I post this without comment. These are some bananas for sale here at Rome, on March 8, 2020. You might want to keep this in mind the next time you shop. I can authoritatively say, as a Cultural Anthropologist who has studied South American cultures, that I do not recognize the habit worn by the Chiquita girl in this photo as anything from Ecuador.
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The question has been raised for more than 7 years and numerous scholars have studied it and attempted to answer. The first was Father Stefano Violi, a canonist at the faculty of Lugano. Then, there was Antonio Socci who wrote numerous books on the matter. Then there was Ann Barnhardt who after her famous declaration of June 2016, that Pope Benedict XVI had made a substantial error, in the summer of 2019 published extensive documentation showing Joseph Ratzinger’s participation in discussions about splitting the Petrine Munus from the Petrine Ministerium in a shared papacy.
But the definitive answer on the question why he renounced the ministerium only and not the munus, I think was just given by Dr. Edmund Mazza in his Essay, cited by Edward Pentin yesterday, and republished in full at the suggestion of Dr. Mazza, here at FromRome.Info today and at the Most Rev. Rene Henry Gracida’s blog, Abyssum.org, where Bishop Gracida calls it a “brilliant” exposition.
It is brilliant because its is based only on Pope Benedict’s own words and the norms of Canon law. I will explain why, here, and use the same method.
Dr. Edmund Mazza holds a Ph.D. in Medieval History and was transitory collaborator with me at The Scholasticum, an Italian Non profit for the revival of the study and use of Scholastic method.
Here I quote the key passage from Dr. Mazza, explaining why ministerium and not munus:
Seewald then observes: “One objection is that the papacy has been secularized by the resignation; that it is no longer a unique office but an office like any other.” Benedict replies:
I had to…consider whether or not functionalism would completely encroach on the papacy … Earlier, bishops were not allowed to resign…a number of bishops…said ‘I am a father and that I’ll stay’, because you can’t simply stop being a father; stopping is a functionalization and secularization, something from the sort of concept of public office that shouldn’t apply to a bishop. To that I must reply: even a father’s role stops. Of course a father does not stop being a father, but he is relieved of concrete responsibility. He remains a father in a deep, inward sense, in a particular relationship which has responsibility, but not with day-to-day tasks as such…If he steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function…one comes to understand that the office [munus] of the Pope has lost none of its greatness…
Benedict again goes to great lengths to contrast the difference between I. “the office of the Pope” and II. the ministry or “function” associated with it. How to “decode” Benedict? By examining the words he has chosen and the ways he has deployed them before.
(Blue coloring added for emphasis)
And Dr. Mazza continues, further below, after citing a key passage from a 1978 discourse by Ratzinger on personal responsibility and the Papacy,
This 1977 speech is, in fact, the key to deciphering, not only Benedict’s 2017 interview, but his 2013 resignation speech.
In 2017 Benedict says: “If he [the pope] steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility” he took on, but not in the “function,” or “day-to-day” tasks. In 1977 Ratzinger says: “this institution [the papacy] can exist only as a person and in particular and personal responsibility…” He adds: “He abides in obedience and thus in personal responsibility for Christ; professing the Lord’s death and Resurrection is his whole commission and personal responsibility.”
For Benedict, “personal responsibility” is the essence of what it means to be pope. To be responsible not as a public official filled with day to day tasks, but metaphysical responsibility for the flock of Christ. In his interview, Benedict says that although he “stepped down,” “HE REMAINS…WITHIN THE RESPONSIBILITY.” Translation: “He remains Pope!”
(Blue coloring added for emphasis)
Dr. Mazza has ably demonstrated that for Benedict the munus means the personal responsibility which can never be rejected, and the ministerium is the day to take fulfillment of the tasks in public way.
But he has also demonstrated that for Benedict, the Office of the Papacy is the personal responsibility of a single person. This is clearly seen in a brief quote from the 1977 talk, cited at length by Dr. Mazza in his essay:
The ‘‘we’’ unity of Christians, which God instituted in Christ through the Holy Spirit under the name of Jesus Christ and as a result of his witness, certified by his death and Resurrection, is in turn maintained by personal bearers of responsibility for this unity, and it is once again personified in Peter—in Peter, who receives a new name and is thus lifted up out of what is merely his own, yet precisely in a name, through which demands are made of him as a person with personal responsibility. In his new name, which transcends the historical individual, Peter becomes the institution that goes through history (for the ability to continue and continuance are included in this new appellation), yet in such a way that this institution can exist only as a person and in particular and personal responsibility…
(Blue coloring added for emphasis)
From this we are forced to conclude, the following:
And from this we can conclude the following according to the norm of law:
Canon 188 – A renunciation made through grave fear, unjustly inflicted, deceit or substantial error, or even with simony, is irritus by the law itself.
Irritus, is a canonical term which means not done in such a way as to fulfill the norm of law. According to Wim Decock, Theologians and Contract Law: the Moral transformation of the Ius commune (1500-1650), p. 216, irritus means “automatically void” (Source)
We can see this from the Code of Canon Law itself, in canon 126:
Canon 126 – Actus positus ex ignorantia aut ex errore, qui versetur circa id quod eius substantiam constituit, aut qui recidit in condicionem sine qua non, irritus est; secus valet, nisi aliud iure caveatur, sed actus ex ignorantia aut ex errore initus locum dare potest actioni rescissoriae ad normam iuris.
Which in English is:
Canon 126 – An act posited out of ignorance or out of an error, which revolves around that which constitutes its substance, or which withdraws from a sine qua non condition, is irritus; otherwise it is valid, unless something else be provided for by law, but an act entered into out of ignorance or out of error, can give place to a rescissory action according to the norm of law.
Rescissory means revoking or rescinding. The final clause here means an act done erroneously can be repaired if the law allows for it by a subsequent act. There is no such provision in law for papal renunciations, they have to be clear in themselves or they have to be redone (source). The sine non qua condition here is found in canon 332 §2:
If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus, …..
This is the sine non qua condition. It is a condition because it begins with If, it is sine non qua, because it specifies the form and matter of the juridical act as a renunciation (form) of munus (matter). The form and matter together make the essence of a thing. That essence of a juridical act when posited cause the substance of the thing. Essence is the sine qua non of each thing, because without it a thing is not what it is. An error therefore about the matter to be renounced is thus a substantial error in the resulting act.
And hence, the kind of renunciation posited by Pope Benedict is automatically void, null and of no effect, because it violates the Divine Constitution of the Church, which requires that one and only one person hold both the papal dignity, office and munus. There can be no sharing of the office while there is a retention of the munus and dignity.
This argument is based solely on the words of Pope Benedict XVI and the words of canon law. It has, therefore, the highest authority and probability.
I challenge any Cardinal to refute this argument! — And if they cannot, then if they do not return in allegiance to Pope Benedict XVI, they are ipso facto excommunicated by canon 1364 for the delict of schism from the Roman Pontiff. All of them, each of them. And thus have no right to elect his successor.
