All posts by Editor

Church History

The Bull of Pope Nicholas II: In Nomine Domini, April 13, 1059

1 Comment

Preface and Translation by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

After centuries of interference in the Election of the Roman Pontiff by the Emperors of Constantinople and of the Holy Roman Empire, by the military, by the Roman Nobility and by rogue Nobles of diverse parts of Italy, Pope Nicholas II decreed a historic Bull which restricted the right of election — which had from ancient times been vested by Saint Peter the Apostle in the whole Church of Rome, and subsequently to the clergy — to the Cardinal Bishops principally, and then to the other Cardinals, the rest of the Clergy and the Faithful of the Diocese of Rome.  This Bull led to the formation of the institutions which we know of today as the College of Cardinals and the Conclave. Due to its crucial importance in the history of the regulation of the election of the Roman Pontiff, the From Rome Blog here presents its own English translation of the Latin Text (which can be download in PDF — the authenticity of which I have presumed from internal criteria). — Following the translation, I will give a commentary.

In Nomine Domini

In the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and Savior, in the One Thousand and Fifty-Ninth year from His Incarnation, in the month of April, in the twelfth indiction, with the sacrosant Gospels laid before Us, with the most Reverend and Blessed Pope Nicholas also presiding in the Patriarchàs Lateran Basilica, which is named the Constantinian: with the most Reverent Bishops, Abbots, Priests and Deacons sitting with him: the same Venerable Pontiff decreeing by Apostolic authority concerning the Election of the Supreme Pontiff, said:

Your Beatitude knows, most beloved Brother (Cardinals), and Co-Bishops, and it is also not hidden to inferior members ( of the clergy), that with the passing of Our predecessor, the divine Stephen, of good memory, how many adversities this Apostolic See, which I serve with God as my author, has born, and how many repeated hammers, and frequent blows, She has been subjected to through the brokers of simonaical heresy: so much, indeed, that the Column of the living God almost seemed to totter, and the net of the Fisherman, with the storms having swelled, would be driven into the depths of shipwreck to be submerged, wherefore if it please thy Brotherhood, We ought, with the God assisting, take care prudently that future cases do not occur, and this by Ecclesiastical statute, lest recurring — far be it — the evils prevail.

The Election of the Pope pertains, first of all, to the Cardinal Bishops, who serve also as Metropolitians, the to the Cardinal Clerics, and the rest of the Clergy, and the People, only proffer their consent to the election.

§1. On which account, having been instructed by Our predecessors, and by the authority of the other Holy Fathers, We decree, and establish, that with the passing of the Pontiff of this Catholic Roman Church, first of all, the Cardinal Bishops, treating most diligently together concerning the election, summon immediately the Cardinal Clerics of Christ; and in this manner let the rest of the Clergy, and the People approach to consent to the new election taking the greatest care beforehand, lest the deadly disease of venality insinuate itself by an occasion, and for that reason let the most religious men be the chief leaders in promoting the election of the Pontiff, but the rest be their followers.  Moreover, the certain and even legitimate order here of the election  is carefully considered, if it be gathered from having examined the diverse rules of the Fathers, or their deeds, and even that sentence of Blessed Leo, Our predecessor: “No reason permits, that there be had among Bishops, those who have neither been elected from the Clerics, nor requested by the common people, nor consecrated by the co-provincial Bishops with the judgement of the Metropolitans; but because the Apostolic See takes precedence to all other Churches throughout the earth, for that reason She also  can have over Her no Metropolitan, the Cardinal Bishops with out doubt serve instead as Metropolitans, who namely, proceed to consecrate the apex of the Apostolic brow, once elected as Bishop“.

The Pope ought to be elected from the womb of the Roman Church if one is found to be suitable, otherwise he is to be elected from another Church.

§2. Moreover, let him be elected from the very womb of the Church, if one is found to be suitable, and/or if one not be found in Her, let him be taken from another; with due honor being served, and reverence for Our beloved son, Henry, who is held as King at the present, and with God conceding hoped as the future Emperor, as We have already conceded to him, just as to the successors of him, who personally begged this right from this Apostolic See.

If the Pope cannot be elected in the City, because of obstacles,
he can be elected elsewhere by the Cardinals, and by others, though few, of whom (We spoke) above.

§3. Wherefore, if the perversity of depraved, and iniquitous men, so prevail, that a pure, sincere and free election cannot be held in the City, the Cardinal Bishops with the religious Clerics, and the Catholic laity, though few, obtain the right of power (ius potestatis) to elect the Pontiff of the Apostolic See, where it might be fitting.

If the elected Pope cannot be enthroned, by these men, here, on account of obstacles, nevertheless he is a true Pope, and can rule the Roman Church, and dispose of all Her faculties.

§4. Plainly, after the election has been completed, if there be a bellicose conflict, and/or if the struggle of any kind of men resists by the earnestness of wickedness, such that he, who has been elected, cannot prevail to be enthroned in the Apostolic See according to the custom, nevertheless, the elect obtains as the true Pope the authority to rule the Roman Church, and to dispose of all Her faculties, which Blessed Gregory, We know, did, before his own consecration.

The pope elected against the form of this Decree is to be punished, as this one was, with his supporters.

§5. On which account, if anyone has been elected, or even ordained, or enthroned, against this Decree of Ours promulgated by Synodal sentence, whether through sedition, and/or presumption, or any guile, let him be cast down by the Divine Authority, and that of the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, by a perpetual anathema with his promoters and supporters and followers as one separated from the thresholds of the Holy Church, just as the Anti-Christ, both an invader and destroyer of the whole of Christendom, and let no audience be given him over this, but let him be deposed from every ecclesiastical grade unto whatever was before his, without any objection made, to whom if anyone whatsoever adheres, and/or exhibits any kind of reverence as to the Pontiff, or presumes to defend him in anything, let him be abandoned by equal sentence, which if anyone shows himself to be a violator of this sentence of Our Holy Decree, and has tried to confound the Roman Church by his presumption, and to raise disturbance against this Statute, let him be damned by perpetual anathema and excommunication, and let him be reputed among the impious, who shall not rise again in judgement, let him know the wrath of the Omnipotent One against him, and that of the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, whose  Church he has presumed to fool, let him know a ravaging madness in this life and in the future; let his dwelling become deserted, and let there be no one who dwells in his tents:   let his sons be orphans, and his wife a widow, let him be shaken completely to madness, and may his sons go about begging, and be cast out of their dwellings, may the money-lender ravage all his substance, and may foreigner lay waste to his labors:  Let the whole world fight against him, and let all the other elements be against him, and may the merits of all the Saints resting above confound him.

For the observers of this Decree, the Pope prays for the grace of God and pardon for their sins.

§6. Moreover, let the grace of the Omnipotent One protect the observers of this Our decree, and let the authority of the Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul absolve them from all the bonds of their sins.

COMMENTARY

NiccoloII
Pope Nicholas II

Oh the faith and zeal of the men of God of ages past! How shining their nobility of mind, how forthright their speech, how determined their mind, how strong their justice against all wickedness, how prudent in particulars, how unbending in ideals and purpose. Many a  Catholic reading of the Church in ages past has commented thus of our forebears in faith, who on account of the distance of the ages, we can assuredly count among some of our relatives of old.

What makes them so different from our own age, is that with the passing of time, and the corruption of men, the mystical body of the Antichrist has grown up inside the Church, pretending to be one of the faithful, but deceiving all, to such an extent, that the mass and number of the wicked in the Church has reached critical stage and the likeness of the monster of iniquity is taking form inside the members of the Church long dead and separated from the vital sap of Our Lord, the True Vine of the Father.

We can see openly how less a corrupt age it was, by the few precepts to be had to govern a papal election. This was not because the age knew nothing of Law. The great legal works of the Emperor Justinian and the Roman Jurist Ulpian had long before been written and studied. No, it was the rarity of the boldness of demonic impiety, which is now common day and an every day manifestation, which made this first Papal Decree on the Election of the Popes so simple and direct.

