Category Archives: Church History

Pope Nicholas II’s “war-time” provision to save the Papacy

July 30, 2026 Editor Leave a comment

+ + +

There are many writers who are not in touch with reality, and this is especially true in the Catholic Church, since admitting the truth is a habit of spirit which rarely survives the human instinct of wanting to receive human respect. But if we are to save our souls in an age in which there is a mass world-wide apostasy, founded in mendacity, the only ones who will survive this test, are those willing to take the realities of Papal Law and Church History as the first principles of prudence and action. Such is the sane proposal in the above article. May God grant that many more writers follow in this path! — Click the above image to read that article on Substack.

Contrariwise, the Church today is beplagued by what Pope Benedict XVI rightly diagnosed as a massive failure in faith of the Sacred Hierarchy, where the four major camps of sinners: the modernists heretics, the conservative freemasons, the traditionalists and the sedevacantists all agree in holding the worst possible heresy: namely, that, he is the true Pope, not him who was first to be validly elected, but him whom “We” say is the pope, since it is not the words of Christ or the laws of Popes which determine the legal right to the papacy, but consensus of private opinion of those on our “team”, “club” or Lodge.

Indeed, pay attention how many Bishops and Priests cannot even admit in public, that a true Roman Pontiff has to be legally elected, or that the laws of Saint Pius X, of Pius XII or of John Paul II, would all agree that Robert Prevost’s election was canonically invalid, for one of 5 reasons, or more:

That the “Cardinal” who convoked the conclave as Dean, was invalidly appointed by an antipope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and not by a validly elected Pope.
That at least many of the “Cardinals” who voted in the conclave, were never appointed by a validly elected Roman Pontiff.
That, as the Catholic Faith requires, none of the Cardinals voting rejected the heretical documents of Fiducia Supplicans and Amoris Laetitia, as heretical; thus showing that they themselves no longer hold the Catholic Faith. On which account according to both the Code of Canon Law of 1917 and 1918, they should never have been summoned to participate in a Conclave to elect a pope.*
That the law of John Paul II allows only for 120 validly appointed, Cardinal electors to vote; and if, this be violated, even by a claim of having a dispensation to do the contrary, the election is null and void, all the same, as per the sanction in n. 76 of that law.
That, the number of Cardinals who participated in the Conclave of 2025 violated, therefore, every papal law since Pius X, and thus the election was just as invalid as the election of the antipope Benedict X, in 1058, who was elected in an assembly without the presence of the Archdeacon Hildebrand of Sovana, as Pope Stephen IX had precepted and decreed.

This consolidation of each of the factions of Bishops and Clergy in the Catholic Church, in the same one sin, right now shows that they are manifestly no longer spiritually in communion with Christ the King, even if canonically they are not publicly censured: for they have wittingly or unwittingly united themselves to the Church of the Antichrist, by embracing a spirit of lawlessness, which is the spirit of the Apostate to come (cf. Saint Paul the Apostle, Second Letter to the Thessalonians, Chapter 2).

And this is pure insanity, especially since Pope Nicholas II gave the Church the most valid, effective and all purpose fail safe escape route, though enabling the election of a true Pope, validly and legally, in the most easy way possible. A thing which the Catholics of Rome did last year, with the entire active, written and/or tacit consent of all the Clergy and Religious of the Dioceses of Rome and the 7 Suburbican Dioceses.

There are, still, however, Catholic Bishops and Priests and Deacons and even Hermits, who reject these errors and heresies. It remains for them, now to speak out, as well as for us who are laity, to seek them out.

* While it is true that the papal laws for Conclaves since the time of St. Pius X do allow Cardinals who have not been publicly denounced as heretics to participate in the voting, it is not true that they have to be convoked to conclave, since both the Codes of 1917 and 1983 forbid those automatically excommunicated, even in secret, on account of sins such as apostasy or heresy, from exercising any office or duty in the Church, such as voting for a pope. For this reason, the Cardinal convoking the Conclave has to be validly appointed and a Catholic, or no valid Conclave can occur.

2025 Conclave, Canon Law, Church History

Pd. Lucio Ferrari: The Dispensation claimed by the Cardinals in Conclave is a total fraud

July 28, 2026 Editor 1 Comment

In the last days of April, 2025, the entire College of Cardinals, gathered together in general meetings, in preparation for the Conclave of May of that year, perpetrated a total fraud upon the law and the whole body of the Faithful of the Catholic Church, by claiming to have a dispensation from the rule of Pope John Paul II, promulgated in his Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis of 1996, for Papal Elections, which limited the maximum number of Cardinals voting in any session to 120.

This fraud which invalidated the Conclave was first denounced publicly on the pages of FromRome.info, in the article, “A Canonical Analysis why the Conclave had no valid result”, on June 25 of that year: a denunciation sent to every Priest, Bishop and Cardinal of the Church at Rome, who had a public email address, though the website ChiesaRomana.Info.

After 13 months, NO scholar, canonist or writer in the Church has refuted that analysis with legal arguments. And the reason for this is that scholars of jurisprudence understand well that the claim of such a dispensation is a complete dishonest lie and mendacity.

This can be shown from the handbook on ecclesiastical jurisprudence published by Padre Lucio Ferraris, in 1858 A. D., in his section on “Dispensatio”, where he lays out the fundamental principals of what a dispensation is on pp. 183 and 184 of that celebrated reference:

Which in English would be, according to Br. Bugnolo:

(1. A dispensastion is a common relaxation of a law (juris) made with cognition of a cause by him who has the right (ius) to dispense. It is in this common, with the Gloss in c. Requiritis 5. caus. 1. q. 7, at the words, “Ut plerisque”, and in the ch. “Ut constitueretur”, 5, dist. 50, at the words, “Detrahentium”; Abbas in the ch. “Fraternitatis”, on Schisms. Fagnan. in the ch. “Nimis”, 18, on the sons of Priests, n. 4. Angel. Tab. and Armill. at the word, “Dispensatio”.
(2. A dispensation can be considered under various measures. First, a dispensation is something owed, or something permitted, or something prohibited.
(3. A dispensation …

Continuing in English …

… is something owed, where either utility, and/or necessity of the Church, and/or the prerogative of merits occurs, as is gathered from the cited ch. Ut Constitueretur 25, dist. 50, and ch. Exposuistis 23, on Prebends. A permitted dispensation, which is also named an arbitrary (dispensation), is, where in the law (in iure) there is a prohibition, the moderation of which is left to the judgement of the superior, as is had in the ch. Si quis presbyter, dist. 50, and/or even, when something is permitted, so that the worse be avoided; c. 2, on spouses. A dispensation is prohibited where it can scarcely be done without a manifest dissipation of the law (iuris).

How the Cardinals lied to the world

First, the Cardinals manifestly lied to the world, when they claimed to have a dispensation from Pope Francis, since they produced NO document or testimony of persons, as to the grant of a dispensation at any given time or place, nor in regard to any specific rule of the Papal Law on elections.

But they were manifestly dishonest, since in n. 4 of that law, the use of all dispensations is expressly declared illicit (legally prohibited)and such use is expressly declared null and void, with these words (English translation by Br. Bugnolo):

4. With the Apostolic See vacant, it is not licit that the laws promulgated by the Roman Pontiffs, be in any way corrected and/or changed, nor that anything whatsoever be taken away from or added to them and/or dispensed from concerning their parts, most of all those, which pertain to the ordering of the business of electing the Roman Pontiff. If anything would happen to be done and/or attempted against this prescription, We, by Our Supreme Authority declare it null and irritus.

See the Canonical Analysis above for details.

Thus, as can be seen from Padre Lucio Ferraris, just as there is no question of the existence of a dispensation when the law itself forbids it, so there is no question the Cardinals could use their fake dispensation during a Conclave, since the use of all dispensation is prohibited.

