Wednesday, December 04, 2019

St. Leonard: "Servants of St. Joseph... Close to Heaven"

St. Leonard of Porto- Maurizio:

"Rejoice, devout servants of St. Joseph, for you are close to heaven."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Tuesday, December 03, 2019

Is the Francis/Cuba/China Axis of Evil Collapsing?

Most international and Vatican observers appear oblivious to the crumbling of Francis's apparent Vatican geopolitical alliances.

Any one who has read Francis's only book "Dialogos" with it's praise of the Cuban Revolution and looked closely at some of his Vatican political maneuvers, such as the Obama/Cuba alliance, the Vatican/Evo Morales alliance and the Vatican protection of the Cuban controlled dictatorship of Venezuela (by the continued call for "dialogue"), can speculate that his probable political hopes are crumbling.

His apparent main political vision of the spreading of Cuba's influence throughout Latin America as a so-called counterbalance to the United States' influence in the region now appears to be falling apart.

Cuba's main economic support after the USSR economy collapsed was Venezuela. After Venezuela's failed state economy collapsed then Cuba's economy was only held together by China stepping in.

Cuba's Latin American influence is now dying with Bolivia kicking out Cuban and Venezuelan Cuban operatives and Venezuela's dictatorship nearing it's end.

It may be possible that Francis agreed to the Vatican/China deal which betrayed the Chinese Catholic underground Church because without China's economic assistance Cuba's economy would resumable the Venezuelan starvation economy.

Now, with reports that the Hong Kong freedom protests have spread to the most important province in China - Guangdong - in terms of population and economic power it appears that the Chinese Communist totalitarian regime is in a dilemma.

If they crack down on the powerhouse economies of Hong Kong and Guangdong the already downward spiral of the Chinese economy may begin a collapse of the whole country. That appears to be the only reason they are not destroying the Hong Kong freedom fighters as they murdered the Tiananmen Square freedom fighters in 1989.

Anyone who has studied the murderous histories of the totalitarian regimes of China and Cuba is hard pressed to not call those two dictatorships: evil.

It is a very sad commentary on the current moral situation of the Catholic Church to observe the Francis Vatican's apparent collaboration with the two regimes.

If the Catholic Monitor's political analysis of the situation is correct:

The Francis/Cuba/China Axis of Evil may be collapsing.

Pray that it does.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and the collapse of the Francis/Cuban/Chinese Axis of Evil.






Monday, December 02, 2019

Where Peter Is needs to change it's name to Where Pachamama Is

Francis said it was "pachamama."

The Where Peter Is website being a "pachamama" denier blog apparently believes Francis is a liar.

I suggest that Where Peter Is needs to change it's name to Where Pachamama Is.

Can we suggest that the new and improved Where Peter Is soon to be called Where  Pachamama Is get a new logo or icon for their website which needs to be a scene of the Vatican garden attendees bowing down to statues which Francis called "pachamama" with the words:

This is not bowing down to "pachamama" despite what Francis said.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Reddit Joke: "Francis is a Secret Trad"

The best laugh of the day from Reddit Traditional Catholics:

"Plot twist... Francis is a secret trad that is doing all this crap to make Tradition return."

Best Reddit response:

"How do I request that a Latin Mass performed at my parish?"

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Is Cdl. Tobin Signaling "Correct[ion]," possibly Excommunication, for those who Oppose Gay Bishops Network, Pachamama Idolatry & Communion for Adulterers?

Francis collaborator Cardinal Joseph Tobin after meeting with "the successor of Peter," who according to Crux "declined to investigate" sex abuse charges against homosexual predator Theodore McCarrick, appears to be signaling that the Francis Vatican may be pushing for "correct[ion]," possibly excommunication, of orthodox Catholics who oppose the McCarrick gay bishops network, Pachamama idolatry and Communion for adulterers:

Crux reported:

"Tobin told his brother bishops, they might want to look at "how we might correct those among us who would separate us or separate portions of the Church from the successor of Peter.'"
(Crux, "Cardinal Tobin reportedly declined to investigate McCarrick misconduct rumors," September 2, 2018 and "New Jersey, Pennsylvania bishops spend Thanksgiving with pope," November 29, 2019)

The Catholic News Agency (CNA) reported:

"In the testimony, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano... claims... Tobin's appointment to Newark '[was] orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl.'"
(CNA, "Vigano testimony receives mixed response from US bishops, August 27, 2018)

It appears that Francis collaborator Tobin is a orchestration of the homosexual McCarrick bishops network.

