The story about the possible abdication of Pope Francis is kind of a funny one, but its making the …
With the advent of The Great Reset perhaps the powers that be want a younger “Pope,” and the one they would want Cardinal Tagle, who is much younger than Bergoglio and is also of Chinese descent. Those One Worlders are determined to take full and absolute control of the world and the Church. Please pray to Our Lady, the Immaculate Heart of Mary whose victory we need. God bless you and Our Lady protect you always. Father Belland
The Great Reset: Three Enlightening Examples
Dear Miles - Christi
I beg to differ with you that we are at the end of the world aka the Dies Irae/Judgment of the Nations. The reasons are these:
One comment on Frère Michel’s treatment of St. Paul’s account of the antichrist in 2 Thesss. 2 is provided here because the reader may come away with the idea that the “falling away” or revolt come at the time of the ultimate antichrist. Suffice it to say that:
—St. Thomas, in his commentary on that chapter of 2 Thess., separates the “falling away,” or revolt, from the coming of the antichrist, that is, the apostasy takes place before the coming of the antichris;
--There with the consecration of Russia and its conversion there will be a period of peace, A PROMISE OF OUR LADY AT FATIMA;
--The Jews have not yet been converted and is the teaching of the Church that the WILL convert before the end of the world;
--The chastisement by fire, whether spoken of by Our Lady at Akita or at Fatima, indicates that “a great part of humanity will be destroyed, which means some will be left who will envy the dead, but no judgment is intimated.
--I should add that Sr. Lucia told William Walsh in his book Our Lady of Fatima when he asked her where we were in the Book of the Apocalypse she answered we're in the time described in Chapters 8 - 13.
Please let me know if there's something I'm missing. God bless and Our Lady protect you always, Father Belland
P.S. I'll look for your email.
The Great Reset: Three Enlightening Examples
Dear Miles - Christi,
Just another thought. It seems that the prophecy "fire from the sky" is too severe for most to handle, for most other details from the more current appearances of Our Lady are freely discussed; but this "fire" seems to be a "no, no." However, there IS a precedent for such a chastisement, namely Sodom and Gomorrah. The fire that destroyed those cities of the Old Testament was sent by God because of the very sins so prominent today. In fact, I will venture to say that the four sins that cry to heaven are all deserving of fire. And today we have them all, especially abortion and sodomy. And with each passing day the details get worse. I really believe this chastisement by fire is not far away, and it is time people be warned about those prophecies; forewarned is forearmed." Waiting to hear from you as you asserted, may God bless and Our Lady protect you always, Father Belland
The Great Reset: Three Enlightening Examples
Dear Miles - Christi, Thanks for passing on your work, and "yes" I am interested. But I just wanted to let you know that I have updated my Treatise on Benedict's resignation. I will send you a copy if you provide me with an email either to frdbelland@netscape.net or aqui.thoma@gmail.com. God bless and Our Lady protect you always. Father Belland
The Great Reset: Three Enlightening Examples
Dear Miles - Christi,
Given the three short but excellent videos warning viewers of The Great Re-Set, along with Michael Matts' video full overview of it on the same at remnantnewspaper.com, there is no doubt that the One Worlders are ready to begin their Re-Set in 2021 after President Trump is out of the way. It must be stated also that with the money, the power, the military forces and the plans all ready prepared to initiate their New World Order, with a World Government and a World Religion, there is really no way any individual country, e.g. the U.S, and/or any collection of allies who would join the U.S. could defeat that One World effort. THE ONLY SOLUTION IS THE POWER OF GOD, which is "fire from heaven".
And this has been announced to Sr. Agnes at Akita and to Sr. Aiello of Italy during the '50's -'60's, but I am firmly convinced also in the Third Secret of Fatima. However, no one, it seems, is willing to call attention to this terrible chastisement. At Akita Our Lady told Sr. Agnes that the Rosary will be our protection, and, of course, Sr. Lucia told Fr. Fuentes that the "last two remedies are the Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This "fire from th sky" would indeed manifest God's power, for it will most likely be a Solar Flare from the Sun (Coronal Mass Ejection, CME) which when entering the earth's atmosphere through its magnetic shield would emit the "colors of the rainbow" as was described by those who saw the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima in 1917 as the sun spun around and dashed to the earth. This indeed would manifest God's power and it would destroy any effort on the part of the One Worlders to carry out their plan (read the prophecies of Sr. Aiello).
But the only thing we can really do at this point is to promote the Holy Rosary, Devotion to the Immaculate Heart and for Catholics to prepare for death, if it be God's will. This does not preclude our daily duties whether personal, family, social or political--certainly we must make an attempt to reelect Trump as President. For as the video on lifesitenews.com, President Trump will ‘lead America back to God,’ according to 1983 prophecy (lifesitenews.com/…god-according-to-1983-prophecy)!!!
God bless and Our Lad protect you always. Father Belland (aqui.thoma@gmail.com).
