5/5. Was (and is) the abdication of Benedict XVI canonically valid? (by google-translate from Polish)
- Is the next conclave proof that the resignation from the office of Pope Benedict XVI was valid?
- Do canonical evidence cannot be accepted until Pope Benedict confirms it and by public announcement? The "big lie" and other noble methods.
- Can one presume who is the Pope and who is not?
Is the next conclave evidence that the resignation of Pope Benedict from office was (and is) valid? No. Let us return once again to canon 332§2. To be valid, the resignation DOES NOT require anyone's acceptance[1]. The fact that almost all cardinals behave as if it is legitimate does not make it so. Even if the whole world recognized it as such and did not meet the requirements of this canon, it’s still not important. The amount of time that has passed since the resignation does not change this. Pope Benedict did not renounce his office, so the next conclave should not even take place[2]. Immediately after his announcement of resignation, a supervisory commission, a committee of experts in canon law, should be convened to check whether there is any inconsistency in the resignation. This was not done, however[3]. Another conclave took place, but it is not proof of the validity of the resignation, but rather a violation of God's Law on which the Code is based[4]. The Petrine Office (Petrine Munus) cannot be divided into two persons. Just like only one apostle was given power over the whole Church, his successor, at one time, can only be one.
Do canonical evidence cannot be accepted until Pope Benedict confirms it and also by a public announcement? No, there is no such need. This claim is a practical use of so-called "Big lie". This wording was coined by Adolf Hitler and involves the use of a lie so audacious that no ordinary people would even dare to think that one could distort the truth so much[5]. However, he was not the first to discover this mechanism, something similar was known before under the name "noble lie"[6]. Other, equally noble methods, also apply to the enemies of Benedict XVI. Let's arrange them in the form of a three-point code. First point: we don't attack publicly, we just ignore. After all, only the guilty explain themselves. This is the most effective method that aims to prevent even Catholic social media from raising this topic[7]. Second point: we cannot allow the masses to reach the original Code of Canon Law, as well as the Universi dominici gregis, n.3, in which Pope John Paul II admitted that the resignation may be invalid[8]. Third point: if the masses reach for it, they need to be convinced that what is written in them does not mean what is written in them (first of all, persuade that the ministry means munus). They may not base on it their arguments of the ivalidity resignation or act on them later[9].
Can one presume who is the pope and who is not? As you can see, yes, through the unconscious. The rumor that Pope Benedict has given up his valid resignation has now become an unquestioned dogma (another example of the use in practice the "great lie"). The journalist from whom the world heard this message, Giovanna Chirri, after a closer look at this issue today speaks of the resignation from the ministry[10]. A matter of great importance, and the media hardly broach this topic at all. Is the first point of the Code effectively implemented? Especially priests should verify, whether the resignation of Pope Benedict from office was and is valid, according to the evaluation criteria in canon 332§2. They have the right to do so and it is their duty (according to canons 40 and 41)[11]. Don’t count on cardinals in the Vatican. Despite various calls to address this issue, there is no significant movement on their part that indicates that they are going to do so[12]. There is a high probability that everyone of tchem or almost everyone fell into a schism with Pope Benedict. The head of the Church is Christ, and Christians should be obedient to him first, and then to the pope as his vicegerent on earth. It cannot be presumed who it is today and who is not. The idea that guided this essay was the Latin sentence audax et cautus (bold / brave and careful) and I wish this approach to readers. With God, in Truth and Love.
Pozostać w prawdzie Chrystusa
[1] www.katolicki.net/ftp/kodeks_prawa_ka…
[2] In addition, its canonical validity itself was questionable. You can use only four votes, do not worry about the same and do the fifth - so we have "Pope Francis". However, this is a separate issue, which Antoni Socci described in more detail. Responsible for this is the Mafia of St. Gallen, who decided to elect Bergoglia as pope, even if it mean a violation of the law and the penalty of excommunication for all of her members. (Marcantonio Colonna, Papież dyktator, Warszawa 2018).
[3] fromrome.info/…/how-usurpation-…
[4] www.youtube.com/watch; Also what Archbishop Geinswein says about two popes, one of which exercise active ministry and the other passive, is incorrect. Both come from one Petrine Munus, or one undivided office, which can only be occupied by one and the same person.
[5] fromrome.info/…/benedict-said-i…
[6] www.dsw.edu.pl/…/Martin_Jay.pdf
[7] fromrome.info/…/will-the-mafia-…
[8] fromrome.info/…/pope-john-paul-…
[9] Ibidem; This point can be used when changing the Code (fromrome.info)
[10] fromrome.info/…/meet-giovanna-c…
[11] www.katolicki.net/ftp/kodeks_prawa_ka…
[12] fromrome.info/…/how-usurpation-… ; www.youtube.com/watch
- Do canonical evidence cannot be accepted until Pope Benedict confirms it and by public announcement? The "big lie" and other noble methods.
