Saturday Morning Musings: Bishop Gracida, Oklahoma Summer Heat, Minivacation, Blue Hole Posted: 20 Jul 2019 05:26 PM PDT Good morning fellow Okie Trads and Beyond.  I’m perched at the end of my couch this fine Saturday morning giving my “Saturday morning musings” as I’ve been calling them.  Thoughts circulating this week in my mind. Bishop Gracida: Bishop Gracida, retired bishop of Corpus Christi, it seems follows yours truly.  I interviewed him a while back here about his proposal that the Cardinals evaluate the canonical legitimacy of the current pontificate.  Discussed here.  Some time back he remarked I reminded him of a contemporary Will Rogers which I found flattering. His blog is one of the tiny few I check in on now and then, from my own little corner of the Traditional Catholic Blogosphere.  It seems he has made my own comment moderation approach his own, quoting me here.  Kudos good bishop.  By the way, he celebrates daily the Traditonal Latin Mass!  Probably the most traditional diocesan bishop in the world!! https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/FMfcgxwGCtHnVMMqJnpTskVVZnbBKSnK

Book Review: The Catholic Red Pill: a Guide for Men, by James DePrisco Posted: 20 Jan 2020 03:34 PM PST Just read this recently.  Going in I was a bit skeptical if it would achieve what it claimed in its Amazon description.  A comprehensive guide for men, specifically trads, on how to be a man, and better orient your life to being a husband and father.  That is a tall order coming from one Catholic layman.   But I already knew the author in question, Mr. James Deprisco, a fellow Okie Trad, as a successful husband, father, and professional, a devoted and orthodox Catholic, and a well read, highly intelligent, and intellectually honest man. The book is called The Catholic Red Pill: a Guide for Men, available on Amazon for a fair $14.00. Purchase It Here This is a must read, men.  If you can’t afford it right now, I will lend you my copy; otherwise it’s the cost of a meal.  Its premise is true:  every one of us men reading this right now have been made to a large degree effeminate by contemporary culture, and need to reclaim our dignity as men, to reclaim authentic masculinity.  This is the key to our happiness, the health of our marriages and family life, and vital to the restoration of Christian culture. There is no book on the market that is mapping this out, specifically for the Trad Catholic Male.   And if you believe the analysis of many trad priests such as Fr. Ripperger, then this book will ring true for you. But it does more than that.   The thing is a masterpiece, and I only say that because that was my conclusion after I read it with a considerable amount of reserve.  It gets down to the hard core problems in modern men, and gives timeless solutions, but in a very structured, practical, and at times humorous way.  I literally laughed out loud several times the raw way truths and facts are presented.  There were a few sentences and even paragraphs here and there where I did raise an eyebrow, but when I re-read them I found nothing objectively unorthodox, impious, or worldly in what DePrisco wrote. Truth be told, after a few chapters I felt like I was being run over by a Semi-Truck by the argument made and the facts as laid out, flattened to the ground, the truth of my own certain degree of effeminacy exposed for the raw fact that it is.    DePrisco’s point is that all men today, young and old, have allowed themselves to be stripped of their masculinity, and are somewhat blameworthy for neglectfully allowing our masculinity to decline.  But the book is as hope-promoting and empowering as it is pragmatic and realist. That said, I am not sure the trad or conservative Catholic publishers would touch this.  It tactfully uses profanity in places, and some harsh admonitions to man up.   It borrows some terminology and concepts from the Alt Right and Manosphere, themselves a very mixed bag as the author discusses.   Yet as I’ve wrote here before, there is still much Truth online coming from those circles, about the decline of Christian, Western civilization due to Marxism, and a cultural crisis among males. This instead is more of a book to be promoted via the Catholic Blogosphere, Canon212, the Trad Forums, and FB Trad Groups.  Perhaps trad priests like Fr. Ripperger or Fr. Relyea could get behind this.  In my opinion, they should.  There is no other book doing what this book does. The Catholic Red Pill:  a Guide for Men, by James DePrisco.  If anything I write on this blog has resonated with you as true, and you are a man, or you are a woman with a husband, boyfriend, or sons, consider making this small investment. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/FMfcgxwGCtHnVMMqJnpTskVVZnbBKSnK

THE RIGHT PRESCRIPTIONThe Dems Still Don’t Know Why Trump Won in 2016 Biden, Pelosi, and Northam repeat fatal blunders while Trump ups his game. 

byDAVID CATRONJanuary 21, 2020, 12:05 AM Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale (YouTube screenshot) 🔊 Listen to this article

TrendingAOC Hit List Targets Two Dozen Democrats byDAVID CATRONThe Stain of Theodore McCarrick Is Impossible to Expunge byGEORGE NEUMAYRVirginia’s Giddy Gun Controllers byJED BABBIN

Biden’s real problem with Facebook is that he doesn’t have the money to compete with Trump on social media. His fundraising during the most recent quarter, though it produced his best haul thus far in the campaign, is half of what President Trump brought in during the same period. Moreover, it’s less than Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg brought in. Thus, this Twitter announcement is really quite pathetic: “I’m excited to share that we raised $22.7 million this last quarter — our biggest quarter so far this campaign! Thank you to everyone who chipped in what you could — your support means the world to me. You truly are the heart of our campaign.”

If this is the “heart” of his campaign, a visit to the cardiologist may be in order. Biden hasn’t a prayer of winning the Democratic nomination, much less the general election, if he can’t do any better than this. Finally, as if “the party of Jefferson and Jackson” didn’t have enough problems, Virginia’s Democratic governor, Ralph Northam, spent MLK’s birthday hiding from the Commonwealth’s citizens who came to Richmond about a couple of Draconian gun control laws. Gov. Northam and his legislative accomplices lied about their Second Amendment positions during the recent election, and the voters were less than pleased with “Coonman.”

All of which brings us back to Ed Kilgore’s theory about overconfidence and the “key lesson from 2016.” Perhaps the actual lesson — considering Trump’s continued successes in the face of quotidian slander by the legacy media, years of federal and congressional investigations based on implausible conspiracy theories, a hyper-partisan impeachment based on hearsay, and an upcoming Senate trial pursuant to offenses that wouldn’t justify removing him from office even if they were true — is that Democrats can no longer be trusted with power. The Democrats themselves will never absorb this lesson, however. They still don’t get how Trump won in 2016.

• https://spectator.org/the-dems-still-dont-know-why-trump-won-in-2016/?utm_source=American%20Spectator%20Emails&utm_campaign=2c8974f925-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_21_02_37&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_797a38d487-2c8974f925-104485197

NEWS, TEAM BERGOGLIO

THE DARK ROOT OF THE ST. GALLEN MAFIA

JANUARY 21, 2020FROM ROME EDITORLEAVE A COMMENT

By Br.  Alexis Bugnolo

https://fromrome.info/2020/01/21/the-dark-root-of-the-st-gallen-mafia/

I know by divine faith that God and His Elect in Heaven do nothing without a purpose. And that means the Holy Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, also does nothing without purpose.

