In this video, Frank Walker says what everyone is thinking, but few have the honesty to say out loud. This is the must see video for 2020. Would that the Bishops have such a Catholic conscience.
Or, how it happened that the Archbishop called me on the phone
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The world has seen two of the most outrageous usurpations of office in the history of humanity, and in the short space of six years, from 2007 to 2013. I speak of the unconstitutional election of a self-proclaimed Kenyan citizen to the Presidency of the United States of America, in violation of the natural born citizen clause (Article II, section 1, clause 5) and of the uncanonical election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Roman Pontiff on March 13, 2013 in violation of canon 359 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and Pope John Paul II’s law on papal elections, Universi Dominic Gregis, n. 37, which both forbid the election of a Roman Pontiff when a legal sede vacante has not occurred. (A sede vacante occures with the natural death of the Pope, or his resignation of munus in accord with Canon 332 §2). — For all my reports on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict and why that act did not cause him to lose the Papal Office, see my Index to the Renunciation of Pope Benedict.
It was a poignant moment, then, for the triumph of criminality over law, when Barrack Obama came to the Vatican to meet with Cardinal Bergoglio on Marcy 27, 2014. And in the midst was Father George, Gänswein, at Obama’s right hand (Photo care of the White House).
But the plans of men cannot be hidden from God, nor can they be hidden for long from God’s faithful, moved as they are by the Spirit of Truth who reveals hidden secrets.
Inspired by this Spirit many a faithful Catholic has voiced concerns, criticisms, objections and warnings over the strange happenings of February 2013, when Benedict issued a declaration in the Consistory of Feb. 11th, of that year — called to canonize the Martyrs of Otranto, slaughtered en masse by the forces of the Turks in the 16th century — which was publicized as a renunciation of the papacy, though it was nothing of the kind.
Present on that day, was also George Gänswein, now titular Archbishop of Urbs Salvia.
Mons. Gänswein has been seen as the faithful and devoted personal secretary to Joseph Ratzinger for more than 35 years. Ratzinger spotted him taking coffee at the German Collegium in the Vatican back in the 80’s and asked if he would like to be his secretary, since he needed someone fluent in German and Italian. Mons. Gänswein holds a doctorate in Canon Law.
For these reasons I have long confided in Gänswein to speak the truth, even if, after his talk at the Gregorian University in 2016, when he clearly said that Benedict XVI still occupied the petrine office and still shared the petrine munus and ministry, I shook my head, because it seems a totally insane thing to say, since at the time, I still operated under the fake news put out that day, that Benedict had resigned the papacy.
But in the Last 18 months, with intense research and investigation, I have come to agree with Gänswein on those same points, because the effect of renouncing the petrine ministry alone, is that Benedict retains the petrine munus and office, and hence, in virtue of these, also the petrine ministry and power of governance, whether he thinks he has or not, and whether anyone else thinks he has, or not.
My Two Letters to Archbishop Gänswein
So, in November, filled with this sense of trust and confidence in the Archbishop, whose personal motto is Testimonium perhibere veritati — To bear witness to the truth — I wrote him a personal letter, in Italian, on the 25th, the English translation of which, I will post here:
I am writing you to request a personal meeting with you so as to put to rest a common doubt, which many Catholics have, who love His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI.
This doubt regards whether He, in saying minstero in his act of Feb. 11, 2013, had the intention to say muneri.
This doubt lingers because, as much as I know, His Holiness has never been asked in public if he had this intention or not.
Many are of the opinion, that in renouncing the ministry, Pope Benedict’s intention was to retain the munus, because He thinks the munus is the grace and the vocation which he received for always.
Others are of the opinion that in renouncing the ministery, His intention was to renounce the papacy, but not having understood that the ministerium is not the munus on account of the error in the German translation of the Code of Canon Law, in canon 145 §1, He made a substantial error in the renunciation (cf. Canons 126 and 188), because Canon 332 §2 constrains the man who is the pope, in renouncing, to renounce the petrine munus. Since as Pope He did not concede to himself as Ratzinger a derogation by reason of canon 38, the renunciation remains vitiated. This is what they think.
For these reasons, and because I have written extensively on this topic at fromrome.wordpress.com and ChiesaRomana.info, I think a meeting with your Excellency will help all understand better what has happened.
I am not a journalist I am a consecrated person observing the Rule of Saint Francis, which obliges me in its second precept to uphold the Papacy.
Desiring only to know the truth, and dwelling at Rome, only 10 minutes from the Vatican, I am free at any moment to meet you wherever you like,
Having received no response, I posted another letter to the Archbishop on January 9, at the Vatican Post Office. That letter got a phone response. Here is my English translation of that letter, the original of which was also in Italian:
I wish you best wishes on the Seventh Anniversary of your Episcopal Consecration at the hands of Pope Benedict! And I thank you for all that you do for the Holy Father!
I am writing for several reasons:
First, to remind you of my request for a personal meeting with your Excellency to understand better if the Holy Father had intended to renounce the petrine munus or whether he has ever said that he wanted to renounce the petrine munus, as I requested of you in my letter of Nov. 25th.
I make this request for the good of the Church, because I understand that the true pastoral care of the faithful, which save souls, is that which is established on the truth, not on hearsay.
I am also writing you to inform you, that on Dec. 19, I founded The League of Prayer for Pope Benedict XVI. Catholics all over the world are already signed up, by means of 7 blogs which are spreading the invitation. For an Italian explanation see
For an English version see:
Where you can find all the blogs listed who are participating in the English, Italian, Spanish and French speaking worlds.
I founded this League for the reasons described in the announcements and to share with other the grace the Lord gave me the day Pope John Paul II was shot in the Piazza S. Petro years ago, to pray daily for the Holy Father.
Lastly, having had the care of my own mother in her last years of life (she passed away on Nov. 2, 2018, from cortical dementia, her name is Doris) I learned well that the elderly need proper nutrition. I recommend a diet which is rich in protein. In the Bavarian State TV documentary the images of the Holy Father seem to show that he has lost a lot of weight recently, and so I am worried for his health. Also, seeing that my maternal grandfather was a barber, I cannot omit to say that if the Holy Father needs the services of a barber, I am willing to make a donation to pay the barber’s salary.
Sincerely in Saint Francis,
In both letters, at the end, I included contact information. My email and phone number. Little did I think I would ever get a response to my second letter. But I did, and it came by telephone at 10:43 A.M. on the morning of Saturday, January 11, 2020.
Archbishop Gänswein drops me a call
Though I missed the call, the Archbishop was kind enough to leave a message on my voice mail. Since my report here at The From Rome Blog, which is hosted on a website in the USA, is nevertheless readable in the European Union, I cannot share with you the recording of the call, nor give you a transcription of its contents, because that is prevented by privacy laws. However, I can describe in my own words, what I understood by the message left, so that everyone, especially the Cardinals and Bishops, understand how wrong it is to trust in anyone who claims to represent Pope Benedict, and how they need now to go to him in person and ask the most important questions.
I was trained in music as a youth, and so I have a keen ear to musical tones. Everyone’s voice has its own tone, and whether they speak in public or in private, on the phone or before an audience, it is the same tone. For that reason I can say the voice is that of the Archbishop. The voice also identifies itself as such.
My Italian contacts tell me it is clearly the voice of a German, but one which has spoken Italian for quite some time. I think the voice is suffering a little of the influenza that is hitting everyone at Rome right now. So I urge all to pray for the Archbishop’s health of body and soul.
However, sadly, the first thing the voice does is to attempt to gaslight me.
Gaslighting is a trick of mental persuasion usually used by tyrants or manipulators or even pedophiles, whereby the one in the position of power dictates to the one who is a subject how they should view reality. It is usually accompanied by insults or deprecatives which make the person inclined to doubt their own grasp on reality. If the Archbishop knew anything about me, he would know that that trick only works with weak minds who are seeking affirmation from power, which is not me in the least. The comment made also tried to characterize the entirely of my letter in such a light, which is really hard to justify even if you think Benedict is still the pope, because my letter was about much more than that.
To me, the gaslighting was totally uncalled for, and even cruel. I remain shocked that the voice of an Archbishop would be so uncharitable.
The second thing the voice does is to denounce my work of investigating the Renunciation. It says I am wrong and mistaken. This is a remarkable comment, since anyone who viewed the URLs in my letters would know that I am very thorough and back up everything I say with facts. I do not interpret facts, I let them speak for themselves. It then demands that I stop my work investigating the Renunciation.
Since I fear God alone, I can assure you that such a demand will have the opposite effect.
The third thing the voice does, as far as I understand it, is to demand that I and everyone in the League stop praying for Pope Benedict. The voice demands that I pray for Pope Francis. It seems to deny that Benedict is a pope or the pope.
And what is most remarkable, is what is not said by the voice. The voice does not say that it is acting at the bequest of Pope Benedict.
The voice is clearly of a man who is acting out of terror, rashness, imprudence. You can hear the anger and terror. There is even one grammatical mistake in the Italian used. From the logs at my blog, I can safely say that the Archbishop looked at, at least, 5 posts before the phone call came in. He was surfing to my blog using a VPN masking itself as being in the EU not the Vatican. (This is a standard practice at the Vatican now, after the computer raids made by the Vatican Gendarmerie in September). There were no background noises. A slam down of a phone handle can be heard terminating the call.
