Ann Barnhardt is a Liar and a Fool
By John Salza
20 February A.D. 2020
20 February A.D. 2020
Ann Barnhardt truly lives in a fantasy world of her own making. Not only does she pretend that the man the entire episcopacy adheres to as Pope is not the real Pope, but she also publishes false and defamatory accusations against her theological opponents, which she evidently does to elevate her (nobody) status among the few who actually take her seriously. Catholic charity, right?
Case in point: Yesterday Barnhardt publicly accused Christopher Ferrara and John Salza of coercing a purge of antipope Francis types in the Fatima Center by using a wealthy donor to exert financial leverage over the Center. She claims she received this information in a “long telephone conversation” with “people [that is, unidentified individuals] who were involved deeply and intimately with the Fatima Center until Fr. Gruner’s death.” Barnhardt writes:
“Civil lawyer Christopher Ferrara coordinated with civil lawyer John Salza in ARSH 2015 to secure a million dollar donation to Fr. Gruner’s Fatima Center in the immediate aftermath of Father Gruner’s death while simultaneously using the donation to leverage the purging the Fatima Center of anyone who actually listened to and had trust in Fr. Gruner and Fr. Kramer’s discernment of the true identity of the Roman Pontiff.”
Now, when I first read this statement, I thought, for a split second, that it must be a joke. But then I considered the source and quickly realized it wasn’t. Did Barnhardt seek to verify this information with Mr. Ferrara, Mr. Salza or anyone close to them, before launching her story? No. Does Ms. Barnhardt not know that engaging in such slanderous, calumnious and harmful statements about someone is a mortal sin? No answer warranted. Barnhardt’s statement is a complete lie, and she is required not only to retract her lie, but also reveal her sources as a matter of justice so that Mr. Ferrara and I can hold them accountable as well.
Here are the facts: After Fr. Gruner died, two people from the Fatima Center held a meeting with one of their donor families to discuss the direction of the apostolate. Being a friend of the family, Mr. Salza was invited by the family to the meeting. At the meeting, the family raised a concern about the potential future involvement of Fr. Paul Kramer in the apostolate, and made it clear that they would not support the apostolate if it promoted Sedevacantism or the position that Francis wasn’t the true Pope.
(Unfortunately for Ms. Barnhardt, Mr. Salza knows who the two “people” were from the Fatima Center who attended the meeting in question, since he attended it with them.)
(Unfortunately for Ms. Barnhardt, Mr. Salza knows who the two “people” were from the Fatima Center who attended the meeting in question, since he attended it with them.)
Now, let’s see how many lies we can count in Ms. Barnhardt’s completely fabricated account.
· \First, Christopher Ferrara was not at the meeting, had no knowledge of what was discussed at the meeting, and doesn’t even know the donor family (lie #1).
· Second, neither Mr. Ferrara nor Mr. Salza were aware of any “purging” of people at the Fatima Center who were sympathetic to Fr. Kramer’s position (lie #2).
· Third, neither Mr. Ferrara nor Mr. Salza were aware that there was any alliance or agreement between Fr. Kramer and Fr. Gruner on whether Francis was the true Pope (lie #3).
· In fact (Fourth), Mr. Salza published an expose’ in 2015 in which he shows that Fr. Kramer claimed God killed Fr. Gruner for believing that Francis was the true Pope. Accordingly, Mr. Salza did not believe Fr. Kramer and Fr. Gruner were in agreement on the question, but actually believed the contrary! Thus, Barnhardt is alleging that Salza took actions that he never took on a pretext that he didn’t believe (lie #4).
· Fifth, the donor family never discussed any specific financial information with Mr. Salza, neither concerning their prior support nor their continued future support of the apostolate. The family never mentioned a “million dollar donation” to Mr. Salza, and never even spoke of any financial specifics in his presence (lie #5).
In short, Barnhardt’s story is one big fat lie (actually many lies). But Barnhardt is no journalist, nor is she even a basic fact-checker. In her piece, she actually says “Father Nicholas Gruner was a Canon Lawyer.” No, he was not.
Barnhardt must be sorry for having disappointed her readership, since her “inside baseball” storyline seemed juicy. But she struck out big, and now has the obligation to retract her calumny lest she remain in mortal sin.
What is most ironic about Barnhardt’s fabrications is that there was a split in the Fatima Center, not over some orchestration of a purge through the leverage of a million dollar donation (events which never occurred), but rather the influence that Fr. Paul Kramer was attempting to exert over the Fatima Center, and the untenable theological positions that he (and Barnhardt) holds. That’s right. And that is why the donor family in question raised their concerns (and they weren’t the only ones). It was public knowledge, shortly after the death of Fr. Gruner, that Fr. Kramer was attempting to seize control over the Fatima Center. And it was Fr. Kramer (not Messrs. Ferrara and Salza) who sought to purge the apostolate of those who didn’t agree with his antipope Francis position, including Mr. Salza.
Ann Barnhardt is liar.
Further, in light of her theological commentary on the doctrine of Universal and Peaceful Acceptance, she is also a fool.
Barnhardt claims that Salza and his co-author Robert Siscoe (authors of True or False Pope?) hold that a Pope can only be deposed after he dies. No we don’t. We hold the opposite. Read our book.
Barnhardt claims that “something like 40 antipopes” were deposed during their lives and compares this history to Pope Francis, as a pretext for justifying her declaration that he is an antipope. First, Barnhardt’s claim is factually untrue. The antipopes who were deposed were the “doubtful Popes” during the Great Western Schism. The others (or at least most of the others) continued to proclaim they were Popes until their deaths (similar to the numerous competing antipopes who have been elected by the Sedevacantist sects during the past 40 years). Second, this is a completely invalid and illogical comparison. In no case were any of these antipopes universally accepted by the entire episcopacy following their election, as in the case with Pope Francis.
Barnhardt also claims that “The notion that a man MUST be left in such an enormous state of sin as being a usurper of the Petrine See without correction or remedy before he dies is abject madness. It is irrational, effeminate, and totally unchristian.” This is a straw man. First, it presumes Francis is a usurper, when he is not. He was elected by the college of Cardinals, and, ironically enough, is publicly acknowledged as Pope by the very man that Barnhardt insists is the Pope. Second, we are not claiming there is “no correction or remedy” to remove a Pope from office “before he dies.” To the contrary, we devote a large part of our 750-page book to explaining how a heretical Pope would be removed from office (when he is alive). And in our Second Edition, coming out later this year, we will quote the Sedevacantists’ favorite theologian, St. Robert Bellarmine, who teaches that a Pope can be “judged and convicted” of heresy by the Church while he is reigning as Pope, and thereafter be removed from office, without violating the principle that “the First See is judged by no one.” We can’t wait to see the Sedevacantists react to this one.
The problem, again, is with Ms. Barnhardt’s fantasy world, for in her fantasy world she believes the Church allows her to separate from the man the entire episcopacy adheres to as Pope and declare him an antipope. And evidently Wikipedia (her confessed theological resource) didn’t teach her that the Church condemns such behavior, for she asks: “Which pope or council has taught this proposition? (I.e., that the legitimacy of every putative pope is an untouchable topic until he dies.) [Answer: None. This proposition is a pure fabrication.]”
Not quite Ann. Which council taught that Catholics cannot separate from their Patriarch (the Pope is the Patriarch of the West) on their own authority before the judgment of a synod? The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870). Which Pope individually taught the same? Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo (1756), who was basing his teaching on St. Augustine and the entire Catholic tradition. The Church teaches that whoever separates from the Pope (from the man the entire episcopacy adheres to as Pope) before a judgment of the Church is a schismatic and outside the Church.
And if Barnhardt couldn’t embarrass herself anymore, guess again. She actually makes the following statements. First, she calls Universal and Peaceful Acceptance (which is the common doctrine of the Church) a “mendacious and perverted argument.” Of course, Barnhardt is forced to call a doctrine that has been held since time immemorial (on our website we quote 40 theologians who taught the doctrine, and there is not a single theologian who denied the doctrine) “mendacious and perverted” because it contradicts what is truly perverted – her “doctrine” that the man the entire episcopacy and a moral unanimity of the faithful adhere to as Pope is actually an antipope.