So imagine my amazement when I discovered that the place of Her most stunning and memorable apparition, at Fatima, Portugal, is in the diocese of a 18th Century Bishop, whose episcopal lineage can be traced down to Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

As I mentioned in my article on Church History, yesterday, What is Happening to the Catholic Church? and What you can do about it, the Saint Gallen Mafia traces their episcopal lineage back to  Cardinal Alessandro Mattei, the very Bishop who consecrated the Arch Heretic of the Synod of Pistoia, Scipione dei Ricci.

So while digging around in ancient episcopal lineages, I found that one of the co-consecrators of Cardinal Mattei descends from none other than Cardinal Nuno da Cunha de Athaíde, who was at one time Bishop of the region where Fatima is now found! A coincidence? — I had to investigate!

Even more curious, is that Cardinal da Cunha de Athaide, was Cardinal priest of Sant’Anatasia, here at Rome: a Church which is nearly in the geographical center of the Eternal City. This got me to pay attention even more.

Cardinal Nuno de Cunha de Athaide is buried at Sant’Anatasia, a name which means in Greek, the Resurrection.  A rather obscure historical figure, but whose tomb appears on lists of important persons for tourists to visit at Rome.

He came from a military family which had close ties to the British Crown, at about the time of the founding of the Masonic Lodge in London in 1717. He was chief inquisitor of Portugal.

In our own time, it is perhaps not insignificant, which Cardinal held the same title of Saint’Anastasia, as Cardinal de Cunha did in the 18th century: Cardinal Godfried Danneels, the leader of “Team Bergoglio” and architect of the “election” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio! Cardinal Danneels was one of the first members of the St. Gallen Mafia made a Cardinal, by Pope John Paul II in 1983! He was, at it were, its senior member, and perhaps that is why it was his duty to organize the coup?

Could this 18th Century Portuguese Cardinal have been the founder of the Satanic clique which we now call the St Gallen Mafia? or Team Bergoglio?

The other strange thing about the Portuguese Cardinal is his coat of arms, which when you connect the escutcheons which surround it, it forms an inverted Pentagram.

If these facts are not mere coincidences, then it may be that at the Church of Sant’Anatasia for at least 3 centuries, there has been a cultic center of a Satanic group of clergy at the highest levels.

Many scholars have already noted, that the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima in 1917 marked the 200th anniversary of the founding of the Masonic Lodge. But now I think scholars have to start considering if the place of Her apparitions was also to indicate against which group of Masons She appeared to warn the world and provide a remedy. For where Her foot descends, there the head of the serpent is crushed forever!

_________

CREDITS: The image of the Cardinal is in the public domain. The sketch of his coat of arms is from Araldica Vaticana, without attribution of origin. The Featured Image is a detail of Miguel Cabrera’s, Virgin of the Apocalypse, showing the foot of the Immaculate Virgin crushing the head of the serpent.

https://fromrome.info/2020/01/21/the-dark-root-of-the-st-gallen-mafia/

JANUARY 20, 2020

The Warhol Effect

MICHAEL WARREN DAVIS

In 2018, I wrote a column for my then-employer, the Catholic Herald, titled “Andy Warhol’s Devotion Was Almost Surreal”; the piece became our most-read article of the year. It followed on the announcement that the Vatican Museum would be exhibiting a few of Warhol’s works in the Holy See. Social media was abuzz with the news that this pop icon was a Catholic. Many of our co-religionists who had never taken a passing interest in Warhol suddenly became connoisseurs and devotees because he was “one of us.”

And no doubt he was. As I wrote in the Herald:

He attended Mass almost daily… He spent his Thanksgivings, Christmases and Easters volunteering at a soup kitchen, and befriended the homeless and poor whom he served. He put his nephew through seminary… He lived with his mother until she died, and every morning they would pray together in Old Slavonic [he was a Ruthenian Catholic] before he left for [his studio]. He always carried a rosary and a small missal in his pocket.

This is all true, and there’s a great deal more to Warhol’s spiritual life besides. One could hardly doubt the man’s faith.

But my superiors had me remove an observation from the article that I felt was indispensable, but which they feared would compromise the article’s popularity—namely, that Warhol is one of the worst artists who ever lived.

The Pop Art movement he pioneered has done more to undermine Western culture than any since the Beeldenstorm of the 16^th century. What he created wasn’t art, but a mockery of art—and not a particularly imaginative one, either. I allowed the hagiography to be published in my name, but I’d be much more inclined to agree with Brian Sewell, who noted that “few men have had a more destructive influence on art,”

reducing it to the mechanical processes of the production line; few men have so blunted the perception and aesthetic judgment of other men that any nincompoop with a camera and access to the expertise of printers can pretend to be an artist; few men have so exploited their personal publicity that merely being an artist has become more important than any work he might produce.

Warhol never hung any of his own “artworks” in his apartment. And no wonder. His sketches of shoes for ladies’ magazines, which gained him critical attention, are on par with anything you would find in the margins of a schoolgirl’s social studies notebook: flat, monotone, and utterly without texture. His iconic Campbell’s Soup Cans are an exercise in banality, as Warhol himself would have told you. His rendering of The Last Supper—a mechanical, black-and-white sketch of Da Vinci’s masterpiece with Dove Soap and General Electric logos stenciled over the scene—would only dodge the charge of blasphemy because it’s both tedious and incomprehensible. Even his Jesus Statue, which is the nearest he comes to proper devotional art, is two steps below the sort of thing you might find in the makeshift chapel of some desolate favela.

However admirable Warhol’s piety (and there’s more to the story than the hagiographers let on, myself included) he’s not known for being a devout Catholic. New York must be home to hundreds of eccentric, antisocial gay men who pray the rosary with their immigrant mothers. Warhol is known for being an artist. And, as an artist, he was a fraud and a hack.

He may have been a Christian—but so, too, were the Vandals and the Goths. I have no doubt that future historians will consider their respective influences on Western civilization as being more or less comparable.

❧

The myth of Saint Andy has resurfaced as the Warhol Museum launches its new exhibit, Andy Warhol: Revelation, highlighting the man’s religious “art.” No doubt the museum is riding the sudden wave of public fascination with Catholicism: The Young Pope, The Two Popes, The Next Pope, etc. Or maybe they’re just politely reciprocating the Vatican’s interest in their master’s estate. Still, it’s difficult to (yet again) watch conservatives and Catholics falling over themselves to claim Warhol as “one of us.”

Usually, I’d keep mum on all of this. I’m not much into speaking ill of the dead. But what’s truly outrageous is that many of the magazines publishing tributes to Warhol were, less than a week prior, publishing tributes to the late Sir Roger Scruton, that great enemy of the pretentious, hideous con that is modern art. Scruton himself called Warhol’s work “corny” and “kitsch,” and described his formula thus: take any vulgar or commonplace thing, “put it on display, call it art and brazen it out.”

So, my fellow Catholics and conservatives, what will it be? Will you side with Warhol or Scruton? Will we defy passing fashions for the sake of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty? Or are we slaves to public opinion? Are we trying to win a culture war or a popularity contest?

These questions don’t even occur to our thought-leaders. In one breath, they decry the hideousness and brutality of modern life; with the next, they’re claiming every celebrity who makes vaguely favorable noises about Christianity as “one of us.” We want to give a clear diagnosis of our cultural malaise, but we also cling desperately to these touchstones in pop culture as proof that our views aren’t so very far outside the norm. We want to be radical and mainstream at the same time.

Yet this desperate effort to remain within the bounds of acceptable opinion blunts our critique of modernity. The Titanic is sinking, but—lo! the fourth smokestack is still high and dry. Rather than abandon ship, we go on arranging deck chairs, holding onto a false and pitiful hope that she’ll right herself.

Call it the Warhol Effect: the existence of some vaguely sympathetic public figure prolongs conservative Christians’ hope that modernity can be redeemed—or, at any rate, salvaged.

We saw the Warhol Effect in full force just a few months ago when Kanye West released his album Jesus Is King. The album got pretty lousy reviews from critics and people who, you know, actually listen to rap. But the Christian intelligentsia lapped it up. Mr. West suddenly ceased to be a megalomaniac married to an amateur porn star and became a prophet of the counter-revolution. He even moved to Wyoming and asked his collaborators not to engage in premarital sex.

I don’t know if Mr. West has actually undergone some sort of spiritual awakening. I sincerely hope he has. But 99.9 percent of Americans will still look upon him as another brilliant eccentric—a gifted but deeply unstable pop artist who constantly and obsessively reinvents his own public image. Mr. West endorsed Trump and converted to Christianity; it would hardly make a difference in anyone’s eyes if he embraced Theosophy and threw his weight behind Marianne Williamson.

Then, a little closer to home, we have Marco Rubio’s embrace of “common good conservatism.” Senator Rubio is, without a doubt, one of the shiftiest politicians in Washington. He ran for a seat in Florida’s state senate as a moderate, for the U.S. Senate as a “movement” conservative, for president in 2016 as a neoconservative, and now he’s billing himself as a champion of Catholic social teaching.

Again, I hope his change of heart is sincere. Crisis ran an article praising Senator Rubio’s First Things essay “What Economics Is For” shortly after it was published last August. After his October speech at the Catholic University of America revisiting the theme of “common good conservatism,” I was inundated with articles offering further plaudits. I rejected all of them, on one simple premise: talk is cheap. If he wants good press from us, he needs to translate all that high rhetoric into legislation. If he wants the support of Catholics who uphold the Church’s social doctrines, let him earn it.

In the months following the First Things essay, the Catholic commentariat was ablaze with ringing endorsements of the Senator’s vision for a new Catholic politics. He was hailed as the second coming of Leo XIII. And what has it gotten us? Has he introduced or voted for any legislation that wasn’t also supported by his evangelical colleagues in the GOP? Nope. And, until he puts his votes where his mouth is, he won’t get another whisper of support from this magazine.

I don’t say any of this to discourage Catholics. On the contrary. How many of these pseudo-messiahs can we endorse before we lose heart completely? How much ground can we cede to the rising tide of liquid modernity before we take to the lifeboats?

Warhol, West, and Rubio will not cure what ails us. They’re placebos. The real remedy will demand more from us than listening to Christian rap albums and retweeting stump speeches. As wiser diagnosticians have warned, the entire liberal order has become gangrenous. There’s still time for conservative Christians to seek a proper course of treatment—to sever ourselves from the artifice of modernity before it’s completely putrefied.

But are we brave enough to bite the bullet? I pray to God we will be. For His sake, we must.

Photo credit: AFP via Getty Images

Tagged as Andy Warhol, iconoclasm, Kanye West, Marco Rubio27

By Michael Warren Davis

Michael Warren Davis is the editor-in-chief of Crisis Magazine.

Catholic Monitor

Sunday, January 19, 2020

Can an Imperfect Council be Convened with only Bishops?

A friend of mine asked me the following question:

Fred, can an imperfect council be convened with only bishops?

Here is my speculation and reply to him:

My guess is yes (bishops can initiate) on the issue of Francis being a manifest heretic which is why the Scholar’s Open Letter was addressed to the bishops if I recall correctly.

On the Francis conclave it has to be the cardinals because that’s what the John Paul ii conclave constitution states.

On the Benedict resignation, my guess is yes (bishops can initiate) because unlike the conclave situation a new pope doesn’t have to be elected. 

But in the heresy and conclave cases if Benedict’s resignation is valid then the cardinals will be needed to elect a new pope so it would be obviously important for them to be part of the process.

Here is what Canon law and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo says:

How to remove Bergoglio

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

What follows here are the canonical steps by which Bergoglio can be peacefully, easily and lawfully removed from his position of power.First, any Catholic Bishop or Cardinal, whether holding jurisdiction or not, whether of the Latin Rite or not, in his capacity as a member of the College of Bishops needs to make this public declaration, or its equivalent:As member of the College of Bishops, whose unity with the Successor of Saint Peter is essential to its proper function in the Church for the accomplishment of the will of Christ, to continue His Salvific Mission on Earth, I hereby declare that I have examined the official Latin text of Pope Benedict XVI’s act of renunciation of February 11, 2013 A.,D., which begins with the words Non solum propter, and I have found that it is not in conformity with the requirement of Canon 332 §2, that states explicitly that a papal resignation only occurs when the Supreme Pontiff renounces the Petrine Munus.  Seeing that Pope Benedict renounced only the ministerium which he received from the hands of the Cardinals, and seeing that he did not invoke Canon 38 to derogate from the obligation to name of the office in a matter which violates the rights of all the Faithful of Christ, and even more so, of the members of the College of Bishops, to know who is and who is not the Successor of Saint Peter, and when and when not he has validly renounced his office, I declare out of the fullness of my apostolic duty and mission, which binds me to consider first of all the salvation of souls and the unity of the Church, that Pope Benedict XVI by the act expressed in Non Solum Propter never renounced the Papal Office and therefore has continued until this very day to be the one and sole and true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor of Saint Peter.  I therefore charge the College of Cardinals with gross negligence in the performance of their duties as expressed in Canon 359 and n. 37 of Universi Domini Gregis by proceeding in February and March of 2013 to the convocation and convening of a Conclave to elect Pope Benedict’s successor when there had not yet been consummated a legal sede vacante. And thus I do declare the Conclave of 2013 was uncanonically convoked, convened and consummated and that the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergogio as Successor of Saint Peter is null and void and irritus by the laws themselves of Holy Mother Church, as established by Pope John Paul II.Second, Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and indeed all the Faithful should personally examine the text of February 11, 2013 according to the norms of Canons 332 §2, canon 17, canon 38, canon 145 §1, canon 41, canon 126, and in particular canon 188. (see ppbxvi.org for more information.)Third, the Cardinals and Bishops should hold spontaneous regional or universal Synods to confirm the same and publicly affirm the same.Fourth, the Bishops and Cardinals should call on the Swiss Guard and Vatican Police to arrest Cardinal Bergoglio and detain him and obtain from him public affirmation of the same.Fifth, the Cardinals should approach Pope Benedict XVI and ask if it is now his intention to resign the Petrine Munus or not. If not, they should convey him to Saint John Lateran’s and acclaim him with one voice as Pope and ask his forgiveness publicly for having defected from him and elected an antipope. If so, they should ask him to redo the renunciation, this time renouncing the Petrine Munus; and then they should convene a Conclave to elect Benedict’s legitimate successor.Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. 

