Hi PNF, I do indeed retract this statement. I was under the false impression that the UDG document was written or updated by Pope Benedict XVI. You are right. I am happy to be corrected and get to the truth on this matter and I thank you for your scholarship. Provision for the valid resignation of a Pope was already in the original UDG, which makes sense as it is in Cannon Law too. However, it is immaterial to my main argument. The simple fact is that your argument fails if it is shown that the Pope's valid resignation results in a vacant Apostolic See, thus triggering an election. That is what I have already shown in plain and simple terms for all to see. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. The fact that the College of Cardinals is tasked with continuing to "defend these rights [of the Apostolic See]" even after a "death" or "resignation" of the Pope, does not imply that the Apostolic See is occupied! It is not a logical imperative. Indeed, the Cardinals would have no need to defend them if the Apostolic See was still "partially" occupied. The Apostolic See can be vacant and yet still exist as an entity with all of its powers, authority and priveleges, to be re-assumed by the New Pope and and his helper Institutes of the Roman Curia. Once the Head is gone (be he dead or resigned) the Apostolic See is vacant. If there is no Pope the See is vacant. If the See was lawfully vacant only after the Pope dies, then there would be only one unique reason for the See to be vacant. So what then do you take to be the meaning of the words in Cannon 335 which I already referred to above? : "for the Roman See, when for any reason it becomes vacant". Undoubtedly you will have some fancyful interpretation. What I take it to refer to is - more than one possible reason. Would those reasons comprise incidental things like stroke or heart attack etc.? What I take it to refer to is: 1. Death of the Pope, 2. Resignation of the Pope The prescriptions in relation to the funeral rites are simply there concerning 1. The death of a Pope, which is the vastly most common scenario (apart from one Pope in history at the time the UDG was written). There are no prescriptions concerning 2. The resignation of a Pope because it is simple common sense that no funeral is necessary. Just for argument's sake, let's say that you are correct and the death of the Pope is the only thing which triggers a Conclave election. In a lengthy document which describes in detail what must take place before the election (UDG), do you not think it would be a pretty enormous omission to acknowledge a 'valid resignation' of a Pope and then omit to say that no election can take place until the resigned and lingering Emeritus Pope, who is nolonger a Pope(!), dies! If that were the case the Church would be left without a Pope for at best an indeterminate amount of time, at worst - forever. No. A valid resignation "results in" a vacant Apostolic See. Your construction of an elaborate scheme to avoid explaining the plain meaning of the plain language in section 77 of the UDG is simply a contorted effort due to wishful thinking. "if the VACANCY of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff" Even a child could understand the meaning of this. Instead, you have to invent "partial" vacancy and propose that what Pope St. John Paul intended to say was ...if the "complete vacancy of the entirety of Apostolic See" should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff ... And if he didn't intend to say that, he just left this 'valid resignation' scenario hanging there as a booby-trap for the future Church. It stretches your argument to incredulity. This is immaterial to my argument and I have already posted on it but for the sake of completion: As the supreme lawgiver of the Church, the Pope is not legally bound by ecclesiastical decisions and usages, but by divine law alone. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott) I think that is about all I can contribute to this discussion. There is no point in going back and forth anymore. I will let you have the last word as I am familiar with your arguments. I thank you PNF for helping me learn more about the Faith. I will let others decide on the relative merits of the respective arguments put forward. Personally, I think my argument has a 99 percent probability of being correct. And indeed the election was deemed lawful by the sitting Cardinals at the time of the Conclave which elected Pope Francis.
Thank you for your concern, but I won't take your advice. The video is not fake, the translation is correct (as far as I know) and the additional information is true and objective. If there is any judgment to be made, it will be on the part of the viewers. Regarding Saint Paul's Letter to the Corinthians, dear sister, it has nothing to see with applauding Talmudic speeches announcing the coming of a false messiah, on the contrary, it's about the confirmation in Jesus Christ. Read it again please, and also read the Gospel of Saint John regarding the Jews and their rejection of Jesus Christ. God bless.
