31 thoughts on “The illegal Conclave has given birth to the Church of the Antichrist”

1. “…by perpetual anathema with his promoters and supporters and followers…”
   Brother Bugnolo, would being present at a Mass where the antipope’s name is presented as the true pope make those in attendance followers?

   Reply

   1. The Catholic Pope has to decide that. I do not think it is so, if there is no MASS or clergy in your area who are in communion with the true pope.

      Reply

      1. Is the mass in communion with an iilicit pope ilicit then? Fr Ripperger said it is the true pope’ s job to rule this out, not ours. So then should I attend such a mass sincer there is no other ?

      2. Your question is very broad, because you appear to be asking about all masses at present. Second, your question is not made in correct form, since you use the phrase, “illicit pope”, which is a self-contradiction.

         Any exercise of priestly office or ministry has to be authorized by the local ordinary or the Church. In common ignorance of fact or law, a priest’s mass would be licit. Let us say that he thinks he is in the Diocese were he has faculties to say mass, but he is actually 10 ft outside of the Diocese.

         But if he knows he is outside of the Diocese, his mass would only be licit for the first 3 days, since in Church law, that is the general rule for traveling priests.

         But there are many other things which would make an otherwise licit mass, illicit, such as in the Roman Rite using leavened bread rather than unleavened bread, or saying Mass without the proper priestly liturgical vestments. For example, there are priests who say mass wearing only the Alb and Stole, not the Chasuble.

         And we must also distinguish between a violation of moral right from a violation of legal right or a violation of divine right. So the priest of the Roman Rite who says mass in his diocese using leavened bread, and wearing a chausalble, could still say an illicit mass, if for example, he offered it to promote the gay agenda.

         Also, the question of “in communion with” is not so easy to answer, because for a Bergoglian heretic this term means one thing in regard to Prevost, and another in regard to a Catholic Pope.

         This being said, what I said above in the article is about all that can be said at this point, because many priests are ignorant because no one is telling them and because they failed to pay attention to the historical circumstances; many know something is wrong, and are investigating; many know what is wrong, but are afraid to speak out. Nearly all of them do not even know that at Rome many Catholics never accepted Prevost’s election as valid and are organizing the election of a Catholic Pope in accord with their rights declared by Pope Nicholas II.

         But as time passes and all become more informed, then priests will have to make a decision.

         Priests who celebrate in the novus ordo never have to say, “in communion with” as you can see here
         https://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/RM3-EP1-4.htm

         Those who say Mass in the Old Rite, and who know enough Latin to know what they are doing, should know enough latin to read Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 4 and know the Conclave had no valid result. So they are going to be held to greater responsibility by the Lord. But in the Old Rite, they say, “una cum”, they do not say, “in communion with”, so they might not intend by those two latin words this same thing.

         So to sum up, since at present there is at present no Catholic canonically elected Pope, but 99% of the Clergy do not know that, certainly not all of their masses are illicit for this reason (= since they name Prevost in the canon), nor are all licit for this reason (= ignorance).

         But, the important question for us who are not clergy is rather, “If my priest has denounced the errors of Pope Francis and is ignorant of the illegal circumstances of the recent conclave, can I attend his masses if he names Leo?”, I would say yes. But I would also say you have a duty to inform him. And also, understand, because the climate of bitter persecution, begun by Bergoglio, is that he may not explain himself to you, to avoid any repercussions.

         For example, I know a priest at Rome, who reads FromRome.Info. When he says the Mass, he says, ” For our Pope ………. Leo”, leaving a very noticeable silence every time he offers mass. I presume he is saying in his own mind during that silence “which may or may not be”, or something like that.

         The more important question is, “Are we obliged to attend Mass which names the wrong man as the Pope?” And the answer is no, we are not obliged. “Can we attend such a Mass at present before the election of a true pope?”, If the priest is not a bergoglian heretic, I would say that yes you can, but you must studiously avoid responding to petitions for “Pope Leo”, which might be made during the prayers of the Faithful.

2. With St. Pontian and Hippolytus’ feast day just the other day, on the 13th, I’m now looking into the work of Hippolytus after reading this post today. Have you read any of his works?

   https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0516.htm

   This came about because our planned trip to Einsiedeln next month. It struck me to see that Pontian was exiled there for a time.

   Reply

   1. Saint Hippolytus was the first antipope, and in the end he repented. I have read some excerpts of his writings, but his writings, which were all written before his repentance, were generally considered heretical and never used by the Fathers or Doctors of the Church before Vatican II.

      Reply

3. Hello Brother,

   Would I receive a grace if I convince people to stop attending Novus Ordo and TL Mass held to an antipope? I have no evidence yet our bishop is Deep State, only claims by a Trad Inc. Priests that he embezzled funds.

   Reply

   1. The thing is, that we should say that the Conclave had no juridical result and explain why that is. And leave those who hear us draw out the conclusion. By Christmas, God willing, we will have a Catholic Pope, and then that will cause a lot of Catholics to think more critically about the claims of the Conclave of 2025.

      Reply

4. Please forgive me if I missed where you might already have addressed this: I wonder how the conclave this year might have been conducted lawfully given so many cardinals.

   Assuming they all wanted to do it lawfully, how could they have limited the ballots to 120? Could they perhaps have asked for volunteers to exclude themselves? Or could they have allowed as many ballots as there were cardinals present and then only have counted 120 of them?

   Thanks in advance.

   Reply

   1. Yes, I mentioned it in passing back in May. They would have to have either voluntarily excluded 13 in each round, or in the General Congregation used their authority to interpret to exclude the 13 men made cardinals last by Pope Francis in the Consistory of December 2024.

      Also, they would have had to elect a Catholic as the pope, that is someone who never publicly agreed with Pope Francis’s heresies or publicly disagreed with them.

      But these men are so blinded by desire and sin that it was morally impossible for them to conduct the election. That is what Pope Benedict XVI indicated when he said, “those who are competent” (Declaratio) and in his postumous book, “the bishops now de facto no longer act as Catholics”.

      Reply

      1. Thank you.

5. Happened again(!) Usually, Brother, the comment posts saying it’s awaiting moderation, but after two attempts, nothing. (i even tried a “test” which did work) Let me know that you received the link to the Red Symphony in the event that it doesn’t post. Thank you, it’s been an honor to be of service to you…

   Reply

   1. Remember, that comments only appear when I individually approve them, which could be up to 12 hours later, since I am at Rome and my readers stretch from New Zealand to Hawaii.

      Reply

      1. They usually appear with the caveat that they are awaiting moderation ( at the beginning and italicized), but only my short ones posted like that. At any rate, have a blessed feast of the Immaculate Heart(!)

      2. OK, the great magnetic storm predicted by Our Lady of Fatima. – But I red the biography of GEORGIEVITCH RAKOVSKY and he seems to have nothing to do with Fatima or anything else.

      3. “When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that it is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions against the Church and the Holy Father.”

         https://crc-internet.org/our-doctrine/catholic-counter-reformation/the-whole-truth-about-fatima-volume-2/2-10-the-war-predicted-is-imminent-it-will-be-horrible-horrible.html

         (the red symphony began at 12 a.m. moscow time)

         Relevant Outtake from the Red Symphony:

         R. – Yes, now this moment has arrived. But only a preliminary qualification: I shall speak on my own responsibility. I am responsible for the interpretation of those preceding points in the sense in which “They” understand them, but I admit that “They” may consider another plan to be more effective for the attainment of the three aims, and one quite unlike that which I shall now set out. Bear that in mind.

         G. Very well, we shall bear it in mind. Please speak.

         R. – We shall simplify.

         Insofar as the object is missing for which the German military might had been created – to give us power in the USSR – the aim now is to bring about an advance on the fronts and to direct the Hitlerist advance not towards the East, but the West.

         {Why this change in goal? Why abandon the restoration of Trotsky?}

         G. – Exactly. Have you thought of the practical plan of realization?

         R. – I had had more than enough time for that at the Lubianka. I considered. So look: if there were difficulties in finding mutually shared points between us and all else took its normal course, then the problems comes down to again trying to establish that in which there is similarity between Hitler and Stalin.

         G. – Yes, but admit that all this is problematical.

         R. – But not insoluble, as you think. In reality problems are insoluble only when they include dialectical subjective contradictions; and even in that case we always consider possible and essential a synthesis, overcoming the “morally-impossible” of Christian metaphysicians.

         G. – Again you begin to theorize.

         R. – As the result of my intellectual discipline – this is essential for me. People of a big culture prefer to approach the concrete through a generalization, and not the other way round.

         With Hitler and with Stalin one can find common ground, as, being very different people, they have the same roots; if Hitler is sentimental to a pathological degree, but Stalin is normal, yet both of them are egoists: neither one of them is an idealist, and for that reason both of them are bonapartists, i.e. classical Imperialists. And if just that is the position, then it is already not difficult to find common ground between them. Why not, if it proved possible between one Tsarina and one Prussian King …

         G. – Rakovsky, you are incorrigible …

         R. – You do not guess?

         If Poland was the point of union between Catherine and Frederick – the Tsarina of Russia and the King of Germany at that time, then why cannot Poland serve as a reason for the finding of common ground between Hitler and Stalin?

         Relevant Post Interrogation Note:

         GABRIEL – Do you remember the conversation with Rakovsky … Do you know that he was not condemned to death? Well knowing all this you need not be surprised that Comrade Stalin had thought it to be wise to try that apparently so unlikely plan … Here nothing is risked and, on the contrary, one can gain a great deal …

      4. But this is a fictional dialogue, no?

      5. Brother, first off, my apologies. i did overlook that you are a busy man and that all this would be new to you. (i’ve spent very little time in the blogosphere of late and am a bit rusty) Feel free to ask any & all questions and, i’ll do my best to answer them. Once again, it is an honor to serve the servants of God (as you most certainly are one of them!)…

         The following passage is under the forward (“dr. landowsky”):

         The document given below is an exact recorded report of the questioning of the former Ambassador in France, C. G. Rakovsky during the period of the trials of the Trotzkyists in the USSR in 1938, when he was tried together with Bukharin, Rykoff, Yagoda, Karakhan, Dr. Levin and others.

         Insofar as the accused Rakovsky made it clear, having in mind the sparing of his life, that he could give information about matters of very special interest, Stalin gave orders to his foreign agent to carry out the questioning.

         It is known that Rakovsky was sentenced to be shot, like the others, but was reprieved and given 20 years of prison.

         Very interesting is the description of the above mentioned agent. This was a certain René Duval (also known as Gavriil Gavriilovitch Kus’min), the son of a millionaire, very good looking and talented. He studied in France. His widowed mother adored him.

         But the young man was carried away by Communist propaganda and fell into the hands of their agency. They suggested that he should study in Moscow, and he gladly accepted the proposal. He passed through the severe school of the NKVD and became a foreign agent, and when he wanted to change his mind, it was too late. They do not let people out of their grip. By the exercise of will-power he reached the “heights of evil,” as he called it, and enjoyed the full confidence of Stalin himself.

         The questioning took place in French by this agent. The doctor was present in order to put drug pills unnoticed into the glass of Rakovsky, to induce energy and a good mood. Behind the wall the conversation was registered on apparatus, and the technician who operated it did not understand French.

         Then Dr. Landowsky had to translate into Russian, with two copies, for Stalin and Gabriel. Secretly he dared to make a third carbon copy, which he hid away.

         More to come momentarily, brother, i don’t want to short shrift your question…

      6. And this is from the Overview:

         There are two anachronisms in Red Symphony. It says it is a record of interviews which took place in 1938, but mentions the World Bank (p. 24), which was not established until 1944. However, the League of Nations had predecessor organizations: http://www.princeton.edu/~sbwhite/un/leagwebb.html.

         Red Symphony also speaks of “the Commonwealth” (p. 39); but surely it was known as the “British Empire” in 1938?

         However, Carroll Quigley wrote in The Anglo-American Establishment that ‘the Rhodes secret society’ (p.4) ‘publicized the idea of and the name “British Commonwealth of Nations” in the period 1908-1918′ (p.5). .

         Lionel Curtis, a leading ideologist of the Empire, and a member of Rhodes’ secret society, published in 1916 a book titled The Commonwealth of Nations: An Inquiry into the Nature of Citizenship in the British Empire, and into the Mutual Relations of the Several Communities Thereof, PART I (MacMillan and Co, London, 1916).

         Brother, i, myself, have wondered if this could be a fictional account. Could Landowsky have made it all up after the facts, and then pegged it on the date of the unknown light (perhaps knowing a little something about fatima)? That would seem just as likely a scenario as if it were real(!) Who knows? This has peaked my interest, so i think i’m going to go after a definitive answer to your question. i’ll let you know if i find something…

         post script ~ don’t know if the above anachronisms tell us anything or not. the globalists may have had those names already in their lexicon, long before they reached the public domain.

      7. I think the anachronisms prove it is a forgery.

      8. Also…

         “The war is going to end, but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the reign of Pius XI.”

         Relevant Outtake from The Whole Truth About Fatima:

         IV. «IN THE REIGN OF PIUS XI», OR PIUS XII?

         There is a second apparent error in the Secret of Fatima that Martindale brings up, following the critique by Dhanis and Journet: «The war did not begin under Pius XI but under Pius XII.» How is this surprising anomaly to be explained? For Pius XI died on February 10, 1939, while war was not declared until seven months later, on September 3. In her letter to Pope Pius XII written on October 24, 1940, the letter which reveals the great Secret to him, Sister Lucy had written, « no reinado de Pio XI» (in the reign of Pius XI). But in the final copy sent to the Pope the following December 2, she had to correct it, no doubt at the request of Bishop da Silva: the phrase was simplified down to « another future war». Yet, Sister Lucy was sure she had not been mistaken. In her Second and Third Memoirs, in 1941, she repeats the authentic expression: «in the reign of Pius XI». In 1946, Father Jongen questioned her on this point:

         «“Did the Most Holy Virgin really pronounce the name of Pius XI?’’ “Yes. We did not know if it was a Pope or a king. But the Most Holy Virgin spoke of Pius XI.” “But didn’t the war begin under Pius XII?” “The annexation of Austria was the occasion for it. When the Munich accord was signed, the sisters were jubilant, because the peace seemed to be saved. I knew better than they did, unfortunately.” “But this Jesuit Father (Dhanis) remarks that the occasion for a war is not the same thing as its happening.” This observation made no impression on the Sister.» 

         Relevant Post Interrogation Note:

         G. – There is yet another strange matter, which cannot be falsified. On the 2nd March at dawn there was received a radio message from some very powerful station: “Amnesty or the Nazi danger will increase” … the radiogramnme was enciphered in the cipher of our own embassy in London. You can understand that that was something very important!

         Dr. – But the threat was not real?

         G. – How not? On the 12th March there ended the debates of the Supreme Tribunal and at 9 in the evening the tribunal began its considerations. And on that same day of the 12th March, at 5.30 o’clock a.m. Hitler ordered his armored divisions to enter Austria. Of course this was a military promenade! Were there sufficient reasons for thinking about that! Or we had to be so stupid as to consider the greetings of Davis, the radio-programme, the cypher, the coincidence of the invasion with the verdict, and also the silence of Europe as being only accidental chances? No, in fact we did not see “Them,” but we heard their voice and understood their language.

      9. Regarding the war starting in the reign of Pius IX, Our Lady said that a great sign would be given, an unknown light in the sky, which is the great aurora borealis of Feb 1938, and that war would soon follow. In fact, Hitler’s govt already decided to go to war with Poland in the fall of 1938, as this Reddit author retells ….

         “Since all efforts did not bring the results Berlin wanted, Ribbentrop handed an 8-Points Program to the Polish government in October 1938. Among the demands was the reunification of Danzig with the Reich, an extraterritorial road through the Polish corridor from Germany to Danzig and Polish membership on the Anti-KomIntern-Pakt, the German led anti-Soviet pact with Italy and Japan. In compensation, Germany offered a longer non-Aggression-Treaty over 25 years, recognition of German-Polish border which had not been done. Basically, that would have meant that Poland would lose, almost if not all autonomy and get more or less under German rule. It is understandable, that Warsaw rejected this program as unacceptable in March 1939. ”

         https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/wbi9j7/why_did_hitler_invade_poland_specifically_in_1939/

         A threat to annex territory even at risk of war, with conditions which the other side could not accept is de facto a declaration of war. This took place during the reign of Pius IX, though Pius XII was elected on March 3, 1938 and Hitler withdrew from the peace pact guaranteeing Poland in late April of 1938.

      10. O.K., Brother Alex, this could be the problem right here…

          In the Spanish book Senor Carlavilla* explains the origin of the material in question. He says:

          “This is the result of a painstaking translation of several copybooks found on the body of Dr. Landowsky in a hut on the Petrograd front (Leningrad) by a Spanish volunteer.

          “He brought them to us. In view of the condition of the manuscripts, their restoration was a long and tiring job, lasting several years. For a long time we were not sure if they could be published. So extraordinary and unbelievable were his final disclosures that we would never have dared to publish these memoirs if the persons and events mentioned had not accorded fully with the facts.

          “Before these reminiscences saw the light of day we prepared ourselves for proofs and polemics. We answer fully and personally for the veracity of the basic facts.

          “Let us see if anyone will be able to disprove them …”

          *Mauricio Carlavilla was quite engaged politically. He wrote “The Charm of the Conspiracy”, “Authors, accomplices and cover-ups for Communism”, “Me and Moscow” , etc.

          Brother, this opens the door to a couple of possibilities. It’s not a stretch to think that Carlavilla made the whole thing up and, being in Catholic Spain, knew enough about Fatima to attach it to the January 26th date. On the other hand, perhaps there was just a mistranslation. (it would be nice to get a hold of the russian transcript) Or just maybe, as i said before, the use of the term “world bank” predates its actual formation — i’m going to check this one out.

          To date i’ve only seen commentary on the Red Symphony, so this is my first foray into the interrogation itself. Always, writers have referred to the interrogation as “the red symphony”. Even the link that i gave to you states in bold red letters “Red Symphony” and immediately is followed by the interrogation. Now i’m aware that the Red Symphony is actually a much larger diary with the rakovsky interrogation comprising just one chapter of it. So that makes it a relatively obscure document imbedded in a long diary. Just seems odd to me that the author (whoever he is) would bother making up a date without much in the way of an intention that it would be noticed. (i could understand if the interrogation were a stand alone document that would garnish a lot of attention) Stranger things have happened, but it just seems odd…

      11. The following is from the Oxford Dictionary:

          Where does the noun World Bank come from?
          EARLIEST KNOWN USE

          1910s

          The earliest known use of the noun World Bank is in the 1910s.

          OED’s earliest evidence for World Bank is from 1910, in a letter by F. K. Lane

6. https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/news-selections/world-news/reported-paypal-user-login-credentials-breach

   Don’t trust ‘PayPal’.
   Make 1x payments. ‘Trusting’ the payment will process ok. As for the hackers, I’m following up w/the 2 banking institutions I use to confirm w/me re/transactions involving ‘pa(y)pal’ .

   Reply

   1. This claim of a data breach does not look credible.
      https://cybernews.com/security/paypal-credential-dump-hacker-claims/

      Reply

7. Dear Br. Bugnolo,

   Thank you for all the research that you do, and for helping us to try to understand better the happenings/corruption in the Human Element of the Church. May God reward you abundantly for your zeal for the truth and for souls; all for His glory.

   I have a question: I attend a T.L.M. where both my priests were ordained by Cardinal Burke; both were ordained during the time in which Pope Benedict XVI was alive and had not renounced the Munus. Does this make their priesthood valid but illicit, hence, making the Holy Masses that they offer illicit?

   Thank you for considering my question.

   Sincerely,
   Michelle

   Reply

   1. Their ordinations are both valid and licit. Their masses are licit if they have permission of the local bishop. But remember, they are God’s priests, not your priests!

      Reply

      1. Ah, noted. Yes, you are correct, they are God’s priests.

         Thank you so much.

8. Pingback: How will the Church of the Antichrist differ from a Protestant Church? | From Rome
9. Pingback: The Prophecy of Two Antipopes | From Rome

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