Category Archives: Faith

How to be a Christian in your soul — The Keys to Spiritual Rebirth, Repentance & Holiness

In this 28 minute talk, Br. Bugnolo explains how and why every decision we make leads us further into or away from
the Light of God and Jesus Christ, our Eternal Salvation

You can find this video on 4 different platforms, sources:

FromRome.Info — Original (downloadable):

Odysee — at @FromRomeInfoVideo

YouTube — at @FromRomeInfoVideo

YouTube — at @FromRomeInfo

Editor’s Note: I hope you who have viewed this video in its entirety, now reflect upon what I have said therein, to begin a new epoch in your life. And I hope that by it you may also understand how important it is to support authentic religious life of convents and monasteries, so that those souls who are called to be consecrated and devoted to God in a special way, and pray for us in our battle hereon earth, might have a place where they can easily acquire an interior life and approach God for us, in prayer and true holiness.

It is Us or Them, one has to go ….

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Left has a popular talking point which they use to disarm their enemies. It goes like this: We have to get beyond the primitive mentality of the Us or Them world, in which there are two irreconcilable camps which cannot co-exist. We have to see each other as human beings, equals, with mutual concerns and issues, and learn to cross the divide and work together.

You probably have heard this 1000 times. You know where it comes from and what kind of people speak this way.

But if you dig into history you find that those who actually think this way are the ones who thought up this talking point. And they actually do view the world as two irreconcilable camps, the other of which must be wiped off the face of the map, or at least, reduced to a cruel slavery.

Except that they use this talking point to disarm the other camp so that they can actually achieve their evil world view, by gaining power, influence or control bit by bit over their intended victims.

It’s quite dishonest and vicious. And it is not Christian.

And though we Christians are not disposed to see the world in this light, since we desire that all men come to repentance and are saved; yet we would be in denial of the reality in which we live if we ignore than in history and in our own day there do exist some who actually have gone way beyond the pale of the common criminal and misanthrope and do want to do evil without limit and achieve such a goal, as narrated in this talking point.

And to continue to deny that there are such enemies of God or of Catholics in the world is to do nothing less than enable them to thrive and murder souls and bodies.

For no society can continue to exist if it permits another society which wills its annihilation to thrive. This is common sense.

Now in the Catholic Church it is evident — it is not a conspiracy theory — that there is a group which wants faithful Catholics eliminated from the picture.

We can see this in the case of Bishop Strickland, who is only the most recent example.

For we have seen our Mass, our Sacraments, our Religious Orders, our Churches, our Chapels, our Devotions and the doctrines we have received from Christ, the Apostles and the Saints, progressively altered, restricted, prohibited, mutilated and eliminated.

I can testify to this in regards to religious life. I have been searching for a sound Catholic community of Franciscans for nearly 25 years. I not only cannot find one, I cannot even find a Bishop who wants one. And vocations no longer even desire such a thing. The only thing vocations want is to be ordained a priest as fast as possible. Catholic doctrine and morality are only useful for show.

So if we do not admit there is a Us-Them problem in the Church, at this point, we are plainly suffering from psychosis and should seek help.

This is why spiritual pacifism is the most deadly error right now. We have to stop thinking that it’s o.k. for those destroying the Faith to destroy, but wrong for us to fight back. And we have to stop thinking that the Pietistic response of withdrawing into a world of private or personal faith or practice is the solution. We need to take back our parishes, Dioceses and Church.

And we are not going to do this if we keep listening to milktoast influencers, who complain, lament, cry and rattle the collection can, so that they can complain, lament, cry and rattle the can some more tomorrow.

I wrote about this more than 7 years ago, in my Editorial, “The Permanence of Bergoglio means the apostasy of the Flock“. But the grifter collective ignored me.

Now, it does not surprise that the same ignore me. But, I will continue to shout and declare, that there is only one way left to avoid this dire end of the Church. The Sutri Initiative.

Why Archbishop Viganò is smarter than Michael Matt

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

French Translation

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

FromRome.Info reported on that here.

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

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

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

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

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

That “yes” then is a deception.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAKING: 5 Cardinals Question Pope Francis’ Catholicity, issue new Dubia

Letter of 5 Cardinals to all the Faithful

Notification to Christ’s Faithful (can. 212 § 3)
Regarding
Dubia Submitted to Pope Francis

TRADUCTION FRANÇAISE

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We, members of the Sacred College of Cardinals, in accord with the duty of all the faithful “to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church” (can. 212 § 3) and, above all, in accord with the responsibility of Cardinals “to assist the Roman Pontiff … individually … especially in the daily care of the universal Church” (can. 349), in view of various declarations of highly-placed Prelates, pertaining to the celebration of the next Synod of Bishops, that are openly contrary to the constant doctrine and discipline of the Church, and that have generated and continue to generate great confusion and the falling into error among the faithful and other persons of good will, have manifested our deepest concern to the Roman Pontiff. By our letter of July 10, 2023, employing the proven practice of the submission of dubia [questions] to a superior to provide the superior the occasion to make clear, by his responsa [responses], the doctrine and discipline of the Church, we have submitted five dubia to Pope Francis [select the link below to read them]. By his letter of July 11, 2023, Pope Francis responded to our letter.

Having studied his letter which did not follow the practice of responsa ad dubia [responses to questions], we reformulated the dubia to elicit a clear response based on the perennial doctrine and discipline of the Church. By our letter of August 21, 2023, we submitted the reformulated dubia [select the link below to read them] to the Roman Pontiff. Up to the present, we have not received a response to the reformulated dubia.

Given the gravity of the matter of the dubia, especially in view of the imminent session of the Synod of Bishops, we judge it our duty to inform you, the faithful (can. 212 § 3), so that you may not be subject to confusion, error, and discouragement but rather may pray for the universal Church and, in particular, the Roman Pontiff, that the Gospel may be taught ever more clearly and followed ever more faithfully.

Yours in Christ,

Walter Cardinal Brandmüller

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke

Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez

Robert Cardinal Sarah

Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun

READ THE NEW DUBIA

Canonical Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Finally, someone has taken action. The Dubia were proposed and Pope Francis evaded a clear response, putting him under the suspicion of heresy. Now the Cardinals have written Pope Francis again, and after more than 30 days, Pope Francis has failed to respond.

This confirms the juridical doubt that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a Catholic. It has established a canonical fact that his heresy is pertinacious, manifest and public.

This questioning of the man by 5 members of the College of Cardinals, without a Catholic response on the part of Bergoglio, now demands a hearing in a PROVINCIAL COUNCIL to elicit an act of Catholic Faith from the man WHICH MUST CONTAIN A FORMAL AND EXPLICIT RENUNCIATION OF ERRORS.

I THANK THE LIVING GOD, THAT THESE 5 CARDINALS HAVE ACTED.

What can we expect now?

Pope Francis must answer the Cardinals within 60 days in a Catholic manner, or he must be publicly suspected of having separated himself from the Church by heresy. In such a case a Provincial Council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome MUST be convened to discern if he be a Catholic or not, and if he be not, declare him in virtue of canon 1364 to no longer hold the Papal Office. In which case the Council will pronounce the Apostolic See legally vacant, requiring the College of Cardinals to elect another.

This action of the Provincial Council must be undertaken, because a doubtful pope is no pope. That is, the Provincial Council will be the only way for him holding on to the office. If he obstructs its convening, the faithful can omit his name in the Canon, publicly admit he is a heretic, and refuse all his orders, even those legitimate, on the grounds that he does not appear to be a member of the Church. — If the Bishops of the province are asked to convene such a council and refuse, then the same results. (While private persons can request such a convocation, I think the Bishops of the Province are only canonically required to respond to Bishops holding jurisdiction, or other Provincial Councils called in other parts of the world, which demand this be done, to preserve the Unity of the Church).

As a side note, if you are such a Catholic, especially if you are a Bishop or priest, as doubts that Bergoglio is a Catholic, should should already have written to all the Bishops in the Province of Rome, and asked them to convene such a Council.

Many Catholics have long held that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a heretic, in virtue of their private judgement, discerning things spiritually and comparing his statements and actions with the rule of the Faith. But such private judgements have no canonical value as a fact to condemn a man. By the above action of the Cardinals, which has elicited an evasive response from Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the matter has entered into the canonical record, since as Bishops the Cardinals possess the charism of truth and can discern heresy in a manner in which the Church must hear their witness.

The only organ of the Church that can decide the matter juridically, however, is the Provincial Council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome (roughly co-extensive with the Region of Lazio, in the Italian Republic). These Bishops, and all the major superiors of diocesan institutes in that territory, as well as all Rectors of pontifical institutes and all Abbots of the Territorial Abbeys, constitute the juros in the matter. Technically the first phase of which is not a trial, but a Synod in the true sense where Pope Francis should be invited to attend and respond to the doubts of the Faithful. If he refuse, or if he attend and give unCatholic answers, then the Council can proceed to the trial phase, and vote whether his responses constitute an act which has undubitably shown that he is not a member of the Church in virtue of canon 1364, since the profession of manifest, public, pertinacious heresy ipso facto excommunicates a man. If he refuses to attend the Council can also proceed to the trial phase and declare him contumacious, and thus juridically guilty of all charges, and thus depose him.

UPDATE of October 3, 2023

THE GREAT DEFECT of the action by these 5 Cardinals, is that they have divulged the sin of Bergoglio to the public without apparently taking any action to convene a provincial Council. This is not the proper juridical procedure.

Perhaps they have failed here because they are following the erroneous juridical opinion of Cardinal Burke, who has stated in the past, that there is no way to resolve a crisis of a heretical pope. I have publicly corrected him several times on this matter, most fully (here) 2.5 years ago.

Cardinal Burke is an expert on annulments, so I do not expect him to have spent time in the past on this. But in the last 2.5 years he has had plenty of time. I theorize that he is stuck on the canonical problem that the New Code of Canon Law states that the Metropolitan of the province has the right to convene a Provincial Council. And thus it cannot be convened if he is the person to be put under trial. However, in the case of the Pope, such a reading is not valid, because a doubtful pope is no pope. Therefore, since in the above, the 5 Cardinals have shown that it is doubtful that he is the pope, since he has pertinaciously refused to give a Catholic answer to 10 dubia, the Bishops of the ecclesiastical Province of Rome have the liberty to elect one of their own to convoke the Council, on the grounds that the Metropolitan see can be rightfully held to be impeded by the unwillingness of the man who is the Roman Pontiff of solving this canonical crisis.

Creationism — Part III: The Different Kinds of “Creationism”

In this third installment of a multi-part lecture, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, B. A.  Cultural Anthropology, and translator of St. Bonaventure’s, “On the Creation and Fall of Angels and Men” (Commentaria in Secundum Librum Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombari), presents a brief explanation of the different kinds of Creationism, and explains why this is important to address, before continuing the discussion with anyone over the origins of the world.

You can view Part I of this series, here, which was about the meaning of the word, “creationism” and why you should not use it to identify yourself.

In Part II, Br. Bugnolo discussed what the words, “evolutionism” and “evolution”, and why they are used improperly and more aply of those who hold that position.

In Part IV, Br. Bugnolo will briefly revi,ew the various theories of “Evolutionism”, which “evolutionists” themselves hold.

A Message to Young Zealous Catholics: What is true devotion to the Martyrs of the Vendée?

For a complete list of Br. Bugnolo’s videos in the Series, TRUE DEVOTION, click here.

IF YOU LIKE THIS VIDEO, YOU WILL WANT TO WATCH, “True Devotion to Christ the King”.

A Brief presentation by Ordo Militaris Radio / TV about the War of the Vendée, here.

Br. Bugnolo is a co-founder of Ordo Militaris Catholicus, an international catholic security initiative to help Catholics  who are being persecuted. You can read more about them, here.

Creationism — Part II: How the terms “Evolutionism” and “Creationism” differ

In this second installment of a multi-part lecture, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, B. A.  Cultural Anthropology, and translator of St. Bonaventure’s, “On the Creation and Fall of Angels and Men” (Commentaria in Secundum Librum Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombari), presents a brief explanation of the differences between the words “creationism” and “evolutionism”, and explains why this is important to address, before continuing the discussion with anyone over the origins of the world.

You can view Part I of this series, here.

In Part III, Br. Bugnolo will briefly review the various theories of “Creationism”, which “creationists” themselves hold.

Pope Francis’ talk to Jesuits in Portugal, and why Catholics should rebuke him

Commentary and Call to Action by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

When the Roman Pontiff speaks as a private theologian he is not protected by the charism of infallibility. There have been celebrated cases of this in recent history, such as Ratzinger’s books written while he was Pope, where he said that God is not only charitas and amor, but also eros, which is a blasphemy since eros is lust.

Then there was John Paul II who said that he doubted there was anyone in Hell.

Pope Francis during his anti-papacy said enough things to scandalize Catholics until the end of time, but it is the things he says now in his Papacy, that we have a grave moral duty to respond to. That is, when he is in error, to rebuke him or denounce him.

The duty to rebuke Peter to his face when he is in error, is of Apostolic Tradition, as it began with St. Paul the Apostle, Doctor of the Gentiles, who after his conversion by the intervention of Jesus Christ Himself, on the Road to Damascus, is held by all the Fathers never to have sinned, even though he was not present at Pentecost.

The objectionable statements by Pope Francis took place in his private meeting with the Jesuits of Portugal. It is obvious that he was speaking freely and with little consideration for theological precision. Like always, he was pushing his narrative of progress.

But nevertheless any error which leaps out from the lips of the man who is the Pope ought to be corrected. And the Faithful have a duty to remonstrate with him.

For the complete conversation, see the article above. I presume here the English translation is correct; but it may be manipulated by Spadaro. So let’s be cautious.

So without more ado, I cite one of the passages which is clearly erroneous and leads the listener most likely to contradict de Fide truths, without which one cannot be saved. There are many more, but I do not want to wax Jesuit by citing them all here.

First a question by a Jesuit, then the response by Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis):

Pope Francis, I would like to ask you a question as a religious brother.[4] I am Francisco. Last year I spent a sabbatical year in the United States. There was one thing that made a great impression on me there, and at times made me suffer. I saw many, even bishops, criticizing your leadership of the Church. And many even accuse the Jesuits, who are usually a kind of critical resource of the pope, of not being so now. They would even like the Jesuits to criticize you explicitly. Do you miss the criticism that the Jesuits used to make of the pope, the Magisterium, the Vatican? 

You have seen that in the United States the situation is not easy: there is a very strong reactionary attitude. It is organized and shapes the way people belong, even emotionally. I would like to remind those people that indietrismo (being backward-looking) is useless and we need to understand that there is an appropriate evolution in the understanding of matters of faith and morals as long as we follow the three criteria that Vincent of Lérins already indicated in the fifth century: doctrine evolves ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate. In other words, doctrine also progresses, expands and consolidates with time and becomes firmer, but is always progressing. Change develops from the roots upward, growing in accord with these three criteria.

Let us get to specifics. Today it is a sin to possess atomic bombs; the death penalty is a sin. You cannot employ it, but it was not so before. As for slavery, some pontiffs before me tolerated it, but things are different today. So you change, you change, but with the criteria just mentioned. I like to use the “upward” image, that is, ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate. Always on this path, starting from the root with sap that flows up and up, and that is why change is necessary.

You have been to the United States and you say you have felt a climate of closure. Yes, this climate can be experienced in some situations. And there you can lose the true tradition and turn to ideologies for support. In other words, ideology replaces faith, membership of a sector of the Church replaces membership of the Church.

Bergoglio is fond of misquoting St. Vincent of Lerins, whose chief criterion for progress in doctrine is “according to the same doctrine, the same meaning, and the same judgment”, a passage Bergoglio never cites, as far as I know. There is a discussion on his habitual manipulation of the text, here, which for the sake of argument could be because he was taught an erroneous view of St. Vincent’s doctrine, and is in invinceable ignorance at present of the matter.

So let me address the errors in order.

“It is a sin to possess atomic bombs”

Every statement should be understood according to the meaning of its terms. And each word can have different senses, especially when heard by persons of different levels of education.

“Sin”, in common parlance is an act which was morally deficient or faulty. But in the Bible a “sin” is the obstruction put between you and God, in some passages at least.  So sin can be considered (1) as the deviation from the right moral order, whether that order be known by revelation from God or man’s own ability to discern by the use of reason a moral deviation; or it can be considered (2) as the act which contains this deviation; or as (3) the fault which arises from the act which is perpetrated, or as (4) the liabilty for punishment which is merited by the full or partial consent to that act.

Pope Francis does not define his terms. But the common man knows of “sin” only in the first sense.

Then again, “possess” can mean to have legal title, or de facto control over a thing, directly or through its physical location on his physical property or by legal claim, title, etc.. Thus you can possess a thing in one sense because it is in your hand, in your pocket, in your car, in your garage, or listed among your legal possessions in a juridical act, such as a last will and testament. But just because it is possessed in any one of these senses, does not mean that it is possessed in any one or all of the others. Otherwise, when a zealous merchant put an apple in your hand, you would have to buy it, even if you did not want it; or when a kind aunt asked you to take some candy to your niece and gave it to you for that purpose, that you could eat it on the way to your niece’s home.

But most people understand possession in the sense of belong to you as your property with right to dispose of it.

An atomic bomb is a nuclear weapon, that is, one in which a reaction of nuclear fission or fusion causes a massive exothermal explosion, when triggered.

With the terms defined, let us examine the error in the statement.

In the common sense, the statement is erroneous, as can be seen by the fact, that if in a war, in which one side had no nuclear weapons, and another which had them, the armed forces of the side without them — with no intention ever to use them — came upon a warehouse with the atomic weapons of the other side, and captured them, then it would be no sin for the unarmed side to capture and take possession of them. — For if it is a sin to possess them with intent to use them, then it must not be a sin to take possession of them from such an owner. This is a police action. And thus the statement is false and erroneous, and even self contradictory, because if it is a sin to own them, then there would be no way of ridding oneself of that sin but by destroying them on one’s own initiative. — Perhaps in a ideological world — which Pope Francis exhorts us to reject — there could be no crime because ever criminal would rectify his behavior without police intervention. But that world is not our world.

So there has to be cases in which possession of atomic bombs is not a sin. Indeed, there are cases when it is a virtue, that is, when it is used to deter the use of them by others who have them, for in that case possession is had to prevent the use of the legal title to them in war by another.

Is this error, in the above statement, a denial of a revealed doctrine?

This is an important question, because only in such a case would such an affirmation be a heresy. For each and every denial of revealed doctrine is formally a heresy, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, transmitting the perennial magisterium of the Church on this topic.

Answer: No, simply because in Scripture and Tradition there is no affirmation that possessing atomic bombs is of God’s will for man, simply because there were no atomic bombs in the ancient world, so the topic does not even come into consideration. So we have to have recourse to moral principles and revealed truths about God’s will for man and creation.

Could the statement of Jorge Mario Bergoglio be understood in a Catholic sense? Yes, if “sin” is taken in the Biblical sense of something which is an obstacle between man and God.

In this sense, one says that possessing pornography is a sin, meaning to say, possession with intent to use it. If it were illegal to posses, it would not be a sin for the police to take it from you or keep it for evidence, for example.

In this sense, one can say in a very wide sense, that it is a sin for mankind to possess atomic bombs, because no good can come from it. But no good can come from renouncing atomic bombs, so long as the entire human race has not renounced using them. Again, yes atomic bombs are contrary to God’s will and plan for man in the natural world, because He put us here to build it up not to destroy it.

But just because I personally can imagine a sense in which the statement could be understood soundly, does not mean that the statement should be excused or ignored. As stated it is so badly stated as to induce error directly and immediately. And that is immoral. For a pope, it is gravely immoral since everything he says could harm every human person on the planet now and until the end of time.

Now to the next phrase …

“The death penalty is a sin. You cannot employ it, but it was not so before.”

Here we must have recourse to the same distinctions regarding the meanings of the word “sin”.

But in this case, we can see that there is a logical error in the statement, in addition to other errors. Because “capital punishment” is a non-concrete term, that is, it refers to a category of punishment not to a thing, thus it is not a thing nor a moral act. So it cannot be a “sin” in any sense I mentioned above, since for a proper logical statement the thing in the subject of the sentence must be logically withing the grasp of the term in the predicate of the sentence.

Moreover, God commanded capital punishment for many offenses in the Old Testament. Therefore it cannot be of itself a “sin” in any sense as mentioned above.

God also authorized Saints and sinners to impose capital punishment, according to the infallible teaching of St. Paul, “To Caesar God has given the sword to punish evildoers”. And I am sorry, but I will remind all Jesuits, that St. Paul’s authority trumps even than of a Jesuit Roman Pontiff, since it pertains to the Deposit of the Faith which the Roman Pontiff must guard and protect and serve, not alter.

In what sense could the phrase not be an error? Not in any obvious sense, in my opinion. Perhaps one could have wanted to say, that “The indiscreet, indiscriminate and hasty recourse to capital punishment for most crimes would be a sin of injustice, because correction can well amend and make reparation for such crimes.” — This I think would be the Jesuit counter-argument, at least. But it neglects that the reaffirmation of the eternal unchanging moral law of God in certain cases does require that the perpetrator be put to death, even IF he is sorry and completely penitent for his crime. Thus it is an objectively good thing, in all times and places, to put certain kinds of horrible criminals to death, by public execution, even. Pope Sixtus V put 5000 brigands to death. And I know of no Catholic writer before the Council who faulted him for it. Nay, he was universally praised for making the highways of the Papal States safe for travelers.

If one denied that capital punishment of itself is justly imposed by proper authorities for proper crimes, then one would have to say that the Death of Christ itself was entirely and in every sense unjust, and that therefore His Sacrifice of no avail before the Altar of His Father.

While the capital punishment of no criminal rises to such a pure state as the Crucifixion of Christ, it is important to note that no Catholic Author has ever impugned the sentence of capital punishment issued by Pontius Pilate against Christ Jesus, the Living God, on the grounds that “capital punishment is a sin to employ”, simply speaking.

Thus we have two grave errors when understood commonly and without specification.

Therefore, all Catholics have the duty to remonstrate with Pope Francis by some means, directly or indirectly, as they may be able to do, to obtain from him a correction for his words which will cause scandal to soul, if not the total corruption of their personal grasp of the moral law or Church teaching.

Is this second error a heresy. I think it is such a bad error as to definitely impugn Pope Francis as a possible heretic. But because of the syntactical error of calling “capital punishment” a “sin” when it is not a moral act, means that it is a phrase of ignorant propaganda, which is morally scandalous, rather than formally a heresy.

CONCLUSION

Since such a scandal is a moral fault which Catholic should publicly distance themselves from, I do believe that we all have the duty in our own way, in conversation, correspondence, to friends and superiors to bring to their attention these errors and scandals. While we should not correct a superior in public without light reason, the weighty reasons, mentioned by St. Thomas, of defending the Faith and protecting little ones from being led astray, authorize such action in this case. — I would suggest you bring the matter to the attention of those Cardinals and Bishops who may welcome your petitions. Canon 212 gives you the right to speak out on this matter.

As regards my comments on the Papacy of Pope Francis in the last six months, I will only briefly comment that what Pope Francis has said in this interview, on this topic and on other topics such as sodomy, is so scandalous, that he is hastening the day of his own terrible personal judgement before the Throne of God, for Whom religion is not a game of politics, as it is for Jorge Bergoglio. Yes, he has avoided heresy; but no, he has given grave scandal, because it is obvious that he does not have much good will to avoid it.

This article is an example of how a Catholic approaches a public scandal perpetrated by the Roman Pontiff. Compare it to how Sedevacantists might respond, in coming days, to this same news.

True Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

Today is the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, established by Pope Pius XII, which is now called the Feast of the Incoronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Heaven, as Queen of Angels and Men. — So it is only appropriate to feature again, this video, in which Br. Bugnolo explains why all Christians need to take Mary, the Mother of Jesus, a lot more seriously as a role model. — This video was first aired on June 27, 2022, from Kyiv, Ukraine.

“I know those who call themselves, “Catholics” but are not …”

Editorial by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

One of the most awesome passages of Sacred Scripture — I use awesome in the sense of inspiring fear — are the words of Our Lord in the Second Chapter of the Apocalypse, foretelling of the evils which would befall the Church:

I know the blasphemy of those who call themselves “Jews” but who are naught but the synagogue of Satan …

For our Lord, it is a blasphemy to claim to be a servant of God and not be one. This is so, because the “of God” part invokes divine confirmation, and when this is to confirm the opposite of what God wills and teaches, it is a horrendous sin.