I put you all on notice!
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The Italian press is reporting that the first high level politician to come down with the Corona Virus. His name is Nicola Zingaretti, and he is the head of the Italian Democratico Party, a Marxist party of the Gramescian kill-your-nation-slowly kind.
The Corona Virus which is now spreading in Italy came to the country from the People’s Republic of China, a Marxist tyranny.
Connecting the dots, who can fault Catholics for saying that this Epidemic is a punishment from God for the godless elites of their own nation?
Bergoglio is also sick with the flu, but the Vatican is denying that it is corona, even though the Head of the Vatican Press office confirmed yesterday, that the Corona Virus had been brought to the Vatican more than week ago, when Bergoglio was still moving about the micro-state.
But Zingaretti’s now confirmed infection is spreading panic through the ruling government. Italy is a Republic ruled by a parliamentary system. The government is the political coalition in power in Parliament which selects the Presidente del Consiglio (Prime Minister) and the Ministers of the various departments of the national government.
That Zingaretti met with nearly all the heads of the ruling government in the week prior to being positively diagnosed means that there is a very high probability that they have all been infected.
Talk about precision Divine bombardment! — There is no immunity from prosecution in Divine Law!
The potentially infected individuals are as follows: Giuseppe Conte (Prime Minister), the ministers: Roberto Gualtieri (Economy & Finance), Paolo De Micheli (Infrastructure & Transport), the mayors Virginia Raggi (Rome) and Giuseppe Sala (Milan), the governors Giovanni Toti (Liguria), Alberto Cirio (Piedmonte), Stefano Bonaccini (Emilia-Romagna), the party leaders Andrea Orlando (Democratico) and Dario Franceschini (Democratico, Minister of Cultural Heritage and Tourism) and the union leaders Maurizio Landini (CGIL) and Annamaria Furlan (CISL).
Matteo Salvini, who is the leader of the Lega party, also participated in a TV program with some of these, but is not reported sick.
Meanwhile, the ruling government is working on a decree which will require mandatory imprisonment for several years for anyone who disparages sodomy or sodomites.
They have also placed the entire region of Lombardy under quarantine until April 3. No one can enter or leave the 5 provinces of that region without urgent necessity.
___________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is the photo of a page from today’s La Verità Newspaper, which, if you live in Italy, is worthy buying today for its extensive coverage of the Corona Virus epidemic which is sweeping the country. It is used here as a free advertisement of that Newspaper.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
Rome, Sunday, March 8, 2020 A.D.: Tonight at 11:54 P.M., begins the prayer crusade against the Church of Darkness. Inspired by the revelations Our Lady made to Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich in 1820, that She desired the faithful of Rome to come before Her Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, at midnight, every night, and pray with arms extended in the form of a cross, after the manner of Her Divine Son’s August Sacrifice upon the Cross, 3 members of the Church of Rome have pledged themselves to this, until the Church of Rome be liberated.
The prayers to be said are not specified by our Lady. She asked only that everyone try to pray for at least the space of 3 Our Fathers. However, on account of the fact that Bl. Emmerich saw with her, in the vision she had, Saint Francis of Assisi, who assisted in opening the doors of the Basilica to allow the Roman Catholics to make these prayers in the Church, the prayers being said every night are those ordained by Saint Francis in his Regula Bullata, His Rule, for all his lay brothers: namely 72 Our Fathers.
FromRome.Info participates by publishing each night at 11:54 PM a short video of the Basilica with 7 Our Fathers recited in Latin, Italian and English, for the sake of viewers in all parts of the world.
You are cordially invited to join in by subscribing to From Rome Info Video at
https://www.youtube.com/FromRomeInfoVideo
FromRome.Info Video already has the equipment to do live transmissions, but this will not be allowed by YouTube until at least 1000 individuals subscribe to From Rome Info Video’s YouTube channel, at the URL just cited. When that happens, the entire prayers will be transmitted live each night from Rome.
In her visions, Bl. Emmerich saw the Church of Rome oppressed by a false Church and a false pope. She lamented that the true Pope was isolated and inert and afraid to act, and living in a small house, not the Apostolic Palace. The other pope was false and the friend of every heretic and perverse man and was leading the world into apostasy by attempting to build a new religion to house all religions except the Catholic one.
Plagues and epidemics are punishments for sin. There is no sin at present more grave, spiritually speaking, than that the Clergy of the Catholic Church hold themselves in communion with a false shepherd and neglect to examine the canonical nature of what Pope Benedict XVI did on Feb. 11, 2013, to see if it was in conformity with the norm of Canon 332 §2, a thing which can only be done in the original Latin texts, and which is explained here, at great length:
https://fromrome.info/2019/11/26/an-index-to-pope-benedicts-renunciation/https://fromrome.info/2019/11/26/an-index-to-pope-benedicts-renunciation/
Our Lady promised that if the Faithful came and continued to come, She would grant the grace that the Sacred Hierarchy humble themselves in recognizing that the so called renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI did not effect his loss of the papal munus, and hence neither of the papal dignity and office. It is prudently expected that with this great sin of negligence removed, God will also stay the hand of the Angel of Destruction which He has sent for the punishment of sinners.
NOTA BENE: As our Lady requested prayers at Midnight, using the concept of 1820, before the advent of time zones, it is believed the best interpretation is Solar Midnight, that is, the hour of the night 12 hours opposite of solar midday. This is currently occurring at 12:20 A.M., making the middle hour 11:50 to 12:50 A.M.. And for that reasons the prayers begin about 30 minutes beforehand, at 11:54, but this will change when the clocks move forward in 3 weeks from now, at Rome.
__________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is a photo of the prayer crusaders before the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore on the night of March 8th, at about 12:30 PM, and was taken by Br. Bugnolo.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
At the request of the author, who was cited incompletely in Edward Pentin’s report, yesterday, FromRome.Info publishes the full essay with its original title
Ph.D. Medieval History
It’s a safe bet that even if seventy-three-year-old President Trump’s physical stamina suddenly caved, he would still seek re-election rather than allow his Democrat opponent to seize the oval office and reverse all his gains and policies. It is a curious question then why another incumbent Conservative, Pope Benedict XVI, resigned seven years ago citing the frailty of his eighty-five-year-old frame, certain in the knowledge that his successor would be a Leftist ideologue bent on undoing, not only his own legacy, but two thousand years of Catholic tradition. (Benedict may even have been reasonably sure that it would be Jorge Bergoglio, himself, since the Argentinian cardinal came up just shy of the votes needed to unseat Benedict back in 2005.) As George Neumayr writes in the The American Spectator:
In one of his last speeches before abdicating in 2013, Pope Benedict XVI decried the liberalism that had seeped into the Church after Vatican II. To this liberalism, he traced “so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed, the liturgy was trivialized.” But he then proceeded to hand the Church to the very liberals responsible for these problems and to a successor set upon liberalizing the Church even more. (1)
The recent release of Netflix’s The Two Popes, the seventh anniversary of Benedict’s abdication and the firestorm over his co-authorship of a book advocating the retention of the celibate priesthood—a seeming slap in the face of Pope Francis—all conspire in calling for a reexamination of the infamous resignation. Indeed, ever since February 11, 2013 speculations have circulated that Benedict’s renunciation may have been invalid, that he—in some way—still retains the papacy. These allegations were fueled in part by Benedict’s own rather bizarre measures after formally stepping down, such keeping his name “Pope Benedict XVI,” his title “His Holiness,” his white cassock, imparting his “Apostolic Blessing,” and lastly—never departing the Vatican.
