Why Revolutionaries call their opponents Extremists

Or How one Eminent Canonist at Rome
Just Admitted that Bergoglio is a Usurper

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The salvation of souls is the most important thing. That is why in the time of perfidy and falsehood it is a grave moral obligation to warn the faithful of the imminent danger to their souls, from whatever quarter that threat comes.

I too, personally, cannot comprehend or contemplate the prudence that would keep silent while letting wolves gobble up sheep and ship them off in boat-loads to Hell.

That is why, I think every catholic who is struggling with the question of whether Berogoglio is the Pope or whether Benedict did not really resign, needs to read the report I file here below.

I say this because I have just had the occasion to talk with one of the most eminent and respected canonists in the Church and show him my Disputed Question on the Renunciation. He holds a doctorate in Canon Law and a very important position in the Academic world here at Rome. I met with him this morning, as he graciously granted me an audience despite knowing something about my writing on the subject.  I respect that.

And for that reason, since I am interested in truth, and not in damaging reputations, I won’t mention his name. But since what he said is important and needs to be heard by everyone in the Church, I will summarize as best I can remember. (I did not record the conversation, and what follows is not a transcript.)

I explained my academic background and preparation. Then I mentioned the comment of Mons. Nicola Bux, last year in October, about the possibility that in the Renunciation of Pope Benedict there was a substantial error which made it invalid to cause him to lose the office of the Papacy, then we discussed the problem according to canonical principles.

This eminent canonist in the course of our 20 minute conversation, agreed with me on the following points of law:

  1. A papal resignation falls under the category of legal acts which pertain to the cessation of power.
  2. The cessation of power is never presumed, it must be manifest in the legal act.
  3. The Roman Curia assists the Pope in the exercise of the Petrine Ministry, but no one in the Curia, not even the Secretary of State shares in the Petrine Munus.
  4. During a sedevacante there can be no innovation in the law.
  5. If Ratzinger did validly resign, then from the moment he did, there was a sede vacante.
  6. During a sede vacante the entire Church is obliged to judge who is not pope and who is pope based on the norm of the law, not on the hearsay or claims of anyone, let alone journalists.
  7. Canon 145 §1 does define every ecclesiastic office as a munus.
  8. Canon 332 §2 does require the Church to recognize that a papal renunciation takes place when there is a free and manifest renunciation of the Petrine Munus.
  9. Canon 1331 §2, n. 4, does not forbid an excommunicate to exercise or hold a ministry in the Church, and does not equate ministerium with dignity, office or munus.
  10. Christ’s promise and prayer for the Successor of Saint Peter is infinitely more important of a support for the Pope than all the prayers and good works of the Church for the Pope.
  11. It is necessary that the entire Church take care that a Petrine Succession, that is, the passing of the office of the papacy from one man to another, takes place in the way canon law and the will of Christ intend it.
  12. Our concern for the solution of this problem should be based on the highest charity and justice for both Benedict and Francis.
  13. There is no canon in the Code of Canon Law which says that ministerium = munus.

So much for what we agreed on. It was very substantial, and I much appreciated the occasion to speak with such a brilliant mind on the law.

However, we had fundamental disagreements. Here I will list those which I remember. These are positions which I do not hold, but represent substantially those of the canonist:

  1. Any questioning of the legitimacy of Pope Francis for the purpose of taking from him a legal claim to the Papacy is the greatest evil in the Church.
  2. Any canonical study or investigation which so questions Pope Francis’s claim if it is motivated by such a motive, is to be entirely refused before even being heard.
  3. Scholastic theology is not the mind of the Church and it does not determine reality.
  4. Canon Law does not determine reality.
  5. Munus is contained in ministerium, so he who exercises ministerium holds a munus.
  6. Canon 17, which establishes the legal norm for the interpretation of every canon, is not operative in any discussion of Pope Francis’ legitimacy or Benedict’s resignation.
  7. Catholics investigating either issue should read and accept the scholarly works of only those authors who sustain that Bergoglio’s claim is valid and the Benedict’s resignation is valid.


The usurpation of power is an act whereby someone who does not have claim to a right, claims that right. We live in an age of usurpation, as can be seen from the daily news. But when you encounter a canonist who takes the position that the holding of power makes legitimate the claim to power, you are face-to-face with proof that there is no reason or legal obligation to support their revolution.

