Thursday, December 12, 2019

Why is Chinese Tagle being Pushed as CNBC & America Honestly Reports on Francis's Peter's Pence Scandal?

Most people don't know that the pro-gay Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle's Chinese mother "previously worked" for the ethnically Chinese "Equitable PCI Bank" according to Wikipedia.

This ethnic group is taking control of the Philippine's banking as the "Chinese [are] dominating and taking the lead position in the banking industry."
(Southeast Asia Chinese Businesses in the Era of Globalization, Page 275)

This is interesting because today CNBC and America magazine which usually cover-up for Francis suddenly are reporting fairly honestly about the financial scandal of Francis's Peter's Pence.

Coincidentally, Colleen Dulle who co-authored the fairly honest America article did a propaganda America podcast for Tagle yesterday called "Cardinal Tagle will head the Vatican's new top office. What does he bring to the job?"

Have the pro-gay liberals had enough of Francis's financial bumbling and scandals?

Might they be thinking the half-Chinese pro-gay Tagle, with his apparent connections to the global Chinese banking community which cannot but have ties with the economic giant Communist Chinese banking system, might make a good replacement for Francis?

Finally, one last note on the half-Chinese cardinal's possible liberal theological training, Tagle is a protege and ex-student of the liberal theologian Joseph Komonchak who quotes Marxist Terry Eagleton saying:

"If the human race consisted only of gay Chinese, with the odd heterosexual thrown in to keep the specie ticking over, a good many bloodbaths might have been averted."
(Commonweal, "Against some pieties," by Joesph Komonchak, April 23, 2011)

The above quote probably echoes the thought of many of the climate change depopulation United Nations' globalist elite who presently have deep influence in the Vatican.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred of Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Christmas: Was Satan Defeated by his Ignorance of Jesus' Incarnation, Mary's Virginity & Joseph's Name?

What did a discipline of the Apostle St. John who Jesus made the son of His Mother on the cross say about about the ignorance of Satan?

 The discipline of St. John St. Ignatius (30-107) wrote:

"[U]nknown to thee [Satan]; the virginity of Mary; the wonderful birth; Who it was that became incarnate... the removal into Egypt and return from that country to the same region... the name [Joseph] of the father given to Him who did not beget."
(The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, Chap. VIII. - Continuation: Ignorance of Satan, American Reprint of Edinburgh Edition)

God the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, choose to defeat Satan by blinding him in ignorance of Jesus' Incarnation, Mary's Virginity and Joseph's Name as well as the saint's protection of the Holy Family.

Please pray in thankgiving and mediate about this as we close in on Christmas.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.


Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Where are Persons Committing these Sins being given "Disciplinary Permission" to go to?

Francis's President of the Vatican Academy for Life told La Stampa:

"I always celebrate the funeral of those who commit suicide... What is important is accompaniment."

So, Francis's Vatican apparently just told everyone with a gun in their hand about to shot their brains out to go ahead and blow their head off and we'll accompany you.

Remember Francis's Vatican, also, says:

"We celebrate adultereous relationships of those who commit adultery... What is important is accompaniment."

Are "all things are connected" in Francis's Vatican including Hell?

As I write this I can hear all Francis apologists saying in the background:

"This is not doctrine, but only a disciplinary permission."

My questions to the Francis apologists are:

Where are persons commiting these sins being given "disciplinary permission" to go to?

Might it be a good idea for those who believe that sin might send those persons to Hell to attempt to stop that person, who is giving that "disciplinary permission" to those persons, by calling for a imperfect council to removed him from office?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Sunday, December 08, 2019

Why is LifeSiteNews Afraid to "Investigate or Report" that apparently Canon 17 "Requires that Ministerium and Munus [must] be Understood as Referring to Two Different Things"?

On December 6, LifeSiteNews co-founder




@Patty: Your testimony is witness to the facts of the matter. Thank you for your faithfulness! There is a growing movement that LifeSiteNews will not investigate or report on. These faithful request an examination of the words of Pope Benedict's declaration of renunciation in light of Canon Law, esp 332.2, 17, 131.1, 40, and 41. Did you know that in canon law munus is never interchanged with ministerium? The Cdl electors did not proceed with due diligence and maybe don't want to 'fess up to their mistake.


Lifesite has indeed reported on that. Perhaps you are disappointed that we have not taken a firm position on the controversy. As a news agency that is not our role.
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-amoris-opening-communion-to-adulterers-is-magisterium-of-the-church]

Unfortunately, this is not exactly true. The news site has never reported on why "in canon law munus is never interchanged with ministerium," but instead spoke about the two words only referring to the "Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short)" and not in referring to the all important canon 17.

Canon lawyer Edward Peters explains canon 17's importance:

"Canon 17... states 'if the meaning [of the law, and UDG is a law] remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places."
(Catholic World Report, "Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded," September 28, 2017)

On February 14, 2019, LifeSiteNews admitted that it is possible according to their quoted theologian that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation could have been invalid. The LifeSiteNews theologian said the "abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: 'I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.'”

But, the "theologian who spoke to LifeSiteNews on condition of anonymity" never mentioned canon 17:

“But ‘ministerium’ doesn’t have to mean acts,” he explained. “The first meaning given to it in the Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short) is ‘office.’ I would say that its basic meaning is ‘an office by reason of which one must perform acts to help others.’” 

The theologian noted further that ‘munus’ doesn’t only mean a state. “According to the Latin dictionary, it can also refer to the performance of a duty,” he said. “It was used in this sense by Cicero and there is no more authoritative writer of Latin prose than him.”

"He said the main difference between the words appears to be simply that ‘munus’ connotes more “the burden which the office puts on its bearer,” and ‘ministerium’ connotes more “the reference to other people which the office establishes.” 

“But that doesn’t prevent them from referring to one and the same office or state,” he added.
Why then did Pope Benedict say munus at the start of his Latin declaration and ministerium at the end, if he understood them to refer to the same reality? The theologian suggested two possibilities.
“One is simply that people who want to write elegant prose often avoid frequent repetitions of the same word,” he said. “Another is that the word ‘ministerium’ has perhaps a more humble sound to it, since it refers more directly to the papacy in its relation to other people, than as a charge placed on oneself. So having begun by using the official word, ‘munus,’ Benedict moved on to the more humble sounding word.”

The theologian went on to note that while Benedict was aware of theological writings from the 1970’s onward that proposed the Petrine munus could be divided, he is 'not aware of any place where Joseph Ratzinger endorses this thesis.” 

He said the lack of clarity about Ratzinger’s position is aggravated by the fact that translators have mistranslated Ratzinger and presented him as endorsing heterodox ideas when in fact he was reporting someone else’s thought rather than expressing his own.

The theologian acknowledged that it is possible that Pope Benedict thought there might be a real distinction between munus and ministerium but was unsure. In that case, he said, Benedict’s abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: “I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.”

