(LifeSiteNews) — The circumstances of the Benedict/Bergoglio controversy were seeded decades ago, and this article will confine itself, very briefly, to the mechanics of the elevation and incumbency of Joseph Ratzinger – Benedict XVI. His apparent de-throning is the matter at issue.
The reader will need to refer to an English language copy of the Declaratio read to a gathering of bishops at the Vatican by Benedict on February 11, 2013. We will be referring to this document as primary evidential proof of the false claim he resigned the Papal Office.
The Code of Canon Law is essential in unraveling the impasse that seems to have paralyzed the faithful and prevented an earlier resolution. It would thus be helpful also to the reader to be able to refer to a pre-2013 publication of the Code. For the purpose of this exercise, a book is a better option than digital, but digital will certainly supply the information. A later publication will likely be invalid.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s valid elevation occurred on April 19, 2005. During a period of almost eight years, he was, as we now know, obstructed, harassed, and likely threatened.
With the benefit of a steady flow of evidence over many years, it appears that his was technically an impeded See, but appearance alone without watertight corroboration cannot easily carry that case. Nonetheless, it’s worth keeping in mind.
Regarding his alleged resignation from the Petrine throne, we need to carefully examine the Declaratio of Benedict, read by him on February 11, 2013. This is the document cited as containing the lawful instrument necessary for such a resignation from the office in question:
Office of the Papal Throne: lawful acceptance, lawful resignation
Elevation to any office of the Church requires by law, “in writing,” an instrument of acceptance, pursuant to the provisions of Canon 156: “The provision of any office is to be made in writing.”
Thus, the instrument of acceptance – being a documented fact, in the case of a resignation – can only be reversed by a valid instrument of resignation.
The alleged instrument of the Benedict resignation resides within a single sentence of the Declaratio:
“For this reason … I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter … the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter … .”
A lawful instrument of resignation that comes into existence for the express purpose of reversing a former lawful instrument of acceptance must align precisely with Canon 332 ss2: “ … that the resignation be freely made and properly manifested … ”
The term “manifested” is not statutorily defined, and so we refer to the generic meaning as defined by Webster’s Dictionary (arising from the adjective “manifest”): “Evident to the senses, especially to the sight; hence, obvious to the understanding; not obscure.” The Oxford definition aligns with Webster. Furthermore, the English translation of the Declaratio is an accurate rendering of the Latin language original.
The vital substance of the Papal Office
Acceptance of the Papal Office (or Throne of Peter) by a candidate chosen by a validly convoked Conclave must be manifest in a document drawn up to record the event in the presence of clerical witnesses. The wording can vary, but, post-1983, must be in full alignment with Canon 331 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This Canon contains three explicit requirements that are essential to the Office, and even if not referred to explicitly in the documentary record (referred to here-above), they are automatically conferred upon the Candidate upon his Acceptance.
They are as follows:
- He must accept the office of Vicar of Christ,
- He must accept the office of Bishop of the Church of Rome – Pastor of the universal Church,
- He must accept the office of Head of the College of Bishops.
Also, there is a canonical requirement for proper terms describing the Papal Office: Canon 361 of the 1983 Code affirms that the office of the Supreme Pontiff must be referred to as the Apostolic See, or the Holy See.
Now, let us place here the alleged instrument of resignation: “I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome” with “Successor of Saint Peter … the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter.”
It can be seen clearly that the instrument of resignation does not address any of the provisions of Canon 331 and, in addition, ignores the provisions of Canon 361. Furthermore, the continuous controversy surrounding the Bergoglian claim to valid occupation of the Petrine Throne along with the assertion of the Bergoglian cabal that the Declaratio of February 2013 confirmed the Papal Throne was vacant fails to adhere to the provisions of Canon 332 ss2.
There must be no doubt.
Moreover, commentary relating to C 331 confirms that the office of the Bishop of Rome is not a canonical requirement, just as other honorariums such as Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, etc., are also not canonical requirements and were notably not mentioned. (To whom did they go?) To describe the Pope as necessarily the Bishop of the Province of Rome is a mistaken, not to say false, conflation of the provincial office with the Papal office, which belongs to the Bishop of the Church of Rome.
Note: We have found this conflation of two quite different offices to be widely embraced among clergy formed in Novus Ordo seminaries from the mid-1960s onward; they often vehemently hold that a “Pope is not a Pope” unless he is the “Bishop of Rome.”
Resignation as Provincial Bishop of Rome has no Canonical consequence for the Papacy. (The City of Rome is a foreign sovereign entity and is not a part of the Vatican.)
The Papacy was not in any way forfeited by Benedict, whether or not he knew what he was doing. (It is our view that Benedict knew exactly what he was doing, as did the usurpers.)
Therefore, having regard for the foregoing, there was no vacancy, and with no vacancy, there could be no valid conclave. And a canonically invalid conclave cannot give rise to a valid elevation to the Petrine Throne.
Conclusion: Bergoglio was not a Pope.
Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing and the ineluctable conclusion that comes forth, it can be seen and recognized that neither a single act nor announcement nor demand nor order issuing from Cardinal Bergoglio was valid.
It does not stop there. The invalid administration of Bergoglio cascades forward to Robert Prevost, who was given apparent elevation to the Episcopate during the Bergoglio era along with the apparent elevation of a large number of high-level clergy, all of whom contributed to the apparent elevation of Prevost to the Petrine Throne.
The truth of this is stark and blunt: Bergoglio was a fraudulent usurper who oversaw the invalid elevation of most of the attendees in the false conclave that apparently elevated Prevost. Ipso facto, those who succeeded him in the false succession are also fraudulent usurpers.
There can be no doubt the usurpers have succeeded in apparently capturing the vital offices of the Church, its apparatus of the Ministerium, and its goods, which, as we could expect of thieves, are being sold off wholesale.
All of this will be extremely unsettling for many of the faithful. The truth often is.
Nonetheless, the faithful have an obligation to seek, acknowledge, and embrace Truth and conversely, an obligation to dispose of and repudiate falsehood when falsehood is exposed by Truth.
Truth, once seen, cannot morally be unseen.
The significance of the Bergoglian deception and forced ousting of Benedict
Most faithful today acknowledge the eschatological times have come, but few have even a theory as to where we are at this moment.
The realities unraveled above align precisely with warnings of the end times through Ezekiel, Daniel, the Gospels and the Apocalypse of John and have been incorporated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 675 – The Passion of the Church, Bride of Christ.
Perhaps a study of this could be made.