A Closer Look at Benedict’s Resignation                                                                      and the Ensuing Papal Crisis

 By David Martin

With the controversial buzz that surrounded the election of Pope Francis upon the resignation of  Pope Benedict XVI, it seems that we may have lost sight of a key element in this episode,  namely, that Benedict never fully resigned the papal ministry but only the active exercise thereof. On the eve of his resignation, he said:  

“Anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church… The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever’ – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.” (General Audience, February 27, 2013)

From these words it appears that there has been no revocation of Benedict XVI’s office. According to Church law, a pope must give up his office for his resignation to be valid. (Canon 332) The text indicates that Benedict XVI chose to retain his office “forever,” which is why he continues to wear the papal garb and to go by the name Benedict XVI.

This matches the explanation offered by Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Benedict’s long-time friend and confidant who serves as prefect of the Pontifical Household. Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University on May 20, 2016, he told the press that Benedict XVI did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine office in a way that better accommodated his frailty.

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” adding that the renunciation of his office would have been “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”

Enlarged Papal Ministry

Gänswein said that Benedict XVI’s resignation announcement of February 11, 2013, marked the introduction of a new institution into the Catholic Church: “a de facto enlarged ministry, with both an active and a contemplative member.” He said we now have “two living successors of Peter among us” that “are not in competition with each other,” i.e. Benedict and Francis. https://veritas-vincit-international.org/2016/09/13/papal-secretary-archbishop-ganswein-speaks-on-benedict-the-two-popes-and-prophecy/

This indeed is the reason Benedict did not renounce his papal name or give up his white cassock as did Celestine V. “This is the reason why the correct appellation for him is ‘Your Holiness,’” Gänswein said. “This is finally the reason why he did not retire to an isolated monastery, but within the Vatican walls, as if to simply take a step aside to make space for his successor and for a new step in the history of the papacy.” 

If Archbishop Gänswein is right and Benedict XVI still occupies a “contemplative dimension” of the papacy, then there is no dimension of the papacy that he doesn’t occupy, i.e. he still has his powers. If this is the case, it means that Francis is not the pope, since there cannot be two popes. If Francis is the pope, then Benedict’s office is revoked, but Benedict says it was not revoked.

Benedict has never corrected Gänswein about his claim nor has Gänswein recanted it, but   continues to allege that Benedict XVI introduced a modified papacy consisting of “a de facto enlarged ministry, with both an active and a contemplative member” whereby there exist “two living successors of Peter among us.”

Veteran journalist Paul Badde—author of Benedict Up Close: The Inside Story of Eight Dramatic Years—confirmed with this writer on Dec. 15, 2017, that Gänswein “hasn’t denied” saying this in his May 20, 2016 address, adding that “there was no reason for such a step.”

In an interview with Paul Badde on May 27, 2016, Archbishop Gänswein minced no words in saying that we have two popes in the Vatican today. “We have had for three years two popes and I have the impression that the reality that I perceive is covered by what I have said.”

Badde summed up his understanding of Gänswein’s position, saying:  

“If I understand you aright, he [Benedict] remained in the office, but in the contemplative part, without having any authority to decide. Thus we have – as you said – now an active and a contemplative part which form together an enlargement of the Papal Office.”  

Gänswein replied:  “That is what I have said, indeed, that – if one wishes to specify it – it is very clear.”

Interview: Archbishop Gänswein on Benedict, The Two Popes, and Prophecy

No Shared Papacy 

Naturally, there is no such thing as a “shared papacy.” Christ said to Simon, “Thou art Peter.” He didn’t say to Simon and John, “Thou art Peters.” And while the papacy indeed has various facets, i.e. contemplative, theological, active, etc., it is all one ministry. ¹ The idea that two dimensions of the Petrine office can be cubbyholed into separate departments (active and prayerful), each with its own capacity and each occupied by a separate Petrine representative, is heresy. Gänswein no doubt realizes this, but his explanation to the press was apparently the best he could do to cover for a very embarrassing situation that caused his mentor to be dethroned.    

Benedict XVI Ousted

What it boils down to is that Benedict XVI was forced into abdicating the Chair of Peter, but this was done under the guise of a resignation so as to not split the Barque of Peter asunder with controversy. Credible reports from 2015 indicate that Benedict XVI was coerced into stepping down, which was providentially foreshadowed in Pope Benedict’s inaugural speech of April 24, 2005, when he said: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.” 

We know from the late Cardinal Danneels of Brussels that he was part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. Danneels, known for his support of abortion, LGBT rights, and gay-marriage, said in a taped interview in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of this “mafia” club that was calling for drastic changes in the Church, to make it “much more modern,” and that the plan was to have Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio head it.  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-danneels-part-of-mafia-club-opposed-to-benedict-xvi This infamous clique—which is documented in Austen Ivereigh’s book the Great Reformer—comprised key members of the Vatican “gay lobby” that had clamored for Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, the same that had almost prevented the election of Benedict in 2005.

Ivereigh’s book brings to light the intense lobbying campaign that was spearheaded by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor to get Cardinal Bergoglio elected as pope. Up to 30 cardinals were involved. https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/the-great-reformer-francis-and-the-making-of-a-radical-pope/  According to Ivereigh, “they first secured Bergoglio’s assent” and then “they got to work, touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man.” Wall Street Journal report from August 6, 2013.  As the conclave neared, they then held a series of closed meetings, known as congregations, one of which featured Cardinal Bergoglio as the keynote speaker.

On the eve of the 2013 conclave, Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga was busily on the phone with cardinal electors from the Honduran embassy in Rome. His phone effort was the tail end of this intense lobbying campaign to secure votes for the election of Cardinal Bergoglio as pope.

That same day, Maradiaga attended a private meeting of Bergoglio supporters, which included key players in the “St. Gallen Mafia,” and together they garnered pledges for up to twenty-five votes for Bergoglio. Not surprisingly, Bergoglio opened with twenty-six votes on the first day of the conclave, though that number would rise to 77 on the second day indicating that this campaign effort was gaining ground. Three days later the newly elected Pope Francis asked Maradiaga to head his powerful new Council of Cardinals, known as the “Council of Nine.” 

1. That is, the various facets all comprise part of the same Petrine ministry, all of which is active. 

On August 27, 2018, Vatican correspondent Edward Pentin tweeted concerning this political campaign.

“Cdls Danneels & Ex-Cdl McCarrick campaigned for Bergoglio to be Pope, as did ++Maradiaga on eve of Conclave, phoning up various cardinals from the Honduran embassy in Rome. Despite their pasts, all 3 prelates have since been special advisors of Francis or rehabilitated by him.”

Rules and Regulations Violated

Clearly, there was intense politics and vote canvassing at work around the time of the conclave, which directly violated Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, governing papal elections. Therein he makes it clear that vote canvassing among cardinal electors is strictly forbidden, and that it incurs automatic excommunication. Consider the following from his Constitution:

“The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition.” (81)

This prohibition applies not only to the election itself but to that time just before the election when preparations are underway, since it is during this time that illicit political activity would exert its greatest influence on the vote. “Any form of pact” obliging electors “to give or deny their vote to a person” would be secured before the election.

The pope also says in his Constitution:

“Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope’s lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings.” (79)

A clique of cardinals did “make plans” to force Benedict XVI’s resignation and to campaign for “the election of his successor,” with up to 25 cardinals “promising votes” the day before the election, this having come about through “private gatherings,” thus revealing the illicit conduct of those cardinal electors to be.