,
FSSP Priest Attacks FSSP Priest: “Our Bishops Are Better Catholics Than We Are”
Archbishop Lefebvre refused to say the Novus Ordo Missae even though it had been imposed upon the Church from the Pope on down. And he demanded that all his priests had to say the Old Mass exclusively. Was that Archbishop, whom at least one Cardinal is saying will some day be declared a Doctor of the Church, being disobedient by refusing to celebrate the New Mass and ordering that his Priests also disobey the Church by demanding that they say the traditional Mass exclusively?
When the purpose of a law is evil, whether it regards the destruction of the Church or whether it regards the destruction of one's Country, there can be no disobedience in refusing to "obey" such a law; it is an illegitimate law.
Fr Fryar (Los Angeles) FSSP: "Bishops Are Better Catholics Than We Are"
Archbishop Lefebvre refused to say the Novus Ordo Missae even though it had been imposed upon the church from the Pope on down. And he demanded that all his priests had to say the Old Mass exclusively. Was that Archbishop, whom at least one Cardinal is saying will some day be declared a Doctor of the Church, being disobedient by refusing to celebrate the New Mass and ordering that his Priests also disobey the Church by demanding that they say the traditional Mass exclusively?
When the purpose of a law is evil, whether it regards the destruction of the Church or whether it regards the destruction of one's Country, there can be no disobedience in refusing to "obey" such a law; it is an illegitimate law.
Is Pope Benedict XVI Still Pope (but Francis Bishop of Rome?) Mazza Thesis Revisited
Canon 332 §2 has nothing to do with Benedict's renunciation because it does not foresee the situation within the Church under which Benedict made his decision to resign from the "exercise" of the Petrine Office, or if you will, from the ministry. He had recourse to the CANONICAL PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY: Amleto Giovanni Cicognani explains the virtue of Equity thus: “EPIKY. We have enumerated certain cases in which this ars boni et aequi (equity) is to be applied. Frequently, however, we speak of equity only in reference to positive laws. A human lawgiver is never able to foresee all the individual cases to which law will be applied. Consequently, a law, though just in general, may, taken literally, lead in some unforeseen cases to results which agree neither with the intent of the lawgiver nor with natural justice, but rather contravene them. In such cases the law must be expounded not according to its wording but according to the intent of the lawgiver and the general principles of natural justice. Law in the strict sense (jus strictum) is, therefore, positive law in its literal interpretation; equity, on the contrary, consists of the principles of natural justice so far as they are used to explain or correct a positive human law if this is not in harmony with the former. Epiky (Gr. 'Επιεικειεα, equity) is therefore defined: The benign application of the law according to what is good and equitable, which decides that the lawgiver does not intend that, because of exceptional circumstances, some particular case be included under his general law. D'Annibale (I, p. 180) states that epieikeia is a species of equity.” (Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Canon Law, Second Revised Edition, Autorized English Version by The Rev. Joseph M. O'Hara, Ph,D. And The Rev. Francis Brennan, D.D., J.U.D., The Dolphin Press, PA., 1935, p. 15.)
Is Pope Benedict XVI Still Pope (but Francis Bishop of Rome?) Mazza Thesis Revisited
In any discussion concerning Benedict's renunciation only the official Latin text can be used, which text uses the word "vacet" (the word for vacant). This word, however, is Present Subjunctive, not Future Indicative! This was purposely used by Benedict because he was only resigning from the "exercise" of the Office and not the Office itself-intending to maintain the Papacy as Dr. Massa holds. But furthermore, Benedict CANNOT be said to have intentionally attempted to separate the Papacy from the See of Peter, which separation the translation of the Subjunctive as a Future Indicative actually, but deceptively, could be used to assert. Briefly, the Indicative expresses a fact, while “The Subjunctive Mood represents the predicate as an idea, as something conceived in the mind (abstracts from reality)” (Gildersleeve - Lodge Latin Grammar). "Vacet" must, therefore, be translated as "may be vacant," "could be vacant," "should be vacant," in which case it is not legitimate to use that sentence (with "vacet" as a Future Indicative) to argue that Benedict was trying to separate the Papacy from the Roman See. The FACT that he intended to and actually still does live in Rome also must be understood to manifest his intention not to separate the Papacy from the Roman See. Any questions can be asked via email frdbelland@netscape.net, for there is a bit more to the Latin use of "vacet" than is given here. Father David R. Belland
Is Pope Benedict XVI Still Pope (but Francis Bishop of Rome?) Mazza Thesis Revisited
Canon 332 §2 has nothing to do with Benedict's renunciation because it does not foresee the situation within the Church under which Benedict made his decision to resign from the "exercise" of the Petrine Office, or if you will, from the ministry. He had recourse to the CANONICAL PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY:
Amleto Giovanni Cicognani explains the virtue of Equity thus:
“EPIKY. We have enumerated certain cases in which this ars boni et aequi (equity) is
to be applied. Frequently, however, we speak of equity only in reference to
positive laws. A human lawgiver is never able to foresee all the individual cases to
which law will be applied. Consequently, a law, though just in general, may, taken
literally, lead in some unforeseen cases to results which agree neither with the
intent of the lawgiver nor with natural justice, but rather contravene them. In such
cases the law must be expounded not according to its wording but according to the
intent of the lawgiver and the general principles of natural justice. Law in the strict
sense (jus strictum) is, therefore, positive law in its literal interpretation; equity, on
the contrary, consists of the principles of natural justice so far as they are used to
explain or correct a positive human law if this is not in harmony with the former.
