Salus populi romani: May 9, 2020 — Live from Rome!



Perpetual Supplica


This devotion is inspired by the request made by Our Lady Herself in
Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich’s Vision of

August 25, 1822: “I know not now how I went to Rome last night, but I found myself near the church of Santa Maria Maggiore. Around it I saw crowds of poor, pious souls, in great distress and anxiety on account of the Pope’s disappearance and the agitation and alarming reports throughout the city. Led by one common impulse, they had come to invoke the Mother of God. They did not expect to find the church open, they intended only to pray outside. But I was inside, I opened the door and they entered, astounded at the door’s opening of itself. I was standing aloof where they could not see me. There was no service, only the chancel-lamps were burning, and the people knelt in quiet prayer. Then the Mother of God appeared. She said that great tribulations were at hand; that the people must pray earnestly with extended arms, if only for the length of three Our Fathers, for it was thus that her Son had prayed for them upon the Cross; that they should rise at midnight to pray thus; that they should continue to come to Her church which they would always find open; and that they should, above all, pray for the extirpation of the Church of Darkness. … I know not whether the people saw the apparition or not, but they must have been impressed by something supernatural for, when the Blessed Virgin said they should pray to God with arms extended, all lifted up their arms … It seemed to be an association of prayer.” From this time Sister Emmerich assisted nightly at the pious exercises at Santa Maria Maggiore. (The Life and Revelations of Ann Catherine Emmerich, Book 2)

(Prayers will be said in Italian, Black, and English: Blue)

The Prophetic Prayer of Pope Benedict XVI



(May 7, 2005)


In Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

Tutta Santa, degna di ogni onore,
Tu la migliore offerta
che l’umanità possa presentare a Dio.
All Holy, Worthy of every honor,
Thou, the best offering
Which humanity can present to God.

Vergine Madre, Madre sempre vergine,
supplichi materna al Figlio Tuo.
Virgin Mother, Ever-Virgin Mother,
Offer a maternal supplication to Thy Son.

Conduci sino al porto la barca della Chiesa,
scansando gli scogli e vincendo marosi.
Bring the Barque of the Church to port,
avoiding reefs and conquering stormy seas.

Custodisci questa città;
Conforta chi vi giunge,
senza tetto né difesa,
ed estendi a tutti il Tuo sostegno.
Guard this City;
Comfort who comes here,
without shelter nor defense,
and extend Your protection to all.

Con fede professiamo a Te, Genetrice di Dio;
Con amore Ti onoriamo,
Con speranza Ti preghiamo,
Ti proclamiamo beata.
With faith we profess Thee, Mother of God;
With love we honor Thee;
With hope we pray Thee
We proclaim Thee blessed.

Tu, mia Signora, mio conforto da Dio,
aiuto alla mia inesperienza,
accogli la preghiera che rivolgo a Te.
Thou, My Lady, My consolation from God,
help for my inexperience,
receive the supplication which I make to Thee.

Tu per tutti fonte di gioia,
rendimi degno di esultare insieme a Te.
Thou, who for all are a fountain of joy,
make me worthy to exult together with Thee.

Guarda l’assemblea dei credenti,
Madre del Salvatore;
allontana da loro sventure e afflizioni;
liberali dal male e dal maligno;
proteggili con l’abbondanza della Tua benevolenza.
Watch over the assembly of believers,
Mother of the Savior;
remove from them misfortunes and afflictions;
free them from evil and from the Evil One;
protect them with the abundance of Thy benevolence.

Al ritorno glorioso del Tuo Figlio, nostro Dio,
difendi con la Tua materna intercessione
la nostra fragilità umana
ed accompagnaci sino alla vita eterna
con la Tua mano gentile,
Tu che sei potente, perche Madre.
At the glorious return of Thy Son, our God,
defend with Thy maternal intercession
our human fragility
and accompany us unto eternal life
with Thy gentle hand,
Thou who art powerful, as a Mother.


77 Our Fathers, that is 7 Rosary Decades of Our Fathers.

3 in Latin

71 Our Fathers: One decade in Italian, one in English, alternating

3 in Latin

3 Gloria Patri

Sacro Cuore di Gesù, abbi pietà di noi!
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!

Cuore Immacolato di Maria, prega per noi!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
San Giuseppe, Patrono della Chiesa, prega per noi!
Saint Joseph, Patron of the Church, pray for us!


San Michele Arcangelo, difendici nella battaglia, contro la perfidia e le insidie del diavolo sii Tu il nostro sostegno. Che Dio eserciti il suo domino su di lui, noi supplichevoli Lo preghiamo! E tu, Principe delle milizie celesti, ricaccia nell’inferno satana e gli altri spiriti maligni, che si aggirano in questa Città a perdizione delle anime.


Saint Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, o prince of the Heavenly Host, by the Divine Power, cast into Hell Satan and all the evils spirits who prowl about this City seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

San Gabriele Arcangelo, prega per noi!
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us!

