Flashback: Why is LifeSiteNews Afraid to "Investigate or Report" that apparently Canon 17 "Requires that Ministerium and Munus [must] be Understood as Referring to Two Different Things"?
In all fairness to LSN, I had exceeded their guidelines for the
suggested number of comments per article, many of which were removed,
before the one that apparently put the proverbial nail in the coffin, er
plug in the inkwell.
Are we not seekers of Truth anymore or what?
Are we not seekers of Truth anymore or what?
Yes, that is the question:
Is the Catholic media seeking the truth?
If you disagree with with Br. Bugnolo's scholarly thesis then counter it with reasonable counter arguments otherwise you have revealed that you are not seeking the truth.- Catholic Monitor Comment Section [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/12/why-is-lifesitenews-afraid-to.html]
Is the Catholic media seeking the truth?
If you disagree with with Br. Bugnolo's scholarly thesis then counter it with reasonable counter arguments otherwise you have revealed that you are not seeking the truth.- Catholic Monitor Comment Section [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/12/why-is-lifesitenews-afraid-to.html]
On December 6, LifeSiteNews co-founder
Lifesite has indeed reported on that. Perhaps you are disappointed
that we have not taken a firm position on the controversy. As a news
agency that is not our role.
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-amoris-opening-communion-to-adulterers-is-magisterium-of-the-church]
Unfortunately, this is not apparently exactly true. The news site has never reported on why "in canon law munus is never interchanged with ministerium," but instead spoke about the two words only referring to the "Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short)" and not in referring to the all important 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)
On February 14, 2019, LifeSiteNews admitted that it is possible according to their quoted theologian that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation could have been invalid. The LifeSiteNews theologian said the "abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: 'I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.'”
But, the "theologian who spoke to LifeSiteNews on condition of anonymity" never mentioned canon 17:
“But ‘ministerium’ doesn’t have to mean acts,” he explained. “The first meaning given to it in the Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short) is ‘office.’ I would say that its basic meaning is ‘an office by reason of which one must perform acts to help others.’”
The theologian noted further that ‘munus’ doesn’t only mean a state. “According to the Latin dictionary, it can also refer to the performance of a duty,” he said. “It was used in this sense by Cicero and there is no more authoritative writer of Latin prose than him.”
"He said the main difference between the words appears to be simply that ‘munus’ connotes more “the burden which the office puts on its bearer,” and ‘ministerium’ connotes more “the reference to other people which the office establishes.”
“But that doesn’t prevent them from referring to one and the same office or state,” he added.
Why then did Pope Benedict say munus at the start of his Latin declaration and ministerium at the end, if he understood them to refer to the same reality? The theologian suggested two possibilities.
“One is simply that people who want to write elegant prose often avoid frequent repetitions of the same word,” he said. “Another is that the word ‘ministerium’ has perhaps a more humble sound to it, since it refers more directly to the papacy in its relation to other people, than as a charge placed on oneself. So having begun by using the official word, ‘munus,’ Benedict moved on to the more humble sounding word.”
The theologian went on to note that while Benedict was aware of theological writings from the 1970’s onward that proposed the Petrine munus could be divided, he is 'not aware of any place where Joseph Ratzinger endorses this thesis.”
He said the lack of clarity about Ratzinger’s position is aggravated by the fact that translators have mistranslated Ratzinger and presented him as endorsing heterodox ideas when in fact he was reporting someone else’s thought rather than expressing his own.
The theologian acknowledged that it is possible that Pope Benedict thought there might be a real distinction between munus and ministerium but was unsure. In that case, he said, Benedict’s abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: “I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.”
But he said it would be equally possible that, being unsure whether there was a distinction, Benedict could have had in mind the thought: “I want to resign the ministerium whether or not it is distinct from the munus.” In that case, the theologian said he believes the resignation would have been valid."
“In any case,” he said, “I don’t think there is convincing evidence that Benedict thought there was a real distinction between the two things.”
“Again,” the theologian continued, “since according to Canon 15.2, error is not presumed about a law, the presumption must be that he validly renounced the papacy.”
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/did-benedict-really-resign-gaenswein-burke-and-brandmueller-weigh-in]
Canon law and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo says this is not a correct way to canonically and legally approach the resignation because canon law requires an objective reading of what the two words mean using canon 17's criteria as canon lawyer Peters explained and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict or in a Latin dictionary:
"Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1 and canon 41... [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."