Thus, the Cardinals suffer the penalties of Excommunication and Suspension a divinis

And Pope John Paul II expressly invokes his Supreme Authority to declare this. Thus, no Cardinal, not even all the Cardinals, even if they had a written dispensation from Pope Francis, could use such a dispensation, so long as the law of John Paul II remains un-amended, as it does.

This means that the Cardinals by faking a valid conclave have entered into objective formal schism from Christ Jesus and are ipso facto excommunicated latae sententiae, by canon 1364, that is, without the need for anyone to declare it. They are also suspended a divinis from all ecclesiastical functions in virtue of the censure in canon 1331. That means that all their masses are illegal and a mortal for them to perform. It also means that it would be a moral sin for Catholics to attend religious services with these men or recognize any legal act by them as valid.

This crime and sin of the Cardinals, therefore, has made them in law and in the sight of God, nothing more than a criminal organized mafia. And the Faithful should conform themselves to God and consider the Cardinals just this, and nothing more.

2013 Conclave, 2025 Conclave, Canon Law, Church History

Council of Rome, 1060 (1059) A. D., Canon 1 condemns the theory of Universal Acceptance

July 27, 2026 Editor 2 Comments

And the Conclaves of 2013 and 2025

Catholic Doctrine

A monstrous lie and masonic falsehood has been promoted in recent decades under the name of the theory of universal acceptance, which is nothing other than a dogma of Hell and a concoction of the inferno. This diabolic lie holds that a man is to be regarded as the legitimate Roman Pontiff, if the whole Church accepts him as such, solely on the basis of the popular agreement of all parties.

This doctrine contradicts all known Catholic authors, who with authors like John of Saint Thomas, only advance the theory that when there has been a lawful and valid election of a Roman Pontiff, the universal acceptance of the Church follows as a consequence of the fact that the Church cannot be deceived. But these authors do not say that this universal belief follows immediately or is a legal proof or motive to hold that a man is the true pope.

In fact, as all Catholics know, and as all honest men admit, during the Great Western Schism, caused by those greedy and sinful Cardinals who rejected the valid and legitimate election of Bartolomeo Prignano, the Archbishop of Bari (Italy), as Pope Urban VI, on April 6, 1378 A. D., and during the next 35 years, no true pope and no antipope was accepted by all. These Cardinals separated themselves and elected the antipope and heretic Count Robert of Geneva (a widower), as Clement VII on September 20, 1378. This latter fled to Naples and then to France, where at Avignon he established his own papacy.

For the next 39 years, all of western Christendom was divided, with some holding with Pope Urban VI, the Italian, and others deceived by the lies of these errant Cardinals, holding with Clement VII and his successors, sitting at Avignon (France).

Today, there is universal acceptance that all the popes who sat in Rome during these years were the true Popes. But the Vatican has never declared this: it is only the universal teaching of all theologians in communion with the Apostolic see during the last 500 years.

So it is sheer madness and deceit that some authors hold, today, that the Catholic authors of the past who spoke of universal acceptance, used it as a determination of which pope is the true pope, immediately upon his election or even during his lifetime.

The Council of Rome, 1060 A. D.

The teaching of Pope Nicholas II with the Council of Rome, in the second year of his pontificate, rebuts this diabolic modern perversion, in its first canon.*

This council was held in the year following the publication of In Nomine Domine, which altered the manner of the election, in normal circumstances, of the Pope, and assigned the choice of the candidate to the Cardinal Bishops alone. Before that, it was upto the whole body of the Faithful who attended the election, to suggest and chose the candidate, as St. Peter had arranged before his death, according to the norms of civil law, in the Eternal City of Rome, for all publicly elected candidates.

So let us quote Canon I of the Council of Rome, held in 1060, from Tomassetti’s, Bullarum Diplomatum et Privilegiorum, tome I, p. 660, first column, published in 1857 A. D., which reads thus:

Which in English, according to Br. Bugnolo, would be:

First, indeed, with God as (our) inspector, it has been established, that the election of the Roman Pontiff is in the power of the Cardinal Bishops: thus, that, if anyone is enthroned upon the Apostolic See without their prior agreement and canonical election, and then, the consent of the following orders of religious, clerics and lay people, he is not to be held to be pope and/or the apostolic (successor of Saint Peter), but (rather) as an apostate.

This canon, which recapitulates the new rule for elections mentioned in the Bull, In Nomine Domini, does so with a logical character, by listing all the necessary requirements for a pope’s claim as pope: that he be canonically elected, by the officially designated electors, and enthroned. But if he is not, then he is an antipope and apostate, since he has usurped the office and pretends to be what he is not, contrary to the will of Christ, who confirms papal laws in Heaven, which deal with the elections of His Vicars on earth.

Not, that here, “canonically elected”, is taken in the general sense of “lawfully elected”, since the rule for papal elections at the time of the Council of Rome in 1060, was the Bull of Nicholas II published in the previous year, and not a canon decreed in a council or established in any Code of Canon Law.

But as this canon of the Council of 1060 A. D., is an ecclesiastical decree, it has to be read in harmony with Nicholas II’s, Bull, “In Nomine Domine”, which does affirm the same things — without stating “canonically elected” — for elections which are held according to the norms of law. Because after an election which is not held regularly, or under force or simony or other such dishonesty, Nicholas II in the Council held at Rome in 1059, taught that all the Faithful regain the right to elect a true pope, and this anywhere, even outside the city, and even with only a few voting.e

In addition, the words of this Canon, “canonically elected”, serve as the official interpretation of n. 3 of In Nomine Domini, which, since it uses other words, could be undermined by anyone claiming that they refer to elections which are corrupted by simony or endangered by physical violence, and not pure lawlessness, as happened in recent conclaves.

So the theory that if a man be universally accepted, EVEN IF HIS ELECTION IS ILLEGAL, he is the true pope, is thus shown to be contrary to Catholic doctrine and heretical.

Thus, again, Br. Bugnolo has been proved right against the claims of Salza and Siscoe (click to read past articles refuting these two serial liars) and many other authors, who possessed by the spirit of mendacity, would excuse their heretical and schismatic adhesion to the recent two antipopes, so as to excuse any duty to adhere to Popes Benedict XVI and Hildebrand.

Because clearly there is no legal defect in either of their elections, but there is in the Conclaves of 2013 and 2025, since in the former, Pope Benedict XVI had never abdicated his office, only retired from ministry, after the example of Pope Benedict VIII a thousand years before, as Pope Benedict XVI expressly stated (cf. Andrea Cionci’s, The Ratzinger Code available in English, French and Italian); and in the latter, in May of 2025, 133 cardinals voted at the same time, violating the law of John Paul II, in no less than 4 paragraphs (see more here).

On which account, it can be said rightly that the teaching of Canon 1 of the Council of Rome in 1060, nullifies the election of Pope Francis in 2013 and of Pope Leo XIV in 2025. — A good argument to use with all your friends! For, of course, to anyone with an honest mind, if they but read n. 76 of Pope John Paul II’s, Apostolic Constitution, Universi dominici gregis, for papal elections, he will see that it establishes the same rule: if the laws are not followed, the one elected is not the pope.

—————————–

* Mansi, writing a century after Tommasetti, reckons that there was only one Roman Council, and that it took place in the year 1059, and thus lists the canons of this 1060 council as issued on the second day of the same council, in which the bull, In Nomine Domini, was promulgated: cf. Mansi, Concil. XIX, p. 897, and especially, Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Tome CXLIII, p. 1351, VIII.

Canon Law, Church History

Pope Nicholas II was elected by only one voter! says Medieval Chronicle

July 22, 2026 Editor 5 Comments

A Historical Note

Version française

As has been reported, discussed and commented on, last year, Pope Nicholas II was elected in 1058 A. D., after the unlawful usurpation of the Apostolic See by John Mincius, Bishop of Velletri, who was elected by the whole body of Clergy and Faithful at Rome, after the death of Pope Stephen IX, but against the precept of that Pope, which required the election to be held only after Saint Hildebrand, his Archdeacon, returned from the court of Matilda, the Regent of Germany, at Goslar, in Thuringia.

Pope Nicholas II, according to the sources, was elected at Siena in May of 1058, and then his election was held a second time in December of the same year, after Hildebrand had returned from a second trip to Germany, to secure the consent of Matilda to his election.

How many persons participated in the election of Pope Nicholas II is not clear. Br. Bugnolo last year, following a modern English historian, reported that at the first election there was Hildebrand, and Cardinals Hugo of Candida Selva — the famous Burgundian Cardinal who placed the bull of excommunication up on the high altar of Hagia Sofia in 1054, against the Patriarch of Constantinople — and Peter Damian, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, the author of the famous work, Liber Gomorrhianus, against the sin of sodomy among clergy and monks.

But the Chronicle of the Monastery of Monte Cassino, written by Leo of Ostia and Peter the Deacon, two monks of that famous Benedictine center of holiness and learning, affirm that in December there was only one elector of Pope Nicholas II who cast a vote. Here is the proof, with the Latin of the Chronicle and Br. Bugnolo’s translation in English, of Book III, chapter 12, p. 724, from the Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Tome 173, printed in 1853 A. D..:

Which in English, would be:

12. [Chapter 13] But to return backwards a little (to what I reported before), when after the passing of Pope Stephen of pious memory, the above said Hildebrand, having returned from the Empress, discovered the Church (of Rome) invaded by the worst of men against the interdict of the same Apostolic (Pope), he remained at Florence; and agreeing on this matter by his own letters with the better of the Romans, and receiving their consent to all which he wanted, then with the support of Duke Godfried (Margrave of Tuscany and Imperial Vicar), he elected Bishop Gerard of Florence as the Roman Pope, and together with him and the Duke came to Rome, then, in the month of January (of 1059 A. D.); where the aforesaid Elect was enthroned in the Apostolic See by the Roman Clergy and People, and took the Name of Nicholas. Who then excommunicating the above-said invader with all his supporters, received him thereafter into communion at the intervention of certain of his (supporters), and established him at the Church of Saint Mary Major, as it is called by the Romans, to remain there deprived of the office of priest.

A Legal Question

How could Saint Hildebrand, all alone, elect a pope?

The answer lies in the legal concept of delegation (cf. CIC 1983, canon 138-142), whereby everyone with authority can delegate another to represent himself in the doing of a legal act, which otherwise would require his physical presence to accomplish. Thus just as a soldier off at war can validly and legally marry his wife, who remains at home, via a man legally designated to act in his name and on his behalf, so anyone in an Ecclesiastical election, where this manner of voting is not prohibited, can designate another to vote for him, specifying or not specifying a specific candidate.

Thus, when Peter the Deacon says in the Chronicle of Monte Cassino, that the Saint “received the consent” of many Romans of good repute, he is saying juridically that the Saintly Archdeacon was empowered with the delegation to act on their behalf.

Note, also that Hildebrand was not a priest, nor a bishop, nor even a Cardinal, at that time. But he was a resident of Rome, being a Benedictine Monk of the Monastery of Saint Paul outside the walls.

So, yes, the Chronicle affirms that there was only physically present one elector, Saint Hildebrand. But juridically, since he was acting with their consent, all who consented were present and voting.

In Ecclesiastical jurisprudence as in natural law, consent is of two kinds: explicit and implicit; that is, expressed by word or sign or spoken word, and silence in the face of something done by another party, to which the one remaining silent has the right to speak in favor or against, but chooses not to speak at all.

WHAT ABOUT THE ELECTION OF Pope HILDEBRAND, then?

So, for example, in the election of Pope Hildebrand, last year on November 23, 2025, the fact that more than 5000 clergy and religious of the Dioceses of Rome and the 7 Suburbican Dioceses, all of whom had a right to participate in an election according to the Bull of Nicholas II, In Nomine Domini, after the uncanonical election of the heretic Robert Prevost, could participate in person, or by explicit or tacit consent — that is by communicating to Br. Bugnolo who was to convoke the election, approval or disapproval, or delegating him or anyone else to vote in their name — made the very fact that ChiesaRomana.info sent them notification of all the matters pertaining to the election and solicited their participation over 7 months, an action which constituted a request for consent from all parties: their silence being juridically equivalent to tacit consent to all details of which they were informed: the manner of the election, the legal right to participate, the motives for the election, and the conditions of it.

As can be seen from ChiesaRomana.Info, the form to vote by delegation was published in October, for all of these clergy and religious to compile. And as seen from the Rogitum (See SedesApostolica.Info for this), some Faithful did participate by delegation.

However, since NONE of the other clergy or religious forbade the Election take place nor did any precept Br. Bugnolo not to convoke or assemble the electors, the election of Hildebrand not only fulfilled all the conditions of Nicholas II’s teaching, but went beyond those which made Nicholas II’s own election legitimate, since it can be sanely presumed that Saint Hildebrand during the 7 months from May to December of 1058, did NOT write to 5000 clergy and religious or send out 30,000 letters, as Br. Bugnolo and those assisting him did.

CONCLUSION

These things, above, having been said, to utterly refute the absurd attacks, based on complete fabrications, that if only a few attended the election, it would not be valid. An objection which is not Catholic at all, since, as can be seen from the above Chronicle, Peter the Deacon, makes no objection and instills no doubt that the election of Nicholas II, by only one person, was juridically invalid.

So, as it stands, either a Catholic must deny all the popes since 1058 A. D., or he must accept that Hildebrand is the Pope, if he is to follow Papal Law. But if he wants to join the Church of the Antichrist, which disrespects Jesus Christ and ignores His words to Saint Peter and His Successors, ignoring the laws of John Paul II and Nicholas II, he can do whatever he wills, like Eve did. It is your choice!

Church History, Debates, Faith

Two Opposing Catholic Visions of the Future: Which is the true one?

June 6, 2026 Editor 1 Comment

The first half of this 3 hour documentary is heavily documented and follows the principles of Pope Benedict XIV, who, when still a theologian, wrote a definitive tract on how to discern true holiness from fake holiness. The evidence presented in this video is a must consideration for all Catholics, since nearly all of us have heard of both views of the future, but have not been shown the evidence for each.

In its first half of this video, it debunks a great number of false claims about prophecies by employing the proper principles of theological discernment and forensic analysis.

However, in its last part about the Fourth Secret of Fatima — which was perhaps produced beforehand or by another person — it abandons these sound principles, and presents several improbable interpretations, such as Russians involved in switching out Sr. Lucia or murdering Father Malachi Martin. And this last part, is not worth much to be listened to, containing wild interpretations of history, theology, and facts.

Attention: This documentary was produced by a Sedevacantist. But that fact does not seem to influence much the presentation in the first half of the video, other than holding that Pius XII’s consecration of Russia, which was his act without the support of all the Bishops of the world, led to the conversion of Russia! which obviously never happened in the 50’s.

To hear this video in your own language, you must use YouTube’s automatic translation, which is available through subtitles, and through automatic audio translation, if you are logged into YouTube via a gmail account.

The first half of this documentary is very compelling, as its author seems to be a professionally trained historian or lawyer who has gone to great lengths to investigate every claim and the authenticity or not of its sources.

It’s weaknesses begin to appear only when it begins the discussion of the real Sr. Lucia and the Fourth Secret, in that it asserts without proof that the substitution of Sr. Lucia was perpetrated by Communists, when the historical context of Portugal in 1960 would have made that impossible, since it was a right wing government, fully in the orbit of the USA and the UK. He also appears to think the Queen of Heaven, when speaking of “conversion” is speaking of a political change, not a religious one — an assertion which seems incredible and preposterous to all who know of Our Lady’s perfect conformity of mind and heart to the Gospel.

Important but unknown Fatima fact

The one fact that this documentary records, which is unknown to most of the West, is that St. Nuno Álvares Pereira stopped at the Cova di Ira in 1385 to pray, before defeating the forces of the antipope in the form of the armies of Castile and Aragon. So Fatima has a tie to opposing antipopes!

Canon Law, Church History, Editorials, Pope Hildebrand

Our Lady of La Salette did in fact prophesy the election of the Pope restorer

June 5, 2026 Editor 2 Comments

A Meditation on the words of Our Lady at La Salette

Nearly six months ago, John Henry Westen, of Life Site News raised attention once again to the words of the Immaculate Corredemptrix, during Her visit to the two children on the mountain top at La Salette, France, on the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, September 19, 1846 A. D., which in that year was transferred.

FromRome.Info reported on John Henry Westen’s interview of the former French intelligence officer, Xavier Ayral, back on November 22, 2025, the day before the Apostolic Election of Hildebrand, with an incisive editorial by Br. Alexis Bugnolo, our founder, entitled, “The Prophecy of Two Popes”. Click the image here, to read it.

Two Worm-Ridden Popes

The words of the ever-Virgin Mother of God, on that momentous day of revelations, which are most crucial, are these: “deux papes vermoulus”, that is, “two worm-ridden popes”.

In the editorial by Br. Bugnolo last year, he focused his attention on the “two” popes.

Here, however, we present a powerful meditation on the other part of the phrase “worm-ridden”.

Worm-Ridden Cheese: What it is and Why it is dangerous

In modern times, we scarcely have occasion to encounter anything which is worm-ridden, that is full of worms. Modern foods, especially fruit and cheeses are nearly always grown or prepared under conditions which make the infestation of larva from flying insects impossible.

To get an idea of worm-ridden cheese, then, one has to resort to images of cheeses which are especially prepared in traditional methods, where the infestation of worms is used to cure the cheese and produce the final tasty product: such as in the traditional Sardinian cheese – now outlawed for commercial distribution – called, Casu Marzu. Here is just one video which shows what this chese looks like.

However, for normal cheese, the infestation of worms is not something desired. Rather, it is considered the worst possible result, destroying all the work and expectations of the cheese maker and the cheese eater, since to eat worm ridden cheese is dangerous to your health and potentially can cause severe and long lasting digestive problems, such as infestation of your gut with parasites and worms.

A worm-ridden cheese, therefore, was something our forefathers warned their children against, and diligent mothers, in the market place, would examine a cheese carefully before purchasing it. They taught these skills to their children who accompanied them and this wisdom was passed down through the generations, until recently.

The Parable given by Our Heavenly Mother

The Mother of Jesus Christ was and is His first perfect disciple. Therefore, it should not surprise us that when She truly and in person descends from Heaven to visit Her adopted children on earth, that She will speak in parables, just as Her divine Son did when He walked this Earth in the Flesh.

Thus, we can understand this phrase, “worm-ridden”, in its proper context, of a mother instructing her children about a future danger to be encountered in the public forum, counseling them to be on their guard about it.

But if we are to be diligent and intelligent children of Our Lady, then, it behooves us to think about what Our Lady has said, and ask why the Holy Mother of God would use such a parable about Roman Pontiffs.

A Queen is a monarch, and She thinks about the Law of Her Son

While there are many attempts by scholars in the last 180 years to interpret these words, if we remember that Our Lady of La Salette appeared to two children, as a Queen wearing a Crown, we can recognize the strong HINT the Mother of Christians is giving us as to the proper interpretation of this phrase, “two worm-ridden popes”.

In the Catholic Church, in the West, “pope” is the default common term for the Bishop of Rome, the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Saint Peter.

And the Pope is certainly a public figure in the Church.

But to make the analogy or metaphor of cheese or fruit fit this context, we must first of all accept that the phrase must refer to some moment in our lives in which we are going to encounter a pope, in a public way, to whom we must apply the wise warning of our Heavenly Mother, to discern what kind of a pope this is.

And since mothers give this advice in the context of purchasing cheese, or examining it before accepting it to be eaten, then the equivalent parallel regarding popes, in our own lives, is obviously and logically the moment of a papal election, when there is announced to the world that the Catholic Church has a new Pope, and a man is proposed to us as the Vicar of Christ.

Thus, what Our Lady is warning about is first and foremost a legal defect, and not a moral defect. She is warning us about something which appears to be valid and worthy of acceptance, but is not. She is warning us of the cheese-hawker who in the past offered us good cheese, but in the future will offer us bad cheese, which is not only unedible, but dangerous, rotten, and worthy only of being rejected by us into the trash bin of history.

And all this has to do with whether a pope is a true pope, that is a canonically valid pope. That, is whether he was legitimately elected by the Cardinals or not. Here the College of Cardinals is the cheese-hawker in the implicit parable given us by Our Lady.

So what our Lady is warning us about is the bad cheese, or illegitimate claimant to the papacy.

But what She is implicitly warning us to do, is to examine the legal claim of two future popes, to see if they are validly elected.

And this is just what a Queen would advise to Her children, years before the election of such men, especially since, this Queen is the Mother and disciple of the King, the supreme sovereign, of Whom the Pope is the vicar.

The implications of our Lady’s Warning contain the Prophecy of Hildebrand

And thus it is, if we have learned our lesson well, that we should READ and strive to understand well, the Papal LAWS on papal elections, with particular attention to when these laws say an election is valid or invalid.

Unwittingly, FromRome.Info for the last 10 years has been doing exactly what Our Lady of La Salette counseled Her children: examining the legitimacy of the Conclaves of 2013 and 2025.

You can read more about this in the following four articles:

A Chronology of reports about how Team Bergoglio fixed the Conclave of 2013
The List of all articles about the invalid renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI in 2013, which caused the Conclave of 2013 to be entirely invalid in its outcome
The Canonical Analysis of the invalidity of the Conclave of 2025 according to the law of John Paul II
The reason why the Conclave of 2025 was invalid according to the law of Pope Paul IV

The Prophecy of Hildebrand

Now since Our Heavenly Mother told us in 1846, that there were going to be at some time in the future, two worm-ridden popes, that is, two illegally elected invalid popes, there is something more She is telling us.

That after the two fake popes, there will be a true pope.

This follows, because She said, “two”. She did not say “many” or “several”.

This is common sense.

Thus, after the two worm-ridden popes, there will come a validly elected, legitimate and truly Catholic pope.

But since Popes, by all the laws about Conclaves in the last 967 years are elected by Cardinals, and Cardinals can only be validly, legally and legitimately appointed by true, valid and legitimate popes, it follows immediately that after two worm ridden popes it would be IMPOSSIBLE that Cardinals elect a true pope, since most or all of them would be illegitimately appointed or in schism from Christ for having supported or created or defended fake popes.

So what our Lady is saying, by saying “two” “worm-ridden” popes, is actually something encouraging, for those who want a true, Catholic and validly elected pope.

Because She is revealing and reminding us that there must be another way for the Catholic pope, after these two fake popes, to be elected.

And the only way to do that is specified in the Bull of Pope Nicholas II, In Nomine Domini, n. 3, which says what the Catholics of Rome have the right to do, when all the Cardinals give the Church a fake, illegal popes, bad cheese, instead of a validly elected Catholic pope, the good cheese of our Church.

And the Catholics of Rome did just that, on November 23, 2025, when they elected Hildebrand.

And since that time our Holy Father, the true Roman Pontiff, has been giving us encouragement and instruction: you can read all about it at SedesApostolica.Info.

Fatima connection to Antipopes

One of the most important criterion to discern the true will of God has to do with the historical context or circumstances which surround the great graces God gives us. This can be seen in numerous cases of persons receiving life long graces similar to the graces given to their patron saints, whether they obtained these patrons by the name given to them in Baptism, or from the Saint patrons of the day on which they were born, were married, ordained, professed vows as a religious, etc..

Fatima has such connections, too, which is an important key to understanding its context.

The first has been reported here at FromRome, namely, that the Cardinal from whom the Freemasons in the Church, and the St. Gallen Mafia in particular, trace their episcopal lineages, was once the Bishop who held jurisdiction over the area of Fatima Portugal: Cardinal Nuno da Cunha de Athaíde,

The second is the historical fact that the Carmelite Saint, Nuno Álvares Pereira, who was in communion with the Italian Pope Urban VI, the true Pope, that of Rome, during the Great Western Schism, stopped to pray to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, at Cova da Ira, in 1385, before engaging the overwhelming forces of Castile and Aragon, who supported the French Clement VII, the Antipope of Avignon! And as a result, Saint Nuno defeated the forces of the antipope decisively!

And if we examine the personal details of the true Pope and the antipope of 1385, we find other stunning parallels to our own day. — The Italian pope, Urban VI was the last Pope elected who was NOT a Cardinal. And Hildebrand was also, never a Cardinal. However, the French antipope, Robert de Geneva, was born in a city on the shores of a great lake, Geneva and bore the same first name as Prevost, who was born in Chicago on the shores of Lake Michigan. Also, Robert of Geneva served in the English speaking clergy of the Kingdom of England, and perpetrated a massacre while leading troops in Italy; while Prevost perpetrated a massacre by promoting the DeathVaxx, and is a native speaker of the English language.

Today, too, we have a true Pope, Hildebrand, who is an Italian, and a antipope, Prevost who is of French descent. The parallels could not be more obvious, for those who still have eyes to see.

The message, therefore, to be had from these two facts, confirms that Our Lady at Fatima came to save the Church from two Freemasonic antipopes. And that the victory will be had by those who heed Her message, pray to Her for help, and fight against these antipopes, in communion with the true pope!.

Faith, common sense, logic, the historical context, the legal requirements, the facts of history, and loyalty to Jesus Christ and Our Lady make it all clear, for those who want the truth, and step into the light to embrace the truth.

+ + +

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the Article about the Two Worm Ridden Popes, published in summary format by Complicit Clergy in December of 2025. Click here to read that.

Canon Law, Church History

1058 the Year Saint Hildebrand Saved the Catholic Church forever

May 25, 2026 Editor Leave a comment

For the 941st anniversary of the Glorification of Saint Hildebrand

REPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON NOV. 12, 2025 A.D.

A Recounting of History, by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

ITALIAN — FRENCH — ESPANOL

When we speak of history, we often begin our accounts by retelling the stories of a year in which memorable, unique and world-changing events took place.

In the Catholic Church, we often do the same thing, especially since our Holy Religion is based on events of history, which can be precisely associated with specific places and times.

Such dates are March 25, 2 B. C., Nazareth, in the Holy House of Our Lady, on the final day of the Feast of Passover, when the Archangel Gabriel announced to Her God’s plan for salvation, and She said, “Let it be done unto me according to thy word!”.

Or 33 A. D.., on April 3, at 3. P. M., on Mount Golgotha, when Our Lord and Savior atoned for all sin, by offering His life to God the Father on the Wood of the Cross.

Or May 20, 325, in the Imperial Palace at Nicea, Asia Minor (now Turkey), where the Emperor Constantine convoked and convened through his representative, Bishop Hosius of Cartagena in Iberia (now Spain), the First Ecumenical Council with consent of Pope Sylvester I of Rome.

+ + +

But one date or year, which Catholics have probably never heard of, which is just as important for the existence of the Catholic Church, is the year of Our Lord 1058.

Just as important, I say, from the point of view of jurisprudence, because just as the identity of an association of persons is from the point of view of right an identity of an institution according to its juridical foundation and continuation, so the identity of the Catholic Church as the true Church of Christ Jesus is founded upon not only the Foundational events of Her History, but those moments in Her history, which were decisive for preserving Her juridical continuity in time.

And the Year of Our Lord, One Thousand and Fifty-Eight, was one such Year!

To understand this Year, I would suggest a refresher, with this new video about the Sutri of Synod in 1046, which launches the Gregorian Reform, which discusses especially the pontificate of Pope Saint Leo IX, who launched St. Hildebrand’s mission, after his faulty support of Pope Gregory VI.

The Crisis of 1058

The importance of 1058 begins with the failing health of Pope Stephen IX, who died on March 29, 1058, at Florence, in the embrace of his fellow Benedictine Monk, Saint Hugh of Cluny. — Forewarned of the disaster looming to break out at Rome, after his death, with the desires of the corrupt Roman Nobility to return to the immorality of previous decades, he imposed by oath upon the Clergy and Nobility of the Eternal City, that they would not convene an Apostolic Assembly to elect his successor, until his Archdeacon Saint Hildebrand returned from the Imperial Court at Goslar, in Thuringia, Germany, to preside over it. So relates Bonzio of Sutri in his history of the epoch.

But as soon as the Nobles of the City learned of the death of Pope Stephen IX, shortly after his arrival at Florence, to meet with Saint Hugo, they rushed on the night of April 4th, into the city with armed troops and forced the election of John Minucius, Bishop of Tusculum (now Velletri), as Pope Benedict X on April 5, 1058, just a week after, as soon as news arrived by horseback.

Stephen IX, in life, was called Frederick, and his brother was Godfrey the Bearded, the Duke of Lorraine (now Belgium-NW France) who was also Margrave of Tuscany. And so at his death, his brother immediately dispatched 500 men-at-arms to secure the City of Rome. They arrived too late to intervene.

John Minucius, was made a Cardinal by Pope Stephen IX in 1050 A. D.. And he was no outlier, since Frederick of Lorraine, the future Pope Stephen IX had nominated him as pope in the Papal Election of 1057, which instead chose the Frankish Cleric instead. It is said he was forced to accept his election as Pope.

Cardinal Peter Damian immediately denounced the illegal election and anathematized the perpetrators. For his personal safety he had to flee the city. Cardinals Humbert and Cardinal Peter of Tusculum fled to Benevento and declared the election irregular.

When Saint Hildebrand returned from Germany he found the City of Rome in the hands of the supporters of Benedict X, and declared the election invalid by reason of the violation of the precept regarding the requirement imposed by Pope Stephen, that Saint Hildebrand,the future Pope Gregory VII, was to be the sine qua non elector whose presence would make the election lawfully convened.

The Solution of 1058

So in May of 1058, Saint Hildebrand Archdeacon and Saint Peter Damian, Cardinal, along with Cardinal Umberto of Selva Candida, convened an Apostolic Assembly at Siena, Italy (about 3 hours by car north of Rome), and elected Gerard of Burgundy, the Bishop of Florence.

Gerard took the name, Nicholas II.

Gerard expected to have the support of Godfrey the Bearded, who was Margrave of Tuscany, and Wilbert of Ravenna (aka Guibert of Parma), the Imperial Chancellor of Italy. So he dispatched Saint Hildebrand as his Legate to them, and to the Imperial Court at Goslar in Germany, to secure his claim to the papacy.

Saint Hildebrand, having achieved this, returned with both Noblemen to Siena, where they proclaimed Gerard, Pope Nicholas II on December 6, 1058, some six months later.

He then marched on Rome with the armed forces of the Margrave of Tuscany, and stopping at Sutri, convened the Second Provincial Council of Sutri and declared Benedict X deposed as an antipope and usurper.

On January 24, 1059, Nicholas II was enthroned at Rome, as Roman Pontiff, and it is from that date his Pontificate is normally reckoned.

The Legality of the Election of Nicholas II

The supporters of the antipope Benedict X would contest the legality of the election of Nicholas II for the next 130 years in the chronicles of local monasteries.

This contestation was based on the obvious facts that,

The election of Nicholas II was outside of the City of Rome in violation of all precedent
The election of Nicholas II occurred in second place to the election of Benedict X
The election of Nicholas II was by a minority of Cardinals
The election of Nicholas II was not consented to by the whole clergy and people at the time of his elections at Siena in May and December of 1058.

However, the legal claim of Pope Nicholas II to be the true Roman Pontiff was based on an even stronger argument, namely:

That the election of Benedict X was procured by force of arms
That the election of Benedict X was conducted in violation regarding the number of electors, namely, by denying Saint Hildebrand, the Archdeacon, from having the opportunity to be present.

The Legal Principles confirmed by the Infallible Papal Magisterium

For the next 4 centuries and, indeed, until the present day, the Catholic Church and all true Popes have consented to the election of Nicholas II as legitimate, by reason of two juridical principles recognized in Canon Law today:

Since coercion destroys liberty, a coerced vote or election is illegitimate and thus irritus, to be reckoned as never happened (cf. CIC 1983, Canon 125 §1)
Since violation of obligatory procedures produces an illegitimate election, all such voting under such violations lead to an election which is irritus, to be considered as never happened (cf. CIC Canons 42 and 124 §1).

We see these principles affirmed in the present Papal Law, Universi Domini Gregis (UDG), in n. 76, where it reads in the Vatican’s English translation:

76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.

Magisterial Teaching of Pope Nicholas II

The Magisterial Teaching of Pope Nicholas II on this topic was enshrined in his Bull, In Nomine Domini, n. 3, in April of 1059, where it reads:

§ 3. Wherefore, if the perversity of depraved and iniquitous men, so prevail, that a pure, sincere and free election cannot be held in the City, let the Cardinal Bishops with the religious Clerics, and the Catholic laity, though few, obtain the right of power (ius potestatis) to elect the Pontiff of the Apostolic See, where they might judge it to be more fitting. Plainly, after the election has been completed, if there be a bellicose conflict, and/or if the struggle of any kind of men resists by the earnestness of wickedness, such that he, who has been elected, cannot prevail to be enthroned in the Apostolic See according to the custom, nevertheless, let the elect obtain as Pope the authority to rule the Roman Church and to dispose of all Her faculties, which Blessed Gregory, We know, did, before his own consecration.

This teaching is not merely disciplinary but also doctrinal since the Church has ever considered the principal valid as applied to the election of Nicholas II in the year before he was the pope.

Moreover, when the historical circumstances of the election of Nicholas II are understood, in comparison with this his Bull, we see an amazing triple level of fail-safe detailed: that an election whose validity be corrupted by whatsoever means, grants

the right of the original electorate of the whole Roman Church,
to hold the election anywhere and
with any few members representing that Church.

Thus, though this Bull is from a point of view of law no longer in force, its teaching regarding this juridical safe-guard remains in force, in cases in which the current Papal Law makes no provision.

How Saint Hildebrand defended the Church from all future Antipopes

And this is how Saint Hildebrand saved the Catholic Church’s juridical identity as the Church of Christ, forever, for by his decision to oppose Benedict X’s unlawful claim to the papacy, he brought to light the principle of the Natural Law to guide all future generations, which can be summed up in several rules:

An election which violates precepts regarding procedure, renders the election irritus, that is of no legal value, (Cf. CIC 1983, Canon 124 §1)
An election in which coercion occurs, in such wise as to determine the vote to be other than it would be, is illegitimate (Cf. CIC 1983, Canons 125 §1 and 170)
An election without the proper number of electors is invalid (Cf. CIC 1983, Canons 119 §1, 161 §3 and 172 §1)
All who have the right to vote, when voting in an illegitimate election for the Pope, suffer the forfeiture of their right by the act of entering into Schism from Christ by adhering to a man as pope who is NOT the pope. (Cf. CIC 1983, Canons 1364 and 1331 §1)

And these are the very principles which are embodied in the Save Rome Project last year in the year of Our Lord, 2025, since the Cardinals selected Prevost as Leo XIV with 133 of them voting, even though the Papal Law forbids (UDG n. 33) more than 120 electors and forbids (UDG n. 4) the use of dispensations to allow more than 120.

Pope Saint Gregory VII, died in exile at Salerno, Italy, then the Norman Principality of Salerno, on May 25, 1085, saying, “I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile” (from Rome). He had been Pope for just over 12 years and single-handedly changed the course of world history, causing the German Emperor to kneel in the snow at Canosa, outside of the Castle of Countess Matilda of Tuscany, asking to be absolved from excommunication, and having first called for a Holy War to liberate Jerusalem. He imposed celibacy as a canonical requirement upon all clergy in the Latin Church and vigorously rooted out simony and lay interference in the Church.

Saint Hildebrand, pray for us!

And pray for the Holy Father, that the Lord concede to him a double portion of your spirit!

News, Papal Documents, Pope Hildebrand

The Holy Father publishes his Apostolic Letter on Faith in Jesus Christ

May 23, 2026 Editor Leave a comment

Click to read.

Church History, Pope Hildebrand

Deo Gratias! — 6th Month Anniversary of the Election of Pope Hildebrand

May 22, 2026 Editor 3 Comments

Click for more information

We give thanks to Almighty God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who through the combined efforts of the many readers of FromRome and at Rome, saved the Catholic Church from the grasp of Satan and gave the Church a Catholic Pope elect, dedicated to restoring the Church.

If, there is anything lacking yet, it is because Catholics have kept silent about this great work of mercy and blessing from God. Write your Bishops! Talk to priests of good will, who are more loyal to Jesus Christ than to their paycheck, and spread the word to the Catholic laity.

2013 Conclave, Canon Law, Church History, Debates

Westen interviews Coffin about the invalid Conclaves of 2013 and 2025

May 16, 2026 Editor 2 Comments

Nearly everything in this 47 minute discussion has been reported years ago here at FromRome.Info. But this presentation takes a different take: it presents facts as certain but laws as doubtful and conclusions as uncertain, which is a very different approach from FromRome.Info.

In fact, it is a grave philosophical error and gaslighting, to present facts and yet insinuate doubt in the human intellect’s capacity to reason from facts to true conclusions. Saint Thomas Aquinas would have never written his Summa Theologica if he had the same uncertainty of mind.

See if you can spot how this presentation moves between what is socially acceptable and what is true. Comment below, if you spot errors, problems, or inconsistencies, since, you, the readers of FromRome.Info are probably better informed than these two men.

But what is really cheeky, is that both these men said that they were persecuted for speaking the truth about these things, when in truth, they were both some of the principle censors of this truth and hid the truth and discussion for nearly 10 years.

FromRome.Info was and is the leading source of news coverage of the invalid Conclave of 2013 and the Conclave of 2025, as well as Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation. Use our search function to find what can be found no where else.

Church History, News

The Apostolic Election has been held

November 24, 2025 Editor 66 Comments

The Faithful are asked to share this news in every way possible, since as can be seen during the last 10 days “Catholic Inc.” Media have decided to totally censor the existence of it. — Editor’s Note of Dec. 3, 2025.

PRESS RELEASE

FRENCH — DUTCH — Español, a continuación.

On the Solemnity of Christ the King, the Faithful of the Church at Rome, in order to exercise the right granted to them by Pope Nicholas II, in his Bull, In Nomine Domini, convened in an apostolic assembly to elect the true and legitimate successor of Saint Peter,

Further details about the results of this assembly this will be published at SedesApostolica.info, once that site goes on line.

SE HA CELEBRADO LA ELECCIÓN APOSTÓLICA

COMUNICADO DE PRENSA

En la solemnidad de Cristo Rey, los fieles de la Iglesia de Roma, con el fin de ejercer el derecho que les concedió el papa Nicolás II en su bula In Nomine Domini, convocaron una asamblea apostólica para elegir al verdadero y legítimo sucesor de San Pedro.

Los detalles adicionales sobre los resultados de esta Asamblea se publicarán en SedesApostolica.info una vez que esté en línea.

IMAGE CREDITS: The featured image is a photograph of the mosaic of Saint Michael the Archangel, protector of the Principality of Salerno, in the ceiling above the relics of Pope Saint Gregory VII (Hildebrand of Saona), where he lies in the Cathedral of Saint Matthew the Apostle, in that city. Photo © 2025 by FromRome.info. All rights reserved.

UPDATE: NOVEMBER 29, 2025

Job Openings:

In the Secretary of State, a SPOKESMAN, to handle all requests for information from the public. — Leave a “Not for publication” comment below with your contact information and Linkedin Profile as your resume.

In the Secretary of State, various and several Clergy, whether priests or deacons, to cover temporary positions as chargé d’affaires for communications and relations with individual members or groups of the Sacred Hierarchy, Relgious Orders and Institutes, and Individual members of the Clergy and Religious petitioning the Apostolic See. — Leave a “Not for publication” comment below with your contact information and Linkedin Profile as your resume.

Canon Law, Church History

1058: El año San Hildebrando salvó la Iglesia Católica para siempre

November 18, 2025 Editor 1 Comment

Un ensayo del fraile Alexis Bugnolo

ENGLISH — ITALIANO — FRANCAIS

Cuando hablamos de historia, a menudo comenzamos nuestros relatos volviendo a contar las historias de un año en el que tuvieron lugar acontecimientos memorables, únicos y que cambiaron el mundo.

En la Iglesia Católica, a menudo hacemos lo mismo, especialmente porque nuestra Santa Religión se basa en acontecimientos de la historia, que pueden asociarse con precisión a lugares y tiempos específicos.

Tales fechas son:

El 25 de marzo del 2 a. C., en Nazaret, en la Santa Casa de Nuestra Señora, el día final de la Fiesta de la Pascua, cuando el Arcángel Gabriel le anunció el plan de salvación de Dios, y Ella dijo: “Hágase en mí según tu palabra”.
El 3 de abril del 33 d. C., a las 3 P. M., en el Monte Gólgota, cuando Nuestro Señor y Salvador expió todo pecado, ofreciendo Su vida a Dios Padre en el Madero de la Cruz.
El 20 de mayo del 325, en el Palacio Imperial de Nicea, Asia Menor (actual Turquía), donde el emperador Constantino convocó y reunió, a través de su representante, el Obispo Osio de Cartagena en Iberia (actual España), el Primer Concilio Ecuménico con el consentimiento del Papa Silvestre I de Roma.

Pero hay una fecha o año, del que los católicos probablemente nunca han oído hablar, que es igual de importante para la existencia de la Iglesia Católica: el año de Nuestro Señor 1058.

Digo que es igual de importante desde el punto de vista de la jurisprudencia, porque así como la identidad de una asociación de personas es, desde el punto de vista del derecho, la identidad de una institución según su fundamento y continuación jurídica, así también la identidad de la Iglesia Católica como la verdadera Iglesia de Cristo Jesús se fundamenta no solo en los eventos fundacionales de Su Historia, sino en aquellos momentos de Su historia que fueron decisivos para preservar Su continuidad jurídica en el tiempo.

¡Y el año de Nuestro Señor, Mil Cincuenta y Ocho, fue uno de esos años!

Para entender ese Año, sugeriría un repaso con este nuevo video sobre el Sínodo de Sutri en 1046, que lanza la Reforma Gregoriana, y que trata especialmente el pontificado del Papa San León IX, quien lanzó la misión de San Hildebrando tras el apoyo defectuoso de este al Papa Gregorio VI.

La Crisis de 1058

La importancia del año 1058 comienza con el deterioro de la salud del Papa Esteban IX, quien murió el 29 de marzo de 1058 en Florencia, en un abrazo con su compañero monje benedictino, San Hugo de Cluny. — Advertido del desastre que se cernía sobre Roma tras su muerte, debido a los deseos de la corrupta Nobleza Romana de regresar a la inmoralidad de décadas anteriores, impuso bajo juramento al Clero y a la Nobleza de la Ciudad Eterna que no convocarían una Asamblea Apostólica para elegir a su sucesor hasta que su Arcediano, San Hildebrando, regresara de la Corte Imperial en Goslar, Turingia, Alemania, para presidirla. Así lo relata Bonizo de Sutri en su historia de la época.

Pero tan pronto como los Nobles de la Ciudad se enteraron de la muerte del Papa Esteban IX, poco después de su llegada a Florencia para reunirse con San Hugo, irrumpieron en la ciudad la noche del 4 de abril con tropas armadas y forzaron la elección de Juan Minucius, Obispo de Velletri (Túsculo), como Papa Benedicto X el 5 de abril de 1058, apenas una semana después, tan pronto como llegó la noticia a caballo.

Esteban IX, en vida, se llamaba Federico, y su hermano era Godofredo el Barbudo, el Duque de Lorena (actualmente Bélgica y el noroeste de Francia) y Margrave de Toscana. Por ello, a su muerte, su hermano envió de inmediato 500 hombres de armas para asegurar la Ciudad de Roma. Llegaron demasiado tarde para intervenir.

Juan Minucius había sido nombrado Cardenal por el Papa Esteban IX en el 1050 d. C. Y no era un extraño, ya que Federico de Lorena, el futuro Papa Esteban IX, lo había nominado como papa en la Elección Papal de 1057, que en su lugar eligió al Clérigo Franco. Se dice que fue forzado a aceptar su elección como Papa.

El Cardenal Pedro Damián denunció inmediatamente la elección ilegal y anatematizó a los perpetradores. Por su seguridad personal tuvo que huir de la ciudad. Los Cardenales Humberto y el Cardenal Pedro de Túsculo huyeron a Benevento y declararon la elección irregular.

Cuando San Hildebrando regresó de Alemania, encontró la Ciudad de Roma en manos de los partidarios de Benedicto IX, y declaró la elección inválida debido a la violación del precepto impuesto por el Papa Esteban, de que San Hildebrando, el futuro Papa Gregorio VII, debía ser el elector sine qua non (condición indispensable) cuya presencia haría que la elección se convocara legalmente.

La Solución de 1058

Así, en mayo de 1058, el Arcediano San Hildebrando y el Cardenal San Pedro Damián, junto con el Cardenal Humberto de Silva Cándida, convocaron una Asamblea Apostólica en Siena, Italia (a unas 3 horas en coche al norte de Roma), y eligieron a Gerardo de Borgoña, Obispo de Florencia.

Gerardo tomó el nombre de Nicolás II.

Gerardo esperaba contar con el apoyo de Godofredo el Barbudo, quien era Margrave de Toscana, y de Wilberto de Rávena (también conocido como Guido de Parma), el Canciller Imperial de Italia. Por ello, envió a San Hildebrando como su Legado ante ellos y ante la Corte Imperial en Goslar, Alemania, para asegurar su reclamo al papado.

San Hildebrando, habiendo logrado esto, regresó con ambos nobles a Siena, donde proclamaron a Gerardo como Papa Nicolás II el 6 de diciembre de 1058, unos seis meses después.

Luego, Nicolás II marchó sobre Roma con las fuerzas armadas del Margrave de Toscana y, deteniéndose en Sutri, convocó el Segundo Concilio Provincial de Sutri y declaró a Benedicto X depuesto como antipapa y usurpador.

El 24 de enero de 1059, Nicolás II fue entronizado en Roma como Pontífice Romano, y es a partir de esa fecha que su Pontificado se cuenta normalmente.

La Legalidad de la Elección de Nicolás II

Los partidarios del antipapa Benedicto X impugnarían la legalidad de la elección de Nicolás II durante los siguientes 130 años en las crónicas de los monasterios locales.

Esta impugnación se basó en los hechos obvios de que:

La elección de Nicolás II fue fuera de la Ciudad de Roma, en violación de todo precedente.
La elección de Nicolás II se produjo en segundo lugar respecto a la elección de Benedicto X.
La elección de Nicolás II fue realizada por una minoría de Cardenales.
La elección de Nicolás II no contó con el consentimiento de todo el clero y el pueblo en el momento de sus elecciones en Siena, en mayo y diciembre de 1058.

Sin embargo, el reclamo legal del Papa Nicolás II para ser el verdadero Pontífice Romano se basó en un argumento aún más fuerte, a saber:

Que la elección de Benedicto X fue obtenida mediante fuerza de armas.
Que la elección de Benedicto X se llevó a cabo con una violación en cuanto al número de electores, es decir, al negar a San Hildebrando, el Arcediano, la oportunidad de estar presente.

Los Principios Legales Confirmados por el Magisterio Papal Infalible

Durante los siguientes cuatro siglos y, de hecho, hasta el día de hoy, la Iglesia Católica y todos los verdaderos Papas han consentido la elección de Nicolás II como legítima, en virtud de dos principios jurídicos reconocidos en el Derecho Canónico actual:

Dado que la coacción destruye la libertad, un voto o una elección coaccionada es ilegítima y, por lo tanto, irritus (inválida), debe considerarse como si nunca hubiera ocurrido (cf. CIC 1983, Canon 125 §1).
Dado que la violación de procedimientos obligatorios produce una elección ilegítima, toda votación bajo tales violaciones conduce a una elección que es irritus, considerada como si nunca hubiera ocurrido (cf. CIC Cánones 42 y 124 §1).

Vemos estos principios afirmados en la actual Ley Papal, Universi Domini Gregis (UDG), en el n. 76, donde se lee en la traducción inglesa del Vaticano:

1. Si la elección se lleva a cabo de una manera distinta a la prescrita en la presente Constitución, o si las condiciones aquí establecidas no se observan, la elección es por esta misma razón nula e inválida, sin necesidad de ninguna declaración al respecto; consecuentemente, no confiere ningún derecho al elegido.

Enseñanza Magisterial del Papa Nicolás II

La Enseñanza Magisterial del Papa Nicolás II sobre este tema quedó consagrada en su Bula In Nomine Domini, n. 3, de abril de 1059, donde se lee:

3. Por lo cual, si la perversidad de hombres depravados e inicuos prevaleciere de tal modo que no se pueda celebrar una elección pura, sincera y libre en la Ciudad, que los Obispos Cardenales con los Clérigos religiosos y laicos católicos, aunque sean pocos, obtengan el derecho de potestad (ius potestatis) para elegir al Pontífice de la Sede Apostólica, donde juzguen que es más conveniente. Claramente, después de que la elección haya sido completada, si hubiere un conflicto bélico, y/o si la lucha de cualquier tipo de hombres se resiste con el ahínco de la maldad, de modo que aquel que ha sido elegido no pueda prevalecer para ser entronizado en la Sede Apostólica según la costumbre, no obstante, que el elegido obtenga como Papa la autoridad para gobernar la Iglesia Romana y disponer de todas Sus facultades, lo cual, sabemos, hizo el Beato Gregorio antes de su propia consagración.

Esta enseñanza no es meramente disciplinaria, sino también doctrinal, ya que la Iglesia siempre ha considerado válido el principio tal como fue aplicado a la elección de Nicolás II el año anterior a que él fuera Papa.

Además, cuando se entienden las circunstancias históricas de la elección de Nicolás II en comparación con esta Bula suya, vemos un asombroso triple nivel de seguridad jurídica detallado: que una elección cuya validez sea corrompida por cualquier medio, otorga:

1. El derecho del electorado original de toda la Iglesia Romana,
2. para celebrar la elección en cualquier lugar, y
3. con pocos miembros que representen a esa Iglesia.

Por lo tanto, aunque esta Bula desde el punto de vista legal ya no está vigente, su enseñanza con respecto a esta salvaguarda jurídica sigue en vigor en los casos para los que la Ley Papal actual no contempla ninguna disposición.

Cómo San Hildebrando Defendió a la Iglesia de Futuros Antipapas

Así fue como San Hildebrando salvó la identidad jurídica de la Iglesia Católica como Iglesia de Cristo, para siempre, ya que, con su decisión de oponerse al reclamo ilegal de Benedicto X al papado, sacó a la luz el principio del Derecho Natural para guiar a todas las futuras generaciones, que se puede resumir en varias reglas:

Una elección que viola los preceptos relativos al procedimiento vuelve la elección irritus (inválida), es decir, sin valor legal (Cf. CIC 1983, Canon 124 §1).
Una elección en la que ocurre coacción, de tal manera que determina que el voto sea diferente de lo que hubiera sido, es ilegítima (Cf. CIC 1983, Cánones 125 §1 y 170).
Una elección sin el número apropiado de electores es inválida (Cf. CIC 1983, Cánones 119 §1, 161 §3 y 172 §1).
Todos los que tienen derecho a voto, al votar en una elección ilegítima para el Papa, sufren la pérdida de su derecho por el acto de entrar en Cisma con Cristo al adherirse a un hombre como papa que NO es el papa (Cf. CIC 1983, Cánones 1364 y 1331 §1).

Y estos son los mismos principios que están incorporados en el Save Rome Project este año de Nuestro Señor, 2025, ya que los Cardenales seleccionaron a Prevost como León XIV con 133 de ellos votando, a pesar de que la Ley Papal prohíbe (UDG n. 33) más de 120 electores y prohíbe (UDG n. 4) el uso de dispensas para permitir más de 120.

Church History, Liturgy

Don’t blame the Dominicans for Why a Pope dresses in White!

November 13, 2025 Editor 1 Comment

+ + +

Editor’s Note: This article is one of the few which delves into the history of the Papal Attire. — It dispels the oft repeated rumor that Saint Pius V, a Dominican, was the first pope to wear white. The truth is that it’s the fault of Pope Gregory X (1271-1276), the pope who called the Fourth Lateran Council, reunited the Church of Rome and Constantinople, and who made Saint Bonaventure, Cardinal of Albano.

But the article omits one important fact, that the man responsible, Pope Gregory X, Teobaldo Visconti, of the powerful Italian Noble House of the same surname, was a member of the Third Order of Saint Francis.

See more on him, here.

Here is a fresco of him, painted just 60 years after his Pontificate, in the Cathedral of Arezzo, near Assisi — Click to enlarge — The symbolism of the colors: a white cassock covered with a red mantel, was to remind the Holy Father that he should be walking spiritually in the foot steps, not of Christ the King in Glory, but of Christ falsely condemned by the Judeans and on trial in the Praetorium of the Roman Procurator, Pontius Pilate (Cf. William Durandus, Rationale Divinorum Officiorum (1286), Pius II, Commentaries, vol.1, 198–99).

+ + +

Pope Gregory X was beatified by Pope Clement XI in 1713 A. D., and during the reign of Pope Pius XII his cause for Canonization was introduced. The cause is still awaiting a certified miracle.

Blessed Gregory X pray for us!

Here is another article on the Papal Habit, from Tradition in Action, from which I drew the citation from William Durandus.

Canon Law, Church History

1058 the Year Saint Hildebrand Saved the Catholic Church forever

November 12, 2025 Editor 9 Comments

A Recounting of History, by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

ITALIAN — FRENCH — ESPANOL

When we speak of history, we often begin our accounts by retelling the stories of a year in which memorable, unique and world-changing events took place.

In the Catholic Church, we often do the same thing, especially since our Holy Religion is based on events of history, which can be precisely associated with specific places and times.

Or 33 A. D.., on April 3, at 3. P. M., on Mount Golgotha, when Our Lord and Savior atoned for all sin, by offering His life to God the Father on the Wood of the Cross.

+ + +

But one date or year, which Catholics have probably never heard of, which is just as important for the existence of the Catholic Church, is the year of Our Lord 1058.

And the Year of Our Lord, One Thousand and Fifty-Eight, was one such Year!