Pope Nicholas II’s Bull, “In Nomine Domini” (Papal Version)

Latin Original,

with an English Translation by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

FRENCHITALIAN — SPANISH (see below)

More than 5 years ago I published an English translation of Pope Nicholas II’s bull, In nomine Domini, which he wrote with the counsel of Saints Hildebrand, the future Pope Gregory VII, and Peter Damian, the future Doctor of the Church against the homo-heresy. — Indeed, in the final paragraph which contains the censures against those who would dare violate this papal law, we can see the influence of the fiery zeal of Saint Hildebrand, where it combines a variety of curses found in the Psalms, against both clerics and laymen.

Recently with the help of a medieval scholar who has spent his life studying this Bull, I have come in the possession of a copy of this bull in its original version (see below). My previous translation was based on a copy of the Bull, in Latin, from a version which had been interpolated — that is, compiled by several existing versions, by a Scholar who attempted to interpret which precise wording was the original. While such a practice is widely accepted in the world of academics, it is always a very good thing to go back to the actual existing manuscripts and read them. The Latin text from the version published by the Church at Rome is that which I now publish, here below. — This papal version differs in nearly nothing from the interpolated version which I previously published and translated, but in the choice of words in a few passages, and in a few extra sentences at the end. — However, the paragraphs in the papal version are not numbered, so I have inserted numbers and joined some paragraphs together so that paragraph n. 3 in both versions regards what is to be done if a legitimate, honest and upright election cannot be held in the City of Rome.

This Bull of Pope Nicholas II is no obscure document, since it is the first Papal Bull which restricted the election of the Roman Pontiff to the Cardinals, two centuries before the first Conclave was ever held. It is even mentioned by name in the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI, Romano Pontifici eligendo, promulgated October 1, 1975, in its third paragraph, where it is called a “celebrated” constitution, that is, frequently used. It’s importance for today is that it explains, what other Papal Laws currently in force today do not, namely, “What is to be done if all the Cardinals forfeit their right and competence to elect the Roman Pontiff by reason of grave malfeasance, in conducting an illegal election or one which is declared invalid by papal prescriptions?”  It is implicitly referred to also in the current Papal Law of Pope John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis, promulgated Feb. 22, 1996, where it says in its preface, that “the institution of the Conclave is not necessary for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff”, and again, wherein in n. 76 it declares any election violating its norms null and void, without however expressing what is to be done if the Cardinals fail to return into conclave because they maliciously will to hold as pope a man who is illegally elected.

Now follows my English translation of that.

Pope Nicholas II’s Bull “In nomine Domini”

April 13, 1059 A. D. — In the Constantinian Patriarchal Basilica of the Lateran, at Rome

Translated from the Papal Version of the text, published by Das Papstwahldekret von 1059. Echte Fassung, in: Jasper, Detlef. Das Pastwahldekret von 1059: Überlieferung unf Textgestalt. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1986, pp. 98-109.

IN THE NAME OF THE LORD God, our Savior Jesus Christ.  From the year of His Incarnation, 1058, in the month of April, in the Twelfth Indiction, with the Sacrosanct Gospels laid open, also with the Most Reverend and Blessed Nicholas, presiding as the Apostolic Pope, in the Lateran Basilica of the Patriarch, which is named the Constantinian, also with the most reverend Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots or venerable Priests and Deacons accompanying, seated, the Same venerable Pontiff, decreeing with Apostolic Authority, concerning the Election of the Highest Pontiff, said:

Most beloved Brothers and co-Bishops, and also inferior members (of the clergy), your Beatitude knows and it does not lie hidden, that with the passing of Our predecessor, the lord Stephen, of pious memory, how many adverse (troubles) this Apostolic See, which I zealously serve with God’s urging, has suffered through, and then how many repeated hammers and frequent blows She has been subjected to through the brokers of simonaical heresy, so much that the Column of the Living God almost seemed to totter and the net of the Highest Fisherman, with the storms swelling, would be driven into the depths of shipwreck to be submerged.

§ 1. Wherefore, if it please thy Brotherhood, We ought, with God assisting, take care prudently for future cases and this by Ecclesiastical statute, provide in the hereafter that (these) evils, revived, not prevail.  On which account, having been instructed by Our predecessor and by the authority of the other Holy Fathers, We decree, and establish, that with the passing of the Pontiff of this universal Roman Church, first of all, the Cardinal Bishops, treating (the election) together with the most diligent consideration, summon immediately the Cardinal Clerics to themselves; and in this manner let the rest of the Clergy, and the People, approach to consent to the new election, so that, lest the deadly disease of venality insinuate itself by occasion, the most religious men be the chief leaders in the election of the Pontiff to be promoted, but the rest be their followers.

§ 2. And certainly the right and legitimate order of the election is here considered carefully, if it be gathered from having examined the diverse rules of the Fathers or their deeds, (and) even that sentence of Blessed Leo, (Our) predecessor, (who) said: “No reason permits, that there be had among Bishops, those who have neither been elected from the Clerics, nor requested by the common people, nor consecrated by the co-provincial Bishops with the judgement of the Metropolitans” (Pope Leo I, Letter to Rusticus of Narbonne, Migne PL 54, p. 1203 A/B). But because the Apostolic See takes precedence to all other Churches throughout the earth, and for that reason, too, She can have over Her no Metropolitan, the Cardinal Bishops with out doubt serve instead as Metropolitans, who namely promote the one elected as High Priest (antistitem) to the apex of the Apostolic Summit.  Moreover, let them elect (him) from the very womb of the Church, if one is found suitable, and/or if he not be found in Her, let him be taken from another; with due honor being served, and reverence for Our beloved son, Henry, who is held as King at the present and with God conceding hoped (to be) the future Emperor, as We have already conceded to him and to his successors, who personally begged this right from this Apostolic See.

§ 3. Wherefore, if the perversity of depraved and iniquitous men, so prevail, that a pure, sincere and free election cannot be held in the City, let the Cardinal Bishops with the religious Clerics, and the Catholic laity, though few, obtain the right of power (ius potestatis) to elect the Pontiff of the Apostolic See, where they might judge it to be more fitting. Plainly, after the election has been completed, if there be a bellicose conflict, and/or if the struggle of any kind of men resists by the earnestness of wickedness, such that he, who has been elected, cannot prevail to be enthroned in the Apostolic See according to the custom, nevertheless, let the elect obtain as Pope the authority to rule the Roman Church and to dispose of all Her faculties, which Blessed Gregory, We know, did, before his own consecration.

§4. On which account, if anyone has been elected, or even ordained, or enthroned, against this Decree of Ours promulgated by Synodal sentence, whether through sedition, and/or presumption, or any guile, let him be cast down by the Divine Authority and that of the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, by a perpetual anathema with his promoters and supporters and followers as one separated from the thresholds of the Holy Church, just as the Anti-Christ, both invader and destroyer of the whole of Christendom, and let no audience be given him over this, but let him be deposed from every ecclesiastical grade unto whatever was before his, without any objection made, to whom if anyone whatsoever adheres, and/or exhibits any kind of reverence as to the Pontiff, or presumes to defend him in anything, let him be abandoned by equal sentence, which if anyone shows himself to be a violator of this sentence of Our Holy Decree, and has tried to confound the Roman Church by his presumption, and to raise disturbance against this Statute, let him be damned by perpetual anathema and excommunication, and let him be reputed among “the impious“, who “shall not rise again in judgement” (Psalm 1:5), let him know the wrath of the Omnipotent One against him, and that of the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, whose Church he has presumed to fool, let him know a ravaging madness in this life and in the future; “Let his dwelling become deserted, and let there be no one who dwells in his tents” (cf. Psalm 69:26): “Let his sons be orphans, and his wife a widow” (Psalm 108:9), “Let him be shaken completely” (cf. Psalm 108:10) to madness, and “may his sons go about begging, and be cast out of their dwellings” (Psalm 108:10). “May the money-lender ravage all his substance, and may the foreigner lay waste all his labors” (Psalm 108:11); “Let the whole world fight against” (cf. Wisdom 5:21) him, and let all the other elements be against him, and may the merits of all the Saints, at rest, confound him and in this life may they show open vengeance upon him.

§5. Moreover, may the grace of the Omnipotent God protect the observers of this Our decree, and by the authority of the Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul may it absolve them from all bonds of sins.

I, Nicholas, Bishop of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church,
have signed this Decree promulgated by Us, here above, as it reads.


Transcription

Source


Here follows a Spanish translation using the Spanish of the New World (Latin America). Many thanks to the Mexican-American reader of FromRome.Info for this!

Papa Nicolás II

EN EL NOMBRE DEL SEÑOR DIOS, nuestro Senor Jesucristo, del año de Su Encarnación, 1058, en el mes de abril, en la Duodécima Indicción, con los Evangelios Sacrosantos expuestos, también con el Reverendísimo y Bendito Nicolás, presidiendo como el Papa Apostólico, en la Basílica de Letrán del Patriarca, quien es llamado el Constantiniano, también con los Arzobispos, Obispos, Abades o venerables sacerdotes y diaconos acompañando, sentado, el mismo Venerable Pontifíce, decretando con Autoridad Apostólica, lo relacionado con la elección del Sumo Pontifíce dijo:

Muy amados Hermanos y co-Obispos y también miembros inferiores del clero, su Bienaventuranza, sabe y no se oculta, que con el deceso de Nuestro predecessor, el señor Esteban de grata memoria, cuantos problemas ha sufrido esta Sede Apostólica a la cual sirvo celosamente con el impulso de Dios y luego a cuantos martillazos repetidos y golpes frecuentes ella ha sido sometida a través de los agentes de la herejía simoniaca, tanto así que la Columna de Dios Viviente casi parecía tambalearse y la red del Pescador Supremo, con las tempestades incrementándose sería impulsada hacia las profundidades del naufragio para ser sumergido.

§ 1. Por lo tanto, si place a Su Hermandad, Nosotros debemos, con la asistencia de Dios, cuidar prudentemente para casos futuros y esto por estatuto Eclesiástico, proveer en el futuro que estos males, revividos, no prevalezcan. Por lo cual, habiendo sido instruidos por nuestro predecesor y por la autoridad de los otros Santos Padres, decretamos, y establecemos, que con el fallecimiento del Pontífice de esta Iglesia Romana universal, en primer lugar, los Cardenales Obispos, tratando la elección junto con la más diligente consideración, convoquen inmediatamente a los Cardenales Clérigos en persona, y de esta manera que el resto del clero y el pueblo, se acerquen a consentir a la nueva elección, de modo que, para que no se insinue la mortal enfermedad de la venalidad, los hombres más religiosos sean los principales líderes en la elección del Pontífice a ser promovido, pero el resto sean sus seguidores.

§ 2. Y ciertamente el orden justo y legítimo de la elección se considera aquí cuidadosamente, si se deduce de haber examinado las diversas reglas de los Padres o sus hechos, e incluso aquella sentencia del Beato León, Nuestro predecesor, quien dijo: “Ninguna razón permite que entre los Obispos haya quienes no hayan sido elegidos entre los Clérigos, ni solicitados por el pueblo común, ni consagrados por los Obispos coprovinciales con el juicio de los Metropolitas” (Papa León I, Carta a Rústico de Narbona, Migne PL54, p. 1203 A/B). Pero debido a que la Sede Apostólica tiene precedencia sobre todas las demás Iglesias en toda la tierra, y por esa razón, también, Ella no puede tener sobre Ella ningún Metropolitano, los Obispos Cardenales sin duda sirven en cambio con Metropolitanos, quienes concretamente promueven al elegido como Sumo Sacerdote (antistitem) a la cúspide de la Cumbre Apostólica. Además, que lo elijan del mismo seno de la Iglesia, si se encuentra uno adecuado, y/o si no se encuentra en ella, que se le tome de otra, con el debido honor servido, y reverencia para nuestro amado hijo, Enrique, quien es tenido como Rey en el presente y con Dios concediendo se espera que sea el futuro Emperador, como ya le hemos concedido a él y a sus sucesores, quienes personalmente rogar este derecho de esta Sede Apostólica.

§ 3 Por lo tanto, si la perversidad de hombres depravados e inicuos prevaleciera hasta tal punto que no se pudiera celebrar una elección pura, sincera y libre en la Ciudad, que los Cardenales Obispos con los Clérigos religiosos y los laicos católicos, aunque pocos, obtengan el derecho de poder (ius potestatis) para elegir al Pontífice de la Sede Apostólica donde juzguen que es más apropiado. Claramente, después de que la elección se haya completado, si hay un conflicto belicoso, y/o si la lucha de algunos hombres se resiste por la seriedad de la maldad, de tal manera que aquel, quien ha sido elegido, no puede prevalecer para ser entronizado en la Sede Apostólica según la costumbre, sin embargo, que el electo obtenga como Papa la autoridad para gobernar la Iglesia Romana y para obtener de todas sus facultades, lo cual sabemos hizo el Beato Gregorio, antes de su propia consagración.

§ 4. En cuenta de aquel, si alguien ha sido elegido, o incluso ordenado, o entronizado, en contra de este Nuestro Decreto promulgado por sentencia Sinodal, ya sea por sedición, y/o presunción, o cualquier engaño, que sea derribado por la Autoridad Divina y la de los Santos Apóstoles, Pedro y Pablo, mediante un anatema perpetuo con sus promotores, seguidores y partidarios como uno separado de los umbrales de la Santa Iglesia, así como el Anticristo, tanto invasor como destructor de toda la cristiandad, y que no se le conceda audiencia sobre esto, sin que se haga ninguna objeción; a quien si alguien se adhiere o exhibe cualquier tipo de reverencia hacia él como al Pontífice, o se presume defenderlo en algo, sea igualmente abandonado por sentencia igual, quienquiera que se muestre violador de esta sentencia de Nuestro Decreto, y haya tratado de confundir a la Iglesia Romana por su presunción, y de levantar disturbios contra este Estatuto, sea condenado por anatema perpetuo y excomunión, y sea reputado entre los “impíos que no se levantarán en el juicio” (Salmo 1:5), que conozca la ira del Omnipotente contra él, y la de los Santos Apóstoles, Pedro y Pablo, cuya Iglesia ha presumido engañar; que conozca una locura devastadora en esta vida y en la futura, “Quede desolada su morada y no haya quien habite en sus tiendas” (cf. Salmo 69:26): Sean sus hijos huérfanos, y su mujer viuda” (Salmo 108:9), “Sea sacudido por completo” (cf. Salmo 108:10) hasta la locura y “vaguen sus hijos mendigando, y sean echados de sus moradas” (Salmo 108:10). “Que el acreedor se apodere de todo lo que tiene, y los extraños saqueen el fruto de su trabajo” (Salmo 108:11); que todo el mundo luche contra (cf. Sabiduría 5,21) él, y que todos los demás elementos estén contra él, y que los méritos de todos los Santos, en reposo, lo confundan y que en esta vida muestren venganza manifiesta sobre él.

§ 5. Además, que la gracia del Dios Omnipotente proteja a los observadores de este Nuestro Decreto, y por la autoridad de los Bienaventurados Apóstoles, Pedro y Pablo, que los absuelva de todas las ataduras de pecados.

Yo, Nicolás, Obispo de la Santa Iglesia Católica y Apostólica Romana, he firmado este Decreto promulgado por Nosotros, aquí arriba, tal como se lee.

+ + +

Was Saint Hildebrand a Sedevacantist?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The reality of social media is, that while you may be interacting with someone who claims to be Catholic, you nearly always assume that the other person is competent, sane and informed.  If you are like myself, who spent most of my lifetime at school or educational formation programs or in academic studies of one kind or another, public and private, you might have a psychological bias of thinking that everyone on social media asks a question or reads an article to be informed, and is able to think for themselves, do a search, investigate and be informed.

Alas that is not the case, as we all know, by hard knocks.

This is especially true among fellow Catholics.

Recently, one reader of FromRome.Info started asking fellow Catholics what they think of the Save Rome Project and received this stunning response:  “I do not want to get involved in Sedevacantism”.

I have to shake my head and roll my eyes at the expression of such total ignorance, that is, incapacity to evaluate problems in the Catholic Church.

The History of the Election of Pope Nicholas II, and St. Hildebrand’s role in it

So for those out there who suffer from having friends or relatives at this level of information bias, here is the story of Saint Hildebrand, and how he protected the Papacy by promoting Nicholas II to the apostolic throne against the antipope John Mincius, of the House of Crescentius, who was Bishop of the suburbican diocese of Velletri, and took the name, Benedict X.

Now, according to Cardinal Saint Peter Damian, John was an upright, honest and Catholic man, his only fault was that he was elected illegally. He was even pardoned by Pope Nicholas II and ordered out of the city of Rome. However, when he later returned, St Hildebrand brought him to trial, wrote out his own confession of guilt, forced him to read it, and had him condemned and reduced to the lay state. With the pleas of many, later on, Pope Nicholas raised him back to the status of a Lector.

Benedict X was not a heretic, but he was an antipope.  His election was illegal, because Pope Stephen IX, before he died, decreed that the election of his successor should not take place until St. Hildebrand returned from his diplomatic mission at the Imperial Court in Germany.

Now Saint Hildebrand is considered one of the greatest saints to ever become Pope — an event which took place 14 years later — and no one in their right mind has ever called him a “sedevacantist” because he opposed the election of a man against the rules.

Note Well: “Sedevacantism” is the name given to the position of those who insist that there have been no valid popes since the death of Pius XII or John XXIII: as regards Conclaves, their allegations are based on non-factually supported claims that were launched years after the election of popes and based on speculation of conspiracies during one or another Conclave, not evidence of anything illegal during the Conclaves. This is what makes “Sedevacantism” an ideology, not a valid juridical position worthy of any Catholic. The proponents of this position are more fixated on their alternative histories than on even the Code of Canon Law of 1917 or the Apostolic Constitution of Pius XII for papal elections. And they never sought the condemnation of those, whom they accuse, in any tribunal, tacitly admitting they had no legal proof.

But Saint Hildebrand of Saona based his rejection of Benedict X’s election on the historical events of his election which no one denied, which went against the published rule for the election to be delayed, established by Pope Stephen IX.

St. Hildebrand was, however, accused by those who favored corruption at Rome, of being a “fake monk”, though, since he went around wearing the habit of a Benedictine Monk without them asking him for proof of his vows.

How, history repeats itself!

You can read a summary of this history from pp. 17-18, in the book, “The Life and Times of Hildebrand”, by the Right Rev. Arnold Harris Matthew, published by Francis Griffiths, London, 1910. — You can click these two images to expand them for easier reading on your device.

+ + +

This year of Our Lord, 2025, we are in an exactly similar, though worse, juridical mess: since no one denies that 133 Cardinals voted in the Conclave, nor that the Papal Law forbids that in n. 33 of that Law. — While those who broke the Papal Law, this year, are like those in 1058, they make excuses but have no valid legal excuse, since Pope John Paul II’s UDG. n. 4, forbids the use of dispensations during a sedevacante. Nor is there any doubt that Cardinal Prevost embraced heresy before his election, a thing which makes his election null, void, and irritus, according to the Bull of Paul IV, “Cum ex apostsolatus officio”.

That it has been nearly 80 days since this fraud was perpetrated on the Church and THAT there are still Catholics, unwilling to review the facts of the matter and the law, says a lot about how comfortable Catholics have become with living in a corrupt society while rejecting even in their hopes the Kingdom Christ Jesus, Who is Infinite and Inescapable Justice, not to mention their utter contempt for the laws of Roman Pontiffs, Christ’s Vicars on Earth.

For those who would like more information about this great Saint, who becomes Pope Gregory VII, here is that entire book, I just cited from in PDF. Take note the the entire book is in a 358 MB file. However, if you would like to view this book online or download it in other formats, see HERE.

SNAP: Leo XIV using papal authority to cover up sexual abuse in Peru

“According to the victim’s testimony and available evidence, Prevost appears to have violated canon law quite significantly by not undertaking an appropriate canon law procedure for alleged crimes committed by both priests, offers canonical legal advice, procedural transparency and spiritual and psychological support, and takes effective precautionary measures to protect his diocese and the public from the potential dangers posed by Lute and Yesquén. Furthermore, his statement to victims that a canonical investigation could not be opened in the absence of a civil complaint is not in conformity with canon law.” (Source: https://www.homelie.biz/2025/12/dans-un-nouvel-enregistrement-audio-le-diocese-de-chiclayo-qualifie-l-enquete-du-pape-de-farce.html)

ChatGPT is the Idolatry for the Godless Masses

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

How will the Antichrist rule the world? Sam Altman has figured it out: ChaptGPT addiction. — Keep this technology away from yourself, your family. Warn everyone. — It is a mortal sin to trust A.I., since it is the sin of superstition to put human trust in something with no morals, no liability, no responsibility, no humanity, no verifiable honesty, independence etc.. — Moderns think that idolatry can no longer exist, since we live in the age of science. But idolatry consists in trusting something to be something more than it is. And sloth to think, work, speak in the presence of the simulation of thought, speech and work is a real and dire temptation, against which persons without God cannot resist, simply because they have no self-worth, and do not know Who made them and for Whom they were made. That each of us was willed from all eternity by an Infinitely Wise God, and made into His Image and Likeness, even on the natural level, gives us a dignity infinitely above every human artifact, including A. I.. Thus we debase ourselves if we use it. — Share the above video, it is an excellent dose of truth and common sense, when you see the level of inanity flourishing among those lost souls who use ChaptGPT.

What ever happened to Malaysian Flight MH370?

This video is in French, but if you have a YouTube account you can set the subtitles on and have them translated into your native language. — This documentary is important to show how easy it is for Globalists to eliminate any group of people along with all information about how it happened.  — This documentary assembles the evidence that Barack Obama ordered this plane shot down by American military planes, after it had been high-jacked by (Iranian?) terrorists who were using it as a weapon to attack the U.S. high security Military Base of Diego Garcia, south of the Maldive Islands. — Seven weeks after the disappearance, Obama is the first U.S. President to visit Malaysia, and 9 months later, he invites the President of Malaysia to the White House. An apparent admission of his own guilt against the Malaysian people.

Additionally, the plane carried 20 employees of an American computer company working on how to conceal the flight paths of planes in the air, who had just filed patents on a hugely powerful military grade microchip.

NIGERIA: 315 Girls and Staff Kidnapped from Catholic School

Editor’s Note: I have mentioned before, how Islamic Terrorism in West Africa is an operation of French Military intelligence to force those governments to buy military hardware from France or the U.SA.. Thus, that 315 Catholics should be kidnapped, in one of the largest kidnappings in the history of Nigeria, AFTER Donald Trump spoke of possible military intervention in that country, is NOT a coincidence. — That Robert Prevost was named by the Haverford College’s online newsletter in May as someone who joined the CIA while a student there in the 70s, has everything to do why the Vatican News all of a sudden as taken interest in terrorism in Nigeria.

Bishop Sanborn lectures Kokx, as he trembles in dismay

Editor’s Note: Stephen Kokx, former journalist at LifeSite News, and one of the leading members of the Neo-Sedevacantists, who preaches, “Recognize and withdraw”, interviewed Bishop Donald Sanborn, who identifies as a Sedevacanist (Thuc lineage), on whether Catholics can refuse obedience to man they recognize as a legitimately elected Roman Pontiff, and receives a devastating catechetical instruction in response. — As readers know, I have strongly criticized the neo-Sedevacantists and Kokx in particular, HERE.

Bravo to Bishop Sanborn!

During this interview, Kokx ignores what Bishop Sanborn says and keeps attempting to elicit from the Bishop the affirmation that Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV are valid popes. Bishop Sanborn, for his credit, is not fooled by Kokx’s dishonest yet very subtle tactic.

Stephen Kokx did his interview of Bishop Sanborn, last night, about two weeks after my video, “Traditionalism vs. Sedevacantism, which is the Catholic Response?“, which I believe irked Kokx enough as to induce him to undertaken this video.

As regards what Bishop Sanborn said, distinguishing between the personal sin of heresy and teaching heresy, for a Roman Pontiff, the distinction is badly made, because he says the pope could publish heresy in a book without imposing it — and that, theologians hold is theoretically possible — but that the Cardinals would have to address that, he says — though the Cardinals in Church law have no such duty.  Rather, as we see in the case of Pope John XXI in regard to his denial of the immediate beatification of the saints, after death, if a pope manifest any formal heresy, he must be publicly rebuked. And if he persists, which Pope John XXI did not, then at a Provincial Council here at Rome, he needs to be rebuked and if he persists be declared self deposed. I discuss this in the Council of Sutri initiative.

Again, at 38 minute mark, Bishop Sanborn says that Sedevacantism is what preserves (the claim of) the indefectibility of the Church. This is simply absurd. It is the canonical removal of a heretic or the refusal of an invalid election which preserves the Church, because the solution is not in what I opine, but in what the Church judges and rules regarding who is the Pope or not the Pope. — I think the Bishop means “preserve the sacramental continuity of the Church”, because simply stated it certainly does not preserve the juridical continuity of the Church.

Bishop Sanborn also says that Universal Pacific Acceptance (UPA) would sanitize a controversy against a valid election — which is the correct doctrine — but he does not directly refute the error of saying that UPA applies to elections which are objectively discrepant with the rule of law, as in the papal election of Benedict X in 1058, and of Pope Francis in 2013, and of Leo XIV in 2025.

At the 48 minute mark, Kokx makes a comparison to a dead body and separated soul, at which Bishop Sanborn bites his lip at the level of ignorance implied in such a question moved by Kokx. And in reply Sanborn does admit that the juridical character of the Church is part of the Church, but he classifies it as regarding the material aspect of the Church — incorrectly — rather than as a formal characteristic of the true Church. Indeed, the Church has always taught that the Church founded by Jesus Christ is indefectible, that is preserves juridical continuity from Christ down to the most recent validly elected Pope.

Most praiseworthy are the statements at the 56 minute mark, where Bishop Sanborn says that the best thing Leo XIV can do is resign. And at minute mark 1 hour 9 minutes, Sanborn endorses the Great Catholic Reset, an idea I launched in 2021, and which has also been endorsed by Archbishop Viganò.

For my critiques of Sedevacantism, see HERE.

At the 1 hour 14 minute mark, and thereafter, Bishop Sanborn says, that the worse thing for the Sedevacantist movement was Pope Benedict XVI, and the best was Pope Francis and will be Pope Leo.  I can scarcely imagine thinking such an outrageous statement than this. — At 1 hour and 20 minutes, Sanborn claims the resignation of Benedict XVI was valid and UPA made it valid. I won’t comment on such a modernist view of juridical acts, but you can read the hundreds of pages of my investigation here. — At 1 hour and 22, Bishop Sanborn falsely claims that Pope Pius XI condemned the second redaction of the Message of La Salette, when in fact it was the Holy Office, not the Pope, which said that it was not worthy of credence, even though the Holy Office has no infallible charism to discern prophecy, as the Church teaches that that charism pertains to the local ordinary and to the Roman Pontiff. In fact, the Bishop of Lecce, Italy, where Melanie lived and died, approved the Second Version some 30 years before. — At 1 hour and 23 minutes, Sanborn erroneously says Pope Saint Gregory VII established the college of Cardinals and restricted the election of the Pope to them: this is false, and in saying this Bishop Sanborn appears, at the time of this interview, to have had no knowledge of In Nomine Domini, of Pope Nicholas II, published on April 13, of 1059 at the Roman Synod at the Lateran.

900 Days to stop the AI Juggernaut

Editor’s Note: The only way to stop it is by a total boycott. Purchase nothing from a company which uses A. I., support local business and human producers. — In addition, opt out of AI assistance to or monitoring of your email, data, communications.

For example, some years ago an A.I. engineer at Catholic University of America asked me permission to process my English translation of Saint Bonaventure’s Commentary on the First Book of Mater Peter Lombard. Their team’s purpose: train AI to translate Latin. Translation: steal the intellectual talents and creativity of Br. Alexis Bugnolo, without any compensation, and apply his approach to other texts. My response? Let me paraphrase it: “You and your team can go to back to Hell!”

Was Aaron Kosminski the real Jack the Ripper? Latest DNA study

Editor’s Note: Back in 2014, a mitocondrial DNA study pointed to the real identity of Jack the Ripper, the infamous serial murderer of poor woman in 1888 the neighborhood of White Chapel, London, England, as Aaron Kosminski, on the grounds that the genetic material left by the Ripper on one of his victim’s shawls, contained the same mitochondrial genetic markers as the maternal line of Kosminski, a Polish Jew, who was both a schizophrenic-paranoid and a sexual pervert, as well as an ardent misogynist: one of the suspects in the murders.  — A 2025 new DNA study failed to obtain enough information to positively identify Kosminski, however, as the perpetrator. — See his biography, HERE. Kosminski was committed to a mental asylum some years after, after threatening his own sister with a knife. His identity as a suspect only came to light years later, in a memo of one of the chief investigators.

The 2014 news story was widely popular in the United Kingdom, but completely censored in the United States. The Wikipedia article on Kosminski, edited from Tel Aviv, goes to great length to cast doubt on the 2014 study.

DNA Study: Dukes of Beaufort & Earls of Loudoun are true Plantagenet claimants to the Throne of England

Editor’s Note: Ground breaking DNA discovery proves that the House of York’s claim to the Throne of England, during the 15th century War of the Roses, was false, and that their house descended from a bastard, not a true Plantagenet heir. — That the House of Somerset (Dukes of Beaufort), which descends legitimately from John of Gaunt, the fourth son of King Edward III, preserves the Male Y Chromosome, means that they are the true heirs to the throne of England today, not the House of Mountbatten; though it must be noted that the House of Somerset issues from the natural but  illegitimate offspring of Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset.

Moreover, the House of York appears to be descendant from some man with a J Haplogroup, very rare in Western Europe, but one associated with those who claim to be Jews. — As a cultural anthropologist and an avid fan of British history of that period, all I can say is, “Wow!”

Sir Henry John FitzRoy Somerset is the current living true Plantagenet and heir of the House of Somerset, Dukes of Beaufort — not to be confused with the House of Langley, Dukes of Somerset:

UPDATE: Here is another investigation about this matter, from 21 years ago, who follows the line, not genetically, through the Dukes of Beaufort, but according to the rules of dynastic descent, though one which traces it through a legitimate female descendant, and thus, none of whom are true Plantagenets by the Y Chromosomal marker; tracing through Henry VIII of Hastings, a rabid Puritan great grandson of Margaret of York, a Catholic Martyr. The rightful heir would be Michael Abney-Hastings, Earl of Loudoun, a resident of the Australian outback!

However, if a male heir of Henry Somerset, 12th Duke of Beaufort should marry female heir of Michael of Hastings, the claim to the throne of England would become indubitable, for it would unite the male line, genetically, with the legitimate line dynastically.

News and Commentary on the Catholic Church