(From Rome, "Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)
Why does it appear that LifeSiteNews refuses or is afraid to "investigate or report on" that "Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1 and canon 41... [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."?
LifeSiteNews are you seeking the truth?
If you disagree with Br. Bugnolo's scholarly thesis then counter it with reasonable counter arguments otherwise you have revealed that you are not seeking the truth.
LifeSiteNews, please, refute the following if you're not afraid:
Br. Bugnolo has explained in overwhelming detail in the following treatise using canon law why canonists are wrong in saying ministerium and munus are synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the exact same thing:
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/
Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-amoris-opening-communion-to-adulterers-is-magisterium-of-the-church]
Unfortunately, this is not apparently exactly true. The news site has never reported on why "in canon law munus is never interchanged with ministerium," but instead spoke about the two words only referring to the "Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short)" and not in referring to the all important 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)
On February 14, 2019, LifeSiteNews admitted that it is possible according to their quoted theologian that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation could have been invalid. The LifeSiteNews theologian said the "abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: 'I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.'”
But, the "theologian who spoke to LifeSiteNews on condition of anonymity" never mentioned canon 17:
“But ‘ministerium’ doesn’t have to mean acts,” he explained. “The first meaning given to it in the Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short) is ‘office.’ I would say that its basic meaning is ‘an office by reason of which one must perform acts to help others.’”
The theologian noted further that ‘munus’ doesn’t only mean a state. “According to the Latin dictionary, it can also refer to the performance of a duty,” he said. “It was used in this sense by Cicero and there is no more authoritative writer of Latin prose than him.”
"He said the main difference between the words appears to be simply that ‘munus’ connotes more “the burden which the office puts on its bearer,” and ‘ministerium’ connotes more “the reference to other people which the office establishes.”
“But that doesn’t prevent them from referring to one and the same office or state,” he added.
Why then did Pope Benedict say munus at the start of his Latin declaration and ministerium at the end, if he understood them to refer to the same reality? The theologian suggested two possibilities.
“One is simply that people who want to write elegant prose often avoid frequent repetitions of the same word,” he said. “Another is that the word ‘ministerium’ has perhaps a more humble sound to it, since it refers more directly to the papacy in its relation to other people, than as a charge placed on oneself. So having begun by using the official word, ‘munus,’ Benedict moved on to the more humble sounding word.”
The theologian went on to note that while Benedict was aware of theological writings from the 1970’s onward that proposed the Petrine munus could be divided, he is 'not aware of any place where Joseph Ratzinger endorses this thesis.”
He said the lack of clarity about Ratzinger’s position is aggravated by the fact that translators have mistranslated Ratzinger and presented him as endorsing heterodox ideas when in fact he was reporting someone else’s thought rather than expressing his own.
The theologian acknowledged that it is possible that Pope Benedict thought there might be a real distinction between munus and ministerium but was unsure. In that case, he said, Benedict’s abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: “I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.”
But he said it would be equally possible that, being unsure whether there was a distinction, Benedict could have had in mind the thought: “I want to resign the ministerium whether or not it is distinct from the munus.” In that case, the theologian said he believes the resignation would have been valid."
“In any case,” he said, “I don’t think there is convincing evidence that Benedict thought there was a real distinction between the two things.”
“Again,” the theologian continued, “since according to Canon 15.2, error is not presumed about a law, the presumption must be that he validly renounced the papacy.”
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/did-benedict-really-resign-gaenswein-burke-and-brandmueller-weigh-in]
Canon law and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo says this is not a correct way to canonically and legally approach the resignation because canon law requires an objective reading of what the two words mean using canon 17's criteria as canon lawyer Peters explained and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict or in a Latin dictionary:
"Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1 and canon 41... [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."
(From Rome, "Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)
Why does it appear that LifeSiteNews refuses or is afraid to "investigate or report on" that "Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1 and canon 41... [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."?
LifeSiteNews are you seeking the truth?
If you disagree with Br. Bugnolo's scholarly thesis then counter it with reasonable counter arguments otherwise you have revealed that you are not seeking the truth.
LifeSiteNews, please, refute the following if you're not afraid:
Br. Bugnolo has explained in overwhelming detail in the following treatise using canon law why canonists are wrong in saying ministerium and munus are synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the exact same thing:
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/
Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage
in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The
study of Canon Law is a recondite field for nearly everyone in the
Church except Canon Lawyers. And even for Canon Lawyers, most of whom
are prepared to work in the Marriage Tribunals of the Church, most of
the Code of Canon Law is not frequently referred to.
