Editor’s Note: In this video, Br. Bugnolo explains how in this year of Our Lord Jesus Christ, 2025, Divie Providence has given Catholics, whether Traditionalists, Sedevacantists, or Conservatives, the means to put an end to the crisis in the Church which began with Vatican II. — Drop everything and listen to this video, and do as Brother suggests regarding breaking the silence of censorship against this solution.
+ + +
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!
+ + +
Probably one of the most recognizable clergy associated with the archbishop Thục was Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers OP .
He was one of the writers of the Short Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969 (also known as the Ottaviani Intervention), which the Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci sent to Paul VI, requesting clarification.
In 1978, and later in “Cahiers de Cassiciacum”2 (“Casebooks of Cassiciacum”), Father Guérard des Lauriers published a thesis that has not yet been refuted. This thesis consists in establishing a formal vacancy of the Holy See, certainly since December 7, 1965.
To understand his position one has to read at least the interview that was published in May 1987 in the magazine of the Institute of Mother of Good Counsel “Sodalitium” (No. 13) (in French). I read it in Polish on myslkatolicka. Excellent.
Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers OP consecrated as bishops two priest who also endorsed sedeprivationism; Günther Storck and Robert McKenna.
Robert McKenna consecrated Donald J. Sanborn.
The idea that a Pope could remain pope and lose all authority, is enshrined in the new code of Canon Law, in canon 1331, §1, where a Pope guilty of heresy or schism or apostasy loses all right to exercise his office.
However, in such a case, as I have demonstrated in the Sutri Initiative, there is still a canonical solution, that of recourse to the provincial Council of Rome, to remonstrate with him and demand his repetence, which if refusing, he can be canonically declared separated from the Church, just as was done twice at Sutri, in 1046 and 1058, where Saint Hildebrand was present on both occasions.
At the First Council (Synod) of Sutri, Pope Benedict IX was excommunicated and deposed, Pope Sylvester III was deposed and ordered imprisoned in a monastery, and Pope Gregory VI was asked to abdicate since he had purchased the papacy.
At the Second Council of Sutri, Pope Benedict X was declared an anti-pope and deposed, and his arrest was probably also ordered, since as soon as the Margrave of Tuscany’s forces found him he was dragged into the presence of Pope Nicholas II and condemned by Saint Hildebrand to be reduced to the state of a layman and never to return to the City of Rome again (his family was from Tusculum, just East of the city).
These councils are poorly understood because clergy and historians rarely have the proper training in logic, jurisprudence and history to understand juridically what was happening. Benedict IX was validly elected, but had sold the papacy and abdicated, but some time later returned and reclaimed the papacy. So he was thus an anti-pope. Sylvester III was a usurper, and thus an anti-pope, being the Bishop of Tusculum beforehand, he was deprived of both dignities and ordered to a monastery. Gregory VI had been, most likely a Cardinal or Archdeacon, and after abdicating remained a Bishop, but was sent into exile and died in Lorraine in a monastery. Benedict X was an anti-pope usurper, since he was elected in violation of the precept of Pope Stephen IX, who ordered that no elect take place without the presence of the Cardinal Elector Archdeacon Saint Hildebrand.
I do not know much about the Cassiascum Thesis, but I think that these facts are much more important than itself.
Fascinating talk brother. I pray that Our Lady untier of knots will find a solution to this problem. I have prayed the 90 day rosary novena you asked for and now the 53 day novena for the Save Rome Project.
Thanks. The power of prayers in this second Novena is amazing. I encourage more to join in.
@43:00 mm
In response to your query for sedevacantists, “how do we get back to having a true Pope.”
From what I have seen over the last 5+ years this is always the main question (and greatest stumbling block) to anyone understanding or agreeing with sedevacantism. People want to know “how to fix” it. How to “fix the Church. In what way will we “fix” this mess? How do we make the “Church” great again? etc.
From what I have concluded, there is no purely human fix to this “problem”, so God would have to intervene in a extraordinary way (something most likely miraculous). While there technically is (and always will be) a way for the people of Rome to elect a true Pontiff, it is not something that could gain any credibility in the main stream as long as the heretics remain in power and the heretical doctrines are allowed to remain in the visible Sees.
Some hold the “Cassiacum Thesis” that if the post-Vatican II “material” popes would convert, then they would become formal popes and they could “fix” all the problems.
Others hold the Totalist position that their is nothing that could come from Modern Rome that would count as valid and only a Conclave of sedevacantist clergy could/should elect a new Pope, but they refrain from calling a conclave because they dissent from the Thesis holders and other Independent chapels/groups and realize they would only make things worse by electing someone only half the sedes would accept.
There are others who believe we are in the end of times and this is Apocalyptic prophecy being played out and will only end with the Second Coming.
I have even come across a gentleman who believes in 1958 sedevacantism (no valid Pope since John XXIII) but he attends the local indult parish for his sacramental life and takes no issue with accepting the validity of the new orders of ordination/consecration, nor aligning himself with Vatican II and the post-concillar popes in public worship.
You come across a wide-range of beliefs and theories, but it would be a relatively small-to-none-existent group that claims, “There is no way for the Church to get a Pope ever again.” But even among that most fringe element, even they would admit the possibility of error on their part and that God could intervene in any manner of His choosing to “fix” the problem. Personally I have never come across a sede that has made the claim, “No papacy is possible ever again.”
The Jews of the Southern Kingdom were warned against rising up against Babylon by the prophet Jeremiah because God had made the Babylonians powerful (as a punishment for Israel’s sins of idolatry). It was only at the appointed time (and not a moment sooner) that they were allowed to return to desecrated/demolished Jerusalem to rebuild. No amount of them trying to “fix” the situation would result in anything but more frustration and needless trouble. They could pray and accept their sufferings as a just punishment, and even ask God to return them to Jerusalem,, but in the scope of prophecy, it was simply out of their hands to “sway” God until the appointed time.
I don’t think anyone down here will “fix” anything until God decides to act, but this in no way absolves one of discerning the correct course of personal action for themselves according to the Church’s true teachings and the dictates of a properly formed Catholic conscience. The problem then will arise of conflict with other Catholics who are trying to navigate the mess and not agreeing with them on the correct way to view the crisis or the correct action to take, this makes communion between different groups on the practical level impossible.
The tides can turn on suddenly and we just don’t know when or what God may do (or not do) during this time, so we are all just hoping and praying, and waiting, and trying to save our souls. And ultimately, that is what life consists of in all times and places.
Thanks for your comments.
The idea that a validly elected Pope would not have the backing of the Most Holy Trinity to convince the Catholic world of his legitimacy, is to me absurd, because it implies that the Pope is not the Vicar of the Most Holy Trinity.
Think about that.
Your response begs the question, what is the “Catholic world”?
For example, were those great majority of “Catholics’ who followed 98% of Latin rite Arian heretic bishops during the 4th-5th century, to be considered the “Catholic world”? If so, I am glad for those who chose to follow St. Athanasius out into the desert rather than hold communion with the “Catholic world”. I am glad for St. Hermenegild that he chose to lose his life rather than receive Holy Communion from a heretic bishop in communion with the “Catholic world”.
Something similar has/is happening now since Vatican II.
This question is at the heart of the debate, “Who are the members of the Church?” The more common opinion of theologians is that material heretics do not belong to the Church. If that is the case, the “Catholic world” as it is seen and acknowledged by the secular world these days is bursting at the seams with non-Catholic heretics rather than true believing Catholics.
So, if we look to the mainstream “Catholic world” consensus as an indicator of who is a true Pope, their acknowledgement is self-negating rather than affirming. Those who deny the doctrines of Christ’s teaching Church could never validate a true Pope, simply because they are not lead by the Holy Ghost, but rather by the spirit of novelty, heresy, and apostasy – the spirit of the devil. This is why they do not care about canon law, election laws, true doctrines, liturgy, tradition, denouncing heresy, etc.
They could be converted by God, but unless they are converted en masse this will not “fix” the problem either. They will just replace the current pretender with more of the same. They don’t care about canon law because they don’t have the true faith. Even if they did follow the law, it would not be for love of the truth, but rather to exert political influence and sectarian ideologies on the masses.
The necessary knowledge on how to view these times and prelates and how to act, is being withheld from them for a reason…
“They had not the love of the truth…”
I commend you for not wanting to follow heretical leaders. I think this is the one constant across the spectrum of all the groups/individuals who are trying to stay Catholic during these times.
On the contrary, it is the unanimous opinion of all Catholic authors that those who have uttered a heresy, without the intention of denying the faith — that is material heretics — are not heretics and are members of the mystical body. For to sin against any virtue you have to intend to do the immoral act, which in matters of the Faith, requires conscious understanding that one is deviating from the Faith.
The Catholic world or Christendom is the polity comprising those baptized in the Catholic Church, regardless of their personal ecclesial status. And all the Saints who have battled for the Apostolic See in times of antipopes, acted to forge the largest consensus possible, since to heal such a schism requires charity not severity.
As for the errors and heresies since the time of the Council, the Church has not taught any such things, so one can scarcely condemn to the outer darkness those who do not understand what is going on. Even in the time of the Reformation, the Popes condemned the errors of the hiersarachs, but did not excommunicate whole nations or the common people.
As for sedes not agreeing with one another, that is understandable in matters of explaining the crisis or lineages of bishops, because ignorance and envy and rivalry are common human defects.
But when the Catholics elect a Pope at Rome, then all Catholics are obliged to return to communion with him, and that starts with all bishops, howsoever they were consecrated or ordained or claim apostolic succession. No one is excluded.
As for the Bull of Nicholas II, read it in Latin, and you will find there is absolutely no wiggle room for any Sede or Traddie to dissent.
https://padreperegrino.org/2025/11/ccvis/
Father Nix pubished the same article on his subscription only Substack.
Here is my reply to Fr. Nix’s article that you cite, Lemmingone…
“Father, I have read your writings and heard you speak for a number of years, and find you to be a sincere Catholic priest. But in this article you have made a statement which to me, as one who has read all of papal history, is absurd, namely, your assertion that there cannot be two anti popes one after the other. — Please at least read wikipedia on the 37 antipopes and see that there have been several times where one antipope succeeded another and both controlled the entire Roman Church. As a spoiler, I would point out the Bl. Urban II was elected pope by the special provision of the Bull of Nicholas II, In Nomine Domini, n. 3, at Terracina, nearly 60 miles south of Rome, since the city itself was firmly in control of the Globalist (Imperial German) party of that day, and he did not succeed in taking back control until after 2 invasions from Crusaders from France, who were on their way to Jerusalem. — I will leave off the obvious theological omission, which is also glaring in your article, that you do not mention that the visibility of the Church REQUIRED THE VALID ELECTION OF A ROMAN PONTIFF and is not engaged by an antipope even if all the hierarchy followed him.”