The Validity of Pope Benedict’s resignation must be questioned




by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Recently, the noted Vatican theologian, and former member of the Congregation for the Faith, Msgr. Nichola Buxpublicly opined that the validity of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI should be studied in regard to the question of what appears to be substantial error in the formula of resignation.

Msgr. Bux was not the first to raise this doubt. There was a very noteworthy thesis published by a student in canon law at the Theological Institute of Legano, Switzerland, in 2014 by Stefano Violi, which raised questions regarding the validity.

On June 19, 2016, Anne Barnhardt raised specifically the question of a doubt arising from canon 188, which cites substantial error as sufficient grounds to establish the grounds for a canonical determination of invalidity in any resignation. She did this following the remarkable comments by Pope Benedict’s personal Secretary on May 20th earlier, in which he claimed that Benedict still occupied the Papal Office.

Msgr. Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, in the United States, and a former member of Opus Dei, has also sustained this same doubt and others regarding the validity of the resignation. I understand that the Bishop has written many members of the Sacred Hierarchy and Curia about these matters urging action be taken (He suggests a public declaration by 12 pre-Bergoglian Cardinals).

According to Ann Barnhart, in the following year, Attorney Chris Ferrara and Mrs. Anne Kreitzer also sustained this same doubt. The historian Richard Cowden Guido opined the same on May 11, 2017. And, the famous Italian controversialist, Antonio Socci quoted Violi at length on May 31, 2017 and sustained the same thesis.

Finally, Pope Benedict XVI in his private letters to Cardinal Brandmueller openly asks for suggestions for a better way to resign, if he did not do it correctly.

There being a number of notable Catholics sustaining this doubt, and since Msgr. Bux called for an investigation of this matter, I will add here in Scholastic Form, the arguments in favor of sustaining it, in course of which will refute all substantial arguments against it.

Whether Pope Benedict XVI by means of the act expressed in his address, “Non solum propter”, resigned the office of the Bishop of Rome?

And it seems that he did not:

1. First, because substantial error, in an act of resignation, regards the vis verborum, or signification of the words, as they regard the form and matter of the act.  But the act of renouncing a ministry regards one of the proper accidents of the office by which that ministry can be rightfully exercised.  Therefore, if one renounces a ministry, he does not renounce the office. And if he believes to have renounced the office, by renouncing one of the ministries, he is in substantial error as to the signification of the words he has used. But in the text, Non Solum Propter, Benedict XVI renounces the ministerium which he received as Bishop of Rome, when he was elected.  Therefore, to understand that act as a renunciation of the office is to be in substantial error as to the effect of the act. Therefore as per canon 188, the resignation is invalid.

2.  Saint Peter the Apostle …




From our sometime contributor to CP&S, Geoff Kiernan:

”Ann Barnhardt, by her own admission is no theologian or canon lawyer, but her examination of the current crisis of the Francis/Catholic Church is unmatched in its clarity (a potent adjunct to the Truth) and force of argument. She boldly calls on anyone to challenge her logic and reasoned conclusions, but because the accepted method of dealing with such uncomfortable  assertions is silence, I doubt few will do so.

This is  the latest from this courageous and astute convert. He grasp of the Faith is extraordinary and dare I say it, providential given her relative youth and recent arrival to the Faith. The God given gift of discernment is not lost in her. G. KIERNAN”


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The Validity of Pope Benedict’s resignation must be questioned

  1. kathleen says:

    Wasn’t it the manipulations of the influential lavender mafia (“smoke of Satan”) that ousted Pope Benedict XVI from the Papacy? He was hated by these bullying sodomites who must have pulled every possible string to get rid of him… to then manipulate the following Conclave to get their gay-friendly man (‘Pope’ Bergoglio) onto the Chair of Saint Peter.

    Fr John Hunwicke once stated:
    ”I may have got this wrong, because in such matters one can only be anecdotal. But I think a particular constituency, just one among a number of others, is that of ideological homosexual extremists. Why do they detest him [Pope Benedict]? Apparently he is the symbol of ‘homophobia’. Ratzinger’s views on homosexuality were, surely, no more ‘definite’ than those of S John Paul II. But it was Ratzinger who seemed to attract their venom. They loathed him because they apparently saw him as the enemy of their campaigns; and at the same time they tried to convince themselves that he was himself one of themselves, so that, by a paradox of weird inversion, they could hate him all the more.

    Why? Here’s my hypothesis. A noisy minority of homosexuals seem to need comfort and reassurance and can only get it by convincing themselves and anybody who will listen to them that pretty well everybody else is also homosexual. Particularly anyone who doesn’t go along with their own narrative and world view. So: either you are openly homosexual; or, if you aren’t, that simply proves how hypocritical you are to conceal your condition! Either way, GOTCHA!!”

