Why I Do Not Think Monsignor Bux Is Helping (Though He Certainly Wants To)
Pope Francis in a pensive moment
Monsignor Bux, one of the few straight Catholics remaining around the Vatican, has publicly questioned whether the matter of the validity of Francis’ election should not be deepened.
The good man does not seem to have deep-seating reservations about the election in itself, reservations about which he obviously remained silent for years. Rather, he hints fairly transparently at the expediency matter: it is easier to get rid of the Evil Clown through the way of the illegitimate election than through any other way.
I allow myself to disagree, for the reasons that follow.
1. The matter of the validity of the election of a Pope is a mine field of procedural, subtle distinguos. It is made much more difficult from the obvious fact that Benedict does not question Francis’ legitimacy. It is difficult even to think of an “antipope” to whom the alleged Pope is not even anti; that is, in no antagonism or conflicting claim whatsoever. You simply can’t reasonably claim that a Pope who wanted to abdicate just did not want to.
2. Alternatively to and together with the “Benedict did not know what he was doing” argument, to start the procedural quibbles now means to undermine every future papal election. By every new election, one or three cardinals violating the secret of the conclave and stating that yes, they reached agreement to allow the election of Pope Pius XIII would, then, allow liberal cardinals to promote, and the press to ask, the deposition of said Pope Pius XIII. This causes infinitely more damage than a couple of old fags plotting to have a Pope agreeable to them; something, by the way, which has always happened and will always happen, because this is the reality of human nature. It really took a V II Pope of the naivete of JP II to establish stupid rules everyone but him knew would never be followed, opening a can of worms of gigantic proportions for the joy of the lovers of quibbles and enemies of reality. Still, as always, ecclesia supplet and the Pope will always be the one whom the entire Catholic planet sees as the Pope; or, if you prefer, common sense will always prevail. Mind, the same applies if one uses the argument that Benedict never really abdicated: around half the Cardinals are illegitimate ones.
3. Monsignor Bux’ way is in no way easier than a proclamation from the side of the Cardinals of papal heresy. Actually, it is more difficult and infinitely more messy. What is easier, to persuade a Cardinal to go against the Pope because of obvious heresy, or because of a procedural quibble? What would the faithful more easily understand: that the Cardinals want to depose the Pope because he is a damn heretic, or that they want to depose the Pope because three or four old fags bragged about their own vote-swaying ability and/or the man who wanted to adbicate was wrong about his very will to abdicate?
4. What happens when Benedict dies (which can be any day now): will they decide that at this point Benedict has most certainly relinquished the keys of peter to Francis, or will every Cardinal not so inclined become, as he well should at that point, a de facto Sedevacantist? What will, then, those very same factual Sedevacantists do when a new conclave is elected: reject it because many of the Cardinals were appointed by a Pope whose elections might be procedurally null and void, or who was not the Pope because Benedict was the real one? And the conclave next? And the next? Does Monsignor Bux understands that he is, albeit unwittingly, undermining the legitimacy of every future Pope in the eyes of the very Catholic faithful?
This all just makes no sense. It is like having an elephant in the room and, instead of proceeding to remove the elephant, engaging in endless sophistry about whether the truck driver who transported it had a valid driving license. Remove the damn elephant, for crying out loud!
The Pope is a heretic. This is the problem, and nothing else.
You deal with a heretic Pope the way this was done in the past: you challenge him and, if he does not recant, you depose him and let the mess ensue that God obviously has decreed should ensue, then open strife is infinitely better than acquiescence to a heretical Pope. After which, let everyone call “schism” as much as he wants: there will be those who are with Christ and those who are against, period.
Monsignor Bux’ hypothesis does not help, and it makes things worse.
The solution to the current heresy is the challenging of a heretical Pope as heretical.
Not difficult to understand.
Nothing new, either.
M
Share this:
Posted on November 20, 2018, in Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.
Mundabor's Blog 
Mundy, in charity, this seems like deflection on your part. +Bux did not suggest that the conclave needs investigating, but rather, Benedict’s failed partial abdication needs investigating. All indications are that Benedict believes the papacy to be irrevocable once accepted, and thus attempted a bifurcation of the Petrine Ministry by trying to only halfway resign. The key quote directly from +Bux:
“Perhaps – and I say this from a practical point of view – it would be easier to examine and study more accurately the question concerning the juridical validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, i.e. whether it is full or partial (“halfway”), as someone has said, or doubtful, since the idea of a sort of collegiate papacy seems to me decidedly against the Gospel dictate. Jesus did not say, in fact,tibi dabo claves … “turning to Peter and Andrew”, but he only told Peter! That’s why I say that perhaps a thorough study of renunciation could be more useful and profitable, as well as helping to overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.”
he expresses himself in both general and particular terms. I think he would want to examine everything, from the conclave events to the alleged non-abdication. The points in my post, therefore, remain. note that the man has not spoken about this for 5 and a half years, but now thinks revisiting the circumstances of Francis’ election is “helping to overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.” No, they are not insurmountable. A heretical problem is not insurmountable. It is something that has been tackled many times i the past.
I think people are gleeful that someone as prestigious as Monsignor Bux is suggesting Francis’ ascendency to the Throne of Peter may be bogus. The “shifting of the Overton Window” and all that…
AMEN
Oh I dunno, I thought it sounded like a good idea, but you’ve made fine points. I’m for anything that rids us of this pestilence, so you can’t go by me.
I thought maybe because of St. Gallen’s Mafia, perhaps someone might care enough to follow up on it, but we find that as long as the perpetrators are in agreement with said illegal maneuvers, said illegal maneuvers are never challenged (learned that from US Democrats).
Then I thought that maybe because PB intended the weird “bifurcated papacy” a dual papacy never before done in papal history, that someone might care enough to follow up on it, but we find that we are back in the same place.
The thing always comes down to numbers. If 300 Cardinals declared “heretic!”, he’d be gone already, back Buenos Aires gumming things up again. But we have perhaps, 5?
Is that enough? How many manly Cardinals do you need? We are alarmingly short on manly anything.
Can 1 manly, faithful Cardinal declare heresy and depose him? It doesn’t seem likely, but I don’t know anything. I have a feeling that if that were the case, Vigano would have already done it. But our one man had to go into hiding and toss darts from behind a tree.
Are JP II rules so ineffective? The act of interfering with an election would excommunicate those responsible. If those who colluded make up a very small number insufficient for the margin of victory then the new Pope would not be declared invalid. If their number are great and would have swung the election then their subsequent excommunication would prevent their repeating the exercise at the next election and have the effect of cleaning the degenerates from the election process altogether.
You would never know how most people have voted and it would never be possible to say that some cardinals have swayed a vote i the other direction. Therefore, if this one is the application it would be dead letter. However, the “rule” allows to question basically any election, which is what is happening now.
Pingback: Canon212 Update: In Elitist FrancisChurch, The Faithful Catholic Millions Go Unheard – The Stumbling Block