of the act, containing the word muneri instead of ministerio.

Simple. Easy. Legal, Legit. By failing to do that, he convened an illicit, illegal and invalid Conclave, and made Bergoglio an Antipope, not the Pope!

(Photo Credits: CTV)

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Cam says:

    IiI: “Benedict had the right, but also the duty to minister insofar as he was able.”

    That seems right to me too, but I just don’t see how that entails that Benedict can do something like ‘resign’ his ministry. He has a right to resign his ministry just because he cannot perform his ministry? I don’t see how that works. I can see at best how he would possibly have the right, and perhaps duty, to delegate his ministry if he really cannot execute it.

    IiI: Benedict “had been physically deprived of his autonomy and moral right to operate properly.”

    But what evidence proves this is true? I only know of evidence that indicates he possibly acted under duress. Saying more than that strikes me as only opinion and speculation.

  2. Islam_Is Islam says:

    @Cam: As you point out there is a duty to minister inherent in the office that is also a moral right of the office holder. Remember from the article that Bishop Gracida posted on September 14th when the author explains that (through no fault or lacking of his own) the power that Pope Benedict is capable of administering is that of sanctifying through prayer and sacrifice. Fr. Abdicto says, “Benedict had the right, but also the duty to minister insofar as he was able. In other words, Benedict couldn’t just voluntarily resign the “ministry” while maintaining the Office, without setting up some way to carry out at least a spiritual ministry in order to sanctify his flock. His usual ministry had to be aborted because he had been physically deprived of his autonomy and moral right to operate properly. But he could still keep the Petrine Office and a spiritual ministry.” (p 34) [Bold emphasis mine]

    You may also recall the precedent noted by the author of other popes who were hindered from fulfilling the duty and moral right to the ministry of their office and yet ministering as they were able: Gregory VII and Pius VII.

  3. Cam says:

    Very illuminating. Now we see more clearly where the procedural error lies following the declaratio as well as who’s responsible for that error. Many thanks to Bugnolo for his hard work.

    I wonder, though, about the disjunction Bugnolo ends with. Is the ministry of the Pope’s office something from which he can really resign? If his ministry follows upon the nature of his office, then it doesn’t seem so. The Pope can, of course, always delegate the execution of his ministry, but that is very different from resigning his ministry.

Comments are closed.