However,
when it comes to the problems of determining the validity of a
canonical act, the expertise among Canon Lawyers becomes even more
difficult to find, since the circumstances and problems in a single
canonical act touch upon a great number of Canons of the Code of Canon
Law, and thus require the profound knowledge and experience of years of
problem solving to be readily recognized.
For
this reason, though popularly many Catholics are amazed that after 6
years there can still be questions and doubts about the validity of the
Act of Renunciation declared by Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013,
it actually is not so surprising when one knows just a little about the
complexity of the problems presented by the document which contains that
Act.
First
of all, the Latin of the Act, which is the only official and canonical
text, is rife with errors of Latin Grammar. All the translations of the
Act which have ever been done, save for a few, cover those errors with a
good deal of indulgence, because it is clear that whoever wrote the
Latin was not so fluent in writing Latin as they thought, a thing only
the experts at such an art can detect.
Even
myself, who have translated thousands of pages of Latin into English,
and whose expertise is more in making Latin intelligible as read, than
in writing intelligible Latin according to the rules of Latin grammar
can see this. However, we are not talking about literary indulgences
when we speak of the canonical value or signification of a text.
For
centuries it was a constant principle of interpretation, that if a
canonical act in Latin contained errors it was not to be construed as
valid, but had to be redone. Unfortunately for the Church, Cardinal
Sodano and whatever Cardinals or Canonists examined the text of the Act
prior to the public announcement of its signification utterly failed on
this point, as will be seen during this conference.
This
is because if there are multiple errors or any error, the Cardinal was
allowed and even obliged under canons 40 and 41 to ask that the text be
corrected.
This
evening, however, we are not going to talk about the lack of good
Latinity in the text of the Act nor of the other errors which make the
text unintelligible to fluent Latinists who think like the Romans of
Cicero’s day when they see Latin written, but rather, of the
signification of Canon 332 §2, in its fundamental clause of condition,
where it says in the Latin, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, which in good English is, If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus….
The
entire condition for a Papal Renunciation of Office in the Code of
Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II is founded on this first
clause of Canon 332 §2. It behooves us, therefore, when any say that
the Renunciation was valid or invalid, to first read this Canon and
understand when a renunciation takes place and when it does not take
place.
For
this purpose, in this first intervention at this Conference, I will
speak about the meaning of the two words, Munus and Ministerium, in the
Code of Canon Law. I will speak of both, because, in Canon 332 §2 Pope
John Paul II wrote munus and in the Act of Renunciation, Pope Benedict XVI renounced ministerium.
This
study is not an idle one, or even only of academic interest. It is
required by Canon Law, because in Canon 17, it says, that when there
arises a doubt about the signification of a canon, one is to have
recourse to the Code of Canon Law, the sources of canonical tradition
and the Mind of the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) in determining the
authentic meaning.
According
to Canon 17 the words of Canoon 332 §2, therefore, are to be understood
properly. Therefore, let us examine the Code to see what is the proper
meaning of the words munus and ministerium.
Ministerium in the Code of Canon Law
This study is something everyone with the Internet can do. Because there
exists an indexed copy of the Latin text of the Code on line at Intratext.com. In the Alphabetic index of which one can find hyperlinked, all the words found in the Code, in their different Latin forms.
For the word Ministerium, there are 6 forms
found: Ministeria, Ministerii, Ministeriis, Ministerio, Ministeriorum,
Ministerium. Respectively they occur 7, 13, 3, 17, 3, 25 times each in
the Code.
Let us take a look at each, briefly.
Ministeria:
The Nominative and Accusative Plural: Occurs 7 times.
In canons 230, 232, 233, 237, 385, 611 and 1035. Each of these refer
to one or more of the sacred ministries or services exercised during the
Divine Liturgy, whether by priests, lectors, acolytes etc..