These claims even received an unexpected boost thanks to a speech by Benedict’s Personal Secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Papal Household. At Rome’s Gregorianum in 2016, Gänswein declared “he has not abandoned this ministry at all. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi-shared ministry.” Gänswein adds: “He has not abandoned the office of Peter, a thing which would be completely impossible for him following his irrevocable acceptance of the office…” (2)
Then in 2017, Last Testament: In His Own Words, was published in which journalist Peter Seewald conducted a lengthy interview with Benedict. At one point, Seewald pointedly asks His Holiness: “Is a slowdown in the ability to perform, reason enough to climb down from the chair of Peter?” Benedict replies:
One can of course make that accusation, but it would be a functional misunderstanding. The follower [successor] of Peter is not merely bound to a function; the office [munus] (3) enters into your very being. In this regard, fulfilling a function is not the only criterion. (4) (Emphasis mine)
What “misunderstanding”? A simple “yes,” would do.
But Benedict does not give a “yes” or “no” answer to this straightforward question. All the more bizarre since his answer, in fact, must be a “yes,” or otherwise he is contradicting the very reason he gave for stepping down in his official resignation speech:
I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine office [non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum]… strength…has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry [ministerium] entrusted to me. For this reason…I declare that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter…
But in his answer to Seewald, Benedict explains that a physical “slow-down” only affects the “functions” or “ministry” of a pope, his day-to-day tasks like any other official. But being Pope, Benedict insists, is not fundamentally about doing this or that, it’s about being. His answer is an ontological one: “the office [munus] enters into your very being,” not the “function” or “ministry,” but the office.
Seewald then observes: “One objection is that the papacy has been secularized by the resignation; that it is no longer a unique office but an office like any other.” Benedict replies:
I had to…consider whether or not functionalism would completely encroach on the papacy …Earlier, bishops were not allowed to resign…a number of bishops…said ‘I am a father and that I’ll stay’, because you can’t simply stop being a father; stopping is a functionalization and secularization, something from the sort of concept of public office that shouldn’t apply to a bishop. To that I must reply: even a father’s role stops. Of course a father does not stop being a father, but he is relieved of concrete responsibility. He remains a father in a deep, inward sense, in a particular relationship which has responsibility, but not with day-to-day tasks as such…If he steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function…one comes to understand that the office [munus] of the Pope has lost none of its greatness…
Benedict again goes to great lengths to contrast the difference between I. “the office of the Pope” and II. the ministry or “function” associated with it. How to “decode” Benedict? By examining the words he has chosen and the ways he has deployed them before.
In October 1977, during the symposium “On the Nature and Commission of the Petrine Ministry” marking the 80th birthday of Pope Paul VI, Ratzinger declared:
In keeping with the three Persons in God, the argument went, the Church must also be led by a college of three, and the members of this triumvirate, acting together, would be the pope. There was no lack of ingenious speculations that (alluding, for instance, to Soloviev’s story about the Antichrist) discovered that in this way a Roman Catholic, an Orthodox, and a Protestant together could form the papal troika. Thus it appeared that the ultimate formula for ecumenism had been found, derived immediately from theology (from the concept of God), that they had discovered a way to square the circle, whereby the papacy, the chief stumbling block for non-Catholic Christianity, would have to become the definitive vehicle for bringing about the unity of all Christians.
2. The interior basis for the primacy: Faith as responsible personal witness
Is this, then—the reconciliation of collegiality and primacy—the answer to the question posed by our subject: the primacy of the pope and the unity of the People of God? Although we need not conclude that such reflections are entirely sterile and useless, it is plain that they are a distortion of trinitarian doctrine and an intolerably oversimplified fusion of Creed and Church polity. What is needed is a more profound approach. It seems to me that it is important, first of all, to reestablish a clearer connection between the theology of communion, which had developed from the idea of collegiality, and a theology of personality, which is no less important in interpreting the biblical facts. Not only does the communal character of the history created by God belong to the structure of the Bible, but also and equally personal responsibility. The ‘‘we’’ does not dissolve the ‘‘I’’ and ‘‘you,’’ but rather it confirms and intensifies them so as to make them almost definitive. This is evident already in the importance that a name has in the Old Testament—for God and for men. One could even say that in the Bible ‘‘name’’ takes the place of what philosophical reflection would eventually designate by the word ‘‘person…
Martyrdom as a response to the Cross of Jesus Christ is nothing other than the ultimate confirmation of this principle of uncompromising particularity, of the named individual who is personally responsible…
The Petrine theology of the New Testament is found along this line of reasoning, and therein it has its intrinsically necessary character. The ‘‘we’’ of the Church begins with the name of the one who in particular and as a person first uttered the profession of faith in Christ: ‘‘You are . . . the Son of the living God’’ (Mt 16:16)….
Is Peter as a person the foundation of the Church, or is his profession of faith the foundation of the Church? The answer is: The profession of faith exists only as something for which someone is personally responsible, and hence the profession of faith is connected with the person. Conversely, the foundation is not a person regarded in a metaphysically neutral way, so to speak, but rather the person as the bearer of the profession of faith—one without the other would miss the significance of what is meant…
The ‘‘we’’ unity of Christians, which God instituted in Christ through the Holy Spirit under the name of Jesus Christ and as a result of his witness, certified by his death and Resurrection, is in turn maintained by personal bearers of responsibility for this unity, and it is once again personified in Peter—in Peter, who receives a new name and is thus lifted up out of what is merely his own, yet precisely in a name, through which demands are made of him as a person with personal responsibility. In his new name, which transcends the historical individual, Peter becomes the institution that goes through history (for the ability to continue and continuance are included in this new appellation), yet in such a way that this institution can exist only as a person and in particular and personal responsibility…
The English Cardinal expresses it in the same way in another passage: ‘‘The office of the papacy is a cross, indeed, the greatest of all crosses. For what can be said to pertain more to the cross and anxiety of the soul than the care and responsibility for all the Churches throughout the world?’’ Moreover, he recalls Moses, who groaned under the burden of the whole Israelite people, could no longer bear it, and yet had to bear it.34 To be bound up with the will of God, with the Word of whom he is the messenger, is the experience of being girt and led against his will of which John 21 speaks. Yet this attachment to the Word and will of God because of the Lord is what makes the sedes a cross and thus proves the Vicar to be a representative. He abides in obedience and thus in personal responsibility for Christ; professing the Lord’s death and Resurrection is his whole commission and personal responsibility, in which the common profession of the Church is depicted as personally ‘‘binding’’ through the one who is bound . . . . This personal liability, which forms the heart of the doctrine of papal primacy, is therefore not opposed to the theology of the Cross or contrary to humilitas christiana but rather follows from it and is the point of its utmost concreteness and, at the same time, the public contradiction of the claim that the power of the world is the only power and also the establishment of the power of obedience in opposition to worldly power. Vicarius Christi is a title most profoundly rooted in the theology of the Cross and thus an interpretation of Matthew 16:16–19 and John 21:15–19 that points to the inner unity of these two passages. No doubt, another facet of the bondage that in light of John 21 can be described as a definitive characteristic of the papacy will be the fact that this being bound up with God’s will, which is expressed in God’s Word, means being bound up with the ‘‘we’’ of the whole Church: collegiality and primacy are interdependent. But they do not merge in such a way that the personal responsibility ultimately disappears into anonymous governing bodies. Precisely in their inseparability, personal responsibility serves unity, which it will doubtless bring about the more effectively, the more true it remains to its roots in the theology of the Cross. (5)
This 1977 speech is, in fact, the key to deciphering, not only Benedict’s 2017 interview, but his 2013 resignation speech.
