Pope Benedict XVI told us He is the Pope — Another glaring example

by Andrea Conci

Approved English Translation

After five years we have understood a veiled but unequivocal message from Pope Benedict XVI.

We had already written about his strange, inexplicable Latin errors in the Declaratio of “resignation” of February 11, 2013, HERE , complete with a typo in the time (29.00). Errors then corrected in front of the whole world by distinguished philologists, but with Ratzinger who three years later says he is an excellent Latinist in the Corriere della Sera, HERE .

Inconsistencies so serious that according to various scholars, including theologians, Latinists and jurists HERE and HERE , these are NOT accidental errors, but made on purpose to draw attention to invalid resignation, which was only announced and never ratified HERE .

However, if the errors in Latin still leave some room for uncertainty, an error in history seems not to.

On February 22, the writer, browsing through “Last Conversations” (Garzanti 2016) book-interview by Peter Seewald to Benedict XVI, noticed a few lines.

The journalist asks the Holy Father, “With you, for the first time in the history of the Church, a pontiff in the full and effective exercise of his functions has resigned from his “office.” Was there an inner conflict over the decision?”

Benedict replied, cryptically, “It’s not that simple, naturally. No pope has resigned for a thousand years, and even in the first millennium this was an exception.”

Intrigued by the answer, we went to check the texts of Church history….


In fact, in the last “thousand years” (going back as far as 1016) there have been six popes who have resigned (in 1406, 1298, 1048, 1046, 1045, 1044) and “in the first millennium” of the papacy (from 33 to 1033) there have been six others (in the years 235, 304, 366, 537, 964 and 1008).

Thus, Ratzinger’s statement “No pope has resigned for a thousand years” makes no sense. At least, if we understand “resign” as “resigning from the papal office (munus),” legally abandoning the throne of Peter.

In fact, Benedict had instead decided on a very special kind of “resignation,” and he immediately specified this to Seewald: “It’s not that simple, naturally.” That is: in the nature of things, the papal office is not “simple,” that is, it does not consist of a single, inseparable element.

In 1983, John Paul II presumably together with Card. Ratzinger (since he was already for two years Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and very close to Wojtyla), specified that the ecclesiastical office of the pope was made up of the munus (divine office) that contained the ministerium (practical exercise). Before, in order to resign, it was enough to say: “I renounce the office”. From ’83 onwards, instead, it is necessary to renounce the munus in order to make the ministerium fall, obviously, too.

And Ratzinger said he wanted to do the OPPOSITE: in the Declaratio of February 11, 2013, richly accompanied by typos and errors in Latin, he announced that he would renounce, on February 28, starting from 20.00, the ministerium, only the practical exercise of power, (to be the pope, then), but not the munus (the office, in fact, not to be the pope), HERE . And moreover, at 8pm, he did not sign or declare anything about it to ratify his announcement, HERE.

That Ratzinger, today, still remains the only pope (“The pope is only one” he has been repeating for eight years), he himself explains with a learned and precise historical reference.

When he says to Seewald “in the first millennium (of the papacy) this constituted an exception,” he is right. From 33 to 1033, there was indeed “an exception” in this sense: a pope who, oppressed by an antipope, for some time had to give up being pope, that is, renouncing the ministerium, without losing the munus, that is, remaining pope.

We had first thought of Pope Silverius, (480-537), but the most significant pope is proposed to us by the expert Latinist Friar Alexis Bugnolo and – surprise – IS ANOTHER BENEDICT, the Eighth, born Theophylactus of the counts of Tusculum.

In 1012, therefore, as Ratzinger says – not “1000 years earlier”, but in the “first millennium” of the Church, – according to the very shrewd use of his words in the temporal reference – Benedict VIII of Tusculum, just elected pope, was ousted by the antipope Gregory VI and forced to flee from Rome, leaving the ministerium in the hands of the opponent for a few months, until the Emperor Henry II did justice by expelling the antipope Gregory. Benedict VIII remained ALWAYS the pope.

In essence, Benedict XVI is telling us: in 2013 I “resigned” just as Pope Benedict VIII did, ceasing for a time to exercise practical power, because of the antipope.

But just as Benedict VIII always remained pope, so am I still pope. So, if someone else today exercises practical power in my place and proclaims himself pope, is that a … ?

You name it.

Br. Bugnolo: my monthly appeal for those who can

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I want to thank all who have and are supporting FromRome.Info, especially in this time of crisis, which has heavily impacted us all.

For that reason I am very thankful for all those who have continued to support FromRome.Info’s work nevertheless.

But for those who have not been impacted and who can, I would ask you to remember FromRome.Info, when you can.

As a Franciscan Brother, I live by begging, I do not have an income, retirement fund, savings account, insurance, or any other coverage. I only have you who read FromRome.Info.

I thank you, one and all, and will remember you in my daily prayers.

Note: None of the support received goes to me as a salary.


Ogni mese chiedo i miei lettori che hanno la capacità per il loro aiuto. Come Frate vivo da elemosine e quindi devo mendicare tutto. Quelli di voi che non sono a Roma possono aiutarmi tramite una offerta. Per farlo, cliccare il pulsante qui sotto e sceglie 1, 2, 3 etc. secondo quanto di donare, $10, $20, $30 USD ecc.. La ringrazio in anticipo e vi ricordo nelle mie preghiere quotidiane!

+ + +

To help me, by using PayPal, click this Support Button:

A Response to Schneider’s Libel

Reply to the above by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

There are numerous errors contained in the article above, which you can read by clicking the image.

This first is that the author claims I am not a brother, nor a religious.

To achieve this, the author resorts to the definitions of words which do not apply to me and then implies I am a liar for using words in a sense different than the definitions he uses.

That being the case, he does not prove anything, but his own preconceived prejudice.

These kinds of attacks in the Church are as old as the first religious orders, They are not new. After St. Francis’ death, there were those who claimed that he never received the stigmata. And after St. Thomas Aquinas’ death, there were those who claimed he was a heretic.

I do not expect a Legionnaire of Christ — the religious institute founded by Father Marcel Maciel, to which the author claims to belong — to understand Franciscan spirituality. But I do recognize that he never took any note of my existence until I wrote against the Scamdemic and the Vaxx, the former of which he believes in and the later of which he promotes zealously, even when made from tissues of human babies torn to pieces, alive, by the abortion industry for the sake of the vaccine industry.

I am a Roman Catholic. I believe in Jesus Christ. And the lives of innocents is precious to me. So how a vaccine is made is important to me. I am not a priest, but I would expect a priest to understand that.

In the Order founded by St. Francis, those who profess his Rule are called brothers (in Latin “fratres”), and in some languages “friars” — which does not mean that they cook or eat fried food. They live in monasteries, which in many lands are called “convents”, even though no women are found therein. In English, these buildings can be called “Friaries” or a “Friary” in the singular, but again, it has nothing to do with fried food. — I do not make this remark without cause, since in at least one town in Connecticut, when a religious institute of Franciscan brothers founded a convent, they called it a Friary, which caused them a multi-year long battle with the town over how their kitchen ought to be designed for grease disposal!

So all Franciscans call one another brother or friar. Here in Italy, the proper title is “Frà”, which means the same thing.

In Canon Law, there is no regulation on the use of the term or title, “Brother”, “Friar”, or “Frà”, and the author of the above article agrees with me because he has cited no canon to that effect.

This is because, the titles used to name or salute members of religious orders have to do with their spiritual traditions. Thus some are called, monks, and are saluted with “Don”, others are mendicants and are called “brothers”, some have no title.

I am a Franciscan brother because I observe the Rule of St. Francis of Assisi, which requires me to live as a brother and treat all other Franciscan as brothers in the same family. I have never claimed that by this title, “brother” or “Fra” that I am a member of a religious Order.

Since I have never claimed it, I do not have to rebut Father’s claim that I claimed or am claiming it.

As a person who has taken vows and who lives vows obliging me to keep the Rule of St. Francis, which is a recognized form of religious life in the Church, I am a religious. But in the sense of canon law, which uses the term strictly, as someone who is canonically bound to a religious order on Earth, I am not. But then again all the Saints of the Franciscan Order are not either, but I assure you they are no less religious.

Ordo Militaris Inc  & the Scholasticum?

I head several organizations which undertake the works of mercy or justice. I get no remuneration for my work with them.

There is the Scholasticum, founded in Italy as a non-profit. And while it might ruffle the feathers of the author of the above article, I do teach under its aegis. He fails to mention my academic work, which you can find on academia.edu. He also fails to mention that I graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Florida, Gainesville, in 1986 with a B. A. in Cultural Anthropology; he also fails to mention that my minor seminary, Our Lady of Grace in Boston, did teach courses in the years I attended (1986-88). The Scholasticum is fully described at its website: studium-scholasticum.org.

And there is Ordo Militaris Catholicus: I think Father does not understand what it is, and so thinks it is a religious Order. It is not. What it is, is described at the website of the private military corporation which its members founded in August of 2016, Ordo Militaris Inc.: ordo-militaris.us . What the corporation is is also described there in length. And its history is also detailed in its news page. At the bottom of its home page you can see a map which details its financial support to Catholics and Christians round the world. The corporation is not a non-profit, but it is a charitable organization, in that it gives its assets and income to the works of charity. This is perfectly legal in the United States of America.

Father fails to mention that I am also president of an Italian political party, known as “L’Italia per gli Italiani”, which you can learn more about at its website: ItaliaPerItaliani.it.  To my knowledge we are the only party consecrated to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary which excludes masons. And no one in Italy really wants to work with us for that reason. So it is a work of true piety.


Father does mention this electronic journal, FromRome.Info, which he incorrectly calls a blog. But he seems to think that it has some tie to the other organizations, other than the fact, that I, whom am its editor and publisher, am involved with the others.

FromRome.Info is an apostolate, and I founded it to do the work of mercy of preaching the truth.

False Claims by Father Schneider

Father does present some claims which are confused, wrong and simply false. He claims that I have lived in Rome as a hermit since 2006. I have not. He seems to think that the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life, has jurisdiction over the Diocese of Rome, which it does not. Which is why they would have no knowledge of me. If they have an archive of all the letters they send to private individuals they can find the one they sent me in 2006.

He gets the details of my life mixed up on other points, too.

He seems to think that as a consecrated person of private vows I have always lived as a hermit. He thinks hermits are religious, or that prior to taking canonical vows in the hands of their local ordinary, they fall under the jurisdiction of the Congregation of Institutes of Consecrated life. They do not. He seem to think that every Diocese has hermits, or a protocol for their reception or recognition. They do not. He seems to think that the Church has a definition of what a hermit is, in canon law, and that if you do not meet that definition, you are not a hermit. She does not. A hermit is a Catholic who (1) dedicates himself to his personal sanctification, (2) lives by himself, and may or may not (3) take vows or (4) observe a Rule. I am a hermit who does all four things. But if a diocese has no such protocol, it is scarcely the fault of a hermit that it does not. Nor does that fact mean he cannot follow Christ in this manner therein. Canon Law allows this.

Jealousy or Envy?

He also seems to think that because I head so many organizations, there is something suspicious about me. He thinks very differently than I do, because I found suspicion on the basis of doing evil, not good. He note worthily does not cite any criminal record or civil lawsuit on my personal record or that of any of these organizations. Because there are none, to my knowledge. He also does not cite the testimony of anyone who has ever been associated with them.

DeathVaxx Apologists hate DeathVaxx Realists or Narrative Outsiders

What irks Father is, however, that I made a video against the Vaxx and got a lot more views than he has followers on twitter. Or that I am not a priest and have the daring to follow Christ or defend Pope Benedict.

He is correct that I am notorious for being a strong vocal critic of Pope Benedict. But I know how to make the distinction between personal disagreements and the obligation we all have to recognize that he was elected validly as the Roman Pontiff. And must regard him as such until he does that which canon law says in canon 332.2 or is called before the throne of God. Father for his part is a member of a religious institute which was sanctioned by Pope Benedict. And he is an ardent supporter of Bergoglio. I am a known whistleblower on pedos and immorality among the clergy, and so we have both strong motives to disagree on many things.

Father seems to be worried and troubled about many things, so I ask you to pray for him. Unlike him, I will not ask you money at the bottom of my article.