- Can one presume who is the Pope and who is not?
Is the next conclave evidence that the resignation of Pope Benedict from office was (and is) valid? No. Let us return once again to canon 332§2. To be valid, the resignation DOES NOT require anyone's acceptance[1]. The fact that almost all cardinals behave as if it is legitimate does not make it so. Even if the whole world recognized it as such and did not meet the requirements of this canon, it’s still not important. The amount of time that has passed since the resignation does not change this. Pope Benedict did not renounce his office, so the next conclave should not even take place[2]. Immediately after his announcement of resignation, a supervisory commission, a committee of experts in canon law, should be convened to check whether there is any inconsistency in the resignation. This was not done, however[3]. Another conclave took place, but it is not proof of the validity of the resignation, but rather a violation of God's Law on which the Code is based[4]. The Petrine Office (Petrine Munus) cannot be divided into two persons. Just like only one apostle was given power over the whole Church, his successor, at one time, can only be one.
Do canonical evidence cannot be accepted until Pope Benedict confirms it and also by a public announcement? No, there is no such need. This claim is a practical use of so-called "Big lie". This wording was coined by Adolf Hitler and involves the use of a lie so audacious that no ordinary people would even dare to think that one could distort the truth so much[5]. However, he was not the first to discover this mechanism, something similar was known before under the name "noble lie"[6]. Other, equally noble methods, also apply to the enemies of Benedict XVI. Let's arrange them in the form of a three-point code. First point: we don't attack publicly, we just ignore. After all, only the guilty explain themselves. This is the most effective method that aims to prevent even Catholic social media from raising this topic[7]. Second point: we cannot allow the masses to reach the original Code of Canon Law, as well as the Universi dominici gregis, n.3, in which Pope John Paul II admitted that the resignation may be invalid[8]. Third point: if the masses reach for it, they need to be convinced that what is written in them does not mean what is written in them (first of all, persuade that the ministry means munus). They may not base on it their arguments of the ivalidity resignation or act on them later[9].
Can one presume who is the pope and who is not? As you can see, yes, through the unconscious. The rumor that Pope Benedict has given up his valid resignation has now become an unquestioned dogma (another example of the use in practice the "great lie"). The journalist from whom the world heard this message, Giovanna Chirri, after a closer look at this issue today speaks of the resignation from the ministry[10]. A matter of great importance, and the media hardly broach this topic at all. Is the first point of the Code effectively implemented? Especially priests should verify, whether the resignation of Pope Benedict from office was and is valid, according to the evaluation criteria in canon 332§2. They have the right to do so and it is their duty (according to canons 40 and 41)[11]. Don’t count on cardinals in the Vatican. Despite various calls to address this issue, there is no significant movement on their part that indicates that they are going to do so[12]. There is a high probability that everyone of tchem or almost everyone fell into a schism with Pope Benedict. The head of the Church is Christ, and Christians should be obedient to him first, and then to the pope as his vicegerent on earth. It cannot be presumed who it is today and who is not. The idea that guided this essay was the Latin sentence audax et cautus (bold / brave and careful) and I wish this approach to readers. With God, in Truth and Love.
Pozostać w prawdzie Chrystusa
[1] www.katolicki.net/ftp/kodeks_prawa_ka…
[2] In addition, its canonical validity itself was questionable. You can use only four votes, do not worry about the same and do the fifth - so we have "Pope Francis". However, this is a separate issue, which Antoni Socci described in more detail. Responsible for this is the Mafia of St. Gallen, who decided to elect Bergoglia as pope, even if it mean a violation of the law and the penalty of excommunication for all of her members. (Marcantonio Colonna, Papież dyktator, Warszawa 2018).
[3] fromrome.info/…/how-usurpation-…
[4] www.youtube.com/watch; Also what Archbishop Geinswein says about two popes, one of which exercise active ministry and the other passive, is incorrect. Both come from one Petrine Munus, or one undivided office, which can only be occupied by one and the same person.
[5] fromrome.info/…/benedict-said-i…
[6] www.dsw.edu.pl/…/Martin_Jay.pdf
[7] fromrome.info/…/will-the-mafia-…
[8] fromrome.info/…/pope-john-paul-…
[9] Ibidem; This point can be used when changing the Code (fromrome.info)
[10] fromrome.info/…/meet-giovanna-c…
[11] www.katolicki.net/ftp/kodeks_prawa_ka…
[12] fromrome.info/…/how-usurpation-… ; www.youtube.com/watch