Category Archives: Church History

The 1960’s CIA Attack on the Catholic Church, the Eucharist, Catholic Youth & Families

In this program, Ordo Militaris Radio TV for its 4th Anniversary, tells how the CIA through Henry and Clare Luce Booth, Fr. John Courtenay Murray, S. J., and Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, OP, began a frontal attack on the Catholic Church’s Faith and Morals. Learn the stunning facts about the moral depravity of these individual and how the entire Vatican II Council was shaped by these disgusting liars.

Watch by clicking the image above, or through the Rumble window here below.


Rev. Gommar de Pauw’s 1967 Letter to Pope Paul VI calling for abolition of Vatican II

Editor’s Note: For those Catholics who still cannot figure out why Kennedy Hall is so wrong about Vatican II and why he is wrong, I suggest you read this historical document: the letter of the Rev.  Gommar de Pauw, Doctor in Canon Law and Moral Theology, Professor at Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary, Head of Faculty, and Catholic priest for his entire life, to understand how a man who dedicated his entire life, soul, career and mind to the service of Christ and His Church speaks about Vatican II in its immediate aftermath. This will help you see who is the fool and who is the wise man.

And from this letter, I will dare to say, that Father de Pauw would agree with my assessment of Hall’s position on Vatican II as “blasphemous”, nonsensical and heretical.

A Meditation for the 11th Anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI’s Renunciation of Ministry

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

It was 11 years ago, on February 11, 2013 A. D., at shortly after 11:30 A. M., that his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI read his now famous declaration, “Non solum propter”. — Above, if you click the image, you can access FromRome.Info’s complete Index to the history, debate and controversy over the events of that day and the meaning or effect of that declaration.

By that act he clearly and manifestly intended to retain the petrine munus and renounce only the petrine ministry, so that by retiring but not abdicating he could retain the Papal Dignity and Mandate, while conceding to his opponents the other powers of governance. While there are many, many opinions about the morality, intention, cause, motives and purpose of such an act, the juridical value of it was NOT and abdication.

But, for today’s anniversary, I want to offer a reflection on the moral errors committed in the Vatican before and during that controversy, which might help explain why even to this day, notable clergy incardinated at the Vatican, such as Cardinals Burke and Mueller, Brandmuller and Sarah, and even Archbishop Viganò seemingly find it impossible to admit their error in thinking he declared that he would abdicate from the Pontificate on that day.

As I have shown in my Index to Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, there are more than 53 errors in the Latin text Pope Benedict XVI read on that day. And why it has been admitted by experts at the Vatican, that Pope Benedict XVI wrote the text without any consultation with Canon Lawyers or Latinists, even Archbishop Gänswein admits there are errors in the text — though he has not yet had the charity to the Catholic world to admit which ones he recognizes.

Thus, the national Catholic newspaper in Italy, Avvenire, which is run by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference there, though they called me an “idiot” for claiming there are errors in the text, now has to eat crow. And yes, I still await an apology for their calumny, for the sake of removing the scandal they have placed before millions of souls.

But that they resorted to the services of a defrocked priest to gaslight the Catholic world about the deficiencies in the text, showed how desperate they were to keep the narrative of an abdication going, and how they knew all in their hearts, at least by 2021 that Benedict XVI never abdicated.

This collective sin and guilt and complicity is the principal embarrassment of the Catholic Hierarchy, not only in Italy but round the world. These men are pragmatic, and they realize that their moral authority over the faithful will be utterly destroyed when it comes to be known that they collectively were incapable of understanding how Canon 332 §2 worked and what was necessary for an abdication — a thing which should be a basic concept taught in a general Canon Law class on juridical acts.

So individuals who have doctorates in Canon Law such as Archbishop Gänswein really have no excuse. And there are 1000s like him, who were all silent. Though the worst sin was of those who should have known and attempted to defend the indefensible, namely, that a renunciation of ministerium in Latin signified a renunciation of munus.

But it was not I, but Cardinal Burke himself who immediately recognized that the declaration did not contain what it should contain to effect a valid abdication. He himself spoke to friends and acquaintances from Rome to Arizona about this. But he otherwise hid this opinion of his from the press. And I surmise that if he attempted to speak with Pope Benedict XVI before February 28, 2013, he failed in his request, because Pope Benedict XVI was not wont to speak with him about “canonical details”. The other Cardinals and clergy at the Vatican also failed, either out of human respect, or complicity in the plot by Hilary Clinton to push Pope Benedict XVI from power and have a new “spring time” in the Catholic Church.

I will guess too, without any evidence, that if there were a group of Cardinals and Bishops who realized the errors in the text in February 2013, they became conflicted in their private counsels, because they considered it somehow wrong to request that Pope Benedict XVI make a proper and correct renunciation on Feb. 28, 2013, to correct the errors of his Feb. 11th text. Indeed, for men like Cardinal Burke, it was his grave duty to make his way to Castle Gandolfo on Feb. 28th, with the proper text written on paper and carried in hand, to obtain an audience and insist Pope Benedict XVI sign the document in the presence of two other Bishops or Archbishops. Perhaps he was too unfit to climb to the balcony by rope ladder or thrown himself on the ground in front of the main door, to make a spectacle, to obtain this juridical rectification. We cannot judge the man on his personal sentiments, but all who knew of the defect should have had such a zeal.

Contrariwise, if anyone knew that the act of Pope Benedict XVI did not validly cause an abdication, or that Pope Benedict XVI knew, understood or did not understand this they had a grave solemn duty to announce this to the world as soon as they knew of it. Cardinal Burke did not do this. Why? Did the Cardinals discuss this in the canonically invalid Conclave of 2013 ? We may never know. But shortly after they came out of that “Conclave” we know that they had formed a silent eternal pact to never speak of this fraud perpetrated upon the Catholic World, because immediately the Vatican began publishing falsified translations in all major languages of the world, to conceal this from 1+ Billion Catholics. And this is the greatest crime against the rights of the Faithful in the entire history of the Church!

However, the official canonical and juridical declaration that ‘Pope Benedict XVI remained pope until his death’ is a question about which the Catholic Bishops of the Roman Province are competent to judge in a Provincial Council. Anyone can request them to do it. And all honesty requires that they,  who know of it, make such a request. Moreover, if they fail to rectify the historical and juridical record, those who know of it, who could be influential to obtain this, will go to their graves to encounter a most Terrible and unforgiving Judge, Whose Immaculate Bride has been raped and sullied by such a great injustice.

And yet, all those who insist that Bergoglio has never been the pope, fail to avail themselves of the most important confirmation of the invalidity of the Conclave of 2013, which they could obtain by the convocation of such a Council. Why is this? Those who insist he has always been the pope, also fail to seek this solution. Why?

So as we commemorate and remember that fateful day 11 years ago, we should make a renewed effort to admit the truth, connect the dots and study the sources, if we have not yet understood what really happened on that day and who is at fault for it.

And I encourage all the Catholics who have had the grace of the Holy Spirit to do this and complete this necessary task, to pray for all those who live within the ideological limits imposed upon by the boy’s clubs and magic circles in which they move, who out of human respect have preferred not to ask the question or worse to denigrate the messengers of truth, whom God has sent to His Church in the last 11 years.

Many have urged me to write a book about Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, but I make all the articles and videos available for free, because as a Franciscan Brother I realize that my vocation is to give freely, when one has received freely, and to work for the repair of Christ’s Church. — Of everything I have written and mentioned, here, you can find reference and articles in the above index. Just click the top image in this post. is an electronic journal chronicling the events of the Church without keeping silent about the duty of Catholics to respond with faith-filled action, rather than as mere spectators. This article is one of more than 10,000 published since September 2013 A. D.. For more information about our journal, see our About Page.

Gladio, Pope Francis & the making of the One Religion of the New World Order

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

The recent trend in opposition to ‘Fiducia supplicans’, which is tending to grow ever more muted and conciliatory, demonstrates how strongly the CIA controls the Catholic Church, both interiorly through the members of the Sacred Hierarchy, from Pope Francis down to your local Bishop, and exteriorly through the way the MSM reports on events in the Catholic Church. There is a third pole of control, also, the fake-opposition, which consists in apparently independent Catholic media and infuencers who tow the CIA narrative, while pretending to oppose the interior system of control.

Let’s unpeal the multilayered onion of these three Globalist control systems to show how much 99.00% of Catholics are totally deceived into walking lock-step into the Satanic New World Order One World Church. It’s happening, and the speed of the march will increase in 2024, so it’s important to recognize the steps, who is in the marching band, and the marching tune they are playing.

First, one has to understand that the problem in the Catholic Church did not begin with Pope Francis, nor with Vatican II, but with the Lateran Pact of 1929, whereby the masonic Kingdom of Italy paid the Apostolic See 1 Billion Lira to settle their dispute with the Papal States for the forced annexation of its territories in 1871. Another nearly equal value was given in state bonds of the Kingdom.

These monies which were enormous at the time (roughly equal to $400 million U. S. Dollars), had to be invested. And so Pius XI entrusted them to a Freemason, Bernadino Nogara, who was a Rotchschild agent. To obtain his financial expertise, he required Pius IX to agree to allow him to invest these monies without regard to Catholic Doctrine. So he began to invest heavily in Rothschild concerns and during World War II even got involved in war profiting on the Nazi side by purchasing investments in companies which would profit from their confiscation of rivals’ concerns.

After the war, armed with information about war profiteering, the Skull and Bones controlled OSS (US Military Intelligence) leveraged this information to convince or constrain Pius XII to take $20 million a year to fund the new Italian political party, the Christian Democrats, which took the name of the previous Catholic party, but now would be run by conservative Freemasons. The Vatican Bank had become, de facto, a money laundering operation for CIA concerns.

Dependent now upon monies from the U. S. Government, the Vatican was ripe for being plucked. After the successes in overthrowing the governments of Nicaragua and Iran, the CIA decided that at the death of Pius XII it was time to move. Threats, bribes and outright coercion during the Conclave forced Cardinal Siri, the Catholic candidate to withdraw, and there was elected Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, who as Apostolic Nuncio to Greece and Turkey, a decade before, was convinced by the Freemasonic Patriarch of Constantinople to join a pact to convene an new Ecumenical Council to conform the Church to the spirit of the age, as the international Conference of Freemasons at Istanbul had requested months earlier.

With a promise of $2 million in funding from the U.S. Government, the newly crowned John XXIII faked an inspiration from the Holy Spirit (his own secretary said as much in his memoirs) at Saint Paul’s Basilica and convoked the Second Vatican Council. The ideological program for this council was already decided upon in the U.S. Department of Defense Program for Ideological Warfare written in 1953, and only declassified 60 years, 6 months (66) afterwards, during the first year of the CIA installed, Pope Francis.

Vatican II became thus the new Gospel, replacing Tradition and Scripture which comes from God through the Apostles. Inside the Church the Vatican began appointing Globalist agents and assets as Bishops round the world and promoting only those who would collaborate to Vatican offices and pontifical institutions world-wide: thus, the formation of priests and the training of theologians and canonists all came to be colored in the monotone of Globalist narratives. The culmination of this infiltration reaches its climax in Pope Francis, the Propaganda Due choice to oust Pope Benedict XVI from power in the uncanonical conclave of 2013. For this reason, the Catholic Church in nearly all its institutions and personnel today is incapable of resisting the march toward the Great Reset or is in fact working to advance it ever more rapidly by using the institutions of the Church in the causes of Globalism: from destruction of national identities, denigration of the human person with technologies and experimental injections, genocide of nations with the DeathVaxx, extermination of traditions and faith through the Aggiornamento and Episcopal suppression of any initiative which bucks these narratives. For this reason the Vatican has ever lauded the MSM, NATO, the UN and the WEF. And this is why opposition to the “Gay Blessings” document, Fiducia supplicans, is generally limited to those dioceses in those nations where influence of USA, NATO, CIA & MI6 are weakest.

At the same time the U. S. Government founded a multi layer control external system for the Church, which was based on NATO and a system of stay-behind-groups (known collectively as “operation Gladio“, the name for the organization in Italy), composed of NAZI and Fascist assets (personnel and monies), which ostensibly prepared Europe to defend against Soviet Invasion, but which really consisted in an ideological and political control system for the West, in which criminal organizations, far-right special operation teams and journalists and publications collaborated to control the narrative on all topics. This is why the MSM misinforms, disinforms and outright lies. They do not do this of their own will, but at the request and directive of the CIA and of all the western intelligence agencies under their control. And even unlikely people are waking up to this truth. — The cupola of power, however, was vested in the World Economic Forum, founded by a Gladio asset, a Hapsburg, and the son of a Nazi industrialist, Klaus Schwab. They are the “brain” of the system of control.