In 2017 Benedict says: “If he [the pope] steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility” he took on, but not in the “function,” or “day-to-day” tasks. In 1977 Ratzinger says: “this institution [the papacy] can exist only as a person and in particular and personal responsibility…” He adds: “He abides in obedience and thus in personal responsibility for Christ; professing the Lord’s death and Resurrection is his whole commission and personal responsibility.”
For Benedict, “personal responsibility” is the essence of what it means to be pope. To be responsible not as a public official filled with day to day tasks, but metaphysical responsibility for the flock of Christ. In his interview, Benedict says that although he “stepped down,” “HE REMAINS…WITHIN THE RESPONSIBILITY.” Translation: “He remains Pope!”
In 1977, Ratzinger says: ‘‘The office of the papacy is a cross, indeed, the greatest of all crosses. For what can be said to pertain more to the cross and anxiety of the soul than the care and [personal] responsibility for all the Churches…attachment to the Word and will of God because of the Lord is what makes the sedes [chair] a cross and thus proves the Vicar [the Pope] to be a representative [of Christ].” At his last General Audience, Benedict says: “I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord.” Translation: “He remains Pope!”
Dr. Ludwig Ott, famous author of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, writes: “In deciding the meaning of a text the Church does not pronounce judgment on the subjective intention of the author, but on the objective sense of the text.” But in the objective text of his renunciation, Benedict does not say “I no longer retain the office [munus],” he says instead, “I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry [ministerium] entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.”
Now weighty matters like papal renunciations are governed by Canon law. And Canon 322 §2 states: “If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounces his munus, (6) it is required for validity that the renunciation is made freely and be properly manifested (rite manifestatur, i.e. properly according to the norms of law), but not that it be accepted by anyone at all.” However, Pope Benedict did not follow Canon 322—he did not actually “renounce the munus,” but the ministerium, nor did he “properly manifest,” in the objective sense of his text, his intention to renounce the munus, if such was his intention! (7) Legally, it does not matter if everyone believes Benedict has renounced the office of the papacy (or if only one person does), what matters is whether the act was carried out according to the canonical norm, which it objectively was not. Indeed, in his interview with Seewald, Benedict admits his belief in the ontological impossibility of him leaving the office: “the office [munus] enters into your very being.”
To conclude, can there be any doubt that to Benedict’s mind, he retains the essence of the papacy? Why then does he not speak and act plainly—as THE Pope? Quite frankly, this is a subject for a different article. A case can be made, however, that he has outwitted his ideological opponents in much the same fashion as “Superman” in the conclusion of Mario Puzo’s Superman II [SPOILER ALERT]. By entering the crystal chamber, Superman had seemingly been forced by his enemies to strip himself of his powers, when the reverse was really the case! Perhaps Benedict intentionally resigned the “ministry,” and not the “office” of the papacy so that by appearing to all intents and purposes a defeated man, he might actually strip away the validity of every measure Francis takes which departs from Catholic Orthodoxy, of whom Benedict is the Guardian.(8) Why on earth does Benedict not speak and act as THE Pope? Perhaps in defense of celibacy, he finally has.
____________
FOOTNOTES
1 In the article, The Prisoner of the Vatican, at https://spectator.org/the-prisoner-of-the-vatican/
2 Address at the Pontifical Gregorian University, cited Diane Montagna’s article at LifeSite News: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/did-benedict-really-resign-gaenswein-burke-and-brandmueller-weigh-in
3 In Canon Law, the papal office is called a munus in Canons 331, 332 §2, 333 and 749. And in Canon 145 §1, ecclesiastical office is referred to as a munus. Cf. Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, by Br. Alexis Bugnolo, transcript of paper from the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict, October 21, 2019, Rome, Italy: at https://fromrome.info/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/)
4 Peter Seewald, Benedict XVI, Last Testament: In His Own Words, (Bloomsbury Continuum, 2017).
5 “The Primacy of the Pope and the unity of the People of God,” published as “Der Primat des Papstes und die Einheit des Gottesvolkes” in a book Ratzinger edited, Dienst an der Einheit (Service to Unity); it has also been republished in books by Ignatius Press and in Communio Spring 2014.
6 In the official Latin edition of the Codex Iuris Canonicis, 1983, canon 332 §2 reads here: “muneri suo renuntiet”
7 “But there is definite uncertainty about the exact meaning of another phrase of canon 332.2 which asserts that a Pope’s resignation has to be ‘properly manifested.’ …In the end, therefore, it wouldn’t really matter, so long as the Pope’s decision was expressed clearly, i.e., neither ambiguously nor secretly.” https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/01/03/can-a-pope-everresign/
8 Cf. https://fromrome.info/2020/01/12/benedicts-end-game-is-to-save-the-church-from-freemasonry/
____________
CREDITS: The text of Dr. Mazza is republished here with his kind permission. The Featured Image is a photo of Pope Benedict XVI reading his Declaratio, on Feb. 11, 2013, in the Sala Clementina. Photo by Vatican Press.
+ + +
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
My English teacher warned me about mixed metaphors, but sometimes they are poetic and elegant. A canary was used in pre-modern times in mining, to know for sure whether the air in the shaft was breathable, because the canary, having a high metabolism needed a lot of oxygen.
If the canary was still singing, you were ok, and if it began to sing after silence then you were back in the clear.
The singing canary in American pop culture also is used to signify an informant in a criminal organization who knows the truth and begins to speak to the police.
If you want to understand something of the mass hysteria sweeping the world right now, in regard to the Corona Virus, then snatch up a copy of Barbara Tuchman’s, A Distant Mirror, which is a narrative history of the 14th century, with a most stunning account of the Black Death.
There is nothing like the thought of death by plague which can make men say things they would never say. Especially when they fear they are about to die or that their oppressive tyrannical rulers are about to. They gain a sort of liberty which they did not have before: they who were willing to hide the truth to gain something in this life, now have no longer such a motivation.
I do not know if this is the reason that Marco Tosatti published Sergio Russo’s Essay the other day, or whether this has anything to do with Edward Pentin’s determination to publish a long report on the pro-validity theory of the Renunciation of Benedict, but I do think, that the Corona Virus is going to make more and more persons speak out.
The time is short. Those who know they have compromised immune systems are feeling the heat. Let us pray they do the right thing and redeem their souls before the end.
+ + +
PLEASE JOIN ME EACH MIDNIGHT ROME TIME at From Rome Info Video for the prayers against the Church of Darkness. This plague is all about divine punishment. And if we cooperate with Our Lady by giving Her this small sign of collaboration, She will invoke the Holy Spirit to end this Crisis in the Church, which is the cause of this punishment.
The Catholic Men who join with me each night in these prayers have resolved to continue them until the Church of Darkness is driven out. Therefore, the video transmissions will continue, recorded. As soon as there are 1000 subscribers, these transmissions will be live each night, for 40 minutes, beginning at 11:54 PM Rome Time.
Please note that as of tomorrow, the USA goes on Day Light savings time and so Rome will be one hour less ahead of time zones in the USA.
+ + +
As for the Emmerich Appeal, we need ONLY 2 more zealous souls before we can run the Newspaper Advertisement. We have 6 so far who have pledged.
[simple-payment id=”10053″]
_________
CREDITS: The Featured Image of the Dance of Death is from at 15th century manuscript, source here.
TODAY THE 40 DAY NOVENA SPONSORED BY VERI CATHOLICI CONCLUDES
TOMORROW BEGINS THE PERPETUAL CRUSADE OF PRAYER
BY THE CATHOLICS OF ROME
UNTIL THE CHURCH OF DARKNESS BE DRIVEN OUT!
FromRome.Info Video, recorded tonight at Santa Maria Maggiore.
ALL ARE INVITED TO JOIN US IN PRAYER AT MIDNIGHT EACH NIGHT, IN FRONT OF THE BASILICA OF SANTA MARIA MAGGIORE AT ROME
In the year of Our Lord 1820, God revealed to Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich that the Church of Rome would one day be attacked from within. That there would be two popes: one false and dark, who strove to found a new Religion which would be the home of every heretic and apostate: one true and aged, who would be paralyzed by inaction and silence.
To drive the Church of Darkness out of the Church of Rome, it was revealed to her that Our Lady asked the faithful to gather at Midnight in front of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, here at Rome, and pray with arms outstretched, in the form of the Cross, for the space of at least 3 Our Fathers.
In nomine Patri et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Pater noster qui es in coelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum;
adveniat regnum tuum, fiat voluntas tua, sicut in coelo et in terra.
Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie,
et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.
Padre nostro che sei nei cieli, sia santificato il tuo nome;
venga il tuo regno; sia fatta la tua volontà, come in cielo così in terra.
Dacci oggi il nostro pane quotidiano,
e rimetti a noi i nostri debiti come noi li rimettiamo ai nostri debitori,
e non ci indurre in tentazione, ma liberaci dal male». Amen. (3 volte)
Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name,
Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our Daily Bread,
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us,
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen. (3 times)
Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto,
Sicut erat in principio, et nunc et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
NOTE: Since, Bl. Anna-Katerina Emmerich had this vision in 1820, before the invention of time zones, midnight here should be understood in solar time, which at Rome makes midnight occur at 12:22 AM, presently, and thus the hour of midnight would be 11:52 AM to 12:52 AM. Try to say your prayers in that hour.
This Novena is explained and announced here in English, and here in Italian, in each place the citations from Bl. Emmerich about these prayers are given.
See the article published yesterday at FromRome.Info, The Church of Light vs. the Church of Darkness for more about this Novena of Prayer.
To put a Newspaper ad calling Catholics at Rome to this pray vigil, will cost 2000 euros. Help us spread the word by a generous contribution here below. Our Lady promised victory, let us mobilize everyone to the battle!
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Last summer, the HQ of Veri Catholici informed me that Edward Pentin began a long conversation with their Twitter Account lambasting me for my defense of the invalidity of the Renunciation of Pope Benedict, according to the norm of law. Veri Catholici chided Pentin in that exhange, which I think was published on twitter, that he had written nothing about the controversy. He was indignant. But now he has spoken.
In an article today at his personal blog, entitled, Debate Intensifies Over Benedict XVI’s Resignation and Role as Pope Emeritus, Pentin marshals straw man after straw man to the fight. — I am referring to the arguments he cites, not the individuals he interviews.
I consider it a duty to the truth and Holy Mother Church to set out what is wrong and right in Pentin’s article, which is so misleading even if it has conceded much. It is also a poor piece of journalism because he never interviews someone with a contrary opinion, though he seems to quote one scholar. Finally, his report is extremely insulting to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, in that it accuses him of being ignorant, stubborn, unaware, attached and super-scrupulous. — Goodness! Who does Pentin think he is to trash the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ? a man who is a highly esteemed academic, with such insults: insults delivered by reporting the views of those who insult the Pope, but not the views of those who respect him? It is insufferable insolence.
Pentin opens his piece by mispresenting the historical context of the debate, as if it has popped out of the blue in consequence of the Book Flap on Priestly Celibacy. The doubts as to the invalidity of the act arose the very days after it was published, from numerous scholars of Latin and canon law and philosophy at Rome and abroad. I have detailed only a few of these in the preface to my Scholastic Question, where I carefully examined, from November, 2018 to February of 2019 all the arguments for an against: Flavian Blanchon and Luciano Canfora know of whom I speak, so does Prof. Enrico Radaelli. Surely, also Edward Pentin, the renowned Vaticanista knows of them too.
Next, Pentin asserts as a given that the office of Pope Emeritus was created by Pope Benedict XVI. This is a complete misrepresentation. There is no act of Pope Benedict XVI whatsoever by which he created an office called, Pope Emeritus: neither before or after Feb. 2013. It is simply a title which he uses to describe himself. To call it an office and say it was created show a very sloppy terminology, if not complete ignorance of juridical procedures in canon law. Seeing that Pentin in his article has interviewed numerous scholars and canonists, how can he get that wrong?
Next, Pentin implies that Pope Benedict did not know what he was doing, because he did not consult with experts, out of a disdain for the College of Cardinals. I do not doubt he disdained them, but with good reason. Because if they cannot admit the canonical problem of renouncing ministerium rather than munus, after 7 years, then they are clearly incompetent, as he implied in his Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013.