Epiky (Gr. 'Επιεικειεα, equity) is therefore defined: The benign application of the
law according to what is good and equitable, which decides that the lawgiver does
not intend that, because of exceptional circumstances, some particular case be
included under his general law. D'Annibale (I, p. 180) states that epieikeia is a
species of equity.” (Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Canon Law, Second Revised Edition, Autorized English Version by The Rev. Joseph M. O'Hara, Ph,D. And The
Rev. Francis Brennan, D.D., J.U.D., The Dolphin Press, PA., 1935, p. 15.)
Is Pope Benedict XVI Still Pope (but Francis Bishop of Rome?) Mazza Thesis Revisited
In any discussion concerning Benedict's renunciation only the official Latin text can be used, which text uses the word "vacet" (the word for vacant). This word, however, is Present Subjunctive, not Future Indicative! This was purposely used by Benedict because he was only resigning from the "exercise" of the Office and not the Office itself-intending to maintain the Papacy as Dr. Massa holds. But furthermore, Benedict CANNOT be said to have intentionally attempted to separate the Papacy from the See of Peter, which separation the translation of the Subjunctive as a Future Indicative actually, but deceptively, could be used to assert. Briefly, the Indicative expresses a fact, while “The Subjunctive Mood represents the predicate as an idea, as something conceived in the mind (abstracts from reality)” (Gildersleeve - Lodge Latin Grammar). "Vacet" must, therefore, be translated as "may be vacant," "could be vacant," "should be vacant," in which case it is not legitimate to use that sentence (with "vacet" as a Future Indicative) to argue that Benedict was trying to separate the Papacy from the Roman See. The FACT that he intended to and actually still does live in Rome also must be understood to manifest his intention not to separate the Papacy from the Roman See. Any questions can be asked via email frdbelland@netscape.net, for there is a bit more to the Latin use of "vacet" than is given here. Father David R. Belland
All Against All: De Mattei Attacks His Friend Viganò
Ravat, many thanks for seconding the Church's theology regarding Its Social Doctrine ; it is so good to have the support. I see also that you are a supporter of Benedict as Pope. If you wish I can send you a copy of a Treatise (Between Socci and de Mattei) I wrote regarding the actual validity of Benedict's resignation as opposed to being Pope default due to theological or Canonical error or through force of fear. My email is frdbelland@netscape.net.
All Against All: De Mattei Attacks His Friend Viganò
I believe that Dr. de Mattei ought to recognize the two--fold authority of the Catholic Church, its direct authority concerning its own governance and its indirect authority over the State. As E. Sylvester Berry puts it in his book The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise: “Finally, a society is indirectly subject to another if the means it employs to attain its end are in any way connected with the attainment of a higher good for its members in that other society. The State is therefore indirectly subject to the Church in this respect, since right reason demands that the State cede to the Church whatever is necessary for her preservation and the proper attainment of her higher purpose,--the eternal salvation of man. Moreover, the actions of civil officials in carrying out the duties of their office often have a moral aspect that affects the spiritual welfare committed to the care of the Church. Consequently, the Church has direct jurisdiction over the official acts of civil authorities in regard to the moral aspect of those acts if the persons in question happen to be subjects of the Church. In this matter, therefore, the Church also exercises an indirect authority over the State”
They Knew: Truth About The Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah Controversy
Please see rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/…/socci-backstory… where Benedict was trying also to protect Abp. Gainswein:
"On the other hand, Benedict also found himself needing to protect his secretary from the South American’s 'vengeance', seeing as he had received a peremptory order from Bergoglio. So this solution of compromise was adopted: in successive book editions the author will be Cardinal Sarah 'with the contribution of Benedict XVI'”
Pope Francis Has Fully Regularized the SSPX - James Bogle
That recognition can only have the purpose of bring about a division between the traditional Catholics and the NOM Catholics. There will be great, indeed tremendous, opposition from most Bishops, especially those who are extremely liberal AND absolutely opposed to the Old Mass, who will themselves attempt to suppress the SSPX. Just remember that Francis wishes to place more power in the hands of local Bishops. And you can bet that Francis will not overrule the efforts of his liberal friends to "get rid" of tradition! One could even expect serious clashes, to say the least. In fact, Bishop Fellay had better be careful he doesn't end up another Cardinal Pell
How and why Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is invalid by the law itself
''It often happens that a person is bound according to the civil law, yet it is unjust that he should be condemned"; and Paulus declares: " . . . this pertains to equity, with regard to which pernicious errors are frequently made under the authority of the science of law." This is precisely what Br. Alexis, and others do by absolutely throwing out the notion of Equity in the case of Benedict's renunciation. Indeed, the effort to take the BiPbD (Benedict is Pope by Default), i.e., the maintenance of the Petrine Office through "substantial error." only serves to make Benedict out to be a liar, having declared his renunciation of the "exercise" of the Petrine Powers valid, or a deceiver by a gratuitous imputation of "intentionally making a mistake" in order to keep the Petrine Office. This is unconscionable and in no way reflects reality. So, let's see just what has been thrown out through the following explanation of "Epiky":
"EPIKY. We have enumerated certain cases in which this ars boni et aequi (equity) is to be applied. Frequently, however, we speak of equity only in reference to positive laws. A human lawgiver is never able to foresee all the individual cases to which law will be applied. Consequently, a law, though just in general, may, taken literally, lead in some unforeseen cases to results which agree neither with the intent of the lawgiver nor with natural justice, but rather contravene them. In such cases the law must be expounded not according to its wording but according to the intent of the lawgiver and the general principles of natural justice. Law in the strict sense (jus strictum) is, therefore, positive law in its literal interpretation; equity, on the contrary, consists of the principles of natural justice so far as they are used to explain or correct a positive human law if this is not in harmony with the former. Epiky (Gr. 'Επιεικειεα, equity) is therefore defined: The benign application of the law according to what is good and equitable, which decides that the lawgiver does not intend that, because of exceptional circumstances, some particular case be included under his general law. D'Annibale (I, p. 180) states that epieikeia is a species of equity" (from the great treatise on the nature of Canon Law and commentary on the First book of the Old Code by Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Canon Law).
Without going into a fledged dissertation here, suffice it to say that Canon Law could in no way have foreseen the circumstances in which Holy Mother Church finds herself today!!! And when one denies the possibility to Benedict, as the Supreme visible Lawmaker (under God and as His Vicar), who has the right to the Papacy which no one can take away from him in these unprecedented times, to have recourse to the Virtue of Epikeia/Equity, something even St. Thomas teaches, it is unconscionable. This is indeed the case when, intentionally or not, the Pope who is trying to keep the Petrine Office from the hands of the Enemies of the Church is made to appear a liar or a deceiver. Here is what I was advised by Br. Alexis when I brought up the idea of Epikeia:
"You are correct in observing I do not think one needs to appeal to equity as regards some circumstance non envisioned in the Law. I think the code aptly forestalls any problem if it be just observed. For a better understanding of my position, see ttps://fromrome.wordpress.com/…/."
So, I now present a description of what Benedict actually did through his Renunciation. What follows is a response to a Comment by Mark Docherty which Miss Barnhardt allowed on her Blog as a guest post.
Dear Mark, your article at Miss Barnhardt’s Blog is very interesting, and it also adds another voice to the sticky problem of Benedict’s Renunciation. In that article you correctly assert: “-Whatever his reasons, Pope Benedict did not resign the Munus in his Latin Declaratio. ………” But I do believe the idea of MUNUS needs to be clarified here. That word “Munus” is one of the traditional Latin words along with “Papatus” (Papacy) which refer to the Petrine Office in Canon Law (and not in any way were they equated with "ministry" or "service" or the "exercise of the Office, which ambiguity is found so frequently today), an Office which consists of the three Powers of the Church, but which belong fully to the Vicar of Christ: The Power of Governance, the Power of Teaching and the Power of Order (of Sanctifying, if you will). In these three Powers, necessary for the Preaching, Administration and End for which Christ established HIS Church, the Petrine Office consists. They stem from the threefold Office of Christ as King, Prophet and Priest. And those three Powers, which God confers immediately to a newly elected Pope can neither be separated from each other nor can they be separated from the Office, indeed they cannot be essentially changed into something else.
So when when you say that “-Benedict testified numerous times about his belief in the indelible nature of accepting the papacy, once pope always pope, that he is not fleeing but remaining ‘in a new way’ in the enclosure of St. Peter, to fulfill the “essential spiritual nature” of the papacy as its contemplative participant, while delegating the governance aspect to the active participant,” there seems to be an implicit, gratuitous declaration that Benedict is changing the nature of the Office. Perhaps, this is not what you mean, for you do quote Benedict’s phrasing by saying “that he is not fleeing but remaining ‘in a new way’ in the enclosure of St. Peter, to FULFILL THE ‘ESSENTIAL SPIRITUAL NATURE’ of the Papacy….” In other words, Benedict DOES NOT intend to change the essence of anything which belongs to the Nature of the Papacy. But then you go on to assert that Benedict is “delegating the governance aspect to the active participant.” On the other hand, in the official Latin text of Benedict’s Renunciation Announcement, Benedict speaks ONLY about renouncing the “exercise” of the Power of Governance, nothing, however, about handing it over to someone else. If you could point to some authoritative document of quote where Benedict actually does this, it would be greatly appreciated.
What exactly does Dom Gänswein mean when he describes Benedict expanded MINISTRY, which is basically another word for “service?” Notice he does not say Office or Papacy, that is, the faithful Archbishop in no way suggest any kind of essential change to the nature of the Papacy Itself, but only something accidental, a personal, spiritual association made up of two MEMBERS–not two Popes, one active and the other contemplative. Then, what does THIS mean?
Well, since Benedict renounced the exercise of the Powers of the Petrine Office, due to the fact that, and I know this from my own situation, evil, even demonic, forces within the Vatican were preventing Benedict to “exercise” those Powers as Christ intended, but also manipulating him to “exercise” those Powers in an evil or demonic way; and since his intention was, in fact, to keep the Petrine Office from the hands of anyone involved with the demonic, something Christ Christ could NOT ALLOW, for I maintain that a vicar of Satan CANNOT be a Vicar of Christ, Benedict, in response to Our Lady’s command for prayer and penance at Fatima, Benedict actually relating his Renunciation to the Fatima Message within his Renunciation Announcement, being as Christ’s Vicar, and hence the Supreme Law Maker of the Church, had every RIGHT to adjust, in light of Epikeia (Equity), his situation in whatever way necessary and legitimate to accommodate his ultimate purpose, namely to keep the Petrine Office from the hands of the enemy.
Now, in my treatise, I provide two suggestions or arrangements for an association of an active” member and a “contemplative” member. In fact, both arrangements could have been intended. The first that comes to mind is that Benedict is the “contemplative” member and hence is to be primarily concerned with prayer and penance (and I’m not going to quibble over the fact that he did some writing and visiting, for even formally cloistered monks don’t sit or kneel during every waking moment of the day in prayer and penance), while the “active” member is Dom answein, who provides meals, does the shopping, arranges meetings amidst a myriad of other tasks.
The other arrangement that could have been intended, could be that which Pius VII explicitly described while being held in captivity by Napoleon. Having been swept away from Rome and relocated to Savona where he gained firm support from the citizens there to the chagrin of Napoleon, the Emperor, fearing a backlash from the faithful there, decided to provide pomp and ceremony, every sort of royal treatment without granting any freedom to Pius, in order to persuade the Pope to approve Napoleon’s actions. A huge “Gala” Mass was scheduled by the Emperor whereby Pius would be exhibited in all his Princely and Pontifical regalia . The celebration of that Mass would be nothing but a deceitful show of acquiescence to Napoleon, and the saintly Pope refused to participate in it. After being approached by some of the Emperor’s most persuasive delegates, he couldn't take it any longer. He cut short the most enticing personage , “exclaiming with unwonted force and firmness: ‘What is it you are trying to get from me? I have told you I cannot yield and compromise my conscience. I am left with my back to the wall. GOD HIMSELF WILL SEE TO THE SAVING OF HIS CHURCH’ And saying no more, the Pope retired to pray alone.” Pius VII’s treatment would soon become truly that of a criminal (Quotes taken from Robin Anderson, Pius VII, 1800-1823 His Life, Times and Struggle with Napoleon in the Aftermath of theFrench Revolution, TAN Books and Publishers, Inc, Rockford, IL, pp. 87-90).
The point here is that perhaps Benedict had Pius VII in mind which Dom Ganswein spoke described as an “expanded” ministry of prayer and penance. That is, Benedict would be, once again, the “contemplative” member, while God is the “active” member. In either case, there is no substantial change in the nature of the Petrine Office and in fact Benedict has maintained the Petrine Office with it’s three Powers; Benedict’s Renunciation was actually valid, as he had vehemently protested all along. Eventually, the authorities in the Church will have to recognize this, in God’s due time, a true Conclave will have to be called by the Faithful Cardinals to elect a true Pope, should Benedict be martyred before a true Pope is elected, and with those, perhaps few, faithful Bishops remaining, due to the “revolt” or “falling away” of which St. Paul speaks in 2 Tim. 2, the Consecration of Russia will be made. This cannot be called a schism, for schism means receding from a false “pope” and not the gathering around the true Pope, no matter how small the Church will be. Bergoglio’s so called “Papal acts” will also have to be declared “Null and Void” from the very beginning of his so called “Pontificate”. It is my hope that my effort to provide clarity in a most confusing and damaging mess that Bergoglio is creating, causing numerous souls to end up in hell, and which is becoming ever increasingly worse almost by the hour does in fact not only clarify the matter, but simplify them. Nevertheless, those in authority must be able to admit that there was a mistake made; something most difficult to do. Furthermore, although the theory of “substantial error” might be a solution easier to deal with. It is not the reality, and it is only by admitting to reality that a true solution can be embarked upon.
As a final request, it would be appreciate if someone with intellectual honesty could explain to me why a Pope, e.g., Benedict, could not validly place himself, given the nature of the attack on the Church and on him personally, in a situation analogous to a Pope in hiding (Pope Caius), a Pope in exile (Pope Gregory VII) or a Pope in captivity (Pope Pius VII). These latter Popes, it is true, were placed in those situations against their will, but Benedict did what he did precisely because of the demonic attack upon the Papacy itself, an attack which is not one of physical force by outside enemies, but by a quasi spiritual (the demonic influence on human instruments), psychological force within the Church Itself. It would only be charity to show how this cannot be done, rather than dragging me over coals by at will criticism, most of it being ad hominem, sometimes the cold shoulder, and at times even angry allusions to calumnies people have heard about Fr. Belland. This is not to complain, but rather, if we are truly interested in the truth of the matter at hand, namely, the state of Holy Mother Church, then there ought to be an effort to expose that reality and that truth by human, rational discussion. And if what is said is in fact the truth, let’s act like true Soldiers of Christ and convince others of that truth.
As we celebrate that great Feast of Pentecost, may the Holy Ghost infuse his Virtues and Gifts into the souls of the faithful, especially those in authority to recognize the reality of the situation and especially the courage to stand up and fight as a real Soldier of Christ. If the Mystical Body of the Church is undergoing a horrible passion, it’s members cannot flee, even from Martyrdom, if need be. God bless and Our Lady protect us all.