Ministerii:
The Genitive. Occurs 13 times. In canons 233 twice,
276, 278, 519, 551, 756, 759, 1370, 1373, 1375 1389, 1548. These refer
to the sacred service (canons 233, in canon 271 §2, 1, to the duties of
the pastoral ministry (ministerii pastoralis officia as in canon 276,
278 or 551) which sanctify the priest, and specifically in relation to
munus in several canons:
In Canon 519, where it says of the duties of the Pastor of a Parish:
Can. 519 – Parochus est pastor proprius paroeciae sibi commissae, cura pastorali communitatis sibi concreditae fungens sub auctoritate Episcopi dioecesani, cuius in partem ministerii Christi vocatus est, ut pro eadem communitate munera exsequatur docendi, sanctificandi et regendi, cooperantibus etiam aliis presbyteris vel diaconis atque operam conferentibus christifidelibus laicis, ad normam iuris.
Which in English is:
Canon 519: The parish priest is the pastor of the parish assigned to him, exercising (fungens) the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the Diocesan Bishop, in a portion of whose ministry in Christ (in partem ministerii Chirsti) he has been called, so that he might execute (exsequatur) the munera of teaching, sanctifying and ruling for the same community, with the cooperation also of the other priests and/or deacons and faithful laity assisting in the work, according to the norm of law.
Let us note, first of all, that here the Code distinguishes between the
munera of teaching, santifying and ruling from the entire ministry of
Christ a part of which is shared by the Bishop.
And again in Canon 756, when it speaks of the munus of
announcing the Gospel, it says, after speaking of the duty of the Roman
Pontiff in this regard in conjunction with the College of Bishops:
756 § 2. Quoad Ecclesiam particularem sibi concreditam illud munus exercent singuli Episcopi, qui quidem totius ministerii verbi in eadem sunt moderatores; quandoque vero aliqui Episcopi coniunctim illud explent quoad diversas simul Ecclesias, ad normam iuris.
Which in English is:
756 §2 In regard to the particular Church entrusted to him, every Bishop, who is indeed the moderater of the whole ministry of the word to it, exercises (exercent) this munus; but also when any Bishop fulfills that conjointly in regard to the diverse Churches, according to the norm of law.
Let us note here simply that the Code distinguishes between the exercise of a munus and the ministerium of preaching the word.
Again in canon 759, ministerii is used regarding the preaching of the word. In Canon 1370 it is used in reference to the contempt of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1373, it is spoken of in regard the an act of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1548 in regard to the exercise of the sacred ministry of the clergy.
In canon 1389, it is spoken of in the context of power, munus and ministry. Let us take a closer look:
Can. 1389 – § 1. Ecclesiastica potestate vel munere abutens pro actus vel omissionis gravitate puniatur, non exclusa officii privatione, nisi in eum abusum iam poena sit lege vel praecepto constituta.
2. Qui vero, ex culpabili neglegentia, ecclesiasticae potestatis vel ministerii vel muneris actum illegitime cum damno alieno ponit vel omittit, iusta poena puniatur.
Which in English is:
Canon 1389 §1 Let the one abusing Ecclesiastical power and/or munus be punished in proportion to the gravity of the act and/or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless for that abuse there has already been established a punishment by law and/or precept.
2. However, Let him who, out of culpable negligence, illegitimately posits and/or omits an act of ecclesiastical power and/or ministry and/or of munus, with damage to another, be punished with a just punishment.
Let us note here that the Code in a penal precept distinguishes between:
potestas, ministerium and munus. This implies that in at least one
proper sense of each of these terms, they can be understood to signify
something different or distinct from the other.
This finishes the study of the occurences of ministerii.
Ministeriis
The ablative and dative plural form. Occurs 3 times.
In canons 274 and 674, where it refers to the sacred ministry of the
priesthood and to the ministries exercised in parish life, respectively.
And in Canon 1331 §1, 3, where the one excommunicated is forbidden to
exercise all ecclesiastical duties (officiis) and/or ministries and/or
munera (muneribus) The Latin is:
Can. 1331 – § 1. Excommunicatus vetatur:
1 ullam habere participationem ministerialem in celebrandis Eucharistiae Sacrificio vel quibuslibet aliis cultus caerimoniis;
2 sacramenta vel sacramentalia celebrare et sacramenta recipere;
3 ecclesiasticis officiis vel ministeriis vel muneribus quibuslibet fungi vel actus regiminis ponere.
The English is:
Canon 1331 §1. An excommunicate is forbidden:
- from having any ministerial participation in the celebrating of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and/or in any other ceremonies of worship
- from celebrating the Sacraments and/or sacramentals and from receiving the Sacraments;
- from exercising (fungi) ecclesiastical officia and/or ministeria and/or munera and/or from positing acts of governance.