But he said it would be equally possible that, being unsure whether there was a distinction, Benedict could have had in mind the thought: “I want to resign the ministerium whether or not it is distinct from the munus.” In that case, the theologian said he believes the resignation would have been valid."

“In any case,” he said, “I don’t think there is convincing evidence that Benedict thought there was a real distinction between the two things.”

“Again,” the theologian continued, “since according to Canon 15.2, error is not presumed about a law, the presumption must be that he validly renounced the papacy.”
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/did-benedict-really-resign-gaenswein-burke-and-brandmueller-weigh-in]

Canon law and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo says this is not a correct way to canonically and legally approach the resignation because canon law requires an objective reading of what the two words mean using canon 17's criteria as canon lawyer Peters explained and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict or in a Latin dictionary:

"Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41... [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."
(From Rome, "Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)


Why does it appear that LifeSiteNews refuses or is afraid to "investigate or report on" that "Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41... [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."?

LifeSiteNews are you seeking the truth?

If you disagree with Br. Bugnolo's scholarly thesis then counter it with reasonable counter arguments otherwise you have revealed that you are not seeking the truth.

LifeSiteNews, please, refute the following if you're not afraid:

Br. Bugnolo has explained in overwhelming detail in the following treatise using canon law why canonists are wrong in saying ministerium and munus are synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the exact same thing:


https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/


Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage
in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo




The study of Canon Law is a recondite field for nearly everyone in the Church except Canon Lawyers. And even for Canon Lawyers, most of whom are prepared to work in the Marriage Tribunals of the Church, most of the Code of Canon Law is not frequently referred to.
 

However, when it comes to the problems of determining the validity of a canonical act, the expertise among Canon Lawyers becomes even more difficult to find, since the circumstances and problems in a single canonical act touch upon a great number of Canons of the Code of Canon Law, and thus require the profound knowledge and experience of years of problem solving to be readily recognized. 


For this reason, though popularly many Catholics are amazed that after 6 years there can still be questions and doubts about the validity of the Act of Renunciation declared by Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, it actually is not so surprising when one knows just a little about the complexity of the problems presented by the document which contains that Act.



First of all, the Latin of the Act, which is the only official and canonical text, is rife with errors of Latin Grammar. All the translations of the Act which have ever been done, save for a few, cover those errors with a good deal of indulgence, because it is clear that whoever wrote the Latin was not so fluent in writing Latin as they thought, a thing only the experts at such an art can detect.


Even myself, who have translated thousands of pages of Latin into English, and whose expertise is more in making Latin intelligible as read, than in writing intelligible Latin according to the rules of Latin grammar can see this. However, we are not talking about literary indulgences when we speak of the canonical value or signification of a text.

  

For centuries it was a constant principle of interpretation, that if a canonical act in Latin contained errors it was not to be construed as valid, but had to be redone. Unfortunately for the Church, Cardinal Sodano and whatever Cardinals or Canonists examined the text of the Act prior to the public announcement of its signification utterly failed on this point, as will be seen during this conference.

  

This is because if there are multiple errors or any error, the Cardinal was allowed and even obliged under canons 40 and 41 to ask that the text be corrected.


This evening, however, we are not going to talk about the lack of good Latinity in the text of the Act nor of the other errors which make the text unintelligible to fluent Latinists who think like the Romans of Cicero’s day when they see Latin written, but rather, of the signification of Canon 332 §2, in its fundamental clause of condition, where it says in the Latin, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, which in good English is, If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus….

The entire condition for a Papal Renunciation of Office in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II is founded on this first clause of Canon 332 §2.  It behooves us, therefore, when any say that the Renunciation was valid or invalid, to first read this Canon and understand when a renunciation takes place and when it does not take place.


For this purpose, in this first intervention at this Conference, I will speak about the meaning of the two words, Munus and Ministerium, in the Code of Canon Law.  I will speak of both, because, in Canon 332 §2 Pope John Paul II wrote munus and in the Act of Renunciation, Pope Benedict XVI renounced ministerium.


This study is not an idle one, or even only of academic interest. It is required by Canon Law, because in Canon 17, it says, that when there arises a doubt about the signification of a canon, one is to have recourse to the Code of Canon Law, the sources of canonical tradition and the Mind of the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) in determining the authentic meaning.

According to Canon 17 the words of Canoon 332 §2, therefore, are to be understood properly. Therefore, let us examine the Code to see what is the proper meaning of the words munus and ministerium.

Ministerium in the Code of Canon Law


This study is something everyone with the Internet can do. Because there exists an indexed copy of the Latin text of the Code on line at Intratext.com.  In the Alphabetic index of which one can find hyperlinked, all the words found in the Code, in their different Latin forms.
For the word Ministerium, there are 6 forms found:  Ministeria, Ministerii, Ministeriis, Ministerio, Ministeriorum, Ministerium.  Respectively they occur 7, 13, 3, 17, 3, 25 times each in the Code.
Let us take a look at each, briefly.
Ministeria:

The Nominative and Accusative Plural:  Occurs 7 times. In canons 230, 232, 233,  237, 385, 611 and 1035.  Each of these refer to one or more of the sacred ministries or services exercised during the Divine Liturgy, whether by priests, lectors, acolytes etc..
Ministerii:

The Genitive. Occurs 13 times.  In canons 233 twice, 276, 278, 519, 551, 756, 759, 1370, 1373, 1375 1389, 1548.  These refer to the sacred service (canons 233, in canon 271 §2, 1, to the duties of the pastoral ministry (ministerii pastoralis  officia as in canon 276, 278 or 551) which sanctify the priest, and specifically in relation to munus in several canons:
In Canon 519, where it says of the duties of the Pastor of a Parish:
Can. 519 – Parochus est pastor proprius paroeciae sibi commissae, cura pastorali communitatis sibi concreditae fungens sub auctoritate Episcopi dioecesani, cuius in partem ministerii Christi vocatus est, ut pro eadem communitate munera exsequatur docendi, sanctificandi et regendi, cooperantibus etiam aliis presbyteris vel diaconis atque operam conferentibus christifidelibus laicis, ad normam iuris.
Which in English is:
Canon 519:  The parish priest is the pastor of the parish assigned to him, exercising (fungens) the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the Diocesan Bishop, in a portion of whose ministry in Christ (in partem ministerii Chirsti) he has been called, so that he might execute (exsequatur) the munera of teaching, sanctifying and ruling for the same community, with the cooperation also of the other priests and/or deacons and faithful laity assisting in the work, according to the norm of law.
Let us note, first of all, that here the Code distinguishes between the munera of teaching, santifying and ruling from the entire ministry of Christ a part of which is shared by the Bishop.
And again in Canon 756, when it speaks of the munus of  announcing the Gospel, it says, after speaking of the duty of the Roman Pontiff in this regard in conjunction with the College of Bishops:
756 § 2.  Quoad Ecclesiam particularem sibi concreditam illud munus exercent singuli Episcopi, qui quidem totius ministerii verbi in eadem sunt moderatores; quandoque vero aliqui Episcopi coniunctim illud explent quoad diversas simul Ecclesias, ad normam iuris.
Which in English is:
756 §2  In regard to the particular Church entrusted to him, every Bishop, who is indeed the moderater of the whole ministry of the word to it, exercises (exercent) this munus; but also when any Bishop fulfills that conjointly in regard to the diverse Churches, according to the norm of law.
Let us note here simply that the Code distinguishes between the exercise of a munus and the ministerium of preaching the word.
Again in canon 759, ministerii is used regarding the preaching of the word. In Canon 1370 it is used in reference to the contempt of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1373, it is spoken of in regard the an act of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1548 in regard to the exercise of the sacred ministry of the clergy.
In canon 1389, it is spoken of in the context of power, munus and ministry. Let us take a closer look:
Can. 1389 – § 1.  Ecclesiastica potestate vel munere abutens pro actus vel omissionis gravitate puniatur, non exclusa officii privatione, nisi in eum abusum iam poena sit lege vel praecepto constituta.
2. Qui vero, ex culpabili neglegentia, ecclesiasticae potestatis vel ministerii vel muneris actum illegitime cum damno alieno ponit vel omittit, iusta poena puniatur.
Which in English is:
Canon 1389 §1  Let the one abusing Ecclesiastical power and/or munus be punished in proportion to the gravity of the act and/or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless for that abuse there has already been established a punishment by law and/or precept.
2. However, Let him who, out of culpable negligence, illegitimately posits and/or omits an act of ecclesiastical power and/or ministry and/or of munus, with damage to another, be punished with a just punishment.
Let us note here that the Code in a penal precept distinguishes between: potestas, ministerium and munus. This implies that in at least one proper sense of each of these terms, they can be understood to signify something different or distinct from the other.
This finishes the study of the occurences of ministerii.
Ministeriis

The ablative and dative plural form. Occurs 3 times.   In canons 274 and 674, where it refers to the sacred ministry of the priesthood and to the ministries exercised in parish life, respectively.
And in Canon 1331 §1, 3, where the one excommunicated is forbidden to exercise all ecclesiastical duties (officiis) and/or ministries and/or munera (muneribus) The Latin is:
Can. 1331 – § 1.  Excommunicatus vetatur:
1 ullam habere participationem ministerialem in celebrandis Eucharistiae Sacrificio vel  quibuslibet aliis cultus caerimoniis;
2 sacramenta vel sacramentalia celebrare et sacramenta recipere;
3 ecclesiasticis officiis vel ministeriis vel muneribus quibuslibet fungi vel actus regiminis ponere.
The English  is:
Canon 1331 §1.  An excommunicate is forbidden:
  1. from having any ministerial participation in the celebrating of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and/or in any other ceremonies of worship
  2. from celebrating the Sacraments and/or sacramentals and from receiving the Sacraments;
  3. from exercising (fungi) ecclesiastical officia and/or ministeria and/or munera and/or from positing acts of governance.
Let us note again, that the Code distinguishes in this negative precept the terms Officia, Ministeria and Munera. This means, very significantly, that in the Mind of the Legislator, there is a proper sense in which these terms can each be understood as excluding the other. All three are named to make the signification of the negative precept comprehensive of all possible significations.
Ministerio

 The Ablative and Dative singular form. Occurs 17 times. Canons 252, 271, 281, 386 refer to the ministries exercised in the liturgy or apostolate. Canon 545 uses ministerio in reference to the pastoral ministry being proffered, 548 likewise in reference to the pastor of a parish, 559 likewise. Canon 713 refers to the priestly ministry, canons 757, 760 and 836 to the ministry of the word. Canon 899 to the priestly ministry of Christ. Canon 1036 speaks of the need a Bishop has to have knowledge that a candidate for ordination has a willingness to dedicate himself to the life long service which is the duty of orders.
Canon 1722, which has to deal with canonical trials, speaks again of the sacred ministerium, officium and munus exercised (arcere) of the one accused. Distinguishing all three terms to make a comprehensive statement of what can be interdicted by a penalty.
This far for the 17 instances of ministerio.
Ministeriorum

The genitive plural form. Occurs 3 times. In canon 230 in regard to the conferral of ministries of acolyte and lector upon laymen. In canon 499 in regard to having members of the Presbyteral Council of the Diocese include priests with a variety of ministries exercised all over the diocese. And in canon 1050, in regard to those to be ordained, that they have a document showing they have willingly accepted a live long ministry in sacred service.
And finally the Nominative Singular form.
MINISTERIUM

Of which there are 25 occurrences in the Code.

First and most significantly in Canon 41, the very canon that Cardinal Sodano had to act upon when examining the Act of Renunciation by Pope Benedict.
The Latin reads:
Can. 41 — Exsecutor actus administrativi cui committitur merum exsecutionis ministerium, exsecutionem huius actus denegare non potest, nisi manifesto appareat eundem actum esse nullum aut alia ex gravi causa sustineri non posse aut condiciones in ipso actu administrativo appositas non esse adimpletas; si tamen actus administrativi exsecutio adiunctorum personae aut loci ratione videatur inopportuna, exsecutor exsecutionem intermittat; quibus in casibus statim certiorem faciat auctoritatem quae actum edidit.
The English reads:
Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry (ministerium) of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears to be null from (something) manifest [manifesto] or cannot be sustained for any grave cause or the conditions in the administrative act itself do not seem to be able to have been fulfilled: however, if the execution of the administrative act seems inopportune by reason of place or adjoined persons, let the executor omit the execution; in which cases let him immediately bring the matter to the attention of (certiorem faciat) the authority which published the act.
Then, ministerium occurs again in canon 230, in reference to the ministry of the word, where officia is used in the sense of duties. In canon 245, in regard to the pastoral ministry and teaching missionaries the ministry. In Canon 249 again in regard to the pastoral ministry, in 255 in regard to the ministry of teaching, sanctifying etc.., in 256, 257, 271, 324 in regard to the sacred ministry of priests, in Canon 392 in regard to the ministries of the word. In Canon 509 in regard to the ministry exercised by the Canons of the Cathedral Chapter. In Canon 545 in regard to the parish ministry, in canon 533 in regard to the ministry exercised by a Vicar. In canons 618 and 654 in regard to the power received by religious superiors through the ministry of the Church. In Canon 1025, 1041, and 1051 to the usefulness of a candidate for orders for service (ministerium) to the Church. In Canon 1375 to those who exercise power and/or ecclesiastical ministry.
Ministerium occurs significantly in canon 1384, regard to the penalites a priest can incurr.
Can. 1384 – Qui, praeter casus, de quibus in cann. 1378-1383, sacerdotale munus vel aliud sacrum ministerium illegitime exsequitur, iusta poena puniri potest.
Which in English is:
Canon 1384  Who, besides the cases, concerning which in canons 1378 to 1383 the priestly munus and/or any other sacred ministerium is illegitimately executed, can be punished with a just punishment.
The Code explicitly distinguishes between munus and ministerium as entirely different and or distinct aspects of priestly being and action.
To finish off, the Code mentions Ministerium, again in Canon 1481 in regard to the ministry of lawyers, 1502 and 1634 to the ministry of judges, and in 1740 to ministry of the pastor of a parish.
This completes the entire citation of the Code on the word Ministry in all its Latin Forms, singular and plural.
In summation, we can see already that the Code distinguishes between proper senses of ministerium and munus, habitually throughout its canons and uses ministerium always for a service to be rendered by a layman, priest, Bishop, lawyer, judge or to or by the Church Herself. It never uses ministerium as an office or title or dignity or charge.