The third system of control, that of the fake opposition (which I call the “Grifter Collective“), has been frequently criticized and exposed here in the pages of FromRome.Info. This consists in Gladio controlled network of publications and influencers recruited by intelligence agencies directly and indirectly, if not working in government offices themselves, which lament the march toward apostasy and globalism but use their influence to stifle any effective opposition and character assassinate any Cardinal, Bishop, Priest, Religious, Layman or publication who calls for uprooting any one of the prior two systems of control. Their mantra is “Recognize and Resist”!, which means “Whine but do nothing!”, and their principal founders and faces, most of whom are “converts” and “reverts” or who descend from Jews, either were hired in Washington D. C. (e. g. Peter Skojec of 1 Peter 5), attended institutions which were founded by the CIA (e.g. Michael Matt, Christendom College), MI5, or are themselves members or had parents who were members of Intelligence Agencies (Archbishop Lefebrve’s father was MI6, Steven O’Reilly is CIA), have close ties to individuals who founded or attended WEF meetings, or were recruited by the Gladio Network in Spain (e. g. Citizen Go & John Henry Westen) which funds dozens of Catholic Newspapers, Websites and TV and Radio Stations (more than 70 through Opus Dei alone). This third network runs and or controls 99% of all Catholic media world wide, and is the secret arm of the Gladio system of control.

FromRome.Info is one of the very very few Catholic news and commentary which exposes and opposes these three networks of control. Along with OMC Radio TV and a few bloggers and writers, these should be your sources of information if you desire truly to serve Jesus Christ and break free from the Globalist narratives and control systems. We are few, but with your support we will hasten the triumph of God against these Antichrist agencies.

 We hold that the overthrow of the Great Reset requires the removal of Pope Francis from office, the dismantling of the fake opposition and the rejection of Vatican II on ideological grounds. And we do not just say this, we propose concrete effective and direct means to do this, such as the Sutri Initiative and the Committee against Apostasy.

If you would like to keep FromRome.Info operating and support the growth of our news platform, consider a generous donation to our efforts to defend the Church and humanity.

CREDITS: The featured image by depicts the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency, the unit patch of the Gladio Network, a photo of Pope Francis (licensed), a fresco of the Antichrist receiving counsel from Satan (Abbadon) and the official logo of the World Economic Forum (Wikipedia licensed).

________________ is an electronic journal chronicling the events of the Church without keeping silent about the duty of Catholics to respond with faith-filled action, rather than as mere spectators. This article is one of more than 10,000 published since September 2013 A. D.. For more information about our journal, see our About Page.

First Anniversary of the election of Pope Francis

JANUARY 30, 2024 A. D.

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

One year ago, at about 12:30 P.M., at the Rome Mariott Hotel, at Rome, Italy, the Catholics of Rome met and elected a successor to Pope Benedict XVI.

I was there, and here I commemorate the event, which was unique in the history of the Church.

For at that Assembly the Faithful used their Apostolic Right to elect their own Bishop to rectify the canonical mess which resulted from the Declaration of Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013: a mess which consisted in giving the Church two popes: the one, who was canonically elected in 2005 and who remained such until his death in 2022: Pope Benedict XVI; and the other, an anti-pope, Francis, uncanonically elected on March 13, 2013.

I have spoken about the essence of the problem, the other day, here; but here I want to memorialize the Faithful Catholics who solved the worse juridical problem in the history of the Church by their simple faith.

Who were they?

They were simple faithful who saw the advertisements on television or heard them on radio, announcing the event. Some of them had followed the controversy of the two popes for some time, being well aware of the writings of Andrea Cionci, an opera singer and free-lance time journalist who lives at Rome, and the video lectures of Don Alessandro Minutella, the pastor of the Parish of Don Bosco, at Palermo. Others came to know of the controversy after their friends told them of hearing of this Assembly via television.

I spoke with all of them for sometime.

They were also devout Catholics who lived by the Catholic Faith. It was enough for them to know the facts and want to participate. They were no social media junkies or followers of anyone but Jesus Christ. One was a school teacher, the other a retired office worker, another a day worker, others casilinghi, moms who worked at home.

What did they think of their Apostolic Right?

All accepted the historical facts that the Faithful of Rome had always elected their own bishop. I explained all that I had done to inform the whole Church at Rome and the Cardinals. All said that they had seen my informative videos about these matters before or found them after they had seen the announcements.

I had hired 26 security officers to make sure that only Catholics from the Diocese of Rome or one of the Suburbican Dioceses entered the Hall were the voting took place. Each officer was equipped with a card which explained the nature of ecclesiastical residence required by anyone wanting to vote and how to verify it by documents. All who entered were in possession of the required documents: certificates off Baptism to prove they were Roman Catholics, and IDs issued by the Italian Republic to prove residency in the specified geographical zone. I too met the requirements, having resided at Rome for the last 3 years and 3 months.

We spent an hour in prayer. And we began discussions around 11:15 as to whom to elect. During that time all the faithful expressed dismay that the followers of Cionci and MInutella, who for 2  and 7 years, respectively, had decried that Benedict XVI was still the pope, did not show at all; did not really care whether the Church had a pope or not. — They still do not, as the events of the last year, prove.

Which Candidates did they propose?

One man asked if he could be a candidate. I explained the requirements of Canon Law: namely, that one be a man from birth, baptized and not married, and free from ecclesiastical censure. As he was married he withdrew his interest. I was the only unmarried man present; so someone asked me if I would be a candidate.

Others suggested Andrea Cionci or Don Minutella. As Cionci is a married man and Don Minutella had told me expressly that he did not want to be elected, because he was already managing a number of legal claims against him, I expressed my view that we had to consider others.

I refused immediately, also.

I explained that the Assembly should elect someone who is already a Bishop, so that by their election he should become pope immediately upon accepting his election.

Someone suggested Archbishop Viganò, another one of the Cardinals, and I myself suggested Bishop Henry Gracida, Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas.

We then discussed which was more likely to accept his election. I expressed my confidence of being able to convince Msgr. Gracida. I also said that the other candidates proposed all refused to recognize Pope Benedict XVI as the Pope until his death, so that it would be highly unlikely and very improbably that they would accept.

I pointed out the difficulty of the situation. The Assembly did not yet take a vote but nearly everyone was against electing a Bishop whom they never heard of. And so the candidacy of Gracida was ignored.

At this point some of the faithful present chose not to vote and left the assembly. I asked them at least to remain as witnesses, so that they could affirm in the future, what they saw and how the vote went. They left anyhow.

How did they conduct the Election?

From this point onward, other than about 4 security guards, only those who actually voted were present. No one else can claim to know what happened but them. So everyone who has reported these events in the last year is simply speculating and lying to claim to have some report or information. I never gave an interview about the matter either.

At this point I explained to the Assembly the danger of not electing anyone. It was already a public fact that the Roman Church had this right in the absence of action by the College of Cardinals — I explained this 4 years before in a Scholastic Question — and if we did not exercise this right; anyone could convene another such Assembly and elect whom knows who.

As there were no viable candidates, I pointed out that we had come together to solve 2 problems in the Church. The first was to elect a worthy man, and the second was to give the Church again, a man through whom they could be united to Christ the Shepherd, as His Vicar on Earth, restoring the juridical order.

As we had no worthy candidates, I explained we could at least do the greater of the two goods, by electing Pope Francis as Benedict XVI’s successor. This would give back to 1 billion Catholics the grace of the Holy Spirit which they lacked for 10 years by following the wrong man. It would also allow all Catholics to attend Mass again at all the Masses in the world, which would name the same man as the Roman Pontiff in the canon.

Someone asked if Pope Francis would accept his election. I pointed out that this Assembly was operating under Apostolic Right and was not bound by all the strictures of canon law. In canon law,  an election is considered accepted when the one elected expressly and verbally accepts. If he does not, Canon Law holds he has not accepted. In ecclesiastical elections he has, I believe, 7days to consider it. There must be witnesses to his acceptance.

But as I explained, this Assembly was bound by no stricture, since Saint Peter never established the norms by which the election would be accepted; so we had to follow the Natural Law which holds that acceptance can be expressed and actual, or tacit and habitual. Expressed and actual could by by word or writing or some clear sign. Tacit and habitual could only be from one who already thought he held the office by a prior election and remained publicly and manifestly intent upon holding the office. Thus, if we were to elect Bergoglio, his expressed acceptance of his election in March 2013 was sufficient as tacit and habitual acceptance of our election of him in this Assembly.

The Assembly agreed with my explanation. So we prayed and like the disciples at the Foot of the Cross, when all the world stood against Christ, we trusted in the High Priestly Prayer of Christ that Pope Francis hitherto lacked, would right the barque of Peter, and elected him by a unanimous vote. The time was a little before 12:30 P.M., one year ago today.


I invited all to dine with me for lunch, and only one Catholic who had come from Milan but was not allowed to enter the Hall, accepted my invitation, as best I can remember; because I had a bad cold, and went home thereafter.

If you have the simplicity of a child, you can see and accept what the Catholics of Rome did for each and all of us Catholics world wide. We did what we could, when we could, with what we could and in the only manner we could. We could have done more, but all stood against us. We were like the disciples at Calvary. We were constrained to trust in the Salvific Prayer and Promises of the Crucified One.

All this was made possible by the readers of FromRome.Info who donated 53,000 dollars to pay for the expenses. The remainder, 7 thousand, was donated by my relatives. They share fully in the merit of this work, which was and perhaps shall remain, the greatest work of juridical right ever undertaken by the Catholic Faithful without assistance or support of any Bishop.

For from 12:30 P.M. January 30 of last year, the Church has had and recognized universally a juridically and validly elected Roman Pontiff.

And God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have worked two miracles since to prove the juridical validity of what these Catholics accomplished. Praise God! Amen.

What remains now, is for Catholics to do what they did not do that day: give the Church a worthy man to be Roman Pontiff. This they can do by seeing that Pope Francis is solemnly rebuked and if he refuse rebuke, removed from office, via the Sutri Initiative; or praying the Lord Jesus, that He remove him from office, so that in the next Conclave a true Catholic be elected.

For more information about how this Assembly was conducted and came to be called, see here. For more information about how Pope Benedict XVI remained pope see here. For more information about how Bergoglio was uncanonically elected, see here. — FromRome.Info has uniquely chronicled the events in the history of the Roman Church in our times, just as now we are in regard to the rejection of Fiducia Supplicans. — Please Subscribe to FromRome.Info if you appreciate this (see bottom of this page)


CREDITS: The Featured Image shows the fresco above the dining hall at the Rome Mariott Hotel, which was painted nearly a dozen years before. It depicts a Cross in the Sky above the Piazza of St. Peter, just as was seen at the funeral of Pope Benedict XVI on January 6, 2023. By “just as was seen” I mean to say, that it was seen in the sky pointing in the direction of the Hotel, on the day of the Funeral.

The Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI — A Postscript

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

It has been a year and 20 days since Pope Benedict XVI passed to the judgement of Christ Jesus Our Lord. And in that time many have continued to debate the validity or meaning of his Declaration of February 11, 2013.

In fact, this debate has gone more main stream, now that the principal canonical question, who is the real pope, has passed into history with the juridically valid election of Pope Francis on January 30, 2023.

The Catholics of Rome, as they have always done, immediately moved to see that they have a Bishop to succeed Pope Benedict XVI after his death. In fact, just days after his death, trusting that the Church of Rome would remain true to Her Spouse I opined that within a month She would have a new shepherd. — I was immediately mocked by the CIA Agent, Steve O’Reiley in the USA on his attack blog, known as “Roman Locuta Est”, by which he means ‘Stevie has spoken’ for having expressed such confidence in the Church of Rome. — But the Faithful of Rome came through and did not do what the CIA wanted: they met and elected a successor for Pope Benedict XVI, by which the grace and prayer of the High Priest, Jesus Christ, for His Vicar, came to settle for the first time upon that man known as Pope Francis. And the Church has benefited immensely as is visible unto the present day.

Many who entered this debate, however, failed to conduct themselves with integrity and honesty, because as soon as Pope Benedict XVI was dead they spoke against the election of his successor by the Cardinals or the Faithful of Rome — which are the only two legitimately juridical manners possible.

But here I wish to discuss the terms of this debate over the Renunciation, which are well known, to those who have the simplicity to say that they see what they see: a grace which is every more rare in the modern world, as Catholics the world-over plug themselves ever more deeply into the Globalist Narrative Matrix.

For a complete coverage of the history of this debate, see the most authoritative and complete collection of articles here, in our Index to the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI

And these facts are these:

That in Canon 332 §2, a Pope abdicates when he renounces the Petrine Munus, and when he does, it must be considered valid when he does so with freedom and in the proper form.

That on Feb. 11, 2013 A. D., Pope Benedict XVI read aloud the official and only juridically valid version of his Declaratio, in which he renounced the Petrine Ministry, while acknowledging that he held the Petrine Munus.

Logic itself demands, therefore, that all recognize that Pope Benedict XVI never fulfilled canon 332 §2, and that thus, in the eyes of God Himself, he remained the one, only and true Roman Pontiff until the day of his death on Dec. 31, 2022 A. D.. — All those who say otherwise are liars or are insane of mind — Insanis in Latin means, “not healthy”.

Most of these are insane of mind because of a choice that they made: to presume that whatever the MSM says is the truth regardless of facts, history, reality, evidence  or logic. Others because they hold this same idolatrous devotion for whatever the Cardinals or Bishops say.