Let us note again, that the Code distinguishes in this negative precept
the terms Officia, Ministeria and Munera. This means, very
significantly, that in the Mind of the Legislator, there is a proper
sense in which these terms can each be understood as excluding the
other. All three are named to make the signification of the negative
precept comprehensive of all possible significations.
Ministerio
The Ablative and Dative singular form. Occurs 17 times.
Canons 252, 271, 281, 386 refer to the ministries exercised in the
liturgy or apostolate. Canon 545 uses ministerio in reference to the
pastoral ministry being proffered, 548 likewise in reference to the
pastor of a parish, 559 likewise. Canon 713 refers to the priestly
ministry, canons 757, 760 and 836 to the ministry of the word. Canon 899
to the priestly ministry of Christ. Canon 1036 speaks of the need a
Bishop has to have knowledge that a candidate for ordination has a
willingness to dedicate himself to the life long service which is the
duty of orders.
Canon 1722, which has to deal with canonical trials, speaks again of the
sacred ministerium, officium and munus exercised (arcere) of the one
accused. Distinguishing all three terms to make a comprehensive
statement of what can be interdicted by a penalty.
This far for the 17 instances of ministerio.
Ministeriorum
The genitive plural form. Occurs 3 times. In canon 230
in regard to the conferral of ministries of acolyte and lector upon
laymen. In canon 499 in regard to having members of the Presbyteral
Council of the Diocese include priests with a variety of ministries
exercised all over the diocese. And in canon 1050, in regard to those to
be ordained, that they have a document showing they have willingly
accepted a live long ministry in sacred service.
And finally the Nominative Singular form.
MINISTERIUM
Of which there are 25 occurrences in the Code.
First and most significantly in Canon 41, the very canon that
Cardinal Sodano had to act upon when examining the Act of Renunciation
by Pope Benedict.
The Latin reads:
Can. 41 — Exsecutor actus administrativi cui committitur merum exsecutionis ministerium, exsecutionem huius actus denegare non potest, nisi manifesto appareat eundem actum esse nullum aut alia ex gravi causa sustineri non posse aut condiciones in ipso actu administrativo appositas non esse adimpletas; si tamen actus administrativi exsecutio adiunctorum personae aut loci ratione videatur inopportuna, exsecutor exsecutionem intermittat; quibus in casibus statim certiorem faciat auctoritatem quae actum edidit.
The English reads:
Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry (ministerium) of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears to be null from (something) manifest [manifesto] or cannot be sustained for any grave cause or the conditions in the administrative act itself do not seem to be able to have been fulfilled: however, if the execution of the administrative act seems inopportune by reason of place or adjoined persons, let the executor omit the execution; in which cases let him immediately bring the matter to the attention of (certiorem faciat) the authority which published the act.
Then, ministerium occurs again in canon 230, in reference to the
ministry of the word, where officia is used in the sense of duties. In
canon 245, in regard to the pastoral ministry and teaching missionaries
the ministry. In Canon 249 again in regard to the pastoral ministry, in
255 in regard to the ministry of teaching, sanctifying etc.., in 256,
257, 271, 324 in regard to the sacred ministry of priests, in Canon 392
in regard to the ministries of the word. In Canon 509 in regard to the
ministry exercised by the Canons of the Cathedral Chapter. In Canon 545
in regard to the parish ministry, in canon 533 in regard to the ministry
exercised by a Vicar. In canons 618 and 654 in regard to the power
received by religious superiors through the ministry of the Church. In
Canon 1025, 1041, and 1051 to the usefulness of a candidate for orders
for service (ministerium) to the Church. In Canon 1375 to those who
exercise power and/or ecclesiastical ministry.
Ministerium occurs significantly in canon 1384, regard to the penalites a priest can incurr.
Can. 1384 – Qui, praeter casus, de quibus in cann. 1378-1383, sacerdotale munus vel aliud sacrum ministerium illegitime exsequitur, iusta poena puniri potest.
Which in English is:
Canon 1384 Who, besides the cases, concerning which in canons 1378 to 1383 the priestly munus and/or any other sacred ministerium is illegitimately executed, can be punished with a just punishment.
The Code explicitly distinguishes between munus and ministerium as
entirely different and or distinct aspects of priestly being and action.
To finish off, the Code mentions Ministerium, again in Canon 1481 in
regard to the ministry of lawyers, 1502 and 1634 to the ministry of
judges, and in 1740 to ministry of the pastor of a parish.
