40 Days of prayer against the Church of Darkness — Day 32

FromRome.Info Video, recorded tonight at Santa Maria Maggiore.



In the year of Our Lord 1820, God revealed to Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich that the Church of Rome would one day be attacked from within. That there would be two popes: one false and dark, who strove to found a new Religion which would be the home of every heretic and apostate: one true and aged, who would be paralyzed by inaction and silence.

To drive the Church of Darkness out of the Church of Rome, it was revealed to her that Our Lady asked the faithful to gather at Midnight in front of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, here at Rome, and pray with arms outstretched, in the form of the Cross, for the space of at least 3 Our Fathers.

Prayers being said Tonight at Rome

In nomine Patri et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

Pater noster qui es in coelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum;
adveniat regnum tuum, fiat voluntas tua, sicut in coelo et in terra.
Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie,
et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

Padre nostro che sei nei cieli, sia santificato il tuo nome;
venga il tuo regno; sia fatta la tua volontà, come in cielo così in terra.
Dacci oggi il nostro pane quotidiano,
e rimetti a noi i nostri debiti come noi li rimettiamo ai nostri debitori,
e non ci indurre in tentazione, ma liberaci dal male». Amen. (3 volte)

Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name,
Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our Daily Bread,
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us,
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen. (3 times)

Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto,
Sicut erat in principio, et nunc et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

NOTE: Since, Bl. Anna-Katerina Emmerich had this vision in 1820, before the invention of time zones, midnight here should be understood in solar time, which at Rome makes midnight occur at 12:22 AM, presently, and thus the hour of midnight would be 11:52 AM to 12:52 AM. Try to say your prayers in that hour.

This Novena is explained and announced here in English, and here in Italian, in each place the citations from Bl. Emmerich about these prayers are given.

See the article published yesterday at FromRome.Info, The Church of Light vs. the Church of Darkness for more about this Novena of Prayer.

PLEASE NOTE: That until From Rome Info Video Channel at Youtube gets 1000 subscribers, it will NOT be able to broadcast the Nightly Prayers Live. So let all who are devoted to Jesus Christ, Our Lady and Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich know that they need to urge subscriptions to this channel, so that we can promote the fulfillment of Our Lady’s Request for Her Heavenly-Approved prayer solution to the present Crisis in the Church.

To put a Newspaper ad calling Catholics at Rome to this pray vigil, will cost 2000 euros. Help us spread the word by a generous contribution here below. Our Lady promised victory, let us mobilize everyone to the battle!

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Bishop Schneider, your Essay is a porridge of falsehood and presumption!

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

French Translation

The Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica hands down the Catholic Tradition on the duties of the Catholic Faithful in matters where the Faith itself is put into public doubt or danger by the actions or statements of prelates, even of one’s own Bishop, when he writes:

To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the Faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectufully. Hence the Apostle, writing to the Colossians (4:17), tells them to admonish their prelate: “Say to Archippus, Fulfill thy ministry!”. It must be observed, however, that if the Faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence, Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the Faith, and, as the gloss on St. Augustine says, on Galatians 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.” (Summa Theologica, II II, Q. 33, a. 4, ad 2)

Thus, I take up my pen to publicly rebuke Mons. Athanasius Schneider for statements made in his Essay published today at LifeSite News,  entitled, On the question of the true pope in the light of the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy and the speculations about the resignation of Benedict XVI.

First, I find remarkable, that the Monsignor has doubled down on his opinion that the canonical crime of heresy publicly posited does not cause one to lose immediately every office in the Church, both theologically and canonically. He has sustained this opinion before, against all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, as has been shown by several other writers (refuted ably here). His attempt to do so again, by arguing that a particular passage of Gratian is spurious is simply an absurd recourse to an absurd argument. Gratian was never a magisterial authority, so whether a particular passage is authentic or not, does not change the fact that notable authors, including Pope Innocent III, before and after Gratian held the opinion that heresy causes the loss of office, for anyone whomsoever. — Is he really saying, that Innocent III taught error, because of a faulty gloss? I say that he himself, that Bishop Schneider, is teaching error on the basis of a bad hermeneutic. To claim that the Church can lose Her Faith because She cannot discern that an unauthentic gloss presents false teaching, is to say the Church has no grace of discernment in matters of the Faith, but I, Bishop Schneider, know better than them all. Who do you think you are, your Excellency? Do you think you are greater that Saint Robert Bellarmine, S. J., who is as Doctor of the Church, and who disagrees with you?

