Category Archives: Debates

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

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who still cannot figure out why Kennedy Hall is so wrong about Vatican II and why he is wrong, I suggest you read this historical document: the letter of the Rev.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

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

Pope Francis: Everyone who criticizes ‘Fiducia supplicans’ will eventually accept it

Rebuttal by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Many have accused or alleged that Pope Francis is a false prophet, but no one story or quote has so demonstrated the truth of that accusation as this one. — You have to be way beyond simply confused or ignorant, to allege that in the future your heretical blasphemy which runs counter to logic, reason, the Gospel and all Biblical or Apostolic teaching will become the faith of the Church.

Yet there is some truth in what he says ….

But while his assertion is blasphemous and heretical, there is a truth in it for the fake opposition. What he is really saying is that 99% of those whom you think oppose it, are merely grifters who will move along withe the heretical flow out of fear of being out of sync with “the pope”.

That I would agree with, as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions in the past 4 years, about which I frequently comment. For grifters, opposition only means criticism today, acceptance tomorrow, since they follow the modus operandi of the conservative Masonic Lodges, which operates this way to suppress true opposition to the projects of the Illuminati-Rothschilds. That is why they will always be promoted, because they are your most clever enemies.

Indeed, logically, criticism presupposes acceptance — Only rejection implies condemnation

And condemnation to be true seeks the removal of the causes of the error, which are Pope Francis, Cardinal Fernandez and the staff of the Dicastery.

In this way true Catholics will persevere and triumph over this heretical conspiracy of this homosexual cabal.

And for those, whose Dioceses have fallen to this apostasy, you can do your part to fight, by joining the Committee against Apostasy in taking a stand in your own diocese, a unique way of working against this evil prophecy of the man whom by all means wants to be the False Prophet spoken of by Saint John.

Brainwashing by repetition

The reason why Pope Francis has said this outrage is because he knows that, by now, most Catholics are so plugged into the Matrix, that they simply believe what they are told on social media, and pay no attention any more to Jesus Christ, the Apostles, the Doctors or Fathers of the Church, or anything before Vatican II. He has spent his 10+ reign gaslighting the Catholic world, and while the Prayer of Christ as High Priest is now raising a storm against him, he is doubled down and decided that God is his enemy.

The Apocalyptic Battle has begun

The Catholic Church is thus now truly involved in an apocalyptic battle, because it is true, that most Catholics in practice are pagans, and no longer care to fight against evil, anywhere, least of all in the Church. The feel overwhelmed by the intransigence of Pope Francis, who like a pedophile who the police won’t arrest, is intent on making everyone accept his deprivations. The Catholic World by sinning in accepting what the MSM said about Feb. 11, 2013, and taking what Cardinals and Bishops said, while denying what they could see with their own eyes, committed a moral error which has enslaved them to lies, and only rare souls, by the grace of the Blessed Virgin, are waking up and breaking free.

Yet, the vast majority are still plugged into the Web of Darkness, which has now been woven over all the nations, and much of the “opposition” to ‘Fiducia supplicans’ will melt away for that reason.

This is why for those who understand how dangerous this document is, not doing anything to get Pope Francis removed from office, nor opposing its errors in their own town, is contributing to this mass Apostasy.

We are in an Apocalyptic Battle, and the battle lines are now clearly drawn. And if you can see them, your culpability is all the greater, if you shirk your duty to fight to save the Church. Let us not be persuaded to do nothing, and let us realize that all those voices who say to do nothing, or to not listen to the voices which call for us to do something, are literally of the devil.

Use Discernment

So mark out which Catholic Media outlets are no longer using the words, “blasphemous”, “heretical”, “apostate” in regards to this controversy, but have toned down their reports to “confusing”, “scandalous”, “hard to understand”, “contradictory”.  And how nearly every last one of them, including all the talking heads who “hate” Bergoglio and denounce him daily, have accepted the de facto position of Sedevacantists, who, like the multitude of devils of sloth, advocate nothing to restore the papacy.

In the meantime, in response to this evil prophecy of Pope Francis, respond with, “It’s time to crusade to get this man removed from the Papacy!”: and join the Sutri Initiative. And in response to the voices who are telling you to shut up, stop with the criticisms, and who will play all the political cards of the LGTBSQEZ+ movement, like feigning to be offended, injured or hurt by your “hateful words”, tell them frankly that they are going to Hell and need to repent.

The Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI — A Postscript

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

And these facts are these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Pope Benedict XVI?

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

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

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

Theological Error?

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

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

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

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

The Cardinals’ error & sin

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

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

The effects of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation

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

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

The Punishment for Liars is a bitter one

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Sulla Riprensione e la Deposizione di un papa eretico

di Frà Alexis Bugnolo

(This is the Italian version of the original English, which is found here; for the French translation, see here)

Desidero qui discutere un caso speciale di diritto giuridico, in cui la Chiesa deve affrontare la necessità di rimuovere dall’incarico un papa eretico. Dato che il fatto che esista un modo giuridicamente valido per farlo è un presupposto necessario dell’Iniziativa Sutri, e poiché cardinali eminenti come Burke hanno pubblicamente affermato che non esiste una soluzione canonica a tale problema, ora spiegherò pubblicamente come si può fare, per dare spunti di riflessione a tutti coloro che desiderano vedere spiegato come può essere che il cardinale Burke abbia torto nella sua opinione.

Innanzitutto, lasciatemi dire che questa soluzione, per essere canonicamente valida, non deve violare alcun canone del Codice di Diritto Canonico, pubblicato da Giovanni Paolo II, che vieta al canone 334 che vi sia alcuna innovazione nel diritto della Chiesa quando la Sede Apostolica è impedita o vacante, cioè quando il Romano Pontefice non la promulga. Per il Codice del 1983, vedi qui.

In secondo luogo, non deve nemmeno violare il principio giuridico e il Dictum della Fede, ovvero che sedes prima a nemine judicatur, vale a dire che la prima sede non è giudicata da nessuno. E questo, inteso come il dotto cardinale Bellarmino riteneva inteso, cioè che non è lecito a nessuno nella Chiesa giudicare la persona del Romano Pontefice.

In terzo luogo, contro la sentenza del Romano Pontefice non vi è appello (canone 333 § 3). Non si possono quindi revocare i suoi decreti, anche se si può spingerlo a ritirarli per un motivo legittimo.

NOTA BENE: Qui uso “giudicare” non in riferimento alla formazione di una convinzione personale nel fedele che considera il Romano Pontefice, ma a un atto giuridico con il quale viene proclamata una sentenza o si discerne un fatto giuridico.

Il Romano Pontefice, in quanto Pontefice, non può essere rimosso dall’ufficio dagli uomini

Da questi due principi ne consegue che il Romano Pontefice propriamente parlando non può e non potrà mai essere rimosso dall’ufficio, se non per atto diretto del suo Superiore, il Signore Gesù Cristo, il quale non avviene se non con la morte.

Dico propriamente parlando, cioè, quando parliamo dell’uomo che è il Romano Pontefice, in quanto Romano Pontefice. In questo senso viene chiamato Romano Pontefice, ovvero la persona del Romano Pontefice. Ed è così che il diritto canonico parla sempre di lui, poiché questa è la norma giuridica in ogni discorso del diritto canonico. Infatti, come Romano Pontefice, non può essere giudicato da nessuno e non è soggetto all’autorità di alcun sottoposto.

Il Romano Pontefice, in quanto uomo, può essere giudicato

Che l’uomo che è il Romano Pontefice possa essere giudicato, però, è chiaro, perché è l’insegnamento del Magistero pontificio, tramandato da papa Innocenzo III – eminente canonista – e perché è chiaro che l’uomo, in quanto uomo, è anch’esso soggetto a Cristo e all’autorità della Chiesa.

Nessun uomo nella Chiesa può essere giudicato se non dalla legittima autorità

Ciò deriva direttamente dal fatto che Cristo ha dato la Sua autorità alla Chiesa per pascere tutto il Suo gregge, sia collettivamente che individualmente. E poiché nessuno, tranne colui che detiene autorità su un uomo, può giudicare un uomo – questo è un principio naturale di ogni diritto (ius) – solo il superiore ordinario di un uomo, o il Papa, o coloro che detengono l’autorità ecclesiastica nella regione, possono giudicare un uomo.