So, though we did not discuss the opinions of Cardinal Burke, when I consider that Cardinal Burke called all who question the legitimacy of Pope Francis’ claim to the papacy, “extremists”, I wonder what he would say on these same points. Because what is extremism, in the bad sense of the word, anyhow? Is it claiming that 2+2 must = 4, and that those who say it does not are wrong? Or is it saying that anyone who questions a legal claim, because it lacks a foundation in law and right, is nuts?

The most egregious affirmations made by this canonist are contained in nn. 5 and 6.  To reject the norm of canon 17 in the reading of the Code is basically to throw in the dust bin any obligation to hold that the Code means what Pope John Paul II said it meant and what it itself or canonical tradition says it means.

To claim that munus is contained in ministerium is pretty much to reject the entire Incarnation, because that is the doctrine of those Christians who claim that the doing of a ministry gives you authority. It’s the protestant principle of office, as a very eminent historian of the comparison of ecclesiastical office in the Catholic Church and the churches of the Reformation recently affirmed to me in a private chat.

So, basically, if munus is contained in ministerium, then if anyone starts dressing like the Pope and acting like the pope, nominating bishops and consecrating them, THEN HE IS THE POPE! Because, after all the papal office is contained in the papal ministry, do the ministry and you have the office!

Finally, for a canonist to say that Canon Law does not determine reality in a discussion on the question of the canonical validity of the Renunciation is basically to concede that the Renunciation is clearly and manifestly NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE NORM OF CANON 332 §2.

So the next time anyone tells you that you must accept Pope Francis as the pope BECAUSE OTHERWISE you are a sinner or a heretic or a schismatic, maybe you should reply,

“In the Catholic Church only he is pope who has been canonically elected after the death or canonical resignation of the previous man. If one of the most eminent canonists of Rome, who supports Pope Francis, admitted to Br. Bugnolo on Nov. 19, that the Renunciation is not in conformity with the canonical requirements of the law, then I think I have an UNSHAKEABLE RIGHT by baptism to refuse Bergoglio as a usurper, for clearly, Bergoglio’s own supporters after nearly 7 years should have a canonical argument which proves his claim! And if they do not, there is none! And if there is none, why in Heaven or Earth, to I have to accept him without such a claim?”

POSTSCRIPT: It is VERY noteworthy that this eminent Canonist did not use certain arguments. He did Not:

  1. Cite the maxim referenced in Canon 1404, the First See is judged by no one (Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur), because he recognizes that an act of renunciation is of the man who holds the office, in as much as he is the man who accepted the office, not inasmuch as he is the man who holds the office.
  2. Appeal to universal acceptance: a crazed notion invented by some English speaking laymen, who having selectively quoted from John of Saint Thomas, want to apply a reflex principle, developed in an age before there was a Code of Canon Law, for troubled consciences in the time of a valid election, to silence honest inquiries into an invalid election which the principles of the Code of Canon Law clearly put it in doubt.
  3. Employ any ad hominems. That is, he did not insult me or question my motivation.
  4. Appeal to any meeting held in the Vatican after Feb 11, 2013 12 pm, noon, and before Feb. 28, 8 pm, when Benedict left the Vatican, in which there was an official determination or discussion of the canonical validity of the act to determine it was valid. Being an expert canonist at Rome, he would have heard of any, after nearly 7 years.
  5. And most importantly, perhaps, he made NO appeal to anything said by Benedict after Feb. 28, 2013, evidently because as a sane canonist, he recognizes that no testimony after the fact, regarding liberty or intention, has any bearing on the validity of a past act. Both need to be manifest in the act itself at the time of the act.


CREDITS: My photograph of the Holy Water fount at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls. The sculpture beneath it shows a cherub inviting the faithful to bless themselves with the Holy Water, while a demon cringes that anyone do something so extremist.

THANKS TO MY READERS: I wish to take this moment to thank all my Readers at this blog for encouraging me in my work and study to study the Renunciation. I would not have been prepared to debate the Renunciation with this eminent canonist, if I had not already learned a great deal from trying to answer your many questions and concerns during the last year.


