Category Archives: Editorials

Truth 2.0: A Warning from Rome

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Here is my second Truth Video.  Now that FromRome.Info is an independent media source, I can speak freely in my videos.  My famous video entitled, Truth, which was popularized with the erroneous title, “Priest from Rome warns the world”  or the similar — an went viral with more than 500k visualizations — is now been updated and revised and shortened to about 9 minutes.

Please do not link directly to this video, share this page or download the video and share on channels such as Signal, Telegram, Whatsapp, Line etc.. —  Download size is 43 MB approximately.

HOW YOU CAN HELP ME

I am currently working on creating a free-speech Social Media Platform. If you would like to help me out, please consider a donation to the US Non Profit, which supports me:

Thank you for making FromRome.Info truly independent media!

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The upgrade to the new server is now complete.

I want to thank all the supporters of FromRome.Info for having made it possible for FromRome.Info to become truly independent media, by breaking from WordPress hosting and upgrading to a new fast server.

Now I am able to send unlimited emails and to publish videos without any censorship. While there remains some limitation, since I cannot have more than 4000 views per month of a 1 GB video, it is nevertheless a beginning.  I will try to publish here only short, highly compressed videos to avoid overloading the services FromRome.info gets.

The harassment of Globalist media against all those who speak the truth will have its effect. It will be hard for those addicted to YouTube or WordPress to find FromRome.Info and the videos I produce. They have to break from the convenience of being fed propaganda on social media and seek the less traveled paths of signing up for an email update at FromRome, and checking their email regularly rather than their App notifications.

As for those companies which offer the ability to have a website where I could have more videos and more viewers, they are either politically controlled or require thousands of dollars of fees monthly, which is way beyond the ability of my small readership to support.  Yes, on Youtube you get everything free, but its not the unfiltered truth, its propaganda or controlled under the every increasing arbitrary Globalist rules.

2021 will see censorship go to astronomical levels.  I am convinced the Globalists are losing control of the narrative and that humanity is waking up to their lies and the lies of the Scamdemic. Thus, they will push to excess the levels of censorship this year.

For this reason, I am particularly touched at heart that my readers were able to raise the funds necessary to make this transition away from WordPress and upgrade the server. Be assured of my prayers each day before the footstool of the Queen of Heaven, Our Lady, here at Rome: to God the Father, for His Omnipotent and Overflowing Blessing upon your all.

Going forward, I sense that now more than ever we must deepen our faith and lives of prayer, so I will be including more regularly articles on our Holy Father and on the life of prayer, and try to share some of what the Franciscan Saints have taught in their writings about various topics.

In the meantime, if there are any readers who would like to know how to help me out, I would for the love of Jesus Christ, beg a few of you to help me get some groceries, by making a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a US Charity which supports me for such needs.

¡Viva Guadalajara!

REPUBLISHED FROM DEC. 11, 2019

Written in Socratic jest for Mons. Juan Ignacio Arrieta,
Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Legal Texts,

and presented viva voce by Br. Bugnolo to him in person on that morning.

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In the conclave of 2243, the Cardinals of the Roman Church, in their final votation, elected a Spaniard.

So, according to the rules established by Pope John Paul II, on February 22, 1996, in the document Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 87, the Cardinal Deacon, the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and the Master of Ceremonies for Pontifical Liturgies approach the Spanish Cardinal and ask him in these solemn words if he will accept his election:  Do you accept your canonical election as the Supreme Pontiff?

Silence.

Then the Cardinal Deacon signals with his eyes to the Elected Cardinal, asking for an answer.

The Cardinal Elect, smiles, then extends both hands to each side and forms the V sign. With that he says in a clear voice: ¡Viva Guadalajara!

The Spanish Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel, familiar with the jocularity of the Elected Cardinal, giggle. The Cardinal from Barcelona says to himself, “What a joker! But this is not a time for laughs!”

The Secretary of the College gives a stern look at the Cardinal Elect. He is not amused at this kind of levity. So he turns to the Cardinal Deacon, who is perplexed, and whispers: “Let’s ask him again”.

So the aged Cardinal Deacon, turns to the Cardinal Elect, and asks again, this time in Spanish: ¿Acepta su elección canónica como Sumo Pontífice?

Silence.

Then, the Cardinal Elect, answers: raising both his right and left hand as before, and making the V sign with each, he says: ¡Viva Guadalajara! — This time with an even bigger smile on his face.

At this point, the Cardinals break their silence, and mixed mutterings of insouciance and consternation.

The Cardinal Deacon, now impatient, says to the Cardinal Elect: “This is no time to make jokes. Please answer the question with a Yes or a No”. Then recomposing himself, he repeats the canonical question, this time in Italian: Accetti la tua elezione canonica a Sommo Pontefice?

And again, the Cardinal Elect responds in the same manner.

At this point, the Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel break out in small groups of conversation. Everyone is trying to figure out what the Cardinal Elect means to say. The Spanish Cardinals approach the Elect and attempt to reason with him. But he says nothing futher. All he does is keep smiling and raising his right and left hand now and then with the V sign, for victory.

So in accord with the Papal Law on Conclaves, UDG, n. 5, the Cardinal from Paris asks that the College discuss and decide what is to be done, since the Papal Law says nothing about the manner in which the Cardinal Elect is to accept the office, whether it be by a Yes or No or by some other sign.

Two factions arise among the Cardinals. On the one side, a minority hold that the Cardinal Elect, by the words used has not accepted his election and must be considered either in error or mad. On the other side, the position taken is that of the Cardinal of Mexico City, who reasons this way: There is no more certain a manner of indicating that one has accepted the dignity of a prince than to respond in a manner which requires his listeners to acquiesce to his authority. Now by responding in this manner, does not the Cardinal Elect clearly show his intent to act like a prince? And therefore, his intention to accept the election? Is he not just putting our loyalty to the test? I for one will not fail in my loyalty to the Supreme Pontiff in this his first act of office!

This line of reasoning wins over the majority and they vote to regard the manner of speech chosen by the Cardinal Elect as meaning, “Yes, I accept”.

The Cardinal Deacon, then approaches the Cardinal Elect and asks him by which name he wants to be known. He replies, “Ignazio I”.

And years pass. And there is nothing controversial in the pontificate of Ignatius the First. Not in the least.

Except for this one thing.

Every time journalists manage to get an interview with him, and they ask him about the moment of his election as Pope, they ask him what he said, and he says: ¡Viva Guadalajara!

About 6 years into his reign as pope, one journalist, by the name of Marco Tosatti III, wanting to understand this better, asks a very specific question of Pope Ignatius I, during a plan trip.

Tosatti III: I know, your Holiness, has been asked this same question many times. And we are all impressed by your talent for humor and your jocundity, which is so unique among the Popes. But the day of your election, if I may ask again, can you tell just what you said, when the Cardinal Deacon asked you if you would accept your canonical election?

Ignatius I: I said, ¡Viva Guadalajara!

Tosatti III: Is that all you said?

Ignatius I: Yes.

Tosatti III: Did you not say, Yes?

Ignatius I: No, I never said Yes or No. I simply said, ¡Viva Guadalajara!

Marco Tosatti III publishes his interview and it goes round the world. The Pope never said yes.

A few days later, another Italian Vaticanista, by the name of Sandro Magister V, obtains an interview with the aged Cardinal Deacon, who confirms the story: Yes, he never said, yes. In fact there was a controversy in the Conclave, and now that Pope Ignatius I has abolished the pontifical secret on his election, I can reveal that we held a vote in accord with Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 5, and we determined that canonically speaking, this phrase, ¡Viva Guadalajara! would be taken to mean, “yes, I accept”.

Magister V also publishes his interview, which causes even more of an uproar and travels round the world.

About two weeks later, an old lady from the suburb of Madrid, Spain, where Pope Ignatius I grew up, flys to Rome and enters the Piazza of St Peter with a sign, saying, “He is not the Pope!” The Gendarmerie, the Vatican Police, attempt to take the sign from her, there is a scuffle and they end up punching her and she punching them back. Eventually they take both her and the sign away.

But the pilgrims in the piazza photograph and video record the entire travesty and these images go world wide on all social media platforms.

The next day in all the majors newspapers and MSM sites the one topic is why they beat up this poor old women. And the journalists who are allowed to interview her in the Vatican jail all receive the same statement, prepared by her attorney: In my suburb of Madrid, where I grew up with Pope Ignatius I, the phrase, ¡Viva Guadalajara! has always meant, “You got to be kidding. I would no more agree to that than support the team from Guadalajara, by shouting ¡Viva Guadalajara! at a soccer match with our own team!”

At this news, journalists flock to Madrid, Spain and interview all those they can find who knew the Pope as a child or youngster. And they all agree that what this old lady said is the absolute truth.

And these journalists report what they find. And, the next day, Ignatius I gives an interview and says: You see, there is nothing I hate more that arrogance and sycophantry. So when I saw that there were no worthy candidates for the Papacy, I determined to do what I could to delay as much as possible the Conclave, so the most unworthy ones would be taken by the Lord or not be able to vote, having reached the age of 80. So I contrived the deception I used to fool everyone. And it worked. But now that my purpose has achieved its goal, I willing admit that I was never pope, because I never accepted my election as the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, I will now stop pretending to be pope and go back to Madrid and enjoy my final years of life by drinking cerveza and watching the Madrid Soccer team. Good-bye and Adios!

_____________

The Limits of Discretion

So ends the fictional canonical case I have created. As you can see, strange things can happen if the discretion which we Catholics traditionally accord to the Cardinals goes beyond all limits. There are just some things they cannot do even if they want to.

One thing they cannot do, even if they want to, regards the interpretation of verbal texts. As a translator of medieval texts, I understand well that there are 3 ways of determining the meaning of any obscure phrase. The first is intrinsic, the second extrinsic and the third is referential.

Intrinsic methods look to the meaning of the words used and their grammatical structure. Extrinsic methods look to the context in which the phrase is used and impose a theory about what the intent was in the author’s mind in using the obscure phrase. Referential methods look for other occurrences of the same obscure phrase in the writings of the same author, his contemporaries or those authors he read or cited.

And as a translator, I have learned the hard way, that the worse method of interpretation is the extrinsic method. The intrinsic method can be used but it requires great discretion and a good knowledge of the author one is reading. The referential method is the most certain but one has to take into account that every author might use standard phrases slightly differently.

¡Viva Guadalajara!

As can be seen from the fictional case I have constructed, grave error can arise when the ones who should be interpreting the meaning of things said by the Pope use the extrinsic method, by adopting the context of the phrase and some theory of what the intention was of the one saying it, and from these two data points extrapolate the meaning of the phrase.

This has been no idle study. And though you may find this story humorous, that is not my intention. Because though it regards what could happen regarding the very first moment an man becomes the Pope, the same interpretational problem can arise in the very last moment a man is the Pope, that is in an Act of Renunciation.

Because, when a man renounces the papacy, Canon 332 §2 requires that he say something that signifies, In my capacity as Roman Pontiff, I renounce the munus which I received in the Apostolic Succession from Saint Peter, the day I accepted my election as Supreme Pontiff by the College of Cardinals.

The words do not have to be the ones I just wrote, but they have to signify essentially the same thing.

If you say, however, I declare that I renounce the ministry which was entrusted to me through the hands of the Cardinals, the day I was elected, then you have a problem. Because no where in the Code of Canon Law, nor in Canonical Tradition, nor in the mind of Pope John Paul II do we find any clear equation or predication of munus by ministerium. To hold that Pope Benedict’s renunciation of ministry means a renunciation of munus is an interpretation, unfounded in the law. Moreover, the Cardinals and Bishops and Clergy who hold this interpretation have no authority in the law to interpret the Papal Act in this manner.

We need to be adults and admit this problem of interpretation.

And the ones who committed this error have to grow up and stop insisting that we follow them in it. After all, religious extremism does not consist in refusing an error of interpretation. Religious extremism consists in insisting, like ISIS, that we accept their errors of interpretation or else.

