Paul Kramer. Perché la Rinuncia di Benedetto XVI Era Difettosa. : STILUM CURIAE

Archbishop Jerome Lloyd OSJVPosted by

Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, a faithful reader of our site has sent us some reflections by Fr. Paul Kramer on the situation – and discussions – linked to the affair of the two popes, and to the disappearance of Benedict. the friend who sent them to us, linked to Robert Siscoe’s article, clarifies that “These are his considerations, immediate and“ on the fly ”, which I myself solicited from him. Therefore they are not, it should be made clear, a systematic and academic theological refutation. Also note that Fr. Kramer has physical health problems at these times. Happy reading, and spreading.

“If a Pope resigns from his ministry, the munus itself becomes vacant.”

Non sequetur. The munus and the ministerium are inseparable, but they are not the same thing. The munus is the office. The ministerium consists of the official functions connected to the munus. I explained it exhaustively in The case against Bergoglio. The renunciation of the munus renders the office vacant, as established by canon law. The renunciation of the ministerio has no juridical effect, because it renounces something other than the munus. Whoever renounces the munus renounces the office. In reality, those who renounce the ministerium go on strike: he simply refuses to do his job ”.

“It should be noted that the declared intention of Benedict XVI is to renounce the ministry “so that” the See of Peter becomes vacant (and not “impeded”!). In other words, the declared intention is to give up the ministry and the office”.

The stated intention is only to renounce the ministry, which does not release the office, even if this was the intended effect. The object of the deed of renunciation is the ministerium and not the munus. Only by renouncing the munus is the office free. By renouncing the ministerium one renounces only the activities of the office, but not the office itself. There is no implied waiver. Even if he intended that the deed of renunciation of ministry would result in the vacancy of office, the deed would have been void, because the deed is defective, and a defective deed which relinquishes anything other than the office of the papacy itself cannot result in the vacancy of papal office. Siscoe confuses the formal intention of the act, which is the OBJECT of the act, i.e. what the act does, with the EFFECT that is intended to be produced with the act. An act which renounces only the exercise of official duties, but not the office itself, cannot have the effect of releasing the office, even if this was the effect the pope intended to produce. If he was to vacate the office, he had to give it up, not the office activities. He has given up the wrong thing that cannot have the effect of releasing office, even if that was what he subjectively meant. To be a valid act, the intention of the act must be clearly expressed as the object of the act, and not just implied but not stated; and the act cannot limit itself to declaring the effect it intends to obtain, without specifying the formal object itself which alone can produce that effect. even if this was the effect the pope intended to produce. If he wanted to vacate the office, he had to give it up, and not the office activities. He has given up the wrong thing that cannot have the effect of releasing office, even if that was what he subjectively meant. To be a valid act, the intention of the act must be clearly expressed as the object of the act, and not just implied but not stated; and the act cannot limit itself to declaring the effect it intends to obtain, without specifying the formal object itself which alone can produce that effect. even if this was the effect the pope intended to produce. If he wanted to vacate the office, he had to give it up, and not the office activities. He has given up the wrong thing that cannot have the effect of releasing office, even if that was what he subjectively meant. To be a valid act, the intention of the act must be clearly expressed as the object of the act, and not just implied but not stated; and the act cannot limit itself to declaring the effect it intends to obtain, without specifying the formal object itself which alone can produce that effect. even if that was what he meant subjectively. To be a valid act, the intention of the act must be clearly expressed as the object of the act, and not just implied but not stated; and the act cannot limit itself to declaring the effect it intends to obtain, without specifying the formal object itself which alone can produce that effect. even if that was what he meant subjectively. To be a valid act, the intention of the act must be clearly expressed as the object of the act, and not just implied but not stated; and the act cannot limit itself to declaring the effect it intends to obtain, without specifying the formal object itself which alone can produce that effect.

Paul Kramer. Perché la Rinuncia di Benedetto XVI Era Difettosa. : STILUM CURIAE

Leave a Reply