How to remove Bergoglio

Anthony Hopkins stars as a priest, performing an exorcism, in a scene from the 2010 movie “The Rite.” (CNS photo/Warner Bros.)

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

What follows here are the canonical steps by which Bergoglio can be peacefully, easily and lawfully removed from his position of power.

First, any Catholic Bishop or Cardinal, whether holding jurisdiction or not, whether of the Latin Rite or not, in his capacity as a member of the College of Bishops needs to make this public declaration, or its equivalent:

As member of the College of Bishops, whose unity with the Successor of Saint Peter is essential to its proper function in the Church for the accomplishment of the will of Christ, to continue His Salvific Mission on Earth, I hereby declare that I have examined the official Latin text of Pope Benedict XVI’s act of renunciation of February 11, 2013 A.,D., which begins with the words Non solum propter, and I have found that it is not in conformity with the requirement of Canon 332 §2, that states explicitly that a papal resignation only occurs when the Supreme Pontiff renounces the Petrine Munus.  Seeing that Pope Benedict renounced only the ministerium which he received from the hands of the Cardinals, and seeing that he did not invoke Canon 38 to derogate from the obligation to name of the office in a matter which violates the rights of all the Faithful of Christ, and even more so, of the members of the College of Bishops, to know who is and who is not the Successor of Saint Peter, and when and when not he has validly renounced his office, I declare out of the fullness of my apostolic duty and mission, which binds me to consider first of all the salvation of souls and the unity of the Church, that Pope Benedict XVI by the act expressed in Non Solum Propter never renounced the Papal Office and therefore has continued until this very day to be the one and sole and true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor of Saint Peter.  I therefore charge the College of Cardinals with gross negligence in the performance of their duties as expressed in Canon 359 and n. 37 of Universi Domini Gregis by proceeding in February and March of 2013 to the convocation and convening of a Conclave to elect Pope Benedict’s successor when there had not yet been consummated a legal sede vacante. And thus I do declare the Conclave of 2013 was uncanonically convoked, convened and consummated and that the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergogio as Successor of Saint Peter is null and void and irritus by the laws themselves of Holy Mother Church, as established by Pope John Paul II.

Second, Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and indeed all the Faithful should personally examine the text of February 11, 2013 according to the norms of Canons 332 §2, canon 17, canon 38, canon 145 §1, canon 41, canon 126, and in particular canon 188. (see for more information.)

Third, the Cardinals and Bishops should hold spontaneous regional or universal Synods to confirm the same and publicly affirm the same.

Fourth, the Bishops and Cardinals should call on the Swiss Guard and Vatican Police to arrest Cardinal Bergoglio and detain him and obtain from him public affirmation of the same.

Fifth, the Cardinals should approach Pope Benedict XVI and ask if it is now his intention to resign the Petrine Munus or not. If not, they should convey him to Saint John Lateran’s and acclaim him with one voice as Pope and ask his forgiveness publicly for having defected from him and elected an antipope. If so, they should ask him to redo the renunciation, this time renouncing the Petrine Munus; and then they should convene a Conclave to elect Benedict’s legitimate successor.


29 thoughts on “How to remove Bergoglio”

  1. Bishop Emeritus Rene Gracida will do this. I am sure. Please send him your article.

    In Christ Jesus,


    1. he already reblogged it. I pray that he does. It is the most powerful exorcism any Bishop can do right now, and it will lead to the salvation of billions of souls!

  2. BRAVO! Brother Alexis Bugnolo. Thank you!! I just read this on Bishop Gracida’s web site. So he has read it! He will surely have tons of support …

  3. Dear Brother,

    Who will do the sorting and by what means are the Bishops in union with Rome going to be determined under your proposal?

    Two items must be addressed:  first is that while you seemed to agree with the application of Virtue of Equity in my essay just sent you, saying you didn’t initially understand how it fit into the picture, which Equity is a means of correcting a law or laws (which would do harm regarding a situation unforeseen by the Law Giver).  In this case those Laws demanding a resignation from the MUNUS, which as they stood, if observed would prevent the Pontiff, operating under the most difficult circumstances–diabolical, from maintaining the Papacy from the enemies of the Church; furthermore, if he had been murdered or actually resigned it would have been a success for Satan, who had infiltrated the Church–there was probably no third choice without Equity other than full resignation or being murdered.

    Secondly, if Fr. Belland is able to read correctly what Benedict said in his Renunciation Declaration (and I ask any capable Latinist to show where the explanation of my translation is wrong)–that document being one brilliant piece of Latin for the good of the Church, but the Cardinals, for whatever reason, did not understand what he did, the onus falls on them–not on Benedict.  But Benedict knew what he was doing; he even stated publicly that his resignation was in fact VALID (*”There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my renunciation of the Petrine ministry,*” the retired pope wrote in a letter to Andrea Tornielli, a Vatican correspondent for the newspaper La Stampa and the website Vatican Insider.).  Benedict is implicitely being called a liar when his words are interpreted to mean something other than what he says, i.e., telling him he’s wrong. The onus, Brother, is on you to prove that Benedict was lying or to ask him how his renunciation was valid instead of lecturing to him about his invalid resignation:

    The correct forensic principle, which a canonist SHOULD know, is that what some/one/says is prima facie what he means, and he who claims that the intention was such as to make it other than prima facie IS REQUIRED TO PROVE HIS INTERPRETATION by a first hand DENIAL of the prima facie.  (From your own blog, Brother:  Benedict said in every way that He did not resign! — An Examination of His Testimonies).

    I ask you, Brother, to address precisely HOW Equity cannot be used in Benedict’s case; certainly no Law Maker, in his right mind, is going to issue a law which forbids the use of Equity, truly an institution in Canon Law from the beginning.  Please show me where Amleto Giovanni Cicognani is wrong in his text book: /Canon Law–/I believe I sent you a copy of the whole section on Equity from his book/, /and also where St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa is wrong about the Virtue of Equity.

    God bless and Our Lady protect you always, Father Belland

    1. Dear Father, the problem you address is one of semantics. Because if one looks at Non Solum Propter as a Papal resignation, then one says that as such it is invalid per canon 188 on account of lacking the proper object of the act. However, as I said in my disputed question’s Respondeo, IF one says that it is a renunciation of ministerium, to prepare for a retirement while retaining the office, then it is not invalid, but valid. Nevertheless, it does not have the effect of the loss of office. — As much as I understand the concept of equity, the Pope, since he can validly renounce the papal office, can thus validly renounce any part of the papal prerogatives and keep the rest WHEN there is grave cause and a circumstance not foreseen by the law. In this case, as I explained in my article, How Benedict has defeated “Francis”, a few days ago, the threat to assassinate him if he did not resign and his realization of how evil his enemies were, put him in seemingly a situation from which he could not escape: die and let them take the office, or live and renounce the office and let them take the office. Acting, as I believe, for the good of the Church and to PROTECT the papal office, and KNOWING from his doctors or perhaps by special revelation, that he would outlive Bergoglio, he posited an act of retirement but packaged it with the box and ribbons of a resignation of office, so as to deceive the St Gallen Mafia. I previously considered this possibility but discounted it as gravely immoral, even until recently. It was not until I read the article about Benedict offering the Secretary of State to Bergoglio in 2005 that I began to unravel the politics behind the decade old struggle of Church and AntiChurch of which Pope John Paul II spoke.

      However, you are correct in saying that it is not an act of resignation, and that therefore, speaking in the proper sense, it is a valid act of renunciation of ministry, which does not effect the loss of office. I have habitually called it an act of resignation which is invalid, in an improper sense, because I was responding to the Big Lie which has gripped the Church, more principally, than examining the act per se.

    2. As regard to your first question, which Bishops. Any Bishop in communion with Rome. And the testimony would be even more forceful if he was nominated by Bergoglio without realizing Bergoglio was not the pope.

  4. Dear brother.
    The Magisterium of the Church decrees that the elevation of a heretic is invalid and void, that is, it is not necessary for any cardinal to declare that everything Bergoglio does and says is invalid and void. The Magisterium says that it does not matter if all the cardinals had chosen the anti Pope his elevation is invalid and void that is to say that it is the Magisterium who declares Null the elevation of the Anti Pope Bergoglio.

    The Church has also declared invalid and void the elevation of a woman, a heretic and a child. If tomorrow, for example, heretics chose a woman as pope, that elevation is invalid, therefore it does not need anyone to declare that it is void.
    The faithful Catholics must act according to the Magisterium that says we must disobey the antipope and separate from him.

    1. While what you say is true, my estimation of the level of virility among the Sacred Hierarchy leads me to propose something easier than declaring anyone a heretic, since that requires faith. And yes, I am not being sarcastic or ironic. So the method I propose is capable of even being seen to be prudent and necessary by the clergy who want to fill the pews and collection baskets. I do believe most have the faith, but I have seen very few actions since Vatican II to oppose public corruption in the Church which are motivated by faith.

  5. I agree with the editor’s note regarding choosing the easier strategy. Some of the hierarchy are doing a good job of refuting the heresy and social some websites are making the information available to anyone who desires to know the truth of Catholic Doctrine.

  6. Thanks much for this blog post. i was wondering if you might boil it all down in layman’s english. (and what exactly is the petrine munus)…

    1. The Petrine Munus is the technical latin for The Office of the Pope, the Papal Office, the Office which when held makes you the Pope, the Office which Christ gave to Saint Peter.

  7. Perhaps an addendum to the Petrine Munus: that Office to which the Keys of the Kingdom and their inherent “binding and loosing powers” are rooted. Just because the office owner appears to put the keys on the table does not mean that a group can decide to take up the keys and give them to someone they choose who then goes and monkeys around in the business of governing, teaching and sanctifying.

  8. Thank you, all’s clear to me now. What are the practical implications of Francis being an anti-pope? Are recent canonizations valid? (mother teresa, etc) How about if he were to, say, consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart? (would that consecration be valid, too?) Or, how about the consecration of bishops? (similar to that of the SSPX society)…

    1. The Consecration of Russia will be invalid unless Russia is named and the act is done in union with and by the true Pope. Bergoglio is simply still the Archbishop of Buenas Aires because he resigned that office out of substantial error in thinking he was elected pope. cf. canon 188. Nothing which Bergoglio has done as Bishop of Rome has any canonical value at all. It is all nullified by substantial error.

  9. So that means that Jacinta and Francisco are not saints? (and will in all likelihood, then, never become saints?)

    1. God makes Saints. The Church at times for some of them declares them objects of imitation and canonizes them, beatifies others. The Church will always have a true Pope, because the Papacy is part of Sacred Tradition.

  10. The Church at times for some of them declares them objects of imitation and canonizes them, beatifies others.

    Well, yes, of course… But, in your estimation, are Jacinta and Fransisco currently canonized saints or are they still just beatified (awaiting canonization to sainthood)?

    1. I have no opinion. Canon Law declares that a canonization is only valid when performed by a true pope. Pope Benedict XVI did, if I remember correctly, grant Bishops the authority to Beatify.

  11. There are two items in the proposed solution which seem to me problematic: A) it is one thing to confront Pope Benedict over his abdicatio irrata; to ask his forgiveness for going forward with a protocol which going forward he was responsible for catapulting seems quite odd, if not a bizarre twisting of justice. At best, it has been the failure of those in the Apostolic College particularly trained in Canon Law not to have recognized the incompetence of Benedict’s 2013 decree — the College as a whole might not bear that particular responsibility, owing to the fact that they may have been innocently deceived. Like a putative marriage of which the evidence of nullity may take years to reach a tribunal’s examination, our Lord has allowed years of Bergoglian behavior to strike consciousness toward the conclusion that he is not the true pontiff. B) Given the chicanery which has been exposed concerning the illicit conclave of ’13, it might be an exceedingly wise thing that, should it be his veritable intention to abdicate, Pope Benedict suspend the law of conclave in the present instance and appoint his successor. In this wise, there would be no question concerning the legitimacy of the new pope and the latter, once enthroned, could clean house with respect to the College of Cardinals.

  12. Good points, Leo Quatorze.

    My contention is with your premise that “the resignation was incompetent”.

    If I know anything about Pope Benedict XVI, it is that he is the precise *opposite* of incompetent and has been for his entire ordained life. He is know for competence and wisdom at or above all other men. Exceedingly learned in the things that matter most, he is the Church’s *foremost* expert on Church Tradition.

    When he committed the penultimate act of his life, his ordained life, his Papacy, in the life of the Church – it was precisely worded down to the last punctuation mark to convey a precise, concise outcome. Now it is up to us to interpret what that means. As with the parables of Jesus, the most important concepts are at times given to us by God hidden, so that only those with eyes to see and wisdom to understand can know. I believe this strongly.

    There is vastly more below the Vatican/Church political/theological surface than we can know; starting with the third secret of Fatima. Pope Benedict knows all of it intimately, likely more than any man on earth. Why he did what he did is between him and God and God’s enemy Satan. I ascribe the best of motives to him, treat him with all due respect as Holy Father, and try to understand as best I can; then act accordingly.


    1. See the recent report on how the Amazon Synod was put in motion just weeks after the Conclave of 2013. That sheds a lot of light on what Benedict was trying to do on Feb 11 2013, and it certainly is morally impossible that he was resigning to allow it to go forward. Therefore, he was not resigning. But his text renounces ministerium, not munus, which is not a resignation according to the law. Therefore, we should assume he deliberately appeared to resign but did not actually resign to fool the enemies of God.

  13. I agree that this anti pope must be stopped, but there seems to be no energy to do it. Are the great majority of bishops Modernists too?

Comments are closed.