Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke against Globalism & Freemasonry — Part IV

FromRome.Info presents here Br. Bugnolo’s authorized English translation of Andrea Cionci’s Article

La possibile ricostruzione del “piano B” di papa Benedetto XVI

which was published by the Libero, on April 6, 2021, in Italian.

Due to the length of the original, FromRome.Info publishes the translation in 4 parts.


A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church

A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorney Acosta and various theologians

by Andrea Cionci


20. The first results of Plan B

Moreover, only two years after, in 2019, the subtle input of Benedict XVI obtained its first result: the Italian-American Franciscan, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, an outstanding latinist and expert in canon law, takes note of the errors in the Latin of the Declaration and declares that they were inserted precisely to attract attention to the canonical invalidity of the document. HERE

The Libero had the exclusive report on his study and news of it went viral world wide, but in reply, from the Vatican there was only silence and from the Avvenire ( the national Catholic newspaper published by the Italian Bishops’ Conference) only insults. HERE

21. Bergoglio goes full throttle, too much

The seasons change, and Francis in the meantime exposes himself ever the more: he enthrones Pachamama in St. Peter’s, he inaugurates a new Litany of Loreto with Mary as “support of migrants”, he declares himself in favor of civil unions, he changes the Our Father, he inserts the masonic “dew” into the Canon of the Mass, he decorates the Piazza of St. Peter’s with a strange esoteric Christmas creche, in sum, he goes excessively full throttle, so much so that the noted Vaticanista, Aldo Maria Valli, publishes a shocking article entitled, “Rome is without a pope”. HERE HERE HERE HERE HERE HERE

22. Bergoglio runs for cover at the Corriere della Sera

At Santa Marta there is a panic: Massimo Franco of the Corriere della Sera rushes to interview Ratzinger and clean up the mess. Benedict XVI offers a series of further replies which are perfectly double faced: he says that “his friends, a little fanatical, did not accept his decision, made completely freely by him, he is in peace with himself and the pope is one alone”. Franco interprets his declarations in this sense: “I willingly resigned as the Pope; my fans err in considering me the Pontiff; the pope is one alone and is Francis” HERE

23. The explicit subtext of Benedict

In reality, the true significance of the words of Ratzinger is: “My friends have not understood what I am fooling the modernists and that I have done this in full self awareness, on which account I am in peace with my conscience. the Pope is one alone and I am he”. This story of the pope who is one alone, but which is never specified, has already become too repetitive and urges us to examine past interviews. By doing so there emerges a meticulous and “scientific” equivocation which has lasted years. HERE

24. The nomination of the “ambassador” to Benin

Thus, in reply to the customary misunderstandings by the Corriere della Sera, and to encourage those who follow the right interpretation, Pope Benedict, a few days after, received the president of a charitable organization and names him, “ambassador” (even if only spiritually). Even on the symbolic level, this is indeed the act of a reigning pope. Another clear signal to his “own”: HERE

25. The mirror trick is understood

From the interviews with the Corriere della Sera, we pass to read also the book interviews by Peter Seewald and we discover that all of them have been arranged according to a coherent and opposite subtext. Every phrase has been constructed with a scientific ability to reveal — often with a tasteful irony — the reality of the invalid resignation to whomsoever wants to grasp it. HERE and HERE

26. The discovery of a clear historical precedent: Pope Benedict VIII

One fundamental detail merges when Benedict XVI declares in his “Last Conversations”, published in 2016, under a veiled but most precious historical reference, that he has resigned as Pope Benedict VIII, Theophylactus of the Counts of Tusculum, in 1012, was constrained to renounce the ministerium on account of the antipope Gregory VI: an unequivocable signal. Little by little, there emerges other details in his book length interview and here at the Libero we have even cited the passage from which we were able to be inspired by Ratzinger to understand his strategy “of mirrors”. HERE

