Editor’s Note: I am publishing links to news stories so that the readers of FromRome.Info can assess in real time the working out of Christ’s Promise: I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith may not fail.
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Many ask me how I feel, and apart from my cold, I am very sad in part and very happy in part. I am happy for all the poor little souls round the world, who now are in communion with the true pope. But I am sad to see those who defended Pope Benedict XVI but who, while they agreed the election by apostolic right was valid, rejected the results of the election.
As the days pass these souls have been gripped moment by moment by greater rage, passion, malice, and every vicious character, attacking God and man, rejecting Scripture, the words of Jesus and all faith with their best friends who disagree with them.
They are being dragged into a vortex of demons and they are falling without any restraint because they have cut themselves off from the God who said,
Whatsoever you bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven..
I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail and when you are converted, confirm your brethren
By denying Jesus Christ they have lost the saving faith of the Church, and how Satan has them wholly under his power.
I am currently receiving the most vicious insults from my closest friends in Italy and around the world. And I fear that these souls will shortly become violent.
In the last three years, we have seen so many fall under the power of the lie and under the powers of darkness. I grieve that so many pious souls are now going to damnation.
I therefore urge all of you to pray for these souls, who claimed to be standing with Pope Benedict XVI. Let us hope that they see that his gentile manner with all his enemies round about, rebukes them for their malice and nastiness and despair.
God wins in the end. No matter how much we do not like what is happening, we should never abandon God or the charity for neighbor.
Those who persevere in faith and charity, those alone are the true Little Remnant. And that means they must accept Canon Law and Apostolic Right and not arrogate to themselves anything that does not belong to them.
This is how Our Lady would act. And no soul can claim to be Her child, acting differently.
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
As I am getting priests and laity and religious from the world over asking me the same questions, I will not answer the more common questions in one article, so that all might have the answers.
The case here regards when an antipope, like Leo VIII or Bergoglio, who reigns for a time and posits various acts, magisterial and juridical, is elected the true pope, by the Faithful of Rome, in an assembly by apostolic right.
Q. Can a not yet condemned heretic or schismatic be elected to the Papacy?
A. Yes, because in canon law, no one who has NOT yet been deprived of his rights by the public sentence of Church authority, loses his rights. Even canon 1364 which imposes immediately the penalty of excommunication does not take away the rights to be elected by or to participate in a Conclave, as the Papal Law, Universi Domini Gregis states in n. 35.
Cardinals specifically can only be judged by the Roman Pontiff alone (canon 1405 §1, n. 2).
And since no one can arrogate to himself the right to judge anyone in the Church in such a way as to deprive him of his canonical rights (cf. Discernment vs. the Arrogation of Right), such a man can be elected pope.
Q. Does an antipope have to accept his election as true Pope?
A. Canon 331 requires a pope accept his election. But in natural law, when a man is already claiming the office, his consent to his election is presumed, for it is actual and habitual and manifest that he wants the office. Thus passive or tacit acceptance of his election, that is, without publicly renouncing it, suffices for him. And since the Canon does not require active verbal expression of acceptance, this suffices in elections by apostolic right where, in the absence of rules of acceptance, the natural law prevails. But it would not suffice in a Conclave, because there the Papal Law UDG requires active, verbal expression of acceptance.
Here many are confused, because they understand “accept his election” to mean, “accept the manner of his election”, or accept being the true pope, when it only means “accept being elected the pope”. Obviously, an antipope accepts being chosen the pope. To hold otherwise is madness.
Q. Do we have to accept all the previous acts of such a Pope while he was antipope, if we accept his new election as valid?
A. No, certainly not.
Q. Are the Cardinals he appointed before when he was antipope, valid cardinals now that he is elected as the true pope?
A. Yes. Because the only thing lacking for their validity was the will of one who held the petrine munus. That deficiency is now remedied. And so they are valid cardinals and can validly elect his successor.
Q. Are all the appointments of Bishops etc., which he made as antipope valid now?
A. Yes, for the same reason.
Q. Are all the magisterial acts which he did as antipope valid now?
A. No, none of them are valid. For he had no magisterium to exercise and thus they never were acts of the Apostolic See, nor can consent after the fact make them such, because they are in the past and juridically non existent. This differs from Cardinals and Bishops etc., because they are living beings and in the present.
Q. How about all the juridical penalties which were imposed by himself or the Roman Curia, while he was antipope: are they now valid now?
A. They must be all presumed to be invalid, for reasons of the fact that they are acts in the past which had no authority to be leveled.
Q. Should we continue to oppose the errors of the man when he was antipope? And if so, how, without incurring the penalty of attacking the Pope?
A. We should continue to oppose all the errors, sins, and scandal of the antipope, but when doing so we should distinguish them from the acts he now makes as pope. This is respectful and will help spread the knowledge that he was never from the beginning the true pope, but only after his election by apostolic right.
