Category Archives: Ecclesiology

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

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who still cannot figure out why Kennedy Hall is so wrong about Vatican II and why he is wrong, I suggest you read this historical document: the letter of the Rev.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

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

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

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why, after ‘Fiducia supplicans’ all the Faithful can now legitimately refuse obedience to Pope Francis

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction français

Obedience as a virtue inclines us to reverently, respectfully and dutifully comply with the will of one who holds legitimate authority when he expresses that will with a command, whether prohibiting or ordaining, instructing or governing action.

In truth, only a legitimate superior commanding what is legitimate is owed obedience. Someone pretending to be your superior ought never be obeyed. And any true superior commanding what is unjust or dishonest should never be obeyed.

In the Catholic Religion, which is the only true religion revealed by God, the legitimate and true superior of all things, as Creator and Lord, obedience is owed always and unconditionally to God alone.

Next, a conditioned limited obedience is owed to God’s authentic representatives communicating the decisions of the Divine Majesty. Thus, in accord with the ability of that communication to be authoritative and clearly manifest, we owe obedience to Jesus Christ, Who is God Incarnate, with supreme authority, first of all. Then, to those whom Christ has placed over us, that is, the Apostles He chose while on Earth or commissioned after His Resurrection, which is Saint Paul, alone. And because the Apostles had the grace of infallibility and impeccability their teachings and governing decisions — but not their personal behavior — is a perennial and unchanging rule for all generations. This is called Apostolic Tradition.

Next we owe a limited and conditional obedience to those who hold the offices which the Apostles established, during the tenure of their offices. Thus, we obey the Bishop of our diocese, the pastor of our church, etc.. These offices are part of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.

But there is an office which shares in both the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Apostolic authority, and that is the office of the Roman Pontiff. And because it shares in both, the obedience we owe the Roman Pontiff is in certain things more obligatory than all others, but in other things equally conditioned and limited.

Now when a Roman Pontiff governs in harmony with the will of God as expressed in revelation (Divine Tradition) and in accord with the will of the Apostles (Apostolic Tradition) all Catholics have the duty to obey him, when he commands a thing which pertains to our salvation. Thus, if he commands that a sacrament is to be received in such a manner, but not if he command that a certain basilica should alone celebrate the Rosary at 5 P. M..

However, when a Roman Pontiff does not govern in harmony with either the will of God as expressed in revelation or contrary to the teaching of the Apostles, he must not be obeyed, for to do so would be a mortal sin.  He must not be obeyed, I say, in the things which he commands which are contrary to these two parts of the Deposit of the Faith.

There is even still a greater obligation of Catholics to NOT obey a Roman Pontiff if he would act to destroy souls, by forbidding, obstructing, depriving, denying, or forbidding any thing or act which is conducive to salvation. Thus the Roman Pontiff must not be obeyed if he were to forbid the recitation of the prayer of the “Our Father”, or alter its text in a manner which alters its signification.

Thus, most Catholics in Italy sinned gravely when they accepted the formulae for the Our Father, issued by Pope Francis, where the words, “lead us not into temptation” where replaced with “do not abandon us in temptation”, even if they thought he was the Pope when he so commanded — which he was not because Pope Benedict XVI never renounced his office.

But a Pope must not be obeyed in anything when he clearly and manifestly is habitually opposed to the will of God in anything which is necessary or conducive to salvation.

The reason for this is that by his grave habitual public deviation from the will of God, nothing which emanates from him as teaching or governance can be free from a perverse defect, arising from his habitual deviation.

And such is the present public and manifest state of soul of Pope Francis, having signed ‘Fiducia supplicans” and having steadfastly refused to withdraw his approval, after being rebuked by thousands of Catholic Bishops, and tens of thousands of Catholic priests world wide, not to mention millions of the faithful.

The manifest deviation from the faith was clear on September 29, 2023, when he instructed Cardinal Fernandez to respond to the devious reply he gave to the 5 Cardinals in their recent Dubia. This pertinacity and perversity was made even more certain and malign by his publication of the heretical and blasphemous ‘Fiducia supplicans’ on Dec. 18, 2023.

And since that time he has not only refused public and private correction, he has even doubled-down upon it by insulting the entire Catholic world with petulant impish outbursts during public talks.

For this reason, whether a Catholic believes that pope Francis has lost his office by reason of heresy or schism, in the sight of God, or not, all Catholics are now obliged to NOT obey Pope Francis in anything until he repent, for otherwise they would become morally complicit in tolerating what can never be tolerated: the grave public abuse of the office of the Roman Pontiff by a man who is habitually opposed to the will of God in a grave matter, the observance of the 2nd Commandment of the Decalogue, which requires that Christians keep holy the Name of the Lord, never using it to approve of evil or vanity.

Likewise, with this obligation to not obey comes the grave obligation upon all Catholics to call for his public and solemn rebuke or reprehension, and/or removal from office, if he refuse rebuke or correction.

Catholics have already begun to request this action against Pope Francis in the Sutri Initiative. Let us all call upon everyone to do the same for the sake of Christ and the salvation of the world. Catholics are already refusing obedience world wide on account of the impeded state of the Apostolic See, as I explain here. — Keep talking about both to everyone, especially clergy; and in particular those dioceses or parishes where any statement approving of ‘Fiducia supplicans’ has been published or issued.

I urge you to not let anyone lull you into silent toleration of this man’s sin or convince you that the only response of the Catholic is to lament and tolerate it. If we do not begin and continue to publicly rebuke this man and express our rights to refuse obedience to him on account of the magnitude of his sin, not only will his soul have no remedy of correction, but the bad example he is giving will spread to the entire Church, depriving us of the Mercy of God and the grace of final perseverance. This is no small thing. And no Catholic who knows of this scandal can be saved if he remains silent and does not act.

Indeed, every Catholic “influencer” who leaves aside this controversy or who does not urge action shows by this very thing that he poorly understands the Faith and cares but little for the dignity of the Divine Majesty, the salvation of souls, or the ethical duty he has toward you, his reader or listener. Don’t dally with such fools, for they are leading you astray. is an electronic journal chronicling the events of the Church without keeping silent about the duty of Catholics to respond with faith-filled action, rather than as mere spectators. This article is one of more than 10,000 published since September 2013 A. D.. For more information about our journal, see our About Page.

How to avoid becoming a cancelled Cardinal, Archbishop, Bishop, Priest, Deacon etc..

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

French Translation

Not even a dog keeps doing the same thing over and over if it hurts. The Lord God and Creator gave even dogs enough sense which rivals the intelligence of sinful men, in such circumstances. And this is why through the ages it has often been this observation about dogs which gets men to change their ways.

And this is what the clergy need to do in regard to the whole phenomenon of “cancelled clergy”: a recently coined term or neologism by which there is signified a member of the clergy, upright and honest, who is the victim of the abuse of authority by a superior intent on pushing globalism, modernism, heresy, or sodomy.

Though the word is a new one the genus of persecution is an old one. Before the Second Vatican Council it was much more mild, and simply consisted in being side-lined by your Bishop or superior. But there was always hope that if one persevered in following the laws of the Church and right discipline that with the next change of superior, at his death, transferal or the next ecclesiastical election of one kind or another, the new superior would recognize the worth of the sidelined Cardinal, Archbishop, Bishop, Priest, Monk, Sister etc..

After the Council, however, the penal system of the Church was weaponized against faithful clergy and religious. But in many cases the Faithful never recognized what was going on, simply because back then there was no uncontrolled Catholic media and the main stream media simply ignored such news.

But as the decades have past the persecution of honest men and women of God has become more frequent, and the pretexts for doing so less and less credible, such that we are less and less shocked that individuals are persecuted, and being persecuted by such revolutionaries and heretics is becoming more and more a wreath of honor.

How many priests were removed from ministry during the Scamdemic because they refused to observe the controls (by continuing to give communion in the mouth), to shut their churches (by keeping them open), to wear masks, or to replace the Gospel with preaching the Scam?

But through these 60 years of persecution, the hardest and saddest thing is that those persecuted nearly immediately fell out of any network of charity, such that they no longer had anyone to help them, save but their immediate relatives or friends, a charity which often lasted only a short time.

I remember when I realized that my former community was canonically lawless and had no intention of observing the Rule of Saint Francis. I requested my superior permission to do so according to the Papal Decrees on the Rule of Saint Francis, and got a letter back immediately denying my request and suggesting I leave. But when I did leave, my own parents denied me housing and food in an attempt to convince me to give up my vocation. I would say that this was the darkest moment of my vocation.

