by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
In the quest to understand the events surrounding Feb. 11, 2013 A. D., many writers have so far explored nearly every aspect of the events leading up to and following. But one event which has not yet been explored may have been a crucial influence on the decision making of Pope Benedict XVI.
And it is this.
On October 7, 2012 just 4 months and 4 days before he read out his Declaratio, Pope Benedict XVI declared St. Hildegard of Bingen a Doctor of the Church.
That he chose to do this on the Feast of Our Lady of Victories, a. k. a., the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, which commemorated in that year the 441st anniversary of the Catholic victory at the Battle of Lepanto, cannot be a mere administrative detail. Nay, it shows that the doctrine and teaching of St. Hildegard, for Pope Benedict XVI is intimately associated with Our Lady’s Mediation and Intervention in history.
Moreover, on May 10, 2012, in the Month of May, two days after the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel and 3 days before the Remembrance of the First Apparition of Our Lady at Fatima, 95 years before, Pope Benedict XVI extended the feast of St. Hildegard to the entire Church, making her a de facto Saint.
But just what this connection could be, needs to be explored.
Who was St. Hildegard of Bingen?
Lauded even by seculars as the most learned woman of the Middle Ages, St. Hildegard was born around 1098, the year before the Crusaders, at the behest of Bl. Urban II, took Jerusalem in the First Crusade. She died at the age of 81, in 1179, on September 17th, about 7 years before the birth of St. Francis of Assisi.
Her feast day, therefore, September 17th, is the same as the Feast of the Stigmatization of St. Francis, which is celebrated on that day, though it occurred on Sept. 14th.
At the age of 14 she took vows as a Benedictine Nun at the monastery of Disibodenberg, in 1112 A. D.. Twenty four years later, her fellow nuns elected her Abbess, a title and office she held for the rest of her life.
St. Hildegard was a mystic, that is, from her earliest years she experienced extraordinary mystical graces. Hers being a habitual participation in the Beatific Vision regarding that lower level of knowledge of human affairs present and future. Our Lord, as a Man, had this habitually also, but very few are the Saints who shared this carism with His Sacred Humanity. The other, I know of, is Bl. Anna Maria Taigi, a third order member of the Trinitarians.
By means of this habitual vision, St. Hildegard was helped to become one of the most learned women of her day and wrote on a large variety of topics, even though she never spoke of it and was ashamed that others would think her strange if she admitted to having it.
St. Hildegard’s Visions of the End times
But the topic which seems to have the most to do with Pope Benedict XVI is this, that she wrote more than any other Saint of her age about the Antichrist and his coming, and seems to be relating what she saw of the future. That she did this some 800 years ago, adds to the credibility of her prophecies, because there is absolutely no human way she could have known or guessed of the events of our own days, by mere human wisdom.
As a demonstration of the validity of her powers of prevision, she predicted accurately the following events which have shaken the Catholic world:
- The dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire
- The abolition of Catholic Monarchies by a diabolic sect which dedicated itself to the destruction of the Church
- The loss of the Papal States and the confinement of the Popes to a small territory at Rome with a number of small jurisdictions scattered round about.
- The Industrial Revolution, during which time the supply of food, medicine and sane laws would improve the daily life of the poor throughout the world.
- The rise of a world empire ruled by the Kings of England
- The rise of nation states ruled by their own leaders who are not monarchs.
These prophecies are contained in her tract on the Antichrist, in part III, Vision 5, of her monumental work, The Book of Divine Works, or the Liber Divinorum Operum.
But what she says of the Antichrist is completely astounding, and A. J. Baalman who has a copy of this book in hand, and I, will be discussing it in a series of programs at Ordo Militaris Radio, this week.
St. Hildegard prophesied the Two Popes
But for now I want to speak of only one of her prophecies, of which no one heretofore has spoken: the prophecy of 2 popes, one of whom would be a deluded servant Satan and antipope.
This prophecy is founded in the stated book, in the edition published by the Catholic University Press, on page 464, n. 29, and the words of it are as follows:
Take care too that no one dispose you to being misled in any circumstance by illusory or fantastical deeds. For only when that time has come when the Church’s sublimity has been squandered and the truth faith crushed underfoot — this is what is understood to be the revolt that will happen in the time of the accursed son whose mother is unclean, since she knows not by whom she (here begins p. 465) conceived — then he will be revealed who will be the man of sin, for he will be wholly infused from his beginning by sin, so that as a sinner he will collect and then boast of his sins. …
… For in the age of the son of perdition, the faith, already falling away from its strength, will be toppled over and enfeebled. For the one who keeps the Church’s sublimity in God and holds the right faith keeps something great, because it is through those things that he will enter the heavenly kingdom. But the one who does not keep the faith holds on to nothing, for he will go to perdition.
Here I will give an exposition, or explanation.
When St. Hildegard of Bingen speaks of the future she does so in very abbreviated manner placing emphasis as she does on virtues and vices. Though she speaks in chronological order, she is thus more interesting in spiritual causes.