Munus in the Code of Canon Law


Munus is a very common term in the Code of Canon Law, occurring a total of 188 times.
The Latin forms which appear in the Code are Munus (77 times), Muneris (26 times), Muneri (2 times), Munere (48 times), Munera (20 times) Munerum (6 times) and Muneribus (9 times).
While the length of this conference does not me to cite them all, I will refer to the most important occurrences.
I will omit citing Canon 331, 333, 334 and 749, where speaking of the Papal Office, the code uses the words Munus. In no other canons does it speak of the Papal office per se, except in Canon 332 §2, which governs Papal renunciations, where it also uses munus.
But as to the proper sense of munus in the Code, let us look at the most significant usages:
First as regards predication, where the Mind of the Legislator indicates when any given proper sense of this term can be said to be a another term.
This occurs only once in canon 145, §1
Can. 145 – § 1. Officium ecclesiasticum est quodlibet munus ordinatione sive divina sive ecclesiastica stabiliter constitutum in finem spiritualem exercendum.
Which in English is:
Canon 145 § 1.  An ecclesiastical office (officium) is any munus constituted by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance as to be exercised for a spiritual end. 
Second, as regards the canons governing the events of Feb. 11, 2013, there is  Canon 40, which Cardinal Sodano and his assistants had to refer to in the moments following the Consistory of Feb 11, 2013:
Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.
In English:
Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his munus (suo munero), before he receives the document (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) its integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of it has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.
Third, as regards to the distinction of munus and the fulfillment of a duty of office, there is Canon 1484, §1 in regard to the offices of Procurator and Advocate in a Tribunal of Eccleisastical Jurisdiction:
Can. 1484 – § 1.  Procurator et advocatus antequam munus suscipiant, mandatum authenticum apud tribunal deponere debent.
Which in English is:
Canon 1484 §1.  The procurator and advocate ought to deposit a copy of their authentic mandate with the Tribunal, before they undertake their munus.
Note here, significantly, that the Code associates the mandate to exercise an office with the undertaking of the munus (munus). Negatively, therefore, what is implied by this canon is that when one lays down his mandate, there is a renunciation of the munus.
Finally, in regard to possibile synonyms for munus, in the Code we have Canon 1331, §2, n. 4, which is one of the most significant in the entire code, as we shall see: There is forbidden the promotion of those who are excommunicated:
4 nequit valide consequi dignitatem, officium aliudve munus in Ecclesia
Which in English reads:
  1. He cannot validly obtain a dignity, office and/or any munus in the Church.
If there was every any doubt about the Mind of the Legislator of the proper sense of terms in the Code of Canon law regarding what Munus means, this canon answers it by equating dignity, office and munus as things to which one cannot be promoted!
Note well, ministerium is not included in that list!  thus Ministerium does not signify a dignity, office or munus!
This study of Munis and Ministerium in the Code thus concludes, for the lack of time. We have seen that the Code distinguishes clearly between the terms of officium, munus, ministerium, potestas and dignitas. It predicates officium of munus alone, It equates dignitas and munus and officium. It distinguishes between potestas and ministerium.
The only sane conclusion is, therefore, that munus and ministerium are distinct terms with different meanings. They cannot substitute for one another in any sentence in which their proper senses are employed. Munus can substitute for officium, when officium means that which regards a title or dignity or ecclesiastical office.
Thus in Canon 332 §2, where the Canon reads, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet. The Code is not speaking of ministerium, and if it is speaking of any other terms, it is speaking of a dignitas or officium. But the papal office is a dignitas, officium and a munus.  thus Canon 332 §2 is using munus in its proper sense and referring to the papal office.
——
(This is a transcript of my first talk at the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, which took place at Rome on Oct 21, 2019, the full transcript of which is found here)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. 








Has Chris Ferrara "Succumb to Bergoglio Derangement Syndrome"?

At times, I have found that the comments in the Catholic Monitor comment section are better than my post. This was true of one of yesterday's posts in which Justina wrote this comment:

"I think it is even worse than all that. In Frank Walker's headline at Canon 212, he said Ferrara stated that popes can make mistakes. If that was the full extent of the assertion, it wouldn't be so bad, because of course they can. Only Rex Mottram would deny it."

"But that is not what Ferrara said. In fact, his rhetorical question specified--Who says popes can't make mistakes when teaching about faith and morals?"

"This not only contradicts his own contention that permitting access to the Eucharist for the invalidly remarried is a disciplinary matter alone. It even contradicts Our Lord who, when entrusting the Keys to Peter, specifically linked them to Heaven as well as earth. It is He who guarantees, through the Holy Spirit, that popes cannot commit the errors to which Ferrara alludes. If they could, or if such errors may be downgraded to merely negotiable matters at will, then why be Catholic at all? I'd rather follow my own private judgment than someone else's, if that is all there is."

"If I have understood Ferrara and Marshall correctly, they sought to overcome this objection by citing popes like Honorius who did teach wrong things. The point these commentators fail to factor in is that such teachings were not tolerated by the Church. They were corrected, which apparently is exactly what Christopher Ferrara has now shown himself unwilling to insist upon."