But those who hold fast to the Catholic Faith, wherein God alone is Truth (John 14:16) and the author of all truth (John 18:38), know that we are gravely obliged to recognize that words have meaning, and what is written, has been written (John 19:20-22).

This same Faith requires us therefore to hold that Pope Benedict XVI renounced the ministry, but that such a renunication was a resignation not an abdication.

And Pope Benedict XVI?

But there are more difficult questions about which we can only speculate regarding the answers since they are known to God alone and to Pope Benedict XVI.

Thus, though many hold that Pope Benedict XVI lied or erred (in the moral sense), it is clear that such an accusation lacks the foundation in the proof that he intended something other than a resignation of ministry or that he conceived a resignation as an abdication. But all the honest studies, especially that of Andrea Cionci, clearly demonstrate that he never held such errors or intended such deception.

And thus, we must also conclude that the charge that he intended to deceive is also unproven. Because to intend something very refined and not understand that others do not understand is not to deceive others.

Theological Error?

But did Pope Benedict XVI not understand that a resignation of ministry does not permit the election of another successor?

On this question, I think the preponderance of evidence argues for an affirmative response.

This differs from the question of moral error. Moral error consisting in doing one thing when one intends to do the other. Here I am speaking of theological error, when one thinks that the doing of something has the same effect as the doing of something similar.

And this error, it seems to me, arose from Pope Benedict XVI’s inexperience with philosophical distinctions of the kind which are found in Scholasticism. For to renounce the branches or fruit of power is not to renounce power. Nor is the renunciation of the power which flows from dignity possible without the renunciation of the dignity from which it flows.

The Cardinals’ error & sin

The Cardinals, I hold, were more responsible before God for their error than Pope Benedict XVI. Because there were 120+ of them, and only 1 of him. And their duty is to NOT proceed into Conclave UNTIL the Apostolic See is legitimately vacant. That means, in this case of a papal renunciation, in a manner conform to canon 332 §2 in which no objective doubt can arise. But to renounce ministerium and be understood as renouncing munus is a doubtful interpretation which the Cardinals had no right to make, and in omitting to have recourse to Pope Benedict XVI to correct the renunciation or remove the doubt, they failed GRAVELY in their only principal ecclesiastical duty.

And because they know that they failed, they have closed in their ranks and conspired never to speak of their sin or admit their fault. So while many Catholics appeal to the Cardinals to end the crisis of the Bergoglian papacy, they fail to recognize that the sin of the Cardinals is the greater of sins.

The effects of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation

Clearly the Church is in a crisis the likes of which She has never seen. With a manifestly heretical pontiff occupying the Throne of St. Peter and the Bishops eager to persecute so as to garner his favors, the Church’s very existence is threatened to Her core.

At the same time the consequences of what Pope Benedict XVI did have utterly destroyed the narrative of Vatican II and have unmasked the enemies of Christ in the Church. — The only thing is that Catholics are shocked to their core to see how great is the percentage of failure among Cardinals, Bishops, Priests etc.. For many of us have confidence because of the good example of others: a thing rarely found in any purity in this debacle of debacles.

The Punishment for Liars is a bitter one

God detests the mendacious man (Prov. 12:22-24), so we can be assured that God hates all those morally responsible for causing in the canonical mess which began on Feb. 11, 2023, when an ANSA pool reporter reported that which never happened, namely that Pope Benedict XVI had abdicated — even though she later recanted her error.

We are still living in the context of this great sin and these lying lips. And the punishment for lying lips is to have a mouth full of lies to reign over you.

God has spoken. And He shall never be put to shame by men.

In the meantime, we need to return to the humility of children, for otherwise we cannot be saved (Matthew 18:2-5).

And let us pray for Pope Francis, that he might repent by the grace of God or the stern rebuke of the Cardinals and Bishops, even if this be necessary in a Provincial Council, or at least that God might remove him from the Papacy or neutralize his bad example, as soon as possible or the Bishops of the Roman province do it in the only way they can.

As for ourselves, the crisis in the Church which began on Feb. 11, 2013 is a problem which requires all the Faithful to sanctify our minds through the right use of our intellects and the right use of words, to study what the word “truth” means, and why our loyalty to Christ the Truth requires that we not let any man suborn us on any question of truth.

CREDITS: The Cardinals gathered for the funeral of Pope Benedict XVI. All right reserved. Used with permission of the photographer.

The Provincial Council of Sutri, Dec. 20-23, 1046 A.D., and It’s importance for the Church of Today (Video)

Traduzione Italiana in fondo

Editor’s Note: Tomorrow I will launch the Sutri Initiative. But as a preparation, here is my first video made at Sutri, Italy, recounting the remarkable and historic events which took place here in 1046, and its importance for resolving the crisis in which the Church of Rome finds Herself now.

This video is also available on YouTube here: gives permission to all to translate, transcribe and publish other language versions of this video. — Br. Bugnolo’s other articles on Sutri and Provincial Councils can be found here and here.

ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT OF THE VIDEO — which corrects some minor errors in the video

Traduzione Italiana in fondo

Welcome to FromRome.Info Video. My name is Br. Alexis Bugnolo. I am the publisher and editor of an electronic journal for news, information and commentary about the Catholic Church, the Vatican, Rome and Italy.

Today I find myself in Sutri, in the province of Viterbo, to discuss the Council of Sutri and its implications for the Church of Today.

Here in Sutri, there occurred in 1046 A. D. one of the most curious, interesting and unique events in the entire history of the Church. One so obscure that, even at Sutri, it is forgotten.

Sutri has a long history. As you see here, this is the modern gateway to the old part of town. Behind me is the Cathedral in the old part of two. But in 1046 the town only extended this far.

Sutri was the first town given to the Roman Pontiff in the Roman countryside, by the Lombard King Luitiprand. It has always had an intimate relationship with the Apostolic See. And here in the old town, the Church of St. Sylvester was aggregated to the Basilica of Saint Peter.

The Synod of Sutri, or more exactly the Council of Sutri was an even that solved one of the knotting questions of its age. It’s an extraordinary example of how medievals addressed problems directly and solved them and did not spend their time lamenting and tweeting about them for years.

A little background on the Synod of Sutri

In 1032, nearly a 1000 years ago, there was elected to the Apostle See Theophylactus of Tusculum. He was one of the youngest men ever to be elected pope. He came from a power family of land holders in Lazio. He was only however 20 years old, and was perhaps chosen by the members of his family because he was the only male member who was yet unmarried, and thus, who could hold ecclesiastic office.

But very soon, things went wrong, in a most extraordinary way, because Theophylactus of Tusculum, who took the papal name, Benedict IX, was, according to historians, one of the most immoral men ever to sit on the Chair of Saint Peter. No less than Saint Peter Damnian says he was a flagrant sodomite. Other writers said he committed moral depravities so obscene they could not describe them. The scandals grews. He hosted orgies, he engaged in bestiality, he raped other men, maybe even boys, and all Italy was disgusted by the man.

But as he was a member of a very powerful family, by force of arms he held the Apostolic See.

Until the disgust grew so big, that his rivals drove him from the city of Rome. And here is where the Catholic faction who wanted an honest man on the throne of Saint Peter erred, because they took a bishop from Sabina and elected him the pope. He took the name Sylvester III. Since Benedict IX was still alive, Sylvester is recognized by all ecclesiastic historians as an antipope, even though he lived an upright and honorable life and ruled the Church of Rome with satisfaction of the people.

Now, if you are not a Catholic you might find this very scandalous.

How can someone who is completely immoral be the true pope and an upright man be an antipope? Well, holding an office in the Catholic Church is not based on your personal morality but upon whether you were legitimately elected to the office. As in modern times, it does not matter how popular a candidate is or how upright, only if he has been legally elected, he can hold the office.

Benedict IX, being from a powerful family, eventually drove Sylvester III from Rome. But the scandals continued and Benedict returned to his immoral life. Eventually he decided, however, to marry one of his cousins and obtain her wealth by dowry. But since as Pope one was forbidden to marry, he sought counsel with his godfather, John Gratian who was a very learned and wealthy priest of Rome. And so they agreed that Benedict IX would resign and that John Gratian would purchase the papacy from him, so that Theophylatcus could obtain the money he needed for his wedding

Well, when word of this became public, Catholics of Italy were scandalized, because you should not purchase or sell an ecclesiastical office. That is one of the greatest sins in the Church and it much scandalized the faithful of the 11th century, because of the commercialization of an intangible spiritual gift which should be freely given.

So the Bishops of Italy wrote the German King, Henry III. This was the year 1045 A. D. Now, Henry III wanted to be crowned Emperor of the Romans, a thing which could only be done by the Pope in Rome. But Henry III did not want any one of these three men to lay the crown upon his head, lest his reputation be stained by them; so he announced that he would put the Church of Rome in order and resolve the dispute among these three popes: Benedict XI, Sylvester III and Gregory VI. John Gratian had taken this last name.

Gregory VI being a very proper man, after purchasing the papacy had the clergy of Rome elect him Pontiff and then wrote to the German King for approval of his election. Because from about 950 to 1050, the Kings of Germany had the right to approve or confirm papal elections.

Upon receiving his letters, the German King gave no immediate response

.. but descended into Italy and asked Gregory VI to convene a provincial council here at Sutri.

And this is why I have come here today to tell you the story no one else will tell.

Sutri was a small medieval borgo. It probably had no more than 5000 souls living in its environs. And this council of Sutri took place, most likely, in this tiny Church of St. Sylvester, behind me.

The year was 1046 Anno Domini. The date was December 20th. And the Germany King with his bodyguard of soldiers, calvary and noblemen, along with all the Bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Rome and the principal members of the clergy of Rome came to this little church, and perhaps filled this tiny piazza – which perhaps was larger back then, since Italians have the habit of encroaching upon public spaces and attended this Council of Sutri, a most unique event, because at this Council 3 pope were deposed.

And this historic event is one of the most controverted in the post Tridentine era of the Church. This is because at the Council of Basel in 1432, the Bishops during the sessions which were not approved by the Roman Pontiff, after the Pope left, taught that a universal council of all the Bishops of the Catholic Church was superior to the Pope. And this began three centuries of conflict in the West where many Bishops and theologians promoted the error of Conciliarism, which taught this error. So many writers of that epoch tried to portray the Council of Sutri as proof of the truth of conciliarism. But conciliarism was later condemned as a grave error and heresy, I believe, by Pope Pius VII, because the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and no one can judge him.

So how is it, then, that at this Council of Sutri in 1046, 3 popes were deposed?

To understand this we have to make a very fine distinction: the distinction between the man who is the pope, and the man as the pope.

So, before you are elected pope, you are just a man, and when you are elected you are asked to accept your election; and it is the man who says yes. But once you say yes, you hold the office of the pope and then the two realities, the office and the man, walk together, as it were. But its the man who eats eggs at breakfast and toasts wine in the evening, not the Roman Pontiff. It’s the Roman Pontiff who says mass, teaches, promulgates documents and laws. So the two realities, while they go together, are distinct. And the man who holds the office of Roman Pontiff holds it as the man. That is why when a pope resigns, its the man who resigns, not the pope. Though in canon law, if you don’t  understand this distinction you won’t see that, because in canon 332, section 2, it talks about the Roman Pontiff renouncing.

So here at the council of Sutri, they did not judge the Roman Pontiff. They judged the three men who claimed to be the Roman Pontiff. And this claim is a natural fact, a historical fact, a juridical fact, and to judge it’s validity is the duty of a Provincial Council, because in canons 440-443, even in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, a provincial council can establish disciplinary measured which bind all the Churches in the province.

So the mere fact that provincial councils operate in the same manner as they did back then shows the perenniality of the Catholic Church and how important the juridical character of the Council of Sutri in 1046 was, that the Catholic Church thereafter never changed the rules for provincial councils, because of its outcome.

And so on December 20-23, 1046 A. D. 3 Popes were deposed

Of course, the outcome of the Council of Sutri here in this little Church probably had a lot to do with the will of the German King, Henry III, on account of his military forces surrounding the place, but it was also something wanted by the clergy of Rome and the Bishops of central Italy, because it was simply an intolerable situation to have 3 popes: one who was a predatory sodomite, and that was Benedict IX; one who was a usurper, and that was Sylvester III; and one who was a simoniac, and that was Gregory VI. – The crime of simony consists in the sale and purchase of ecclesiastical offices.

So they met here on Dec 20, 1046, from the 20th to the 23rd. And Gregory VI and the German King summoned all three popes to the council. Benedict IX refused to come.

Sylvester III came. He was judged to have usurped the papacy and never legally held the office of Pope. He was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment in a monastery, even though he was otherwise an upright man. – You can commit a crime evne with good intentions. – That is why you won’t find his name among the popes.

The next on trial was Gregory VI. The German King and council asked him to relate how he became pope. And they were aghast to learn that it was a contract of sale on the condition of resignation and exchange of money. – We do not know to this day what kind of contract it was. Did Benedict resign because Gregory paid him money to convince him? – If that happened then he resignation of Benedict X would be invalid. But if Benedict resigned and took the money to support the claim of Gregory to be the pope, then the resignation would be valid.

And the Church holds that the resignation of Benedict IX was valid.

But the entire council was scandalized by the relation of the events. And John Gratian knew that purchasing an ecclesiastical office was wrong. And Henry III was not going to accept the imperial crown from a simoniac. So Gregory was asked to resign. The imperial register says that Henry III deposed him. But Bl. Victor III, abbot of Monte Cassino, and future pope, who was present, says that Gregory VI out of humility resigned freely. And both stories might be true.

So that left Benedict IX. What he pope or not? The Council summoned him, but he refused to appear. So the Council judged him contumacious for refusing the summons, and he was excommunicated for selling the papacy. Whether he had representatives here to plead his case, we do not know.

So that was the Council of Sutri, in 1046. Afterwards, the German King and Clergy of Rome nominated the chaplain of the Germany Kind, the Bishop of Bamberg, as Clement II and the next day at the Vatican, on Dec. 24, he was duly elected. And on Christmas Day the Germany King was given the imperial crown by Clement II.

And this is the Council of Sutri, a council not to be forgotten.

The value of the example of Sutri for the Church of today

This is my first video about the Counci of Sutri. And it shows us today the way forward out of the present problems of the Church. Because if some claimant of the papacy appears to many learned and rational Catholic clergy to be one who does not hold to the Catholic Faith or who has no intention of even being a Christian, it is clear that the Church as a problem. Should catholics listen to such a man or should they not listen to him. In the Catholic Church we have a canon 1364, which says that heretics, schismatics and apostates are automatically excommunicated. I believe canon 192 says, however, that in such cases a judgment must be made.

So in a question of the Apostolic See it is only a provincial council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome which can judge the case, and this is why the Synod of Sutri in 1046 is so important for our present age. Already Catholics from around the world are writing the bishops of the Roman ecclesiastical province asking them to call a Council; because in canon law, if the Apostolic See is impeded, they can convene a council on their own authority and summon a claimant to the apostolis see to determine if his claim is valid or not. This is very important because there are proposals now, here in the air at Rome, to grant permission to Catholic priests or clergy, to bless unions which are not of one man and one woman in Christian matrimony. And which are contrary even to the natural law. And there is a big debate about that. But to do that would be clearly and act of apostasy because in the Catholic Church, according to the Christian religion, from the day Christ opened His mouth, you have to believe and repent, repent and believe; you cannot just claim to believe what you want to and practice whatever sin you want. That is not Christianity. So from the moment that something like that would be approved, the clergy who approved of it would become public apostates. And we are pretty much on the verge of that. The Synod on Synodality is in session at Rome, it concludes Oct. 28th. I am making this video on October 19. So the Synod concludes in 9 days. We will soon know what kind of decisions will be made and we will soon know if Pope Francis is going to un-pope himself as Cardinal Mueller implied, when he said, that to approve such a thing contrary to the Deposit of the Faith, would cause pope Francis to lose his moral authority. – That is a diplomatic way of saying lose his office.

But whatever Pope Francis decides to teach, and whatever Catholics think of it or not, or whether millions of Catholics follow or do not follow him in this, only a provincial council can make a decision which binds on the whole Church.

So this is the video on the Council of Sutri, Dec. 20-23th, 1046. It is not even mentioned on the historical bulletin board over there. But it is the most remarkable council in the history of the Church; and it was here in this moment of history, 980 years ago, that all these controversies of canon law, juridical principles and theological questions and rights of the Pope, the supremacy of the pope, the validity of papal elections, all came together and changed history.

It was after this council that Clement II was elected pope and it was his successor, who was also a German, in 1054 who excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and begame the Great East-West Schism, a thing an Italian pope probably would not have done.

So there were big consequences of this council. And so important was its decisions to its contemporaries that 15 years later the clergy of Rome came here to the Church of St. Sylvestr, for the Second Council of Sutri, to decide rules for the reform of the clergy of the City.

This council was approved of by some of the great Saints of its day. In these days, there was present in council Saint Hildebrand, who was the acolyte of Gregory VI and would himself go one to be elected some 20 years later, as Gregory VII. At Rome, when the Council concluded, there was Saint Peter Damian, who praised its decisions. And though he was not present in person, Bl. Victor III, who years later would become Abbot of Monte Cassino, and be elected Pope 40 years later, speaks highly of it in his histories of this age. So there were 2 Saints and 1 Blessed who approved of this council, and the Church to our day recognizes that Gregory VI was deposed here.

Unfortunately many do not know of this council and confuse its issues with many controversies which arose centuries later. A provincial council that rebukes a pope or which questions his claim to his title is nothing more than what Saint Paul the Apostle did at Antioch when he reproved Peter the Apostle for not holding to the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem.

If you liked this video give it a thumbs up, please share it. Thank you.


Benvenuti in questo video di FromRome.Info. Sono Fr. Alessio Bugnolo. Sono colui che pubblica e fa l’editing di, un giornale elettronico di notizie, informazioni e commenti sulla Chiesa cattolica, il Vaticano, Roma e l’Italia.

Oggi mi trovo a Sutri, in provincia di Viterbo, per discutere del Concilio di Sutri e delle sue implicazioni per la Chiesa di oggi.

Qui a Sutri si verificò nel 1046 d.C. uno degli eventi più curiosi, interessanti e unici dell’intera storia della Chiesa. Uno così oscuro che, anche a Sutri, è dimenticato.

Sutri ha una lunga storia. Come vedete qui, questa è la porta moderna verso la parte vecchia della città. Dietro di me c’è la Cattedrale nella parte vecchia. Ma nel 1046 la città si estendeva solo fin qui.

Sutri fu il primo centro donato al Romano Pontefice nel contado romano, dal re longobardo Liutprando. Ha sempre avuto un rapporto intimo con la Sede Apostolica. E qui, nel centro storico, la Chiesa di San Silvestro è stata aggregata alla Basilica di San Pietro.

Il Sinodo di Sutri, o più esattamente il Concilio di Sutri, fu un evento che risolse una delle questioni intricate della sua epoca. È un esempio straordinario di come i medievali affrontassero i problemi direttamente e li risolvessero senza passare il tempo a lamentarsi e a twittare al riguardo per anni.

Un po’ di storia del Sinodo di Sutri.

Nel 1032, quasi mille anni fa, fu eletto apostolo Teofilatto di Tuscolo. Fu uno degli uomini più giovani mai eletti papa. Proveniva da una potente famiglia di proprietari terrieri del Lazio. Aveva però solo 20 anni e fu forse scelto dai membri della sua famiglia perché era l’unico maschio ancora celibe e quindi in grado di ricoprire incarichi ecclesiastici.

Ma ben presto le cose andarono storte, in un modo davvero straordinario, perché Teofilatto di Tuscolo, che prese il nome papale, Benedetto IX, fu, secondo gli storici, uno degli uomini più immorali che si siano mai seduti presso l’ufficio ecclesiastico. Addirittura, San Pier Damiani afferma che fu un flagrante sodomita. Altri scrittori dissero che era coinvolto in depravazioni morali così oscene da non poterle descrivere. Gli scandali crebbero. Fece orge, praticò bestialità, violentò altri uomini, forse anche ragazzi, e tutta l’Italia era disgustata da quell’uomo.

Ma poiché apparteneva a una famiglia molto potente, con la forza delle armi tenne la Sede Apostolica.

Finché il disgusto non diventò così grande, che i suoi rivali lo cacciarono dalla città di Roma. Ed è qui che la fazione cattolica che voleva un uomo onesto sul trono di San Pietro ha sbagliato, perché presero un vescovo della Sabina e lo elessero papa. Prese il nome di Silvestro III. Poiché Benedetto IX era ancora in vita, Silvestro è riconosciuto da tutti gli storici ecclesiastici come un antipapa, anche se visse una vita retta e onorevole e governò la Chiesa di Roma con soddisfazione del popolo.

​Ora, se non siete cattolici, potreste trovare questo molto scandaloso. Come può qualcuno che è completamente immorale essere il vero papa e un uomo retto essere un antipapa? Ebbene, ricoprire una carica nella Chiesa cattolica non si basa sulla tua moralità personale, ma sul fatto che tu sia stato legittimamente eletto alla carica. Come nei tempi moderni, non importa quanto un candidato sia popolare o quanto sia onesto, solo se è stato eletto legalmente può ricoprire la carica.

Benedetto IX, proveniente da una famiglia potente, alla fine cacciò Silvestro III da Roma. Ma gli scandali continuarono e Benedetto ritornò alla sua vita immorale. Alla fine, decise, però, di sposare una delle sue cugine e di ottenere la sua ricchezza tramite dote. Ma poiché come Papa era proibito sposarsi, cercò consiglio presso il suo padrino, Giovanni Graziano, che era un prete di Roma molto dotto e ricco. E così concordarono che Benedetto IX si dimettesse e che Giovanni Graziano acquistasse da lui il pontificato, affinché Teofilatto potesse ottenere il denaro di cui aveva bisogno per le sue nozze.

Ebbene, quando la notizia divenne pubblica, i cattolici d’Italia si scandalizzarono, perché non si deve comprare né vendere un ufficio ecclesiastico. Questo è uno dei peccati più grandi della Chiesa e scandalizzò molto i fedeli dell’XI secolo, a causa della commercializzazione di un dono spirituale intangibile che dovrebbe essere donato gratuitamente.
Così scrivevano i Vescovi d’Italia al re tedesco Enrico III. Era l’anno 1045 d.C. Ora, Enrico III voleva essere incoronato imperatore dei romani, cosa che poteva essere fatta solo dal Papa a Roma. Ma Enrico III non volle che nessuno di questi tre uomini gli mettesse la corona sul capo, affinché la sua reputazione non ne fosse macchiata; annunciò così che avrebbe messo ordine nella Chiesa di Roma e risolto la disputa tra questi tre papi: Benedetto XI, Silvestro III e Gregorio VI. Giovanni Graziano aveva preso tale nome.

Gregorio VI, essendo un uomo molto perbene, dopo aver acquistato il papato si fece eleggere pontefice dal clero di Roma e poi scrisse al re tedesco per l’approvazione della sua elezione. Perché dal 950 al 1050 circa i re di Germania avevano il diritto di approvare o confermare le elezioni papali.

Ricevute le sue lettere, il re tedesco non diede immediata risposta ma scese in Italia e chiese a Gregorio VI di convocare qui a Sutri un concilio provinciale.

Ed è per questo che sono venuto qui oggi per raccontarvi la storia che nessun altro racconterà.

Sutri era un piccolo borgo medievale. Probabilmente non contava più di 5000 anime nei suoi dintorni. E questo concilio di Sutri si è svolto, molto probabilmente, in questa minuscola Chiesa di San Silvestro, alle mie spalle.

L’anno era il 1046. La data era il 20 dicembre. E il Re di Germania, con la sua guardia del corpo di soldati, cavalleria e nobili, insieme a tutti i Vescovi della provincia ecclesiastica di Roma e i principali membri del clero di Roma, vennero a questa chiesetta, e riempirono forse questa minuscola piazza – che forse era più grande allora, dal momento che gli italiani hanno l’abitudine di invadere gli spazi pubblici, e hanno partecipato a questo Concilio di Sutri, un evento davvero unico, perché in questo Concilio furono deposti 3 papi.

​E questo evento storico è uno dei più controversi dell’epoca post tridentina della Chiesa. Questo perché nel Concilio di Basilea del 1432, i Vescovi, durante le sessioni non approvate dal Romano Pontefice, dopo la partenza del Papa, insegnarono che un concilio universale di tutti i Vescovi della Chiesa cattolica era superiore al Papa. E questo ha dato inizio a tre secoli di conflitto in Occidente dove molti Vescovi e teologi hanno promosso l’errore del Conciliarismo, che ha insegnato questo errore. Tanti scrittori dell’epoca tentarono di dipingere il Concilio di Sutri come una prova della verità del conciliarismo. Ma il conciliarismo è stato poi condannato come errore grave ed eresia, credo, da Papa Pio VII, perché il Romano Pontefice è il Vicario di Cristo e nessuno può giudicarlo.

Allora come mai in questo Concilio di Sutri del 1046 furono deposti 3 papi? Per capirlo dobbiamo fare una distinzione molto sottile: la distinzione tra l’uomo che è papa e l’uomo in quanto papa.

Quindi, prima di essere eletto papa, sei semplicemente un uomo, e quando sei eletto ti viene chiesto di accettare la tua elezione; ed è l’uomo che dice di sì. Ma una volta che dici sì, ricopri la carica di papa e allora le due realtà, la carica e l’uomo, camminano, per così dire, insieme. Ma è l’uomo che mangia le uova a colazione e brinda col vino la sera, non il Romano Pontefice. È il Romano Pontefice che dice messa, insegna, promulga documenti e leggi. Quindi le due realtà, pur andando insieme, sono distinte. E l’uomo che ricopre l’ufficio di Romano Pontefice lo ricopre come uomo. Ecco perché quando un papa si dimette, è l’uomo che si dimette, non il papa. Tuttavia, nel diritto canonico, se non capisci questa distinzione non la vedrai, perché nel canone 332, sezione 2, si parla della rinuncia del Romano Pontefice.