Un Concilio provinciale può giudicare tutti gli uomini della sua provincia

Un concilio provinciale di tutti i Vescovi di una provincia ecclesiastica ha autorità su tutti i cattolici di una provincia, come dichiara il canone 432 § 1. Il concilio provinciale, infatti, ha status di persona giuridica, come dichiara il canone 432 § 2.

Ciò significa che un concilio provinciale può giudicare qualsiasi cattolico che risiede nel suo territorio, sia discernendo fatti giuridici o morali riguardanti l’uomo, sia imponendo sanzioni o sentenze canoniche.

Un concilio provinciale nella provincia ecclesiastica di Roma può giudicare l’uomo che è il Romano Pontefice

Da quanto precede ne consegue che il concilio provinciale della provincia di Roma può giudicare il Romano Pontefice come uomo, cioè riguardo ai fatti giuridici o morali che lo riguardano, cioè se sia cattolico e se ha una valida rivendicazione sull’ufficio di Romano Pontefice. Infatti in tali cose il Concilio non giudica l’ufficio che egli rivendica.

Nei casi di eresia e di invalidità della rivendicazione d’ufficio, il Concilio Provinciale Romano può essere convocato dai Vescovi della Provincia senza e contro la volontà di colui che rivendica il papato

Il canone 442 § 2 concede ai Vescovi di una provincia di convocare un concilio provinciale quando la sede metropolitana della provincia è legittimamente impedita. Qui il latino recita:

Metropolitanae, eoque legitime impedito, Episcopi suffraganei ab aliis Episcopis suffraganeis Electi est concilio provinciali praeesse.

Il concetto di “legittimamente” impedito si riferisce non alle norme del diritto canonico né alle norme di qualsiasi diritto pontificio, ma a un motivo o causa moralmente valida che impedisce al Metropolita di agire: la costrizione fisica o morale, l’incompetenza o l’incapacità.

Ad esempio, se il Metropolita viene rapito o trattenuto da forze ostili; in arresto, in coma; aver subito un ictus o un collasso mentale o emotivo che impedisca l’uso della retta ragione; nascondersi per paura di essere catturati, o comunque incapace di comunicare. Questi sono fattori oggettivi per l’esercizio del suo munus.

Ma se l’uomo è eretico o scismatico o apostata, ma non è stato ancora privato dell’ufficio, ne consegue, in ragione del principio giuridico, che laddove vi sia forza maggiore, cioè un maggiore potere che interviene o ostacola, di quelli citati nei casi normali per impedimento, tanto più è legittimo ritenere che la sede sia impedita.

Quindi, poiché il Romano Pontefice è il Metropolita della Provincia Romana, quando l’uomo che è il Romano Pontefice è un eretico, un apostata o uno scismatico, allora può essere giudicato in un concilio provinciale.

I Vescovi della Provincia Romana hanno il diritto di esigere la prova dell’affermazione di quell’uomo di essere Romano Pontefice

Poiché i Vescovi della Provincia non possono presumere che un uomo sia colpevole o che un fatto sia tale prima di giudicarlo, è necessario che interrogando l’uomo che si dichiara Papa, stabiliscano che egli rifiuta di dimostrare che la sua pretesa è valida  o che sia cattolico. Tale rifiuto, di persona o con comunicazione scritta, prova giuridicamente e canonicamente l’esistenza di un dubbio oggettivo, dal quale nasce conseguentemente ed immediatamente un impedimento per la Sede Apostolica a causa del rifiuto, da parte di colui che rivendica l’ufficio, di dimostrare ai Vescovi  della Provincia la validità della sua pretesa di governarli.

In mancanza di offerta probatoria spontanea, può essere convocato un concilio provinciale per richiedere prove speciali e straordinarie

Ciò è per diritto naturale, cioè per diritto naturale ogni regnante ha il dovere di dimostrare ai suoi sudditi la legittimità della sua pretesa di signoria su di essi. Questa dimostrazione deve essere tanto più solenne e collegiale quando i suoi colleghi ne chiedono la prova.

Richiedere tale prova è un diritto del soggetto e una dimostrazione della sua onestà. Poiché non lede i diritti di nessuno, non danneggia nessuno e non è un crimine. E quindi una simile richiesta non può essere rifiutata.

Normalmente ciò avviene mediante la promulgazione dell’elezione o della nomina del superiore da parte della persona o dell’ente che ha l’autorità di nominarlo.

Ma quando intervengono fatti oggettivi che mettono in dubbio ciò, la prova può essere richiesta di diritto dai suoi pari, poiché essi, in quanto titolari della giurisdizione locale sotto di lui, hanno il diritto naturale alle prove più certe.

E così quando tramite contatto personale e per iscritto viene rifiutata la prova spontanea della cattolicità di colui che pretende di essere Papa o la validità della sua elezione, i Vescovi NON presumono, quando si avvalgono del diritto loro concesso, a causa di una sede impedita, a convocare un concilio provinciale senza o contro la volontà di colui che si pretende Papa.

Tale Concilio provinciale, convocato senza o contro la volontà di colui che è il Romano Pontefice, non può essere ostacolato da alcuna autorità

Tale concilio non può essere impedito da alcun atto di alcuna autorità ecclesiastica, poiché sui Vescovi della Provincia Romana non ha potestà nessuno se non il Romano Pontefice, né colui che si professa Romano Pontefice, ma rifiuta il consenso spontaneo alle sufficienti prove nel corso normale delle cose, esercita legittimamente l’autorità dell’ufficio del Romano Pontefice per ostacolare o vietare tale convocazione. Poiché con il suo rifiuto ha impedito la Sede Apostolica,  con la sede impedita i suoi poteri sui sudditi non possono essere usati per alcun fine legittimo.

Tale concilio provinciale può legittimamente convocare colui che pretende di essere il Papa

Che un tale Concilio possa legittimamente, cioè canonicamente, costringere, l’uomo che afferma di essere papa a parteciparvi, deriva dalla sua autorità concessa nel canone 432. Ne consegue anche dal canone 443, che richiede che tutti coloro che rivendicano uffici di vescovo nel territorio siano convocati in ogni concilio provinciale, e dal canone 444 §1, che richiede la presenza di tutti i convocati. Né può reclamare impedimento, se può viaggiare liberamente o parlare con gli uomini.

Tale Concilio provinciale deve prima protestare contro l’uomo che sembra essere un eretico, scismatico o apostata, ma rivendica il papato

C’è un ordine nella Carità, e, quindi, prima i Padri conciliari dovrebbero procedere esponendo le ragioni della convocazione del Concilio e chiedere che coloro a cui spetta il diritto di voto confermino la convocazione. Poi, dovrebbero esporre le ragioni per convocare colui che pretende di essere papa, per dare solenni prove certe che la sua elezione era giuridicamente valida e che la sua pretesa alla carica rimane legittima. Poi dovrebbero interrogare l’uomo per ottenere prove solenni della validità o della nullità della sua richiesta. E, con le risposte date, proporre di rilasciare una dichiarazione solenne sulla loro coerenza, chiedendo il voto del concilio per approvare che l’uomo è o non è idoneo a ricoprire la carica che rivendica, ha una valida pretesa o ha perso il suo diritto. Pertanto, se i Padri conciliari ritengono che le sue risposte siano insufficienti o dubbie, il Concilio dovrà  protestare una seconda volta con l’uomo in questione e giudicare le sue risposte mediante voto una seconda volta, e anche una terza volta, se necessario. Dopodiché se persiste nelle sue risposte invalide, il concilio può solennemente dichiarare oggettivi i fatti giuridici che detto uomo, in virtù del canone della chiesa applicabile, non ha mai ricoperto l’ufficio, o non lo ricopre ora, a causa del fatto di non essere un cattolico.

Tale concilio provinciale non impone alcuna pena né privazione d’ufficio, e quindi non ha bisogno che i suoi atti siano approvati dal Romano Pontefice

Una constatazione di fatto è un atto di discernimento da parte di un’autorità competente a farlo. Un concilio provinciale romano è la persona giuridica più alta e competente per accertare tali fatti mediante indagini e interrogatori di tutti i cattolici nella provincia romana. Solo in caso di frode la sentenza di tale concilio potrebbe essere impugnata. Pertanto, se tale concilio accerta che l’uomo non ha una pretesa valida al papato o non è cattolico, allora può dichiararlo scomunicato a motivo del canone 1364, e quindi, ipso facto, privato dell’ufficio, poiché nessuno scomunicato può rivendicare un ufficio nella Chiesa, a norma del canone 1331.

Colui che si dichiara Romano Pontefice e rifiuta di dare prove spontanee e solenni della legittimità della sua pretesa a ricoprire l’ufficio, può essere dichiarato ipso facto deposto se rifiuta di presenziare a tale Concilio Provinciale

Che un tale uomo, se rifiuta di presenziare a qualsiasi parte di un siffatto concilio provinciale, dove potrebbe dare prova solenne e giuridica delle sue pretese, può essere dichiarato deposto, consegue dai principi sopra enunciati, perché nessun uomo con una pretesa onesta vorrebbe rifiutare tali prove. Che un Papa validamente eletto, Benedetto IX, sia stato dichiarato contumace e deposto per essersi rifiutato di partecipare a un simile concilio provinciale nel dicembre del 1046, a Sutri, in Italia, è un fatto storico, accettato come valido dalla Sede Apostolica per quasi 1000 anni: un’accettazione che è equipollente all’approvazione e alla conferma dell’argomento di cui sopra, delle loro ragioni di diritto naturale ed ecclesiastico, e della loro validità secondo la legge consuetudinaria.

Ergo quod erat demonstrandum, demonstratum est.

SI PREGA DI CONDIVIDERE QUESTO ARTICOLO CON TUTTO IL CLERO CHE SUPPORTA L’INIZIATIVA SUTRI O CHI SI OPPONE AL FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS!

Why Archbishop Viganò is smarter than Michael Matt

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

French Translation

Earlier this month, Michael Matt, the editor of The Remnant and a descendant from what appears to be a Frankist Jew, on his mother’s side, who began the family’s tradition of printing Catholic news information, won international notoriety by squelching the video of Archbishop Viganò at the former’s Catholic Identity Conference, even though he has sold the conference on the promise of an exclusive interview with the famed Vatican monsignor.

FromRome.Info reported on that here.

The substance of the Archbishop’s talk, however, was lost in the news cycle, and therefore, because it is important and impinges on the canonical questions regarding the validity of the papacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a.k.a. Pope Francis, I want to take it up in this essay.

The thesis of the Archbishop touches on the principal of acceptance of a canonical or juridically valid election.

And the Archbishop’s thesis is that a man who intends to destroy the Church or who has a heretical intention in wanting to be the Pope, cannot validly consent to accepting the office. He calls this the vitium consensus, or the vice in the act of consent.

Matt squelched the talk because he insists that those who participated in the conference did not want or deserve to have their reputations smeared with the accusation of sedevacantism.

But this argument of Michael Matt is absurd on the face of it. Sedevacantism is the ideology that there is no pope, no matter what the evidence is; but the argument of the Archbishop is a profound one, namely, that inasmuch as being the pope requires a man to receive the Mandate given St. Peter, it is impossible for a heretic to do this, since he has no relationship with Jesus Christ and thus no intention to do so, even if he says yes.

That “yes” then is a deception.

I have briefly commented on this before, saying, while the argument is a good one theologically or morally, it is canonically a difficult solution. This is because, being a baptised, confirmed Catholic, consecrated a Bishop and lawfully nominated as a Cardinal, in law he must be presumed to have consented validly to be the pope, when asked, and when responding, “Yes”.

As I pointed out in my satirical article about the Cardinal from Guadalajara, Spain, here, presumption has its limits. But presuming yes, when someone says yes, is clearly within the ordinary limits.

So from a juridical point of view, it is impossible to prove the case advanced by the Archbishop against Bergoglio. He could sufficiently remain silent and the presumption of the law would be that he validly consented.

But I think that the thesis of Viganò, however, is not to be lightly cast aside, because it does have its place where juridical right is determined by theological discernment. That is, where rights come into being and are extinguished by the authority Christ gave to the Church, under the guide of the Holy Spirit, to judge all things in the light of God.

And that place is a juridically valid Council of Bishops, whether universal or particular, that is, whether in a General Council of the whole Church, or in a Provincial Council of an ecclesiastical province.

Because there, what a man has done and said can be judged. And this judgement can regard whether these acts constitute heresy, apostasy or schism, whereupon if they be judge there to attain to this, the person who is presumed to consent, can be discerned in a juridically valid manner never to have consented and/or in a juridically valid manner to no longer so consent.

In the case of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, if it can be proven, for example, that he became a member of the Masonic Lodge before 1983 he fell under excommunication in the old Code of 1917 for that, and such a council could judge him to be invalidly nominated a Cardinal and invalidly elected and incapable of validly consenting to be the pope. Likewise if he joined after 1983, when the new Code of Canon Law, without this penalty, was approved, on the grounds that he was incapable of validly consenting inasmuch as he holds heretical views or is an apostate in virtue of the Masonic creed.

And that is why the thesis of the Archbishop must be considered in a Provincial Council of the kind proposed in the Sutri Initiative.

So the Archbishop is far smarter than Michael Matt. He is also more of a gentleman and cares more for the whole Church and the salvation of souls than others do of their own reputations.

Michael Matt is a graduate of Christendom College, an institution founded by 3 CIA agents. That Bergoglio was put into power by the CIA under the auspices of Hilary Clinton can be discerned when reading his homilies, which channel Barack Obama 99% on the same issues, such as globalism, immigration, poverty, discrimination, etc..

Creationism — Part III: The Different Kinds of “Creationism”

In this third installment of a multi-part lecture, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, B. A.  Cultural Anthropology, and translator of St. Bonaventure’s, “On the Creation and Fall of Angels and Men” (Commentaria in Secundum Librum Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombari), presents a brief explanation of the different kinds of Creationism, and explains why this is important to address, before continuing the discussion with anyone over the origins of the world.

You can view Part I of this series, here, which was about the meaning of the word, “creationism” and why you should not use it to identify yourself.

In Part II, Br. Bugnolo discussed what the words, “evolutionism” and “evolution”, and why they are used improperly and more aply of those who hold that position.

In Part IV, Br. Bugnolo will briefly revi,ew the various theories of “Evolutionism”, which “evolutionists” themselves hold.

Creationism — Part II: How the terms “Evolutionism” and “Creationism” differ

In this second installment of a multi-part lecture, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, B. A.  Cultural Anthropology, and translator of St. Bonaventure’s, “On the Creation and Fall of Angels and Men” (Commentaria in Secundum Librum Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombari), presents a brief explanation of the differences between the words “creationism” and “evolutionism”, and explains why this is important to address, before continuing the discussion with anyone over the origins of the world.

You can view Part I of this series, here.

In Part III, Br. Bugnolo will briefly review the various theories of “Creationism”, which “creationists” themselves hold.

Un’Analogia per i nostri giorni

This video does not have an English version, but a similar argument was used here in English
https://www.fromrome.info/2023/03/12/hate-cancer-and-toilets/

For a complete list of articles and about the recent controversy about Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis see
https://www.fromrome.info/2023/02/05/the-triumph-of-the-lamb-of-god/

Per aiutare Fra’ Alessio
https://www.fromrome.info/2023/05/07/br-bugnolos-may-appeal-2/

Per aiutare FromRome.Info
https://www.fromrome.info/2023/05/15/fromrome-info-needs-your-help/

Why did none who said Benedict XVI was the pope, prepare for the election of His Successor?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

FRANÇAIS

Alas we live in such an age of dishonestly, that the dishonest frame themselves as the honest and claim to be offended by the honest.

Though I have the greatest respect for Saint Augustine, who defended the truth with more than 240 written works, I disagree with those who take his quote, “The truth is like a lion, it has no need of being defended” out of context and advocate we should let a thousand lying mouths defame the truth.

On the contrary, I believe that we should defend the truth by every legitimate means, and that is why there are more than 6000 articles and posts at FromRome.info.

So, as regards the present controversy, by which some are feigning madness to justify their irrational reactions, to the election of Pope Francis in the Assembly on Monday, I pose this nuclear question:

Why is it that no one among all those writers and speakers who said Pope Benedict XVI was the pope, prepared or supported the election of His Successor in the eventuality of his death?

I was the only one. I spoke of this years in advance. I formed committees to restore him to power and to elect his successor.

Notably, when I formed a committee to restore him to power, no one helped me but one friend. Neither Don Minutella nor Andrea Cionci lifted one finger. Don Minutella said it was a good effort. But no supporter of Don Minutella acted on it, except my one friend.

I was even asked by a priest follower of Don Minutella why I was even attempting a political solution?

That question revealed to me something I should have paid attention to.

That some people did not want a solution to the crisis.

And this became clear as soon as Pope Benedict XVI was called from this life by the Lord.

NO. ONE. EVEN. ADVOCATED. PROMOTING. THE. ELECTION. OF. HIS. SUCCESSOR.

Except me.

I am not tooting my horn, there is no need too. All know what I did. I am pointing out the contrast between speaking about a problem and advocating a solution.

You can talk all day long about the horror of abortion. But you are not for real, unless you stand  in the cold and counsel women not to kill their children. Because that is the only solution for the individual. In the mean time you can also work to overturn the laws enabling abortion. That too is true commitment.

But if you only show images of abortion on social media, lament the problem, found an organization and raise money to keep doing the same thing over and over, but never actually organize side-walk counseling or legislation to stop the killing, how can anyone claim you are sincere?

You see, it’s the same thing in every endeavor.

If you are going to open your mouth about some problem, no one should take your seriously unless you are proposing solution and taking action.

And if in any endeavor someone actually takes action and solves the problem, then God have mercy on those who attack him for it.

Take for example, Donald Trump. My readers know that I am not a Trump supporter. But I will forever praise him for his appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States, by whom Roe vs. Wade was overturned. Catholic appointments.

I have as of today more people who hate and criticize me than support me. But all know that I am not a grifter. If I talk about a problem I do something.  That is why I founded the Scholasticum, Ordo Militaris Inc., L’Italia per gli Italiani, and Cross Azure Ukraine. I have a track record of honesty, even if I am not always as successful in each endeavor as I dreamed.

So in every controversy, we should keep in mind the bigger picture, and when anyone is criticized for anything, let us first ask, who actually solved the problem, and who only talked about it. Who actually is trying to solve the problem, and who is only riding the bull of dissent and milking the cow.

Finally, we must keep in mind, that when a problem is solved, there is a strong temptation for those who did well milking the cow, to say it has not been solved and the issue is still hot. Self interest is strong in some, and as adults we need to admit that it exists with social media influencers, who, if they do not get likes, hits and donations, will scream all the louder at someone to get attention.

 

That the Right to Elect the Roman Pontiff belongs to the Roman Church

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

FRANÇAISITALIANO

Contra factum non est argumentum, as the Latin adage goes: that is, “Against a fact, there is no argument”.

If there is any Catholic who doubts that the Catholics of Rome have the right to elect their own bishop, they need not believe anything I say, they need only to open up any book about the election of the Popes, or in this case, even see the List of Popes over at Wikipedia, to confirm this.

Deny this, and you deny the Apostolic Succession in the See of Rome, and make every pope after Peter a fake. But if you do that, you are anathematized by Vatican I, which declared infallibly that there will always be successors of St. Peter at Rome, until the coming of the Lord.

So, to those who are are reading this or that section of the Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis, and understanding none of it, I make this reply.

Yes, there is a stricture in that law, that states that for the election of the Pope in a Conclave only Cardinal Electors can vote (n. 33). That stricture applies only to the manner of election in that Apostolic Constitution, for otherwise the Apostolic Succession would be in jeopardy. Indeed, in the final sentence of the preface, Pope John Paul states explicitly his intention, that the norms of the special law are to bind the Cardinals. He does not impose them on the whole Church.

Those who do not think so, are pretending that John Paul II or the scholars of jurisprudence who worked for more than 10 years on the new Code of Canon Law did not know about what happened in the Church for the previous 19 centuries, or how the Apostle Peter left this right to the whole Church.

For they pretend that John Paul II wants in all times and places, even outside of a conclave, that only Cardinal electors vote.

But if that were the case, then the enemies of God would only have to kill 120 men, to end the Apostolic Succession forever. — But, that would make the Gates of Hell prevail. Which is absurd.

So obviously neither the Pope nor his experts intended that.

Which means, that their argument is false.

And these experts show that this argument is false, because this stricture of n. 33 is placed in the special law UDG and not in canons 349 and 359, which regard the privileges of the College of Cardinals. By placing this in a special law, it removes the stricture from general application. And this is confirmed by canons 5 §1 and 5 §2, which affirms apostolic rights remain in force in special circumstances not provided for in law.

And this was necessary, because Canon Law depends upon Apostolic Right for its authority, not the other way around. Thus, no Pope can abolish anything in Apostolic Tradition, not even the right of the Roman Church to elect his successor.

And to the further argument, that in canon 349, it says the contrary, it is clear that that argument would be wrong, since the Latin says, that the election pertains to the College of Cardinals as to provide for it (provideat) according to norm (ad normam) of the special law on elections.  It does not say they enjoy this right per se or semper nor does it use a verb which signifies or connotes that they can obstruct the election by violating the norms of that special law. Indeed, someone who has the right to provide for something which is needed, does not have the right to deny that something when needed, because the right to provide is the right of a servant not of a lord. Otherwise, a mother who has the right to provide for her children’s supper could rightfully starve them to death by not providing for it, and a father who attempted to do so, when she was starving them, could not rightfully act. Which is horribly absurd.

So there are a lot of laymen out there who cannot read Latin or who have not studied law or history, who are saying foolish things. That they do not pause to think what will happen to the Church before they speak, is incredible, after the 10 years of savage attacks on the Faith and the Mass.

And for those who argue against n. 76, I have already replied in a footnote to my article, How John Paul II determined the election of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor.

Those who say Munus = Ministerium are the Enemies of the Living God

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

President of the Scholasticum,
Translator of Saint Bonaventure’s Commentaria in Quator Libros Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi,
Translator of Critical Edition of St. Francis’s Collected Works

Munus and Ministerium, in all major western languages are NEVER translated correctly with the same terms. Those who might think so are neither linguists, nor do they understand etymologies. — Heed them at the peril of saying something stupid as they do.

Munus, for example, is not translated as function, because function is a verbal noun, but munus is a substance. A substance is a thing, but a verbal noun names properly an action.

This can also be seen through connotation and denotation. Denotation is the inherent or primary signification of a thing. But connotation its what it signifies secondarily or consequently.

Thus, Munus (gift or charge) is a term which connotes a relation between the one receiving it and the one giving it, but Ministerium (service) is a term which denotes the relation of the one serving to the ones served. This is because Ministerium is exercised in favor of inferiors and needy, but a Munus is received from superiors of abundance.

Likewise, when one recognizes the relation of terms in the logic of the Latin language, by which the duty of a superior is termed a magisterium, and the duty of an inferior a ministerium: for he who has a munus to teach holds a magisterium, and when he renounces his ministerium, he does not lose his magisterium, nor his munus.

Therefore to say that munus and ministerium mean the same thing is absurd. To say they signify the same thing is a psychotic denial of reality. Thus Benedict XVI never abdicated, and those who say he did are the enemies of the Living God, who is Eternal Truth.

Dr. Andrea Cionci: Dear Dr. de Mattei, if you think the Resignation was a mistake, reconsider!

Introduction by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Ever since Dr. Andrea Cionci, one of the renowned experts on the methodology of pedagogy in Italy, came to understand that Pope Benedict XVI was not being listened to carefully, he has blazed a path for all others to follow with a precise and wide-range investigation into the precise meaning of what the only native German speaking pope since Pope Victor II (1055-1057 A. D.) is trying to say.

As a translator, I know that most modern translations are worthless, because they are done hastily by persons who have little academic formation and almost never have any studies to make them careful listeners when it is a question of a speaker or writer whose culture and erudition go beyond the normal. Dr. Cionci kept that in mind and thus finally opened up the understanding of what the Holy Father has been trying to tell the world for nearly 10 years.

But Dr. Cionci, who merited a Knighthood from the Italian Republic for his invention of a pedagogic method, used in Italian public schools for its wonderful efficacy, has also blazed a trail in apologetics, by his earnest, sincere and longanimity in engaging other famous, erudite Italian scholars and writers on the question of who is the true Pope and how can this be demonstrated by facts, laws and documents.

This year, he has written open letters to many scholars, asking them to at least take a look at the encyclopedic collection of evidences which show that Pope Benedict XVI has never intended to resign the papacy, did not in fact renounce the petrine munus, does consider himself the only true Pope, and does not recognize Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) as the legitimate Successor of St. Peter. He even offers a free copy of his book, The Ratzinger Code, to all scholars willing to take the challenge.

Not infrequently, he receives in return only insults and scurrilous accusations. One such response was received from the rather well acclaimed founder of the Instituto Lepanto, here at Rome, Dr. Roberto De Mattei, who throughout the last 40 years, through his magazine, Lepanto, has in his capacity as a Professor of History, attempted to stay the tide of modernism and defend western Christian Civiliazation.

Dr. De Mattei’s response to Cionci can be found linked in the text of Dr. Cionci’s response to him, which follows.

OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Professor de Mattei: “Benedict XVI’s resignation is a mistake.” The “Ratzinger effect” keeps on taking place. 

Dear Professor de Mattei,

I write to thank you for your article “About Andrea Cionci” published yesterday at Corrispondenza Romana, which I invite all readers to read.  Even if we had agreed about it in advance, I could not have wished for a better and more eloquent recommendation: it is a small masterpiece of the sense of professorial superiority and ill-concealed anger that – without even entering into the merits of the argument – led you to lapse into making ad personam attacks against me and arguments so superficial and contemptuous as to make Professor Giovanni Zenone blush.

Your article is a “sublime recapitulation” of all those who have preceded you [in attacking me]: the accusation that I am “incompetent” stolen from Don Tullio Rotondo; calling me a “fool who is dominated by the desire to know” and “has lost his compass,” taken from the director of the same site, Riccardo Cascioli; the ridicule of my “brainy theses” made by the excellent Don Ariel Levi of Gualdo, the careful popularizer of the false letters of Monsignor Gänswein produced with a Microsoft Word license registered in his name.

If you will allow me to make a suggestion: there was only one note missing: you should have pointed out the assonance of my surname [Cionci] with the verb “cianciare” (“to gossip”), and then the article would have been perfect.

But, on the other hand, you have given us proof of your amazing capacity for contradiction when you state:

“The abdication of Benedict XVI and the manner in which it took place is considered by many scholars and even by eminent members of the Sacred College as a grave error.”

Excellent point. So then, what makes you suppose that in Canon Law such an erroneous act (and, moreover, one of such magnitude) both in content and modality, can be considered valid?

(Just yesterday we wrote about a “Ratzinger effect“: the  strange phenomenon whereby the enemies of Benedict XVI’s papal legitimacy are the first to affirm it involuntarily).

Think of my “vana curiositas” concerning the details which have fascinated me: in order to be valid, the abdication needed to be made simultaneously, be a resignation of the petrine munus, and be formally and juridically correct, while instead it was deferred [seventeen days], was only a resignation of the ministerium, was not confirmed after 20.00 on 28 February 2013 and finally was filled with grammatical errors. Yet, Pope Benedict claims to have written it in Latin so that he would “not commit errors.” Really? Is it not perhaps possible that it was never an abdication, from the beginning?

I really enjoyed your trick of presenting me to your many readers as a crazy person who complains because no one interprets the mysterious codes that only he sees. I am quite happy to accept the role of the buffoon. Perhaps then, since you are a historian, you will be able to explain to us why Pope Ratzinger has written that, like him, “no pope has resigned in the last thousand years and even in the first millennium it has been an exception.” 

Or perhaps you can enlighten us as to why he continues to impart his apostolic blessing, or why he makes the Secretariat of State reply in a letter that the pope emeritus is the “Supreme Pontiff.”

And regarding the fact that he said he still wears the white robe because it was the most “practical” thing, perhaps you will agree with Don Rotondo, who said that Benedict XVI preferred to save 1,000 euros on a new black cassock, regardless of the confusion into which he would throw a few million faithful souls. Or perhaps, dealing only with “what is visible,” you actually believe that, for the past nine years, no ecclesiastical tailor has had time to make a black cassock for the “emeritus.”

By the way: wasn’t it precisely you who maintained that the status of “emeritus,” for the pope, does not have any meaning?

In my penultimate article I addressed criticism towards you (serious criticisms, but not offensive on a personal level) concerning the objective nature, as well as the historical implications, of the fact that you and other conservative Catholics refuse to examine  the juridical possibility that Pope Benedict did not leave the see vacant, but impeded, in accord with canon 335. I cite the code of canon law from this website (https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2013/02/12/codice-di-diritto-canonico-le-dimissioni-del-pontefice) because, magically, the Vatican website dedicated to the Code of Canon Law has not been usable for the last few days:

“Canon 335. When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church.”

And here is my bizarre thesis: Could it not be possible that if the pope does not exercise his munus (and is therefore deprived of his ministerium) he is impeded rather than having abdicated? Canon 412 states: “An episcopal see is understood to be impeded if by reason of captivity, banishment, exile, or incapacity a diocesan bishop is completely prevented from exercising his pastoral office (MUNUS) in the diocese, so that he is not able to communicate with those in his diocese even by letter.” (… Episcopus dioecesanus plane a MUNERE pastorali in dioecesi procurando praepediatur…”.

And could it not be precisely because of this difficulty of communication imposed by the impediment that Benedict XVI expresses himself with subtle language, but not too subtle, so that even a journalist (“the scum of the world of letters,” as Prof. Zenone explains) has managed to understand it?

Perhaps one could ask for enlightenment from the canonists of Bologna who, just one month after my “provocation,” formed a study group “on the pope emeritus and the impeded pope.”

You will be amused by the fact that, by strange coincidence, Benedict XVI recently declared: “The answer is in the book  of Jeremiah,” – where we read: “I am impeded” (Jer 36:5).

Finally, allow me a general consideration: as a historian, you will certainly know that, for centuries and millennia, the figures keep returning in a wearily repetitive way of “those philosophers who, filled with the obstinacy of the asp,” do not even want to examine the theses of their opponents, delegitimizing them regardless of the merits of what they say.

Yet you have published the interesting volume “I sentieri del male[“The paths of evil. Plots, conspiracies, collusions”] and you therefore of all people would be highly qualified to examine the most important plot of all.

I tell you with “personal friendship” (quoting a delicious example of a phrase used as a “Ratzinger code”): are you sure you want to miss this final opportunity to avoid going down in history with the label of being the prestigious university professor who does not stoop to consider the interpretations of others?

Think about it. It could be a big mistake, since there will certainly be a day when Pope Benedict will no longer be impeded and will provide a word no longer intended only “to those with ears to hear,” but to the whole world.

In any case, renewing my gratitude to you, I send you my cordial greetings and make myself available to offer you a copy of my book, should you be interested.

Andrea Cionci

 Original article by Professor Roberto De Mattei here in Google English version.

SPANISH TRANSLATION:

FRENCH TRANSLATION:

ITALIAN ORIGINAL:

Pope Benedict XVI’s teaching on munus and ministerium

The gratuitous assertion that Pope Benedict XVI intended to renounce the papacy, by means of renouncing the Petrine ministerium, is absurd on the face of it, as is demonstrated from his Homily on May 7, 2005, when he began his pontificate

FRENCH TRANSLATION HERE

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The principal gratuitous assertion of those who hold that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is Pope Francis, is that in renouncing the petrine ministerium, Pope Benedict XVI renounced the petrine munus, and thus opened the way for the canonically valid election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as the vicar of Christ.

This argument is gratuitous because, so far, no one has attempted to prove it.

But there are ample counter proofs, which have been drawn into light by the investigations of Andrea Cionci, Attorney Acosta, Father Kramer and myself, that Pope Benedict XVI considers himself still the holder of the Papal Authority, even if one were to ignore what his own eyes see, that the Pope dresses as the pope now for 9 years running.

Here we must remember, that the Catholic world is victim of a psyop.  A psyop is the term in military warfare for a deception to make your enemies not see what they see.  And that is what was pulled off on Feb. 11, 2013, as I explained in the documentary, A Message in a Bottle. For the whole world says Benedict XVI abdicated, though Benedict XVI never did anything of the kind.

For Pope Benedict XVI on that day, said, “I declare that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] which was committed to me by the Cardinals on the day I was elected…” (source and translations here)

But Canon 332, section 2, requires that a pope renounce his munus, to abdicate validly.

Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet … (source here)

And that Pope Benedict XVI does not consider the munus of the office of the Pope (petrine munus) to be simply identical with the ministry of the Pope (petrine ministerium) can be seen from his Homily on May 7, 2005 A. D., for the Celebration of his taking possession of the Lateran Basilica, as the Bishop of Rome, a most solemn moment, at the start of his papacy.

