Finally, it appears that Grant is claiming that Br. Bugnolo is wrong on a
number of subjects so the Catholic Monitor thought it would be helpful to
understand the Francis is infallibly definitely the pope position by
presenting Benedict is the pope Bugnolo's take on Grant's quoted
arguments as well as his counter arguments.
Let's get ready to rumble!
Here is the Italian Stallion Bugnolo vs. the Pipe Smoker Grant - Catholic Monitor
Taylor Marshall and Tim Flanders in their YouTube get together last year apparently abandoned Steve Skojec's weak "universal acceptance"
theories and took as their champion for their Francis is infallibly
definitely the pope position:
Latinist Ryan Grant's theories as a backbone of their position.
Grant is not a canon lawyer or theologian so his only claim to be listened to is his Latin language translation skills.
How good a Latin language translator is Ryan Grant compared to Latin language scholar Br. Alexis Bugnolo?
The renowned Latin language expert Br. Bugnolo was the editor of the
Franciscan Archive as publisher, project coordinator and translator of
Bonaventure and Lombard.
If one googles Br. Alexis Bugnolo and books.google, one finds Bugnolo's
name as well as translations mentioned over and over again in footnotes
and text.
Grant wrote for Steve Skojec's One Peter Five and according to that
blog's biography of him his Latin language scholarly background is:
"Ryan Grant... taught Latin for seven years."
(One Peter Five, "Author: Ryan Grant")
The Latin teacher is not a theologian or a canon law expert. The
apparent only reason any one should even bother to listen to him is
because he has done some Latin translations of St. Robert Bellarmine and
St. Alphonsus.
Here is renowned Latin language expert Br. Bugnolo's assessment of one of Ryan's Latin translations:
"The passages I have examined in his [Grant's] translation of St.
Alphonsus have more than one error in every sentence, and hence I
conclude they are worthless for anyone to use."
(From Rome, " From Straw Man to Superstition," February 5, 2020)
Grant who has possibly not top flight skills in Latin translation according to the
assessment a Latin language scholar and is not a canon law expert or a
theologian on the Taylor Marshall YouTube ignored canon 17 and claimed ministerium and munus are a "metonym," that is a synonym or near synonym:
"[Grant said:] In Benedict, it is like you know, ministry, he is using, he is probably using it as a metonym and it is common to use one thing for the other."
(Dr. Taylor Marshall YouTube channel, "Can Popes become Heretics? St.
Robert Bellarmine Analysis, January 31, 2020, 147:17-147:24)
On the show Grant said:
"If I ever come out and say I am a theologian take me out to the wood shed and beat me."
(144:08-144:13)
Why is Grant who stated on the YouTube show that he was not a
"theologian" and claims no expertise in canon law ignoring canon 17?
Canon lawyer Edward Peters explains canon 17's importance:
"Canon 17... states 'if the meaning [of the law, and UDG is a law]
remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places."
(Catholic World Report, "Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded," September 28, 2017)
Finally, it appears that Grant is claiming that Br. Bugnolo is wrong on a
number of subjects so the Catholic Monitor thought it would be helpful to
understand the Francis is infallibly definitely the pope position by
presenting Benedict is the pope Bugnolo's take on Grant's quoted
arguments as well as his counter arguments.
Let's get ready to rumble!
Here is the Italian Stallion Bugnolo vs. the Pipe Smoker Grant:
One
such argumentor is Ryan Grant, and he bravely makes his argument on
YouTube in the comment section of some video — where I do not know — but
I have been sent screen shots of it, and will use them to make a
further reply.
Ryan
Grant is the translator of some of the writings of Saint Alphonsus. I
do not think he has studied Canon Law, but then I do not know anything
more about him.
So here we go… The context of his comments is the contents of PPBXVI.org the banner site for the Movement for Pope Benedict XVI, which does not have a comment section, . . ..
Here is my reply, which I was solicited for by Grant’s interlocutor, who is a frequent commentator here at FromRome.Info:
While
it is true that the Supreme Legislator is the Roman Pontiff and that he
has the right and capacity to authoritatively interpret his own acts,
Mons. Arrieta, Secretary to the Pontifical Council for Legal Texts,
affirmed on Dec. 11, 2019, that the act of a papal renunciation is not
subject to the interpretation of anyone, because it must be clear in and
of itself, and no on has the right to interpret it, not even the one
who makes it. And as Saint Alphonsus, who held a doctorate in both civil
and canon law, says in his tract on Legal Interpretation,
to interpret a word to mean that which it does not in normal parlance
or legal tradition mean is an act of interpretation which can only be
done by the legislator in a second and subsequent act. Therefore, though
you are correct to say that the Roman Pontiff can normally interpret
his acts, this is one act of which even an interpretation issued in
forma specifica cannot correct via an interpretation. Indeed, as Mons
Arrieta affirmed there never was a papal interpretation made of the act
before Feb 29, 2013. So your objection is unfounded as to the matter and
erroneous as to the form of your claim. This is how canon law really
works, if you knew anything real about it.
