by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As readers of FromRome.Info know, one of my pass-times is poking the self-declared ex-CIA Agent, Steve O’Reilley, who pontificates at “Roma Locuta est”, blog, a name he appears to have chosen for deep psychological reasons. The Latin phrase means “Rome has spoken”, which is a frequent maxim used in doctrinal or disciplinary tracts to cite the supreme authority of the Apostolic See. But taken crudely, it means “Shut up”, when used by persons who perhaps should not have even studied theology only a little bit, because the most dangerous thing in the world is only to know a little of something.

And as my readers know, Steve always get’s it wrong. I myself cannot figure out whether he is simply stupid or intentionally malicious, though I side on the Latter, since he is only consistent in being wrong, even when he must break the laws of logic to do it, or misquote the laws of the Church to engineer it.

I hate falsehood, so even though Stevie’s blog is read by no one, I give him the respect of refuting his more egegious lies for the benefit of my readers, because what Stevie launches today, usually ends up being repeated by the “fake opposition” media, who will say anything so long as you shut up and accept whatever Globalist agenda or leader is imposed on the world, today.

His latest screed is an attack on Dr. Mazza, attempting to slur him as a sedevacantist, which he is having a hard time doing, despite his lies, and instead has settled for coining a new slur-word, “Semivacantist”:

I will not wade through all the bovine like argumentation in this article, but am only going to refute the lies Stevie launches against the Papal Bull of Pope Paul IV, “Cum ex apostolatus officio”.

And I will not attempt to refute the charge that the Bull is an infallible act of the magisterium, because anyone who reads it, can clearly see it is a disciplinary document. But that it is a disciplinary document from nearly 475 years ago, does not mean it is no longer in force, as I have explained in my two essays on this bull from back in 2015, here, and here.

You can read the key part of the Bull which applies to the invalidity of the election of Cardinal Riggitano-Prevost, here, where you can also find links to the Latin and other translations in English, Italian and Spanish.

Stevie’s Citation does not exist in the 1917 Code of Canon Law

I will open by saying that if nothing else, Stevie is sneaky when he launches a lie. And in this case it is prove true, where he writes, the following (click to enlarge):

+++

As you can see he quotes a secondary source, rather than the Code of Canon Law of 1917, in which the source he cites claims that there is a prescription in canon 5 § 2, that abolishes the Papal Bull.

The problem is, that Canon 5 in the Code of Canon Law of 1917, does not have a § 2! Here is Canon 5, from the original Latin (IntraTex version):

Can. 5. Vigentes in praesens contra horum statuta canonum consuetudines sive universales sive particulares, si quidem ipsis canonibus expresse reprobentur, tanquam iuris corruptelae corrigantur, licet sint immemorabiles, neve sinantur in posterum reviviscere; aliae, quae quidem centenariae sint et immemorabiles, tolerari poterunt, si Ordinarii pro locorum ac personarum adiunctis existiment eas prudenter submoveri non posse; ceterae suppressae habeantur nisi expresse Codex aliud caveat.

Here is my English translation:

Canon 5. Existing customs, whether universal or particular, against the statutes of these Canons, if indeed they are reproved of by these Canons expressly, are to be corrected as corruption of law, even though they be immemorial, and let them not be allowed to revive hereafter; others, which indeed are centenary and immemorial, can be tolerated, if Ordinaries for the sake of those things adjoined to places and persons prudently judge that they cannot be removed; all others are to be held suppressed unless the Code expressly warns otherwise.

But since the Papal Bull of Paul IV is not a custom, but a papal law, it obviously not only has nothing to do with Canon 5, but is not suppressed (abrogated) by it.

But Stevie’s claim is just as False as his citation

So Stevie, who often quotes original sources, has chosen to quote a source which is wrong. That is what I call sneaky.

I think the canon he wants you to think he is citing, in the Code of 1917, is canon 6 § 5, which reads in the Latin:

5.deg. Quod ad poenas attinet, quarum in Codice nulla fit mentio, spirituales sint vel temporales, medicinales vel, ut vocant, vindicativae, latae vel ferendae sententiae, eae tanquam abrogatae habeantur;

Which in English, according to my translation is:

§ 5, What pertains to the punishments, of which nothing is mentioned in the Code, (whether) they be spiritual and/or temporal, medicinal and/or, as they say, vindictive, latae sententiae and/or with declared judgements, let them be held as abrogated.

But even here the argument would be fallacious, because in n. 6 of the Papal Bull no punishment is imposed, rather, the Pope merely declares the juridical validity of an otherwise valid legal act, null and void.

In Canon law, a punishment (poena) is a sanction imposed for a crime, and since being otherwise validly elected is not a crime, this abrogation has nothing to do with it. Moreover, Heresy as a crime is defined in both the 1917 and 1983 codes as an act contrary to an existing law, but clearly if there were such an existing law, Pope Paul IV would have cited it.

Moreover, it would be inauthentic to interpret the Bull as regarding the crime of heresy, because when Pope Paul IV declares invalid the election of anyone found to have favored heresy or spoken in a manner contrary to the Catholic Faith, given that the revealed and approved of truths of the Catholic Faith are quasi innumerable, and laws are finite in number, the context demonstrates he is not speaking of “crimes” in the juridical sense of the Church’s positive law (written law).

Indeed, it is clear from the entire context of the Papal Bull of Paul IV, in n. 6, that he is speaking of the sin of heresy, not the crime, for otherwise, the individual who won the election could be denounced for the crime and thus removed from office by secular authority, as some Greek or German Emperors did with antipopes, and Paul IV could simply have authorized that manner of procedure.

This is the brilliance and importance of what Pope Paul IV legislated in n. 6, as it grants to the Church, even to the present days, the legal right to defend Herself from all possibility of a heretic pope, even if his heresy has not yet been defined as such in any Council or tribunal, because since the Church must be protected from all deviations from Divine Revelation, it is absolutely necessary that no Pope be someone who rejects any part of that. And it is not hard, because in Baptism we all received this grace. Only those who have spoken against one or more revealed truths have lost it.

I know how much that runs against the CIA narrative, since it has been their objective since 1953 to introduce heresy to the Church so as to destroy Her from within. Thus, attacking the Bull of Paul IV is absolute necessity for these servants of Satan.

You quote Bellarmine? Come on …!

As regards Stevie’s claim that St. Robert Bellarmine allegedly spoke against a Papal Law, I totally doubt it, because he would have been prosecuted in a tribunal for it. But even if he has opined against it at the theoretical level, he was never a Pope, and has no authority to do away with a papal law by a mere opinion. Indeed claiming a Saint would do such a thing is totally Masonic and CIA like form of projecting your own perversion of mind on others. — As for the implicit claim that this Papal Bull cannot promulgate such a law, since such a law would cause chaos in the Church. Well, it has been 466 years and no Chaos has broken out in the Church on account of this law. Indeed, it’s clear that the law itself prevents heretical chaos breaking out, if Catholics unite to enforce it by insisting on the election of a Catholic.

Ratio iuris divinae et ecclesiasticae perpetuae

And if we look at the Papal Bull from the point of view of the Divine Right of the Church to be protected from heretics, and to have a Catholic as a Pope, since this right cannot be abolished since it is inherent in the Deposit of the Faith, what Paul IV is simply doing is legislating on the basis of this right, to clarify when precisely it most clearly exists and is in perpetual force. Thus, Catholics should presumptively doubt that the Church would ever abolish such a right, nay, it would be highly improbable that any law attempting to abolish such a right would meet the criterion for a just law, according to the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, as an ordinance of right reason for the benefit of the community.

Again, this perpetual right of Divine and Ecclesiastical ordinance is an intimate guarantor of the infallible dogma of Papal Infallibility, and is concordant with it, since it balances, as it were, the claim that the Pope cannot err, with the right of the faithful not to have a heretic as pope, since by this law, no heretic could ever become the pope in an election governed by any papal law, in anything other than appearances, even if all the Cardinals and Bishops of the world, but a handful, follow such a heretic and want such a heretic.

Catholics of the past understood these things, and were able to act upon them spontaneously and immediately, because they were not plugged into the Matrix of Masonic lies and technology, which make it appear that if we remain at our keyboards or cellphones, we absolve ourselves of all responsibility for any real action in the real world.

For the record, Catholics at Rome are urging the election of a Catholic Pope, and you can read about that here.

How Apostolic Right and Papal Right differ tremendously

As for why an election by Apostolic Right is not bound by this papal law, this is because as soon as any election is governed by papal law, it is no longer by Apostolic Right; not to mention that this law explicitly refers to Cardinals, and thus regards an election in Conclave, and could not be extended to any other institutional electorate without Papal intervention.

Moreover, since the Apostle Saint Peter has more grace before Christ Jesus, the High Priest, than any Pope, while a pope can promulgate a law regarding a papal election, as soon as any pope does this, the election is not guaranteed the entirety of the favor which Christ bestows on St. Peter, as we see in the case of Pope Vigilius, who was an adherent of Monothelitism, before his election, but was converted on the spot, because he was elected by Apostolic Right, not by papal law.

For this reason, Pope Paul IV, cognizant that popes are not the equals of the Apostle, declares a perpetual right of the Church to refuse a heretic if elected under the rules of papal right.

This is why it is precisely those who know a man is a heretic but refuse to support the election of a Catholic who are guilty most of all if he be elected by Apostolic Right, since they force not only the electorate but Christ Himself to deal with a man who is disgusting to the Divine Majesty.

We saw this in January of 2023, when Stevie slurred what Catholics were to do at Rome as a “conclave”, and all the so-called “defenders” of Pope Benedict XVI, except the electorate the readers of FromRome.Info, immediately began using the same CIA-coined slur, showing both their adhesion to the Deep State and their radical hatred of the office of Saint Peter.

To this day they are all possessed with the most horrible hatred that the juridical order of the Church was restored, on that day, while every day proving they never had any good will, since none of them singly, nor any of them in concert with another, has ever done anything to see that Pope Benedict XVI have a valid successor. Indeed, their followers are the most bitter trolls and enemies, on all social media platforms, of the upcoming election of a Catholic pope.

For this reason, I refute Stevie’s lies now, lest this fake rabble start repeating them to justify their proven habitual hypocrisy. They will, because an abyss invokes another abyss. And true Catholics never even start down such a path of perfidy.

+ + + + + + +

The Book on the Trinity, every faithful Catholic priest would love as his next present

This is Br. Bugnolo's English Translation, of Saint Bonaventure's encylopedic book of theology on the Trinity: With this book, your priest will always have something intelligent and awesomely inspiring to preach to you about God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!

+ + +

This fund was started by Ordo Militaris Catholicus, an international relief organization founded by Br. Bugnolo and AJ Baalman. Click the image for more information.

+ + +