Fr. Kramer, Benedict XVI Still Pope

Fr. Kramer: Benedict XVI Still Pope

October 10th (Facebook)
The canonist coauthors of È Francesco appear to be correct in their argument on the procedural validity of Bergoglio's election -- but that does not make him a valid pope. Stefano Violi's analysis of Benedict's renunciation has plainly demonstrated that Benedict did not fully renounce the papacy -- he did not renounce the 'munus' but only the exercise of the power of office. His subsequent words and actions manifest that he indeed did not intend to completely relinquish the petrine office; but has intended to remain validly in the papal office in some degree and capacity. 

Since the papacy is not divisible between two men, for a new pope to be elected, the previous pope must either die or fully abdicate. A partial abdication is no abdication. Benedict is still pope. There are also the additional factors of duress, and the incorrect Latin grammer in the Declaratio -- but the most plainly evident proof that Benedict is still pope are his words and deeds that clearly indicate that he still considers himself a pope -- a pope who has de facto handed over the exercise of his ministerial power to a de facto coadjutor "pope".

 
The idea of dividing the papacy between two or more "popes" was the concocted by the errant mind of Karl Rahner, who proposed such an arrangement as a reform of the papacy. Ironically, Benedict did not resort to this arrangement in order to bring about reform, but to maintain some hold on the petrine office that he was unwilling to completely relinquish.



One should not judge him too harshly -- he was ousted, but his hairsplitting Declaratio of Feb. 11 2013, in which he expressed his will to renounce only the exercise of the ministerium of the Petrine office, but not the munus, was a clever verbal sleight of hand which allowed him to validly continue in the papal office, with the title of "Pope Emeritus". Since Benedict did not fully abdicate, his renunciation was clearly null & void, due to defect of intention.
Article: http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/articoli--francescoparola-di-canonista-10544.htm

October 14th (Facebook) 
It seems that Socci may have been right after all, on the canonically irregular 5th ballot that elected Bergoglio.

Antonio Socci's rebuttal to his critics (loosely translated):

THE CONCLAVE IS NOT A BARBECUE AMONG FRIENDS.
REPLY to the OBJECTIONS of MY CRITICS on the 2013 CONCLAVE: THERE REMAIN any doubts on the election of BERGOGLIO But really the Conclave of March 2013 followed incorrect procedures, and the election of Pope St. Francis could be anything?
Many people have asked me this question (also the Bbc wants to know more).
Reference to the reading of the chapter of my book "not Martha" where I have set out the facts and doubts, asking questions of the case.
Many fiercely attacked me even before the book came out and continue to do so even without having read those twenty pages (about 250) devoted to Conclave of 2013 (which aren't even the most important in the book).
Why? I have written quietly, because an inquiry into facts and procedures should be conducted with objectivity, out of prejudice and ideological fury.
Moreover, in that case there comes nothing Pope Bergoglio, nor the view that one of his pontificate. If I found the same error in the election of Ratzinger I raised also the problem, because the search for truth is the duty of journalists and certainly is vital for the Church.
I pointed out in the book that, in my opinion, those errors in the procedures of the Conclave are presumably due to the superficiality and approximation, not in bad faith and malice.
I added that I waiting for answers and if they arrive to meet I would have noted even with relief.
Unfortunately, to date no comprehensive answer was not even a shadow.

EMBARRASSMENT to Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the 3 October, "made daily" asked: "in his latest book ' is not Francis ', Antonio Socci says that during the conclave have been infringed the norms that regulate and therefore that the election of Bergoglio is ' null and void '. She was the Secretary of the conclave meets thing? "
Answer: "absolutely Exclude in that you have violated any rules. The election of Pope Francesco occurred regularly and Bergoglio was validly elected ".
Will be, but the prelate thus gives no response to the questions raised in my book. It does not bring any arguments.
And then the March 13, 2013 Baldisserri was Monsignor: was perhaps in the Sistine Chapel during the vote? If not how do you disprove something that doesn't know?

CAN the Bush yesterday on an online journal has tried to respond to my book the Giancarlo Cerrelli canonist (with Massimo Introvigne).
Of course it is not enough to qualify as a canonist because I also my canonists and more competent Cerrelli dealing with matrimonial cases.
My interlocutor begins by saying that I am the party Conclave report released by Argentine journalist (and biographer of the Pope) Elizabeth Piqué in the book "Francis. Life and revolution ", which turns out to be the undoing of the fifth vote for the two boards attached.
In the opinion of Cerrelli "Saleem's argument is unfounded ... because nobody can know if the the Piqué is true".

I quietly aware that Pique's revelations on the Conclave were raise and praise from "Osservatore romano", "Vatican Radio" and even by ultrabergogliano Andrea Tornielli. Also in a year and a half have never been denied by anyone.







Cerrelli then objects: "none that the conclave there was really refutes them, because it would expose smentendoli to be excommunicated".
In reality there is excommunication for the Cardinals. Some attending the Conclave spoke and not to contradict but to confirm the "Piqué version".

The confirmation of "some Cardinals" was collected by Gian Guido Vecchi and published in "Corriere della sera" of March 9, 2014. Write on page 124 of my book. Why Cerrelli removes that which contradicts his version? This is objectivity?
Not only. At the exit of the sneak peeks of my book the same Piqué, a respected colleague who also collaborates with Cnn, reported the content of my book on "La Nacion" of Buenos Aires and – from professional flawless – confirmed that she had revealed in her book. So my source confirms.
"En passant" I note that hasn't belied my hypothesis that the Pope (the only secret and separate from his friend) the may have revealed the fact.

BANAL In second arraignment Cerrelli States that have done well in Conclave to apply article 68 of Universi Dominici gregis, nullifying the vote and polls.
Here I simply refer to twenty pages in my book where I explain why instead was applied to article 69 and had to cancel anything.
If you adopt the article 68 opens a incurable contradiction between two articles, as if oppositely normassero the same case, and you grant to any Cardinal to cancel indefinitely the vote of the Conclave or to buy time or to blow an unwelcome bid.
Another thing to me was a violation of the rules, namely the fifth vote on the same day as article 63 of the Apostolic Constitution stipulates just four daily (and not only formal reasons, but practical impact on pregnant rated).
The text reads: "you must hold two votes both in the morning and in the afternoon". Four Sun. Stop. He argues that Cerrelli that was not counted as workers under examination does not go vote. But where is it written?

If Giovanni Paolo II had permitted derogations would add: "two votes both in the morning and in the afternoon, unless a vote is cancelled...". Instead they wrote.
But Cerrelli contends that the March 13 have done well to make a fifth, despite the rules. Leaning (wrongly as I said) article 68 law there that after canceling you need to "proceed immediately to a second vote" and that one had to vote again that same evening.
Actually the norm refers to the General case of a vote that takes place during the day and who has already laid down in successive votes, because if we were to automatically apply this logic to the last vote canceled on the day and there were Cardinals who deliberately want to blow up the ballot, putting each time a card anymore, in fact, the poor voters (and exhausted) may need to go back that night to infinityuntil stramazzare to the ground without ever arrive at the polls.
Not only. Cerrelli as resolution that "now" article 68 ("proceed immediately to a second vote") without notice that in the regulatory text Universi Dominici gregis Latin that "now" is not there.
It is a translation that does not match the official Latin text. Therefore further denial.
Finally Cerrelli avoids refute my third complaint, namely the opening of the double card counting phase, which is not allowed.

SINE GLOSSA Cerrelli Instead challenges the application of article 76 on the annulment of the vote because in his view I interpret "literally and formalistic" that norm.
But what other way is there to abide by the rules? A Conclave is not a barbecue among friends.
According to Cerrelli "validity requirements" should be "minimised". Too bad I don't thinks so Giovanni Paolo II who established the rules of nullity, obviously very large acts related electives and not to secondary aspects.

TradCatKnight: Benedict XVI Is Still Pope

A colleague of Cerrelli canonist, commenting that article 76 writes that the text of Giovanni Paolo II is "more general" of the former, so "we cannot limit it to cases provided for in the past.
In fact "the legislator preferred to speak more generally ' electio aliter celebrated ', so that all the provisions laid down in the Constitution are a particular strength (...). Where the legislature has considered not invalidating a provision on strictly elective, the Act should expressly say in the same norm, such as in the case of the election simoniaca ".
So the questions remain.

Antonio Socci from "free" www.antoniosocci.com October 8, 2014