With Globalist Censorship growing daily, No one will ever know about the above article, if you do not share it.

23 thoughts on “Why Revolutionaries call their opponents Extremists”

  1. Br Bugnolo,

    If your recollection is accurate, the canonist made a very discreet and easily missed assumption in the first point, when he mentioned Berg’s “legal claim” to the papacy. Which of course he does not have.

    Rather one should say:

    1. Any questioning of the legitimacy of Pope Francis [sic] for the purpose of taking from him an ILLEGAL claim to the Papacy is a most meritorious work.

    2.. Any canonical study or investigation which so questions Pope Francis’s [sic] claim if it is motivated by such a motive, is to be entertained very seriously as if the souls of millions depended upon it.

  2. Hey, I got a great idea on a post, it is for when His Holiness Benedict XVI goes onto his Eternal Reward, about the ancient conclave laws of electing a lay man to become Pope, it would need to be done to cancel out all cardinals and start new to restore the Church. On this topic, yikes, Church Militant did a Vortex about how Jorge hates America and calling for America to end and turn itself in to be led by a world government. See it here https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vortex-francis-hates-america

    1. OMR: In the middle ages they were often very heroic, by modern standards, about making radical choices to reform discipline and order. Unfortunately in our age, Marxist Russia spread the error that every reform must be a deformation. Such revolutionaries have hissy fits if you even suggest real reform.

  3. wasn’t thinking of those who throw the hissy fit, but got to restore the Church and take Her back from these heretics, so that is why the thought of the ancient conclave law came to mind, I know all the liberal clergy and laity would challenge it, would attack it.

  4. Thank you for setting this out so clearly. As soon as I read the first reason of the Eminent Cardinal I virtually laughed. It seems his loyalties are getting in the way of reason. Like most of us here, I will be sending this on. Thank you brother Bugnolo and God bless✝️

  5. Dear Br. Bugnolo: Although not nearly so elegant in its actual words or discussion points, what you have described here is a mirror image of my husband’s and my meeting with a much esteemed pastor/Canon Lawyer yesterday on this side of the world. The short take I got from our equally non-confrontational conversation was: “You can find a Canon Lawyer to tell you whatever you want from Canon Law because it’s just a matter of opinion, and it is the majority’s opinion that in resigning from the ministry Pope Benedict intended to resign from the office; so he did. Everyone says so.”

    I pointed out to him that opinion seemed a mighty shaky foundation upon which to stake my immortal soul and that apparently it was a good thing no one told St. Athanasius about minorities being wrong when it came to Divine Truths.

    Before we left his office, we let him know that things were coming to loggerheads and that it was our desire to “have his back” when push comes to shove. We also noted that because we did not take a vow of obedience to the bishop, we have greater liberty than he does at this time.

    The points you outline in this post will be good for me to try to commit to memory. Thank you again and again for your work and perseverance.

  6. Not sure I understand: “To claim that munus is contained in ministerium is pretty much to reject the entire Incarnation…”. I do understand what follows, though: “…that is the doctrine of those Christians who claim that the doing of a ministry gives you authority. It’s the protestant principle of office.”

    Does it mean that just because Jesus seemingly could not minister from the time of His Incarnation, being but a baby, doesn’t mean He was not even then the King of Kings? In any case, this is really a wonderful thought!

    Many thanks.

    1. No, I mean to say, that if doing a ministry gives you authority, then you did not need God to become incarnate to authorize men to save souls. The concept that munus is contained in ministerium therefore is perfectly fit for the usurper, because that is what he does, but it is also fit for the Gnostic or Satanist, because that is what they also do.

  7. I refute the Canonist at his first point of disagreement.

    The greatest evil in the Church is an idol processing to the High Altar Of God; Idols and Shamans casting spells on Cardinals and (titular) Pope in the Vatican Gardens.

    The Pope is not God. I think some have forgotten this. We have forgotten that only the glory of God matters in this life; everything else flows from that fact.

  8. And second point of disagreement posits that one can never question a Pope elected by Cardinals.

    That renders St. Catherine of Siena’s acts the “greatest evil in the Church”, since she dismissed the product of the Cardinal’s election in 1378 (Clement VII) and supported the prior Pope Urban whom the Cardinals contended was elected under duress.

