It is with a heavy heart that I write this article. I write it because I am beholden to facts and reasons in all explanations I give or attempt to give. I have written more about the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI than perhaps any other author, including those who have written books, since there at from Rome it is the principle topic of more than 10,000 articles. I have advanced many more speculative explanations than others too, and some of my conjectures and reconstructions have been accepted by famous and notable persons such as Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò (the Great Catholic Reset) and Andrea Cionci (the Ratzinger Code).
An Introduction
But now, after Roberto Morassut, the vice-president of the Italian Senatorial Commission investigating the disappearance of Emanuela Orlandi and Mirella Gregori has come to the same conclusion that I did, though about 14 months later than myself, I consider it my duty once again to connect the dots and draw out the figure no matter where those dots lead.
I have discussed this in English, yesterday, as Part 6 of the investigation into the disappearance of Emanuela Orlandi conducted by AJ Baalman at Ordo Militaris Radio TV, a report every Catholic with a strong stomach and stronger faith needs to listen to if they want to know what is really been going on in the Church since 1983:
And, for the background, this report from FanPage.it, which details the conclusion of the investigation:
The article is in Italian, but I consider it necessary in such an important matter to quote the original, before I summarize it, as was done in the above show at OMC Ratio TV.
The explanation of how Roberto Morrasut arrived at his conclusion is given in that show, so I won’t repeat it here, as it deserves a very detailed explanation, and if you do not know all the facts of the Orlandi case it is easy to miss or dismiss. So watch that show before you continue reading this present Article of mine.
The Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI
Pope Benedict XVI was an academic and book-lover. I understand the personality because my own Father was an academic and booklover, and I am at least of the number of the latter, if not formally of the former, since I never pursued a graduate degree in anything or taught in a University or College.
This type of man is inclined to be both innocent and myopic in his intellectual affairs, that is, not that he does not read many topics, but that his attention is to things intellectual and textual, and not on the goings on around him. He does not have, by nature, the forensic mentality of the policeman who has worked in a City arresting and investigating all kinds of criminals on a daily basis throughout decades of his professional career in law enforcement. This latter kind of man can, with a single glance, detect who is up to something criminal. I know this because one of these once gave me a brief lesson in paying attention, by taking me to a supermarket and pointing out to me in the space of two or three minutes 5 persons involved in shoplifting! in a supermarket that was going to be closed down, because it had been overrun by a local criminal petty-theft ring.
This latter kind of man does not miss a thing, literally. But the former man can live among thieves and criminals of even the worst kind for an entire lifetime and never see a thing. Criminals consider the first kind of man totally naive, and the latter kind of man their worst enemy and nightmare.
And thus it was that Pope Benedict XVI was elected to the Apostolic Throne in April of 2005. For he was apparently the only man in the heart of the Vatican who had no idea what had been going on since 1983, when Emanuela Orlandi disappeared.
He had been made Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Nov. 25, 1981, just 18 months before the disappearance of Emanuela Orlandi on June, 22 1983. At that time his office did not have the duty to oversee sex-abuse cases committed by clergy: that was the duty of the Congregation for the Clergy. The new Code of Canon Law was not yet published, that would happen on January 25, 1983, some 14 months later.
So when Emanuela disappeared it is quite possible that Cardinal Ratzinger knew nothing of the case and paid it no attention, other than the fact that the girl was a citizen of Vatican City, for at that time the common opinion was that she disappeared in the streets of Rome, as one of the many girls who disappear annually in cities of the world, all over the world, and are forgotten by all but their family. One of the great tragedies of the world.
But on Dec. 17, 2012 A. D., nearly 31 years and 6 months after the disappearance of Emanuela, there was placed on the desk, as it were, the 6 boxes of documentation prepared by the Commission of 3 Cardinals, whom the now Pope Benedict XVI had tasked with investigating the corruption at the Vatican, with particular attention to sex-trafficking.
He probably began this investigation because of the testimony brought to him by none other than Father Gabriel Amorth, the famous Exorcist of Rome, who spoke about it in his recent book, published that spring, as was reported here on May 22, 2012 by the U.K. Telegraph:
It has been 13 years, nearly, since that report, but I now surmise that on Dec. 17, 2012, Pope Benedict XVI learned, at last, the truth of the matter, which Morassut just pointed to: namely, that Emanuela was kidnapped and murdered to conceal her pregnancy by none other than Pope John Paul II himself and his friends, who “took her to bed” in the Vatican, and that the very man at whose side he worked for so many years, the man whom he had even BEATIFIED as a living saint, was rather one of the most foul and devious men in the history of the Papacy.*
This truth, realized, broke Pope Benedict XVI. If he remained Pope he would have to expose it, or hide it. Pope John Paul II’s canonization was already being prepared. Pope Benedict XVI would have to perform the ceremony himself, or make some excuse which would lead to even greater scrutiny.
So he did a thing, which no courageous man would do, he resigned. And since he feared the legal complications of being involved in a cover up, he gave up all governance of the Vatican while retaining all the immunity in law of a Pope.
And this is the reason why he renounced the ministry and not the munus of the Petrine Office!
And everyone in the Vatican also knew this, because the contents of the report were already in the most secret gossip channels of the city state.
If this reconstruction is correct, then it explains many things, which still to this day are inexplicable.
Why all the Cardinals insist Pope Benedict XVI validly abdicated
Why all the Cardinals faithful to Pope Benedict XVI did not want him to resign and yet are the most vocal in insisting he did
Why none of the Cardinals who were enemies of Pope Benedict XVI took the position that his resignation was invalid or tolerate any discussion of it
Why a creep of the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, himself involved in covering up all the sex-crimes of the Archdiocese of Buenas Aires (a known fact which is disputed by no one) and perhaps even a sexual groomer himself (as Archbishop Viganò claims there are testimonies in favor of), was elected in the faux Conclave of 2013
Why Bergoglio did not even to pretend to assist in the investigation of the disappearance of Emanuela Orlandi until 3 days after the Funeral of Pope Benedict XVI
Why no one in the Vatican, currently, or who previously worked there, except Viganò who has been excommunicated, knows anything about the Orlandi Case or if they do, are willing to speak about it.
Why no one in the Vatican, currently, or who previously worked there, excepting Viganò who has been excommunicated, appears willing to discuss the munus vs. ministerium problem.
Why no one in the Vatican seemingly can figure out why the Renunciation is invalid or the Conclave of 2013 canonically null and void.
Why the faux Conclave of 2013 elected a Pope to grovel before the world, doing everything possible to appear favorable to the press and even thanking them for covering up scandals
If everything I have said above is correct, then Pope Benedict XVi resigned because he fled before the wolves, primarily speaking. He renounced the ministerium not the munus on purpose with the primary intent to protect himself, personally. And he kept silent about the entire matter of Orlandi and his failed Renunciation, insisting he was no longer running the Vatican, to avoid having anything to do with the case or its revelation.
In other words, Pope Benedict XVI was a tragic figure, who in the last great moral battle of his life, failed God, himself and the Church, and humanly speaking, failed most of all this little girl of 15 years, who disappeared and was never found again.
POSTSCRIPT: I consider the importance of getting to the truth of what happened to Emanuela Orlandi, a citizen of the Vatican City State, of a family who served 7 popes, whose father was a clerk in the Pontifical Household of Pope John Paul II, and lived nearby, and who was herself known to Pope John Paul II, something more important than the reputation of any Pope, precisely because a Pope is gravely obligated to be a living saint and a man of the highest moral integrity. The Case of Emanuela Orlandi obviously impinges upon 3 recent Popes, and as it is it cannot be denied to also impugn their reputations.