There is a significant Jewish community in Argentina with some influential rabbis. Interestingly enough, they don't fancy very much Jesus Christ but they love Francis, and that should worry us... One of them even wrote "A Gospel According to Francis". Take a close look at the bookshelf behind him...
This other one, when it comes to December, he likes to record Hanukkah-Christmas carols with the bishop Pedro Torres,: I only blame the bishop.
Hi InVeritatem, I will try again to respond to each point that you made in the same order. 1. Thank you for your honesty about your mistake. I think it shows that you are interested in pursuing the truth rather than to simply win an argument. 2. You stated that "The fact that the College of Cardinals is tasked with continuing to 'defend these rights [of the Apostolic See]' even after a 'death' or 'resignation' of the Pope, does not imply that the Apostolic See is occupied." That makes no sense. How can a vacant entity have "rights" that must be defended? If the Apostolic See is completely, lawfully vacant, then it has no rights to govern the Church. There would be no legitimate person holding office in a completely vacant Apostolic See. Again, Canon 361 defines the Apostolic See as a multi-office entity: Can. 361 In this Code, the term Apostolic See or Holy See refers not only to the Roman Pontiff but also to the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia, unless it is otherwise apparent from the nature of the matter or the context of the words. And, again, UDG requires that the provisions of Pastor Bonus be followed: 14. According to the provisions of Article 6 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus,13 at the death of the Pope all the heads of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia — the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Prefects, the Archbishop Presidents, together with the members of those Dicasteries — cease to exercise their office. An exception is made for the Camerlengo of Holy Roman Church and the Major Penitentiary, who continue to exercise their ordinary functions, submitting to the College of Cardinals matters that would have had to be referred to the Supreme Pontiff. Likewise, in conformity with the Apostolic Constitution Vicariae Potestatis (No. 2 § 1),14 the Cardinal Vicar General for the Diocese of Rome continues in office during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, as does the Cardinal Archpriest of the Vatican Basilica and Vicar General for Vatican City for his jurisdiction. And here is what Pastor Bonus says on the matter: Art. 6 — On the death of the Supreme Pontiff, all moderators and members of the dicasteries cease from their office. The camerlengo of the Roman Church and the major penitentiary are excepted, who expedite ordinary business and refer to the College of Cardinals those things which would have been referred to the Supreme Pontiff. As you can see, "the resignation of the Pope" is not mentioned in any of those places. Three different hierarchically-ordered documents EXPLICITLY confirm what I am saying. Your argument depends on an implicit interpretation that contradicts the explicit wording of Canon Law and two Apostolic Constitutions. 3. Canon 335 does not say what you say it does. You say it states the following: "...for the Roman See, when for any reason it becomes vacant...." But here are the actual words of Canon 335 as it is currently displayed on the Vatican.va website: Can. 335 When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed. Can. 335 — Sede romana vacante aut prorsus impedita, nihil innovetur in Ecclesiae universae regimine: serventur autem leges speciales pro iisdem adiunctis latae. Again, I ask you, for the sake of the truth, please retract your error. 4. You did not quote UDG, Section 77 properly. You selectively quoted the following: "if the VACANCY of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff" But UDG, Section 77, in full, says the following with a very different meaning: 77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. The phrase "even if" in the dependent clause requires that what is said in the main clause takes precedence. That dependent clause is saying that the type of "vacancy" manifested by a "resignation" does not change the requirement that "the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election...must be observed in full." The most important event discussed in the 70+ Sections prior to that one is "the death of the Pope." In UDG, the word "death" referring to the Pope, will be found 18 times. The word "funeral," referring to the Pope, will be found 5 times The word "burial," referring to the Pope, will be found, 6 times. On the other hand, the word "resignation" occurs only 2 times, and in one case, the context is to place limits placed on the College of Cardinals and, in the second case, the context is to clarify that a "resignation" does not change the primary requirement of UDG: that the Pope must be dead and have a funeral BEFORE the start of the papal election (UDG, 49). Your argument is based 1) your interpretation of "implied" meaning in direct contradiction to the explicit law in three different Vatican documents, 2) a false quote that includes the words "any reason" that do not exist in the Canon 335 on the Vatican website, 3) an argument based on a selective quote that removes a key word and context from UDG, 77 to bolster your false conclusion. I know you said you did not want to continue the discussion. But, for truth's sake, please at least admit your multiple factual errors.
I have taken much interest in the contributions of both of you and others on the pope-question. In the end, I admit it is a bit over my head. From memory, I think it was Matt Fradd who applied Pascal's wager to the pope-question: It is safer to assume that Pope Francis is indeed the Supreme Pontiff than to base one's worldview on the understanding that he is an Anti-Pope. Also, some scholars have published a possible approach on www.katholisches.info recently, which I had attempted to translate from German (I can re-post this, if necessary). In essence, they were saying that both views (Pope Francis is Pope and 'Pope Francis' is an Anti-Pope) are legitimate. The question can only be decided by the hierarchy of the Holy Catholic Church, which is currently somewhat dysfunctional due to the on-going crisis within the Catholic Church. The question will be decided once the crisis is over, which we can tell when we will see a widespread return to the traditional liturgy, practices and beliefs of traditional Catholicism. Until then, the pope-question cannot be decided with certainty - so discussions, whilst interesting, are somewhat futile, according to the scholars on katholisches.info. Anyway, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I will attempt to read them more carefully, but perhaps I will simply settle on this: I think Pope Francis is indeed the Supreme Pontiff, but I think it is possible that he will be declared an Anti-Pope by the hierarchy of the Holy Catholic Church once her crisis is over. This is somewhat based on BrianK's thinking, which he has been sharing here for a long time - credit to him. Of course, I think no Pope has the authority to abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in its traditional form. As Pope Benedict put it (off the cuff): "What always has been held sacred cannot suddenly be declared to be wrong." And I think (as a mere layman) that no Pope has the authority to change the Magisterium, only additions and clarifications can be made. To apply Pope Benedict's quote: "What always has been held as sinful cannot suddenly be declared to be right." The approach I take may perhaps be summarised by the term "recognise and resist". This is incidentally the approach of the SSPX, and I borrowed the term from them. As a lay-member of an SSPX-parish, I am glad to have come around to their position on this matter, so I feel even more at home. I am sorry for wavering between Beneplenism and standard Catholicism on the dreadful but interesting pope-question, and I am sorry for going over it yet again. However, I do think the question is important for us laity, so we can take a prudent course of action in our respective little worlds. There may not be any human remedy to this. Divine intervention may be coming, not only for the Church but also for the world, where billions of people have taken 'Covid-vaccinations' from the effects of which there is perhaps no way back. For the charity and clarity of the discussions on this forum I am very grateful. It is a sign that this forum is truly of the Mother of the God, I think. God bless all here!
Hi Michael. It is not an academic question. Rather, it is a moral one. The law of the Catholic Church is an objective guide for all to follow. No one is requiring you to "declare" that Francis is not the Pope. Church law speaks for itself. But God is asking you to choose good or evil. As a moral actor you must decide whether you will call a manifest heretic your "Holy Father." According to the perennial teaching for the Church, a Catholic is required to avoid heretics and definitely not to submit to their authority. All of us will be held accountable if we "receive not the love of the truth" (2 Thessalonians 2:10). The punishment will be "the operation of error." Our intellect will be darkened if we do not call out the sins of our "false prophet" leaders because, by our silence, we will have caused the little ones to be scandalized. You know in your heart that Bergoglio is evil. God is allowing you to be tested. The test is whether you have the courage to choose Him (Jesus and His Apostolic Tradition) rather than a blasphemer, as your rule of Faith. God is not putting you in an impossible position. You must always choose the truth and obedience to God before obedience to any mere mortal. Be courageous. Choose Jesus. Reject the False Prophet. Be a shining example to those around you. May God bless you.
