Br. Bugnolo Redefines
“Dogmatic Facts” to justify "Benevacantist" schism
by
Robert Siscoe and
John Salza
“Schismatics
really separate a deceived multitude from the Church” (St. Jerome)
There’s a common saying that schism always
ends in heresy. If a false doctrine
isn’t trumped up to justify the schism, a true doctrine is distorted and
eventually denied to sustain it. The latter is taking place before our eyes
with Br. Alexis Bugnolo, whose “Benevacantist” * position has now forced him to
falsify the meaning of dogmatic facts by entirely redefining the term.
It was only a matter of time before this happened, since his rejection of the
peaceful and universal acceptance (UPA) has always really been a rejection of
the infallibility of the Magisterium in judging dogmatic facts. As we will see later, according to Cardinal
Ratzinger himself, by rejecting the legitimacy of Francis’ election, Br. Alexis
Bugnolo has rejected a truth of the faith, denied the infallibility of the
Magisterium, and cut himself from communion with the Catholic Church. And this teaching of Cardinal Ratzinger is perfectly
consistent with what all the theologians have taught, and what Martin V defined
at the Council of Constance.
What’s worse is that Br. Bugnolo now
treats the very error that caused his shipwreck in the faith, and
severed him from the Church - i.e., that Benedict’s abdication was invalid - as
if it has magisterial authority and is binding on all Catholics. Those who see
through his specious arguments and reject his erroneous conclusion, are
accused of “rebelling against the papal law, and thus to be condemned by Unam
Sanctam, because it is a grave duty of the Faith that we be subject to
papal laws and to the true pope” (Bugnolo). That is no different than Luther
privately interpreting the Bible and declaring that Catholics who reject his
erroneous conclusions are “rebelling against the Word of God, and being
condemned by God Himself, because of the grave duty of faith they have to
believe what He has revealed.”
Like Luther, Bugnolo has assumed for
himself the place of the Magisterium. The problem is that his private judgment
differs from the public judgment of Benedict himself, who not only recognizes
Francis as Pope, but names him as Pope in the canon of the Mass. Bugnolo, on the other hand, declares that Bergoglio
(Francis) is an antipope, and says “all those who are in communion with Bergoglio
(Francis)” are members of the Church of Antichrist! But that would necessarily
include Benedict, since he too has remained in communion with Francis.
This leaves Br. Bugnolo in quite the
predicament. If he remains in communion
with Pope Benedict, he too is a member of the Church of Antichrist. Yet if the
refuses to accept his own judgment that Benedict’s abdication was invalid, he
is “rebelling against the papal law,” and “condemned by Unam Sanctam.”
What this reveals is that the schism is not
between Pope Benedict and Pope Francis, but between Pope Benedict and the “Benevacantists” (or, more properly, the "Beneplenefrancisvacantists") such as Br. Bugnolo.
And what Br. Bugnolo’s ridiculous
explanation of “dogmatic facts” reveals, is that he either lacks the most
rudimentary knowledge of theology, or else he is intentionally lying and intentionally
distorting the meaning of term to deceive his readers. Considering his recent antics, it is probably the latter.
Br. Bugnolo
Falsifies the Meaning of Dogmatic Facts
Here is how Br. Bugnolo seeks to cleverly
redefine dogmatic facts in order to justify his denial of dogmatic
facts:
Br. Bugnolo: “To
be clear, the notion of a dogmatic fact is precise: it regards legitimate
acts. Thus, if Monsignor So and So refuses to be bishop of this or that,
even though he was just nominated as Bishop of this or that, the Papal act
is not a dogmatic fact, even though it is papal, because it is contrary to
fact. It is a dogmatic fact that the pope nominated [him], but not that
the man nominated is the Bishop because he refused to accept.