27. A foreseen battle

Benedict knows that his game is an extremely subtle one, but he has left alarm bells which are very evident. He knew that the pieces of the puzzle would be put back together little by little and that the false church would reveal itself, crumbling on its own, annihilating itself in scandals, doctrinal contradictions and ferocious internal conflicts. Ratzinger knew beforehand that the modernist antipope, with his masonic-environmental-globalist extravagances would fill the Catholic people with dismay. He knew that this one would not be assisted by the Holy Spirit, nor by the logic of the Logos (the Divine Word). HERE:

28. What is Benedict waiting for?

Benedict is still waiting, tranquil in his prayer and contemplation, and communicating with the outside world by means of precise and surgical terms: he awaits the Cardinals and Bishops to open their eyes. He does not speak openly: even if he would succeed in speaking the truth in public, today, he would be immediately silenced with the excuse of senile ramblings. No: it is rather the Catholic people who, in this Apocalypse, in the sense of a Revelation, have to convert, have to UNDERSTAND, and ACT. And it is the clergy who have to shake off their inertia, by rediscovering the course, the strength, and the heroism of the Faith. HERE:

29. The solution to the whole problem: a declaratory Synod

The solution, in the end, is a simple one: let the Bishops convoke a synod, like that which was convoked historically (such as Sutri or Melfi V) to establish with certainty which of the one or two popes is the true one.

Ratzinger knows that during such an encounter the reality will easily come forth: the anti-pope and all of his actions, nominations, doctrinal and liturgical changes, will vanish into nothingness. It will be as if he never existed. Death does not preoccupy Benedict: his resignation will remain invalid for ever by creating a historic rupture in the papal succession.

Bergoglio, in the mean time, for his own part, has already signaled the future of his new-Church by nominating an avalanche of his “own” 80 cardinals, who, being in the majority, will shut the doors to the new Conclave. After the antipope, Francis, there would be no valid successor, as some traditionalists are pointing out. Moreover, an invalid conclave, composed by invalid cardinals, might elect another modernists antipope — or a fake orthodox one — and the Catholic Church, as we know Her, would be finished forever.

The synod, on the other hand, will be the great Catholic Counter-Reset, the red restart-button which will enable the Church to be purified — according to the intentions of Ratzinger — from corruption and heresy once and for all, by reconciling Europe and the West with their own Christian roots. And in the passage from one epoch to another, as he himself said to Seewald: “I belong no longer to the old world, but to the new, which in reality has not yet begun”. HERE

30. The “little ones” will be the protagonists

Benedict XVI, the sole Vicar of Christ (Bergoglio having renounced the title) knows that salvation comes from little ones, from the pure of heart, mind and body, much sooner than from prelates and the great ones of the press: from courageous priests and friars who are excommunicated for remaining faithful, from little journalists, youtubers and bloggers, translators, artists and publishers, simple readers who share articles on social media, each one of which in his own infinitesimal littleness adds his own contribution: a whole people without means and support, who sacrifice themselves and risk themselves to spread the truth as a fire, as a last “Crusade of the poor” to save the Church Herself.

No, Benedict XVI has not fled at the sight of the wolves. Nor in the face of those dressed up as lambs.

How they boldly lie to defend Bergoglio….

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The one golden thread of consistency in every defender of Bergoglio, whether of his blatant heresies, blasphemies or crimes, or whether of his claim to be validly elected or retain his office, is that his defenders are willing to lie, and to lie boldly.

I have had occasion to publicly out them as such many times here at FromRome.Info, and today, I consider it necessary to do so once again.

I speak of Steve O’Reilly, who says he is a convert to the Catholic Faith and lectures Catholics about what to see and not to see, what to think and not to think, on his own authority, about the Declaration of Pope Benedict.  He has attempted some childishly immature and false arguments from November 2018, when he entered into the fray of the debate.  And he has painted his position with redundant misrepresentations, lies and logical frauds ever since.

Now, however, he has proceeded to a new low, that of putting forth his own opinion as the historical narrative.

He makes this claim in his new essay, “Being Wrong: The Ontology of the BiP Argument”, published yesterday at his blog, Roma locuta est, by which he mans, “Steve has spoken, now shut up”!  BiP is a derogatory term for those who hold that Benedict Is the Pope.  It  is crafted to make such persons appear to be blips of ignorance.

His recent sui generis extravagance is this:

I do not believe I ever have heard Dr. Mazza or other BiP-ers adequately explain what Benedict meant when he wrote in the Declaratio he renounces the Petrine ministry ‘in such a way’ that the ‘See of Peter will be vacant.’

The author who crafts an argument from a faulty memory is truly a sophist of the highest quality, so I will only remark that objectively speaking, if Mr. O’Reilley has a perfect memory, then he is a public liar, since I explained the canonical and logical meaning of that statement adequate in my Disputed Question on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI  in December of 2018, some 2 years and 5 months ago – and which he has read in my replies to his ludicrous argumentations. In that question from Dec. 2018, I asked and responded to this problem, he now reposes, in Part II of that Question:

13. Because Pope Benedict said, “I declare that I renounce the ministry which I had received from the hands of the Cardinals, … so that the See of St. Peter be vacant on …”, he clearly indicated that his renunciation was to effect a loss of office (munus), therefore his resignation was in accord with Canon 332 §2, despite not explicitly using the word munus, as that Canon requires for validity. Therefore, the resignation was valid.

Ad obj. 13.: This objection was refuted in the arguments of the First Part, but its complexity deserves a fuller answer for those minds which cannot understand how it is invalid. First, as demonstrated in the First Part of this Disputed Question, a resignation is valid if it includes a resignation of munus; it is not valid if it does not. And according to Canon 17, if there is any doubt as to whether munus is included in canon 332 §2 as a sine non qua condition or according to its signification in a broader sense, one must have recourse to other parts of the Law, the canonical tradition, and to the mind of the Legislator (John Paul II) of the Code. As has been shown elsewhere, there is no basis for an argument from canon 17 that ministerium can mean munus. However, since ministerium is followed by 2 subordinate clauses, the argument that it is invalid, must respond to that condition. For in Latin, some subordinate clauses can alter the signification of the main clause. And it is true that there is a poetical form, in which part of a thing can substitute for the whole, as when at Mass in the Latin Rite we say, “Come under my roof” to mean “come into my soul”. However, as regards the Latin of the text of the renunciation, to say, “which I received from the hands of the Cardinals” imposes no necessity of reference to the Petrine Ministry per se, because Ratzinger also at that time received the Episcopal and Pastoral Ministry for the Diocese of Rome. The second clause, “so that the See of St Peter be vacant”, has been shown in Part I to necessitate no necessity. For those who do not understand Latin grammar, this needs to be explained. Because, in a subordinate clause such as “so that … be vacant”, the clause is a clause of purpose of the kind which begins with the particle “ut”, and thus is a pure clause of purpose which indicates only a goal. If the subordinate clause of purpose had begun with “in the kind of way which” (quomodo) or “in such a way as to” (in tali modo quod) it would have been a purpose clause of characteristic which has the power to alter the manner of signification in the main clause, and allow the use of metynomic signification, that is, when a part refers to the whole. Since Pope Benedict did not say anything of that kind, this way of reading the subordinate clause is not possible. Hence it remains invalid.  However, even if a metonymic signification was had, it remains invalid per canon 332 §2, since it would not be duly manifested. Because just as if one were to pronounce marriage vows by saying, “I take you to be my Viennese strudel” instead of saying “I take you to be my wife”, an interpretation would be necessary to be resorted to, to make the phrase signify taking a wife, so in an act of resignation a metonymic manner of signification renders the act invalid because it publicly does not duly manifest the intention.

And I expanded upon my response, further, writing:

14. In his act of resignation Pope Benedict XVI declared two things. The First regarding his resignation, the second regarding the convocation of a Conclave “that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those whose duty it is”. He would not have said this, if his intention was not to resign the office of the Papacy. Therefore, he did resign the office of the papacy.

Ad obj. 14.: This argument is a conflation of two arguments, one of which has previously been refuted, viz. that one which regards his intention, which was refuted in Ad obj. 2. Here I will respond to the other, that which regards the papal command to convene a Conclave.   That the Pope declared that a conclave be convened to elect a new Roman Pontiff forms the second independent clause of his verb, “I declare”. Thus, it is logically independent and bears no necessity in the alteration of the signification of the first clause, which regards the resignation.  Thus, if the resignation not be duly manifested in accord with Canon 332 §2, that the Pope declares a Conclave be called is a papal declaration which is totally vitiated by the substantial error in his first declaration. Thus canon 188 invalidates the execution of this command. This is especially true, because in the declaration of convocation he does not require the convocation to take place before or after he ceases to be pope, or on a specific date or even during his life time. To see this more clearly, recall the example from the arguments against the validity, wherein a hypothetical pope declares, “I renounce bananas so that on Feb. 28, at 8 PM, Roman Time, the see be vacant” and simply add, “and that a Conclave be convened to elect a new Roman Pontiff”.  As can be seen in this hypothetical, the second declaration does not make the first valid, it just continues the substantial error: a substantial error which also makes the Conclave of 2013 and all the acts of Bergoglio as pope invalid.

I suppose, however, that by “adequately” O’Reilly means, what he always means by his writings in defend of Bergoglio, namely, that “When I say you have no proof or adequate argument, I am setting up myself as the measure of truth and adequacy and hoping that you do not see that I am gaslighting you all along.”.

Indeed, O’Reilly consistently argues as if the English translation published by the Vatican is the true canonical document. And you can see that in how he renders the Latin “ut”.  I know that the State Department does not know Latin, because one of their staff employers purchased my Latin Course for their staff library, many years ago.

And that may be the truth, because as Mr. O’Reilly admits on the About page of his blog, he is a former intelligence officer. He does not say of which agency or nation, however.

I recently was informed by a reader, moreover, that the founders of LifeSite News, which consistently affirm the validity of the Renunciation, are former employees of a Canadian publication founded by a MI5 intelligence asset.  Like Michael Matt of The Remnant, who has gone silent, is a graduate of Christendom College which was founded by a CIA agent.  I hope the picture is becoming clear for you.

For public disclosure, I have  never worked for any intelligence agency.

A Canonical Justification for the Second Synod of Sutri

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

It has been reported that Cardinal Burke has recently remarked that canonists, seeking a solution to the current problem of a patently heretical pope or a dubious papal resignation, have found no canonical way forward in the present juridical system of the Church.

To this alleged assertion, I intend to response with this brief essay, as it becomes all the more clear to a majority of the faithful and bishops who have been paying attention, that Bergoglio was never canonically elected and Benedict never canonically resigned.

First of all, it must be said, that in truth no canonical solution is required, if by “solution” one means putting into practice a special juridical tribunal or making a special appeal to some particular body. This is because, the real and simple solution would be to PUBLICLY simply ask Pope Benedict XVI what he did and intended to do and accept that. — Or as Ann Barnhardt proposes, in the case of Benedict truly thinking by error that the papal dignity can be shared, to rebuke him for his error as St. Paul did St. Peter, and publicly call on him to recognize that — and, as I would add, to renounce the papacy wholly if he no longer wants to be the pope. (Though this must be after some decision is made regarding to the invalidly nominated Cardinals and Bishops, and the invalidly appointed members of the Roman Curia and Vatican government)

But if one means by a ‘canonical’ solution a special event or action to rid the Church of Bergoglio or put an end to the controversies on these matters, then there needs to be a canonical justification for such an action. And that is what I intend to expound, herein.

In the Middle Ages, when the Church was faced with apparently insolvable doubts about discipline, and in particular, about who was the real pope, She convened councils and synods. This is how the Church sought to end the Great Western Schism which began in 1378 when the college of cardinals claimed to have elected in separate conclaves two different men as the Pope. The general council of Constance (1414-1481) was called to end that conflict, and obtained the resignation of the two rivals, and paved the way for the election, by compromise and unanimity of all the real and alleged Cardinals, of Pope Martin V.

Before that at the Synod of Sutri in 1046, the clergy of Rome, to whom there pertained the right of electing the Roman Pontiff, were convened at the request of Henry III, King of Germany, to sort out which if any of the three claimants to the papacy: Silvester III, Benedict IX or Gregory VI were the pope.  That Synod deposed all three, and paved the way for the election of Pope Clement II on the vigil of Christmas of that year.

The Church has always accepted as canonical, valid and legitimate, the actions of both of these synods. And that establishes the precedent upon which an argument for a future synod, after the manner of that of Sutri in 1046 can be made.

The first problem, however, is that in the present Code of Canon Law, synods and councils are called and convoked by the Pope.  It expressly says in canon 344, that “A Synod of bishops is directly beneath the authority of the Roman Pontiff, to whom it belongs, n. 1, to convoke the synod, howsoever often it seems to be opportune, and to designate the place where its meetings are to be held”. Indeed, both at Constance and Sutri both or at least one of the rival claimants to the papacy convoked the meetings.

Since it is unlikely that Bergoglio would ever convene such a synod, and while it remains unlikely that Benedict would be allowed to publicly call for such a convocation, there remains to consider other arguments to justify such an assembly.

These can be classified into two categories: arguments from divine right or ex iure divino; arguments from necessity or by natural right.  Both categories have supreme authority, inasmuch as the divine and natural laws are both promulgated by God, the former in the Gospels and the latter in creation.

I will begin with a consideration of natural right, which is the weaker of the argument, inasmuch as it is more indirect.

The necessity of the Church requires that it have a government which is united. The existence of two popes makes that unity impossible.  Since the subjects of every society have the right to know the identity of their government, the Church has a corresponding duty to Her members to not delay to identify Her own earthly head in a public declaratory manner.

As for divine right, there are several arguments which could be advanced.  the first is that the highest law of the Church is the promotion of the salvation of souls. And since no one can be saved who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff, as Pope Boniface VIII magisterially taught in his bull, Unam Sanctam, it is a practical necessity of all the faithful to be subject to the true pope. And hence the Church is gravely obligated, in all her members, to put to rest such a doubt with an authoritative declaration.  This is the argument of natural right raised to the level of the supernatural.

The second argument from divine right is that the unity of the Church requires the unity of the clergy. And since there can be no unity unless the clergy recognize the same man as the Roman Pontiff, it is of divine right that the clergy have the right to know who is the true pope and thus of the Church to given them a public authoritative declaration of the fact.

The third argument from divine right is that the Bishops of the Church, inasmuch as they are successors of the Apostles, while they each have a duty towards their own flocks, nevertheless all share in the duty of being responsible for the government of the whole Church universally, and that in the case of an Apostolic See impeded by doubt about who is and who is not the real pope, they have the right to make a public declaration of the matter.

In fact, as regards this latter argument, many Synods were called by bishops locally, during past schisms which resulted from more than one claimant to the papacy.  In such cases, these Synods were called at the request of Kings and Princes, by under the authority of the primate of the Kingdom and other Archbishops of those territories. And indeed, in such cases, there were occasions in which the Synod of this kingdom rendered a decision differing or concordant with the decision of synod of another kingdom.  This happened often in the Great Western Schism (1378-1415).  Even during the schism under Bl. Urban II or the antipope Anacletus II, several councils were held in France to repeat the decision in favor of the true pope.  So that there be only one Synod rather than more is not even a necessity.

Now the strongest argument against calling such a council or synod is that it would never be legitimate canonically unless it be called by Pope Benedict XVI or by Bergoglio, depending upon which you think is the true pope.

But the stronger argument is this: Since every Bishop has the right and duty to remain in communion with the true pope.  This is implied formally in canon 392 §1, which says:

Since he is obliged to defend the unity of the Church universal, the Bishop (of each diocese) is bound to promote the common discipline of the whole Church and hence to urge the observance of all ecclesiastical laws.

Thus, if a Bishop is obliged he has a right to act, and if he be bound to promote the common discipline, he is even more bound to uphold the terms of Canon 332 §2 on papal renunciations and canon 1364 regarding heretics, apostates and schismatics, even if they intrude upon the Apostolic See.

As for the convocation of such a Synod, this too is a duty of the Bishops in virtue of their specific obligation of communion with and visits to the Roman Pontiff (cf. canon 399) every 5 years, because a Synod held in the presence of the Pope is nothing more than a public audience of the Pope held in the presence of the bishops to hear from his own mouth his instructions and councils and explanations and to hear from their own mouths, their needs and questions.

Another avenue is the Provincial Council, which can be convened by the Metropolitan Archbishop (canon 442) when the majority of bishops in that ecclesiastical province agree (canon 440), and though this can only be done with the approval of the Apostolic See (cf. canon 339), it would be sufficient that one of the claimants to the papacy remain silent, to grant the tacit permission to convene the Synod. In a provincial council, the Metropolitan determines the place, procedures, questions, time of opening and can transfer, prorogue or dissolve the assembly of bishops (canon 442 §1 n. 3). In the case of there being no valid Metropolitan, this can be done by a  validly nominated suffragan Bishop elected by other valid suffragan bishops (canon 442 §2). Canons 443-446 specify how to conduct a Provincial Council.  And it is noteworthy to note, that the Synod of Sutri in 1046 was most likely a Provincial council.

Perhaps the most risky of all solutions, however, would be to await the death of one or the other claimants and allow the Cardinals who recognize Benedict XVI as the true Pope, to meet and make a public declaration for Pope Benedict (when Bergoglio passes away or resigns) or to proceed to elect his successor in a new conclave, depending on the case in question. Though I think that a public declaration by the Cardinals would still require a public confirmation by Pope Benedict XVI or a Synod).

+ + +

CREDITS: The Featured image is that of the doors of the Cathedral of Sutri. All rights reserved by FromRome.Info.

Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke against Globalism & Freemasonry — Part III

FromRome.Info presents here Br. Bugnolo’s authorized English translation of Andrea Cionci’s Article

La possibile ricostruzione del “piano B” di papa Benedetto XVI

which was published by the Libero, on April 6, 2021, in Italian.

Due to the length of the original, FromRome.Info publishes the translation in 4 parts.


A Reconstruction of Ratzinger’s possible Plan B

to cancel the church of Bergoglio with a complete purification of the Church

A Purposefully invalid Resignation? — We investigate the thesis of Attorney Acosta and various theologians

by Andrea Cionci


9. The errors in the Latin

Moreover, the game played was a subtle one: the risk is that the juridical question, upon which the entire plan B is based, is forgotten. This is why in the Declaratio Benedict inserted anomalies which would in time attract attention to the invalidity of the document, most of all two gross errors in the Latin: “pro ecclesiae vitae” (afterwards corrected by the Vatican) and one pronounced by his own voice — “commissum” — alongside the key word: “ministerium”, which should have been the dative form, “commisso”. Moreover, the typo on the hour of 29:00 instead of 20:00: errors purposefully introduced, in addition to invalidating even more the resignation inasmuch as it was not “rite manifestetur”, that is “duly” expressed, as the Code of Canon Law requires (in Canon 332, §2); most of all to concentrate the attention of future readers on the two principle juridical problems of his fake resignation: the renunciation of “ministerium” and the deferment of the renunciation. The plan succeeded: the errors of syntax in the Latin were immediately judged to be “intolerable” by Latinists such as Luciano Canfora and Wilfried Stroh, not to mention Cardinal Ravasi, and made a certain sort of splash in the press, together with the typographical error on the hour it would take effect. HERE