San Raffaele Arcangelo, prega per noi!
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us!

San Pio V, prega per noi!
Saint Pius V, pray for us!

San Francesco di Assisi, prega per noi!
Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us!

San Antonio di Padova, prega per noi!
Saint Anthony of Padua, pray for us!

Santa Rosalia di Palermo, prega per noi!
Saint Rosalia of Palermo, pray for us!

Beata Anna Caterina Emmerich, prega per noi e prega con noi!
Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich, pray for us and pray with us!

In Nomine Patris et Filii e Spiritus Sancti. Amen.


Al tuo tempio secolare
di ori e marmi rilucente
siamo accorsi ad implorare
il materno tuo favor.

At Thy Ancient Temple
of shinning gold and marble
we have come to implore
Thy Materna favor.

R. O Maria Madre Santa
tu del popolo romano
sei salvezza luce e guida,
nostra speme e nostro amor,
sei salvezza luce e guida
nostra speme e nostro amore.

Refrain: O Maria, Holy Mother
Thou art of the Roman People
the salvation, light and guide,
our hope and our love,
Thou art the salvation, light and guide
our hope and our love.

Col Prodigio della Neve,
segnò il luogo in piena estate,
dell’augusta tua dimora,
il supremo tuo favor.

With the prodigy of the Snow,
Thou signed this place in high summer,
of August as Thy dwelling,
as Thy supreme favor.

R. O Maria Madre Santa
tu del popolo romano
sei salvezza luce e guida,
nostra speme e nostro amor,
sei salvezza luce e guida
nostra speme e nostro amore.

Refrain: O Maria, Holy Mother
Thou art of the Roman People
the salvation, light and guide,
our hope and our love,
Thou art the salvation, light and guide
our hope and our love.


This Devotion is sponsored by the Committee “Salvaci o Maria!”

This is the Devotion which was advertised in the pages of the daily newspaper, La Verità, in the month of March, here in Italy.



* Salus populi Romani, is Latin, for The Salvation of the Roman People. It is the ancient title of the Icon of Our Lady see at the top of this article.

35% of Italians had recovered from COVID-19 as of October 2019!

The comments in this video are made on the basis of the news reported in many newspapers, as regards the medical study conducted by a team of 13 specialists, under the direction of Dr. Pasquale Mario Bacco, such as,


Well dear friends I give you very good news, very very interesting of the kind I synthesize and, as usual, like all the news I provide through my channel, it is still trustworthy news and news which that you yourselves can immediately verify aftterwards, to see that it’s not fake news, but it is real news supported by  concrete evidence.

So, still on the coronavirus we have a nice surprise that’s what it is a very serious study has been done that is much credited status abroad, for example also by the Telegraph. It is a study that has been done by Dr. Paschale Mario Bacco together to a team of 13 doctors, of which he was the scientific director and this study began in February at Rome.

What they found out through this study

Now, it’s a seriologic study: that technique that by now you’ve already heard and that you already know.  Let’s say the dynamic of this test is a kit used to determine the presence of antibodies in the human body for coronavirus,  that is if the person has already been infected and if there are any antibodies and whether his body it’s no longer like saying infectious.

Having conducted this study and from which it emerged precisely that — you hold on tight — 35% of Italians in October of 2019 had already been infected and were already cured of the coronavirus, not with medical intervention and all that entails.

For Dr. Bacco, this was serious research. He is not one to get up in the morning and say things with no basis.

This study established — this is the study was done from north to south in all the cities of Italy — and it has emerged that for instance Brescia the positives already healed with presences antibodies were 45 percent then the 41 percent going down to a 29 per cent in Sicily for a total total national level of 35 percent of the population in October 2019.

Again exactly the opposite of what is always stopped the chief, Dr. Burioni, and all the doctors around him — let’s call them in the government line up to Pharmaceutical Companies as you want —  so you’ve already figured out of what I am speaking.

So I’m talking about this study. Now he has revealed another part that many of us alredy heard about but here you always have to have of the revelations and rightly to scientific level with studies but not with studies like study has done.

There also emerge that the number of deaths that they’ve always shown us is bogus and bogus because as explained by Dr. Bacco, this virus is basically potentially lethal — as we’ve already figured out — for very old debilitated people or for people maybe not old but very debilitated by serious illness. So the virus is not lethal for people, say in healthy conditions, with healthy organisms.  As were in fact always the subjects of this study that the major subjects studied were people in an age group ranging from 18 to 35 years old, i.e. people who already had viruses in October have not presented symptoms or have presented symptoms by very slight in turn these people on the way home they infected the weaker, more sensitive people. And from this have been those disasters that we know of.

Another thing that has emerged from the study what a virus then we were wondering why in Lombardy there happened this disaster, and not in the South.

It didn’t come out of one study: because they have tried increase the temperatures in the let’s say greenhouses where they grew the virus and have realized that the virus is susceptible to temperature, humidity and of the so-called dusts thin which increase the contagion of virus because they carry it.

In, Lombardy, Northern Italy, let’s say in general, where there are many industries and much smog, the virus itself is, as Dr. Bacco said, indicative of a virus that has a very high capacity contagion. This very high capacity of contagion has been further enhanced by the presence of these fine powders, carrying a sack of contagions. Now this combined with the fact that even here he said exactly the opposite of the one who’s always supported the curious claims that the smog had nothing to do with it was all bullshit and all that.

Another thing is precisely the heat because the heat modifies the virus and makes it less
aggressive and less contagious too, but the cold makes it more contagious.

It is a most aggressive virus, but he said it was aggressive it is a virus that’s not bad anyway is not potentially fatal, does not have this compared to, say, the virus of aids, which is completely different has a much stronger structure. It has been 35 years that they have been looking for AIDS vaccines and there are no AIDS vaccines because even if that is the virus you’re vaccinating for today,  in two months it’s of no use because it’s already modified its features exactly like coronavirus.

Here ends the excerpt from the transcript.

Constitutionality and Right: The 2014 Decision of the Corte Constituzionale



The English Version follows here below

di Frà Alexis Bugnolo

Giustizia e diritto sono il base del Tuo trono (Salmo 88:14-15)

Recentemente il generale Antonio Pappalardo ha chiesto una rivoluzione arancione in Italia per ristabilire la giustizia per il popolo italiano. Parte della sua argomentazione si basa sulla decisione della Corte Costituzionale italiana del 2014. Pertanto, è nostro dovere capire quale sia stata quella decisione e quali siano stati i suoi effetti.


Uno Stato può essere considerato sotto diversi aspetti: come entità geografica, come entità politica, come entità giuridica e come entità demografica o economica.

È un’entità geografica in quanto controlla un territorio geografico che rivendica di diritto.

È un’entità politica, in quanto rappresenta se stessa come titolare di diritti nei rapporti con gli altri Stati e con coloro che vivono all’interno del suo territorio geografico.

È un’entità demografica, in quanto costituita da esseri umani.

È un’entità economica, in quanto svolge attività economica attraverso coloro che vivono nel suo territorio geografico.

Ma è un’entità giuridica, in quanto esiste in virtù della giustizia e del diritto. Perché senza giustizia e diritto, uno Stato non è uno Stato. Infatti, la parola “stato” si riferisce a una stabilità di ordine. E non c’è ordine nel senso proprio dove non c’è giustizia o non c’è diritto.

Ecco perché, per esempio, è corretto dire che l’ISIS non era uno Stato, perché non aveva alcuna pretesa onesta di essere un ordine di giustizia o di diritto in una specifica regione geografica.

Questi principi, essendo evidenti, sono validi anche nei confronti della Repubblica Italiana.

Essere ed effetti

Una delle considerazioni preliminari e necessarie in ogni discussione sulla giustizia e sul diritto è quella che riguarda i principi fondamentali della metafisica, cioè che per ogni cosa che è, si deve distinguere tra ciò che è e quali sono i suoi effetti o le sue azioni.

Così, un uomo è un essere umano, ma le sue azioni sono le sue opere, le sue parole o i suoi pensieri. Le sue opere, le sue parole e il suo pensiero non sono il suo essere, né lui stesso, ma gli appartengono e fluiscono dal suo essere.

Questa distinzione è chiamata dagli Scolastici la distinzione tra il primo atto dell’essere (primum esse) e il secondo atto dell’essere (secundum esse).

Giustizia e diritto

Questo principio della metafisica governa in materia di giustizia e di diritto, come in tutte le questioni che riguardano la considerazione dell’essere e degli effetti.

Così, se una cosa è giusta, i suoi effetti sono giusti. E se una cosa è fatta in accordo con il diritto, i suoi effetti sono in accordo con il diritto.

Così, se una legge è giusta, è giusto anche ciò che la legge fa sì che sia fatto. E se una legge è ingiusta, ciò che la legge fa sì che sia fatto è ingiusto.

Allo stesso modo, se ciò che ha fatto nascere una legge è ingiusto, allora l’applicazione della legge è ingiusta, e ciò che è fatto in accordo con la legge ingiusta sarà fatto ingiustamente.

Tutto questo è vero, indipendentemente dal fatto che le azioni specificate dalla legge siano giuste di per sé.

Per esempio, se un tiranno ti ordina di lavarti i denti, anche se lavarti i denti è una cosa buona per sé, non è solo che ti ordina di farlo, e se obbedisci al suo ingiusto comando, anche se lo spazzolamento è buono, il tuo diritto alla libertà è stato comunque violato anche se hai acconsentito e obbedito.

La sentenza 2014 della Corte costituzionale italiana

La prima decisione della Corte Costituzionale italiana del 2014 è l’oggetto del presente saggio. È possibile leggere la decisione in originale sul sito web del tribunale:

La sentenza della Corte è stata precisa e concisa: sono state dichiarate incostituzionali le modalità di assegnazione dei seggi al Parlamento italiano previste dalle leggi del 1957 per l’elezione della Camera dei deputati e dalla legge del 1993 per l’elezione del Senato, e dalla legge del 1993 che toglieva all’elettore il diritto di scegliere un individuo, piuttosto che un partito.