Under the pain of excommunication latae sententiae, Pope John Paul forbids “each and every Cardinal elector, present and future, as also the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and all other persons taking part in the preparation and carrying out of everything necessary for the election” to allow “all possible forms of interference, opposition and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree, or any individual or group, might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope.” (80)

Unfortunately, secular and political interference played a key part in the election of Pope Francis.  According to John Paul II, such interference renders the papal election null and void.

Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason ² null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected. (76)  

Universi Dominici Gregis (February 22, 1996) | John Paul II  

A Pope “Not Canonically Elected”

Bearing this in mind, we turn now to the prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi concerning a future pope. This is found in the Opuscula or Works of St. Francis, which was published by the preeminent Franciscan historian Fr. Luke Wadding in 1621. 

Shortly before his death in 1226, St. Francis of Assisi called together the friars of his Order and detailed this prophecy of what was to come upon the Church in the latter days. The following is an excerpt taken from Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, R. Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250, with imprimatur by His Excellency William Bernard, Bishop of Birmingham. 

At the time of this tribulation, a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error…. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer. 

Evidence of a pope “not canonically elected” would be his success in drawing “many into error,” something that has been ongoing since Francis’ election. For instance, on February 4, 2019, he signed a joint statement with the head of Egypt’s al-Azhar Mosque, which states that “diversity of religions” is “willed by God.” This blatantly contravenes the Church’s dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, yet this “religious diversity” heresy is now preached everywhere from the pulpit, courtesy of Francis.

There is also the issue of Francis’ ongoing collusion with U.N. globalists. On October 28, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences partnered with U.N. pro-abortion advocates to pledge fidelity to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) championed by socialist rebels like George Soros and Jeffrey Sachs. The pope has also honored abortionists Emma Bonino and Lilliane Ploumen for their work.

And let us not forget that Francis engaged in idol worship in St. Peter’s Basilica during the recent Amazonian Synod. The pope and several cardinals were filmed chanting, dancing, and praying before the Pachamama idol as part of the synodal effort to make “reparation” to “Mother Earth” for the “sins” committed against her. Vatican rep denies claims that alleged ‘pagan’ statue is the Virgin Mary

2. Only in cases of collusion involving simony does the pope lift the nullity in order that the election may remain valid (78).

Is it any wonder that two shafts of lightning struck the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica just hours after Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation on February 11, 2013? Clearly, this signaled that a time of divine retribution is at hand.  

Need for Episcopal Examination

It is high time that a committee of bishops convene to address the matter of Benedict’s resignation, seeing that it launched what is being called the most destructive pontificate of Church history. They need to bring into question the illicit nature of the 2013 conclave, Francis’ destructive path, and Gänswein’s assertion that Benedict XVI still occupies a “contemplative” dimension of the papacy. They need to ask themselves: “Was Francis’ election valid or did it simply appear that way?”

Unfortunately, Benedict won’t speak the truth about Rome’s collusion with Antichrist because he is bound by fears and kept under surveillance by an iron-clad Vatican bureaucracy, if in fact they haven’t threatened him physically. There could be more to Danneels’ “mafia club” than meets the eye.

Death Threat Against Benedict XVI

This is credible, when we consider that on February 10, 2012, almost one year to the day before Benedict XVI announced his resignation, it was reported that the pope was given only one year to live if he didn’t resign. The Telegraph UK reported that Cardinal Paolo Romeo, Archbishop of Palermo, said these things to a group of people in Beijing toward the end of 2011. 

“His remarks were expressed with such certainty and resolution that the people he was speaking to thought, with a sense of alarm, that an attack on the Pope’s life was being planned,” the report said. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/9073811/The-Pope-will-die-within-a-year-Vatican-assassination-fears-revealed.html

The extraordinary comments were written up in a top-secret report, dated Dec. 30, 2011, and delivered to the Pope by a senior cardinal, Dario Castrillon Hoyos, in January 2012. The report was written in German, apparently to limit the number of people within the Vatican who would understand it if it was inadvertently leaked. It warned of a “Mordkomplott” – death plot – against Benedict. 

Sr. Lucy’s Vision

Hence Pope Benedict XVI, in an emotional farewell speech at St. Peter’s on February 25, 2013, told a crowd of 100,000 that God had called him to step down and devote himself to prayer, and ‘to scale the mountain.’ https://ynaija.com/god-told-me-to-climb-the-mountain-pope-gives-farewell-speech/

This would suggest that Benedict XVI is “the Holy Father” who scales the mountain in Sr. Lucy’s vision. If you’ll recall, it was in conjunction with the Third Secret of Fatima that Sr. Lucy of Fatima received this symbolic vision, which she penned on January 3, 1944. The following is an excerpt that was published by the Vatican on June 26, 2000. 

“We saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.” 

In her vision, Lucy sees two popes as it were. The first is a mirrored image of what appears to be the pope, but is actually “a bishop dressed in white” who gives the “impression” he is the pope.  The true pope [BXVI] and his followers scale the mountain amidst peril and danger, praying for the spiritually dead along the way, before which they pass through a city half in ruins, which represents the Church in shambles. At the end of their journey they are martyred for their allegiance to Jesus Crucified. It is a symbolic picture of the Church being put to death. 

We should note that a reflection in the mirror is not a reality, but only an appearance – an impression. Lucy makes the point that this impression is “a bishop dressed in white.” It doesn’t appear that the bishop dressed in white is Benedict XVI or any previous pope, but Pope Francis. 

Perhaps, this is something that an episcopal committee would want to consider as well.

Catholic Monitor

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/12/francis-effect-counterrevolutionarytrad.html

Sunday, December 01, 2019

Francis Effect: “Counterrevolution[ary]” Traditional Latin Mass Attendees have “seen Unprecedented Growth during his Papacy” that may Overthrow the Novus Ordo Mass 

New York Daily News reported that the fifty year-old Novus Ordo Mass is destroying the Catholic Church in America “[s]ince the 1960s, Mass attendance has plummeted, from around 70% of U.S. Catholics every Sunday and Holy Day.” 

Ironically, however, the anti-Latin Mass Francis has inadvertently caused “a counterrevolution of sorts” that may overthrow the Novus Ordo Mass: 

“Fifty years ago this weekend, the Catholic Church debuted a new version of Mass following reforms made by the 1960s’ Second Vatican Council. From the use of vernacular language instead of Latin, to the priest facing the people instead of the tabernacle, the changes became mandatory at all parishes on the First Sunday of Advent 1969.”

“… The resurgence of the traditional Latin Mass started before Francis, but has seen unprecedented growth during his papacy, a counterrevolution of sorts that some (both admirably and critically) call an alternative Francis effect. Even bishops and priests who were not ordinarily interested in the traditional Latin Mass have been much more generous and vocal in offering additional such liturgies. Two distinct wings of the Catholic Church have emerged. Often, the new versus the old Mass is a defining characteristic of the opposing coalitions.”

“… But after five decades of experiments and decline, there is some growth to be observed within the Catholic Church. Ironically, it is with traditionalists joining the priesthood, entering convents and attending parishes that offer the very Latin Mass that was replaced 50 years ago.”

“… The past 50 years have not been good ones for the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict saw this when he wrote, of the new form of Mass, ‘we abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it — as in a manufacturing process — with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.'”
[https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-prayers-we-can-understand-20191130-allvqyirgzdtnccfgzmi2qgwci-story.html]

The Catholic Herald revealed that in the United States the Traditional Latin Mass attendees are the future real Catholics of the Church which will eventually out number the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) attendees.

It appears that if the trend continues the Novus Ordo Mass may be overthrown by sheer numbers:

Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) attendees are over overwhelmingly real Catholics while New Mass or Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) attendees tend be lapsed and heretical Catholics according to a new study by Fr. Donald Kloster:

Fulfill Sunday obligation:

TLM: 99℅ vs. NOM: 22℅

Approve of abortion:

TLM: 1℅ vs. NOM: 51℅

Go to Confession at least once a year:

TLM: 98℅ vs. NOM: 25℅

Approve of contraception:

TLM: 2℅ vs. NOM: 89℅

Support same-sex marriage:

TLM: 2℅ vs. NOW: 67℅

“TLM attendees donate 5 times more in the collection” according to Fr. Kloster.
(Catholic Herald, “Traditional Latin Mass attendees more devout and orthodox, study says,” February 27, 2019)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.Posted by Fred Martinez at 3:37 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Catholic Monitor

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/11/canon-law-and-latin-language-expert.html?m=1

Saturday, November 30, 2019

Canon Law and Latin Language Expert: “The only Sane Conclusion is, therefore, that Munus and Ministerium are Distinct Terms with Different Meanings. They cannot Substitute for one Another” 

“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.”
– Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Canon law and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo says the only correct way to approach the validity or invalidity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is an objective reading of what the two words ministerium and munus mean by means of 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)

When I read that I thought it would be extremely helpful if he could go into detail on the above by going into canon 17, canon 332 S2, canon 145 S1 and canon 41. He has done just that.

But, before we get to that it is important to understand that Pope John Paul II promulgated the current canon law which is the supreme law of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, it is important to understand that canon 17 is the key to understanding the supreme law of the Church.

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.'”
(CatholicWorld Report, “Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded,” September 28, 2017)

Now, finally, we get 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.Fred Martinez at 4:00 PMShare

4 comments:

1. Alexis Bugnolo5:41 PMFred, thank you for republishing this study. It is just a recitation of the facts of the law. I hope that bloggers everywhere republish it and translate it, because EVERY CATHOLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW that we were defrauded of our allegiance to Christ’s vicar in Feb. 2013, and the ones who did this to us are the ones who tell us we are extremists.ReplyReplies
   1. Fred Martinez9:39 PMBr. Bugnolo,
      
      In my opinion, your above treatise may be similar to the historical moment when Doctor of the Church St. Bernard of Clairvaux proved by “recitation of the facts of the law” the proclaimed pope (Anancletus) who ruled the Vatican and Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals was in fact an antipope.
2. Fred Martinez5:48 PMBr. Bugnolo,
   
   Thank you for your continued courage and scholarship.Reply
3. BrotherBeowulf9:20 PMGaslighting. Of course Bro. Alexis. You know the devil is the father of lies, and like his servant Cardinal Bergoglio who styles himself ‘Francis’ a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Two points in this regard which sadly is not an exaggeration. 
   
   A prominent intellectual priest in N. Y. C. gave a homily yesterday—at the traditional Latin Mass—suggesting that for Advent we pray, amidst many other afflictions of Holy Mother Church in these evil times, for “a pope who is murdering souls[!]”
   
   Point One: It is good to know the good priest sees that Francis is murdering souls. 
   
   Point Two: It is hard to see how anyone can fail to draw the conclusion that such a man doing such actions as murdering souls—and again I applaud the good father for having the courage to say it—but how can he fail to see that such a man cannot be a true pope; nor the Vicar of Christ on earth; nor hold the keys to bind and loose.
   
   We pray to the Immaculate Heart that we may with her—
   
   “Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, alone thou hast destroyed all heresies throughout the world!”Reply

Pruning Hope

Fr. Paul D. Scalia

THE CATHOLIC THING

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2019

Home

Today we begin the liturgical season defined by hope. The preface for Mass says that we dare to hope. Indeed, hope seems a more daring venture than ever. And yet for precisely that reason, it holds more importance than ever. In keeping with Chesterton’s famous aphorism — Hope means hoping when things are hopeless – hope’s importance increases in proportion to its absurdity.

We dare to hope. At this time in our nation and in our Church, many find it difficult to hope at all . . . never mind to abound in hope, as Saint Paul exhorts us. (cf. Rom 15:13) In this context we do well to recall our Lord’s familiar image of the vine and branches:

Home

I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. (Jn 15:1-2)

It has always seemed to me that this beautiful image of the vine and branches is somewhat compromised by the harsh words about pruning. I don’t know much about horticulture, but I know enough to know that pruning – although necessary – seems, while it’s happening, gratuitous and cruel. A perfectly good branch is cut away. We can understand the bad branches being done away with. But pruning does away with plenty of good as well.

Friends of mine out in the country recently planted vines on their land. I’m yet to go out there to help with the pruning, but I’ve already learned two more things. First, that pruning is best done in the late winter and early spring. In other words, at the very time of year that we’re anticipating new growth, things are cut back even more. Second, that the vinedresser must be merciless. He must prune even if it seems to have killed the vine. Perhaps you’ve seen the barren, seemingly dead vines in the country. Well, they’re not dead. They’re not lifeless. They’re just pruned.

Of course, that pruning and denuding of the branches is necessary – not just for fruit but for abundant fruit. Again, Saint Paul exhorts us to abound in hope. And for things to abound there must be some pruning. The Latin phrase Succisa virescit – Cut off, if grows again – gets at this point. It is the motto of Monte Cassino’s Benedictine monastery, which has been sacked, pillaged, and bombed throughout history. And yet endures.

Succisa virescit: this motto and the whole practice of pruning are important for the Church right now. We do not know why the Lord is allowing such trials to afflict the Church; why He is allowing such confusion and decline. The most difficult thing to accept is God’s permissive will. But at the very least, without knowing His entire mind and purpose, we can accept this moment of trial as a time of pruning. Things are being cut back, and in some cases severely. But such is necessary for new growth.

In effect, we are experiencing a pruning of our hope. We make the mistake of relegating the virtue of hope to hopeful situations. When things are rosy, then we’re hopeful. Again, as Chesterton’s line teaches, just the opposite should be the case. Too many of us had – perhaps without realizing it – a worldly basis for our hope, and thus a worldly hope. It was easy to be hopeful when the Church was a major player in our country, when we were building parishes and schools and seminaries and hospitals and colleges and universities and so on. It was easy to be hopeful under such giants as John Paul II and Benedict XVI. We saw the vigor of the Church and grew hopeful, but perhaps not for the right reasons.

Will we hope now that things are different? When the Church is no longer a major player, when in many places our institutions are being closed and properties sold off, when attendance declines, when confusion afflicts us? Will we still hope?

Our hope has received a necessary pruning. It is being cut back to what makes it authentically Christian and not worldly. The difficulties afflicting the Church challenge us to hope differently, not on worldly considerations but on the Lord.

I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.

These are words of true hope. Not of the fleeting, worldly hope that we Americans like – the hope that promises a quick fix. Not that false hope but the hope that sees difficulties and cutbacks as within God’s Providence and therefore ordered to our good. In short, we hope not because of a rosy outlook, because we are popular or accepted, or at ease, but because of Him.

Hope is found in a pruned branch, in what is negligible and seemingly lifeless. This is our Lord’s preferred way of doing things. Next Sunday we will hear that a shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse. (Is 11:1) Note that: not from Jesse’s tree in full bloom, but from the stump, from what looks like it cannot grow at all, never mind bear fruit.

This is where we always find new life in the Church. Not from the big and powerful, not from the corridors of power or think tanks in D.C., not from the enormous initiatives that once characterized the Church in the U.S. It comes from the simple, small, and seemingly fruitless: from simple devotional prayers; from a straightforward confidence in the Sacraments; from the hidden work and prayers of women religious; from parents striving to raise children amid a twisted and depraved generation; from priests standing faithfully at their posts despite the maelstrom of scandals; and most of all, from a no-account town in Galilee, from a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph of the forgotten and ruined house of David.

*Image: The Vine Dresser and the Fig Tree (Le vigneron et le figuier) by J.J. Tissot, c. 1890 [Brooklyn Museum]

© 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Fr. Paul D. Scalia

Fr. Paul Scalia is a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, Va, where he serves as Episcopal Vicar for Clergy. His new book is That Nothing May Be Lost: Reflections on Catholic Doctrine and Devotion.

The Last RefugeRag Tag Bunch of Conservative Misfits – Contact Info: TheLastRefuge@reagan.com

← President Trump Considering Cartels as “Terrorists” – AMLO Worries About U.S. Invasion, and A.G. Bill Barr Heads to Mexico…Saturday November 30th – Open Thread →

Chairman Nadler Sends White House and Republicans More Deadlines for Fast-track December Impeachment Effort…

Posted on November 30, 2019 by sundance

Candidate Trump was framed for stealing a horse; President Trump was subsequently accused of trying too hard to avoid hanging for it. Prosecutor Mueller eventually conceded that Trump didn’t steal the horse; however, by then the focus was on Trump’s efforts to avoid the hanging.  Eventually Mueller testified; it surfaced there was never a horse to begin with… Impeachment was stalled.   Prosecutor Jerry Nadler is attempting to resurrect a legal theory that President Trump can still be hung for attempting to avoid the hanging, even if there was no horse theft.   Yup, that’s were we’re at.

Earlier Friday House Judiciary Committee (HJC) Chairman Jerry Nadler sent another letter to the White House outlining a December 6th deadline for executive participation in the coup by impeachment.  The chairman also sent ranking member Doug Collins a similar letter asking for rebuttal witnesses by December 6th.  In anticipation of Nadler denying the republican rebuttal witnesses he has scheduled a committee hearing on the republican complaints for December 9th [yes, same day as IG Horowitz report release].

Both of these requests, along with the prior “groundwork hearing” request, come from the HJC before the judiciary committee has received the House Impeachment Inquiry report from Adam Schiff’s HPSCI partisan impeachment committee.  Apparently the HJC knows the report content from Schiff’s committee; which means there will be no full committee review by any republican members of the bunker basement impeachment group.

Here’s the Nadler letter to the White House:

Here’s the Nadler letter to ranking member Doug Collins:

Here’s the initial “groundwork” letter to the White House:

• December 1st – Deadline for White House response for participation in “groundwork” hearing.
• December 4th – HJC “groundwork” impeachment hearing at 10:00am.
• December 6th – Deadline for White House response for participation in HJC Impeachment Hearing.
• December 6th – Deadline for House Republican witness list.
• December 9th – Hearing to deny House Republican witnesses.
• December 13th – House recesses for Christmas break.

No idea when Adam Schiff’s House Impeachment Inquiry report (written by Lawfare) will be delivered.  [ I do mean Literally written by Lawfare]

No idea when the HJC Impeachment Hearings will be held, or if they will just go straight to a House vote on impeachment.

Obviously Chairman Nadler is in a hurry.

Bloomberg Government✔@BGOV

Adam Schiff said his committee will send a report on its impeachment investigation to the Judiciary Committee soon after this week’s Thanksgiving recess. http://bgovgo.com/CI2187q House Panel to Submit Impeachment Report Soon After ThanksgivingHouse Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said his committee will send a report on its impeachment investigation of President Donald Trump to the Judiciary Committee soon after this week’s Thanksgiving…bloomberg.com1192:32 PM – Nov 29, 2019

liturgy guyLife, Liturgy and the Pursuit of Holiness

RSS Feed← The Splendor of TruthThe All Too Ordinary Use of Extraordinary Ministers →

Why Aren’t Other Dioceses Looking to Lincoln?

APR 30

Posted by Brian Williams

Why Aren’t Other Dioceses Looking to Lincoln?

Why Aren’t Other Dioceses Looking to Lincoln?

Why Aren’t Other Dioceses Looking to Lincoln?

(Photo from the 2015 Mass of Ordination in the Diocese of Lincoln, NE)

So often these days we read of the ongoing collapse of Catholicism in the west.  In diocese after diocese we see parishes and schools closing or consolidating, a decline in priests as older clergy pass away at rates higher than new ordinations, and a widespread loss of the next generation to either the secular left or the evangelical right.  

We also read of various plans to counter these trends. Everyone seems to have a program to promote, a new strategy to increase vocations, to increase weekly Mass attendance, to keep teens from fleeing the faith…

However, what’s not as widely known is that we already have a blueprint for success: the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska.  The problem is that few are talking about it.  So let’s fix that.

First, a few facts you might not know about the Diocese of Lincoln:  

According to the Official Catholic Directory and the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), Lincoln, NE is the only diocese in the United States to place in the Top 20 for the ratio of ordinands to population in every survey conducted from 1993-2012. 

Despite having a Catholic population of only 97,000, the Lincoln diocese ordained 22 men from 2010-2012.  Only seven diocese in the entire country ordained more.  One of those, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (with a Catholic population over 4.2 million) ordained 34 men during those same three years.  In other words, L.A. only ordained four more men per year on average despite having a population 44X greater than Lincoln.

Bishop James Conley recently noted that, with this year’s class, the diocese will have ordained 17 men to the priesthood in a 24 month span of time; unheard of in this day and age.

As of 2012 the diocese had a total of 150 priests serving 134 parishes. 

There is no permanent diaconate program in Lincoln. There are, however, installed acolytes and lectors constituted of lay men.

There are also 33 Catholic schools, including 6 high schools.  One of those high schools, St. Pius X, produced 18 of the 48 men enrolled at St. Gregory the Great Seminary in 2014. 

It’s also interesting to note that 96 percent of students attending diocesan schools are Catholic.

Many of the schools are staffed by female religious, of which the Diocese of Lincoln boasts 141 sisters from 14 different orders. Many have priests teaching high school theology and often serving as principals as well.

Having established that Lincoln is a thriving community of Catholicism, seemingly impervious to many of the challenges encountered elsewhere, we now need to look at the secret of their success. 

The Lincoln blueprint can be narrowed down to a few foundational elements:

Orthodox Bishops

Against all odds and the prevailing winds of the post-conciliar Church, Lincoln has avoided the craziness and irreverence that has afflicted so many other dioceses. This has largely been achieved through the stability and orthodoxy provided over the last fifty years by three men: Bishop Glennon Flavin (1967-1992), Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz (1992-2012), and Bishop James Conley (2012-present). They succeeded despite the occasional scorn of their brother bishops, and by making the Church’s perennial priorities their own. 

The National Catholic Reporter (known as the Fishwrap to Fr. Z readers) once bemoaned that it was as if the “reforms” so prevalent in the aftermath of Vatican II had missed Lincoln altogether. Exactly.

The Male Only Sanctuary

Several things immediately differentiate Lincoln from nearly every other diocese in the country when it comes to the sacred liturgy. 

To a large extent, Lincoln has preserved a male only sanctuary. In this area the diocese has simply given more weight to tradition and common sense instead of “modern sensibilities” that are more secular minded. 

The diocese remains the only one in the country to maintain an altar serving policy of boys only. As I have written about before, this is in direct recognition of what Rome itself acknowledged back in 1994:

The Holy See wishes to recall that it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar. As is well known, this has led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue.

Lincoln also utilizes installed acolytes and lectors for the Holy Mass. Since it is an instituted ministry, the role of an acolyte is only open to men. Both of these instituted ministries commenced during Bishop Flavin’s time during the 1970’s. 

As an example, a parish with 1,200 or so families could have as many as 30-40 acolytes. They function mainly in a capacity to serve during Mass, often much like an altar boy or deacon: they turn the missal pages for the priest, carry the processional cross, distribute communion, handle the thurifer for incensing, and so on. 

These acolytes are utilized on an as needed basis and are not viewed as simply another way to increase lay participation. An average Sunday mass with 800 people would typically have only 2 main acolytes and 3 more assist the extra priest to distribute Holy Communion. It’s also interesting to note that the faithful only receive under one species in Lincoln, foregoing the need to double the number of acolytes. This is of course in stark contrast to most dioceses that make ordinary use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, to the point of abusing the intention set forth by Rome. 

As stated previously, Lincoln also utilizes installed lectors for most Sunday Masses. Back in the early 1980’s Bishop Rembert Weakland (the progressive homosexual prelate of Milwaukee at the time) publicly chastised Bishop Flavin of Lincoln for not embracing the innovation of female readers for Mass. While Flavin’s successor Bishop Bruskewitz would eventually acquiesce and permit their use in the diocese, female readers are still more commonly utilized for daily masses and school masses, with lectors more prevalent for Sunday’s and holy days of obligation. 

Tradition Friendly 

Those in Lincoln will speak of the lack of Catholic tribalism and the absence of the liturgical wars so prevalent in other dioceses. In large part this is due to the environment established by Lincoln’s bishops. Reverent Novus Ordo liturgies have served the faithful well, preventing the frustration that so many encounter in other dioceses. 

However, Lincoln has also avoided the hostility toward tradition that so often defines the traditionalists experience elsewhere. Back in the 1990’s then Bishop Bruskewitz invited the newly established Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) to the diocese to establish a North American seminary, Our Lady of Guadalupe in Denton, NE. The Fraternity exclusively celebrates Mass in the Extraordinary Form and adheres to the liturgical books in use in 1962. 

Presently there are about 7 or so diocesan priests who offer the Traditional Latin Mass; however, more are learning it. The rector at the diocesan seminary (St. Gregory the Great) offers it to the seminarians once a month. 

This is probably one of the more interesting sides of Lincoln. The Latin Mass community is not very large in Lincoln. Because the diocese has historically been so conservative there has never been a great battle cry from traditionalists for the exclusive return of the Latin Mass. Many within the community can even be seen at various Novus Ordo parishes participating fully within the liturgy . 

The number of priests learning the old Mass is on the rise, though mainly among the younger priests (of which there are many). Most of the older priests will delegate it to the FSSP priests in the diocese at the seminary or to St. Francis’ parish. Bishops Bruskewitz, Conley and Robert Finn (formerly of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph) all offer it regularly in the diocese.

Lincoln’s diocesan priests and the FSSP priests have an excellent relationship, and it is only getting better. St. Gregory the Great diocesan seminarians have gone to Our Lady of Guadalupe, and vice versa, for evenings of prayer and fraternity and for vespers in both the old and new rites. 

Liturgical Continuity

As stated previously, the Lincoln diocese has intentionally avoided the modern tendency to clericalize the laity by delegating liturgical roles to the faithful. Thanks to its use of acolytes and lectors, instead of the more common excessive use of readers and EMHC’s, the diocese has not blurred the lines between ministers and laity, or between sanctuary and nave. It’s obvious to see how this would reinforce the ministerial priesthood in Lincoln, as well as the continuity between both forms of the Roman Rite.

Proper liturgical orientation has been further reinforced through the manner in which many masses are offered in Lincoln: with the priest facing toward the liturgical east, or Ad Orientem.

As I have written about before, the last two years Bishop Conley has offered all Sunday masses Ad Orientem during Advent. Further, he has publicly encouraged the priests of his diocese to do the same. From what I have been told, about 40% of parishes chose to follow his lead. For many, however, this was not anything new, as most large diocesan masses are already being offered Ad Orientem. 

A Catholic Education

While I have saved this for last, in many ways education is the primary ingredient to Lincoln’s recipe for success. Bishop Glennon Flavin’s vision for a diocese that allowed its children to go to Catholic school at an affordable cost and to be taught authentic Catholicism by religious sisters and priests is integral to the diocesan mission.

While Lincoln’s Catholic population is less than 100,000, they have provided the faithful with 27 elementary schools and 6 high schools to educate the next generation. More importantly, most diocesan schools have at least 1-2 habited sisters and all Catholic schools are staffed by at least one priest. 

As noted earlier, high school theology classes are only taught by priests and religious sisters. For example, the Catholic high school in Lincoln, Pius X, has over 1200 students and is staffed by 4 religious sisters (in traditional religious habits) and 15 priests who always wear their clerics. Each newly ordained priest can expect to teach high school for at least 5 years. Priests who are assigned to parishes in smaller towns with a Catholic high school are still expected to teach as well.

Unlike other dioceses which require school masses only once a week, or in some cases once a month, each grade school in the Diocese of Lincoln is required to offer daily mass for the entire school each day. 

However, there may be no better example of Lincoln’s commitment to the future than the fact that it’s diocesan schools have some of the lowest tuition costs in the entire country. As an example, St. Teresa’s Catholic School in town has an annual tuition cost of only $100 per student, and yet it is a thriving school with a habited sister as principal.

As one local explained, “These good, solid, Catholic schools are the roots of the diocese and continue to pump out religious vocations and plain good Catholics, thanks to the work of our clergy, diocesan staff, and laity.”

Why Aren’t Other Dioceses Looking to Lincoln?

Why more dioceses aren’t looking to incorporate the Lincoln model is a mystery. It is easy to see how some might dismiss it, however. 

Lincoln is a rural diocese. It’s exceptionally high number of religious sisters help to reduce tuition costs for schools. The relatively small size of the Catholic population creates an insulated environment unlike that found in such diverse and populous areas as Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York. 

Of course there may be other reasons why the Lincoln blueprint is apparently being ignored. 

No doubt many bishops, priests, and lay faithful would rather forgo a boom in vocations if it means having to reestablish clear divisions between the nave and the sanctuary, or ending such post-conciliar innovations as altar girls or Extraordinary Ministers. The secular push for egalitarianism has been enthusiastically embraced by most bishops these past few decades. It would seem that either pride, or fear, or an agenda that is not exclusively focused on saving souls, is keeping many from reversing course. Or maybe some dioceses simply don’t want orthodox Catholicism.

We can only hope and pray that more of those within the Church hierarchy humbly and attentively look to Lincoln for some answers. There is a blueprint for rebuilding a vibrant Church, an authentic and thriving Catholicism. 