But to say that Pope Benedict did not know what he is doing, is simply a gratuitous slur. As a theologian he had discussed for several decades the distinction between the petrine ministerium and the petrine munus. He uses both terms in his Declaratio. Therefore it is contrary to fact to say or imply he did not know what he was doing.
I have questioned several Vaticanista and Mons. Arrieta, about the renunciation. None admit to knowing anything about the problems in the renunciation as of Feb. of 2013. But Pentin does, writing:
Other senior Vatican sources have said that between Benedict’s announcement of his resignation on Feb. 11, 2013, and his departure from the apostolic palace three weeks later, a number of cardinals pressed Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, then Vatican Secretary of State, to clarify the canonical status of an abdicated pope as they saw it could be “potentially problematic,” but “nothing was done.”
It would be for the good of the Church to know the names of these Cardinals. And they should come forward and explain their concerns. Hat tip to Pentin for admitting and reporting this.
Pentin then begins a discourse, in pure Marxist diversionary style, which speaks of the controversy as if it is a problem in Benedict XVI’s mind, with his intention, his understanding, his sense of office, etc.. At the end of which, he dismissed his straw man by saying the Church is not concerned with the interior states of a resigned popes mind.
This totally ignores the objective reality of the papal act of Feb. 11, 2013, which I have shown elsewhere is an administrative act, not a juridical act, because there is no such juridical act in the Code of Canon Law, in the section on juridical acts, canons 125 ff..
The objective reality of a papal act are the words it uses and the signification those words have. The effect of the act follows. But Pentin ignores this, as do all who want Bergoglio to be the Pope, because it is there that the problem is found, and it is there the evidence is manifest.
Pentin then writes:
But more importantly, questions hinge on comments Benedict and others have made over whether he has fully abdicated the ministerium (active ministry) of the Successor of Peter but not the papal munus (office) — a bifurcation which canonists and theologians say is impossible.
But he never opens the argument, he just moves on to what Pope Benedict said about his renunciation after the fact. This is simply dishonest reporting. Because as he knows well, it is in that where the entire controversy has its source and being.
I have to say that those who refuse to look at ministerium and munus in the Declaratio are really creative in thinking of some other problem to raise so as to shift the conversation. Inner responsibility. What balderdash! Who has ever spoken of this neologism? Its absurd. Pentin is attempting to say Benedict is acting like the pope, after the Resignation because he is super-scrupulously faithful to the previous office he held.
This is simply a snide insult.
In the section on Inner Responsibility, Pentin inappropriately cuts and pastes in the discussion on the canonical validity. He writes:
Noting that Benedict has preferred to leave his status “unregulated,” De Caro argues that the title “Pope Emeritus” is, in itself, of concern as it “involves a sort of split between the primatial office of the Pope and that of the Bishop of Rome” — a division which, because those aspects of the papacy are “united in the one person of the Roman Pontiff,” presents “inevitable legal-theological implications.”
De Caro is not the first to question the Pope Emeritus title: Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, also expressed reservations, saying in 2017 it “theologically creates more problems than solving them.”
But whereas Archbishop Fisichella recognizes the validity of the resignation, De Caro goes a step further, asking whether a pope could legitimately create ex nihilo (out of nothing) such an unprecedented figure as a Pope Emeritus. He believes this “would not be possible” because it would “touch on divine law” given that the institution of the papacy is “of direct divine creation.”
To imply the papal office is by its very nature divisible, and that it us up to “human willingness to choose which faculties to renounce and which to maintain, is in blatant violation of divine law,” De Caro writes in an essay of “brief reflections” on the “emeritus papacy.” He concludes, therefore, that the Benedict’s resignation is invalid as it is “contrary to divine law itself.”
De Caro is an honest man. And he is correct. But Barnhardt said it 4 years ago, and Pentin fails to quote her, though he does quote several other laymen who have no credentials to speak about the controversy. I hope he is not a chauvanist.
But he does quote Mark Docherty of Non Veni in Pacem. And I will tip my hat to Pentin for that.
Here I will thank Pentin for writing these words, which Mons. Bux would not even admit to me:
He added that canonist friends of his are “firmly convinced” of the invalidity of the resignation based on the traditional canonical axiom, “doubtful resignation, no resignation” — a reference to St. Robert Bellarmine’s assertion that “a doubtful Pope is no Pope” if a “papal election is doubtful for any reason.”
Here, Pentin let the cat out of the bag. The truth is, that all serious canonists hold that the Declaratio has not the proper form to effect an act conformable to the requirements of Canon 332 § 2. And that therefore Benedict XVI is still the pope, because the presumption in any doubtful resignation is that the Pope is still the pope. The principle here is the cessation of power or right is not to be presumed.
I sense in reporting this that Pentin is struggling to be objective, in a piece which is not fair or balanced. Its not worth praise, but I do thank him for saying it, because so many weak souls will take confidence that if Pentin can report it, they can say it.
What can I say here, you quote a layman who holds no degree in canon law against a host of canonists know by Mons. Bux, to show that they are wrong. How hard do you want me to laugh at such pathetic journalism.
Citing an anonymous source — liars hide themselves of course — he presents the argument that the Renunciation is only invalid if Benedict knows how to distinguish munus from ministerium and did so in the act. His priest source says he did not. But anyone reading the Latin of the Declaratio sees that he did. He used munus 2 times and ministerium 3 times. Against a fact, no argument is valid. Another straw man.
In 2016, Cardinal Brandmueller wrote a study on whether a Pope can renounce. In that study however, the Cardinal never read the first clause in Canon 332 §2. So that study has no value whatsoever in this controversy, since it is there that Pope John Paul II required a renunciation of munus, not ministerium.
If the Cardinal, therefore, thinks the renunciation is valid, it probably has to do with the fact that he never considered the problem. But the Cardinal I think knows his study does not address the problem, because I wrote to him to discuss it and his secretary made polite excuses to refuse me for 7 weeks. I am still waiting.
There is absolutely no evidence to think that Pope Benedict XVI thinks the Papal office is a sacrament. The entire explanation in his behavior since Feb. 2013 lies in the fact, obvious in his Declaratio, that he renounces the ministerium, not the munus. As canon 1331 §2, n. 4 shows, the dignitas, officium and munus are on the same plane, but the ministerium is not. Thus if you retain the munus, which is the theological and canonical cause of the officium and the dignitas, then you obviously have the right to continue to call yourself pope and keep the papal honors. That is because you are still THE POPE.
The idea that Pope Benedict thinks of the papal office as a sacrament is a pure invention of those who want him gone for good. It is is a journalistic waste of time to discuss it. As far as I know this idea is a pure invention of Dr. de Mattei, who does not know the least thing about Canon Law because everytime he quotes it, he gets it wrong.
The title pope emeritus reveals that Benedict claims still the papal dignity, which cannot be without the munus. He did not renounce the munus. So Bergoglian apologists like Pentin have to push the narrative of solving the problem of the Emeritus thing. To hide the evidence. But that is not going to fool anyone. Bergoglio has no more authority to fix the problem than a drunk sleeping under the porticoes of the Sala Stampa on the Via Conciliazione! But Pentin reports this, which is at most a side issue.