“Thus
even a Conclave which followed all the rules … and resulted in the election of
a man who was accepted by the whole Church, all the while the man insisted he
never accepted, then, that he was the pope would not be a dogmatic fact, even though it would be a dogmatic fact
that the Cardinals chose him,”
As anyone who has ever consulted a theology
manual concerning dogmatic facts would know, the nomination of a bishop is not
a dogmatic fact, regardless of whether he accepts the nomination. Neither
is the choice of the Cardinals during a conclave.
Dogmatic facts are a secondary object of
infallibility. They are facts “connected with a dogma and on which the
application of the dogma to a particular case depends.” (Catholic Encyclopedia 1913). They are not
simply “legitimate acts” of the Church as Bugnolo pretends, but specific
facts that must be infallibly true due to their intimate
connection with revealed truths quoad nos.
For example, the binding force of
the dogmatic decrees promulgated by the Council of Trent is dependent
upon the Council itself being a true Council (a dogmatic fact). Similarly, the
infallible certitude that the Immaculate Conception is true, is dependent upon
the infallible certitude that Pius IX (who defined the dogma) was a true Pope
(another dogmatic fact). Any doubt about the legitimacy of Pius IX’s
pontificate ipso facto results in doubt about the dogma he defined - and
about the First Vatican Council that he approved and ratified. Thus, a dogmatic
fact must be infallibly true because of its relationship to a revealed truth
that the Church has infallibly defined, and to preserved the deposit.
Using the tactic of the Modernists, Br.
Bugnolo has entirely redefined the term, by equating dogmatic facts with “legitimate
acts” of the Church, as he calls them (again, without citing any authorities or
even attempting to define his terminology). Then, after positing his new
fabricated “definition,” he gives three examples that have no correspondence whatsoever
with the true meaning of the term. And, ironically, the one fact Bugnolo says
would not be a dogmatic fact is the only thing that is
a dogmatic fact in his explanation: that a man elected by the Cardinals and
“accepted by the whole world” as Pope, is the true Pope!
Bugnolo is not only forced to falsify the
definition of “dogmatic fact,” but also the meaning of UPA. While the real meaning of UPA is that the “universal
acceptance” is caused by Christ making the elected man a true Pope (the
acceptance being the effect of the action of Christ), Bugnolo attacks
the meaning by claiming that “a man who was accepted by the whole Church” (which
is the effect of Christ making the man a true Pope) could actually be a false
Pope. Bugnolo turns the true meaning of
UPA on its head, and then attempts to classify a non-dogmatic fact (that the
Cardinals merely chose him) as a dogmatic fact, even though said “fact”
is not necessary to protect or preserve a revealed truth – which is precisely
why it is not a dogmatic fact.
Of course, every theology manual that has
ever explained UPA rejects Bugnolo’s absurd claim, but Alexis either doesn’t
know that because he hasn’t read the manuals, or is trying to hoodwink his
audience by betting that they haven’t read them. For those who have, they would
know that “the whole Church” could not accept a man who refused the election
because Christ would not join a man to the papacy against his will. What
Bugnolo fails to understand (among many things) is that the election itself does
not make a man the Pope. Christ makes the man the Pope. In Thomistic
terminology, when the man is elected and accepts, the Church only designates
the matter. Christ joins the form to the matter, thereby making the man
Pope. The act of Christ joining the form
to the matter is what produces the effect of the universal acceptance. Thus,
Bugnolo’s “hypothetical” is a non-starter because it could never happen. His
hypothetical is also a denial of the Church’s infallibility in judging dogmatic
facts, as will become clear later.
True Meaning of
Dogmatic Facts
Now, since Br. Bugnolo failed to include a
single quotation to support his explanation of dogmatic facts (because none
exist, and he knows it), let’s begin by seeing how the approved sources explain
the true meaning. The following is from Fr. E. Sylvester Berry’s book, The
Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, which was originally
published in 1927, during the pontificate of Pope Pius XI.
“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
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.”
