Only Modernists name Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Modernism is the refined atheism of the unbelieving cleric — as one Catholic English novelist penned about a century ago. And this maxim proves true today.

Many have railed against modernism in traditional or conservative circles, but many have ended up practicing modernism with a satanic devotion.

Modernism ignores or denies that God exists, but it is sufficient to ignore God to act like an atheist.

The Modernist acts as if God did not exist or does not make a difference. The modernist in practice will say it does not matter a cause is just or for the Catholic Faith, because he holds that in practice there is no power but the power of men and devils.

For this reason, I charge all who name Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass as the Pope as modernists.  And I can establish the charge as valid because:

1, They act as if Christ never said, “Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound in Heaven” to St Peter and His Successors.  Now clearly the Scriptures testify that Christ said this. So either they must not believe Christ existed or think that Scriptures contain myths, or that Christ is imaginary and does not know or care what is in Canon Law.

2. They act as if the hierarchical structure of the Church without Peter is everything, and that the Church with Peter is nothing if it lacks the hierarchy.  But this is clearly contrary to the Catholic faith, so either they do not have faith, or they do not believe there is a Divinely given and willed Petrine Office.

3. They act as if in the worship of God it is irrelevant if the one offering is honest or not, in the state of grace or not, or blasphemes or insults God to His Face during it.  Now this can only be if they do not believe God exists at all.

4. They act as if words have no objective meaning other than the consensus of men, such that there is no objective meaning of any law and thus no real crime or sin, other than by the consensus of men. But this denies that the moral order exists outside of the human mind, and thus it denies that God exists or is a Spiritual Being who is Truth and regards truth and justice alone.

5. They do not give a damn about the salvation of souls understood in the way the Church has always preached and sought it. They think the most important religious act is publicly professing yourself to be righteous, so they insist you keep receiving Communion regardless of your state of soul or their state of soul. Whether you are a public sinner by sodomy or divorce or being in communion with a heretic who approves these, it does not matter. The only thing that matters is that on Sunday you show yourself to be a hypocrite.

And such are the sins of those who name Bergoglio, the manifest, public, pertinacious heretic and uncanonically elected fraud. Because Benedict XVI never renounced in accord with canon 332, Benedict is still the Pope and Bergoglio never was.

But these mock God to His Face during mass and offer their spotted damnable sacrifice of praise in the name of a man who reigns over a hotel of prostitutes and thieves. This is to spit in the Face of the Living God. And they have the boldness to call you a sinner if you do NOT join them in doing the same!

And none of these can be excused because of the fear of losing friends, paycheck, approbation etc., because no one can place any created thing or even all created things before the Living God in importance.

Modernists are thus the perfect servants and preachers of the Antichrist, because they exalt the denial of Christ over loyalty to Christ.  They may not do this yet with words, but they do it loudly with actions.

33 thoughts on “Only Modernists name Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass”

  1. Brilliant and spot on. And ignorance is no excuse, and neither is obedience. May God preserve you to speak Truth to lukewarm effeminate error!

  2. Again, to put it in simple terms. Today I have three realistic choices within sane driving distance.

    1. SSPX – independent small local chapel. This is not under the local diocese, it is under SSPX national.

    2. Latin Mass held in a diocese Church, under Pope Francis, that specifically mentions him as such.

    3. regular Mass.

    Your thoughts please Br. Alexis?

    1. I chose 4. Attend mass with a priest in communion with Pope Benedict XVI, where and when he can be found, and when he cannot, stay home and say the Rosary.

      1. This is what my husband and I do. We have a private Traditional Chapel we attend that the priest is only able to come once a month, and he knows Benedict is the true Pope. All other Sundays we stay home and pray the Rosary, which we pray daily regardless.

    1. As much as I admire his courage, I’m not yet convinced Fr Altman has the insight to recognize a) the intrinsic necessity of Catholic Faith & Communion (sacramental, as well as obedience) for salvation’s sake; b) the illegitimacy of the Bergoglio Imbroglio. I wish I knew how to access his person since his being rendered a nomad.

      1. Even though I voted for Trump. He left, the Military surrounded the White House in support of Biden. Trump is now pushing the Vaccine. Father Altman, a huge supporter of Trump, has not said anything about this. Trump was booed for this In Alabama. I fear many of these so called Traditional Priest mistake Americanism for Catholicism, while being very critical of Pope Benedict XVI, they cheerlead Trump, who we see is another NWO boy.