Order Of Malta Forbids Old Latin Mass
''It often happens that a person is bound according to the civil law, yet it is unjust that he should be condemned"; and Paulus declares: " . . . this pertains to equity, with regard to which pernicious errors are frequently made under the authority of the science of law." This is precisely what Br. Alexis, and others do by absolutely throwing out the notion of Equity in the case of Benedict's renunciation. Indeed, the effort to take the BiPbD (Benedict is Pope by Default), i.e., the maintenance of the Petrine Office through "substantial error." only serves to make Benedict out to be a liar, having declared his renunciation of the "exercise" of the Petrine Powers valid, or a deceiver by a gratuitous imputation of "intentionally making a mistake" in order to keep the Petrine Office. This is unconscionable and in no way reflects reality. So, let's see just what has been thrown out through the following explanation of "Epiky":
"EPIKY. We have enumerated certain cases in which this ars boni et aequi (equity) is to be applied. Frequently, however, we speak of equity only in reference to positive laws. A human lawgiver is never able to foresee all the individual cases to which law will be applied. Consequently, a law, though just in general, may, taken literally, lead in some unforeseen cases to results which agree neither with the intent of the lawgiver nor with natural justice, but rather contravene them. In such cases the law must be expounded not according to its wording but according to the intent of the lawgiver and the general principles of natural justice. Law in the strict sense (jus strictum) is, therefore, positive law in its literal interpretation; equity, on the contrary, consists of the principles of natural justice so far as they are used to explain or correct a positive human law if this is not in harmony with the former. Epiky (Gr. 'Επιεικειεα, equity) is therefore defined: The benign application of the law according to what is good and equitable, which decides that the lawgiver does not intend that, because of exceptional circumstances, some particular case be included under his general law. D'Annibale (I, p. 180) states that epieikeia is a species of equity" (from the great treatise on the nature of Canon Law and commentary on the First book of the Old Code by Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Canon Law).
Without going into a fledged dissertation here, suffice it to say that Canon Law could in no way have foreseen the circumstances in which Holy Mother Church finds herself today!!! And when one denies the possibility to Benedict, as the Supreme visible Lawmaker (under God and as His Vicar), who has the right to the Papacy which no one can take away from him in these unprecedented times, of having recourse to the Virtue of Epikeia/Equity, something even St. Thomas teaches, it is unconscionable and a grave injustice. This is indeed the case when, intentionally or not, the Pope who is trying to keep the Petrine Office from the hands of the Enemies of the Church is made to appear a liar or a deceiver. Here is what I was advised by Br. Alexis when I brought up the idea of Epikeia:
"You are correct in observing I do not think one needs to appeal to equity as regards some circumstance non envisioned in the Law. I think the code aptly forestalls any problem if it be just observed. For a better understanding of my position, see ttps://fromrome.wordpress.com/…/."
So, I now present a description of what Benedict actually did through his Renunciation. What follows is a response to a Comment by Mark Docherty which Miss Barnhardt allowed on her Blog as a guest post.
Dear Mark, your article at Miss Barnhardt’s Blog is very interesting, and it also adds another voice to the sticky problem of Benedict’s Renunciation. In that article you correctly assert: “-Whatever his reasons, Pope Benedict did not resign the Munus in his Latin Declaratio. ………” But I do believe the idea of MUNUS needs to be clarified here. That word “Munus” is one of the traditional Latin words along with “Papatus” (Papacy) which refer to the Petrine Office in Canon Law (and not in any way were they equated with "ministry" or "service" or the "exercise of the Office, which ambiguity is found so frequently today), an Office which consists of the three Powers of the Church, but which belong fully to the Vicar of Christ: The Power of Governance, the Power of Teaching and the Power of Order (of Sanctifying, if you will). In these three Powers, necessary for the Preaching, Administration and End for which Christ established HIS Church, the Petrine Office consists. They stem from the threefold Office of Christ as King, Prophet and Priest. And those three Powers, which God confers immediately to a newly elected Pope can neither be separated from each other nor can they be separated from the Office, indeed they cannot be essentially changed into something else.
So when when you say that “-Benedict testified numerous times about his belief in the indelible nature of accepting the papacy, once pope always pope, that he is not fleeing but remaining ‘in a new way’ in the enclosure of St. Peter, to fulfill the “essential spiritual nature” of the papacy as its contemplative participant, while delegating the governance aspect to the active participant,” there seems to be an implicit, gratuitous declaration that Benedict is changing the nature of the Office. Perhaps, this is not what you mean, for you do quote Benedict’s phrasing by saying “that he is not fleeing but remaining ‘in a new way’ in the enclosure of St. Peter, to FULFILL THE ‘ESSENTIAL SPIRITUAL NATURE’ of the Papacy….” In other words, Benedict DOES NOT intend to change the essence of anything which belongs to the Nature of the Papacy. But then you go on to assert that Benedict is “delegating the governance aspect to the active participant.” On the other hand, in the official Latin text of Benedict’s Renunciation Announcement, Benedict speaks ONLY about renouncing the “exercise” of the Power of Governance, nothing, however, about handing it over to someone else. If you could point to some authoritative document of quote where Benedict actually does this, it would be greatly appreciated.