In our own day, we can read this same passage, Revelations 2:9, in a mystical sense, and replace “Jews” with “Catholics”, to understand the burning wrath of God which is kindled against those who claim this name but do the works of darkness in its stead.

While I could begin to name names, from persons like Mrs. Gates to Mrs. Pelosi or Joe Biden, I want to focus on a less known crowd, who loudly self-proclaim as faithful true Catholics, traditionalists even, but who are working night and day to sow not the words of the Gospel in men’s hearts so that they might repent and be saved, BUT RATHER the seeds of despair so that they lose all faith in the Living God, Who has promised us, “The Gates of the Nether World will never prevail against My Church!”.

Despair is the worst of sins, because when it reaches its fruit, it despairs of the intervention of God and this is the unforgivable sin.

To sow despair, therefore, is satanic.

And this can be done by those who say, that the problems in the Church are going to destroy it, while emphasizing that there is NOTHING you can do about it to effectively stop it, EXCEPT gathering around this or that sower-of-despair as your new pope, savior, or cult leader.

Nearly all the conservative social media personalities have joined this band-wagon, as they progressed from grifting for money to grifting for souls. This is the extremity of the avarice which is not satisfied with bilking its audience for a 6 bedroom house, but wants to guarantee perpetual profits and income from its theatrical act of milking discontent, and never allaying it.

We can imagine how great such a work of blasphemy these rogues are involved in, if we compare their work to the man, who goes through a neighborhood proclaiming that a certain woman is an adulteress and on top of this sows despair that her husband will do nothing about it, even if he were to catch the perp in the act of assaulting his wife, because he is an unfaithful husband who is impotent to keep his promises!

Imagine what would happen to such a vile preacher, if the husband was a professional fighter and caught hold of him. It would be brutal to watch.

Now, Holy Mother Church is a virgin bride, and she has never fornicated with another. And Her Spouse is the Omnipotent Invincible One, Jesus Christ, Who has loved His Spouse more than any man has ever loved his wife, and more than any god has loved his earthly love.

For this God descended from Heaven and died on the Cross to win this bride, and this Man endured a live of poverty, rejection and crucifixion to have her hand!

So perhaps now one can imagine the blazing wrath of the Word of God against all who sow despair and work against the unity of the Church, with the legitimate successor of St. Peter! Making the excuse of this man’s sins and scandals — which surely abound — as a reason or rather an excuse to sow despair and inaction.

True Catholics recognize the scandals but always advocate action to solving them. Yes, women and children can pray, but there comes a time when men must take action.

Imagine if the Faithful bitterly rebuked their Bishops every time they met them in the last 70 years, do you think the abominations of the Aggiornamento would ever have lasted.

So taking up arms is not necessary. Speaking the truth boldly is what is necessary. And demanding the resignation of the unworthy.

Not just talking about. But demanding it. — For just talking about it, is morally equivalent to watching a woman being raped. And in the Old Testament that was punishable by death.

 

On the coming slaughter of the Catholic Clergy & Faithful in the Marburg Apocalypse

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Years ago, out of curiosity, I traveled to the Boston College Library, in Boston, Massachusetts, to track down the original Italian text containing three of the most important prophecies of Saint Don Bosco. You can read my translation here:

I mention this here, because I wish to refer to one of the Saint’s prophecies, that of the restoration of the Papacy, and the great tragedy which will befall the Catholic Clergy and Faithful beforehand.

In the first prophecy, Our Lord warns through Saint John Bosco, that the Lord will come to Rome a fourth time to strike the city for her apostasy and infidelity. And that this visitation will regard plague.

“O Rome! Four times shall I come to you!29 The first time I shall smite your regions and its people. The second time I shall bring slaughter and destruction to your very gates. Should not that make you open your eyes? A third time shall I come, and I will demolish your defenses and defenders. (The present state of Rome.) At My Father’s30 command, terror, dismay, and desolation will reign.

“My wise followers flee (many live away from Rome, many are obliged to disperse), but My law is still trod underfoot.31 Therefore, I shall come a fourth time.32 Woe to you if My law again shall go unheeded. There shall be defections among both learned and ignorant. (This has happened and is still happening.) Your blood and that of your children shall wipe out your transgressions. (A seeming allusion to some future disaster.)33

“War, plague, and famine are the scourges to smite human pride and malice. (This summarizes the above-mentioned punishments.) Where are your magnificent villas and palaces, you people of wealth? (We shall see!) They have become the litter of squares and streets!34

“And you priests, why are you not prostrate between the vestibule and the altar, weeping and praying that the scourge may cease?35 Why do you not take up the shield of faith and preach My Word from the rooftops, in the houses, streets, and squares, and even in inaccessible places? Do you not know that this is the terrible two-edged sword which smites My enemies and placates the wrath of God and man?

“These things shall inexorably come to pass, all in succession.36

“Things follow too slowly upon each other, but the great Queen of Heaven is at hand; the Lord’s power is Hers. Like mist She shall scatter Her enemies.37 She shall vest the Venerable Old Man with all his former garments.38

From this prophecy it is clear that the City of Rome shall be punished for her infidelity. And in the Second Prophecy, we see that the punishment will regard a hugh mortality rate among the faithful:

On hearing this, the Pontiff moved on,61 and the ranks began to swell. Upon reaching the Holy City, the Pontiff wept at the sight of its desolate citizens, for many of them were no longer.62 He then entered St. Peter’s and intoned the Te Deum,63 to which a chorus of angels responded, singing: Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis [Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth to men of good will.] When the song was over, all darkness vanished and a blazing sun shone.64 The population had declined greatly in the cities and in the countryside; the land was mangled as if by a hurricane and hailstorm, and people sought each other, deeply moved, and saying: Est Deus in Israel [There is a God in Israel].65

The question many who have studied the writings of Saint John Bosco has been, of what future calamity is he speaking.

I believe he is speaking of his own days, and specifically of the Marburg Plague which is about to be launched by the Globalists, perhaps this fall of 2023.

This “virus” was “discovered” at the University of Marburg, Germany, where it escaped a lab and killed  18 persons. It is alleged to be found in nature in the caves of Africa. How it got to Marburg is not clear. All subsequent infections known to history are tied either with Marburg the city, or are so distant in time as to suppose were originated there too. Almost no one in Africa has ever died of this “virus”, and it is not infection by means of the air, only by means of bodily fluids and direct contact.

So how can the Globalists like Bill Gates and Schwab be so certain that the next plague will be Marburg?

Perhaps because BioNTech, which with investment from Pfizer, contructed a new Vaccine Additive facility at Marburg. Germany. No kidding. Read the news here.

According to Dr. Rashid A. Buttar, the Covid-19 “Vaccines” contained a technology to cause those who received them, to start producing the toxins of the Marburg “virus” on cue from 5G signals. He dropped dead just days after admitting this, so it is not yet clear what information he had. He stated that this is how Marburg would infect the entire world. (See more about this Here)

Several notable doctors of medicine have adverted to the fact that with nearly 3 Billion persons “vaccinated” by products (which contain the BioNTech additives), if Marburg is somehow contained in the technology of the “Vaccine” (FromRome.Info calls them DeathVaxxes), that this could kill 600,000,000 or more persons when triggered. Marburg is known to kill 80% of those infected. It is highly contagious, but not very infectious; which means that if you touch the bodily fluids of the person with the disease it is highly likely you will contract it; but it is very unlikely that you will if you do not. – At least this is what an untrained person like myself who is not a M.D. nor qualified to give medical advice, understands. Correct me in the comments below, if I am mistaken.

And hence, the conclusion is, that many who received the DeathVaxxes are about to be genocided off the face of the earth, resulting in massive economic, social and ecclesiastical upheavals.

And this is exactly what the Globalists want to erase the Old Order of Christianity and replace it with the New World Order of Satan.

But here in Italy, where Bergoglio insisted on the receiving the DeathVaxx as an “act of love”, nearly all the clergy and seminarians and religious have taken it. The Laity too. And if most of them got a dose with this release-Marburg-on_cue technology, we could be about to witness the extinction of the Ecclesiastical workforce en masse throughout all of Italy and in many parts of the world.

And this is perhaps what Saint Don Bosco saw in his visions. God have mercy upon us!