How many religious women face the same conflict and never found help and thus gave up. Religious brothers too. That is why I am so ardent about insisting that we persecuted religious who do not give up have more the right to keep calling ourselves “religious” than those of us who remain in communities which are corrupt to their core and in many cases openly heretical or apostate.

Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Priests usually have a less hard time since their dignity in orders naturally attracts many supporters and benefactors.

Neverthless, no priest wants to be a cancelled priest, and nearly every priest will use as much discretion as possible to avoid the worse forms of being cancelled. Most of the time it is simply reticence and pretending is nothing wrong.

Those of us, like myself, who are not priests, are often wrong in our impatience with such honest men who are avoiding being cancelled and thus too silent about the problems in the Church. They do this for us, knowing that more rapacious men would take their places if they got cancelled. We need to remember this in our public declamations about clergy doing nothing.

But if you are a member of the hierarchy or a priest, deacon, or religious and you want to avoid being cancelled, I would give this advice.

Recognize that the Apostolic See, or the episcopal See of your diocese, or your religious superior is impeded in the execution of his office by the public manifest errors which that office has been used to promote, confirm, authorize, establish, defend or support.

Unlike simply giving up, like Bishop Strickland, or saying there is no solution like Cardinal Burke, or affirming that a heretic can remain Pope, like Bishop Athanasius Schnieder, or daily criticizing the Pope, like so many Bishops, or declaring the Pope a heretic and thus no longer the pope — some of  which can get a member of the clergy out of a job quickly, whether by excommunication, suspension a divinis, laicization etc.., declaring the Apostolic See impeded balances two truths which need to be kept in mind: that Schism from a legitimate superior is a grave crime, and that obeying a legitimate superior in what is morally unacceptable is a grave sin.

And such a declaration need not be a canonical one. It can simply be a way of critiquing the present situation by applying discernment of the kind which comes from the grace and charism of truth which is bestowed in holy Orders or analogously by one’s religious vocation.

By such a declaration or recognition, a man or woman of God avoids the charge of schism, because such a declaration affirms that the Pope is the pope. At the same time it canonically conditions criticism of a bad Pope, who has gone into the extremes of  heresy and apostasy and idolatry by public acts, within the bounds of remaining in communion, while insisting on the freedom granted in Canon 212 to speak out against injustice.

So the next time you are tempted to say Pope Francis is a heretic, schismatic, apostate, idolater or no longer the Pope. Start by recognizing that he has impeded the Apostolic See by his public insistence of approval for the manifestly heretical, illogical, sacrilege promoting, wrong and just false teaching in ‘Fiducia supplicans’, such that everyone in the Church objectively, and not just yourself subjectively, no longer has the moral obligation to obey his decrees while he remains in the state of impenitence.

Don’t say I will no longer obey him. Full Stop. Since that can be understood as an act of schism or heresy. Say rather, that man by his heretical profession in approving ‘Fiducia supplicans’ has taken a position which the entire Church can never accept and thus has so discredited himself as a superior, that it would be both unreasonable and uncanonical to persecute those who call a spade a spade, rather than seek his removal from office in whatever canonical manners that is possible.

And in the mean time do NOT give up the ministry or your vocation. Keep serving God where you are and do not understand such a recognition or declaration as a pretext for violating Church law. Why, you do not even have to publish the fact of your recognition, if you are not a Bishop. Bishops however are now gravely obliged to make such declarations as they will assist the Bishops of the Roman Province to call a provincial council and take the ultimate action as requested in the Sutri Initiative. As for those who are NOT laymen and lay women, I would urge great caution in participating in the Sutri Initiative if you are a priest, deacon or religious, since your letter could be used against you to persecute you, if any one of the Bishops receiving it return a copy to your superior. But if you are a Bishop you should write them as you have the grave duty to act.

At the same time, Bishops have, on account of the objective state of impedition of the Apostolic See, now awesome powers and liberty of action, as I have explained here.


First Anniversary of the election of Pope Francis

JANUARY 30, 2024 A. D.

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

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

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

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

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

Who were they?

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

I spoke with all of them for sometime.

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

What did they think of their Apostolic Right?

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

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

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

Which Candidates did they propose?

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

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

I refused immediately, also.

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

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

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

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

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

How did they conduct the Election?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI — A Postscript

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

And these facts are these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Pope Benedict XVI?

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

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

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

Theological Error?

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

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

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

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

The Cardinals’ error & sin

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

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

The effects of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation

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

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

The Punishment for Liars is a bitter one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Has Archbishop Viganò been excommunicated?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

In this article I will discuss the issues raised by Riccardo Cascioli in his article at the Bussola Quotidiana (Daily Compass), his electronic journal, entitled, “Crisis creates schisms: also Viganò goes his own way”, which appeared on January 11 of this year, here, in English translation.

First, I will note that Cascioli is not a canonist, but a journalist. He is also not a theologian.

Second, I agree with him 100%, that to adequately and properly and virtuously respond to the crisis in the Church we must all respond in a canonically valid manner and not cause schisms in the Church.

But who is causing schism in the Church? — I will reply to that question at the end of this article.

Here, I want to address the canonical accusations made by Cascioli against Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, and former member of the Secretariate for the Vatican City State, under Pope Benedict XVI.

As a matter of fact, no proof worthy of canonical action has been published by anyone demonstrating that Bishop Williamson reconsecrated Archbishop Viganò, since neither has admitted it happened nor is there any video or document declaring the fact. On that basis, the entire article of Cascioli is potentially libel and calumny. And certainly Archbishop Viganò could never be penalized.

But, if the alleged act was perpetrated, are Catholics to now consider Viganò excommunicated?

The Penalty for Consecrating a Bishop in the Code of 1983

To understand the answer to this question, which I will treat of in this article, we need to look to Canon 1382.

Canon 1382 levels a latae sententiae excommunication upon the Bishop who consecrates a man a bishop without Papal mandate and also against the man so consecrated.

There are problems with the interpretation of this canon. First, understanding that only the Roman Pontiff can interpret it, and must do so by a juridical act publishing the interpretation, and given that no Roman Pontiff has interpreted it, we must have recourse to the principles of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 to understand what it says and what it does not say.

The canon reads thus, in the Latin:

1382 Episcopus qui sine pontificio mandato aliquem consecrat in Episcopum, itemque qui ab eo consecrationem recepit, in excommunicationem latae sententiae Sedi Apostolicae reservatam incurrunt.

Which in English would be:

1382. The Bishop who without pontifical mandate consecrates anyone as a Bishop, and likewise he who receives consecration from him, incur an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.

According to the norms of canon 17, we must understand all the terms or words in this canon in the proper sense. Thus, it only applies to a Bishop, not to someone pretending to be or who is invalidly ordained a Bishop. Nor does it apply to the execution of a ritual of ordination of a man as a bishop, since in the new pontifical, that ritual is called the “Ordination” not the “Consecration” of a Bishop. So one must understand it referring to the sacramental ritual validly executed.

As has been mentioned frequently since the “excommunication” of Archbishop Lefebre in 1988, we must also distinguish between the crime sanctioned by the canon as a species of malfeasance, and the crime perpetrated by the individual as an act which is capable of punishment. Proper jurisprudence requires in the leveling of ecclesiastical penalties that this distinction be made. And that means that one must not only canonically verify that the crime has been committed but also verify that in perpetrating it it was a delict for the individual, namely, that he was canonically capable of being punished for what he really did.

For example, if a Bishop during a theatrical performance performs the rite of episcopal ordination upon another man, without the intention to consecrate him a Bishop, there is neither the crime nor the delict, because the theatrical performance is not the liturgical ritual, and the Bishop has no intention.

Remember, too, that the ritual effects that a man be reckoned among the bishops of the Church, that is, it ordains him to be of their number. But the sacrament is conferred in the consecration of the man by the Bishop, which requires the laying on of hands and the prayer of consecration.

This is why, by speaking of consecration, not ordination, the canon criminalizes the conferral of the Sacrament not the performance of the ritual.

Did Archbishop Viganò incurr Excommunication by being consecrated sub conditione?

It is clear that he did not, from the norms of Canon Law.

First, because he was not consecrated a Bishop by Msgr. Williamson. For in canon law, the consecration of Archbishop Viganò took place on the Feast of Our Lady of Good Counsel, April 26, in 1992, by means of the hands and prayers of Pope John Paul II. And thus no reiteration of a ritual of consecration effects anything that constitutes the conferral of a sacrament, whether it be done under any condition or not.

Second, because Archbishop Viganò did not lack a papal mandate to be consecrated a Bishop, having had that already from Pope John Paul II. The Archbishop is in fact an Archbishop incardinated at the Vatican, that is in the Diocese of Rome.

Third, because a ritual executed sub conditione, that is, a ritual which is performed a second time for the sake of removing any doubt regarding the completion of the previous ritual is not an episcopal consecration, but a ritual which comprises all the prayers and ceremonies.

So, if one speaks of penalties, one must first decide what to penalize. And thus, if one would want the Archbishop punished for receiving the Sacrament, one would have to concede that the previous consecration by Pope John Paul II was invalid, because only if it were invalid, did the Archbishop receive the Sacrament from Bishop Williamson. — Contrariwise, if the one wanting the penalty imposed holds that the previous consecration were valid, then he must admit that this second performance of the ritual conferred no sacrament and thus does not fall under the terms of this canon.

Thus, in no honest sense of the words of Canon 1382, did Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò incurr a latae sententiae excommunication.

And, thus, even if anyone in the Roman Curia or Pope Francis himself declare that he did because he violated this canon, the declaration is false, since the delict was never committed. And according to the norms of Canon Law no one can be punished except when he is guilty of committing a delict, that is he is responsible for transgressing a canon penalizing a specific action and did in fact transgress it.

So Riccardo Cascioli is wrong and he has both libeled and calumniated the Archbishop, from a website in Italy, and thus can be prosecuted in Italy for defamation and libel, which are serious offenses. — I pray he retracts.

But who is causing schism in the Church?

Using papal authority to obstruct the rights of Catholics to worship God and enjoy the benefits which Christ gave them for their salvation, is obviously a worse crime than acting without papal approval. In fact, if a pope were to sign a heretical profession, he would impede the Apostolic See and then all Catholics could act to save their souls without papal mandate, in whatever manner they deemed necessary. And surely if all Catholics could, then an Archbishop of the Vatican could. This is what I argue in my article on the Impeded See.



False and True Catholic Militancy

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

In the world controlled by Freemasonry, the hallmark of their civilization is to constantly offer the masses the fake version of the truth.

We see this in every aspect of daily life.

In the supermarket, you can find cheese food, instead of natural cheese; wonder bread, instead of real bread; corn syrup instead of sugar; and vegetarian meat substitute instead of real meat.

In the personal care aisle, you can find sunscreen with cancer causing chemicals, body wash with lubricants, cold remedies which cure nothing, and vitamins with daily dosages at toxic levels.

I could go on about almost every other aspect of life, from political parties which claim to be nationalistic, run by Jews, and home construction companies selling houses which will fall apart within 5 years, or appliance companies making dishwashers which self destruct.

And in the Catholic Church we have been given in Vatican II the fake varieties of nearly everything, from the priesthood which is dedicated to social justice, rather than the salvation of souls; religious nuns and monks who are concerned more with action than prayer and personal santification; a Mass which is about entertainment, rather than the worship of God, etc..

False Militancy in the Church

But the push to turn the Catholic Church into a globalist control and recruitment NGO is chiefly advancing because Catholics are beset on all sides with fake offers of militancy.

I say “fake offers” of “militancy”, because as the Church Militant our chief duty is to hear the Holy Spirit and take up arms, sometimes even physical ones, against the opponents of God, Divine Revelation and Sacred Tradition.

But an offer of fake militancy neutralizes this work of the Holy Spirit by convincing Catholics that the tried and true work of Catholic Saints preaching against sin, rebuking errant clergy, and calling for the deposition of heretics, schismatics and the perverse, while sometimes even supporting and participating in Crusades, is wrong, evil, out of date or inappropriate.

On top of that, the forms of militancy which we are urged to embrace are actually designed to take us out of the fight and let the enemies of Christ take control of the battle field.

Among these false forms are Sedevacantism, Sedeprivationism and Traditionalism.

Sedevacantism, a concept developed by a pedophile, is the assertion that after Pius XII or any other given pope, there can never be another valid pope simply because I say so. Sedevacantists use the protestant error of private judgement along with the masonic journalistic error of misquoting your alleged opponent, to convince Catholics to despair that Christ wills the restoration of His Church and will give victory to those who enter the battlefield.

Instead, Sedevacantists push a gospel of despair while satisfying themselves with a spirituality of Jansenists, who thought that their select few were the only righteous persons to be saved.

Sedevacantists spend all their time, accordingly, trying to convince good Catholics to give up the fight, by calling this or that Pope or cleric a heretic, instead of trying to remove from office the cleric they attack.

The other kind of false militancy is Sedeprivationism, where it is claimed that because the Pope(s) has (have) erred or veered from the right path, while he (they) remain(s) in office, there is nothing other Catholics can do but ignore him (them) and found their own churches.

This kind of false militancy attempts to convince Catholics to give up the effort to liberate the Church from ecclesiastical criminals and to simple settle back at be satisfied with their own private chapels.

The most common form of classical sedeprivationism is Cassicianism, which holds or held that Paul VI veered so much from the Faith, that while remaining Pope, he no longer could morally oblige any Catholic by his decrees.

Those who recognized that Pope Benedict XVI was pope until death but refused to seek that he have a successor are also involved in a false militancy, which has dedicated them to seeking a pope in Don Minutella or in making useless petitions to the Cardinals who have no authority to act (Cioncism).

But the most common form of false militancy today is the Traditionalist movement which aims only at having the perfect Latin Mass Chapel, either independent from the local Bishop or under him, as if having the perfect liturgy celebrated by pacifists is going to win this war. In each case, having the chapel and traditional Latin Mass is put at the top of the list, and everything, even fighting corruption in the Church or in the group which says the TLM is sacrificed for that.

True Catholic Militancy

As readers of know, I am always advocating militancy, but of the true kind.

Love for Christ, when it is true, will always lead to the love of the salvation of souls and hence for love of the Catholic Faith, Religion and Church. Such love will always include the desire to remove criminals from the clergy, correct errors in practice and denounce heresies and apostasy, while opposing sacrilege, simony and blasphemy.

True love of Christ requires that we actually rebuke those who are guilty and not be satisfied to talk about their sins in public or private.

True love of Christ is founded also upon an unshakeable trust in Christ that He will always be at one’s back if one fights to purify and protect His Church, His faithful and His teachings.

Thus true militancy is the consequence of a soul on fire with the Holy Spirit, inspired to do something constructive to solve a problem in the Church and in a canonical that is lawful manner. It aims not at acquiring some advantage for myself but for the whole people of God. It employs one’s own personal reputation, resources, talents, time and effort, and it crusades with the zeal of charity and truth, never separating.

True Militancy follows the examples of the Saints of old, putting prayer in the first place, personal integrity of life in the second, and specific goals for reconstructing what has always been on the agenda of the Holy Spirit.

This is why true Militancy today requires a different approach than sedevacantism or sedeprivationism.

And the approach is not pretending that there is no problem with Fiducia supplicans.

  • Nor is it pretending that it is tolerable that some priests comply with that Declaration and others do not.
  • Nor is it in pretending that whatever my priest does in private does not concern me.
  • Nor is it satisfied in only having some voices speak against it now and then forgetting about it tomorrow.
  • Nor does it consist in grifting on the issue today and moving on to grifting on another issue tomorrow.
  • And it certainly DOES NOT consist in listening to grifters for entertainment today and forgetting about the controversy tomorrow, as the grifter moves on to something else.

Rather, it recognizes that Fiducia supplicans must be withdrawn and entirely repudiated by everyone in the Church, beginning with the Pope. And in demanding everyone who has endorsed it, to repent. And if they fail to repent, in removing them from office in the Church.

This true Catholic Militancy is not for the self-centered Catholic. The warriors in this crusade need to be those who never lay down their arms until victory is won. They also have to be true lovers of Christ who fight for the whole Mystical Body and not just to conquer back their neighborhoods.

We must recognize that this horrendous sin of endorsing Fiducia supplicans puts the Apostolic See and every diocese, where its bishop endorsed it, into an impeded state. We must stop funding all their projects and insisting that until they repent they have lost all moral authority to rule over us, being as they are enemies and rebels against God, and we must urge the clergy who remain Catholic to publicly rebuke them for their public sin.

We should form a committee in our diocese, if our Bishop is guilty of such a sin, to see this done, and recruit militant Catholics to participate. And we must constantly emphasize and demonstrate the wickedness concealed in this horrendous document.

Let us pray to the Holy Spirit that He might raise up a generation of Catholics who truly love God and His Church, who truly care for the salvation of all and who are awake enough to avoid the fake forms of militancy which are offered to us to control and neutralize any effort to fight against the enemies of God.

Here at we sponsor the Sutri Movement, which is the effort to get Pope Francis removed from office using the Canonical Means of a Provincial Council. — In addition, I explain to Bishops and clergy that their best canonical position for resisting Fiducia supplicans is in recognizing and publicly declaring the Apostolic See impeded by the horrendous betrayal of Pope Francis of the Gospel. — These two efforts require work and self-sacrifice. They also commit you to true militancy, because they aim at solving the problem for everyone, not simply lamenting it.

For those who want to seek the repentance of their own clergy and Bishop who support Fiducia  supplicans, will be publishing this week a free pamphlet in English, and then in other languages, explaining the horrible evil of the document. This pamphlet will be offered in PDF format so that you can, without charge, have it printed locally in the thousands and get your friends and fellow Catholics to distribute it in your Diocese. The purpose of this pamphlet will be to raise up an army of Catholics who militate for the repentance of your local clergy and the repudiation of this Declaration.

The Apostolic See is now impeded, by the heresy of Pope Francis — What this means


by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

The Apostolic See has been impeded by the heretical actions of Pope Francis, specifically his signature on the heretical blasphemous and sacrilegious declaration known as Fiducia supplicans.

In Church Law an impeded see results from the objective incapacity of the holder of a bishopric to execute his duties. A see can be impeded by impossibility of personal liberty, external force or heresy, schism or apostasy by the person claiming the office.

By signing Fiducia supplcians Pope Francis has approved of manifest heresy against the Sacraments of the Priesthood and Marriage, as well as attempted to overthrow the teaching of Christ in the Our Father, the Second Commandment of the Decalogue and profane the Holy Name of God.

The assertion that there is a kind of blessing which a priest can bestow which does not implicate the Divine Approval or the approval by the Church, even when given to persons in an objective state of sin, and without repentance, is a heresy against the revealed truth of blessings contained in the Deposit of the Faith (cf. Numbers 23:19) and against the truth revealed by the Apostle Saint Paul, that Catholic clergy are the “ambassadors of God” (2 Corinthians 5:20), who speak in the Name of God. Fiducia supplicans also directly attacks the revealed truth that Christian marriage alone, between one man and one woman, is the only sexual union which merits the blessings of God.

Recognition that the Apostolic See is impeded, therefore, is not a schismatic act, it is rather the only morally licit and valid response to Pope Francis’ promotion of heresy and schism. While some Bishops might be tempted to break off communion with the Apostolic See, that would be wrong, because the sin here is not of Pope Francis as pope, but of Pope Francis as the man, and therefore, the See is impeded and not overthrown. — It would be overthrown if he signed a document which was heretical and imposed this as an obligation upon all Catholics. But that will never happen, because Christ promised us it would never happen, as Vatican I taught. — But recognizing the See is impeded is the just response, because to continue to pretend that nothing is wrong, and that a man who has signed a manifestly heretical document, is still fit to act as the Roman Pontiff, is consummate dishonesty and participates in his sins by tolerating that which should never be tolerated.

What Action can Bishops take world-wide to remedy impeded State of Rome

Due to the impeded state of the Holy See, the Bishops of every ecclesiastical province in the Church can convene provincial councils to declare the Apostolic See’s impeded state and to publicly reprove Pope Francis for signing such a heretical document, calling on him to rescind it. These same provincial councils, world-wide, can also call on the Bishops of the Province of Rome to convene their own council and rebuke and/or depose Pope Francis (see here). And for this they do not require permission of the Apostolic see (cf. canons 439 §2) for the same reason a provincial council in the Roman Province in virtue of canon 442 §2, during an impeded Apostolic See, can act for necessity and by the principal of subsidiarity without the consent of the man who claims to be the Roman Pontiff.

What Powers can the Bishops of the World now assume

Bishops and faithful world-wide can also refuse the nomination of new Bishops and Cardinals, as well as resist and refuse any call by Pope Francis for the resignation or translation or nomination of any Bishop in their territory.

This response to Fiducia supplicans is the truly Catholic one. Anyone speaking of doing something lesser, has not yet grasped the gravity of what has happened.

To contradict the Deposit of the Faith, either as regards the clear teaching of Scripture or the disciplines contained in Apostolic Tradition puts a man outside of the Church.

Pope Francis must recant his heresy or he must be declared deposed from the Apostolic see by his separation from the Church.

Immediate Acts of Resistance which can be undertaken by local Bishops

Consequently, until Pope Francis does so, or is removed, the Bishops of each ecclesiastical province, by necessity and the law of subsidiarity, can appoint and transfer bishops within the boundaries of their province, and make all decisions which would otherwise be made by the Roman Curia for their provinces, since recourse to the Apostolic See is now morally and canonically illicit.

And indeed, if Catholic Bishops world-wide make use of their extraordinary rights in this way, it will pressure the Bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Rome to act appropriately and end this extreme crisis in the Church of Rome.

A great number of episcopal sees are presently vacant, so there is much good work that can be done by the Bishops and the Faithful world-wide to see promoted to the episcopal dignity men who reject the heresies and heretical trajectory of Pope Francis (see List here).

If you live in any one of these ecclesiastical jurisdictions, you may now licitly and lawfully call on the Catholic clergy of the diocese and/or the Bishops of the Province, to nominate a Catholic Bishop for your diocese. Then invite Catholic Bishops from the province or elsewhere to consecrate him. I urge you to act quickly and prudently by first contacting only the anti-Fiducia supplicans clergy and informing them of the awesome rights they now enjoy.

Finally, in those ecclesiastical provinces where a Bishop speaks in favor of Fiducia supplicans, the other Bishops may now convene a provincial council to rebuke and depose him for heresy.

How the impeded state of the Apostolic See will effect the next papal election

The Church is now in a very precarious juridical state, because if Pope Francis without renouncing his heresy of Fiducia supplicans should alter or publish a new law for papal election, and/or appoint men who favor Fiducia supplicans as Cardinals, then the election of his successor will be juridically doubtful, since the man, who is pope, who has impeded the See, can no longer licltly exercise the authority of the See, if he refuses to repent publicly of his crime against the Catholic Church, Her Faith, and the rights of all the faithful to practice the authentic Catholic Faith. Nay, refusal to repent signifies that all his other acts are tainted with his heresy and schism, and thus can be lawfully and licitly rejected by the Faithful.

Here the case is not the same as the appointment by the then rival Pope Francis of cardinals under Pope Benedict XVI, because by the election of Bergoglio by the Faithful of Rome on Jan. 30 of last year, their nominations were convalidated. Nor is is the same case as the appointment of Cardinals after Amoris Laetitia, because the Apostolic See was not and cannot be impeded by the actions of an antipope.

But with Fiducia supplicans, we have a document which is manifestly an attack on the entire Catholic Faith signed by the Roman Pontiff, the conditions of which fulfill those to impede the See.

But the situation is precarious for another reason, because if Pope Francis does act to touch in any way the next papal election, the only way to have a juridically valid Catholic pope will be an election by Apostolic Right. But since the grifter-collective and Pope Francis’ ‘gay opposition’ have already calumniated this manner of election in the minds of most Catholics, they cannot advocate for such an election in the future, having burnt their bridges.

Please join me, therefore, in praying for the Church of Rome, which truly has few friends, allies or those who truly love Her. We are beset all around with the godless, the mercenary, and the insanely imprudent puffed up egomaniacs who have set themselves up as the arbiters of the Church, without any knowledge of what they speak, and with not a drop of love for Christ or the salvation of the world. And until the Cardinals, Bishops, Clergy, Religious and faithful stop listening to such false and treacherous folk, the Church will continue to be destroyed from withing and millions of souls will be lost.



Sulla Riprensione e la Deposizione di un papa eretico

di Frà Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Il Romano Pontefice, in quanto uomo, può essere giudicato

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

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

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

Un Concilio provinciale può giudicare tutti gli uomini della sua provincia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ergo quod erat demonstrandum, demonstratum est.


On the Rebuke and Deposition of a Heretical Pope

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction françaiseVersione Italiana

Here, I wish to discuss a special case of juridical right, wherein the Church must confront the necessity of removing a heretical pope from office. Since that there is a juridically valid way to do this is a necessary presupposition of the Sutri Initiative, and since Cardinals as eminent as Burke have publicly said there is no canonical solution to such a problem, I will now publicly explain how it can be done, to give food for thought for all who like to see expounded how it can be that Cardinal Burke is incorrect in his opinion.

First, let me say, that this solution to be canonically valid must not violate any canon of the Code of Canon Law, published by John Paul II, which forbids in canon 334 that there be any innovation in Church law when the Apostolic See is impeded or vacant, that is, when the Roman Pontiff does not promulgate it. For the Code of 1983, see here.

Second, it must also not violate the juridical principal and dictum of the Faith, that sedes prima a nemine judicatur, namely, the first see is judged by no one. And this, understood as the learned Cardinal Bellarmine, held it to be understood, namely, that it is licit to no one in the Church to judge the person of the Roman Pontiff.

Third, against the sentence of the Roman Pontiff, there can be no appeal (canon 333 § 3). Thus one cannot overturn his decrees, though one can urge him to withdraw them for a legitimate reason.

NOTE WELL: Here, I use “judge” not in reference to the formation of a personal conviction in the faithful who considers the Roman Pontiff, but a juridical act by which a sentence is proclaimed or a juridical fact is discerned.

That the Roman Pontiff, as Pontiff, cannot be removed from office by men

It follows from these two principals, that the Roman Pontiff strictly speaking can not and can never be removed by office, except by a direct act of his Superior, the Lord Jesus Christ, which is only done by death.

I say strictly speaking, that is, when we speak of the man who is the Roman Pontiff, as the Roman Pontiff. In this sense, he is called the Roman Pontiff, or the person of the Roman Pontiff. And it is thus that Canon Law always speaks of him, for this is the juridical norm in all canonical discourse and law. For as the Roman Pontiff he can be judged by no one, and is not subject to the authority of any subjects.

That the Roman Pontiff, as the man, can be judged

That the man who is the Roman Pontiff can be judged, however, is clear, because it is the teaching of the Papal Magisterium, handed down by Pope Innocent III — an eminent canonist — and because it is clear that the man, as a man, is also subject to Christ and to the authority of the Church.

That no man in the Church can be judged except by legitimate authority

This follows directly from the fact that Christ gave His authority to the Church to shepherd all His flock, both collectively and individually. And since no one but one who holds authority over a man, can judge a man — this is a natural principal of all right (ius) — only a man’s Bishop, or the Pope, or those holding ecclesiastical authority in the region, can judge a man.

That a Provincial Council can judge all men within its province

A provincial council of all the Bishops of an ecclesiastical province holds authority over all Catholics in a province, as Canon 432 §1 declares. Indeed, the Provincial Council has the status of a juridical person, as Canon 432 §2 declares.

This means that a Provincial Council can judge any Catholic who resides in its territory, both by discerning juridical or moral facts about the man, or by imposing canonical penalties or sentences.

That a Provincial Council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome can judge the man who is the Roman Pontiff

It follows from the above that a Provincial Council in the province of Rome can judge the man who is the Roman Pontiff, as a man, that is, as regards juridical or moral facts about the man, namely, whether he be a Catholic and whether he have a valid claim to the office of the Roman Pontiff. For in such things, the Council does not judge the office which he claims.

That a Roman Provincial Council can be convened by the Bishops of the Province without and against the will of the man who is the Roman Pontiff in cases of heresy and invalidity of claim to office

Canon 442 §2 grants to the Bishops of a province to convene a provincial council when the Metropolitan See of the province is legitimately impeded. Here the Latin reads:

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

The concept of “legitimately” impeded refers not to the norms of canon law nor to the norms of any papal law, but to a morally valid reason or cause which prevents the Metropolitan from acting. Such as physical or moral duress, incompetance or incapacity.

For example if the Metropolitan be kidnapped or held by hostile forces; under arrest; in a coma; having suffered a stroke or mental or emotional collapse, preventing use of right reason; in hiding for fear of capture; or otherwise incapable of communication. These are objective factors for the exercise of his munus.

But if the man be a heretic or schismatic or an apostate, but has not yet been deprived of office, the same follows, by reason of the juridical principal, that where there be a force majeur, that is a greater intervening or obstructing power, than those cited in normal cases for an impediment, all the more is it legitimate to hold that the see be impeded.

So, since the Roman Pontiff is the Metropolitan of the Roman Province, when the man who is the Roman Pontiff be a heretic or apostate or schismatic, then he can be judged in a Provincial Council.

That the Bishops of the Roman Province have the right to demand the proof of the claim of the man to be the Roman Pontiff

Since the Bishops of the Province cannot presume that a man is guilty or that a fact be such before judging the fact, it is necessary that by interrogating the man who claims to be the Pope, they establish that he refuses to demonstrate that his claim is valid or that he be a Catholic. Such a refusal in person or by written communication proves juridically and canonically that there is an objective doubt from which there consequently and immediately arises an impediment of the Apostolic See by reason of the man, who claims the office, refusal to demonstrate to the Bishops of the Province the validity of his claim to rule over them.

Failing a spontaneous offer of proof, a Provincial Council can be convoked to request special and extraordinary proof

This is by natural right, namely, by natural right every lord has the duty to demonstrate to his subjects the legitimacy of his claim to lordship over them. This demonstration must be all the more solemn and collegial when his peers ask for the proof.

Asking for such a proof is a right of the subject and a demonstration of his honesty. As it injures no one’s right, it harms no one, and is not a crime. And thus, such a request cannot be refused.

Normally, this is done by the promulgation of the election or nomination of the man to hold the office of superior by the person or body which has the authority to nominate him.

But when objective facts intervene which put this in doubt, proof can be requested by his peers by right, since as holders of local jurisdiction under him they have the natural right to the most certain proofs.

And thus when through personal contact and by writing a spontaneous proof of the Catholicity of the man who claims to be the Pope or the validity of his election be refused, the Bishops do NOT presume, when they use the right granted to them on account of an impeded See to convoke a provincial council without or against the will of the man who claims to be the pope.

That such a Provincial Council, called without or against the will of the man who is the Roman Pontiff cannot be obstructed by any authority

Such a council cannot be impeded by any act of any ecclesiastical authority, since, neither does anyone have authority over the Bishops of the Roman Province but the Roman Pontiff, nor does the man who claims to be the Roman Pontiff but who refuses the spontaneous sufficient proofs in the normal course of things legitimately exercise the authority of the office of Roman Pontiff to obstruct or forbid such a convocation. Since by his refusal he has impeded the Apostolic See, and with the see impeded, its powers cannot be used over its subjects for any legitimate purpose.

That such a Provincial Council can legitimately summon the man who claims to be the Pope

That such a Council can legitimately, that is canonically constrain, the man who claims to be he pope to attend follows from their authority granted in Canon 432. It also follows from Canon 443, which requires that all who claim offices of Bishop in the territory be summoned to every Provincial Council and from Canon 444 §1, that requires all summoned attend. Nor can he claim impediment, if he can freely travel or speak with men.

That such a Provincial Council should first remonstrate with the man, who appears to be a heretic, schismatic or apostate, yet claims the papacy

There is an order in Charity, and so first the Council Fathers should proceed by expounding their reasons for convening the Council and ask that those with the right to vote confirm the convocation. Then, they should expound the reasons for convoking the man who claims to be the pope, to give solemn certain proofs that his election was juridically valid and that his claim to the office remains legitimate. Then they should interrogate the man to elicit solemn proofs of his claim’s validity or invalidity. And with his responses given, propose to issue a solemn declaration as to their coherence, asking for a vote of the Council to approve, that the man is or is not eligible to hold the office he claims, has a valid claim or has lost his claim. Whereupon, if the Council Fathers find his responses insufficient or doubtful, the Council should solemnly remonstrate with the man a second time, and judge his responses by vote a second time, and even a third time if necessary. After which if he persists in his invalid responses, the Council can solemnly declare that the juridical facts are objective that said man in virtue of the canon of the church applicable has never held the office, or does not now hold it, by reason of not being a Catholic or not being Catholic.

That Such a Provincial Council imposes no sentence or deprivation of office, and therefore need not have its acts approved by the Roman Pontiff

A finding of fact is an act of discernment by an authority competent to do so. A Roman provincial council is the highest and most competent juridical person to determine such facts by investigation and interrogation of all Catholics in the Roman Province. Only in the case of fraud, could the judgement of such a council be impugned. Therefore, if such a council find that the man be not a Catholic, then they can declare him excommunicate by reason of canon 1364, and thus ipso facto deprived from office, since no excommunicate can claim an office in the Church, as per Canon 1331.

That the man who claims to be Roman Pontiff and who refuses to give spontaneous and solemn proofs of the legitimacy of his claim to hold the office can be declared ipso facto deposed if he refuse to attend such a Provincial Council

That such a man, if he refuse to attend any part of such a Provincial Council, where he might give solemn and juridical proof of his claims, can be declared deposed, follows from the principals enunciated above, for no man with an honest claim would refuse such proofs. That a validly elected Pope, Benedict IX, was declared contumacious and deposed for refusing to attend such a provincial council in December of 1046, at Sutri, Italy, is a fact of history, accepted as valid by the Apostolic See for nearly 1000 years:  and acceptance which is equipollent to the approval, approbation and confirmation of the above argument, their reasons of natural and ecclesiastical right, and their validity by the law of custom.