And then Barnhardt says that “UPA only applies to LEGAL, LEGITIMATE, DULY ELECTED Popes. It doesn’t usurp sitting Popes or sanate non-canonical conclaves.” Sorry, Ann, but using CAPITAL LETTERS does not convert a cause into an effect, or make “backward” actually mean “forward.” UPA does not “apply” to “legal, legitimate, duly elected Popes.” Rather, UPA proves that the Pope is the legitimate Pope “legal, legitimate, and duly elected.” That is because the universal acceptance is “a sign and an infallible effect of a valid election,” (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Can., II. p. 520, n. 171), which is what causes the acceptance (as is the case with Pope Francis). Moreover, the infallible effect of his acceptance happens at once. The moment the entire Church accepts the man as Pope, the validity of his election is infallibly certain. This effect is never negated months or years later, either by the Pope’s conduct or speculation about defects in his election.
To further prove Barnhardt is clueless about the actual meaning and operation of the doctrine, UPA does in fact do precisely what Barnhardt claims it doesn’t do, that is, “sanate non-canonical conclaves.” While many quotes could be provided, we will provide just one from Cardinal Billot:
“From the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.” (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-613)
In truth, Barnhardt rejects the doctrine of Universal and Peaceful Acceptance because it strikes a fatal blow to her amateur and “effeminate” (using her words) theology.
Shame on Ann Barnhardt for her reckless and false accusations against John Salza and Christopher Ferrara, not to mention the Vicar of Christ himself. She has branded herself a public liar. But this is precisely the kind of malevolent conduct we see among those who have fallen into schism and thus have lost the theological virtue of charity.
* Fr. Kramer's Canonical Confusion (Siscoe / Kramer exchange).
* Fr Kramer and John Salza e-mail exchange
Y’all need to take five minutes and “Feser” your blog titles.
“Barn-Storming with PUA”
“Leaving the Theological Barn-Door Open”
“Billot Burns the Barbiturate-Emboldened Barnhardt”
ABS first became aware of Bullets Barnhardt when she surfaced, long ago, at Free Republic. She attracts a certain type of man who, apparently, having been seduced by her conviction and video presentations, allows her to lead them around by the nose.
She has described as poor christians those who would not join her tax protest (IRS seized her property and possessions, right?) and labelled as anti semitic those who opposed Usury.
It is on this solid ground that she built her reputation as an expert in Canon Law and Catholic Tradition and when ABS points out that she never studied Canon Law, took a degree in Canon Law or practiced Canon Law, the response is "Well, I trust her."
Reflexively gainsaid are all quotes from Dr. Peters and The former Pope having to do with her absurd claims.
There is no doubt she is the charismatic leader of The Occult Cult (It knows better than Pope Benedict XVI what he intended) and although she is sinking in spiritual quicksand to such an extent that neither light or oxygen can get to her humility, her fan boys decry any labelling of her as a sedevacantist - although she is that.
The thing about The Occult Cult is that it is not correctable by fact or logic because the Occult Cult is possessed of a shared delusion.
No, this diabolical delusion can only be lifted/removed by prayer.
Pray for the poor woman and her Fan Boys but also confront her errors publicly
If you actually think that if all catholics held an illegitimately elected pope were the true pope, then he would be come a true pope. Then, you have just squared the circle. Then Christ would be a liar, who said to Peter regarding all future papal laws, Whatsoever you bind on Earth, shall be bound also in Heaven.
The universal acceptance is the effect of a legitimate pope, not the cause. It proves he's the Pope, it doesn't make him the Pope.
Let's use some logic.
Universal acceptance is the effect of a legitimate election of a man to the papacy, not the cause of his being a legitimate pope.
Therefore, if a man was elected in a conclave during the life time of a legitimate pope, who had not resigned according to the norm of law, he would be an illegitimate pope.
Therefore, the principle of Universal Acceptance does not apply.
Therefore, in all cases of legal doubt as to legitimacy for a man who claims to be pope, no appeal to universal acceptance can be made.
But you make such an appeal.
Therefore, please explain to me whether you are trying to deceive your fellow Catholics or if you are simple incapable of understanding was a legal dobut is.
You don't understand UPA. If you did, you would not have raised this objection. I will reply this evening.
It looks like Brother AB mirrors Ann Barnhardt...
She's totally clueless when it comes to the JQ, same with John Zmirak.
Benedict still wears the Papal whites / gives Papal blessing / signs his name as if he is still the Pope (most recently co-authoring a book - as Pope Benedict). I am a fairly recent revert (going on 6 years) - not a theologian, nor do I have any training in Canon law. Looks like Benedict is trying to expand the Petrine office. Does anyone believe that the only reason he doesn't wear a black cassock is because there are none in Rome in his size?!?(his words). Seriously?