Canon 1364 makes no exceptions whatsoever for a pope. The principle of The First See is judged by no one, which is enshrined in canon 1404, regards cases before a tribunal and acts of the Roman Pontiff. It does not regard the man who is the pope, in the case of his personal faith. Because just as a man who is a heretic, is not a member of the Church, a man who is a heretic holds no office. And thus a man considered or judged on account of heresy, is not considered or judged on account of any office. This is why Canon 1364 has no exceptions and imposes an excommunication upon each and everyone who commits a public crime of heresy, schism or apostasy.

Second, as regard the Declaratio of Pope Benedict: Your excellency shows that you either do not understand Canon Law or that you do not understand causality itself. If you had apprised yourself of even some of the documents sent to you by many Catholics round the world, you can see that the Code of Canon Law — an authentic Magisterial Document which you have no right to disregard or misrepresent — itself requires for a valid papal resignation, that the act posited by the man who is the Roman Pontiff, be an act of renunciation of petrine munus. But Pope Benedict XVI never posited such an act. Statements made before or after such an act, regarding intention or signification of the act, have no bearing whatsoever on the nature of the act. If your excellency had done as much due diligence as I have, when you were in Rome, and paid a visit to Mons. Arrieta, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legal Texts, you would have understood that an act of papal renunciation has to be clear in itself, it cannot be subject to the interpretation of anyone, not even by the pope. For if it needs interpretation or explanation, then it is not clear, and not valid. And if the man has validly resigned, any interpretation he gives is not authoritative. Nor can a pope resign, by authoritatively interpreting an invalid act as valid, after the fact. Because Canon 332 §2 requires an act of renunciation of petrine munus: and by such it does not permit an act of resignation by means of a post-factum papal interpretation of a not clearly manifest act.

Your opinion runs contrary to Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori, C. Ss.R., a Doctor of the Church, on legal interpretation. Do you think you know better than he, who held 2 doctorates in Law, one in canon law and another in civil law?

Third, all the quotes you cite, though they have no bearing, nevertheless, do not even prove the case you make with them, as I shall show here, by quoting each and commenting:

“Among you, in the College of Cardinals, there is also the future pope to whom today I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience” (Farewell address to the Cardinals, 28 February 2013).

Since, normally speaking, all Popes were former Cardinals, this statement can be said at any time to the College of Cardinals, whether all of them are present or not. It means nothing. We all should promise our obedience to all legitimate future popes, and past popes, because our obedience is owed to the office.

“I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty, but with profound interior serenity” (Last General Audience, February 27, 2013).

Howsoever aware one is of an act, does not make an act valid, unless you think you are God or that the one acting is God. Canon 332 §2 by imposing conditions upon a papal resignation and defining it as a papal renunciation of petrine munus, teaches implicitly that Pope John Paul II held invalid a renunciation of ministerium, that John Paul II judged his successor, as the man who was Pope, and that the act itself must be duly manifest, to be valid.  All of which make no provision for full awareness of substantial error or novelty as a cause of validity (cf. canon 188 and 126).

“There is not the slightest doubt about the validity of my renunciation of the Petrine ministry. The only condition of validity is the full freedom of the decision. Speculation about the invalidity of renunciation is simply absurd” (Letter from February 18, 2014, to Andrea Tornielli, published in La Stampa, February 27, 2014).

The controversy over the canonical effect of the Declaratio has nothing to do with the claim that a renunciation of ministerium cannot be valid or is not valid. It has to do with the claim that the renunciation of ministerium effects the same thing as a renunciation of munus, and that it fulfills the requirements of Canon 332 §2, as not being corrupted by substantial error (cf. canon 188).  Moreover, if Pope Benedict XVI thinks that liberty of action alone is the cause of a valid renunciation, then, he shows himself to be in invincible error as regards his own act, because clearly in Canon 332 §2 there are 2 causes of validity of a renunciation of munus: freedom and due manifestation. And if you think you can transpose those 2 causes of validity for an act of renunciation of munus to an act of renunciation of ministerium, to make the renunciation of ministerium a renunciation of munus, then clearly you are in error, grave error! Then your act is invalid either on account of Canons 38 when reading an administrative act in violation of 36 §2, and/or of canon 15 §1 for all such cases of error in juridical acts against canons 188 and 332 §2.

