Note: That during this show, AJ disappears for some minutes, since he had to help a family member who fell down.
Category Archives: Moral Theology
On the Devils who are now dancing around the bedside of Pope Francis
An Editorial by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
There are a lot of Catholics who hate Pope Francis, because of his caustic personality, his horrible morals, his perverse theology, and his Marxist politics, by which he has expressed disdain for God, the Saints and about everything in the Catholic Church or in Western Civilization, that he could fit into a news byte.
But the strange thing about this, is that many who think they are righteous are the ones who actually are involved in a vicious or sinful hate of the man.
And now that it appears that it may be that he is dying, they are gloating even on social media of his death.
But is gloating over the death of such a man an honest thing to do? I do not think so.
As Our Lord says in Ezechiel 33:11, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked”
And since we Catholics should conform ourselves to the Sacred Heart in all things, we should not either.
But it is very sad to see that so many who insisted Pope Francis remain in power, or held authority legitimately, for so many years, also refused to seek his repentance. And among these those, who now dance around his death bed, are some of the worst of the worse, because they prefer him dead or in power, but in neither case repentant.
They preferred him in power, than to admitting that munus and ministerium mean different things. They preferred him in power to reading the Code of Canon Law. The preferred him in power than to electing a legitimate successor of Saint Peter. They preferred him in power rather than asking for his rebuke in council.
However, those Catholics who know that the world does not revolve upon prayers alone, but on every good deed done, insisted his election in 2013 was invalid because Pope Benedict XVI did not abdicate; and insisted that Pope Benedict XVI have a successor; these also saw the wisdom of the Catholics of Rome in electing him pope, thereafter, so that he might have the benefits of the High Priestly Prayer of Christ the King. These also participated in the Sutri Initiative for nearly 18 months, because they had true supernatural charity for Pope Francis and sought his repentance or deposition. These Catholics are in the Camp of God, and entirely different moral universe from those who now gloat, and refused to see Pope Francis either questioned in his authority, rebuked in council, or removed from power.
Would that the Bishops have listened to this petition, for as it said, therein, if he had the grace of Peter, the Lord would give him repentance, and if he did not, the faithful would be relieved from his evil influence. But these Bishops chose not to act, deliberately, and now they share in the guilt of letting such a man go to his grave without a fraternal correction.
Those faithful too who knew of the Sutri Initiative but valued their own reputations or hatred for the man more will also have to answer to the Divine Justice for failing in charity towards the man.
And those who wanted him in power so that they could grift on the dissent he was causing in the Catholic Church are perhaps the lowest lifeforms on social media.
The first side sought the man’s salvation and grieves that he is headed to destruction impenitent. The other side cared only to insult him and use him as a punching bag, and now gloats that he will be damned.
Let us not join these devils who are dancing around the hospital bed of Pope Francis. Maybe our prayers can no longer do anything, but we should at least refrain from that vile behavior of the dark side of all these recent controversies.
And, thank you, one and all, who read FromRome and who joined me in rebuking the man for his errors, opposing him in his unjust claim to the Apostolic See, seeking the greatest mercies in Heaven for him, in the Prayer of Christ, and the greatest final mercy on earth, a fraternal rebuke. The entire motive for this was Charity, and we did nothing other than what Catholics should do, who are to love all those in Christ, whether they be saints or sinners.
Moral Responsibility in Ecclesiastical vs. Political Elections: Jan. 30, 2023
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Since the death of Pope Benedict XVI new cults and sects have arisen which focus around novel ideas of juridical and ecclesiastical right. Not all of these are sedevacantist, for an equal number are also globalist and willingly recognize Pope Francis as always having been pope.
But since these errors regard topics which are never quoted by “Traditionalists” or “Conservatives”, though the latter do mention “morality” at election time — their only morals left being the assertion that “it is a mortal sin not to vote for a Masonic politician of the right” — it will be important to review a few basic Catholic truths to distinguish the true Faith from the doctrines of sectarians.
First of all, in ecclesiastical elections, like civil elections, there is a moral responsibility for all who have the right to vote, to make a decision. However, this does not equate to the moral responsibility to vote. Because in a system where there are only a few candidates, whose names are chosen by a Masonic elite, you are never obliged to vote for any of them.
But in an ecclesiastical election, by the norms of Canon Law and ecclesiastical tradition, everyone with a right to vote is free to vote for whomsoever he will, even if, at later stages in the voting the number of possible victorious candidates is reduced to only a few. This freedom shows how the Catholic system is much more sane and liberal than any modern “democracy”, where the masses are never entrusted with such discernment or decisions.
And yes, in an ecclesiastical election just as in a civil election, you are not obliged to even show up for the vote. However, while not exercising your right to vote in a civil election nearly never makes any difference, due to the high numbers of those who have the right to vote, in an ecclesiastical election it always makes a difference, due to the low numbers of electors.
Thus, if you do not come to vote, in an ecclesiastical election, you have the much greater moral responsibility for the outcome than someone who came and voted against the one who ultimately won. Similar situations can also arise in civil elections in parliaments, of course.
Thus, when it comes to voting for a Roman Pontiff, electors have a very grave duty to take their responsibilities seriously. In a Conclave, for example, when the election involves just 120+ electors, not attending the Conclave, by law, means that you cannot vote afterwards: but morally speaking it also means you consent to whatever is the outcome.
Certain immature individuals never accept the outcomes of elections and say things like, “He is not my President”, or “He is not my Pope”. In the former, they never act out on their virtue signalling, though some emigrate for a time from their country. In the Church there have been but rare cases of schisms caused by persons or groups not accepting an uncontested election.
But in the case of an election of the Roman Pontiff by Apostolic Right, the Faithful of the whole Roman Church — the Diocese of Rome and all the suburbican dioceses — are all responsible for the outcome. That is why in ancient times they meet immediately and without delay, if they could, and elected holy men. There are dozens of saints who were popes before 1058, when the College of Cardinals was established. There are but a handful since that time, in the last 1000 years. A fact that should cause all of us to stop and think.
So in the recent and extraordinary juridical case of a pope who appears to renounce but does not, or who is pushed out of power by a College of Cardinals in total rebellion, but who tricks them by an intelligent ruse, after his death the only ones likely to vote for his successor are the Faithful of Rome who paid close attention to his words and did what he himself urged to be done, elect his successor by those who are competent, that is, who have the right to do so, in such extraordinary circumstances, wholly outside the presumed conditions which would exist in the time of a papal election, as are provided for in the current Papal Law, Universi Dominici gregis.
And thus we come to the most sober consideration: that everyone at Rome who refused to attend that Assembly is entirely responsible morally and juridically for the election of the one who was elected there, just as all the clergy and faithful of Rome who held Pope Francis to be the pope from 2013 to this day, and thus who did not attend. Merely claiming that you held Pope Benedict XVI to be the pope until death does not excuse you from responsibility. Nay it magnifies it to an infinite degree.