    The Canonists have lost their way.

    “2: The cessation of power must never be presumed. It must be made manifest in the legal act.”


    “8: Canon 332 §2 does require the Church to recognize that a papal renunciation takes place when there is a free and manifest renunciation of the Petrine Munus.”


    “11: It is necessary that Petrine succession takes place in the way Canon Law *and the will of Christ* intend it.”


    “1: Any questioning of the legitimacy of Pope Francis for the purpose of taking from him a legal claim to the Papacy is the greatest evil in the Church.”

    She stood on reality and defended the rightful Pope’s claim to the Throne, against the College Of Cardinals.

    He stands on unreality and defends whoever the Cardinal’s present as claimant to the Throne who we must never question no matter how evil or wrong they may be.

    Was the cessation of power made manifest in the legal renunciation act? No.

    Was there a free and manifest Papal renunciation of the Petrine Munus? No.

    Did the Petrine succession take place according to Canon Law and the will of Christ? No.

    By his points of disagreement Canonist renders all of that irrelevant. Canonist insists there is nothing we can do about an antipope, ever. Canonist asserts St. Catherine was wrong to question Urban VII, (she committed the greatest evil in the Church). And we are also just as wrong to question Francis.

    “Illegal”. “No prior renunciation”. “Not in accord with Canon Law and the will of Christ” ….. but we *must* accept it anyway, or we commit the greatest evil in the Church.


  9. @Br. Bugnolo: You say, “What is evil in Christ’s Church, is a good in the Church of the Antichrist…” it is because of this source of great confusion that I believe we must with great clarity say that there are quite visibly now the Barque of Peter, in which its visible head is incarcerated, AND there is a visible anti-barque with its visible anti-pope. There are two ships whose distinctions become more and more visible each passing day.

    The confusion arises when those Cdls and Bps say and do Catholic things while maintaining that Francis is Pope. They seemingly go back and forth between the two ships which causes confusion. It is the going back and forth that is the evil that we witness. When will they stay put in one ship or the other? What will cause them to stay put? Not reason, it seems.

    1. We must speak like the Beloved Disciple does in the Apocalypse: It’s a mass apostasy. They are apostates. They are not members of the Church and they must be removed from Church property by all lawful force. I think we need to move to petitioning governments to criminally investigate them and or employ military intervention. And no, I am not joking.

      1. No, dear Br., it is no joke. The RICO investigation is underway in the United States, but the con-joining of evil in both the Church and State make it clear that Divine Intervention is necessary. I see ‘David vs Goliath’ scenes EVERYWHERE I look.

  10. BTW, a further thought which fits with the tenor of the times which posits that only Canonists and Credentialed may speak on the topic of who is or is not the Pope.

    St. Catherine of Siena, Doctor Of The Church (one of only 36 Doctors in 2,000 years) was a laywoman.

    “Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops like bishops and your religious act like religious” – Bishop Fulton Sheen

    Before God, I refuse to accept that the Papal Office was expanded and re-formed to include more than one occupant and that a Pope can resign his Ministry but retain his Office.

    If the Canonist wishes to be helpful – please explain that innovation in Canon Law and Sacred Tradition.

  11. Now that the CC has taken on a global political role having abandoned the Great Commission given to it by Christ, maybe it is time for Matteo Salvini to renounce the Latern Treaty which was signed by the Fascist leader Benito Mussolini & send in the Italian army to undertake the entire evacuation of the Vatican & its buildings. Remember PJPII sending a piece of the cornerstone of St. Peter’s tomb in Rome to Fatima? Maybe this symbolic act explains this apostasy we are witnessing of the entire Hierarchy & that the authority of St. Peter has now been transferred to Our Lady to whom Our Lord bestowed the victory of the final battle & Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart over Satan.

    1. Ana, Salvini is no longer in the Italian government. And eradicating a town which is controlled by the Mafia is not how you eradicate a Mafia. Let’s try to keep everything in its proper perspective. As for the alleged version of the Third Secret, who knows if it be authentic. Handwriting alone does not prove it, because that can be forged by experts in that mischevious art.

Comments are closed.