Grant rebuts my argument, thus:
Grant
makes the common fallacy of thinking that the one who resigns the papal
office is the Pope. Nope! An act of papal resignation, as affirmed by
Dr. Ghirlanda, S.J., professor of Canon Law here at Rome, in an article
he published in March of 2013, affirms correctly that an act of
renunciation of office is an act whereby one separates himself from the
office he holds. — But the office cannot separate itself from itself. —
While it is true Canon 332 §2 speaks of that man as the Roman Pontiff,
that is simply because prior to the act of renunciation the substance of
the one acting bears that exalted dignity.
So Grant misapplies the principle, The First See is judged by no one,
because he failed to notice that the one who resigns is not the See nor
the Pontiff, but the man who holds the latter and occupies the former.
Otherwise, if we are NOT talking about a papal resignation, then the
principle applies to the Pope at all times. So Grant’s argument begins
with a fallacy of fact and proceeds to a fallacy praeter rem. Thus it is
invalid on two grounds.
Having
been defeated on the point of legal interpretation, by my first reply,
Grant, next, attempts to argue that the behavior of Pope Benedict XVI
after Feb. 28, 2013 manifests his intention and his mind, and thus
serves as an interpretation of the act. This is an argument which no
canonist would ever make, since behavior is not a juridical act. But
even common sense can see that since the Canon requires a Renunciation,
and as all good Latinists know, a renutiare is an act which is verbal,
not one made by gestures or actions, his argument is also praeter rem,
and presupposes a fallacy of not reading the Canon in its precise terms.
For the canon says, “If a Roman Pontiff renounce,” not, “If a Roman
Pontiff separate himself from his office.”
His next argument is drawn from my published notes on my meeting with Bishop Arrieta. You can read my notes for yourself here.
— This means that Grant does read FromRome.Info, even if he is ashamed
to admit it. — Well, then, Grant is confused. Because you cannot admit
principles and then try to undermine them by personal testimony. Bishop
Arrieta and I agreed on many principles, and in my notes I pointed out
that my questions regarding where we disagreed were never answered. So
Grant is saying that since Bishop Arrieta does not agree with me but
refused to give me a reason for his disagreement, which is in accord
with any principle of law, that that means that I am wrong and Arrieta
is correct. I do not think sane people argue this way, but that is not a
valid argument, because it cites no reason.
Next,
Grant admits that no one can interpret the Act of renunciation, and
then argues that since Barnhardt and I say it means what it says, but
Arrieta says it means something else, that clearly Barnhardt and I are
wrong. This is the same kind of mental argumentation I see often by
those who say Benedict is not the pope. It is called gaslighting,
because Grant is insisting on something contrary to the basic laws of
language, namely when you explain anything using different words you are
interpreting the statement which you are explaining. Ann and I do not
do that. Grant and Arrieta do. So they are condemned by the very
principles they admit, even if they insist that others view reality in
their own distorted manner. This is so like the Left!
Finally,
Grant gets into big ontological problems with his assertion that
ministry and power flow from the munus and thus to renounce them is to
renounce the munus. I guess he cannot understand my Scholastic Question,
which was all about the distinction found in all the Scholastics like
Saint Thomas Aquinas, that the substance holds all the potentia of the
being of a thing, and thus to renounce anything which flows from the
substance is not and cannot be a renunciation of the substance, just
like when you renounce staying away and thus fall asleep, you still have
the power and being to wake again in the morning. Once again, then,
Grant argues against reality itself. What can I say? I do not have to
refute him, reality itself does that more eloquently.
As
for his assertion that canonists all agree with him, that is
gratuitous. I do not know of any canonist in the entire Church who has
marshaled an argument for Grant’s position. Not even Bishop Arrieta. All
you get in reply is assertions without arguments. And in logic, that
means you have conceded that your position is irrational, and thus
untrue, unless of course you are an idiot who cannot think or reason,
which none of these men are.
There
is another error in Grant’s argument, and Mons. Arrieta made the same
error: they both hold that the Canon says, “If a Roman Pontiff renounce
his office.” But that is not what it says; it says, “If a Roman Pontiff
renounce his munus.” Canon 1331 in section 2, n. 4, shows that the Code
of Canon Law distinguishes between munus and office. That means that the
specific act essential to a papal renunciation does require the
renunciation of munus, and that means, that both the liberty and due
manifestation required, also regard the renunciation of the munus. This
is a very important point, and is the key argument to use against all of
Pope Benedict’s opponents. They have to use this fallacious reading,
because they can see that the text of the Declaratio is not in
conformity with the Canon.
Now
I understand why Grant does not want to argue with me directly. I have
challenged everyone to a debate, even 3 Pontifical Faculties of Canon
Law, no one takes my offer, because they do not want to expose that
their position is irrational and not sustained by the principles of law.
— However, I grant this to Ryan, he has had the integrity to argue it
in public. I respect him for that.[https://fromrome.info/2020/02/01/answering-questions-from-ryan-grant/]
Stop
for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next.
In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine
Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth
and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal
happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make
this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading
anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
- 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)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]
- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html
- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html
- LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial
weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples
facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of
Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"
- On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia
has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."
- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the
Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters
magisterial documents."
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Election Notes:
- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on
Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M
Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]
- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA
Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic]
Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God's Will and to do it.