CREDITS: the image of the Cathedral of Madrid is taken from the Wikipedia article on the Facade of the Cathedral of Madrid and is used under the wiki commons license described there.

 

How they boldly lie to defend Bergoglio….

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The one golden thread of consistency in every defender of Bergoglio, whether of his blatant heresies, blasphemies or crimes, or whether of his claim to be validly elected or retain his office, is that his defenders are willing to lie, and to lie boldly.

I have had occasion to publicly out them as such many times here at FromRome.Info, and today, I consider it necessary to do so once again.

I speak of Steve O’Reilly, who says he is a convert to the Catholic Faith and lectures Catholics about what to see and not to see, what to think and not to think, on his own authority, about the Declaration of Pope Benedict.  He has attempted some childishly immature and false arguments from November 2018, when he entered into the fray of the debate.  And he has painted his position with redundant misrepresentations, lies and logical frauds ever since.

Now, however, he has proceeded to a new low, that of putting forth his own opinion as the historical narrative.

He makes this claim in his new essay, “Being Wrong: The Ontology of the BiP Argument”, published yesterday at his blog, Roma locuta est, by which he mans, “Steve has spoken, now shut up”!  BiP is a derogatory term for those who hold that Benedict Is the Pope.  It  is crafted to make such persons appear to be blips of ignorance.

His recent sui generis extravagance is this:

I do not believe I ever have heard Dr. Mazza or other BiP-ers adequately explain what Benedict meant when he wrote in the Declaratio he renounces the Petrine ministry ‘in such a way’ that the ‘See of Peter will be vacant.’

The author who crafts an argument from a faulty memory is truly a sophist of the highest quality, so I will only remark that objectively speaking, if Mr. O’Reilley has a perfect memory, then he is a public liar, since I explained the canonical and logical meaning of that statement adequate in my Disputed Question on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI  in December of 2018, some 2 years and 5 months ago – and which he has read in my replies to his ludicrous argumentations. In that question from Dec. 2018, I asked and responded to this problem, he now reposes, in Part II of that Question:

13. Because Pope Benedict said, “I declare that I renounce the ministry which I had received from the hands of the Cardinals, … so that the See of St. Peter be vacant on …”, he clearly indicated that his renunciation was to effect a loss of office (munus), therefore his resignation was in accord with Canon 332 §2, despite not explicitly using the word munus, as that Canon requires for validity. Therefore, the resignation was valid.

Ad obj. 13.: This objection was refuted in the arguments of the First Part, but its complexity deserves a fuller answer for those minds which cannot understand how it is invalid. First, as demonstrated in the First Part of this Disputed Question, a resignation is valid if it includes a resignation of munus; it is not valid if it does not. And according to Canon 17, if there is any doubt as to whether munus is included in canon 332 §2 as a sine non qua condition or according to its signification in a broader sense, one must have recourse to other parts of the Law, the canonical tradition, and to the mind of the Legislator (John Paul II) of the Code. As has been shown elsewhere, there is no basis for an argument from canon 17 that ministerium can mean munus. However, since ministerium is followed by 2 subordinate clauses, the argument that it is invalid, must respond to that condition. For in Latin, some subordinate clauses can alter the signification of the main clause. And it is true that there is a poetical form, in which part of a thing can substitute for the whole, as when at Mass in the Latin Rite we say, “Come under my roof” to mean “come into my soul”. However, as regards the Latin of the text of the renunciation, to say, “which I received from the hands of the Cardinals” imposes no necessity of reference to the Petrine Ministry per se, because Ratzinger also at that time received the Episcopal and Pastoral Ministry for the Diocese of Rome. The second clause, “so that the See of St Peter be vacant”, has been shown in Part I to necessitate no necessity. For those who do not understand Latin grammar, this needs to be explained. Because, in a subordinate clause such as “so that … be vacant”, the clause is a clause of purpose of the kind which begins with the particle “ut”, and thus is a pure clause of purpose which indicates only a goal. If the subordinate clause of purpose had begun with “in the kind of way which” (quomodo) or “in such a way as to” (in tali modo quod) it would have been a purpose clause of characteristic which has the power to alter the manner of signification in the main clause, and allow the use of metynomic signification, that is, when a part refers to the whole. Since Pope Benedict did not say anything of that kind, this way of reading the subordinate clause is not possible. Hence it remains invalid.  However, even if a metonymic signification was had, it remains invalid per canon 332 §2, since it would not be duly manifested. Because just as if one were to pronounce marriage vows by saying, “I take you to be my Viennese strudel” instead of saying “I take you to be my wife”, an interpretation would be necessary to be resorted to, to make the phrase signify taking a wife, so in an act of resignation a metonymic manner of signification renders the act invalid because it publicly does not duly manifest the intention.

And I expanded upon my response, further, writing:

14. In his act of resignation Pope Benedict XVI declared two things. The First regarding his resignation, the second regarding the convocation of a Conclave “that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those whose duty it is”. He would not have said this, if his intention was not to resign the office of the Papacy. Therefore, he did resign the office of the papacy.

Ad obj. 14.: This argument is a conflation of two arguments, one of which has previously been refuted, viz. that one which regards his intention, which was refuted in Ad obj. 2. Here I will respond to the other, that which regards the papal command to convene a Conclave.   That the Pope declared that a conclave be convened to elect a new Roman Pontiff forms the second independent clause of his verb, “I declare”. Thus, it is logically independent and bears no necessity in the alteration of the signification of the first clause, which regards the resignation.  Thus, if the resignation not be duly manifested in accord with Canon 332 §2, that the Pope declares a Conclave be called is a papal declaration which is totally vitiated by the substantial error in his first declaration. Thus canon 188 invalidates the execution of this command. This is especially true, because in the declaration of convocation he does not require the convocation to take place before or after he ceases to be pope, or on a specific date or even during his life time. To see this more clearly, recall the example from the arguments against the validity, wherein a hypothetical pope declares, “I renounce bananas so that on Feb. 28, at 8 PM, Roman Time, the see be vacant” and simply add, “and that a Conclave be convened to elect a new Roman Pontiff”.  As can be seen in this hypothetical, the second declaration does not make the first valid, it just continues the substantial error: a substantial error which also makes the Conclave of 2013 and all the acts of Bergoglio as pope invalid.