Quindi qui al concilio di Sutri non hanno giudicato il Romano Pontefice. Giudicarono i tre uomini che affermavano di essere il Romano Pontefice. E questa affermazione è un fatto naturale, un fatto storico, un fatto giuridico, e giudicarne la validità è compito di un Consiglio provinciale, perché nei can. 440-443, anche nel Codice di Diritto Canonico del 1983, promulgato da Papa Giovanni Paolo II, un consiglio provinciale può stabilire provvedimenti disciplinari che vincolano tutte le Chiese della provincia.

Quindi il solo fatto che i concili provinciali funzionino nello stesso modo di allora dimostra la perennità della Chiesa cattolica e quanto importante fosse il carattere giuridico del Concilio di Sutri del 1046, che da allora in poi la Chiesa cattolica non ha mai cambiato le regole dei concili provinciali, a causa del suo esito.

Certo, l’esito del Concilio di Sutri qui, in questa chiesetta, probabilmente ha molto a che fare con la volontà del re tedesco Enrico III, a causa delle sue forze militari che circondavano il luogo, ma è stato anche qualcosa di voluto dal clero di Roma e dei Vescovi dell’Italia centrale, perché era semplicemente una situazione intollerabile avere 3 papi: uno sodomita predatore, e quello era Benedetto IX; uno che era un usurpatore, e quello era Silvestro III; e uno che era simoniaco, e cioè Gregorio VI. Il delitto di simonia consiste nella compravendita di uffici ecclesiastici.

​Quindi si incontrarono qui il 20 dicembre 1046, dal 20 al 23. E Gregorio VI e il re tedesco convocarono al concilio tutti e tre i papi. Benedetto IX si rifiutò di venire.

Arrivò Silvestro III. Si ritiene che abbia usurpato il papato e non abbia mai ricoperto legalmente la carica di papa. Fu arrestato e condannato all’ergastolo in un monastero, anche se per il resto era un uomo retto. Puoi commettere un crimine anche con buone intenzioni. Ecco perché non troverai il suo nome tra i papi.

Il successivo processato fu Gregorio VI. Il re tedesco e il consiglio gli chiesero di raccontare come divenne papa. E rimasero inorriditi nell’apprendere che si trattava di un contratto di vendita con condizione di dimissioni e scambio di denaro. Ad oggi non sappiamo che tipo di contratto fosse. Benedetto si dimise perché Gregorio gli pagò dei soldi per convincerlo? Se successe questo allora le dimissioni di Benedetto X non sarebbero valide. Ma se Benedetto si dimise e prese i soldi per sostenere la pretesa di Gregorio di diventare papa, allora le dimissioni sarebbero valide.

E la Chiesa ritiene valide le dimissioni di Benedetto IX.

Ma l’intero Concilio rimase scandalizzato dalla narrazione degli avvenimenti. E Giovanni Graziano sapeva che acquistare un ufficio ecclesiastico era sbagliato. E Enrico III non avrebbe accettato la corona imperiale da un simoniaco. Quindi a Gregorio è stato chiesto di dimettersi. Il registro imperiale dice che Enrico III lo depose. Ma il beato Vittore III, abate di Montecassino e futuro papa, che era presente, dice che Gregorio VI per umiltà si dimise liberamente. Ed entrambe le storie potrebbero essere vere.

Quindi restava Benedetto IX. Papa o no? Il Consiglio lo convocò, ma egli rifiutò di comparire. Perciò il Concilio lo giudicò contumace per aver rifiutato la citazione, e fu scomunicato per aver venduto il papato. Non sappiamo se avesse rappresentanti qui per perorare la sua causa.

Così fu il Concilio di Sutri, nel 1046. Successivamente, il re tedesco e il clero di Roma nominarono Clemente II, il cappellano della gente di Germania, vescovo di Bamberga, e il giorno dopo in Vaticano, il 24 dicembre, egli è stato regolarmente eletto. E il giorno di Natale il re di Germania ricevette la corona imperiale da Clemente II.
E questo è il Concilio di Sutri, un concilio da non dimenticare.

Questo è il mio primo video sui Conci di Sutri. E ci indica oggi la via d’uscita dagli attuali problemi della Chiesa. Perché, se qualche pretendente al papato sembra a molti sacerdoti cattolici colti e razionali come qualcuno che non sostiene la fede cattolica o che non ha nemmeno intenzione di essere cristiano, è chiaro che la Chiesa ha un problema. I cattolici dovrebbero ascoltare un uomo simile o non dovrebbero ascoltarlo? Nella Chiesa cattolica abbiamo il canone 1364, che dice che gli eretici, gli scismatici e gli apostati vengono automaticamente scomunicati. Credo che il canone 192 dica, tuttavia, che in tali casi si deve emettere un giudizio.

Quindi in una questione della Sede Apostolica è solo un concilio provinciale della provincia ecclesiastica di Roma che può giudicare il caso, ed è per questo che il Sinodo di Sutri del 1046 è così importante per la nostra epoca attuale. Già cattolici di tutto il mondo scrivono ai vescovi della provincia ecclesiastica romana chiedendo loro di indire un Concilio; perché nel diritto canonico, se la Sede Apostolica è impedita, possono convocare di propria autorità un concilio e citare un pretendente alla Sede Apostolica per determinare se la sua pretesa è valida o meno. Questo è molto importante perché ci sono proposte ora, qui nell’aria a Roma, di concedere il permesso ai preti o al clero cattolico, di benedire le unioni che non sono di un uomo e una donna nel matrimonio cristiano. E che sono contrari anche alla legge naturale.

E c’è un grande dibattito a riguardo.

Ma farlo sarebbe chiaramente un atto di apostasia perché nella Chiesa cattolica, secondo la religione cristiana, dal giorno in cui Cristo aprì la bocca, devi credere e pentirti, pentirti e credere; non puoi semplicemente affermare di credere in ciò che vuoi e praticare qualunque peccato tu voglia. Questo non è cristianesimo. Quindi, dal momento in cui qualcosa del genere venisse approvato, il clero che lo approvasse diventerebbe un pubblico apostata. E siamo praticamente sull’orlo di questo. È in corso a Roma il Sinodo sulla sinodalità che si concluderà il 28 ottobre. Questo video lo farò il 19 ottobre. Quindi il Sinodo si conclude tra 9 giorni. Presto sapremo che tipo di decisioni verranno prese e presto sapremo se Papa Francesco rinuncerà, come ha lasciato intendere il cardinale Mueller, quando ha detto che approvare una cosa del genere, contraria al Deposito della Fede, sarebbe far perdere a papa Francesco la sua autorità morale. Questo è un modo diplomatico per dire che perderà la sua carica.

Ma qualunque cosa Papa Francesco decida di insegnare, e qualunque cosa i cattolici ne pensino o no, o se milioni di cattolici lo seguono o non lo seguono in questo, solo un concilio provinciale può prendere una decisione che vincola tutta la Chiesa.

Quindi questo è il video sul Concilio di Sutri, 20-23 dicembre 1046. Non è nemmeno menzionato nella bacheca storica laggiù. Ma è il concilio più notevole della storia della Chiesa; ed è stato qui in questo momento storico, 980 anni fa, che tutte queste controversie sul diritto canonico, sui principi giuridici e sulle questioni teologiche e sui diritti del Papa, sulla supremazia del papa, sulla validità delle elezioni papali, si sono riunite e hanno cambiato storia.

Fu dopo questo concilio che Clemente II fu eletto papa e fu il suo successore, anch’egli tedesco, nel 1054, a scomunicare il patriarca di Costantinopoli e a dare inizio al Grande Scisma Est-Ovest, cosa che un papa italiano probabilmente non avrebbe fatto.

Quindi ci furono grandi conseguenze da questo concilio. E le sue decisioni furono così importanti per i contemporanei che 15 anni dopo il clero di Roma venne qui nella chiesa di San Silvestro, per il Secondo Concilio di Sutri, per decidere le norme per la riforma del clero della Città.

Questo consiglio fu approvato da alcuni dei grandi santi del suo tempo. In questi giorni era presente al concilio sant’Ildebrando, che era l’accolita di Gregorio VI e che sarebbe andato lui stesso al papato una ventina di anni dopo, come Gregorio VII. A Roma, concluso il Concilio, c’era san Pier Damiani, che ne lodò le decisioni. E sebbene non fosse presente di persona, il beato Vittore III, che anni dopo sarebbe diventato abate di Montecassino e sarebbe stato eletto papa 40 anni dopo, ne parla molto bene nelle sue storie di quest’epoca. Quindi furono 2 Santi e 1 Beato che approvarono questo concilio, e la Chiesa fino ai nostri giorni riconosce che qui fu deposto Gregorio VI.

Purtroppo, molti non conoscono questo Concilio e ne confondono le questioni con le tante controversie sorte secoli dopo. Un concilio provinciale che rimprovera un papa o che mette in dubbio la sua pretesa al titolo non è altro che ciò che fece san Paolo apostolo ad Antiochia quando rimproverò Pietro apostolo di non essersi attenuto alle decisioni del Concilio di Gerusalemme.

Se ti è piaciuto questo video lascia un like e condividilo. Grazie.

OMC Radio & TV: The Plot of Freemasons to Assassinate John Paul I, part 2

Editor’s Note: In this second episode, we name the Freemasons in the Vatican suspected of being the co-conspirators in the murder of Pope John Paul I, and lay out their motives and movements during the month of September, 1978. Hear about the list of 120 Freemasons given to Pope John Paul I just weeks before his assassination, and the reasons why all other theories are insufficient or total bunk. — Hear Br. Bugnolo’s analysis of this list and what it means for the Church.

OMC Radio & TV: The Murder of John Paul I, part 1

Editor’s Note: The assassination of Pope John Paul I by Ecclesiastical Freemasons is the key event in the history of the Papacy in the last century, and to solve this crime is to unmask the real criminal network which has seized control of the Vatican. In this program over at OMC Radio & TV, AJ and I discuss the freemason Paul VI and how his entire pontificate was run at the highest levels by masons; the Conclave of August 1978, and how it was that the Freemasons miscalculated in electing Luciani as Pope John Paul I. We also explain why Fr. Muir’s version of the events is simply insufficient to be credible.

Today is the 924th Anniversary of the Liberation of Jerusalem by Catholic Forces

Editor’s Note: If you do not know this, it is because you Msgr. Bugnini replaced today’s Feast of the Re-dedication of the Holy Sepulcher with the Feast of St. Bonaventure, which used to be celebrated the day before. For the last 924 years, the Holy Sepulcher of Our Lord has never been desecrated again. This was how great the Divine Providence shined upon the Catholic Security Forces under the command of the Papal Legal appointed by Pope Bl. Urban II. As his reward, God called him to Himself, a week later.

Quo Primum — St. Pius V’s 1570 Bull on the Roman Missal — Latin and English Text

Editor’s Note by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Since the persecution of the Catholic Faithful who continue to use the ancient missale is even more in the news lately, I present here the original text of the Bull of Pope Saint Pius V which forever declared the Ancient Roman Rite the liturgical norm of the Roman Church. And to better aid comprehension to all my readers, I have included after the original text, which I have extracted from the Benzinger edition of the 1962 Missale Romanum, my own English translation of the Latin original of the Papal Bull, which I prepared this afternoon.

Saint Pius V, was the greatest Dominican to sit on the throne of St. Peter. He organized the Holy League which defeated the entire navy of the Ottoman Empire at the Battle of Lepanto, Oct. 7, 1571, and in the year before defended the Roman LIturgy with this monumental declaration of Quo Primum. He is also known to have authorized the official text of the Hail Mary (Ave Maria), which the Catholic world prays today.

In all the debates over the rights of Catholics to continue praying the same prayers that their ancestors have used from the distant ages of the past, there is continual reference to the Bull Quo Primum, which follows below. — St. Pius V did not invent this liturgy. His Missale Romanum of 1570 was nearly identical to the Curial Missal published a century beforehand, which was in turn nearly an exact copy of the Missal compiled by the Minister General of the Order of Friars Minor in the 13th century, when for a more useful single compilation of the liturgical books of the ancient Roman Rite, which Pope Innocent III granted to St. Francis of Assisi as the liturgy proper to his new Order, he ordered them recompiled into a single volume with permission of the Apostolic See.

Here follows the text of the 1570 A. D. bull.




QUO PRIMUM tempore ad Apostolatus apicem assumpti fuimus, ad ea libenter animum, viresque Nostras intendimus, et cogitationes omnes direximus, quae ad Ecclesiasticum purum retinendum cultum pertinerent, eaque parare, et, Deo ipso adiuvante, omni adhibito studio efficere contendimus. Cumque inter alia sacri Tridentini Concilii decreta, Nobis statuendum esset de sacris libris, Catechismo, Missali et Breviario edendis atque emendandis: edito iam, Deo ipso annuente, ad populi eruditionem Catechismo, et ad debitas Deo persolvendas laudes Breviario castigato, omnino, ut Breviario Missale responderet, ut congruum est et conveniens (cum unum in Ecclesia Dei psallendi modum, unum Missse celebrandae ritum esse maxime deceat), necesse iam videbatur, ut, quod reliquum in hac parte esset, de ipso nempe Missali edendo, quam primum cogitaremus.

First, from moment We were raised up to the summit of the Apostolate, We willingly turned Our spirit and strengths, and directed all Our thoughts, to those things, which pertained to retaining the cult of the Church pure, and We do now, also, with God Himself helping, strive to effect their preparation, having employed every effort. And when among other things there was established by Us, among the other decrees of the Sacred Council of Trent, concerning the publication and emendation of the sacred books, the Catechism, the Missal and Breviary: with the Catechism already published, with God Himself approving, and the Breviary corrected to render to God due praises, it seemed then entirely necessary that the Missal respond to the Breviary, as is fitting and convenient (since in the Church of God it is most decorous that there be one manner of singing Psalms, one manner of celebrating the ritual of the Mass), that, what remained in this matter, namely, in publishing the said Missal, We might consider first of all.

Quare eruditis delectis viris onus hoc demandandum duximus: qui quidem, diligenter collatis omnibus cum vetustis Nostrae Vaticanae Bibliothecae, aliisque undique conquisitis, emendatis, atque incorruptis codicibus; necnon veterum consultis ac probatorum auctorum scriptis, qui de sacro eorundem rituum instituto monumenta Nobis reliquerunt, ad pristinam Missale ipsum sanctorum Patrum normam ac ritum restituerunt. Quod recognitum iam et castigatum, matura adhibita consideratione, ut ex hoc instituto, coeptoque labore, fructus omnes percipiant,

Wherefore, We directed that this burden be committed to chosen expert men: who indeed, having diligently gathered together all the ancient, emended and incorrupt codices from Our Vatican Library, and others searched out from all places,; and not without having consulted the writings of ancient and approved authors, who left to Us their testimonies concerning the institution of the same rituals, and restored the same Missal to the pristine norm of the holy Fathers. Which having already been recognized and corrected, having employed mature consideration, so that all might perceive the fruit of this instituted and undertaken labor,

Romae quam primum imprimi, atque impressum edi mandavimus: nempe ut sacerdotes intellegant, quibus precibus uti, quos ritus, quasve caeremonias in Missarum celebratione retinere posthac debeant. Ut autem a sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia, ceterarum Ecclesiarum matre et magistra, tradita ubique amplectantur omnes et observent, ne in posterum perpetuis futuris temporibus in omnibus Christiani orbis Provinciarum Patriarchalibus, Cathedralibus, Collegiatis et Parochialibus, saecularibus, et quorumvis Ordinum, monasteriorum, tam virorum, quam mulierum, etiam militiarum regularibus, ac sine cura Ecclesiis vel Capellis,

We ordered that it be first printed at Rome and published in printed form: namely, so that priests might understand, which prayers to use, which rituals, or which ceremonies they ought hereafter to retain in the celebration of Masses.  Moreover, so that all the things handed down by the sacrosanct Roman Church, the Mother of all other Churches, be embraced everywhere and observed, lest unto posterity in unending future generations in all the Patriarchates, Cathedrals, Collegiate, Parish and secular Churches, and those of any Order or monastery whatsoever, both of men, as of women, even of regular soldiers, or Churches and/or Chapels without the care of souls,

in quibus Missa Conventualis alta voce cum Choro, aut demissa, celebrari iuxta Romanae Ecclesiae ritum consuevit vel debet, alias quam iuxta Missalis a Nobis editi formulam decantetur, aut recitetur, etiamsi eaedem Ecclesiae quovis modo exemptae, Apostolicae Sedis indulto, consuetudine, privilegio, etiam iuramento, confirmatione Apostolica, vel aliis quibusvis facultatibus munitae sint; nisi ab ipsa prima institutione a Sede Apostolica approbata, vel consuetudine, quae, vel ipsa institutio super ducentos annos Missarum celebrandarum in eisdem Ecclesiis assidue observata sit: a quibus, ut praefatam celebrandi constitutionem, vel consuetudinem nequaquam auferimus;

in which Conventual Mass is accustomed or ought to be celebrated out loud with a Choir, or in low voice, according to the rite of the Roman Church, there be sung anything other than according to the formula of the Missal published by Us, even if the same Churches have been exempted in any manner by an indult of the Apostolic See, custom, privilege, even under oath, by Apostolic confirmation, and/or any other faculty; lest having been approved by the Apostolic See from their first institution, whether by a custom, which, has been observed and/or by its own institution more than two-hundred years of being assiduously celebrated in those same Churches: from which, We in no way take away the aforesaid constitution, and/or custom of celebrating;

sic si Missale hoc, quod nunc in lucem edi curavimus, iisdem magis placeret, de Episcopi, vel Praelati, Capitulique universi consensu, ut, quibusvis non obstantibus, iuxta illud Missas celebrare possint, permittimus; ex aliis vero omnibus Ecclesiis praefatis eorundem Missalium usum tollendo, illaque penitus et omnino reiiciendo, ac huic Missali Nostro nuper edito, nihil unquam addendum, detrahendum, aut immutandum esse decernendo, sub indignationis Nostrae poena, hac Nostra perpetuo valitura constitutione statuimus et ordinamus. Mandantes ac districte omnibus et singulis Ecclesiarum praedictarum Patriarchis, Administratoribus, aliisque personis quacumque Ecclesiastica dignitate fulgentibus, etiamsi S. R. E. Cardinales, aut cuiusvis alterius gradus et praeeminentiae fuerint,

thus, if this Missal, which We now have taken care to publish, pleases the same more, by consent of the Bishop, and/or Prelate, or entire Chapter, We permit that they can celebrate Masses according to it, with nothing whatsoever withstanding: however, We establish and ordain, under the punishment of Our indignation, by this our perpetually valid Constitution, that with the publication of this our said Missal, nothing is ever to be added, detracted, or changed by taking it from the use of those same Missals of any of the aforesaid Churches, and by rejecting those things thoroughly or entirely. We, commanding also strictly each and every Patriarch, Administrator of the aforesaid Churches, and other persons enjoying whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, even if they be Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or anyone of another grade or preeminence,

illis in virtute sanctae obedientiae praecipientes, ut ceteris omnibus rationibus et ritibus ex aliis Missalibus quantumvis vetustis hactenus observari consuetis, in posterum penitus omissis, ac plane reiectis, Missam iuxta ritum, modum, ac normam, quae per Missale hoc a Nobis nunc traditur, decantent ac legant; neque in Missae celebratione alias caeremonias, vel preces, quam quae hoc Missali continentur, addere vel recitare praesumant.

precepting these in virtue of holy obedience, so that with all those reckonings and rituals, from other customary Missals howsoever ancient hitherto observed, hereafter entirely omitted, and plainly rejected, they may sing and read the Mass according to the rite, manner, and norm, which is handed down now by Us through this Missal nor let them presume in the celebration of the Mass to add and/or recite other ceremonies and/or prayers, than those which are contained in this Missal.

Atque ut hoc ipsum Missale in Missa decantanda, aut recitanda in quibusvis Ecclesiis absque ullo conscientiae scrupulo, aut aliquarum poenarum, sententiarum et censurarum incursu, posthac omnino sequantur, eoque libere et licite uti possint et valeant, auctoritate Apostolica, tenore praesentium, etiam perpetuo concedimus et indulgemus. Neve Praesules, Administratores, Canonici, Capellani et alii quocumque nomine nuncupati Presbyteri saeculares, aut cuiusvis Ordinis regulares, ad Missam aliter, quam a Nobis statutum est, celebrandam teneantur:

And also, by Our Apostolic authority, and the tenor of the present letters, We also concede perpetually and indulge, that they may entirely hereafter follow this Missal in a sung, or recited, Mass in whatever Churches without any scruple of conscience or incursion of any punishments, sentences and censures, and use this freely and licitly and validly. Or lest Praefects, Administrators, Canons, Chaplains and other secular Priests named by whatever name, or regulars of any Order, be bound to celebrate Mass otherwise, than is established by Us:

neque ad Missale hoc immutandum a quolibet cogi et compelli, praesentesve litterae ullo unquam tempore revocari, aut moderari possint, sed firmae semper et validae in suo exsistant robore, similiter statuimus et declaramus. Non obstantibus praemissis, ac constitutionibus, et ordinationibus Apostolicis, ac in Provincialibus et Synodalibus Conciliis editis generalibus, vel specialibus constitutionibus, et ordinationibus, nec non Ecclesiarum praedictarum usu, longissima et immemorabili praescriptione, non tamen supra ducentos annos, roborato, statutis et consuetudinibus contrariis quibuscumque.

We similarly establish and declare that they also cannot be coerced and compelled by anyone to change this MIssal, nor can the present letters be at any time ever revoked or constrained, but that they stand forth always firm and valid in their strength. With no Apostolic constitutions, and ordinations, and/or special constitutions and ordinations published in Provincial and Synodal general Councils, nor use of the aforesaid Churches, strengthened by the longest and immemorial prescription, not more than two-hundred years, or statutes and customs whatsoever contrary, withstanding the aforesaid.

Volumus autem et eadem auctoritate decernimus, ut post huius Nostrae constitutionis, ac Missalis editionem, qui in Romana adsunt Curia Presbyteri, post mensem; qui vero intra montes, post tres; et qui ultra montes incolunt, post sex menses, aut cum primum illis Missale hoc venale propositum fuerit, iuxta illud Missam decantare, vel legere teneantur. Quod ut ubique terrarum incorruptum, ac mendis et erroribus purgatum praeservetur, omnibus in Nostro et S. R. E. dominio mediate, vel immediate subiecto commorantibus impressoribus, sub amissionis librorum, ac centum ducatorum auri Camerae Apostolicae ipso facto applicandorum:

Moreover, We will and decree by the same authority, so that after the publication of this Our Constitution, and Missale, which shall be displayed at the Roman Curia, for the Priests, after a month: but who dwells on this side of the Alps, after three months; and where beyond the Alps, after six months, or when this Missal has been offered to them for sale, that they be bound to sing and/or read the Mass according to it.  Wherefore, so that it be preserved incorrupt in all lands, and purged from emendations and errors, to all printers resident in Our immediate and/or mediately subjected Domain and that of the Holy Roman Church, under the loss of the books, and 100 ducats of gold to be applid ipso facto to the Apostolic Camera:

aliis vero in quacumque orbis parte consistentibus, sub excommunicationis latae sententiae, et aliis arbitrii Nostri poenis, ne sine Nostra vel speciali ad id Apostolici Commissarii in eisdem partibus a Nobis constituendi, licentia, ac nisi per eunden Commissarium eidem impressori Missalis exemplum, ex quo aliorum imprimendorum ab ipso impressore erit accipienda norma, cum Missali in Urbe secundum magnam impressionem impresso collatum fuisse, et concordare, nec in ullo penitus discrepare prius plena fides facta fuerit, imprimere, vel proponere, vel recipere ullo modo audeant, vel praesumant, auctoritate Apostolica et tenore praesentium similibus inhibemus.

but to others consisting in whatever part of the globe, under the punishments of latae sententiae excommunciation and others at Our will, We prohibit by Apostolic Authority and the tenor of the present letters, that, they dare in any manner to receive, and/or presume, to publish or offer for sale, without Our permission and/or special license, according to that of the one to be constituted in those same parts by Us as Apostolic Commissioner, the exemplary copy, from which there is to be accepted the norm of other printings by the printer himself, before full faith has been first given to the printer himself by the same Commisioner for the Missal to be published in great quantity in the City of Rome and that it not be discrepant in anything at all.

Verum, quia difficile esset praesentes Iitteras ad quaeque Christiani orbis loca deferri, ac primo quoque tempore in omnium notitiam perferri, illas ad Basilicae Principis Apostolorum, ac Cancellariae Apostolicae, et in acie Campi Florae de more; publicari et affigi, ac earundem litterarum exemplis etiam impressis, ac manu alicuius publici tabellionis;  subscriptis, nec non sigillo personae in dignitate ecclesiastica constitutae munitis, eandem prorsus indubitatam fidem ubique gentium et locorum, haberi , praecipimus, quae praesentibus haberetur, si ostenderentur vel exhiberentur.

Truly, because it might be difficult for the present letters to be borne to all places of the Christian globe and to proffer unto the notice of all at first notice, We precept, that these be published and affixed to the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, and to the Apostolic Chancery, and in the piazza of the Campus Flori as is customary; and that there be had printed also copies of the same letters, and in the hand of any public notary;  and to those underwritten, and not without the seal of a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, that they be regarded the same undoubted faith in whatever nations and places, as the present letters are held, when they are displayed and/or exhibited.

Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam Nostrae permissionis, statuti, ordinationis, mandati, praecepti, concessionis, indulti, declarationis, voluntatis, decreti et inhibitionis infringere, vel ei ausu temerario contraire. Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei, ac beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum eius se noverit incursurum. Datum Romae apud S. Petrum, anno Incarnationis Dominicae millesimo quingentesimo septuagesimo, pridie Idus Iulii, Pontificatus Nostri anno quinto.

