by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
We are living in a very peculiar age in the history of the Catholic Church. As readers of FromRome.Info, from February 11, 2013 until December 31, 2022, the Catholic Church was caught up in a program of mass confusion which broke out over the terms of Canon 332 §2, which reads as follows:
Canon 332 § 2. — Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestatur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptatur.
Which in English is:
Canon 332 § 2. — If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus, for validity there is required that the renunciation be made freely and be manifested duly (rite), but not that it be accepted by anyone at all.
Here “rite” means in accord with due procedure: “rite” being the Latin word for “according to the ritual”.
This controversy was very easy to understand, since you only had to understand that the Law declared a renunciation of the Petrine munus valid, if the pope renounced the munus freely and duly. But the gaslighters of the Masonic Globalist New World Order wanted that you did not see the word “munus”, or if you did that you understood it as “ministerium” or ministry, as their falsified translations at the Vatican attempted to make it appear. — You can read our collection of articles on this controversy at “The Index to Pope Benedict XVI’s Renunciation“, which is the only collection still in existence after Andrea Cionci’s blog was erased from the internet two days before Pope Francis’ death. FromRome.Info was the leading publication which covered that debate and was mentioned in other publications the world over.
But now ahead in time, we go backwards in the Code for a new controversy
So it’s kind of amazing, that just two years later the Church is involved in another controversy, and this time about the previous paragraph of the same Canon in the Code of Canon Law of Pope John Paul II, published in 1983, Canon 332 §1. That paragraph reads:
Can. 332 — § 1. Plenam et supremam in Ecclesia potestatem Romanus Pontifex obtinet legitima electione ab ipso acceptata una cum episcopali consecratione. Quare, eandem potestatem obtinet a momento acceptationis electus ad summum pontificatum, qui episcopali charactere insignitus est. Quod si charactere episcopali electus careat, statim ordinetur Episcopus.
Which in English is,
Can. 332 — § 1.The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme authority in the Church by legitimate election accepted by him together with episcopal consecration. Wherefore, the elect, who has been marked out with the episcopal character, obtains the same authority from the moment of his acceptation regarding the the Supreme Pontificate, Wherefore, if the elect lacks the episcopal character, let him be immediately ordained a Bishop.
For today the controversy is about another single word, “legitima”, in the Latin, which means “legitmate” in English. And the gaslighting supporters of the Masonic Globalist Order have the same arguments: they want you not to see the word, “legitima”, and want you to understand as “universally accepted”, a term which they further constraint to mean, “accepted by us and all the fools we have fooled”.
But if a pope be elected illegitimately, then clearly according to Canon 332 §1, he is not the pope. And a man who claims to be pope without a legitimate election is an antipope.
This is why when the Cardinals decided to allow 133 Electors to vote, contrary to the law, and elected a man who previously had deviated from the Catholic Faith, they violated two laws (John Paul II’s Law and Pope Paul IV’s law) and thus made the election of Prevost invalid, null, irritus and juridically illegitimate.
Also, it is important to note that Pope John Paul II recognizes that what is important is that the election be juridically valid. Because in Canon 332 §1, he did not use the term “legally” (legale) which would refer only to his law for papal elections, Universi Dominic Gregis, but “legitimate”, a term which comprises all the existing laws, rights, canons which pertain to the election of a Roman Pontiff. Indeed, we know this is the correct reading of that Canon because in his papal law, which I just named, in paragraph n. 4, he explicitly states that during a sedevacante, ALL ecclesiastical laws regarding the election of a Roman Pontiff remain in force and NONE can be done away with by any means whatsoever.
Being a faithful Catholic requires that we accept the laws of the Church and defend them against anyone of any dignity who should attempt to violate them. These last 12 years have been a momentous moment in the life of the Church to out who are faithful and who are unfaithful.
Let us not fail to rise to the occasion and remain faithful!
Finally, we should keep in mind how serious all of this is, for to adhere to a man as the Pope, who was not legitimately elected, one is actively and FORMALLY participating in a usurpation and act of schism. And when this involves a claimant to the papacy who is a manifest heretic, it also involves treachery to Christ Jesus as Supreme Teacher. These are both damnable sins, that is, if you commit them there is absolutely no way to be forgiven in this life or the next, if you die in them without repentance.
+ + +
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!
+ + +
Prevost’s actions in the very short time he has claimed to hold tenure must surely make even the slowest thinking Catholics at the very least feel uneasy.
The question concerns the final part of the article.
Is it true that we cannot attend Mass in which Leo XIV is mentioned as pope because we commit the sins listed there?
So, practically speaking, we no longer have access to Mass, as almost 100% of the clergy celebrate Mass in communion with Leo XIV?!
This is a serious question, and I do not propose my opinion has having any authority. But since the clergy and the Sacraments were instituted by Our Lord Who foreknew all things, and since most priests do not know of the problems in the Conclave, especially in countries where there is no knowledge of Latin or a good translation into a local language, I do not think that when they name Leo XIV in the canon, that it means anything that regards a willingness to be in schism or to participate in heresy. For in absolute ignorance every Catholic would name the pope which most think is the pope as the pope. It’s the duty of those who know to make the truth known, but for those of us who are not priests or bishops, and have no where to go but to ignorant priests, I do not think Our Lord would hold it against us, because He knows we go to them to meet Him not to communicate in their errors. However, once there are priests in our area who name the true pope and the false pope, we have the duty to receive the sacraments from the priests who name the true Pope. In fact, in the present circumstances, the first things I will bring to the attention of the Catholic Pope is to issue some document explaining to Catholics like yourself what is to be done And in additionn to this he will have to act quickly to authorize clergy in the whole world to bring the sacraments to the faithful. That is why I think his greatest duty will have to be to consecrate 5000+ Catholic bishops, because I do not think the men who currently are our Bishops have the moral integrity to ever leave aside communion with Prevost.
Thank you Brother!
Many thanks for this helpful advice & commentary. As you can imagine, it is a very delicate task, to bring to the attention of those priests who kindly offer diocesan-approved TLMs, the realities of the invalid May conclave and the fake-papacy of Cdl Prevost……especially if some or many of those priests have already had a warning from their bishop or their Bishops’ Conference about the “dangers” of FromRome.info & OMC Radio TV……?!
St Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits in the 16th-century, pray for us.
[He must have been “turning in his grave” for many decades but, especially, since the 2013 catastrophe of antipope Bergoglio……]
What if we wrote a letter to our Bishop, who was consecrated under Bergolio, explaining how Prevost is an Antipope? He can not claim ignorance.
You can do that, in fact, do a petition and get dozens of people who live in his diocese to sign it. Will it make a difference. God only knows, at this point. But if you modify the letter to a Cardinal, it would be easy to have a text to send him.