I suppose, however, that by “adequately” O’Reilly means, what he always means by his writings in defend of Bergoglio, namely, that “When I say you have no proof or adequate argument, I am setting up myself as the measure of truth and adequacy and hoping that you do not see that I am gaslighting you all along.”.

Indeed, O’Reilly consistently argues as if the English translation published by the Vatican is the true canonical document. And you can see that in how he renders the Latin “ut”.  I know that the State Department does not know Latin, because one of their staff employers purchased my Latin Course for their staff library, many years ago.

And that may be the truth, because as Mr. O’Reilly admits on the About page of his blog, he is a former intelligence officer. He does not say of which agency or nation, however.

I recently was informed by a reader, moreover, that the founders of LifeSite News, which consistently affirm the validity of the Renunciation, are former employees of a Canadian publication founded by a MI5 intelligence asset.  Like Michael Matt of The Remnant, who has gone silent, is a graduate of Christendom College which was founded by a CIA agent.  I hope the picture is becoming clear for you.

For public disclosure, I have  never worked for any intelligence agency.

A Canonical Justification for the Second Synod of Sutri

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

It has been reported that Cardinal Burke has recently remarked that canonists, seeking a solution to the current problem of a patently heretical pope or a dubious papal resignation, have found no canonical way forward in the present juridical system of the Church.

To this alleged assertion, I intend to response with this brief essay, as it becomes all the more clear to a majority of the faithful and bishops who have been paying attention, that Bergoglio was never canonically elected and Benedict never canonically resigned.

First of all, it must be said, that in truth no canonical solution is required, if by “solution” one means putting into practice a special juridical tribunal or making a special appeal to some particular body. This is because, the real and simple solution would be to PUBLICLY simply ask Pope Benedict XVI what he did and intended to do and accept that. — Or as Ann Barnhardt proposes, in the case of Benedict truly thinking by error that the papal dignity can be shared, to rebuke him for his error as St. Paul did St. Peter, and publicly call on him to recognize that — and, as I would add, to renounce the papacy wholly if he no longer wants to be the pope. (Though this must be after some decision is made regarding to the invalidly nominated Cardinals and Bishops, and the invalidly appointed members of the Roman Curia and Vatican government)

But if one means by a ‘canonical’ solution a special event or action to rid the Church of Bergoglio or put an end to the controversies on these matters, then there needs to be a canonical justification for such an action. And that is what I intend to expound, herein.

In the Middle Ages, when the Church was faced with apparently insolvable doubts about discipline, and in particular, about who was the real pope, She convened councils and synods. This is how the Church sought to end the Great Western Schism which began in 1378 when the college of cardinals claimed to have elected in separate conclaves two different men as the Pope. The general council of Constance (1414-1481) was called to end that conflict, and obtained the resignation of the two rivals, and paved the way for the election, by compromise and unanimity of all the real and alleged Cardinals, of Pope Martin V.

Before that at the Synod of Sutri in 1046, the clergy of Rome, to whom there pertained the right of electing the Roman Pontiff, were convened at the request of Henry III, King of Germany, to sort out which if any of the three claimants to the papacy: Silvester III, Benedict IX or Gregory VI were the pope.  That Synod deposed all three, and paved the way for the election of Pope Clement II on the vigil of Christmas of that year.

The Church has always accepted as canonical, valid and legitimate, the actions of both of these synods. And that establishes the precedent upon which an argument for a future synod, after the manner of that of Sutri in 1046 can be made.

The first problem, however, is that in the present Code of Canon Law, synods and councils are called and convoked by the Pope.  It expressly says in canon 344, that “A Synod of bishops is directly beneath the authority of the Roman Pontiff, to whom it belongs, n. 1, to convoke the synod, howsoever often it seems to be opportune, and to designate the place where its meetings are to be held”. Indeed, both at Constance and Sutri both or at least one of the rival claimants to the papacy convoked the meetings.

Since it is unlikely that Bergoglio would ever convene such a synod, and while it remains unlikely that Benedict would be allowed to publicly call for such a convocation, there remains to consider other arguments to justify such an assembly.

These can be classified into two categories: arguments from divine right or ex iure divino; arguments from necessity or by natural right.  Both categories have supreme authority, inasmuch as the divine and natural laws are both promulgated by God, the former in the Gospels and the latter in creation.

I will begin with a consideration of natural right, which is the weaker of the argument, inasmuch as it is more indirect.

The necessity of the Church requires that it have a government which is united. The existence of two popes makes that unity impossible.  Since the subjects of every society have the right to know the identity of their government, the Church has a corresponding duty to Her members to not delay to identify Her own earthly head in a public declaratory manner.

As for divine right, there are several arguments which could be advanced.  the first is that the highest law of the Church is the promotion of the salvation of souls. And since no one can be saved who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff, as Pope Boniface VIII magisterially taught in his bull, Unam Sanctam, it is a practical necessity of all the faithful to be subject to the true pope. And hence the Church is gravely obligated, in all her members, to put to rest such a doubt with an authoritative declaration.  This is the argument of natural right raised to the level of the supernatural.

The second argument from divine right is that the unity of the Church requires the unity of the clergy. And since there can be no unity unless the clergy recognize the same man as the Roman Pontiff, it is of divine right that the clergy have the right to know who is the true pope and thus of the Church to given them a public authoritative declaration of the fact.

The third argument from divine right is that the Bishops of the Church, inasmuch as they are successors of the Apostles, while they each have a duty towards their own flocks, nevertheless all share in the duty of being responsible for the government of the whole Church universally, and that in the case of an Apostolic See impeded by doubt about who is and who is not the real pope, they have the right to make a public declaration of the matter.

