Take note of the Schizophrenic attitude of “Catholic Media” on Pope Benedict XVI

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The news broke nearly 21 hours  ago, but no Catholic news outlet in the English speaking world — to my knowledge — has picked up the story. There is universal studious silence.

Compare this to the totally discounted fabricated and alleged interview of Massimo Franco of the Italian Daily, La Stampa, which made claims that were entirely debunked days later by all the leading Vaticanista: Socci, Tosatti, Cionci etc.. That story, when first published, was reprinted immediately by ALL leading “Catholic” news outlets in the USA and the United Kingdom.

What is the difference?

The Massimo Franco story claimed that Bergoglio is the pope and that Benedict accepts that.

But the story which broke yesterday, quotes Pope Benedict XVI naming an Ambassador, in a nact which is strictly papal and monarchical and proves that Benedict considers himself the sole reigning pontiff.

Now ask yourselves if the “Catholic” media who ignored yesterday’s story are credible, impartial, honest or even in communion with the Church, of if they are rather bought and paid, narrative control, totally in league with Bergoglio’s gay, marxist, globalist, heretical apostate agenda.

By the way, for all you traddies out there, the story which broke yesterday is much more important than a nearly anonymous letter posted on the doors to St. Peter’s Basilica. So what’s with your silence about the former and your foaming at the mouth about the latter?

Here you have it. Take note. This is information suppression, disinformation promotion and narrative control. And it all has a satanic and globalist objective.

Also, to not put too fine a point upon it: if you refuse to recognize that Pope Benedict XVI did this because you refuse to recognize him as the Roman Pontiff, then you need to candidly admit that you are a SCHISMATIC formal and pertinacious, and in virtue of canon 1364, are excommunicated ipso facto for schism. Also in accord with the papa bull,  “Unam Sanctam” of Pope Boniface VIII, you cannot at all be saved, but shall be condemned to the eternal fires of Hell, with unbelievers and heretics of all kinds.

So maybe it is time you cut off all funding to these “Catholic” sites and talking heads who simple ignore the true facts as they come forth?

For myself, I for 6 years thought Bergoglio was the pope, and would have rejoiced to have a clear fact as this to snatch me from the errors I was in. To not have this sentiment is bizarre, and incomprehensible to me, if you are honestly in public disparaging and disapproving of what Bergoglio is doing daily, AND disapproving of it in your heart, why would you be silent in the last 21+ hours about this irrefutable evidencde that Benedict XVI never intended to resign, is the Pope, and is not ashamed to act as such?

Let us keep praying for Pope Benedict XVI. I believe the strong defense of his rights that we have seen in the Italian press in the last 2 weeks has encouraged him to speak out. With stronger moral and spiritual support, I believe his restoration to the Throne of Peter will be soon.

Now it is for us to militate with him! God wills it! Deus Vult!

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

17 thoughts on “Take note of the Schizophrenic attitude of “Catholic Media” on Pope Benedict XVI”

  1. Is Bergoglio (Francis) the pope or not?

    Marco Cosmo (interviewer) : “So in your opinion to sum it up, do you think Bergoglio is the pope or not? Can we call him Pope Francis or Pope Bergoglio?”

    Bishop Richard Williamson of the Catholic Resistance :

    “I DON’T KNOW. SIMPLY, I DON’T KNOW IT. This is like Mons. Lefebvre’s attitude which always can be followed and it will always be. Don’t worry too much about the controversy. Mons. Vigano has said the same recently. Let’s don’t get too concern over the matter BECAUSE WE CAN’T KNOW, PROBABLY ONLY GOD KNOW IF HE (Bergoglio) IS POPE OR NOT. With time passing we will know but for now WE CAN’T KNOW WITH CERTAINTY. … [We will not] be able to answer such matters, complicated even for the best theologians. So, I can’t say. Mons. Lefebvre’s suggestion was to do as if he was the pope but avoid to claim he’s the pope.”


    11:38 – The pope question.

    1. I admire Bishop Williamson for many things, but this response is simply idiocy. Anyone can know that munus is not ministerium and that canon 332 requires the former to be mentioned in a renunciation.

      1. I also admire him in many things, but one thing I didn’t agree with him and his followers is that they rejected the 1983 Code for the reason that it is promulgated by JP2 who was a modernist heretic. According to them there are many errors in the new code. We cannot use the new code when we discuss this topic with them. As if all canons in the new code are erroneous. I think they just make excuses because they know they won’t win against our position. It’s laughable because when they defended Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre against those who attest that the Abp was automatically excommunicated they will use the new code to prove that there was no automatic excommunication.

      2. What is your opinion with regards to the difference between the 1917 Code and 1983 Code, pertaining to the resignation of the Pope. Are they essentially the SAME, as far as the law governing the resignation of the Pope is concerned?

  2. Using the search button on your site throws up many articles on ‘Team Bergoglio’ for example……
    “Team Bergoglio” is the name given by Dr. Austen Ivereigh, former spokesman to His Eminence, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, ex-Archbishop of Westminster, England, to the group of Cardinals who campaigned for Cardinal Bergoglio in the 2013 Conclave.
    The Scandalous consequences of the revelations of Dr. Ivereigh’s book, can be summed up thus: Dr. Ivereigh has written a book alleging as many as 30 cardinals did that which is apparently a violation of the papal law on conclaves, on which account they would be ipso facto excommunicated, Cardinal Bergoglio included, and the election of the latter by 2013 Conclave be null and void and of no effect. — As of this date, no substantial denial has been made by anyone of the accused, and Dr. Ivereigh has not substantially withdrawn, changed, or altered what he wrote. (25/12/2014)

  3. Oremus pro Pontificate nostra Benedictus Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum, et non tradet eum in animam inimicorum eius. Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram adedificabo Ecclesiam Meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam

  4. The Bergoglian defender who makes excuses didn’t answer to Fr. Kramer’s comment,

    “In what manner (according to you) did those traditional bishops “not agree” with the 1983 Code? More specifically, has any one of them found fault with canon 332 § 2? There have been serious studies by academically qualified canonists on the historical development of canonical doctrine on the question of papal resignation and the proper meaning of the term “munus”. Have you read any of them? You seem to imply that canon 332 § 2 is defective, and does not agree with canonical tradition. If you had studied the matter diligently you would have realized that such a conclusion is entirely without foundation. Do you deny that Pope John Paul II had the jurisdiction to promulgate statutory laws for the universal Church? – Or that his decree of promulgation of the revised Code lacked authority? Are you saying that papal decrees issued by John Paul II are without the force of law? Am I right only in my private opinion because I don’t agree with someone else’s private opinion? My own opinion is not founded on my own private speculations, but is firmly based on the Church’s canonical tradition on papal resignation, which is also the basis of 332 § 2. Can you point to even one statement of those traditional bishops that rejects canon 332 § 2?” –Fr. Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div.


    1. Benedictus:
      This was Bishop Williamson back on November 5, 2014 (and Fr. Gruner, who died nearly six months later, can be seen sitting at the head table @7:47). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kTtOUdw9iw

      He starts off almost at the beginning of the video by saying:
      “Fr. Gruner has a very interesting argument coming from Italy. It may be that Pope Francis isn’t pope. But the same argument will argue that if Francis isn’t pope, Benedict still is. It’s a possibility; something that Fr. Kramer has argued. Even if we think Pope Francis is off the wall, we still don’t have to be sedevacantists because Benedict is there behind…”

      But then goes on to say very similarly to what he said in the video you posted: “I don’t know. I don’t know what’s going on. God knows I don’t know. I think many of us don’t know. We don’t strictly need to know because it’s beyond us, and God doesn’t expect from us what’s beyond us. So we have our Catholic lives to lead, we have mortal sin to avoid, the state of grace to maintain and death to die a state of grace in. That’s a tall enough order.”

      However, in December 2018, on what appears to be a now deleted interview with Bishop Williamson (“Bishop Richard Williamson on the Andrew Carrington Hitchcock Show” https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/bishop-richard-williamson-on-the-andrew-carrington-hitchcock-show/) … I did write down at the time what he had stated when asked about the significance of Pope Benedict suddenly resigning:

      “I think that he was pushed… he semi-resigned… he didn’t completely resign, he semi-resigned… he made way for another pope to take his place… but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy…”

      My question, of course, was: How is it not an impossibility for a Pope to “semi-resign” and to have “kept various things of the Papacy”, and still not be THE POPE?

      Lastly, you asked about the 1917 Code pertaining to the resignation of the Pope and thought you might like to read what Tony La Rosa wrote about it. “Pope Benedict XVI’s “Resignation” in Light of the 1917 Code of Canon Law”

Comments are closed.