For in that homily he spoke these words in Italian (Vatican.va):

Questa potestà di insegnamento spaventa tanti uomini dentro e fuori della Chiesa. Si chiedono se essa non minacci la libertà di coscienza, se non sia una presunzione contrapposta alla libertà di pensiero. Non è così. Il potere conferito da Cristo a Pietro e ai suoi successori è, in senso assoluto, un mandato per servire. La potestà di insegnare, nella Chiesa, comporta un impegno a servizio dell’obbedienza alla fede. Il Papa non è un sovrano assoluto, il cui pensare e volere sono legge. Al contrario: il ministero del Papa è garanzia dell’obbedienza verso Cristo e verso la Sua Parola. Egli non deve proclamare le proprie idee, bensì vincolare costantemente se stesso e la Chiesa all’obbedienza verso la Parola di Dio, di fronte a tutti i tentativi di adattamento e di annacquamento, come di fronte ad ogni opportunismo. Lo fece Papa Giovanni Paolo II, quando, davanti a tutti i tentativi, apparentemente benevoli verso l’uomo, di fronte alle errate interpretazioni della libertà, sottolineò in modo inequivocabile l’inviolabilità dell’essere umano, l’inviolabilità della vita umana dal concepimento fino alla morte naturale. La libertà di uccidere non è una vera libertà, ma è una tirannia che riduce l’essere umano in schiavitù. Il Papa è consapevole di essere, nelle sue grandi decisioni, legato alla grande comunità della fede di tutti i tempi, alle interpretazioni vincolanti cresciute lungo il cammino pellegrinante della Chiesa. Così, il suo potere non sta al di sopra, ma è al servizio della Parola di Dio, e su di lui incombe la responsabilità di far sì che questa Parola continui a rimanere presente nella sua grandezza e a risuonare nella sua purezza, così che non venga fatta a pezzi dai continui cambiamenti delle mode.

Which words regard the power of the Papal Office, and which I translate into English, thus:

This power of teaching frightens so many men, inside and outside of the Church. They ask themselves whether this is not a threat to freedom of conscience, whether it be a pretense [presunzione] set against the liberty of thought. It’s not like that.  The power conferred by Christ upon Peter and upon his successors is, in an absolute sense, a mandate to serve [mandato per servire]. The power to teach, in the Church, conveys a commitment to service [impegno a servizio]. The Pope is not an absolute sovereign, whose act of thinking and willing [pensare e volere] are law.  On the contrary: the ministry [ministero] of the Pope is a guarantee [garanzia] of obedience to Christ and to His Word [Sua Parola].  He ought not proclaim his own ideas, but rather bind himself and the Church constantly to obedience to the Word of God [Parola di Dio], in the face of every temptation to adapt and water it down, in the face of every opportunism.  This did Pope John Paul II do, when, facing every temptation, apparently good-willed toward man, in the face of the erroneous interpretations of freedom, he underlines in an unequivocal manner the inviolability of the human being, the inviolability of human life from conception until natural death.  The freedom to kill is not a true freedom, but is a tyranny which reduces the human being to slavery.  The Pope is conscious of being, in his great decisions, bound to the great community of the Faith of all times, to the binding interpretations grown up along the pilgrim path of the Church.  In this manner, his power is not above, but is at the service of this Word of God, and upon him there is incumbent the responsibility to make sure that this Word continues to remain present in its greatness and to resound in its purity, such that it is not broken into pieces by continual changes according to fads.

Commentary

To unpack the teaching of the Holy Father on munus and ministerium, one needs to look carefully at the above text, and see how the Holy Father uses different phrases to express himself in Italian.  Here I list them:

The power conferred by Christ upon Peter and upon his successors is, in an absolute sense, a mandate to serve [mandato per servire].

The power to teach, in the Church, conveys a commitment to service [impegno a servizio].

On the contrary: the ministry [ministero] of the Pope is a guarantee [garanzia] of obedience to Christ and to His Word [Sua Parola].

In this manner, his power is not above, but is at the service of this Word of God, and upon him there is incumbent the responsibility [responsibilità] to make sure that this Word continues to remain present in its greatness and to resound in its purity…

Here I remind those who do not know Latin well, that there are 3 Latin terms used in Canon Law for governance: mandatum, munus and ministerium.  In regard to the Papal Office, the mandatum is given by Christ.  This mandatum regards the twofold command that Christ gives to Peter: feed My sheep and lambs (John 21:15) and confirm your brethren (Luke 22:32 – Cited by the Holy Father in the previous paragraph of his Homily). The munus is that which Peter receives by Christ in these commands. It is the charge of authority, to exercise the power, and the responsibility to execute the commands. The ministerium is that which Peter does when executing the commands.

But, in the Holy Father’s native language, German, the words: munus and responsibility are the same word, Verantwortung.  Canon 145 reckons every office [officium, ufficio, Amt] to be a charge [munus, incarico, Verantwortung].  But canon 332 §2 requires that a Pope renounce his munus.

Now, Italian has a word, impegno, which has no exact equivalent in English. Above I translated it as commitment, but it could be translated charge, obligation, or duty. Indeed, in German it is often translated by Verpflichtung which is a synonym for Verantwortung! So I think it is safe to say that by “commitment to service” the Holy Father is signifying or at least referring to the munus ad ministrandum in the Latin.  And garanzia in Italian [Garantie in German] means the assurance of the fulfillment of an impegno! — Thus in Italian, it is indisputable that the Holy Father sees the ministerium to be distinct from munus, just as it is in German.

From all this it is clear that in the mind of Pope Benedict XVI, from the very first days of His Pontificate, he understands the distinction between munus and ministerium and does not consider them identical concepts or words which mean the same thing. Because every human being using different words to signify different things, recognizes that the difference of the things signified is the cause of the difference of the words.

And thus, since Benedict XVI knows that by renouncing the papal ministerium, he is NOT renouncing the papal munus, he knows that on Feb. 11, 2013, he did NOT renounce the papacy.

————–

CREDITS: The recent image of the Holy Father, standing in front of the new painting was published from here.

Creationism — Part I: A short history of the word

In this first installment of a multi-part lecture, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, B. A.  Cultural Anthropology, and translator of St. Bonaventure’s, “On the Creation and Fall of Angels and Men” (Commentaria in Secundum Librum Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombari), presents a brief history of the word, “creationism”, and explains what will invariably happen if, when asked, “Are you a creationist?”, you respond, “Yes”.

For more information about the origin of the word, “creationism”

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/creationism

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/creationism

Catholic Encyclopedia of 1899 on “Creationism” : https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04475a.htm

Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, article on “Creationism” which lacks a consideration of this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#HisCre

Another historical treatment which does not consider the origins of the word: https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/11/article/i1052-5173-22-11-4.htm

NOTA BENE: While Br. Bugnolo’s English translation of Bonaventure’s Tract on Creation is not yet in print, his English translation of St. Bonaventure’s tract on the Trinity is. You can get a copy of that here.

If you ignore the laws of the Church, then there is something wrong with you…

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

There are endless threads of insults against Catholics today, who hold to the laws of the Church, for we are in an age of lawlessness, and the man of lawlessness, i. e. the Antichrist, has many precursors, especially among those who claim to be Catholic.

But the fact remains, that if you ignore the laws of the Church promulgated by the Pope, you really have no ground to stand on, upon which you can claim to be a good Catholic.

Conservatives who does this must recognize that they are being hypocrites, because if conservativism means anything it should mean keeping the laws of the Church.

And Traditionalists are even more at fault, if they pretend that the traditionalism which they sustain is nothing other than being a faithful Catholic like Catholics were exhorted to do, before the reign of Pope John XXIII.

And practicing Catholics have also fallen into self-contradiction, if they claim to be practicing but refuse to follow the laws of the Church.

Pastors who preach mercy are acting like hypocrites, in a remarkable way, if they insist that impenitents be given the rights of penitents, but refuse good Catholics to have recourse to the laws of the Church which defend and guarantee their rights.

And all this has to do with Canon 332 §2, which says that a Pope abdicates when he renounces his munus. And Canon 17 requires that we understand that munus mean something other than ministerium, because in canon 1331, §2, n. 4, the Code of Canon Law says that excommunicates cannot hold any dignity, office or munus in the Church, but does not forbid them a ministerium.

And is it something difficult for a Pope to say the word, munus? No.

And could it be that a pope makes a mistake in such matters? Yes.

And does Canon Law provide for this? Yes.

So what is the problem of just following the law?

For is it reasonable, sane, and sensible to hold that we should ignore the law simply because it appears that everyone else is doing it, or our favorite Bishop or Cardinal or Priest tells us to ignore it?

As Catholics, there are positive laws which are not just or are not enforceable, since they go beyond the power of the State or Church to levy.  But it is certainly not unjust or unreasonable that the Church have a canon so we can all be sure if a pope has renounced or not.

So, for those of you who insist that Bergoglio is the pope, or hold that he must be presumed to be the pope, you should read the Code of Canon Law if you want to be credible.

And you need to recognize that Catholics, in virtue of canons 40 and 41, have the right, whether clergy or not, to NOT act upon any administrative act of their superior, when that act is something which is NOT provided for in the Law, transgresses the rights of others, is inopportune, or is simply not yet written in an unambiguous manner or in a manner conform with the canons of the Church.

And for that reason, anyone who attacks Catholics who say that they regard Pope Benedict XVI as the Pope due to some defect in his resignation, are the ones who truly deserve to be ridiculed in public.

Because, If you ignore the laws of the Church, then there is something wrong with you … not those who keep them.

 

Mark Mallet’s Ridiculous escapade into the Controversy over Benedict XVI’s Papacy

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Hey, when you see that a blogger, on the header of his blog, has a classy fashion photo shoot of himself next to a rock which strangely bears the symbol of the Masonic Lodge, you gotta take interest why such a person is writing, his motives.

In his Sept. 16th post, Mark Mallet is just such a writer: entitled, “Who is the True Pope?” it is a tour de force of error, misinformation, misdirection, disinformation, lies and just wrong headed reasoning.

As a Franciscan brother I have no desire to take pleasure in taking his little crumb cake to pieces, but I have to defend the truth from Rome, to which Mallet is either entirely oblivious (maybe because he cannot read either Latin or Italian) or totally and intentionally wants to hide (a la the Masonic Agenda, which of course is enthralled with Bergoglio).

So here is my take down of Mark Mallet.

I first came to know of his post through an interview given at the YouTube Channel, “Mother & Refuge of the End Times”.  — It is absolutely hilarious that a channel which is always talking about the Apocalypse wants so badly that we accept Bergoglio — the Freemason, Heretic, Apostate, usurper of the Papacy, and active unrepentant idolater — as the Pope and Vicar of Christ!

You would think the person or persons behind the channel must be utterly loony, or Freemasons who intended such a deception when they launched their channel, since it seems so contra-indicatory to their entire video project. I mean, to say, if you want Catholics to take refuge in Our Lady in the end times, why on earth would you be telling them to stay in the boat with the likes of Bergoglio, who, if he is not the False Prophet, is clearly the next runner up.

But there it is. Judge it for yourself.

The opening arguments lone show that Mallet has not used the least bit of his critical thinking skills (I will concede arguendo that he has them) or his ability to do some historical or canonical research (I presume he can) to just check for a moment if he understands that of which he speaks or the facts of the matter and just what the arguments of the other side are.

l do not believe he has, because I cannot explain how he has ignored 6000 articles at FromRome.Info, many of which have put into English the meaning of the important Latin and Italian texts (see my Index on Pope Benedict’s Renunciation here) which lie at the heart of this controversy. Also, because I would expect a researcher to at least write someone, like Cionci or myself, who are the leading experts on this controversy at Rome. He has not written me, and Mallet appears to be entirely oblivious to the corpus of writings by Cionci translated here at FromRome.Info or at Sfero.it.

Ad initium

He begins his argument by accusing his opponents of “flirting with schism”!

I have been doing an apostolate on the internet since 1992, and so I find it extremely lame that anyone is using such silly jargon. It is even more disingenuous, because as any Catholic who has studied the Catechisms of the Church knows already, schism is not the worst of sins. But for the collectivist, whether Communist or Fascist, and for their patron, the Masonic Lodge, schism is the worst of sins, because it means you are not under a control system or at least risk at breaking free from their control system.

Schism is not like divorce. You don’t flirt with it. The great schisms in the Church were all healed on the basis of accepting the truth, not out of fear of flirtations. Catholics have in the cause of truth never feared being called schismatic, because it is absurd to say that someone holding to the truth of anything is in schism from the Church of Jesus Christ which is the Pillar and Mainstay of the Truth!

Mallet’s use of such jargon shows he wants to be chic, but really knows nothing about theology, ecclesiology or canon law. So let’s not be surprised if he gets everything else pretty much wrong, after that comment, which is so Skojecesc.

What spurred Mallet to write was the recent article, in English translation, of that which appeared on Marco Tosatti’s blog last week, about Tyconius, which I critiqued here. An article which, in the comments to my own, has been shown by Attorney Acosta to be fatally flawed, since Pope Benedict XVI has explicitly said that the ecclesiology of Tyconius is NOT Catholic. So Tyconius’ view of the great discessio cannot be a Catholic view. I explained in my critique why it cannot, anticipating Pope Benedict XVI’s own position in present time, since I was unaware of it at the time I wrote.

St. Gallen Mafia

It is a tour de force of misinformation to discuss this group and cite the book by Cardinal Daannels biographer as proof that no election conspiracy took place, when the book cited by all Vaticanista who have discussed it, clearly does admit they key facts to find this group guilty of election tampering in violation of n. 81 of Universi Dominic Gregis, resulting not only in their ipso facto excommunication but also in the invalidity of the election. To say, as Mallet does, that we should not pay any such interpretation any attention because the members of the St. Gallen Mafia have denied such an accusation, is a principle of argumentation which if adopted would exhonerate every criminal in court at all times and in all cases: that principle is: if the accused deny the charge, they are innocent. Shut up. And stop investigating!

I mean, Mr. Mallet, is that your position?

But his ignorance goes deeper, for he writes:

Moreover, on the election of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to succeed Benedict XVI, there were 115 cardinals who voted that day, far outnumbering the handful of those who loosely formed this “mafia.” To suggest that these other cardinals were haplessly influenced like impressionable children is a judgement of their faithfulness to Christ and His Church (if not slightly insulting to their intelligence). 

Amazing. Really amazing. The Papal Law on elections says that a Conclave is invalid if anything is done contrary to its law. While it is true that a conspiracy among 26 or so Cardinals to make an impressive first vote would lead directly to their own punishment, the consequent excommunication would render the tally of their votes in the decisive 72-74 final vote in favor of Bergoglio as not countable, and thus invalidate the entire election. There are attempts to avoid the application of the canon on votes-to-be-counted in an ecclesiastical election, on the grounds that the Papal Law is sui generis, but even if, arguendo, that canon did not apply to the special election of the Roman Pontiff, nevertheless, since  Canon Law expressly says that they can innovate nothing, if a Cardinal or his accomplice (canon 1329 §2) is excommunicated he immediately loses the right to vote because he immediately loses the dignity of the Cardinalate (canon 1331 §2, n 4), and you cannot suspend canon 1331 until after the Conclave, since there is no provision for the suspension of its effects on the basis of particular or special law: wherefore, the votes of all the accomplices and perpetrators of the vote canvassing lost the dignity of the Cardinalate and therefore could not vote. That their non-votes could not be counted is a canonical sequitur which cannot be rationally challenged or put in dispute.

Moreover, the invalidity of the election is founded on other grounds: the 5th ballot, when only 4 ballots are allowed, and worse of all, the convening of a Conclave when the current occupant of the Papacy is neither dead nor legally abdicated. That it was convened was a connivance of the Mafia of St. Gallen, too.

The Declaratio

Mallet opens up with disinformation: saying, “There are some debating that the actual language Pope Benedict XVI used in his resignation is only a renunciation of his ministry (ministerium) and not his office (munus).” — No, Mr. Mallet. All are talking about this. But they are not debating the fact, which you seem to claim does not exist, since you cite the English translation of the Declaratio — a translation which has neither legal or canonical value — The one side is saying what Benedict XVI said and comparing that with Canon 332.2 and finding no correspondence. The other side is not debating anything, they just don’t answer.  That makes the entire discussion one-sided, but not a debate.

And Mr. Mallet, your saying that the controversy has no basis in the text, is simply a childish cop-out.

Nor can you appeal to the Pope’s actions as proof that your interpretation of his intentions in using the wrong word were not erroneous, because if he intended munus when he said ministerium, canon 332.2 would make the renunciation invalid by 2 factors: substantial error and lack of due manifestation.

You can argue all you want till you are blue in the face, but you cannot argue away the fact and the law of the case.

Then Mr. Mallet cites these words of Pope Benedict XVI to prove his own position, even though it proves the opposite:

There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry. The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations regarding its validity are simply absurd… [My] last and final job [is] to support [Pope Francis’] pontificate with prayer. —POPE EMERITUS BENEDICT XVI, Vatican City, Feb. 26th, 2014; Zenit.org

Mallet reads this statement as if it read, “There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my renunciation of the Petrine munus“.

That Mallet does not realize what he is doing, some less respectful reader might surmise is due to some mind-control or deep psychological block. I hate to imply anything of the kind: I will simply call him out as a liar and fraudster. After 9 years of controversy this is not a mistake that can be pardoned anymore.

That the Holy Father consciously chose to renounce the ministry not the munus, he states quite well in the citation made by Mallet, which follows:

It was a difficult decision but I made it in full conscience, and I believe I did well. Some of my friends who are a bit ‘fanatical’ are still angry; they did not want to accept my choice. I am thinking about the conspiracy theories which followed it: those who said it was because of the Vatileaks scandal, those who said it was because of the case of the conservative Lefebvrian theologian, Richard Williamson. They did not want to believe it was a conscious decision, but my conscience is clear. —February 28th, 2021; vaticannews.va

But again, this has nothing to do with the fact that he renounced the ministry not the munus.

In fact, in Italian, to renounce ministry rather than munus, is what makes the difference between saying, Ho fatto le mie dismissioni, and Ho abdicato. That is, I resigned, vs., I have abdicated.

So the Holy Father is perfectly consistent. His mind is truly very clear. I will grant that Mallet’s might not be so.

You can read the rest of Mallet’s scribblings above, through the link to the top image, as I won’t bother, having proven the case already.

The papacy is a monarchy. As St. Alphonsus says in the interpretation of laws, when a monarch does not use the word which signifies that which you want to hold is the meaning of the text, you have to have recourse to him to change it by written decree, otherwise, your interpretation is not authentic, nor is it binding upon anyone.

Case closed.

Why Tyconius’ idea of a future Great Discessio is heretically wrong

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The other day, Marco Tosatti launched on his blog, an anonymous essay, about the Donatist writer Tyconius‘ idea of a final great separation of the true Church from the false Church. And since I am seeing many refer to it across the net, I believe it is necessary to warn against how great an error it contains.

Tyconius was a Donatist. Donatists believed that there were some sins so great that EVEN WHEN REPENTED OF they put you out of the Church. It was a very convenient theory for that group of Catholics in North Africa, who having faithfully endured and resisted the final persecutions of Diocletian, considered themselves therefore not only superior but entitled to govern the Church thereafter.

In the Apocalypse of the Apostle John, we read about the beast with 10 horns, the last of which has one horn removed and three sprout up in its stead. Some writers interpret these horns as the 10 major persecutions of the Catholic Church in the Roman Empire, which culminated with the persecutions of Diocletian, which was a threefold persecution: confiscating the Scriptures, rounding up the clergy, and demanding all Catholic to burn incense on an altar of Mars, the refusal to comply with which was in each case to be punished by local authorities with death.

In many parts of the Roman Imperium the local authorities were reluctant to persecute Christians in such a vicious manner. They allowed Catholics to purchase a document, a libellum, which stated they had burned incense or otherwise cooperated with the decrees of Diocletian. For many lax-conscienced Catholics this was the easy way out. Others burned the incense, handed over priests to death, and surrendered copies of the books of Scripture and liturgical texts.

After Constantine decreed that Catholics had the liberty to worship the Triune God, Catholics returned to practice their faith, and indeed, were now allowed to do so in the open light of the day.

Throughout the Church, the Bishops called for the repentance of those who had failed to resist the terms of the persecution and chose treachery, idolatry or apostasy as a way out.  Long penance where required. In some places a life time of waiting at the door of the Church, with re-admittance to communion only at death.

A great controversy about the Sacrament of Penance broke out in the Church, with some espousing the idea, which was common, that this Sacrament can only be received once in a lifetime sincerely, others that it could be received more often.

But in North Africa the situation was even more grave, since many bishops had denied the faith, obtained libella, handed over the scriptures and betrayed their priests, or burned incense to Mars (the Roman God, not the planet).

When these repented and received the Sacrament of Penance, they were admitted back to communion in many Churches, even back to their offices.

The idea of a ex-apostate, ex-traitor, ex-idolater, ex-collaborator as one’s bishop incensed the Catholics of North Africa.  This is totally understandable, and in an age of persecution, we ourselves can readily appreciate their just anger.

But some Catholics went to the extreme of asserting that such men, EVEN WHEN REPENTANT and reconciled to the Church, could no longer hold the offices of Bishop or pastor of souls.

This group was led by a certain Donatus, and so they were called Donatists.  He taught that these repentant clergy were still so odious to God that even the Sacraments they confected were invalid.

So his followers separated from them and began ordaining their own bishops and clergy and seizing Churches. As they had numerous Bishops and clergy among their number, these ordinations and consecrations were valid. But they were usurping jurisdiction in those dioceses where there were already bishops, albeit repentant ones.

So Tyconius’ had a very bad personal experience upon which to begin to theorize interpretations of St. John’s Apocalypse, on such passages as the Whore of Babylon and the Stars Swept out of the Sky by the Dragon’s tail.

His idea was that at the end of time, the True Church and the False Church, which had been cohabiting in the one visible Church, would separate from one another in a sort of final divorce. He called it the great Discessio, a Latin word which means, “walking away from one another”.

And his error was a serious one, because he posited that the false and evil men, who were not among the elect, were not true members of the true Church, and that therefore the Church of the Antichrist or the Body of the Antichrist, as it came to be called in the writings of St. Augustine of Hippo, were a real entity, and thus positively willed by God (since nothing can have real existence but what is positively willed by God).

St. Thomas Aquinas, about a thousand years later, explained how wrong this error is when he succinctly summarized the Catholic doctrine on evil: evil is the deprivation of some good which ought to be in a real existing thing. It has no existence of itself.

The Catholic interpretation of the Apocalypse therefore never envisions the Church of the Antichrist or the Mystical Body of the Antichrist as something positively willed by God, as a real thing existing by itself. It is rather an infection, disease, evil in the one true Mystical Body, though its “members” are really only those who heed the voice of Demons rather than that of God.

Now if Cardinal Ratzinger mused on occasion about Tyconius’ theories, that is nothing really notable, since he commented on the theories of many theologians, Catholic or otherwise during his lifetime. And that he repeated his opinions as Roman Pontiff, means nothing more too, because Popes can express private opinions, as John XXI did regarding what he believed was the necessity that the Saints be purified before attaining Heaven (condemned as a heresy, by his Successor).

But in our day, this error of Tyconius is especially dangerous, because those who accept it would be led to think like Tyconius, that they can pursue fidelity to the will of Jesus Christ by abandoning the visible Church, founding their own Churches, and thus coping out of the Church Militant by a de facto surrender to the forces of Darkness which want to take Her down.

And this is just what the Globalists and Bergoglians would want Catholics to do, because they do not want a restoration. They want to take full possession of the property, moral and legal authority of the visible Church.

Marco Tosatti has been shown the evidence that Benedict XVI is still the pope. He has allowed discussion of it, but personally he has rejected the opinion. He has even stooped to vile insults of those who defend the Holy Father, giving them no space to defend themselves on his blog.

So it does not surprise me that he is airing a theory which is basically saying, “Surrender to Bergoglio and to the Church he is founding”.

But this notion of Tyconius is shared ideologically and widely by many groups, which style themselves as Traditionalist, such as Sedevacantists and many priests and priestly groups which espouse the Traditional Latin Mass, because it is a convenient theory to justify opting out of the visible Church, ignoring Canon law, usurping jurisdiction and authority and washing one’s hands of any responsibility to work for the salvation of your Diocese.

However, it should be noted and highlighted by everyone, that the Holy Father clearly uses a different theory in his Declaratio, when he speaks the vobis decisionem magni momenti. He is speaking not of a great separation, but of how he is announcing that there exists between him and the Cardinals a separation, and that he is cutting them off from the Papal Munus since they won’t obey him any more. His use of the term decisio (“a cutting off”, “a pruning away”) rather than discessio, show that he understands that the Church of the AntiChrist has no life and can have no life separated from the true Church, and its time to distinguish the wheat from the tares. Indeed, what he did in his Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013, is the means whereby those with true Faith can discern what is going on, while those blinding by their lusts for the world, flesh and devil, cannot.

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a depiction of the meeting between St. Augustine of Hippo and the leaders of the Donatist party, by Charles Andre van Loos (18th century). Note the anachronistic clothing.