Look to Lincoln.

(I would like to thank Tanner Lockhorn of Lincoln, NE for his assistance and significant contribution to this post. Tanner is a life long resident of Lincoln and a graduate of St. Pius X High School).

Coventry Patmore and the Theology of the Body

By Ralph Capone

https://ethikapolitika.org/2019/11/25/coventry-patmore-theology-of-the-body

November 25, 2019Ours is a time of great confusion, a dystopia abandoned by reason, a place where, for far too many, the irreal reigns. Its “kingdom” is found where “unreality … does violence to reality – that could in no coherent sense ever be called real.”  It’s where reason is forsaken and a man may declare that he is no longer one simply by dint of his feelings. Words like maleand female, rooted for millenia in humanity’s common sense and reason, no longer signify what is real.  

This lexicon of thereal is based upon knowledge of the natural world and perceived through our rational intellect and five senses. It has provided reliable meaning and guidance throughout human history. Further, for believers, God enhances these natural gifts with supernatural graces and gifts of faith, hope and love. These, then, enlighten and guide us and lead us to where experiencing the real fulfills more than just our natural desires but accomplishes the ultimate personal desire for true happiness found only in union with God (Latin beatitudo or Greek eudaimonia).  

For your Maker is your husband, the Lord of hosts is his name; 
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, 
Get our free book, The Essential Ethika Politikathe God of the whole earth he is called. (Isaiah 54:5)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              The Victorian poet, Coventry Patmore,  a Catholic convert  in 1864, 19 years after the conversion of Saint John Henry Newman, was led into the Church by his faith and belief in the Incarnation. A master of the English language, who with the heart and vision of a poet, saw “natural objects through eyes that were clear and unclouded…” (page 57). He was called a “visual sensualist” (page 206) in his great paean to married love, The Angel in the House, and in his other writings and poetry e.g., The Unknown Eros.  His fertile imagination and spirituality were directed towards “an exposition of the divine mystery of wedlock” (page 73) as foreshadowing Christ’s love for the soul. “Here, the ideal of nuptial love is described by no other modern poet, with the purity of a saint and the passion of a flaming lover.” (page 73) 

Marriage as a sacrament that reveals the hidden mystery of God was the pattern occupying his thoughts before his conversion. This motif became greatly strengthened by the profound sacramental nature of Catholicism rooted, as it is, in the real. Though both this poetic creativity and his ultimate conversion to the Catholic Church were costly to his career and reputation, like it was for Newman, especially among contemporaries including erstwhile supporter, John Ruskin. Even the great Catholic poet, Gerard Manley Hopkins, criticized this particular poetry, shocked by its “sexual-mystical symbolism” (page 166). Yet Patmore remained true to these inspirations which predate by over one hundred years the masterful catechetical work of Saint John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. 

Marriage, love and the purposes of human sexuality can be understood by perceiving the reality of a male and female body, each a “natural object” and their biological and complementary differences. In Man and Woman He Created Them,Saint John Paul II explains sexuality in marriage both in natural (unitive and procreative) and in supernatural terms as the two-in-one flesh which images the Trinitarian God. Man, he says, in his natural state is alone (page 151) and seeking communion with the “other”, naturally, with a spouse and supernaturally, with God. This union, “communio personarum” (page 162-163), is accomplished in other ways e.g., in maternal-child relationships, in friendships, and in teacher-student relationships. The most radical form of this communion of persons is found marital intercourse and achieved through the “language of the body”(page 531) in which both spouses give their bodies, fully, unreservedly and selflessly to one another. 

Human bodies have, as part of their nature, a spousal meaning that  is “capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine. It has been created to transfer into the visible reality of the world the mystery hidden from eternity in God, and thus to be a sign of it.” (page 203) Marriage is a sacrament in which the invisible reality of God is made visible through the one flesh union of spouses and by their complete self-gift and fidelity. The form of the sacrament is the marital act by use of the “language of the body”; the matter is the bodies and genitals of the two spouses.  This visible reality, through the spouses openness to new life, images both the unity of the Triune God (Three Persons in One God) and God’s generous fecundity. Finally, what is also made visible, according to Saint Paul, is the great mystery of Christ and the Church, the Bridegroom and His spouse. 

The Glory of the Sacramental Imagination

Coventry Patmore’s religious conversion strengthened his early sacramental imagination in which he perceived that “the intimate details of a man’s love for a woman form the best available symbolic language for expressing God’s analogous love for the soul.”  (page 207) The central “real” event for Christians is the et Verbum caro factum est in which the second Person of the Trinity – the Word of God, in time and place, pitched his tent to dwell among mankind. This amazing reality of God-made-flesh, the  Incarnation, the locus of man’s renewed dignity, was for Patmore also the place where “human and divine love meet and fuse: man’s love is deified, and God’s love is humanized.” (page 207)  It was marriage that hitherto “almost all other poets had treated as either the enemy or the conclusion of love“, Patmore saw it as love’s “very object and summit.” (page 84) 

For far too many, by denying the real-ness of biology, sexuality and marriage are perceived as enemies of mankind. The awesome beauty of spousal two-in-one flesh communion manifested by unique differences in male and female bodies, and the supernatural reality it points to, is misperceived and disvalued.  As one writer  notes “(w)e are sick of sex, we are indeed. Reality is too dull for us. The imaginary is too real for us. So we have turned to the irreal: to what could not be real in any conceivable universe.” Those, indeed, for whom this real-ity is too dull have abandoned the means to their natural happiness. But a far greater loss is that ultimate happiness to which all are invited. Pascal, to whom Patmore has been compared wrote about the search for God who is also discoverable in those fundamental truths of nature knowable through our rational intellect.  “What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace…(that) can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.”

For Patmore and Saint John Paul II, love between spouses fulfills the natural desire for union of man and woman and images in a natural way the supernatural union with God. Marriage points to that reality of God’s immense and eternal love for each soul. After his conversion, Patmore fretted over his work, especially The Angel in the House, that perhaps it was not consistent with the truth of Catholic doctrine. What he couldn’t know which would ultimately vindicate his work qua Catholic was that a later Pope would describe married love in much the same way. “With his eye turned firmly upward and outward – to the world and to God – Patmore’s writing reveals a keen perception of the infinite disclosed in every single finite creature. It is his firm grounding in the real that allows Patmore to surpass his Romantic precursors and contemporaries, with his insights on the relationship between the world and God, the body and soul and woman and man.” It would be profitable, in our time, to turn to those who, canonized or secular, discovered in thereal, meaning and happiness for man amidst evidence for the mystery, grandeur and glory of God. 

Asking Rome – Deliver Us from No-Fault Divorce

Asking Rome – Deliver Us from No-Fault Divorce

Canon Law Complaint from Member of the Faithful Against his Bishop

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/FMfcgxwGBwShLrWQqztXLwkbhGkknnNq

A Catholic filed a canon law complaint against his own Bishop to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota because of scandalous writings published by the diocese about marriage and divorce. For now, the identity of the aggrieved layperson and the Bishop are being kept confidential. We’ll call the member of the faithful Joe.