The question I have is this - can the Petrine office be expanded (ie to have more than 1 legitimate Pope at the same time)? If yes, please back up with sound arguments/sources - if no, we have a problem.
Just thinking out loud here. Not that I approve of the crazy things Pope Francis is doing to the Church, but, if Pope Benedict XVI duped the entire world into thinking he resigned when he did not, does that not make him also an accomplice to the false pope? Would it not be sinful to bring such confusion and calamity in the Church by pretending to give up the Chair of Peter? How is it a virtuous act for Benedict to let the entire world be lead by an anti-pope?
Read Antonio Socci's Book: The Secret of Benedict XVI: Why He Is Still Pope.
If UA is true, can you please explain why there is any need for norms regulating conclaves in UDG?
It seems like UDG should have an asterisk in every rule: “But if you can succeed in convincing everybody that the guy you illegitimately elect is pope, then disregard this rule, because he will then infallibly be the pope.”
How is this not what you are saying?
Please clarify as to whether you really believe that universal acceptance radically sanates an election in violation of the norms of UDG.
So, just for the sake of argument, if Salza’s UA idea is correct, what would an invalid Papal election look like? At the moment the supposed newly elected Pope walked out on the loggia, would at least half the Bishops, priests, and Catholics worldwide immediately declare: “That’s not a real Pope. You can’t fool us.”? Is this how non universal acceptance would look?
Calm. Calm. Calm.
Richard W Comerford
As Brother Alexis said: let's us some logic here.
It is agreed on all sides that UPA can be the of a valid election. If so, then UPA at best constitutes grounds for asserting that there was a valid election. To suppose that it somehow retrospectively confers ontological validity is to get epistemological and ontological criteria totally confused.
Now, supposing one granted all of this, a crucial question is going to be: was there indeed Universal Public Acceptance? What are the criteria for UPA? What are the criteria for us justifiably believing that there was UPA? Doesn't the mere fact that we are having this conversation suggest extreme caution before we just baldly assert that the criteria have been met?
No amount of mischievously and tendentiously using the expression "the entire episcopacy" can suffice when we all know that there indeed are bishops who accept neither the abdication nor the conclave as legitimate. If that is so, then there is no UPA, and by the argument of the piece, if there is no UPA, the consequence, then there is no cause either.
Nowhere did the resigned/abdicated Pope say he was resigning only part of the Papacy.
Others say that but he never did.
The Occult Cult is seeking new members who believe they know better the intent of the former Pope than the former Pope, but, remember that if you can legitimately claim you know the intent of another (Contra Christianity and Tradition) the same claims can be made about your intent/motivation.
Shall ABS begin to list what y'all are really intending by obsessing over the captious claims about the resigned/abdicated Pope?
Real Canyon Lawyers, such as Dr. Peters, identifies such claims (that Bad Latin renders acts void) as absurd and the resigned/abdicated Pope also say such claims are absurd.
I read Socci's book when it first came out. While intriguing I was not convinced. If Benedict lied and deceived everyone into thinking he stepped down, then, in my opinion, he is hardly any better. It doesn't solve the problem. No man worth his salt could stand by and watch someone like Francis do what he is doing to the Church while he sits comfortably in the Vatican gardens. What is everyone going to say when Benedict drops dead next week and the Francis is still governing the Church? Just my thoughts. I don't pretend to have all the answers.
Brother Bugnono: “Let's use some logic. Universal acceptance is the effect of a legitimate election of a man to the papacy, not the cause of his being a legitimate pope.”
Not the sign of a “legitimate election,” but an infallible sign of a legitimate Pope. It is also an infallible sign that all the conditions required for him to have become Pope were satisfied (e.g., the papacy was previously vacant). “The adhesion of the universal Church” explains Cardinal Billot, “will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.” De Ecclesia Christi, Q. XIV, Thesis XXIX, §,3, 1909).
The moment the entire Church adheres to a man as Pope, his legitimacy becomes an infallible dogmatic fact; from that moment forward, any doubts raised against his legitimacy due to possible defects in the election are ipso facto proven false. “Therefore,” continues Cardinal Billot, “from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.” (De Ecclesia Christi, Q. XIV, Thesis XXIX, §,3, 1909). This is the common doctrine of the Church and it is qualified at least as theologically certain. For more quotations and a further explanation of the doctrine, see these two links:
Brother Bugnolo: “Therefore, if a man was elected in a conclave during the life time of a legitimate pope, who had not resigned according to the norm of law, he would be an illegitimate pope. Therefore, the principle of Universal Acceptance does not apply.”