Yet, in its simplicity it shows forth several important legal institutions and principles which would characterize papal law on the election of the Roman Pontiff for the next nearly thousand years. Let us examine them in their order of appearance in the Decree.

Three Conditions for the man Elected

The Ancient and Apostolic custom of the Church of Rome was ever that three conditions prevail for the election of a Roman Pontiff: his selection by the Clergy of the City, his approval by the faithful of the city, his consecration by the Metropolitian, or what we call the suburbican Bishops, of the ecclesiastical province: the Bishop who oversaw the dioceses immediately adjacent to Rome.

This custom was the orderly application of the Apostolic Right by which the Roman Pontiff was elected from the time of the Apostle Peter’s death, and may have been suggested by the Apostle St. Paul, who ministered in the City for a year or more before his own decapitation and martyrdom.

Pope Nicholas II by this decree modifies the ancient custom and restricts the discernment and selection of the one to be elected to the Cardinal Bishops. They are then to summon the other Cardinal Clergy, the rest of the clergy of the City and all the Faithful and ask for their consent.

No Elections in secret

The wisdom of this institution prevented the usurpation of the Church by foreigners, the election of men who were unknown to the local clergy, and or who did not enjoy an honest reputation among the faithful of the city. It also prevented simony — the offering of money for votes — to some extent, since you cannot bribe everyone, and without any obligation of proceeding in secret, the motivation for voting for this one or that, would certainly come out and quickly become known to all.

Respect for Tradition

Pope Nicholas shows his respect for the Apostolic right by quoted Pope Leo the Great, who explains the manner in which the election was conducted in his age, some five centuries before, when all the clergy has the right to vote, not just the Cardinals.

Preference for a Roman

To prevent foreign influence and contro and to guarantee not only the independence of the Church of Rome but that She have a pastor who saw himself as Her shepherd by innate ties and bonds, Pope Nicholas urges the election of a man born at Rome and Roman. This hearkens back to the Old Testament where God required that the people select one of their own kin to rule over them.

Flexibility in non essentials

Pope Nicholas II shows the sanity of the medieval mind, by allowing the election under special circumstances of necessity to be conducted outside the city. There was no fixed or prescribed place for the election, and this prevented it being controlled from beforehand, as well as from being prevented or impeded in its execution.

A Man is made pope by Election, not consecration or enthronement.

Here there is a principle which comes down from at least the time of Pope Gregory the Great, namely, that the man elected Pope, from that moment becomes the pope, even if he has not yet been consecrated a Bishop and even before he is enthroned in the Lateran Basilica (the Cathedral of Rome prior to the 14th century).

Grave Sanctions for those who transgress

Finally, Pope Nicholas II imposes the most grave and extreme sanctions upon those who transgress his Law on Elections: anathema, excommunication, reduction to the state in which he was prior to the election or usurpation. And this punishment is extended to all his promoters, supporters and followers.  A promoter is he who encouraged his candidacy, a supporter is he who voted for him, and a follower is he who joined his faction and vied that it prevail.

Just read n. 5 above, if you want to know how a usurper of the office of Pope should be treated for his crime. It makes you understand the moral gravity of the crime, a thing which a godless cleric has no understanding of.

Equity and Wisdom

In this Decree, one can see that Pope Nicholas II is trying to balance the different and disparate forces which were vying to control the election of the Roman Pontiff in his own age, and to place that election securely in the hands of those who could be more trusted to elect a man of God, without however, restricting the process so much as to prevent a man of God being elected. His emphasis that the holier members of the Church take a principle part in the election is a strong reminder to our own age of the folly of legislation which thinks that in the precise observance of minutiae one can guarantee holiness.  For this reason, Nicholas II promulgated a law which was to have a lasting effect on papal legislation for a thousand years. May God grant the clergy of Rome a similar wisdom and courage to execute their duties before God.

Criticism

Pope Nicholas II has gone to his reward, so I will allow myself to make one criticism of his papal law, and that is this: by restricting the right to vote to Bishops alone he imposed on the Roman Church the practice which prevailed in the provinces and in the Eastern Churches. This ended up helping the papacy, in one sense, to have men who had experience in government and fiscal management, but, on the other hand, tended to restrict candidates to the class of the landed gentry. It would end the habit of popular candidates, who sometimes, not always, in the past had been men who corrected the wrongs and injustice of the landed class and returned the Apostolic See to a more evangelical road.

What if, God forbid, Pope Benedict XVI dies while the Cardinal Electors remain fast with the Antipope?

I get a lot of questions from the Catholic Faithful who hold that Benedict is still the Pope because they simply follow the norm of Canon Law, unlike the precipitous and rash College of Cardinals who did not even implement canons 40 and 41 following the Declaratio of Pope Benedicct XVI on Feb. 11, 2013. For that reason, the Cardinals are in de facto schism from Christ and His Church, because they have violated canon 359 and Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 37, by electing another Pope when there was no legal sede vacante.

For that reason many of the faithful worry that the Petrine Succession might be abolished or lost, if when Benedict dies, the Cardinals do not convene in Conclave to elect his successor. This is because, the current papal law, published in an age in which there has not be an Anti-pope for nearly 500 years, does not address what is to happen if it should be that all the Cardinal Electors who are canonically valid (appointed by Popes John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI) omit convening in Conclave after Benedict’s death.

I explained the theological, legal and historical reasons why this presents no fundamental problem in my Disputed Question: Whether, with all the Cardinal Electors defecting...

In such a case, whatever Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Monsignori, Priests and Deacons, who are incardinated in the Diocese of Rome or at the Vatican, remain in communion with Benedict and assemble after his death, whomsoever they elect by a simply majority will be the Pope. In such an election the laity can also participate, since the Apostolic Right pertains to the whole Church. — If Arcibishop Vigano shows at such an assembly, he would probably be surely elected.

The Church desperately needs a popular candidate for the papacy, because, as in times prior to the law of Pope Nicholas II, In Nomine Domini, the Church is need of a dire correction in its pastoral objectives and needs a reformer who will return the Faith to Her rightful queenship of governance in the Church. Pope Benedict XVI by his evangelical prudence or by mistake, has providentially prepared, perhaps, the next papal election to proceed in just such a manner.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

 

 

News

Chinese Intelligence takes down Ordo Militaris Inc server in apparent reprisal

4 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

This report is disturbing and menacing. Just after FromRome.info published the invitation to join the Ordo Militaris Catholicus, this afternoon, Rome Time, a massive computer assault from Mainland China was launched against the server of the Order, at such a high level of sophistication, that it shut the server down physically.

Logs at the Order’s Website show numerous queries from dozens of cities in China in rapid succession doing a deep scan on the website.

The server physically turned itself off within 15 minutes of posting the Invitation article.

The company hosting the website said only the server on which the Order’s website was affected no others. The company hosts 10s of thousands of websites on shared and reserved servers.

The attack was not a Denial of Service, it was some sort of sophisticated back door hack.

FromRome.Info, earlier today, in its report about John Zmirak’s exposé of China’s control of the Bergoglian Regime, might have been the flash point. In that post, I discussed the ties of Chinese Intelligence to efforts to force the Resignation of Pope Benedict.

I think I can safely say that the vicious underhanded attack just proved everything I said in that report.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

Invitation to join The Catholic Military Order

3 Comments

 

To All Soldiers of the Church Militant

AN INVITATION TO JOIN THE CATHOLIC MILITARY ORDER

ORDO MILITARIS CATHOLICUS

You are cordially invited to join the Catholic Military Order (Official Name: Ordo Militaris Catholicus), which is an International Association of Catholics dedicated to the defense of Christendom. To know more about the Order and the reasons to join, please read the following:

The Ordo Militaris Catholicus is a international defense and security initiative of Catholics for Catholics who are suffering persecution for their faith, where their defense and liberation requires military intervention or security actions, and this is allowed by local and/or international law. We were founded in the days following the martyrdom of Father Jacques Hamel, July 26, 2016 A.D., by Br. Alexis Bugnolo, a Franciscan hermit.

