''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.
