Category Archives: Canon Law

LA INICIATIVA SUTRI PARA DAR FINAL A LAS HEREJÍAS, BLASFEMIAS Y ESCÁNDALOS PERPETRADOS POR EL PAPA FRANCISCO

PUBLICADA EN SUTRI EL VIERNES 20 DE OCTUBRE DEL AÑO 2023 A.D.

Por el Hermano Franciscano Alexis Bugnolo

ENGLISHFRENCHITALIAN

Ayer expliqué desde Sutri, Italia, (Aqui) cómo el Primer Concilio Provincial o Sínodo de Sutri puso fin al horrible caos de la Iglesia Romana en 1046, cuando tres diferentes hombres reclamaron el oficio papal: uno de ellos era un sodomita depredador; otro un usurpador absoluto y el restante un simoníaco flagrante.

Hoy pido a todos los fieles del mundo entero que escuchen la voz de la cordura: que hagan lo que hicieron los fieles del siglo XI y convoquen a la celebración de un nuevo Concilio Provincial para poner fin a los años de escándalos, blasfemias, herejías y cismas, para mencionar las persecuciones, perpetradas y promovidas por Jorge Mario Bergoglio quien dice ocupar el cargo de Romano Pontífice.

La Iniciativa Sutri es la única solución jurídica y real para poner fin a la crisis de la Romana Iglesia, ya que aborda el problema de manera directa en forma canónicamente válida y sencilla.

Pero, para lograr la convocación de tal Concilio, nosotros los fieles debemos hacer oír nuestra voz y solicitar a los Obispos de la Provincia Romana que lo convoquen.

Estos Obispos y Obispos Auxiliares pertenecen a las siguientes 20 jurisdicciones. Al pulsar en los enlaces a continuación podrá encontrar las direcciones del Obispo o de los Obispos Auxiliares de cada diócesis. Insto a que se les escriba a todos, individualmente, una carta personal.

Roma: Albano (Sede Suburbicaria), Anagni-Alatri, Civita Castellana, Civitavecchia-Tarquinia, Frascati (Sede Suburbicaria), Frosinone-Veroli-Ferentino, Gaeta (Arquidiócesis), Latina-Terracina-Sezze-Priverno, Montecassino (Abadía Territorial), Ostia (Sede Suburbicaria), Palestrina (Sede Suburbicaria), Porto-Santa Rufina (Sede Suburbicaria), Rieti (S. Salvatore Maggiore), Sabina-Poggio Mirteto (Sede Suburbicaria), Subiaco (Abadía Territorial), Tívoli, Velletri-Segni (Sede Suburbicaria), Viterbo — Diócesis de Sora-Cassino-Aquino, puede ser que Pontecorvo sea también miembro de ésta última.

Msgr. Vincenzo Viva
Vecovo di Albano
Curia Vescovile
Piazza Vescovile, 11
00041 Albano Laziale (ROMA)
Italia

Msgr. Ambrogio Spreafico
Curia Vescovile
Via dei Villini, 82
03014 Fiuggi (Frosinone)
Italia

Msgr. Marco Salvi
Curia Diocesana
Piazza Matteotti, 27
01033 Civita Castellana (Viterbo)
Italia

Msgr. Gianrico Ruzza
Piazza Calamatta 1
00053 Civitavecchia (Roma), Italia

Msgr.Stefano Russo
Curia Vescovile
Piazza Paolo III 10
00044 Frascati (Roma)
Italia

Msgr. Luigi Vari
Piazza Arcivescovado 2
04024 Gaeta (Latina)
Italia

Msgr. Mariano Crociata
Vescovado
Via Sezze 16
04100 Latina
Italia

Abbate Antonio Luca Fallica, O.S.B.
Abbazia
Via Montecassino,
03043 Cassino (Frosinone)
Italia

Cardinale Angelo De Donatis
Vicariato di Roma
Piazza S. Giovanni in Laterano 6/a
00184 Roma, Italia

Msgr. Mauro Parmeggiani
Curia Vescovile
Piazza Gregorio Pantanelli 8
00036 Palestrina (Roma)
Italia

Msgr. Gianrico Ruzza
Curia Vescovile
Via del Cenacolo 53
00123 Roma – La Storta (ROMA)
Italia

Msgr. Vito Piccinonna
Vescovado
Via Cintia 83
02100 Rieti
Italia

Msgr. Ernesto Mandara
Vescovado
Piazza Mario Dottori 14
02047 Poggio Mirteto (Rieti)
Italia

Abbate Mauro Meacci, O.S.B.
Piazza S. Scolastica 1
00028 Subiaco (ROMA)
Italia

Msgr. Orazio Francesco Piazza
Palazzo Vescovile
Piazza S. Lorenzo 9/a
01100 Viterbo
Italia

CARTA PROPUESTA

Podemos hacer esto ya sea por carta; hablando personalmente o también podemos actuar de dos modos diferentes: uno, listando todos los errores, herejías, blasfemias y persecusiones perpetradas por Jorge Mario Bergoglio durante los años en los que él asegura ejercer el Papado o podemos iluminar a los

Obispos en cuanto al modo canónico correcto de proceder, del cual la mayoría probablemente no tengan una idea clara.

Este segundo aspecto del problema es el más crucial ya que es el menos obvio y por lo tanto, en la Iniciativa de Sutri, les insto a que cada uno haga su carta eficaz, asegurándose que contenga la argumentación y justificación canónica correcta.

Les presento un texto sugerido el cual pueden dirigir a cada Obispo y firmar con vuestro nombre completo y domicilio. Lo pueden escribir en italiano, francés o inglés o si está escrito en otro idioma, por favor incluir una traducción de su carta en uno de estos tres idiomas,

TEXTO SUGERIDO

Su Excelencia,

Estoy escribiéndole conforme a mis derechos en el Canon 212 §2  para demandar que se ponga final a los escándalos, herejías y confusión moral que promueve el Papa Francisco y aquellos nombrados por él en la Curia Romana, fundamentalmente porque esto está provocando la pérdida de millones de almas quienes así son puestas en gravísimo peligro espiritual, confusión y desorientación por la constante afirmación de cosas que son contrarias a la Revelación Divina, a la Sagrada Tradición Apostólica, a la Doctrina Católica y a los dogmas definidos en los Concilios de Trento y en el Concilio Vaticano I.

Por consiguiente, de acuerdo con el Canon 1752, el cual afirma que la salvación de las almas es el mayor bien y más alto fin de toda ordenanza jurídica en la Iglesia de Jesucristo, ínstole a reconocer que por los escándalos continuos y graves perpetrados por Jorge Mario Bergoglio, la Sede Apostólica ha sido puesta en un estado de impedimento ya que millones de Católicos no pueden reconciliar sus herejías y errores persistentes como compatibles con ser un miembro de la Iglesia Católica, sin cuyos atributos no puede ser un titular legítimo del Munus Petrino o demandar la Dignidad Apostólica.

Por lo tanto, de acuerdo con el Canon 440 ff., el Concilio Provincial en la Provincia Eclesiástica de Roma tiene el poder de juzgar y discernir todas las preguntas en cuanto al bien común de la Iglesia. Y ya que la duda segura en cuanto a la catolicidad de un demandante a la Sede Apostólica hace imposible que la Iglesia sinceramente permanezca en comunicación con un demandante dudoso, porque —papa dubius papa nullius est– por lo tanto se vuelve un deber grave ante el Dios Viviente y ante la Iglesia entera, urgir la convocatoria de ese tipo de Concilio Provincial de acuerdo al derecho expresado en el Canon 440, § 1.

Tal tipo de Concilio puede ser convocado legítimamente de acuerdo con la norma del Canon 442 §2, porque una duda segura en relación a la declaración de un hombre al oficio del Pontífice Romano crea tal conflicto de intereses que él no puede impedir su convocatoria ni tampoco tiene derechos mientras persista en errores morales y doctrinales graves, como éste hombre lo ha venido haciendo por años en perjuicio de millones de almas. El estado de impedimento existe como un hecho debido a la falta de revocación de sus errores públicos, cuya lista crece semanalmente.

Por lo tanto, demando que, por la salvación de las almas, la extirpación de todo escándalo, y para obtener la gracia de la posible conversión del hombre Jorge Mario Bergoglio de su camino errado, que tal Concilio sea convocado de acuerdo a la norma de los Canones 443 y 444, y que ejecute su autoridad plenaria de acuerdo con el Canon 445, pronunciándose sobre si el hombre a quien se le adjudica el Oficio Papal rechaza la Fe Católica, se ha separado de la comunión con la Iglesia o es un apóstata o idólatra. Permítasele al hombre acusado ser citado para dar explicaciones. Permítasele a los Padres Conciliares interrogarlo en asuntos de Moral y Fe católica; permítase que sus escándalos públicos sean enumerados y él los escuche. Que se le exija que él se retracte de sus errores, y si lo hace, permítasele que se disculpe y sea aconsejado a retirar sus decretos ruinosos. Si el rechaza la reprimenda, permítase que sea declarado de ser culpable de uno o más de los crímenes castigados con latae sententiae excommunication en el Canon 1364 y permítase al Concilio declarar que la Sede de Pedro está vacante legítimamente.

El Concilio Provincial de Roma reprendió al Papa Marcellinus por su acto público de idolatría del dios Romano Marte y el Concilio Provincial celebrado en Sutri en 1046 destituyó a tres solicitantes indignos al Trono Apostólico, por su crasa inmoralidad y demanda ilegal: Benedicto IX, Silvestre III y Gregorio VI.

Es un deber ante el Dios Viviente atender a la salvación de las almas. El Concilio Provincial en la Provincia Eclesiástica de Roma tiene la autoridad legal y la jurisprudencia por precedente para actuar de esta forma. En balance, la salvación de más de mil millones de almas penden en la cuerda floja.

Tengan temor del Dios Viviente por lo que su juicio será si no acatan tal razonable, jurídicamente válida y honesta solución a la más grande crisis en la historia del Papado. Y confíen como San Pablo el Apostol confió cuando fue a Antioquía a reprender a San Pedro en persona por no respetar los decretos del Primer Concilio de Jerusalén.

Si Su Excelencia cree que el hombre es todavía Pedro, Su Excelencia debe confiar que el Espíritu Santo lo guiará a un estado mental católico; y si Su Excelencia no cree que el hombre sea todavía Pedro, tiene el deber solemne de actuar para declarar a la Sede Apostólica legítimamente vacante.

Sinceramente,

 

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.


FromRome.info is an electronic journal chronicling the events of the Church without keeping silent about the duty of Catholics to respond with faith-filled action, rather than as mere spectators. This article is one of more than 10,000 published since September 2013 A. D.. For more information about our journal, see our About Page.

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.

 

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.

 

 

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

AND HOW CATHOLICS CAN LAWFULLY NOW BEGIN AN OPEN CIVIL WAR AGAINST HIM

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.

IF YOU WANT TO TAKE CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION TO HAVE POPE FRANCIS REMOVED FROM OFFICE,

JOIN THE SUTRI INITIATIVE!

Sulla Riprensione e la Deposizione di un papa eretico

di Frà Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Il Romano Pontefice, in quanto uomo, può essere giudicato

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

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

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

Un Concilio provinciale può giudicare tutti gli uomini della sua provincia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ergo quod erat demonstrandum, demonstratum est.

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

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.

PLEASE SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH ALL CLERGY WHO SUPPORT THE SUTRI INITIATIVE or WHO OPPOSE FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS!

 

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 ….

UPDATES:

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.

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

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

TRADUCTION FRANÇAISE

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

 

JOIN THE MOVEMENT TO GET RID OF POPE FRANCIS BY HAVING HIM REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR HERESY, SCHISM AND APOSTASY

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 participate in the Sutri Initiative, to lobby the Bishops of the Catholic Church to depose Bergoglio, see here.

SHARE THIS VIDEO, BECAUSE YOUTUBE IN ITS SEARCH RESULTS IS LISTING VIDEOS ON THIS TOPIC WITH 4 VIEWS BUT HIDING THIS ONE WITH NEARLY 8000 VIEWS.

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:

Impediments to Marriage: Feminism

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

There are various facts and problems which can prevent the Sacrament of Matrimony from taking effect and thus rendering it null and void, illicit, or fruitless in the order of grace.

But the Sacrament of Matrimony is the most important for maintaining the Christian social order, since the Family is the fundamental unit of human and christian society.

For this reason, when considering marriage a Catholic man or woman, or any near relation to the couple, should take care to assess the real viability of a future marriage.

In the English speaking world, among Catholics, the proper term for Christian marriage is “Matrimony”. This term should be used instead of “marriage” so as to distinguish the sacramental bond from the civil or natural bond, which is known as “marriage” or in Latin, “connubium”.

Before, I discuss the problems which can be caused by Femisim, in Matrimony, let’s first review what the Sacrament of Matrimony is, and how it can come about that it be invalid or illicit because of some defect in the spouses.

Matrimony according to Church teaching is the union in a stable promise of indissolubility of one man and one women, both of whom are baptized before receiving the Sacrament.

The Sacrament can be conferred upon a Catholic and his or her spouse who has promised solemnly to be baptized in the future. In this case, the ritual of Matrimony effects the connubium or marriage, but the Sacramental reality only comes into being at the Baptism of the other spouse. The Church has the authority to confer the Sacrament in such rare cases, when She judges that the one promising to be baptized needs to know the Catechism better before receiving that Sacrament, and yet, so as to avoid sin, judges also that the couple should be joined in marriage as soon as possible.

But without such a promise on the part of the unbaptised spouse, such a marriage is not Matrimony and no Sacramental bond is effected by the marriage in the Church.

The Sacrament of Matrimony has Christ as its author, and the matrimonial bond cannot be dissolved by any authority on Earth. Marriage, as a natural bond, also has God our Creator as author, but God has in past times give His earthly representatives power to dissolve is, such as Moses decreed in cases of divorce.

For this reason, Catholics should never speak of “divorce” in cases of the Matrimonial Bond, because such is a contradiction in terms. Christian Matrimony is something entirely different in its nature of permanence than any form of marriage in the Old Testament.

Matrimony is monogamous, by the Divine Will. But Marriage as is clear in the Old Testament was compatible with polygamy. This must be kept in mind to avoid arguments and excuses drawn from the Old Testament against the indissolubility of Matrimony.

The Sacrament of Marriage comes into being, or is confected, when one Catholic man promises publicly to one Catholic women to live with her in Christian matrimony for life, according to the teaching of the Church. The traditional formulae for the vows of matrimony signified this. Altering them in any manner can make the Sacrament invalid, and thus should never be done.

All unmarried Catholics, who are not prohibited by the law or by vows, can validly and licitly receive the Sacrament of Matrimony.

In the Code of Canon Law of 1983, there was a fundamental change of allowing the Sacrament to be conferred in cases wherein one spouse was a Christian but not a Catholic. Before this, such marriages were considered in valid. This new disposition of the law however presumes that the Christian non-Catholic accept the Catholic notion of matrimony. Otherwise the matrimony would be invalid.

This is true also of a matrimony among two Catholics. Both must honestly and sincerely accept the Catholic notion of marriage and promise such to the other person. If any one of them fail in this, the Sacrament is not confected and the ceremony effects no sacramental bond. Marriage is not a one way street. And when objective evidence as discerned by the Church shows that one party never had the right intention, the other party should not allow scruples, such as, “I promised” to lead them to think the Matrimony was valid.

The Sacrament is presumed valid, before the consideration of any doubt, according to the juridical principles that the cessation of right is never presumed. For the same reason that Pope Benedict XVI is presumed to have remained the pope after his resignation, by reason of the fact that he never renounced the petrine munus, that is, because the cessation of right is never presumed.

There are two kinds of problems which can make a Matrimony invalid, even if the civil marriage is valid.

These are called diriment impediments, which is derived from the Latin for “destructive impeding things”.

Such impediments are as follows:

  1. If the man be younger than 16 years of age, or the woman younger than 14 years of age (local Bishops can require higher ages, according to local customs).
  2. Incapacity on the part of any one or both of the spouses to engage in the physical act of reproduction. (Not to be confused with biological sterility).
  3. If any one of the spouses was previously joined in the Sacrament of Matrimony to another, even if that marriage was not consummated.
  4. If one or the other spouses has not been baptized in any Christian Church.
  5. The man has received the Sacred Order of the Episcopacy, Priesthood or Diaconate.
  6. Any one of the spouses has made a public vow of chastity in a religious institute.
  7. If they woman was kidnapped with the scope of forcing a marriage.
  8. If one spouse has murdered the previous spouse of the other.
  9. If one spouse is the brother/sister, niece/nephew, uncle/aunt, parent of the other; or if one spouse is related within the 4th degree to the other.
  10. If one spouse is or was ever the guardian or adopter or godparent of the other.

Matrimony can be invalid also due to lack of proper consent, or intentions:

  1. If one or both of the spouses lack the capacity or maturity to make a promise or receive a promise.
  2. If one or both of the spouses is psychologically incapable of the responsibility of marriage.
  3. If one or both of the spouses do not accept that the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble, that is, is for life and can never be dissolved by a divorce effected for any reason by any human authority.
  4. If one spouse presents himself or herself under fraudulent claims as to name, social status, wealth, or physical capacity, such as claiming one is not sterile, when one knows oneself to be sterile.

It is for these last reasons, that we can see that if one or both of the spouses accept the erroneous ideology of Feminism, that the Sacrament would be invalid, because by such an ideology, they would reject the proper role and responsibility of a woman, wife and mother in the marriage, and thus be psychologically incapable by bad will of the responsibility of marriage.

Such a rejection of the Sacrament can seem very innocuous. It can present itself under the false pretext of the “right” of the woman to pursue a career, and thus postpone or forego motherhood — a thing which cannot be obtained without tacit consent to contraception or grossly perverse forms of copulation. Or the “right” of the woman that the man in the house share the roles of motherhood or housekeeping etc., which results in the perverse social psychological formation of the children, resulting in lesbianism or homosexuality among the children. Or the “right” of the woman to refuse her husbands advances, in private, when they are in accord with nature, which would deprive both of them of the abundance of Children which God has willed from all eternity to give them in Matrimony and to promote the bond of marriage.

For these reasons, a Catholic man should not ignore any manifestation of feminism in a future spouse and the parents of both spouses should be sincere about this matter with both parties, and do what they can to correct the problem or counsel against the marriage beforehand.

The teaching of Scripture is clear and definitive: God created women to be helpers of men. A Catholic woman considering Matrimony should accept that just as the man exists to serve God and neighbor, so she exists to serve her man and her family. If she rejects this notion of womanhood, it is better for everyone that she not enter into a marriage.

Why Archbishop Viganò is smarter than Michael Matt

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

French Translation

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

FromRome.Info reported on that here.

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

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

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

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

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

That “yes” then is a deception.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sutri Initiative: to put an end to the Heresies, Blasphemies, Scandals perpetrated by Pope Francis

PUBLISHED FROM SUTRI ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2023 A.D.

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

TRADUCTION FRANÇAIS VERSIONE ITALIANATRADUCCIÓN AL ESPAÑOL

Yesterday, I explained from Sutri, Italy, (here) how the First Provincial Council or Synod of Sutri put an end to the horrible chaos of the Roman Church in 1046, when 3 different men claimed the office of the Pope: one a predatory sodomite, another an outright usurper, and still another a flagrant simoniac.

Today, I ask all the faithful in the whole world to please listen to a voice of sanity: to do what the Faithful of the 11th century did and call for a Provincial Council to be held once again, to put an end to the years of scandals, blasphemies, heresies and schism, not to mention persecutions, perpetrated and promoted by Jorge Mario Bergoglio who claims to hold the office of the Roman Pontiff.

The Sutri Initiative is the only juridical and real solution to put an end to the crisis in the Roman Church since it addresses the problem directly and in a canonical valid and facile manner.

But to achieve the convocation of such a Council, we the faithful must make our voices heard, and petition the Bishops of the Roman Province to convoke it.

These Bishops and Auxiliary Bishops belong to the following 20 jurisdictions. By clicking on the links below you can find the addresses of the Bishop or Auxiliary Bishops. I urge you to write them all, individually, a personal letter.

Roma {Rome}: Albano (Suburbicarian See), Anagni-Alatri, Civita Castellana, Civitavecchia-Tarquinia, Frascati (Suburbicarian See), Frosinone-Veroli-Ferentino, Gaeta (Archdiocese), Latina-Terracina-Sezze-Priverno, Montecassino (Territorial Abbey), Ostia (Suburbicarian See), Palestrina (Suburbicarian See), Porto-Santa Rufina (Suburbicarian See), Rieti (-S. Salvatore Maggiore), Sabina-Poggio Mirteto (Suburbicarian See), Subiaco (Territorial Abbey), Tivoli, Velletri-Segni (Suburbicarian See), Viterbo — The Diocese of Sora-Cassino-Aquino-Pontecorvo may also be a member.

Since in 4 cases, one Bishop rules 2 diocese at the same time (As in the cases of Frascati & Velletri, and Porto-Santa Rufino & Civitavecchia-Tarquinia and Tivoli & Palestrina, and Frosinone-Veroli-Ferrentino & Anagni-Alatri), and since one Diocese no longer exists (Ostia) separately from Rome, the actual 15 addresses of the 15 Bishops to be contacted by letter are as follows. Here I write them in the style accepted in Italy.

Msgr. Vincenzo Viva
Vecovo di Albano
Curia Vescovile
Piazza Vescovile, 11
00041 Albano Laziale (ROMA)
Italia

Msgr. Ambrogio Spreafico
Curia Vescovile
Via dei Villini, 82
03014 Fiuggi (Frosinone)
Italia

Msgr. Marco Salvi
Curia Diocesana
Piazza Matteotti, 27
01033 Civita Castellana (Viterbo)
Italia

Msgr. Gianrico Ruzza
Piazza Calamatta 1
00053 Civitavecchia (Roma), Italia

Msgr.Stefano Russo
Curia Vescovile
Piazza Paolo III 10
00044 Frascati (Roma)
Italia

Msgr. Luigi Vari
Piazza Arcivescovado 2
04024 Gaeta (Latina)
Italia

Msgr. Mariano Crociata
Vescovado
Via Sezze 16
04100 Latina
Italia

Abbate Antonio Luca Fallica, O.S.B.
Abbazia
Via Montecassino,
03043 Cassino (Frosinone)
Italia

Cardinale Angelo De Donatis
Vicariato di Roma
Piazza S. Giovanni in Laterano 6/a
00184 Roma, Italia

Msgr. Mauro Parmeggiani
Curia Vescovile
Piazza Gregorio Pantanelli 8
00036 Palestrina (Roma)
Italia

Msgr. Gianrico Ruzza
Curia Vescovile
Via del Cenacolo 53
00123 Roma – La Storta (ROMA)
Italia

Msgr. Vito Piccinonna
Vescovado
Via Cintia 83
02100 Rieti
Italia

Msgr. Ernesto Mandara
Vescovado
Piazza Mario Dottori 14
02047 Poggio Mirteto (Rieti)
Italia

Abbate Mauro Meacci, O.S.B.
Piazza S. Scolastica 1
00028 Subiaco (ROMA)
Italia

Msgr. Orazio Francesco Piazza
Palazzo Vescovile
Piazza S. Lorenzo 9/a
01100 Viterbo
Italia

Proposed Letter

We can do this by writing letters or speaking in person. But in this we can act in two different ways: one by listing all the errors, heresies, blasphemies and persecutions perpetrated by Jorge Mario Bergoglio during the years he has claimed the Papacy; or we can enlighten the Bishops as to the correct canonical way of proceeding, most of whom perhaps have no clear idea.

This second aspect of the problem is the most crucial since it is the one which is less patent.

And thus, in the Sutri Initiative, I urge you that to make your letter effective, you should see to it, that it contain the correct canonical justification and argumentation.

I present a proposed text, which you can address to each bishop and sign with your full name and address. You can write in Italian, French or English, or if you write in another language, please include a translation of your letter in one of these 3 languages.

Proposed text:

Your Excellency,

I am writing to you in accord with my rights in Canon 212, §2, to demand an end be put to the scandals, heresies, blasphemies and doctrinal and moral confusion being promoted by Pope Francis and those appointed by him in the Roman Curia, on the grounds that this is causing the loss of tens of millions of souls who are thus put in the gravest spiritual danger, confusion and disorientation by the constant affirmation of things which are contrary to Divine Revelation, Sacred and Apostolic Tradition, Catholic Doctrine and the defined dogmas of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I.

Thus, in accord with canon 1752, which affirms that the salvation of souls is the greatest good and highest end of all juridical ordinance in the Church of Jesus Christ, I beg you to recognize that by the continuous grave scandals perpetrated by Jorge Mario Bergoglio the Apostolic See has been put into a state of impediment, since millions of Catholics cannot reconcile his pertinacious errors and heresies as compatible with being a member of the Catholic Church, without which quality he cannot be a legitimate holder of the Petrine Munus or claimant to the Apostolic Dignity.

Therefore, since according to Canon 440 ff., the Provincial Council in the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome is empowered to judge and discern all questions which regard the common good of the Church, and since the positive doubt as to the Catholicity of a claimant to the Apostolic See makes it impossible for the Church in good conscience to remain in communication with a doubtful claimant, because a papa dubius papa nullius est, it becomes your grave duty before the Living God and the entire Church, to urge the convening of such a Provincial Council according to the right expressed in canon 440 §1.

Such a Council can be legitimately convoked according to the norm of canon 442 §2, because a positive doubt regarding the claim of a man to the office of the Roman Pontiff creates such a conflict of interests that he cannot legitimately forestall its convocation nor has he a right to so long as he persists in grave moral and doctrinal errors, as this man has done for years in the judgement of millions of souls. The state of impediment exists as a fact on account of his failure to recant his public errors, the list of which grows weekly.

I therefore demand that for the salvation of souls, the removal of all scandal, and to obtain the possible grace of the conversion of the man, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, from his errant ways, that such a Council be convoked according to the norm of canons 443 and 444, and that it exercise its plenary authority in accord with canon 445, by pronouncing whether the man who claims the office of the Papacy rejects the Catholic Faith, has broken from communion with the Church, or is an apostate and idolater. Let the man accused be summoned to explain himself. Let the Council Fathers question him on matters of Catholic Faith and Morals; let his public scandals be listed for him to hear. Let him be recalled to the Catholic Faith, right morals and a sane pastoral care of the faithful. Let it be demanded that he recant his errors and if he does, let him be begged and counseled to withdraw his ruinous decrees. If he refuse rebuke, let him be pronounced as being guilty of one or more of the crimes punished with latae sententiae excommunication in  Canon 1364 and let the Council declare that the See of Peter be legitimately vacant.

The Provincial Council of Rome rebuked Pope Marcellinus for his act of public idolatry of the Roman god, Mars and the Provincial Council held at Sutri in 1046 deposed three unworthy claimants to the Apostolic Throne, for their gross immorality and unlawful claim: Benedict IX, Sylvester III and Gregory VI.

It is your duty before the living God to see to the salvation of souls. The Provincial Council in the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome has the authority in law and by precedent to act in this way. More than a billion souls hang in the balance.

Have fear of the Living God for what will be your judgment if you do not heed such a reasonable, juridically valid and honest solution to the greatest crisis in the history of the Papacy. And trust like Saint Paul the Apostle trusted, when he went to Antioch to rebuke St Peter to his face, for not holding to the decrees of the First Council of Jerusalem.

For if you believe the man to be Peter still, you must trust the Holy Spirit will lead him back to a Catholic state of mind; and if you do not believe him to be Peter still, you have the solemn duty to take action to declare the Apostolic See legitimately vacant.

Sincerely,

_______________________________________

UPDATE: For more information about the juridical justification to call such a Provincial council see here: https://www.fromrome.info/2023/12/28/on-the-rebuke-and-deposition-of-a-heretical-pope/

The Provincial Council of Sutri, Dec. 20-23, 1046 A.D., and It’s importance for the Church of Today (Video)

Traduzione Italiana in fondo

Editor’s Note: Tomorrow I will launch the Sutri Initiative. But as a preparation, here is my first video made at Sutri, Italy, recounting the remarkable and historic events which took place here in 1046, and its importance for resolving the crisis in which the Church of Rome finds Herself now.

This video is also available on YouTube here:

FromRome.info gives permission to all to translate, transcribe and publish other language versions of this video. — Br. Bugnolo’s other articles on Sutri and Provincial Councils can be found here and here.

ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT OF THE VIDEO — which corrects some minor errors in the video

Traduzione Italiana in fondo

Welcome to FromRome.Info Video. My name is Br. Alexis Bugnolo. I am the publisher and editor of FromRome.info an electronic journal for news, information and commentary about the Catholic Church, the Vatican, Rome and Italy.

Today I find myself in Sutri, in the province of Viterbo, to discuss the Council of Sutri and its implications for the Church of Today.

Here in Sutri, there occurred in 1046 A. D. one of the most curious, interesting and unique events in the entire history of the Church. One so obscure that, even at Sutri, it is forgotten.

Sutri has a long history. As you see here, this is the modern gateway to the old part of town. Behind me is the Cathedral in the old part of two. But in 1046 the town only extended this far.

Sutri was the first town given to the Roman Pontiff in the Roman countryside, by the Lombard King Luitiprand. It has always had an intimate relationship with the Apostolic See. And here in the old town, the Church of St. Sylvester was aggregated to the Basilica of Saint Peter.

The Synod of Sutri, or more exactly the Council of Sutri was an even that solved one of the knotting questions of its age. It’s an extraordinary example of how medievals addressed problems directly and solved them and did not spend their time lamenting and tweeting about them for years.

A little background on the Synod of Sutri

In 1032, nearly a 1000 years ago, there was elected to the Apostle See Theophylactus of Tusculum. He was one of the youngest men ever to be elected pope. He came from a power family of land holders in Lazio. He was only however 20 years old, and was perhaps chosen by the members of his family because he was the only male member who was yet unmarried, and thus, who could hold ecclesiastic office.

But very soon, things went wrong, in a most extraordinary way, because Theophylactus of Tusculum, who took the papal name, Benedict IX, was, according to historians, one of the most immoral men ever to sit on the Chair of Saint Peter. No less than Saint Peter Damnian says he was a flagrant sodomite. Other writers said he committed moral depravities so obscene they could not describe them. The scandals grews. He hosted orgies, he engaged in bestiality, he raped other men, maybe even boys, and all Italy was disgusted by the man.

But as he was a member of a very powerful family, by force of arms he held the Apostolic See.

Until the disgust grew so big, that his rivals drove him from the city of Rome. And here is where the Catholic faction who wanted an honest man on the throne of Saint Peter erred, because they took a bishop from Sabina and elected him the pope. He took the name Sylvester III. Since Benedict IX was still alive, Sylvester is recognized by all ecclesiastic historians as an antipope, even though he lived an upright and honorable life and ruled the Church of Rome with satisfaction of the people.

Now, if you are not a Catholic you might find this very scandalous.

How can someone who is completely immoral be the true pope and an upright man be an antipope? Well, holding an office in the Catholic Church is not based on your personal morality but upon whether you were legitimately elected to the office. As in modern times, it does not matter how popular a candidate is or how upright, only if he has been legally elected, he can hold the office.

Benedict IX, being from a powerful family, eventually drove Sylvester III from Rome. But the scandals continued and Benedict returned to his immoral life. Eventually he decided, however, to marry one of his cousins and obtain her wealth by dowry. But since as Pope one was forbidden to marry, he sought counsel with his godfather, John Gratian who was a very learned and wealthy priest of Rome. And so they agreed that Benedict IX would resign and that John Gratian would purchase the papacy from him, so that Theophylatcus could obtain the money he needed for his wedding

Well, when word of this became public, Catholics of Italy were scandalized, because you should not purchase or sell an ecclesiastical office. That is one of the greatest sins in the Church and it much scandalized the faithful of the 11th century, because of the commercialization of an intangible spiritual gift which should be freely given.

So the Bishops of Italy wrote the German King, Henry III. This was the year 1045 A. D. Now, Henry III wanted to be crowned Emperor of the Romans, a thing which could only be done by the Pope in Rome. But Henry III did not want any one of these three men to lay the crown upon his head, lest his reputation be stained by them; so he announced that he would put the Church of Rome in order and resolve the dispute among these three popes: Benedict XI, Sylvester III and Gregory VI. John Gratian had taken this last name.

Gregory VI being a very proper man, after purchasing the papacy had the clergy of Rome elect him Pontiff and then wrote to the German King for approval of his election. Because from about 950 to 1050, the Kings of Germany had the right to approve or confirm papal elections.

Upon receiving his letters, the German King gave no immediate response

.. but descended into Italy and asked Gregory VI to convene a provincial council here at Sutri.

And this is why I have come here today to tell you the story no one else will tell.

Sutri was a small medieval borgo. It probably had no more than 5000 souls living in its environs. And this council of Sutri took place, most likely, in this tiny Church of St. Sylvester, behind me.

The year was 1046 Anno Domini. The date was December 20th. And the Germany King with his bodyguard of soldiers, calvary and noblemen, along with all the Bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Rome and the principal members of the clergy of Rome came to this little church, and perhaps filled this tiny piazza – which perhaps was larger back then, since Italians have the habit of encroaching upon public spaces and attended this Council of Sutri, a most unique event, because at this Council 3 pope were deposed.

And this historic event is one of the most controverted in the post Tridentine era of the Church. This is because at the Council of Basel in 1432, the Bishops during the sessions which were not approved by the Roman Pontiff, after the Pope left, taught that a universal council of all the Bishops of the Catholic Church was superior to the Pope. And this began three centuries of conflict in the West where many Bishops and theologians promoted the error of Conciliarism, which taught this error. So many writers of that epoch tried to portray the Council of Sutri as proof of the truth of conciliarism. But conciliarism was later condemned as a grave error and heresy, I believe, by Pope Pius VII, because the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and no one can judge him.

So how is it, then, that at this Council of Sutri in 1046, 3 popes were deposed?

To understand this we have to make a very fine distinction: the distinction between the man who is the pope, and the man as the pope.

So, before you are elected pope, you are just a man, and when you are elected you are asked to accept your election; and it is the man who says yes. But once you say yes, you hold the office of the pope and then the two realities, the office and the man, walk together, as it were. But its the man who eats eggs at breakfast and toasts wine in the evening, not the Roman Pontiff. It’s the Roman Pontiff who says mass, teaches, promulgates documents and laws. So the two realities, while they go together, are distinct. And the man who holds the office of Roman Pontiff holds it as the man. That is why when a pope resigns, its the man who resigns, not the pope. Though in canon law, if you don’t  understand this distinction you won’t see that, because in canon 332, section 2, it talks about the Roman Pontiff renouncing.

So here at the council of Sutri, they did not judge the Roman Pontiff. They judged the three men who claimed to be the Roman Pontiff. And this claim is a natural fact, a historical fact, a juridical fact, and to judge it’s validity is the duty of a Provincial Council, because in canons 440-443, even in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, a provincial council can establish disciplinary measured which bind all the Churches in the province.

So the mere fact that provincial councils operate in the same manner as they did back then shows the perenniality of the Catholic Church and how important the juridical character of the Council of Sutri in 1046 was, that the Catholic Church thereafter never changed the rules for provincial councils, because of its outcome.

And so on December 20-23, 1046 A. D. 3 Popes were deposed

Of course, the outcome of the Council of Sutri here in this little Church probably had a lot to do with the will of the German King, Henry III, on account of his military forces surrounding the place, but it was also something wanted by the clergy of Rome and the Bishops of central Italy, because it was simply an intolerable situation to have 3 popes: one who was a predatory sodomite, and that was Benedict IX; one who was a usurper, and that was Sylvester III; and one who was a simoniac, and that was Gregory VI. – The crime of simony consists in the sale and purchase of ecclesiastical offices.

So they met here on Dec 20, 1046, from the 20th to the 23rd. And Gregory VI and the German King summoned all three popes to the council. Benedict IX refused to come.

Sylvester III came. He was judged to have usurped the papacy and never legally held the office of Pope. He was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment in a monastery, even though he was otherwise an upright man. – You can commit a crime evne with good intentions. – That is why you won’t find his name among the popes.

The next on trial was Gregory VI. The German King and council asked him to relate how he became pope. And they were aghast to learn that it was a contract of sale on the condition of resignation and exchange of money. – We do not know to this day what kind of contract it was. Did Benedict resign because Gregory paid him money to convince him? – If that happened then he resignation of Benedict X would be invalid. But if Benedict resigned and took the money to support the claim of Gregory to be the pope, then the resignation would be valid.

And the Church holds that the resignation of Benedict IX was valid.

But the entire council was scandalized by the relation of the events. And John Gratian knew that purchasing an ecclesiastical office was wrong. And Henry III was not going to accept the imperial crown from a simoniac. So Gregory was asked to resign. The imperial register says that Henry III deposed him. But Bl. Victor III, abbot of Monte Cassino, and future pope, who was present, says that Gregory VI out of humility resigned freely. And both stories might be true.

So that left Benedict IX. What he pope or not? The Council summoned him, but he refused to appear. So the Council judged him contumacious for refusing the summons, and he was excommunicated for selling the papacy. Whether he had representatives here to plead his case, we do not know.

So that was the Council of Sutri, in 1046. Afterwards, the German King and Clergy of Rome nominated the chaplain of the Germany Kind, the Bishop of Bamberg, as Clement II and the next day at the Vatican, on Dec. 24, he was duly elected. And on Christmas Day the Germany King was given the imperial crown by Clement II.

And this is the Council of Sutri, a council not to be forgotten.

The value of the example of Sutri for the Church of today

This is my first video about the Counci of Sutri. And it shows us today the way forward out of the present problems of the Church. Because if some claimant of the papacy appears to many learned and rational Catholic clergy to be one who does not hold to the Catholic Faith or who has no intention of even being a Christian, it is clear that the Church as a problem. Should catholics listen to such a man or should they not listen to him. In the Catholic Church we have a canon 1364, which says that heretics, schismatics and apostates are automatically excommunicated. I believe canon 192 says, however, that in such cases a judgment must be made.

So in a question of the Apostolic See it is only a provincial council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome which can judge the case, and this is why the Synod of Sutri in 1046 is so important for our present age. Already Catholics from around the world are writing the bishops of the Roman ecclesiastical province asking them to call a Council; because in canon law, if the Apostolic See is impeded, they can convene a council on their own authority and summon a claimant to the apostolis see to determine if his claim is valid or not. This is very important because there are proposals now, here in the air at Rome, to grant permission to Catholic priests or clergy, to bless unions which are not of one man and one woman in Christian matrimony. And which are contrary even to the natural law. And there is a big debate about that. But to do that would be clearly and act of apostasy because in the Catholic Church, according to the Christian religion, from the day Christ opened His mouth, you have to believe and repent, repent and believe; you cannot just claim to believe what you want to and practice whatever sin you want. That is not Christianity. So from the moment that something like that would be approved, the clergy who approved of it would become public apostates. And we are pretty much on the verge of that. The Synod on Synodality is in session at Rome, it concludes Oct. 28th. I am making this video on October 19. So the Synod concludes in 9 days. We will soon know what kind of decisions will be made and we will soon know if Pope Francis is going to un-pope himself as Cardinal Mueller implied, when he said, that to approve such a thing contrary to the Deposit of the Faith, would cause pope Francis to lose his moral authority. – That is a diplomatic way of saying lose his office.

But whatever Pope Francis decides to teach, and whatever Catholics think of it or not, or whether millions of Catholics follow or do not follow him in this, only a provincial council can make a decision which binds on the whole Church.

So this is the video on the Council of Sutri, Dec. 20-23th, 1046. It is not even mentioned on the historical bulletin board over there. But it is the most remarkable council in the history of the Church; and it was here in this moment of history, 980 years ago, that all these controversies of canon law, juridical principles and theological questions and rights of the Pope, the supremacy of the pope, the validity of papal elections, all came together and changed history.

It was after this council that Clement II was elected pope and it was his successor, who was also a German, in 1054 who excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and begame the Great East-West Schism, a thing an Italian pope probably would not have done.

So there were big consequences of this council. And so important was its decisions to its contemporaries that 15 years later the clergy of Rome came here to the Church of St. Sylvestr, for the Second Council of Sutri, to decide rules for the reform of the clergy of the City.

This council was approved of by some of the great Saints of its day. In these days, there was present in council Saint Hildebrand, who was the acolyte of Gregory VI and would himself go one to be elected some 20 years later, as Gregory VII. At Rome, when the Council concluded, there was Saint Peter Damian, who praised its decisions. And though he was not present in person, Bl. Victor III, who years later would become Abbot of Monte Cassino, and be elected Pope 40 years later, speaks highly of it in his histories of this age. So there were 2 Saints and 1 Blessed who approved of this council, and the Church to our day recognizes that Gregory VI was deposed here.

Unfortunately many do not know of this council and confuse its issues with many controversies which arose centuries later. A provincial council that rebukes a pope or which questions his claim to his title is nothing more than what Saint Paul the Apostle did at Antioch when he reproved Peter the Apostle for not holding to the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem.

If you liked this video give it a thumbs up, please share it. Thank you.

TRADUZIONE ITALIANA

Benvenuti in questo video di FromRome.Info. Sono Fr. Alessio Bugnolo. Sono colui che pubblica e fa l’editing di FromRome.info, un giornale elettronico di notizie, informazioni e commenti sulla Chiesa cattolica, il Vaticano, Roma e l’Italia.

Oggi mi trovo a Sutri, in provincia di Viterbo, per discutere del Concilio di Sutri e delle sue implicazioni per la Chiesa di oggi.

Qui a Sutri si verificò nel 1046 d.C. uno degli eventi più curiosi, interessanti e unici dell’intera storia della Chiesa. Uno così oscuro che, anche a Sutri, è dimenticato.

Sutri ha una lunga storia. Come vedete qui, questa è la porta moderna verso la parte vecchia della città. Dietro di me c’è la Cattedrale nella parte vecchia. Ma nel 1046 la città si estendeva solo fin qui.

Sutri fu il primo centro donato al Romano Pontefice nel contado romano, dal re longobardo Liutprando. Ha sempre avuto un rapporto intimo con la Sede Apostolica. E qui, nel centro storico, la Chiesa di San Silvestro è stata aggregata alla Basilica di San Pietro.

Il Sinodo di Sutri, o più esattamente il Concilio di Sutri, fu un evento che risolse una delle questioni intricate della sua epoca. È un esempio straordinario di come i medievali affrontassero i problemi direttamente e li risolvessero senza passare il tempo a lamentarsi e a twittare al riguardo per anni.

Un po’ di storia del Sinodo di Sutri.

Nel 1032, quasi mille anni fa, fu eletto apostolo Teofilatto di Tuscolo. Fu uno degli uomini più giovani mai eletti papa. Proveniva da una potente famiglia di proprietari terrieri del Lazio. Aveva però solo 20 anni e fu forse scelto dai membri della sua famiglia perché era l’unico maschio ancora celibe e quindi in grado di ricoprire incarichi ecclesiastici.

Ma ben presto le cose andarono storte, in un modo davvero straordinario, perché Teofilatto di Tuscolo, che prese il nome papale, Benedetto IX, fu, secondo gli storici, uno degli uomini più immorali che si siano mai seduti presso l’ufficio ecclesiastico. Addirittura, San Pier Damiani afferma che fu un flagrante sodomita. Altri scrittori dissero che era coinvolto in depravazioni morali così oscene da non poterle descrivere. Gli scandali crebbero. Fece orge, praticò bestialità, violentò altri uomini, forse anche ragazzi, e tutta l’Italia era disgustata da quell’uomo.

Ma poiché apparteneva a una famiglia molto potente, con la forza delle armi tenne la Sede Apostolica.

Finché il disgusto non diventò così grande, che i suoi rivali lo cacciarono dalla città di Roma. Ed è qui che la fazione cattolica che voleva un uomo onesto sul trono di San Pietro ha sbagliato, perché presero un vescovo della Sabina e lo elessero papa. Prese il nome di Silvestro III. Poiché Benedetto IX era ancora in vita, Silvestro è riconosciuto da tutti gli storici ecclesiastici come un antipapa, anche se visse una vita retta e onorevole e governò la Chiesa di Roma con soddisfazione del popolo.

​Ora, se non siete cattolici, potreste trovare questo molto scandaloso. Come può qualcuno che è completamente immorale essere il vero papa e un uomo retto essere un antipapa? Ebbene, ricoprire una carica nella Chiesa cattolica non si basa sulla tua moralità personale, ma sul fatto che tu sia stato legittimamente eletto alla carica. Come nei tempi moderni, non importa quanto un candidato sia popolare o quanto sia onesto, solo se è stato eletto legalmente può ricoprire la carica.

Benedetto IX, proveniente da una famiglia potente, alla fine cacciò Silvestro III da Roma. Ma gli scandali continuarono e Benedetto ritornò alla sua vita immorale. Alla fine, decise, però, di sposare una delle sue cugine e di ottenere la sua ricchezza tramite dote. Ma poiché come Papa era proibito sposarsi, cercò consiglio presso il suo padrino, Giovanni Graziano, che era un prete di Roma molto dotto e ricco. E così concordarono che Benedetto IX si dimettesse e che Giovanni Graziano acquistasse da lui il pontificato, affinché Teofilatto potesse ottenere il denaro di cui aveva bisogno per le sue nozze.

Ebbene, quando la notizia divenne pubblica, i cattolici d’Italia si scandalizzarono, perché non si deve comprare né vendere un ufficio ecclesiastico. Questo è uno dei peccati più grandi della Chiesa e scandalizzò molto i fedeli dell’XI secolo, a causa della commercializzazione di un dono spirituale intangibile che dovrebbe essere donato gratuitamente.
Così scrivevano i Vescovi d’Italia al re tedesco Enrico III. Era l’anno 1045 d.C. Ora, Enrico III voleva essere incoronato imperatore dei romani, cosa che poteva essere fatta solo dal Papa a Roma. Ma Enrico III non volle che nessuno di questi tre uomini gli mettesse la corona sul capo, affinché la sua reputazione non ne fosse macchiata; annunciò così che avrebbe messo ordine nella Chiesa di Roma e risolto la disputa tra questi tre papi: Benedetto XI, Silvestro III e Gregorio VI. Giovanni Graziano aveva preso tale nome.

Gregorio VI, essendo un uomo molto perbene, dopo aver acquistato il papato si fece eleggere pontefice dal clero di Roma e poi scrisse al re tedesco per l’approvazione della sua elezione. Perché dal 950 al 1050 circa i re di Germania avevano il diritto di approvare o confermare le elezioni papali.

Ricevute le sue lettere, il re tedesco non diede immediata risposta ma scese in Italia e chiese a Gregorio VI di convocare qui a Sutri un concilio provinciale.

Ed è per questo che sono venuto qui oggi per raccontarvi la storia che nessun altro racconterà.

Sutri era un piccolo borgo medievale. Probabilmente non contava più di 5000 anime nei suoi dintorni. E questo concilio di Sutri si è svolto, molto probabilmente, in questa minuscola Chiesa di San Silvestro, alle mie spalle.

L’anno era il 1046. La data era il 20 dicembre. E il Re di Germania, con la sua guardia del corpo di soldati, cavalleria e nobili, insieme a tutti i Vescovi della provincia ecclesiastica di Roma e i principali membri del clero di Roma, vennero a questa chiesetta, e riempirono forse questa minuscola piazza – che forse era più grande allora, dal momento che gli italiani hanno l’abitudine di invadere gli spazi pubblici, e hanno partecipato a questo Concilio di Sutri, un evento davvero unico, perché in questo Concilio furono deposti 3 papi.

​E questo evento storico è uno dei più controversi dell’epoca post tridentina della Chiesa. Questo perché nel Concilio di Basilea del 1432, i Vescovi, durante le sessioni non approvate dal Romano Pontefice, dopo la partenza del Papa, insegnarono che un concilio universale di tutti i Vescovi della Chiesa cattolica era superiore al Papa. E questo ha dato inizio a tre secoli di conflitto in Occidente dove molti Vescovi e teologi hanno promosso l’errore del Conciliarismo, che ha insegnato questo errore. Tanti scrittori dell’epoca tentarono di dipingere il Concilio di Sutri come una prova della verità del conciliarismo. Ma il conciliarismo è stato poi condannato come errore grave ed eresia, credo, da Papa Pio VII, perché il Romano Pontefice è il Vicario di Cristo e nessuno può giudicarlo.

Allora come mai in questo Concilio di Sutri del 1046 furono deposti 3 papi? Per capirlo dobbiamo fare una distinzione molto sottile: la distinzione tra l’uomo che è papa e l’uomo in quanto papa.

Quindi, prima di essere eletto papa, sei semplicemente un uomo, e quando sei eletto ti viene chiesto di accettare la tua elezione; ed è l’uomo che dice di sì. Ma una volta che dici sì, ricopri la carica di papa e allora le due realtà, la carica e l’uomo, camminano, per così dire, insieme. Ma è l’uomo che mangia le uova a colazione e brinda col vino la sera, non il Romano Pontefice. È il Romano Pontefice che dice messa, insegna, promulga documenti e leggi. Quindi le due realtà, pur andando insieme, sono distinte. E l’uomo che ricopre l’ufficio di Romano Pontefice lo ricopre come uomo. Ecco perché quando un papa si dimette, è l’uomo che si dimette, non il papa. Tuttavia, nel diritto canonico, se non capisci questa distinzione non la vedrai, perché nel canone 332, sezione 2, si parla della rinuncia del Romano Pontefice.

Quindi qui al concilio di Sutri non hanno giudicato il Romano Pontefice. Giudicarono i tre uomini che affermavano di essere il Romano Pontefice. E questa affermazione è un fatto naturale, un fatto storico, un fatto giuridico, e giudicarne la validità è compito di un Consiglio provinciale, perché nei can. 440-443, anche nel Codice di Diritto Canonico del 1983, promulgato da Papa Giovanni Paolo II, un consiglio provinciale può stabilire provvedimenti disciplinari che vincolano tutte le Chiese della provincia.

Quindi il solo fatto che i concili provinciali funzionino nello stesso modo di allora dimostra la perennità della Chiesa cattolica e quanto importante fosse il carattere giuridico del Concilio di Sutri del 1046, che da allora in poi la Chiesa cattolica non ha mai cambiato le regole dei concili provinciali, a causa del suo esito.

Certo, l’esito del Concilio di Sutri qui, in questa chiesetta, probabilmente ha molto a che fare con la volontà del re tedesco Enrico III, a causa delle sue forze militari che circondavano il luogo, ma è stato anche qualcosa di voluto dal clero di Roma e dei Vescovi dell’Italia centrale, perché era semplicemente una situazione intollerabile avere 3 papi: uno sodomita predatore, e quello era Benedetto IX; uno che era un usurpatore, e quello era Silvestro III; e uno che era simoniaco, e cioè Gregorio VI. Il delitto di simonia consiste nella compravendita di uffici ecclesiastici.

​Quindi si incontrarono qui il 20 dicembre 1046, dal 20 al 23. E Gregorio VI e il re tedesco convocarono al concilio tutti e tre i papi. Benedetto IX si rifiutò di venire.

Arrivò Silvestro III. Si ritiene che abbia usurpato il papato e non abbia mai ricoperto legalmente la carica di papa. Fu arrestato e condannato all’ergastolo in un monastero, anche se per il resto era un uomo retto. Puoi commettere un crimine anche con buone intenzioni. Ecco perché non troverai il suo nome tra i papi.

Il successivo processato fu Gregorio VI. Il re tedesco e il consiglio gli chiesero di raccontare come divenne papa. E rimasero inorriditi nell’apprendere che si trattava di un contratto di vendita con condizione di dimissioni e scambio di denaro. Ad oggi non sappiamo che tipo di contratto fosse. Benedetto si dimise perché Gregorio gli pagò dei soldi per convincerlo? Se successe questo allora le dimissioni di Benedetto X non sarebbero valide. Ma se Benedetto si dimise e prese i soldi per sostenere la pretesa di Gregorio di diventare papa, allora le dimissioni sarebbero valide.

E la Chiesa ritiene valide le dimissioni di Benedetto IX.

Ma l’intero Concilio rimase scandalizzato dalla narrazione degli avvenimenti. E Giovanni Graziano sapeva che acquistare un ufficio ecclesiastico era sbagliato. E Enrico III non avrebbe accettato la corona imperiale da un simoniaco. Quindi a Gregorio è stato chiesto di dimettersi. Il registro imperiale dice che Enrico III lo depose. Ma il beato Vittore III, abate di Montecassino e futuro papa, che era presente, dice che Gregorio VI per umiltà si dimise liberamente. Ed entrambe le storie potrebbero essere vere.

Quindi restava Benedetto IX. Papa o no? Il Consiglio lo convocò, ma egli rifiutò di comparire. Perciò il Concilio lo giudicò contumace per aver rifiutato la citazione, e fu scomunicato per aver venduto il papato. Non sappiamo se avesse rappresentanti qui per perorare la sua causa.

Così fu il Concilio di Sutri, nel 1046. Successivamente, il re tedesco e il clero di Roma nominarono Clemente II, il cappellano della gente di Germania, vescovo di Bamberga, e il giorno dopo in Vaticano, il 24 dicembre, egli è stato regolarmente eletto. E il giorno di Natale il re di Germania ricevette la corona imperiale da Clemente II.
E questo è il Concilio di Sutri, un concilio da non dimenticare.

Questo è il mio primo video sui Conci di Sutri. E ci indica oggi la via d’uscita dagli attuali problemi della Chiesa. Perché, se qualche pretendente al papato sembra a molti sacerdoti cattolici colti e razionali come qualcuno che non sostiene la fede cattolica o che non ha nemmeno intenzione di essere cristiano, è chiaro che la Chiesa ha un problema. I cattolici dovrebbero ascoltare un uomo simile o non dovrebbero ascoltarlo? Nella Chiesa cattolica abbiamo il canone 1364, che dice che gli eretici, gli scismatici e gli apostati vengono automaticamente scomunicati. Credo che il canone 192 dica, tuttavia, che in tali casi si deve emettere un giudizio.

Quindi in una questione della Sede Apostolica è solo un concilio provinciale della provincia ecclesiastica di Roma che può giudicare il caso, ed è per questo che il Sinodo di Sutri del 1046 è così importante per la nostra epoca attuale. Già cattolici di tutto il mondo scrivono ai vescovi della provincia ecclesiastica romana chiedendo loro di indire un Concilio; perché nel diritto canonico, se la Sede Apostolica è impedita, possono convocare di propria autorità un concilio e citare un pretendente alla Sede Apostolica per determinare se la sua pretesa è valida o meno. Questo è molto importante perché ci sono proposte ora, qui nell’aria a Roma, di concedere il permesso ai preti o al clero cattolico, di benedire le unioni che non sono di un uomo e una donna nel matrimonio cristiano. E che sono contrari anche alla legge naturale.

E c’è un grande dibattito a riguardo.

Ma farlo sarebbe chiaramente un atto di apostasia perché nella Chiesa cattolica, secondo la religione cristiana, dal giorno in cui Cristo aprì la bocca, devi credere e pentirti, pentirti e credere; non puoi semplicemente affermare di credere in ciò che vuoi e praticare qualunque peccato tu voglia. Questo non è cristianesimo. Quindi, dal momento in cui qualcosa del genere venisse approvato, il clero che lo approvasse diventerebbe un pubblico apostata. E siamo praticamente sull’orlo di questo. È in corso a Roma il Sinodo sulla sinodalità che si concluderà il 28 ottobre. Questo video lo farò il 19 ottobre. Quindi il Sinodo si conclude tra 9 giorni. Presto sapremo che tipo di decisioni verranno prese e presto sapremo se Papa Francesco rinuncerà, come ha lasciato intendere il cardinale Mueller, quando ha detto che approvare una cosa del genere, contraria al Deposito della Fede, sarebbe far perdere a papa Francesco la sua autorità morale. Questo è un modo diplomatico per dire che perderà la sua carica.

Ma qualunque cosa Papa Francesco decida di insegnare, e qualunque cosa i cattolici ne pensino o no, o se milioni di cattolici lo seguono o non lo seguono in questo, solo un concilio provinciale può prendere una decisione che vincola tutta la Chiesa.

Quindi questo è il video sul Concilio di Sutri, 20-23 dicembre 1046. Non è nemmeno menzionato nella bacheca storica laggiù. Ma è il concilio più notevole della storia della Chiesa; ed è stato qui in questo momento storico, 980 anni fa, che tutte queste controversie sul diritto canonico, sui principi giuridici e sulle questioni teologiche e sui diritti del Papa, sulla supremazia del papa, sulla validità delle elezioni papali, si sono riunite e hanno cambiato storia.

Fu dopo questo concilio che Clemente II fu eletto papa e fu il suo successore, anch’egli tedesco, nel 1054, a scomunicare il patriarca di Costantinopoli e a dare inizio al Grande Scisma Est-Ovest, cosa che un papa italiano probabilmente non avrebbe fatto.

Quindi ci furono grandi conseguenze da questo concilio. E le sue decisioni furono così importanti per i contemporanei che 15 anni dopo il clero di Roma venne qui nella chiesa di San Silvestro, per il Secondo Concilio di Sutri, per decidere le norme per la riforma del clero della Città.

Questo consiglio fu approvato da alcuni dei grandi santi del suo tempo. In questi giorni era presente al concilio sant’Ildebrando, che era l’accolita di Gregorio VI e che sarebbe andato lui stesso al papato una ventina di anni dopo, come Gregorio VII. A Roma, concluso il Concilio, c’era san Pier Damiani, che ne lodò le decisioni. E sebbene non fosse presente di persona, il beato Vittore III, che anni dopo sarebbe diventato abate di Montecassino e sarebbe stato eletto papa 40 anni dopo, ne parla molto bene nelle sue storie di quest’epoca. Quindi furono 2 Santi e 1 Beato che approvarono questo concilio, e la Chiesa fino ai nostri giorni riconosce che qui fu deposto Gregorio VI.