In the U.S.A., the Order has founded a Montana Corporation, with the legal name, Ordo Militaris, Inc., as a Private Military Corporation, to conduct the defense and security initiatives that the Association seeks to undertake.

To know more about how you can help or join the Order, see our Sign-up page or our Donations page or Investment Page. To read more about the Order and its form of organization, read about the Justice of Our Cause, or Our Holy Rule, and about how everyone can help us get the word out.

Also, if you like, take the time to learn what our insignia signifies.

You can also watch a videos about the initiative and the corporation:  about A Complete Explanation of our Association,  Or Listen to our numerous Radio programs, at Ordo Militaris Radio.

The Order seeks to recruit chiefly Catholic Veterans who wish to put their military skills and knowledge to service in the defense of fellow Catholics, and this principally out of a desire of fraternal charity, not personal gain. As a religious association of Catholics we aim to combine the unique aspects of military and religious service as a work of mercy towards our fellow Catholics.

About our Private Military Coroporation: Ordo Militaris, Inc.

Following in the footsteps of the brave Catholics of old, who forsook family, home and nation to go overseas to the rescue of Christians being persecuted for their faith, we have begun this security and defense initiative of Catholics for Christians who are being persecuted, where their defense and security requires humanitarian aid and security solutions which only a private military corporation could lawfully provide.

We aim to be a non-political, transnational humanitarian effort with a distinctively Catholic ethos and spirit, providing a method of private collaboration and intervention separate from the national foreign policies of sovereign states, while working fully within the limitations of national and international laws and conventions.

While engaging principally in humanitarian relief efforts, either directly or through the provision of security solutions, we intend a robust business strategy to offer our services to existing humanitarian efforts who have need of private security solutions in those areas of the world which are high risk, as the principal foundation of our business strategy.

Click to See Our Books

At present, throughout the western world, there exists no such particularly Christian effort which blends security and defense with humanitarian aid, in part because classical charities or non profits are excluded from security and defense activities and programs and in part because in recent centuries the concept of security and defense as a humanitarian activity has all but been forgotten.

As part of our transnational strategy, we are currently seeking to establish subsidiaries overseas so as to increase the multifaceted advantages of an international presence and to take advantage of the unique resources and talents of Catholics who participate in our effort from throughout the Catholic world.

As a Montana Corporation directed by Catholics with deeply held religious beliefs we hope to provide unique solutions with an extremely high ethical rigor, in an age which sees increasingly religion as a security problem not a solution.  We are formed as a private military corporation, for profit, so that we might be capable in US law to apply for government defense contracts, fund the security and military needs of lawful Christian initiatives overseas and train and prepare volunteers who wish to serve with us on overseas missions. We are committed to being a corporation led by and employing principally US Military Veterans who see and wish to serve Jesus Christ as the King of Kings and the Prince of Peace.  In this way, we hope to offer veterans an utterly unique way to put their skills and experience to work defending their innocent and helpless brothers in Christ the world over.

SOURCE: See https://www.ordo-militaris.us

News

Zmirak: Communist China owns the Bergoglian Regime, but that is not half of it!

Video 4 Comments

https://youtu.be/9qWGEkfEwhM

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The information related by Mr. Zmirak here in this video raises serious questions about the Renunciation of Pope Benedict, as regards coercion prior to the act

Chinese Intelligence Involvement?

I say this not only on account of what Mr. Zimrak says, but on account of what I know that he does not know. Because, I have it from one of the business men who dined one evening in Shanghai with Cardinal Papalardo, of Palermo (may he rest in peace), heard from his own mouth that the Cardinal was convinced the health of Pope Benedict was so poor that he would die within a year. The news of this comment spread, and the MSM put out stories on Feb. 12, 2012, that there was a plot to assassinate Pope Benedict if he refused to resign within a year.

My question is, now that we know from Cardinal Zen of Hong Kong, that the Vatican Accord signed by Parolin was substantially the agreement of capitulation which Peking demanded Pope Benedict XVI to sign, though he refused: should we not consider it possible that Peking subborned Vatican representatives or connived with McCarrick to bribe Vatican officials (maybe even Gänswein?) to make the resignation happen?

After all, when the Italian businessmen joined the Cardinal in Shanghai for dinner in 2011, they were surprised to find him in China, and he said he was on official Vatican Business.

I find that hard to believe, because one of my sources who was the personal secretary of not a few Bishops in Italy, told me that Pope Benedict XVI sacked Cardinal Papalardo from the Congregation of Bishops because he was selling episcopal nominations for 100 thousand euros a pop! Once sacked, he bore a strong animus against Benedict til his dying days, it is said. And that means it might not have been an unintentional rumor, it might have been a carefully crafty psyop against Benedict by Chinese Intelligence, who somehow got Papalardo to cooperate.

So I think there is more than solid reasons to consider it possible that Pope Benedict XVI was not only urged out of power by the Obama Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, but also with the urging and perhaps financing of the Marxist government of China.

Is the Vatican still laundering money for the CIA?

Key to the Renunciation is the discrepancy of why Cardinal Bertone called Mr. Gotti to his offices on Feb. 7, 2013 to promise his reinstatement in his duties as financial officer at the Vatican — he was dismissed without Pope Benedict’s knowledge, said Bertone, and Benedict only learned of it while watching TV! — and just 4 days later Benedict decides to resign?

According to Gänswein, Benedict prepared for his resignation over many months. Yet the Latin text has more than 40 errors in the Latin and several canonical errors!  And Vatican TV was not even notified to turn their cameras on to catch it all?

It does not add up.

I think another line of investigation regards what Gotti might have possibly discovered if reinstated. And I think it has to do with slush funds in the Vatican Bank used by foreign Intelligence Agencies to bribe foreign officials, including Vatican officials.

I  base this observation on a very detailed report published in the USA on how Pope John Paul II cooperated with the CIA to fund the Solidarity Movement in Poland, which brought down the Communist Government there. The report said that the money was laundered through the Vatican Bank.  Did accounts like this remain operative after 1988? And if so, for what purposes?

The internecine battle in September between the Vatican Financial Oversight authority and the Secretary of State’s foreign investments in London, through a Swiss Bank and a financier in Luxembourg may have to do with the same slush funds, because almost immediately the Italian press published information showing that the current Prime Minster of Italy was paid money, ostensibly as a salary, about the time he was chosen as Prime Minister, out of a life of political obscurity. Since that time, Conte has run Italy strictly for the political agendas of France and Germany. While at the same time the Bergoglian Regime has forcefully defended the antics of one ship in the Mediterranean  Sea which imports illegals, which the European Press has unmasked as financed by Cardinal Marx and perhaps even German Intelligence.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

Editorials

We need to re-examine the Renunciation minus Gänswein

6 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

So many lines of supposition, speculation, investigation, analysis and examination pursued theories and explanations of Pope Benedict’s actions in February 2013 and beyond, on the basis of what Georg Gänswein told us. We presumed he was telling the truth, that he was reliable, faithful, honest and expressed only what the Holy Father wanted him to say.

Now that the masque has been ripped off by multiple reports (Socci, Tosatti 1 2, Viganò, myself) the entire history of the Renunciation needs to be examined minus Gänswein, that is, without presuming he is telling the truth.

