All who accept Bergoglio as Pope are in formal schism from Jesus Christ

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

When we speak of schism, we can speak of two realities, the theological and the factual; of two kinds of failing, the sin and the canonical crime; and of two species of schism: separation from other members of the true Church and separation from the true pope.

In this article I will discuss the precise meaning of the truth that:  All who accept Bergoglio as Pope are in formal schism from Jesus Christ, by explaining those 3 words: accept, formal and schism.

Let us begin with the word: schism.

“Schism”, the English word, is derived from the Greek word meaning a separation by cutting. In theology, it refers to the separation of one part of the Church from another part, or from one part of a community from another part.

In canon law it is the crime of deliberately refusing communion with other members of the true Church. It is punished by immediate excommunication latae sententiae, in canon 1364. Catholics in communion with the true pope, and with all other Catholics who are in communion with him, can never be, thus, guilty of this crime.

Take for example, the Greek Orthodox Churches today. They are in schism from the Catholic Church and from the Popes since 1054. The Patriarch and clergy who started the schism were guilty of the sin and the canonical crime. The schism was first canonical, then theological and then factual. It lead to a schism both from the Church and from the Popes. It was a perfect schism, in the sense that it fulfilled all conditions.

Not every member of the Greek Orthodox Churches today accept that schism. Many of them think it is wrong. Several laymen in the Greek Orthodox Church in America told me the schism exists only among the clergy, the vast majority of the laity wish their clergy would repent of it.

For those laity, the schism remains as factual and canonical, but perhaps no longer theological, because they are moved by Faith to see that it is wrong and they reject it.

The Schism of 2013

In the Catholic Church, we have a major schism also. It began in March of 2013, on March 13, when the College of Cardinals presumed to elect another pope in an illegal conclave. The conclave was objectively and canonically illegal because it convened when there was no legal sede vacante, Pope Benedict XVI not having yet renounced the petrine munus, as Pope John Paul II required in canon 332 §2 of the Code of Canon Law of 1983. The Papal Law on elections, Universi Dominici Gregis, in n. 37, forbids a conclave if there is no legal sede vacante.

Due to the flippancy and presumption of at least some of the College of Cardinals the invalid resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was announced as valid. The rest of the Cardinals, including Cardinals Burke, Sarah, Brandmueller etc.., all proceeded to the Conclave without doing their due diligence or in spite of it.

Now since Canon Law presumes guilt in those who should know the law, the Cardinals are all canonically guilty of the crime of Schism, and in virtue of canon 1364 were excommunicated from the Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II on March 13, 2013.

The rest of us who were deceived by the false announcement, however, did not enter into schism, neither canonically nor as a sin. But by following the false announcement we were factually separated from the true Pope, Pope Benedict, and theologically entered into schism from Jesus Christ, objectively speaking.

It has been seven years, and the Holy Spirit has stirred many souls to speak about the invalid resignation and announce the truth, that Benedict XVI is the true Pope.

The clergy who refuse to examine the facts, when laymen and clergy and now 2 Bishops give testimony to the truth, move from being in de facto schism to canonical schism, because they show a mens rea, a guilty mind. They are guilty because all who are led by the Spirit of God are open to the truth and accept the truth, and they realize that communion with the true Pope is more important than communion with all of the rest of humanity or all of the rest of the clergy.

The ones who knew from the beginning the resignation was invalid, are in perfect schism from Christ, since they are separated from the true Pope and from the true Church, by a personal sin, by canonical penalty, by fact and by theological reality.

Those who still do not know of the schism, are theologically and factually separated from Pope Benedict, since they no longer consider him the true pope, but they are not guilty of the sin or crime of schism, because they honestly think they are in communion with the true pope.

But if we consider schism under the notion of formal and material, then all those who are not duped, but reject the evidence, are in formal schism from Jesus Christ, because they chose to not care to be in communion with the true pope and thus are responsible for risking to be outside of communion with the true pope, even if Benedict is the true pope. That is called a sin in causa. And it is a formal sin of schism, even if it is not a direct sin of schism, as one who examines the facts, sees that Benedict is the true pope, but still rejects him as the pope.

However, of those who think Bergoglio is pope, but who have never refused to examine the evidence, they cannot be said to be in formal schism since they lack ill will and have never formally accepted on that account the big lie that Benedict resigned, even though they think he did resign, basing their opinion on the hearsay that they still have not bothered to examine as unreliable. They are in material schism, that is, de facto schism.

However, as Pope Boniface VIII said in his Bull, Unam Sanctam, all who de facto refuse to be subject to the true pope shall be damned. This is no small thing. And thus, all who belittle the controversy over the renunciation of Pope Benedict are manifestly deceiving themselves and others. And that is a mortal sin against truth and fraternal charity.