This article has been written to answer the question as to what kind of Conspiracy was at the basis of the Renunciation. If true, it means that the next Pope will have a herculean task of saving the reputation of the Church from the most ghastly and horrible crimes against a Catholic Family at the Vatican, ever known to have been perpetrated and covered up by 3 popes. I have written for this purpose, because I love Catholic families everywhere and want them protected from criminals and perverts. But I have written it also, so that Catholics might share it, thus, that in the next Conclave all the Cardinals may know the gig is up and that the only way they can extricate themselves from personal responsibility in this horrendous and monstrous conspiracy, is for them to elect someone not involved to put an end to this evil silence and drain this foul and evil swamp!
FootNote: While it is true that Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, the personal secretary of Pope John Paul II in those years has categorically denied this construction of facts about the late Pope, as recently as April 17, 2023, it must be noted that he himself is now being brought before an ecclesiastical commission after being accused of being one of a group of priests who sodomized young men during orgies, while he was still in Poland and served the future Pope, as is reported here on January 7, 2025. An ironic turn of events which only adds to the preponderance of evidence in favor of the principle thesis of my Article. Moreover, on the same day in April 2023, Pope Francis himself denied that “Pope John Paul II went out at night prowling for young girls”. Yet, that is not even the substance of the accusation. In fact it only rebuts the speculation of a minor witness. This is the classic limited denial to disinform. And the substance of Pope Francis’ argument was that John Paul II was canonized; the faithful accept it: so shut up! — Now, that strategy is no longer going to work.
UPDATE: This article, which was appearing in Google & DuckduckGo search results under “Orlandi, Pope Benedict XVI” for the first 36 hours after its publication is now being censored totally, ostensibly at the request of the Vatican. Instead both engines are flooding results for this same query with link to events from 2023 or earlier, even when you select, “reports in the last week”. That is, they are breaking their own search engines to hide this article!
This coordinated state sponsored censorship of this news is not new. For when the audio testimony linking John Paul II to the disapperance first made it to non-state controlled Italian TV in early January of 2023, a flurry of articles appeared to discount it, like this one in the Italian version of Huffington Post, in an unsigned article citing an unnamed German journal, which is alleged to have claimed that the real reason for the Resignation was, “insomnia”. Yeah, I am sure it was! This highly-likely USAID funded propaganda site was clearly attempting to keep the truth under raps.
Since the death of Pope Benedict XVI new cults and sects have arisen which focus around novel ideas of juridical and ecclesiastical right. Not all of these are sedevacantist, for an equal number are also globalist and willingly recognize Pope Francis as always having been pope.
But since these errors regard topics which are never quoted by “Traditionalists” or “Conservatives”, though the latter do mention “morality” at election time — their only morals left being the assertion that “it is a mortal sin not to vote for a Masonic politician of the right” — it will be important to review a few basic Catholic truths to distinguish the true Faith from the doctrines of sectarians.
First of all, in ecclesiastical elections, like civil elections, there is a moral responsibility for all who have the right to vote, to make a decision. However, this does not equate to the moral responsibility to vote. Because in a system where there are only a few candidates, whose names are chosen by a Masonic elite, you are never obliged to vote for any of them.
But in an ecclesiastical election, by the norms of Canon Law and ecclesiastical tradition, everyone with a right to vote is free to vote for whomsoever he will, even if, at later stages in the voting the number of possible victorious candidates is reduced to only a few. This freedom shows how the Catholic system is much more sane and liberal than any modern “democracy”, where the masses are never entrusted with such discernment or decisions.
And yes, in an ecclesiastical election just as in a civil election, you are not obliged to even show up for the vote. However, while not exercising your right to vote in a civil election nearly never makes any difference, due to the high numbers of those who have the right to vote, in an ecclesiastical election it always makes a difference, due to the low numbers of electors.
Thus, if you do not come to vote, in an ecclesiastical election, you have the much greater moral responsibility for the outcome than someone who came and voted against the one who ultimately won. Similar situations can also arise in civil elections in parliaments, of course.