Here are some questions I propose for investigators as they reread the reports from 2005 to 2020, which talk about Pope Benedict, the opposition he faced, why he Renounced, what it all meant:

  • Was Gänswein co-opted into the St. Gallen Mafia as early as the Conclave of 2005? I move this question on the basis of the testimony of Marco Tosatti’s source in the Curia, that something profoundly changed Gänswein with the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope.
  • Is it Gänswein who put into the head of Benedict the idea that he should, could, or must renounce?
  • Did Gänswein over several years psychologically condition Benedict to renounce?
  • Did Gänswein encourage or foster ideas of renunciation at the request of Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
  • Did Gänswein allow Pope Benedict’s letters to be stolen from his desk during the Vatileaks as a part of a plot by the St. Gallen Mafia to psychologically isolate, reduce and destroy Pope Benedict, inducing him to resign?
  • Did Gänswein play a double role in the fall of 2012, so as to obtain from Benedict the elevation to Archbishop and Head of the Pontifical Household, precisely so he could serve the St Gallen Mafia as a prison warden after the Renunciation?
  • Did Gänswein write the text of the Renunciation?
  • Did Gänswein sign off on the concept of a renunciation of ministry, based on his recourse to the German translation of the code in canon 145 §1?
  • Is Gänswein bitterly defending the validity of the Renunciation because of his role in procuring it, forming it, directing it?
  • Is the presumption that the Renunciation means a renunciation of office something which Gänswein put into the head of Pope Benedict, in a weakened state, by means of gaslighting, as he tried to do with me via phone?
  • Is the presumption of the Cardinals that the Renunciation is valid or means a renunciation of the papacy, based on Gänswein’s claim that this is what Benedict means and meant and wants?
  • Is the refusal to clarify the questions after the Renunciation have everything to do with Gänswein and nothing to do with Benedict?
  • Is Benedict BEING KEPT A VIRTUAL PRISONER AND ABUSED on a daily basis to prevent him from communicating to the world that he never intended to renounce the munus petrinum?
  • Does Benedict know he is the pope and say he is the pope in private?
  • Are the public statements attributed to Pope Benedict XVI after Feb. 2013 the creations of Gänswein and not at all the faithful expressions of the mind of Pope Benedict?
  • Since we can now be morally certain that Benedict does NOT tell Gänswein everything, how can we be sure that Gänswein even understands or knows what Pope Benedict’s Intention was when he read out his Declaratio on Feb. 11, 2013?

These questions are devastating, but the Church and all historians who examine the Renunciation must NOW ask them and must find the answers.

 + + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Editorials

YouTube is despicably Bergoglian

10 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I am not accustomed to write posts about the Internet, but when I run upon something really disgusting, I feel compelled.

It’s YouTube.

No, and I am not talking about so many of its videos.

I am talking about its search engine. Well, at least how its search engine works when I use it.

I did a search for Videos about Benedict XVI. And in the results it gave me videos of “Pope Francis” in the mix.

If you know anything about search engines, that is not supposed to happen. There is no Pope Benedict in anything of those which appeared entitled “Pope Francis”.

So to avoid the annoyance, I added another search term to the same search, “-Francesco”, which according to the custom of search engines is supposed to guarantee that the search will exclude occurrences of “Francesco”.

But that is not what happened.

In my second search, I also lost videos of Pope Benedict.

That means that YouTube, ostensibly at the request of Bergoglio, has tied the name of “Benedict XVI” to the name “Pope Francis”, so if you try to avoid seeing the Argentine Usurper, you miss out on the Catholic Pope.

That is Despicable!

We are in full 1984 George Orwell mode.

And someone’s ego is over sensitive!

I suggest you fight back. I post the above image
to do my part. We must speak the truth to godless power.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Canon Law

The news that Benedict renounced the Papacy is itself canonically invalid

3 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As I have said before, everything in the Bergoglian Church is founded upon lies and falsehoods. And the more you investigate, the more you find that this is true.

In many posts, here at The From Rome Blog, I have focused on the canonical problems of the Declaratio read aloud by Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013, during the Consistory of Cardinals called for the canonization of the Martyrs of Otranto and other saints.

Today I want to share only a short reflection, directed that those who think, that since everyone accepted that Benedict resigned the papacy, upon the news published that day, that we are canonically or morally bound to hold fast with that interpretation until some authority says otherwise.

The truth is, however, exactly the opposite.

And the truth is the opposite, because, once again, Pope John Paul II saved the Church from that kind of false thinking when he promulgated the Code of Canon Law in 1983, specifically including canon 40, which addresses this very issue.

That canon reads as follows in the Latin, official text:

Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.

Here is my English translation:

Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his office (suo munero), before he receives the documents (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) their integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of them has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.

And here is the problem, plain to see. Pope Benedict XVI read his Declaratio on that day between 11:30 and 11:40 A.M. It was so unexpected, that Vatican TV had to turn the cameras on several moments after the reading had begun. — Tell me again, that this was planned for months in advance, as Archbishop Ganswein keeps insisting in recent years!

Then at 11:58, Father Lombardi gives Giovanna Chirri, the ANSA pool reporter, the go ahead to tweet out that Benedict was resigning, he will leave the Pontificate on Feb. 28th.

But from Feb. 11, 2013 to about Feb. 18, 2013, the Vatican Press Office was publishing varying versions of the Renunciation, correcting now this, now that.

Thus, only until the final version was had, could anyone VALIDLY respond to it in canonical form, since Canon 40 requires that those with an office in the Church NOT act until they have the administrative act in hand in its integral form.

This means that the idea that Benedict had resigned the Papacy arose in that period of time in which Pope John Paul II forbid any canonically binding actions. That means that whoever told Lombardi to tell reporters anything, acted invalidly according to Canon Law. Which means that their act binds no one! And can never bind anyone.

It also means that once the final version was published, ALL who held office in the Church were canonically obliged TO RE-EXAMINE the act. — Did they do that?

I suggest the next time anyone says Bergoglio is certainly the Pope, ask them if they did that on Feb. 19, 2013. I bet you will find that the answer is that they did not.

So the next time anyone attempts to gaslight you into thinking that you are wrong to disagree with the “universal acceptance” of Benedict’s renunciation, you might want to ask them if they have ever read Canon 40 and considered that not only was the news Fake News, but its publication lacks ALL CANONICAL AUTHORITY.  This means, that the news never came from the Church of Jesus Christ, as an ontological entity.

As the sheep of Christ, then, we are gravely obliged to stop regarding it as authoritative. Indeed, to continue to do so is to transfer our loyalty, which we should show to the Church, to some other entity. And that is precisely the shell game of the AntiChrist.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

Septima Buccina: We need to rescue Benedict and we need to do it now!

6 Comments

From Rome wants to publicly commend Michael, over at Septima Buccina Blog, for his public statements on behalf of Pope Benedict. It is a question of the grave moral duty the whole Church has towards the care of the most honored elderly man in the Church right now, whether you call him Ratzinger, the Pope Emeritus, or Pope Benedict. It touches upon our duties to defend life, to defend the weak and to defend the elderly, as well as our duties to respect seniors, Bishops and Popes. It is clear to the whole world now that the Vatican is an abusive place and that Benedict is being abused.

Here is the opening statement at Septima Buccina Blog, read the rest and my dialogue with Michael in the comments section:

The Real Reason Folks Want You
To Ignore Benedict’s Situation

“The Supreme Shepherd and Vicar of Christ on Earth, who, being a prisoner in the Vatican… in that greatest crisis of the Church, he who is obligated to speak in due time will remain silent.”

Our Lady of Good Success (approved)

Ever wonder why even good Catholics, men and women you respect, sometimes irrationally and hostilely reject any possibility that Benedict’s resignation might have been coerced, and that he may not be a free man? To be sure, there are myriad reasons. The biggest one I see is pride. Actually, being attached to any sin will do it, but pride is the biggest culprit. See 2 Thessolians 2:10-11. I’ve written quite a lot on social media about the blinding spirit of the age, but that’s not the topic of this post. Let’s think about this for a minute.

Consider this scenario: Suppose your elderly father, grandfather, or any dear loved one had hired a live-in nurse or assistant. Suppose further that this beloved family member (we’ll call him “grandpa” for the sake of clarity) was always loving, communicative, and sharp when you would visit, and often called you up in between visits.

Then, one day, that all stops. Suddenly when you call, grandpa no longer answers the phone, Mr. Nurse does. When you ask to speak with grandpa, he says “grandpa is sleeping. How can I help you?” When you visit, grandpa is out of it, and seems more lethargic and slow

Continue Reading at: https://7thhorn.com/2020/01/16/the-real-reason-folks-want-you-to-ignore-benedicts-situation/

Ordo Militaris Catholicus: Is an international Catholic Military Association for the protection of Christians, headed by Br. Bugnolo. To learn more go to their website at: ordo-militaris.us

SIGN PETITION TO DONALD TRUMP
FOR THE PROTECTION OF POPE BENEDICT!

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

Do you want to be part of a Media Counter-Revolution?

16 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As we all know the MSM has completely lost its marbles and serves the Globalist world agenda, which has as its prime objective the destruction of Christendom and the Catholic Church.

The pro Bergoglian press are part and parcel the agents of this same agenda, with a little catholic veneer they are increasingly apostles of apostasy.

Trad Inc., which before the Renunciation of Benedict, was a faithful defender of the Eternal Faith, by hooking their wagon to the idea that “there is absolutely no doubt that Bergoglio is the pope” are increasingly being converted over to the agenda of the first two groups.

What is needed, then, is a truly Catholic Counter Revolution.

And The From Rome blog wants to do its part, so as from today, the From Rome Blog becomes FromRome.info, an Catholic News Information Media Site for truly Catholic news, not controlled by Soros or Bergoglio etc.. It will shortly get a new look and format, befitting a professional publication. But keep all the popular articles already published here.

This newsite will be run as an apostolate of the Ordo Militaris Catholicus, an international religious association of Catholics for the defense of Christianity.

Obviously, to make this effective, I need to recruit a staff of zealous Catholics who do not want to mince words or play in the pretend worlds of alternate realities; who know their faith well and are fluent in the languages they write. I want the platform to feature English, Italian, Spanish, French, German, Polish, Portuguese for starters.

If you would like to become a journalist and have the skills to write well and are someone who is highly informed about the Church at the present, please leave your contact information below in a comment.

I am looking for volunteers: whether full time or part time. Specifically I am looking for a Managing Editor, Writers, Reporters, Investigators, Commentators, who can produce in either Text or Video formats and have the equipment already and the internet access to produce their original contributions on their own, so that all they need to be is published at FromRome.info.

FromRome.info will be run like an electronic newspaper. It will allow comments, but not be a discussion forum like Gloria.TV or other sites of that kind. It will have a mix of essays and news, with news and news commentary predominating.

I am specifically looking for Catholics who hold the perennial faith, deplore Marxism, Modernism, and are staunch opponents of the Culture of Death and the Lavender Mafia.

If you feel you have what it takes to be a journalist with FromRome.info, contact me. I am NOT looking for professionals. I want individuals whose intellectual formation has not be touched by schools of journalism.  I expect you to be able to show me examples of your writing, reporting, commentary, etc. which you cite in a Resumé, and what websites or blogs you already have written on.  Also I ask for a 1 page essay on what you see are the principle problems in the Church.

I am looking for writers who can discuss or report on current events on all Continents, but always principally in regard to the Catholic Church. You can contribute in your own name or use a nom du plume, but with me, you must correspond with your true name.

Thank you for your interest, and Deus Vult!

Guest Editorials

Archbishop Viganò: The hour has come to clarify the role of Gänswein

12 Comments

by Archbishop Carolo Maria Viganò

LAVERITA.INFO

FULL TEXT

Authorized translation of the Italian original by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Dear Editor,

It is time to reveal the control that has been abusively and systematically exercised by Msgr. Gänswein towards the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, ever since the beginning of his pontificate.

Gänswein has habitually filtered information, assuming the right to judge for himself how much or how little to tell the Holy Father.

I can testify that, when Pope Benedict received me in audience on April 4, 2011, a few days after I had sent him my first letter (later abusively published in the course of Vatileaks) I said to the Pontiff: “I will not speak to you about the situation of corruption in the administration of the Pontifical Villas, because I presume that you have already reviewed the Memorandum in this regard that I gave to your secretary for you, in view of this Audience.”

The Holy Father, in all simplicity and innocence, and without showing any surprise, said “No, I have seen nothing.”

I further testify another fact that reveals how much Msgr. Gänswein controlled information given to the Holy Father and conditioned the liberty of action of the Same. On the occasion of the canonization of Marianne Cope and Kateri Tekakwitha, having requested in writing to the then-Prefect of the Papal Household, Msgr. James Harvey, to be received in an audience with the Pope, and not having received any response, I asked the Prefect, on October 23, 2012, why I had not received any response to my request for an audience.

I recall the circumstance perfectly, because Msgr. Harvey suggested to me that I would participate in the General Audience the following day, so as to at least be able to personally greet the Holy Father with the other bishops present. Msgr. Harvey responded with the following words: “Gänswein said to me: ‘Monsignor Viganò is the last person who can approach Pope Benedict!’”

Harvey then added that at the beginning of the Pontificate, Benedict XVI, pointing at him [Gänswein] with his finger, exclaimed, “Gestapo! Gestapo!”

This unscrupulous attitude was shown from the very beginning of the pontificate in the determination with which Gänswein succeeded in distancing the Pope from his dear assistant and secretary Ingrid Stampa, whom then-Cardinal Ratzinger wanted at his side for well over a decade after the death of his sister, Maria Ratzinger.

And then I note that in order to escape from this total control exercised over his person by Gänswein, Pope Benedict often went to his previous personal secretary, Msgr Josef Clemens, also inviting to said family meeting Ingrid Stampa.

I make this declaration following what has been asserted by Msgr. Gänswein to the Ansa agency, in contradiction of what Pope Benedict himself wrote in the exchange of letters made with Cardinal Sarah. It is a sensational as well as slanderous insinuation towards the most eminent Cardinal Robert Sarah, promptly denied by the same.

 

ORIGINAL: https://www.laverita.info/padre-georg-ha-isolato-il-pontefice-emerito-2644822455.html

 

 

 

Guest Editorials

Marco Tosatti: Who is Gänswein Really? What Role Has He Played And Is He Playing?

4 Comments

By Marco Tosatti

15 January 2020

Authorized English translation of Italian Original by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Dear readers, we have received a message from an elderly high-ranking prelate of the Curia; he is retired, but because he has over forty years of experience working inside the Vatican walls, from time to time he is still given delicate assignments. What “Monsignor X” writes to us is extremely interesting, because it helps us to piece together some of the problematic aspects of  the events of the last 72 hours. We are speaking, naturally, of the saga of the book; and we must say that it is difficult to not consider someone to be the co-author of a book that they have written more than forty pages of, as well as collaborating in writing the introduction and conclusion. Difficult…and a bit ridiculous.

But, remaining focused on the theme of the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus, we advise you to read La Verità on Thursday morning [January 16], which will contain another testimony of great value from an archbishop who has held many important roles in the Curia and also outside the Vatican and who has been in contact with Msgr. Gänswein for a long time. Trust my advice…

 

Monsignor X to Tosatti: 

I ask you to print what I write here, with the intention of making a contribution in order to help ensure that there will not be muddling of either the figure of Benedict nor that of Sarah, who is more in danger in this whole affair.

What has been reported raises several questions:

  1. Why would a man like Sarah ever have done something so absurd and easily disproven? (It is unthinkable that this was a private and free initiative of Gänswein – he does not have the authority even to think about doing it, and it would be far too dangerous to actually do it).
  2. Who therefore asked Gänswein to give orders to Cardinal Sarah? Was it Benedict or Bergoglio? (These are Gänswein’s two superiors)

I think it is clear that it could not have been Benedict, who speaks with Sarah frequently and loves him as a brother.

But who is Gänswein? Georg Gänswein is a very intelligent man; he was the most faithful personal secretary for Benedict from the moment of his election as pope, replacing Msgr. Clemens, the former personal secretary of Cardinal Ratzinger, who remained the pope’s confidant, stirring up Gänswein’s jealousy, to the point of ending up literally getting punched for it!

My understanding is that during the period of the pontificate, Gänswein functioned as the loyal protector of the Pope and even operated as a sort of “alternative” Secretary of State, in opposition to Cardinal Bertone, with whom Benedict had bad relations.

After the resignation he was not, as people called him, “the caregiver” of Benedict XVI.

I fear that he was rather “the guardian.”

Having been a most faithful and most loyal secretary, something happened that caused a profound transformation in him.

Therefore it is not surprising that it is supposed and said that Gänswein had not been told by Benedict about this book with Sarah. Is it possible that Gänswein no longer enjoys the confidence of the Pope Emeritus?

It could also be the case, after the mysterious and never-clarified arrest of the papal butler Paolo Gabriele, accused of having photocopied private documents of Pope Benedict taken straight off of Gänswein’s desk and giving them to journalists, without “anyone” knowing…

These documents accused Cardinal Bertone, with whom Gänswein, previously, had bad relations; but which curiously improved afterwards…

But above all it is curious that Pope Bergoglio confirmed him not only as personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus but also as Prefect of the Papal Household, which is not an honorary position.

The abrupt order given [on Monday] to Cardinal Sarah to remove Ratzinger’s signature from the book – which was not given explicitly in Benedict’s name, as should have been done – may reignite various suspicions and doubts about the figure and loyalty of Gänswein.

Here is a description of the duties of the Prefect of the Papal Household, taken from the Vatican website:

It is the task of the Prefecture of the Papal Household to coordinate the services of the Antechamber and to organize the official audiences granted by His Holiness to Heads of State, Heads of Government, Governmental Ministers and other dignitaries, as well as to Ambassadors who come to the Vatican to present their Letters of Credence.

The Prefecture takes care of the preparations for all audiences – private, special and general – and visits from those who are formally received by the Holy Father. It is also responsible for arranging Pontifical ceremonies – except liturgical celebrations – as well as the Spiritual Retreat of the Holy Father, the College of Cardinals and the Roman Curia.

In addition, the Prefecture oversees the appropriate arrangements required each time the Holy Father leaves the Apostolic Palace to visit the city of Rome or travel within Italy.

(For the Italian Original, click the link below)

CHI È GAENSWEIN REALMENTE? QUALE RUOLO HA GIOCATO E GIOCA?

News

Archbishop Viganò unmasks Gänswein

5 Comments

FromRome.Info has just published the entire TEXT in English Translation HERE

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

BREAKING — Rome, January 16, 2020 A. D.: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in a front page leading article in today’s edition of La Verità, one of the leading conservative Italian Daily Newspapers, blasts Archbishop Gänswein as someone who has habitually put himself between Pope Benedict XVI and the Roman Curia, blocking and filtering things which he personally did not want Pope Benedict to see or respond to.

The revelations are personal and stunning. in a short article, written by Viganò himself, which follows on p. 2 of today’s edition. While I cannot legally give a translation of the whole article, I can summarize its contents:

  • He characterizes Gänswein’s activity as the personal secretary of the Pope as “a control abusively and systematically exercised … from the beginning of his pontificate”.
  • Viganò says that on April 4, 2011, when he personally met with Pope Benedict, he asked if he has received through Gänswein his complaints about the abuse and corruption of the Pontifical Household (which was not under Gänswein’s authority at that time). But Pope Benedict said that the information never arrived in his hands.
  • On the occasion of the canonization of Marianne Cope and Kateri Tekakwitha, Viganò sought an audience with Pope Benedict, but was told by the Prefect of the Pontifical Household, Mons. Harvey, that Gänswein had told him “Monsigno Viganò is the last person to approach Benedict!”

For the full article, see La Verità at https://www.laverita.info/padre-georg-ha-isolato-il-pontefice-emerito-2644822455.html

For Marco Tosatti’s Discussion of this news, in Italian, see https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/01/16/ganswein-benedetto-sarah-un-intervento-di-mons-vigano/

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

Marco Tosatti — Cardinal Sarah and Benedict XVI Book controversy

3 Comments

By Marco Tosatti

January 14, 2020

Authorized Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino of the Original Italian

Published Dear readers, various people have asked me to try and shed light on the argument over the publication of the book “Des Profondeurs des nos coeurs” created by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah. Here we have brought together from extremely reliable sources a series of elements that we offer to you.

Apparently nobody in the Mater Ecclesiae monastery [where Benedict XVI lives] had seen the cover of the book, and this was one of the principal problems.

The central point however to clarify is the content of the polemic that the “Bergoglio Press Team” launched from the beginning: claiming that Benedict had not been involved in writing the book, that he only put his signature on it and other such miserable insinuations. The reality is that Benedict XVI edited all of the drafts of the book, obviously his own part, but also reading and editing the part written by Cardinal Robert Sarah.

Benedict also said, and wrote, to Sarah, that he approved both the introduction and the conclusion of the book.

George Gänswein has not read the book, and this has definitely caused a problem.

The entire operation remained in the hands of Benedict and Sarah, and also the editor Nicolas Diat, who obviously took a great interest in the job, seeing it as an occasion to make this book the “important” book of Benedict XVI and Sarah, all to his glory and merit.

Thus, when the bomb went off Monday morning [which had already begun to explode on Sunday night because in America they were awake], and people like Faggioli, etc. started shooting, with a very clear intention. The focused on the cover, which Diat had published, saying that here he wanted to make an “operation against the Pope,” that is, against Pope Francis.

The objective of Faggioli etc. was to have there be no discussion of the content of the book. On Monday morning at the Mater Ecclesiae monastery they did not realize the extent of the polemic that was taking place, despite having been warned. Gänswein finally got in touch with Andrea Tornielli, who wrote an article for L’Osservatore Romano and Vatican News, referring to the ideas of Pope Bergoglio on the importance of celibacy, and seeking to throw oil on the waters that various channels were agitating, claiming among other things that Benedict XVI and Sarah had not written the book together.

The latest development, which is frankly quite incomprehensible, has come to us from the declarations of Georg Gänswein, who told a German journalist that the title needs to be changed as well as the cover. For what reason, we don’t know.  Perhaps in order to protect his own position, which is definitely a complicated one, as he is the person closest to Benedict and at the same time close to Bergoglio as the Prefect of the Papal Household. In passing, we can note that among the yelps and barkings of the pro-regime press in the first hours of this controversy they were speaking of a manipulation by the “entourage” of Pope Benedict. But actually, since Benedict’s “entourage” consists of Gänswein alone, it was in the dark about everything…. But the impression is that Gänswein is trying to avoid being crushed between a rock and hard place is strong; to the point of making people believe that if some sort of push was given to Benedict, well, it only happened now and not previously.

Undoubtedly Gänswein with his declarations today places Cardinal Sarah in a difficult situation that has nothing to do with him. Sarah has conducted himself in an extremely straightforward way. All of this work on the book, however, began before the Synod on the Amazon, in September.

In September, because of the pre-synodal polemics over priestly celibacy and the question of “viri probati,” Benedict had already written fifteen reflections on the theme of celibacy. These were then included in the book.

Note that the path taken seems very similar to what happened on the occasion of the summit on clergy sexual abuse [in February 2019]. Benedict had prepared a reflection, probably with the intention of offering it as a contribution to bishops directing the summit, sending it to the reigning Pontiff and the Secretary of State. But it remained there [and was never presented at the summit], and it was published a few months later in a German journal that focuses on the clergy.

Once again, it seems interesting and important to repeat: these paper polemics have moved all of our attention away from the contents of the book to its cover!

(For the Italian original click the link below)

IL LIBRO DI BENEDETTO XVI E SARAH. ECCO I RETROSCENA DEL GIALLO.

 

Guest Editorials

Antonio Socci: The Furor of the Despot Against the Catholic Pope

4 Comments

 

by Antonio Socci

January 14, 2020

Authorized Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino
Italian Original on Facebook

Reliable sources from inside the Vatican reconstruct the whole affair in this way. The book “Des profondeurs de nos coeurs” is clearly written by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah (as is indisputably demonstrated by the letters the two exchanged last fall made known by Sarah [on his Twitter account].) Everything was decided and agreed upon together from the beginning.

The other day – when the excerpt in defense of celibacy was issued [in Le Figaro] – the end of the world broke out in the Vatican because Bergoglio was furious. Such an authoritative pronouncement from Benedict XVI prevents him from smashing priestly celibacy, as had been his intention to do in the forthcoming Post-Synodal Exhortation.

And so BERGOGLIO PERSONALLY called Archbishop Gänswein, who is personal secretary to Benedict XVI but also Prefect of the Papal Household of Bergoglio and – furious – he ORDERED him take the name of Benedict XVI off the cover of the book (since he could not demand that the text of the book be changed).

Bergoglio demanded a complete and total disavowal. For this reason the first news that filtered through spoke of sources “close to Benedict XVI” saying that Benedict had not co-authored the book with Sarah, had not approved the cover (which said that he is the author of the work).

This however was not true and Benedict XVI could not accept saying something false, thereby implicitly accusing Cardinal Sarah of having involved him without his consent. Nor did Pope Benedict have any intention of taking back what he had written in defense of celibacy in the book.

Cardinal Sarah immediately revealed the letters the two had exchanged, which demonstrated that the book was planned by both of them, and certainly Sarah revealed these letters with the consent of Benedict XVI – in order to re-establish the truth.

On the other hand, Benedict also needed to shelter his secretary [Gänswein] from the South American “vendettas” since Gänswein had received a peremptory order from Bergoglio.

Thus a compromise solution was adopted: in the successive editions of the book the author of the book will be Cardinal Sarah “WITH THE CONTRIBUTION OF BENEDICT XVI.” The text of the book in any case remains the same.

With this messy solution the Bergoglian courtiers can tell the media that “Benedict XVI has removed his signature from the book” (even though this is not true) and yet the book remains as it was, with the signature of Sarah and the name of Benedict XVI as the author of the parts written together.

A most ugly story of clerical bullying that in the end led to the gagging of Benedict XVI.

THERE IS STILL THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION: IF BERGOGLIO, IN HIS EXHORTATION, STRIKES AT CELIBACY (BY PERMITTING THE ORDINATION OF “VIRI PROBATI”) HE PLACES HIMSELF IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH RESTATED IN THESE DAYS BY POPE BENEDICT XVI. THUS HE ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR A SERIOUS RIFT OF THE CHURCH FRAUGHT WITH CONSEQUENCES.

News

2 Questions that Gänswein violently does not want to Answer

15 Comments

Or, how it happened that the Archbishop called me on the phone

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The world has seen two of the most outrageous usurpations of office in the history of humanity, and in the short space of six years, from 2007 to 2013. I speak of the unconstitutional election of a self-proclaimed Kenyan citizen to the Presidency of the United States of America, in violation of the natural born citizen clause (Article II, section 1, clause 5) and of the uncanonical election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Roman Pontiff on March 13, 2013 in violation of canon 359 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and Pope John Paul II’s law on papal elections, Universi Dominic Gregis, n. 37, which both forbid the election of a Roman Pontiff when a legal sede vacante has not occurred. (A sede vacante occures with the natural death of the Pope, or his resignation of munus in accord with Canon 332 §2). — For all my reports on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict and why that act did not cause him to lose the Papal Office, see my Index to the Renunciation of Pope Benedict.

It was a poignant moment, then, for the triumph of criminality over law, when Barrack Obama came to the Vatican to meet with Cardinal Bergoglio on Marcy 27, 2014. And in the midst was Father George, Gänswein, at Obama’s right hand (Photo care of the White House).

But the plans of men cannot be hidden from God, nor can they be hidden for long from God’s faithful, moved as they are by the Spirit of Truth who reveals hidden secrets.

Inspired by this Spirit many a faithful Catholic has voiced concerns, criticisms, objections and warnings over the strange happenings of February 2013, when Benedict issued a declaration in the Consistory of Feb. 11th, of that year — called to canonize the Martyrs of Otranto, slaughtered en masse by the forces of the Turks in the 16th century — which was publicized as a renunciation of the papacy, though it was nothing of the kind.

Present on that day, was also George Gänswein, now titular Archbishop of Urbs Salvia.

Mons. Gänswein has been seen as the faithful and devoted personal secretary to Joseph Ratzinger for more than 35 years. Ratzinger spotted him taking coffee at the German Collegium in the Vatican back in the 80’s and asked if he would like to be his secretary, since he needed someone fluent in German and Italian.  Mons. Gänswein holds a doctorate in Canon Law.

For these reasons I have long confided in Gänswein to speak the truth, even if, after his talk at the Gregorian University in 2016, when he clearly said that Benedict XVI still occupied the petrine office and still shared the petrine munus and ministry, I shook my head, because it seems a totally insane thing to say, since at the time, I still operated under the fake news put out that day, that Benedict had resigned the papacy.

But in the Last 18 months, with intense research and investigation, I have come to agree with Gänswein on those same points, because the effect of renouncing the petrine ministry alone, is that Benedict retains the petrine munus and office, and hence, in virtue of these, also the petrine ministry and power of governance, whether he thinks he has or not, and whether anyone else thinks he has, or not.

My Two Letters to Archbishop Gänswein

So, in November, filled with this sense of trust and confidence in the Archbishop, whose personal motto is Testimonium perhibere veritati — To bear witness to the truth — I wrote him a personal letter, in Italian, on the 25th, the English translation of which, I will post here:

I am writing you to request a personal meeting with you so as to put to rest a common doubt, which many Catholics have, who love His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI.

This doubt regards whether He, in saying minstero in his act of Feb. 11, 2013, had the intention to say muneri.

This doubt lingers because, as much as I know, His Holiness has never been asked in public if he had this intention or not.

Many are of the opinion, that in renouncing the ministry, Pope Benedict’s intention was to retain the munus, because He thinks the munus is the grace and the vocation which he received for always.

Others are of the opinion that in renouncing the ministery, His intention was to renounce the papacy, but not having understood that the ministerium is not the munus on account of the error in the German translation of the Code of Canon Law, in canon 145 §1, He made a substantial error in the renunciation (cf. Canons 126 and 188), because Canon 332 §2 constrains the man who is the pope, in renouncing, to renounce the petrine munus.  Since as Pope He did not concede to himself as Ratzinger a derogation by reason of canon 38, the renunciation remains vitiated. This is what they think.

For these reasons, and because I have written extensively on this topic at fromrome.wordpress.com and ChiesaRomana.info, I think a meeting with your Excellency will help all understand better what has happened.

I am not a journalist I am a consecrated person observing the Rule of Saint Francis, which obliges me in its second precept to uphold the Papacy.

Desiring only to know the truth, and dwelling at Rome, only 10 minutes from the Vatican, I am free at any moment to meet you wherever you like,

Sincerely,

Having received no response, I posted another letter to the Archbishop on January 9, at the Vatican Post Office. That letter got a phone response. Here is my English translation of that letter, the original of which was also in Italian:

Your Excellency!

I wish you best wishes on the Seventh Anniversary of your Episcopal Consecration at the hands of Pope Benedict! And I thank you for all that you do for the Holy Father!

I am writing for several reasons:

First, to remind you of my request for a personal meeting with your Excellency to understand better if the Holy Father had intended to renounce the petrine munus or whether he has ever said that he wanted to renounce the petrine munus, as I requested of you in my letter of Nov. 25th.

I make this request for the good of the Church, because I understand that the true pastoral care of the faithful, which save souls, is that which is established on the truth, not on hearsay.

…

I am also writing you to inform you, that on Dec. 19, I founded The League of Prayer for Pope Benedict XVI.  Catholics all over the world are already signed up, by means of 7 blogs which are spreading the invitation. For an Italian explanation see

For an English version see:

https://fromrome.info/2019/12/19/join-the-league-of-prayer-for-pope-benedict-xvi/

Where you can find all the blogs listed who are participating in the English, Italian, Spanish and French speaking worlds.

I founded this League for the reasons described in the announcements and to share with other the grace the Lord gave me the day Pope John Paul II was shot in the Piazza S. Petro years ago, to pray daily for the Holy Father.

Lastly, having had the care of my own mother in her last years of life (she passed away on Nov. 2, 2018, from cortical dementia, her name is Doris) I learned well that the elderly need proper nutrition. I recommend a diet which is rich in protein. In the Bavarian State TV documentary the images of the Holy Father seem to show that he has lost a lot of weight recently, and so I am worried for his health. Also, seeing that my maternal grandfather was a barber, I cannot omit to say that if the Holy Father needs the services of a barber, I am willing to make a donation to pay the barber’s salary.

Sincerely in Saint Francis,

In both letters, at the end, I included contact information. My email and phone number. Little did I think I would ever get a response to my second letter. But I did, and it came by telephone at 10:43 A.M. on the morning of Saturday, January 11, 2020.

Archbishop Gänswein drops me a call

Though I missed the call, the Archbishop was kind enough to leave a message on my voice mail. Since my report here at The From Rome Blog, which is hosted on a website in the USA, is nevertheless readable in the European Union, I cannot share with you the recording of the call, nor give you a transcription of its contents, because that is prevented by privacy laws. However, I can describe in my own words, what I understood by the message left, so that everyone, especially the Cardinals and Bishops, understand how wrong it is to trust in anyone who claims to represent Pope Benedict, and how they need now to go to him in person and ask the most important questions.

I was trained in music as a youth, and so I have a keen ear to musical tones. Everyone’s voice has its own tone, and whether they speak in public or in private, on the phone or before an audience, it is the same tone. For that reason I can say the voice is that of the Archbishop. The voice also identifies itself as such.

My Italian contacts tell me it is clearly the voice of a German, but one which has spoken Italian for quite some time. I think the voice is suffering a little of the influenza that is hitting everyone at Rome right now. So I urge all to pray for the Archbishop’s health of body and soul.

However, sadly, the first thing the voice does is to attempt to gaslight me.

Gaslighting is a trick of mental persuasion usually used by tyrants or manipulators or even pedophiles, whereby the one in the position of power dictates to the one who is a subject how they should view reality. It is usually accompanied by insults or deprecatives which make the person inclined to doubt their own grasp on reality. If the Archbishop knew anything about me, he would know that that trick only works with weak minds who are seeking affirmation from power, which is not me in the least. The comment made also tried to characterize the entirely of my letter in such a light, which is really hard to justify even if you think Benedict is still the pope, because my letter was about much more than that.

To me, the gaslighting was totally uncalled for, and even cruel. I remain shocked that the voice of an Archbishop would be so uncharitable.

The second thing the voice does is to denounce my work of investigating the Renunciation. It says I am wrong and mistaken. This is a remarkable comment, since anyone who viewed the URLs in my letters would know that I am very thorough and back up everything I say with facts. I do not interpret facts, I let them speak for themselves. It then demands that I stop my work investigating the Renunciation.

Since I fear God alone, I can assure you that such a demand will have the opposite effect.

The third thing the voice does, as far as I understand it, is to demand that I and everyone in the League stop praying for Pope Benedict. The voice demands that I pray for Pope Francis. It seems to deny that Benedict is a pope or the pope.

And what is most remarkable, is what is not said by the voice. The voice does not say that it is acting at the bequest of Pope Benedict.

The voice is clearly of a man who is acting out of terror, rashness, imprudence. You can hear the anger and terror. There is even one grammatical mistake in the Italian used. From the logs at my blog, I can safely say that the Archbishop looked at, at least, 5 posts before the phone call came in. He was surfing to my blog using a VPN masking itself as being in the EU not the Vatican. (This is a standard practice at the Vatican now, after the computer raids made by the Vatican Gendarmerie in September). There were no background noises. A slam down of a phone handle can be heard terminating the call.

I could say a thousand things about this phone call. But I will conclude by saying, that in my own judgement, it is a lot easier to answer 2 questions than to threaten someone over the phone. I won’t get into the fact that the voice used a burner phone to make the call, that is, a phone which leaves no trace as to which number was used to make the call. What on earth is an Archbishop doing with such a phone? Such things are used by drug dealers and mafiosi!

In the future, I recommend that if you want to write Pope Benedict, do not send your mail to the Archbishop. I myself now consider that Benedict is clearly imprisoned., and that the Archbishop should be considered a prison warden, more than a personal secretary. The purpose of the imprisonment is this: His captors do not want him to meet with the public or with Cardinals in private, where he is free to express himself, PRECISELY because they do not want him to be asked those 2 questions.

I know why. And I think you can guess too. Others, better than I, have already guessed it too:

https://twitter.com/Giusepp20826941/status/1216942393641009152

And that means, that Benedict is still the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter, because the essential act required by canon 332 §2, is a renunciation of the petrine munus.

Please share this article with all Cardinals and Archbishops and Bishops. I think it presents sufficient evidence that they should be concerned about the integrity of information regarding what he did and what it meant, on Feb. 11, 2013.

I will conclude this report by sharing a Video of the Archbishop, June 14, 2017, in which he says clearly the opposite of what he said on the phone to me: I am here principally to share with everyone the greetings of Pope Benedict XVI. (0:17 in the video, in Italian)

POST SCRIPT: Journalists who are in Rome or who come in person to Rome are welcome to hear the recording of the phone call, in my presence. Just leave your contact information in a comment  below. — I have transmitted a copy of the phone call to my private attorney in the USA, so in case anything happens to me, there is legal evidence of the fact.

____________

* In this Article, I have used the English word, “question”, in the sense of a problem which is asked to be responded to, because, as you can see there are no question marks in my letters to the Archbishop.

____________

THIS POST HAS BEEN PUBLISHED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN ITALIAN at ChiesaRomana.info:

https://www.chiesaromana.info/index.php/2020/01/15/due-domande-alle-quali-mons-ganswein-non-vuole-rispondere/

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

News

Protestant Leader Confesses Amazement at Catholic Tradition on the Eucharist

4 Comments

That is just a clip.

Here is the full talk:

My take on all of this, is, that just as we are about to see the Schism of a mass of heretics and godless out of the Catholic Church, so we will see the conversion of 10s of millions of non Catholic Christians to the Catholic Church. This will be the fulfillment of the Immaculate Heart of Mary’s triumph.

News

Top Vaticanista: Opposition to Bergoglio in the Roman Curia is at 100%

9 Comments

Rome: January 14, 2020: While Catholics round the world stand in total shock at the apparent eclipse of the Catholic Church on account of the outrageous heresies, blasphemies and political shenanigans of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a word of great consolation was reported to The From Rome Blog, this Sunday:

Opposition to Bergoglio in the Roman Curia is at 100%. They want him out!

This comes from one of the top Vaticanistas of Rome who has served in the Eternal City for decades. He has deep and widespread network of informants through the Vatican and Curial Departments. He hears the same thing from all of them. No one wants the Argentine. They are counting the days!

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]