During a conversation with a journalist from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, the former Pope Benedict XVI said: “The Pope is one, he is Francis.” These words of Benedict XVI were reported in the written edition of Corriere della Sera, June 28, 2019 and anticipated in the Italian version of Vatican News on June 27, 2019.

This statement by Bishop Schneider is amazing of itself, because it is made regarding a report which was debunked by LifeSite News just days later. I suppose, the Bishop does not read the very electronic journal which publishes his Essay. And I suppose the editors of the same electronic journal omitted fraternal correction to help him save face by repeating such a false claim. But again, maybe I suppose too much.

Fourth, your excellency, why do you quote statements by Pope Benedict regarding his intentions to prove the Act of renunciation of ministry means an act of renunciation of papal munus, and then, in the next section of your essay, tell us not to hold that the actions and statements made by Pope Benedict which clearly show his intention to hold on to the papal dignity and office are not to be interpreted thus?

The Church is a visible society. Therefore, what was essential for the fulfillment of Benedict XVI’s resignation was not his possible internal thought but what he externally declared, for the Church does not judge about internal intentions (de internis non iudicat Ecclesia). Pope Benedict XVI’s ambiguous acts, like wearing a white cassock, keeping his name, imparting the apostolic blessing, etc., do not affect the unequivocal meaning of his act of renunciation. Many of his demonstrable and unequivocal words and actions after his resignation also confirm that he considers Pope Francis, and not himself, to be the pope.

Is evidence only to be interpreted to support your theory, and not objective reality? Do you honestly think that a validly resigned pope, should dress as the Pope, sign as the Pope, give blessings as the Pope? Moreover, do you think a real pope would salute a retired pope, at Panama City, saying to the crowds:  Look, Benedict, the pope!

If you want to close your eyes to facts which disprove your allegations, that is your affair, but asking the rest of the Church to do so is the very consummation of pride.

Finally, I must publicly reprove you for blasphemy against the Saints of Holy Mother Church, when you write:

Declaring Pope Francis to be an invalid pope, either because of his heresies or because of an invalid election (for reasons of alleged violations of the Conclave norms or for the reason that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope because of his invalid renunciation) are desperate and subjectively taken actions aimed at remedying the current unprecedented crisis of the papacy. They are purely human and betray a spiritual myopia. All such endeavors are ultimately a dead end, a cul-de-sac. Such solutions reveal an implicit Pelagian approach to resolving a problem with human means; a problem, indeed, which cannot be resolved by human efforts, but which requires a divine intervention.

Many Councils, not the least of which the Council of Etampes, France, in 1130 A.D., presided over by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, and the Synod of Sutri, approved of by St. Peter Damian and Bl. Pope Victor III and Pope St. Gregory VIII, have pronounced men to be invalid popes. To say that all such endeavors are pelagian and a dead end is not only a historical lie but a blasphemy against these holy men.

For all these reasons, I publicly ask you to withdraw the false assertions of your essay, if you want to be regarded any longer by Catholics as a Bishop who is faithful to the teaching and practice of the Church over the last 2000 years. Your desire to sustain the claim of Bergoglio to the papacy is clearly not based on facts, history or canon law, and is causing grave scandal to the faithful.

The true way forward, is the Catholic way, and it was proposed today by Catholics who know their faith and accept the teaching of the Church in its entirety.


CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the page at LifeSite News, where Bishop Schneider’s Essay has been published. It and the citations from his essay are used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]





The Spirit of Truth and the spirit of falsehood

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

A man who is led by the spirit of truth seeks the truth and investigates facts and laws to find the truth, as is necessary. He trusts but seeks confirmation and verification.

A man who is led by the spirit of falsehood seeks his own will and ignores truth and facts and laws so that he can sustain his own will, as necessary. He mistrusts and does not seek but to undermine and vilify all who disagree with himself.

