The Myths used to defend Team Bergoglio from UDG 81
You need to read Latin to read the Law
First, both commentators, writing in the English language, show themselves ignorant of the distinction in Canon Law between an excommunication which is threatened and an excommunication which is declared or imposed.
When the Code of Canon law specifies that
a specific crime is to be punished by excommunication, an
excommunication is threatened. In such canons, the law specifies that
the maximum punishment, excommunication, may be imposed.
When the Pope or some competent authority
by a specific act declares the penalty upon an individual, the
excommunication is declared.
But some special laws can impose an
excommunication in virtue of the very deed committed, ipso facto. These
impositions by special law for all who in the future commit such actions
are true impositions, as the Latin language indicates by the use of the
verbs, incurrere, irrogare and innodare.
We see this in the Code itself, which specifies in the Official English translation:
Can. 1314Generally, a penalty is ferendae sententiae, so that it does not bind the guilty party until after it has been imposed; if the law or precept expressly establishes it, however, a penalty is latae sententiae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed.
This becomes evident in the Latin text of that canon, which reads:
Can. 1314 — Poena plerumque est ferendae sententiae, ita ut reum non teneat, nisi postquam irrogata sit; est autem latae sententiae, ita ut in eam incurratur ipso facto commissi delicti, si lex vel praeceptum id expresse statuat.
In Latin, Irrogari means “to inflict” or “impose”, incurrere means to run into or upon; innodare,
beings to be bound up by. The metaphors are equivalent, for when one
has been penalized for a crime, he has has its penalty bound to himself
and has run into or been tied up by the penalty. Ferendae sententiae means a punishment which “is to be placed” upon the criminal, latae sententiae means a punishment which “has been placed” upon the criminal. Thus, it is evident that in cases of excommunications which are latae sententiae ipso facto, the penalty has already been imposed.
Pope John Paul II made it clear he was imposing a penalty upon all future violators
Now in the case of the actions prohibited
by UDG 81, Pope John Paul II uses very specific language in the
original Latin. As I wrote back on Nov. 28, 2014, but which seems to
have been forgotten by the recent commentators:
Let’s take a look, then, at the Latin
original, to understand better how, not just any specific form of vote
canvassing is a crime according to the Pope who “brought down the Wall”:
81. Cardinales electores praeterea abstineant ab omnibus pactionibus, conventionibus, promissionibus aliisque quibusvis obligationibus, quibus astringi possint ad suffragium cuidam vel quibusdam dandum aut recusandum. Quae omnia, si reapse intervenerint, etiam iure iurando adiecto, decernimus ea nulla et irrita esse, neque eadem observandi obligatione quemquam teneri; facientes contra iam nunc poena excommunicationis latae sententiae innodamus. Vetari tamen non intellegimus, ne per tempus Sedis vacantis de electione sententiae invicem communicentur.
The official English translation from the Vatican Website, renders this text, thus:
81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.
This translation is not exact. Here is my own exact translation:
81. Let the Cardinal electors, moreover, abstain from all pacts, agreements, promises and any other obligations you like, by which they might be constrained to give or refuse support (suffragium) for anyone (sing. & plural). All of which, if these were to occur, even when with a foreswearing, We decree are null and void, and none of them are to be held by any obligation of observance; those acting against (this), We now, hereby, bind up with the punishment of excommunication latae sententiae. Yet, We do not understand to be forbidden, that they communicate with one another concerning the election, during the time of the Sedevacante.
As
can be seen, Pope John Paul II, at that moment IMPOSES the penalty of
excommunication ipso facto, and this, not upon the act but upon all the
persons who will commit the act. Thus all who commit
the forbidden acts are excommunicated automatically for having committed
them and the penalty is imposed not by a written decree after the fact, but by a written decree before the fact, that is, by this his special law for Papal Conclaves, Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG).
Indeed, as logic dictates, that if this
were not the correct reading of the law, then the threat of an
excommunication in UDG 81 would be nothing but a flourish of words,
since it would have no effect and the guilty could get away with
stealing a papal election by means of vote canvassing. Clearly Pope
John Paul II was not an idiot, who merely threatened a penalty which
could only be imposed after the fact by the very individual elected uncanonically by the criminal violators of UDG 81! To say such a thing would be an absurdity and calumny.
The Myths used to undermine a right understanding of the Law
Canon Peters, for his
part, attempts a subtle shell game by replacing the word “imposed” by
“formal”, when he writes (I quote from Fr. Z’s blog):
But that same cursory glance at Canon 1331 will not show (unless one is trained in canon law) that most consequences of excommunication become relevant in the external forum only if the excommunication is “imposed or declared”. That short, technical phrase means that, while one who is “automatically” excommunicated labors under the personal burdens of this sanction, it is only when an excommunication is “formal” that actions performed by canonical criminals raise questions for Church life and governance.