Thank you so much dear PNF. I value your input very very much. God has given us a compass, our heart. We feel in our hearts what is right and what is wrong, if we honestly seek to be Christians in a state of grace. This, I think is called sensus fidelium. I have a feeling in my heart about the question here. May the infant Jesus on this feast of the Holy Family bless you muchly, and all here, and their loved ones!
Minor correction which is immaterial to the argument: The words come from the introductory text of the UDG itself, not Cannon 335. "Canon 335 of the Code of Canon Law, restated in Canon 47 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, makes clear the need to issue and constantly update the specific laws regulating the canonical provision for the Roman See, when for any reason it becomes vacant."
Hi InVeritatem. You are incorrect. And your error is certainly material and substantial. I will demonstrate. Both Canon 335 and the sentence you quoted from the non-binding introduction of UDG refer to "the Roman See." The "Roman See" is the Chair (cathedra) of the diocese of Rome. That See has its Cathedral of St. John Lateran. The Roman Pontiff (the man lawfully elected in a legitimately-held papal conclave) sits in that Chair at St. John Lateran and is the head of "the Roman See." This is referring to the Pope in his role as a diocesan bishop. The "Apostolic See or Holy See" is not the same as the "Roman See." The Roman Pontiff (the head of the Roman See) is only one member of the multi-member entity defined as the "Apostolic See" in Canon 361. The "Apostolic See or Holy See" is headquartered in the Vatican City-State, which is across the Tiber River from St. John Lateran. Now that that is settled, hopefully, you can see that nothing prevents the "Roman See" from becoming vacant for different reasons, for example: 1. the death of the Pope 2. the resignation of the Pope (Canon 332) 3. Removal from office (Canon 194) But, as I have said, the "Apostolic See or Holy See" only becomes vacant upon "the death of the Pope." Again, the reason for this is that the other people/offices that make up the Apostolic See only "cease from their office" after "the death of the Pope" (UDG, 14 and Pastor Bonus Art. 6). The evidence is overwhelming. Please correct your error. I really don't understand why you are so fixated on proving that Bergoglio was lawfully-elected. The law of the Church is very clear. Since a papal conclave can only be held when the Apostolic See is "lawfully vacant" (UDG, 37) and the Apostolic See only becomes "lawfully-vacant" after "the death of the Pope," the 2013 Conclave was objectively unlawful. Here is what UDG, 76 says on that matter: 76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.
FYI, St. Mary Major is not the Cathedral of the Roman See and seat of the Bishop of Rome. It is St John the Lateran, aka as the Papal Archbasilica, indeed the only existing archbasilica and therefore highest ranking church in the whole world because it is the oldest and highest ranking of the four major papal basilicas in Rome (St Mary Major, St Paul Outside the Walls, and St Peter’s in the Vatican are the other 3).
Thanks Jarg. Of course you are correct. My brain wasn't working when I wrote that. I have corrected it.
Thought this story was fake but it appears it really happened on the day of Pope Francis birthday, one day before the publication of Fiduccia Supplicans. https://catholicvote.org/lighting-s...-on-pope-francis-birthday-internet-lights-up/ Lightning Strikes St. Peter Statue on Pope Francis’ Birthday, Internet Lights Up Before the end of 2023, the Internet was abuzz with rumors, later confirmed, that lightning struck a statue of St. Peter on Pope Francis’ birthday, December 17. The news was first reported in Italian on December 26 by Andrea Cionci, an Italian Catholic blogger who questions the legitimacy of Francis as a successor of St. Peter. The rumor made its way into the Spanish Catholic blogosphere and was quickly translated into English by the “Pope Head” Substack: On Sunday December 17, 2023, lightning literally pulverized the key and halo of the statue of Saint Peter, located on the facade of the Sanctuary of Our Lady of the Rosary of San Nicolas, north of Buenos Aires, Argentina. The story was “reported by the Telegram channel ‘The Pope’s Pearls,’” Cionci wrote. The report “seemed to be fake, given that no news could be