A man who is led by the spirit of the truth, even if he has read all of Scripture, and all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, he never puts himself forward as an authority, because he knows that God, Who is Truth, is the only authority, and that authority comes to us through the offices God Incarnate has handed down to men.

A man who is led by the spirit of falsehood, even if he has not read all of Scripture, nor any of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church, always puts himself forward as an authority, because he recognizes no god, as his Truth, but himself, and thus is willing to challenge or deny the authority of all who received offices from God Incarnate.

A man who is led by the spirit of truth, assents immediately to the teaching of God in Scripture, of Christ, of the Apostles, of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, of the perennial magisterium and of Canon Law. He also accepts Catholic philosophy and the natural truths of human language and all reality as it is. He considers  it shameful to act in any other way.

A man who is leg by the spirit of falsehood, withholds his assent until he can calculate whether it is useful for him to assent, for he never will put in risk his own personal authority or the goal he seeks, whether that is to defraud you of your souls, money, property, family, or religious liberty. He considers it foolish to act in any other way.

We should keep in mind these two spirits and when reading the reports of any journalist, Catholic commentator, whether Cardinal, Bishop, Priest, Religious or layman, to check to see of which spirit they are, because many are the false apostles who go about today teaching things of which they have no authority to teach.


CREDITS: The Featured Image is Christ teaching the Doctors of the Temple, by Paolo Veronese. The image is in the public domain. The painting is at the museum of the El Prado, Madrid.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Archbishop Lenga fires back!

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The sign of a man is that he fights back when his cause is just. The sign of a Catholic Bishop is that he not only calls a heretic, “a heretic”, but that he treats him as one, that is, as one who has no jurisdiction in the Church. This is the true and ancient faith: a heretic loses all jurisdiction in the Church ipso facto. This is also the teaching of Pope John Paul II in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, canon 1364.

Accused of saying things which are improper and publicly denounced by the local Bishop — who is a former Intelligence officer of the Polish Communist State — Archbishop Lenga has gone on the warpath!

Here are some of the quotes, in English translation, attributed to him in the NCR article, entitled, Retired Archbishop says he wont keep quite about pope as ‘heretic’, on his response to the demand of the Polish Bishops’ Conference that he be silent:

Christ gave me authority through the Church to proclaim the truth, and I’ll do so as long as I live.

I won’t yield to (canonical) degradation by those whose own statements and actions are entangled with heresy and sectarianism.

What right do they have to recall what pertains to the Church when they themselves have never upheld it?

The context of these comments appears to be this, that Archbishop Lenga has called Bergoglio and those advancing his agenda of Apostasy what they truly are, heretics. The NCR reporter, Jonathan Luxmoore writes of Archbishop Lenga:

He added that he had no wish “to belong to a church run by Protestants, Islamists and Jews,” and believed his critics should “form their own church, rather than usurping power in the Catholic Church.”

And again,

In a book-length interview, circulating in Polish on YouTube, he said he still recognized Pope Benedict XVI as pope and had dropped the “usurper and heretic” Francis from his prayer intentions after concluding he was spreading “untruths and sins” and “leading the world astray.”

In a Jan. 20 Polish TV interview, he said “many bishops and cardinals” lacked a “deep faith” and had adopted “an attitude of betrayal and destruction” by seeking to “correct Christ’s teaching,” adding that current confusion in the church indicated “the Antichrist is here.”

Archbishop Lenga is acting perfectly as a Catholic Bishop should. Let us pray to God and Our Lady, that more bishops join him and Bishop Gracida in denouncing the heretics and usurpers in the Church!


CREDITS:  The Featured Image is a photo of Archbishop Lenga from June of 2013, taken and used with permission of its author according to the terms stated here. The quotes in English attributed to Archbishop Lenga can be found in the Article cited above, and are used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary. — In the quotes attributed to the Archbishop, FromRome.Info has added the honorific capital to the term church, referring to the Catholic Church, since the practice of writing, church, instead of, Church, is a masonic practice of international journalism, which FromRome.Info entirely rejects in principle.