Even those who had no right to vote, are morally responsible, and gravely so, if they did anything to encourage electors not to attend or took steps not to inform them or encourage them to exercise their right.
If you could have prevented an unworthy candidate from being elected, and did not, then you are gravely responsible, and cannot be saved if you never repent of this.
At the same time, for those who did attend, there’s was a responsibility greater than the cult leaders and grifters who talk about controversies in the Church to gain money or attention. They had to do the utmost to protect the Church, with the men who were willing. They had to balance the salvation of the whole body against the interest of a few. These faithful Catholics, betrayed and abandoned by everyone but the readers of FromRome had also to prevent another Assembly being called by nefarious voices who would elect someone even worse than Bergoglio or someone who had no desire to promote the unity of the Church after his death, putting the Church in a century long internal schism. They had to find a candidate that most Catholics would accept; a candidate whose acceptance would be morally certain, and by whose acceptance the whole body of the Faithful would return again into communion with Christ.
Also, in this matter, it is important to note that the concept of Quorum in elections is also important to consider. The Quorum rule in most modern “democracies” guarantees that no minority will enact a law or decision which binds the majority. In some ecclesiastical elections there are Quorum rules, But in elections of the Roman Pontiff there never has been a Quorum rule, neither in a Conclave, nor in an Assembly of Apostolic Right. Precisely because, in morals, if you do not come you have in fact voted for whoever has won, whether you like the outcome or not. This is why even if all the clergy do not come, they have in fact voted for whoever has won.
That these few electors on January 30, 2023 A. D., are so viscerally hated by all grifters and cult leaders and “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” fake opposition, shows that they did the will of God against all the fanatics of Hell.
While we are not privy to the decisions than many generations of Cardinals had to make in Conclaves, during the last thousand years, to hold the Church together and protect her from persecution, we can be sure that many times many honest and holy men had to make similar decisions. Of them we know nothing on account of the Pontifical Secret to which all Cardinals are bound, in Conclaves, however.
In postcript: a certain uninformed civil attorney in South America, who never studied in an ecclesiastical institution, has been reporting that since a certain Pope denied that the people can elect their own bishops, that therefore the election of a Roman Pontiff by the faithful of Rome is never lawful. Her argument is a sophism of the kind condemned long ago by Aristotle, where you take one statement which denies a thing (by the People) and apply it to a fact which regards another thing (the Faithful) and draws a conclusion of the undistributed middle term, as it is called in logic. It’s the most common way to deceive or lie, and is often used by lawyers. This attorney, if their thesis was correct, would have to become a protestant, since their conclusion leads to the implication that there were no legitimate Popes until 1058 when an illegitimate pope established the College of Cardinals. Idiots might find that line of reasoning sound. But all sane men from every age shall laugh at them on the Day of Judgement!
Fiducia supplicans is a Diabolic attack on the 2nd Commandment of the Decalogue
REPRINTED FROM JANUARY 5, 2024 A. D..
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
From our earliest days in Catechism class we learn that God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai 10 laws or commandments which obliged every man, woman and child everywhere and for all times. The keeping of the 10 Commandments — also known as the Decalogue, from the Greek for “the 10 Words or Sayings” — is the most fundamental condition for being a friend of God, as Christ Jesus teaches, “If you love Me, keep My Commandments” (John 14:15).
The 2nd Commandment Revealed to Moses
You can find the text of the 10 Commandments in two places in the Old Testament: in the Book of Exodus 20:2-17, which Moses wrote to record the Passover of the Hebrews from the slavery of Egypt to the religious liberty of the promised Land; and in the Book of Deuteronomy 5:6-21, where Moses writes them down a second time, as he recounts in his final years, the wondrous deeds the Lord had done.
In the Catholic Church, we number the Commandments in a synthetic manner, following neither the numerical order found in the Book of Exodus nor in the Book of Deuteronomy, since as a didactic method, the Doctors and Fathers of the Church had reordered them in proper theological order, for memnotic sake.
So, the Second Commandment reads in our Catechisms, “Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord in vain.” — This corresponds to Exodus 20:7, which reads in the Douay Rheims English translation:
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the Name of the Lord his God in vain.
And to the Deuteronomy 5:11, which reads in the same translation:
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain: for he shall not be unpunished that taketh His Name upon a vain thing.
Why does God command the proper use of His Own Name?
From the two scriptural verses we see that the universal prohibition of the misuse of the Divine Name is founded upon the same moral principal: Yahweh, the one true God, is Our God and Lord, and therefore we must show the obedience of faith in the respect of that Word which names Him as such.
As Saint Bonaventure explains in his commentary on the First Book of Master Peter Lombard, God is called “God” because that word names Him, the Eternal Infinite Being. In English, our word, “God” names Him not as the eternal infinite being, but as the One who is invoked in prayer — this is the origin of the Old Germanic word, “God”.
Again, as St. Bonaventure teaches in the same place, but God is named “Lord” not on account of being God, but on account of creating creatures, because there is no one in God who is subjected to another, as a servant is to a Lord, or who has superiority as a Lord does to a servant. And so, before God created, He was never called Lord. But with the creation of Angels and men, God is now called, “the Lord” because He is the One who made all things.
And this is why God says to Moses, “I am the Lord, thy God. … Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.”
Misusing the Divine Name is the worst of Sins
According to the two passages of Scripture, we can see that the misuse of God’s Name can never be without guilt and will never go unpunished. From this teaching the Saints and Doctors of the Church explain that blasphemy against God is punished the worst and most by God than all other sins. That means it is far worse a sin that adultery or murder or theft. And this is because it is a sin against God Himself, Who is of infinite dignity, majesty and holiness.
Now to take the name of the Lord “in vain” means to do so unnecessarily, that is when there is no need to name Him. Because one should not use a name of anything, except to name it; so one should not use the name of a person, except to name him. — For example, no one shouts out, “Thomas Aquinas!’ when he smashes his finger, accidentally, while misusing a hammer. For there is no purpose in naming the Dominican Saint at such a moment.
All the more reason, we should NEVER utter the Name of God without the purpose of referring to Him or invoking Him. So important is this, that in the Book of Job, God praises Job and not his learned friends who spoke so eloquently about God and His justice. As Peter Kreft says: this is because Job’s friends named God to talk about Him; but Job named God to talk to Him.
Invoking God’s Name to approve of evil is an even worse Sin than misusing It
So we can imagine how great the sin is, if we were to use the Name of God in something that is not only useless, but evil, sinful, or even worse to approve of evil or sin!
That is the spiritual equivalent of rubbing the Divine Face into the mud of moral depravity.
And this sin becomes all the greater, if one not only names God with the word, “God’ or its equivalent, but when one uses the revealed names of God, such as “Yahweh” or “Jesus” or some other revealed name such as “Sabaoth”, “El Shaddai”.
And this sin would be even greater if the person misusing the Name of God to approve of sin or evil, had the dignity of one of God’s Ambassadors, as does every Bishop and priest of the Catholic Church.