I say de facto, because even if you have good will, but are deceived, if you follow Bergoglio you will be led into mortal error and mortal sin: sacrilege, approbation of adultery, approbation of sodomy, etc.. As such, there is for you, in such a case, no good hope of salvation, because there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, which has always been defined as those in communion with the true Pope, who is now Benedict XVI. For this reason, the more some persons attack Pope Benedict and the truth of the canonical problem in his renunciation, the more they become depraved morally speaking, because by acting in that way they become more and more formally in schism from Jesus Christ and reject more and more firmly in mind and heart the truth.

Here at FromRome.Info all the writers are dedicated to the truth. That is why, day and night we preach from the housetops: Benedict is the true Pope, Bergoglio never was. In communion with Pope Benedict, Archbishop Paul Lenga and Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, Don Alessandro Minutella, Don Enrico Roncaglia, Father Paul Kramer, Father Paul Renato Dornelles, Father Walter Covens and many other hundreds of thousands, we are members of the true Roman Catholic Church. We invite you to return home! We invite you back to the only Barque of Salvation!

Do not risk your immortal soul by acting or not acting because of the hearsay of Cardinals who perpetrated the schism. Look to the documents of the Church and employ the laws which Pope John Paul II left us for discernment in this controversy. Consider how insane it is to accept any claims as true from men who will not separate themselves from such a fraud and monster!


CREDITS: The Featured Image is a detail of the fresco depicting the famous vision of Don Bosco, of the Church in the midst of a great battle at sea, with the bark of the true Pope attacks by all the other ships, but finding refuge between the two columns of the Eucharist and Our Lady Help of Christians.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

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

30 thoughts on “All who accept Bergoglio as Pope are in formal schism from Jesus Christ”

  1. Very good. It seems to me that any one who reads this and has knowledge of Bergoglio’s heretical actions should at least be uncertain to his status as the legitimate Pope.

  2. Br. Alexis, can you please explain how then we are to understand the fact that Benedict XVI himself said in February 2013 that there would have to be a conclave to hold an election? Did he not in someway will the present situation? Thank you for any insight you can offer on this matter, Giuseppe Pellegrino

    1. He never said when the conclave would take place. In fact, in Normal Non Nullas published on Feb. 18, 2013, he make provisions for the death of a pope prior to a conclave. And said nothing about a papal resignations. On Feb. 14, 2013 he spoke to the Clergy of Rome on how the MSM totally misrepresented Vatican II and gave them principles to see how any manigsterial act is to be judged on its own and not on the basis of what the MSM claims it means.

    2. But more directly: If the Pope says, I renounce bananas and order a conclave to elect my successor, what should the Cardinals do? Ask him what he means and correct what he says if it does not mean what he wants it to mean, or call a Conclave? And if they do call a conclave without doing the first thing they should so, then is it valid or not? The correct answer is they should confer with the pope as canon 41 says they should and not call a conclave until they do the first thing. Otherwise, they posit an act of schism.

  3. We need your articles to be properly translated into the 12 languages undertaken by Brian Murphy & sent via email to all MSM, Catholic & Christian Media, Vatican Departments/Dioceses/Universities etc. who have spread the false message that PF is a true pope. We need universal coverage as ours is the Universal Church, OHC&A. An account could be set-up, (preferably not through PayPal) by which we can send our donations to cover the cost. I believe it is binding on us all to get the real message out there!

  4. Reblogged this on Ordo Militaris Radio and commented:
    Read this with a neutral mind, open to learning the facts and truth, open to properly needed investigations, and remember Cardinal Danieels of the Saint Galen Mafia openly said Saint Galen Mafia got Bergoglio elected, which goes against Universi Dominici Gregis by Pope John Paul II, either way, Bergoglio was not validly elected. see this link too

  5. I am not trying to prove you wrong in anyway, but it seems that there is a both-and aspect to this question, because he says “the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked” – at the very least, this is confusing. The plain meaning of these words is pretty obvious.

    It would appear that Benedict the 16th intended BOTH to retain the papacy and for a “new Supreme Pontiff” to be elected.

    And this is both mysterious and confusing.

    1. If a pope says I renounce bananas so as to vacate the see of peter and that a conclave be called, he may be confused, but the statement is not canonically valid. Whether you or I are confused has nothing to do with it. And whether the pope is confused or not has nothing to do with it. Renouncing ministerium does not vacate the see.

  6. I wouldn’t need Cannon Law to know bergoglio is an impostor. Anyone who pays attention to w hat Our Lady and prophecies have been saying for 500 years knows that these are the end times, and that bergoglio in 2013 inaugurated the ‘great apostasy’ on earth before the Second Coming. St Francis prophecized about the coming of Bergoglio and that this destroyer would be responsible for closing religious orders…Why is no one mentioning B16 2013 revelation that it was God who told him to resign?
    Blessed Catherine Emmerich, AA II. 488. ‘you have to live and let live’ prophecy:
    – “I saw within a city, a meeting of clergy, laymen and women, who were sitting together, eating and making frivolous jokes, and above them a dark cloud which descended in a plain submerged in darkness. Amid this fog, I saw Satan sitting and around him, many companions as people were in the meeting which was going on underneath. All these evil spirits were continually moving and busy trying to push the people at this meeting to do evil. They whispered to them to their ears and acted on them in all possible ways. These people were in a very dangerous state of sensual excitement and in provocative conversations. Churchmen were those whose principle were: “You have to live and let live”. In our time we should not be apart or be a misanthrope [a person who hates or distrusts humankind]: we must rejoice with those who rejoice.” – [Note: In 2013, Bergoglio created 10 secrets for a ‘happy life’, 10 secrets for a happy life. the first secret was, LIVE AND LET LIVE, fulfilling Saint Catherine Emmerich prophecy – while previous popes warned catholics for the spiritual dangers of these end times, the loss of faith, Bergoglio preaches the opposite]

    Pope Pius X, visions of Benedict XVI suffering:
    – “What I have seen is terrifying! Will I be the one, or will it be a successor? What is certain is that the Pope will leave Rome and, in leaving the Vatican, he will have to pass over the dead bodies of his priests!”
    – “I have seen one of my successors, of the same name (joseph) who was fleeing over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in some hiding place; but after a brief respite, he will die a cruel death”.

    St Francis of Asissi prophecy, describing bergoglio secret cunning:
    – “The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase. The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff (Benedict XVI) and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death…Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it. There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.
    Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect. Those who preserve in their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. but the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head, [Christ] these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days JESUS CHRIST WILL SEND THEM NOT A TRUE PASTOR, BUT A DESTROYER.” [perfect analysis of Bergoglio]

    Sister Lucia, the changes bergoglio is introducing in the church:
    – “But this will be a time of great trials for the Church. Cardinals will oppose cardinals, bishops will oppose bishops. Satan will walk in their ranks. In rome, there will be great changes. What is rotten will fall and what will fall will never rise again. Darkness will envelope the church and the world will be thrown into a panic. “

  7. Absolutely true. There is no Catholic soul on the face of this earth who cannot understand this, unless they are blind, mute and senile. Everyone understands it, but not everyone loves Christ more than themselves, their goods, creatures, and what they perceive to be “the Church”.

    The lukewarm, cowardly, complicit, Catholics who think they can get by with living out “their faith” (as they love to say “it’s my faith!”), by continuing to remain in false communion with Bergoglio, and think that somehow they are remaining faithful to Christ because they remain in “his Church”, have now truly earned what they deserve: a false shepherd whom they call “pope”, “holy father”, and a false church which only appears to be Catholic in all of its externals and modalities, but void of any divine content.

    They are blocked from understanding that they are outside the True Church simply because they never believed nor loved Truth to begin with. They always lived according to their own human wills, and always thought they could fool the world with their hypocrisy and outward appearance of a religion. Now, they have a false shepherd according to their ways, and now they are blocked, lacking the understanding and will, to make a definitive move, to break away from such evil anti church of darkness. They fear more the criticisms of others, offending others, offending their friend clergy, losing their apostolates, losing the love of creatures and family members, than Christ and His Will. O’ fate of the lukewarm! Where is their destiny!?

  8. Francis is more properly termed a tyrant. Note how he uses papal fiats and edicts to change Church teaching on various matters.

  9. Br Bugnolo. I read a very interesting essay by Bishop Schneider published Feb. 28th. He challenges you on your assertions that Benedict XVI has not confirmed that Francis is the Pope. He also states that only divine intervention will resolve the current schism in the church since the Bishops have not and probably will not censure Bergoglio.
    How do you respond to his essay?

      1. Ah yes, forgive me. The sheer volume of your posts make it difficult to keep up. I wonder if the Bishop will rebut?
        Regardless, if the College of Bishops will not convene, are we not left with exactly what Schneider recommends. Prayer for and faith in divine intervention?

      2. Pope Benedict is Pope whether Schneider accepts it nor not, or whether the whole world accepts it or not, so asking God to intervene, is absurd. Do we have to ask God to intervene to know whether the Moon is made of cheese or not?

  10. Didn’t Benedict state Francis is pope? Heard too that Bishop Athanasius Schneider state this in video with Michael Matt.

  11. §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

    You’ll have to show that Benedict was indeed lying when he told the world plus you’ll have to show he didn’t make this of his own free will. And to put it one more way, how is anyone to truly know this unless mouthed publicly by Benedict. If +Schneider is not aware , then how are we to know?


    § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

    There are four protections here in these few words that essentially function as a legal fortress around the papacy to protect it from any attack – including, quite amazingly but not surprisingly, from the reigning Pope himself.

  13. why it matters? You don’t explain. But for another reason: which laymen can make this decision to bind all catholic?

    1. Tom, I cannot give you a course in logic, law, philosophy and the interpretation of verbal texts in a combox. But simply understand, if you want to understand, that if the law says you must renounce X and your renounce Y and Y does not equal X according to the law, then you have renounced Y and not X and therefore you still have X. Ask anyone to explain it further to you since its simple.

Comments are closed.