Fr. Berry’s last sentence above shows the
relationship between UPA and dogmatic facts: If a “practically unanimous
consent of the bishops and faithful” accept “a Roman Pontiff as legitimately
elected” (UPA) his legitimacy as Pope is an infallible dogmatic fact. Yet,
Bugnolo argues precisely the opposite in his impossible hypothetical,
when he says that “a man who was accepted by the whole Church” as Pope, as the
result of a legitimate papal election, “would not be a dogmatic fact” if he
really didn’t accept the election.
Of course, Bugnolo’s statement is false on
two fronts: First, the legitimacy of a Pope who is “accepted by the whole
Church” is a dogmatic fact as Fr. Berry explains; and, second, a man who
refused to accept during the Conclave (and therefore would not even have a
papal name) could never be “accepted by the whole Church” as Pope, since Christ
would not have joined him to the papacy. Also notice that Fr. Berry begins his
explanation with an actual definition of the term “dogmatic fact” before
providing examples of actual dogmatic facts. Br. Bugnolo, on the other hand, carefully
avoided providing an actual definition, instead choosing his smokescreen
approach of gratuitously asserting that a dogmatic fact “regards legitimate
acts.”
Bugnolo’s “definition” is not only false,
but it guts the term dogmatic fact of its true meaning, i.e., a fact that must
be infallibly true in order to have certain knowledge about a connected
doctrine. Needless to say, the “legitimate act” of the Cardinals “choosing”
(Bugnolo’s word) a man for the papacy, who then refused to accept, is not a
fact that is connected to a doctrine of the faith in such a way that without
certain knowledge of the “legitimate act” there could be no knowledge of the
doctrine. In fact, if the Cardinals ever did elect a man who refused the
papacy, we would likely never know about the “legitimate act,” since the
Cardinals who take part in the Conclave are sworn to secrecy. That is another
reason why this “legitimate act” is not a dogmatic fact.
Here is how another real theologian,
Tanquerey, explains dogmatic facts in Vol. I of Dogmatic Theology
(1959).
“The Church is
infallible in regard to dogmatic facts. A dogmatic fact is one which is so
much connected with a doctrine of the Church that knowledge of it is
necessary in order to understand the doctrine and to preserve it safely. Dogmatic facts can be threefold:
historical, doctrinal and hagiographical. Thus, dogmatic facts are the
legitimacy of the Holy Pontiff, the ecumenical (universal) nature of a
Council. That the Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts is certain.”
(Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, 1959, p. 146.)
Again, we see that a dogmatic fact must be
believed with faith because of its connection to revealed truth, and is a fact
that the Church judges infallibly due to its relation with a revealed truth. We
will see how the Church infallibly judges them infallibly in a minute.
Msgr. Van Noort provides the same explanation in his manual of Dogmatic
Theology, The Church of Christ, published in 1957:
“A dogmatic fact
is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, on the admission of which
depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The
following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: ‘Was the Vatican Council
a legitimate ecumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful
translation of the original books of the Bible? Was Pius XII legitimately
elected Bishop of Rome? One can readily see that on these facts hang
the questions of whether the decrees of the Vatican Council are infallible,
whether the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Pius XII is to be
recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church." (Christ’s
Church, Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957, p. 112)
Notice that the reason Van Noort said the papacy of Pius XII (the
presently reigning Pope) was a dogmatic fact, was not because of its connection
to any dogma he defined (although he could have made such an appeal, since Pius
XII did define a dogma), but because of the connection between his papacy and
the previously defined dogma that the Pope is the supreme ruler of the
universal Church. The dogma that the Pope is the supreme ruler of the
Church is intimately related to the knowledge (quoad nos or, according
to us) of who that supreme ruler is. What this shows that the Church’s
infallibility in judging dogmatic facts doesn’t only apply to past Popes, but
to the presently reigning Pope as well (and that is because the dogma
applies to the reigning Pope). In other words:
The Dogma: The Pope is the
supreme ruler of the Church.
Dogmatic Fact: The person
that the Church currently recognizes as Pope is the supreme ruler of the
Church.