In fact, as regards this latter argument, many Synods were called by bishops locally, during past schisms which resulted from more than one claimant to the papacy.  In such cases, these Synods were called at the request of Kings and Princes, by under the authority of the primate of the Kingdom and other Archbishops of those territories. And indeed, in such cases, there were occasions in which the Synod of this kingdom rendered a decision differing or concordant with the decision of synod of another kingdom.  This happened often in the Great Western Schism (1378-1415).  Even during the schism under Bl. Urban II or the antipope Anacletus II, several councils were held in France to repeat the decision in favor of the true pope.  So that there be only one Synod rather than more is not even a necessity.

Now the strongest argument against calling such a council or synod is that it would never be legitimate canonically unless it be called by Pope Benedict XVI or by Bergoglio, depending upon which you think is the true pope.

But the stronger argument is this: Since every Bishop has the right and duty to remain in communion with the true pope.  This is implied formally in canon 392 §1, which says:

Since he is obliged to defend the unity of the Church universal, the Bishop (of each diocese) is bound to promote the common discipline of the whole Church and hence to urge the observance of all ecclesiastical laws.

Thus, if a Bishop is obliged he has a right to act, and if he be bound to promote the common discipline, he is even more bound to uphold the terms of Canon 332 §2 on papal renunciations and canon 1364 regarding heretics, apostates and schismatics, even if they intrude upon the Apostolic See.

As for the convocation of such a Synod, this too is a duty of the Bishops in virtue of their specific obligation of communion with and visits to the Roman Pontiff (cf. canon 399) every 5 years, because a Synod held in the presence of the Pope is nothing more than a public audience of the Pope held in the presence of the bishops to hear from his own mouth his instructions and councils and explanations and to hear from their own mouths, their needs and questions.

Another avenue is the Provincial Council, which can be convened by the Metropolitan Archbishop (canon 442) when the majority of bishops in that ecclesiastical province agree (canon 440), and though this can only be done with the approval of the Apostolic See (cf. canon 339), it would be sufficient that one of the claimants to the papacy remain silent, to grant the tacit permission to convene the Synod. In a provincial council, the Metropolitan determines the place, procedures, questions, time of opening and can transfer, prorogue or dissolve the assembly of bishops (canon 442 §1 n. 3). In the case of there being no valid Metropolitan, this can be done by a  validly nominated suffragan Bishop elected by other valid suffragan bishops (canon 442 §2). Canons 443-446 specify how to conduct a Provincial Council.  And it is noteworthy to note, that the Synod of Sutri in 1046 was most likely a Provincial council.

Perhaps the most risky of all solutions, however, would be to await the death of one or the other claimants and allow the Cardinals who recognize Benedict XVI as the true Pope, to meet and make a public declaration for Pope Benedict (when Bergoglio passes away or resigns) or to proceed to elect his successor in a new conclave, depending on the case in question. Though I think that a public declaration by the Cardinals would still require a public confirmation by Pope Benedict XVI or a Synod).

+ + +

CREDITS: The Featured image is that of the doors of the Cathedral of Sutri. All rights reserved by FromRome.Info.

Tosatti republishes Andrea Cionci’s “Benedict’s Plan B”

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

April 9, 2021 A. D: This morning, Marco Tosatti, one of the most senior Vaticanista here in Italy republished Andrea Cionci’s article on Benedict’s Plan B.  While this may not seem to be newsworthy, it merits nevertheless to be brought to the attention of the English speaking world, which has nearly no newspapers, electronic journals or TV channels who are willing even to speak about the incontrovertible anomalies in the reality of what Benedict XVI did and did not do.

Let Life Site News, The Remnant, National Catholic Register and Catholic Family news take note, and let their readers ask them why they are censoring the news.

Let 1 Peter 5, Dr. Taylor Marshall, Church Militant, EWTN et alia, take note of what Tosatti just did, and let their viewers and readers ask them why they are censoring the news.

In this manner, all these groups, knowingly or not, willingly or not, have been coopted into the narrative control of the Globalist Reset, wherein Bergoglio is the new Messiah and Benedict has betrayed humanity.

All these by remaining silent are running cover for the Bishops in the English speaking world who cling to Bergoglio as the sine qua non of the New Normal.  As a consequence, they make all the lies, frauds, crimes, heresies, apostasies and treacheries of Bergoglio possible. If they protest Bergoglio, it is like the man who protests the Scamdemic while wearing a mask and insisting on the vaccine.

Let them and their readers, followers and viewers meditate on that. In the mean time, they can read Cionci in English at FromRome.Info.

On the contrary, Marco Tosatti has the integrity to allow the facts present themselves and the discussions be aired. That does not mean he agrees with them 100%, but it does show that he is not controlled by globalists.

I publicly call on the media in the English speaking world of Catholics to do the same. It is time to stop calling FromRome.Info “unreliable”. After all projection as a psychological trick, is the tactic of Marxists.

___________

CREDITS: The featured image above is a screenshot of Tosatt’s official blog. Click here to read it in Italian.

To what levels of idiocy do pro-Bergoglians have to descend…?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Just last week, Aldo Maria Valli published an interview with Archbishop Viganò, in which the latter while admitting that Benedict’s renunciation might be purposefully invalid, railed at Catholics who dared to say it was in public, since this pertained only to the highest authority of the Church.

What authority would that be, I ask, in the case of two popes, both of which have supports who claim they are the sole highest authority?  Nay, I do  not think Viganò has convinced anyone with his argumentation, except in regard to doubting his honestly. For he has basically told everyone to shut up and hold their tongues, since THEY are dividing the Church!

They are diving the Church.

While the most heretical, apostate, blasphemous, sacrilege occupies the Vatican and prances before the world as the Vicar of the Immaculate Lamb of God, selling tens of millions of Catholics in China to death and shutting all the Churches of the world, last year, and making a mockery of the Mass with the mask, communion in the hand and changes to the Our Father and Canon!

But according to Viganò, it is Catholics who say, “Wait a moment, Benedicct did not fulfil canon 332!”, who are dividing the Church?

The Archbishop has flipped morality and theology on its head. He has called black “white” and white “black”.

As for Viganò, he had run a full lap round the track: he began by calling for Bergoglio to resign over the pedophilia crisis, and he has ended telling Catholics, who follow Canon law and recognize he is not the pope, to shut up.

I can summarize the debate on who is pope very succinctly.

The Catholic Party has won, when its opponents resort to publishing the letters if idiots to defend their position, when they try to defend it, at all.

_______________

RETRACTION: In the previous issue of this post, I took issue with an anonymous letter writter at Aldo Mario Valli’s blog and with Valli for publishing it. But being informed by an native speaker of Italian with a high verbal comprehension, I withdraw my remarks, since rather than approving of Catholics who hold Bergoglio cannot be a heretic except when speaking ex cathedra, he was mocking them. — My apologies to him and to Aldo Maria Valli.

Ratzinger knew the Clergy would lose the Faith

Comments and Introduction by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In an article whose title, in English, would read, “How Ratzinger prophesied the secularization of the Church,” Hinrich E. Bues recalls the foresight of the theologian Father Joseph Ratzinger, who more than a half century ago detailed the loss of the Faith in the West.

You can read the original German of the article by clicking the image above.

Many have commented on the future Pope’s “prophecy” about the Church in the future, but if we consider how intimately he “rubbed shoulders”, as it were, with the architects of ecclesial destruction, I think it would be more sober to conclude that he was not being prophetic, and that he was merely describing the future generations of malformed Catholics who would be raised up by the faithless clergy of his own day, who sat at and pushed the “Aggiornamento” in the most deleterious fashion possible.

Are you willing to lose your soul, for the sake of one word?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Our Lord Jesus Christ asked us, “What doth it profit a man that he gain the whole world and lose his soul thereby?”

This question has troubled the hearts of the Saints for two thousand years. It is the very question which, when asked, had led countless men and women to abandon the world and follow the Lord Jesus Christ as religious, monks, sisters, hermits. It is a most important question for every man considering to enter into Sacred Orders, if he wish to have the right intention.

But above all it is a question posed to all of Christ’s disciples, when they are confronted with a choice which regards our Holy Religion, their souls, and eternal salvation, all three of which cannot be extricated from one another in this life, or the world to come.

For the entire Catholic world, for eight years we have had a simple choice to make. We have been confronted with a challenge, which is easy for those who are like little children, but impossible for those who have embraced the world as their friend.

The challenge is to answer a simple question: Did Pope Benedict XVI resign, when in renouncing the ministry, when Canon Law requires that he renounce the munus or office, he did not do what the Canon said must be done?

But another way: Who decides who is the pope: Jesus Christ, who said, “Whatsoever you bind on earth”, i. e., for example in Canon Law regarding Papal renunciations, “shall be bound in Heaven”, or the Cardinals who say, it does not matter what Benedict renounced, nor even the worlds he used, he is definitely not the pope anymore.

Pope Benedict XVI said that he was inspired to do what he did. He even said in his biography in 2016, that the more he sees of Bergoglio, the more he is convinced he was inspired.

Our Lord is King and Master. He has the right to instruct His Vicar on earth to do as He pleases. He does put us to the test, and thus it is perfectly acceptable in Catholic theology to suppose that He could ask His Vicar on Earth to put the Catholic world to a test: to see if they worship Him, in communion with those priests in communion with Him, or whether they worship men, in communion with the priests in communion with men.

This renunciation of ministry is such a test.

Woe to those who do not take it seriously!

CREDITS: The Featured image shows Judas Iscariot kissing Our Lord, in the Garden of Gethsemane. The fresco is by Bl. Fra Angelico, O. P.. Judas, who wanted the external observances of religious and communion, while rejecting the internal obligations of faith and repentance, was rebuked by Our Lord for his sacrilegious kiss, saying, “Do you betray me with a kiss?” — To signify to the rest of us, that there is no more repulsive sin to God, than to sin right in His face, by feigning communion with Him, while really following the doctrines of men about who is and who is not the true High Priest.

____________________

NOTE: As the hosting company for FromRome.Info has decided to harass the editorial staff by taking away our editing tools and forcing us never to use justification for our electronic journal, and to use instead an editor, which writes slower than the normal person types, FromRome.Info will be changing hosting providers this week, which might cause some articles and or comments, published this week, to disappear or be lost. We ask your patience.

Predators and Idiots, who both forget God

Convertantur peccatores in infernum,
omnes gentes quae obliviscuntur Deum.

(Psalm 9:18 Vulgate Text)

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

A YEAR IN REVIEW: March 8, 2020 to March 8, 2021

In a medieval hunt, the prince who owned the forest would send his servants kilometers ahead of himself, while servants behind built a V shaped fence, to corral the game. Then the servants ahead would beat the brush and drive the game closer and closer to the corral, until it burst forth into the open field and had no where to go but through the bottom of the V where it was captured and slaughtered.

The Scamdemic, which has been willed by Freemasons for decades and planned with art and science from the most morally corrupt men in the world, is like such a medieval hunt.

The wild game out of fear of a small threat, such as the beating of the brush, run away precisely in the direction that the small threat was intended to drive them. They continue to run from small threats which they could easily escape if they bolted past the servant beating the brush with a stick, but no, they prefer to run away from the noise and so end up trapped and killed by heading to the V where the high wall prevents any further escape.

The Scamdemic began a year ago, to this night, with small threats, the sounding of alarms. The alarms have not stopped, but they were to convince you to take refuge in the Mask, in social distancing, in social isolation, in the abandonment of your job, business, and all activity which would not be directed to supported the Globalist controlled economy.

Having masked you and corraled you at home, they then approached with the Vaccine, which 100s of millions are now taking, even though they have no idea what is in it, even though its lethality is GREATER than the alleged virus.

Being unwilling or mentally incapable of looking at the facts, spending even 4 hours in ONE ENTIRE YEAR looking at contrary information on even globalist platforms like YouTube, they have prefered to take the plunge by entrusting their health and life on being injected with an unknown alleged remedy. Some are even getting in fights to be the first.