What exactly does Dom Gänswein mean when he describes Benedict expanded MINISTRY, which is basically another word for “service?” Notice he does not say Office or Papacy, that is, the faithful Archbishop in no way suggest any kind of essential change to the nature of the Papacy Itself, but only something accidental, a personal, spiritual association made up of two MEMBERS–not two Popes, one active and the other contemplative. Then, what does THIS mean?
Well, since Benedict renounced the exercise of the Powers of the Petrine Office, due to the fact that, and I know this from my own situation, evil, even demonic, forces within the Vatican were preventing Benedict to “exercise” those Powers as Christ intended, but also manipulating him to “exercise” those Powers in an evil or demonic way; and since his intention was, in fact, to keep the Petrine Office from the hands of anyone involved with the demonic, something Christ Christ could NOT ALLOW, for I maintain that a vicar of Satan CANNOT be a Vicar of Christ, Benedict, in response to Our Lady’s command for prayer and penance at Fatima, Benedict actually relating his Renunciation to the Fatima Message within his Renunciation Announcement, being as Christ’s Vicar, and hence the Supreme Law Maker of the Church, had every RIGHT to adjust, in light of Epikeia (Equity), his situation in whatever way necessary and legitimate to accommodate his ultimate purpose, namely to keep the Petrine Office from the hands of the enemy.
Now, in my treatise, I provide two suggestions or arrangements for an association of an active” member and a “contemplative” member. In fact, both arrangements could have been intended. The first that comes to mind is that Benedict is the “contemplative” member and hence is to be primarily concerned with prayer and penance (and I’m not going to quibble over the fact that he did some writing and visiting, for even formally cloistered monks don’t sit or kneel during every waking moment of the day in prayer and penance), while the “active” member is Dom Gänswein, who provides meals, does the shopping, arranges meetings amidst a myriad of other tasks.
The other arrangement that could have been intended, could be that which Pius VII explicitly described while being held in captivity by Napoleon. Having been swept away from Rome and relocated to Savona where he gained firm support from the citizens there to the chagrin of Napoleon, the Emperor, fearing a backlash from the faithful there, decided to provide pomp and ceremony, every sort of royal treatment without granting any freedom to Pius, in order to persuade the Pope to approve Napoleon’s actions. A huge “Gala” Mass was scheduled by the Emperor whereby Pius would be exhibited in all his Princely and Pontifical regalia . The celebration of that Mass would be nothing but a deceitful show of acquiescence to Napoleon, and the saintly Pope refused to participate in it. After being approached by some of the Emperor’s most persuasive delegates, he couldn't take it any longer. He cut short the most enticing personage, “exclaiming with unwonted force and firmness: ‘What is it you are trying to get from me? I have told you I cannot yield and compromise my conscience. I am left with my back to the wall. GOD HIMSELF WILL SEE TO THE SAVING OF HIS CHURCH’ And saying no more, the Pope retired to pray alone.” Pius VII’s treatment would soon become truly that of a criminal (Quotes taken from Robin Anderson, Pius VII, 1800-1823 His Life, Times and Struggle with Napoleon in the Aftermath of theFrench Revolution, TAN Books and Publishers, Inc, Rockford, IL, pp. 87-90).
The point here is that perhaps Benedict had Pius VII in mind which Dom Gänswein spoke described as an “expanded” ministry of prayer and penance. That is, Benedict would be, once again, the “contemplative” member, while God is the “active” member. In either case, there is no substantial change in the nature of the Petrine Office and in fact Benedict has maintained the Petrine Office with it’s three Powers; Benedict’s Renunciation was actually valid, as he had vehemently protested all along. Eventually, the authorities in the Church will have to recognize this, in God’s due time, a true Conclave will have to be called by the Faithful Cardinals to elect a true Pope, should Benedict be martyred before a true Pope is elected, and with those, perhaps few, faithful Bishops remaining, due to the “revolt” or “falling away” of which St. Paul speaks in 2 Tim. 2, the Consecration of Russia will be made. This cannot be called a schism, for schism means receding from a false “pope” and not the gathering around the true Pope, no matter how small the Church will be. Bergoglio’s so called “Papal acts” will also have to be declared “Null and Void” from the very beginning of his so called “Pontificate”. It is my hope that my effort to provide clarity in a most confusing and damaging mess that Bergoglio is creating, causing numerous souls to end up in hell, and which is becoming ever increasingly worse almost by the hour does in fact not only clarify the matter, but simplify them. Nevertheless, those in authority must be able to admit that there was a mistake made; something most difficult to do. Furthermore, although the theory of “substantial error” might be a solution easier to deal with. It is not the reality, and it is only by admitting to reality that a true solution can be embarked upon.
As a final request, it would be appreciate if someone could explain to me why a Pope, e.g., Benedict, could not validly place himself, given the nature of the attack on the Church and on him personally, in a situation analogous to a Pope in hiding (Pope Caius), a Pope in exile (Pope Gregory VII) or a Pope in captivity (Pope Pius VII). These latter Popes, it is true, were placed in those situations against their will, but Benedict did what he did precisely because of the demonic attack upon the Papacy itself, an attack which is not one of physical force by outside enemies, but by a quasi spiritual (the demonic influence on human instruments), psychological force within the Church Itself. It would only be charity to show how this cannot be done, rather than dragging me over coals by at will criticism, most of it being ad hominem, sometimes the cold shoulder, and at times even angry allusions to calumnies people have heard about Fr. Belland. This is not to complain, but rather, if we are truly interested in the truth of the matter at hand, namely, the state of Holy Mother Church, then there ought to be an effort to expose that reality and that truth by human, rational discussion. And if what is said is in fact the truth, let’s act like true Soldiers of Christ and convince others of that truth.
As we celebrate that great Feast of Pentecost, may the Holy Ghost infuse his Virtues and Gifts into the souls of the faithful, especially those in authority to recognize the reality of the situation and especially the courage to stand up and fight as a real Soldier of Christ. If the Mystical Body of the Church is undergoing a horrible passion, it’s members cannot flee, even from Martyrdom, if need be. God bless and Our Lady protect us all.
The question no one is asking
Dear Holy Cannoli, the Google search reveals that the term "Papal Ministry" shows up only in post VCII documents. When I say I haven't seen such terminology, I am referring to the traditional theological textbooks on the Church. If you wish to use post VCII terminology which changes the whole nature of the Papacy, that's your prerogative, but I will stick with the traditional terminology.
The question no one is asking
Dear Dr. Bobus, I don't know what your background in Theology is, but I must confess that in my lifetime as a Priest, I have never heard of "Petrine Ministry", neither in Theology nor Canon Law. The Chair of Peter has always been referred to as the Petrine Office. And this because the exercise of an Office IS NOT the same as the Office itself. Simply put, if one whose office, job if you will, demands that he supervise the assembly line of some factory one day, the designers another day, the inspectors another day and so forth, does that mean that he has 3 or whatever number of offices so that when he's not supervising the assembly line, the loses that office for the day? I beg your pardon, but anyone with common sense would answer NO! The Office and the exercise thereof are absolutely distinct.
The question no one is asking
Has any even considered, for the sake of argument, that even if Pope St. Pius X, had he been elected in 2005 instead of Benedict he COULD NOT HAVE “cleaned house”? Why? Precisely because the apostasy in the Church was in full blossom, even involving Cardinals and Bishops. Wouldn’t it be stupid to think that those in charge would obey him? And secondly, how is he going to find every Deacon, Priest, Bishop and Cardinal and whoever else, in order to publicize their excommunication in the event that such a move would be made?
For me, it seems reasonable that the enemies of the Church had to be identified, for it is easier to do battle with the enemy when one knows where they are. So WHAT BENEDICT DID WAS TO RETAIN THE PETRINE OFFICE, RENOUNCED THE “EXERCISE” OF THE POWER GOVERNING AND THE POWER OF TEACHING WHILE CONTINUING THE “EXERCISE” OF THE POWER OF SANCTIFYING, and thus retired to Mater Ecclesiae in order to do penance and pray! In this was the enemy would come out of the woodwork and expose themselves. And in this way it is up to the Faithful to say: “Hey, that those apostates are doing is not Catholic and we don’t want anything to do with them; and then the could associate with Benedict who is the true Pope and the Church.
The Visibility of would be sensible again, being that people would have to make a choice: either they are FOR Christ and the True Church or they are with Satan and his apostates. And since the primary element in the Visibility of the Church is the Pope, we MUST recognize that there is an “emperor” without clothes who presents himself as Pope and turn our attention to the True Pope. Furthermore, because social unity, i.e., the unity of the Faithful must first and foremost begin with unity of the True Faith: the integral Unity of Doctrine and Practice, Its Unity with Sacred Scripture, and it’s Unity with the past. And the Church Militant would have the task of watching for and ridding the Church of any apostates who have not sincerely converted.
It is my contention that Benedict made a very courageous and ingenious decision for the Common Good of the Church, but no one seems to realize or want to realize what he did, that God used him as a secondary cause in order to keep Official Power from the hands of Satan, i.e., from those under the control of Satan, and thereby preserved the INDEFECTIBILITY OF THE CHURCH, and kept the promise of Christ to Peter at Caesareae Philippi that “the gates of hell will not prevail over It” from mockery. Please read the following excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
• “The GIFT OF INDEFECTIBILITY is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it…. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e., the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it into being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it would set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly.” …………….
“It was said above that one part of the Church’s gift of indefectibility lies in her preservation from any substantial corruption in the sphere of morals. This supposes, not merely that she will always proclaim the perfect standard of morality bequeathed to her by her Founder, but also that in every age the lives of many of her children will be based on that sublime mode. Only a supernatural principle of spiritual life could bring this about” (The Catholic Encyclopedia 1913, Vol. 3 under ‘Church’ Pg. 756).
I have shown that this is in fact what Benedict did in what I call my “Thesis”, and if anyone is interested, he is welcome to email me with a request at frdgelland@netscape.net. God bless and Our Lady protect you all.