But Fiducia supplicans is the worst sin ever in world history against the Divine Name
But though we can imagine such a horrific and monstrous perpetration of such a horrible sin; Fiducia supplicans goes way beyond this in moral depravity.
Because in Fiducia supplicans, we not only have advocated that Catholic Bishops and priests approve of sinful unions or sinful despair with the imposition of a blessing which invoked the Divine Name by His sacred ambassadors, but we have also the attempt by the arguments it contains to convince the world that such is not only morally licit, but the more perfect fulfilment of the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ!
Fiducia supplicans, therefore, is a document straight out of the inferno. It is the consummate violation of the Second Commandment of the Decalogue and is certainly worthy of the Antichrist in the universal attempt it is making to overthrow the House of God and the Pillar of Truth, which is the Church.
And for this reason, Fiducia supplicans not only must be entire rejected and condemned, but all those who adhere to it in any way, should be sternly warned of their eternal damnation and the pending Divine Vengeance which they have merited by accepting, agreeing, praising or tolerating it.
Credits: Hell depicted in mosaic in the Baptistry of the Catholic Cathedral of Florence, Italy. The image shows Satan devouring souls and bodies in the Inferno.
It’s a Mortal Sin of Apostasy to reject Apostolic Tradition
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The last 11 years in the Catholic Church have seen so many scandals emanate from Vatican City and from the Catholic Bishops of the world, that Catholics are, after centuries, once again speaking on a daily basis about the sins and crimes of heresy, schism and apostasy.
But one of the topics which has been omitted from reports by all other news outlets, except FromRome.Info, is the rejection of Apostolic Tradition and how important and dangerous such a rejection is for the Catholic world.
Our Holy Faith is founded upon the greatest gift of God to mankind, which distinguishes Catholics from all other men: and here I speak of the gift of knowledge which makes us know the true God has He has revealed Himself and understand His will for mankind in the same authentic sense He Himself has instructed us.
This gift of knowledge is called the Deposit of the Faith. It is called a deposit both because it is a treasury of truth and a pledge given to the entire Church and to each of us to be paid back by faith and fidelity when we arrive to our last hour.
This Deposit of the Faith contains two sources of knowledge and two channels of gifts: Sacred Scripture, which is codified in the Catholic Bible alone, containing all of the inspired books and none of the fake scriptures. And Sacred Tradition, which contains all the non written teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostles and the prophets of old. These include the Sacraments, Blessings and ways of doing sacred actions or interpreting Sacred Scripture.
That part of Sacred Tradition which was instituted and established by the teaching of the Apostles, to Whom alone the Lord Jesus entrusted His one unique Church, as He was about to ascend into Heaven, is called Apostolic Tradition.
Apostolic Tradition is a vast and authentic resource of information and things, which Christ willed His Church and everyone He loves to have the benefit of. Since this part of the Deposit is so rich and brilliant in clarity, the Catholic Church excels all others which claim the name of “Christian” because She alone knows clearly what is pleasing to Jesus Christ through it.
From the Apostles down to our day, Apostolic Tradition has been handed on by word of mouth, good example, catechesis, and preaching.
Part of Apostolic Tradition regards general things, as the form of the Sacraments. Other parts regard specific ordinances, such as how and why public sinners ought to be excluded from the Sacraments and the Divine Liturgy or offices in the Church.
For this reason, to teach or practice something contrary to Apostolic Tradition is no small sin or crime. In fact, it is not just a heresy, which is an intentional rejection of a truth, but rises to the level of formal apostasy, because to want the Deposit of Faith without Apostolic Tradition would be to want only part of what God has taught and willed, and not the rest. And the soul which does such a thing has turned aside and fallen away from the Will of God as the supreme rule of all religion.
Thus to hold or teach that public sinners can receive the Sacraments of the Living, such as the Eucharist, Marriage, or Ordination is to reject Apostolic Tradition regarding the discipline of the Sacraments. And that would be apostasy.
For this reason, for centuries, Catholics never called Protestants and Anglicans “Christians”, precisely because they rejected in part or whole Apostolic Tradition, without which there can be no Christian religion
This is what Pope Francis during his antipapacy attempted in his private letter to the Bishops of Argentina when he said that such a thing is what he intended with ‘Amoris Laetitia’.
This is what Pope Francis intends also with ‘Fiducia supplicans’, the document of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, on “Gay Blessings” which he also signed in private audience.
But you can reject Apostolic Tradition also if you reject the law of Saint Peter, the Apostle, by which he gave in perpetuity to the Roman Church, the right to elect his successor.
Thus one is not only an apostate from the Catholic religion if he would accept such teachings of Pope Francis, but also if one would reject that the Cardinals had the right to elect the Pope, or in their failure to do so, that the Faithful of the Roman Church had that right.
This shows clearly how many of those who claimed Pope Benedict XVI was pope until their death really did share in the same sin of Apostasy as Bergoglio when they rejected that the Faithful of the Roman Church could legitimately and in a juridically valid manner elected Pope Benedict XVI’s successor.
If this is your sin, then you need to reflect during Lent and ask yourself how you could have allowed yourself to be so misled by fools, charlatans, heretics etc.. to break from the will of Christ for His Church. This is no small sin. You cannot be saved if you dally with it.
You can see that it is a U. S. Government agenda to destroy the Catholic Church’s adherance to Apostolic Tradition by reading these articles, here, here and here. You can find all the articles at FromRome about Apostolic Tradition here.
CREDITS: The featured image is the embossed metal altarpiece from the Church of Saint Michael in Exclesis, in northern Spain. © 2022 FromRome.Info, all rights reserved.
Rev. Gommar de Pauw’s 1967 Letter to Pope Paul VI calling for abolition of Vatican II
Editor’s Note: For those Catholics who still cannot figure out why Kennedy Hall is so wrong about Vatican II and why he is wrong, I suggest you read this historical document: the letter of the Rev. Gommar de Pauw, Doctor in Canon Law and Moral Theology, Professor at Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary, Head of Faculty, and Catholic priest for his entire life, to understand how a man who dedicated his entire life, soul, career and mind to the service of Christ and His Church speaks about Vatican II in its immediate aftermath. This will help you see who is the fool and who is the wise man.
And from this letter, I will dare to say, that Father de Pauw would agree with my assessment of Hall’s position on Vatican II as “blasphemous”, nonsensical and heretical.
Fiducia supplicans is a Diabolic attack on the 2nd Commandment of the Decalogue
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
From our earliest days in Catechism class we learn that God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai 10 laws or commandments which obliged every man, woman and child everywhere and for all times. The keeping of the 10 Commandments — also known as the Decalogue, from the Greek for “the 10 Words or Sayings” — is the most fundamental condition for being a friend of God, as Christ Jesus teaches, “If you love Me, keep My Commandments” (John 14:15).
The 2nd Commandment Revealed to Moses
You can find the text of the 10 Commandments in two places in the Old Testament: in the Book of Exodus 20:2-17, which Moses wrote to record the Passover of the Hebrews from the slavery of Egypt to the religious liberty of the promised Land; and in the Book of Deuteronomy 5:6-21, where Moses writes them down a second time, as he recounts in his final years, the wondrous deeds the Lord had done.
In the Catholic Church, we number the Commandments in a synthetic manner, following neither the numerical order found in the Book of Exodus nor in the Book of Deuteronomy, since as a didactic method, the Doctors and Fathers of the Church had reordered them in proper theological order, for memnotic sake.
So, the Second Commandment reads in our Catechisms, “Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord in vain.” — This corresponds to Exodus 20:7, which reads in the Douay Rheims English translation:
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the Name of the Lord his God in vain.
And to the Deuteronomy 5:11, which reads in the same translation:
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain: for he shall not be unpunished that taketh His Name upon a vain thing.
Why does God command the proper use of His Own Name?
From the two scriptural verses we see that the universal prohibition of the misuse of the Divine Name is founded upon the same moral principal: Yahweh, the one true God, is Our God and Lord, and therefore we must show the obedience of faith in the respect of that Word which names Him as such.
As Saint Bonaventure explains in his commentary on the First Book of Master Peter Lombard, God is called “God” because that word names Him, the Eternal Infinite Being. In English, our word, “God” names Him not as the eternal infinite being, but as the One who is invoked in prayer — this is the origin of the Old Germanic word, “God”.
Again, as St. Bonaventure teaches in the same place, but God is named “Lord” no on account of being God, but on account of creating creatures, because there is no one in God who is subjected to another, as a servant is to a Lord, or who has superiority as a Lord does to a servant. And so, before God created, He was never called Lord. But with the creation of Angels and men, God is now called, “the Lord” because He is the One who made all things.
And this is why God says to Moses, “I am the Lord, thy God. … Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.”
Misusing the Divine Name is the worst of Sins
According to the two passages of Scripture, we can see that the misuse of God’s Name can never be without guilt and will never go unpunished. From this teaching the Saints and Doctors of the Church explain that blasphemy against God is punished the worst and most by God than all other sins. That means it is far worse a sin that adultery or murder or theft. And this is because it is a sin against God Himself, Who is of infinite dignity, majesty and holiness.
Now to take the name of the Lord “in vain” means to do so unnecessarily, that is when there is no need to name Him. Because one should not use a name of anything, except to name it; so one should not use the name of a person, except to name him. — For example, no one shouts out, “Thomas Aquinas!’ when he smashes his finger, accidentally, while misusing a hammer. For there is no purpose in naming the Dominican Saint at such a moment.
All the more reason, we should NEVER utter the Name of God without the purpose of referring to Him or invoking Him. So important is this, that in the Book of Job, God praises Job and not his learned friends who spoke so eloquently about God and His justice. As Peter Kreft says: this is because Job’s friends named God to talk about Him; but Job named God to talk to Him.
Invoking God’s Name to approve of evil is an even worse Sin than misusing It
So we can imagine how great the sin is, if we were to use the Name of God in something that is not only useless, but evil, sinful, or even worse to approve of evil or sin!
That is the spiritual equivalent of rubbing the Divine Face into the mud of moral depravity.
And this sin becomes all the greater, if one not only names God with the word, “God’ or its equivalent, but when one uses the revealed names of God, such as “Yahweh” or “Jesus” or some other revealed name such as “Sabaoth”, “El Shaddai”.
And this sin would be even greater if the person misusing the Name of God to approve of sin or evil, had the dignity of one of God’s Ambassadors, as does every Bishop and priest of the Catholic Church.
But Fiducia supplicans is the worst sin ever in world history against the Divine Name
But though we can imagine such a horrific and monstrous perpetration of such a horrible sin; Fiducia supplicans goes way beyond this in moral depravity.
Because in Fiducia supplicans, we not only have advocated that Catholic Bishops and priests approve of sinful unions or sinful despair with the imposition of a blessing which invoked the Divine Name by His sacred ambassadors, but we have also the attempt by the arguments it contains to convince the world that such is not only morally licit, but the more perfect fulfilment of the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ!
Fiducia supplicans, therefore, is a document straight out of the inferno. It is the consummate violation of the Second Commandment of the Decalogue and is certainly worthy of the Antichrist in the universal attempt it is making to overthrow the House of God and the Pillar of Truth, which is the Church.
And for this reason, Fiducia supplicans not only must be entire rejected and condemned, but all those who adhere to it in any way, should be sternly warned of their eternal damnation and the pending Divine Vengeance which they have merited by accepting, agreeing, praising or tolerating it.
Credits: Hell depicted in mosaic in the Baptistry of the Catholic Cathedral of Florence, Italy. The image shows Satan devouring souls and bodies in the Inferno.
Why Archbishop Viganò is smarter than Michael Matt
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Earlier this month, Michael Matt, the editor of The Remnant and a descendant from what appears to be a Frankist Jew, on his mother’s side, who began the family’s tradition of printing Catholic news information, won international notoriety by squelching the video of Archbishop Viganò at the former’s Catholic Identity Conference, even though he has sold the conference on the promise of an exclusive interview with the famed Vatican monsignor.
FromRome.Info reported on that here.
The substance of the Archbishop’s talk, however, was lost in the news cycle, and therefore, because it is important and impinges on the canonical questions regarding the validity of the papacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a.k.a. Pope Francis, I want to take it up in this essay.
The thesis of the Archbishop touches on the principal of acceptance of a canonical or juridically valid election.
And the Archbishop’s thesis is that a man who intends to destroy the Church or who has a heretical intention in wanting to be the Pope, cannot validly consent to accepting the office. He calls this the vitium consensus, or the vice in the act of consent.
Matt squelched the talk because he insists that those who participated in the conference did not want or deserve to have their reputations smeared with the accusation of sedevacantism.
But this argument of Michael Matt is absurd on the face of it. Sedevacantism is the ideology that there is no pope, no matter what the evidence is; but the argument of the Archbishop is a profound one, namely, that inasmuch as being the pope requires a man to receive the Mandate given St. Peter, it is impossible for a heretic to do this, since he has no relationship with Jesus Christ and thus no intention to do so, even if he says yes.
That “yes” then is a deception.
I have briefly commented on this before, saying, while the argument is a good one theologically or morally, it is canonically a difficult solution. This is because, being a baptised, confirmed Catholic, consecrated a Bishop and lawfully nominated as a Cardinal, in law he must be presumed to have consented validly to be the pope, when asked, and when responding, “Yes”.
As I pointed out in my satirical article about the Cardinal from Guadalajara, Spain, here, presumption has its limits. But presuming yes, when someone says yes, is clearly within the ordinary limits.
So from a juridical point of view, it is impossible to prove the case advanced by the Archbishop against Bergoglio. He could sufficiently remain silent and the presumption of the law would be that he validly consented.
But I think that the thesis of Viganò, however, is not to be lightly cast aside, because it does have its place where juridical right is determined by theological discernment. That is, where rights come into being and are extinguished by the authority Christ gave to the Church, under the guide of the Holy Spirit, to judge all things in the light of God.
And that place is a juridically valid Council of Bishops, whether universal or particular, that is, whether in a General Council of the whole Church, or in a Provincial Council of an ecclesiastical province.
Because there, what a man has done and said can be judged. And this judgement can regard whether these acts constitute heresy, apostasy or schism, whereupon if they be judge there to attain to this, the person who is presumed to consent, can be discerned in a juridically valid manner never to have consented and/or in a juridically valid manner to no longer so consent.
In the case of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, if it can be proven, for example, that he became a member of the Masonic Lodge before 1983 he fell under excommunication in the old Code of 1917 for that, and such a council could judge him to be invalidly nominated a Cardinal and invalidly elected and incapable of validly consenting to be the pope. Likewise if he joined after 1983, when the new Code of Canon Law, without this penalty, was approved, on the grounds that he was incapable of validly consenting inasmuch as he holds heretical views or is an apostate in virtue of the Masonic creed.
And that is why the thesis of the Archbishop must be considered in a Provincial Council of the kind proposed in the Sutri Initiative.
So the Archbishop is far smarter than Michael Matt. He is also more of a gentleman and cares more for the whole Church and the salvation of souls than others do of their own reputations.
Michael Matt is a graduate of Christendom College, an institution founded by 3 CIA agents. That Bergoglio was put into power by the CIA under the auspices of Hilary Clinton can be discerned when reading his homilies, which channel Barack Obama 99% on the same issues, such as globalism, immigration, poverty, discrimination, etc..
EU Parliament seeks to legalize Commercial Use and Experimentation on Human Pre-Borns
A Call to Mothers who attend the TLM, to speak out
Please share this show with every mom who attend the Traditional Latin Mass, and ask her to do the same. — This program is not for children, unless a mom is present. It avoids prurient language, but the topic is very disturbing.
If the Anti-Pope is not named during a Mass in Suffrage of Pope Benedict….
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Since Saturday things have changed in the Catholic Church. Now priests can and should say the Mass in suffrage of the Roman Pontiff, during which, instead of naming the Pope, one names the deceased Roman Pontiff.
At such masses, regardless of which priests offer, if they do not name Pope Francis, Catholics can licitly receive the Sacrament, because the priest has withdrawn from public schism.
And according to the rubrics, they should not name Francis, at such masses.
The priest may personally still think Francis is the Pope, but by omitting his name in the Canon, he publicly asserts the contrary. And that is sufficient in the sight of God to exculpate any Catholic from attending his mass.
I say this regarding priests who are not heretics, idolators and in regard to those who have publicly criticized the Antipope for these things.
Those priests who wanted to stop naming Francis in the canon, but were afraid to do that, can now use this present circumstance to do that. In fact, they can continue to do so for the rest of the illegitimate pontificate of Bergoglio.
If however, there are priests in your region who named Pope Benedict XVI as pope in recent days, weeks, years, continue to attend their masses, because it would be a scandal to do otherwise, and because in the next 21 days, we should gather together even more in prayer for Pope Benedict XVI with the best of clergy and laity, since their prayers are more effective in the sight of God.
Necessary Precautions in the Ministry of the Sacraments after the Pandemic
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
FRENCH TRANSLATION
Since the Scamdemic, Catholics, clergy and laity, need to take heed to practice caution in the distribution of the Sacraments on account of the fact that those who have taken Covid-19 “Vaccines” have been injected with artificial and unnatural agents which are causing their bodies to grow unnatural and dangerous compounds which can injure others.
This is the very sad and apocalyptic reality which we must all confront. For as Our Lord forewarned us, but the clergy failed to preach, a great deception would be sprung like a trap upon everyone in the whole world, and there would be demanded of all, as St. John, His beloved disciple forewarned us, that they receive the mark of the Beast, so as to be able to conduct their affairs in public.
And all those who listened to the false prophet, who calls himself by the name of one of Christ’s most beloved Saints, but who is himself a devil and globalist agent, who worships idols and engages in esoteric ritual pratices, all these who have listen to this preacher of abominations, have taken the mark.
And so it has happened that the tail of the Beast has swept nearly all the stars of heaven — the clergy — out of the sky. And the laity who followed them, along with them.
And now their bodies produce the spike protein, which was modeled on 50+ venoms, just like a snake produces venom in its own body. And thus is fulfilled the word of scripture.
But the Apostle warns us further, to flee the cities so as not to partake of the plagues which God will visit upon those who have taken the mark.
And scientists the world over are discovering, that those who took these DeathVaxxes, as I am wont to call them here at FromRome, are now growing things unnatural and abominable in their own bodies, from optical cables, microchips, tin-based white coagulations in their veins and arteries, etc.., not to mention suffering from all sorts of medical problems which result in permanent disability or sudden death syndrome.
But that which merits the attention of us all is that some of these dangers can result from proximity to those who have taken these jabs, whether through droplets spread in the air, or saliva which is unwittingly transferred though things touched.
For this reason, we need to recognize that now, certain sanitary precautions should be taken. And that to fail to take them would but some persons in risk of death or permanent bodily injury or at least grave medical situations.
Thus it is a moral imperative arising from true charity, that such precautions be taken.
Who needs to take precautions?
I invite medical professionals who read FromRome.Info to comment below, but it is clear even to the laymen, that both those who took one or more of these jabs as well as those who have not taken them, should take precaution.
Those who took these jabs have the formal duty to take precaution at all times, whether they are in the presence of someone jabbed or not.
While those who did not take any of these jabs, have the duty of prudence, to take precautions when they are in the presence of anyone jabbed.
There may be some medical research which can determine how dangerous it is to enter into contact or into the presence of someone who is jabbed. I ask those who know of this to report that below.
How this affects the sacramental ministry…
It is clear that in the distribution of the Sacraments, human touch and close proximity is required. Therefore, for the minister of the Sacrament who touches, extreme caution must be taken if he has been jabbed. In good conscience he should have his saliva and sweat and breath medically tested to see if he is shedding anything unnatural, such as spike proteins or nanotechnology.
If he is shedding, he should refrain from the Sacramental ministry, in my opinion. And I think a Bishop would have the right to suspend him a divinis from all public functions, on account of his danger to the public.
For those who are jabbed, they should be especially careful to avoid shedding upon other Catholics at Church or upon clergy while receiving the sacraments. Perhaps this risk is less if they are among only those who are jabbed.
For those who are not jabbed, it is obvious that one takes extreme risks if one is receiving the Sacraments in a church filled with jabbed Catholics or from a priest who has been jabbed.
And I believe the risk for the unjabbed is so great, that they have no canonical obligation to attend on Sunday, any mass said by a priest who is jabbed or celebrated in a Church with Catholics who are jabbed, as there are just too many objects in a church which might be contaminated with the sweat or saliva of others, not to mention the air itself, normally now well ventilated.
All of these risks must be weighed in conjunction with what is known about the jab-campaign in your country, whether it is still ongoing or not. We need to have the humility, sincerity and honesty to admit this reality, about which no one is talking in the Church.
As for the clergy who obeyed their superiors and took the jab, they should not by that grow angry at us who are unjabbed, but realize that their sin is so great that their false obedience was the punishment for their sin.
I do not know any priest in communion with Pope Benedict XVI who is jabbed, nor any of the faithful who are in communion with him who were jabbed. Perhaps this has to do with the apocalyptic scenario which I described above. If so, then we are truly at a great parting, and Pope Benedict XVI may have been inspired by Christ to renounce the ministry, precisely to prepare for this greats division.
Practical solutions
Priests who are jabbed should wear something distinctive to show that they are. I would recommend white cloth gloves, which can be laundered in water, as all altar cloths are. All signs of peace which require touching should be abolished. The Eucharist should not be touched by the jabbed. Ministers who are jabbed should not distribute it to the unjabbed. And those who are jabbed, should receive from those who are jabbed. Best of all would be to assign churches and liturgies for the jabbed and others for the unjabbed.
Canonical effects
So far the nanotech in the jabbs does not seem to definitely impair reason or free will, but once such evidence is scientifically obtained, I would say that all Popes, Bishops and Clergy who hold offices who have this tech inside them, should be considered ipso facto deposed from office, on the grounds that they are no longer members of the body of Christ, but of the body of the Antichrist, and their loyalty to the Church is in doubt. Likewise, when this occurs, such persons could not be eligible to hold any office in the Church. As has been demonstrated already, the winter flu shots, and indeed all vaccines, are now possibly being loaded with nanotech. So one should be careful to inquire if your local clergy are taking these shots.
Do not crucify Him, again!
Whether it be pleasing or offensive to Christ,
to attend mass in communion with Bergoglio?
Here are the sources, which I cite during this program:
The infallible Bull of Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam.
The Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Pars III, Q. 82, Article 9
The Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, in 1983: canons 209, 754, 332 §2, 1364.
It’s Time for the Pandemic-Believers to apologize
Mark Docherty responds to Cionci et alia on the Ratzinger Code & Plan B
With a cordial reply by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
(click the image above to read the original article by Mr. Docherty)
Mark Docherty is a close associate of Ann Barnhardt. So as he opens his article you will find no mention of the Franciscan Friar whom she hates with a diabolic passion. Nevertheless, I include myself in that list, and perhaps have the best personal history to respond to Mark, since I wrote an entire Scholastic Question demonstration the substantial error, but also was first to propose the Plan B thesis, which asserts that Pope Benedict XVI did with full knowledge and consent, renounce the ministerium rather than the munus to save the Church from Ecclesiastical Freemasonry.
Necessary Preamble
First, I would ask Mark to have the integrity of a gentleman to stop ignoring my existence, simply because I do good works while remaining faithful to the vows I took in a canonically recognized novitiate while a member of a canonically recognized religious institute, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. This is especially true, when in the present Essay, you Mark declare: “I greatly respect everyone in this fight who come to it with integrity.” –To do otherwise, casts a dark shadow over all your writings, Mark, because it makes you appear to be someone who is opposed to keeping vows to God, observing the Evangelical Counsels of Our Lord Jesus Christ, or that you have some sort of personal relationship with Ann Barnhardt that would induce you to act inconsistent with such principals. To denigrate anyone or pretend they do not exist — which is the ultimate denigration — for doing good and remaining faithful to Jesus Christ is shameful. — When I think of all the nuns who were driven from their convents because they remained faithful, and who are abandoned by so many shameless pharasaical laity who wont help a consecrated virgin unless she has a stamp on a paper from her Bishop, I who actually do have a stamp on a paper from a Catholic Bishop approving and allowing me to live as I have done since my separation from my former institute, on August 6, 1996, I cannot help sharing the indignation which arises from a perverse laicism and legalism.
Seeing that among all the proponents of Pope Benedict XVI remaining the Vicar of Christ, I alone left my family, country, nation, and language, and traveled to Rome, and did in fact write to more than 2 dozen Cardinals by personal hand-delivered letters, and to every priest of the Diocese of Rome, Italy, I think I am not being unreasonable in saying that I am a leading proponent of this cause. Moreover, I am considered such by all except Ann Barnhardt and Mr. Docherty, who have no authority to determine the rules by which one is or is not a supporter of Pope Benedict XVI, that is, unless they are claiming some authority over the Papal Household, or membership in the Catholic Church, to determine who is or is not. Indeed, such behavior is clearly a form of diabolic narcissism, which vaults its will to define reality and demands others accept that gaslighted reality as the truth.
If anyone is allowed to comment on Mark’s blog, please attempt to open up a candid dialogue about these matters, and I have been banned from commenting on his blog for several years.
And now to Mark’s contra-thesis:
Mark begins by summarizing the position quite well in a form proposed by Andrea Cionci, who deserves the credit for the Ratzinger Code and Impeded See thesis. He presents 4 questions by which he believes those who hold that Pope Benedict XVI intentionally abdicated from nothing and renounced nothing, are in error. I will restate each question by quotation in bold face font, and reply to the objections or quaesita which are raised in them.
Quaestio prima:
Mark writes: Question One: If Pope Benedict executed his non-resignation (grave matter) with full knowledge and full intent, how is it that he is not in a state of mortal sin for doing so? The three conditions have been met (grave matter, full knowledge, full assent of the will). A valid pontiff, crowned by Christ himself, executes one of the greatest deceptions in the history of the Church, and he is a brilliant strategist for doing so? How can that be? While God can and does allow good to come out of evil, God never condones the doing of evil in the hope of a good outcome. God doesn’t do “the ends justify the means,” ever. And while Pope Benedict could have theoretically gone to Confession the evening of 28 Feb 2013, he could not have received valid absolution, because valid absolution requires a firm purpose of amendment, and in cases where the effect of certain sins can be rectified, then rectification is a necessary component of the penance. In which case he persists in mortal sin, NINE YEARS later. Which brings us to…
Respondeo ad primum:
Pope Benedict XVI cannot be guilty of a mortal sin for renouncing the ministerium not the munus, because there is no positive or divine obligation, in grave necessity, for not doing so. In morals, a thing is only immoral if God has precepted that it not be done, either according to its genus, species, circumstances or intentions. Therefore, there is no burden upon anyone to demonstrate that Pope Benedict XVI did not sin, rather, the burden of proof is upon those who claim he did. This is standard Catholic morals, which even children understand. Charity presumeth no evil. Mark you should know that!
Pope Benedict XVI deceived no one. And there is no evidence that he did. That his enemies presented his act as having a significance which it does not have is entirely their moral fault. Cionci has amply demonstrated that for 9 years Pope Benedict XVI is declaring this very thing.
The renunciation of ministerium rather than munus is not an immoral act. Those who presume it is must demonstrate that they are not presuming.
This first Question by Mr. Docherty is simply reducible to an absurd ad hominem: Pope Benedict XVI is a grave sinner, prove that he is not!
Questio secunda:
Mark writes: Question Two: If Pope Benedict executed his intentional grave deception in order to save the Church from the wolves, what then of the Faithful? Not a word from Benedict about the apostasy of his “successor” who all the world thinks is pope? This is the most grave mortal sin of SCANDAL. Benedict has willfully (according to their theory) lead a billion souls to believe a heretical, blaspheming, demon-worshiping apostate is the true pope of the One True Church. How many people have been led astray, accepted heresy and easy sin, and gone to their eternal reward in such condition? I will tell you how many: 70 MILLION. That’s how many Catholics have died in the last nine years, two months. Pope Benedict is (according to their theory) intentionally sitting by, petting his cat, knowing he is still the only true pope, knowing that Bergoglio is an antipope, perfectly happy to have 70 million souls going to their Particular Judgment thinking Bergoglio was pope and his magisterium authentic. If so, this is an awful test of God’s bounteous mercy, and it makes Benedict a monster.
Respondeo ad secundum:
Pope Benedict XVI by consistently signifying that he is the one true pope to those who pay attention to him, has deceived no one and has led no one to believe that Bergoglio is the Pope. Moreover, the Faithful, who have a living faith, are guided by the anointing of the Holy Spirit which they received in the Sacrament of Confirmation to discern truth from falsehood and true pastors from false pastors. To say therefore, that the Faithful are abandoned is to reduce the order of grace simply to the visible papacy, as if the Church has no supernatural principle of life or discernment.
All Catholics know the Faith cannot change and that no one not even the Pope can teach contrary to the Deposit of the Faith. So it is impossible for Catholics, who are materially deceived, to fall into formal apostasy from that faith, if out of their own negligence they adhere to the false narrative that Benedict abdicated. Moreover, since that narrative is not the responsibility of Benedict, but is crafted by his captors, he cannot be held responsible for it. Likewise, the Faithful have a duty to follow canon law and give intellectual attention to the principle canonical acts of the Magisterium, not the least of which is an alleged papal resignation. Failing to do this, if they are deceived, they are solely responsible for God.
Questio tertia:
Mark writes: Question Three: What was it, exactly, that Benedict did actually resign (or intend to resign) when he read out the Declaratio? It is clear from the text that he intended to resign something, leaving aside the question of whether or not it was effective. In the key phrase of the document, he is clearly resigning, or intending to resign SOMETHING. Look at the English, look at the original Latin, or watch the video. “I renounce the ministry” … while we can argue whether or not the words took effect, we cannot claim he did not say those words. Canon Law demands that we respect the meaning of words, the context, and the mind of the legislator:
Can. 17. Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.
Respondeo at tertium:
Pope Benedict XVI actually renounced nothing effectively, but he did declare that he was going to renounce the ministerium, which however, he never did do by a canonical act. This has been explained at great length by nearly all those writing and speaking about this matter, and to ask it now is really a weak point in the argument.
But perhaps Mark, you misunderstand how a text is to be read. When one says in a letter, to another person, “In my will, I will leave you all my property”, and yet the Will when disclosed, has only these words, “I love you as a true son and heir”, but specifies nothing as bequeathed, then the alleged heir receives nothing, zippo as Ann Barnhardt might say, and the deceased has deceived no one. He has deceived no one, because we cannot know whether his failing ability prevented the bequest being written into the Will or if some other cause intervened by which the meaning of his words were not to be taken at face value. For example, if the recipient of the letter had said to the soon to be dead donor: “If you don’t make me your sole heir I will murder you sometime in the next year!”
As a matter of fact, Pope Benedict XVI was informed on Feb. 12, 2012, that he would be assassinated if he did not resign within a year. This is not a facetious claim. It was published in a leading Italian daily newspaper.
To claim a man under threat of death is morally culpable for deceiving anyone, is beyond the pale of right reason and any Catholic notion of the obligation to speak the truth without mental reservations.
Questio quarta:
Mark writes: Question Four: Since Gnosticism is heresy, how are the faithful to approach the “Ratzinger Code” in an orthodox manner? The evidence for the Substantial Error theory is all out in full view for anyone to see, not just for those with eyes to see, if you know what I mean. We all agree on the visual evidence; a five year old could see it. We all know how Benedict’s further writings, and his words in the Seewald interviews, point to something other than what is commonly accepted, but that much is evident from the actual meaning of his words, not code words. Saying that the common lay faithful need access to a secret code to discern who is true pope seems… rather problematic. Implying that knowledge of this secret code is necessary to find and follow the true Church and achieve one’s salvation is… you see what I mean. So how to approach this in an orthodox manner?
Respondeo ad quartum:
Gnosticism is a heresy, but the Church has never condemned as Gnostic the decision by anyone under duress to speak in code so as to communicate to friends and allies and not enrage further his enemies or captors.
That the matter is called the Ratzinger Code by Cionci is his journalistic flair. It is not a code, it is merely a refined and erudite manner of speaking of a man who is very meek and has reasonable grounds to fear for his person otherwise.
The more substantial question, which needs to be asked, instead, Mark, is: Whether Catholics are obliged to listen attentively to the voice of the Vicar of Christ upon Earth in a matter which touches upon their eternal salvation?
And the answer to that question is clear: yes they are. Because it is one of the laws of the Church that we obey the laws of the Church. And to obey them, we must know them, and act in accord with them. So, now after 9 years, when anyone hears that the renunciation may be invalid, they need only read canon 332 § 2, to find that it is not. That is not difficult.
However, if they care for the sake of keeping some material or temporal favors to ignore that investigation or deny the facts which they find, they have judged themselves and brought judgement upon themselves.
CONCLUSION:
I have amply demonstrated that Mark Docherty’s 4 Questions are easily dispatched with Catholic answers and are reducible to doubts arising from someone who presumes Pope Benedict XVI is at moral fault, without any attention whatsoever to the known facts of the case which are excusing causes of the charges leveled against his person.
How your misuse of Social Media can drag you down into the Darkness
Are you about to be consecrated to Satan?
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
No one should participate in a religious act by a public idolator (satanist), because by consenting to such an act of being consecrated, one can in fact consent to being consecrated to Satan or a Demon.
Thus, all those pushing to participate in and consent to the act of consecration by Bergoglio better wake up fast!
This is no alarmist exaggeration, because:
- Bergoglio has TWICE publicly adored the demon, Pachamama
- Bergoglio has TWICE publicly desecrated religious sites by such adoration (Garden of St Peter’s where the dust of St. Peter and co-Martyrs was buried, and Basilica of St. Peter)
- Bergoglio is a known Freemason, all of whom are sons of Satan.
- Bergoglio is a known wearer of masonic & satanic art
Hence, if you consent to participate in the act of consecration of humanity by Bergoglio on March 25, what is to prevent him during his act, of making a mental intention of consecrating humanity to Satan, or even say it quietly during the act?
Such an act would be an act of global desecration and would be perfectly consonant with the religious motivationns and goals of every Satanist.
Is this the real trap which explains why he first announced the consecration of Russia but then extended it to all humanity?
Do you really have any rational basis to trust this man for a religious act after 8 years of heresy and apostasy?
If not, then, just as you would not enter the car of someone who deliberately got into accidents and never repented of killing others or his passengers, so you should not participate in any way, not even by passive consent, to this act.
Nor can I see how morally participation in this act is not an act of being in communion with this anti-pope and public heretic. This act is formal communicatio in sacris, which is never permitted unless the ritual is Catholic and the person is publicly known to be in the state of grace, that, is not a schismatic nor has the public reputation of being an impenitent sinner.
The latter is certainly true: he is not penitent. The former is highly probably. Therefore, prudence requires that we conclude that participation in this act is morally a grave deviation from the good.
Therefore, everyone should explicitly refuse to participate and consent to this consecration on March 25, so long as it is in communion with this public sinner, as they are putting them selves, otherwise, in grave danger, the gravest of dangers.
UPDATE: My instincts were 100% correct:
St. Thomas Aquinas: It is the duty of the Cleric to encourage men to fight in just wars
Summa Theologica, II II, Q. 40, A. 2, ad 3:
Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra habitum est, omnis potentia vel ars vel virtus ad quam pertinet finis habet disponere de his quae sunt ad finem. Bella autem carnalia in populo fideli sunt referenda, sicut ad finem, ad bonum spirituale divinum, cui clerici deputantur. Et ideo ad clericos pertinet disponere et inducere alios ad bellandum bella iusta. Non enim interdicitur eis bellare quia peccatum sit, sed quia tale exercitium eorum personae non congruit.
Which in English is:
To the third (objection) it must be said, that, just has has been had above, every power and/or art and/or virtue to which an end pertains, has (an ability) to dispose concerning those which are toward that end. Moreover, carnal wars among believers are to be referred to an end as to the spiritual good of the Divine, to which the cleric is deputed. And for that reason it pertains to clerics to dispose and induce other (men) to fight just wars. For it is not interdicted to them to fight because it be a sin, but because such an exercise does not befit their persons.
Does one cease to be a Christian because one has been DeathVaxxed?
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
In every grave controversy, there are always legitimate questions about the consequences of moral actions. This is especially true in the Church, since we are a divine-human society in which we recognize the existence of sin, fault, punishment and moral responsibility.
Many are asking serious and valid questions, and few are giving the answers. We have been much preoccupied with understanding what is going on, what is the truth, and what are the lies, and what is really in the Covid “vaccines”, that few have had time to think about the other questions.
So let’s confront them head on.
If you were deathvaxxed, does that mean you are no longer a Christian?
It is obvious that nearly no one, who received the jabb, had due informed consent, when they received the DeathVaxx. BigPharma did not even tell us what was in it. This had to be discovered by open minded true scientists working seperately, as soon as they could obtain samples of the serums.
And no one in the world, clearly, has been told at the time of the jab, what was in it: that it contains 40 factors which will lead to immediate or premature death, that it turns you into a transhuman, that in installs a 5G compatible routing network in you, to monitor your vital signs etc..
So, since no one is guilty in the sight of God for a sin, when they were unaware of the moral quality of the choice they were making, the mere fact that you have received the jab, does not mean you have ceased to be a Christian, since that would require rejection of Christ or of God.
However, it is one thing to answer the question as to whether you have received it, it is another to answer the question as to whether you willingly took it.
Because many elderly, infirm, or incapacitated persons were given the jab without being asked if they wanted it, or with the counsel of someone whom they trusted but who was totally uninformed, and took it nevertheless. So these truly consented to receive the jab, but they never truly consented to receive what is in the jab. So if they sinned, it was by undue credulity in the person they trusted. Others had many opportunities to be informed and refused to listen or chose to be deceived. But if the person they trusted was a parent or child or close friend, they probably have no moral fault for the decision. The fault for their being jabbed then, would be nearly or totally that of the person who counseled them to take it.
And here we come face to face with the case of Pope Benedict XVI, whom Archbishop Ganswein — a known public liar — says received not only the DeathVaxx, but even the 3rd booster, “out of conviction”. The problem with that affirmation, in addition to its untrustworthy source, is that as Tosatti recently revealed, Pope Benedict XVI has been denied all outside sources of information for 8 years, except those Ganswein allows him to have. So if there is any sin or fault here, its totally that of Ganswein. Pope Benedict XVI must be presumed innocent, just like any elderly person in a retirement home, and probably more so, because he cannot even watch TV or use the internet.
However, if you know the DeathSerum makes you trans-human, and you take the jab anyhow, then clearly you have committed apostasy and are no longer a Christian, since a Christian is bound by the covenant God made with us in making us. He alone is our God, Creator and Lord, and it is not permitted to a Christian to break that covenant. Indeed, all who have, cannot be Christians or become Christians, unless they repent of that sin.
Are all Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, still such, if they received the jabb?
Once again, it depends on informed consent. If they did it to become a transhuman, then, they are clearly apostates and hold no longer any office or dignity or munus in the Church. A pope would no longer be pope, a Cardinal would no longer be a Cardinal, and Bishop would no longer be a Bishop of the Catholic Church.
However, if they were deceived into thinking it was a mere vaccine, then their level of moral responsibility depends on what they were capable of knowing and what due diligence they took before taking it.
Because, just as in the case of every medicine and medical procedure, that might kill you, if you take it, without doing anything to investigate the risk, you are morally responsible for your own death, to some degree. But such carelessness or imprudence does not make you an apostate or cause you to be put out of the Church in virtue of canon 1364 (for heresy, apostasy or schism).
Will all who took the jab, be damned?
Once again, it depends on the decision they made. If after being jabbed, they find out what is in the jab and still consent to having been jabbed, they they will be damned for the sin of suicide and rebellion against their Creator. But if they were totally unaware of that and died by a sudden death, then they are victims. Fools maybe, but innocent victims in proportion to the greatest of their ignorance and incapacity to understand they were being lied to.
Is the jabb the Mark of the Beast?
From all the information, which is available to me, and from my studies in theology and sacred scripture, I would say most certainly that the Covid “vaccines” must be regarded as the mark of the beast and most likely are the mark of the beast, and that all who have taken them, knowingly or not, are now in a spiritual manner in the power of Satan and his minions in a manner much more real and actual than any sinner has ever been in history.
But I do not think that it is the mark, in the sense that one cannot repent of it. However, if you got a true DeathSerum injected into you, you need to prepare your soul, for you will be dead sooner than you think.
We know from Scripture, itself, in the Apocalypse, that God will send horrible punishments upon mankind for the sin of taking the Mark, but that God by these punishments wants that men repent. Therefore, it is a truth of Scripture that He will give the grace of repentance and accept repentance even for that sin.