Q. What can we expect in him now that he has been validly elected and at last has the Petrine Munus?
A. We can expect that he will not teach error in matters of faith in morals, even though his politics may remain the same. We can expect that when asked or pressured to undo what he has done as antipope that he will concede to the pressure and to the requests. We can expect him not to condone his past errors which are contrary to the faith.
Q. Does his valid election absolve him of his past sins?
A. No, rather, it makes him more responsible before God to repent of them and to do so publicly. Without that he cannot be saved.
Q. How do we now show true loyalty to Pope Francis?
A. By continuing to denounce what he did as antipope, but praying for him as pope, trusting in the prayer of Jesus, “That his faith may not fail”.
Q. How should our position differ from Bergoglians, Recognize & Resist, Anti-Roncallian Sedevacantists and Anti-Bergoglian Sedevacantists?
A. We should not like Bergoglians approve of any of his errors, sins, scandals or crimes as antipope. We should resist his past errors but not attribute them to the Vicar of Christ, but only to his person, and thus act differently from the Recognize and Resist crowd who defame the Papacy. We should recognize him as the true Pope and refrain from arrogating the right to judge him as the Sedevacantists of old and of the new kind do.
Q. Who has the authority to sort all this out?
A. The present valid pope or any future valid successor.
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
As I have written before, the sign that the man elected to succeed Benedict XVI is the true pope, will be that he consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart and it converts. That God gave this sign to end confusion in the Church is intimated in the fact that this promise is attached to the revelation that the pope would have much to suffer and be opposed by the whole world.
So I urge that all Catholics who doubt that Francis is not the true pope to do one act of sincere faith, and join with me in asking him to Consecrate Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.
Because if you are sincere in your desire to know if he is the true Pope, and doubt anything about his recent election, now is the time to ask God for a sign, which He has always promised to the true Pope in communion with the bishops of the world.
Editor’s note: There are those who say that numbers proves the works of the Holy Spirit. But there are others which say, numbers only prove their own opinion, while they claim to propose the first adage. For some the few numbers at the Election of Pope Francis means it is not of God, but for myself and Catholics, the few numbers on Calvary do not prove it was not a work of God, but that God was alone at work there. The numbers at the Papal mass this morning in Congo are a cause of joy for me, for these people having suffered so much are the very first to celebrate a papal Mass with the true Pope. And they deserved it. And this was the gift we Catholics of Rome gave them by a juridically valid election by apostolic right. It is also the gift of all of you who helped me in that holy work. We have given a great gift to a great number of poor people and have this day merited a great merit from God Himself, who cannot be outdone in generosity.
Editor’s Note: These statements were made in Pope Francis’ first talk after his juridically valid election by the Catholics of the Roman Church on Monday, January 30, 2023. — I would comment further, but I do not want to beat some of my readers over the head (said with humor), who think differently than I do.
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
In the Catholic Church, the authority to judge comes from God alone. Catholics cannot maintain their status as Catholic for long, so long as they do not accept that principle.
Thus, by the Faith which comes from God we can, if we understand it well, discern who is teaching wrongly or not. And we can then discern whether a man be teaching contrary or apart from Christ, His Apostles or Prophets.
And this personal discernment is an ability, but not all have the capacity. Since though we all receive faith in Baptism, not all have faith, and not all understand the Faith. Faith is the virtue, the Faith is the sum of the doctrines of our holy religion. Both come from God. But having the knowledge of one does NOT guarantee the other.
Now in the Church, since the authority to judge for the community comes from God, God has given it to Bishops alone, and to the Bishop of Rome in its highest grade here on earth. These alone can take away the canonical rights of an individual or community.
The recognition of this is what separates and distinguishes Catholics from protestants and orthodox schismatics. These latter two refuse to accept the Pope as supreme judge in matters of faith and discipline. And protestants refuse also to accept bishops as judges in matters of discipline in their own dioceses.
And here is the pitfall of all those Catholics who take the first step on the road of Sedevacantism: they refuse to admit that while they have the ability by faith to discern who is a heretic, they have no juridical authority to declare anyone such, as to deny that accused of his canonical rights.
This is affirmed in the very important passage in Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 35. This rule echoes the long standing debate among canonists, which Pope Paul IV in 1559 spoke, of what is to be done with a Cardinal who deviated publicly from the faith prior to his election to the Pontificate. Paul IV wanted in his Constitution, Cum ex apostolatu officio, that his election be declared null and void. His constitution however was annulled by his successor. And the precedent of his opinion was refuted in the above manner in every subsequent Papal Law on elections.
The reason for this, is, if an undeclared person could be refused the canonical right to vote (active voice) or be elected (passive voice), then it would introduce into the election a doubt which could possibly render many or most elections doubtful and hence invalid.
And the theological justification for removing this doubt, is the Faith of the Church in the promise of Jesus Christ and His always efficacious power of impetration, when He declared, “Simon, Simon, Satan has desired to sift you all as wheat, but I have prayed for YOU, that your faith may not fail, and when you are converted, confirm your brethren.”
Note, our Lord says, “when” not “if”, because His is always efficacious in His prayer to the Father and obtains all that He asks for.
And since the man elected pope becomes the target of Christ’s prayer, thus promised, it matters not if he had deviated from the faith beforehand, so long as he was not declared by the Church to have done so. For if he was declared by the Church, then the word, of Christ would apply: “He who hears you hears Me.”
Those who become Sedevacantists do not avert to these words of Jesus Christ, and once they start on that path, out of pride they refuse to accept them, so as to justify the path already undertaken. And so they fall into heresy and schism, and go to perdition, because if you do not believe in every word of Jesus Christ, you cannot be saved.
And now, this is the temptation of those who refuse the juridically valid election of Bergoglio on Monday, and who are attempting to argue thus: that election cannot be valid, because it elected a man whom I consider a heretic.
To these I say: YOU are not the Church. YOU do not have the juridical authority to declare someone a heretic. Yes, you have by faith the ability to discern heresy, if you know your faith. But that is not the same thing. To presume that your judgement of heresy is equivalent to a juridical pronouncement is to arrogate to yourself a right which God has not given you. Even Cardinals in the Conclave do not have this right. How much more a bishop, priest, or layman anywhere else at any time, when the person to be judged is not even under their jurisdiction.
Perhaps, the ignorant confound the possibility that some tribunal or future pope might agree with their judgement as sufficient authorization, but they are confusing the ability to discern from the authority to issue a judgement binding on the community.
Have a little humility.
Have faith in Christ.
Only those who have both, can be saved.
Only in certain cases, where the Church herself or the very nature of the act prescind from the necessity of a public judgement, can Catholics act on the basis of personal discernment. Such is the case of papal renunciations, which must be manifest in themselves, and when doubtful, can be considered invalid by all Catholics who thus discern them to be. This is because a renunciation of papal office cannot be judged or interpreted by anyone, since there is no one who can judge it. For if it was invalid, the pope would remain the pope yet hold it valid. And if it was valid, the man who was the pope could not longer judge it. This is why in such cases Catholics do not arrogate to themselves a right which belongs to others, as Sedevacantists do who refuse the validity of this or that papal election.
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
I have taken care to record the contact information of those who voted in the Assembly to elect a Successor to Pope Benedict XVI by apostolic right, held at Rome, at the Marriott Park Hotel, this Monday, January 30, 2023, wherein Jorge Mario Bergoglio was in a juridically valid manner elected Roman Pontiff.
I have done this, because in future years, when any Pope wants to declare null and void anything Bergoglio did while antipope, canonists can contact me and call us to the Vatican to sign, before an Apostolic Notary, a testimony as to what we did, how we did it, and how we voted.
In this way, without harming the reputation of the Apostolic See’s infallibility, future Popes can act.
Because, you see, while everyone is howling about the outcome, the result has in truth, that is, canonically, undone Bergoglio’s project.
The results of this election have been accepted as valid by the following members of the Clergy:
- Mons. Rene H. Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi,
- Father Walter Covens (Diocese of Fort-de-France, Martinique)
Those who were against Catholics electing a successor to St. Peter prevailed to convince many not to come to vote, and so the results of the election are as follows:
Unanimous for Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as successor of St. Peter and successor of Pope Benedict XVI.
The electorate present wants the world to know that it has chosen the only outcome that could be both universally accepted and that is to bring the canonical order of the Church back into harmony with the will of Christ. In this it follows the example of the Roman Catholics who, under threat from the imperial army, elected the deacon of the Eastern emperor, who was a Monothelite heretic. With his election completed he was immediately converted to the Catholic faith under the power of the Jesus Prayer.
And so, we hope and pray that the Lord, whose hands are now free to set the Church in order, will now intervene in history, without violating his promise to St. Peter, that “Whatever you bind on earth, be bound in Heaven.” ”.
For my part, I have suggested as candidate Msgr. Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, USA.
Brother Alexis Bugnolo
(Please note, that Br. Bugnolo now has a very bad sore throat, so will not be granting interviews for a day or two).
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Guido Ferro Canale is a civil attorney from Genoa, who has studied Italian civil jurisprudence. He intervened in the past regarding the claims of impropriety in the election of Bergoglio, arguing that vote canvassing did not make it invalid.
As a preamble, to my refutation of his above critique, I will say that he has not understood that when one considers the case whether any electorate loses the right to act, one can speak of a loss of right either in law or in ministry. As I have said elsewhere, but evidently he had not the time to read it, a ministerial right is not exclusive. If a mother fails to feed her children, anyone can do so. She has in that meal lost her privilege and right, but not in law, only the act of ministering. Just so with the Cardinals who in canon 349 have a duty to provide for the selection of bishop to be the people’s shepherd. Failing to do that, they do not lose their right in law, if one even assumed they have a right, since they are in open schism from Christ for having elected an antipope.
But also, since UDG requires that they elect a pope after the death of a pope, they cannot claim the right to elect an antipope after the death of a pope or of an antipope. This has to do with the Apostolic Succession, where only true popes succeed true popes. The Cardinals in insisting on electing a pope after the death of Bergoglio are involved in a heinous confection of a novel ecclesiology, fit only for the Church of the Antichrist.
So yes, if they were still in communion with the Church — which they are not — and if they still wanted to elect Pope Benedict XVI’s successor — which they do not, because they claim to have done that already — then yes, you could say that they have not lost or renounced their right or privilege. But that is not the juridical case at present. So Canale is arguing about a non existent hypothetical.
Now to address this jurists infantile criticisms….
First, he has no understanding of ecclesiology. The Apostolic See has always regarded the suburbican dioceses as integral parts by tradition of the Roman Church, of which the Pontiff is the Pope. It is an error to say the Pope is the Bishop of only the Diocese of Rome, but has no immediate authority over these others which are only administrative creations, not separated from Her. This is also proven by the fact that Cardinal non electors and Cardinal Electors are appointed to preside in these Churches. In fact, the Dean of the College of Cardinals has been from the 4th century, the Bishop of Ostia. So if the Church of Ostia is another Church and not part of the Roman Church, the Roman Church has been confused for 16 centuries, but this lawyer from Genoa is going to set her right (sarcasm). But if Canale is right, then we have to discuss how the Church could claim apostolic succession if all the popes for 16 centuries were elected by an invalid electorate.
This shows that this eminent civil attorney is completely outside of his realm.
Second, he plays the same shell game as many others, who are calling the Faithful of Rome laypersons. The assembly today has invited all and excluded none who are not capable by law in participating. If any one catholic cleric does not come that does not mean the election is invalid. This is because the apostolic right to elect the Pope pertains to the Roman Church, not to the clergy of the Roman Church alone. Since it pertains to the whole Church, all the members of the Church are capable electors. If any one of them does not come to the election, the Church does not cease to be the Church nor does the electorate become invalid. But I can see how he cannot understand this, because it is a notion of right founded in theology not civil law.
The same conclusion returns when we consider the intent of the legislator, St. Peter, in wanting that the Faithful of Rome have a pastor. When do they have the greatest need but when they have no pastors? So that just as Christ created bishops and priests not for the sake of bishops or priests, but for the laypeople who need the Sacraments of salvation, it would be pointless to ordain that the Roman Church could elect the pope only when they had clergy, and not when all clergy are in apostasy, heresy, or juridically absent. To think otherwise, is to make St. Peter a clericalist.
Third, he has never read canon 38, which says that any administrative act which is done contrary to the law has no effect. He evidently thinks that in the Church there is only valid and invalid acts, but there are also illegal and legal acts, and ritually correct and incorrect acts. Here this jurist completely fails to comprehend that whereas in UDG there is a condition for invalidity, any violation of the law, makes the act illegal and hence in virtue of canon 38 without effect. This can be seen from the fact that in canon 349 the Cardinals are given a ministerial duty to select a man to be the pope. And that is an administrative duty, specified by a canon and thus subject to canon 38.
So again, this jurist shows himself completely outside of his realm of expertise.
Finally, the clause of n. 76, though it must be interpreted strictly, in this case extends the invalidity to the entire act of electing, because in that n. it refers to both the whole Constitution and the prescriptions of that chapter. Those who want it to apply only to that chapter imposed a forced reading. But the argument, here, that validity is only restricted to the manner of election, and thus the Cardinals do not lose their right, confounds notions of validity and nullity, and the right according to jus and ministerium, as I have explained above.
In consequence, however, in vain does Guido Ferro Canale argue, because we are not talking about a College of Cardinals which is ever intending to elect a successor to B16, but one which insists it already has. And since error in facts and laws does not make the error valid, there is absolutely no question of a case in which the Cardinals intend to ever exercise their right. And thus juridically we are in the same case as if there are no Cardinals.
Guido Ferro Canale should stick to civil law, but I thank him for affirming that in the juridical case in which there are no Cardinals the faithful of Rome can elect the pope.
As for my readers, the cherry on the cake with Attorney Canale, is that he is published by a site run by Sedevacantists. If sedes do not think anyone is the pope, how will there ever be a pope, except by apostolic right. If they were sincere, they would be lauding what will be done today as the solution to the problem they claim occurred in the conclave of 1958.