While countless individuals are dropping dead minutes, hours, days or weeks after from the Vaxx!

The entire scenario is playing out like a theatre of Predators and Fools. All sense of morality and responsibility being thrown to the wind by doctors, politicians, judges, police etc., citizens and patients and custodians of others.

The underlying constant, however, is that all of these persons are forgetful of God. They deny that God has given them an immune system sufficient to protect them. They prefer to trust known liars to the word of God or even God’s wonderful gift of right reason. They ignore the entire moral order as a basis for human action, and simply reduce their consideration to what someone says.

All this reminds me of what is written in the Psalms, that, All the nations which are forgetful of God shall be converted unto Hell.

I know of this passage, since it featured in one of the most popular books of meditations by Friar Peter Reginaldette from the 15th century, which I translated from Latin many years ago. It is entitled, the Mirror of Retribution, and begins with a meditation on the punishments of Hell and who deserves them.

Well, I think we have arrived at the complete fulfillment of that Psalm. There is a total world wide madness and darkness which has gripped the vast majority.

A madness in which a very few hunt to destroy all, and the very many gladly submit to be hunted unto death.

I still cannot believe my eyes, as to what I have seen for a year. How nearly everyone I know has submitted to the Mask and Lockdowns, out of the fear of the most insubstantial of things.

Without God deeply and constantly remembered, man is without a compass. As a man who has dedicated himself to prayer his whole life, I find myself looking face to face at a world gone mad, precisely because it was never mindful of God:

Perfectly rational men, who spent not their reason in faith, but were satisfied in accommodating it to the service of men and the desires of their whimsical wills; seeking not the Truth in reason, nor the piety of the Faith in their prayers, they are like the beasts of the forest who, without even the sense to confront a little threat, throw themselves gladly into mortal peril.

And you cannot even argue with them, as they go round and round in circles if presented with medical or scientific facts, theological or moral arguments, or even reasons of self interest which require looking at the value of life over risk.

Truly, then, All the nations which are forgetful of God shall be converted unto Hell. Psalm 9:17.

Or as the Vulgate reads:

17 Cognoscetur Dominus judicia faciens; in operibus manuum suarum comprehensus est peccator.

18 Convertantur peccatores in infernum, omnes gentes quae obliviscuntur Deum.

Or as I render it in English:

He shall be known, the Lord the worker of judgements: for in the works of his own hands, has the sinner been taken captive.

Let sinners be converted unto Hell, all the nations which have been forgetful of God!

Gab admits it has 10,000 Censors who can report you to the police

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The epitome of blaspheme was uttered by Andrea Torba during this interview on Bannon’s War Room. — Bannon is an ex-Vice President of Goldman Sachs and a self professed “Christian Zionist”. He is a firm believing in the Scamdemic and pushes the virus narrative. Evidently Gab founder has no problem with that. During the interview the 3rd speaker, Eric Greitens is a Rhodes Scholar (Masonic Award, which Bill Clinton, Skull and Bones also received).

Torba is not being entirely transparent in what he says, about founding a new social media platform, because Gab is using an existing Mastodon fork. So it is obvious he is trying to suppress competition.

He urges opponents of the Usurpation to not be violent! — What pacifist crap.

Tarba goes to the extreme absurdity by saying America needs 10000 Donald Trumps — a man who was 3x married, pro gay marriage, pro Vaxx and a life long friend of Skull and Bones!

Tarba then utters the blasphemy by saying that Christ unites Left and Right — even though the Left wants to destroy Christianity. So his Christ is evidently a Nietzschean Ubermench, who unites good and evil. And we Catholics call that man the Antichrist.

Eric Greitens talks about people of faith. But this is the Masonic fraudulent way of speaking, because only Catholics have faith, Protestants have trust, Jews have observance, Muslims have submission.

Tarba explains that the purpose of Gab is to prevent toxic individuals from festering at local bars and cafes or in their homes, to expose them to new ideas and win them over! He admits that they have 10,000 moderators who report individuals continually and even to the police for bad behavior — This is shocking Big Brother speak.

From these comments it can be concluded that Gab is run by the Freemasons. And that they want you on Gab so as to monitor your existence, suppress any action you take to oppose their system of control, run the opposition and download your identity.

Or in short, in a program about Digital Serfdom, while you think you are getting advice about how to break free, you are really being urged to renter their web of control.

The Phariseeism of the Sedevacantist

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Sedevacantism is an ideology developed by a pedophile who was expelled from Seminary but ended up justifying his illicit ordination as a priest and bishop.

It consists in claiming that the popes since Pius XII — a known CIA and Fascist collaborator — are not true popes.

But its chief method is deploy an intellectual trick, called a shell game, to get Catholics to fall for their cult.

This trick consists in shifting the boundaries of the term, “heretic” so as to justify that anyone they accuse is a heretic.

A heretic is someone who denies a truth of faith. Precisely defined, it is a person who after baptism denies a truth which he knows God has revealed. If God has revealed this truth to him a lone, then he is a heretic before God. If God has revealed this truth to the Church then one speaks of a heretic, simply.

But to be a heretic, you need first to be baptized. In a historical sense, you could extend the term to those Jews who denied the revelation in the Old Testament, as the Saducees of old it.

Heresy, however, is any verbal expression which contradicts a revealed truth. It can be written or spoken or even thought of.

A heresy spoken, written or thought of does not a heretic make the speaker, writer or thinker.  To be a heretic there has to be the intention to deny a revealed truth. And thus there cannot be ignorance of the revealed truth nor ignorance that it is revealed.

But sedes — the popular nick name for sedevacantists — us this trick. They claim that the mere expression of heresy makes you a material heretic. And the intention to express it as true makes you a formal heretic. They omit the part about intentionally denying a truth known to be revealed by God.

So they search the writings of any superior they want to dethrone, and they find a passage which they claim is an error. They call this claimed error a heresy, and name the person who said or wrote it a material heretic. And then they claim this person, by the mere fact that he sustained this error, is a formal heretic, outside of the Church, and thus they impose excommunication upon him, without any need for judgement or declaration by the Church — a thing which they do not seek to obtain, since they judge no one superior to themselves.

This is a very convenient intellectual position for those who were kicked out of seminary for pedophilia or sexual abuse and would never be allowed to be come clergy otherwise. For once you dispose of the authority and legitimacy of those who refuse you orders, you can justify getting them in some illicit manner.

To better understand the mind of a sede, using this trick, let us use an example.

There is the material drunkard, and the formal drunk.

The material drunkard keeps liquor in his house and drinks it.

The sede comes to know this and calls the inhabitants of the house material drunkards, and insists that since they kept liquor for years that they were drunkards and formally such.

Then they pronounce them to be shunned by everyone in town and say that all the legal acts they are involved in at the local court or city hall are null and void.

This is how absurd and dishonest Sedes are.

They are the new Pharisees and are quintessential puritans.

Just do not bring up with them that their ideology was cooked up by a pedophile. They get nasty if you do.

The Catholic on the other hand rebukes those in error and calls upon the Church to reprove those in error. He also recognizes that formal heretics do not hold office, but he is careful to avoid naming someone merely involved in error a heretic, especially when the person shows ignorance of many truths necessary to understand his error as an error.

CREDITS: The Featured image is Jesus in the house of the Pharisee by Tintoretto.

It is a mortal sin to allow the innocent to be victimized

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As Christians we are obliged to love God and to love our neighbor. This is the teaching of God:  Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God …. and thy neighbor as thyself.

God is infinitely Good, so He is perfectly loveable in Himself. And He has done everything for us, from creating us to saving us and sanctifying us and caring for us. So we really do not need a commandment to love Him, though in the Old Testament these truths were no so clear to the Jewish people, and for that reason, they were given a commandment.

But we all need the commandment to love our neighbor, because we are inclined to love ourselves alone. Indeed, much of the proper instruction that parents should give to children is to teach them to love others, their brothers and sisters, parents, friends etc..

But as adults, we are more obliged to love and justice, because we have a better grasp of the truth of things and are more capable of taking action.

Indeed, the nobility of a person’s soul is revealed precisely in this, that they have the compassion for others in difficulties and the promptness and zeal to take action to help them.

And this nobility is not lessened by the willingness to suffer wrong or to suffer for our own sins.

Yet, our willingness to personally suffer should never be an excuse to allow others to suffer.

And in this Scamdemic most of all, we are put to this test.  We are all being lied to, manipulated, oppressed, persecuted, and enslaved.

And all of this is personally intolerable. But it is even more precisely intolerable that we allow others to be so oppressed.

For 12 months now we have all sinned a great sin, because we have stood and watched everyone be oppressed and victimized and only a few of us have personally resisted to have our own personal freedom.

But very few have actually done anything to stop the oppression and victimization of others.

And this zeal and compassion for the suffering of the innocent, alas, has often been dulled or extinguished by the consideration that they are willing accepting to be manipulated.

But if we allow such considerations to dent our zeal, then we must ask ourselves if we are any better than the Germans who saw Jews being hauled off into trucks and did nothing other than complain?

And now that tens of millions are being manipulated into being vaccinated with a product which neutralizes their Type 2 White blood cells (Source: here), causing their deaths in the next year or so, can we stand and merely watch genocide in progress?

In this year of Our Lord 2021, we Christians must distinguish ourselves by fighting back against the Great Reset with all of our talents, abilities, time, wealth and action.

We must realize we are in war, and that we have not declared this war. But our war is just and therefore, we must crusade for the liberation of all who are being victimized.

I believe, thus, that it is not for nothing, that St. John the Evangelist in the Book of the Apocalypse spoke of the final battle.  The end of the world will not come in peace or come about in peace.

We must stop ignoring the reality in which we are living.

For war is upon us and we must now give battle!

———

For a guide to how to fight against the Great Reset, the solution is simple, and it is explained in this article.

 

R.I.P. U.S.A.

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Not with a bang, but a whimper.

Thus one can write the final epithet of the United States of America: land of the free and home of the brave!

Three Hundred Million American citizens just saw the biggest crime in their political history, the theft of the U. S. Presidency by ballot, voting and counting fraud: documented with hundreds of sworn affidavits, videos, analyses of data and studies.

And confirmed by the Usurper himself when he had to call in 25,000 troops to guarantee that his “inauguration” be accepted, using in this manner the sons and daughters of American citizens to protect himself, like the Taliban or ISIS does with their own babies.

Not with a bang but a whimper, the American republic has ended, or perhaps, as some scholars would say, has shown its true nature. It is  not a democracy, and it is not united. It’s true name is the Masonic Dominated States of America.

And its people have not show themselves to be free or want to be free, still less to be brave or want to be brave.

They are only interested in not being called names such as “violent”, “patriot”, “right wing”, “racist”.

Such a population is a race of babies. It is no wonder they submitted so easily to wearing diapers on their faces.

Now, I do not speak so harshly because I hate America, but because as a native of that land, I love Her and am outraged at what has happened and incensed at what has not happened.

It is insufferable and illogical to allow politicians and journalists dictate what is true and what is false, and thus tell you who won, regardless of the legitimate votes cast.

It is totally and absolutely absurd to have a form of government where there is no verification of the legitimacy of a vote or ballot, voter id or authentic method of auditing results.

It is ludicrous to have votes counted by machines which are tied to the internet and can be hacked with a cell phone.

As an American citizen, I totally repudiate such a state of politics as unworthy of any free man.

But the surrender of America to fraud is an eye opening moment to see how totally empty the slogans of America are and how fake her history has been. The republic founded on the U. S. Constitution pretends to virtue but is a total fraud.

If there is anyone with a true sense of patriotism in the Masonic Dominated and Controlled States of America, they need to start a Revolution. Not a revolution to break free from a just and legitimate political order — for none such exists in the U.S. territory. But a revolution to establish one.

Any U. S. Veteran or enlisted man should be the very first to react. The inaction of so many proves that they neither want liberty nor have a drop of real bravery or patriotism for America.

Shame on all of you who are cowards!