Skip to main content

The Catholic Monitor stands Corrected: Br. Bugnolo is not a "Canon Law Expert"

Yesterday, Br. Alexis Bugnolo stated:

"Over at Catholic Monitor, Fred Martinez calls me a Canon Law Expert. I do not hold a degree in Canon Law, so I dispute the attribution."

The Catholic Monitor and Fred Martinez stands corrected.

That said, it needs to be explained why the Monitor called Bugnolo a canon law expert.

On June 6, 2019, Br. Bugnolo asserted:

"I am continually amazed that anyone in the English speaking world pays any attention to opinions of those who neither read Latin nor studied Canon Law, but are very willing to blog about their own ignorance and insist anyone who disagrees with them is crazy. In my book, it's such men who are loons."
(Catholic Monitor, "5 Dubia Questions for 1P5's Steve Skojec," Comment section: Alexis Bugnolo 7:23 AM)

The Monitor assumes that Bugnolo doesn't reject its assertion that he is a Latin language expert who has undertaken large translation projects and has produced a text book course on "Ecclesiastical Latin Grammar."

Bugnolo has a B.A. in Anthropology and Classical Studies (where he studied Latin) from the University of Florida.

It is obvious that Bugnolo doesn't have higher college degrees in the study of Latin so he is a Latin language expert in the sense of being a independent scholar as was Christopher Dawson who had no higher college degrees.

Yet, Wikipedia says " Dawson has been called 'the greatest English-speaking Catholic historian of the twentieth century.'"

The Monitor was asserting Bugnolo was a canon law expert in the sense that Dawson was a historical expert, that is due to each of their independent scholarship not their degrees.

Moreover, Br. Bugnolo himself asserted his amazement "that anyone pays attention to the opinions of those who neither read Latin nor studied Canon Law."

The above is presented to explain the reason Bugnolo was called by the Monitor a canon law expert in the sense of a independent scholar.

The Catholic Monitor and Fred Martinez stands corrected and apologizes for calling Bugnolo a canon law expert.

We thank Br. Bugnolo for admitting his independent scholarship on canon law doesn't give him any particular expertise in the subject. This reaffirms our previous stated position that his arguments while apparently convincing are not certain.

The Monitor repeats its call for real canon law experts to examine his arguments that Canon 17 and other articles of canon law verify his opinion that Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was invalid.

All the above reaffirms our repeated call which joins Bishop Rene Gracida's call for an imperfect council to investigate the increasing evidence that Pope Benedict's resignation was possibly invalid and Francis's conclave was possibly invalid as well as for a call for a formal correction of Francis and his "authentic magisterium" which teaches the heresy of Communion for adulterers.

Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales taught that a explicitly heretical pope can be self-deposed if the Church declares that that pope is explicitly heretical.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.






Comments

Aqua said…
I don’t doubt that Br. Bugnolo is an expert in Latin. We all have benefited greatly from it.

But if you wish to be truly enlightened, listen to me ... Aqua is an opinion expert; one of the world’s renowned experts in formulating and delivering correct opinions on things.

If you want to know how to think about this, that or another topic, just search out my opinions - they are in the public domain and I give them to the world for free.

As to Br. Bugnolo, I actually mean it ... you too Mr. Martinez .... thank you for all you do - I form my opinions based on raw data coming from faithful and learned (wise in the grace-filled sense) Catholics such as yourselves.

As to myself, and my “opinions”, I just struggle to remain in the land of reality day by day. I’m actually not an “expert”. But .... my opinions are free. So, there’s that.
Fred Martinez said…
Aqua,

Thanks for the chuckle.

Great post, oh highest world renowned oracle expert in formulating and delivering correct opinion on things.

Yes, if we can stay in reality day to day we are doing well.
Alexis Bugnolo said…
Dear Fred,

Thank you for the correction.

Now as regards certitude, you say something at the end which is a common error, namely, that the certitude of an argument comes from the academic credentials of the person who makes it. That is actually false. There is external trustworthiness and there is internal certitude. Certitude of an argument is based on its principles and its conclusions and its manner or form of argumentation. If the principles, facts of law or history are true, and the form of the argument is logically valid, then the conclusion is just as true and certain as the principles.

Trustworthiness is something we give to men, on the basis of their reputations which are either public or personal with ourselves. We use it to guestimate the value of what they say when we cannot confirm it.

Just as no one in their right mind would say, that 2 *5 =10 is a certain argument because my friend who is a PhD in Mathematics says so -- because everyone can verify the truth of the expression on their own, if they are older than 10 years old -- so in any argument about the validity of the renunciation of Benedict, if you can read canon law and understand the basics of the argument, all of which are true and certain, then the conclusion that he is not the pope is also certain. You do not need a PhD in canon law to know that it is certain, UNLESS you cannot read or understand the argument.

