Do you know that Br. Bugnolo translated St. Bonaventure on the Trinity?

This book is still in print. There are 3000 copies left in storage. If Br. Bugnolo sells them, he is going to purchase some land and build a hermitage. This book was published in 2014. He has been trying for 9 years to sell these books. — Please consider getting a copy, if not for yourself, for your favorite priest, sister, monk, brother, catechist etc.. — To get your copy Click the image of the page above. — This book does ship internationally. It is in English.

Priests and Laymen and woman say its the most amazing book they have ever seen. — A Professor in Medieval Theology says its one of the best English translations ever done of any medieval text.

Brother Bugnolo has also translated Tome II, “On the Creation and Fall of Angels and Men”, and Tome III, “On the Redemption” and has begun Tome IV, “On the Sacraments”, but these last 3 Tomes he cannot finish or publish, because of lack of funds needed to complete typesetting and the work, since because of old age, brother can no longer do the work by his own hands.

Presently the storage costs alone are causing SOSM Inc. to lose thousands of dollars each year. You can help defray the storage expenses or contribute to the publication of the other 3 volumes, by clicking this image below:

Pope Benedict XVI never abdicated and he told us as much

Or How Uguccione di Pisa explains what Munus and Ministerium mean in Ecclesiastical Law

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

Pope Benedict XVI never abdicated, and I have demonstrated and proven that by a myriad of articles and investigations already, as can be seen in my Index to the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI.

Some of these demonstrations have been extrinsic and some have been intrinsic. That is, some have argued from facts and laws not cited by the Declaratio Pope Benedict XVI read and published on Feb. 11, 2013, and others have been argued from the very words and grammatical structure of the text itself.

But as of yet, I have not made mention of one of the strongest arguments yet, which is intrinsic.

So, now I will, for the sake of posterity and for all those who want to know the truth.

First, I will remind everyone, that since Pope Benedict XVI is the one who published the Declaratio, no one but he could interpret it. Canon 16 in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 makes it clear that it was the intention of Pope John Paul II that this principle be respected, namely that the intention of the legislator must be given by the legislator himself. As I showed in my article on Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori, it is not licit for subordinates to interpret the decrees of their superior. Moreover, a most weighty testimony was given me in person, by Monsignor Arrieta, the Secretary for the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts, when I visited his offices in 2019, as I reported here, namely that for Pope Benedict XVI to interpret his Declaratio, he must do so by written, published decree, a thing which he never did.

Hence it is, that without any authentic or official interpretation of Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaration, one must presume in any controversy over what it effected, that it did NOT effect the loss of the papal office nor of the right to claim to hold the papal office, according to the juridical principle which is valid in all codes of law: the cessation of right is never presumed. This principle was affirmed to me by no one less than the present Cardinal Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S. J., who graciously agreed to grant me an audience in November of 2019, while he was still a humble professor of jurisprudence at the Gregorian University, as I reported here.

This is the fundamental error of presuming the cessation of right, which is committed by the Cardinals and all the Bishops, clergy, religious and laity who claim that in renouncing the “ministry which I received through the hands of the Cardinals”, Pope Benedict XVI intended to renounce the papal office or Petrine munus. For they read “munus” in the key phrase where Pope Benedict XVI said and wrote “ministerium”.

One way in which they attempt their illicit interpretation is, however, to appeal to all kinds of sources for the Latin language in which someone used the word “munus” or “ministerium” or both in similar senses.

While I have refuted even that recourse, by citing canon 17, which forbids reading the terms of Canon Law in other ways than the Code makes clear it uses them, that has not stopped them inventing all kinds of unlawful arguments. And I have showed in a definitive manner nearly 5 years ago, that the Code of Canon Law of 1983 never equates munus with ministerium, which demonstration given in an academic conference at Rome has never been refuted by any author or speaker.

So, I will here shatter, not only their appeal to other sources, but drawing on Canon 17, I will cite a most authoritative Latin source for Latin as used in ecclesiastical law to show them that Pope Benedict XVI never intended to fulfill Canon 332 §2, which is the only canon which speaks of Papal resignations, when it speaks of a Roman Pontiff renouncing his “munus”.

Uguccione di Pisa explains what Munus and Ministerium mean in Ecclesiastical Law

The source I will cite is the Magnae Derivationes of Uguccione di Pisa (died in 1210 A. D — see biography, here in Italian — see a biography here in English), who was not only a professor of Ecclesiastical Law at the University of Bologna, and Bishop of Ferrara (1190-1210 A. D.), Italy, but also the professor who taught one of the greatest canonists of the middle ages to become a Pope, Pope Innocent III, Lothar of Segni (Pope from 1198-1216 A.D.), who was born at Gavignano, Italy, where I have resided the last two years I was in Italy.

The Magnae Derivationes was a Lexicon of Latin terms with their definitions in Latin. On account of the authority of Uguccione as a Canon Lawyer and teacher of Pope Innocent III, he is a weighty authority in the meaning of Latin terms in texts regarding Ecclesiastical Law.

So let’s see what the Magnae Derivationes says about the key word, “munus”. I quote from here, since the Dante Medieval Archives currently has a copy of this work online, and since under the rubric “munus”, Uguccione refers you to his entry for “donum”, where he distinguishes the two.

He does this, because both words can be translated as “gift”, so it is important to understand the difference of their significations.

If you look for his definition of donum, it is quite extensive, but the key phrase I want to cite is this one:

Item donum dantis est, a dando vel donando, munus accipientis, a manibus vel muniendo vel monendo.

Here is my English translation.

Likewise, the gift {donum} belongs to the one giving, by giving and/or donating, the munus belongs to the one accepting, by hand, when being munerated and/or being warned.

The implications of this explanation are astounding.

What Uguccione is saying is that a thing is called a gift (donum) when one is speaking about the giver giving it. But it is called a “munus” when one is speaking about the one receiving it.

But Pope Benedict XVI speaks of renouncing the “ministerium” which he received through the hands of the Cardinals. He does not say the “munus” which he received through their hands. If he was talking about the Papal Office, he could have used donum or munus, to refer either to the Cardinals giving it to him or him receiving it from them. But he did not. He spoke of the ministerium.

This means that he intentionally avoided the equation of “munus” and “ministerium” as the total object of his renunciation, by not naming the Papal Office as the thing he received from the Cardinals. By saying, instead, the “ministerium which I received” he was removing the Petrine Munus from any context in which it could be understood to be that which he was renouncing.

in other words, by connecting the ministry with the concept of being received, he syntactically removed the petrine munus from the equation, since by its very definition the word “munus” refers to the gift received and accepted, and if he intended to renounce it he would had used it in the phrase regarding receiving.

This means, that Pope Benedict XVI DID NOT intend to signify the Papal Office or “munus”, which he understood to have received AS A GIFT from Someone Else, namely Jesus Christ, when he spoke of the “ministerium” he was renouncing.

This he never rejected nor renounced the Petrine Munus. And this is consonant with Pope Benedict XVI’s insistance that he never renounced his verantwortung, which is the correct and precise German translation of “munus”.

Therefore he remained pope until death.

This citation from Uguccione adds to the rationale whereby the Declaratio cannot be authentically interpreted by anyone as signifying a Papal Abdication.

This is fortified by what Uguccione says about “ministerium”, as cited here:

Minor componitur cum sterion, quod est statio, et dicitur hic minister, quasi minor in statione; vel minister dicitur quia offìcium debitum manibus exequatur; [11] et hinc hec ministra et minister -a -um et ministerculus -a -um diminutivum, et ministralis -le et hoc ministerium, servitium, offìcium ministri; [12] unde hic et hec ministerialis -le et per sincoparti hoc misterium, vel potius derivabitur postea a mistis. [13] Item a minister ministro -as, et componitur administro -as, comministro, subministro: a ministrante obsequium redditur, a subministrante subsidium prerogatur; et est activum cum omnibus suis compositis.

Which in English is:

Minor is composed with -sterion, which is station, and here one says minister, as if one lesser in station; or minister and ministerculus the diminutive, and ministral and this is a ministry, service and office of a minister; whence this and that ministerial and through syncopation this is mysterium, and/or rather will be derived afterwards from “a priest of the mysteries” (mystes). LIkewise from “to minister” minister, and this is compounded as “to administer”, “to co-minister”, “to sub-minister”: by the one ministering there is rendered a due-service, from the one subministering, there is granted a subsidy; and it is an active verb with all its compounds.

From this definition of “ministerium”, it is therefore clear that the ministry refers to what is the service rendered as a duty of the office, not the office itself. Thus by renouncing the “ministry which I received from the hands of the Cardinals”, Pope Benedict XVI literally and explicitly resigned from active service, while not renouncing the gift he had received from Christ.

All of this responds to the shock and consternation of thousands of Catholics in February 2013, when they came to know that Pope Benedict XVI had “renounced the ministry which I received through the hands of the Cardinals”, since every Catholic knows that the Papal Office is received from Jesus Christ, not from the Cardinals. Their consternation and shock was founded on their being deceived into thinking that Pope Benedict had abdicated, when he clearly only went into retirement. For retirement means keeping the dignity of an office while laying aside its duties. But since the dignity of an office remains only with the office, that he retained the dignity of the Papal office means simply and plainly that he never resigned it. Also, that the Church recognized that he retained it till death is the universal acceptance that he never abdicated, regardless of how many gaslighting liars want you to believe otherwise.

These laws and facts are pertinent even unto today, because they mean that the Dicastery which excommunicated Viganò has no authority to judge him, because it was not created by a man holding the Petrine Munus, since Pope Francis received nothing on March 13, 2013, but was a usurper and anti-pope right up to the final moments of Pope Benedict XVI’s mortal life. It also means that the canons cited in the trial and sentence against Viganò are non existent, because they were never promulgated by John Paul II nor Benedict XVI.

Finally, all this confirms that the Catholic  Church is founded upon the Eternal Word, and can only be saved in the present age by attending to His Words and the words of His true Vicars on earth, in Declarations and Canon Law. Everyone doing something else is an enemy of the Eternal and temporal words by which the Church must always be governed.

In conclusion, let us pray for all the Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops of the Catholic Church, because we are living in an age where there is widespread and profound incompetence among the Sacred Hierarchy, not only as regards morality or academics, but even the laws of Holy Mother Church, and until the light of humility convinces them of their own incompetence in these matters, they will never come to know the truth by which alone the Church can be saved from all present crises and troubles.

UK: Heretical, satanic pro-pedophilia porn author Ordains British Ordinariate Bishop

Editor’s Note: I publish this story to warn all Catholics to how utterly fake and false was the “conversion” of the British Anglicans under Pope Benedict XVI. For if they were sincere, they would have joined the Catholic Church because they believe Jesus Christ is God and that He consecrated His Humanity in the service of His Eternal Father through perpetual chastity and virginity. Whereas this Archbishop holds that it is morally licit to imagine Jesus whoring with a girl who is not yet of legal age. — If you are in the United Kingdom, stay away from this group like the plague, as they have just endorsed the most satanic form of child abuse by accepting that their ordinary be ordained a bishop by such a filthy godless man.

Archbishop Viganò issues an Apologia in his defense

Editor’s Note: The Archbishop has written his own apologia pro sua vita, which is now available in English, through the linked image above.

What he says therein is more completely an exposition of his doctrinal and juridical position than in other documents.

Essentially, however, he has not modified or changed anything of what he has said in the past. He holds the Catholic position, which so many others, including myself hold as the only possible approach a Catholic can have to these subjects.

But he does take one step which he has not taken before.

He now asks his brother Bishops to hear his case and he formally accuses Pope Francis of being a usurper, heretic and schismatic.

But he continues to omit the necessary juridical specification of calling on a specific tribunal to hear this appeal.

Yes, he has appealed ostensibly to all the Bishops of the world. But juridically such an appeal means nothing unless he addresses a specific body, such as a provincial council or a general council.

If he ever realizes that in failing to do this he is making meaningless all he has said and is serving up all that his enemies need to condemn him, he will make a formal canonical appeal to the Bishops of the Province of Rome to convoke a Provincial Council, on the grounds mentioned in the Sutri Initiative. For that is the only body which can convene without Pope Francis’s permission and which can judge the accusation of usurpation of the Papacy.

Let’s pray for the Archbishop that he take that last but decisive step!

Vatican News quotes Viganò’s Tweet about Schism Trial, Parolin praises him for past work

Editor’s Note: Since the Vatican News Service is under the direction of the Secretary of State, it is indeed notable that Cardinal Parolin should publish this article, so as to get his own comments on record, as one who is trying to be fair to both sides in this dispute, Pope Francis and Archbishop Viganò.

Meanwhile, the Society of St. Pius X has made it clear (here) that they hold Viganò to be a sedevacantist for saying that Pope Francis is not pope because of a defect in his own intention in accepting the papacy.

This judgement against the Italian Archbishop by the Society’s report, however, is wrong, since such a position is not a form of sedevacantism: an ideology which claims there is no pope so as to have a Church without any principle of hierarchical or juridical authority.

Likewise, the Italian Archbishop is not a schismatic, because to claim a Pope has no authority due to his own heresy or a defect in his election, is not an act of schism, but a juridical complaint, which merits to be judged on its own grounds. The Vatican is attempting to parse his words, so that they can condemn him for saying the Pope has no authority, and ignore his assertion that there was a defect in Pope Francis’ being elected.

Crux Magazine lauds Berlusconi Conservatives who applaud Viganò trial

Editor’s Note: Does ex priest John Allen, founder of Crux Magazine, really expect us to believe that those whom he calls conservatives in Italy, are conservatives? And that no one in the Church agrees with the Archbishop’s opposition to the Scamdemic?

This is the cheekiest propaganda yet.

The effort to demonize all the positions held by Archbishop Viganò on account of one or another of his opinions seems to be the whole agenda of the trial moved against him at the Vatican.

Indeed, there are very few informed and faithful Catholics who could disagree with the statement of the Archbishop, that “Bergoglio is to the Church what other world leaders are to their nations: traitors, subversives, and final liquidators of traditional society”, as he is quoted to have said by the National Catholic Register, in their article of June 21, 2024 by Francis X. Rocca, who writes for EWTN but has in the past been published by notable Skull & Bones controlled outlets. Rocca’s personal work history and his association with EWTN explains why in that article he too joins on the bandwagon to see the Archbishop hung-out-to-dry.

But the zeal of Pope Francis against Viganò is unprecedented also in recent Church history. It took the Vatican 20 years to move against Archbishop Lefebvre, who in the meantime had illicitly ordained hundreds of priests, while the Italian Archbishop has scarcely ordained but a few men, according to leaked reports.

Maybe this zeal has something to do with the 2.4 Billion Euros which somehow found its way into the Vatican balance sheets since Pope Francis met with Bill Clinton and Alexis Soros last July?

I believe that the Globalists are very worried about who will succeed Pope Francis and that this summer trial issued against the most staunch anti-Globalist in the Sacred Hierarchy has everything to do with shaping the narrative to be used to control that outcome during the next Conclave.

Vatican Dicastery’s use of Satanic Ritual Rapist’s Art sparks media outrage in USA

Editor’s Note: The Vatican, occupied by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who was installed by Barack Obama, is set on its course to destroy any vestige of good name of the Catholic Church. Even the secularists in the Main Stream Media in the USA can no longer tolerate the gross, reckless and senseless continued use of the art by Father Rupnik by the Vatican Media, whose director was questioned publicly about this, during the recent Catholic Media Conference in Atlanta.

His outrageous insistence that the artwork will be used in the future, appears to result from the fact that the Vatican “Dicastery on Social Communications” has a member on its board who co-published books with the notorious priest.

This is another case, whereby, as I have said before, these uncanonical “dicasteries” are taking the exact position of what entities of a False Church or Anti-Church would take. It is gravely aberrant that the Catholic Hierarchy remain silent and not urge the Sutri Initiative. Even the “great” opponents of Pope Francis like Bishops Gracida, Strickland, Schneider and now Archbishop Vigano are silent and do nothing other than enter into public criticisms and diatribes without bringing a canonical petition to the proper tribunal.

ITALY: Parliament approves law on Differentiated Autonomy of Italian Regions

Editor’s Note: The Italian government has passed the law on differentiated autonomy, which will grant devolution over certain aspects of government from Parliament to the regional governments if they so request it. Within 2 years the government must define what are essential government services and restrict those to the competence of the national parliament. After that, local regions can begin to make decisions regarding a variety of minor organizational affairs, including how they raise and spend taxes.

Most importantly, however, the manner of election of the Prime Minister. Currently, the PM is elected by Parliament in Rome. With this new bill, the election will be by popular vote of the entire nation. The winner of the election will also be able to assign 55% of the parliamentarians to the national parliament. It is not clear yet whether this provision will need to be approved by a national popular referendum, as it touches upon the Constitutional provisions. However, many are concerned that it will lead to a de facto dictatorial state, since it will guarantee the elected PM a ruling majority in parliament. The law proposes this majority, since in a parliamentary form of government, the members of the cabinet are normally approved by the majority in one or both houses of parliament.

The both aspects of the new law were long time goals of the Lega party. It is expected that as a consequence of this law, that the ruling coalition will lose massive support in the poorer regions, who will be deprived financially of some tax revenues on an equal per capita basis. However, each region can now streamline some regulations to suit the businesses and cultural differences of their locale.

Here is another report about the law, published prior to its approval, Wednesday in parliament.

Archbishop Viganò digs his own grave, by extravagant statements

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

On June 11, 2024, the “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith”, an entity erected by no pope sent a letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò informing him of his pending trial in the “Dicastery” on the charge of schism. In response to reports that he has been so charged and would attend he has issued a public statement denying that he will attend or attempt to defend himself.

Though he has been repeatedly informed by private correspondence that he must take his appeal to a provincial council in the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome, just as the Sutri Initiative suggests and urges, Archbishop Viganò has, instead, chosen to issue a public response full of expressions which will only lead to his condemnation.

The core of the Archbishop’s error lies in attributing to the Church the errors, crimes and immorality of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his crew. On this basis, he denies the authority of the Dicastery, of Pope Francis, and of the Church in communion with him, to put him on trial.

Such statements will be viewed by all as schismatic, since semantically they express the very essence of the notion of schism.

The proper Catholic response, on the other hand, would be to accuse these persons before the proper tribunal (Provincial Council in the Roman Province). While the Sutri Initiative suggests such a recourse to challenge the validity of Pope Francis’ election in March of 2013, or the validity of his claim to be pope, on account of his patent heresies, such a recourse can also be made by an Archbishop who is incardinated at the Vatican when charged by agents of a Roman Pontiff who has any questionable hold on the Petrine Office, even one vitiated by heretical intentions.

I believe that once again, we are seeing play out in real time the destruction of the person and reputation of another outstanding cleric of the Roman Church, since, because he lacks the courage to bring a canonical complaint to the competent tribunal, he is attempting to win his case by public debate and diatribes: a thing which can never succeed, since the Church of Jesus Christ is a juridical entity with proper laws and procedures, and justice must be sought in accord with them.

Contrariwise, if the Archbishop changes his legal strategy immediately by publicly appealing to a provincial council against the actions of a dicastery which was erected not by Pope Benedict XVI but by another claiming the papal office during his lifetime, he will put the entire dispute squarely on the proper legal grounds and avoid a charge of schism. For no one appealing to the proper tribunal is a schismatic. He will also in the strongest possible juridical manner put in doubt the claim of Pope Francis to have the right to move against him.

In such a case, the Bishops of the Roman Province can decide to call or not call the Council: the charges against Pope Francis being sufficient to hold the Apostolic See impeded (see here fore more about this). If the Bishops were to refuse to convene, then the Archbishop could rightfully appeal to any provincial council in the world, since such a refusal would confirm the juridical doubt concerning the impeded see and a conspiracy to overthrow the Church. Furthermore, even if the provincial council in the Roman province determine against him, he could appeal to other provincial councils, since such decisions put in writing in a provincial council would demonstrate the unjust basis of Pope Francis’ claims to office. This would raise the controversy to the international level and require a general council to hear the case, as numerous provincial councils could rightfully demand such be convened.

This is the way to fight as a Catholic in the footsteps of great saints such as St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Let us pray that the Archbishop wake up fast, before he is eaten up by the crocodile on the Tiber.

VATICAN “Dicastery” charges Archbishop Viganò with Schism

Commentary and Canonical Critique by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

Editor’s Note: You can read the news from the source, at the Archbishop’s Italian Website, which now has an official English translation of the accusation and surrounding circumstances.

As I have said before, since this Dicastery was never erected by a man holding the Petrine Munus, the entire procedure against the Archbishop is null and void de jure. However, since he nominally recognizes the papal conclave of 2013 as being valid and as Pope Benedict XVI validly resigning, he is caught in the same juridical problem of all Pope Francis’ opponents, of putting himself, as it were, in the mouth of the crocodile on his own accord.

In addition, the Archbishop is being accused of violating a Canon, 1364, which does not exist, since it was published by Pope Francis before his juridically valid election, that is, during his antipapacy from March 13, 2013, to January 29, 2023.

Finally, it is indeed revealing, that the only person yet to be put on trial for heresy or schism by this new fake Dicastery is one of the most Catholic Archbishops of all the Roman Rite.

If the Archbishop publicizes the trial step by step, he will surely win over the entire Catholic world, as the proceedings of the trial will put on show the entire rotten ideological basis upon which the Bergoglian revolution is being perpetrated.

And if he defends himself, he will be able to argue that the conclave of 2013 was canonically invalid, that pope Francis was not therein validly elected. However, if he argues that Benedict XVI validly renounced the papacy, that it would seem that he is actually playing a game with the Globalists to confirm that the election of Pope Francis was valid and could only be considered invalid by mean-spirited presumptuous individuals like himself, since to accuse Bergoglio of not having the good will to be pope, while reasonable, has no basis in canon law for a determination by anyone but a future pope, and would thus expose him to an irrefutable counter-argument of making a false accusation, since the internal forum cannot be judged except by a  superior according to the principle de internis praetor non iudicat.

So while it seems that the anti-Church is moving against the Catholic Archbishop, the intersection of this other possibility makes is more likely that he has joined a public dispute with Pope Francis that is designed to make the latter win and the former lose, so as to undermine the true Catholic position expressed in the Sutri Initiative.

However, if someone were to convince the Archbishop to appeal immediately to a Provincial Council he could save himself and the Church by attacking all his problems at the core, by addressing the invalidity of a resignation of petrine ministry to effect a papal abdication. If he took that position he would indeed then force Pope Francis to recognize publicly his juridically valid election on Jan. 30, 2023 or to admit publicly that he was never the Roman Pontiff.

Let’s see if the Archbishop decides to play a game he can only lose, or fight on the field of the true battle, where he can only win. For true Catholic militancy belongs to the latter, and fake Masonic opposition belongs to the former.

Finally, I find it an indeed strikingly revealing, that the Archbishop entitles his response to the juridical accusation, with the words of Our Lord, recorded in the Gospel of Saint Mathew, chapter 7, verse 15, from the Vulgate: “Attendite a falsis prophetis”, “Beware of false prophets” in the plural. Because this juridical accusation and the Archbishop’s respond are excellent examples of the kind of narrative psyops the Globalists use to divide and conquer, when they put on the chess board of history two public opponents lauded by all controlled media sources, both of whom are wrong, because they accept the Globalist Big Lies as the truth. Thus, no matter which appears to win, the Big Lie is the winner, because the supporters of both prefer the football game-like ruckus and battle more than the truth.

Here the big lie is that Pope Benedict XVI abdicated, when the patent obvious truth is that he never actually renounced nor intended to renounce the Papal Dignity, and thus never renounced by word or intent the petrine munus. Thus, Pope Francis was not validly elected in 2013, and his changes in the Roman Curia in 2022 and penal code of the Church, therefore, are uncanonical and without force. Consequently, the Archbishop can not only NOT be charged, the “Dicastery” charging him has no more authority than a dry fig.

News and Commentary on the Catholic Church