I could say a thousand things about this phone call. But I will conclude by saying, that in my own judgement, it is a lot easier to answer 2 questions than to threaten someone over the phone. I won’t get into the fact that the voice used a burner phone to make the call, that is, a phone which leaves no trace as to which number was used to make the call. What on earth is an Archbishop doing with such a phone? Such things are used by drug dealers and mafiosi!
In the future, I recommend that if you want to write Pope Benedict, do not send your mail to the Archbishop. I myself now consider that Benedict is clearly imprisoned., and that the Archbishop should be considered a prison warden, more than a personal secretary. The purpose of the imprisonment is this: His captors do not want him to meet with the public or with Cardinals in private, where he is free to express himself, PRECISELY because they do not want him to be asked those 2 questions.
I know why. And I think you can guess too. Others, better than I, have already guessed it too:
And that means, that Benedict is still the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter, because the essential act required by canon 332 §2, is a renunciation of the petrine munus.
Please share this article with all Cardinals and Archbishops and Bishops. I think it presents sufficient evidence that they should be concerned about the integrity of information regarding what he did and what it meant, on Feb. 11, 2013.
I will conclude this report by sharing a Video of the Archbishop, June 14, 2017, in which he says clearly the opposite of what he said on the phone to me: I am here principally to share with everyone the greetings of Pope Benedict XVI. (0:17 in the video, in Italian)
POST SCRIPT: Journalists who are in Rome or who come in person to Rome are welcome to hear the recording of the phone call, in my presence. Just leave your contact information in a comment below. — I have transmitted a copy of the phone call to my private attorney in the USA, so in case anything happens to me, there is legal evidence of the fact.
* In this Article, I have used the English word, “question”, in the sense of a problem which is asked to be responded to, because, as you can see there are no question marks in my letters to the Archbishop.
THIS POST HAS BEEN PUBLISHED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN ITALIAN at ChiesaRomana.info:
That is just a clip.
Here is the full talk:
My take on all of this, is, that just as we are about to see the Schism of a mass of heretics and godless out of the Catholic Church, so we will see the conversion of 10s of millions of non Catholic Christians to the Catholic Church. This will be the fulfillment of the Immaculate Heart of Mary’s triumph.
Rome: January 14, 2020: While Catholics round the world stand in total shock at the apparent eclipse of the Catholic Church on account of the outrageous heresies, blasphemies and political shenanigans of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a word of great consolation was reported to The From Rome Blog, this Sunday:
Opposition to Bergoglio in the Roman Curia is at 100%. They want him out!
This comes from one of the top Vaticanistas of Rome who has served in the Eternal City for decades. He has deep and widespread network of informants through the Vatican and Curial Departments. He hears the same thing from all of them. No one wants the Argentine. They are counting the days!
+ + +
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
*This is NOT a Reuters Report, this is a Blog Post about a Report by Reuters Trust.org*
You know the truth is winning the informational war, when one of the biggest enemies of the truth, Reuters News International, admits the truth. Even they cannot ignore the fact. It is even more devastating for the enemies of the truth, when Reuters suggests to its news distribution network that they admit the existence of the truth!
You can read all about it at http://news.trust.org//item/20200113151451-8lfvo/
This is the pertinent quote, which Reuters suggests as a leader on their article by Pullela on the new book by Cardinal Sarah and Pope Benedict on Priestly Celibacy:
Some anti-Francis conservatives still see Benedict as their pope
The leading sites of the “Benedict is still the Pope Movement”, also known as the PPBXVI movement, because Benedict still signs as, Benedictus XVI P.P., are as follows:
ppbxvi.org – banner site for the Movement
barnhardt.biz – Joan of Arc of the Movement
ChiesaRomana.info — Official Site of the Movement at Rome
vericatholici.wordpress.org — International Association opposing Kasperite Heretics
Godsplanforlife.org — Producers of the multilingual Benedict is still the Pope Video
fromrome.wordpress.com — Investigations and news from Rome
nonvenipacem.com — Cogent analsysis and polemics
Written and researched by Francesco Joseph Dougan
14th of December 1542. King James V. of Scotland held his seven-day-old baby daughter Mary in his arms and with his last breath may have whispered to her?
‘My darling lassie, I’m so sorry to leave you in these dreadful times surrounded by devils. Now you will be queen, as I fear my life slipping away’.
With the death of James V. dawned an era that was about to change the world, and especially Scotland for the worst.
The Reformation and the doom and gloom of Protestantism that would plunge the country into the bloodiest period it had ever witnessed in its troubled history.
Never before or since had there been a more devious collection of contemptuous Vultures accumulated on the political stage of Scotland or England who created havoc and division, that would last for hundreds of years.
The number one culprit in the scenario was without a doubt John Knox, who betrayed everything starting with God, Queen, and Country and that was before he started to get serious.
Henry VIII and his illegitimate daughter Elizabeth I…. came in second and third though in all honesty it was a photo finish.
A whole posse of Scottish so called Nobles are included in the scenario, and if one can imagine the henchmen of Adolph Hitler’s Nazi party and the horrors that they committed prior to and during the second world war, then that will give one a pretty clear idea of the Scottish Nobility at the time.
The devil’s personal servant the illegitimate half brother of Queen Mary of Scotland, James Stuart, Prior of St. Andrews, later to become the Earl of Moray, who was a murderous lying cheat and protector of Knox.
The Earl of Bothwell, Morton, Ruthven, James and Andrew Melville, along with the sadistic child abuser George Buchanan ‘theologian’? to mention but a few all pursued demonic ideals and forced the Scottish Proletariat to follow them.
I will include the author J. Mackintosh who’s History of Scotland, circa 1891, is almost dedicated to the promotion of the devil’s own faith, Protestantism.
The Reign of James V had given hope to Scotland
When Europe was on the verge of the Reformation the Scottish king James IV had been killed in battle at Flodden in September 1513. October 1513 his son an infant was crowned James V at Scone in Perth and his mother was named as Regent, but this only lasted for one year due to her marriage with the Earl of Angus. Some of the of nobles wanted the Duke of Albany to be Regent, he was a son of Alexander Stuart a brother of King James III and after the infant king was next heir to the crown, he had been living in France and accepted the role and arrived in Scotland in May 1515.
The task of restoring order among the nobles was enormously difficult he was French in manner and custom and was at the disadvantage of being unacquainted with the habits of the Scots, although a very talented man he soon found the obstacles that the nobles put in front of him impossible to deal with and within a short space of time realised the hopelessness of his task.
He returned often to France to escape the constant turmoil and after a fluctuating sway of eight years his regency ended in 1524. The Earl of Angus who during the duke of Albany’s Regency had been up to some missdoings had been forced to flee from Scotland and with the concurrence of the Earl of Arran, Angus returned and started to push for power. He took on the mantle of chancellor and made his uncle treasurer. He became the guardian of the young king James V, though in reality he held James as a prisoner and they compelled the young king to sign everything which they presented to him, with the aid of some loyal nobles the young king escaped from the imprisonment imposed upon him and from that day in May 1528, until the end of his life James hunted and pursued Angus and his accomplices with relentless vigour and severity.
The Earl of Angus’s estates were forfeited and he fled to England under the protection of Henry VIII where he stayed until the plot with Henry, to return to Scotland and steal the baby queen Mary after the death of King James V.
Once James had found his freedom he started making drastic changes in the government. He appointed the archbishop of Glasgow as chancellor and leaned more towards the clergy to help him govern the country and the king pursued his policy of crushing the nobles. 1541 parliament passed an act confirming the revocation of all grants of land customs borough rents fishing and gifts, which the king had been compelled to sign while being held prisoner under the Earl of Angus.
Another act which enraged the nobles annexed to the crown the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland the act also took over Bothwell, Preston, Douglas, Tantallon, Crawford, Lindsay, Bonhill, Jedbourgh Forest, Glammis, Liddesdale, Evandale and the Earldom of Angus and everything that belonged to it. These acts were within the constitution but overbold, as the crown had not the power to enforce them the nobles were nervously apprehensive and they were sure to make a move against the king.
1542, Henry VIII demanded King James V to attend a conference at York, James failed to attend and Henry proclaimed war on Scotland. James mustered his army and marched to meet his enemy, now the opportunity arose for the nobles to destroy their king.
He was daring and fearless in leading his army but the traitorous Nobles turned back with their men and left the king defenceless, not unlike the scenarios that William Wallace and Bonnie Prince Charlie also endured, James had no alternative other than to turn back.
Shortly afterwards the king managed to raise a small force to be led by Oliver Sinclair as its commander he was a close friend of the king and James knew he couldn’t trust the nobles, as the army was approaching English ground the nobles started arguing with the commander, and a great deal of confusion arose as to who was to do this or that.
The English commander, Lord Dacre, observed this and while the Scots were arguing with each other three hundred English cavalry dashed into the Scottish ranks and slaughtered them. As these were his only loyal soldiers he knew he was finished it sapped all his strength and he died with his newborn baby Mary in his arms on l4th of December 1542.
The Reformation brought a distorted notion of society to Scotland
To understand this, one must go directly to the official word of the Protestant church referring to its power over the civil government.
‘This power and ecclesiastical polity is different and distinct from that which is called the civil power, and belongs to the civil government of the commonwealth; Although they are both of God and tend to the same end, if they be rightly used, namely, to advance the glory of God, and to have good subjects.
This ecclesiastical power flows immediately from God and the Mediator, Christ Jesus, and is spiritual, not having a temporal head on earth, but only Christ, the spiritual King and Governor of His Church.
Therefore this power and polity of the Church should lean upon the Word of God immediately, as the only ground thereof, and should be taken from the pure fountains of the Scriptures, hearing the voice of Christ, the only spiritual King, and being ruled by His laws….
The civil power should command the spiritual to exercise and perform their office according to the Word of God.
The spiritual rulers should require the Christian magistrates to administer justice and punish vice; and to maintain the liberty and peace of the Church within their bound….
The magistrate ought to assist, maintain, and fortify the jurisdiction of the Church.
The ministers ought to assist their princes in all things agreeable to the Word of God, provided they do not neglect their own charge by involving themselves in civil affairs.’
What I seem to understand from the mentioned constitution, is that it leans heavily towards the powers of the land and to protect the Church a Church that was imposed upon the Proletariat, and the absolute destruction of the Roman Catholic Church and as has been seen in later years the turmoil against the Episcopalian Church, and the split into 1000s of factions of the Protestant Churches.
The Scottish Protestants seemed to think that they were the only people capable of determining the way that God should be worshipped, contrary to the way that Jesus Christ wished.
Yet, St. Peter and the Apostles were ordained to carry the Word and the Message of Christ, and to ordain in His name and appoint successors on earth for them to continue spreading His Word. Lets face it for over 1500 years these appointed people carried out a pretty good method of going about what they did. Eleven very frighten men and some women in fear of death brought His Word all the nations of the world, not all accept it but all respect it.
Yet in Scotland in the mid sixteenth century all that was undone to the extent that even the very grass roots preacher, in the humblest of parishes had to be appointed or nominated by the Noble, or Earl, or Lord, actually by anyone as long as they were above the Proletariat and this system existed for hundreds of years, and the truth is that was what created the original grounds for the Reformation.
The people were conned and the Nobility took the spoils and riches of the Catholic Church and set up the system of a Bourgeoisie Church.
Perhaps the biggest thought provoker was the cancellation of the foundation of Christianity the feast and celebration of Christmas and Easter the very essence of the faith.
As a Catholic, my understanding of Jesus Christ is that he is the Son of God. But, I fail to find in the constitution of the Protestant Church this acknowledgment.
The term Mediator is used King and Governor is also used, these terms could refer to anyone and was this the reason for the abolishment of Easter the most important feast for all Christians, as the rising of Jesus Christ from the dead proved that he was The Son of God…
To be a follower of Jesus you have to accept and believe this if you don’t well try again ’cause if you want to He will come to you only if you want Him.
From the early days of the reformation in Scotland it was total chaos, as this was a business move for the Nobles and a handful of greedy power grabbing vain men, who preyed on the weakness of the poor serf classes who were easily aroused by their false hopes and promises that never materialized as we now look back from the twenty first century.
Over four hundred years have passed from the days of Knox and in reality it is only since the end of the Second World War though mostly from the 1960s onward, and the great labour movements have the Proletariat moved out of slums and into slightly better housing and education.
Prior to this period under the Protestant rule from London by the undemocratic government based there ruling the Scots through the House of Lords a government or parliament of the Bourgeoisie, lets face it the Protestant thing did not aid the Proletariat.
A state religion developed for the upper classes who reaped all the cream off the top and created a power for themselves, with the support of the Protestant Church’s leaders.
The Scots prior to the reformation enjoyed one of the most progressive free societies in the then known world. The political and religious freedom was centuries ahead of England and the cultural exchanges between our European neighbours were superb.
For hundreds of years the English had been constantly at war and had neglected the real issues in the quality of life of their peoples, and the Hierarchy constantly suppressed the Proletariat mostly for the purpose to fight wars for them as still exists today.
I am sure that the Scots and many decent English prior to the Reformation, wanted desperately to live in harmony and peace and the rulers of Scotland up to the death of James V. encouraged what was then a good deal of democracy, that was eyed by the English Bourgeoisie as a threat to its totalitarian state.
This is something that in the twentieth century one has witnessed throughout the world, brought directly into our homes by the technology that is available these days. The most prominent issue in the present day life of the Scottish population is the judicial system, how can a society be free and equal when the Courts of Law and the Judiciary are so strongly entwined with the Church of Scotland.
I have stated that the end of Protestantism is imminent, though I must emphasize that the dying beast has a sharp bite with strong jaws that cannot easily be prized open.
Until recently the Judges of the Court of Session the highest court in the land, have paraded themselves unashamedly in their ridiculous outdated robes and wigs, at St. Giles the Church stolen from Scottish Catholics in Edinburgh on Protestant appointed days.
I cannot see what these acts do to contribute to an equal and democratic society for everyone of any persuasion to enjoy, without the subliminal feeling of inadequacy.
These ‘special’ days are also attended by the Bourgeoisie from Scottish Universities and medical associations who all by their very presence at these events, are actually endorsing Protestant dominance over the Scottish Proletariat, and as we now live in a multifarious society this is an outrageous scandal and humiliation towards the whole of the image of the Scottish nation in the eyes of the civilized democratic world, to which part Scotland has yet to participate.
The more that I delve into the history of the Reformation and life after it brings a wry smile to my lips, and to come to the conclusion that one would have to be an out and out idiot to believe all the gush that has been stuffed down Protestant throats but what can one say when Protestant stalwarts such as Meikle, and not opposed by one of his contemporaries the so called ’eminent scholar’ Professor Gordon Donaldson that it is grand to be a bad Christian but great to be a good Protestant?
For many years Knox had been in league with known English collaborators, Cockburn of Ormiston, George Wishart, David and George Forrest, and many others had been planted by the English under Henry VIII, after Scotland had been invaded in 1544 and with the destruction of the Scottish religious institutions by the English allowed the Knox led traitors to lay down plans for the over throw of the Catholic people of Scotland, and eventually the Scottish government by bad Christians but Good Protestants.
The hard and true facts about Scotland as a nation she had enjoyed independence for over two hundred years until the ugly head of the reformation sold the soul of Scotland to the English, without a doubt due to the leadership of the John Knox’s Protestant Church from then until now, Scotland has ceased to be a nation in her own right.
Having lived in many European countries and Hong Kong over the past twenty years I am sad to say that so many Europeans think that Scotland is just an area in the north of England and that is the people with some understanding of geography others less knowledgeable though not less intelligent scratch their heads and look bemused, as to the exact location and purpose of claiming to be Scottish rather than British as in the eyes of the world the nation of Scotland the country is no more than an English colony with tens of 1000s of English troops based in Scotland in one guise or another even today!
Although I have had quite a few heated discussions with foreign nationals over the status of my country of birth I cannot other than agree that Scotland is nothing more than a satellite state of England.
So let me tell you the story of how Scotland fell…
The Hatred and Bitterness of Henry VIII
After Henry VIII’s apostasy from the Catholic Church, his bitterness and evilly-distorted hatred towards the Scottish people was brought to the fore, along with his detestation of anyone who opposed him. His hatred against the Scottish Cardinal Beaton, who was the chief opponent of his wicked policies, was pre-eminent.
Many of the Scots nobles also had plots to murder the Cardinal and Henry offered a reward to anyone who would kill him. Cardinal Beaton evaded his enemies during 1544, but all around him were major plotters notably, the Earl of Cassillis, the Earl of Glencairn. The Laird of Brunston, the Laird of Ormiston and the Laird of Calder and a Protestant preacher was implicated; all were traitorously deeply in league with Henry VIII. and were plotting the murder of Cardinal Beaton.
The Protestant preacher George Wishart had the support of the Earls and Lairds and Henry and during January 1546 he was preaching at Haddington against the Cardinal accompanied by John Knox he was apprehended by the Earl of Bothwell and was taken to Edinburgh and shortly afterword was conveyed to St. Andrews. He was tried and convicted of heresy and implicated in the plot to murder Cardinal Beaton the last bastion of Scottish freedom against Henry VIII and his fiendish ambitions to enslave the Scots.
Wishart was condemned to death and was executed on 11 march 1546 for his part in the invasion by English forces that had destroyed the major Scottish learning institutions and Abbeys.
Cardinal Beaton had endeavoured in every way possible to strengthen his position by discrediting the rogue nobles, constantly the vultures were hovering and late in May 1546 the Cardinal received word that Henry was preparing another invasion of Scotland and he put his castle on a defensive footing for the forthcoming English attack.
The Cardinal was in residence at his castle opposite the magnificent cathedral and centre of pilgrimage in St. Andrews the ancient capital of Scotland named after the brother of St. Peter the Apostle because the relics of the bones of St. Andrew first arrived at this place in Scotland.
Early on the morning of 29th. May 1546 Cardinal Beaton was brutally murdered.
Norman Lesley and James Melville along with a group of armed traitors told the gatekeeper that they had arranged an interview with Cardinal Beaton as he had no knowledge of this and noting they were all heavily armed the gatekeeper told them to wait until he reported to the Cardinal, the traitors immediately pounced on the helpless fellow and stabbed him to death in the name of Protestantism. Within a matter of minutes the gang were inside the castle grounds but the noise of the commotion aroused the defenders.
The Cardinal was woken and rose from his bed as he was coming downstairs from his bed chamber Lesley and Melville with the others in the dastardly party confronted him and ruthlessly murdered him Henry VIII had his wish come true. From that moment marked the last days of freedom for Scotland as an nation in her own right as the country was to be plunged into hundreds of years of Presbyterian doom and gloom.
29th of May 1546 was and still is a tragic day in the annuls of Scottish history! Cardinal Beaton was one of the last bastions of an independent Scottish nation in her own right, and with his murder Scotland was thrown into the hands of evil and treacherous devils.
Henry VIII unbeknown to him had less than a year of his life left perhaps for invoking the name of God the demon king of England was riddled by the venereal disease syphilis.
His bones were to rot and he would go blind and his brain would be totally deteriorated and paralysis would encompass his whole body, a dreadful agonising death confronted Henry as he pursued the destruction of the Scots and the holy faith; Scotland was thrown into a period of unmatched turmoil in her history.
The murderous conspirator’s ranks were soon swelled to over one hundred and fifty traitors within the castle at St. Andrew’s
The Earl of Arran who was the regent a limp wrist fellow tried for more that a year to oust the rogues.
During April 1547 John Knox joined the rebels he had been in hiding awaiting a safe time to return.
Knox had wanted to be a Catholic priest but he didn’t like the discipline and faith demanded by the Church of Rome, or for that matter the law and order of his own Scottish government as he was paid and supported by the English invaders waiting in their war ships laying off the coast at St.Andrew’s. He rejected his faith a faith that fed and educated him then his government and was in league with the enemy who had burned murdered and destroyed half of Scotland and her people for hundreds of years this is not unique in history that the common people can be duped and brainwashed into the desires of one man with lieutenants of a similar train of thought as can be seen from recent history.
The Scottish Parliament asked her French allies to come to their aid to get the English ships away from the ancient capital and to help recapture the castle, in the hope of keeping Scotland free from English domination. June 1547 French galleys attacked the English and destroyed them and recaptured the castle after a bloody battle. The traitors surrendered to the French commander and were deported to France John Knox was among those imprisoned and taken to France. Though on the intervention of the English government he would be set free two years later to continue his insatiable desire to crush the Catholics of Scotland.
Queen Mary drove Knox from Scotland
Although the monster Henry VIII had died in January 1547 and the French had helped to take back the castle at St. Andrew’s his evil policy was continued for the destruction of Scotland, and the search for the child Mary Queen of Scots. Lord Hertford now titled the Duke of Somerset was engaged of bringing the Scots to their knees with the great atrocities that the English were imposing on the nation. The Scots had no army to defend herself and what little defenders they had were slaughtered at Pinkie in the later part of 1541.
Emissaries were dispatched to France with the young queen Mary for her safekeeping.
The following year seven thousand French forces landed in Scotland and they mustard the Scots into some form of self belief to rise something of an army and the Scots together with their old trusted allies fought the English who still had control of many castles in Scotland, not without tremendous battles and struggles against the formidable fortifications the enemy had enveloped around her plundering murderous armies did the allies give the enemy a taste of there own medicine and drove the remnants of the invaders out of the country.
By 1550 at last Scotland had rid herself of the oppressors but an uneasy peace rained and the seeds of discontent had been sown and John Knox had been freed by the French as he was in the employ of the English where he was a Royal chaplain though he had never taken any vows to Edward VI. who was a boy and England was being run by the Duke of Northumberland who was acting as regent.
He had assumed this mantle from the discredited Duke of Somerset the butcher who ruthlessly tried to obliterate the Scots when he was the Earl of Hertford, he was to lose his head-on the chopping block in the turmoil of the English political mayhem.
During the next few years there was much to-ing and fro-ing over the reform movement in Scotland, and the child queen Mary of Scots was in the safekeeping of the French meanwhile in England another Mary the daughter of Henry VIII queen Mary 1 of England married Philip II of Spain in 1554 and restored the Roman Catholic Church into England.
On Mary’s accession to throne of England John Knox deserted his post as royal chaplain to the court of England and fled abroad again due to his popularity? In Scotland the young queen Mary’s mother Mary of Guise, the widow of King James V was exerting all her influence to take over as Regent, the Earl of Arran’s Regency was a flop and through the vacillating character of the government his estimation in the eyes of the nation was zero.
Arran resigned the regency of Scotland in April 1554 and the queen mother Mary of Guise took his place she was a woman of exceptional talents and had during her time in Scotland acquired a love and knowledge of the character and habits of her adopted nation. She ruled with remarkable moderation and showed herself to be tactful and considerate but she had many adverse influences and circumstances to contend with.
The nobles were never to be trusted and John Knox returned to Scotland in September 1555 and was defiantly preaching against his mother church the prior of St. Andrew’s who later became the Regent Moray the Earl of Argyle then Lord Lorne and others who had an eye on the church’s property were supporting Knox as he was an ideal patsy for them to manipulate or so they thought as he became the puppet master.
Knox was preaching zealously and venomously against the doctrines of the Catholic Church and he wanted to impose on the Scots the strict and drastic theocracy of John Calvin a Frenchman living in Geneva. His theology is centred on predestination under which the elect are predestined by God to salvation.
John Knox had betrayed his own church and country and sided with Henry VIII now he wanted his fellow Scots to believe his ways to be good, true and faithful. He had an intense hatred against the Scottish Catholic Church perhaps because he never rose above the position of a scribe.
The Catholic clergy were alarmed at the sermons Knox was preaching against the church and they realised the ulterior motives of the nobles, who were now openly supporting Knox. Many of the nobles had been in exile living under the wing of Henry VIII and had slunk back into Scotland after their protectors death during the weak regency of Arran.
Knox was summoned to appear before the court in Edinburgh on 15th of May 1556 but when Erskine and other nobles turned out with a massive force and demanded the citation to be withdrawn, instead of appearing before the court Knox preached to the gullible forces under the command of Erskine and the other rogue nobles.
Knox fled Scotland once again soon after this as other law-abiding nobles were searching for him and he escaped to Geneva, meanwhile as Scotland seemed to be slipping into a dark abyss the rest of the world was enjoying the discovery of new and colourful worlds.
Columbus had found the Americas by accident as he sailed to discover a new sea-route to the spice world of India spices were a vital part of life especially for keeping foodstuffs preserved. Pepper was the most valuable spice and accounted for seventy per cent of the requirements of Europe and the best of pepper was native to the sub continent of India, therefore whoever discovered a fast route to India could control the economic power of the spices. Great explorers emerged such as Columbus, Vasco de Gama, Vespucci and Magellan on tiny skips they sailed uncharted seas and brought back news of new discoveries of lands and peoples.
Instead of being a part of this new adventures the Scots economy and resources had been drained with over forty years of war with the English under Henry VIII.
(To be continued)
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Or, what Sherlock Holmes would say about the case of the Incongruous Renunciation
I have always been a fan of Sherlock Holmes, the fictional private detective in late Victorian England, created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, to popularize the new method of forensic investigation among the public police forces of his day.
As Sir Arthur writes in his Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes: “It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important”.
This maxim is actually something the great Scholastic Theologians of the Catholic Church would readily agree too, because they held that every individual effect is marked by its causes. Thus, every small detail about everything, says something about the causes of that detail. We have only to study the details to find the clues.
Here at the From Rome blog I have applied this method to the controversies over the vote rigging at the Conclave of 2013, which I have extensively examined. (You can see all the articles at The Chronology of Reports about “Team Bergoglio”), and to those about Benedict’s Renunciation (See the topical Index to Benedict’s Renunciation).
In this post, I want to share a lingering doubt I have about Benedict’s renunciation which I cannot shake, because it is seemingly confirmed by a host of details which have been overlooked by everyone, but which all point to the same conclusion, namely Benedict’s disgust with the College of Cardinals, not just as men, but as an institution.
As as translator of not a few Papal Bulls and Latin texts, when I examined the Latin of the Declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, the first thing which struck me was the the phrase ab his quibus competit. This phrase stuck me, because in Latin, which is a Language which is eminently laconic, it is a lot easier to write ab Cardinalibus electoribus. Why say, that the new supreme pontiff is to be elected by those who are competent to do so, and not by the Cardinal electors?
This question grows with a sense of significance, when you realize that Pope Benedict, according to the testimony of Archbishop Gänswein, wrote the text himself. And even more so, when you consider he wrote this text to be read out in the presence of the Cardinals themselves! In the refined halls of power, such a statement is much more than a faux paux, it is a positive insult and reproof. It is as if he is saying that the Cardinal Electors are not competent to elect a supreme pontiff. It is even more like saying, that his successor will not be elected by Cardinals at all!