    And from Father Z’s blog:
    ”It seems to me that another reason why the sodomites hate Ratzinger so much is because is patently quite a gentle soul, very careful with other people’s dignity. Hence, he is easily targeted. That’s what bullies do. They target those whom they think won’t or can’t fight back. Why? Because they are vicious and they are cowards. I remind the readership that one of the Italian words for an active homosexual is “frocio”, which derives from Latin ferox, savage, insolent.

    They hate Ratzinger and anyone aligned with him because of their own disorder.

    Watch how the the sodomites and homosexualist allies work today. That’s how they roll. Part of their identikit is that they are bullies. Think about it.”

    So, yes, Pope Benedict was, most likely, somehow bullied, threatened, perhaps even forced, to step down… and therefore his resignation cannot (IMHO) be considered valid.


  2. “The Validity of Pope Benedict’s resignation must be questioned.”

    Francis will get a good laugh out of that statement.


  3. John says:

    There are probably a few reason that those who wanted Francis didn’t like Benedict. Let us not forget his determination to “sweep the filth from the Church”.


  4. johnhenrycn says:

    True that, John. It’s just too bad that Benedict became so weak – physically, I mean. Here’s a new book written by an absolutely disgusting homosexual condemning the so-called Pope Francis for his (PF’s) absolutely disgusting protection of homosexuals.
    “There is no little irony in a gay icon calling out the Vicar of Christ for the wickedness of the Church. But as it is written, the Lord works in mysterious ways.”


  5. kathleen says:

    @ JH

    Wow – that book, ‘Diabolical’, looks like it’s pure dynamite! Coming from the pen of a well known member of the “disgusting” gay culture, this book will surely hit the sodomites (both the active ones and their numerous defenders) right where it hurts. But it will also open the eyes of many who have been unwittingly sucked up into seeing this disorder as something normal, or innocuous, into realising its diabolical origins and intents.
    That it has infiltrated our Holy Church “up to the very top” is the terrible and scandalous reality of our times. IT MUST BE ERADICATED!


  6. Interesting though these thoughts may be, I am compelled to point out that during my time in Rome – when Alexis Bugnolo was resident there in a semi detached property in the suburbs, operating a number of different publishing ventures simultaneously and supporting himself with private donations largely from the USA – both the ministers general of the Friars of the Atonement and the Order of Friars Minor, with whom I happened to converse on the subject of this man – as he had been making controversial claims at the time – told me categorically that he has no canonical status as a religious whatsoever. I find it therefore ironic that he is writing articles questioning the canonical validity of anything. I have no personal connection with this man, who I understand is now living in the family home back in the USA – but I do not like to see this traditional blog carrying an article purporting to be by a religious, when he simply is not.


  7. johnhenrycn says:

    “…when Alexis Bugnolo was resident there in a semi detached property in the suburbs…” That seems just a bit low, but could have been meant kindly. I used to live in one. A semi-detached, that is. No donkeys were allowed.


  8. johnhenrycn says:

    Apologies for my overitalicaztion. Here’s an article about our awful situation featuring a person who tried fighting back, and what happened when he did at a Catholic University. And here’s the video of what they did to him when he did:


  9. johnhenrycn says:

    Have a nice day. YouTube is very careful not to allow anti-homosexual videos.


  10. kathleen says:

    YouTube is very careful not to allow anti-homosexual videos.

    So true. It’s all part of the brainwashing “gay culture” takeover of our world. Nothing that contradicts its ideas is permitted.

    Let’s see how long Ann Barnhardt’s revealing video in the UPDATE above will stand before it too is obliterated. (Although the video is more about the technicalities of Pope Benedict XVI’s supposed resignation than the homosexual bullies that forced it.)


  11. Yes you are quite right, JH. There are many people renting semi-detached properties in Roman suburbia who are eminently qualified in canon law, and if Mr Bugnolo had kept donkeys this would have made his irregular canonical situation entirely understandable. 🙂

    (Incidentally the word “suburb” originated in Rome. It meant “outside the walls.”)


  12. Alexis Bugnolo says:

    Gareth, I note that you resorted to an ad hominem in response to my Scholastic Question. That means, according to the rules of debate, that you concede my argument. Thank you.

    As for supporting myself by my writings, that is no crime.

    As for being a religious, I never claim to be one. I am a consecrated person. If you had studied canon law you would know the difference. The mere fact that you talked to representatives of religious orders in which I have never been a member to determine what my canonical status was, instead of writing to me (you obviously knew my address) means that you both had no idea how to answer a canonical question, and that you had not the courtesy of simply asking me. By the way, if you know of The Franciscan Archive, you would have found the answer.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s