It, also, appears that the McCarrick gay bishops network may be ready to start a persecution of all orthodox Catholics who oppose the McCarrick gay bishops network, Pachamama idolatry and Communion for adulterers which a big part of the agenda of the Francis Vatican.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.


Sunday, December 01, 2019

Francis has Betrayed China's Underground Church; & Might he Betray Hong Kong?

Francis's China deal is a cold-blooded betrayal.

Francis is appointing Communist regime operatives as bishops who de facto endorse the Chinese two-child policy of murdering of the unborn babies.

He is cold-bloodedly endorsing the murder of millions of unborn Chinese babies and the betrayal of China's underground Church.

Cardinal Joseph Zen before Christmas said:

"China's underground Church... feels betrayed."
Francis's Vatican has "demanded the retirement of one bishop and the demotion of another" so that Communist totalitarian controlled state bishops can get control of the underground Chinese Church.

The National Review's Michael Dougherty reported what this Vatican betrayal means to the Chinese Catholics in quoting a Chinese underground pewsitter witness to the Communist regime's reign of terror:

"Everybody, and I mean everybody, knows someone who was murdered, or tortured, or disappeared to defend the principle that was just abandoned."
(National Review, "The Vatican's Deal with China: What to make of Cardinal Parolin's Diplomacy," January 23, 2017)

Cardinal Joseph Zen, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong in 2016 said the Francis "diplomacy" is like betraying Joseph, Mary and the baby Jesus to the murderous Herod.

Cardinal Zen said:

"[T]oday would our diplomats advise Joseph to go and humbly beg for dialogue with Herod!"

He betrayed the Chinese underground Church and might he, now, betray Hong Kong?

After all he wants "to go to [Communist] Beijing." On November 29, the South China Morning Post reported that Francis did not "side" with the freedom fighter against the totalitarian regime:

"'It’s not only Hong Kong, there are various problematic situations that I am unable to evaluate at the moment. I respect peace and I ask for peace for all these countries that have problems, Spain too,' he said."

'It is better to put things in perspective and to call for dialogue, for peace, so that problems can be resolved. And finally, I would like to go to Beijing, I love China.'"

Francis Effect: "Counterrevolution[ary]" Traditional Latin Mass Attendees have "seen Unprecedented Growth during his Papacy" that may Overthrow the Novus Ordo Mass

New York Daily News reported that the fifty year-old Novus Ordo Mass is destroying the Catholic Church in America "[s]ince the 1960s, Mass attendance has plummeted, from around 70% of U.S. Catholics every Sunday and Holy Day."

Ironically, however, the anti-Latin Mass Francis has inadvertently caused "a counterrevolution of sorts" that may overthrow the Novus Ordo Mass:

"Fifty years ago this weekend, the Catholic Church debuted a new version of Mass following reforms made by the 1960s’ Second Vatican Council. From the use of vernacular language instead of Latin, to the priest facing the people instead of the tabernacle, the changes became mandatory at all parishes on the First Sunday of Advent 1969."

"... The resurgence of the traditional Latin Mass started before Francis, but has seen unprecedented growth during his papacy, a counterrevolution of sorts that some (both admirably and critically) call an alternative Francis effect. Even bishops and priests who were not ordinarily interested in the traditional Latin Mass have been much more generous and vocal in offering additional such liturgies. Two distinct wings of the Catholic Church have emerged. Often, the new versus the old Mass is a defining characteristic of the opposing coalitions."

"... But after five decades of experiments and decline, there is some growth to be observed within the Catholic Church. Ironically, it is with traditionalists joining the priesthood, entering convents and attending parishes that offer the very Latin Mass that was replaced 50 years ago."