"God is not mocked. It must be one way or the other. Either Bergoglio was never the Pope in the first place or, as Pope, he has deviated so severely from the Faith that Cardinal Burke's long-awaited Formal Correction must come to pass at last. For us all to succumb to Bergoglio Derangement Syndrome like poor Counselor Ferrara, voluntarily warping our view of reality itself rather than dealing with the possibility that we have an anti-pope on our hands, is no solution at all."
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-is-ferrara-saying-communion-for.html?m=1]

Finally, here is my post that hopefully helped inspire Justina in her comment:

Why is Ferrara saying Communion for Adulterers isn't "Doctrine, but a Disciplinary Permission" & Running away from Fr. Gruner's Teachings
On Dr. Taylor Marshall's YouTube channel Catholic lawyer Christopher Ferrera said that Francis's teaching that adulterers may receive Communion is "not really a doctrine, but a disciplinary permission."
(Dr. Taylor Marshall YouTube channel, "Is Pope Francis Against Fatima? with Christopher Ferrara, 42:57)

So it appears that according to Ferrera if Pope Paul VI instead of teaching contraception and abortion can never be permitted had taught that contraception and abortion can be permitted that would not be a heretical doctrine or teaching, but only a "disciplinary permission."

So it appears that according to Ferrara if Francis were to teach that pagan Pachamama idol worshipping in all Catholic churches is now permitted that would not be a heretical doctrine or teaching, but only a "disciplinary permission."

Moreover, in the YouTube show Ferrera said he "learned more about" theology from Fr. Nicholas Gruner than if he had went to a advance theological educational program.

But, as Ferrara knows Fr. Gruner agreed with canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo on Pope Benedict XVI's resignation:

"Canon 17 requires that canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1 and canon 41... [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."
(From Rome, "Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)

Why is Ferrara afraid to respond and running away from his great theological teacher Fr. Gruner's and Br. Bugnolo's reasonable canon law arguments about the apparent invalidity of Pope Benedict's resignation?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Has Chris Ferrera "just Thrown the Entire Catholic Faith into the Dustbin"?

One of the great heroes in the present crisis canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo said that Catholic lawyer Christopher Ferrera apparently has "just thrown the entire Catholic faith into the dustbin":

"I too am totally shocked by what the Attorney [Catholic lawyer Christopher Ferrera] just said. He has just thrown the entire Catholic faith into the dustbin. Does he think it is not heretical to teach that it is allowable in certain cases to permit those in the state of mortal sin to commit a sacrilege by receive a Sacrament of the living?"

"What kind of game is he playing at? That is heresy!"

"That is like a prosecutor saying, that it is permissible to allow murder in certain cases, so long as the local policemen thinks it will be more inclusive of the community."
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-is-ferrara-saying-communion-for.html?m=1]

Br. Bugnolo stated that in the comment section of the Catholic Monitor to this article:


Why is Ferrara saying Communion for Adulterers isn't "Doctrine, but a Disciplinary Permission" & Running away from Fr. Gruner's Teachings
On Dr. Taylor Marshall's YouTube channel Catholic lawyer Christopher Ferrera said that Francis's teaching that adulterers may receive Communion is "not really a doctrine, but a disciplinary permission."
(Dr. Taylor Marshall YouTube channel, "Is Pope Francis Against Fatima? with Christopher Ferrara, 42:57)

So it appears that according to Ferrera if Pope Paul VI instead of teaching contraception and abortion can never be permitted had taught that contraception and abortion can be permitted that would not be a heretical doctrine or teaching, but only a "disciplinary permission."

So it appears that according to Ferrara if Francis were to teach that pagan Pachamama idol worshipping in all Catholic churches is now permitted that would not be a heretical doctrine or teaching, but only a "disciplinary permission."

Moreover, in the YouTube show Ferrera said he "learned more about" theology from Fr. Nicholas Gruner than if he had went to a advance theological educational program.

But, as Ferrara knows Fr. Gruner agreed with canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo on Pope Benedict XVI's resignation:

"Canon 17 requires that canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1 and canon 41... [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."
(From Rome, "Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)

Why is Ferrara afraid to respond and running away from his great theological teacher Fr. Gruner's and Br. Bugnolo's reasonable canon law arguments about the apparent invalidity of Pope Benedict's resignation?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Saturday, December 07, 2019

Why is Ferrara saying Communion for Adulterers isn't "Doctrine, but a Disciplinary Permission" & Running away from Fr. Gruner's Teachings

On Dr. Taylor Marshall's YouTube channel Catholic lawyer Christopher Ferrera said that Francis's teaching that adulterers may receive Communion is "not really a doctrine, but a disciplinary permission."
(Dr. Taylor Marshall YouTube channel, "Is Pope Francis Against Fatima? with Christopher Ferrara, 42:57)

So it appears that according to Ferrera if Pope Paul VI instead of teaching contraception and abortion can never be permitted had taught that contraception and abortion can be permitted that would not be a heretical doctrine or teaching, but only a "disciplinary permission."

So it appears that according to Ferrara if Francis were to teach that pagan Pachamama idol worshipping in all Catholic churches is now permitted that would not be a heretical doctrine or teaching, but only a "disciplinary permission."

Moreover, in the YouTube show Ferrera said he "learned more about" theology from Fr. Nicholas Gruner than if he had went to a advance theological educational program.

But, as Ferrara knows Fr. Gruner agreed with canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo on Pope Benedict XVI's resignation:

"Canon 17 requires that canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1 and canon 41... [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."
(From Rome, "Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)

Why is Ferrara afraid to respond and running away from his great theological teacher Fr. Gruner's and Br. Bugnolo's reasonable canon law arguments about the apparent invalidity of Pope Benedict's resignation?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Canon Law Expert Br. Bugnolo responding to Fr. Belland agreeds that Pope Benedict's Resignation was Invalid

Canon law and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo and Fr. D. Belland had an informative exchange on the From Rome website comment section in which Br. Bugnolo responding to Fr. Belland apparently agreeds that Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was invalid:

Dear Brother,

Who will do the sorting and by what means are the Bishops in union with Rome going to be determined under your proposal?

Two items must be addressed:  first is that while you seemed to agree with the application of Virtue of Equity in my essay just sent you, saying you didn’t initially understand how it fit into the picture, which Equity is a means of correcting a law or laws (which would do harm regarding a situation unforeseen by the Law Giver).  In this case those Laws demanding a resignation from the MUNUS, which as they stood, if observed would prevent the Pontiff, operating under the most difficult circumstances–diabolical, from maintaining the Papacy from the enemies of the Church; furthermore, if he had been murdered or actually resigned it would have been a success for Satan, who had infiltrated the Church–there was probably no third choice without Equity other than full resignation or being murdered.

Secondly, if Fr. Belland is able to read correctly what Benedict said in his Renunciation Declaration (and I ask any capable Latinist to show where the explanation of my translation is wrong)–that document being one brilliant piece of Latin for the good of the Church, but the Cardinals, for whatever reason, did not understand what he did, the onus falls on them–not on Benedict.  But Benedict knew what he was doing; he even stated publicly that his resignation was in fact VALID (*”There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my renunciation of the Petrine ministry,*” the retired pope wrote in a letter to Andrea Tornielli, a Vatican correspondent for the newspaper La Stampa and the website Vatican Insider.).  Benedict is implicitely being called a liar when his words are interpreted to mean something other than what he says, i.e., telling him he’s wrong. The onus, Brother, is on you to prove that Benedict was lying or to ask him how his renunciation was valid instead of lecturing to him about his invalid resignation:

The correct forensic principle, which a canonist SHOULD know, is that what some/one/says is prima facie what he means, and he who claims that the intention was such as to make it other than prima facie IS REQUIRED TO PROVE HIS INTERPRETATION by a first hand DENIAL of the prima facie.  (From your own blog, Brother:  Benedict said in every way that He did not resign! — An Examination of His Testimonies).

I ask you, Brother, to address precisely HOW Equity cannot be used in Benedict’s case; certainly no Law Maker, in his right mind, is going to issue a law which forbids the use of Equity, truly an institution in Canon Law from the beginning.  Please show me where Amleto Giovanni Cicognani is wrong in his text book: /Canon Law–/I believe I sent you a copy of the whole section on Equity from his book/, /and also where St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa is wrong about the Virtue of Equity.

God bless and Our Lady protect you always, Father Belland
[https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/09/17/how-to-remove-bergoglio/ ]

Br. Bugnolo responding to Fr. Belland:

Dear Father, the problem you address is one of semantics. Because if one looks at Non Solum Propter as a Papal resignation, then one says that as such it is invalid per canon 188 on account of lacking the proper object of the act. However, as I said in my disputed question’s Respondeo, IF one says that it is a renunciation of ministerium, to prepare for a retirement while retaining the office, then it is not invalid, but valid. Nevertheless, it does not have the effect of the loss of office. — As much as I understand the concept of equity, the Pope, since he can validly renounce the papal office, can thus validly renounce any part of the papal prerogatives and keep the rest WHEN there is grave cause and a circumstance not foreseen by the law. In this case, as I explained in my article, How Benedict has defeated “Francis”, a few days ago, the threat to assassinate him if he did not resign and his realization of how evil his enemies were, put him in seemingly a situation from which he could not escape: die and let them take the office, or live and renounce the office and let them take the office. Acting, as I believe, for the good of the Church and to PROTECT the papal office, and KNOWING from his doctors or perhaps by special revelation, that he would outlive Bergoglio, he posited an act of retirement but packaged it with the box and ribbons of a resignation of office, so as to deceive the St Gallen Mafia. I previously considered this possibility but discounted it as gravely immoral, even until recently. It was not until I read the article about Benedict offering the Secretary of State to Bergoglio in 2005 that I began to unravel the politics behind the decade old struggle of Church and AntiChurch of which Pope John Paul II spoke.

However, you are correct in saying that it is not an act of resignation, and that therefore, speaking in the proper sense, it is a valid act of renunciation of ministry, which does not effect the loss of office. I have habitually called it an act of resignation which is invalid, in an improper sense, because I was responding to the Big Lie which has gripped the Church, more principally, than examining the act per se.
[https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/09/17/how-to-remove-bergoglio/ ]

Br. Bugnolo says the only correct way to approach the validity or invalidity of Pope Benedict XVI's resignation of the papacy is an objective reading of what the two words ministerium and munus mean by means of using canon 17's criteria and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict:

"Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41... requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."
(From Rome, "Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)

He has explained in overwhelming detail in the following treatise using canon law why canonists are wrong in saying ministerium and munus are synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the exact same thing:


https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/

Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage
in the Code of Canon Law of 1983


by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The study of Canon Law is a recondite field for nearly everyone in the Church except Canon Lawyers. And even for Canon Lawyers, most of whom are prepared to work in the Marriage Tribunals of the Church, most of the Code of Canon Law is not frequently referred to.

However, when it comes to the problems of determining the validity of a canonical act, the expertise among Canon Lawyers becomes even more difficult to find, since the circumstances and problems in a single canonical act touch upon a great number of Canons of the Code of Canon Law, and thus require the profound knowledge and experience of years of problem solving to be readily recognized.

For this reason, though popularly many Catholics are amazed that after 6 years there can still be questions and doubts about the validity of the Act of Renunciation declared by Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, it actually is not so surprising when one knows just a little about the complexity of the problems presented by the document which contains that Act.

First of all, the Latin of the Act, which is the only official and canonical text, is rife with errors of Latin Grammar. All the translations of the Act which have ever been done, save for a few, cover those errors with a good deal of indulgence, because it is clear that whoever wrote the Latin was not so fluent in writing Latin as they thought, a thing only the experts at such an art can detect.

Even myself, who have translated thousands of pages of Latin into English, and whose expertise is more in making Latin intelligible as read, than in writing intelligible Latin according to the rules of Latin grammar can see this. However, we are not talking about literary indulgences when we speak of the canonical value or signification of a text.

For centuries it was a constant principle of interpretation, that if a canonical act in Latin contained errors it was not to be construed as valid, but had to be redone. Unfortunately for the Church, Cardinal Sodano and whatever Cardinals or Canonists examined the text of the Act prior to the public announcement of its signification utterly failed on this point, as will be seen during this conference.

This is because if there are multiple errors or any error, the Cardinal was allowed and even obliged under canons 40 and 41 to ask that the text be corrected.

This evening, however, we are not going to talk about the lack of good Latinity in the text of the Act nor of the other errors which make the text unintelligible to fluent Latinists who think like the Romans of Cicero’s day when they see Latin written, but rather, of the signification of Canon 332 §2, in its fundamental clause of condition, where it says in the Latin, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, which in good English is, If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus….
The entire condition for a Papal Renunciation of Office in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II is founded on this first clause of Canon 332 §2.  It behooves us, therefore, when any say that the Renunciation was valid or invalid, to first read this Canon and understand when a renunciation takes place and when it does not take place.

For this purpose, in this first intervention at this Conference, I will speak about the meaning of the two words, Munus and Ministerium, in the Code of Canon Law.  I will speak of both, because, in Canon 332 §2 Pope John Paul II wrote munus and in the Act of Renunciation, Pope Benedict XVI renounced ministerium.

This study is not an idle one, or even only of academic interest. It is required by Canon Law, because in Canon 17, it says, that when there arises a doubt about the signification of a canon, one is to have recourse to the Code of Canon Law, the sources of canonical tradition and the Mind of the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) in determining the authentic meaning.

According to Canon 17 the words of Canoon 332 §2, therefore, are to be understood properly. Therefore, let us examine the Code to see what is the proper meaning of the words munus and ministerium.

Ministerium in the Code of Canon Law


This study is something everyone with the Internet can do. Because there exists an indexed copy of the Latin text of the Code on line at Intratext.com.  In the Alphabetic index of which one can find hyperlinked, all the words found in the Code, in their different Latin forms.
For the word Ministerium, there are 6 forms found:  Ministeria, Ministerii, Ministeriis, Ministerio, Ministeriorum, Ministerium.  Respectively they occur 7, 13, 3, 17, 3, 25 times each in the Code.
Let us take a look at each, briefly.
Ministeria:

The Nominative and Accusative Plural:  Occurs 7 times. In canons 230, 232, 233,  237, 385, 611 and 1035.  Each of these refer to one or more of the sacred ministries or services exercised during the Divine Liturgy, whether by priests, lectors, acolytes etc..
Ministerii:

The Genitive. Occurs 13 times.  In canons 233 twice, 276, 278, 519, 551, 756, 759, 1370, 1373, 1375 1389, 1548.  These refer to the sacred service (canons 233, in canon 271 §2, 1, to the duties of the pastoral ministry (ministerii pastoralis  officia as in canon 276, 278 or 551) which sanctify the priest, and specifically in relation to munus in several canons:
In Canon 519, where it says of the duties of the Pastor of a Parish:
Can. 519 – Parochus est pastor proprius paroeciae sibi commissae, cura pastorali communitatis sibi concreditae fungens sub auctoritate Episcopi dioecesani, cuius in partem ministerii Christi vocatus est, ut pro eadem communitate munera exsequatur docendi, sanctificandi et regendi, cooperantibus etiam aliis presbyteris vel diaconis atque operam conferentibus christifidelibus laicis, ad normam iuris.
Which in English is:
Canon 519:  The parish priest is the pastor of the parish assigned to him, exercising (fungens) the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the Diocesan Bishop, in a portion of whose ministry in Christ (in partem ministerii Chirsti) he has been called, so that he might execute (exsequatur) the munera of teaching, sanctifying and ruling for the same community, with the cooperation also of the other priests and/or deacons and faithful laity assisting in the work, according to the norm of law.
Let us note, first of all, that here the Code distinguishes between the munera of teaching, santifying and ruling from the entire ministry of Christ a part of which is shared by the Bishop.
And again in Canon 756, when it speaks of the munus of  announcing the Gospel, it says, after speaking of the duty of the Roman Pontiff in this regard in conjunction with the College of Bishops:
756 § 2.  Quoad Ecclesiam particularem sibi concreditam illud munus exercent singuli Episcopi, qui quidem totius ministerii verbi in eadem sunt moderatores; quandoque vero aliqui Episcopi coniunctim illud explent quoad diversas simul Ecclesias, ad normam iuris.
Which in English is:
756 §2  In regard to the particular Church entrusted to him, every Bishop, who is indeed the moderater of the whole ministry of the word to it, exercises (exercent) this munus; but also when any Bishop fulfills that conjointly in regard to the diverse Churches, according to the norm of law.
Let us note here simply that the Code distinguishes between the exercise of a munus and the ministerium of preaching the word.
Again in canon 759, ministerii is used regarding the preaching of the word. In Canon 1370 it is used in reference to the contempt of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1373, it is spoken of in regard the an act of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1548 in regard to the exercise of the sacred ministry of the clergy.
In canon 1389, it is spoken of in the context of power, munus and ministry. Let us take a closer look:
Can. 1389 – § 1.  Ecclesiastica potestate vel munere abutens pro actus vel omissionis gravitate puniatur, non exclusa officii privatione, nisi in eum abusum iam poena sit lege vel praecepto constituta.
2. Qui vero, ex culpabili neglegentia, ecclesiasticae potestatis vel ministerii vel muneris actum illegitime cum damno alieno ponit vel omittit, iusta poena puniatur.
Which in English is:
Canon 1389 §1  Let the one abusing Ecclesiastical power and/or munus be punished in proportion to the gravity of the act and/or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless for that abuse there has already been established a punishment by law and/or precept.
2. However, Let him who, out of culpable negligence, illegitimately posits and/or omits an act of ecclesiastical power and/or ministry and/or of munus, with damage to another, be punished with a just punishment.
Let us note here that the Code in a penal precept distinguishes between: potestas, ministerium and munus. This implies that in at least one proper sense of each of these terms, they can be understood to signify something different or distinct from the other.
This finishes the study of the occurences of ministerii.
Ministeriis

The ablative and dative plural form. Occurs 3 times.   In canons 274 and 674, where it refers to the sacred ministry of the priesthood and to the ministries exercised in parish life, respectively.
And in Canon 1331 §1, 3, where the one excommunicated is forbidden to exercise all ecclesiastical duties (officiis) and/or ministries and/or munera (muneribus) The Latin is:
Can. 1331 – § 1.  Excommunicatus vetatur:
1 ullam habere participationem ministerialem in celebrandis Eucharistiae Sacrificio vel  quibuslibet aliis cultus caerimoniis;
2 sacramenta vel sacramentalia celebrare et sacramenta recipere;
3 ecclesiasticis officiis vel ministeriis vel muneribus quibuslibet fungi vel actus regiminis ponere.
The English  is:
Canon 1331 §1.  An excommunicate is forbidden:
  1. from having any ministerial participation in the celebrating of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and/or in any other ceremonies of worship
  2. from celebrating the Sacraments and/or sacramentals and from receiving the Sacraments;
  3. from exercising (fungi) ecclesiastical officia and/or ministeria and/or munera and/or from positing acts of governance.
Let us note again, that the Code distinguishes in this negative precept the terms Officia, Ministeria and Munera. This means, very significantly, that in the Mind of the Legislator, there is a proper sense in which these terms can each be understood as excluding the other. All three are named to make the signification of the negative precept comprehensive of all possible significations.
Ministerio

 The Ablative and Dative singular form. Occurs 17 times. Canons 252, 271, 281, 386 refer to the ministries exercised in the liturgy or apostolate. Canon 545 uses ministerio in reference to the pastoral ministry being proffered, 548 likewise in reference to the pastor of a parish, 559 likewise. Canon 713 refers to the priestly ministry, canons 757, 760 and 836 to the ministry of the word. Canon 899 to the priestly ministry of Christ. Canon 1036 speaks of the need a Bishop has to have knowledge that a candidate for ordination has a willingness to dedicate himself to the life long service which is the duty of orders.
Canon 1722, which has to deal with canonical trials, speaks again of the sacred ministerium, officium and munus exercised (arcere) of the one accused. Distinguishing all three terms to make a comprehensive statement of what can be interdicted by a penalty.
This far for the 17 instances of ministerio.
Ministeriorum

The genitive plural form. Occurs 3 times. In canon 230 in regard to the conferral of ministries of acolyte and lector upon laymen. In canon 499 in regard to having members of the Presbyteral Council of the Diocese include priests with a variety of ministries exercised all over the diocese. And in canon 1050, in regard to those to be ordained, that they have a document showing they have willingly accepted a live long ministry in sacred service.
And finally the Nominative Singular form.
MINISTERIUM

Of which there are 25 occurrences in the Code.

First and most significantly in Canon 41, the very canon that Cardinal Sodano had to act upon when examining the Act of Renunciation by Pope Benedict.
The Latin reads:
Can. 41 — Exsecutor actus administrativi cui committitur merum exsecutionis ministerium, exsecutionem huius actus denegare non potest, nisi manifesto appareat eundem actum esse nullum aut alia ex gravi causa sustineri non posse aut condiciones in ipso actu administrativo appositas non esse adimpletas; si tamen actus administrativi exsecutio adiunctorum personae aut loci ratione videatur inopportuna, exsecutor exsecutionem intermittat; quibus in casibus statim certiorem faciat auctoritatem quae actum edidit.
The English reads:
Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry (ministerium) of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears to be null from (something) manifest [manifesto] or cannot be sustained for any grave cause or the conditions in the administrative act itself do not seem to be able to have been fulfilled: however, if the execution of the administrative act seems inopportune by reason of place or adjoined persons, let the executor omit the execution; in which cases let him immediately bring the matter to the attention of (certiorem faciat) the authority which published the act.
Then, ministerium occurs again in canon 230, in reference to the ministry of the word, where officia is used in the sense of duties. In canon 245, in regard to the pastoral ministry and teaching missionaries the ministry. In Canon 249 again in regard to the pastoral ministry, in 255 in regard to the ministry of teaching, sanctifying etc.., in 256, 257, 271, 324 in regard to the sacred ministry of priests, in Canon 392 in regard to the ministries of the word. In Canon 509 in regard to the ministry exercised by the Canons of the Cathedral Chapter. In Canon 545 in regard to the parish ministry, in canon 533 in regard to the ministry exercised by a Vicar. In canons 618 and 654 in regard to the power received by religious superiors through the ministry of the Church. In Canon 1025, 1041, and 1051 to the usefulness of a candidate for orders for service (ministerium) to the Church. In Canon 1375 to those who exercise power and/or ecclesiastical ministry.
Ministerium occurs significantly in canon 1384, regard to the penalites a priest can incurr.
Can. 1384 – Qui, praeter casus, de quibus in cann. 1378-1383, sacerdotale munus vel aliud sacrum ministerium illegitime exsequitur, iusta poena puniri potest.
Which in English is:
Canon 1384  Who, besides the cases, concerning which in canons 1378 to 1383 the priestly munus and/or any other sacred ministerium is illegitimately executed, can be punished with a just punishment.
The Code explicitly distinguishes between munus and ministerium as entirely different and or distinct aspects of priestly being and action.
To finish off, the Code mentions Ministerium, again in Canon 1481 in regard to the ministry of lawyers, 1502 and 1634 to the ministry of judges, and in 1740 to ministry of the pastor of a parish.
This completes the entire citation of the Code on the word Ministry in all its Latin Forms, singular and plural.
In summation, we can see already that the Code distinguishes between proper senses of ministerium and munus, habitually throughout its canons and uses ministerium always for a service to be rendered by a layman, priest, Bishop, lawyer, judge or to or by the Church Herself. It never uses ministerium as an office or title or dignity or charge.

Munus in the Code of Canon Law


Munus is a very common term in the Code of Canon Law, occurring a total of 188 times.
The Latin forms which appear in the Code are Munus (77 times), Muneris (26 times), Muneri (2 times), Munere (48 times), Munera (20 times) Munerum (6 times) and Muneribus (9 times).
While the length of this conference does not me to cite them all, I will refer to the most important occurrences.
I will omit citing Canon 331, 333, 334 and 749, where speaking of the Papal Office, the code uses the words Munus. In no other canons does it speak of the Papal office per se, except in Canon 332 §2, which governs Papal renunciations, where it also uses munus.
But as to the proper sense of munus in the Code, let us look at the most significant usages:
First as regards predication, where the Mind of the Legislator indicates when any given proper sense of this term can be said to be a another term.
This occurs only once in canon 145, §1
Can. 145 – § 1. Officium ecclesiasticum est quodlibet munus ordinatione sive divina sive ecclesiastica stabiliter constitutum in finem spiritualem exercendum.
Which in English is:
Canon 145 § 1.  An ecclesiastical office (officium) is any munus constituted by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance as to be exercised for a spiritual end. 
Second, as regards the canons governing the events of Feb. 11, 2013, there is  Canon 40, which Cardinal Sodano and his assistants had to refer to in the moments following the Consistory of Feb 11, 2013:
Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.
In English:
Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his munus (suo munero), before he receives the document (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) its integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of it has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.
Third, as regards to the distinction of munus and the fulfillment of a duty of office, there is Canon 1484, §1 in regard to the offices of Procurator and Advocate in a Tribunal of Eccleisastical Jurisdiction:
Can. 1484 – § 1.  Procurator et advocatus antequam munus suscipiant, mandatum authenticum apud tribunal deponere debent.
Which in English is:
Canon 1484 §1.  The procurator and advocate ought to deposit a copy of their authentic mandate with the Tribunal, before they undertake their munus.
Note here, significantly, that the Code associates the mandate to exercise an office with the undertaking of the munus (munus). Negatively, therefore, what is implied by this canon is that when one lays down his mandate, there is a renunciation of the munus.
Finally, in regard to possibile synonyms for munus, in the Code we have Canon 1331, §2, n. 4, which is one of the most significant in the entire code, as we shall see: There is forbidden the promotion of those who are excommunicated:
4 nequit valide consequi dignitatem, officium aliudve munus in Ecclesia
Which in English reads:
  1. He cannot validly obtain a dignity, office and/or any munus in the Church.
If there was every any doubt about the Mind of the Legislator of the proper sense of terms in the Code of Canon law regarding what Munus means, this canon answers it by equating dignity, office and munus as things to which one cannot be promoted!
Note well, ministerium is not included in that list!  thus Ministerium does not signify a dignity, office or munus!
This study of Munis and Ministerium in the Code thus concludes, for the lack of time. We have seen that the Code distinguishes clearly between the terms of officium, munus, ministerium, potestas and dignitas. It predicates officium of munus alone, It equates dignitas and munus and officium. It distinguishes between potestas and ministerium.
The only sane conclusion is, therefore, that munus and ministerium are distinct terms with different meanings. They cannot substitute for one another in any sentence in which their proper senses are employed. Munus can substitute for officium, when officium means that which regards a title or dignity or ecclesiastical office.
Thus in Canon 332 §2, where the Canon reads, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet. The Code is not speaking of ministerium, and if it is speaking of any other terms, it is speaking of a dignitas or officium. But the papal office is a dignitas, officium and a munus.  thus Canon 332 §2 is using munus in its proper sense and referring to the papal office.
——
(This is a transcript of my first talk at the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, which took place at Rome on Oct 21, 2019, the full transcript of which is found here)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.