This completes the entire citation of the Code on the word Ministry in all its Latin Forms, singular and plural.
In summation, we can see already that the Code distinguishes between
proper senses of ministerium and munus, habitually throughout its canons
and uses ministerium always for a service to be rendered by a layman,
priest, Bishop, lawyer, judge or to or by the Church Herself. It never
uses ministerium as an office or title or dignity or charge.
Munus in the Code of Canon Law
Munus is a very common term in the Code of Canon Law, occurring a total of 188 times.
The Latin forms which appear in the Code are Munus (77 times), Muneris
(26 times), Muneri (2 times), Munere (48 times), Munera (20 times)
Munerum (6 times) and Muneribus (9 times).
While the length of this conference does not me to cite them all, I will refer to the most important occurrences.
I will omit citing Canon 331, 333, 334 and 749, where speaking of the
Papal Office, the code uses the words Munus. In no other canons does it
speak of the Papal office per se, except in Canon 332 §2, which governs
Papal renunciations, where it also uses munus.
But as to the proper sense of munus in the Code, let us look at the most significant usages:
First as regards predication, where the Mind of the Legislator indicates
when any given proper sense of this term can be said to be a another
term.
This occurs only once in canon 145, §1
Can. 145 – § 1. Officium ecclesiasticum est quodlibet munus ordinatione sive divina sive ecclesiastica stabiliter constitutum in finem spiritualem exercendum.
Which in English is:
Canon 145 § 1. An ecclesiastical office (officium) is any munus constituted by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance as to be exercised for a spiritual end.
Second, as regards the canons governing the events of Feb. 11, 2013,
there is Canon 40, which Cardinal Sodano and his assistants had to
refer to in the moments following the Consistory of Feb 11, 2013:
Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.
In English:
Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his munus (suo munero), before he receives the document (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) its integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of it has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.
Third, as regards to the distinction of munus and the fulfillment of a
duty of office, there is Canon 1484, §1 in regard to the offices of
Procurator and Advocate in a Tribunal of Eccleisastical Jurisdiction:
Can. 1484 – § 1. Procurator et advocatus antequam munus suscipiant, mandatum authenticum apud tribunal deponere debent.
Which in English is:
Canon 1484 §1. The procurator and advocate ought to deposit a copy of their authentic mandate with the Tribunal, before they undertake their munus.
Note here, significantly, that the Code associates the mandate to
exercise an office with the undertaking of the munus (munus).
Negatively, therefore, what is implied by this canon is that when one
lays down his mandate, there is a renunciation of the munus.
Finally, in regard to possibile synonyms for munus, in the Code we have
Canon 1331, §2, n. 4, which is one of the most significant in the entire
code, as we shall see: There is forbidden the promotion of those who
are excommunicated:
4 nequit valide consequi dignitatem, officium aliudve munus in Ecclesia
Which in English reads:
- He cannot validly obtain a dignity, office and/or any munus in the Church.
If there was every any doubt about the Mind of the Legislator of the
proper sense of terms in the Code of Canon law regarding what Munus
means, this canon answers it by equating dignity, office and munus as things to which one cannot be promoted!
Note well, ministerium is not included in that list! thus Ministerium does not signify a dignity, office or munus!
This study of Munis and Ministerium in the Code thus concludes, for the
lack of time. We have seen that the Code distinguishes clearly between
the terms of officium, munus, ministerium, potestas and dignitas. It
predicates officium of munus alone, It equates dignitas and munus and
officium. It distinguishes between potestas and ministerium.
The only sane conclusion is, therefore, that munus and ministerium are
distinct terms with different meanings. They cannot substitute for one
another in any sentence in which their proper senses are employed. Munus
can substitute for officium, when officium means that which regards a
title or dignity or ecclesiastical office.
Thus in Canon 332 §2, where the Canon reads, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet.
The Code is not speaking of ministerium, and if it is speaking of any
other terms, it is speaking of a dignitas or officium. But the papal
office is a dignitas, officium and a munus. thus Canon 332 §2 is using
munus in its proper sense and referring to the papal office.
——
(This is a transcript of my first talk at the Conference on the
Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, which took place at Rome on Oct 21,
2019, the full transcript of which is found here)
Comments
Good catch, Mr. Martinez. Here is the rest of the conversation:
Avatar
Steve Jalsevac Mod Islam_Is_Islam • 24 minutes ago
Lifesite has indeed reported on that. Perhaps you are disappointed that we have not taken a firm position on the controversy. As a news agency that is not our role.