In this passage she uses a phrase which needs to be understood properly to unlock the meaning of her text. And this is, the phrase the “sublimity of the Church” or the “Church’s sublimity” as it is here translated. In Latin, that which is sublime is that which is most exalted, highest and most superior. As such it is a term which refers to the supreme order of dignity in some measure or office.
So in one sense, this term can refer to the exalted nature of the Church’s virtue or grace. But in another sense it can refer to the highest hierarchical office, that of the Papacy.
In the passage above. St. Hildegard is explaining the text of the Letter of St. Paul in his Second Letter to the Thessalonians, chapter 2, verses 2 to 4, which regards St. Paul’s own prophecy regarding the Antichrist and his coming. So since St. Hildegard is commenting on this precise passage of St. Paul we can be sure that she is referring to the end times and not merely commenting on corruption in the Church at any time.
So, in this sense, when the Saint speaks of “the Church’s sublimity has been squandered and the truth faith crushed underfoot “, she can be understood to be speaking of the seizure of the Papal Office, since to squander a thing, is to misuse a precious thing, and all who have no right to a thing, misuse it inasmuch as they use it without the right to hold and posses and exercise it.
The Saint then ties this to the great revolt, spoken of by St. John in the Apocalypse, when the tail of the Dragon will strike out of the heavens a third of the stars therein — a passage that the Fathers of the Church refer to the mass apostasy of the Clergy at the end of time.
Now this is what we have seen precisely in these 8 years and more manifestly in these last 15 months. Because all the clergy have followed the antipope, being deceived willingly or not by liars, who are the sons of the Dragon. In fact, in exorcisms, Satan has called Freemasons his “beloved children”, and so Freemasons in the Hierarchy can rightly be understood to be his tail. Moreover, at the request of Bergoglio, all the clergy of the world stopped offering public mass, which is the sign of the times of antichrist foretold by the Prophet Daniel when he speaks of the cessation of public sacrifice.
And the truth of the Faith has most certainly been crushed underfoot during this time in which Bergoglio has squandered the sublimity of the Faith.
Then, after speaking of the Antichrist and his mother, the Saint speaks of our own age clearly, when she says, For in the age of the son of perdition, the faith, already falling away from its strength, will be toppled over and enfeebled. — This is a most accurate description of the post Vatican II era. The verb, toppled, means to knock over or strike down, and this is clearly what Vatican II did. And the Aggiornamento clearly weakened the faith everywhere.
Then she speaks of 2 popes, the true and the false. First of the true:
For the one who keeps the Church’s sublimity in God and holds the right faith keeps something great, because it is through those things that he will enter the heavenly kingdom.
Here she is speaking, in my opinion, of Pope Benedict XVI, who as pope is at the sublimity of the Church’s earthly hierarchical order. He keeps the right faith, not the false preached by others, and keeps something great, that is the petrine munus. And his meek suffering of persecution and imprisonment as Pope, will merit him eternal salvation.
But then she speaks of the antipope:
But the one who does not keep the faith holds on to nothing, for he will go to perdition.
Here, in identifying Bergoglio with the masculine singular , “the one who” and ” does not keep the faith” — as is obvious to everyone who believes — does NOT hold the petrine munus, (“holds on to nothing”), and will go to damnation for his usurpation.
Pope Benedict XVI and St. Hildegard
Clearly Pope Benedict XVI was cogniscent that the Faith had been gravely weakened and damaged after Vatican II. In fact, he spoke precisely about this on Feb. 14, 2013, just 3 days after reading his Declaratio.
He declared St. Hildegard a Doctor of the Church, for which we can be certain that he not only had read these words of the Saint which we just read, but that he had the greatest appreciation for them.
Finally, as a theologian who had written many articles on the Petrine munus, as a thing held, and the Petrine ministry as a thing to be done, we can say with a high probability that Pope Benedict XVI may have understood this same passage in the way I have proposed, as referring to a future time in which there would be 2 popes. One with the Petrine Munus and the Catholic Faith who was promised by God through St. Hildegard of eternal salvation, and one without the Munus and the Faith, who would go unto perdition.
So is Pope Benedict XVI by declaring St. Hlidegard of Bingen a Doctor of the Church on the feast of our Lady of Victories, sending a sign to the whole Catholic world — in this distinction between munus and ministerium, of a Pope who remains faithful and retains the former, and a false pope who has neither — that he has found in her writings the great stratagem by which he will overthrow the work of Freemasonry? unmask it to the world? and protect Holy Mother Church in Her truth faithful ones, and separate Her from the corrupt College of Cardinals and Bishops who have preyed upon children and faithful for some many decades?
Seeing that Pope Benedict XVI as a theologian was a firm supporter of the necessity of the Church in the end times to separate herself from the church of the Antichrist, this possibility appears to be something which we can no longer ignore.
Part I: On the Habit of Humility
Jesus meek and humble of Heart, make our hearts like unto thine!
On this Solemnity of the Sacred Heart, a meditation on the virtue of humility
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
As disciples of Jesus Christ we are called to believe in Him and accept Baptism. And when we do so, not only by memorizing the doctrines of the Faith or by being baptised in the laver of regeneration, but by intentionally and actively living them, that is conforming our minds and hearts to them, thus, we are promised the Kingdom of Heaven.
And being promised a Kingdom, means that we have been raised to a royal status.
But alas, most of us forget this. And it has not been preached in many years and decades.
Aristotle said more than 2300 years ago, that the worst form of government was Democracy, and that it ends up in tyranny. Aristotle has been heavily criticized for his simplistic political theories in recent decades but the Scamdemic has proved him once again to be one of the great and most trustworthy thinkers of history.
In Christianity too, our ideal is not democracy. Christ is King and by His grace in the Sacraments we are made heirs of a kingdom. Heaven is not a democracy, but an absolute Monarchy, the justice and honesty of which is guaranteed by the Most Perfectly Honest and Just Ruler, Jesus Christ, Who is God incarnate.
And not only should we recognize that democracy does not work on Earth and is not present in Heaven, so we must acknowledge that the ideals of democracy as regards human character are not the best for humanity nor compatible with Christianity.
For in a democracy there is lauded a chaotic spontaneous liberty, restrained by no morality or hierarchical order. And as such, in a democracy, the individual is urged to manure himself all over, inside and out, with vain glory, pride, avarice, lust, envy, jealousy, intemperance, and worst of them all, toleration of all evil and all forms of chaos, whether they merely upset the public order or require the killing of hundreds of millions of innocents in the name of preserving the liberty or rights of someone else, usually the majority.
But it is quite otherwise in Christendom.
For Christ teaches us that we should and must imitate Him, the King, in His perfect humility. And at the same time, we should imitate Him, our King, in His perfect zeal for spiritual personal righteousness.
Christ is not a Marxist. He did not come to liberate nations from political problems or systems of corruption. He came to save individuals and to call each of us to be honest and just first of all, in our relationship with God and neighbor. And not just a vague hypothetical neighbor, but the ones who live next to our, whom we meet on the sidewalk, workplace, church, store, etc..
As regards the Humility of Christ, here is where most common definitions of humility fail to grasp the reality and essence of the virtue. For we are told that “humility is truth”, “humility is having a true or just appreciation for one’s self”. But these are definitions of the thing as a notion or from without, not how to practice it internally.
And when it comes to an internal virtue, whether humility or purity, its the awareness of how to practice it in the halls of our mind and heart, which is the key to holiness. The same goes with zeal, which is often confused with merely external behavior. So let us consider each more properly.
Humility is the royal garment which merits heaven. Because, “God resists the proud, but to the humble he gives grace”, and without grace, we can do nothing, because grace is a participation in the divine life of Jesus Christ, Who said, “Without Me you can do nothing”.
This means that without humility all our works, howsoever great or good in this world, are without merit for the kingdom of Heaven, because without humility God will resist our works, and see that they come to naught worthy of Heaven. Here is where we Catholics part with the Calvinists and jansenists who believed that exterior works prove the authenticity of a Christian’s faith or charity. Christ Himself warned us agains this, when He said, “They already have their reward”, speaking of the Jews who wore long tassels, blew trumpets to announce their alms giving, preferred the places of honor at table.
And Humility is not just a habit metaphorically, but also spiritually, because it must be the constant manner of comportment of our mind and heart in their consideration of the worth of one’s own self, actions, words, and thoughts.
And here is the real secret of humility which has not been preached or well explained, but which is found in the lives of the Saints if you reflect on their words and deeds and choices in life.
For a humble man does not presume he will be saved. Neither as a pagan, nor as a Christian, nor as a Catholic. Neither as one receiving the Sacraments frequently, or saying many rosaries, or making many pilgrimages or giving alms by measure.
No a humble man is first of all a cautious man, because he recognizes from observing himself that he himself is the greatest and only real threat to his own salvation. In his examination of conscience he finds the cause of sin not in others, nor in places, nor in this or that thing, but in himself and in his presumption to think, speak or act in a way which lead him down the road to sin.
A habitual sinner, considers always that sin is far off. And a petty sinner, is a sinner who always thinks it is not much a deal. But a humble man, seeing even the most smallest fault is worried and troubled, and does not remain in a sentiment of worry, but immediately resolves to fix the problem, just as a man arising from sleep to find the floor of his bedroom covered with sewage would take immediate and intense action to fix the problem or flee from that place.
Thus the habit of humility is a habit of mind, whereby we keep in mind our own wretched habits of inclining into sin and besmirching our soul and this world with our vices and sins and injustices. It is not simply something we do when we go to confession, it is a continual inclination of mind to see all the ugliness of our soul which is there, examining it carefully without the intention of being preoccupied by self, but rather with the intention of conforming oneself to God’s Will and Justice and measuring our wretchedness by These Eternal Measures.
But it is impossible to acquire the habit of humility by our own actions. We are given it in Baptism and we can merit an increase by practicing it. We can recover it in Confession, but rarely do so. We can obtain it by prayer and by the intervention of some saint who has special care for us, for some reason known to God. But it is an extraordinary gift and very rare. And that is why Our Lord warns us, strongly, saying, “Woe!” The path to salvation is narrow and truly few are those who find it. But the paths of pride are many and wide and crowds of souls walk upon them.
The fruit of true humility is seen in a habitual stream of actions, words and thoughts from a soul, which lead it away from the world, the flesh and the devil. If our generation has a problem detaching itself from evil, it is because it lacks humility. The humble soul flees the works of the flesh, the world and the devil. And that means rejecting all the values, interests, endeavors and entertainments and pleasures of men who are carnal, worldly or diabolic. And that is why there are far fare more Saints who were religious monks and sisters, than there are who were layman or secular clergy. Catholics of all ages agreed, but Catholics in modern times, addicted to pride, often down play this, saying that laymen wills save the Church.
But laymen of such pride will never even save themselves! And lead the many to ruin. We have to radically distance ourselves from such errors an d return to God and His will and plans for our sanctification, not just for our salvation. And that means returning to the examples of the Saints of all ages who rejected most firmly such an error. And they knew better, since they knew the root of salvation was in humility.
Moreover, the giver of humility is the Holy Spirit. When He visits a soul, so great is the light of truth, that the soul cannot but be shocked at the utter ugliness and depravity of itself. For this reason, most souls flee the Holy Spirit and make every effort to avoid His presence. And they are so good at this, that they can do so even in the presence of the Most Blessed Sacrament, on a daily basis.
This gift, this grace, this habit of humility is also a delicate one. For the habits of mind, heart, lips and life which presuppose that I, me, and my own, are important, good, upright, just etc.. each are capable of lethal injections of pride, which kill humility seconds after is generation in the soul. This is not on account of the impotence of God to create it, but on account of the delicacy of humility itself. For just as a great craftsman shows his power and talents in making the most delicately contrived art, which however is easily broken, so the gift of humility is breakable so easily to show its outstanding excellence. This explains why Our Lord said that only children will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, because we must have the delicacy of innocence, to avoid the lethality of pride which kills this essential quality of the noble Christian.
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Now that it is becoming more and more clear that a great majority of the clergy have lost the Catholic Faith or are at least acting in such a way as to make themselves appear to have done so, many Catholics are wondering whether they can or cannot continue to attend Mass or receive the sacraments at their local parishes or from priests of whom they formerly had no doubts, but by whom they now have been gravely scandalized.
And in this matter, I have already discussed here, at FromRome.Info, the teaching of Saint Alphonsus Liguori, who is the Doctor of the Church on moral questions, that is to say, in regard to specific questions, is the prime authority on such matters.
But as Saint Thomas Aquinas was named along with St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, as one of the two primary Doctors of the Church, his mere mentioning of this matter carries no small weight in the Church. And as he did speak of it briefly in the Summa Theologica, III, q. 82, a. 9, it merits a discussion.
First of all we need to understand that Saint Thomas wrote the Summa Theologica for what we would call highschool students of his day. That is for those who could not or had not yet qualified to attend the Unviersity. In the Middle Ages such students were seminarians who were preparing to be ordained simple priests, with faculties only to say Mass, not preach or hear confessions. And for this reason, we must recognize that the Summa Theologica speaks always in a brief manner about everything, and is not a technical handbook on theology. Indeed, most who misuse it, fall into this misuse for using it in such a manner.
So let us consider what Saint Thomas does say, and to do this, have recourse to the Latin text of Pars III, q. 82, article 9, which I take form the Corpus Thomisticum website. You can compare it in English here. After the Latin text, I will publish my own translation, which I did this morning.
First, as regard the format of an Article in Saint Thomas. He begins first by citing arguments for and against his position, and then he explains his own position, and then he replies to the arguments he moved against it. So nothing of what he says in the first list of arguments, does he say in his own name. He is merely quoting others or paraphrasing them. Only what he says in his Reply and refutation of the objections is the words of the Angelic Doctor.
Now, to the text.
Summa Theologica, III, q. 82, a. 9
 IIIª q. 82 a. 9 arg. 1 Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis licite possit communionem recipere a sacerdotibus haereticis vel excommunicatis, vel etiam peccatoribus, et ab eis Missam audire. Sicut enim Augustinus, contra Petilianum, dicit, neque in homine bono neque in homine malo aliquis Dei fugiat sacramenta. Sed sacerdotes, quamvis sint peccatores et haeretici vel excommunicati, verum conficiunt sacramentum. Ergo videtur quod non sit vitandum ab eis communionem accipere vel eorum Missam audire.
 IIIª q. 82 a. 9 arg. 2 Praeterea, corpus Christi verum figurativum est corporis mystici, sicut supra dictum est. Sed a praedictis sacerdotibus verum corpus Christi consecratur. Ergo videtur quod illi qui sunt de corpore mystico, possint eorum sacrificiis communicare.
 IIIª q. 82 a. 9 arg. 3 Praeterea, multa peccata sunt graviora quam fornicatio. Sed non est prohibitum audire Missas sacerdotum aliter peccantium. Ergo etiam non debet esse prohibitum audire Missas sacerdotum fornicariorum.
 IIIª q. 82 a. 9 s. c. Sed contra est quod canon dicit, XXXII dist., nullus audiat Missam sacerdotis quem indubitanter concubinam novit habere. Et Gregorius dicit, in III Dialog., quod pater perfidus Arianum episcopum misit ad filium, ut ex eius manu sacrilegae consecrationis communionem acciperet, sed vir Deo devotus Ariano episcopo venienti exprobravit ut debuit.
 IIIª q. 82 a. 9 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sacerdotes, si sint haeretici vel schismatici vel excommunicati, vel etiam peccatores, quamvis habeant potestatem consecrandi Eucharistiam, non tamen ea recte utuntur, sed peccant utentes. Quicumque autem communicat alicui in peccato, ipse particeps peccati efficitur, unde et in secunda canonica Ioannis legitur quod qui dixerit ei, ave, scilicet haeretico, communicat operibus illius malignis. Et ideo non licet a praedictis communionem accipere aut eorum Missam audire. Differt tamen inter praedictas sectas. Nam haeretici et schismatici et excommunicati sunt per sententiam Ecclesiae executione consecrandi privati. Et ideo peccat quicumque eorum Missam audit vel ab eis accipit sacramenta. Sed non omnes peccatores sunt per sententiam Ecclesiae executione huius potestatis privati. Et sic, quamvis sint suspensi quantum est ex sententia divina, non tamen quantum ad alios ex sententia Ecclesiae. Et ideo, usque ad sententiam Ecclesiae, licet ab eis communionem accipere et eorum Missam audire. Unde super illud I Cor. V, cum huiusmodi nec cibum sumere, dicit Glossa Augustini, hoc dicendo, noluit hominem ab homine iudicari ex arbitrio suspicionis, vel etiam extraordinario usurpato iudicio, sed potius ex lege Dei, secundum ordinem Ecclesiae, sive ultro confessum, vel accusatum et convictum.
 IIIª q. 82 a. 9 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in hoc quod refugimus audire talium sacerdotum Missam aut ab eis communionem recipere, non refugimus Dei sacramenta, sed potius ea veneramur, unde hostia a talibus sacerdotibus consecrata est adoranda, et, si reservetur, licite potest sumi a sacerdote legitimo. Sed refugimus culpam indigne ministrantium.
 IIIª q. 82 a. 9 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod unitas corporis mystici est fructus corporis veri percepti. Illi autem qui indigne percipiunt vel ministrant, privantur fructu, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo non est sumendum ex eorum dispensatione sacramentum ab eis qui sunt in unitate Ecclesiae.
 IIIª q. 82 a. 9 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet fornicatio non sit gravior ceteris peccatis, tamen ad eam sunt homines proniores, propter carnis concupiscentiam. Et ideo specialiter hoc peccatum a sacerdotibus prohibitum est ab Ecclesia, ne aliquis audiat Missam concubinarii sacerdotis. Sed hoc intelligendum est de notorio, vel per sententiam quae fertur in convictum, vel confessionem in iure factam, vel quando non potest peccatum aliqua tergiversatione celari.
My Translation of Summa Theologica, III, q. 82, a. 9
- To the ninth (article) one proceeds in this manner. It seems that somone may licitly receive communion from heretical and/or excommunicated priests, and/or even from sinners, and to hear a Mass (said) by them. For (St.) Augustine (of Hippo) says “Against Petilianus”, Let no one flee the Sacraments of God neither for the good in a man nor for the evil in a man. But priests, though they be sinners and heretics and/or excommunicate, truly confect the Sacrament. Therefore, it seems that one must not avoid accepting communion from them and/or hearing their Mass.
- Moreover, the Body of Christ is truly figurative of the Mystical Body, just as has been said above. But the true Body of Christ is consecrated by the aforesaid priests. Therefore, it seems, that those who are of the Mystical Body, may communicate in their sacrifices.
- Moreover, there are many sins more grave than fornication. But the hearing of the Masses of priests sinning in another manner is not prohibited. Therefore, also, the hearing of the Masses of priest fornicators ought also not be prohibited.
But on the contrary there is that which Canon XXXII, says in the distinction, “Let no one hear the Mass of the priest who undoubtedly is known to have a concubine”. And (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great) says in the Third (Book) of (his) Dialogues, that A treacherous father sent an Arian bishop to (his) son, so that he might accept from his hand the communion of a sacrilegious consecration, but the man, devoted to God reproached the Arian bishop at his arrival, as he should have.
I RESPOND, that it must be said, that just as was said above, priests, if they be heretics and/or schismatics and/or excommunicated, and/or even sinners, though they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not use that uprightly, but sin using (it). Moreover, whosoever communicates in the sin of another, is himself made a participant in the sin, wherefore, there is also read in the Second Canonical (Letter) of (St.) John (the Apostle), that he who will have said to him, namely the heretic, “Greetings”, communicates in his malign works. And for that reason it is not licit to accept communion from the aforesaid or to hear their Masses. However, there is a difference between the aforesaid groups. For heretics and schismatics and the excommunicate are deprived from executing a consecration through a (canonical) sentence of the Church. And for that reason, whomsoever hears their Mass and/or receives the Sacraments from them, sins. But not all sinners have been deprived of the execution of this power through the sentence of the Church. And in this manner, though they have been suspended as much as is on account of the Divine Sentence, yet not as much as regards the others on account of the sentence of the Church. And for that reason, up until (there is) a sentence of the Church, it will be licit to accept communion from them and to hear their Masses. Wherefore, on that (verse) of First Corinthians, Chapter V, with these of this kind do not even take food, the Gloss of (St.) Augustine says, “by saying this, he did not want that a man be judged by a man on account of an arbitrary suspicion, and/or even by an extra-ordinary usurped judgement, but rather on account of the law of God, according to the order of the Church, or without having confessed, and/or having been accused and convicted.
Ad arg. 1. To the first, therefore, it must be said, that in this, that we flee the hearing of the Mass of such priests or the receiving of communion from them, we do not flee the Sacraments of God, but rather we venerate Them, on which account the Hosts consecrated by such priests are to be adored, and, if they be reserved, they can be licitly taken in hand by a legitimate priest. But we do flee from the fault of the ones ministering (them) unworthily.
Ad arg. 2. To the second, it must be said, that the unity of the Mystical Body is the fruit of the True Body received. Moreover, those who receive and/or minister unworthily, are deprived of the fruit, as has been said above. And for that reason, there is not to be a taking up of the Sacraments from their distribution by those who are in the unity of the Church.
Ad arg. 3. To the third, it must be said, that though fornication is not more grave than all other sins, yet men are more prone to it, on account of the concupiscence of the flesh. And for that reason, this sin is to be especially prohibited to priests by the Church, so that no one hear the Mass of a fornicating priest. But this is to be understood concerning the notorious (sinner), and/or through the sentence which was borne against the convict, and/or through a confession made formally [in iure], and/or when the sin cannot be hidden by any subterfuge.
Discussion of the Text
It is clear that Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches the perennial doctrine, handed down from the Apostles, that one must not partake of the Sacraments from one who is a heretic, schismatic or public sinner. And he specifies in every case that he is speaking of those who are not merely suspected by private judgement — as Sedevacantists do in our own day — but by those who are know as such by an official judgment, such as excommunication or such like, published by the Church or by facts which are manifest and public and cannot be factually denied.
So here Saint Thomas founds his doctrine upon the knowledge of the truth, whether that knowledge come to us through public means: the sentence of the Church; or by non pubic means: by facts which cannot be denied by any sort of explanation. When the believer is cogniscent of such truth, he must refrain from receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist from such sinners.*
So, to all those who would say that we can receive the Sacrament from such men, we can say that St. Thomas stands against them. But to those who entertain unreasonable or irrational suspicions against a priest, we can say that St. Thomas teaches that on that account they should not refuse the Sacraments of a priest. — I add, so long a the one suspecting has not fallen into mortal sin of rash judgment, defamation or calumny against such a priest, because then he should not receive until he first confesses and repents of his sin.
And thus is clear the true teaching of the Angelic Doctor and under what conditions he speaks.
Applying this teaching to current events
Clearly then we must avoid the Sacraments from priests who have abandoned the Catholic Faith, such as those who give them to public sinners of any kind, on account of the error taught in Amoris Laetitia. We must also refuse the Sacraments of priests who push the vaccine or commit the daily sacrilege of celebrating with the Mask or sanitizing gel, and would fear less to offend God than to drop Him like a cookie in the hand. Also we must refuse the sacraments from priests who are in communion with the Antipope, however so friendly and orthodox they be, because otherwise we are partaking in their sin.
Our Lady at Akita told us that there would come a time when the Church would be full of those who make compromises, and that the true faithful would only have the consolation of the Rosary and the crucifix. Those days have come, for those who still have the eyes of faith to see and the will to see.
In the case of the priest who rejects the heresies of Bergoglio and all other heresies, and names Benedict in the canon of the Mass while also naming Bergoglio, because he does not know who is the pope, one can receive the Sacraments from him. But if he names Bergoglio sometimes and Benedict other times, when we come to know of this, we cannot attend his masses, since what he is doing is gravely dishonest. But if we did not know of this, and only attended masses where he named Benedict, then so long as we did not come to know of it, we could attend them and receive the Sacraments from him.
As Saint Thomas teaches, if a Deacon or priest in communion with Pope Benedict, finds the Sacrament confected by heretics or schismatics or the excommunicated or even a Bergoglian, he can take the sacrament and consume it so as to remove it from existence (such as would be necessary if he were to celebrate at the same altar or take possession of a Church where such be found). But he should not distribute it, so as to avoid scandal, except in the case of a Deacon who being in a place without priests in communion with the true Pope, transports such hosts to another place and distributes them to the faithful who are in communion with Him for the sustenance of their souls, since in such a rare case, scandal is avoided and a good work is done, since it is holy and righteous thing to take back the property stolen form the Church.
* Contrary to the opinion of many ill instructed Catholics, it is not necessary for salvation to receive the Eucharist worthily, if you have done so already at least one time in your life. For that reason, Saint Thomas admits of no exceptions to the rule he cites here. However, Saint Thomas does not discuss the Sacrament of Confession, in the case of extraordinary, that is singular, events or occasions, in which not in public but in secret a Catholic who is in the state of mortal sin, can confess his sin and be validly absolved by priests who are sinners or schismatics. In such cases St. Alphonsus says it can be permitted, that is, the mortal sinner can ask the Sacrament of Confession, are receive it without sin, even though the priest giving it might by his fault alone sin in giving it. That is not the fault of the penitent. But the case must be only under the most urgent circumstance and rarely done and then not in public, to avoid scandal. This sole exception is allowed, because the Sacrament of Confession for one in mortal sin is necessary for salvation or must be presumed as such, since God’s granting of the grace of perfect contrition, outside of confession, is extremely rare, and as the Council of Trent teaches, never to be presumed.
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The truth of Sacred Scripture is so profound and divine, that in every age we can find in some passage a dogmatic, moral or prophetic teaching for our own times.
One such passage is Chapter 12:13-17 from the Book of the Apocalypse, by St. John the Apostle. And one such age is our own days.
In the Appendix to this article you can find the Greek, Latin and English versions of this passage. I will quote from the English of the Douay Rheims edition, which is the most authoritative English translation.
First, some preliminaries. In the Book of the Apocalypse, also known as the Book of Revelations, the images are symbolic. The Dragon is Satan. The Woman is Our Lady or Holy Mother Church. The Child Jesus is Christ or the Faithful Clergy.
This prophetic passage begins with verse 13:
 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child:
Satan, after his expulsion from Heaven at the beginning of time, was cast out by St. Michael the Archangel and has roamed the Earth seeking to destroy the Christ who would be born of the Virgin. Once Christ founded the Church He ascended to Heaven to sit at the Right Hand of His Father, Who is in Heaven.
But Holy Mother Church, on that account was then sought out for persecution by Satan and his minions. And thus the Church as been persecuted from day one, first by the Jews, then by the Romans, and in all subsequent ages by wicked men, inside and outside of her.
And thus St. John continues:
 And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
In the grand historical sense, this refers to the life of the whole Church, which some Fathers thought would last 1260 years, or others 3.5 millenia, since 1260 days is 3.5 years. But the calculation of days is symbolic for a period of severe trial and war, and should not be taken as numerically significant in any other way, normally speaking.
But what is important here is the imagery which tell us that God will give Holy Mother Church an Angelic power to evade Satan, and stand apart from his face, that is, from his presence. Unto the desert, to her place, that is in a position of devotion and true fidelity to God, wherever on Earth Her children be found. This passage has inspired many monks and hermits to flee into the desert or deserted places, but it chiefly means that we should break from all worldly values and lies, and live for God alone and in a holy manner.
 And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river.
And here is where I want to take up the comparison to our own days. The Masonic Lodges have flooded the worlds with lies, so as to drown our souls and kill Holy Mother Church. This is especially true since the ousting of Pope Benedict XVI and even more true in the last 15 months of the Scamdemic, when all media outlets and governments and church leaders repeat the same lies, claiming that there is this deadly virus which is responsible for all deaths from all causes. A river in the ancient world was the sewer of humanity. So here by water, we can imagine Saint John would say today, a river of sewer water, which is what we are being subjected to, a sewer of lies.
 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
But it is here I wish to pause and remark precisely about this text.
Because in the present Scamdemic we see world FreeMasonry attempting to create a New World Order based upon its sewer of lies: Lies directed at making us all live in unnatural ways, with masks over our faces, far from human embrace, isolated, terrorized, and death vaxxed.
But since this campaign is directed against nature, we have Nature itself as our ally. Because God created us to breathe, and a mask is naturally annoying. God created us to be with others, so isolation is annyoying. God created us to self-heal from winter flues, so a Vaxx which harms and does nothing, is annoying or useless.