As I have shown, the penalty for
violation of UDG 81 is already imposed by the promulgation of the papal
law itself, on all future violators. Thus the consequences of that
penalty effect not only the liceity but the validity in law of all acts
of those persons after the crimes committed. There is no distinction
made in canon 1314 of formal and material excommunication. Canon Peters
is attempting to alter the law by altering the terms, in a clever shell
game.
Msgr. Athanasius,
instead, attempts to argue, that since the former papal law explicitly
allowed excommunicated electors to vote and be elected, the new papal
law, while not explicitly saying such a thing — which is nonsensical in
the new Code, if you think about it, since the new Code does not have
the distinction between excommunication simplex and excommunication
vitandis (simple excommunication of penalty and excommunion which
excludes from the Church) — should be read and interpreted as if it did
say such a thing. Msgr.’s opinion is rejected by the noted Canonist,
Jesus Minambres, which I reported upon here.
The erroneous opinion of the Msgr., is also obviated by the careful
consideration of what the new papal law does allow, the voting and
election of all Cardinals, regardless of any reason or cause. Because in
the CIC 1983, canon 171 prohibits not the voting of excommunicated
electors, but the tallying of their votes. Furthermore, since the
College of Cardinals did prohibit de facto the Cardinal of Scotland from
attending, because of the scandals he was involved in, it is clear
that their own understanding of whom the Papal Law allows to be
prohibited from voting does not correspond to the wide reading the Mgsr.
would have it read. Thus since neither the indulgence of UDG 81 can be
said to cover excommunication, as the old law did, and since canon 171
does not conflict with it if it did, the argument of Msgr. Athanasius
fall flat on its face as contra iurem and preter rem.
For more on the effects of being formally
excommunicated (canon 1331) by the violation of UDG 81, see my article
of Dec. 12, 2014 A.D., The Monstrosity of the Allegations against “Team Bergoglio” = Cardinal Bergoglio is not the Pope.
Related:
The
Official ORDER of the EAGLE Page
TradCatKnightRadio(MP3) orderoftheeagle.wordpress.com/mp3/
Please share blogs and help spread information Crusaders!
TradCatKnight is the most viewed
& followed traditional catholic page worldwide.
This is the HOME of the New Crusade
keeping you up to date on the latest Endtime
News stories worldwide as we head closer to the GREAT CHASTISEMENTS foretold by the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima.
Please Help Keep TradCatKnight Alive
& Growing:
Donate below for a chance to win a
gift via TradCatKnight’s
Monthly raffle. Minimum contribution
is 20$ for the raffle.
Winner announced on every last radio
show of the month!
Bergoglio= true antipope
ReplyDeleteWhen people no longer recognize TRUTH (God), there is NOTHING short of divine intervention on the part of the Holy Spirit that can MAKE them understand, or see the light of their error. They only see error because that is all they CHOOSE to see. No amount of human logic will correct this. Satan has always used language to deceive man because, while most people only believe that language (both the written and spoken word) reflects a man's thoughts & beliefs, the TRUTH is that language has always had the power to CREATE & CHANGE a man's thought and beliefs also. Satan and his demons have ALWAYS understood the real power of words, which is why it was SO IMPERATIVE that they infiltrate the Church and CHANGE the liturgy of the sacred Mass. It is also for this reason that, prior to Vatican II the Church always maintained the Liturgy in the "universal language" of Latin.
ReplyDeletenew mass is illicit and schismatic yes
ReplyDeleteThis is also the power of Holy Scripture and why it is SO imperative that people read and KNOW Scripture. Scripture was the ONLY weapon used by Jesus Christ against the temptations of satan during His 40 days in the desert. Scripture recounts this to us FOR A REASON. Because it is the MOST POWERFUL weapon given us by The Word of God Himself, Jesus Christ. Most of those who consider themselves "Catholic" these days are totally ignorant of Holy Scripture. This is also why we have seen SO many counterfeit versions of the bible being proliferated within the past 100-125 years. This is the diabolical deception created by satan that Our Blessed Mother warned us of in EVERY one of the Church approved Marian apparitions.
ReplyDeletemodernists are perverts of Scripture
ReplyDeleteHad hear of "Team Bergoglio" but thought it was the group of reformers. Keep spreading the news.
ReplyDeleteHad hear of "Team Bergoglio" but thought it was the group of reformers. Keep spreading the news.
ReplyDeleteattempts to argue
ReplyDeleteSomehow there is reality in these myths and i am quite convinced by these myths too.
ReplyDelete