His final section is entitled, Putting the Question to Benedict. But nothing in that section is about putting the question to Benedict. If Pentin did do that, he would find that things are not as he has attempted to present them in his hachet job on the truth.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
As we continue our journey through the Sacred Polyphony of the 16th century, we come to Cipriano de Rore’s, Ave Regina caelorum, the Marian Antiphon for the Christmas Season from Dec. 24 to Feb. 2.
FromRome.Info features at 5 P.M. daily, Rome time, a selection of sacred music for the edification of our readers, so that they can better grasp how contrary to the very nature of Catholic liturgy were the so called “reforms” of Vatican II.
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Some laymen on the internet know their faith well, others, well, judge for yourself:
Anyone who has studied the basic 101 course in Theology at any Catholic University should know the answer to Maddox’s Brother’s Question.
It’s not a mystery. It has been taught by Jesus Christ and explained by the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church — if you care to read them!
First, there is the teaching of Jesus Christ our God, Himself: No one is good but God alone.(Mark 10:18)
Second of His servant Moses, speaking of God, after He had created mankind, who wrote: And God saw that all He had made and it was very good. (Genesis 1:31)
Then there is the faithful Apostle of Christ, Saint Paul who explains: For every creation of God is good, and nothing that is received with thanksgiving should be rejected (1 Timothy 4:4)
And we are warned in Scripture about judging God’s ways of doing things: He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men, yet they cannot fathom the work God has done from beginning to end. (Ecclesiates 3:11)
And God speaking, again, through his prophet Ezechiel declares explicitly: Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? (Chapter 18:23)
So, then, if God does not desire the death of sinners, He desires even less their annihilation. Why? Because God is Goodness Itself and He has made every creature good according to what it is, so even when man fails God ultimately and eternally, nevertheless, there is goodness still in his existence and being, even if there is none left in his will as a moral habit. Therefore, God cannot destroy souls. But since justice is good, He can punish them eternally, while keeping them in existence. Keeping them in existence confirms that He is good. Punishing them eternally testifies that they have chosen to be unjust, and that God being Just punishes that injustice.
To claim that no one knows the answer to Maddox’s Brother’s question denies Sacred Scripture itself as the source of knowledge, Christ as the Master, the Prophets as inspired and infallible teachers.
What more can I say? But Steve, if you learned your opinion in this matter at Steubenville, I would ask them for my money back!
If they did not teach your opinion, I would humbly suggest you shut down One Peter Five until you go back and read the whole Bible from the beginning and check to see if you believe all that it teaches. Because, it does no one any good to market religion, if you have no idea what religion is about.
But as far as reason is considered, reason can see that existence is better than non-existence, and that therefore the good agent must prefer existence to non existence. On which account, given that God is a good agent, He must prefer punishment to annihilation. The rational argument is even quicker to arrive at than the theological.
And if your reason cannot see that, well….
___________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is of God the Father, by Cima de Conegliano (Source and credits here)
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The error of Laicism is a particular nasty error. It leads laymen to think they know better than even members of the Sacred Hierarchy who are faithful to the Church. The error of secular politiking is even worse, it seeks to put down any Catholic who stands for all the principles of the Faith without compromise, just as Our Lady asked at Akita.
It is therefore very sad and shameful that LifeSite News should publish, yesterday, an article entitled, The Case of Archbishop Lenga: a Muzzle for a careless confessor?
FromRome.Info has covered the heroic witness and faith of Archbishop Lenga in several previous articles:
What is shameful about Lifesite’s article (which is merely an English translation of a German article published at Katholiches) is that it calls the Archbishop careless and imprudent for speaking the truth! That is the critique of a politician, not of a Catholic! The insult is reserved for the end of the article, where it says:
“Bergoglio did not affirm the faith and does not pass it on to others. He leads the world astray. … He proclaims untruths and sins, not the tradition that has existed for 2000 years. … He proclaims the truth of this world, which is exactly the truth of the devil.”
Thus Archbishop Lenga was quoted from the Polish interview by the progressive British weekly newspaper The Tablet on Monday, February 24.
With such words, Archbishop Lenga offered an open flank, because he questioned the communion with Peter. The flank was immediately attacked, although the Polish bishops themselves, through their resistance to Amoris Laetitia, do not have an unclouded relationship with the current incumbent in Rome. They are careful, however, not to voice direct criticism of Pope Francis. Archbishop Lenga, also a Pole, who also lives in Poland, therefore became a “persona non grata” himself, as he criticized it in his 2015 statement.
LifeSite News it must be remembered is funded by a Canadian Political Action Committee and is co-founded by a self declared atheist, who rejected the Faith because of its restrictions on morality when he was a young man, but who after converted back to the Faith. I personally would have questions of the extent of that conversion after such a shameless attack on the Archbishop.
To say that he questioned communion with Peter is not only false but a theological error. He has clearly stated that he is in communion with Pope Benedict. And unless you are insane, it would be a blasphemy to call Bergoglio “Peter”. Certainly, Lifesite News which criticizes Bergoglio on a daily basis, nearly, would also be questioning Peter, by that standard, no? But I guess Lifesite Editors think that laymen can do what Archbishops cannot.
I personally think that the swipe against the Archbishop is due to this: that the Archbishop said the truth which LifeSite refuses to say, because LifeSite is controlled media. The words of the Archbishop break through the lies of the controlled narrative with force and authority and zeal. That had to be attacked.
_____________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the page cited in this editorial and is used here in accord with the fair use standard for editorial commentary. The Image of the Archbishop is a screen shot from the YouTube video in which he appears, and is used under like standards.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Here at FromRome.Info I do not cover the pedophile crisis in particular, because its better covered elsewhere and because I want FromRome.Info to be a place where you do not have to look into sewers. That is not because I do not think it is a major problem, nay, I think pedophile priests should receive capital punishment for their crimes.
But to all this consternation and shock among the Catholic Faithful that Bishop after Bishop, Diocese after Diocese is denying communion on the tongue or shutting Churches and ending public celebrations of the sacraments, I ask you to remember what is going on on the Church.
Refusing the Sacraments during an epidemic is nothing compared to pedophilia. If you want to see how endemic the moral collapse of the entire hierarchy is, just read this article by ProPublica entitled, Dozens of Catholic Priests Credibly Accused of Abuse Found Working Abroad, Some with the Church’s Blessing.
The article has one error, that I can see: its not with the Church’s Blessing, its with the blessing of the Lavender Mafia.
This kind of abyss of conscience is a sign of their apostasy and atheism and pure Modernism. They are fakers, tricksters and swindlers. And that is why they love Bergoglio. And that is why all frauds in media, even Catholic Media, like Trad inc., love Bergoglio. They are tricksters and deeply admire him for what he is able to get away with on a daily basis.