Modern education has so corrupted the minds of the masses that they are the playthings of the elites which control the MSM and fear to think. God gaves us all an mind to know things with certitude, and if we doubt that, then we have accepted what the Elites want us to think about ourselves, so that we become their servants and unquestioning slaves.

Fred Martinez said…
Br. Bugnolo,


I agree that for children and adults 2+5 doesn't equal 10, but in matters of importance expertise whether by being trained to be competent by competent persons or acquiring that competency by independent scholarship isn't a matter of simple addition.

Would you recieve a surgery from a doctor or even have your car repaired by someone who wasn't competent?

It's not being a "unquestioning slave" for intelligent people to ask those who have expertise or competence in canon law which as you said requires a real knowledge of Latin (and implied, not I, requires being a canon lawyer to be a "expert") to present evidence for or against the position of whether canon 17, etc... are indeed true criteria for judging if Pope Benedict's resignation was valid or not.

Your agrument is apparently convincing, but it is not self evident. A truly logical person weights all the evidence before making a judgement on the validity of a matter.

The agenda of the Catholic Monitor isn't to want to appear always right (if I or it presents information that is incorrect then we acknowledge that we were wrong), but is to follow the evidence to the truth that is why I ask real canon law experts who have competency to present evidence against your arguments.

Are you claiming by my asking for competent canon law experts to present counter agruments to your thesis that I am a unquestioning slave in the control of the MSM?

Are you claiming by my calling for an imperfect council to investigate and judge the matter that I am a unquestioning slave in the control of the MSM?

Alexis Bugnolo said…
Dear Fred,

2*5=10 means Two times 5 Equals Ten. I am sorry if the symbol * was not understood.

An act of surgery or the repair of an automobile is not an argument, its the practice of an art, either than of Medicine or of mechanics.

But in an argument of this kind:

All female platypuses lay eggs.
This animal is a female platypus
This animal lays eggs.

You do not need any expertise other than being a rational human being to know the conclusion is certain, once you verify the truth of the first two propositions.

So in the Canonical argument

Canon 332.2 requires the renunciation of munus as its fundamental condition.
But Pope Benedict renounces ministerium.
Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope.

Is an argument you need not be an expert to see is true.


However, if you accept the counter arguments which run contrary to the plain meaning of the text of canon 332.2, then you might be in doubt about the conclusion. But that is only because you have accepted as true a doubt for which there is no evidence in law or theology.

As for my discussion of certitude, I was referring to how an argument is known to be certain and attempting to show you that its certitude has nothing to do with the expertise of the one presenting it. We seek certitude in facts from which the major and minor premise of an argument is derived.

So I was not faulting you personally, but I was fauilting your argument for its implicit major, that all arguments are known to be certain on account of the expertise of the ones who present them.

I regard the arguments I read at Ann Barnhardt, Mark Docherty and yourself to be certain, not on the basis of who you three are. And I hope that likewise anyone reading my arguments approaches them from the principles I have explained here, which are simply those of the discipline of Logic, which, yes, I did study at the University of Florida in an advanced course on symbolic logic, and at Our Lady of Grace Seminary under one of the masters of Philosophy, Peter Kreft, and from one of the great Medievals, Peter of Spain, whose treatise I have read and used in both Latin and Italian.

So I grant for those who do not have the same acacdemic formation that they PERSONALLY are not certain, and seek an expert's opinion But that personal sense of incertitude has NOTHING to do with the argument, the certitude of which is something objective and outside of their minds.

I hope this explains what I meant.
Fred Martinez said…
Dear Br. Bugnolo,

As usual, your logic appears solid. That all canon lawyers are running away from debating you on canon 17 and canon 332.2 makes you case very convincing.



Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Wernz-Vidal: "One cannot consider as Schismatics those who Refuse to Obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person Suspect or, because of Widespread Rumors, Doubtfully Elected"

    Pope Francis is tottering on the precipice of Hell. None of this means he isn't the pope, and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right. Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave has come out and said the election was rigged and Bergoglio isn't the pope, that he is in fact an anti-pope . If he is, a future pope can declare that, when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope. But if the very men gathered in conclave haven't made that public accusation,  anyone who is suggesting that better take into account that they too will have to give an account of themselves to Almighty God when they die . Such talk adds to the scandal of the "little ones," the simple, even potential converts, who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media saying he's not really the pope, draw back from approaching the Church. Do any of us desire to stand in front Our Blessed Lord as the Supreme Judge and explain why, in our desire for more c

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk