EMMO NEWS INTERVIEW:

* Correction: The introduction says Br. Bugnolo has been living private vows since 1991. In truth he lived public vows from 1993-6, and from 1996-present private vows.

FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS DEBATE, SEE THE INTERVIEW OF BR. BUGNOLO AT OMC RADIO TV, EARLIER THIS WEEK.

(Over at Emmo News, a flood of trolls is trashing Br. Bugnolo and his comments, so if you don’t agree with that, stop over at the actual Italian video and leave a commet.)

ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ITALIAN TRANSCRIPT

EMMO Q.1,) Recently, Prof. Corrias translated the commissum pronounced by Benedict XVI with the word “misfatto”. — [This is Corrias’ translation: “I declare in full freedom that I renounce to my own detriment (mihi) the ministry of Bishop of Rome, successor of Saint Peter, because of the misdeed (per…commissum) of a handful (manus) of Cardinals]. — Prof. Corrias maintains that this is the only possible translation from Latin if the commissum is kept in the text. Is it really the only possible version? If so, how come you never noticed? What do you think of this translation?

Br. Bugnolo: Let met thank you for the opportunity you have given me to solicit my views about the matters regarding the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI, a matter which I have been studying since 2018. First, let me say that my approach to this topic is conditioned by my training in cultural anthropology, which is a science based on the observation of the material realities of human culture and which because of its close association with archaeology, has learned in the past century that when one does not have direct and immediate recourse to the creator of an artifact, or the author of a text, all possible interpretations must be considered hypothetical and not factual, since the only true interpretation in the strict sense is that given by the author or maker of the artifact. Thus, one should be free to discuss every possibility, but at the same time one should be cautious about adopting any particular interpretation, since as more facts are discovered, there may be among them one crucial fact that brings true clarity about the purpose, meaning, or interpretation of the artifact. For this reason, at FromRome.Info I have engaged frequently in speculations, some of which were the seeds of the fundamental positions taken by Andrea Cionci, who is in this sense my most zealous disciple, though we now have major disagreements.

EMMO Q.2.) In your 2019 analysis of the Declaratio, you explain that commissum is not an error. You explain that Benedict XVI uses the word commissum to emphasize that he has been committed to his papal Office since the day of his election. Can you explain to us from a grammatical and/or syntactical point of view the construction of the sentence, so as to make it clear why commissum is not an error? Can you then explain to us why Benedict XVI wanted to use the word commissum, what did he want to convey?

Br. Bugnolo: No, in my 2019 translation (Italiano), I did not address the “commissum” as spoken. But I have added an update where I do now address it, in which I say that the indirect discourse can be read thus, “that I, for my part, having been committed to the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, through the hands of the Cardinals on April 19, 2005, do renounce so that …”.  Here I read commissum as an adjective agreeing with the subject of the clause, “me”, following the rules for classical usage, which knows of the nested syntactical arrangement of words, where first goes with last, to mark off the entire phrase or thought. In this reading, I take the “mihi” as a dative of reference, and render is as “for my part”, which is a much more common grammatical usage for the dative of the first person. And I would explain the position of the “mihi” at the center of the indirect discourse as a very artistic touch, showing that the Holy Father is speaking in the first person of the events which took place all around his own person on that day. Contextually, this reading of mine, is syntactically possible, and contextually coherent, and gives emphasis to the fact that Pope Benedict XVI was not running away from the duties of office, but had given his all to the service of Holy Mother Church from the beginning.

EMMO Q. 3.) The Declaratio has always been considered not as a legal act but as a simple administrative act, aimed at informing other people about an action undertaken, in progress or to be undertaken. Shortly before Christmas, Andrea Cionci announced instead that the Declaratio is a declaration of “decisio”, that is, a real penal decree. What do you think?

Br. Bugnolo: No, quite the contrary. The Declaratio has been considered a juridical act not an administrative act by all who sustain that it validly effected a full abdication from office. I know this because I have debated this very point for 6 years with those who hold this position. However, you are correct in saying that a “declaration” is an administrative act, because administrative acts comprise announcements; juridical acts refer to legal enactments. By choosing to entitle this document a “Declaratio” Pope Benedict XVI has constrained all honest men to consider it merely an administrative act, regardless of what his intentions may have been.

In regard to the text of the Declaratio, there are several ways to approach it. Forensically, we cannot say anything definitive about it at all, until we are shown the original copy which Pope Benedict XVI held in his hands during the Consistory of February 11, 2013. For this reason, the discussions about this document since that day have focused rather on the versions published by the Vatican on its website and the translations of the Vatican has given to the world. Thus, in the most strict sense, no one has seen the original except a very few individuals. The rest of us, therefore, have opted to formulate opinions about the versions of the text made public. This is what I also have done, presuming from the start that these versions were authentic. as Attorney Settesoldi points out, all these different versions have no legal foundation unless they are also accompanied by some official document authenticating the changes.  However, though we would all want such rigor in the care of documents, even in the Church, one must understand that the Apostolic See has the habit of publishing variants of the same document since the middle ages. I cite the example of the Bulls issued for the Crusades. The same text might have come out in several versions, as the Roman Curia produced more and more copies, each sent to different rulers in Europe. Exactitude in producing such copies was not had, and each scribe corrected here or there some small thing, presumably after consulting with the Holy Father. And there is no record of an actual document being produced recording the corrections, but they must be inferred from the historical record by comparing the various editions of the text. I think this is what happened in February of 2013. We have to recognize that we are confronting the habits of a medieval court, not a modern state. For this reason, I believe that, while it is interesting to discuss the differences between the text as spoken, and the various published versions at the Vatican website, the final version put into the Acta Apostolica Sedes might be the only authentic one, if Pope Benedict XVI did in fact order it to be published there. If he did not, then the original he held in his hands is the only authentic text, and we cannot consider the verbalized version, which hypothetically could contain errors in pronunciation or enunciation, to be the authentic text.

As regards the spoken text, which we know of on account of the partial recording of it made by Vatican Television, it has been known from the beginning that Pope Benedict XVI said “commissum” and not “commisso” as has appeared on the Vatican website and in the text printed in the Acta Apostolica Sedes. For this reason, until last fall, I have never given the matter any consideration. But having listened carefully to Dr. Corrias’ explanation during his interview on L’Orrizonte degli Eventi, on YouTube, I think his reading is syntactically a possible one, but contextually problematic. And it is not the only translation possible, since “commissum” can be read as an appositive adjective in agreement with the subject of the indirect discourse, the “me”. But both such readings have a similar grammatical problem, that is, how to explain the usage of the “mihi” which is placed at the center of the subordinate indirect discourse. Dr. Corrias speaks of a “dativo di svantaggio”, a name for a grammatical usage of the dative of the pronounce, which I have never heard of, for which his translation “a mio danno” appears to me to be more an eisegesis than an exegisis. Moreover, I believe that his reading of “per” falls into the error common to Italian speakers, who presume that the Latin “per” means the same thing as the Italian “per”, which is not the case. The Latin preposition always has the root meaning which in modern Italian is given to words such as “tramite” or “mediante”; and for this reason, Dr. Corrias’ reading of the phrase “per …. commissum”, which is grammatically and syntactically a sound one, nevertheless does not harmonize well with the rest of the indirect discourse since one does not renounce nearly a decade after being elected, on account of a misdeed done in the Conclave which elected one. That does not make much sense. Nor do I think that, if Pope Benedict XVI wanted to speak of how he felt to be manipulated into becoming Pope, by promises of obedience from the Cardinals, when in fact during his pontificate he was strongly opposed by most of them, that this phrase “per … commissum” would be a convenient way to refer to that.

Your question, however, touches one of the main side issues in the debates about this document, in the last 12 years: namely, what was Pope Benedict XVI’s intention? I say that this is a side issue, because in a juridical act of renunciation, the intention, whether expressed or not, is praeter rem, as it does not make this act legally valid or invalid. It’s a historical question, true; but it determines nothing. However, for those who hold that Pope Benedict XVI did abdicate, they fixate on this question either to justify their position or to distract from the main question, the juridical effect of such a declaration.

I agree that the text of the Declaratio contains a “descisio”. Even Archbishop Ganswein, when interviewed in 2023, testified that at the end of September of 2012, Pope Benedict XVI told him he would renounce, but made it clear that it was not a topic open for discussion. In other words, Pope Benedict XVI had already decided what he was going to do. And for this reason, I think it is more likely that he never consulted with anyone when writing this “Declaratio”. However, the Latin “decisio” means something more than simply making up one’s mind. In fact, the Holy Father uses this term at the beginning of his Declaratio. This Latin term has two meanings: a decision, in the sense of an act whereby one ends all discussion and makes a choice; and a cutting-off, that is the act whereby one separates one thing from another. This latter usage is the one used by Saint Bonaventure in his explanation of human generation, in his commentaries on the Second Book of Sentences by Master Peter Lombard, written around 1254 A. D.. And with Saint Bonaventure, being the favorite medieval theologian of Pope Benedict, we cannot rule out that he may have intended such a meaning. Yet, this reading which I proposed back in 2020, has been ignored by everyone. Reading “decisio” in this manner, one finds a ready explanation why the published text has “vobis” and not “vobiscum” in the first phrase of the text; because the verb “communcem”, requires vobiscum to signify, “to communicate to you”. As it stands, the published text does not say, “to communicate to you a decision”, but rather, “to communicate your being-cut-off”.

As for the Declaration being a penal judgement, I think that is more secondary interpretation, which can only be made if one assumes as true what I said in my article, “How Benedict has defeated Bergoglio”, wherein I was first to propose that the entire Declaratio is a very clever maneuver to nullify the pontificate of whoever would be elected in the conclave of 2013, a matter I have explained at length with the humorous example given in my article, “Viva Guadalajara!”, and which I assert, if true, would have been the most divinely inspired and brilliant stratagem against the Freemasons in the hierarchy ever imagined, enabling a “Great Catholic Reset” after the passing of Pope Francis. And whether you agree with the hypothesis that Pope Benedict XVI intended this or not, once the Church recognizes that he never abdicated, the result will in fact be a Great Catholic Reset. A thing which even Archbishop Vigano’ has recognized by using this very phrase in reference to the possible intentions of Pope Benedict XVI in renouncing the ministerium and not the munus.

EMMO Q. 4.) In the latest translation of the Declaratio published by Andrea Cionci, it is specified that there is only one single error present in the Latin transcription of the Declaratio read by Benedict XVI, namely the word “commisso” instead of “commissum”. In 2019, you instead counted about 40 errors in the Latin text. Were you wrong in counting all these errors?

No, as you can see it is evident if you read my article on this (Clamorous Errors in the Latin of the Renunciation).

EMMO Q.5.) In 2019, when you analyzed the Declaratio in detail, you explained that instead of the word decisiem it would have been more correct to use the word consilium if Benedict XVI had only wanted to communicate a simple “decision”. At the time you therefore hypothesized that vobis should be understood as a dative of possession for decisionem, to be translated as: “a separation from you”. The Declaratio is therefore to be understood as a true and proper “declaration of separation from the Cardinals”. Better yet, a separation of the entire Church from the Cardinals. Do you confirm this analysis? If so, can you explain the theological, ecclesiological and perhaps even apocalyptic concept that the phrase “vobis decisiem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita” hides?

Br. Bugnolo: Here again, I think we need to emphasize that I have engaged in many speculations regarding the significance of the Latin text of the Declaratio, because I had no access to the Holy Father to ask him myself, even though I twice shared with him my Scholastic Question (Italiano / Espanol) on the matter and even wrote him in November of 2019, when I came to Rome. In January of 2020, I even got a phone call from Archbishop Ganswein insisting that I stop all efforts in pointing out that the Declaratio was not an abdication. But that only ignited my zeal to continue my work, as I felt that being denied an opportunity to speak to the Holy Father on such an important topic, with a message left on my answering machine from an unknown phone-number, was the most suspicious way one could choose to deny my request. That the message continued the voice of the Archbishop I later verified with a very famous journalist at Rome.

Whether the Declaratio contained the Holy Father’s decision to separate himself from the Cardinals or not, it had that effect, since they all participated in and have supported from that day until now, the Conclave of March 2013. In fact, we have to confront the fact that we are face to face with a quasi-mystical intervention of the Holy Spirit, Who has seemingly either inspired the Holy Father unawares to protect the Church in such a manner, as I pointed out in my article about the Great Catholic Reset, or who has allowed so many men to fail in a certain sort of harmonious way, so as to allow the possibility of that result to come to pass in His own good time.

EMMO Q.6.) According to your analysis, the phrase “pro Ecclesiae vita” must be understood as “in the name of the life of the Church” or “for the good of the life of the Church”. In your opinion, did Benedict XVI intend to defend the life of the Church with his Declaratio? From what type of threat?

Br. Bugnolo: Again, we cannot be sure for certain that Pope Benedict XVI had this intention; but the effect of the document, which caused so many to think it was a valid abdication when it was not, can have this purpose, if good men simply do what is in their power to do. Because by invalidating the pontificate of Pope Francis for nearly 10 years, the promise of Christ, that the Gates will not prevail, was verified. And surely it is a work of the Holy Spirit to see the promise of Christ fulfilled, even when all the men at the Vatican fail Him.

As to what kind of threat was the Church under? I think that is obvious to see, if you have eyes to see: namely, Bergoglio’s intention to entirely destroy the Church as a divine institution and to transmutate it into a Globalist tool for world domination.

EMMO Q.7.) In his 2019 analysis he explained that the “mihi per manus Cardinalium” did not make sense, theologically speaking. In fact, the Pope does not receive the Petrine Munus and Ministerium from the Cardinals because the Office is conferred only by Christ, when the canonical election is accepted. With this phrase, did Benedict XVI want to make it clear that the Cardinals had given him a ministry but had never granted him any real authority over it? Was Benedict XVI therefore giving back what had been given to him, that is, something empty?

Br. Bugnolo: Well one can argue with even that, because though it can be said correctly that the Cardinals entrust the Petrine Ministry to the one elected to be the Pope, even though the right to exercise that ministry is contained in the munus which Christ alone gives the one elected, when he accepts is canonical election, yet to phrase one’s election in this manner implies a minimalist or simply materialistic view of the papacy, and thus, in my mind, does contain a subtle rebuke of the College.

EMMO Q.8.) Prof. Corrias states that “his quibus” should be translated “from these” and not “from those”. So, according to Andrea Cionci’s interpretation, the Conclave should be convened only by those Cardinals who did not participate in the “misdeed” that led to the election of Benedict XVI. Consequently, a legitimate Conclave can be convened until 2036. In your opinion, is it correct to translate “his quibus” into “from these” and, consequently, is what Cionci says about the Conclave correct?

Br. Bugnolo: Not being a native speaker of the Italian language, I am not able to say how “his quibus” is to be translated into Italian. In the Latin language, “hic, haec, hoc”, the demonstrative pronoun is used to refer to a thing present to the speaker, when it stands alone, but when it is followed by a relative pronounce, as in this phrase “his quibus” the “his” refers to the subject of the subordinate clause. Thus, it cannot be read as referring to the previous “Cardinalium”, but must refer to some future group which is capable in juridical right of electing the pope. I was the first to point this out nearly 5 years ago, as it represents as written, a slap in the face of the Cardinals present in the Consistory to say “his quibus” rather than “vobis fratribus quibus”, since according to ecclesiastical tradition, the Holy Father must address the Cardinals as his brothers, especially when they are physically in his presence.

As for Andrea Cionci’s presumption that only Cardinals can solve this problem in the Church, I believe if you want to move in the circles of human respect, and not along the lines of juridical right, then in the Church of today where Freemasons reign and where one does not expect any help from the world of journalists or of the State, both of which are dominated by Freemasons and Globalists, its much more respectable and safe to continue appealing to the very Cardinals who caused the problem back in 2013. But for those who understand that since the Cardinals have only the function of electing popes, their own very self interest requires that they do nothing dramatic prior to a Conclave. So I believe that Cionci is wasting his time, in the sense that the Cardinals won’t do anything before the passing of Pope Francis; though I do think that morally speaking, he is giving them another occasion to examine their own consciences.

EMMO Q.9.) Andrea Cionci says that the Declaratio is a penal decree issued by Benedict XVI for heresy, apostasy and schism, but addressed only to those Cardinals who committed the “misdeed”. But aren’t the Cardinals who elected an Antipope in 2013 already excommunicated by virtue of canon 1364, as they separated (schismatic) from the Catholic Church?

Br. Bugnolo: To be subject to an ecclesiastical penalty, one must know of the crime in committing the crime. If the Cardinals did not know of their error in understanding the Declaratio as an abdication, then they cannot incur excommunication even in the juridical sense, they are in schism from the true pontiff.

EMMO Q.10.) You explained that with the phrase “his quibus competit invocandum esse” the new Conclave had to be convened not by the Cardinals but “by those who are competent”. If with the Declaratio Benedict XVI separated the Church from the Cardinals, can you explain to us who should be entrusted with the competence to elect the new Pontiff, from a canonical and theological point of view?

Br. Bugnolo: The Roman Church has always had, from the beginning, the right to elect its Pontiff. This right was granted by the Apostle Saint Peter. Until April 13, 1059, the election of the Roman Pontiff was by the votes of all the faithful of the Roman Church. Today, following the prescriptions of many pontiffs from Pope Nicholas II to Pope John Paul II, the election has been restricted by a legal order for pragmatic, not theological, reasons. However, the exclusive right of the Cardinals to elect the Pontiff is purely ministerial, since just as relatives who have the ministerial duty to feed their children do not have a purely juridical exclusivity to prevent anyone else from doing so when the relatives themselves refuse to feed their children, so the Cardinals, if they refuse to elect a new pontiff, lose the exclusivity of their right. Of course, if a pope invalidly resigns, and the Cardinals elect an antipope who outlives the true pope, there is a possibility that the Cardinals will not elect a new true pope after his death. It is therefore necessary to say “his quibus competit” instead of “vobis fratribus quibus” to ensure apostolic succession. Then, since the exclusive right of election belongs to the Cardinals by papal law, which presupposes that the Cardinals want to elect a new pontiff and that they are not in de facto schism from the true pontiff who just died, the right of election reverts to the original elector who has this right by apostolic tradition.

EMMO Q.11.) On January 30, 2023, you invited the Faithful of Rome to validly elect the new Pope, following the death of Benedict XVI. Very few people participated and from this vote the name of Pope Francis emerged. You therefore believe that Bergoglio was therefore elected in a legally valid manner and is no longer an Antipope. Subsequently, however, you denounced scandals, heresies, blasphemies and the doctrinal and moral confusion promoted by Pope Francis and his appointees within the Roman Curia. Why is Pope Francis a heretic despite the valid election?

Br. Bugnolo: Jesus promised that the Gates of the netherworld will never prevail against His Church. And though He founded his Church on Peter, He only promised Simon that He would pray so that his faith might not fail. He never promised that his faith not fail. In Catholic Doctrine it is a dogma of faith that the Roman Pontiff will never legally imposed the obligation of accepting error in matter of faith or morals; it is not a dogma of Faith that the Roman Pontiff never become a heretic. To understand this one must distinguish between heresy as a moral fault and heresy as a crime, sentenced or judged in a public tribunal. Several popes have personally espoused heresies: such as Honorius I and John XXI. But they were never judged by the Church to be heretics. So they were formal heretics, but not public heretics. One loses membership in the Church if one becomes a public heretic, which means, if one is condemned by the Church for heresy. So by electing Pope Francis in a juridically valid manner, the Catholic Faithful of Rome gave him the greatest mercy possible, namely, that Christ would pray for him. And those he has personally still fallen in to heresy, as he did when he signed “Fiducia supplicans” he has not required that to be accepted by anyone. Thus he still can be called to council to be reprehended and deposed, because if he is a public heretic, then he is not the pope.

EMMO Q.12.) Since Pope Francis is a heretic, the appointment of the new Cardinal Electors will invalidate the election of his successor. Upon Bergoglio’s death, we will therefore once again find ourselves with an Antipope. The infallible teaching of Vatican I, however, anathematizes all those who deny that it is God’s will that Peter have perpetual successors in the Apostolic See. To get out of the impasse, you have promoted “The Sutri Initiative” as “the only real and juridical solution to end the crisis of the Roman Church, since it addresses the problem directly and in a canonically valid and easy way”. Can you explain to us what “The Sutri Initiative” consists of?

Br. Bugnolo: No, it is not true to say that because Pope Francis is a formal but not public heretic that his appointments of Cardinals are invalid. But it is true that his personal heresy instills doubt about the validity of the next Conclave when he appoints men in favor of ‘Fiducia supplicans’. For this reason it is urgent that the faithful turn to the bishops of the Roman ecclesiastical province to call a provincial council, which is the only juridical and canonical tribunal in which a man with a claim to the apostolic throne can be interrogated and asked to demonstrate his records of Catholic faith and valid election without which he has no valid claim to the Pontificate. But since almost everyone for various reasons prefers Pope Francis in power than out of power, they do everything else to continue the crisis in the Church and put the Church in grave danger of further trouble in the future after the demise of Bergoglio.

The Sutri Initiative, as is explained at FromRome.Info in English, Italian and French, is a coordinated effort of petitions to each of the Bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome, to convoke a Provincial Council on the basis that Pope Francis by his numerous heresies and acts of apostasy has impeded the Apostolic See, and to do so for the purpose of requiring that he, as one who claims the office of Roman Pontiff demonstrate to the Bishops that he has the required prerequisites for a valid claim, namely a valid election and the  Catholic Faith. This is what is called a Quo Warranto action and is a principle of the natural law used at the First Council of Sutri in 1046, when the German King, Henry III wanted to know which, if any of the three claimants to the Papacy, was the true Pope or not: Benedict IX, Gregory VI, or Sylvester III. As immediate subjects of the Apostolic See and as voting members in the ecclesiastical province, these 15 Bishops enjoy the special juridical right to demand such proofs, and according to Canon Law, a provincial council has the juridical right to regulate all such matters in its own province when the Apostolic See is impeded. Any layman can write these Bishops and ask for such a convocation. Even heads of State, like President Donald Trump or leading political figures whose duties require them to know who is the true pope, like the President of the Council of Ministers, Mrs Giorgia Meloni, have a right to request this of them. And Pope Francis cannot in any way forestall or avoid such a summons, or he has de facto and de jure conceded he has no valid claim to the office of Roman Pontiff. Such a council, if they discover such a discrepancy can declare the Apostole See vacant and command the College of Cardinals to elect another. It can also request the Italian Government to arrest Pope Francis as an imposter.