NEWS

FLAGSHIP OF SEDES PRESAGES PPBXVI MOVEMENT VICTORY IN 2020

JANUARY 19, 2020FROM ROME EDITOR

https://fromrome.info/2020/01/19/flagship-of-sedes-presages-ppbxvi-movement-victory-in-2020/

There is no news more pleasant to hear, than that one’s rivals, having surveyed the battle fields in advance, announce that victory will be yours.

It came on Facebook, from Novus Ordo Watch, the veritable Flagship of the Sedevacantist Movement:

NovusOrdoWatch

14 hrs · It looks like this is the year the “Benedict XVI is the real Pope” deception will find mainstream acceptance: It lets people rid themselves of Bergoglio without having to embrace the dreaded and hated Sedevacantism. The facts about Ratzinger will be ignored — too inconvenient!

What is a Sedevacantist?

Sedevacantists hold in general that there have been no true popes since Pius XII. They accept the error of Luther that there is no authority or unity in the Church except that which is given the individual by the virtue of Faith. Thus, holding themselves as purer than all others, after the manner of Jansenists, they judge nearly everyone a heretic and thus outside of the Church. Their special target is all who hold an office which comes down through Apostolic Succession, because that is the real threat to their error and their egos.

So when these guys say you are winning, its a great day indeed! Amen. Praise God.

In the end the truth wins out!

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

Catholic Monitor

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/01/it-appears-that-1p5-skojec-and-his-lap.html?m=1

Sunday, January 19, 2020

Francis Trad Skojec & his Lap Dog vs. Real Canon Law Expert 

On January 18, in the Church Militant comment section for the post “Interview With Antonio Socci: ‘We Are Watching the Leaders of the Church Work Against Her’” it appears that one of One Peter Five Steve Skojec’s top commenters and lap dogs JohnnyCuredents attacked “Ann Barnhardt, Fred Martinez, and Rene Gracida.” 

I want to say right now that I am honored to be attacked and listed in the same sentence as Bishop Rene Gracida whom I consider to be the St. Athanasius of the Francis Crisis.

I am, also, honored to be attacked in the same sentence as Miss Barnhardt. In my opinion, she is one of the great Catholic bloggers of our time and has more talent and courage in her pinky than Skojec and JohnnyCuredents have together in both their entire bodies, wills and minds. I am especially in her debt because she was one of the inspirations for one of the great heroes in the present crisis canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo to jump into the resistance against Francis.

JohnnyCuredents is one of Francis traditionalist Skojec’s top commenter fans. Its killingly funny to read. It kind of like the old cartoon dog who would say: “Are we friends George?” I can see him and Francis is pope because that’s an infallible dogma of the Francis Creed Skojec both reciting the Francis Trad Creed together.
[Click here to read the Francis Creed: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/01/are-1p5-and-where-peter-is-going-to.html?m=1]

Here are the two comments by him:

JohnnyCuredents • a day ago

Socci’s analysis is spot on, even though I totally disagree with the bit about the munus. The situation of a “Pope Emeritus” and a Pope de jure et de facto living side by side is, I admit, puzzling; I don’t pretend to know why Benedict made his decision in 2013 or what is actually going on at this moment. What I do know is that Francis is among the very worst popes in Catholic history, his papacy an ongoing catastrophe for the Church; that Benedict is well aware of what Francis is doing; and that Benedict, by his silence and friendly demeanor vis-a-vis Francis, seems not the least disturbed by the current pope’s behavior.

The talk of Benedict’s retaining some part of his papal ministry, of his not desiring to completely resign the office, seems to me to be pure fiction, a grasping at straws by people who are rightly distressed. Careless writers like the prolix Fred Martinez and the sensationalist Ann Barnhardt ride this hobbyhorse as though it were something evident. Perhaps it is to them, but it escapes most of us totally. Most importantly, Ratzinger has had ample opportunity to ratify their bizarre notion, to say it was true, and yet he hasn’t. Till he does, I’m calling bull on it.JohnnyCuredents Lisa • 13 hours ago

• We seem to have many popes and councils nowadays. There was a time when this was called Protestantism. I am still more than willing to wait for an actual German sentence — or Latin, if you want — in which Benedict says, “Hey, you know what? I am in full agreement with Ann Barnhardt, Fred Martinez, and Rene Gracida. I never meant to really resign. It was all a joke, folks! [https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/watching-the-leaders-of-the-church-work-against-her]

The Skojec lap dog is only following the lead of his hero Skojec who appears to think he is a canon law expert. Since Johnny is not a “careless writer…like the prolix Fred Martinez and the sensationalist Ann Barnhardt… and [Bishop] Rene Gracida” why does he instead ofpropaganda name calling get out of his propagandistic mode and give real arguments against a real canon law expert.

Please, instead of propaganda name calling I dare you or Skojec to find a canon lawyer expert to argue against the following:

The canon law expert Johnny said if “Benedict says, “Hey, you know what? I am in full agreement with Ann Barnhardt, Fred Martinez, and Rene Gracida. I never meant to really resign. It was all a joke, folks!”

I am sorry to say this to the not “careless writer” Mr. Curedents:

A real canon law approach the resignation requires an objective reading of what the two words mean using canon 17’s criteria and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict:

Canon law expert Br. Bugnolo recently stated:

“I think, humanly speaking, most canonists only have habitual experience of the canonical proceedures in annulment cases which regard the Sacrament of Matrimony, which falls under the norms of contractual law.”

“But the Petrine Succession is totally different. It is not a sacrament nor a vow kind of a thing. It’s like the last will and testament of your father. If he did not say he gave it to you, you do not get it. Some other sibling gets it. Or his estate keeps it.”

“Benedict gave away the ministerium, the doing of the office.”

“But he never on any occasion before during or after Feb 11, 2013 said he gave away the munus petrinum.”

“That means that the Petrine Succession has not yet occurred. The train left the station with all the Cardinals and hoopla, but Benedict and his papal office are still on the platform.”

Br. Bugnolo stated this in the comment section of the Catholic Monitor to this article: Does Canon 17 Refute LifeSiteNews’ Theologian: “Benedict [must have]… thought: I only want to resign the Ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the Munus”?

LifeSiteNews’ anonymous theologian on Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation according to the website claims that Benedict’s abdication could only be invalid if he thought ministerium and munus were “distinct”:

“Benedict’s abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: ‘I only want to resign the ministerium if it is distinct from the munus.'”
(LifeSiteNews, “Did Benedict really resign? Ganswein, Burke and Brandmuller weight in,” February 14, 2019)

Canon law expert Br. Bugnolo appears to says this is not a correct way to legally approach the resignation because canon law requires an objective reading of what the two words mean using canon 17’s criteria and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict:

“Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41… requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things.”
(From Rome, “Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)

Canon lawyer Edward Peters explains “Canon 17… states ‘if the meaning [of the law, and UDG is a law] remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places.”
(Catholic World Report, “Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded,” September 28, 2017)

Finally, we come, again, to Br. Bugnolo who has explained in overwhelming detail in the following treatise using canon law why canonists are wrong in saying ministerium and munus are synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the exact same thing:
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/

Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage
in the Code of Canon Law of 1983

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo


The study of Canon Law is a recondite field for nearly everyone in the Church except Canon Lawyers. And even for Canon Lawyers, most of whom are prepared to work in the Marriage Tribunals of the Church, most of the Code of Canon Law is not frequently referred to.

However, when it comes to the problems of determining the validity of a canonical act, the expertise among Canon Lawyers becomes even more difficult to find, since the circumstances and problems in a single canonical act touch upon a great number of Canons of the Code of Canon Law, and thus require the profound knowledge and experience of years of problem solving to be readily recognized.

For this reason, though popularly many Catholics are amazed that after 6 years there can still be questions and doubts about the validity of the Act of Renunciation declared by Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, it actually is not so surprising when one knows just a little about the complexity of the problems presented by the document which contains that Act.

First of all, the Latin of the Act, which is the only official and canonical text, is rife with errors of Latin Grammar. All the translations of the Act which have ever been done, save for a few, cover those errors with a good deal of indulgence, because it is clear that whoever wrote the Latin was not so fluent in writing Latin as they thought, a thing only the experts at such an art can detect.

Even myself, who have translated thousands of pages of Latin into English, and whose expertise is more in making Latin intelligible as read, than in writing intelligible Latin according to the rules of Latin grammar can see this. However, we are not talking about literary indulgences when we speak of the canonical value or signification of a text.

For centuries it was a constant principle of interpretation, that if a canonical act in Latin contained errors it was not to be construed as valid, but had to be redone. Unfortunately for the Church, Cardinal Sodano and whatever Cardinals or Canonists examined the text of the Act prior to the public announcement of its signification utterly failed on this point, as will be seen during this conference.

This is because if there are multiple errors or any error, the Cardinal was allowed and even obliged under canons 40 and 41 to ask that the text be corrected.

This evening, however, we are not going to talk about the lack of good Latinity in the text of the Act nor of the other errors which make the text unintelligible to fluent Latinists who think like the Romans of Cicero’s day when they see Latin written, but rather, of the signification of Canon 332 §2, in its fundamental clause of condition, where it says in the Latin, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, which in good English is, If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus…. 
The entire condition for a Papal Renunciation of Office in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II is founded on this first clause of Canon 332 §2.  It behooves us, therefore, when any say that the Renunciation was valid or invalid, to first read this Canon and understand when a renunciation takes place and when it does not take place.

For this purpose, in this first intervention at this Conference, I will speak about the meaning of the two words, Munus and Ministerium, in the Code of Canon Law.  I will speak of both, because, in Canon 332 §2 Pope John Paul II wrote munus and in the Act of Renunciation, Pope Benedict XVI renounced ministerium.

This study is not an idle one, or even only of academic interest. It is required by Canon Law, because in Canon 17, it says, that when there arises a doubt about the signification of a canon, one is to have recourse to the Code of Canon Law, the sources of canonical tradition and the Mind of the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) in determining the authentic meaning.

According to Canon 17 the words of Canoon 332 §2, therefore, are to be understood properly. Therefore, let us examine the Code to see what is the proper meaning of the words munus and ministerium.

Ministerium in the Code of Canon Law

This study is something everyone with the Internet can do. Because there exists an indexed copy of the Latin text of the Code on line at Intratext.com.  In the Alphabetic index of which one can find hyperlinked, all the words found in the Code, in their different Latin forms.

For the word Ministerium, there are 6 forms found:  Ministeria, Ministerii, Ministeriis, Ministerio, Ministeriorum, Ministerium.  Respectively they occur 7, 13, 3, 17, 3, 25 times each in the Code.Let us take a look at each, briefly.

Ministeria: 
The Nominative and Accusative Plural:  Occurs 7 times. In canons 230, 232, 233,  237, 385, 611 and 1035.  Each of these refer to one or more of the sacred ministries or services exercised during the Divine Liturgy, whether by priests, lectors, acolytes etc..

Ministerii:
The Genitive. Occurs 13 times.  In canons 233 twice, 276, 278, 519, 551, 756, 759, 1370, 1373, 1375 1389, 1548.  These refer to the sacred service (canons 233, in canon 271 §2, 1, to the duties of the pastoral ministry (ministerii pastoralis  officia as in canon 276, 278 or 551) which sanctify the priest, and specifically in relation to munus in several canons:

In Canon 519, where it says of the duties of the Pastor of a Parish:

Can. 519 – Parochus est pastor proprius paroeciae sibi commissae, cura pastorali communitatis sibi concreditae fungens sub auctoritate Episcopi dioecesani, cuius in partem ministerii Christi vocatus est, ut pro eadem communitate munera exsequatur docendi, sanctificandi et regendi, cooperantibus etiam aliis presbyteris vel diaconis atque operam conferentibus christifidelibus laicis, ad normam iuris.

Which in English is:

Canon 519:  The parish priest is the pastor of the parish assigned to him, exercising (fungens) the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the Diocesan Bishop, in a portion of whose ministry in Christ (in partem ministerii Chirsti) he has been called, so that he might execute (exsequatur) the munera of teaching, sanctifying and ruling for the same community, with the cooperation also of the other priests and/or deacons and faithful laity assisting in the work, according to the norm of law.

Let us note, first of all, that here the Code distinguishes between the munera of teaching, santifying and ruling from the entire ministry of Christ a part of which is shared by the Bishop.

And again in Canon 756, when it speaks of the munus of  announcing the Gospel, it says, after speaking of the duty of the Roman Pontiff in this regard in conjunction with the College of Bishops:

756 § 2.  Quoad Ecclesiam particularem sibi concreditam illud munus exercent singuli Episcopi, qui quidem totius ministerii verbi in eadem sunt moderatores; quandoque vero aliqui Episcopi coniunctim illud explent quoad diversas simul Ecclesias, ad normam iuris.

Which in English is:

756 §2  In regard to the particular Church entrusted to him, every Bishop, who is indeed the moderater of the whole ministry of the word to it, exercises (exercent) this munus; but also when any Bishop fulfills that conjointly in regard to the diverse Churches, according to the norm of law.

Let us note here simply that the Code distinguishes between the exercise of a munus and the ministerium of preaching the word.

Again in canon 759, ministerii is used regarding the preaching of the word. In Canon 1370 it is used in reference to the contempt of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1373, it is spoken of in regard the an act of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1548 in regard to the exercise of the sacred ministry of the clergy.

In canon 1389, it is spoken of in the context of power, munus and ministry. Let us take a closer look:

Can. 1389 – § 1.  Ecclesiastica potestate vel munere abutens pro actus vel omissionis gravitate puniatur, non exclusa officii privatione, nisi in eum abusum iam poena sit lege vel praecepto constituta.
2. Qui vero, ex culpabili neglegentia, ecclesiasticae potestatis vel ministerii vel muneris actum illegitime cum damno alieno ponit vel omittit, iusta poena puniatur.

Which in English is:

Canon 1389 §1  Let the one abusing Ecclesiastical power and/or munus be punished in proportion to the gravity of the act and/or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless for that abuse there has already been established a punishment by law and/or precept.
2. However, Let him who, out of culpable negligence, illegitimately posits and/or omits an act of ecclesiastical power and/or ministry and/or of munus, with damage to another, be punished with a just punishment.

Let us note here that the Code in a penal precept distinguishes between: potestas, ministerium and munus. This implies that in at least one proper sense of each of these terms, they can be understood to signify something different or distinct from the other.

This finishes the study of the occurences of ministerii.

Ministeriis
The ablative and dative plural form. Occurs 3 times.   In canons 274 and 674, where it refers to the sacred ministry of the priesthood and to the ministries exercised in parish life, respectively.

And in Canon 1331 §1, 3, where the one excommunicated is forbidden to exercise all ecclesiastical duties (officiis) and/or ministries and/or munera (muneribus) The Latin is:

Can. 1331 – § 1.  Excommunicatus vetatur:
1 ullam habere participationem ministerialem in celebrandis Eucharistiae Sacrificio vel  quibuslibet aliis cultus caerimoniis;
2 sacramenta vel sacramentalia celebrare et sacramenta recipere;
3 ecclesiasticis officiis vel ministeriis vel muneribus quibuslibet fungi vel actus regiminis ponere.

The English  is:

Canon 1331 §1.  An excommunicate is forbidden:

1. from having any ministerial participation in the celebrating of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and/or in any other ceremonies of worship
2. from celebrating the Sacraments and/or sacramentals and from receiving the Sacraments;
3. from exercising (fungi) ecclesiastical officia and/or ministeria and/or munera and/or from positing acts of governance.

Let us note again, that the Code distinguishes in this negative precept the terms Officia, Ministeria and Munera. This means, very significantly, that in the Mind of the Legislator, there is a proper sense in which these terms can each be understood as excluding the other. All three are named to make the signification of the negative precept comprehensive of all possible significations.

Ministerio
The Ablative and Dative singular form. Occurs 17 times. Canons 252, 271, 281, 386 refer to the ministries exercised in the liturgy or apostolate. Canon 545 uses ministerio in reference to the pastoral ministry being proffered, 548 likewise in reference to the pastor of a parish, 559 likewise. Canon 713 refers to the priestly ministry, canons 757, 760 and 836 to the ministry of the word. Canon 899 to the priestly ministry of Christ. Canon 1036 speaks of the need a Bishop has to have knowledge that a candidate for ordination has a willingness to dedicate himself to the life long service which is the duty of orders.Canon 1722, which has to deal with canonical trials, speaks again of the sacred ministerium, officium and munus exercised (arcere) of the one accused. Distinguishing all three terms to make a comprehensive statement of what can be interdicted by a penalty.

This far for the 17 instances of ministerio.Ministeriorum
The genitive plural form. Occurs 3 times. In canon 230 in regard to the conferral of ministries of acolyte and lector upon laymen. In canon 499 in regard to having members of the Presbyteral Council of the Diocese include priests with a variety of ministries exercised all over the diocese. And in canon 1050, in regard to those to be ordained, that they have a document showing they have willingly accepted a live long ministry in sacred service.

And finally the Nominative Singular form.

MINISTERIUM
Of which there are 25 occurrences in the Code.
First and most significantly in Canon 41, the very canon that Cardinal Sodano had to act upon when examining the Act of Renunciation by Pope Benedict.
The Latin reads:

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.

The English reads:

Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry (ministerium) of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears to be null from (something) manifest [manifesto] 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.

Then, ministerium occurs again in canon 230, in reference to the ministry of the word, where officia is used in the sense of duties. In canon 245, in regard to the pastoral ministry and teaching missionaries the ministry. In Canon 249 again in regard to the pastoral ministry, in 255 in regard to the ministry of teaching, sanctifying etc.., in 256, 257, 271, 324 in regard to the sacred ministry of priests, in Canon 392 in regard to the ministries of the word. In Canon 509 in regard to the ministry exercised by the Canons of the Cathedral Chapter. In Canon 545 in regard to the parish ministry, in canon 533 in regard to the ministry exercised by a Vicar. In canons 618 and 654 in regard to the power received by religious superiors through the ministry of the Church. In Canon 1025, 1041, and 1051 to the usefulness of a candidate for orders for service (ministerium) to the Church. In Canon 1375 to those who exercise power and/or ecclesiastical ministry.

Ministerium occurs significantly in canon 1384, regard to the penalites a priest can incurr.

Can. 1384 – Qui, praeter casus, de quibus in cann. 1378-1383, sacerdotale munus vel aliud sacrum ministerium illegitime exsequitur, iusta poena puniri potest.

Which in English is:

Canon 1384  Who, besides the cases, concerning which in canons 1378 to 1383 the priestly munus and/or any other sacred ministerium is illegitimately executed, can be punished with a just punishment.

The Code explicitly distinguishes between munus and ministerium as entirely different and or distinct aspects of priestly being and action.

To finish off, the Code mentions Ministerium, again in Canon 1481 in regard to the ministry of lawyers, 1502 and 1634 to the ministry of judges, and in 1740 to ministry of the pastor of a parish.

This completes the entire citation of the Code on the word Ministry in all its Latin Forms, singular and plural.

In summation, we can see already that the Code distinguishes between proper senses of ministerium and munus, habitually throughout its canons and uses ministerium always for a service to be rendered by a layman, priest, Bishop, lawyer, judge or to or by the Church Herself. It never uses ministerium as an office or title or dignity or charge.

Munus in the Code of Canon Law

Munus is a very common term in the Code of Canon Law, occurring a total of 188 times.

The Latin forms which appear in the Code are Munus (77 times), Muneris (26 times), Muneri (2 times), Munere (48 times), Munera (20 times) Munerum (6 times) and Muneribus (9 times).

While the length of this conference does not me to cite them all, I will refer to the most important occurrences.

I will omit citing Canon 331, 333, 334 and 749, where speaking of the Papal Office, the code uses the words Munus. In no other canons does it speak of the Papal office per se, except in Canon 332 §2, which governs Papal renunciations, where it also uses munus.

But as to the proper sense of munus in the Code, let us look at the most significant usages:

First as regards predication, where the Mind of the Legislator indicates when any given proper sense of this term can be said to be a another term.

This occurs only once in canon 145, §1

Can. 145 – § 1. Officium ecclesiasticum est quodlibet munus ordinatione sive divina sive ecclesiastica stabiliter constitutum in finem spiritualem exercendum.

Which in English is:

Canon 145 § 1. An ecclesiastical office (officium) is any munus constituted by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance as to be exercised for a spiritual end.

Second, as regards the canons governing the events of Feb. 11, 2013, there is  Canon 40, which Cardinal Sodano and his assistants had to refer to in the moments following the Consistory of Feb 11, 2013:

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.

In English:

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

Third, as regards to the distinction of munus and the fulfillment of a duty of office, there is Canon 1484, §1 in regard to the offices of Procurator and Advocate in a Tribunal of Eccleisastical Jurisdiction:

Can. 1484 – § 1.  Procurator et advocatus antequam munus suscipiant, mandatum authenticum apud tribunal deponere debent.

Which in English is:

Canon 1484 §1.  The procurator and advocate ought to deposit a copy of their authentic mandate with the Tribunal, before they undertake their munus.

Note here, significantly, that the Code associates the mandate to exercise an office with the undertaking of the munus (munus). Negatively, therefore, what is implied by this canon is that when one lays down his mandate, there is a renunciation of the munus.