•Reply•Share ›
@Mr. Jalsevac: No, it is not a matter of what I like or do not like. It is a matter of transparency and full disclosure. I hope to see you address the following in the near future: Where are your reports on Prof Radaelli's Feb 18, 2013 public request for Pope Benedict to rescind and replace his statement otherwise his chosen words would lead to the election of an anti-pope? Where is your reporting on the facts that there are up to 40 errors in the Declaratio which would indicate a lack of due diligence if at least not negligence on the part of Cdl Sodano when he made his announcement calling for a conclave? Where is your reporting on the fact that munus and ministerium are never used interchangeably in Canon Law? Again, I hope that you will soon and very soon correct this oversight in either investigation and/or thorough reporting. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this information to your attention. There is more, if you'd like to have it. We are unable to post your comment because you have been banned by LifeSiteNews.com. Find out more.
Avatar
Steve Jalsevac Mod Islam_Is_Islam • 24 minutes ago
Lifesite has indeed reported on that. Perhaps you are disappointed that we have not taken a firm position on the controversy. As a news agency that is not our role.
•Reply•Share ›
@Mr. Jalsevac: No, it is not a matter of what I like or do not like. It is a matter of transparency and full disclosure. I hope to see you address the following in the near future: Where are your reports on Prof Radaelli's Feb 18, 2013 public request for Pope Benedict to rescind and replace his statement otherwise his chosen words would lead to the election of an anti-pope? Where is your reporting on the facts that there are up to 40 errors in the Declaratio which would indicate a lack of due diligence if at least not negligence on the part of Cdl Sodano when he made his announcement calling for a conclave? Where is your reporting on the fact that munus and ministerium are never used interchangeably in Canon Law? Again, I hope that you will soon and very soon correct this oversight in either investigation and/or thorough reporting. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this information to your attention. There is more, if you'd like to have it. We are unable to post your comment because you have been banned by LifeSiteNews.com. Find out more.
In all fairness to LSN, I had exceeded their guidelines for the
suggested number of comments per article, many of which were removed,
before the one that apparently put the proverbial nail in the coffin, er
plug in the inkwell.
Are we not seekers of Truth anymore or what?
Are we not seekers of Truth anymore or what?
Yes, that is the question:
Is the Catholic media seeking the truth?
If you disagree with with Br. Bugnolo's scholarly thesis then counter it with reasonable counter arguments otherwise you have revealed that you are not seeking the truth.
Is the Catholic media seeking the truth?
If you disagree with with Br. Bugnolo's scholarly thesis then counter it with reasonable counter arguments otherwise you have revealed that you are not seeking the truth.
LifeSite is banning commentators permanently, even though they claim
they do not take a side. It seems they are only banning those who think
the resignation is invalid. That is not being objective.
But my question for LifeSite is?
In the debate between Nazis and Jews whether Jews should be wiped off the face of the planet, does LifeSite think that their professional integrity means that they should take no side?
In the debate over whether women can kill the babies in their own wombs, does LifeSite think that their professional integrity means that they should take no side?
In the debate over who is the true vicar of Christ and who is the Vicar of Satan, does LifeSite really think that the professional thing to do is not to take a side?
LifeSite by banning only one side, is however taking a side. In only reporting one side, is taking a side. They are acking just like Planned Parenthood.
But my question for LifeSite is?
In the debate between Nazis and Jews whether Jews should be wiped off the face of the planet, does LifeSite think that their professional integrity means that they should take no side?
In the debate over whether women can kill the babies in their own wombs, does LifeSite think that their professional integrity means that they should take no side?
In the debate over who is the true vicar of Christ and who is the Vicar of Satan, does LifeSite really think that the professional thing to do is not to take a side?
LifeSite by banning only one side, is however taking a side. In only reporting one side, is taking a side. They are acking just like Planned Parenthood.
Islam is Islam, it is not you.
AS far as I know, Lifesite had erased ALL of my comments in the last 9 months. ALL of them. I am worse than a pro abort, in their mind.
AS far as I know, Lifesite had erased ALL of my comments in the last 9 months. ALL of them. I am worse than a pro abort, in their mind.
Unite the clans......BS!