"... The past 50 years have not been good ones for the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict saw this when he wrote, of the new form of Mass, 'we abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it — as in a manufacturing process — with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.'"
[https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-prayers-we-can-understand-20191130-allvqyirgzdtnccfgzmi2qgwci-story.html]

The Catholic Herald revealed that in the United States the Traditional Latin Mass attendees are the future real Catholics of the Church which will eventually out number the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) attendees.

It appears that if the trend continues the Novus Ordo Mass may be overthrown by sheer numbers:

Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) attendees are over overwhelmingly real Catholics while New Mass or Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) attendees tend be lapsed and heretical Catholics according to a new study by Fr. Donald Kloster:

Fulfill Sunday obligation:

TLM: 99℅ vs. NOM: 22℅

Approve of abortion:

TLM: 1℅ vs. NOM: 51℅

Go to Confession at least once a year:

TLM: 98℅ vs. NOM: 25℅

Approve of contraception:

TLM: 2℅ vs. NOM: 89℅

Support same-sex marriage:

TLM: 2℅ vs. NOW: 67℅

"TLM attendees donate 5 times more in the collection" according to Fr. Kloster.
(Catholic Herald, "Traditional Latin Mass attendees more devout and orthodox, study says," February 27, 2019)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Saturday, November 30, 2019

Canon Law and Latin Language Expert: "The only Sane Conclusion is, therefore, that Munus and Ministerium are Distinct Terms with Different Meanings. They cannot Substitute for one Another"

"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."
- Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Canon law and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo says the only correct way to approach the validity or invalidity of Pope Benedict XVI's resignation 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)

When I read that I thought it would be extremely helpful if he could go into detail on the above by going into canon 17, canon 332 S2, canon 145 S1 and canon 41. He has done just that.

But, before we get to that it is important to understand that Pope John Paul II promulgated the current canon law which is the supreme law of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, it is important to understand that canon 17 is the key to understanding the supreme law of the Church.

Canon lawyer Edward Peters explains:

"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.'"
(CatholicWorld Report, "Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded," September 28, 2017)

Now, finally, we get to Br. Bugnolo who 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.

Canon Law Expert on Benedict's Resignation: "[T]he Petrine Succession [is]... like the Last Will and Testament" not "Matrimony... Contractual Law"

One of the great heroes in the present crisis canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo recently stated:

"I think, humanly speaking, most canonists only have habitual experience of the canonical proceedures in annulment cases which regard the Sacrament of Matrimony, which falls under the norms of contractual law."

"But the Petrine Succession is totally different. It is not a sacrament nor a vow kind of a thing. It's like the last will and testament of your father. If he did not say he gave it to you, you do not get it. Some other sibling gets it. Or his estate keeps it."

"Benedict gave away the ministerium, the doing of the office."

"But he never on any occasion before during or after Feb 11, 2013 said he gave away the munus petrinum."

"That means that the Petrine Succession has not yet occurred. The train left the station with all the Cardinals and hoopla, but Benedict and his papal office are still on the platform."

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

Does Canon 17 Refute LifeSiteNews' Theologian: "Benedict [must have]... thought: I only want to resign the Ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the Munus"?
LifeSiteNews' anonymous theologian on Pope Benedict XVI's resignation according to the website claims that Benedict's abdication could only be invalid if he thought ministerium and munus were "distinct":

"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 distinct from the munus.'"
(LifeSiteNews, "Did Benedict really resign? Ganswein, Burke and Brandmuller weight in," February 14, 2019)

Canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo appears to says this is not a correct way to legally approach the resignation because canon law requires an objective reading of what the two words mean 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)

Canon lawyer Edward Peters explains "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)

I studied some law in college and I am not in any way a canon lawyer, but this is my understanding of what the LifeSiteNews' theologian and Br. Bugnolo are saying.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Why is Francis's Reportedly "Gay Lobby" Private Secretary "leav[ing] his Position"?

Vatican News reported Msgr. Fabian Pedacchio the "Pope's personal secretary to leave his position" with Francis.
(Vatican News, "Pope's personal secretary to leave his position," November 25, 2019)

AdnKronos.com said Pedacchio's resignation was accelerated for unknown reasons:

"[A]n acceleration in his replacement for reasons which are still unclear."
(Gloria.tv, "Francis' Private Secretary about to Resign," November 24, 2019)

Might his resignation be connected to his reportedly being a member of the Vatican "gay lobby" and issues dealing with that immoral membership?

In 2013, at the beginning of Francis's pontificate according to the Monday Vatican blog, known for its insider knowledge of the Vatican, Francis was already reportedly promoting the gay lobby which included Pedacchio:

"Ilson de Jesus Montanari... catapulted to the number two position in the Congregation for Bishops... rumored to be a close friend of Msgr. Fabian Pedacchio Leaniz... the Pope's personal secretary... [by] Battista Ricca... [Ilson was]... introduced to Cardinal Bergoglio... Was also Ilson part of the gay lobby as Ricca was accused to be?.. Ricca was appointed ... prelate of the IOR... [Is the] Pope Francis... promotion of people presumably part of a gay lobby... a strategy to keep everyone under control?"
(Monday Vatican, "Pope Francis wants to govern the Curia. And possibly with an absent Secretary of State," October 21, 2013)

Gay activist Frederic Martel in his Vatican book wrote of the "magic circle" hotel which is run by Ricca who is "presumably part of a gay lobby" whom Francis promoted:

"The director of the Casa [del Clero] and all the Vatican residences, Mgr. Battista Ricca, also lives there... you can also bump into Fabian Pedacchio, a private secretary to Pope Francis, who has lived at the Domus for a long time, and who is said to keep a room where he is able to work calmly with the Brazilian bishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari... A couple of boys, dinkies and bio-queens who listen to Born this Way by Lady Gaga, live there too... A Basque priest also enjoys some delightful associations within this 'magic circle'... sometimes, holy offices have been celebrated by gay groups."
(In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy, Pages 305-306)

When Pedacchio Leaniz and Montanari apparently aren't at the "magic circle" hotel room in Rome they "spend holidays together":

"Pedacchio... the Pope's private secretary, Pedacchio and Montanari are... great friends; they also spend holidays together, and in the past years Pedacchio introduced Montanari to familiarity with what would become pope."
(La Stampa, "Bishops, the mystery revealed...," 10/16/2013)

Archbishop Carlo Maria ViganĂ² in his September 27 statement said Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the Perfect of the Congregation for Bishops, is undermined "by two homosexual 'friends' of his dicastery."

Vatican expert Marco Tosatti according to Gloria.tv reported how Francis's "private secretary" (and Montanari) apparently undermine Ouellet:

"Ouellet categorically excluded one of them [from episcopal nomination] for moral reasons. But the next day Pedacchio told Ouellet, 'The Pope wants him."
(Gloria.tv, "Two Homosexuals are bypassing Cardinal Ouellet," September 28, 2018)

If ViganĂ²'s and Tosatti's reports are true then apparently Francis's allegedly gay private secretary helps him appoint morally questionable bishops.

Are Francis and his allegedly gay private secretary expanding the gay lobby by appointing and promoting gay bishops?

Is there growing evidence that Francis may be a member of the gay lobby?

Remember the question asked by the Monday Vatican:

"Was also Ilson part of the gay lobby as Ricca was accused to be?"

Is it possible also that Francis is part of the gay lobby as his soon to be former private secretary is accused to be?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Homosexualist Cupich & Martin want "Complete Solidarity with Victims," Solidarity Synonyms: Oneness & Union

Homosexualists and gay activists Cardinal Blase Cupich and Fr. James Martin want "complete solidarity with victims." Today's Tweet by Martin:

"@CardinalBCupich: Confronting sex abuse in the church the only real way: through solidarity with victims."

Here are some synonyms for solidarity from Dictionary.com:


  • unification
  • oneness
  • union

Since the overwhelming percentage of abuse by priests, bishops and cardinals is homosexual sex abuse it might be a bit inappropriate for these two homosexualists to signal they want unification, oneness and union with victims.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.






Friday, November 29, 2019

"Are you also going to Leave?"