Purtroppo, molti non conoscono questo Concilio e ne confondono le questioni con le tante controversie sorte secoli dopo. Un concilio provinciale che rimprovera un papa o che mette in dubbio la sua pretesa al titolo non è altro che ciò che fece san Paolo apostolo ad Antiochia quando rimproverò Pietro apostolo di non essersi attenuto alle decisioni del Concilio di Gerusalemme.

Se ti è piaciuto questo video lascia un like e condividilo. Grazie.

VATICAN: Pope Francis issues Motu Proprio to curb Opus Dei’s influence in Dioceses

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Pope Francis has made a strong and forceful move against the entire work of Opus Dei, by quitely issuing a Motu Proprio on Wednesday of this week, and declaring it to go into effect immediately.

The news is being glossed over across the web, so it is important the I speak to that directly.

Click the image to the right to find out Zenit News has spun the story.

It has long been wondered who controls Zenit. Now you know.

Now look how Catholic News Service has spun the same story, below:

There is an old saying, “Thou doest protest too much!”, which based on the line from Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, Act III, spoken by Queen Gertrude: where one vociferously affirms something excessively so as not to be believed by the cogent observer. — Can we expect Pope Francis to encounter stronger opposition from Opus Dei? — Methinks so.

Pope Francis by his apostolic authority just changed the Code of Canon Law. This means his decision will have lasting effect for decades. And we should all pay attention.

Note, that this Motu Proprio is the first canonical act of Pope Francis’ papacy to modify the Code of Canon Law, as far as I know.* The text is already available in Italian, here:

Commentary on the Alterations of Canons 295 and 296

On account of the historic nature of this act, I will provide a commentary.

First, this is not the first juridical act of Pope Francis’ authentic Papacy, since his juridically valid election on January 30 of this year. He has issued a number (9) of Motu Poprios on various juridical themes, especially on the reform of the Penal Code.

So, Wednesday’s Motu Proprio is minor in comparison, but it will impact directly Opus Dei since it regards the canons on Personal Prelatures.

The Motu Proprio is textually a very dry document, evidently written by canonists, as it contains no theological explanation or reason for its promulgation.

CANON 295

The first canon which it alters is canon 295 §1. Here is the text of the new and old canons, and my English translation of each:

OLD CANON 295 §1:

Prelatura personalis regitur statuis ab Apostolica Sede conditis, eique praeficitur Prelatus ut Ordinarius proprius, cui ius st nationale vel internationale seminarium erigere necnon alumnos incardinare, eosque titolo serviti praelaturae ad ordines promovere.

NEW CANON 295 §1 — With Changes in Bold Face

Praelatura personalis, quae consociationibus publicis clericalibus iuris pontificii cum facultate incardinandi clericos assimilatur, regitur statutis ab Apostolica Sede probatis vel emanatis eique praeficitur Praelatus veluti Moderator, facultatibus Ordinarii praeditus, cui ius est nationale vel internationale seminarium erigere necnon alumnos incardinare, eosque titulo servitii praelaturae ad ordines promovere.

ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

OLD CANON 295 §1

A personal prelature is ruled by statutes established by the Apostolic See, and is presided over by a Prelate as its own Ordinary, whose right it is to erect a national and-or international seminary and also to incardinate its students, and promote them to orders by a title of service to the prelature.

NEW CANON 295 §1

A personal prelature, which is likened to public clerical co-associations of pontifical right, having the faculty to incardinate clerics, is ruled by statutes approved and/or emanating from the Apostolic See and is presided over by a Prelate as if its Moderator, endowed with the faculties of an Ordinary, whose right it is to erect a national and/or international seminary and also to incardinate its students, and promote them to orders by a title of service to the prelature.

As regards Canon 295 §2,

OLD LATIN

Praelatus prospicere debet sive spirituali institutioni illorum, quos titulo praedicto promoverit, sive eorundem decorae sustentationi.

NEW TEXT

Utpote Moderator facultatibus Ordinarii praeditus, Praelatus prospicere debet sive spirituali institutioni illorum, quos titulo praedicto promoverit, sive eorundem decorae sustentationi.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the New Version:

Inasmuch as a Moderator endowed with the faculties of an Ordinary, the Prelate ought to look after both the spiritual instruction and the due support, of those whom he has promoted by the aforesaid title.

My Remarks on changes to Canon 295 §1 §2

Pope Francis has made a major change in the legal status of all personal prelatures by defining what they are and making clear that they are only the likenesses of other canonically erected priestly associations, which have the right to erect their own seminaries and incardinate their members.

This is a big blow to Opus Dei, since it has put them on a juridical plane which will or would be inferior to the Society of St. Pius X, if they are reconciled eventually to the Church, since they will apply as a priestly fraternity.

The emphasis Pope Francis has placed with the words, “likened” and “as if”,  and “inasmuch as” shows clearly that he considers personal prelatures transitory juridical entities which must be subordinated to all other groups in the Church, from Dioceses to the smallest kind of public associations.

He has also explicitly denied that they have an Ordinary in the proper sense, by conceded that their Moderator has the faculties of a Bishop, but not episcopal dignity per se.

From the changes to this one Canon, I forsee that the next moderator of Opus Dei will not be allowed to be a Bishop.

I will also remark that the text of the Motu Proprio seems to have been redacted by an English speaker, who has imposed upon the Latin text a style of capitalization not found either in the Code nor in Latin.

CANON 296

OLD LATIN TEXT

Conventionibus cum praelatura initis, laici operibus apostolicis praeflaturae personalis sese dedicare possunt; modus vero huius organicae coopeationis atque praecipua officia et iura cum illa coniuncta in statutis apte determinentur.

NEW VERSION

Servatis can. 107 praescriptis, conventionibus cum praelatura initis, laici operibus apostolicis praelaturae personalis sese dedicare possunt; modus vero huius organicae cooperationis atque praecipua officia et iura cum illa coniuncta in statutis apte determinentur.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE NEW VERSION

Having observed the prescriptions of canon 107, according to those conventions initiated with the prelature, laymen can dedicate themselves to the apostolic works of the prelature; however, the manner of this organic cooperation as well as its chief offices and the rights conjoined to them, are to be aptly determined in their statutes.

My remarks on changes to Canon 296

By the reference to Canon 107, which specifies that all laypeople are subject to the pastor of the local parish and to the bishop of the local diocese or apostolic administration, Pope Francis has struck a mortal blow to the independence of apostolic activities of all Opus Dei lay members throughout the world.

They now must have the consent and approval of their local pastors, whether the pastor of the parish in which they reside or have a permanent or temporary domicile, as well as the Ordinaries of the dioceses in those places.

IN SUMMARY

It appears that decades of complaints by local Bishops against the abusive intrusion of Opus Dei have at last been heard. Opus Dei has been demoted from an entity superior to every other, to the least of all of those in the Church, and their lay members have been placed under the spiritual care and authority of the local pastors of the Church, constituted in accord with Apostolic Tradition.

Finally, reflecting on these changes, it seems to me that the recent remarks of Pope Francis against clergy and seminarians who go into the parishes to teach ideology, may have been directed directly at Opus Dei, and not at their rivals, the Traditionalists, against whom nearly all news sources framed that interview. Indeed, by issuing a Motu Proprio which goes into effect immediately, he has apparently acted in such a way as to prevent a counter wave of lobbying against this move.

And this might shock my readers, but I can at last say, that I totally agree with at least one juridical act of Pope Francis. He has done the right thing and in a way which is both charitable and decisive. He has applied the proper cure, without rehashing all the dirty laundry. — I nevertheless pray that all who have been injured by Opus Dei in any way bring their complaints even more forcefully to the public pervue, so that the entire Church might see how right this move was.


** The reform of the Penal Section of the Code in April of this year, was ideated throughout his antipapacy. It’s promulgation during his authentic pontificate had little or no effect on its composition, so there is a strong argument that its promulgation lacked due consent of the office holder.

The anti-Church is an alternate Church with an alternate canonical reality

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

FRANÇOIS

For more than 10 years we have been fed with an alternate reality from a group of Catholics who want an alternate Church. And it has been very difficulty for many Catholics, who discern truth, not on the basis of objective criteria, but on the basis of the majority of bits of information they receive, to discern who is right and who is wrong.

It’s like a classroom in a public school run by radical cultural marxists, where, in the class on Mathematics, when the teacher writes 2+3 = ?, she does not tell the class the answer, or ask them to calculate the correct answer, but instead says, “Let’s take a poll: who thinks the answer is 4, and who thinks the answer is 6?” To determine the truth of the question.

The only problem is, in such a chaotic classroom, the true answer is not allowed to be uttered. Everyone must live in the alternate reality and follow the alternate mathematics.

This is the ultimate phase of the dictatorship of relativism condemned by Pope Benedict XVI. And you cannot claim to be a true Catholic if you refuse to avoid this error.

But to avoid the dictatorship of relativism, you have to do something truly radical, rational, and traditional: you have to return to the ancient definition of truth, “which is the conformity of the mind with reality,” not with what others want that reality to appear to be.

This is why social media, and indeed all electronic media, are very unreliable sources of information to make true decisions, simply because there is too great a capacity granted to those who control the media and the content to claim that the reality is other than it is. And this is social media’s most potent power to control you: disinformation.

A case example of the Alternate Church with its Alternate Canonical reality

To help one understand this better, let’s take a look at a real case: the claim being made by Cardinal Roche, Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Sacraments, regarding the canonical value of his personal agenda of talking points, which he is now claiming is a rescript.

Here, I will cite for your the editorial on this topic by Michael Sean Winters, in the National Catholic Reporter, one of the most left-wing publications in the United States, which voices neither national opinions, not Catholic beliefs, nor presents reporting, other than planned propagandistic talking points of Freemasonry.

What is most striking about his editorial is that on the principle points of the facts he claims exist, he is in perfect agreement with all the Traditionalist social media influencers.

How can that be?

Well apart from objective facts, that is, the claims made by Cardinal Roche, they are both reading from the same alternate Canon Law, and thus are in agreement with the notions of the alternate Church.

Let’s examine these one by one, to see on what basis this alternate Church is claimed to exist and what are its fundamental doctrines, so that we can understand why on earth it is, that Traditionalist social media influencers are on-board, when they should be doing the exact opposite.

The Pope is not whom Canon Law says is pope, but rather is he whom the MSM says is pope

We have seen this already for 10 years. It has to do with the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013. According to the norm of Canon Law, it was an administrative decision based on the authority granted the person who is the pope in Canon 333 §2, whereby he is free to exercise the Petrine Ministry in any way he thinks best. But it was announced to the world, rather, as an act of Canon 332 §2, whereby the man who is the pope renounces the Papacy and abdicates.

This is where the true Church of Christ separates from the alternate Church. Here at FromRome.Info, we have by study, analysis and investigation shown how this error was propagated and just what it means (here and here).

As regards the present claims of Cardinal Roche, who was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to head the Congregation for Divine Worship, the true canonical reality has immediate effects. The first of which is that he was not the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship from Feb. 28, 2013, when Pope Benedict XVI renounces his ministry and effectively suspended all canonical functions of the entire Roman Curia, until January 30, 2023, when the faithful of the Church of Rome elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio as pope.  Thus, Cardinal Roche has no authority to make any reference to any meeting he had with Pope Francis prior to Jan. 30th. And since his “rescript” claims that, it is ipso facto invalid in virtue of canon 63 §2, which declares all rescripts to have no force of law if they contain a falsehood.

The same results by Cardinal Roche’s reference to Traditionis Custodes, which is a non existent document.  I say, “non-existent” in the canonical sense, since Jorge Mario Bergoglio had no authority to issue it since at that time he did not hold the petrine munus, which Pope Benedict XVI never renounced in life.

The Church must conform Herself to the Masonic Agenda, not to Tradition

Returning to the article in the NCR, it is patently absurd that the Cardinal claims that two world wars necessitated Church reform, especially of the liturgy.  This is some sort of Masonic dribble, because the Church has had the same liturgy throughout 2000 years of wars and the most tremendous cultural and economic changes, world wide. What the Cardinal seems to be saying, rather, is that the stunning success of the Pilgrim Society to destroy Christendom in Europe must now be followed up by the total eradication of the traditions of Catholic worship in the Church.

This is an alternate view of reality for an alternate Church.

Obedience must be shown to non-existent documents made more restrictive by non-existent rescripts

And thus, Winters in his editorial accuses the Bishops in the United States of arrogating the right to ignore the non-existent document of a non-pope.  Here we find ourselves in the analogous position of a mental asylum arguing with a patient who claims to be Napoleon Bonaparte, and who insists that the Napoleonic Code is not being observed by the janitor in the cleaning of the toilets with the brush in the right hand rather than in the left, as he himself decreed just last week!

I have already mentioned, here, that it is not even a question of understanding the rescript as invalid in virtue of canon 63, as I stated above, since a rescript by its very nature is a favor granted by a superior, not a juridical act whereby a non-existent law is made more restrictive by an inferior who claims his superior approved his self-signed crib-notes for the meeting.

We are in full-blow alternate reality here.

Juridical acts of the Roman Pontiff are issued only by the Roman Pontiff, in written form, signed by 2 bishop witnesses. No mere curial official can take away the canonical rights of anyone, not even by whim or fraud.

Yet the traditionalist social media influences don’t even suspect the alternate reality as alternate. For them, as well as the leftist NCR, their alternate is the only reality. And. Don’t. You. Dare. Claim. Otherwise.

They are like the other patient at the asylum, who claims to be Josephine, the wife of Napoleon, and who barks in unison with him, in all his madness.

Christ, however, by His High Priestly prayer for Pope Francis, has protected the rights of all Catholics who recognize the traditional Roman Rite as the only one inspired by God, by preventing Pope Francis as pope, from affirming in any way either the non-existent Traditionis Custodes, or the demands of Cardinal Roche, dismissing him with the embarrassing situation of having to make claims on his own authority, and sending a strong message to all true Catholics, who live in the true Church with the true Canon Law, that the Traditional Rites remain forever free and accessible to all.

UPDATE:

Here Mr.  Lamb appears to have read FromRome.Info from the other side of the fence.

Quo Primum — St. Pius V’s 1570 Bull on the Roman Missal — Latin and English Text

Editor’s Note by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Since the persecution of the Catholic Faithful who continue to use the ancient missale is even more in the news lately, I present here the original text of the Bull of Pope Saint Pius V which forever declared the Ancient Roman Rite the liturgical norm of the Roman Church. And to better aid comprehension to all my readers, I have included after the original text, which I have extracted from the Benzinger edition of the 1962 Missale Romanum, my own English translation of the Latin original of the Papal Bull, which I prepared this afternoon.

Saint Pius V, was the greatest Dominican to sit on the throne of St. Peter. He organized the Holy League which defeated the entire navy of the Ottoman Empire at the Battle of Lepanto, Oct. 7, 1571, and in the year before defended the Roman LIturgy with this monumental declaration of Quo Primum. He is also known to have authorized the official text of the Hail Mary (Ave Maria), which the Catholic world prays today.

In all the debates over the rights of Catholics to continue praying the same prayers that their ancestors have used from the distant ages of the past, there is continual reference to the Bull Quo Primum, which follows below. — St. Pius V did not invent this liturgy. His Missale Romanum of 1570 was nearly identical to the Curial Missal published a century beforehand, which was in turn nearly an exact copy of the Missal compiled by the Minister General of the Order of Friars Minor in the 13th century, when for a more useful single compilation of the liturgical books of the ancient Roman Rite, which Pope Innocent III granted to St. Francis of Assisi as the liturgy proper to his new Order, he ordered them recompiled into a single volume with permission of the Apostolic See.

Here follows the text of the 1570 A. D. bull.

PIUS EPISCOPUS

SERVUS SERVORUM DEI

AD PERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM

QUO PRIMUM tempore ad Apostolatus apicem assumpti fuimus, ad ea libenter animum, viresque Nostras intendimus, et cogitationes omnes direximus, quae ad Ecclesiasticum purum retinendum cultum pertinerent, eaque parare, et, Deo ipso adiuvante, omni adhibito studio efficere contendimus. Cumque inter alia sacri Tridentini Concilii decreta, Nobis statuendum esset de sacris libris, Catechismo, Missali et Breviario edendis atque emendandis: edito iam, Deo ipso annuente, ad populi eruditionem Catechismo, et ad debitas Deo persolvendas laudes Breviario castigato, omnino, ut Breviario Missale responderet, ut congruum est et conveniens (cum unum in Ecclesia Dei psallendi modum, unum Missse celebrandae ritum esse maxime deceat), necesse iam videbatur, ut, quod reliquum in hac parte esset, de ipso nempe Missali edendo, quam primum cogitaremus.

First, from moment We were raised up to the summit of the Apostolate, We willingly turned Our spirit and strengths, and directed all Our thoughts, to those things, which pertained to retaining the cult of the Church pure, and We do now, also, with God Himself helping, strive to effect their preparation, having employed every effort. And when among other things there was established by Us, among the other decrees of the Sacred Council of Trent, concerning the publication and emendation of the sacred books, the Catechism, the Missal and Breviary: with the Catechism already published, with God Himself approving, and the Breviary corrected to render to God due praises, it seemed then entirely necessary that the Missal respond to the Breviary, as is fitting and convenient (since in the Church of God it is most decorous that there be one manner of singing Psalms, one manner of celebrating the ritual of the Mass), that, what remained in this matter, namely, in publishing the said Missal, We might consider first of all.

Quare eruditis delectis viris onus hoc demandandum duximus: qui quidem, diligenter collatis omnibus cum vetustis Nostrae Vaticanae Bibliothecae, aliisque undique conquisitis, emendatis, atque incorruptis codicibus; necnon veterum consultis ac probatorum auctorum scriptis, qui de sacro eorundem rituum instituto monumenta Nobis reliquerunt, ad pristinam Missale ipsum sanctorum Patrum normam ac ritum restituerunt. Quod recognitum iam et castigatum, matura adhibita consideratione, ut ex hoc instituto, coeptoque labore, fructus omnes percipiant,

Wherefore, We directed that this burden be committed to chosen expert men: who indeed, having diligently gathered together all the ancient, emended and incorrupt codices from Our Vatican Library, and others searched out from all places,; and not without having consulted the writings of ancient and approved authors, who left to Us their testimonies concerning the institution of the same rituals, and restored the same Missal to the pristine norm of the holy Fathers. Which having already been recognized and corrected, having employed mature consideration, so that all might perceive the fruit of this instituted and undertaken labor,

Romae quam primum imprimi, atque impressum edi mandavimus: nempe ut sacerdotes intellegant, quibus precibus uti, quos ritus, quasve caeremonias in Missarum celebratione retinere posthac debeant. Ut autem a sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia, ceterarum Ecclesiarum matre et magistra, tradita ubique amplectantur omnes et observent, ne in posterum perpetuis futuris temporibus in omnibus Christiani orbis Provinciarum Patriarchalibus, Cathedralibus, Collegiatis et Parochialibus, saecularibus, et quorumvis Ordinum, monasteriorum, tam virorum, quam mulierum, etiam militiarum regularibus, ac sine cura Ecclesiis vel Capellis,

We ordered that it be first printed at Rome and published in printed form: namely, so that priests might understand, which prayers to use, which rituals, or which ceremonies they ought hereafter to retain in the celebration of Masses.  Moreover, so that all the things handed down by the sacrosanct Roman Church, the Mother of all other Churches, be embraced everywhere and observed, lest unto posterity in unending future generations in all the Patriarchates, Cathedrals, Collegiate, Parish and secular Churches, and those of any Order or monastery whatsoever, both of men, as of women, even of regular soldiers, or Churches and/or Chapels without the care of souls,

in quibus Missa Conventualis alta voce cum Choro, aut demissa, celebrari iuxta Romanae Ecclesiae ritum consuevit vel debet, alias quam iuxta Missalis a Nobis editi formulam decantetur, aut recitetur, etiamsi eaedem Ecclesiae quovis modo exemptae, Apostolicae Sedis indulto, consuetudine, privilegio, etiam iuramento, confirmatione Apostolica, vel aliis quibusvis facultatibus munitae sint; nisi ab ipsa prima institutione a Sede Apostolica approbata, vel consuetudine, quae, vel ipsa institutio super ducentos annos Missarum celebrandarum in eisdem Ecclesiis assidue observata sit: a quibus, ut praefatam celebrandi constitutionem, vel consuetudinem nequaquam auferimus;

in which Conventual Mass is accustomed or ought to be celebrated out loud with a Choir, or in low voice, according to the rite of the Roman Church, there be sung anything other than according to the formula of the Missal published by Us, even if the same Churches have been exempted in any manner by an indult of the Apostolic See, custom, privilege, even under oath, by Apostolic confirmation, and/or any other faculty; lest having been approved by the Apostolic See from their first institution, whether by a custom, which, has been observed and/or by its own institution more than two-hundred years of being assiduously celebrated in those same Churches: from which, We in no way take away the aforesaid constitution, and/or custom of celebrating;

sic si Missale hoc, quod nunc in lucem edi curavimus, iisdem magis placeret, de Episcopi, vel Praelati, Capitulique universi consensu, ut, quibusvis non obstantibus, iuxta illud Missas celebrare possint, permittimus; ex aliis vero omnibus Ecclesiis praefatis eorundem Missalium usum tollendo, illaque penitus et omnino reiiciendo, ac huic Missali Nostro nuper edito, nihil unquam addendum, detrahendum, aut immutandum esse decernendo, sub indignationis Nostrae poena, hac Nostra perpetuo valitura constitutione statuimus et ordinamus. Mandantes ac districte omnibus et singulis Ecclesiarum praedictarum Patriarchis, Administratoribus, aliisque personis quacumque Ecclesiastica dignitate fulgentibus, etiamsi S. R. E. Cardinales, aut cuiusvis alterius gradus et praeeminentiae fuerint,

thus, if this Missal, which We now have taken care to publish, pleases the same more, by consent of the Bishop, and/or Prelate, or entire Chapter, We permit that they can celebrate Masses according to it, with nothing whatsoever withstanding: however, We establish and ordain, under the punishment of Our indignation, by this our perpetually valid Constitution, that with the publication of this our said Missal, nothing is ever to be added, detracted, or changed by taking it from the use of those same Missals of any of the aforesaid Churches, and by rejecting those things thoroughly or entirely. We, commanding also strictly each and every Patriarch, Administrator of the aforesaid Churches, and other persons enjoying whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, even if they be Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or anyone of another grade or preeminence,

illis in virtute sanctae obedientiae praecipientes, ut ceteris omnibus rationibus et ritibus ex aliis Missalibus quantumvis vetustis hactenus observari consuetis, in posterum penitus omissis, ac plane reiectis, Missam iuxta ritum, modum, ac normam, quae per Missale hoc a Nobis nunc traditur, decantent ac legant; neque in Missae celebratione alias caeremonias, vel preces, quam quae hoc Missali continentur, addere vel recitare praesumant.

precepting these in virtue of holy obedience, so that with all those reckonings and rituals, from other customary Missals howsoever ancient hitherto observed, hereafter entirely omitted, and plainly rejected, they may sing and read the Mass according to the rite, manner, and norm, which is handed down now by Us through this Missal nor let them presume in the celebration of the Mass to add and/or recite other ceremonies and/or prayers, than those which are contained in this Missal.

Atque ut hoc ipsum Missale in Missa decantanda, aut recitanda in quibusvis Ecclesiis absque ullo conscientiae scrupulo, aut aliquarum poenarum, sententiarum et censurarum incursu, posthac omnino sequantur, eoque libere et licite uti possint et valeant, auctoritate Apostolica, tenore praesentium, etiam perpetuo concedimus et indulgemus. Neve Praesules, Administratores, Canonici, Capellani et alii quocumque nomine nuncupati Presbyteri saeculares, aut cuiusvis Ordinis regulares, ad Missam aliter, quam a Nobis statutum est, celebrandam teneantur:

And also, by Our Apostolic authority, and the tenor of the present letters, We also concede perpetually and indulge, that they may entirely hereafter follow this Missal in a sung, or recited, Mass in whatever Churches without any scruple of conscience or incursion of any punishments, sentences and censures, and use this freely and licitly and validly. Or lest Praefects, Administrators, Canons, Chaplains and other secular Priests named by whatever name, or regulars of any Order, be bound to celebrate Mass otherwise, than is established by Us:

neque ad Missale hoc immutandum a quolibet cogi et compelli, praesentesve litterae ullo unquam tempore revocari, aut moderari possint, sed firmae semper et validae in suo exsistant robore, similiter statuimus et declaramus. Non obstantibus praemissis, ac constitutionibus, et ordinationibus Apostolicis, ac in Provincialibus et Synodalibus Conciliis editis generalibus, vel specialibus constitutionibus, et ordinationibus, nec non Ecclesiarum praedictarum usu, longissima et immemorabili praescriptione, non tamen supra ducentos annos, roborato, statutis et consuetudinibus contrariis quibuscumque.

We similarly establish and declare that they also cannot be coerced and compelled by anyone to change this MIssal, nor can the present letters be at any time ever revoked or constrained, but that they stand forth always firm and valid in their strength. With no Apostolic constitutions, and ordinations, and/or special constitutions and ordinations published in Provincial and Synodal general Councils, nor use of the aforesaid Churches, strengthened by the longest and immemorial prescription, not more than two-hundred years, or statutes and customs whatsoever contrary, withstanding the aforesaid.

Volumus autem et eadem auctoritate decernimus, ut post huius Nostrae constitutionis, ac Missalis editionem, qui in Romana adsunt Curia Presbyteri, post mensem; qui vero intra montes, post tres; et qui ultra montes incolunt, post sex menses, aut cum primum illis Missale hoc venale propositum fuerit, iuxta illud Missam decantare, vel legere teneantur. Quod ut ubique terrarum incorruptum, ac mendis et erroribus purgatum praeservetur, omnibus in Nostro et S. R. E. dominio mediate, vel immediate subiecto commorantibus impressoribus, sub amissionis librorum, ac centum ducatorum auri Camerae Apostolicae ipso facto applicandorum:

Moreover, We will and decree by the same authority, so that after the publication of this Our Constitution, and Missale, which shall be displayed at the Roman Curia, for the Priests, after a month: but who dwells on this side of the Alps, after three months; and where beyond the Alps, after six months, or when this Missal has been offered to them for sale, that they be bound to sing and/or read the Mass according to it.  Wherefore, so that it be preserved incorrupt in all lands, and purged from emendations and errors, to all printers resident in Our immediate and/or mediately subjected Domain and that of the Holy Roman Church, under the loss of the books, and 100 ducats of gold to be applid ipso facto to the Apostolic Camera:

aliis vero in quacumque orbis parte consistentibus, sub excommunicationis latae sententiae, et aliis arbitrii Nostri poenis, ne sine Nostra vel speciali ad id Apostolici Commissarii in eisdem partibus a Nobis constituendi, licentia, ac nisi per eunden Commissarium eidem impressori Missalis exemplum, ex quo aliorum imprimendorum ab ipso impressore erit accipienda norma, cum Missali in Urbe secundum magnam impressionem impresso collatum fuisse, et concordare, nec in ullo penitus discrepare prius plena fides facta fuerit, imprimere, vel proponere, vel recipere ullo modo audeant, vel praesumant, auctoritate Apostolica et tenore praesentium similibus inhibemus.

but to others consisting in whatever part of the globe, under the punishments of latae sententiae excommunciation and others at Our will, We prohibit by Apostolic Authority and the tenor of the present letters, that, they dare in any manner to receive, and/or presume, to publish or offer for sale, without Our permission and/or special license, according to that of the one to be constituted in those same parts by Us as Apostolic Commissioner, the exemplary copy, from which there is to be accepted the norm of other printings by the printer himself, before full faith has been first given to the printer himself by the same Commisioner for the Missal to be published in great quantity in the City of Rome and that it not be discrepant in anything at all.

Verum, quia difficile esset praesentes Iitteras ad quaeque Christiani orbis loca deferri, ac primo quoque tempore in omnium notitiam perferri, illas ad Basilicae Principis Apostolorum, ac Cancellariae Apostolicae, et in acie Campi Florae de more; publicari et affigi, ac earundem litterarum exemplis etiam impressis, ac manu alicuius publici tabellionis;  subscriptis, nec non sigillo personae in dignitate ecclesiastica constitutae munitis, eandem prorsus indubitatam fidem ubique gentium et locorum, haberi , praecipimus, quae praesentibus haberetur, si ostenderentur vel exhiberentur.

Truly, because it might be difficult for the present letters to be borne to all places of the Christian globe and to proffer unto the notice of all at first notice, We precept, that these be published and affixed to the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, and to the Apostolic Chancery, and in the piazza of the Campus Flori as is customary; and that there be had printed also copies of the same letters, and in the hand of any public notary;  and to those underwritten, and not without the seal of a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, that they be regarded the same undoubted faith in whatever nations and places, as the present letters are held, when they are displayed and/or exhibited.

Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam Nostrae permissionis, statuti, ordinationis, mandati, praecepti, concessionis, indulti, declarationis, voluntatis, decreti et inhibitionis infringere, vel ei ausu temerario contraire. Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei, ac beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum eius se noverit incursurum. Datum Romae apud S. Petrum, anno Incarnationis Dominicae millesimo quingentesimo septuagesimo, pridie Idus Iulii, Pontificatus Nostri anno quinto.

Therefore, to no one among men let it be licit to infringe this page of Our permission, statute, ordinance, mandate, precept, concession, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition, and/or with darying temerity to contradict it. if, however, anyone will have presumed to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the indigation of the Omnipotent God and of His blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord, 1570, on the first day of the ides of July, in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.

CAESAR GLORIERIUS.

H. CUMIN.

Anno a Nativitate Domini 1570, Indict. 13, die vero 19 mensis Iulii, Pontificatus sanctissimi in Christo Patris et D. N. Pii divina providentia Papae V anno eius quinto, retroscriptae litterae publicatae et affixae fuerunt ad valvas Basilicae Principis Apostolorum, ac Cancellariae Apostolicae, et in acie Campi Florae, ut moris est, per nos loannem Andream Rogerium et Philibertum Cappuis Cursores.

In the year of the Nativity of the Lord, 1570, in the 13th indiction, but on the 19th day of the month of July, in the fifth year of the Pontificate of our most holy Father in Christ and our lord, Pius V, Pope by the divine providence, these letters transcribed were published and affixed to the folding-doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, and to the Apostolic Chancery, and in the piazza of the Campus Florae, as is the custom, by us Footmen, John Andrew Roger and Philibert Cappue .

SCIPIO DE OCTAVIANIS, Magister Cursorum.

Canonical Questions regarding the election of an antipope to the Papacy

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

FRANÇAIS

As I am getting priests and laity and religious from the world over asking me the same questions, I will now answer the more common questions in one article, so that all might have the answers.

The case here regards when an antipope, like Leo VIII or Bergoglio, who reigns for a time and posits various acts, magisterial and juridical, is elected the true pope, by the Faithful of Rome, in an assembly by apostolic right.

Q. Can a not yet condemned heretic or schismatic be elected to the Papacy?

A. Yes, because in canon law, no one who has NOT yet been deprived of his rights by the public sentence of Church authority, loses his rights. Even canon 1364 which imposes immediately the penalty of excommunication does not take away the rights to be elected by or to participate in a Conclave, as the Papal Law, Universi Domini Gregis states in n. 35.

Cardinals specifically can only be judged by the Roman Pontiff alone (canon 1405 §1, n. 2).

And since no one can arrogate to himself the right to judge anyone in the Church in such a way as to deprive him of his canonical rights (cf. Discernment vs. the Arrogation of Right), such a man can be elected pope.

Q. Does an antipope have to accept his election as true Pope?

A. Canon 331 requires a pope accept his election. But in natural law, when a man is already claiming the office, his consent to his election is presumed, for it is actual and habitual and manifest that he wants the office. Thus passive or tacit acceptance of his election, that is, without publicly renouncing it, suffices for him. And since the Canon does not require active verbal expression of acceptance, this suffices in elections by apostolic right where, in the absence of rules of acceptance, the natural law prevails. But it would not suffice in a Conclave, because there the Papal Law UDG requires active, verbal expression of acceptance.

Here many are confused, because they understand “accept his election” to mean, “accept the manner of his election”, or accept being the true pope, when it only means “accept being elected the pope”. Obviously, an antipope accepts being chosen the pope. To hold otherwise is madness.

Q. Do we have to accept all the previous acts of such a Pope while he was antipope, if we accept his new election as valid?

A. No, certainly not.

Q. Are the Cardinals he appointed before when he was antipope, valid cardinals now that he is elected as the true pope?

A. Yes. Because the only thing lacking for their validity was the will of one who held the petrine munus. That deficiency is now remedied. And so they are valid cardinals and can validly elect his successor.

Q. Are all the appointments of Bishops etc., which he made as antipope valid now?

A. Yes, for the same reason.

Q. Are all the magisterial acts which he did as antipope valid now?

A. No, none of them are valid. For he had no magisterium to exercise and thus they never were acts of the Apostolic See, nor can consent after the fact make them such, because they are in the past and juridically non existent. This differs from Cardinals and Bishops etc., because they are living beings and in the present.

Q. How about all the juridical penalties which were imposed by himself or the Roman Curia, while he was antipope: are they now valid now?

A. They must be all presumed to be invalid, for reasons of the fact that they are acts in the past which had no authority to be leveled.

Q. Should we continue to oppose the errors of the man when he was antipope? And if so, how, without incurring the penalty of attacking the Pope?

A. We should continue to oppose all the errors, sins, and scandal of the antipope, but when doing so we should distinguish them from the acts he now makes as pope. This is respectful and will help spread the knowledge that he was never from the beginning the true pope, but only after his election by apostolic right.

Q. What can we expect in him now that he has been validly elected and at last has the Petrine Munus?

A. We can expect that he will not teach error in matters of faith in morals, even though his politics may remain the same. We can expect that when asked or pressured  to undo what he has done as antipope that he will concede to the pressure and to the requests. We can expect him not to condone his past errors which are contrary to the faith.

Q. Does his valid election absolve him of his past sins?

A. No, rather, it makes him more responsible before God to repent of them and to do so publicly. Without that he cannot be saved.

Q. How do we now show true loyalty to Pope Francis?

A. By continuing to denounce what he did as antipope, but praying for him as pope, trusting in the prayer of Jesus, “That his faith may not fail”.

Q. How should our position differ from Bergoglians, Recognize & Resist, Anti-Roncallian Sedevacantists and Anti-Bergoglian Sedevacantists?

A. We should not like Bergoglians approve of any of his errors, sins, scandals or crimes as antipope. We should resist his past errors but not attribute them to the Vicar of Christ, but only to his person, and thus act differently from the Recognize and Resist crowd who defame the Papacy. We should recognize him as the true Pope and refrain from arrogating the right to judge him as the Sedevacantists of old and of the new kind do.

Q. Who has the authority to sort all this out?

A. The present valid pope or any future valid successor.