  3. I agree with the idea that the Church can carry on just fine without Peter is an error that most trads have. If you read the Catholic Encyclopedia you read that the source of the Church’s indefectibility is the pope. But on the other hand a church gathered around a counterfeit rock is not indefectible.

    R and R trads destroy the papacy to save Bergoglio. Why do we even need a pope if he can himself become the gates of hell. Did Christ put Peter in charge just so the Church has an administrative office that can be ignored at will or because Peter has the grace of a never-failing faith?

  4. We have a problem. My research today says the changes PF made October 1 2017 changed the Consecration such that it was no longer valid as of that time. It is finished.

  5. I might be technically an atheist, but I consider myself a man of faith and principles. Though the words and vocabulary have been assaulted and perverted by the globalists, to which labels and words do not often mean what they’re defined by, and to where the lines get blurred (on purpose); I do however, share the same sentiments towards those globalist, ‘modernist’ ‘progressives’… even though my understanding, interpretations and correspondent course of action might defer in theory and practice – but, rest assured, not in spirit.
    I respect your cause, and salute your dedication. Ultimately, we might have different views, but we do however share the same understanding of the threat that the world is currently is in. On the other hand, it is in these times of turmoil, where one’s resolve and faith is tested.
    The truth always prevails, and you guys are on the right side of history.
    Keep the faith!

    Sincerely,
    A stranger

  6. I just had a disturbing thought.

    Are we sure that “the man of perdition” refers to the antichrist? Judas, the betrayer of Christ, is known as the “son of perdition”. Is it saying that the end will not come until the traitor of the Church is revealed?

    Didn’t the Jews not see prophecy being fulfilled in front of their eyes? They had their own timelines and ended up killing Christ. Are we waiting for the antichrist to sit in the Vatican?

    1. Yes, in the singular definitive sense, “the man of perdition” is the Antichrist, because his damnation was seen from eternity.

  7. So you’re staying that since no one commemorates Benedict we are to stay home frome mass? Is this not in violation of Can. 1246 and therefore puts you into mortal sin? How can this be squared away with times pass when the identity of the Pope was in question and even had Saints divided?

    How is this any different from the “pandemic masses” that allowed for “online mass” and “dispensations”?

    How will new marriages form?

    1. Canon 1246 cannot be fulfilled by attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered by a heretic, schismatic or apostate, who in virtue of canon 1364 is no longer a member of the Church. The Mass does not exist as an instrument of ecclesial communion when it is offered by someone who is not in communion. Our duty is first to be in communion, then to attend mass with a priest who is in communion, and then if we are in the state of grace and properly disposed to receive Communion. Break this proper order and you commit mortal sin and will be damned forever.

      No, there is only one definition of “being in communion” with the True God, to be in communion with Christ’s true Vicar on Earth. Not an uncanonically elected, public heretic, apostate and pagan. Rather, with Pope Benedict XVI who remains God’s sole vicar until he renounces in accord with canon 332.2 or passes away. That is our duty. We have no right to do anything else.

      1. So what about Catholics who still attened mass during the reign of Antipope Anacleto II? I still see nothing that qualifies me to dispense from attending mass under pain of mortal sin and in good conscience will not stop attending mass, especially when the identity of the Pope has been in question before and I’ve seen nothing that has instructed Catholics to not go to mass. Not even from a Saint. Guess we’ll see at our last judgment who was right and I’ll take my chances by still following canon law and attending the FSSPX. Even if they are truly misguided at this particular point in time just like other Catholics have been before in Church history.

      2. Well, if you go to judgement having made a decision on the basis of nothing but your own opinion, then you will not find anyone pleading for you. As for the Great Schism, St. Vincent Ferrer preached all throughout the Kingdom of Aragon against the rival pope and told everyone in no uncertain terms that if they remained in communion with him, they would be damned. He did this at the request of the King of Aragon and the Pope of Avignon, who lied to him. He worked many miracles in his life, but is now forgotten by the whole Church, because he never had the precision of zeal to inquire who was the real pope and believed everything his friends told him. When he found out who was the true Pope, during a council held in Toulouse, if I remember correctly, he went voluntarily into exile so that he would not have to show his face to another country man again. So let me be so bold as to say, in the hour of judgement St. Vincent will take Satan’s side and let him strip your soul and take it to hell, saying, “You had all the evidence but rejected it, but I only was lazy and had none of the evidence and did not seek it. I repented of what I did and so the Lord forgave me, but you died in your sin….”

      3. “Editor
        SEPTEMBER 7, 2021 AT 5:40 AM
        Well, if you go to judgement having made a decision on the basis of nothing but your own opinion, …”

        In Roman Catholic moral theology, a mortal sin requires that all of the following conditions are met:

        Its subject matter must be grave. (The term “grave sin” is used at times to indicate grave matter, and at times to indicate mortal sin. But it always remains true that the following two conditions are requisite for mortal sin.)

        It must be committed with full knowledge (and awareness) of the sinful action and the gravity of the offense.

        It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent

        ~wiki

        (one would think that it’s precisely one’s opinion that determines whether or not a sin is “mortal”)…

      4. Fonzie, you are incorrect. The Imputability OF A MORTAL sin (qua malum volutum) requires the above three conditions, the sin (qua malum factum) itself can be an objectively disordered act, lacking full knowledge or deliberation. For example in the heat of anger you take a pistol that you think is not loaded and fire it at your friend and he dies. You have committed murder, in the moral sense. It is deliberate and premeditated but not the the entire extend of willing it with certainly. The haste to avoid checking the gun was not loaded proceeded from the anger which was willed and increases culpability. But morally, that is before God, you are not guilty of murder, even though the State should punish you as a murderer or homicide, as the technical term be, because your anger led you to omit the safety precaution so you did in fact will the death of your friend by gunfire, because you willed it in its causes.

        Just so, those who know Benedict renounced ministerium, when the law required munus, but who go to a mass where Bergoglio is held to be the Pope, will an act of schism and sacrilege, not directly, but in its causes, by consenting to everything which occurs Many do not realize that the presence of ones body at an act of the sin of another is a form of consent, when you freely can leave. Those who think that their personal right to receive the Sacrament of the Altar cancels their personal duty never to participate in a public sin are totally ignorant of the Christian faith, in which Our Lord requires first of all public unequivocal witness to the truth.

      5. i had spaces between phrases in my comment which seem to have disappeared. My comment is this part:

        (one would think that it’s precisely one’s opinion that determines whether or not a sin is “mortal”)…

      6. Thank you, brother…

        i’ve always seen it presented as “serious” sin which then becomes “mortal” only if & when the 3 conditions are met. It still remains “serious” regardless of whether or not conditions are met. (but practically speaking, wouldn’t this call into question whether or not jones is culpable?)

      7. Serious is not a category of sin, in theological manuals. Grave, venial, Mortal are the proper terms.

      8. Sorry, brother, it seems we’re playing “computer tag”. (i didn’t initially get the tail end of your comment referring to the situation at hand, b16) What do you make of the comment at the bottom of the page? Here’s the relevant part:
        “When this discussion came up in June, I emailed a priest who does recognize Pope Benedict, but whose position was that until the Church officially declares Francis an antipope, in other words, Masses in communion with him schismatic, the faithful can still go.”

        (it seems like a catch 22 to me; the church under bergoglio will never “declare francis an antipope”)

      9. One of my points got lost… i’ve always seen it as being referred to as “serious” sin which only becomes “mortal” once the 3 conditions are met.

      1. In Roman Catholic moral theology, a mortal sin requires that all of the following conditions are met:

        1-Its subject matter must be grave. (The term “grave sin” is used at times to indicate grave matter, and at times to indicate mortal sin. But it always remains true that the following two conditions are requisite for mortal sin.)

        2-It must be committed with full knowledge (and awareness) of the sinful action and the gravity of the offense.

        3-It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent

        ~ wikipedia

        (brother alex, i sure miss your wordpress… 😉)

  8. It is a very, very hard job to convince people who claim they recognize Pope Benedict, to act on that, as you have. Occasional reminders are necessary. Thank you for taking the trouble.

    When this discussion came up in June, I emailed a priest who does recognize Pope Benedict, but whose position was that until the Church officially declares Francis an antipope, in other words, Masses in communion with him schismatic, the faithful can still go. I asked him if, by what I understood to be his logic, we could also go to sedevacantist Masses. He never answered. (I would no sooner go to a sede Mass than a Bergoglian one.)

    My imperfect understanding of schisms is that they’re perpetuated by people’s loyalty to the individual priests and bishops that they’ve seen with their own eyes over a period of time sufficient to win their trust. This is an increasingly serious problem the further one is from Rome.

    The fact that the SSPX took it upon themselves to grant ‘annulments’ is another major obstacle for anyone who’s availed himself of one of those. If the SSPX can be wrong about Pope Benedict, what might that mean about their marital status?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.