Questa, ovviamente, è una decisione epocale nella storia della Repubblica italiana. Perché se tutte le elezioni della Camera bassa dal 1957 e tutte le elezioni del Senato dal 1993, e tutte le elezioni del 1993 per i partiti piuttosto che per i candidati sono state incostituzionali, allora tutte le azioni del Parlamento italiano sono state private della giustizia e del diritto per gli ultimi 71 anni.

Non intendo qui contestare la decisione dei giudici del Corte in questa materia. Essi hanno basato la loro sentenza sulla considerazione dei termini della Costituzione italiana che ogni elettore ha diritto a una rappresentanza uguale per tutti gli elettori, e che quindi la rappresentanza proporzionale, se ostacolata dall’assegnazione di più seggi a qualsiasi partito, di quella parte ottenuta in proporzione ai voti ottenuti è stata una violazione di quel diritto costituzionale. E quando un cittadino era tenuto a votare per un partito e non per un individuo, gli veniva negato il diritto di acconsentire a chi lo rappresentava.

Ma ciò che è del tutto degno di discussione è la follia della posizione assunta dalla Corte nel modo in cui ha affrontato gli effetti della sua decisione. Essa ha stabilito che, poiché riguarda il bene comune di tutto lo Stato italiano che rimane in esistenza, ciò che è stato fatto deve essere considerato come un fatto compiuto e, quindi, solo in futuro, tali leggi devono essere modificate. Ma ha lasciato a un Parlamento eletto in modo incostituzionale il compito di approvare le leggi per correggere le leggi sulle elezioni.

La decisione di sanificare gli effetti di leggi incostituzionali, viola molti principi di logica e di diritto.

Prima di tutto, se una cosa è ingiusta, lo sono anche i suoi effetti. Non si può quindi essere razionale e dire che se una cosa è ingiusta, dobbiamo considerare giusti i suoi effetti. Ciò significherebbe affermare che gli effetti che possono venire solo da A e mai da B devono essere considerati come venuti da B solo perché lo diciamo noi.

In secondo luogo, se la Corte ha deciso che tutte le elezioni sono state incostituzionali, e poiché la Corte stessa è costituita dal Consiglio di Stato, i cui membri includono il Presidente della Repubblica, eletto dal Parlamento, così, dichiarando che le elezioni del Parlamento per 71 anni sono state incostituzionali, hanno dichiarato in effetti illegittima la loro pretesa di essere legittimi giudici della Corte costituzionale.

E se la loro pretesa di essere giudici della Corte era illegittima, anche se la loro decisione di dichiarare l’incostituzionalità delle leggi precedenti era oggettivamente vera, la loro autorità di sanare gli effetti ingiusti di tali leggi era inesistente.

In terzo luogo, il loro approccio fondamentale al concetto di continuità dello Stato italiano confonde le nozioni di Stato come entità politica con quelle di Stato come entità giuridica. Lo Stato italiano come entità politica esiste sia che sia giusto o meno, perché sotto questa considerazione lo Stato italiano è l’essere nell’ordine politico, prima di ogni considerazione di giustizia. Ma lo Stato italiano come entità giuridica è l’entità che esiste in virtù della costituzione italiana, e se tale entità è illegittima, allora non solo non ha il diritto di esistere, ma non è mai esistita, perché “essere illegale” è in diretta contraddizione con il suo stesso principio di essere persona giuridica.

Pertanto, il ricorso della Corte alla necessità di continuità dello Stato è un inganno. Si rivendica l’entità giuridica che ha un fondamento solo nei confronti dell’entità politica.

Cosa avrebbe dovuto fare la Corte nel 2014

La decisione della Corte costituzionale italiana del 2014 può avere un solo effetto ragionevole e giusto, cioè che lo Stato italiano come entità giuridica deve essere interamente ricostituito, perché non è più costituzionale dal 1957. Tutte le leggi e le modifiche della Costituzione dal 1957 sono illegittime, illegali, illegittime, ingiuste e inesistenti. La Repubblica italiana deve essere ricostituita nello Stato che era nel 1957 con nuove elezioni del Parlamento. Questo è ciò che la Corte avrebbe dovuto ordinare nel 2014.

Qual è l’effetto della decisione irrazionale della Corte?

Quello che la Corte ha fatto non è solo ultra vires, che è al di là della sua autorità, ma manca di ogni legittimità giuridica. Perché viola il principio che dice che gli effetti di ciò che è giusto sono giusti, e di ciò che è ingiusto sono ingiusti. In agire così, la Corte ha tentato di intervenire come un Leviatano o un Dio e di fare ciò che è ingiusto, giusto, ciò che è malvagio, il bene.

Così facendo la Corte ha attaccato l’ordine costituzionale. Ha commesso una grave frode nella dichiarazione della sua sentenza. Ha messo in atto un colpo di Stato, o più precisamente ha dichiarato che se i politici violano la Costituzione, sono immuni da un crimine. L’unico ricorso, secondo la Corte, è che i reati cessino dopo aver preso una decisione, ma ciò che si ottiene con il reato prima che la sua decisione sia legittimamente ottenuta.

Così la decisione della Corte ha aperto la porta alla tirannia. Ha proclamato che i politici possono abusare dei diritti dei cittadini e violare impunemente la Costituzione. Lo ha dichiarato perché, dicendo che non c’è rimedio alle ingiustizie del passato, ha dato il permesso per tutte le ingiustizie e ha dichiarato che i politici che fanno queste cose sono immuni.


La sentenza della Corte Costituzionale della Repubblica Italiana del 2014 dimostra che non esiste un ordine costituzionale in Italia. La Costituzione non è mai stata osservata per 71 anni, e anche la forma in cui esiste oggi è incostituzionale, essendo stata modificata da parlamenti illegittimi nel corso di 7 decenni.

Quindi parlare oggi della necessità di procedere in modo costituzionale per remediare la situazione è semplicemente assurdo, a meno che non significhi tornare allo status quo del 1957 e indire nuove elezioni.

E per questo credo che Giuseppe Conte, che è avvocato, sappia che i suoi decreti incostituzionali non sono stati un grande crimine e non avrebbero mai portato ad alcuna sanzione per sé o per il suo governo. Sa che non c’è una costituzione, e che il popolo italiano è stato ingannato per 7 decenni. Cosa c’è di sbagliato nella tirannia aperta?


Si potrebbe sostenere che, in virtù dell’articolo 136, la Corte aveva il diritto di sanificare gli effetti delle leggi inconstituzionali e delle elezioni illegittime del passato. Ma quell’articolo dice solo che le norme delle leggi dichiarate incostituzionali cessano di avere effetto il giorno dopo la pronuncia della sentenza. Non dice nulla sul potere della Corte di fare giusto ciò che è avvenuto prima della sentenza. Il significato dell’articolo riguarda solo l’applicazione futura della legge. Così dal silenzio dell’articolo 136 non si può dedurre che la Corte abbia il potere di fare giusto ciò che è stato ingiusto. Né c’è nulla nella Costituzione che conferisca tale autorità allo Stato.


Si potrebbe sostenere che la sovranità del popolo, essendo limitata alla sua espressione nella Costituzione in Articolo 1, rende illegittimo il ricorso a qualsiasi appello a nozioni di diritto o di giustizia provenienti da fonti esterne alla Costituzione. A questo, dico, che interpretare questo articolo in modo così restrittivo viola i principi della giurisprudenza, secondo i quali le norme restrittive devono avere il minor effetto possibile, cioè interpretate nel senso che violano il meno possibile i diritti altrui. Pertanto, questo articolo deve essere inteso semplicemente per affermare che la Costituzione è l’esercizio della sovranità del popolo quando viene osservata. E così, quando non viene osservata, l’Articolo 1 non solo non ostacola l’azione del popolo per cercare la giustizia, ma la garantisce e le conferisce il suo fondamento assoluto nel suo diritto all’ordine costituzionale.


Si potrebbe sostenere che, poiché non è possibile ricorrere alle sentenze della Corte costituzionale secondo Articolo 137 della Costituzione, nessuno può contestare la sua decisione nel 2014 e quindi è al di là del diritto di chiunque di opporsi ad essa. A questa argomentazione, dico, che la decisione della Corte non solo contradice il principio che la giustizia degli effetti scaturisce dalla giustizia della causa, ma invalida anche la stessa pretesa della Corte di emettere una sentenza insindacabile, perché la Corte stessa ha dichiarato che gli stessi poteri che la costituivano sono stati illegittimamente eletti e nominati. Non si può quindi ragionevolmente fare ricorso all’articolo 137, perché si riferisce ad un tribunale costituito costituzionalmente e non ad un tribunale che ammette di essere stato composto in modo incostituzionale.

Frà Alexis Bugnolo, in quanto cittadino italiano, ha la voglia di fondare un partito politico cattolico per guarantire e avvanzare i diritti dei Cattolici in Italia. Se ha interesse in aiutare, lascia un commento qui sotto con il suo recapito. — Grazie!


POSTCRIPTUM: Per una discussione più ampia sull’irragionevolezza della sentenza del Corte vedi: Antonello lo Calzo, La convalida delle elezione e gli effetti della sentenza del Corte Costituzionale n.1 del 2014.


by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Justice and right are the foundation of Thy throne (Psalm 88:15 in the Vulgate)

Recently, General Antonio Pappalardo has called for an orange revolution in Italy as a way of restoring justice for the Italian People. Part of his argument is based on the decision of the Italian Constitutional Court in 2014. Therefore, it behooves us to understand what that decision was and what its effects were.


A state can be considered under several aspects: as a geographical entity, as a political entity, as a legal entity, and as a demographic or economic entity.

It is a geographical entity inasmuch as it controls a geographical territory which it claims by right.

It is a political entity, inasmuch as represents itself as a holder of rights in relations with other states and with those who live within its geographical territory.

It is a demographic entity, inasmuch as it is constituted by human beings.

It is an economic entity, inasmuch as it conducts economic activity through those who live in its geographical territory.

But it is a legal entity, inasmuch as it exist in virtue of justice and right. Because without justice and right, a state is not a state. For, the word “state” refers to a stability of order. And there is no order in the proper sense where there is no justice or no right.

This is why for example it is correct to say that ISIS was not a state, because it had no honest claim to be an order of justice or right in a specific geographical region.

These principles, being self-evident, are valid also in regard to the Republic of Italy.

Being and Effects

One of the preliminary and necessary considerations in every discussion of justice and right is that which regards the fundamental principles of metaphysics, namely, that for every thing which is, one must distinguish between what it is and what its effects or actions are.

Thus, a man is a human being, but his actions are his works, words, or thoughts. His works, words and thought are not his being, nor himself, but belong to him and flow from his being.

This distinction is called by the Scholastics the distinction between the first act of being (primum esse ) and the second act of being (secundum esse).

Justice and Right

This principle of metaphysics governs in matters of justice and right, as in all affairs which regard the consideration of being and effects.

Thus, if a thing is just, its effects are just. And if a thing is done in accord with right, its effects are in accord with right.

Thus, if a law is just, that which the law causes to be done is also just. And if a law is unjust, that which the law causes to be done is unjust.

Likewise, if that which brought a law into being was unjust, then the application of the law is unjust, and that which is done in accord with the unjust law will be unjustly done.

All this is true, regardless of whether the actions specified by the law are just in themselves.

For example, if a tyrant order you to brush your teeth, even though brushing your teeth is something which is good of itself, it is not just that he order you to do it, and if you obey his unjust command, though the brushing be good, your right to liberty was still violated even if you consented and obeyed.

The 2014 Sentence of the Italian Constitutional Court

The first decision of the Italian Constitutional Court in 2014 is the subject of the present essay. You can read the decision in the original at the website of the court:

The decision of the court as precise and concise: the manner of awarding seats in the Italian parliament as specified in the laws of 1957 for the election of the House of Deputies (the lower house in the Italian Parliament) and in the 1993 law for the election of the Senate, and in the 1993 law which took away from the voter the right to chose an individual, rather than a party, were declared unconstitutional.

This, obviously, is a momentous decision in the history of the Italian Republic. Because if all the elections of the lower house since 1957 and all the elections of the Senate since 1993, and all the elections since 1993 for parties rather than candidates were unconstitutional, then all the actions of the Italian Parliament were deprived of justice and right for the last 71 years.

I will not contest here the decision of the court in this matter. They based their sentence on the consideration of the terms of the Italian constitution that each voter be allowed equal representation, and that therefore proportional representation, when obstructed by awarding more seats to any party, than that part obtained in proportion to the votes it garnered was a violation of that constitutional right. And when a citizen was required to vote for a party and not an individual, he was denied the right to consent to whom represented him.

But what is entirely worthy of discussion is the insanity of the position taken by the Court in how it dealt with the effects of its decision. It ruled that, because it pertains to the common good of all the Italian State remain in existence, that what was done is must be regarded as a fait accompli, and hence forth in the future only, such laws must be changed. But it left to a Parliament elected in an unconstitutional manner to pass the laws to correct the laws on elections.

The decision to sanitize the effects of unconstitutional laws, violates a lot of principles of logic and right.

First of all, if a thing is unjust, then its effects are also unjust. Thus, one cannot be rational and say that if a thing is unjust, we must regard its effects as just. That would be to assert that the effects which only can come from A and never from B must be regarded to have come from B just because we say so.

Second, if the court has decided that all the elections were unconstitutional, and since the Court itself is constituted by the Consiglio di Stato, whose members include the President of the Republic, elected by the Parliament, thus, in declaring that the elections of parliament for 71 years were unconstitutional, they declared in effect that their own claim to be legitimate justices of the Constitutional Court were illegitimate.

And if their claim to be judges of the court was illegitimate, even if their decision that the previous laws were unconstitutional was objectively true, their authority to sanitize the unjust effects of those laws was non-existent.

Third, their fundamental approach to the concept of the continuity of the Italian State confounds the notions of the state as a political entity with the state as a legal entity. The Italian state as a political entity exists whether it be just or not, because under this consideration the Italian state is the being in the political order, prior to all considerations of justice. But the Italian state as a legal entity is the entity which exists in virtue of the Italian constitution, and if that entity is illegitimate, then not only does not have the right to exist, it has never existed, because “to be illegal” directly contradicts its very principle of being as a legal entity.

Hence, the Court’s appeal to the necessity of continuity of the State is deceptive. They are making a claim about the legal entity which only has a basis in regard to the political entity.

What the Court should have done in 2014

The decision of the Italian Constitutional Court of 2014 can only have one reasonable and just effect, namely, that the Italian State as a legal entity must be entirely reconstituted, because it has not been constitutional since 1957. All the laws and modifications of the Constitution since 1957 are illegitimate, illegal, unlawful, unjust and non existent. The Italian Republic must be reconstituted again in the state it was in 1957 with new elections for parliament. That is what the Court should have ordered in 2014.

What is the effect of the irrational decision of the Court?

What the court has done is not only ultra vires, that is beyond its authority, but lacks all legitimacy in legal right. Because it violates the principle which says that the effects of what is just are just, and of what is unjust are unjust. The Court has attempted to intervene like a Leviathon or God and make what is unjust, just, what is evil, good.

In doing so the Court has attacked the Constitutional Order. It has committed grave fraud in the declaration of its sentence. It has enacted a Coup d’etat, or more precisely, has declared that if politicians violate the Constitution, they are immune from a crime. The only recourse, according to the Court, is that the crimes cease after it makes a decision, but what is obtained by the crime before its decision is legitimately obtained.

Thus the decision of the court has opened the door to tyranny. It has proclaimed that politicians can abuse the rights of the Citizens and violate the Constitution with impunity. It has declared this, because, in saying that there is no remedy to past injustices, it has given permission for all injustice and declared that the politicians who do such things are immune.


The sentence of the Constitutional Court of the Italian Republic in 2014 demonstrates that there is no constitutional order in Italy. The Constitution was never observed for 71 years, and even the form in which it exists today is unconstitutional, being changed by illegitimate parliaments over the course of 7 decades.

Thus to speak to day of the necessity to proceed in a constitutional manner is simply absurd, unless it means returning to the status quo of 1957 and calling new elections.

And for this reason, I think that Giuseppe Conte, who is a lawyer, knows that his unconstitutional decrees were no great crime and would never result in any penalty to himself or his government. He knows that there is no constitution, and that the Italian People have been deceived for 7 decades. So what is wrong with open tyranny?


It might be argued that on account of Article 136, the Court had the right to sanitize the effects of past illegitimate laws and elections. But that Article says only that the norms of the laws which are declared unconstitutional cease to have effect the day after the sentence is handed down. It saying nothing about the power of the court to make just what took place before its sentence. What the Article means only regards future application of the law. Thus from the silence of Article 136 one cannot infer that the Court has the authority to make just what was unjust. Nor is there anything in the Constitution which grants such authority to the State.


It might be argued that the sovereignty of the people, being limited to its expression in the Constitution, makes recourse to any appeal to notions of right or justice from sources outside the constitution illegitimate. To this, I say, that to interpret this article in such a restrictive manner violates the principles of jurisprudence, which hold that restrictive norms must be have the lest effect possible, that is, interpreted in the sense which violates the rights of others in the least way. Thus, this article must simply be understood to affirm that the Constitution is the exercise of the sovereignty of the people when observed. And thus, when it is not observed, not only does Article 1 not impede the action of the people to seek justice, it guarantees it and grants it its absolute fundament in their right to a constitutional order.


It might be argued that since no recourse is possible to judgements of the Constitutional Court, no one can dispute its decision in 2014 and thus it is beyond the right of anyone to object to it. To this, I say, that not only does the decision of the court invalidate the principle that the justice of the effects flows from the justice of the cause, it also invalidates the Court’s own claim to hand down an unquestionable sentence, because the Court itself has declared that the very powers which constituted it were illegitimately elected and appointed. Thus no appeal to Article 137 can reasonably be made, because it refers to a Court which is constituted constitutionally and not to a Court which itself admits was composed in an unconstitutional manner.

+ + +



[simple-payment id=”5295″]



Msgr. Nicola Bux rewrites Canon 332 §2

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Denial in times of shock is a human experience and a frequent response, though not virtuous, when the truth of the pain, suffering or threat is so great it cannot be admitted to exist even in the mind. The denial is the escape.

But denial of the truth of reality and of the facts of history or law is simply wrong, and in a scholar it is glaringly dishonest.

Such is my amazement then at the comment attributed to Msgr. Nicola Bux, in the article of Aldo Maria Valli, entitled, Benedetto XVI: “Ho rinunciato, ma sono ancora papa sotto il profilo spirituale”, which was published yesterday, here in Italy.

Apart from the fact that the title of the article repeats in Italian the same exact title of Maike Hickson’s report at LifeSite News — a thing which in itself is a giornalistic faux pas if not unseemly — the article presents nothing new in respect to her article.  Valli is one of the leading journalists here in Italy, on national television. It is clear that he could have done better, in my opinion.