Joe received no reply to a letter he sent to his Bishop on October 2 expressing his concern that the diocesan Tribunal requires a petitioner to have a civil divorce prior filing for a Church annulment. Annulment is short for a judgement of the invalidity a marriage – finding that no valid marriage occurred on the wedding day.  Joe showed his Bishop where the diocesan website teaches, “divorce itself does not prohibit a Catholic from receiving the sacraments.”  Joe says, “These statements harm faith and good morals because the faithful are given an incorrect understanding of civil divorce” and giving the wrong impression “that the only obligation of marriage that is of interest to the Church is the obligation to avoid attempting a so-called second marriage without an annulment first.”

Joe finds that the Bishop’s permission is required prior to anyone filing in the civil forum for divorce (civil separation, or civil annulment).  To support his position, he showed his Bishop writings from the Council of Trent (yr. 1563), Pope Pius VI (1788), USA particular law (1885), and internationally respected canon law commentaries published in Spanish, English, and Italian over the last 15 years.  All these sources show that an individual Catholic is not allowed to judge, on his own volition, that he has the right to permanent separation of spouses and the right to file in the civil forum for divorce (civil separation, separate maintenance, or civil annulment). Joe gave his Bishop examples of the injustices imposed on faithful spouses and innocent children by government judges:

[T]he divorce judge relieves abandoners of the obligation to maintain the common conjugal life even when no canonical/moral legitimate basis for separation exists (See c. 104, 1153). The divorce judge wrongly forfeits the right of a fit spouse to have everyday access to one’s children which is a natural and canonical right (See c. 226 §2, 1136). The divorce judge wrongly relieves a spouse of the obligation to contribute the full share of mutual help to the marital home (See 1983 CIC c. 1055 and 1917 CIC c. 1013 §1).

Today, Joe’s canonical action against his Bishop was delivered to the Papal Nuncio in Washington DC. He’s asking the Tribunal of the Roman Rota to judge whether his Bishop is publishing writings on his diocesan website that gravely harm public morals, provoking his subjects to disobedience, causing many priests to solicit a penitent to commit a sin against the sixth commandment, asserting something false in a public ecclesiastic documents, and failing in his duty to urge the observance of ecclesiastical laws. All these offenses can bind the Tribunal of the Roman Rota to issue punishment of the Bishop. Lastly, Joe asked for a judgement about whether the Bishop is “gravely wounding the faithful who are keeping their marriage promises and the faithful’s children who are deprived of everyday access to the same parent.”

In his letter to the Roman Rota, Joe says, “The necessity of some kind of ecclesiastic process/proceeding concluding in a decision when one alleges to have a legitimate cause for separation of spouses is imperative. Marriage involves the public good and in separation cases, every case must involve the Promoter of Justice. While specifics regarding the identity of the authority with competence to decide and rules of the process are not of divine law, the necessity of an ecclesiastic process is of divine law.”

In coming weeks, Joe should receive notice from the Roman Rota about the acceptance of his petition. He hopes that the U.S. Bishops will stop their silence every time a Catholic spouse files for civil divorce. Especially with no-fault divorce, the civil forum gravely wounds children and the spouse who is counting on the marriage promises to be upheld. “Many divorced persons are persisting daily in the sin of marital abandonment or other failings to uphold marriage obligations for which one must promise to amend prior to receiving the sacraments,” wrote Joe.

Mary’s Advocates announced in October that members of the faithful were raising concerns with their bishops about the annulment Tribunals’ requirement for a divorce and the disregard of the canon law applicable prior to divorce. If a bishop does not address the concerns, others like Joe, will be asking for help from the Tribunal of the Roman Rota.  Anyone else interested in raising similar concerns in their diocese and in the Tribunal of the Roman Rota can contact me (Bai Macfarlane ma.defending@marysadvocates.org).

An Index to Pope Benedict’s Renunciation

Nov26by The Editor

So much has been written about Pope Benedict’s renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013, that it is easy to forget or miss important articles. Since a lot of visitors who come to The From Rome Blog want to read about Benedict’s renunciation, it is helpful to have in one post, a list of all the Articles published here.

This is a topical, not chronological list: that is, it lists articles according to what aspect of the controversy they principally deal with, not according to the date they were published.

Before reading any of the Articles, see this public notice about FACTS VS CONJECTURE

And make sure to read the last section, which is the MOST important: What we must now do!

The Renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013

Latin Text of Non Solum propter

• Br. Bugnolo’s Exact translation into English of the Text to show that it was not coherent
• Br. Bugnolo’s Study of the more than 40 grammatical and canonical errorsin the Text

Vernacular Translations of Non solum propter

• Br. Bugnolo’s English translation of the Text to make it appear to be coherent
• The Vatican Has Intentionally falsified the Translations of the Text to make it appear to be a valid resignation: A textual study of all the major translations.
• From a Correspondent:  The German Translation of the text was touched up in its final redaction by a non-native speaker of German, and seems to be a translation of the English at the Vatican Website

The History of the Claim that the Text means Benedict resigned the Papacy

• Meet Giovanni Chirri, mother of the notion that Benedict resigned the Papacy
• How Cardinal Sodano robbed the Papacy from Benedict by violating Canons 40 and 41 in misinterpreting the canonical significance of the Act

Why Pope Benedict Renounced the Ministry which He had received from the Cardinals

• The Vatican Coup d’Etat of Feb 2013
• How and Why the Renunciation may have been forced, Feb 11, 2012 to Feb 11, 2013 in review
• The Plot to Remove Benedict and Imprison him, and in what it may have consisted
• How and why Benedict may have resigned the Ministry to undermine the St Gallen Mafia’s plans
• How Benedict’s decision to renounce the Ministry may have been caused by error
• Ann Barnhardt’s Video on why the renunciation of ministry may have been intentional
• Our Lady of the Pine may have warned Benedict not to resign for a profound reason

What Pope Benedict says His resignation means and meant

1. Pope Benedict XVI in Feb. 2013 said in every way possible that He had not resigned the Papacy
2. Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 14, 2013 explained to the Clergy of Rome how to see that He had not resigned the Papacy
3. How the Vatican’s attempt to get Benedict to call Bergoglio the Pope failedin June 2019

What in truth does the Act of Renouncing the Ministry mean or effect?

1. Jesus Christ’s Point of view on this.
2. The Canonical Argument that the Act does not cause the loss of the Papacy (ppbxvi.org)
3. Video Explanation, prepared by Brian Murphy with input from Br. Bugnolo
4. Ann Barnhardt’s authoritative Video on Substantial Error
5. L’argomento canonico che dimostra che la Rinuncia non effettua la perdita del papato
6. What Pope John Paul II taught about Munus and Ministerium, and how it binds the whole Church.
7. The Magisterial Teaching of Pope Boniface VIII regarding the necessity of renouncing the Munus
8. Why, on account of only resigning the Ministry, Pope Benedict made it dogmatically impossible that Bergoglio be the Pope
9. Why, on account of only resigning the Ministry. Pope Benedict made it canonically impossible that Bergoglio’s election as pope was valid.

A Scholastic Investigation into the Canonical Meaning of the Resignation

Here Br. Bugnolo has gathered all the major arguments for and against and shows which side has the better argument.