Thus, when it comes to voting for a Roman Pontiff, electors have a very grave duty to take their responsibilities seriously. In a Conclave, for example, when the election involves just 120+ electors, not attending the Conclave, by law, means that you cannot vote afterwards: but morally speaking it also means you consent to whatever is the outcome.
Certain immature individuals never accept the outcomes of elections and say things like, “He is not my President”, or “He is not my Pope”. In the former, they never act out on their virtue signalling, though some emigrate for a time from their country. In the Church there have been but rare cases of schisms caused by persons or groups not accepting an uncontested election.
But in the case of an election of the Roman Pontiff by Apostolic Right, the Faithful of the whole Roman Church — the Diocese of Rome and all the suburbican dioceses — are all responsible for the outcome. That is why in ancient times they meet immediately and without delay, if they could, and elected holy men. There are dozens of saints who were popes before 1058, when the College of Cardinals was established. There are but a handful since that time, in the last 1000 years. A fact that should cause all of us to stop and think.
So in the recent and extraordinary juridical case of a pope who appears to renounce but does not, or who is pushed out of power by a College of Cardinals in total rebellion, but who tricks them by an intelligent ruse, after his death the only ones likely to vote for his successor are the Faithful of Rome who paid close attention to his words and did what he himself urged to be done, elect his successor by those who are competent, that is, who have the right to do so, in such extraordinary circumstances, wholly outside the presumed conditions which would exist in the time of a papal election, as are provided for in the current Papal Law, Universi Dominici gregis.
And thus we come to the most sober consideration: that everyone at Rome who refused to attend that Assembly is entirely responsible morally and juridically for the election of the one who was elected there, just as all the clergy and faithful of Rome who held Pope Francis to be the pope from 2013 to this day, and thus who did not attend. Merely claiming that you held Pope Benedict XVI to be the pope until death does not excuse you from responsibility. Nay it magnifies it to an infinite degree.
Even those who had no right to vote, are morally responsible, and gravely so, if they did anything to encourage electors not to attend or took steps not to inform them or encourage them to exercise their right.
If you could have prevented an unworthy candidate from being elected, and did not, then you are gravely responsible, and cannot be saved if you never repent of this.
At the same time, for those who did attend, there’s was a responsibility greater than the cult leaders and grifters who talk about controversies in the Church to gain money or attention. They had to do the utmost to protect the Church, with the men who were willing. They had to balance the salvation of the whole body against the interest of a few. These faithful Catholics, betrayed and abandoned by everyone but the readers of FromRome had also to prevent another Assembly being called by nefarious voices who would elect someone even worse than Bergoglio or someone who had no desire to promote the unity of the Church after his death, putting the Church in a century long internal schism. They had to find a candidate that most Catholics would accept; a candidate whose acceptance would be morally certain, and by whose acceptance the whole body of the Faithful would return again into communion with Christ.
Also, in this matter, it is important to note that the concept of Quorum in elections is also important to consider. The Quorum rule in most modern “democracies” guarantees that no minority will enact a law or decision which binds the majority. In some ecclesiastical elections there are Quorum rules, But in elections of the Roman Pontiff there never has been a Quorum rule, neither in a Conclave, nor in an Assembly of Apostolic Right. Precisely because, in morals, if you do not come you have in fact voted for whoever has won, whether you like the outcome or not. This is why even if all the clergy do not come, they have in fact voted for whoever has won.
That these few electors on January 30, 2023 A. D., are so viscerally hated by all grifters and cult leaders and “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” fake opposition, shows that they did the will of God against all the fanatics of Hell.
While we are not privy to the decisions than many generations of Cardinals had to make in Conclaves, during the last thousand years, to hold the Church together and protect her from persecution, we can be sure that many times many honest and holy men had to make similar decisions. Of them we know nothing on account of the Pontifical Secret to which all Cardinals are bound, in Conclaves, however.
In postcript: a certain uninformed civil attorney in South America, who never studied in an ecclesiastical institution, has been reporting that since a certain Pope denied that the people can elect their own bishops, that therefore the election of a Roman Pontiff by the faithful of Rome is never lawful. Her argument is a sophism of the kind condemned long ago by Aristotle, where you take one statement which denies a thing (by the People) and apply it to a fact which regards another thing (the Faithful) and draws a conclusion of the undistributed middle term, as it is called in logic. It’s the most common way to deceive or lie, and is often used by lawyers. This attorney, if their thesis was correct, would have to become a protestant, since their conclusion leads to the implication that there were no legitimate Popes until 1058 when an illegitimate pope established the College of Cardinals. Idiots might find that line of reasoning sound. But all sane men from every age shall laugh at them on the Day of Judgement!
Nearly 12 years ago, Pope Benedict XVI read aloud in the Clementine Hall, before the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, assembled for the approbation of 3 groups of Saints, his now famous “Declaratio”, an administrative act which announced that he was to renounce the “ministry … which he received through the hands of the Cardinals …” as of Feb. 28, of that year. The document, rife with errors in Latin and juridical concepts, was immediately recognized by even the most main stream publications as the BBC (see Feb. 28, 2013 report here) to risk splitting the Church in two and making the man to be elected in the upcoming Conclave an anti-pope.
His conscious, free decision to renounce the ministerium rather than the munus of the Roman Pontiff was the cause and origin of the controversy, which is mocked by those-still-in-denial after 12 years, as “Benevacantism”, a term coined by Steve Skojec, founder of 1 Peter 5.
But ironically, Pope Benedict XVI’s Great Error — unlike Pope Celestine V’s “Great Refusal” — is a gift, that is, a munus, which keeps on giving, because whatsoever was his intention, and whatsoever is the opinion of any observer, Pope Benedict XVI’s action began a great divorce in the Church, between the juridical order and the church of appearances.
For from the moment that he neglected or failed to actually renounce the Petrine Munus (as he had apparently announced he would do) on Feb. 28, 2013, the Apostolic See has been in a state equivalent to an impeded see, with the entire Roman Curia and Courts deprived of all legal right to act and issue any decisions or judgements, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who came out of the illegal and uncanonical Conclave of 2013, as Pope Francis, of all right to govern the Church. This is because, the entire Roman Curia operates licitly and validly only inasmuch as they assist the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his Petrine Ministry. When he refuses to do this, they cease to have any legitimacy.
This has made all of Pope Francis’ acts, statements, documents, letters etc. and treaties since March 13, 2013, until the death of Pope Benedict XVI on Dec. 31, 2022, null and void, without effect.
But that is not only their only effect.
For because so many unfaithful and cowardly men, followed by so many uninformed and lazy Catholics, have recognized Pope Francis as a legitimate pope throughout this time, they have accepted his illicit alterations of the Code of Canon Law and reorganization of the Roman Curia, such that, now, even after the death of Pope Benedict XVI, every act of the Roman Curia and every judgement of the Apostolic Signatura and Roman Rota, as well as every penal process, in tribunal or by administrative decree, throughout the whole Church, which is based on those changes, is legally null in void, that is irritus, because it has not cited the correct and authentic canons of the Church, or has emanated from justices which hold no canonical mandate issued by a Roman Pontiff holding the Petrine Munus, or is issued by an office of the Roman Curia which has never legally existed, being created by Pope Francis during his antipapacy.
This gift of Pope Benedict XVI keeps on giving, also, because of the faithful and courageous action of the Roman Catholics at Rome, who resorting to their Apostolic Right to elect the Roman Pontiff, granted them by Saint Peter the Apostle themselves, elected Pope Francis the Roman Pontiff to satisfy canon 331 and to reestablish the basics of juridical order in the Church, while yet omitting to inform him of his election,* so that he would not reissue by valid decree those documents which he issued invalidly without legal right as antipope.
Now, the next Conclave can give the Church a valid Successor of Saint Peter, who can begin the Great Catholic Reset. The Great Reset which Pope Benedict XVI, unwittingly or consciously, prepared with his Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013.
Archbishop Fulton Sheen once remarked, that the day would come when the laity would save the Church, and that day came two years ago, on January 30, 2023, at the Assembly held to elect Pope Benedict XVI’s successor, just as Pope Benedict XVI — may he rest in peace — indicated in his Declaratio, an election “by those who were competent” to act.
** An election by Apostolic Right, since the Apostle laid down no written law concerning it, operates under the terms of Natural Law, where if one already claims to hold an office, his acceptance of any election to it is tacitly assumed de facto and de jure. So there is no need that the one elected explicitly and verbally indicate his acceptance of that election, his acceptance is automatic by reason of his habitual prior claim to the office.
So my proposal in October 2023 to remove the heretical pope first, is actually the most Catholic thing to do. But I am not the first to say this. This was said by Robert Siscoe back on September 18, 2014, in the above linked article (Click Image). Even Rorate Caeli called for a petition in the spring of last year, on May 2, 2024, to remove Pope Francis, though they did not say how this was to be done and even admitted they did not know. Evidently they do not know how to use Google to find the answer.
So Catholics in Italy should not think that the two most famous Italians criticizing Pope Francis, Andrea Cionci and Don Alessandro Minutella, pastor of Saint John Bosco Church, at Palermo, Sicily, are leading lights on this issue: neither chronologically nor canonically. Catholics from the U.S.A. are years a head of them.
Even the idea of petitioning Cardinals, was first launched by myself, using the nom du plum, Gaetano Romano, back in 2016 (see here). So any idea, that I am opposed to petitions to the Cardinals per se, is simply not true.
The whole dialogue about removing a heretical pope disappeared in 2016, when Ann Barnhardt make her first video about the invalid renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI. My own role in that debate, which I joined in 2018, put that controversy to an end on January 30, 2023, with the juridically valid election of a new pope, according to Apostolic Right, which caused an explosion of hate and the most vile insults, calumnies and declarations from so many who sustained that other investigation, all of which were refuted in Italian here, including the calumnious ones of Andrea Cionci, here.
Nor am I the first to suggest that the imperfect Council which has the authority to remove a heretical pope is the Provincial Council of Bishops in the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome. This was first pointed out by the Ecclesiastical Historian from Poland, whose spoke about the First Council of Sutri, in 1046, back in August of 2018. And I followed immediately with an article on September 11, 2018, since I recognized immediately that this was the correct and historically verified way forward on this issue. Within days, the Remnant followed with its own article about the Council of Sutri, here.
I have stuck to the same opinion and proposed this long before Don Minutella could even explain canonically why the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI was invalid, or Cionci had even met me, and thus was spurred to begin his own investigations. I have stuck to the same position even though Robert Siscoe, the author of the top article, turned against those who understood that Pope Benedict XVI remained the true pope until death. I have stuck to the same opinion, even though the Remnant which talked about Sutri in 2018, keeps erasing comments which mention the Sutri Initiative for the last 18 months. I have stuck to the same position, even though Rorate Caeli refuses to say the word, “Sutri”.
Recently many are proposing an “imperfect council” to put Pope Francis on trial. But none speaks of Sutri any more nor speaks of the proper canonical way to do this, explaining the procedure and the canonical justifications for the manner of proceeding without violating the current norms of Canon Law. This is called the Sutri Initiative. — A provincial council at Rome is actually better than an “imperfect council” since it can be convoked in a juridically and canonically valid manner and need not have its acts approved by the Pope, since it is basically a quo warranto action, which is a form of formal communication of facts and testimonies, upon the validity of which alone the Council votes and judges.
And to all those who after 11 years won’t speak of what was spoken about 7 years ago, I can only ask, “Why now, after ‘Fiducia supplicans’ do you ALL insist on getting it wrong? “ Ask yourself whether that makes any other sense or serves any other purpose but keeping the Lavender Mafia in power?
So to all those who think that my apostolate “threatens” or “undermines” the apostolates of other, please be honest with yourselves and take a step back from your idolizing of men and start thinking about how the Church merits your love and your protection. You can go back to your YouTube channels after the problem is solved.
Editor’s Note: Bohemond was a Catholic man of great virtue, honor, and valor. Learn more about his life and times, to give you just one more reason not to waste your time with Catholic grifters and fake opposition.
Editor’s Note: Later this week, there will be published in Italy, an entire interview with myself on this new theory of Cionci. — But as a preface for the English speaking world, who may not know the entire history of the Controversy about Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaration and how it fits in the matrix of Masonic infiltration in the Church and the U.S. Government’s Ideological Warfare program against the Catholic Faith, A. J. over at OMC Radio TV interviewed me today in this two part 1 1/2 hour interview, where we basically depth-charge the entire Globalist agenda since World War II and during the rest of the Trump administration, while showing how the Sutri Initiative is the Key to the Catholic Restoration.
The Life & Times of the greatest Catholic Military Hero since Charles Martel, who should be the focus of the admiration of all Catholics especially the youth. He gave up everything to follow Christ the King, and liberated Jerusalem so that Catholics everywhere would be able to worship in that holy City.
The Life and Achievements of one of the most honest and zealous Catholic Crusaders of the First Crusade. A man, the youth of today should admire and imitate.
Editor’s Note: Dr. Mazza was one of the initial collaborators with me in the Scholasticum. He joined the debate about Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation in 2020 and has consistently held the view that the renunciation did not cause a loss of the Papal Office.
Editor’s Note: Very little can be found in English about the First Council of Sutri, and perhaps for this reason not a few of unlettered Catholic influencers are reluctant to speak of the Sutri Initiative. — For this reason I publish here this article on the role of money in the sale of the Papacy by the legitimate pope Benedict IX to John Gratian, who took the name of Pope Gregory VI, and whose acolyte was the famous St. Hildebrand, who would later be raised to the Apostolic Dignity as Pope Gregory VII and begin in earnest the medieval renewal of the Papacy known as the Gregorian Reform.
This scholarly article is in English, by the Brazilian academic, Dr. Leonardo Rust, professor of Medieval History, at the University of Brazil. It was published in 2023.
As this paper shows, the deposition of 3 claimants to the Papacy at Sutri in 1046, during a Provincial Council was an event accepted by the entire Church. It is still accepted. And those who hold to “universal acceptance” should take note, because they are the ones who, if they refuse the Sutri Initiative, are in fact holding against universal acceptance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FromRome.info 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.
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 FromRome.info 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).
________________
FromRome.info 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.
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.
Afterwards
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.
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.
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).
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.
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:
FromRome.info 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 FromRome.info 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 Giovanni de’ Crescenzi Ottaviani, 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.
TRADUZIONE ITALIANA
Benvenuti in questo video di FromRome.Info. Sono Fr. Alessio Bugnolo. Sono colui che pubblica e fa l’editing di FromRome.info, 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.
News and Commentary on the Catholic Church
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
The article is in Italian, but I consider it necessary in such an important matter to quote the original, before I summarize it, as was done in the above show at OMC Ratio TV.
It has been 13 years, nearly, since that report, but I now surmise that on Dec. 17, 2012, Pope Benedict XVI learned, at last, the truth of the matter, which Morassut just pointed to: namely, that Emanuela was kidnapped and murdered to conceal her pregnancy by none other than Pope John Paul II himself and his friends, who “took her to bed” in the Vatican, and that the very man at whose side he worked for so many years, the man whom he had even BEATIFIED as a living saint, was rather one of the most foul and devious men in the history of the Papacy.*