The Catholic Church following the doctrine and example of Jesus Christ teaches the true path to happiness in this life and the next. Catholic historian Roberto de Mattei writes:

"[T]he conception of existence, that inseparably links the happiness of man to the glory of God"

Catholic doctrine... teaches us... effort, suffering, sacrifice, struggle can give us an interior joy... Outside the cross no real happiness or sweetness is possible."
(The Crusader of the 20th Century: Plinio Correa de Oliveira, pages 1-2)

Anyone considering leaving the Church founded by Christ please go on your knees and answer this question of Jesus:

"Are you also going to leave?"
John 6:67

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Thursday, November 28, 2019

Do Shea & Giunta think the Naked Images could be the Naked Blessed Mother & Francis is "Indefatigably Ignorant" for calling them "Pachamama"?

Renew America writer Eric Giunta who has written for the the Catholic Herald in his blasphemous claim that the naked images that were bowed down to in the Vatican gardens might be images of the Blessed Virgin Mary said:

"[I]t is unclear whether this indigenous icon of a [naked] pregnant woman is a [naked] representation of the Mother of Jesus, or... 'life, fertility, [and/or]Mother Earth.'"

"... [T]he indefatigably ignorant Pope Francis... referred to the stolen and desecrated images as 'pachamama.'"
(Laboravi Sustinens, "No, 'Mother Earth' Is Not 'Pagan,'" no date given)

It appears that Mark Shea agrees with the Giunta blasphemous post that claims the naked images could be the naked Blessed Mother since he promoted the above post by him and said:

"Giunta is no fan of Pope Francis by any stretch. But he is honest and he recognizes a Right Wing Lie [which "the indefatigably ignorant Pope Francis [called]... 'pachamama'" not Mary or Mother Earth]."
(Catholic and Enjoying it, "Hard Core Traditionalist Eric Giunta Rebuts the 'Pachamama' Nonsense One Last Time," November 27, 2019)

Does Shea thinks Francis is a liar or "indefatigably ignorant" for admitting the naked images are 'pachamama'?

Apparently, Shea blasphemously thinks the naked images could be naked images of the Blessed Virgin Mary despite what Francis said.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.








How many Masses by Bishops like Stika are possibly Invalid or is such a Doubt likely Wrong?

- Updated November 29, 2019

On November 25, Bishop Rick Stika on Twitter said:

"Mass is Not the worship of Jesus."
(Gloria.tv, "After the message, the Bishop has gone on lockdown," November 28, 2019)

The Council of Trent infallibly taught:

"If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema."
(history.hanover.edu, "The Council of Trent, The Seventh Session," Canon XI, 1995)

This is what canonlawmadeeasy.com says on the matter:

"If the priest [or bishop] actually decides that he does not intend... does not want to effect a consecration in the way that the Church intends, well that would be pretty defective [invalid]!"
(canonlawmadeeasy.com, "What Makes a Mass Invalid?")

How many Masses by bishops and priests like Stika are possibly invalid?

Ironically, Francis apologist Bishop Stika who believes "The Mass is Not the worship of Jesus" in defense of the Francis Pachamama Amazon Synod proposal to allow married priests on Twitter said:

"I feel sorry for those who would deny the Sacraments [which is "Not the worship of Jesus] to those who desire them. I am sure at your judgement you will have some explains to do."
(Crux, "U.S. bishops at odds over Amazon synod's married priests proposal, July 9, 2019)

It appears that Stika at his "judgement... will have some explains to do."

At the very least, doesn't Stika's statement plant a doubt about his intend to do what "the Church does"?

However, Fr. VF in the comments section below who I have found to be a very sound theologian says such doubts are unwise and most likely wrong because "invalidity is unlikely... except by a direct, explicit intention not to do what the Church does. Please read his full comments below in the comment section.
(This paragraph was added on November 29, 2019.)

Even so, it's getting to the point where all the bishops needs to be given dubia questions like Francis was given so the Catholic faithful don't have to doubt if their bishops are Catholics or heretics?

Remember that during the Arian heresy crisis only a handful of bishops joined St. Athanasius in being fully faithful to the Catholic faith and were not Arians or Semi-Arians. Even the pope at the time signed a semi-Arian document and excommunicated Athanasius.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.