Category Archives: Ecclesiology

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.

Father Z was saying, the SSPX are doing nothing different than (Nope!)

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Father Z is my favorite internet blogging priest. I have been reading his posts for longer than I can remember, that is, more than a decade. He was also and remains the biggest promoter of the Lepanto Flag, and helped Ordo Militaris Inc. raise more than $10,000 to help persecuted Christians, when, because of his love for Our Lady of Victories he spoke highly of it when it first was offered for sale. Thanks, Father. I am still very grateful.

Father Z, however, occasionally misses some important points regarding current affairs. I cannot blame him, since as a convert from Metodism, it can happen. Hey, he has come a long way. I praise him for it.

But in his recent comments rightfully rebutting another preposterous claim by Bishops Athanasius Schneider — who seems given to worse exaggeration and error as the years go on – though he began with a stellar sense of Catholic Orthodoxy — Father Z misses an important point.

Yes, Father Z is correct to correct Bishop Schneider. The priests of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X are not outside the Church in the sensus plenius of that term, because yes, they profess the Catholic Faith and are validly ordained as Catholic priests and offer the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to approved liturgical books, in the ancient (and only true Roman) rite. [Here, I disagree with Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, but this is no crime or fault, since he did not add to his decree a sanction for anyone dissenting from his claim that the Traditional Mass Ritual and the one invented by Bugnini, the Freemason, on a napkin at a Roman Restaurant, are equally forms of the one Roman Rite.]

However, it is NOT true to say that the SSPX is doing what was done in the Arian crisis.

In fact, if you read the history of the Church in any detailed or slovenly popularized version, you will find NO example of anyone doing what the SSPX did. So let’s not name the great St. Athanasius as their example.

The Saint traveled from diocese to diocese and reconstituted the Church. He fought to save the Church, not the mass. He restored Dioceses, he did not found a private priestly club, which owns 7 star hotels that serve the globalist elites (FromRome.Info’s exclusive exposé). He was not funded by money of dubious provenance (Here). He has absolutely no reputation for promoting or protecting pedophiles (here, here, here and here). He was not a Jesuit laxist in morals. He was not part and parcel of an international medical scam to genocide humanity itself (More here, here and rightfully faulted by Bishop  Schneider here). And he was emphatically never in communion with or a supporter of an anti-pope (here), apostate, idolater or heretic (here). He was not a member of a satanic fraternity, nor was he a fifth column of internationalists. Quite contrary.

The SSPX. As I was saying…. PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE THEM WITH THE GREAT SAINT ATHANASIUS.

Because if you do, I think you are implicitly blaspheming ….

On True Devotion to Pope Benedict XVI

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Lately I have written a series of articles, which begin with the words, “On true Devotion” (if you use the search engine here on FromRome.Info you can find them under this rubric).

But this article is somewhat different, because the object of the devotion is not a Saint, but the Roman Pontiff. So a better title would be, “On True Loyalty to the Roman Pontiff, Benedict XVI.”

I am writing this article because while the battle is fiercest in the defense of the Church when one enters the fray under the banner of Pope Benedict XVI and for his restoration, Satan leaves no stone un-turned to conjure the worse of temptations to take down these most stalwart defenders of the Kingdom of Christ who are routing him on his most undefended flank.

And one such temptation is sectarianism.

You see. When all is written and accomplished, that we have defended Pope Benedict XVI’s rightful claim to the Apostolic Throne, what we have done is no great work of learning or virtue. We are simply putting to use our personal habits of critical thinking and independent thought, and curiosity, which in themselves are neither morally good or evil, but which incline us to be more disagreeable than the average man.

And this is our weakness.

Because in controversies so intense, it is easy to fall into thinking that since we are among very few on the right side of the front, that we are some how something special.

But the truth is not anything like that.

We must fight under the banner of the Holy Father because that is our duty. And it is nothing more than our duty, so we cannot claim at victory’s end to have some special reward.

And we must battle on with pure motives, not to gain anything or prove anything about how important we are. Because we are not.

Canon 1364 imposes ipso facto excommunication upon all who refuse communion with the Roman Pontiff, since they are schismatics. And this applies to those who willingly and intentionally refuse to recognize the probity of his claim, though they cloak their refusal in a thousand excuses and total intellectual sloth.

But excommunication also is leveled against all who refuse communion with those in communion with the Pope. That too is the sin of schism:

See canon 751:

… Schisma, subiectionis Summo Pontifici aut communionis cum Ecclesiae membris eidem subditis detrectatio.

which in English is:

… Schism, the withdrawl from subjection to the Roman Pontiff or from communion with those members of the Church subject to Him.

And there is the rub.

Since, many voices are claiming that if you do not pledge obedience to certain pro-Benedict clergy, you are somehow not a member of the Catholic Church.

This is sheer lunacy.

The only touchstone for unity in the Church is the man who holds the petrine munus.

The visible Church is full of those who claim falsely that that man is Bergoglio. They will even resort to excommunication or threat of excommunication to insist on their unfounded and totally false opinion.

But the last thing the Church needs is another Bergoglio, that is, another man claiming to hold the petrine munus and demanding that every Catholic hold communion with him TO THE EXCLUSION of communion with other Catholics who recognize that Pope Benedict XVI is the true Pope.

This grave error has been brewing some time both in the USA and in Europe. And that is why I have consistently from my first day in Italy to this day never claimed to be a member of any group or a supporter of any exclusive claim to Catholicity among anyone supporting pope Benedict.

This is in part why I have been consistently ignored and attacked by those who supported Pope Benedict XVI before and after me. I take it as a wreath of laurel, because I intend to practice true devotion to Pope Benedict XVI.

Errors on the Mass are causing many to fall into confusion

I have also publicly reproved the now commonly spread grave error in Sacramental theology, which claims that a Mass offered by a validly ordained priest according to the ritual approved by the Church but in communion with an Antipope is invalid.

This opinion is wrong, because a Mass is not measured valid or invalid. The word valid is applied to the confection of a Sacrament. If all that is necessary for the Sacrament to exist, to come into being, has been done by the proper minister, then the confection is called valid. If not, its invalid.

If the confection was done by someone with the power to do it, but without the authority to do it, its call ilicit. If with the authority, conferred by decree or via the principle of Chiesa suppleat, then it is called licit.

If the Mass has a valid consecration, and is celebrated in a public oratory, then it legitimately satisfies your Sunday obligation. If not, then it does not. No mass televised on TV or the internet satisfies your Sunday obligation. Your Sunday obligation is only satisfied by a real mass in communion with the true Pope. There is no obligation to travel more than 1 hour to find such a mass, for when there is none, you have no obligation.

And you can obtain all the graces of weekly communion by simply asking them from the Lord Jesus, if you ask sincerely, devoutly and humbly. So there is no spiritual necessity to do anything else to fulfill your sunday obligation or receive the Sacrament. If you want to make a sacrifice to do this, visit a priest in communion with the true Pope and attend his private or public mass, even if this costs you time and money and much inconvenience. Because Jesus is worth it.

Moreover, a valid mass said in communion with the true Pope is supernaturally efficacious as a propitiatory sacrifice, since it partakes of the Redeeming Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. If said in communion with an antipope, it is not efficacious.

These things are true regardless of the personal knowledge of the one who offers the Mass or those attending it. Thus even if you have no idea that Benedict XVI is still the pope, and you attend mass in communion with the Antipope, that mass will not propitiate your sins, does not satisfy your Sunday obligation in the sight of God, and thus God must refuse you all or most of the grace of attending it, even though Jesus does in fact become present on the Altar through a valid consecration.

So, please, stop saying Masses are invalid or valid

That is totally incorrect sacramental theology. And this is not an open question. What I have stated here is the accepted opinion of all Catholic theologians for 800 years.

Anyone claiming to have a inspiration which goes contrary to that is deceived by his own pride or by a devil.

And since the proper sacramental theology is part of the Sacred and Apostolic Tradition of the Church, anyone claiming an innovation or novelty in these matters is simply wrong and certainly in error. Pope Benedict XVI talked about this controversy, which first arose after the persecutions of Decian in North Africa, back in 2006 (here)

The Church has not yet dogmatically defined all the aspects which I just reiterated, so we cannot say that those who espouse such errors are formal, canonically heretics. But I do believe that it is heresy before God to claim a different doctrine. And that it should be punished in a future council.

A Warning to those targeted for spiritual enslavement

Finally, a note on spiritual enslavement. It is a grave vice to use one’s pastoral authority to bind the faithful in spiritual obedience to one’s self. This has always been prohibited by the Church. And no amount of fidelity to Pope Benedict XVI or to any Saint or to Jesus Christ gives anyone the authority to practice spiritual enslavement.

It is consequently also a grave violation of the privacy of your personal spiritual life, that anyone short of the Pope or your bishop, for canonical reasons well proven, ask you to identify your confessor or spiritual director or demand that you take one or worse yet, suggest a specific priest to you as one of these. Fly from such sectarians!

So if anyone tells you to stop thinking, or demands that you join in union with the pastoral approach of anyone, to the exclusion of other Catholics, or sets up any rule as a rule of faith other than what we have received from Christ, the Apostles and the Church, even if he work wonders in the heavens or earth, regard him as a false preacher, and follow him not.

NOTE WELL: I have disabled comments on this post to prevent anyone using what I have said against anyone in particular. I do allow faithful translations, and for permission, please ask me via my Contact page.

How Catholics can save the Church from Bergoglio & the Globalists

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The sense of hopelessness arises in a mind which does not know the solution, or which lacks the courage to execute it. But whereas I cannot give you courage — you must ask the Lord of Hosts for that — I can remind you of the way to the solution.

St. Athanasius gave us the example, when the Church in his days was overrun by Arian heretics. They went so far as to get him expelled from his diocese of Alexandria, several times!

But did he retire, write a book and attend conferences to sell it? Like so many cancelled Bishops and priests and religious do?

Not at all.

He became an even more fierce warrior.

He traveled the Empire of Rome visiting dioceses which had no Catholic Bishop, because the Bishop they had had embraced the Arian heresy, or because the people and clergy had elected an Arian to lead them.

In these Dioceses, St. Athanasius publicly called the Faithful together, denounced Arianism, exhorted them to chose a Catholic as a Bishop, and when elected, consecrated him as their Bishop.

This shows the radical difference between St. Athanasius and Donatists, who separated themselves and remained separate and local forever.

It also shows what is radically not-Catholic in the behavior of so many self-styled Traditionalists, who, as in the case of the SSPX or sedevacantists, get their men validly consecrated as Bishops or ordained as priests, but stay apart and run their own private associations and club-chapels.

In every diocese of the Catholic Church, there are 3 present situations:

Either the diocese has no bishop, because he retired or died, and none yet has been appointed.

Or, the diocese has a Bishop appointed by Pope Benedict XVI, John Paul II, or if they are one of the 23 Eastern Rites, by the vote of the Metropolitan Council (approved by one or the other of these popes).

Or the diocese has a Bishop appointed by the Anti-Pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who parades around the world as Pope Francis, though he has no more authority than a dried fig.

In all such dioceses, Catholics can do something to restore their local Church to communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

And they have the natural, divine and canonical right to act seeing that Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013 declared his see impeded, renounced the petrine ministry, and put the Church into a State of Emergency, as his own secretary confirmed at the Gregorian University in the spring of 2016.

Therefore,

In dioceses in which there is no bishop, Catholics can publicly gather and elect their own bishop. They have this right because the Apostolic See is impeded and because there is no other way to have a bishop, but to elect one by the local faithful resident in the Diocese, they may resort to this means as a self-defense (natural right), as an exercise of subsidiarity by divine right (when the higher power in the Mystical Body fails, the lower can exercise that power), and for the salvation of souls which is the highest law of the Church (canonical right), since the local Church cannot exist in good health and persevere without its own head, a Bishop.

In dioceses, where there is a bishop, appointed by the Anti-pope, then can publically call him out, explain why he has no right to the Bishopric and if he fails to return to communion with Pope Benedict XVI in 90 days, proceed to elect a Catholic man, who is celibate, to be their Bishop.

In dioceses, where there is a bishop, appointed by Pope Benedict XVI, they can publicly call him back to communion with the Pope, and if he fails to return to communion in 90, publicly declare him in schism from the Apostolic See, and proceed to the election of a catholic.

All this could have been done as early as Feb. 29, 2013.

And there is no need to wait for the death or restoration of Pope Benedict XVI.

There is in particular, no need to wait the election of Pope Benedict’s successor or Bergoglio’s death or faux resignation.

So the duty and burden of responsibility is entirely on Catholics in every diocese.

As for getting the men elected consecrated as Catholic Bishops: any bishop can do this, whether retired, or not. There are Bishops publicly and privately in communion with Pope Benedict XVI. They can act, and they should act.  Also, because the Apostolic See is impeded, any Catholic bishop elect has the authority to reconcile to the Catholic Church any validly consecrated schismatic Bishop, and then have him consecrate him the Bishop of the diocese for which he has been elected. — This St. Alphonsus dei Liguori says is licit, in the case in which there is no Catholic Bishop(s) to do the consecration. And that a Bishop elect, not yet consecrated, has power of jurisdiction is an old principle established by the practice of the Apostolic See, both in regard to the election of laymen as Roman Pontiffs, and the appointment of non-Bishops to episcopal sees in remote lands.

So what are you waiting for?

Why have you not acted? Perhaps no one told you this.

Now you know.

And start organizing delegations to go to pro-Benedict Bishops to get these Catholic men consecrated.

If we mobilize, we can restore the hierarchy in less than 1 YEAR.

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.

 

Whom has Pope Benedict XVI authorized to undertake the Election of His Successor?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Now that the Catholic World is coming to understand the veiled way in which the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI has been speaking since February 2013, I want to return to shed some light on the question of the election of His successor and two aspects of His Declaratio which I was the first to publicly bring to the attention of the world.

In the past, when I spoke of these things, they seemed incredible. But now that Andrea Cionci has definitively established that the Holy Father is using amphibologies to get His message out to the faithful, while hiding their true meaning from the Masons in the Church — just as Christ our Lord did when speaking with the High Priests, Pilate, or the Pharasees — it is more certain that was I recognized nearly 3 years ago, is the true sense of His Declaratio.

First of all, in the very opening of the Latin text of the Declaratio, the Holy Father uses the word vobis instead of vobiscum, which is a glaring error only a refined classicist in Latin would be sensitive to, but which alters the meaning of the entire sentence and sends a grave warning to the whole Church.

All the Vatican translations read the vobis as if it were vobiscum, but that is a totally illegitimate and dishonest way of reading a Latin text. They do this, however, by necessity of self protection, because when you read vobis as vobis, and not as vobiscum, you see immediately that the Declaratio is a denunication of the entire Roman curia and the Cardinals in particular.

Reading vobis in the original as vobiscum, the opening sentence is translated thus:

“I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. …”

But reading vobis in the original as vobis, the Latin meaning of the first phrase is an explosive declaration of schism:

“Not only for the sake of the three acts of canonization have I called you together for this Consistory, but also so that I may communicate a separation from you of great moment for the life of the Church.” (For details, and footnotes see here).

This means that the entire Declaratio must be read in an entirely different light, and that the references to the election of His successor too.

For when he says, in the core of his Declaration (again my translation):

On which account (5), well conscious of the weight of this act I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry (6) of the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter, committed (8) to me through the hands of the Cardinals (7) on the 19th of April, 2005, to leave unused (10) from the 28th of February, at 20:00 hours, Rome time (9), the See of Saint Peter, and that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff is to be convoked by those who are competent (11).

We must take a close look at the final phrase,

… that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff is to be convoked by those who are competent.

They key word here in Latin is,

ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

Speaking in front of the entire College of Cardinals, the Holy Father omits to say that they are the men to whom it pertains to convoke the Conclave. I noticed this in 2020, and it led me to all my investigations into the text (see here), which have borne fruit now in the book by Andrea Cionci.

COMPETIT

So now that we know that it is very important to pay attention with precision to the words that the Holy Father uses, I wish to bring to your attention, dear readers, that the Holy Father is saying something very important in His choice of the word which in English has no equivalent: and that word is competit.  I have rendered it as those who are competant, using the English cognate.

But the Latin does not refer to mental competancy but to legal competancy.  And this reference is not just to someone who has authority to act, but to one who has it innately or naturally.

This can be seen in the definitions of the Latin verb, competo, in the Lewis’s Latin Dictionary, under the third tropological sense of the word:

3. To belong, be due to: “actionem competere in equitem Romanum,Quint. 3, 6, 11: “mihi adversus te actio competit,Dig. 19, 1, 25: “poena competit in aliquem,App. M. 10, p. 243, 40: “hereditas competit, alicui,Eum. Pan. Const. 4: “libertas servo competere potest,Just. Inst. 1, 5, 1.—Hence,
1. compĕtens , entis, P. a.
Source: here.

This is why the Holy Father says, ab his quibus, rather than ab vobis fratribus cardinalibus quibus…  That is, why He says, “by those to whom” rather than “by You Cardinal Brothers”.

This is because the Cardinals only have the right to elect the Roman Pontiff in virtue of Canon Law and Papal Law, which are positive juridical acts, which can be altered or abolished.  But there is another group which has the right to elect the Roman Pontiff by divine and natural right and Apostolic Tradition, which can never be abolished and needs no written law to confirm: and that is the Catholics of the Church of Rome.

Hence, I believe it can be soundly and safely said, that in His Declaratio, the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI has authorized canonically His successors election by the Faithful of Rome, foreseeing in some way, that all the Cardinals would break with the Apostolic See by electing an anti-Pope and that none of them would be reconciled with His person before His death, which is the sine qua non requirement for them to participate in any election of His successor.

And His prayer for the Cardinals at the end of his Declaratio shows that He is praying for their conversion and return, as a good father always does.

Unpacking Bishop Schneider’s Rosary of Lies, Errors and deceptions

Commentary and Rebuttal by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Authorized Portuguese Translation — Authorized French Translation

It is personally painful for me to have to, yet again, put pen to paper, as it were, and refute the silly arguments of a prelate whom I once admired as one of the best of the best in the Church. While he took the correct positions against Amoris Laetitia and the ridiculous arguments of the SSPX in their Magazine, on the topic of the DeathVaxx, he has more frequently than not fallen somehow into supporting the most ridiculous theological and moral theses on controversial topics (see here for FromRome.info’s coverage of the Bishop’s notorious interventions).

But because I love Jesus Christ more than any Bishop in the Church, whenever one gravely deviates from the truth on such an important topic as who is the pope and what are the Catholic principles by which we are to recognize who is the pope, I know I am under grave obligation to speak out, seeing that I know these principles and am known for defending them.

First, we know who is the authentic successor of Saint Peter not by private judgement, public opinion, polls, surveys, theological reflections, newspaper articles, television reports. No, we know who is the authentic successor of St. Peter by the conformity of public acts with the published canons and laws of the Church which determine the process for his election or renunciation.  And this conformity must be precise and exact and not one which is simply claimed to exist. It has to be prima facie, as one says in forensic circles, that is, it must appear to be conform on first sight.  — And it cannot be otherwise, because since the Church is visible, the concord of the Church must be and can only be based on unambiguous public acts and laws, and their conformity.

Second, you can argue till your face is blue in Hell for all eternity by any other means, but your argument is worthless. Argumentation does not prove who is the true pope. Only facts and laws do. (Here by facts, I mean documented or documentable words or actions).

And third, by conformity with the law, I refer to the fulfillment of a legal requirement.

Bishop Schneider proposes the error of Traditionalism, as his false principle of discernment

So it is crystal clear that Bishop Scheider’s entire thesis is false from the get go, as they say in parts of the United States: namely, when he says, that to say Pope Benedict XVI is the true Pope is contrary to Tradition.  Because tradition, whether sacred and divine or merely ecclesiastical, is not a first immediate principle to have recourse to, in determining who is the authentic successor of Saint Peter is. Facts and law are. This argument is the flip of the common Modernist argument, which says you should reject some Catholic practice or doctrine, because it is contrary to the progress of the Church in modern times.  And by this comparison with its contrary error, we see that Bishop Schneider is appealing to the error of traditionalism, which was condemned at Vatican I: which error says that all truth comes from tradition.

If facts and law say Benedict XVI is still the pope — and you do not like that conclusion — you cannot have recourse to Tradition or tradition to propose a different answer to the question.  That’s not how juridical acts work. But that is how spoiled children who never grew up attempt to run governments and even the Church.

Bishop Schneider appeals to the moral error of Tutiorism, to apply his false principle

Next, Bishop Schneider advances his traditionalist error on the back of an exaggerated moral principle known as tutiorism, which holds that in every moral decision one must always make the choice of that which is more safe.  This principle is faulty because it leads to neurosis and a pharasaical self-righteousness, where the individual determines what is right and wrong and not God.

This error is not easy to discern by those who are given to wantonness because it never occurs to them to consider it. But it is the exact error of their own vice, since it insists that it is morally evil not to be obsessed with seeing possible evil in everything. The super-scrupulous easily fall into complete paralysis of judgement by adopting the error of tutiorism, for example.

But lest there be no misunderstandings, I will give some examples.

  • The tutiorist will hold that in brushing your teeth you should never do so out of vanity and that you should omit all brushing of the teeth until you can do so without vanity, even if this would cause your teeth to rot.
  • Again, the turiorist, will hold that it is too dangerous ever to go in public, because by being in public places you might be tempted to impurity, and thus they omit to fulfill even the duties of their state, when these require some recourse to public places to obtain the necessities of life or to fulfill religious duties.

Tutiorism, alas, is a very deceptive form of pride, because the one thing the turiorist is never worried about, is the misuse of his own discretion to determine what is right or wrong, safe or dangerous. He always relies on his own judgement, not those of God, the Church, or wise and prudent men, such as Saints and pastors.

And this is precisely the moral error into which Bishop Schneider falls by crafting his entire argument, that in the name of safety, we should reject the thesis that Benedict XVI is still the pope.

Bishop Schneider employs a gross error in forensics

Again, at the beginning of his ridiculous discourse, Bishop Schneider crafts an argument against admitting prima facie evidence (namely that when Pope Benedict renounced, he announced the renunciation of ministerium, but did not renounce the munus).  Against this obvious problem all are having to ignore this fact, the Monsignor proposes a principle whereby you can ignore all facts (how convenient!):

The principle of legality applied ad litteram (to the letter) or that of juridical positivism was not considered in the great practice of the Church an absolute principle, since the legislation of the papal election is only a human (positive) law, and not a Divine (revealed) law.

The human law that regulates the assumption of the papal office or the dismissal from the papal office must be subordinated to the greater good of the whole Church, which in this case is the real existence of the visible head of the Church and the certainty of this existence for all the body of the Church, clergy and faithful.

Now, it is clear that anyone who holds that Pope Benedict XVI remains the only and true pope, does not have to appeal to such an argument, which seeks to overturn the letter of the law or the plain meaning of documents, and says that they should be read to serve the greater good of the Church.

This approach to Church law is like the the boy who believes that all laws are like library regulations, or that the laws against murder are light traffic laws.  Which is simply not so. Yes, there are norms, regulations and laws, but not each have the same obligating force, because not each exists for the same purpose.  Norms are advisory, regulations are bureaucratic and laws are legally binding, such as to make infraction criminal, even if only as a misdemeanor.

There are norms in libraries, such as to keep quite. There are regulations about how to fill out your driver’s license application. And then there is the law against murder.  And if you imagine, as an adult, that each is equally binding or not binding, you have only a child’s comprehension of the matter.  For in libraries sometimes you can and must speak. The rule of silence is practical only. At motor vehicle registries, the regulations on how to fill out your application are binding, but if you violate them you will not go to jail, you simply wont get your license.  But as for murder, you cannot say that someone who committed such a crime should not be prosecuted, simply because it serves the greater good, for it never serves the greater good to tolerate murder.

And obviously the papal laws on Papal Elections or the canon regarding Papal Renunciations is of the latter kind: it is a law, not a norm nor a regulation.

And so, I must say: No, Bishop Schneider: in the Catholic Church laws mean what they mean regardless of what you want them to mean or what outcome you want to have.  For as the saints all say, “I would prefer that the world perish, rather than that God be offended by one of my sins”.  This is true religion. Nothing can be justified merely on the basis that it achieves an outcome which we want. That is pagan.  A Catholic judges things on the basis of God’s judgements revealed in Scripture and contained in Sacred Tradition. Things are right and wrong in themselves and by themselves, apart even from circumstances and intentions or goals.  If goals alone determined such things, we could do as we want, and not as the Divine Will has commanded.

And, as regards having a valid pope, whom the whole Church can recognize as such, it is never for the good of the Church that any canon or law regarding his election or renunciation be violated!

Bishop Schneider’s insistence on a visible head of the Church

Yes, the Church should have a visible head, but the way that the Bishop wants this principle to be applied goes to every excess and extreme.  I do not find it necessary to point out, to the readers of FromRome.Info that in an argument about which of two living and speaking claimants to the papacy is the true one, a discussion about visibility makes no sense. — I almost get the impression that he says this to slight Pope Benedict XVI — Quite the contrary, yes, the Church ought to have a visible head, but Her existence and unity is not shaken per se by not having one, for this happens after the death of every pope, before his successor is elected.  Nor is the unity of the Church shaken by the fact that a true Pope remains a claimant to the Papacy against the false claims of an anti-pope.  To think like that would be to turn truth on its head.

And when one reflects on how outrageously Bergoglio has used his claim to the papacy to destroy the Church, to advance the argument that since he is more visibly the head he should be the pope, is simply a malign mafia style prudence equivalent to saying, that since the criminal who robbed you of the farm, de facto, is the better manager of its destruction, the owner loses all rights.  I mean who argues like this, but a Marxist and a demon?

Bishop’s Schneider’s total incomprehension of Ecclesia supplet during Papal Schisms

Next, the Bishop appeals to an false argument ad absurdum.  For he attempts to argue that since an anti-pope’s appointments are canonically invalid, the unity of the Church or the visibility of the Church would be somehow damaged by such an event.  He writes as if there have never been antipopes naming bishops or Cardinals. He imagines that the consecration of Bishops and the confection of Sacraments stopped during the Great Schism.  He also seems to think that the Church held, after the fact, that all such invalid appointments and illicit sacraments were such forever.

What he completely ignores, is that after these ancient papal schisms were ended, Popes ex post facto granted the appointment of Cardinals, the nomination of bishops and the confections of Sacraments canonical liceity by an act which is called sanatio in radice.  This is not a condonation of the immorality of those acts, but is a monarchical act of the Vicar of Christ for the sake of those who in good conscience were fooled by liars. Those who knew the antipope was an antipope are not by this act of sanatio excused from sin or from the obligation to repent. Not even from the obligation to resign their offices, unless the Pope grants them a personal or general indulgence.  The Popes generally grant such a sanatio after every papal schism, because it is sufficient that all bishops and clergy and faithful recognize the one true pope as pope, and it is not necessary to punish every sinner canonically, nay it would cause too much strife, when the peace of the Church does not require it. God will render the punishments in such cases, and the popes have always chosen the way of mercy and been very light in their punishments, after papal schisms, by restricting them to the antipope himself and his closest supporters or henchmen.

Bishop Schneider gets the matter backwards, when he argues instead that we can presume a sanatio in radice after an invalid resignation, because the Church’s peace requires it. We cannot presume any such thing. Such an act is reserved to the Vicar of Christ alone. And it has to be a written juridical act, otherwise is has no existence.

Bishop Schneider continues in ignorance about the events of 1046 A. D.

Even after being publicly corrected by numerous individuals, Bishop Schneider continues to ignore the facts of 1046 A. D., when at the Council of Sutri 3 “popes” or more exactly, papal claimants, were deposed.  He seems to think that Gregory VI obtained the papacy invalidly because of simony.  He is entitled to his opinion. But as there were almost never laws which invalidated papal elections on the basis of simony — not then, nor now: the only time being the Bull of Paul IV where in this determined an invalid election; which clause was overturned by his next successor because it would introduce too much doubt as to validity of any election — I think it would be difficult to support such an opinion.  Yes, Henry III, King of the Germans asked Gregory VI to resign because he did not want to be crowned Emperor by anyone with the stench of simony on his hands, and Gregory did so, because episcopal elections and nominations obtained by simony were canonically invalid and always held to be such, his behavior was in no way morally defensible. But the Pope is no mere bishop, and the Roman Church has always insisted that general laws for bishops do not apply to the Roman Pontiff.   This is why the Church recognizes Gregory VI as a true pope, even though he himself recognized that he obtained the papacy by simony and therefore had no moral claim to the title.

But you cannot apply this case to the present controversy over which is the pope: Benedict XVI or Francis, because there is a PAPAL law and there is a Papal canon, which do regard the validity of the election and resignation of the pope, both of which have not been observed!

Bishop Schneider’s red herring of 1378

Next Bishop Schneider wastes the time of his audience by discussing the papal election of 1378, which no one doubted the validity to, until the Cardinals who were French discovered that the new Pope was pro-Italian.  They then invented an excuse for their disobedience, and pharasaically claimed some circumstance of the election made it invalid, and immediately elected another as antipope. He argues as if what they did had some legitimacy.  And he implies that those who hold that Benedict XVI is the pope are in a similar situation of claiming a past failure of legal form and inventing an excuse to refuse allegiance to the new pope.

This is totally absurd.  The Cardinals profess a solemn vow in conclave to elect someone to receive the petrine munus. If the pope remains alive and has not renounced the munus, their vow does not legitimize their illegal action of electing another under those circumstances.  In fact, Bishop Schneider has flipped the moral case on its head. It is the Cardinals in the Conclave of 2013 who imitated the French Cardinals of 1378, as both proceeded to an illicit, illegal and illegitimate election of another pope, while the true pope which they all previously elected and supported was still alive and had not resigned.

Bishop Schneider then takes back 1378 and reinterprets 1294

Moments after appealing to 1378, Schneider pretends we have forgotten what he claimed was the correct position, namely, to support a reigning pope, and proposes the case of the papal renunciation made by Saint Celestine V on Dec. 13th, in the year of Our Lord, 1294.

On that day, Celestine V by written and signed decree, renounced the papacy.  No one doubted that the act existed and was signed by the Pope.  In all his behavior thereafter, he acted as a hermit: he took off the papal robes, renounced the dignity and left Rome. He even accepted being held under house arrest by his successor to prevent the faithful from approaching him.  The act was canonically explicit. I have reported on it here.

Therefore, there was no need of a sanatio in radice, and Boniface VIII never granted one. Nor has any pope since.

This case Bishops Schneider should have never mentioned, because if you argue that a canonically valid and explicit renunciation of the papacy should not be questioned, then you must sustain likewise that a canonically invalid and explicitly deficient renunciation of the papacy SHOULD BE QUESTIONED.  That is the simple logical conversion.

In conclusion

Bishop Schneider attempts to box off thought about his absurd position by saying that there will be no other way for Benedict XVI to have a successor, since Bergoglio has appointed the majority of Cardinals, who, if they are invalid, mean that there will never be a valid successor again.  This is equivalent to saying that since a thief now has full possession of your diamond ring, there is no point going to the police to report the crime and get them to obtain it back.

His moral principle fails from the virtues of zeal and justice for the House of God. It also fails on right, because, hypothetically, if no validly nominated Cardinal elector broke from the antipope within 20 days after Benedict XVI’s death, the papal law for Conclaves, which is the only normative practice which is canonically valid for the election of the pope, would ipso facto cease to bind, since in the case in which there are no Cardinals in communion with the Church, there is no obligation to elect a pope via a conclave of cardinal electors. And hence, in such hypothetical, the right to elect the Pope would return to its source, that is the Apostolic Tradition in the See of Rome, wherein the entire people of God in the Diocese, which encompasses Rome and the suburbican dioceses (which in law are not separate from Rome), would have the right to elect the Roman Pontiff to succeed Benedict XVI. And such an election would be legitimate and licit even if it could not be properly termed canonical or uncanonical. I have discussed this several times already. The right to election returns to its source, since the Papal law for elections is only an application of Apostolic Tradition, which cannot be annulled by custom nor overturned by any papal act, since it pertains to Sacred Tradition itself, that is, to the Deposit of the Faith. This is because the Roman Church is not the Church of Rome, but  the very Church Christ founded, with universal jurisdiction, which was not separated into dioceses in other parts of the world.

I think by now you can see that the Bishop has simply presented a Mafia style argument to serve a Mafia style usurpation of the papacy. The depths of depravity of judgement and opinion to which he has descended to sustain his opinion are most shameful.

In a better age, a bishop arguing like this would end up in a papal dungeon on bread and water. In the meantime, I think the only charitable thing to do is to ignore him as one of the worst of the worse.

Mark Docherty responds to Cionci et alia on the Ratzinger Code & Plan B

With a cordial reply by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

(click the image above to read the original article by Mr. Docherty)

Mark Docherty is a close associate of Ann Barnhardt. So as he opens his article you will find no mention of the Franciscan Friar whom she hates with a diabolic passion.  Nevertheless, I include myself in that list, and perhaps have the best personal history to respond to Mark, since I wrote an entire Scholastic Question demonstration the substantial error, but also was first to propose the Plan B thesis, which asserts that Pope Benedict XVI did with full knowledge and consent, renounce the ministerium rather than the munus to save the Church from Ecclesiastical Freemasonry.

Necessary Preamble

First, I would ask Mark to have the integrity of a gentleman to stop ignoring my existence, simply because I do good works while remaining faithful to the vows I took in a canonically recognized novitiate while a member of a canonically recognized religious institute, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. This is especially true, when in the present Essay, you Mark declare: “I greatly respect everyone in this fight who come to it with integrity.” –To do otherwise, casts a dark shadow over all your writings, Mark, because it makes you appear to be someone who is opposed to keeping vows to God, observing the Evangelical Counsels of Our Lord Jesus Christ, or that you have some sort of personal relationship with Ann Barnhardt that would induce you to act inconsistent with such principals. To denigrate anyone or pretend they do not exist — which is the ultimate denigration — for doing good and remaining faithful to Jesus Christ is shameful. — When I think of all the nuns who were driven from their convents because they remained faithful, and who are abandoned by so many shameless pharasaical laity who wont help a consecrated virgin unless she has a stamp on a paper from her Bishop, I who actually do have a stamp on a paper from a Catholic Bishop approving and allowing me to live as I have done since my separation from my former institute, on August 6, 1996, I cannot help sharing the indignation which arises from a perverse laicism and legalism.

Seeing that among all the proponents of Pope Benedict XVI remaining the Vicar of Christ, I alone left my family, country, nation, and language, and traveled to Rome, and did in fact write to more than 2 dozen Cardinals by personal hand-delivered letters, and to every priest of the Diocese of Rome, Italy, I think I am not being unreasonable in saying that I am a leading proponent of this cause. Moreover, I am considered such by all except Ann Barnhardt and Mr. Docherty, who have no authority to determine the rules by which one is or is not a supporter of Pope Benedict XVI, that is, unless they are claiming some authority over the Papal Household, or membership in the Catholic Church, to determine who is or is not. Indeed, such behavior is clearly a form of diabolic narcissism, which vaults its will to define reality and demands others accept that gaslighted reality as the truth.

If anyone is allowed to comment on Mark’s blog, please attempt to open up a candid dialogue about these matters, and I have been banned from commenting on his blog for several years.

And now to Mark’s contra-thesis:

Mark begins by summarizing the position quite well in a form proposed by Andrea Cionci, who deserves the credit for the Ratzinger Code and Impeded See thesis. He presents 4 questions by which he believes those who hold that Pope Benedict XVI intentionally abdicated from nothing and renounced nothing, are in error. I will restate each question by quotation in bold face font, and reply to the objections or quaesita which are raised in them.

Quaestio prima:

Mark writes: Question One: If Pope Benedict executed his non-resignation (grave matter) with full knowledge and full intent, how is it that he is not in a state of mortal sin for doing so? The three conditions have been met (grave matter, full knowledge, full assent of the will). A valid pontiff, crowned by Christ himself, executes one of the greatest deceptions in the history of the Church, and he is a brilliant strategist for doing so? How can that be? While God can and does allow good to come out of evil, God never condones the doing of evil in the hope of a good outcome. God doesn’t do “the ends justify the means,” ever. And while Pope Benedict could have theoretically gone to Confession the evening of 28 Feb 2013, he could not have received valid absolution, because valid absolution requires a firm purpose of amendment, and in cases where the effect of certain sins can be rectified, then rectification is a necessary component of the penance. In which case he persists in mortal sin, NINE YEARS later. Which brings us to…

Respondeo ad primum:

Pope Benedict XVI cannot be guilty of a mortal sin for renouncing the ministerium not the munus, because there is no positive or divine obligation, in grave necessity, for not doing so.  In morals, a thing is only immoral if God has precepted that it not be done, either according to its genus, species, circumstances or intentions.  Therefore, there is no burden upon anyone to demonstrate that Pope Benedict XVI did not sin, rather, the burden of proof is upon those who claim he did. This is standard Catholic morals, which even children understand. Charity presumeth no evil. Mark you should know that!

Pope Benedict XVI deceived no one. And there is no evidence that he did. That his enemies presented his act as having a significance which it does not have is entirely their moral fault. Cionci has amply demonstrated that for 9 years Pope Benedict XVI is declaring this very thing.

The renunciation of ministerium rather than munus is not an immoral act. Those who presume it is must demonstrate that they are not presuming.

This first Question by Mr. Docherty is simply reducible to an absurd ad hominem:  Pope Benedict XVI is a grave sinner, prove that he is not!

Questio secunda:

Mark writes: Question Two: If Pope Benedict executed his intentional grave deception in order to save the Church from the wolves, what then of the Faithful? Not a word from Benedict about the apostasy of his “successor” who all the world thinks is pope? This is the most grave mortal sin of SCANDAL. Benedict has willfully (according to their theory) lead a billion souls to believe a heretical, blaspheming, demon-worshiping apostate is the true pope of the One True Church. How many people have been led astray, accepted heresy and easy sin, and gone to their eternal reward in such condition? I will tell you how many: 70 MILLION. That’s how many Catholics have died in the last nine years, two months. Pope Benedict is (according to their theory) intentionally sitting by, petting his cat, knowing he is still the only true pope, knowing that Bergoglio is an antipope, perfectly happy to have 70 million souls going to their Particular Judgment thinking Bergoglio was pope and his magisterium authentic. If so, this is an awful test of God’s bounteous mercy, and it makes Benedict a monster.

Respondeo ad secundum:

Pope Benedict XVI by consistently signifying that he is the one true pope to those who pay attention to him, has deceived no one and has led no one to believe that Bergoglio is the Pope.  Moreover, the Faithful, who have a living faith, are guided by the anointing of the Holy Spirit which they received in the Sacrament of Confirmation to discern truth from falsehood and true pastors from false pastors. To say therefore, that the Faithful are abandoned is to reduce the order of grace simply to the visible papacy, as if the Church has no supernatural principle of life or discernment.

All Catholics know the Faith cannot change and that no one not even the Pope can teach contrary to the Deposit of the Faith. So it is impossible for Catholics, who are materially deceived, to fall into formal apostasy from that faith, if out of their own negligence they adhere to the false narrative that Benedict abdicated.  Moreover, since that narrative is not the responsibility of Benedict, but is crafted by his captors, he cannot be held responsible for it.  Likewise, the Faithful have a duty to follow canon law and give intellectual attention to the principle canonical acts of the Magisterium, not the least of which is an alleged papal resignation. Failing to do this, if they are deceived, they are solely responsible for God.

Questio tertia:

Mark writes: Question Three: What was it, exactly, that Benedict did actually resign (or intend to resign) when he read out the Declaratio? It is clear from the text that he intended to resign something, leaving aside the question of whether or not it was effective. In the key phrase of the document, he is clearly resigning, or intending to resign SOMETHING. Look at the English, look at the original Latin, or watch the video. “I renounce the ministry” … while we can argue whether or not the words took effect, we cannot claim he did not say those words. Canon Law demands that we respect the meaning of words, the context, and the mind of the legislator:

Can. 17. Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Respondeo at tertium:

Pope Benedict XVI actually renounced nothing effectively, but he did declare that he was going to renounce the ministerium, which however, he never did do by a canonical act.  This has been explained at great length by nearly all those writing and speaking about this matter, and to ask it now is really a weak point in the argument.

But perhaps Mark, you misunderstand how a text is to be read. When one says in a letter, to another person, “In my will, I will leave you all my property”, and yet the Will when disclosed, has only these words, “I love you as a true son and heir”, but specifies nothing as bequeathed, then the alleged heir receives nothing, zippo as Ann Barnhardt might say, and the deceased has deceived no one. He has deceived no one, because we cannot know whether his failing ability prevented the bequest being written into the Will or if some other cause intervened by which the meaning of his words were not to be taken at face value. For example, if the recipient of the letter had said to the soon to be dead donor: “If you don’t make me your sole heir I will murder you sometime in the next year!”

As a matter of fact, Pope Benedict XVI was informed on Feb. 12, 2012, that he would be assassinated if he did not resign within a year. This is not a facetious claim. It was published in a leading Italian daily newspaper.

To claim a man under threat of death is morally culpable for deceiving anyone, is beyond the pale of right reason and any Catholic notion of the obligation to speak the truth without mental reservations.

Questio quarta:

Mark writes: Question Four: Since Gnosticism is heresy, how are the faithful to approach the “Ratzinger Code” in an orthodox manner? The evidence for the Substantial Error theory is all out in full view for anyone to see, not just for those with eyes to see, if you know what I mean. We all agree on the visual evidence; a five year old could see it. We all know how Benedict’s further writings, and his words in the Seewald interviews, point to something other than what is commonly accepted, but that much is evident from the actual meaning of his words, not code words. Saying that the common lay faithful need access to a secret code to discern who is true pope seems… rather problematic. Implying that knowledge of this secret code is necessary to find and follow the true Church and achieve one’s salvation is… you see what I mean. So how to approach this in an orthodox manner?

Respondeo ad quartum:

Gnosticism is a heresy, but the Church has never condemned as Gnostic the decision by anyone under duress to speak in code so as to communicate to friends and allies and not enrage further his enemies or captors.

That the matter is called the Ratzinger Code by Cionci is his journalistic flair. It is not a code, it is merely a refined and erudite manner of speaking of a man who is very meek and has reasonable grounds to fear for his person otherwise.

The more substantial question, which needs to be asked, instead, Mark, is: Whether Catholics are obliged to listen attentively to the voice of the Vicar of Christ upon Earth in a matter which touches upon their eternal salvation?

And the answer to that question is clear: yes they are. Because it is one of the laws of the Church that we obey the laws of the Church. And to obey them, we must know them, and act in accord with them. So, now after 9 years, when anyone hears that the renunciation may be invalid, they need only read canon 332 § 2, to find that it is not.  That is not difficult.

However, if they care for the sake of keeping some material or temporal favors to ignore that investigation or deny the facts which they find, they have judged themselves and brought judgement upon themselves.

CONCLUSION:

I have amply demonstrated that Mark Docherty’s 4 Questions are easily dispatched with Catholic answers and are reducible to doubts arising from someone who presumes Pope Benedict XVI is at moral fault, without any attention whatsoever to the known facts of the case which are excusing causes of the charges leveled against his person.

Andrea Cionci writes a personal letter to Ann Barnhardt (Italian & English)

by Andrea Cionci

This is a follow up to Cionci’s Open Letter in English, and his Bi-Lingual Video on the same topic.

Dear Miss Barnhardt,

A few days ago, I published an open letter, also translated into English, and a captioned video-interview addressed to you and Prof. Edmund Mazza, to discuss matters of enormous importance that transcend all ego-centric issues and personal ideological territory. I acknowledge your great, even historical, merits for identifying the invalidity of Declaratio as renunciation and Bergoglio’s antipapacy. However, I have submitted to you incontrovertible documents and reasoning of normal logic to take a step forward in understanding the Magna Quaestio.

I expected that You might either welcome with joy and a spirit of cooperation what has been presented, or rebut it with serene rational arguments, to defend Your thesis, as the gravity of the matter and the stature of the debate certainly deserve. Instead I am informed that You in Your latest podcast indirectly respond in these terms, “There is a group of people who absolutely want to make Pope Benedict out to be a superhero, for some reason, who is playing 15-dimensional underwater chess. And, oh, no! He didn’t make a substantial mistake, it’s all the result of his enormous Bavarian intellect, he fooled everybody and so on….”

Response to my first Open Letter to Ann Barnhardt?

It has been said that Pope Benedict would be a liar for consenting to all this and would be responsible for all the souls who died as a result of Bergoglio’s horrible heresies (since they believed he was the Pope). I’m also told that your co-blogger, blogging at Non Veni Pacem, has asked, “How is Ratzinger not in mortal sin according to the argument that this is a big maneuver on his part for the past 9 years?” He also alludes to the fact that the Ratzinger Code would be a kind of “gnosticism.” (I don’t understand why since it is based on syntax and logical analysis of language).

We Italians are a bit xenophilic and tend to think that outside our national borders, that “the grass is always greener”.

I expected that we could go beyond mockery and avoidance of the subject matter.

I expected that in a confrontation with American intellectuals we could go beyond the mockery and avoidance of the subject matter, unlike what is already happening in Italy with the demeaning conduct of several intellectuals who categorically refuse to examine writings of the Holy Father Benedict reviewed by several specialists even of university rank HERE (link missing in original).

Now, certainly what I have uncovered is wonderfully disconcerting: we so agree; but it is no more disconcerting than the claim that Joseph Ratzinger, one of the greatest Catholic intellectuals of the 1900s, with an ecclesiastical career of some 60 years, might have had a “mistaken” view of the papacy. Kind of like saying that Elizabeth II today would still not have a clear understanding of what the role of a queen is. Doesn’t that seem a bit bold of a claim?

Now, allow me, here  to say that concerning substantial error there is only one here: that of continuing with blinders on to see Declaratio as an “invalid renunciation” of the papacy. — I have shown in detail and with the help of authoritative Latinists that this document is not a lame and invalid renunciation at all, but is a candid and very consistent declaration by which Pope Benedict simply “stopped working,” relinquishing the exercise of power because he was unable to continue.

An impeded See

So, in fact, he has retired to an impeded See, a canonical situation that makes him remain pope and that, again in fact, makes Bergoglio an antipope. — Imagine a professor with a class of little students. Those are so anarchic and rowdy that he cannot continue teaching, so at some point he simply leaves the classroom and crosses his arms. He doesn’t quit his teaching position and remains a professor. If some random guy walks into the classroom and starts teaching instead of him, do you think he could be automatically hired by the school in place of the other professor? This could only happen in the jungle, not in a civilized institution!

I have also shown, through analysis, which I term “the Ratzinger Code,” which is recounted in a book of mine due out next week, that Benedict managed to never lie, despite the fact that imprisonment might have authorized it, using subtly logical language. — For example, when he says “I have validly renounced my ministry,” since munus and ministry are regularly translated by many as “ministry,” you do not know which of the two entities he is referring to. Or rather, He knows, because in Declaratio, He renounced the ministry-ministerium. So He is not a liar at all. But a genius who managed to always tell the truth, in its essence, even in the face of his enemies.

This is just one of a thousand examples. I have shown that on every occasion, even in the very difficult 65th priesthood speech, the one about the word “Eucharistomen,” Benedict managed to subtly speak the truth in the presence of his persecutor. But one must descend into the transparent and pure meaning of words and references. Only in silence and pure rational thought can this reality be understood.

Why did Benedict not first legally arrange for emeritus?

Moreover, if Benedict had wanted, because of his strange conception of the papacy, to split the office into two, one active and the other contemplative, why did he not first legally arrange the status of an emeritus? Last year Bergoglio put his canonists to work to patch up a jurisprudence on the emeritus papacy, a clear sign that it does not exist. What does Benedict do, things by halves? The pope emeritus is impossible, he and the canonists, who have so far spoken on the matter, know it well. So “emeritus” must be understood in its original meaning: the one who deserves, who has the right to be pope.

More importantly, what would have been the point of creating this confusion with a true active pope and a true contemplative pope? Just to panic a billion 285 million faithful? Do you think Joseph Ratzinger is such a spiteful, vain, nostalgic man for the trappings of papal dignity?

But even if when he had this whimsical idea of the papacy, in nine years, given the bewilderment left in the faithful, Benedict should have constantly reiterated, according to his misconception, “Look there are two popes, one active and one contemplative, I am also pope, but I am retired.” But no: he repeats, tapping his wrist on the armrest, “There are not two popes, only one is the pope,” and he does not explain which one. Bishop Gaenswein also confirms, “There is only one legitimate pope. But two living successors of St. Peter” (ergo one is legitimate and the other is illegitimate) and “there is one contemplative member (the legitimate pope, Benedict) and one active member” (the usurper Bergoglio). Too difficult? I don’t think so, for your intelligence.

Theological discourse

There is then a theological discourse to be made. If you are Catholic you must believe that the pope is assisted by the Holy Spirit, not only ex cathedra, but also in ordinary activity (Article 892 of the Catechism). According to the substantial error theory, would the Holy Spirit have abandoned the true pope at such a dramatically crucial moment in the history of the Church, legitimately handing it over to a total heretic as you describe Bergoglio? — Forgive me, but this I think is a horrible offense against the Trinitarian Third Person. Exactly like those Bergoglio legitimists who think it is plausible how the Holy Spirit assists one who enthrones Pachamama and is “personally” in favor of civil unions, i.e., the legalization of the practice that according to Catholicism is one of the Four Sins that cry out for vengeance to heaven. Perhaps the Holy Spirit has become modernist and heretical and we have not noticed?

As for the usual objection many people make, about Benedict XVI allegedly abandoning souls to Bergoglio:

1) the pope is not the baby sitter of humanity. Every war has its price to pay, and the Church certainly is suffering damage. But the doctrine of Supplet ecclesiae affirms that God provides, supplants in cases of people’s good faith and unawareness. So the sincere souls of the little ones and the unaware are saved anyway and the sacraments are legitimate for them (but only for them).

2) Benedict, moreover, continues to speak and teach true Catholics not only with his books but also with the language of Jesus in the face of his enemies. Those with ears perfectly understand the Ratzinger Code. Truly sincere sheep smell exactly who the shepherd is. On social media I often read simple people who write, “My pope is Benedict.” In reality he is for everyone, but they, poor souls, intuitively sense it. Those who are in trouble are the intellectuals, those who have lost this simplicity in recognizing the true and then, degrading themselves, mock their opponents about the last name. What was it like? “If you don’t come back as children….”

3) To say that Benedict sinned because he abandoned the faithful would be like complaining about a father kidnapped by bandits by saying he is guilty because he “abandoned his family.” He could do nothing else because he was the victim of a deadly mutiny.

4) Without this ingenious self-impediment, if he had heroically had himself killed, or if he had really abdicated, You would have Bergoglio as legitimate pope today.

5) Benedict XVI is neither stupid nor ignorant. On the contrary, you yourself admits that he is a genius, but now you reject the hypothesis that he could have prepared a genius plan to defend the Church from those whom She most detests. In short, make up your mind!

So I really appreciated the work that you have done up to now. And the conclusions you came to also had a certain logic to them: “If the renunciation is invalid, Benedict necessarily had to have a very strange conception of the papacy.” But I am telling you that it was not a renunciation. And that Benedict, by a subtle, but perfectly consistent statement, self-exiled himself to an impeded See (canon 412) and thus allowed his enemies to march into schism.

Four possibilities

You personally now have four possibilities:

1) You lock yourself in “no comment” as so many do, certifying your intellectual surrender.

2) Prove me wrong by disputing point by point the arguments and documents I submitted to you in the above article and interview. If you succeed in doing so, on a logical and documentary basis, I will declare myself defeated.

3) You may continue to mock me and several priest-martyrs who have had themselves excommunicated to defend the truth. You may continue to avoid direct confrontation and evade the merits of the issues. In this case, however, you would be taking a very serious responsibility, which would undo all your excellent work done so far. Out of a matter of punctiliousness and haughtiness you would discredit yourself, producing enormous damage. In fact, the substantial error thesis gives room to those traditionalists who see Ratzinger as a “modernist.” And therefore they refuse to understand Bergoglio’s illegitimacy by emotionally and masochistically wallowing in hopeless tragedy.

This road of yours will lead to the end of the visible Church, Bergoglio’s victory and anti-papal succession. I will tell you how. The sedevacantists will retreat, depressed and sneering, to their Aventine: “No pope has been valid since 1958 anyway.” And they will let a new fake conclave unfold with 70 invalid Bergoglian cardinals. The one cum (Bergoglio’s legitimist conservatives) will agree to endorse the fake conclave hoping for a diplomatic deal: they will be gutted. Do they feel up to “getting back on the merry-go-round” with an antipope Zuppi, Maradiaga or Tagle who will assume the name John XXIV as Bergoglio anticipates (unheard of)? But they would still end up with another antipope even if, by the most unlikely chance, a traditionalist and holy man “gets elected”.

4) Possibility No. 4 is that you, after studying very carefully what I have submitted to you, become aware of self-exile in the impeded See. And show that you can do the most difficult thing in the world, with the courage that is yours. Abandon your thesis of substantial error, burning it on the altar of Logic (which you demonstrated very well) as an “outdated model” and to work together to win back the Church to true Catholics. I cordially extend my hand to offer alliance or, at the same time, throw down my glove inviting you to a duel (though traditionally one does not do that, with a lady). It is up to you.

However, please don’t be like those little quoted intellectuals who tease me about my surname, or bring up the “Da Vinci Code” or “A beautiful mind.” This matter is extremely – extremely – serious and transcends our little personal peeves. History will judge us, and for those who believe, so will Someone more important.

Looking forward to your reply, I cordially greet you,

Andrea Cionci

How to Canonically solve the problem of 2 Popes

REPRINT OF SEPT. 30, 2021 A. D.

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Catholics have been lulled into accepting the revolution, which drove Benedict XVI from power and installed the globalist pseudo-savant from Argentina in the Vatican, by many specious arguments.

Chief of which is that promoted by Cardinal Raymond Burke, that, namely, there is no canonical procedure to address an invalid or contested papal resignation.

However, thanks to the genius of Pope Benedict XVI, a canonical way to restore him to the Apostolic Governance of the Church of Rome is available.  And it is provided for in the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by his predecessor, John Paul II, which he himself, when still a Cardinal of the Roman Church, advised upon.

This solution enshrines the example of the Synod of Sutri (See here, here, here and here), which in 1046 met at Sutri, in the Metropolitan Province of Rome to discern which of the three papal claimants was legitimate or not. It found that none were, and deposed all three.

As Andrea Cionci has established with the input of the leading canonical scholars who are collaborating with him, Pope Benedict XVI did what he did on Feb. 11, 2013 to give notice to the whole Church that the Apostolic See was impeded by a conspiracy of Cardinals who were preventing him from governing the Church of Rome and the universal Church, as Christ’s Vicar on Earth.

This conspiracy to obstruct his apostolic mission was impeding the Apostolic See. And in the case of an impeded see there are specific canons which govern what can be done and what is to be done.

Now in the case of an impeded see which is subsequently usurped by an invalid un-canonical election, there does exist in the Code of Canon Law a solution and a remedy, contrary to what Cardinal Burke has publicly declared.

Let’s examine it closely.

First, the dispute as to whether or not Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation of ministry effects his loss of munus cannot be resolved by private judgment or opinion. The solution must be based on canonical norms and principles, read authentically according to the mind of the Church as expressed in Canon 17.

That canonical argument has been made already.

But the argument is distinct from the canonical judgement which would canonically oblige all Bishops everywhere to accept Benedict and not Bergoglio the Pope.

Here we are face to face with two realities. The truth, and the judgement of the truth in a forensic forum.  A judge does not make a man a murderer, but a murderer when apprehended and judged as such, is publicly known in a forensic manner to be a murderer.

A forensic judgement does not make a thing true or false, but it does proclaim in an authoritative manner what that truth or falsity is.

This is why, in addition to there being only one sound canonical determination of the truth that Benedict XVI is the pope, there also needs to be a forensic judgment of that.

Such a judgement is under the competence of the Provincial Council of the Roman Ecclesiastical Province.  This province is the territory which comprises the Diocese or Rome and the suburbican Bishoprics which over time were separated from it and which still are included under Apostolic right, inasmuch as they are ruled by Cardinal Bishops who are reckoned members of the Roman Curia.

I speak of the Dioceses of Ostia, Velletri-Segni, Porto-Santa Rufina, Frascati, Palestrina, Albano, and Sabina-Poggio Mirteto.

The metropolitan see is the Apostolic See, in this case, since it is the chief see in the Roman Province.

A provincial council is described in canons 440-446.  And how Cardinal Burke does not know of this is beyond me.

Canon 440 § 1 specifies that a provincial council can be called anytime there arises a need which the Bishops of the Province deem suitable.  This is an extremely liberal grant of discretion.  Certainly doubt as to whom is the true Pope is sufficient need.

Now in Canon 440 §2, it is said that in a sede vacante in the Metropolitan See, a provincial synod is not to be called, yet in canon 442 §2, it says, that when that See is impeded, the Bishops of the province can elect one of themselves and preside over such a Council.  This implies that a provincial council can be called when the Metropolitan See is impeded. Which is the exact case in law.

Accordingly in accord with canon 442 §2, the elected suffragan can determine the time and place of such a Council and the questions to be discussed, the length of the discussion and whether to move it from one place to another as may seem opportune or necessary. He can also dissolve it or extend its sessions.

Now in accord with Canon 443, §1, all the Bishops, Bishop co-adjutors and auxiliaries must be convoked, if a Provincial Council is called. Also all other Bishops who hold a munus in the province. Bishops emeriti can also be called, as well as all other Bishops incardinated in the Province. This includes all the Bishops and Archbishops incardinated at the Vatican, such as Archbishop Viganò, and all the Cardinals of the Roman Church.

In addition all the major superiors of religious communities in the Province must be invited, as well as all Rectors of Pontifical institutes in the Province, and all Rectors of Major Seminaries. Vicar generals and Episcopal Vicars must also be called.

All these have the right to vote.

In addition, all the clergy and laity of the province can be called, but they do not get but a consultative voice, but no more than half the number of those who must be invited who can vote. In addition two members of each priestly diocesan council of each diocese in the province and of each Cathedral Chapter are to be invited with consultative voice.

Finally, others can also be invited by the presiding Bishop with the consent of the other bishops of the province who are ordinaries.

The power of the Provincial Council of the Roman Province is affirmed in canon 445, which says it can act “to defend common ecclesiastical discipline”, and surely, who is the true Pope is the keystone to all ecclesiastical discipline in the Province.

In the case of two rival popes, I would gather that not only the Bishops and clergy and superiors which an anti-pope appointed but also those which the true pope appointed, even though they were thrust from their sees could attend.  And clearly those appointed by the true Pope do not need permission from those appointed by the Anti-pope.

Thus, with such Council called, a synod like that of Sutri in 1046 can resolve canonically who is the true Metropolitan of the Roman Province and order deposed the one who has not a shred of canonical right to call himself the Pope.

 

Saint Vincent Ferrer, patron for those seeking the true Pope

REPRINT FROM JAN. 21, 2020

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The present Crisis in the Church, of having two popes, is not new in the Church. There have been more than a dozen such instances in Church history.

While nearly all of them included rivals which were supported by diverse factions of notable size (perhaps that of Benedict IX was not the case in 1046), yet they gave occasion for God to show us the way out of such crises by the example given to us by His Saints during those crises of ages past.

One such saint is Saint Vincent Ferrer. I have to admit, that of all the Saints of the Order of Preachers, he is my favorite, because he is such a stunning example of holiness and was so determined in the teaching of what it means to be holy.

Most Catholics, however, have no idea who he was. So let me tell you something about his life, and then show you how his example should be imitated by all Catholics right now.

saint-vincent-ferrer-01.2

So remarkable, many have thought he was a legend

Saint Vincent was born 670 years ago, on January 23, in the height of the Black Death.

The Catholic world was shaken to its core: millions were dying each month. It is estimated that more 100 million died in the entire world, and perhaps as much as 30 million in Europe alone, from the onset of the Plague in 1347 to 1351. It was a virulent strain of the Bubonic plague, which had spread from infected rats in the Gobi Desert to Caravans carrying rare goods to the Genoese trading port on the Black Sea, Kaffa, and thence by Genoese ships to Sicily and Western Europe.

The demographic, sociologic, psychological and economic effects were profound. So many bodies were piling up that people fled their villages, local priests fled their parishes in fear of dying. People took refuge in the wilderness and avoided contact with anyone with a cough. The strain was so virulent that those exposed in the morning were dead before midnight. It was spread by flees on rats but then became pneumonic, that is spread through the air by coughing. It is called the Black Death, because the lymph glands of the body would swell and then turn black, with death ensuing rapidly.

Catholics universally thought it was the end of the world, a fulfillment of the Apocalypse, which spoke of the fallen star Wormwood turning the waters of a third of the world poison. As there was no medical art which could precisely understand the causes, panic spread everywhere. The pope of the time survived only by sequestering himself in his palace at Avignon and having a huge fire set in his private chamber’s fireplace which was kept burning without stop for many months.

Into this horror, was born a Saint through which God would call most of Western Europe back from despair and apostasy, Saint Vincent Ferrer. At an early age he dedicated himself to Jesus Christ, and became a son of Saint Dominic.

Saint Vincent, being an devote practitioner of the ascetical life, quickly passed every spiritual test and was endowed by the Lord with extraordinary gifts of prophesy, foreknowledge, conversion, and miracle working.

On one occasion, being in a port which was suffering famine and starvation, he preached to the people to remain calm and that the Lord would send them ships filled with grain the next day. Sure enough, the next day a fleet loaded with food arrived.

But his fame began with a deadly fever which he contracted at Avignon, while the service of the anti Pope. You see, St. Vincent was a follower of Cardinal Pedro de Luna, who was one of the Cardinals who pledged obedience to the pope at Avignon, even though the Cardinal knew that he was an antipope and lied to Saint Vincent. But I will get to that, later.

It was at Avignon, while the forces of the Charles VI besieged the City to capture the antipope — the King of France was intelligent enough to investigate the controversy between the rival claimants to the papacy, and switch his allegiance back to the Pope at Rome — that Saint Vincent nearly died. But in the midst of his mortal fever, Our Lord appeared to him, along with Saints Dominic and Francis of Assisi, and commissioned him to be the 4th Angel of the Apocalypse: to preach penance everywhere, telling men that if they did not repent God would come and destroy the world. This was in September of 1398 A.D.. A year later, convinced of his divine mission, the Antipope appointed the Saint Missionary a lateri Christi, that is, sent from Christ Himself. The Saint spent the next 20 years in a most extraordinary apostolate which single-handedly saved Christianity in Europe.

He preached from Northern France to Italy and back to Spain. Upon seeing Bernardine of Sienna in Italy, he prophesied that Bernardine would convert Italy back to the faith. The crowds came to hear Saint Vincent were so great he could not preach in Churches, but had to use Piazzas and open fields. And his mission was signed by extraordinary miracles the likes of which have never again been seen in Christendom.

When he preached, his voice has a miraculous power to be heard at great distances. Those who could not enter the towns where he preached, would climb bell towers in near by villages and hear his voice distinctly at the distance of two to three miles!

One day he led the crowds listening to him to storm a Synagogue and immediately began preaching in Hebrew to the Jews. He was so convincing in their own tongue and from their own version of scripture, that he converted the entire congregation to the Catholic Faith and they immediately consecrated the place a Catholic Church!

On another occasion, he led the crowds from the Piazza in which he was preaching, to the Castle above the town, saying that great sin must be stopped. He broke through the gates of the Castle and found the noblemen in the most evil debauchery. He cursed them for their sin and everyone of them turned to stone!  A thing witnessed by all the officials of the town to the amazement and terror of everyone. Upon hearing the pleas of the relatives, he commanded that the afflicted return to life, heard their confessions and after giving them his blessing they all dropped dead, but this time, went to eternal life.

His preaching of penance was so persuasive that huge crowds of penitents followed him everywhere, beating themselves with chains and hooks and nails to blood. The sight of these flagellants arriving was the signal that St. Vincent was on his way and this news would empty the fields and villages of the area, for all wanted to hear him preach. In whatever language they could understand, his voice was miraculously heard, even though he always spoke in his own dialect or in Latin.

He is known to have raised from the dead at least 7 persons. On one occasion, in a most extraordinary way. To a fellow Dominican who did not believe his claims to be sent by Christ to preach, he said: Do you doubt that I am one the Angels of the Apocalypse? Bring a dead man here, one who has been dead 4 days and whose body is rotting, and I will prove that I am telling the truth. Whereupon, he commanded the decaying corpse to arise and give testimony. And the man came back to life and his body was instantly restored to perfect health!

I could go on and on about the wonders and virtues of Saint Vincent. But I recommend you find a biography about him and read it. It will change your life and make you want to abandon all and become a devout religious. A thing the Church really needs in great quantity now.

The major relics of Saint Vincent Ferrer, in the Church at Vannes, France, where he died.

The Great Schism

Despite all the graces and gifts which Saint Vincent had, and despite the great wisdom and learning he possessed from years of studying — for example he memorized the entire Latin version of the Bible and spoke 5 languages: Greek, Latin, Hebrew, French and Langue d’óc  — CHRIST WITHHELD from the Saint graces to see who was and who was not the true pope. Our Lord did this, in my opinion, to give us as lesson for our own time.

The Saint was a close friend to Cardinal Pedro de Luna, who was a supporter of the Antipope.  The Schism began in 1378, when the previous pope, having been persuaded by Saint Catherine of Sienna to return to Rome, died. And the new Pope Urban VI was elected at Rome. The French Cardinals did not accept the election and immediately elected Clement VII. Cardinal Pedro knew his election was uncanonical, but concealed the facts from Saint Vincent for 38 years! In 1394, Cardinal Pedro was elected to succeed the antipope, and took the name Benedict XIII.

Saint Vincent was so deceived by Cardinal Pedro that he preached to convince the people of the Kingdom of Aragon to give allegiance to the Antipope of Avignon and to break from Rome! So troublesome was this schism to the soul of Saint Vincent that he said to others that it frequently made him ill.

The Great Western Schism had begun on a dispute where the wrong side was making claims on the basis of their allegations of being forced to vote. This kind of claim was really impossible to prove, it rested solely on the testimony of the alleged victims. No one disputed that the antipope was elected second. No one disputed the laws which govern the election.

But though he was a convinced supporter of the antipope of Avignon, Saint Vincent, nevertheless, loved the Church more than his personal friend, the Cardinal, and thus he urged Councils to end the Schism. And here is where his virtue is a lesson for us.

Because in Council of Perpignan, in the Kingdom of Aragon, in January 6, 1416, when the evidence was presented to Saint Vincent by the King of Aragon that Benedict XIII’s claim was not well founded, Benedict’s supporters could give no response and defend his claim against the charges. Saint Vincent had come to the Council a supporter of Benedict. He even preached in his defense. But when no evidence could be brought to defend the claim of the man whom he thought was the pope, St. Vincent immediately switched allegiance, for he recognized, being a master of Logic — a text book on which he had written — that when one side refuses to answer or has no argument, it means that they have no valid claim at all for their position.

In shame and penance for his having supported for so many years the wrong man, he went to France and spent the rest of his life in exile from his native land.

The “Renunciation” of Pope Benedict

The Great Western Schism began when the Cardinals elected Pope Urban VI and immediately upon his enthronement, seeing that he would curb their power, left the city, declared that they had been forced to vote for him, and elected instead Robert of Savoy as Clement VII.

We are in an analogous situation today. The Cardinals, not wanting to endure Pope Benedict XVI any longer, claimed on Feb. 11, 2013 that he had renounced the papacy. But in truth he had only announced his retirement from active ministry. They published false news to the world and through their personal contacts have suborned the entire Episcopate and Catholic Media to believe this lie. That is why they remain silent. They are the criminals of this Great Modern Schism.

Pope Benedict XVI for his part has been ignored and effectively locked up at the Vatican. But the truth of what he did on Feb. 11, 2013 has become known and now all Christendom can do what Saint Vincent did: ask the side which thinks Bergoglio is the pope for their explanation. Ann Barnhardt and hundreds of other Catholics have been doing this: she for four years, nearly, and others longer or less. But still there is no canonical explanation from the other side.

I think you can see how easy the choice is, who the real pope is. Do what Vincent did!

The Great Schism in its causes also sheds light on the principles of how to discern who today is the true pope and who is not.  As a legal case the solution of the disputed election of 1378 was a simple one: possession is 9 tenths of the law, that is, the first man elected is always presumed be the legitimate claimant, the second one elected has to prove that the laws were violated in the first election, not just claim that they were. This is especially true with those Cardinals who voted for the first claimant. Their votes are explicit consent to the validity and legality of that act. — Today, the same principal applies: Benedict must be presumed to remain the true pope, until there is a proof in canonical form that his renunciation — not anything he said before or after, or anything he did before or after — is conformable with the terms of Canon 332 §2. No proof has ever been given! So those who sustain Bergoglio is the pope, have no case!

Saint Vincent for all his supernatural gifts, erred for many years, because he put his trust in his favorite Cardinal, who was lying to him. And he never bothered to examine the case calmly according to the principles of the law. — He was not a canon lawyer, and so that failing is understandable in a man who was so humble as to never think evil of others. But it nevertheless was such a grave error in law, that God Himself did not give him the grace to see it by supernatural means. The truth came to him by the testimony of fellow men.

In November, I asked Cardinal Burke through Canon Lenhart for an audience to discuss the Renunciation. In December, I returned and asked again and was promised one in January. January has come and is now ended. Still no audience or response to my Scholastic Question, containing 39 arguments which conclude that Pope Benedict XVI is the true Pope.

In November, I shared that same Question with 700 members of the Clergy of the Diocese of Rome. But I got no canonical argument in response to refute it. In December I distributed 500 copies of the same to the students of theology and canon law in the City, at Pontifical Universities. I got no response in reply.

I say this to give you a personal testimony. I think you should now understand what it means. St. Vincent shows us the way.

POSTSCRIPT: Saint Vincent died at Vannes, France on April 5, 1419. He was canonized by Pope Calixtus III in 1455. He is buried in the Cathedral of Vannes, but you can find relics of his right arm at his Church in New York City, or in the parish Church at Castle Umberto, in the province of Messina, Sicily, where I stop by every time I am in town, to venerate them.

__________

CREDITS: The Featured Image and Image of Saint Vincent is by Giovanni Bellini and is conserved at Venice. It is in the public domain as a work of art older than 200 years.

CIONCI: All your questions answered, why Benedict XVI is still the Pope

by Andrea Cionci

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL ITALIAN TEXT (Here)

According to the Church, Our Lady of Fatima asked the pope only one thing: the consecration of Russia, one hundred years ago. On March 25, Bergoglio, on the other hand, celebrated an ” inclusive ” consecration which, within a few days, was announced would also involve Ukraine, humanity, the Church, “ourselves”, with a formula full of oddities: the “Mystery of iniquity” of Saint Paul transferred from apostasy to war; the suspicious insistence on ” brotherhood “; unusual Marian attributes such as the vaguely Pachamamic “land of heaven” (used by the neo-Arian Enzo Bianchi), and the reference to the esoteric cult of the ” Knot-looser “. HERE the details.

Moreover, at the same time, Konrad Krajewsky, his almsgiver, celebrated the Consecration at Fatima . As we found out by questioning the electricity company, this same man never paid , as he had promised, the 300,000 euro bill of the occupied Roman building to which he had illegally reconnected the power, three years ago, up to now maintaining a situation of dangerous illegality HERE .

It is not surprising that Benedict XVI, “joining the call” (and not the intention) of Bergoglio, chose not to participate directly in any of this, rather praying on his own (and we do not know in what terms).

Only the events of the last week would be enough to understand who the pope is and who is not, intuitively confirming the irrefutable results of the investigation we have been conducting since 2020 and which is spreading all over the world. You will find it rearranged at the bottom of this article HERE .

It is a shocking story , we are aware of it, of not immediate understanding, at first, also because the true Holy Father Benedict XVI cannot speak explicitly , for two reasons: 1) he is in impeded, a canonical situation where the pope is confined / Prisoner. 2) He speaks with a subtly logical language like Jesus, to ensure that only “those who have ears understand” and to “separate believers from non-believers”, as he himself admitted to Herder Korrespondenz.

However, the veiled language of Pope Ratzinger describes a objective canonical reality : no conspiracy. Moreover, we would have no interest in affirming things of such gravity for the masochistic taste of self-discrediting. Instead, there are two extremely important reasons why it is worth discussing:

1st reason, for the laity : if the so-called strong globalist powers and international freemasonry have succeeded in driving out the true pope from the “impregnable citadel” of the Catholic Church, imagine the situation in the world of secular politics , with all the risks for citizens and for our country.

2nd reason, for believers . Do you think the Lord can be happy that his Vicar has been overthrown? Believe that God can adapt to the plots and sin of men without sending them some “proof” to find their way? And here, several harsh “trials” have been pouring out for years, it seems.

So, below, you will find a series of quick answers, on the well-known and effective ” yes yes / no no” model , to easily clarify the Magna Quaestio , with all the links to the necessary insights.

CATECHISM ON THE DUAL PAPACY

Does the code of canon law require that the pope, in order to abdicate, must renounce the Petrine MUNUS (papal title of divine origin)? YES, in article 332.2 of the Code of Canon Law. And the renunciation must be simultaneous, as is the election.

Did Benedict XVI renounce the munus on 11 February 2013? NO . He has renounced the ministerium , the practical exercise of power, deferred and not ratified after the deadline. So, just de facto nor legally.

But aren’t munus and ministerium interchangeable? NO. By renouncing the munus , the ministerium also lapses , because there is abdication, but if the ministerium is renounced, the munus does not lapse . HERE .

If there was no abdication, does another canonical situation arise? YES , the impeded see (canon 412) where the pope does not exercise his practical power because he is impeded, a prisoner, confined and not free to express himself.

But is the pope impeded still the pope? YES . So Benedict is today the only existing pope and vicar of Christ, as he himself admits HERE .

But the 2013 conclave elected Francis? NO . It did not elect anyone: the conclave was null because it can only be convened with the previous pope who died or abdicated and neither of the two pre-existing indispensable conditions existed. HERE

It was card. Ratzinger to introduce the munus / ministerium dichotomy in canon law? YES . In 1983, he was the right hand of John Paul II. The system fully follows the anti-usurpation system of the Austro-German dynastic law, which Ratzinger could not fail to know. HERE

But does the fact that all the cardinals have accepted Francis’ election make this valid? NO. The doctrine of Universalis ecclesiae adhaesio could heal some imperfections in a legitimate conclave, but NEVER heal an illegitimate conclave, summoned by a not-yet-dead and non-abdicated pope. The cardinals did not realize that Benedict entered the seat impeded, because this cannot be explicitly declared: it is just there.

So there can’t be two valid popes? NO . So much so that Benedict himself has been repeating for 9 years that the pope IS only one without ever explaining which one. HERE

But does the “extended ministry” we speak of exist for canon law? NO. It does not exist juridically, it exists only in fact, but it is a “theological place”, a sort of ministry between a legitimate pope and an illegitimate pope, where a sacrifice is made, as it was for Christ with Judas.

And does a papal emeritus exist from the canonical point of view? NO , so much so that Bergoglio, last year, charged the canonists to find a jurisprudence for this non-existent institution. HERE

So does “pope emeritus” have another meaning? YES’. From the Latin verb emereus , “he who deserves, who has the right” to be pope. It is the name used to distinguish the true pope in the extended ministry between the legitimate pope and the illegitimate pope. HERE

So is the pope emeritus the Supreme Pontiff? YES’. The Vatican Secretariat of State also writes it verbatim HERE . But even the canonists who contested this “novelty” of Pope Benedict understood it as a juridical institution had already grasped it, “by exclusion”.

Is this why Benedict wears white and keeps the pontifical name? YES’. And he continues, as a few days ago HERE , to impart his apostolic blessing (exclusive of the reigning pope) and to live in the Vatican. He has removed two trappings – the sash and the cape – from the pope’s habit to signify his impediment, his “impairment”. HERE

So did Pope Benedict formally imprison himself to defend the Church and the faith? YES’. As admitted by card. Danneels in 2015, the Mafia of St. Gallen, a lobby of modernist cardinals enemies to him, wanted to make him abdicate and, as described by Paolo Flores d’Arcais in 2010, he was against all the globalist powers of the world. So he had to be out of the way. HERE and HERE

But Benedict said from Castel Gandolfo, on Feb. 28, 2013: “I will no longer be Supreme Pontiff”. NO . He said that he would no longer be the “pontiff supreme”, that is, he would no longer be “the pontiff in the highest position” since there would be another more in sight than him (and illegitimate). Moreover, one can remain popes even without being supreme pontiffs, since the title appeared only in the fifth century. HERE

Yet Benedict admitted that he freely renounced his ministry? YES: but his “ministry- ministerium “, not his “ministero- munus ” since munus and ministerium are translated into Italian with the same word “ministry”. They wanted to make him abdicate, but he, really, freely chose … to enter the seat prevented.

But Benedict swore obedience to Francis? NO . In 2016 he wrote in Last Conversations answering a question about how he could swear obedience: “The pope is the pope, no matter who he is.” So he never swore obedience to Bergoglio. He said on February 28, 2013 that among the true cardinals who listened to him there would be the future pope, and he was right … But he is still waiting for him. HERE

As for real cardinals? So those named by Bergoglio are not valid? YES. The 70 cardinals appointed by the antipope are not valid and if we go to a future spurious conclave, together with those of legitimate appointment, pre-2013, they will elect another antipope, perhaps the John XXIV he speaks of (it is not known in what capacity ) Bergoglio and who, not surprisingly, also takes the name of the antipope John XXIII, Baldassarre Cossa. HERE

Did Benedict say this on other occasions? YES’. In the same Declaratio , Benedict specifies that the next pope must be elected “by those to whom he belongs.”

But in the Declaratio he wrote that he was leaving the “seat vacant”? NO . The Latin verb vacet literally translates as “free, empty, vacant seat” and, juridically, the renunciation of the ministerium does not produce a vacant seat. In fact, the pope took the helicopter and left the seat cleared, at the disposal of the usurpers. HERE

Will the situation be resolved with Bergoglio’s departure? NO . It is essential that either Benedict be restored to the throne (if alive), perhaps with a pseudo-re-election, or that the next conclave be pure, that is, composed only of pre-2013 cardinals or validated by Pope Benedict. HERE

Yet Benedict, in “Latest Conversations” (2016), seems to appreciate Francesco? NO . He made only neutral observations on some human characteristics of Bergoglio, such as his decisive character, his capacity to please the mass and his attention to consensus. No uniquely positive appreciation of man, zero comments on the alleged pope’s doctrine, holiness or ability to govern.

So when Benedict embraces Bergoglio is it all a scene? NO . Pope Benedict is sincere: like Jesus, he “loves his enemy”, that is, the illegitimate pope, which is very different from being his friend or recognizing him as a legitimate pope. Christ let himself be kissed by Judas: was it perhaps a scene? HERE

Has the Vatican ever denied your investigation? NO . Less than ever since March 2021, when the lawyer Estefania Acosta published her legal volume which denied the validity of the Declaratio as a waiver. HERE

And has Pope Benedict ever denied that your interpretation is true? NO. Not even when he honored us with a letter from him. If he were a former pope he certainly should have. Indeed, he gave us the only answer that he could give from the impeded see: “even with every good intent, it is not really possible to receive you”, accompanying the letter with his coat of arms as reigning pope. HERE

So does Benedict use some kind of veiled language? YES’. We have called it, for convenience, the “Ratzinger Code” and it has been analyzed and certified by various scholars, linguists, jurists, psychologists, writers, historians, Latinists. HERE

But Is this not a language only for specialists, canonists, theologians…? NO . Many messages from him are within everyone’s reach, some are understandable even by an eight-year-old child, like when he repeats that the pope is one without ever saying which one. Others are so direct (the “0 km messages”, as we have called them) that there is no need to interpret them. HERE

Are others messages more complex? YES. Like the “red mozzetta puzzle”, HERE or the key reference to medieval Pope Benedict VIII HERE . Some study is needed, but the meaning is clear and unequivocal.

But can’t Benedict speak more clearly? NO. He is in an impeded seat, a situation in which he is not free to express himself, so he uses the same language of Jesus to make understand only to those who “have ears to hear”. HERE

Do you therefore want Catholics to make a sort of selection among Catholics? YES’. In this way he intends to “separate believers from non-believers”, as he declared to Herder Korrespondenz this summer.

But Benedict sometimes calls Bergoglio “Pope Francis”? YES’. But he never says he’s the pope. Moreover, there is also Pope Theodore II who is not Catholic but Coptic Orthodox. He calls him that because Bergoglio IS the pope, exercises power, which has nothing to do with his legitimacy, his BEING pope. He is the illegitimate pope of the extended ministry.

So is Bergoglio an antipope? YES , of course. Because the previous pope is alive and not abdicated, therefore he abusively exercises the papal practical power not having the investiture of divine origin, the munus .

Has Bergoglio ever addressed the subject? NO. Indeed, he obsessively recommends not “gossiping”, presumably towards him. HERE

But is Bergoglio, as an antipope, assisted by the Holy Spirit? NO. From the point of view of faith, only the true pope is so, both ex cathedra and in ordinary teaching (art. 892 of the Catechism). HERE

But officially Bergoglio has already attempted to alter doctrine? YES, with the encyclical Amoris laetitia and the catechism in art 2267. HERE Then he “euthanized” the ancient mass in Latin, the only one to fully guarantee catholicity. HERE

Is Bergoglio Catholic? NO. He has a spirituality all his own, which draws on neoluteranism, neoarianism, neopaganism, psychoanalysis, esotericism, modernism, atheist ecology, syncretism, gnosis, apocatastasis. A spiritual conception much appreciated by the anti-Christian Freemasonry, so much so that Bergoglio has received about 70 letters of appreciation from lodges all over the world. HERE

Does this new religion, is it likeable? YES because it extinguishes the sense of sin, sends everyone to Heaven, nourishes emotionality and proposes itself as an easy philosophy of life. It has the same appeal as a weight loss diet based on pizza and sweets, or a risk-free financial investment with ample returns. However, it is not the teaching of Christ handed down by the Catholic Church for 2,000 years.

But at this point, since we like it, can’t we keep Bergoglio’s religion? NO, that’s not correct. Those who want to believe in Bergogliism are free to build a church on their own. But changing the 2,000-year-old Catholic faith by pretending to be Catholics is called a “scam”. It is illegal and nothing good can come of it.

Have authentic Catholics, linked to orthodoxy, all understood that Bergoglio is not the pope? NO . Not everybody. Only a minority party that explicitly recognizes Benedict XVI as pope. The others are the so-called una cum, who speak very badly of Francis, but recognize him as a legitimate pope and will probably give us another antipope, after him, approving a spurious conclave.

Is it a contradiction to speak ill of Francis and recognize him as pope? YES’. Because the pope is assisted by the Holy Spirit (even in ordinary teaching) and therefore Catholics cannot speak ill of him, or claim that he is a heretic, or an enemy of the faith, without offending the Trinitarian Third Person.

So the only theological explanation is in the fact that Bergoglio is not pope? YES’. In fact, Bergoglio is “justified” in doing what he does, that is, demolish Catholicism, as he is not the pope.HERE

Are there any ecclesiastics who have made statements to this effect? YES’. Three emeritus bishops (Lenga, Gracida, Negri) and several priests, monks, friars, nuns. Some were excommunicated without a canonical process. HERE

So everything Bergoglio has done in nine years is null and void? YES’. Everything will be canceled, except for a few acts of ordinary administration.

Will there be a schism after he dies? YES’. It is very probable, but it would be a good thing given that a large part of the clergy is no longer Catholic, has apostatized various dogmas and has acquired worldly and globalist demands that are completely contrary to the Catholic faith.

So is Pope Benedict purifying the Church? YES’. With his sacrifice, which legally annihilates the usurper, he has already schismed the heretics and modernists.

It therefore remains to be understood in which part the Petrine see will remain ? YES’. Much will depend on true Catholics and their willingness to fight for the true faith. For now, the “broad road” (downhill) offered by Bergoglio is convenient for many. HERE

So could a true Catholic Church rise out of nowhere? YES’. The true Church could lose everything, the Vatican, money, treasures, buildings etc. “Coming out of the synagogue” as in the early days of Christianity. But faith will be saved and, over time, the structure will also be resurrected.

Can the Cardinals do anything about this mess? YES’. For example, they can ask for a provincial synod to shed light on the impeded see of the bishop of Rome. But it would be enough for them to simply tell the truth, en bloc.

Would they be excommunicated by Bergoglio for doing this?  YES, in all likelihood, but the excommunication would be invalid as it was imposed by an antipope. Then a lot depends on the “critical mass”: it would be a bit hard for Bergoglio to excommunicate about fifty cardinals. HERE

Can the faithful do anything? YES’. Indeed, the responsibility lies largely in the hands of the laity since the clergy are punishable. They can spread the truth and demand clarity from their pastors. They can desert all the initiatives of the anti-papal Church, as the French Catholics did in 1790, making scorched earth around the clergy who had sworn allegiance to the Revolution.

Isn’t it strange that none of the mainstream media dares to touch upon the subject? YES’. And it is extremely concerning.

Radio Radio interview Cionci: Benedict XVI never did renounce the Papacy

Editor’s Note: This is Cionci’s interview in Italian at Radio Radio. While it presents no new information about the invalidity of the renunciation, or rather, regarding how a renunciation of ministry is not an abdication, it does represent an important step forward in Italian media, that Radio Radio, one of the leading independent outlets has at last decided to air the controversy. This would be similar to a large and influential radio station in the United States interviewing someone like Ann Barnhardt on the same topic.

Br. Bugnolo’s Cordial Reply to Dr. Gordon on Precedence in the Renunciation of Benedict XVI

Editor’s Note:This video responds to the comment of Dr. Gordon regarding the concept of precedence in Church Law, which he refers to in this video interview of Mr. Patrick Coffin.

This same video is also available here on the server of FromRome.Info, where all can download it for free.

Please note, that in my video reply above, I mis-spoke when I referred to canon 148, the correct reference is to canon 145.

Here is my 7 part video series on the Renunciation, many of which principles Mr. Coffin has adopted:

For my comments on Mr. Coffin’s position on moral certitude, see the same video, here.

Here is a link to the documentary, A Message in a Bottle (click here).

A Debate: Was the Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI invalid due to substantial error?

Editor’s Note: This is posted for information. This does not mean any or all of its content is approved. Dr. Mazza is a Ph.D. in History, and Steve O’Reilly is a former CIA agent, who chose to put a Gladiator’s helmet in his office during the debate, as if to indicate that he is a former or current member of the Gladio Operation for narrative, political, and social control of Western Europe and the Catholic Church. I think that is all you need to know, to connect the dots here.