Here’s how the doctrine applies to the present papal controversy: Francis was accepted as Pope by the entire Church in the days, weeks, and months after his election (and is still accepted by the entire ecclesia docens). This acceptance was the infallible sign of his legitimacy as Pope.
The infallible certitude of his legitimacy as Pope proves that all the conditions required for him to have become Pope were met. Since one of the conditions was a vacant papacy, the universal acceptance of Francis as Pope proves that God accepted Benedict’s abdication and stripped him of the papacy. That’s the logic.
It can be compared analogously to an infallible pregnancy test. The test wouldn't cause the women to be pregnant; it would be an infallible sign that proves she's pregnant. A positive result would also logically prove that all the conditions required for her to have become pregnant were met.
If Benedict had remained Pope after convincing the entire world that he abdicated and then sitting idly by as the conclave convened and elected a new Pope, Francis would not have been universally accepted as Pope following the election. The fact that he was proves that regardless of what Benedict secretly intended, when he managed to convince the entire Church that was abdicating, God severed the bond that united him to the Papacy, and the office (munus) fell vacant.
Getting to the bottom of it is our ultimate goal. The goal is not to defend our positions per se. I hope we can agree on that.
In this spirit. Can you, Author of this blog, answer question if B16 did fulfill requirements for resignation as per Can.332.2.
If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.
Note that I'm not asking if B16 did effectively resign or not, only if his resignation, in your opinion, satisfies 332.2.
I'm asking for simple answer. Beside that any comments are acceptable but not necessary.
There are major problems with your theory and its application.
First of all, no theory of interpretation trumps canon law, because if it did, then Jesus Christ would be a liar Who said of Peter and the laws of all his successors, Whatsoever you bind upon Earth, shall be bound also in Heaven. Thus if a man were accepted by all in the Church as the pope, when however he had no legitimate claim to the papacy because of the non compliance with any papal law regarding becoming pope, then Christ would be proved a liar.
Therefore, to assert such a theory is applicable in such a circumstance is contrary to the Faith. Therefore, in such a case, if you want to use it, I would have to conclude you are a blasphemer and a heretic, and also a schismatic, since you would thereby adhere to a false pope.
The other problem with your theory is that in the present case, there never was universal acceptance. Bishop Gracida never accepted the renunciation or the election And I just met about 12 persons at a Conference here in Rome, over the weekend, who told me they did not accept Bergoglio the moment he came out of the Loggia and said, Buona Sera!
The use of this theory of Universal Acceptance in the case of a papal renunciation has been abrogated explicitly by Canon 332 §2, which said that the acceptance of a renunication by anyone whomsoever is not required for its validity. Therefore, it is not the cause of its validity, nor a sign of its validity. Therefore, to resort to it in the is case is to be a rebel against the papal law, and thus to be condemned by Unam Sanctam, becauase it is a grave duty of the Faith that we be subject to papal laws and to the true pope.
Finally, you resort to this theory of Universal Acceptance because you manifestly reject to accept the norm of Canon 332 §2 which defines the essential juridical act as a renunicaiton of munus, which never occurred. Nor can you legitimately read munus where ministerium is written in the Declaratio, because as Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori says in his tract on Interpretation of Law in his Theologial Moralis, such an interpretation would require a positive additional act of the lawgiver. But such a requirement means the original act is not clear in itself. And as Mons. Arrieta of the Pontifical Council of Legal Texts affirmed for me on De. 11, 2019, such a renunciation which is not clear in itself would be invalid.
Please note, that I have used no ad hominems in my response to you. Unlike the comments you publish here which hurl them at me.
Br. Bugnolo: “There are major problems with your theory and its application.”
This is not my theory. It is the common doctrine of the Church.
Bugnolo: “First of all, no theory of interpretation trumps canon law, because if it did, then Jesus Christ would be a liar Who said of Peter and the laws of all his successors, Whatsoever you bind upon Earth, shall be bound also in Heaven. THUS IF A MAN WERE ACCEPTED BY ALL IN THE CHURCH AS THE POPE, WHEN HOWEVER HE HAD NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM TO THE PAPACY BECAUSE OF THE NON COMPLIANCE WITH ANY PAPAL LAW REGARDING BECOMING POPE, THEN CHRIST WOULD BE PROVED A LIAR.”
But Francis was accepted by all in the Church as Pope in the days, weeks and months after his election. Therefore, according to your own reasoning, Christ would be proven a liar if Francis had no legitimate claim to the Papacy because of non complains with ecclesiastical law. Therefore, either Christ is a liar, or the Francis DID have a legitimate claim to the Papacy based on ecclesiastical law.
Br. Bugnolo: “The other problem with your theory is that in the present case, there never was universal acceptance. Bishop Gracida never accepted the renunciation or the election And I just met about 12 persons at a Conference here in Rome, over the weekend, who told me they did not accept Bergoglio the moment he came out of the Loggia and said, Buona Sera!”
The universal acceptance only requires a moral unanimity, not a mathematical unanimity. There’s over a billion Catholics in the world and you know of 13 who rejected him IN SECRET. That doesn’t suffice. The universal acceptance occurs when the news of the election spread throughout the Church, provided it is not at once contested. John of St. Thomas explains: “The acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a pope has been elected, AND THAT THE ELECTION IS NOT CONTESTED, they are obliged to believe that that man is the pope, and to accept him.”
Brother Bugnono: “The use of this theory of Universal Acceptance IN THE CASE OF A PAPAL RENUNCIATION has been abrogated explicitly by Canon 332 §2, which said that the acceptance of a renunication by anyone whomsoever is not required for its validity. Therefore, it is not the cause of its validity, nor a sign of its validity”
The universal acceptance has nothing to do with the renunciation. It is an infallible sign of a legitimate Pope, not the infallible sign of a legitimate abdication.
Br. Bugnolo: “Therefore, to resort to it in the is case is to be a rebel against the papal law, and thus to be condemned by Unam Sanctam, becauase it is a grave duty of the Faith that we be subject to papal laws and to the true pope.”
Christ says the faithful must hear the Church (the ecclesia docens) or be considered a heathens and publicans. The entire episcopate recognizes Francis as head of the Church. Therefore, declaring he is not the Pope constitutes a refusal to hear the Church and a rebellion against the explicit teaching of Christ.
This is confirmed by Ratzinger and Bertone's commentary on the 1989 Professio, which states that anyone who refuses to accept a Papal Election is cut off from "full communion" with the Church. The legitimacy of a papal election falls into the second category of the Professio. It is a dogmatic fact that must be accepted with the assent of faith.
Br. Bugnolo: “Finally, you resort to this theory of Universal Acceptance because you manifestly reject to accept the norm of Canon 332 §2 which defines the essential juridical act as a renunicaiton of munus, which never occurred. Nor can you legitimately read munus where ministerium is written in the Declaratio…”
Catholics do not reject the public judgment of the Church based on their private interpretation of canon law. The profession of faith demands that Catholics accept Papal elections that she herself recognizes, and they must assent to them with the unqualified assent of faith.
Br. Bugnolo: “And as Mons. Arrieta of the Pontifical Council of Legal Texts affirmed for me on De. 11, 2019, such a renunciation which is not clear in itself would be invalid.”
Benedict’s renunciation was clear enough in itself that everyone at the time believe he was renouncing the Papal office, and it was clear enough that the entire episcopate even today recognized him as Pope.
Br. Bugnolo: “Please note, that I have used no ad hominems in my response to you. Unlike the comments you publish here which hurl them at me.”
I’m not sure what comments you’re referring to, but there were no ad hominems hurled at you in anything I wrote.
Mr Siscoe, I reply to your rebuttal here
Dr Peters. "In light of the law"
....What the 1983 Code does say, as did the 1917 Code, is this: “Only those laws must be considered invalidating … which expressly state that an act is null …” (c. 10, olim c. 11). Because no canon of the 1983 Code, under which Benedict XVI submitted his resignation (c. 332 § 2), addresses the quality of the Latin used in papal documents, let alone does any canon make the Latinity of papal documents go to their validity, I say, odd question answered: bad Latin does not mean that one must remain pope.
“DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)
It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting … a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)
These explanations will be because The Occult Cult is possessed of a shared delusion and delusions are not correctable by reason or fact.
Prater and fasting is what is needed to cast out this diabolical delusion.
The essence of the Occult Cult's argument is that Universal Acceptance is nugatory owing to five or six canonists claiming the Latin Text of the resignation/abdication contained technical inaccuracies even though the Universal Acceptance accounts for their existence and claims.
Well, so what if over 1.2 billion catholics - all Bishops and virtually all the lay Catholic faithful -accepted Francis as Pope ?
The sedevacantists (they don't have communion with Pope Francis whom they claim aint Pope) says that because a handful of Canonists don't accept him that means he aint pope.
They want a debate about this.
Good Lord, it takes all of thirteen seconds to see how extreme and unreasonable this claim is and what would result would be if these claims were to be adjudicated in a Canonical Court.
NO papal election in the future would be accepted if just a handful of canon lawyers could be found to propose a lawyerly objection to the election.
Talk about legalism run amuck.
What about the far more numerous clans of sedevacantists, ought not they first get a shot at having a canonical court adjudicate their claims first because they are far more numerous and have been in existence far longer?
Once the claims of The Occult Cult have been responded to - and they have been -the best thing to do is ignore them.
This is what Cardinal Ratzinger taught as Prefect of the CDF in 1998:
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.
Alexis Bugnolo: Mr Siscoe, I reply to your rebuttal here.
And we replied to you here: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/br-bugnolo-redefines-dogmatic-facts-to.html
You entirely redefined the meaning of dogmatic facts.
She's a fake Catholic she is still under the power of satan.When I read her blog or watch her youtube videos I ether wag my head in disbelief or LMAO. Five will get you teen she's closet lesbian.
how can a conclave be valid, Can. 359, if the abdication/resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was invalid according to the norms of Canon law specifically canon 332.2 and can.188?
what is canon law and UDG for if UPA of 40 theologians etc. will suffice to accept one as "legitimately" elected Pope? is Canon law still relevant?
i'm waiting for the author to explain munus and ministerium at lenght to show it
has the same meaning. i'm confuse.
"how can a conclave be valid, Can. 359, if the abdication/resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was invalid according to the norms of Canon law specifically canon 332.2 and can.188?"
You believe Benedict's resignation was canonically invalid, but Cardinal Burke, the former prefect of the Apostolic signatura, believes it was not. What UPA proves is that Cardinal Burke's interpretation of canon law is correct, and yours is not.
Sorry, I can now confirm that Burke was one of the first to doubt the canonical validity of the renunciation and still does. He spoke to others about this at the end of February 2013.
Your theory of interpreting the validity of a conclave is based on an out right falsification of John of St. Thomas, who speaks of CANONICAL elections, not those which are dubious on account of not following the rules.
So it is shameful you keep insisting on your misrepresentation of sources. I have fully shows at FromRome.Info all the problems in your approach.
Well, you are wrong on both accounts. Burke spoke about the invalidity of the Renunciation to others in February 2013, and his position was that a renunciation of ministerium did not effect or fulfil the requirement of canon 322.2 to renounce the munus.
As for your theory, it imagines John of St. Thomas spoke of any sort of conclave, when he expressly speaks only of ones held in accord with the canons.
Cardinal Burke may have had questions about Benedict's abdication in early 2013, but he doesn't anymore. Here is what he said in an interview published in the New York Times in November of 2019 :
"Douthat: You believe Francis is a legitimate pope?
"Cardinal Burke: "Burke: Yes, yes. I’ve had people present to me all kinds of arguments calling into question the election of Pope Francis. But I name him every time I offer the Holy Mass, I call him Pope Francis, it’s not an empty speech on my part. I believe that he is the pope."
Any doubts he may have initially had have not be resolved.
I would also note that I had doubts about the legitimacy of Benedict's abdication (and hence of Francis' election) at one time as well, and was one of the first to write about it. (See: "In a Papal Diarchy, Which Half is Infallible," Remnant, June 2014). When writing TOFP (2015), we had not yet resolved the issue and therefore left the question open in the book.
What finally resolved it was a study of the Church's teaching on dogmatic facts/UPA. This doctrine removes any possible doubt concerning the legitimacy of Francis' election and hence of Benedict's abdication.
All the arguments that haven been raised against this doctrine in recent years were answered centuries ago by some of the greatest minds in the Church.
More to follow...
Post a Comment