• English Version here at The From Rome Blog.
• English Version in PDF format at ppbxvi.org (This copy was sent to Benedict in Feb, 2013)
• Italian Version in PDF at ppbxvi.org (This copy was sent to all the Clergy of Rome, Nov. 2013)
• The Spanish version here at The From Rome Blog. (Many thanks to the volunteer who translated this!)
• Proof that this argument was made known to Pope Benedict in Feb. 2013 and that Pope Benedict has tacitly accepted this argument
• The Clergy of the Church of Rome now know of this argument
• The Vatican has tacitly accepted that this argument is Valid

The Dubious Arguments and outright Falsehoods used to defend that the renunciation caused Benedict to lose the Papacy

• A refutation of LifeSite’s Hit piece against the truth that the Resignation was invalid
• Eminent Canonist at Rome admits that the Renunciation is uncanonical(Italian translation at ChiesaRomana.info)
• Has Cardinal Brandmueller ever read Canon 17
• A Refutation of Sicoe’s Shell-Game
• Where Dr Roberto de Mattei get’s it wrong

WHAT CATHOLICS SHOULD DO IN RESPONSE

• It is our grave and solemn duty to Canonically Restore Pope Benedict, and how to do it which contains a complete list of the Canonical Crimes of the Cardinals and Bishops who say Benedict resigned the Papacy.
• We should not allow the St. Gallen Mafia to prevail
• Why we should NOT give up on those who think Bergoglio is the popesimply because they never seriously examined the evidence: the personal testimony of Br. Bugnolo
• How a Bishop can use this information to depose Bergoglio by a simple declaration
• How Bishops who pretend the resignation is valid might be excommunicated already
• Why no Cardinal nor Bishop has an excuse before God for saying Benedict is not the Pope. (The same article in Spanish)
• THE CANONICAL RIGHT OF EVERY PRIEST to stop naming Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass

AdvertisementsREPORT THIS ADAdvertisementsREPORT THIS AD

Share this:

• Email
• Print
• Save

Related

The Imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI

In “Editorials”

A Nonsensical Act: What the Latin of the Renunciation really says

In “Canon Law”

How to remove Bergoglio

In “Canon Law”This entry was posted in Canon Law, News and tagged Abdication, Benedict XVI’s abdication, canon 17, Canon 332, Canon 332 §2, Feb 11 2013, Papal Abdication, papal resignation, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Boniface VIII, Pope John Paul II, Renunciation.

Remote regions are home for various orders, including the Crozet nuns, Clear Creek monks (above) and the Christ Desert monks. (Courtesy of the orders)TRAVEL |  NOV. 24, 2019Bringing the Faith to the Ends of America: Monasteries Take Root in Remote US LocationsThree such communities have chosen to live in isolated areas where they may better live a life of prayer and contemplation, while sustaining their needs with manual labor.Jim Graves

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/bringing-the-faith-to-the-ends-of-america-monasteries-take-root-in-remote-u

Some religious communities, such as the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal in New York City, work in the heart of the city.

Others have planted their communities far from population centers in remote regions of the country. Three such communities have chosen to live in isolated areas where they may better live a life of prayer and contemplation, while sustaining their needs with manual labor.

Our Lady of the Angels (OLAMonastery.org) is a Trappist-Cistercian Monastery in Crozet, a small Virginia community in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The community was founded by six sisters in 1987 and today is home to 13 sisters, ages 40 to 87. The sisters live a regimented life of prayer, rising at 3am for individual prayer and spiritual reading and retiring after Compline at 7:30pm. The sisters support their community through manual labor and are well-known for their Gouda cheese, called Monastery Country Cheese, which they have manufactured and sold since 1990.

The monastery is located on a 500-acre site, 390 acres of which are woodlands, about a mile from a main road. The area is remote, far from any housing developments or other residential or urban areas. 

Sister Barbara Smickel first became a Cistercian sister in 1956 and was one of six founding sisters of the Crozet community. She said the monastery’s location was chosen with care. 

As she explained, “We appreciate silence and solitude. Our location gives us the privacy we need for prayer. The forest and mountains are also beautiful, and beauty is very uplifting for prayer.”

However, despite the far-away location, she said, “People still make their way up here to go on retreat, buy our cheese or pray in our church, which is always open to the public.”

The sisters’ church was completed just two and a half years ago, funded by proceeds from cheese sales and donations.

When not at work, the sisters wear a traditional white robe covered by a black scapular, along with a black veil (or white, for those who haven’t professed their final vows). Their formation period is nine years. 

Sister Barbara feels blessed by her vocational discernment: “I love it. Living in this community has been the greatest gift of my life.”

Another religious community remote from the world but close to the faith, the monks of Our Lady of Clear Creek Abbey in Hulbert, Oklahoma (ClearCreekMonks.org), are celebrating the 20th anniversary of their abbey’s founding. The Benedictine community is located in a wooded site about 50 miles southeast of Tulsa. Its 50 monks live a regimented life in accordance with the Benedictine motto ora et labora, “pray and work.”

The community got its start from the Great Books program at the University of Kansas, which studies the roots of Western civilization through the classic works of literature. Students in the program interested in the monastic life made their way to Notre-Dame de Fontgombault Abbey in France, with the intention of returning to the U.S. to establish a new monastic foundation. 

After looking throughout the U.S. for a monastery site, they selected a ranch along Oklahoma’s Clear Creek. Its first buildings included a log cabin, barn and stable; the barn was the community’s first chapel, and horse stalls were the first monastic cells. 

Benedictine Father Norton, a priest with the community, recalled his first visit to the site 13 years ago: “It was very primitive.”

The community prays in Latin and celebrates Mass according to the extraordinary form, and Father Norton was first attracted to their celebration of the liturgy.

“Their whole day was centered around saying Mass,” he said. “It was devout and reverent.”

About a third of the monastery has been built since those early days. The monks’ goal is to build a magnificent abbey, said Abbot Philip Anderson, “to last a thousand years.”

Because the monastery is located in a remote rural area, its monks work the land and may be found chopping down trees for use on the property and planting new ones to take their place. The monks also milk cows, raise pigs and sheep, perform carpentry work, cook their own food, and make items to sell to visitors.

Father Norton said that it was difficult for him “to live a Christian life in the modern world.” Now, happy in his vocation, he lives “a more simple life centered on Christ.”

The Southwestern region of the U.S. has also made a welcoming site for monastic life. The Monastery of Christ in the Desert of Abiquiu, New Mexico (ChristDesert.org), is a 55-year-old community located in an especially remote location, the wilderness of Chama Canyon. It is a beautiful setting in a valley, surrounded by mountains and trees. To reach the site, visitors must travel 13 miles down a dirt road off U.S. Route 84 and along the Chama River (when it rains, the road may become impassible for a time), which the prior, Brother Benedict, calls “our driveway.” The nearest small town is a 45-minute drive away.

The monastery’s 60 Benedictine monks also engage in manual labor to provide for their needs. They operate a retreat house for visitors and offer religious items for sale. They wear a traditional Benedictine habit, as well as a habit designed for work.

The modest buildings of the monastery blend into the landscape, and much of the monastery’s power comes from a solar array. The monks keep a rigorous prayer schedule, from 4am to 8pm, and rarely leave the monastery. Prayers are sung; and the monks perform regular penances, including abstinence from meat. 

When not in prayer, monks might be found repairing machinery, caring for visitors on retreat, baking bread or cleaning or making religious items to sell. Yet despite its wilderness location, the abbey draws 30,000 visitors a year. 

Abbot Emeritus Philip Lawrence, leader of the community from 1976 to 2018, noted that visitors are impressed by the “daily discipline of the monks.”  Visitors ask, he said, “Why would anyone want to get up early and pray? Can’t we pray just as well and get up later? So the discipline of our lives touches the guests and visitors.”

Jim Graves writes from Newport Beach, California.