Finally, in regard to possibile synonyms for munus, in the Code we have Canon 1331, §2, n. 4, which is one of the most significant in the entire code, as we shall see: There is forbidden the promotion of those who are excommunicated:

4 nequit valide consequi dignitatem, officium aliudve munus in Ecclesia

Which in English reads:

4. He cannot validly obtain a dignity, office and/or any munus in the Church.

If there was every any doubt about the Mind of the Legislator of the proper sense of terms in the Code of Canon law regarding what Munus means, this canon answers it by equating dignity, office and munus as things to which one cannot be promoted!

Note well, ministerium is not included in that list!  thus Ministerium does not signify a dignity, office or munus!

This study of Munis and Ministerium in the Code thus concludes, for the lack of time. We have seen that the Code distinguishes clearly between the terms of officium, munus, ministerium, potestas and dignitas. It predicates officium of munus alone, It equates dignitas and munus and officium. It distinguishes between potestas and ministerium.

The only sane conclusion is, therefore, that munus and ministerium are distinct terms with different meanings. They cannot substitute for one another in any sentence in which their proper senses are employed. Munus can substitute for officium, when officium means that which regards a title or dignity or ecclesiastical office.

Thus in Canon 332 §2, where the Canon reads, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet. The Code is not speaking of ministerium, and if it is speaking of any other terms, it is speaking of a dignitas or officium. But the papal office is a dignitas, officium and a munus.  thus Canon 332 §2 is using munus in its proper sense and referring to the papal office.

——(This is a transcript of my first talk at the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, which took place at Rome on Oct 21, 2019, the full transcript of which is found here)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.      

Fred Martinez at 5:22 PM

Catholic Monitor

Sunday, January 19, 2020

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/01/might-church-militants-voris-finally-be.html

Might the Church Militant’s Voris finally be willing to stop Ignoring the Bishop Gracida Solution? 

Could the Church Militant’s Michael Voris’s pro-legitimacy bias, that Francis is pope because that’s an infallible dogma of the Francis Creed, finally be starting to crack?
[Click here to read the Francis Creed: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/01/are-1p5-and-where-peter-is-going-to.html?m=1]

I know from a Church Militant commenter who knows Voris’ operation extremely well that Voris’ pro-legitimacy bias may be cracking because he is allowing as never before “many pro-Benedict-as-pope comments are being tolerated.” She said:

“Interesting post at Church Militant–Voris has featured Socci, with the caveat that Church Militant doesn’t necessarily agree. Still the resignation is directly called into question, and many pro-Benedict-as-pope comments are being tolerated.”

Voris’ Church Militant quotes Vatican expert Antonio Socci”:

“There is another passage from Archbishop Ganswein that I would like to highlight:

‘He [Pope Benedict XVI] has not abandoned the office of Peter, a thing which would be completely impossible for him following his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.'”  
“To me, these seem to be explosive words (and they have never been denied by Pope Benedict). The closest collaborator of Benedict XVI explains to us that for Joseph Ratzinger “the acceptance of the office” of Peter is “irrevocable” and to abandon it is “totally impossible.” Although the Vatican continues to pretend that everything is clear, we the Christian people are allowed to ask questions about what really happened in February 2013 and what is the place of Benedict XVI in the Church today.”
[https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/watching-the-leaders-of-the-church-work-against-her]

Now that we know that Ganswein is probably a agent of Francis against Benedict the key words in the quote above are:

“‘He [Pope Benedict XVI] has not abandoned the office of Peter’… they have never been denied by Pope Benedict.”

Might Voris be considering that the Bishop Rene Gracida solution is the right and true path to take?

Here is an overview of the Gracida solution:

“ONE CAN SAY THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A HERETIC [or a anti-pope] UNTIL ONE DIES BUT IT CHANGES NOTHING. WHAT IS NEEDED IS ACTION… WE MUST PRESSURE THE CARDINALS TOACT. SEND THAT LINK TO EVERY PRIEST AND BISHOP YOU KNOW”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/09/alone-it-is-bishop-gracida-against.html (Scroll to the bottom of this post)

The link goes to his Open Letter which shows that there is strong evidence that Francis may be a anti-pope. But only the cardinals can validly make that Church juridical declaration. 

In 2018, Onepeterfive.com’s anti-Open Letter Steve Skojec rejected Bishop Gracida’s call for the cardinals to judge if Francis’s election to the papacy was valid calling the validity question itself a “potentially dangerous rabbit hole.”(Onepeterfive, “Cardinal Eijk References End Times Prophecy in Intercommunion,” May 7, 2018)

At the time, Skojec referred back to his September 26, 2017 post where he said:

“JPII has removed the election-nullifying consequences of simony… nowhere else in the following paragraphs is nullity of the election even implied.”
(Onepeterfive, “A Brief note on the Question of a Legally Valid Election,” September 26, 2017)

Bishop Gracida shows that Skojec is wrong in his legally crafted Open Letter quoting Pope John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis’ introductory perambulary and paragraph 76:

-“I further confirm, by my Apostlic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process [the above which Gracida clearly shows in his Open Letter was not maintained thus making the conclave and Francis’s papacy invalid according to the Bishop].”
(Introductory perambulary)

-“Should the election take place in a way other than laid down here not to be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void.”
(Paragraph 76)

Gracida’s Open Letter, moreover, shows that Skojec is wrong above:

“The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave.”

On top of all that, Skojec ignores paragraph 5 and contrary to what canon lawyer Edward Peters has said about Universi Dominici Gregis when he suggests canon lawyers have a role in interpreting the John Paul II Constitution, the document says:

“Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect. I [Pope John Paul II] Decree that all power of issuing a judgment of this in this regard to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points.”
(Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 5)

Later in the paragraph it says “except the act of the election,” which can be interpreted in a number of ways.

The point is, as Bishop Gracida says and Universi Dominici Gregis said, only the cardinals can interpret its meaning, not Skojec or canon lawyers.

The Bishop is saying what the document says: only the cardinals can interpret it.

He, also, says put pressure on the cardinals to act and interpret it which both Skojec and Peters appear to prefer to ignore.

Moreover, Bishop Gracida’s Open Letter and Pope John Paul II’s document make a number of points which neither Skojec, Peters or anyone else to my knowledge have even brought up or offered any counter argument against.

They are both wrong if they ignore this important Open Letter of Bishop Gracida.

If Skojec and Peters as well as the conservative and traditional Catholic media are ignoring Bishop Gracida because he isn’t a cardinal and retired, remember that St. Athanasius wasn’t a cardinal (that is involved in the selection or election process of the pope of the time) and was retired.

During the Arian heresy crisis, Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius. You don’t get any more retired than being excommunicated.

Skojec gave blogger Ann Barnhardt’s analysis of the papal validity a long article. The only bishop in the world (besides Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano) contesting Francis in a meaningful way deserves as much.

Matt, Skojec, Peters and all scholarly Catholics need to answer Gracida’s theologically clear and precise arguments and either clearly and precisely counter them or put pressure on the cardinals to put into action the needed canonical procedures to remove Francis if he was “never validly elected” the pope or else remove him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy.

Francis is not orthodox so there are only two things he could be:

 1. A validly elected pope who is a material heretic (as the scholar’s Open Letter states) until cardinals correct him and then canonically proclaim he is a formal heretic if he doesn’t recant thus deposing him (See: “In-depth Explanation of Dubia Consequences for Pope Francis including ‘Removing him from Office'”: https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2016/12/in-depth-explanation-of-dubia.html?m=1)  or

2. a invalidly elected anti-pope who is a heretic due to an invalid conclave or an invalid resignation by Pope Benedict.

The point is whether you think using all the information available 1. is the objective truth or 2. is the objective truth you must act. 

You must as the Bishop says put: “pressure on the cardinals to act” whichever you think. 

Gracida is calling on pressure to be put on the cardinals to “[a]ddress… [the] probable invalidity” due to a invalid conclave or a invalid resignation by Pope Benedict’s XVI before they attempt to depose him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy. But, just as importantly he is calling all faithful Catholics to act and not just bemoan Francis’s heresy.

There are many ways to put pressure such as pray and offer Masses for this intention, send the Gracida link to priests, bishops and cardinals, make signs and pray the rosary in front of their offices as we do in front of abortion clinics. Use your imagination to come up with other ideas.   

But, the best way to put pressure on the cardinals to remove Francis is the rosary. The solution to the greatest crisis in the history of the Church is the rosary as it was for the Austrians.

The way to victory for the Austrians to defeat the Russians according to Fr. Pater Petrus was “a tithe: that ten percent of the Austrians, 700,000, would pledge to say the rosary daily for the Soviets to leave their country. 700,000 pledged” as told on the Santo Rosario website:

“At the end of World War II, the allies did a nasty thing: they turned Catholic Austria over to the Russians. The Austrians tolerated this Soviet domination for three years, but that was enough. They wanted the Soviets out of their country. But what could Austria do: seven million against 220 million?”

“Then a priest, Pater Petrus, remembered Don John of Austria. Outnumbered three to one, Don John led the Papal, Venetian, and Spanish ships against the Turks at Lepanto, and through the power of the rosary miraculously defeated them. So Pater Petrus called for a rosary crusade against the Soviets. He asked for a tithe: that ten percent of the Austrians, 700,000, would pledge to say the rosary daily for the Soviets to leave their country. 700,000 pledged.”

“For seven years the Austrians prayed the rosary. Then, on May 13, the anniversary of the apparition at Fatima, in 1955, the Russians left Austria.”

“Even to this day military strategists and historians are baffled. Why did the Communists pull out? Austria is a strategically located country, a door to the West, rich in mineral deposits and oil reserves? To them it was an enigma.”

“Al Williams, former custodian of the National Pilgrim Statue of Our Lady of Fatima, heard me tell this story once. He said to me, “You know, Father, I am Austrian. Well, three months before Therese Neumann died, I visited her (June 18, 1962). One question I asked her was, ‘Why did the Russians leave Austria?’ She told me, ‘Verily, verily, it was the rosaries of the Austrian people.’ ‘ “

“In other words, Our Lady’s rosary did what the Hungarian Freedom Fighters could not do with a bloodbath of 25,000 people. John Cortes, brilliant writer and diplomat of the 19th century wrote: ‘Those who pray do more for the world than those who fight. If the world is going from bad to worse, it is because there are more battles than prayers.'”[http://www.santorosario.net/power.htm]

St. Athanasius pray for Bishop Gracida, the resistance for Faith in this present time and the restoration of the Church.

Pray an Our Father now that a Fr. Petrus be risen up by God in the United States and all countries to bring about a tithe: that ten percent of the faithful American Catholics as well as faithful Catholics in every country say the rosary daily for the cardinals to remove Francisand his collaborators. I am going to start praying one of my rosaries everyday for those two intentions.       Posted by Fred Martinez at 3:33 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Catholic Monitor

Sunday, January 19, 2020

Can an Imperfect Council be Convened with only Bishops?

A friend of mine asked me the following question:

Fred, can an imperfect council be convened with only bishops?

Here is my speculation and reply to him:

My guess is yes (bishops can initiate) on the issue of Francis being a manifest heretic which is why the Scholar’s Open Letter was addressed to the bishops if I recall correctly.

On the Francis conclave it has to be the cardinals because that’s what the John Paul ii conclave constitution states.

On the Benedict resignation, my guess is yes (bishops can initiate) because unlike the conclave situation a new pope doesn’t have to be elected. 

But in the heresy and conclave cases if Benedict’s resignation is valid then the cardinals will be needed to elect a new pope so it would be obviously important for them to be part of the process.

Here is what Canon law and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo says:

How to remove Bergoglio

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

What follows here are the canonical steps by which Bergoglio can be peacefully, easily and lawfully removed from his position of power.First, any Catholic Bishop or Cardinal, whether holding jurisdiction or not, whether of the Latin Rite or not, in his capacity as a member of the College of Bishops needs to make this public declaration, or its equivalent:As member of the College of Bishops, whose unity with the Successor of Saint Peter is essential to its proper function in the Church for the accomplishment of the will of Christ, to continue His Salvific Mission on Earth, I hereby declare that I have examined the official Latin text of Pope Benedict XVI’s act of renunciation of February 11, 2013 A.,D., which begins with the words Non solum propter, and I have found that it is not in conformity with the requirement of Canon 332 §2, that states explicitly that a papal resignation only occurs when the Supreme Pontiff renounces the Petrine Munus.  Seeing that Pope Benedict renounced only the ministerium which he received from the hands of the Cardinals, and seeing that he did not invoke Canon 38 to derogate from the obligation to name of the office in a matter which violates the rights of all the Faithful of Christ, and even more so, of the members of the College of Bishops, to know who is and who is not the Successor of Saint Peter, and when and when not he has validly renounced his office, I declare out of the fullness of my apostolic duty and mission, which binds me to consider first of all the salvation of souls and the unity of the Church, that Pope Benedict XVI by the act expressed in Non Solum Propter never renounced the Papal Office and therefore has continued until this very day to be the one and sole and true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor of Saint Peter.  I therefore charge the College of Cardinals with gross negligence in the performance of their duties as expressed in Canon 359 and n. 37 of Universi Domini Gregis by proceeding in February and March of 2013 to the convocation and convening of a Conclave to elect Pope Benedict’s successor when there had not yet been consummated a legal sede vacante. And thus I do declare the Conclave of 2013 was uncanonically convoked, convened and consummated and that the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergogio as Successor of Saint Peter is null and void and irritus by the laws themselves of Holy Mother Church, as established by Pope John Paul II.Second, Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and indeed all the Faithful should personally examine the text of February 11, 2013 according to the norms of Canons 332 §2, canon 17, canon 38, canon 145 §1, canon 41, canon 126, and in particular canon 188. (see ppbxvi.org for more information.)Third, the Cardinals and Bishops should hold spontaneous regional or universal Synods to confirm the same and publicly affirm the same.Fourth, the Bishops and Cardinals should call on the Swiss Guard and Vatican Police to arrest Cardinal Bergoglio and detain him and obtain from him public affirmation of the same.Fifth, the Cardinals should approach Pope Benedict XVI and ask if it is now his intention to resign the Petrine Munus or not. If not, they should convey him to Saint John Lateran’s and acclaim him with one voice as Pope and ask his forgiveness publicly for having defected from him and elected an antipope. If so, they should ask him to redo the renunciation, this time renouncing the Petrine Munus; and then they should convene a Conclave to elect Benedict’s legitimate successor.Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Posted by Fred Martinez at 5:38 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/01/can-imperfect-council-be-convened-with.html