Therefore, to no one among men let it be licit to infringe this page of Our permission, statute, ordinance, mandate, precept, concession, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition, and/or with darying temerity to contradict it. if, however, anyone will have presumed to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the indigation of the Omnipotent God and of His blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord, 1570, on the first day of the ides of July, in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.



Anno a Nativitate Domini 1570, Indict. 13, die vero 19 mensis Iulii, Pontificatus sanctissimi in Christo Patris et D. N. Pii divina providentia Papae V anno eius quinto, retroscriptae litterae publicatae et affixae fuerunt ad valvas Basilicae Principis Apostolorum, ac Cancellariae Apostolicae, et in acie Campi Florae, ut moris est, per nos loannem Andream Rogerium et Philibertum Cappuis Cursores.

In the year of the Nativity of the Lord, 1570, in the 13th indiction, but on the 19th day of the month of July, in the fifth year of the Pontificate of our most holy Father in Christ and our lord, Pius V, Pope by the divine providence, these letters transcribed were published and affixed to the folding-doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, and to the Apostolic Chancery, and in the piazza of the Campus Florae, as is the custom, by us Footmen, John Andrew Roger and Philibert Cappue .

SCIPIO DE OCTAVIANIS, Magister Cursorum.

The House of Cardinal Re


(Note the Date!)

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Three days after the publication of this article,
Bergoglio accepted the election of Cardinal Re as dean of the College of Cardinals

It is not easy for Catholics to understand why Cardinals do and do not do what they do. Especially in these times, when the Cardinals should be warning and reproving and taking steps to clean up the mess at the Vatican, which is leading the apostasy of the world.

For this “why” I cannot give an explanation. But understanding where Cardinals come from and to which faction in the Church they may belong, may shed some light on this “why”, however so superficial.

With this in mind, let us examine the Faction of Cardinals which has as its co-consecrator, Giovanni Battista Re, one of the most important Cardinals in the College of Cardinals, which is seen by the fact that Bergoglio selected him to be Vice-Dean of his college of cardinals on June 10, 2017. A position he has weathered despite the unceremonious demotion of the Cardinal Dean of many years, Cardinal Sodano, in December.

Let me begin by saying that Cardinal Re’s episcopal lineage does not descend from Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, the god-father of the St Gallen Mafia. It descends rather from Pope John Paul II.

Second, that Cardinal Re is an impressive Bishop in action. He has participated in over 165 Episcopal consecrations in his life time. A truly remarkable number, which makes him one of the greatest all time consecrators of bishops in the Church. This is due to the fact, that when Pope John Paul II consecrated Bishops, Cardinal Re was normally assisting as a co-consecrator, by some special arrangement of the Pope.

Normally, factions in the Church among Bishops are denoted by lineages of principal consecrators, not co-consecrators. A principal consecrator is the Bishop who presides over the consecration of a man who has been nominated to be a bishop. A co-consecrator is one of two or more Bishops who assist in the consecration of the nominated.

However, Cardinal Re was not the principal consecrator of any Bishop who later became a Cardinal. A fact which means, that no one upon whom his favor rested that much, was ever raised to the dignity of a Cardinal. However, he is the co-consecrator of 18 Cardinals, which is extraordinary. Nevertheless, this seems to be because these future Cardinals were all consecrated by Pope John Paul II, with few exceptions.

Let me list the names of those Bishops and Cardinals, in the order of the year they were co-consecrated Bishop by Cardinal Re. You might recognize someone you know:

Patriarch Michel Sabbah (1988)
Archbishop Marian Oles † (1988)
Archbishop Emery Kabongo Kanundowi (1988)
Bishop Luís d’Andrea, O.F.M. Conv. † (1988)
Bishop Victor Adibe Chikwe † (1988)
Bishop Athanasius Atule Usuh † (1988)
Bishop José Raúl Vera López, O.P. (1988)
Bishop Srecko Badurina, T.O.R. † (1988)
Bishop Luigi Belloli † (1988)
Bishop John Gavin Nolan † (1988)
José Cardinal Saraiva Martins, C.M.F. (1988)
Bishop Giuseppe Matarrese (1989) ###
Archbishop Giovanni Tonucci (1990)
Archbishop Ignazio Bedini, S.D.B. (1990)
Archbishop Mario Milano (1990)
Archbishop Giovanni Ceirano † (1990)
Archbishop Oscar Rizzato (1990)
Antonio Ignacio Cardinal Velasco Garcia, S.D.B. † (1990)
Archbishop Paul Runangaza Ruzoka (1990)
Bishop Marian Błażej Kruszyłowicz, O.F.M. Conv. (1990)
Bishop Pierre François Marie Joseph Duprey, M. Afr. † (1990)
Archbishop Domenico Umberto D’Ambrosio (1990)
Bishop Edward Dajczak (1990)
Bishop Benjamin de Jesus Almoneda (1990)
Archbishop Francesco Gioia, O.F.M. Cap. (1990)
Archbishop Edward Nowak (1990)
Archbishop Giacinto Berloco (1990)
Archbishop Erwin Josef Ender (1990)
Jean-Louis Pierre Cardinal Tauran † (1991)
Vinko Cardinal Puljić (1991)
Archbishop Marcello Costalunga † (1991)
Archbishop Osvaldo Padilla (1991)
Francisco Javier Cardinal Errázuriz Ossa, P. Schönstatt (1991)
Bishop Bruno Pius Ngonyani (1991)
Bishop Francis Emmanuel Ogbonna Okobo (1991)
Bishop Andrea Gemma, F.D.P. † (1991)
Bishop Joseph Habib Hitti (1991)
Bishop Jacinto Guerrero Torres † (1991)
Bishop Bl. Alvaro del Portillo y Diez de Sollano † (1991)
Julián Cardinal Herranz Casado (1991)
Archbishop Bruno Bertagna † (1991)
Archbishop Ernesto Maria Fiore † (1992)
Archbishop Rino Passigato (1992)
Bishop Juan Matogo Oyana, C.M.F. (1992)
Bishop Gastone Simoni (1992)
Bishop Iñaki Mallona Txertudi, C.P. (1992)
Bishop Philippe Nkiere Keana, C.I.C.M. (1992)
Bishop Benjamin David de Jesus, O.M.I. † (1992)
Bishop John Joseph Glynn † (1992)
Bishop Petar Šolic † (1992)
Michael Louis Cardinal Fitzgerald, M. Afr. (1992)
Bishop Henri Salina, C.R.A. † (1992)
Archbishop Diego Causero (1993)
Archbishop Gabriel Charles Palmer-Buckle (1993)
Elio Cardinal Sgreccia † (1993)
Bishop Henryk Marian Tomasik (1993)
Archbishop Henry Joseph Mansell (1993)
Bishop Jan Kopiec (1993)
Archbishop Alojzij Uran (1993)
Bishop Luigi Sposito † (1993)
Bishop Norbert Klemens Strotmann Hoppe, M.S.C. (1993)
Bishop Elmo Noel Joseph Perera † (1993)
Archbishop Csaba Ternyák (1993)
Archbishop Domenico De Luca † (1993) ###
Archbishop Peter Paul Prabhu † (1994)
Archbishop Peter Stephan Zurbriggen (1994)
Archbishop Jean-Paul Aimé Gobel (1994)
Bishop Julien Mawule Kouto † (1994)
Bishop Edward James Slattery (1994)
Bishop Uriah Adolphus Ashley Maclean (1994)
Bishop Emiliano Antonio Cisneros Martínez, O.A.R. (1994)
Bishop Américo do Couto Oliveira † (1994)
Bishop Christo Proykov (1994)
Archbishop Ramon Cabrera Argüelles (1994)
Bishop Ricardo Jorge Valenzuela Rios (1994)
Bishop Paolo Gillet (1994)
Bishop Antoni Józef Długosz (1994)
Archbishop Bruno Musarò (1995)
Bishop Petko Jordanov Christov, O.F.M. Conv. (1995)
Bishop Antonio Napoletano, C.SS.R. † (1995)
Bishop Zacharias Cenita Jimenez † (1995)
Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke (1995)
Bishop Javier Echevarría Rodríguez † (1995)
Bishop Pierfranco Pastore † (1995)
Bishop Stanislav Szyrokoradiuk, O.F.M. (1995)
Bishop Paweł Cieślik (1995)
Bishop Stefan Regmunt (1995)
Archbishop Charles Asa Schleck, C.S.C. † (1995)
Archbishop Luigi Ventura (1995) ###
Carlo Cardinal Caffarra † (1995)
Archbishop José Paulino Ríos Reynoso (1996)
Archbishop Riccardo Fontana (1996)
Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli (1996)
Archbishop Jaime Vieira Rocha (1996)
Kurt Cardinal Koch (1996)
Bishop Ārvaldis Andrejs Brumanis † (1996)
Bishop Antons Justs † (1996)
Archbishop Francisco Pérez González (1996)
Archbishop Richard Anthony Burke, S.P.S. (1996)
Bishop Marko Sopi † (1996)
Bishop Rafael Ramón Conde Alfonzo (1996)
Bishop Riccardo Ruotolo † (1996)
Bishop Antal Majnek, O.F.M. (1996)
Stanisław Cardinal Ryłko (1996)
Archbishop Francisco Gil Hellín (1996) ###
Archbishop Luigi Conti (1996) ###
Archbishop Luigi Pezzuto (1997)
Paolo Cardinal Sardi † (1997) Titular Bishop of Sutri, Italy
Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil, C.SS.R. † (1997)
Bishop Delio Lucarelli (1997)
Bishop Ignace Baguibassa Sambar-Talkena † (1997)
Bishop Luciano Pacomio (1997)
Archbishop Angelo Massafra, O.F.M. (1997)
Bishop Florentin Crihălmeanu (1997)
Archbishop Jean-Claude Périsset (1997)
Bishop Piotr Libera (1997)
Bishop Basílio do Nascimento (1997)
Bishop Hil Kabashi, O.F.M. (1997)
Leonardo Cardinal Sandri (1997) ###
Mario Francesco Cardinal Pompedda † (1998)
Archbishop Marco Dino Brogi, O.F.M. (1998)
Bishop Peter Kwaku Atuahene (1998)
Bishop Filippo Strofaldi † (1998)
Archbishop Wiktor Paweł Skworc (1998)
Bishop Franco Dalla Valle, S.D.B. † (1998)
Archbishop Angelito Rendon Lampon, O.M.I. (1998)
Bishop Tomislav Koljatic Maroevic (1998)
Bishop Francesco Saverio Salerno † (1998)
Archbishop Alessandro D’Errico (1999)
Archbishop Salvatore Pennacchio (1999)
Archbishop Alain Paul Charles Lebeaupin (1999)
Bishop Cesare Mazzolari, M.C.C.I. † (1999)
Bishop Pierre Trân Ðinh Tu (1999)
Bishop Rafael Cob García (1999)
Archbishop Mathew Moolakkatt, O.S.B. (1999)
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin (1999)
Bishop José Luis Redrado Marchite, O.H. (1999)
(Layman) Józef Wesołowski † (2000)
Archbishop Giacomo Guido Ottonello (2000)
Archbishop George Panikulam (2000)
Archbishop Alberto Bottari de Castello (2000)
Bishop Ivo Baldi Gaburri (2000)
Archbishop Gabriel Mbilingi, C.S.Sp. (2000)
Bishop David Laurin Ricken (2000)
Bishop Anton Coşa (2000)
Bishop András Veres (2000)
Péter Cardinal Erdő (2000)
Bishop Giuseppe Pasotto, C.S.S. (2000)
Bishop Franco Croci (2000)
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia (2000) ###
Fernando Cardinal Filoni (2001)
Archbishop Henryk Józef Nowacki (2001)
Archbishop Timothy Paul Andrew Broglio (2001)
Archbishop Domenico Sorrentino (2001)
Archbishop Tomash (Tomasz) Bernard Peta (2001)
Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo (2001)
Marc Armand Cardinal Ouellet, P.S.S. (2001)
Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi (2001)
Bishop Đura Džudžar (2001)
Bishop Fabio Fabene (2014) ###

Now look at that list again. I have colored in RED the Cardinals who were suspected as members of the group which engineered the election of Bergoglio in the uncanonical Conclave of 2013. They formed a group called by Austen Ivereigh, “Team Bergoglio”. There are at least 3, Cardinal Koch, Bishop of Basel Switzerland might be the fourth.

I have colored in Green, those who were Cardinal Electors in 2013, but whose allegiance in voting is not known. There are 7 of these, not counting Cardinal Koch.

I have colored in BLUE the men whom Bergoglio presumed to name Cardinals. I say presumed, because as an Anti-pope, he has no authority to name Cardinals (To do that you need to hold the petrine munus, which Pope Benedict clearly and textually never renounced.)  There are 2 Cardinals in this category.

Three of the Cardinals on this list are publicly known for having criticized the Bergoglian regime: Cardinal Sandri, who is rumored to have bitterly denounced Bergoglio to his face for attacking the Discipline of the Sacraments; Cardinal Caffara who was renowned for denouncing relativism (God rest his soul); and Cardinal Burke, whose reputation is such it need not be summarized here, after his numerous public statements in favor of the Eternal Faith and in criticism of the policies of Bergoglio, even if he continues to hold Bergoglio as the Pope.

The Cardinals and Bishops whose episcopal lineage descends from Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, are marked with a ### in Black (there are 3); those who descend from Cardinal de Lai, both of whose co-consecrators descend from Cardinal Rampolla, or from Cardinal Gasparri, the secretary of Cardinal Rampolla, are marked with a ### in Red (There are 5, nearly all Sodano men).

I think it is important to note, that in all the cases in which Cardinal Re is not assisting Pope John Paul II as principal consecrator, he is assisting an ally or direct descendant of Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro.

The only reasonable inference that can be made from that, is that Cardinal Re was a member of the St. Gallen Mafia, by adoption. And that would explain why he is now Vice-Dean of Bergoglio’s college of cardinals.

The fact that he was trusted by Pope John Paul II in so many ceremonies of episcopal ordination, shows that he succeed so well in gaining the confidence of the Pope that he served as a sort of minder of his activities during his pontificate. This may imply that Cardinal Re was one of the chief St. Gallen Mafia secret agents in the Vatican for many years, hiding in plain sight.

So the next time you ask why any Cardinal on this list, like Cardinal Burke, may not be doing what you want him to do, read this list and contemplate what it might mean. They might be hedging, so that in the next conclave they elect someone from the House of Cardinal Re, which, alas, might not be a good thing after all.

+ + +

Saints of the Church of Rome — Saint Peter of Anagni

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

There are many Saints at Rome which are unknown to the world, but whose virtues, example, heroism and holiness shine brightly in Heaven and Earth unto this day. As part of’s coverage, therefore, I would be amiss to neglect to cover the lives of some of them, which are important examples of unity for the Catholic Church.

The first of which, I want to speak of Saint Peter of Anagni, also known as San Pietro da Salerno (not to be confused with the homonymous Lombard tutor and prince, who died in 855 A. D., who usurped the throne of Salerno from Sico II). Not much is found online about this saint, whether in English or Italian, so here I publish the most complete online biography of this great man, for the sake of Catholics everywhere.

Birth and Youth

Our Lady enthroned between St. Peter of Anani, St. Benedict, Sts. Constantine and Helena, Gaetani Chapel, Cathedral of Anagni.

Peter was of the princely house of Salerno, a family of Lombards which had come to Italy in the 6th century as conquerors. In recent centuries they had ruled a variety of minor states in southern Italy, the chief of which was the Principality of Salerno.

It is not clear from which branch of the family, Saint Peter was descended, nor do we know the precise year of his birth or his parents names. His biography simply was content to say that in early childhood he was left an orphan, and thus came to be entrusted to the Abbey of Sts. Mary and Saint Benedict, at Salerno, in accord with the Rule of Saint Benedict, which in chapter 59, provided for the sustenance of the orphans of the nobility.

The Abbey itself, founded in 793 A. D., by the princes of Salerno, and was named by the Emperor Otto III as the head of all the Benedictine Monasteries in the region in 990 A. D.. In 1023 A. D., however, it was seized by the Lombard princes Guaiferio, Maione and Maginolfo, nephews of Guiamario IV, who held it until 1043 A. D., thus providing for a solid motive to abandon orphans to the care of the returning monks.

In the Service of Popes

It is this turbulent period in the history of the Abbey, that Saint Peter comes to be known in the historical record, when sometime after 1049 and before 1062, Saint Hildebrand, in his capacity as legate of Pope visited the monastery, and took Peter into his entourage. According to the historical record, Saint Hildebrand was in the area in 1059, accompanying Pope Nicholas II to the Council of Melfi (held Aug. 3rd to 25th), which was organized by the Abbot of Monte Cassino and which the Abbot of Sts. Mary and Benedict, at Salerno, would have undoubtedly attended. However, the Saints could have met in 1050, when Pope St. Leo IX held a Synod at Salerno, at which St. Hildebrand was most likely in attendance.

From this point on, St. Peter of Anagni was in the papal service, with the official title of papal chaplain, and most likely as a close collaborator with St. Hildebrand, who, in his youth, studied at the Benedictine Abby of St. Mary’s, on the Aventine, at Rome, under Archbishop Lorenzo of Amalfi, a town just a few miles north of Salerno, on the coast.

Bishop of Anagni

Silver and Gold Reliquary of Saint Peter of Anagni (Museum of the Cathedral)

What is certain, though, is that Pope Alexander II nominated Saint Peter Bishop of Anagni in 1062 A. D.. This nomination took place during the rivalry (Oct. 28, 1061- May 31, 1064 A. D.) of Pope Alexander with the anti-pope Otto II (Peter Caldalo 1010-1072 A. D.), during which the true Pope sought to put bishops loyal to him in the empty episcopal sees of the Roman Province.

Saint Peter, then, must have been a most trusted collaborator of the Pope and a man of firm character who would be trusted not to cede to threats and bribes — rare virtues in the 11th century’s many tumults and controversies.

About a decade after his consecration as Bishop, the Roman Pontiff sent him on a diplomatic mission to the Roman Emperor, Michael VII Doukas (October 1, 1071- to March 31, 1078 A. D.). The formal motive for this mission seems to be suggested by the historical circumstances, in which the Papacy, having made a strong alliance with the Normans in southern Italy, found it necessary to send someone of the princely house of the Lombards of Salerno, the rivals of the Normans, as papal legate to Constantinople; and materially, in the fact that the recent schism of 1054 A. D., requires the Papacy to send someone who both spoke Greek and could with learning treat with questions both theological and legal. The occasion of the mission, however, appears connected to the central role played by the Abbot of Monte Casino in negotiating the marriage of Olipiade (Helena), daughter of Robert the Guiscard, to the son of Emperor Michael VII, Constantino Profirogenito, which made peace between the Normans and Greeks. Their marriage took place in 1074.

During this mission “pro concordia fidei,” the biographers of St. Peter of Anagni say that he experienced a heavenly vision of Our Lady, who told him to seek the intercession of St. Magnus, the patron Saint of Anagni, to cure the Emperor of his chronic and deadly disease; which Saint Peter promptly did, probably with the application of a relic of the Saint. In gratitude the Greek Emperor bestowed upon the Saint rich presents which he used to embellish the reconstruction of the Cathedral of Anagni, an impressive work which merited the Saint to be depicted for long ages afterwards with a Cathedral in his right hand.

St. Peter rebuilds the Cathedral of Our Lady, at Anagni

Altar of the Holy Virgin with 2 Armenian Saints, Crypt of St. Magnus, Cathedral of Anagni

St. Peter’s most lasting work on earth, was the the reconstruction of the Cathedral of Anagni began in 1072-74 A. D.. When he came to the diocese, the church was in complete ruins. He rebuilt it on the highest point of the city, in Romanesque style and adorned it with the most beautiful inlaid mosaic floors, which still exist to this day. The construction began with the Crypt dedicated to the newly rediscovered remains of Saint Magnus 1068, both of which ere was not completed until 1104, though in subsequent decades and centuries various minor works were undertaken.

The Crypt of St. Magnus, which came to house the mortal remains, also of St. Peter, was called the “Sistine Chapel of the Middle Ages” due to its wonderful Biblically inspired fresco paintings all all walls and ceilings, among which are a series dedicated to the life and martyrdom of Saint Magnus.

This work of restoration was truly inspired of God as can be seen by the important role this Cathedral would play in Church history in subsequent generations. In her were canonized Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Saint Clair of Assisi, Saint Edward II King and Confessor and Saint Peter the Hermit. Here Pope Alexander III excommunicated the antipope Victor IV along with Hohenstaufen Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, on March 24, 1160 A. D.. Here, Pope Gregory IX imposed excommunication on Frederick II and reconciled him to the Church on September 1, 1230 A. D..  Here, the Cardinals elected Pope Boniface VIII, after the renunciation of the papacy by St. Celestine V. Here Boniface promulgated the Bull Unam Sanctam. Here the adherents of the family of Colonna, in the service of the French King, slapped Pope Boniface, with such force, that he died of the trauma a month later.

St. Peter reforms the Diocese of Anagni

Fresco of St. Peter of Anagni, holding the Cathedral of Anagni in his right hand, with St. Oliva, patroness of the Diocese, from the Narthex of the Cathedral, Anagni

Our Saint, however, became famous as a zealous adherent of the Gregorian reforms which Pope St. Gregory VII (Hildebrand) his patron, would lead from April 23, 1073 until his death on May 25, 1085 A. D., in one of the most stunning pontificates in the entire history of the Roman Church, which put the Pope in ecclesiastical and civil conflict with the principal rules of his day, and which he prosecuted with both numerous councils, synods, excommunications and wars.

The Gregorian Reform consisted in stamping out simony, concubinage and dissolute living among the clergy and religious of the Church, vindicating the rights of the Church over her properties and possessions, and insisting that ecclesiastical superiors be appointed and nominated only by the Church. This latter conflict was called the Investiture Controversy, and it put the Pope and his loyal supporters head-to-head with the lax and worldly clergy of his day, who wanted to collaborate fully with civil powers to the detriment of the Church’s institutions and the damnation of souls.

Saint Peter put this reform into practice in the Diocese of Anagni by reforming the clergy, taking back control of fields, vineyards, orchards and territories, which belonged to the Church, but through long neglect had come into the de facto control of laymen, princes and individual clerics. In this he was a close supporter of St. Bruno of Segni (1045-1123 A. D.), whose zeal in this regard was so strong, that he publicly rebuked Pope Pascal II for conceding a privilege to the German Emperor, and forced him to recant it at the First Lateran Council of 1116, where after the recantantion, St. Bruno arose and said, “I thank God that my lord and pope has abjured his heresy!”

Saint Peter on the First Crusade

Christ and His Apostles, Crypt of St. Magnus, Cathedral of Anagni.

At the end of his life, Saint Peter attended the First Crusade with Bohemond of Altavilla (d. 1111). Bl. Pope Urban II, at the Council of Clermont in 1095, had invited Bishops from all of Christendom to accompany the Crusaders as chaplains and military counselors. Saint Bruno, Peter’s close friend, had already showed his zeal by accompanying Bl. Urban II to France and back again, to promote the First Crusade and field an army to deliver Rome from the clutches of the anti-pope, Clement III, a feat accomplished in 1097 by one of the French Crusading contingents under the command of Count Hugh of Vermandois, brother of the Capetian King of France, Philip I. Like Philip, Hugh was son of Anne of Kyiv (1033-1075 A. D), who had married his father, Henry I.

It was then, as groups of Crusaders filtered their way down the peninsula of Italy, that Bohemond of Altavilla, took note of their holy quest and joined them by raising 35,500 soldiers. It was this host that St. Peter of Anagni joined, as chaplain and custodian. He remained in the Holy Land until 1102, though is not clear whether he joined Bohemond in 1097 when he set out, or in 1099 after he had become Prince of Antioch.

Bohemond was by far the most able military general of his age, and his role in the First Crusade was essential to its victory. Having had long experience fighting against the Greek Emperors for the control of southern Italy and western Greece, he had extensive knowledge of lands of the East and the methods of fighting in those distant regions. As such, he was one of the few principal leaders who refused to swear an oath of fealty to the Greek Emperor and under his leadership lead the attack on Antioch as well as its successful defense against a much larger host of Turks which had come to relieve its siege. In consequence, he proclaimed himself Prince of Antioch and was confirmed in this by the Papal Legate. Bohemond blazed a path in relations with the Christians of the East by marrying an Armenian princess.

St. Peter would have accompanied Bohemond to Jerusalem, for Christmas of 1099 A. D.,  where the latter fulfilled his crusader vows to journey to Jerusalem (he had not participated in its siege and capture) and with Peter attended the consecration of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Dagobert of Pisa. Arriving on Dec. 21, Bohemund immediately contested the uncanonical election of Arnulf of Chocques, and proceeded to his deposition after Christmas. He then promoted Dagobert to the See of Jerusalem, with the agreement of all the Crusading princes. St. Peter then was witness to the investment of Godfrey Duke of Bouillon with the title of Protector of the Holy Sepulcher and Bohemond of Altavilla as Prince of Antioch. After affairs became even more controverted in the Crusader States, St. Peter of Anagni returned back to his Diocese around 1102.

Saint Peter’s Death and Glorification

Saint Peter passed from this life on August 3, 1104 A. D.. As he did, Saint Bruno of Segni, from his mountain top See across the valley beheld a splendid light illumine the city of Anagni. Understanding its significance, he rushed to the city and presided over Saint Peter’s funeral. Immediately numerous miracles were worked in the presence of his relics and at his intercession, provoking such marvel among the Catholics of the Roman Province, that Pope Pasqual II on June 4, 1109 A. D., decreed his canonization in the bull, Dominum Excelsum and authorized his public cult. Saint Bruno himself wrote the postulatio and presided at the ceremony of canonization himself, as the Papal Legate. Saint Peter’s relics were transferred by his successor Bishop Peter II, to the very crypt of St. Magnus which he had built during his lifetime. The Cathedral then received the honor of being consecrated by Pope Alexander III in 1179 A. D. on the 75th anniversary of the Saint’s death.



CREDITS: All photographs are copyright FromRome.Info 2022.