found on the web,” he added, “but the event has just been confirmed by the Reverend Father Justo Lofeudo, a priest who is certainly a Bergoglian.” “Father Lofeudo certainly did not realize the effect that the disclosure of the photo would have,” Cionci continued: What is striking, in fact, is that the event occurred on Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s birthday, the day before the publication of the Fiducia supplicans declaration which opens up blessings for gay couples. Catholic author Taylor Marshall highlighted the story on his YouTube Channel, commenting that the lightning not only happened during Francis’ birthday and one day before the publication of the controversial document Fiducia Supplicans, “but is also in his home diocese: Bergoglio was Archbishop and Cardinal of Buenos Aires.” On December 30, Catholic commentator Steven O’Reilly revealed on his X (formerly Twitter) account that after contacting the Shrine in San Nicolás with a confirmation request in Spanish “the unsigned reply (from the Shrine) did not confirm or deny the facts, which is all that I requested.” “Instead the reply said only (translated): ‘The interpretation of the facts that circulate through these media is not real, which is why the Sanctuary does not endorse or agree with them,’” O’Reilly reported. On December 31, also on X, the Lepanto Institute reported: Some people are questioning the veracity of the claims that a statue of St. Peter in Argentina was struck by lightning on Dec. 17, pulverizing the halo, key, and blessing hand. The Lepanto Institute sent someone to the location to take pictures and confirm the events. The Dec. 17 lightning strike is CONFIRMED and here are additional pictures of the statue. NOTE: The lightning struck the statue, despite there being lightning rods some 30-40 feet above it (second and third picture). CatholicVote’s investigation CV was also able to send a local journalist to the Shrine of San Nicolás and can clarify some facts: The lightning indeed struck the image of St. Peter at the Shrine of Our Lady of the Rosary of St. Nicolás, obliterating both the iron halo and keys in the statue’s right hand. The image of St. Peter is not located in the main entrance, but on the left side of the shrine, flanking a side entrance, with St. Paul on the other side of the same door. The image of St. Paul, whose sword is also iron, was not affected. The lightning indeed struck on December 17, Pope Francis’ 87th birthday. The City of San Nicolás is prone to lightning. In fact, it was after a lightning strike at the site of the Marian shrine that the faithful began building it in 1987 under the instructions of the Marian visionary Gladys Quiroga de Motta. As the Lepanto Institute stated, the shrine has plenty of lightning rods, thus the strike on St. Peter’s statue was highly improbable. Fr. Justo Antonio Lofeudo, incorrectly described by Andrea Cionci as a “Bergoglian” priest, is the founder of the Missionaries of the Holy Eucharist, a congregation dedicated to promoting perpetual adoration around the world. Speaking to CV, Lofeudo strongly denied taking or distributing the first pictures of the damaged statue going around the Internet, some of them with the footnote “courtesy of Fr. Justo Lofeudo.” On the evening of December 31, Lofeudo closed his daily homily on his Youtube channel confirming that the event was real, but denied being the source of any circulating photos. The Shrine of Our Lady of the Rosary of San Nicolás is not in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, as claimed by Marshall. Although located in the province of Buenos Aires, San Nicolás is a diocese located 150 miles north of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, and only 40 miles south of the Archdiocese of Rosario, the seat of San Nicolás’ ecclesiastical province. The Shrine has indeed refused to comment on or even acknowledge the strange episode. Neither on its official website nor on its Facebook or Instagram accounts, last updated on January 1, 2024, is there any mention of the event. A spokesperson for the shrine told CV that since January 1 is a holiday and a day obligation, there was no one available to comment. CV has confirmed that the lightning episode has sparked concern and speculation in San Nicolás and Buenos Aires, especially since the shrine was turning 40 years old and many thought of 2023 as an emblematic year.