But the end of the article is the real insult to the intelligence of the reader. There, Valli writes:

Se la persona eletta non è un vescovo, prosegue monsignor Bux, deve essere immediatamente consacrata vescovo perché il papato comporta l’esercizio dell’ufficio episcopale, ma è papa dal momento in cui acconsente alle elezioni. “Se la stessa persona, a un certo punto, dichiara di non poter più adempiere alla chiamata di essere il vicario di Cristo sulla terra, perde l’ufficio papale e ritorna alla condizione in cui si trovava prima di dare il consenso a essere il vicario di Cristo sulla terra”.

Which in English would be:

If the person elected is not a bishop, continues, Msgr. Bux, he should be immediately consecrated a bishop because the Papacy requires the excercise of the episcopal office, but he is pope from the moment in which he assents to the election. “If the same person, at a certain point, declares to no longer be able to fulfill the call to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, he loses the papal office and returns to the conditions in which he was found before giving his consent to being the Vicar of Christ on earth”.

Valli is too professional a journalist to be suspected of having invented or distorted the words attributed to Msgr. Bux, which I have highlighted in red.

That being the case, I do not know what the Monsignor is trying to do, pull the wool over the heads of the entire Catholic world?  I say this because Bux has clearly rewritten Canon 332 §2, to mean that which Pope Benedict XVI did on February 11, 2013, when, on the contrary, Canon 332 §2, being a papal law, which according to Christ Jesus, Who is God, Eternal Truth, our Savior, and the only Head of the Church, declared to be bound in Heaven just as on earth, says something entirely different:

If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus, there is required for validity that the renunciation be freely done and duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomever.

Msgr. Bux obviously wants badly to accept the Renunciation as valid, but in doing so he has not only violated the final clause which says his acceptance does not make it valid, and the first clause which says that it happens when the Pope Renounces his petrine munus, not when he says, at any time, that he is no longer capable to fulfill the office.

Bux is in denial, and it is not one which arose out of fear. It is one which arises out of a malign desire to deny the truth.

I never paid attention to anything Bux said until the summer of 2012, when Pope Benedict XVI appointed Mueller to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and there immediately irrupted the shock and objections of the Catholic world, here in Italy, on account of Muellers speculation that Our Lady was not always a physical virgin, only a spiritual virgin, and that in the Sacrament of the Altar, Jesus is present in His Divine and Human Nature, but not with His hands and feet and heart.

It was then that Bux spoke in Mueller’s defense, even though the latter’s opinion regarding Our Lady was condemned in the Synod of the Church of Rome in the 7th century as heretical.

Bux, evidently, still has not learned when it is just better to remain silent.

As an aside, Msgr. Nicola Bux sustains that the Code of Canon Law needs to be changed to provide a canonical status for a pope emeritus, because he wants to hide the reality of what happened over the fig leaf of words. I am told this effort is currently in the works in the Roman Curia.


CREDITS: The Featured Image above is a screen shot of Google Images search for Nicola Bux, to show that it is a good search engine for finding images of the many faces of the Monsignor.

+ + +


[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Those who say Benedict renounced validly, now have no credibility

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

One of the characteristics of the damned, is that they cannot repent. They have with a firm will and mind rejected the truth of their sin, forever.

This spiritual state can be arrived at even by those still alive in this world. Saint Alphonsus calls this moral state the state of reprobation. It is a definitive sign of a person who has chosen Hell.

For those who have not fully rejected, yet, God, there is always some uncertainty in their adhesion to evil, some small crack in their heart to open back up to the truth, some place in their mind through which the truth can be heard.

Now I publicly ask the entire Catholic world, and especially the entire College of Cardinals and College of Bishops:

Seeing that Peter Sewald in his new book, Benedickt XVI. Ein Leben, has quoted Benedict XVI saying that it was never his intention to renounce the spiritual mandate of the papacy, and seeing that there is no other mandate which constitute the Papal Office other than the spiritual, it must be confessed by all that Benedict XVI has not renounced the Petrine Munus, the Papal Office, even if he thinks he has or even if he thinks he can renounce part of it, while retaining part of it.

Therefore, are you now going to stand with Christ and return to loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI? or are you going to chose the part of the Father of Lies and continue to insist that the Conclave of 2013 was called during a legal sedevacante?

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Cardinals Declare: The COVID-19 Pandemic is a tool for a World Government

The statement is very good, but it omits identifying Bergoglio as one of the principal actors with the WHO and Bill Gates in the Corona Stunt.

But it fails gravely in accepting the concept of a vaccine for a risk which is non-existent for 99.9% of the population.

However, who actually signed this statement is now in doubt, because Cardinal Sarah, whose name was put on it, has now said on Twitter that he never signed the document. Why Sarah would not sign this and publicly disavow his signature, seems to indicate that he knows that the Statement will rile Bergoglio and that Bergoglio is in fact part of the Covid Stunt.

In the text displayed in this video, there is a grave error of writing “he” instead of “He” when referring to God as the author of the Church’s Mission. Only Freemasons hold that it was not God but a man who founded the Catholic Church.