Van
Noort also explains how the Church infallibly judges a dogmatic fact:
“Meantime, notice
that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining
some matters in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full
weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching.
Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call
‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the following theological truths: (a) those which
the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the
ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to
its members as something to be held (tenendas). So, for example, one must
give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII is the
legitimate successor of St. Peter’; similarly … one must give an absolute
assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction
over the entire Church.’ For — skipping the question of how it begins to be
proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately
elected to take St. Peter’s place [i.e., the doctrine of UPA] — when
someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and
practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church,
it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly
clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.” (Van Noort,
Sources of Revelation (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957, p. 265.)
As Van Noort and others have explained, if
a man has been practically recognized by the bishops and the universal Church
as Pope (as is the case with Pope Francis), the Church has infallibly judged
that he is the Pope. And if the Church has infallibly judged that a man is Pope,
his legitimacy as Pope cannot later be called into question due to alleged
defects in his election. To do so would be a rejection of the Church’s
infallibility, at least implicitly. This explains why the ‘universal
acceptance’ of a Pope is a one-time event that eliminates any future doubts
about the validity of his election.
The Consequences
of Rejecting this Doctrine
If the entire hierarchy could “theoretically
and practically” recognize a man as Pope, and then find out years later
that he was not the true Pope, it would mean the Church is not infallible in
judging dogmatic facts “when she is exercising the full weight of her authority
through her ordinary and universal teaching,” and giving “utterly clear-cut
witness” to the legitimacy of a Pope,” by accepting “the legitimacy of his
succession.” And if that were the case,
then no pontificate (past or present) would be safe; and if no pontificate
is safe, no Cardinal appointed by a Pope and no dogma defined by a Pope is
safe. Any possible doubt about the legitimacy of a Pope who the entire
hierarchy has accepted as Pope, is potential doubt about every papal
act, and every dogma that has been defined by a Pope, who the
universal Church accepted as Pope. This, of course, is impossible.
Now, there have been times when the
identity of the true Pope was not known with certainty, such as during
the Great Western Schism, or other times when there were multiple papal
claimants. When this happens, the Church herself does not consider the
legitimacy of any Pope to be dogmatic fact (“a doubtful Pope is considered no
Pope),” unless and until the doubt is cleared up. But this applies to a Pope whose election has
always been in doubt, not one that was accepted by the entire Church and later became
doubtful. As Fr. Wernz explains in his teaching
on a doubtful Pope, “the words 'No pope' are not necessarily understood of a Pope
who has previously been received as certain and undoubted by the whole Church,
but concerning whose election so many difficulties are subsequently brought to
light that he becomes 'a doubtful pope' so that he would thereby forfeit the
pontifical power already obtained. This
understanding of the axiom concerning 'a doubtful pope' should be reproved…”
(Fr. Franz X. Wernz, Ius Decretalium, Tomus II, Romae: De Propoganda Fide,
1898, Scholion 618).
When the entire Church has recognized a
man as Pope, his legitimacy cannot later be doubted without calling into
question the infallibility of the Church in judging dogmatic facts, and
implicitly undermining the legitimacy of every previous Pope and every papal
act.
Now, before addressing Bugnolo’s next
objection, listen to what Fr. Hunter says about dogmatic facts in his book, Outlines
of Dogmatic Theology (1894). His explanation shows how Catholic theologian
in the nineteenth century refuted the Protestants who pointed to legal defects
in past papal elections, in an attempt to prove that the line of true Popes had
come to an end.
“Dogmatic Facts: -
But besides these speculative truths, there are certain matters of fact concerning
which the Church can judge with infallibly certainty. These are called by many
writes dogmatic facts [.]
“First, then, the
Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope;
for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what
Bishops were in communion with the Pope; (…)
Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the
claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find
proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and
invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their
appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the
Papacy has been vacant since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempt
to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this
startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree
in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise
the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine
constitution of the Church would be ruined.” (Hunter, Outlines
of DogmaticTheology, Volume I (New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benzinger
Brothers, 1894) ch. VI, N. 211.
Here is how Fr. Kavanagh replied to this same
Protestant argument:
“Mr. Gladstone
need not be alarmed about the papal succession. Independently of all previous
proceedings, the acceptance of Martin V by the Universal Church as lawful Pope proves
that his election was canonical and legitimate; for the recognition of the true
Pope is a dogmatic fact in which the Universal Church cannot err.” (Rev. James
Kavanagh, D.D., A Reply to Mr. Gladstone’s Vaticanism, Dublin, James Guffy,
1895, p. 54)
Notice Fr. Kavanaugh says the acceptance
of the universal Church “proves” the election was legitimate and canonical.
That’s how the Catholic theologians and canonists of the nineteenth century
refuted the Protestants who used arguments that are essentially
identical to those of Br. Bugnolo as the basis for rejecting the legitimacy of
numerous Popes. This bring us to Bugnolo’s
final objection.
What is a
Legitimate Election?
Br. Bugnolo: “Siscoe
also ignores that John of St. Thomas explicitly said that the concept of
universal acceptance regards a legitimate election. That any theologian
before or after omits that condition proves nothing, because as anyone who
knows theology knows, many authors repeat doctrines imprecisely and
incompletely, and their doing of such does not alter the doctrine. Thus you
cannot escape from the fundamental condition of the notion of universal
acceptance which only regards LEGITIMATE ELECTIONS.”
This objection further highlights Bugnolo’s ignorance of the subject matter he pretends to know. If
he had actually read John of St. Thomas’ treatise, he would have learned what
is required for a “LEGITIMATE ELECTION,” and would no doubt have been
disappointed to learn that Francis’ election meets the necessary criteria. Here
is John of St. Thomas’ explanation:
“whoever is
elected by the persons that the Church designates to choose a pope in her
name, by the very fact that he is accepted by the Church as legitimately
elected, is in fact pope. This latter is what the definition of
Martin V, related above, as well as the acceptance of the Church, is really
about. (…)
As we can see, the two requirements
for a legitimate election are: 1) that he is elected by those chosen by the
Church to elect (the Cardinals). 2) that the Church accepts the election
as legitimate. In other words, a papal “election” is “legitimate” when the
Church accepts it as such. Here is what the Dominican theologian further says
about the second condition.
“Christ the
Lord entrusted it to the Church to choose for herself a man who, for a certain
period of time, would be the sort of rule of faith just described; and,
consequently, the Church also received the commission to determine, by her
own act of acceptance, that this man was canonically and legitimately elected.
(…)
Thus, it is the Church’s act of acceptance that
determines if the election is “legitimate and canonical.” It doesn't require the “act of acceptance”
from Br. Bugnolo or Ann Barnhardt, regardless of how authoritative they imagine
their interpretation of canon law, their private judgment of the facts, and their
personal act of acceptance to be.
Also notice in the previous quote that John of St. Thomas
said this second condition is what “the definition of Martin the V is about.” This
is another critical point. John is explaining the Magisterial foundation of the
doctrines of UPA and dogmatic facts. The definition he is referring to comes
from the Council of Constance, in the form of a proposition that those suspected
of heresy were required to affirm in order to determine if they “believed
rightly.” It is a proposition that
pertains to the Faith itself, and those who did not answer “yes” were marked as
heretics.
Here is the definition along with John of St. Thomas’
commentary:
“Martin V, in the Council of Constance, in the condemnation
of the errors of Wyclif, which is to be found after the fourth, fifth, and last
sessions of the Council, in the interrogations that are to be made of those
whose faith is suspect, to see whether they rightly believe, puts this
question. ‘Also, whether he
believes that the Pope canonically elected, who is reigning at the time (his
proper name being given), is the successor of Blessed Peter, having supreme
authority in the Church of God?’ [Denz. 674] These words do not speak of the
truth of that proposition understood in a general sense—namely, that whoever is
lawfully elected is the Supreme Pontiff—but in the particular, concerning
whoever is pope at the time, giving his proper name, for instance, Innocent
X. It is of this man, whose proper name
is given, that the pope is bidding the person suspect in faith to be asked,
whether he believes that such a person is the successor of Peter and the
Supreme Pontiff: therefore this pertains to the act of faith—not
to an inference or a moral certitude; for neither of the latter two is a matter
of faith….
“Therefore, we have the certainty of faith, by a revelation
implicitly contained in the Creed and in the promise made to Peter, and made more
explicit in the definition of Martin V, and applied and declared in act (in
exercitio) by the acceptance of the Church, that this man in particular,
canonically elected according to the acceptance of the Church, is Pope.
The certainty of faith touches this alone; and whatever is prerequisite to, or
else follows upon, the fact of the election, is inferred as a theological
conclusion drawn from the proposition that is de fide, and is believed
mediately. … The Church accepts the election and the elect as a matter of
faith, because as she receives him as the infallible rule of faith, and as
the supreme head to whom she is united—for the unity of the Church depends
upon her union with him.
Notice that the legitimacy of a Pope is de fide if he has
been “canonically elected according to the acceptance of the Church,” not
the according to the acceptance of Br. Bugnolo or Ann Barnhardt.
Those who refuse to accept a Pope whose election the
Church has accepted as legitimate – and who the Church recognizes as its
supreme head – reject a matter of the faith itself.
The renowned is the eighteenth-century canonist, Louis Ferraris,
confirms that the legitimacy of the currently reigning Pope is de fide,
by virtue of this definition of Martin V. He also confirms that it is the
Church’s acceptance that determines if the election is legitimate:
“It is of faith (de fide) that Benedict XIV [currently
reigning Pope], for instance, legitimately elected according to the acceptance of the Church (Ut
talem ab Ecclesia acceptatum), is the true Pope. This is proved from the Council
of Constance, sess. ult. where Martin V. Const. Inter Cunctus, decrees that
those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points,
‘Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being,
his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having
supreme authority in the Church of God.’ For thereby he supposes it to be an
article of faith, since those who abjure heresy are ‘interrogated only as
to truths of faith.’ … and it is certain from the fact that the Church
receives him as legitimately elected, that God himself reveals to us the
election is legitimate." (Ferraris, Louis, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica Iuridica Moralis
Theologica. (Romae: S. C. De Propaganda Fide, 1764) article Papa, Nos. 67).
This is how all the scholastic theologians interpreted and
applied the definition of Martin V. To read other theologian’s commentary on
this definition, see here.
To sum up our reply to Br. Bugnolo’s objection. The
legitimacy of Francis’ election meets both requirements listed by John of St.
Thomas: 1) He was elected by those designated by the Church to elect a Pope,
and 2) his election has been accepted as canonically valid and legitimate by
the Church ever since. Therefore, the legitimacy of his election must be
affirmed as a matter of faith, according to the definition of Martin V. And,
ironically enough, the same has been affirmed by the very man Alex Bugnolo claims
is still the Pope: Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) himself.
Cardinal
Ratzinger: Benevacantists are Outside the Church
In 1998, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope
Benedict), as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, issued a
commentary on the 1989 Professio fidei (Profession of Faith). In the
commentary, the very man that Bugnolo thinks is the true Pope, explains that
the legitimacy of a papal election (that the Church accepts as legitimate, as
is the case with Pope Francis), must be held as de fide, based on the
infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium. Ratzinger’s theology is consistent,
of course, with that of Berry, Tanquery, Van Noort, John of St. Thomas, and every
other theologian who has addressed the subject matter (we list 40 of them on
our website at www.trueorfalsepope.com).
The 1989 Professio fidei includes
three categories of truths: (a) dogmas, (b) doctrines definitely taught by the
Church (but not defined as formally revealed), and (c) doctrines taught authoritatively,
but not definitively, by the Magisterium.
In his commentary, Cardinal Ratzinger explains the nature of assent that
is owed to truths contained in each of the respective categories, and describes
the consequences of failing to give the required assent. The legitimacy of a papal
election falls into the second category, as a dogmatic fact. Here is how Cardinal Ratzinger describes the
second category of truths:
“The second
proposition of the Professio fidei states: ‘I also firmly accept and hold
each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on
faith and morals.’
“The object taught
by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral
area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit
of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the
Church as formally revealed. Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the
Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra' or by the College of Bishops
gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and
universal Magisterium of the Church as a ‘sententia definitive tenenda’. Every
believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths,
based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium,
and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these
matters.”
The commentary goes on to explain precisely
what truths are contained in the second category and (you guessed it) it includes
the legitimacy of the election of a Pope:
“The truths
belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving
different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are truths
which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical
relationship [i.e., dogmatic facts]; (…) 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…”
What is the consequence of denying a truth
in the second category? Cardinal
Ratzinger explains:
“Whoever denies
these truths [second category] would be in a position of rejecting a
truth of Catholic doctrine[1] and would therefore
no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.”
So, according to the official commentary on the 1989 Profession of
Faith, issued by Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine
of Faith, anyone who refuses to give a definitive assent to the
legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff is guilty of denying a
Catholic doctrine, and therefore is no longer “in full communion with the
Catholic Church;” or, to use pre-Vatican II terminology, has cut himself off from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Needless to say, no exception is made for
those who reject an election that the Church has accepted as legitimate, based upon
their personal speculations of coerced resignations, irregular Conclaves, private
interpretation of canon law, and the like. That is because the Church’s
acceptance of the legitimacy of an election is an infallible act. If
Magisterium accepts the election as legitimate, it must be definitely held as
legitimate based on the infallibility of the Church.
Thus, Br. Bugnolo’s pet theory that
Benedict’s abdication was not accepted by Christ because he used the wrong
word (ministerium instead of munus), and his consequence
rejection of the legitimacy of Francis’ election, is a rejection of what the
Church has definitively proposed as a matter of faith, and which “is necessary
for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith.”
What Br. Bugnolo doesn’t understand is
that just as Christ is the efficient cause that makes a man Pope by joining the
form to the matter, so too is He is the efficient cause of “unmaking” a man
Pope, if he abdicates, by separating the form from the matter. Christ is not restrained by human
ecclesiastical law. No legal technicality (even if one did exist) can prevent Christ from disjoining a
man from the Papacy, especially if the Pope convinced the entire Catholic world
that he was resigning, and then sat idly by as a Conclave was convened and
elected a new Pope. All of Bugnolo’s
canonical arguments presuppose that Christ is constrained by human
ecclesiastical law, and every one of them, which are intended to prove that Benedict’s abdication
was not accepted by Christ, are proven to be false by the “fact” (dogmatic
fact) that Francis’ election was accepted by the entire Church, in the days,
weeks, months that followed.
Francis is the Pope the Church deserved,
and he’s the Pope the Church needed to wake up the sleeping faithful. And they
are now awake. Just look at the vile reaction
to the recent Pachamama scandal, and compare it to the “non-reaction” of sorts
to John Paul II’s 1986 Assisi prayer meeting (where, among other things, a
statue of Buddha was placed on a Catholic altar) - which was an even graver
scandal and sacrilege. The Holy Ghost has not failed in His Mission, and Christ is bringing good out of the evil He has permitted.
* "Benevacantism" is the term used to describe the idea that Benedict remains Pope, but the meaning itself implies the opposite (that Benedict is still Pope). The proper term would be "Beneplenefrancisvacantism." We use "Benevacantism" only because this has become the commonly used phrase.
[1] John Paul II, Motu proprio Ad
tuendam fidem (May 18, 1998).