Yesterday, I was somewhat upset to find that I, too, have been banned by Lifesite-- which I have long held in great respect.
After reading Brother's remarks, I am deeply glad.
After reading Brother's remarks, I am deeply glad.
"you have been banned"
I got that message from LSN months ago (no stated reason why).
I got that message from LSN months ago (no stated reason why).
@Cam, Justina, Br. Bugnolo, et al.. You probably know that you can use
the disqus features to track down others who you may have been having
discussions with at LifeSiteNews and other sites from which you have
been banned. Some people are very sympathetic once they hear I've been
banned and even willing to act as proxy commenters. It is war, is it
not? At least Mr Matt from the Remnant said as much on one of his
recent videos. lol
According to Lifesite, they themselves have been blocked by Twitter, but vow they won't be stopped.
Hear, hear! Back at ya, Mr. Jalsevac!
Hear, hear! Back at ya, Mr. Jalsevac!
@III, 12:14: Thanks for the tip.
On having "exceeded their [LSN's] guidelines": I realized after the fact that I had too. But if that was the reason for my ban (using comments for discussion?), then I have to wonder why I hadn't already been banned. Of course, right before the block, I had also been engaging many over there on the evidence that Benedict is still Pope. So I imagine that might have had something to do with it.
On having "exceeded their [LSN's] guidelines": I realized after the fact that I had too. But if that was the reason for my ban (using comments for discussion?), then I have to wonder why I hadn't already been banned. Of course, right before the block, I had also been engaging many over there on the evidence that Benedict is still Pope. So I imagine that might have had something to do with it.
Here, in part and with some editing for clarity's sake, is what I said
to Steve Jalsevac that got me banned (and by the way, I have exceded the
recommended number of comments before, without triggering any reaction
from the Lifesite moderators):
"Did you yourself not say, earlier in this same thread, that as a news agency it is not Lifesite's role to take a firm position on controversies like whether or not the man attempting to foist heresy after heresy on the one true Church is even the Pope in the first place? (Yet you take other editorial stands--some of them, very strong ones indeed.) In other words, my question to you is, why shy from making a determination in this one area alone? At the very least, why not insist that the Cardinals, specifically empowered by UD Gregis to resolve such doubts, undertake this responsibility on behalf of the entire Church? Your willingness to wash Lifesite's collective journalistic hands in this way strikes me as rather glib."
Too harsh? I thought the Liberals were supposed to be the snowflakes, not the conservatives. If Jalsevac wants the site he co-founded to be regarded as a serious news agency, it's time to pay his dues.
"Did you yourself not say, earlier in this same thread, that as a news agency it is not Lifesite's role to take a firm position on controversies like whether or not the man attempting to foist heresy after heresy on the one true Church is even the Pope in the first place? (Yet you take other editorial stands--some of them, very strong ones indeed.) In other words, my question to you is, why shy from making a determination in this one area alone? At the very least, why not insist that the Cardinals, specifically empowered by UD Gregis to resolve such doubts, undertake this responsibility on behalf of the entire Church? Your willingness to wash Lifesite's collective journalistic hands in this way strikes me as rather glib."
Too harsh? I thought the Liberals were supposed to be the snowflakes, not the conservatives. If Jalsevac wants the site he co-founded to be regarded as a serious news agency, it's time to pay his dues.
Avatar
Steve Jalsevac Mod Islam_Is_Islam • 24 minutes ago
Lifesite has indeed reported on that. Perhaps you are disappointed that we have not taken a firm position on the controversy. As a news agency that is not our role.
•Reply•Share ›
@Mr. Jalsevac: No, it is not a matter of what I like or do not like. It is a matter of transparency and full disclosure. I hope to see you address the following in the near future: Where are your reports on Prof Radaelli's Feb 18, 2013 public request for Pope Benedict to rescind and replace his statement otherwise his chosen words would lead to the election of an anti-pope? Where is your reporting on the facts that there are up to 40 errors in the Declaratio which would indicate a lack of due diligence if at least not negligence on the part of Cdl Sodano when he made his announcement calling for a conclave? Where is your reporting on the fact that munus and ministerium are never used interchangeably in Canon Law? Again, I hope that you will soon and very soon correct this oversight in either investigation and/or thorough reporting. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this information to your attention. There is more, if you'd like to have it. We are unable to post your comment because you have been banned by LifeSiteNews.com. Find out more.