Ergo quod erat demonstrandum, demonstratum est.



With the Holy Spirit, let us go to War against Pope Francis’ Spirit of Apostasy

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

Mater Semper Victoriosa

Holy Mother Church cannot be defeated, because as Her Wedding Gift, the Lord Jesus promised Her the Holy Spirit, so that the gates of Hell never prevail against Her.

Thus, while Her faithful sons and daughters move always in accord with the inspirations of the Holy Spirit they can also never be defeated. Because even if you martyr them, God will glorify them.

But in addition, we should pay attention! Because when God’s holy ones are martyred, He raises up hundreds more in their place.

Yes, the blood of the Martyrs is the seed of Christians, as we are often wont to repeat in regard to the Saints whose memories we foster at the Altars of the Lord.

But this is also true on a lower plane, namely, that if you persecute a faithful Catholic, God will raise up a multitude in his place.

In this sense, Holy Mother Church is incapable of being defeated, since like a medusa, when one of Her faithful is cut down, She raises up dozens of others.

The Blood of Martyrs is the Seed of Christians

And this truth we have seen in our own days, and it is wonderful to behold.

Because Pope Francis to silence his critics has removed Bishops who opposed him. Not just Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas, though he is one of the most recent and well known to Catholics in the English speaking world.

And by doing this Pope Francis thought he would silence the Faith of Holy Mother Church and stifle the Voice of God in Her.

But lo! Now that he has put his signature on the outrage which is Fiducia supplicans, DOZENS AND DOZENS of Bishops  have overnight become other Bishop Strickland!

And not from the USA, but from 10+ other nations.

So now Pope Francis is opposed from Asia, Africa, South America, Europe, and even from Italy.

And this is the work of the Holy Spirit. We have seen it, and thus we must rejoice and give thanks! Loudly!

The Holy Spirit wants you!

But let us not stand on the side lines. Let us join this War of the Holy Spirit against the spirit of apostasy which is promoted by Jorge Mario Bergoglio. —  For it is a thing most glorious to fight with the Saints in time so as to merit a crown with them in Eternity.

So as our Lord and God, the Vivifier of Souls is now pouring forth his graces of righteous anger, zeal for the Faith, integrity of morals and honesty of life and priestly zeal for the salvation of souls, let us promote these things too and join in supporting Cardinals, Bishops and Priests who have joined the ranks of the Holy Ghost and now militant upon Earth against Fiducia supplicans!

Our leaders in this fight at the faithful Bishops who hold jurisdiction, because in them resides the capacity to express the perennial Magisterium of the Church.

So pay attention to what they say and write.

A Word of Caution …

At the same time we should recognize that the forces of darkness will be pushing the counter narrative and flooding social media with falsehoods, misrepresentations, errors, mistakes, disinformation and misinformation.

So be on your guard from paying attention or giving your allegiance to talking heads, laymen and laywomen who have no authority to teach or preach. Whose motives are nearly always to garner fame and attention, and will want to grab your attention during this historic crisis in the Church.

Pope Francis is clearly in the hands of Satan and the intelligence agencies and Globalist interests of this world. We should expect therefore that ever trick of the astute Serpent of old will be employed against these good bishops.

A Good Grand Strategy

For that reason, I urge all to focus on removing the cause of scandal and error which is Fiducial Supplicans. That is, on insisting:

  • First, that Pope Francis remove his signature from the document.
  • Second, that Pope Francis remove Cardinal Fernandez from office, and along with him the Monsignor who co-signed the document.
  • Third, that Pope Francis repudiate the horrendous blasphemies, errors, heresies and errors contained in the Document.
  • Fourth, that Pope Francis declare as contrary to the Catholic Faith the assertion that it can be morally licit to bless sin, sinful unions or give approval to vice, error, or sexual immorality of any kind, including that abomination which cries to God for vengeance.
  • Fifth, that Pope Francis condemn sodomy and define that no one who assents or consents to this sin can ever be saved, with out repentance.
  • Sixth, that if Pope Francis refuses to do the above, that he should renounce the papacy.
  • Seventh, that if Pope Francis refuses to do the above and refuses to renounce, that a provincial council be called to declare him a heretic and self-deposed from the Papacy, the seat being then in a legitimate sede vacante.

And, to accomplish this, to write the faithful Bishops letters of gratitude and thanks for what they have done so far, and urging this 7 point plan to be adopted.

While at the same time contradicting, exposing and refuting all the talking heads who attempt to oppose any of the 7 points.

I give this counsel, for the sake of honesty, so that more Catholics might follow the lead of the Holy Spirit, Who never does anything without a purpose, Who desires the repentance of all sinners, and Who wants all the causes of scandal be removed, so that poor souls be saved and not be turned from the path of salvation.

Holy Mother Church has heard the Voice of the Holy Spirit, and is going to War. Let us who want to be Her faithful sons and daughters, also draw our swords and fight at Her side!

The Advent Miracle of 2023 — Brought to you by the Holy Spirit & Faithful Catholics

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

A great and wonderful miracle happened and is happening this week in the Catholic Church. A thing we have never seen since the reign of Pope Pius XII, nay, not since the Reformation.

Faithful Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops, even whole Episcopal Conferences have decided to publicly take a stand with Faithful Laity, Religious and Priests against a lunatic innovation from the Pope and the Roman Curia!

We did not see this regarding Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae, Communion in the hand, the Traditional Latin Mass, or even the disciplines regarding the safeguarding of the Sacraments of Matrimony and the Eucharist.

It’s a first.

And lifetime warriors against the Aggiornamento all can sense it.

It is a miracle. A moral miracle, which is greater than even a physical miracle.

And this miracle has a cause.

Because for the first time since April 13, 1059 A. D., that is in 964 years, we have a Pope elected by the Catholics of Rome and not by the Cardinals, that is, by Apostolic Right and not by Papal Law or canon.

And this was done on January 30, 2023, when the Faithful of Rome, who recognized that Canon 332 was bound in Heaven, and thus that Pope Benedict XVI was pope until death, for not having fulfilled the terms of that canon, came together in accord with the decision of Saint Peter the Apostle, that the Faithful of the Church of Rome elect their own pastor, and elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

This decision of the Apostle was a work of the Holy Spirit. And this obedience to the will of the Apostle united the entire Church for the first time in nearly 1000 years with the Roman Pontiff in the way most pleasing to the Holy Spirit.

The spiritual consequence of this was and is that the entire Church is invigorated now with much greater alacrity in responding to the Holy Spirit, and thus has resisted this horrible attack on the Church, contained in Fiducia supplicans, with the most admirable and stunning alacrity and vigor.

We have seen the end of the tide of the Revolution in the Church. The counter-Revolution has begun.

To the Lord, Giver of Life, let us thank Him, this week, for having given us all a lesson in humility, faith and perseverance with the truth. Words have meaning to God the Holy Spirit and He wants us to oppose error, vice and fraud.

For these reasons, I am more confident than ever that the goal of the Sutri Initiative will be attained. And I thank all the Faithful Catholics at Rome and around the world that made this miracle happen, by believing against all the world, hoping against all despair, and persevering in the darkest and most lonely battles.

Thank you, Lord Giver of Life! Thank you comrades in arms!



A look forward to 2024: A Year of Schism and Civil War?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Globalists knew that they can never achieve Agenda 2030 without crushing their opposition.

And in 2013 they realized that opposition in the USA and in the Catholic Church was rising to threatening levels, as rank and file citizens and believers woke up out of the last 100 years of propaganda.

So now it appears that the Globalists are positioning us into a situation where we turn on one another rather than fight them. Divide and Conquer.

In the USA, it looks increasingly likely that neither major political party will accept as valid the final vote in the Electoral College on January 6, 2025. A disagreement there could be disastrous, as the first Civil War in the USA began with a disagreement precisely over that: who was the winner of the election of 1860.

In the Catholic Church, the Church Militant has awoken and unsheathed Her sword against the perverse dishonesty launched by the Globalist puppet, Pope Francis, called “Fiducia supplicans”. The refusal of the papal document is unprecedented in the entire history of the Church, precisely because for the first time in roughly 1600 years there is a document bearing the Papal signature which is doctrinally dishonest and erroneous, not to mention perverse.

If both institutions are embroiled in internecine warfare in 2023-2025, then the Globalists will have a free hand to push their agenda world-wide. Which is exactly what they want.

Foreboding are the implications of such a strategy.

I am not making this observation as a pacifist, urging each side to reconcile. I am rather urging everyone to wake up and pay attention to the larger battle at hand.


On the Canonical Invalidity of ‘Fiducia supplicans’

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

On Monday, Dec. 18, 2023, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by Cardinal Fernadez published a Declaration entitled Fiducia supplicans.

Seeing that this document has scandalized the entire world, inasmuch as it says that habitual sinners, living in the vices of fornication, adultery and or sodomy can receive the blessing of a priest of Jesus Christ, it is necessary that all understand clearly and precisely what legal value this document has in the Catholic Church.

The laws of the Church are codified in the Code of Canon Law published by John Paul II in 1983. And so, when discussing the legitimacy or legal status of any instruction or document signed by any Cardinal or the Pope, one speaks about the juridical or canonical validity.

Canonical validity is a species of the genus of juridical validity. To say that something is canonically valid is to say that it does have force of law according to the canons of the Church published in the Code of Canon Law. To say that some instruction or document is juridically valid, is to say that it does have some binding force upon subjects, in this case, of faithful Catholics members of the Catholic Church.

Therefore, to the Question whether Fiducia supplicans is canonically valid, the answer is “It is NOT!”.

And to the Question whether Fiducia supplicans is juridically valid, the answer is “It is NOT!”.

And the reasons for these two answers are multiple. Let me explain.

First of all, as Vatican I teaches, the Pope has no authority to teach novel doctrines. Nor does he have any authority to teach things which are contrary to revealed truths, right morals, or against the Divine, Natural or Evangelical Law. Thus if he attempt to, he he attempting to do something beyond his powers. And thus his act or attempt is ultra vires, and thus null and void. In juridical consideration it is considered never to have been done. And in canonical consideration, it is considered never to have existed. — But, Fiducia supplicans teaches many things contrary to revealed truth (that God can bless sin), against the Divine Law (that God’s Name be invoked in blessing over impenitent sinners), against the Natural Law (that sodomites be blessed or approved of), against the Evangelical Law (taught by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans, namely that these sins prevent one from salvation and thus from receiving blessing), and against right morals (public approval of public sin). Therefore, the Pope’s signature to this document adds to it no juridical or canonical value.

Second, the authority of the body which issued the document, Fiducia supplicans, is the Discastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. But if one searches in the Acta Apostolica Sedes one can find NO entity by this name erected into existence by a Roman Pontiff. For to establish anything in existence, the one establishing it must have the authority to do so. And every entity of the Apostolic See must exist by means of a published legal act bearing the signature of a man who holds the Petrine Munus at the time of its publication. But Pope Francis was not the holder of the Petrine Munus before January 30, 2023 — Pope Benedict XVI was, since he never renounced it by any legal act — therefore, this Dicastery does not exist in law. Hence all decrees, declarations and instructions of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith lack all juridical and canonical value. They are null and void from the moment they are published.

Third, and finally, no document has authority without an act of promulgation. The declaration Fiducia supplicans lacks any codicil of promulgation, as can be seen by reading its last paragraphs. Furthermore, it declares no obligation upon anyone for its acceptance. Therefore, it has imposed no juridical or canonical obligation upon anyone. Therefore it is also juridically and canonically invalid.

Dogmatically, the canonical invalidity of Fiducia supplicans is a fact which demonstrates the truth of the power and compass of Christ’s High Priestly Prayer for Saint Peter and his successors, since what has no legal value is not the object of Christ’s promise to intervene to prevent the faithful from going astray. And in this case, if any do go astray, the fault is of all those Cardinals, Bishops, Clergy and Canon Lawyers, and talking heads, who keep insisting that Pope Benedict XVI abdicated on Feb. 28, 2013. — For this reason, Christ will continue to allow grave abberations to be published in ways which are only explicable on His part, because He too recognizes that Pope Benedict XVI was His Vicar on earth until his death, as He told us He would, when He declared to the Successors of Saint Peter in regard to Canon Law, in particular canon 332: Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound in Heaven ….


Once again, Ed Condon, who welcomed Fiducia supplicans, gets the canonical value of the document totally wrong, since he fails to consider first of all the level of authority of the issuing dicasery. This will be the standard pencil-pushing narrow sighted response from “canonists” on the document, so it is useful to read it, to familiarize oneself with their blind spots.

Why the Modern Formation of the Clergy needs a radical return to Tradition

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Catholic Church had a tradition regarding priestly formation which endured from the time of the Apostles until the Council of Trent. Whereupon, there was instituted the form of formation we know today, of Seminaries in the major dioceses and priest formed in Seminaries.

But before the Council of Trent, that was not how priests were chosen and formed.

And a return to the ancient traditional system would have advantages combating the infiltration of the priesthood by sodomites and pedophiles.

For in ancient times, a priest became a priest through a long community monitory system.

First, before Vatican II, Orders were not limited to Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

No, they included, all the minor orders: porters, exorcists, acolytes, lectors, subdeacons as well as the major orders, deacons, priests and bishops. Although subdeacons were classified with major orders.

Catholic men who were faithful and piously attended the Divine Liturgy on a regular basis were invited to join the minor orders.


That is the key word. And in each step of promotion it was by invitation only. There was no right to be promoted, and a candidate could be stopped for any length of years at any grade in Orders, if he failed to get the acknowledgement of his superiors or peers.

Also, the place of formation was the parish and the local churches. NOT some distant institution separated from the laity.

The practice led to men chosen for their virtue and constancy of honorable comportment. Since members of the minor orders worked side by side with married and celibate men until they were 30 years of age, there was a long process of observing their character, before they were ordained as priests.

There were also long intervals required for holding each munus. A man served as a deacon until he was 30 years of age, at least. Saint Bonaventure, for example was ordained at 32. That means most men were in minor orders for 16 or more years, twice the amount of time many are as seminarians today.

The medieval system broke down only because of the Black Death, which decimated the clergy of Europe. As a result many candidates were rushed to formation leading to a system which no longer promoted men with caution. By the 15th century, it was not infrequent for men in orders to be involved in horrible scandals.

Observations from an Anthropologist

The lack of patience and faith on the part of Bishops, in regard to the promotion of vocations, is, yes, at the root cause of most of the problems in priestly formation today. But the Church cannot afford to ignore that a different context for the promotion of vocations and a greater participation of the faithful and parishes and local churches in selecting and promoting candidates as was done for the first 15 centuries of Church history does have its advantages.

As an anthropologist — I hold a B. A. in Cultural Anthropology from the University of Florida, 1986 — I have had occasion to reflect on the formation of the clergy through the last 40 years of my vocation, having attended formation programs in minor seminary, major seminary, monasteries and 3 pontifical institutes at Rome. So, reflecting on what I was witness too and all the problems I have seen with the modern system of formation, I would make these observations, why the ancient system was better.

First, because in parishes families knew one another and thus could point out to the pastor or Bishop men who should be invited to assume minor orders. They could also warn the pastor or Bishop of scandalous behavior. The candidate would have to show himself at all times and in all situations a man of virtue and faith.

Second, because in the ancient system, Pastors, accordingly, had too emphasize catechesis over homilies in the Sunday sermons to make sure all the men were inspired to a life of virtue. — The modern practice which continually discourages this on the unproven claim that teaching the scriptures raw, rather than explaining the Cathechism well — and I speak of the Roman Cathecism — has had undeniable and disastrous results. And indeed it is not too obvious that a hierarchy which does not feel obligated to believe in the Cathechism is the same one which does not want it preached, not even to have good vocations.

The other advantages over the modern system are also obvious. At the present, “vocations” can be recruited at bars, night clubs, saunas and other unseemly places by corrupt and degenerate priests and bishops. If a Bishop wants a seminarian for vicious reasons, there is no one who can stop him, even when it is obvious that the seminarian is a dissolute or wicked man.

The Church today needs a system where any member of the faithful and especially the men of the parish can in an institutionalized manner be heard regarding the suitability of a man for promotion to orders. The laity need to be encouraged to promote men of worthy character. The Church needs minor orders restored to institutionalize a system which encourages vocations and makes it normal for a young man to go from active participation in his parish to being seen as a vocation. And the Church needs the help of a formation process which schools men in the liturgy by requiring the men of the parish to serve with their priest at the Altar at every Mass, Baptism, Marriage, as well as accompany him vising the homes for blessings, last rites etc..

In suchwise it will become impossible for the Gay Mafia to continue to promote their candidates and the Church can have once again a generation of sound chaste men to serve at the Altar of God.

My Recommendations from a veteran of formation programs

I began my vocational discernment, as they call it today, when I was in high school, more than 40 years ago, and since I have never been a very social person, the vast majority of men, whose names I know, were fellow seminarians, friars or priests and deacons. I have seen dysfunctional systems everywhere, and because I am not a priest, I have the freedom to speak out about what has and is going wrong.

But here I want to talk about fixing the problem, since the problems are well known in the inner circles of the clergy.

And so, in the mean time, I would urge pastors to restore as much as this medieval formation process as possible in their parishes, a thing which they can do on their own authority in a limited manner.

First, they should explain to the men of their parish in the principle Masses of each year, that in Christ all men are called to dedicate themselves to the salvation of the world. They are not like women, who in Mary already perfectly fulfilled their duties at the Altar of Calvary. They are like the Apostles who fled leaving only Saint John to serve that August Sacrifice. And since all men, married or not, can serve in the roles of porter, acolyte, and lector, all men should have the devotion and loyalty to Christ to make themselves available to serve.

Second, pastors should preach about the dignity of serving Christ at His Altar, and the duty of the Faithful to point out to him men of faith, of all ages 16+, to be invited to this august ministry. He should give them regular classes in the Faith and the liturgy, and establish schedules of service, being as inviting as possible. And he should teach all who serve at Mass to be men of prayer, devotion, self discipline and attentive to the worship of God, not being seen by men. This is not an extra-curricular activity of a parish priest. For it not only redounds to but is the essential means for promoting the salvation of all souls entrusted to him in his parish territory. He cannot succeed on his own, he needs to form an “army” of collaborators.

Third, and most fundamental in this reform is restoring the recognition of the presence of the Divine Father in the lives of all Catholics, especially at Mass. This requires not only a catechetical emphasis on God the Father in all things, but also the restoration of the image of the Eternal Father in the altitude and apex of the Sanctuary, to which all return by facing Him when they pray to Him. It makes no sense and is destructive of respect for all fathers, that a priest with the faithful face some other direction, when praying to the Eternal Father. In this way, the men of the parish will realize that they are not on a stage to please men, but are standing before their eternal and divine Archetype of all manhood and fatherhood, when they participate in the worship of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit led by their priest. In this way, the entire and most profound truth of our Holy Religion, of the Redemption of Mankind and of the restoration of the Human Family will become most clear and easily grasped.

Fourth, and finally, a promoting of the right kind of devotion to the Blessed Virgin, of the kind that does not make men effeminate but teaches them that sonship to the Virgin means that they should excel in sonship to the Eternal Father, a thing which means sharing in the Cross of Christ and worshipping the Father with the Crucified, alongside their priests at daily mass. That is where Our Lady wants men. She does not want men who cling to the aprons of their mothers, as She never had such a Son.



How Pope Francis is working to guarantee that Cardinal Burke be the Next Pope

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo


Often the results of one’s efforts has the result of obtaining the opposite. Never is this more true, when it pertains to a matter after your own death, beyond the time in which you can have any say in the matter.

All the more is this true in the election of Roman Pontiffs.

For anyone who has bothered to read the history of all the popes, one by one — you can do it for free via the online Catholic Encyclopedia — as I did back in 2020, during the lockdown — you can discern a perennial rule of thumb in the choices made by the College of Cardinals: that there is a pendulum like shift from papacy to papacy.

The nature of this shift could be described thus: that on certain matters in which the living pope went to an excess, on those matters the College of Cardinals decide to chose  pope with a different approach, sometimes the opposite, sometimes more conciliatory.

Popes who were holy and intransigent, like Pope St. Gregory VII were followed by popes who were more pragmatic and conciliatory.

As a cultural anthropologist (B.A. University of Florida, Gainesville, 1986), I think this is because the very dynamic of self-preservation coupled with the miniscule or tiny temporal power of the Papal States (now the Vatican City State) leads to the common sense conclusion, that the most urgent problems which arise in one pontificate, are the reason and motivation for the majority of the members of the College of Cardinals in their choice of the next Pope.

If we apply this observation to the dynamic of the next Conclave, then I think it can be said without exaggeration that Pope Francis is unwittingly preparing the way for the election of Cardinal Burke to the Supreme Pontificate, or at least someone like him. And let me explain why this is not merely a catchy theme for an editorial.

The most powerful super power on Earth is the United States. The majority of funds arriving in the coffers of the Vatican City State come from Catholics in the United States. The majority of all donations to the Vatican come from conservative Catholics. And the Vatican cannot survive without donations. Indeed, under Jorge Mario Bergoglio its resources have been dwindling and dwindling.

So the Cardinals in the next Conclave are without a doubt going to talk about how to keep their Club House, the Vatican, afloat. And that means, they have to confront the problem of how to turn the current trend in Vatican finances around 180 degrees.

Common sense will tell these men, who are experts in running large institutions, that the election of an Argentinian might have seemed the chic thing to do. But electing a candidate from an impoverished nation has proven not to be the way to increase the donations arriving at the Vatican.

Indeed, in ages past, the only solution to such a problem was to elect someone from the Kingdom or Empire which was the most powerful and richest. A strategy which worked, since a popular cleric from such a nation would naturally have an entire network of supporters who would come to the aid of the Papacy after his election.

If we apply this rule to the conditions of a Vatican City State whose supporters have fled on account of the denials of Catholic Doctrine, attacks on Catholic Tradition, and open insults of Catholics from the most powerful nations, the probity of this thesis of mine becomes even stronger.

Thus, the recent purges of Bishop Strickland and Cardinal Burke, precisely because they are having such a negative effect and will have an even more negative effect at years end, when most Catholic donors of magnitude consider making or not making donations to ecclesiastical institutions, will combine with the above observation to have a devastating effect.

If Pope Francis lives to see the New Year play out, then donations from Catholics will continue to fall dramatically putting the Vatican City state in dire crisis. This will especially be true among the Catholics of the United States of America.

But if Pope Francis is called to the judgement seat of Christ the King, then the Cardinals in the Conclave will surely be thinking the same thing: how they can solve all their financial problems and publicity problems by electing an American, someone like Cardinal Burke, whose reputation is solid, whose scholarship is known, whose stability of character is tested, and who is well traveled and widely respected throughout the world, especially in the United States.

And this future decision of the College is perhaps the reason why, even if the rest of the Cardinals say nothing about the purge of Cardinal Burke, that that silence in no way means that they agree with Pope Francis.

In the end God wins, no matter what decisions men make. But in the mean time God often also drops a victory on account of the decisions His enemies make. What a comedy is life!

And what a blessing that as Catholics we can appreciate it the best.

Br. Bugnolo: The sacking of Strickland is an act of Schism with the Catholic Church

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo


Even a pope is automatically excommunciated if he commits the crime of ecclesiastical schism, which consists in refusing communion with members of the Church.

This crime is even greater, when a pope refuses communion with a legitimate and Catholic member of the hierarchy.

But sacking a Bishop without cause and for no crime other than being a Catholic is the worst crime of refusing communion.

Therefore, the act whereby Pope Francis attempted to sack Bishop Strickland of Texas is an act of schism, which has ipso facto merited Pope Francis the penalty of excommunication leveled in Canon 1364.

This means that Catholics in good conscience can refuse all commands and orders of Pope Francis and priests can refuse to mention his name in the Canon.

However, only a provincial or general Council of the Church can declare that Pope Francis has lost his office or is no longer a member of the Church.

Therefore, it becomes the grave duty of all who recognize this as an act of schism, to join the Sutri Initiative and insist on a Provincial Council to judge the crime.

CREDITS: A Photo of Br. Bugnolo visiting the Castle of Tolfa, in the Suburbican Diocese of Porto Santa Rufina, outside Rome, this October.

It’s now Open Civil War in the Catholic Church



The movement is called the Sutri Movement. You can read more about it here.

It consists in a letter writing campaign to the Catholic Bishops in Lazio, Italy, who have the canonical right to depose a claimant to the papacy if he be found to be a heretic, schismatic, apostate or invalidly elected.

Other efforts will include lobbying them to heed the letters received. Catholics have begun this letter writing campaign back on Oct. 20, 2023. If we can get thousands of letters via email or surface mail sent to each bishop, they will see how important it is for them to act.

If you would like to contribute to the Sutri Fund, to lobby the Bishops of the Catholic Church to depose Bergoglio, donate below. For more about the Sutri Initiative, see here.

This fund will be administered by Br. Alexis Bugnolo, author of the initiative. See his other writings about this here. These funds are being collected by the Massachusetts non-profit, Save Old St. Mary’s inc., which sponsors brother’s apostolic works for the Church.


The above video can also be seen and shared from Youtube:

UPDATE: Canon Peters says Pope Francis has no canonical authority to remove Bishop Strickland without cause:

UPDATE: Cardinal Mueller: the sacking of Strickland is an abuse of divine right: