A significant error in Benedict’s Declaratio is his statement that he received the papacy from the hands of the cardinals. Benedict did not receive the papacy from the Cardinals. The Cardinals elected him but the papacy is given directly to Benedict at the moment he said, ‘yes’ to the request by Jesus Christ, just as Peter received the keys directly from Jesus Christ. This is a substantial theological error formed from immersion in Teutonic Theology.[1]
The Code of 1983 is what the Church is under. It states in Canon 11: “Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
Can. 12 §1. “Universal laws bind everywhere all those for whom they were issued.”[2]
To renounce the papacy, Benedict must renounce in the manner proscribed by Canon Law because he is bound by it.
Brother unpacks this highly significant section of Code.
Can. 332 §1. “The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
- 2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.”[3]
munus = office = a charge= dignity
Munus is not synonymous with ministry or ministerium as Ann Barnhardt rightly discusses. The use of it in the Code of 1983 clearly demonstrates that munus and ministerium are two different words. For a complete and accessible discussion of these terms refer to Brother’s article found in the footnotes.[4]
Additionally, terms used in the Code of Canon Law are defined by the Canon’s usage itself. Though interesting, historical treatments of the munus and ministry are not needed. Canon #17 states,” Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.”[5]
Brother does not mimic Ann’s thesis but offers fresh insights.[6] I find it intellectually satisfying to have many ways to come to the same conclusion, that Benedict has never resigned the papacy, thus Bergoglio has never at any time been the pope, and is in fact, an anti-pope.
The cardinals did not elect a new pope in Bergoglio because Benedict was still alive and without having resigned the office completely and in accord with proper procedure, under duress, and committing substantial error by attempting to transform or expand the office following an illegal and invalid electioneering process The whole farce reeks of evil intent. It is time to pump the brakes on the Bergoglian event with a papal reset.
- V. Archbishop Garcia has a website Abyssus Abyssum[7] The archbishop posts on topics related to authentic Catholicism and the remedying of the papal confusion by means of calling an imperfect council. An imperfect council can consider the irregularities of Benedicts attempted resignation and installation of Bergoglio
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDI2i5lQ94E&list=PLDfTuhppkmKpz9zyug050t-tmOcRqbuGU&index=3 @20:17
[2] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3.HTM accessed April 28, 2020
[3] Ibid
[4] https://fromrome.info/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/ accessed April 28, 2020
[5] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3.HTM accessed April 28, 2020
[6] https://fromrome.info/2018/12/26/the-validity-of-benedicts-resignation-part-ii-ad-contrarium/ accessed April 28, 2020
[7] https://abyssum.org accessed April 28, 2020