Venerable Pope Pius XII is likely rolling in his grave right now.....Pope Francis says not to look back. It's very obvious that he never has himself.....at anything. Pope encourages Marxists and Christians to fight corruption, uphold rule-of-law Pope Francis meets with representatives of the Dialop Transversal dialogue project, an initiative that invites socialists and Christians to work for a common ethic, and invites them to build a better future for our polarised world. By Salvatore Cernuzio People who are poor, unemployed, homeless, immigrants, or exploited, as well as all those killed by past dictatorships and turned into rubbish by the "throwaway culture" of the present: the level of a society's civilisation is measured by the way they are treated, the Pope said. Pope Francis reiterated the centrality of the vulnerable as well as the urgency of countering the triple "scourge" of corruption, abuse of power, and lawlessness—both in politics and in society—in his address on Wednesday with representatives of the DIALOP transversal dialogue project. This is a dialogue project between socialists/Marxists, communists, and Christians aimed at formulating a common social ethic that can be proposed as a new narrative for a Europe in search of its identity, with an integral ecology between the Social Doctrine of the Church and Marxist social critique at its core. The initiative was born in 2014 after a meeting between Pope Francis, Alexis Tsipras, then president of the Syriza party and later Greek prime minister after 2015, Walter Baier, president of the Party of the European Left, and Franz Kronreif of the Focolare Movement (both present at the audience). "Do not stop dreaming" Pope Francis received this morning, in the Paul VI Hall, before the General Audience, 15 members—7 from the left and 8 Catholics from different European countries—of this association. He shared with them his pain for a world that today appears "divided by wars and polarizations" and, on the other hand, his encouragement to look to the future and try to imagine a "better world." "We Argentinians say: don't wrinkle, don't go backwards. And this is the invitation I extend to you too: don't back down, don't give up, don't stop dreaming of a better world." Freedom, equality, dignity, fraternity "It is in the imagination, in fact, that intelligence, intuition, experience, and historical memory meet to create, venture, and risk," the Pope stressed. He recalled how, over the centuries, "it has been the great dreams of freedom and equality, of dignity and fraternity, a reflection of God's dream, that have produced progress and advances." In this sense, the Pope indicated three attitudes for DIALOP to carry out its commitment: the courage to break the mould, attention to the weak, and promotion of a culture based on the rule-of-law. Turning the tide Having the courage to break the mould means "opening up, in dialogue, to new ways." "In an era marked at various levels by conflicts and disagreements, let us not lose sight of what can still be done to reverse the course," he said. "Against rigid approaches that divide, let us cultivate confrontation and listening with an open heart, without excluding anyone, at the political, social, and religious levels, so that the contribution of each one can, in his or her concrete peculiarity, be positively accepted in the processes of change to which our future is committed," Pope Francis exhorted. Criticism of finance and market mechanisms The Pope then called for constant attention to be paid to the weak because the measure of a civilisation is evident in how it treats those on the margins of society. In off-the-cuff remarks, the Pope recalled the history of the recent past. "Let us not forget that the great dictatorships—think of Nazism—discarded the vulnerable and killed them," he said. He urged world leaders to put in place policies that are "truly at the service of humanity," saying society "cannot allow itself to be dictated by finance and market mechanisms." "Solidarity, besides being a moral virtue, is a requirement of justice, which requires correcting distortions and purifying the intentions of unjust systems, as well as radical changes of perspective in the sharing of challenges and resources among men and among peoples," the Pope said. And he defined "social poets" those who dedicate themselves to this field, because "poetry is creativity," and here it is a question of "putting creativity at the service of society, so that it becomes more human and fraternal." Fighting corruption and illegality Finally, Pope Francis encouraged a culture based on the rule-of-law. "Fight the scourge of corruption, abuses of power, and illegality," he said, because "only in honesty, in deeds, can healthy relationships be established and we can cooperate with trust and efficiency in the construction of a better future." Hence he expressed his gratitude for the "courage" to work "for a more just and peaceful world" and the recommendation that "the Gospel of Jesus Christ may always inspire and illuminate your research and actions." During the audience, the DIALOP group presented to the Pope the results of the work of the last ten years, carried out also with the support of the Dicastery for Catholic Culture and Education. "Beyond religious and ideological boundaries, Christians and Marxists, as well as people of good will," the association explained in a note, "recognise today that they are united in their commitment to the end of armed conflicts in the world and the security of the most basic human rights, in order to guarantee social equilibrium and peace for humanity." https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/...-to-fight-together-corruption-illegality.html