Errors which resulted from haste? Impossible! Ratzinger spent two weeks writing the Declaratio which was looked over in detail by the Secretary of State under the seal of the pontifical secret (i. e. the highest level of Vatican state secrecy). HERE

10. The Farewell at 5:30 P. M.

And so, February 28th arrived and Benedict makes his dramatic helicopter flight (he will say to Seewald in 2016 that this was part of the “stage scenery”) such that everyone will see him abandon the Vatican and, at 5:30 P. M., come out upon the balcony of the papal palace at Castel Gandolfo to bid the world a farewell. He had not casually chosen the hour of 8 P. M. (20:00 hours), the hour in which Italians are all at dinner (in front of the TV), a thing which required him to anticipate the farewell at 5:30 P. M.. There, at Castel Gandolfo, in fact, he speaks precisely: “I will be the pope until 8 P. M. and then no more”.

But then he goes inside, and 8 P. M. arrives, but he signs no document nor makes any public declaration. Some justify this by saying that since at 5:30 P. M. he said that he would no longer be the pope, that sufficed. But they are in error: because by affirming that he would be pope until 8 P. M., he could have very well changed his mind, therefore, his renunciation of ministerium, already in effective from the hour he read his Declaratio, should have been ratified by another signed or public declaration. But this never happened. HERE

11. A concentrate of juridical invalidity

In summary, his Declaratio of a renunciation is absolutely worthless as a resignation, because one cannot renounce an office which has a divine origin by renouncing its administration and, in addition, such a renunciation not duly written, has no juridical value. It’s all a big joke. In fact, Benedict will admit to Seewald that the choice of February 11th for his Declaratio was connected, with an “interior connection”, to the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, a feast of St. Bernadette, the patron saint of his own birthday and with the Mardi Gras Monday. HERE

12. The Mafia of St. Gallen elects an Anti-Pope

The anomalies were seen only by a few and the Mafia of St. Gallen went ahead full steam. Finally, on March 13th, elbowing itself forward with a fifth and irregular balloting, it succeeds in electing its own champion, the Jesuit cardinal, Bergoglio, already looked down upon in Argentina for his methods and his doctrinal extravagances. In this way, there comes to be announced to the world a new pope. Francis comes out, without the red mozzetta (cape), accompanied by Cardinal Daneel: his style is very off the cuff and, in no time, with the complicity of the Main Stream Media, he succeeds in capturing the enthusiastic favor of the crowds. HERE

13. The attack on Catholicism begins

Immediately, he begins a gradual dismantling of Catholic doctrine to adapt it to the container of the new universalist masonic-environmental-modernist religion of the New World Order, openly augured by Bergoglio in his interview with La Stampa on March 15, 2021: “We are wasting this crisis when we close in on ourselves. Instead, by building a new world order based on solidarity …”.

Consequently, it would not surprise if Ratzinger never actually resigned, Bergoglio is an anti-pope. HERE

14. Benedict goes ahead as the Pope

While a portion of normal Catholics (insultingly defined by the Main Stream Media as “traditionalists”) began to react against Bergoglio (and not a few even to speak ill of Ratzinger), Pope Benedict XVI continued to comport himself as a pope in every detail, though without some of the practical offices of his power. In addition to maintaining the white cassock, he continues to live in the Vatican, to use the royal “We”, to sign as the Pontifex Pontificum (Pontiff of Pontiffs), and to impart the Apostolic benediction.