This one small detail is something over which Sherlock Holmes would have had a panic attack of brain storming, because it is so incongruous of a statement to make in such a situation as a papal resignation, that it has to have causes which are not yet so obvious but which are crucial to understanding what happened and why it happened and what it all means.
I get a lot of guff and criticism for my speculations at this blog, mostly from those who do not appreciate the forensic method or the power of observation. As a trained anthropologist I understand why they do not understand and I understand why they are wrong in being oblivious to small facts. I know from the history of Archeology that entire theories of explanation of ancient, long lost cultures, were over turned by the finding of a single artifact, or a common artifact in a bizarre position or location. So I know professionally, that the methodology of Sherlock Holmes is not a fictional fantasy, but a real life powerful method of investigation and discovery.
If you find one anomaly, look for others
A single anomaly is hard to interpret, because as the Scholastics say, the individual which is the sole member of its species cannot be understood in itself. This means that when you find one anomaly, you need to look for more evidence and try to seek its causes. Other anomalies are the most important things to find, because then they establish a network of causes which can reveal the true meaning behind each anomaly. This is because it is harder to hide something in everything, than in a single thing.
The second anomaly which I noticed as translator of the Declaratio is that the Vatican had falsified all the vernacular translations. I reported this in the Article, The Vatican has known all along that Benedict’s Renunciation was invalid as written, and here is the proof. A brief summary translation of which, can be found in Italian at ChiesaRomana.info.
The obvious inference is that those who came into power after Benedict’s renunciation were trying to hide the evidence. But the less obvious inference is that Benedict wrote a renunciation which was obviously invalid and they were trying to hide the obviousness of it. And from that we can safely infer that there was a conflict between Benedict and whom he knew or suspected would come into power after his resignation. This final inference supports an understanding of the first anomaly, that Benedict was calling the Cardinal electors incompetent to elect a supreme pontiff.
This leads to an understanding which like a key can be used to decode the Declaratio. Now it is clear why Benedict calls himself the Successor of Saint Peter, but calls the one to be elected the new Supreme Pontiff. “Supreme” smacks of dictatorship and thus points to a Peronist. We can be certain that Benedict knew that Bergoglio was going to be elected because Bergoglio was the leading candidate in the previous conclave, and because Benedict was elected in opposition to Bergoglio. That opposition having crumbled in the College of Cardinals, it was obvious who would prevail. Benedict also as Pope had the resources of the Vatican spy network so he probably always knew what Bergoglio was up to prior to the conclave to suborn others and expand his power networks. The recent history of the European Bishops’ Conference, written by the the Bishop of St Gallen, shows that Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger knew well of the existence of the St Gallen Group even before 1992. So we can be sure that Ratzinger maintained a dossier on them and kept his eye on them. We know now, that as Pope, most of his Pontificate was in preaching against the very errors, heresies and deviations which Bergoglio is now promoting. We know this by comparing what he was teaching with what Bergoglio is teaching, and it is a direct contradiction of it.
From all this, then, we can say decisively and with great certitude that the Declaratio was written to oppose the St Gallen Mafia and to lay down a maneuver against them. It was not a surrender, but it was made to look like a surrender. I explained my theory about this in the Article entitled, How Benedict has defeated “Francis”.
And because this was its primary motivation, for it to be successful Benedict had to decide from the beginning to be extremely discrete and divulge his intention with no one, not even Gänswein. I have long thought that this inference was improbable, but I recently obtained proof that Pope Benedict does not tell his private secretary everything, in the video prepared by Bavarian State TV, entitled, Ein Besuch bei Papst Benedikt XVI. em. Klein Bayern im Vatikan, which aired on January 3 in Germany. For in that video, Benedict reveals that there are things in his office of which he never told the Archbishop. And the Archbishop expresses both surprise and dismay.
The Crown of all Anomalies
It was only, however, when I took it upon myself to examine the Latin text with the eye of a Latin teacher correcting the homework of a student, that I found the crown of all anomalies. Yes, I found more than 40 grammatical, syntactical and stylistic errors. So many that it seemed to me impossible a pope could write such a thing. Either he was handed it to be signed, or he wrote it in haste, or he intentionally made it sloppy Latin to conceal something from obvious view. For, if you have ever watched British TV, and were a fan of Doctor Who, then you know, that the best place to hide a key is on a wall designed to hang dozens of keys, for there you can not only hide it in plain view, but hide it in such a way that it cannot be found or stolen.
And thus I was led to infer that Benedict was hiding something in the text, something more than just an invalid resignation of ministerium instead of munus. So I re-read the text and looked for anomalies, and now I wish to speak openly of what I found, of which I did not speak openly before in my Articles entitled, Clamorous Errors in the Latin Text of the Renunciation and A Nonsensical Act: What the Latin of the Renunciation really says.
And Benedict hid this anomaly right up front, in the place you would least expect to hide anything. I refer to the very first sentence of the Declaratio:
Non solum propter tres canonizationes ad hoc Consistorium vos convocavi, sed etiam ut vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita communicem.
As I said before, I have always thought it significant that Pope Benedict was promoting the study of Saint Bonaventure’s Scholastic Theology more and more during the later years of his Pontificate. That Doctor of the Church is an expert on the interpretation of textual statements. But that Doctor of the Church has his own way of using Latin. So being the translator of his Commentarii in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum, I just happened to have a great familiarity with the Latin of Bonaventure. And that made me see something of which I think no other has taken notice.
It is the word decisionem.
Latinists were focusing on the word immediately prior to this, vobis, because the Latin verb communicem takes an object with the preposition cum and thus requires vobiscum not vobis.
They then proceeded to simply fault Benedict for his poor choice of words, in writing decisionem instead of consilium. And in my critique I reported their opinions of this matter.
But what I did not report is my shock at the seeing the word decisionem, because in the writings of Bonaventure this word always means a “cutting off”, and has the sense of an amputation or pruning, as is done to a vine. Recall that in Scripture, Our Lord Himself says that He has to occasionally prune His people to take away dead branches and promote regrowth and fruitfulness. If you know anything about Joseph Ratzinger, then you know that as a theologian he likes to weave discourses around the meanings of Biblical images and words. Thus, one is led to the conclusion that he chose decisionem for reasons more significant than apparent.
If you combine that meaning with vobis and ignore the presumption that the latter was intended as vobiscum, the entire meaning of the sentence changes to something so radically unexpected, that only one having unraveled the chain of inferences and made a study of the anomalies in the text could possibly be prepared to accept that Benedict might indeed have meant that which the Latin actually says. Which is as follows:
Not only for the sake of three acts of canonizations, have I called you to this Consistory, but also for the sake of the life of the Church to communicate something of great importance: your being cut off.
As I just said, this reading seems incredible, but it explains all the anomalies which I have heretofore found in the text and in the history of the Renunciation. The purpose of the Declaratio was NOT to renounce the papal office, it was to Uproot the College of Cardinals as an institution from the Church, so as to save the Catholic Church from the complete Masonic infiltration of that institution.
We know now, seven years on, that the College of Cardinals has shown perfect compliance with the Freemasonic regime of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and even its most conservative Cardinals have pledged unswerving loyalty to that regime. We also know that it has been a century long project of Freemasonry to infiltrate the College so as to take over the Catholic Church from the top down. We also know that Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI were well informed by Saints and private revelations of the coming battle with the Anti-Church and False Prophet. Finally, we know that both collaborated decisively to renew the canonical penalties of excommunication against Freemasons in the Church (Declaration on Masonic Associations, Nov. 26 1983.) in forma specifica, that is, in the most solemn and authoritative manner of an express Papal approbation of a notice given the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
It makes sense, then, if you know a key fort containing the greatest treasure of your kingdom is going to fall to the enemy, because of a complete treachery and rebellion of the military commanders holding it for you, the wisest council is to allow it to fall, without advising those commanders, while secretly removing the treasure, so that they are deceived in thinking they have triumphed and so that your removal of the treasure can be conducted in safety and during the confusion of their gleeful and exuberant seizing of the fort.
And this is what it seems Benedict did and intended to do. It also explains why Benedict acts the way he does and refuses to clarify his situation. Why he does not even take the Archbishop into his confidence. It also explains a lot of other things, which did not seem entirely anomalous before. For example, in his final year of pontificate, he made both Muller and Ganswein Archbishops, but not Cardinals, as if for his closest of friends he somehow did not want them to be members of that College.
If all these observations and inferences are correct, then one can with great probity conclude that it is the intention of Pope Benedict that after his earthly demise, that the Church of Rome, and not the College of Cardinals, who are held fast in a solidarity of dissent with Bergoglio, elect his successor: a thing about which I speculated about in my Article, Whether with all the Cardinal electors defecting, the Roman Church has the right to elect the Pope? And a thing of which even Pope John Paul II alludes in a most cryptic manner in the papal law on conclaves in his introduction, where he says, that it is a well established fact that a conclave of Cardinals is not necessary for a valid election of a Roman Pontiff (Universi Dominici Gregis, Introduction, paragraph 9).
Indeed, a study of the history of papal renunciations and the canons of the Church shows, that it was Pope John Paul II, in 1983, who by adding munus as the canonically required object of the verb “renounce” in canon 332 §2, actually created the canonical possibility of an invalid renunciation in the case of a pope who renounced something other than the petrine munus! A very small alteration, but one which not only prevented the office from being shared, according to the loony and heretical speculations of German theologians, but allowed a Roman Pontiff to give the appearance of a valid resignation, so as to deceive the forces of Freemasonry in the Church.
Now all this seems absurdly immoral, but in truth it is neither illegal nor illicit. For since the man who is the pope has the canonical right to renounce the petrine munus, it follows ex maiore that he has the moral right to renounce anything less than the munus. In cases of grave threat, he also has the moral right to dissimulate. Thus by renouncing the ministerium, not the munus, Pope Benedict posited an act which power hungry men without respect for the law or for the truth or for the person of the pope, would overlook during their rush to convene an invalid conclave. And thus their own fault and sin and haste would result in their canonical separation from the Church through an act of schism and usurpation. Yet, by renouncing the ministerium and not the munus, as required by Canon Law, Pope Benedict left sufficient evidence for all the Catholic faithful in the world to discover the truth, a thing of which he was confident they could do, because the quasi soul of the true Church is the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Inspirer of all truth, Who guides His faithful always to and in the truth.
In this way, both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have acted with great foresight and angelic prudence over the last 4 decades to enable that the Office of Saint Peter pass, not through the hands of men who have betrayed Christ en masse, but through the hands of the faithful of the Church of Rome, who precisely on account of their fidelity to the Roman Pontiff according to the norm of law, recognize what he has done and why he has done it.
+ + +
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
On March 13, 2013 a Schism was consummated in the Church by the College of Cardinals, who dared to convene a Conclave during the life of a Pope who had not resigned in accord with Canon 332 §2. Nearly everyone was drawn into this schism due to the rash and false announcement put out by Father Lombardi on Feb. 11, 2013, when he gave Giovanna Chirri the via libera to publish a tweet at 11:58 AM that morning, just minutes after the end of the Consistory for the Martyrs of Otranto, claiming that Benedict had resigned and would give up the Pontificate on February 28.
During the last 7 years, the Holy Spirit has been stirring up Catholics to re-examine the Renunciation and realize in accord with the right granted them in canon 41 that the Renunciation was never valid, because it never named the thing a Pope must renounce to renounce the Papacy: the petrine munus.
For Catholics loyal to Christ, our duty now is to convince the Cardinals and Bishops to stop adhering to this Schism. Bergoglio never was the Successor of Saint Peter and is not the Pope: Benedict XVI is.
However, I am willing to admit that the Cardinals might not have the intellectual capacity or the moral ability to recognize the truth of what they did (schism and usurpation) and of what the Renunciation really meant: nothing at all but the uncanonical expression of an old man who was tired of governing those who did not obey him.
So I am willing to propose a solution for the Church, which does not require the Cardinals to have any virtue other than pragmatic prudence. And in this post, I will discuss that which regards the possibility that Bergoglio leaves office before Benedict.*
The solution would be, that after the resignation of Bergoglio (may God hasten the day!) or after the death of Bergoglio (may he repent before it comes upon him), the Cardinals decide to re-elect Pope Benedict as the pope.
In this way they return to loyalty to the Pope without having to admit their error or sin. In this way they get a superior who probably wont ever correct them in anything, being so old and weak.
While one can argue that the Cardinals cannot validly or legitimately elect anyone during the life time of Pope Benedict, nevertheless, such a post-Bergoglian faux Conclave would serve as a cover for their return to communion with him.
So materially it would be a papal conclave and election, but formally it would me an act of re-submission to the Roman Pontiff. And Benedict does not even have to agree or be informed, because he is already pope and has already accepted his canonical election in 2005!
So I say this publicly now, so that if the occasion presents itself, Catholic bloggers and Clergy might take swift action to persuade the better Cardinals to propose this path of action in the future. I myself will make it a point to discuss it with every Cardinal I get the chance to speak with, and I encourage all to write every Cardinal and suggest it.
Because, we must keep ever in mind, that what matters most of all is the salvation of souls. And this objective requires that first the College of Cardinals and the College of Bishops and the Clergy return to communion with Pope Benedict XVI, the true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth.
After that, the Church can get to business condemning the individual heresies of Cardinal Bergoglio.
For many, however, this controversy has caused them to forget how necessary submission to the true Roman Pontiff is for society and their own personal salvation, so I will reprint here in full the English translation** of the Bull of Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, which is a must read for all Catholics right now in the Church.
Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in Her firmly and We confess with simplicity that outside of Her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,‘ and She represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In Her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and We read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.
We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep‘ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’ We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords‘ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard‘ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.
However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: ‘There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God‘ [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.
For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as Our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: ‘Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms‘ and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man‘ [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven‘ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by Us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, We declare, We proclaim, We define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
* In my post tomorrow, I will discuss the opposite case, and what the solution there might be.
** Source, with a few corrections, regarding honorific capitalizations, added by myself here on the pronouns referring to the Roman Pontiff and to Holy Mother Church.
Dear Catholics in every nation on earth,
Which do NOT speak
Brian Murphy, who is producing the Videos, Benedict is still the Pope, is looking for translators who can translate the English original text of the video into all other languages on Earth, which are spoken by Catholics.
In particular, he is looking for translators for
If you can help, please leave your contact information in the comments below, and it will be shared only with Brian Murphy, it will not be published.
Thank you, for all that you are doing for the cause of Pope Benedict!
Here is a link to all the Videos by Brian Murphy
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The devout and humble desire of a Catholic blogger to wish Pope Benedict “Merry Christmas” has resulted in another significant proof that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope and that the Prefect of the Pontifical Household recognizes him as the pope.
You can see the evidence yourself at A.J. Baalman’s, Christmas Wishes from Pope Benedict XVI, over at Ordo Militaris Radio Blog.
The blogger sent his Christmas Wishes at the beginning of Advent, and received a reply via the Apostolic Nuncio in Washington, D.C., USA, yesterday in an envelope mailed on January 2, containing the official stationary of Archbishop Gänswein in the form of a two-sided Christmas Card with the foto of a Christmas Creche on one side and these words in Italian on the other:
Un buon Natale e un buon Anno Nuovo 2020 ricco di benedizioni celesti. Georg Ganswein Segretario Particolare di Sua Santita Benedetto XVI, Papa emerito
Which in English is:
Whising you a good Christmas and a good New Year of 2020, rich in heavenly blessings.
George Gänswein, Special Secretary to His Holiness Benedict XVI, Pope emeritus
As anyone knows who writes to the Roman Curia or the Holy Father, a response, if received at all, is sent through official channels, by diplomatic courier to the Apostolic Nuncio in their own country, and then by regular mail to their address. This is the practice outside of Italy, at least, in the USA.
Private individuals do not receive mail through the Apostolic Nuncio. For example, I have on occasion written both Cardinals Sarah and Burke. Their response was NOT mailed to me via the Apostolic Nuncio, since it was private correspondence and not in virtue of their office in the Curia.
To receive a Christmas Greeting in response to one sent to Pope Benedict through the Apostolic Nuncio means that the Vatican has recognized that Benedict is still a member of the Roman Curia in the very least. I have it from the receiver that he did NOT write to Archbishop Gänswein, but to Pope Benedict, as pope.
The words of Archbishop Gänswein are also proof of the failed resignation. Because after a Roman Pontiff resigns, He can no longer be addressed as “Your Holiness”, because that title indicates that the person addressed is still the Pope, the holiness of which is derived from retaining the PETRINE MUNUS, which is first of all a gift of grace and then a vocation and special source of graces.
Why is this important? Because in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which governs the Roman Church, the papal office is termed a munus in Canons 331, 332 §2, 333 and 749. And in Canon 145 §1, the Code calls an ecclesiastical office a munus. Thus if Benedict is still “His Holiness”, and that unique holiness comes from the unique munus, that means the Benedict still holds the unique office of the Pope. And thus, no one else does, according to the divine institution of the papacy, which no one, not even a pope, can alter.
The statement of the Archbishop also shows the invalidity of the resignation on account of the confusion of substantial error, in that, despite addressing Benedict with the salutation “His Holiness”, the Archbishop nevertheless calls him “Pope emeritus”, which no “Holiness” can be.
Finally, one can safely presume that the Christmas Card received by the American correspondent was not printed up solely for him, but was produced in quantity. This means that Gänswein is sending the same message to all who wrote Pope Benedict. It is nothing short of a universal declaration. The fact that the Apostolic Nuncio is mailing such Christmas Cards out, means that the Nuncio also recognizes Benedict has holding the Petrine Munus, the Papal dignity, still.
There is no other Traditional Catholic explanation of these events. You can only explain it away by jettisoning the meaning of words Catholics have used for centuries. But that would be Modernism to even contemplate!
POST SCRIPT: If any other of the readers of the From Rome blog have written to Pope Benedict and received a reply, please let me know, if you would like to share what you received in reply. This will help the entire Catholic world understand better how the Pope is doing.
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
I have previously written an extensive description of how the horrible sin of pride is the hallmark of wicked men in the Church since the time of Vatican II, in my article on The Downfall of Luciferian Pride.
Today, I want to focus on one of the outstanding characteristics of the unfaithful who are members of the Church of the Antichrist, though they may not realize it or admit it. I want to do this because it is very easy to fall into the camp of Lucifer without realizing it, because, as I said in the previous article, the vice and sins of pride, being the most evil, are the hardest to discern and recognize, because they are full of the deprivation of the being that should be in an act of virtue. And that makes them spiritually invisible, except to the very humble who desire to glory solely in the Divine Majesty of God.
Ann Barnhardt’s Righteous Indignation
I am continually impressed by the righteous indignation of many devout Catholics on social media. Righteous indignation is the sense of disgust and anger which rises in the heart of someone who loves God and puts God first, and this kind of indignation is expressed solely because the rights of God are being transgressed.
As you may know, in recent years, months and weeks certain clergy, religious and laymen, who insist Bergoglio is the pope, because they refuse to doubt for a moment that Cardinals and Bishops are infallible, have begun to fault Our Lord Jesus Christ, in His promises to Peter, the teaching of Vatican I on Papal Authority and Infallibility, and the credulity of the Saints in regard to the Roman Pontiff’s authority and magisterium.
A recent example is the declaration of the Hermits of Westray, Scotland. Who know well what the arguments for Benedict still being the pope are, but refuse to harken to them, because they prefer to deny the indefectibility of the Catholic Church or the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff which they cannot reconcile with their more cherished “belief” that Bergoglio is the Pope.
One of the more shocking and sustained attacks came recently from Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, in his blog post entitled, How Francis may be vindicating the “inopportunists” of the First Vatican Council, published by Lifesite News, run by the Campaign for Life Coalition, a political organization out of Toronto, Canada, whose editor is a Mr. John-Henry Westen, co-founder of Lifesite and of the Voice of the Family Coalition, one of the leading “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” politicians-journalists.
Ann Barnhardt rightly unloaded a cartload of righteous indignation on Dr. Kwasniewski’s attempt to undermine the infallible teaching of Vatican I, in her recent post, entitled, Hey! Here’s a wacky idea. Instead of assuming that God is incompetent and Vatican I and the declaration of the infallible dogma of Papal Infallibility was all a big mistake…
I will quote the key passage, which I want to focus on, as a preamble to a discussion of the Marks of the Beast. Ann Barnhardt, addressing the problem many Catholics are having, from Cardinal Burke down to the last man in the pew, to understand how a man like Bergoglio could be the pope, says decisively:
Maybe if people would attack this controversy from the base assumption that GOD ALMIGHTY is THE PERFECT ONE as manifested in His Spotless and Indefectible Bride the Church, in His Angels, and in His Saints, and that THEY THEMSELVES are deeply fallible and so very capable of error, INSTEAD OF THE EXACT OPPOSITE, there might be a bit more clarity of thought round about.
(Bold Face in the original)
What Ann Barnhardt is addressing is PRIDE. And a particularly diabolic kind of pride, which holds that the unholy fallible trinity of “I, me, and myself,” knows better than the Holy Infallible Trinity of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
No use talking about modern errors, if you embrace them without so much as a wink of the eye
What is so ironic about her observation is that it is valid against a good number of popular writers and speakers and YouTube personalities, who either ascribe to or have been leading members of the so-called “Traditional Movement” in the Catholic Church since the time of the Second Vatican Council. A group which has made it a point and raison d’entre to fault the errors of modernity.
These errors consist in Modernism, Neo-Modernism, Relativism, Individualism, Secularism, Humanism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Hedonism… Have I left any out? Probably.
However, when it comes to the controversy of how a man like Bergoglio can be thought to be the Vicar of Christ and act more heretical than any lay leader of one of the main line Protestant “churches”, then their opposition to certain modern errors is cast to the wind and instead some of these errors are readily embraced.
First of which is Modernism, which holds that that which validates religious belief is interior religious sentiments, not objective revelation. For the Modernist, Papal Infallibility is not a gift from God, but the habit of mind of believers to take whatever a Pope says or does and regard it as a religious doctrine. For that reason, there is nothing wrong in criticizing Catholics throughout history who had this sentiment.
Second of which is Neo-Modernism, which holds that there is no unchanging eternal truth revealed by God, but that religious truth consists in conformity of the mind to modern life. Neo-Modernists think that the Church is dead unless She is in the process of continual aggiornamento, that clergy are not properly formed unless they are undertaking continuous formation, etc. etc. For them no event can be condemned by religious doctrine because events themselves are the goal posts of truth and the sacred. They worship history, but not as something that once was, but which is always changing. Hence, papal infallibility must also now be reconsidered and redefined in light of Bergoglio’s way of acting.
The Third of which is Relativism, which holds that there are no absolute moral truths implicit in human nature or in an eternal unchanging law. Truth is found in the right relation of things and actions in the here and now. And right, here, means what is suitable to me. Relativism in turn gives birth or opens the door to Hedonism and Individualism, the definitions of which are well known. Hence, what papal infallibility should mean today is not limited to what it meant before. And what I think it should mean is more important than what any Saint, Doctor of the Church, or previous Pope said it meant, because what is most important is that I have a pleasant experience of Catholicism.
Bergoglio is certainly the Pope, because …
Many Catholics unwittingly have adopted the errors which I just mentioned in a very imprudent attempt to rationally explain why they hold the position that Bergoglio is certainly the pope.
None actually confront the historical facts, which are as follows:
- Pope Benedict, as the man who is the pope, renounced the ministerium in his declaration of Feb. 11, 2013.
- Canon 332 §2 says a Roman Pontiff renounces when he renounces the munus.
- Canon 17 says that Canon 332 § must be read in accord with the Code of Canon Law’s usage of terms, canonical tradition, and the mind of its legislator, Pope John Paul II.
- Benedict behavior after Feb. 28, 2013, shows that he retains the papal dignity in all respects.
- The idea that Benedict’s renunciation of ministerium means a renunciation of the papacy comes from a tweet by Giovanna Chirri, an ANSA reporter, minutes following the Consistory of Feb. 11, 2013.
- No meeting of canonists was called to examine the act of the Renunciation to determine if it was valid or not.
- The Vatican has never officially claimed that the renunciation was valid.
- The Cardinals have never claimed that they did anything to verify that the See was Vacant before meeting in the Conclave of 2013 to elect Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
- Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a public manifest and pertinacious heretic, idolater and fomenter of schisms, who by divine right cannot be a member of the Catholic Church, let alone hold any office in Her.
- The Church has NEVER taught that the Cardinals or Bishops or even all the clergy are infallible in matters of canonical interpretations or knowledge of historical facts.
Instead, these “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” Catholics take another route. They hold that the solidarity of opinion of the vast majority, who say Bergoglio is the pope, is more authoritative than:
- God who is infallible by nature.
- Christ Jesus who created the office of Saint Peter and promised it infallibility.
- Christ Jesus’ Prayer for the person of the Pope that his faith may NEVER fail.
- The First Vatican Council in its decree, Pastor Aeternus.
- The Code of Canon Law of 1983 promulgated by the Vicar of Jesus Christ, Pope John Paul II.
- The words of Pope Benedict himself during and after the Renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013.
Solidarity in Dissent, is a Mark of the Diabolic
The essence of pride, the vice, is dissent. This is because pride as the worst of all vices is directed more principally against the truth and against knowing the truth, than all other vices. Pride is a spiritual vice and since the intellect is the most spiritual of all the powers of the soul, pride takes root first of all in it.
We can see this in Scripture, where, from the name of Saint Michael, who according to Saint John the Apostle, in his Book of the Apocalypse, was the first Holy Angel to act out of holy indignation and take up arms to fight against Lucifer and his angels, that the sin of Lucifer was pride. For Saint Michael’s name means, Who is like unto God? A name, which, according to the Fathers of the Church, he merited for repelling the evil suggestions of Lucifer who suborned and seduced a third of the Angels of God with a sin of pride. Lucifer then was probably saying something like, Worship me, because I am like unto God!
But this is also the sin of all prideful men. When you by any act of mind or will or body or soul do something which presupposes any affirmation that you have the merit, right, worthiness, power, protection, etc.. that only God has by Nature, then you are committing a sin of pride. This is so, because you are acting as if you were like unto God in such a way as to fail to distinguish that you are much more unlike God than like Him, and that you fail in being like Him in 3 principle characteristics: You are not omniscent, You are not omnipotent, You are not infallible.
Omniscent means all knowing. Omnipotent means able to do all things by your own power or ability. Infallible means able not to err. I could add impeccable, which means unable to sin, but since a proud man is already entirely oblivious to his ability to sin, I will omit that here.
It follows, then, that since Lucifer seduced the Angels of God by pride, and that those who fell with him and were cast out of Heaven by the Divine Power and Saint Michael and his Angels, that one of the marks of the diabolic community is their solidarity in pride. And that means solidarity in the misuse of their intellects in dissenting from the truth.
Dissent, which merely means disagreement, can be good or evil. But when it disagrees with objective reality or revealed truth or even a truth which we know is true on account of other truths, natural or revealed, then it is evil, a mortal sin. This is the dissent of which I speak in this article.
Our Lord points this out for our observation, when He calls Lucifer a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Because a liar attacks a truth because he disagrees with it. And a murders kills a living thing, because he disagrees that it should be allowed to live.
Solidarity in Dissent is, therefore, the Mark of the Beast
Solidarity in dissent, therefore, must be the chief mark of the Beast, that is, the chief distinguishing characteristic of all the members of the Church of the Anti-Christ, the Mystical Body of Satan.
Saint John the Apostle indicates this symbolically in his Apocalypse, when he says that in the days of the Antichrist no one will be able to buy or sell anything without having the mark of the beast inscribed upon their right hand. According to the Fathers of the Church this is a symbolic expression, chiefly, for the conspiracy of the wicked in acting on principle out of falsehood. The biblical number, often translated as 666 is actually in the Greek text written very similar to sss, three Snake like symbols which were used in Asia Minor, in the time of Saint John, as the symbol for the number 6, which in the bible indicates the fullness of imperfection. And since pride is the fullness of all vice, and vice is the moral habitual failing which leads to imperfection and wickedness, 666 is a pre-eminent symbol for pride and dissent.
Whether the number 666 means more than this, is another consideration. I am here giving a mystagogic reading of the text, that is, a reading which applies to the moral or spiritual life and how we should or should not be living our lives today.
But the “Bergoglio is certainly the Pope” people are doing just this. They are acting out of a spirit of solidarity in dissent from the 10 truths which I listed above. They ignore all arguments, refuse all reflections and reasons, even conversations, which would lead them to confront the fact of what they are doing. They have willfully blinded themselves to the truth and they show absolutely no worry whatsoever of what might or will befall them for denying and dissenting from truth. They do this because they do not want to separate themselves from the massa (damnata)* who define themselves as dissenters from these truths. They do not want to disagree with the Cardinals and Bishops who reject these truths or close their eyes to them. They are literally willing to risk their eternal salvation on the basis of this solidarity in dissent.
And it is true dissent, because they do not even attempt to give reasons for what they are doing. They only lash out with insults or vicious punishments, calumnies etc..
These catholics are profoundly confused. The unanimous or near unanimous opinion of men might be truth in the political order, but it is not the criterion of truth in matters of canon law. That many of these Catholics are very political people might indeed explain why they cannot understand that in the Church democracy or politics means nothing. Truth means everything.
Indeed, it is the teaching of Christ, Scripture, the Apostles, the Fathers of the Church, the Doctors of the Church, the Saints and the Magisterium throughout the ages, that to deny even one truth is a mortal sin meriting eternal damnation. But a godless politician will never accept or understand this.
This is why solidarity in dissent is the preeminent spiritual mark of the beast. If you have this mark, then you are a member of the Church of the Anti-Christ, no matter what religion you practice, what mass you attend, what Cardinal you follow, or what you otherwise might think of yourself, as holy or impious.
Solidarity in dissent can last a long time. It is what destroyed and is destroying the Protestant Churches, who agreed in the Reformation to deny certain Catholic truths, and in that tradition, from which they refuse to break, they ran into the necessity of denying other truths. — This follows the spiritual law of moral degradation, namely, that if you deny one moral truth with unbending firmness and fidelity, then you will be forced to sacrifice your adhesion to other moral truths, until you become utterly depraved and ultimately are driven insane. This is why among men, insanity is a hallmark of the diabolic. — And this is why Protestant Churches, or any group which practices solidarity in dissent, such as those who deny the 10 truths above, cannot be saved: they are doomed by that solidarity to fall into continually worse and more diverse errors and vices.
So I warn all: solidarity in dissent is a mark of the Beast and so long as you are marked with that mark, you belong to that Beast.
* “Massa damanata” is a Latin phrase used by Saint Augustine of Hippo to name the collectivity of all the damned souls. Massa in Latin means mass, damnata, means damned.
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
There is always a background story to every news report, and it has to do with the personal background of the reporter. This post is to encourage you to do a background check on the news sources your read, before believing what they say and following them in what they won’t say. I will not mention names, to protect the reputations of those involved, but I will cite real examples.
I have published this post, using what I have learned as President of Ordo Militaris Inc., a private security and defense corporation, in the fulfillment of which duties I had to work with several private eyes to do background checks on potential recruits. Security of information is also important to the defense of Christendom, and so I think what I say here needs to be said, for the defense of the Church.
There are 4 leading Catholic personalities who are insisting Bergoglio is the pope and refusing to publish any information from Church Documents which might put that in doubt. Why they are doing this seems a mystery, because before Feb. 11, 2013 they were extremely rational Catholics and all known for their fidelity to the Faith.
So maybe their personal story explains their present practice of non-think? Non-think is the practice of not allowing yourself to think about certain questions or problems, so that by avoiding the truth, you can present yourself as a member of the ruling clique to which you want to belong. Non-think only happens when the ruling clique is not interested in truth.
There are 4 such famous personalities in the Church right now, and if I named them you would know who they are or at least recognize their news sites on the web. But I will describe them in another way, and let you ask the question: Does their personal history have anything to do with why they may want to practice non-think and teach others to do the same?
The professional did not begin as someone known for reporting reliably about the Church. The professional began as a private secretary to a leading political figure in the country from which the Professional comes. This leading political figure was a notorious socialist, and was so left wing that he only left the leading left-wing party of his country, when that party endorsed abortion. The Professional continues to praise this mentor and employer and thinks that he is a fine Catholic, even though he has never disavowed radical socialism and social engineering.
With such a highly credentialed background, you might see why the Professional is recognized by everyone as a leading authority on what happens at Rome. But given the background of the Professional, you might understand better why anything reported on by the Professional might have nothing to do with exposing why Bergoglio never was the pope, because that truth would put an end to the Marxist revolution in the Church. I won’t mention that the Professional is not from a family native to the land in which the Professional was born, but is from a town in France famous for its Synagogues and Money Lenders, a thing which the surname of the Professional indicates if you do some research, because I think that such an observation is not germane to the discussion.
The Shining Light
The Shining Light is someone whom is highly trusted to report just what some in the Roman Curia want reported and to not publish writings which show that the Roman Curia can make mistakes. The Shining Light had very good intellectual formation in an institute praised by one of the leading members of Team Bergoglio, the St. Gallen Mafia. The Shining Light is very conscious of this, so that anything the Shining Light reports does not make the institution where the Shining Light studied look bad.
The New Agent on the Block
The New Agent on the Block has made a reputation as a leading authority on all things Catholic, or should I say, on all things which YOU should think about the Church. The New Agent on the block is a masterful fundraiser, and receives substantial financial support for the rather good articles published at the website of the New Agent. Where the money comes from is not known. I also think it is not germane to the discussion that the New Agent on the Block has a surname which is Jewish. I call the New Agent on the Block, “new” because no one heard of the New Agent on the Block during the reign of Pope Benedict. But now everyone thinks that Benedict cannot be the true pope until the New Agent on the Block says so, that is how much power and influence the New Agent on the Block has acquired over the minds of Catholics.
The International is known for being very well informed and does detailed investigations and has contributed much to the knowledge of Catholics regarding the corruption in the Church. But, like the others, will not tolerate in the least any discussion of Pope Benedict’s being the true Pope. What most do not know is that the spouse of the International was a leading intelligence officer of a government which most likely assisted in putting Bergoglio into power by bribing the Cardinals. Maybe that has something to do with the information and narrative control that the International pushes in everything the International writes.
I think you should pay attention to the back-ground of everyone whom you read, because as human beings the back-ground is important. All these 4 individuals whom I have described have a fame and expertise to control the narrative such that 10s of thousands of Catholics have been convinced by them to practice non-think in regard to the canonical facts on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict. None of them are liberals. They are all conservatives and otherwise doctrinally sound persons. But perhaps it is time you start to ask yourself if the non-think they practice and teach has anything to do with their personal histories. They all know of those who doubt the validity of the Resignation, but consider quoting them as more dangerous than quoting Bergoglio. That is the laughable reality which they have adopted as a habit of mind.
+ + +
For transparency, my own back ground is as follows: Though I am a dual citizen of the USA and Italy, I was born in the USA and never belonged to any political party. All my ancestors are Italian Catholics and I have no Jewish blood in my lineage. I receive no financial support from anyone but my relatives. I have raised 15 euros in donations at Rome in last 3 months of working for the cause of Pope Benedict. For more information about me, see the About Page, here at The From Rome Blog.
Nota Bene: Any comment on this post which attempts in any manner to identify or seek the identity of any one of these five or speculate as to whom they are, whether the speculation is germane or not, or accurate or not, will be sent to the trash bin of blog-dom. Think for yourself, investigate on your own. I am not the source of truth or reality.