So in this sense, I think St. John the Evangelist is speaking of our days, because Nature herself is coming to our aide, even if we are too stupid to see the lies as lies. We find it noisome to keep observing the Sanitary Rules.
 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Finally, St. John in this way promises us victory against the Scamdemic. A War against nature itself cannot be won, since no single organization nor even all of humanity can produce a sewer of lies great enough that our natural inclinations will not withstand it.
But this verse reminds us, too, that the great War has not ended, nor will it end with this victory. And we must be ready every for the spiritual war which is ongoing and will get more fierce as we approach the Last Days.
The inspired text is the original Greek, so here are verses 13-17:
13 Καὶ ὅτε εἴδεν ὁ δράκων ὅτι ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἐδίωξεν τὴν γυναῖκα ἥτις ἔτεκεν τὸν ἄρρενα. 14 Καὶ ἐδόθησαν τῇ γυναικὶ δύο πτέρυγες τοῦ ἀετοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου, ἵνα πέτηται εἰς τὴν ἔρημον εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς, ὅπως τρέφηται ἐκεῖ καιρόν, καὶ καιρούς, καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ, ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ ὄφεως. 15 Καὶ ἔβαλεν ὁ ὄφις ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ὀπίσω τῆς γυναικὸς ὕδωρ ὡς ποταμόν, ἵνα αὐτὴν ποταμοφόρητον ποιήσῃ. 16 Καὶ ἐβοήθησεν ἡ γῆ τῇ γυναικί, καὶ ἤνοιξεν ἡ γῆ τὸ στόμα αὐτῆς, καὶ κατέπιεν τὸν ποταμὸν ὃν ἔβαλεν ὁ δράκων ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ. 17 Καὶ ὠργίσθη ὁ δράκων ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικί, καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς, τῶν τηρούντων τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ.
This is the Byzantine Text version of the Greek. compiled by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.
Here, is the Vulgate Latin version of the same:
 Et postquam vidit draco quod projectus esset in terram, persecutus est mulierem, quae peperit masculum :  et datae sunt mulieri alae duae aquilae magnae ut volaret in desertum in locum suum, ubi alitur per tempus et tempora, et dimidium temporis a facie serpentis.  Et misit serpens ex ore suo post mulierem, aquam tamquam flumen, ut eam faceret trahi a flumine.
 Et adjuvit terra mulierem, et aperuit terra os suum, et absorbuit flumen, quod misit draco de ore suo.  Et iratus est draco in mulierem : et abiit facere praelium cum reliquis de semine ejus, qui custodiunt mandata Dei, et habent testimonium Jesu Christi.
And finally, here is the English, according to the Douay Rheims version:
And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child:  And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.  And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river.
 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth.  And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.  And he stood upon the sand of the sea.
In this episode, Br. Bugnolo asks us to take time this weekend, when we celebrate the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity, to remember the most forgotten person of the Most Holy Trinity: God the Father, explaining what kind of Person Satan would have us think He is, and what kind of Person He truly is, and how even the Eternal Son and Holy Spirit worship Him.*
For more on God the Father, see: God the Father, the Forgotten Person of the Most Holy Trinity
* The doctrine which Br. Bugnolo sets forth here is the teaching of the Church, affirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, IIa IIa, Q. 81, a. 1, where the Angelic Doctor teaches that religion regards the worship of God. And as the Son renders latria to the Father in the Holy Spirit by His obedience, even in the Incarnation unto death, and as the Father renders latria to the Son by giving Him all that He HImself has, so that He be honored just as the Father be honored, and as the Holy Spirit renders latria to the Father in the Son by glorifying the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son, it is perfectly true that even in God there is the worship of Each by Each. Indeed it would be heresy to say otherwise. For the Son is Priest and Mediator between God and man because He is first a Priest and Mediator in the Trinity. This is the teaching of all the Fathers.
In this episode, Br. Bugnolo remarks on the Charismatic Movement, its goals and methods, and shows how true worship of the Holy Spirit leads us in entirely another direction.
Those involved in the “Charistmatic Movement” will have a hard time accepting what Brother says, just like drug addicts have a hard time listening to a discourse on mortification and the immorality of seeking pleasure. But the truth has to be spoken, especially today, on the Solemnity of the Holy Spirit.
In this episode, Br. Bugnolo reminds us how important and efficacious it is to be devoted to Our Lady. A timely reminder for the Month of May.
In this episode, Br Bugnolo comments on Apocalypse 18:4-8:
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities. Render to her as she also hath rendered to you; and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup wherein she hath mingled, mingle ye double unto her. As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her; because she saith in her heart: I sit a queen, and am no widow; and sorrow I shall not see. Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine, and she shall be burnt with the fire; because God is strong, who shall judge her.
In this episode, Br. Bugnolo explains what the Mark of the Beast is, and how to avoid it, giving you the discernment on what St. John the Apostle meant by this term and how to recognize it.