Indeed, even if Ratzinger had made a renunciation of administering the Barque of Peter, every now and then he comes back, signing some book, writing, prayer, or granting an interview, to correct Bergoglio on the celibacy of priests (even if, immediately afterwards, they uproot his favorite vineyard at Castel Gandolfo). HERE

15. The “scientific” ambiguity of the thing

In all his interviews, Ratzinger maintains a low profile and most of all an absolute, scientific double entendre in his words. He never says that he has resigned from the papacy, nor does he say that Francis is the Pope, but throughout 8 years, he has like a standing stone, repeated that “the Pope is only one”. HERE

16. The Main Stream Media’s forced narrative

The Narrative would at all costs have it that the one existing pope of which Benedict speaks is Francis, so much that the newspapers of this party exhausting themselves to construct a narrative upon every cited word, seeking to manipulate the context. In fact, Vatican News on June 27, 2019, opened with the leader, “Benedict XVI: the pope is one, Francis”, reporting however only the personal thoughts of Massimo Franco of the Corriere della Sera. HERE

17. The Mafia of St. Gall unmasks itself

While Bergoglio is devoting himself to his new giant masonic and ultramodernist-globalist church (by daily unmasking himself), in 2015 the “anti-Church” as Mons. Viganò will call it, made a faux pas: Cardinal Godfried Danneels, the primate of Belgium and the central column of the Mafia of St. Gallen (so much so that he flanked Bergoglio, when he came out on the Loggia of St. Peter’s, on the day of his election), confessed candidly in his one autobiography how the modernist lobby aimed to cause Benedict to resign and to propose in his place cardinal Bergoglio. His admissions, confirmed by what was already admitted by the journalist Austen Ivereigh, created an enormous embarrassment and have never been denied. The book of Danneels was sold out (the last used copy for sale on Amazon went for 206 euro!) but has never been republished, nor translated into Italian. The Belgian Cardinal exited the stage and died a year later. HERE

18. The defense attempted by Mons. Sciacca

In the August of 2016, Mons. Giuseppe Sciacca, the top canonist at the Vatican, in an interview with Andrea Tornielli, sustained that the resignation of Ratzinger was valid because munus and ministerium are, for a pope, indivisible. A self-contradicting argument which shows precisely how Ratzinger could not have resigned by resigning only the ministerium. In fact, the history of popes in the first millennium of the Church shows that they have at times resigned from the exercise of papal power while remaining popes, especially in the case of rival anti-popes. HERE

19. Benedict’s reply to Mons. Sciacca

Three weeks later, Ratzinger, publishes a veiled response in his letter to the Corriere della Sera, taking occasion from the recent book of his interviews by Seewald, entitle, “Last Conversations”, in which he exhorts the readers by saying that he himself is an optimum latinist and that he wrote with his own hand the Declaration in Latin so as not to make any errors.

An absurdity, given that there are errors which have been publicly corrected by famous Latinists immediately after his Declaratio. This is one of those many signals of apparent incoherence which Benedict sends to the outside world precisely to recall attention to the juridical problems in his “resignation”. And so the entire interview with the Corriere della Sera can be interpreted in the exact opposite sense. HERE

The Perpetua Supplica to Our Lady Salus Populi Romani

Last night, a group of Roman Catholics gathered in front of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, to pray with Br. Bugnolo, the Perpetual Supplica.  Many thanks to Roberto, who transmitted the prayers live on his FaceBook page. — Please join the Catholics at Rome, each midnight, Rome Time (6 PM NYC time) praying the Supplica to obtain from Our Lady the grace to cause the church of darkness to collapse and Pope Benedict XVI to be restored.  We do not have long to wait. But more of us need to pray.

Many ask Br. Bugnolo why he no longer transmits the prayers. His answer is, “I want every one, outside of Rome, to pray at home, as Jesus taught, with the doors to their room shut, where only God sees. For those, at Rome, I want them all to come in person and show that they truly believe in God and trust in Our Lady.  Only in this way are our prayers worthy of being heard.”