English Original : French Translation : Italian Translation

ROMA – Feb. 28, 2020: Un grupo de católicos ha hecho hoy un llamamiento para convocar una investigación internacional sobre la corrupción en el Vaticano por todos los obispos de la Iglesia Católica “a causa del grave desorden manifiesto en los órganos de la Sede Apostólica”.

El esfuerzo está pidiendo una investigación internacional en la que las pruebas de cada cargo serán presentadas por un comité de expertos legales a un panel informal de jurados, que estará compuesto por obispos de la Iglesia Católica. El objetivo de la investigación será pedir a los jurados de los obispos que juzguen si los casos presentados son accionables y si es útil para el bien de la Iglesia que el Colegio de Obispos se reúna para escuchar los casos.

El comunicado de prensa invita a los juristas y a los obispos católicos a participar. Todas las partes interesadas deben contactar con el presidente del comité.

El comunicado de prensa oficial del grupo (ver abajo) cita el precedente del Concilio de Constanza, celebrado a principios del siglo XV, en el que 2 Papas renunciaron para poner fin al Cisma de Occidente. Entre las acusaciones que se presentan se encuentra si la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI mediante la Declaratio del 11 de febrero de 2013 lo separó del Oficio; si el Cónclave de 2013 fue legítimo; y si Jorge Mario Bergoglio se ha separado de la Iglesia por una herejía manifiesta pertinacia, apostasía y/o cisma. Esta última acusación, en cuanto al cisma, aparece dirigida al, así llamado, Acuerdo Vaticano con China, que ha traicionado a 30 millones de católicos a las depredaciones de ese régimen.

Todos los contactos sobre este asunto se harán a través del presidente del Comité Organizador, el Sr. Brian Murphy de God’s Plan For Life.

+ + +


Ver Original: http://godsplanforlife.org/pastoral/press_release.html

+ + +


Comunicado de Prensa del comité organizador

Febrero 28, 2020

De acuerdo con el derecho de todos los fieles de la Iglesia Católica, expresado en el Canon 212 del Código de Derecho Canónico de 1983, invitamos cordialmente a los Juristas y Obispos de la Iglesia Católica a asistir a una Encuesta sobre la Corrupción en el Vaticano, para que se presente en forma canónica un libellus de quejas sobre graves irregularidades canónicas en el funcionamiento de la Sede Apostólica, para lo cual, de acuerdo con la enseñanza de Roberto Belarmino, cuando la Sede se ve impedida por una duda positiva real en cuanto a la reclamación legal del título del papado por parte de cualquier demandante, es el deber de los Obispos intervenir (Belarmino, De Concilio, II, 19), como lo hicieron en el Santo Sacrosanto y Ecuménico Concilio de Constanza.

Invitamos a Juristas a participar en un Comité de preparación para la Investigación Internacional en el cual, invitamos a los miembros del Colegio Apostólico, ya sean Cardenales, Arzobispos, Obispos o eméritos a participar.

El objetivo de la investigación es simplemente dar una evaluación pública de las pruebas y los cargos en cuanto a si sería conveniente y útil que el Colegio de Obispos se reuniera para escuchar los casos y juzgar lo que se debe hacer para instar su corrección y enmienda.

La Comisión no propone, con esta investigación, que se juzgue al Romano Pontífice, ya que la primera sede no puede ser juzgada por nadie (canon 1404), sino que, de acuerdo con el precedente establecido – que el Colegio Episcopal tiene el derecho de juzgar la reclamación de cualquier hombre de ocupar el cargo del Romano Pontífice en casos de elecciones disputadas, pérdida del cargo por herejía y renuncias inválidas – que el Colegio Episcopal actúa ahora a causa del grave desorden manifiesto en los órganos de la Sede Apostólica.

Fecha de encuesta: por ser determinada


Localidad: por ser determinada

Organizado por

El Comité para la Encuesta Internacional

Brian Murphy, PhD, presidente del comité
Y presidente de God’s Plan For Life, California, EEUU

Hno. Alexis Bugnolo, Lic. Antropología Cultural
Presidente de Ordo Militaris, Inc., EEUU

Eric Mayoral, Lic. EEUU

Sean Hyland, Lic. Alemania 

Rev. Walter Covens, Martinica

Contacto del Comite: Brian Murphy