Consider what kind of perverse mentality is involved in allowing these monsters to go overseas and continue to rape children:
No man arrives by chance at such an abyss of conscience. It has to be learned and taught. And if Bishops are practicing it everywhere, then the clergy is endemically corrupt. That is why they do not bat an eyelash at denying the Sacraments or the baths at Lourdes, they do not even believe in such things!
So do not let them make you think that YOU can give them the Corona Virus. Remember it is they who can give you AIDS!
This is why I strongly have advised the faithful for more than 20 years to NOT go to Mass with someone who is obviously a heretic, modernist or a member of the Lavender clique. Its not only a matter of your soul’s salvation, its also a matter of public health safety.
Where did all these monsters and their enablers come from? The answer is easy: any Bishop who would go along with Vatican II has the precise absence of moral conscience which is required to tolerate such men in the priesthood. This is because Vatican II implicitly affirms that the Catholic Faith is a game and that adapting that game to the times is perfectly licit and withing their power.
__________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the ProPublica article cited above, and is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary and as a free advertisement of their article.
PLEASE NOTE: In this article I compare the denial of sacraments to the collaboration in allowing pedophiles to continue to operate near children. These are two different sins and of two different orders of morality. However, as they both partake of the sin of treachery in the execution of the Divine Ministry, the second is worse, because it breaks a promise made after the fact of a crime proven. But the first, obviously, is worse because it is directed to more souls and involved the Most Blessed Sacrament, God Himself. So by this comparison, which I make, I do not intend to ignore this fact, but only speak under a limited respect of treachery as a break of a promise made.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The problem is not communion on the tongue. The problem is that priests and whoever else who distribute communion — and only priests should do so, this is of Apostolic Tradition which no one, not even a pope can abolish — are poorly trained. If the minister of the Sacrament does not know how to place the Host in the mouth and avoid contact of his fingers with saliva, then he should not be distributing the Host!
Why ban communion on the tongue when a 10 minute training session can sure the mechanical problem which can cause saliva to end up on the fingers of the minister?
So I say, STAND YOUR GROUND and insist on Communion on the Tongue!
Insist that the ministers are trained!
Your financial support keeps your local parish or chapel open, you have the RIGHT to insist!
FromRome.Info is receiving reports from different parts of the world. Laity who are kneeling and receiving on the tongue are still being given the Sacrament. Most priest are not so cruel to refuse. If you go last in line, they have even less reason to object.
Here are some of the arguments being used, which are false.
You can catch Corona Virus at Communion. — If that were true, you could catch HIV at communion. But there has been no reported case IN THE ENTIRE WORLD where that happened.
God for the faith of those who receive on the tongue would not protect them from the virus. — This is simply blasphemy. God is the author of life. All disease — ALL disease — is a punishment for sin. God will NOT punish you for acting out of faith. But if you are in the state of mortal sin, He might. Receive worthily and take confidence in the Lord.
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem said we should receive in the hands, using one as the throne and another as its support. — This text has been long ago discredited by scholars. It was added to an authentic writing of the Saint by Nestorian Heretics, who did not consider Our Lord’s Body and Blood united to the Divinity.
Our Lord said at the Last Supper, Take and Eat, therefore we should not fear to use our hands to communicate. — Our Lord only invited clergy to the Last Supper, so this argument is a devious trick. As a matter of fact, the clergy stand right next to each other when con-celebrating, and have not stopped that during the Corona Virus. Why not? Because the scare is exaggerated and they know it.
Those who attend Mass are susceptible to the Corona Virus due to close proximity. — If the authorities really believed that they would stop all planes from carrying passengers and all trains from carrying passengers and all ships from carrying passengers .They have not. Therefore, it is pure anti-Catholic and anti religious bigotry to single out Catholics.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Pantheism is the false belief that everything is God, or more precisely, that God is incarnate in everything.
As an error, it is an absurdity. It arises in the East in the Indus Valley in the ages before Christ and it is the core principle of Hinduism.
But it is also the consequential philosophical position of German nominalism.
Nominalism is an error introduced into Europe in the high middle ages by the Arabic philosopher Averroes. It spread rapidly at the University of Paris and thence to all of Europe, especially to the faculty of Tubingen. It was popular among secular logicians who, following Peter Abelard, thought they could carve out a place in Catholic society where they were not obliged by the faith to live moral lives.
Nominalism was condemned by both Saint Thomas of Aquinas, whose feast is celebrated today, at Aquinas and Priverno, Italy, and by Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio.
Nominalism ends up in pantheism, because nominalists deny that any particular word names anything particular or idea in a definitive way. For the nominalist, another word can just as easily name what is named.
Infecting Germany for centuries before the rise of Modernism, Nominalism became the favorite position of Modernists, who believe that there is not God and thus that religious sentiments are the true reality behind all religions. All religions are equal and are willed by religious sentiment. Modernists still speak of God, but they mean religious sentiment when they say God.
As one permanent Deacon explained to me, here in Italy, most of the clergy do not think there is anything named by the word, God. For them, God is a word.
You can see, therefore, the difficulty a Modernist will have when confronting the fact that Pope Benedict XVI renounced the ministerium and the Code of Canon Law says a pope must renounce the munus, if he wants to un-pope himself.
To them words have no fixed meaning, so whatever word you want to use, out of religious sentiment, is just as good and just as approved by God — which for them is the code word for religious sentiment.
You can see that the Bishops are modernists in that they are responding to the Corona Virus as if God is not in the Eucharist and that the waters of Lourdes have no miraculous connection to the God of all Healing and Grace.
This is why they wont even give you a response or audience when you ask to speak about the Renunciation. Questions and problems of this kind never enter into their heads.
This is why, just as the Lord punished the Jews of old for apostasy, with plague, so now the Lord sends the Corona Virus to punish the wicked clergy for their atheism.
For just as God incarnated once, and can incarnate not again, so every specific word has a specific meaning. This is the error also behind the subsistit in, in the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, passed at Vatican II, on Sept. 17, 1964.
The Church of Christ susbsists as the Catholic Church, She doe snot subsist in the Catholic Church. The latter means She can subsist in several Churches. That is false. It is denied by the Incarnation of the Son of God. But it is affirmed by pantheism and modernism.
That is why all those who insist that Bergoglio is the pope are not Trad Inc. or traditional Catholics, they are Modernist Inc. and modernists, even if they say the Old Mass with all the rubrical perfection that has ever or could ever be achieved, in all possible universes.
_________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the search results of Google Image search for pantheism, and is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary. While the results have many interesting graphics, many of them are from occult sources and contain various errors or unseemly images, which are not recommended.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
This series will have four installments, one for each paragraph of the prophecies given to Bl. Emmerich in 1820 regarding the crisis of the two popes
Though I have previously commented on Bl. Emmerich’s prophecies here in 2014 and here in 2015, this series regards the prophecies she received in 1820 & 1822 in regard to the two popes, as cited here.
In this second installment, I will comment on the prophecies Bl. Emmerich received on the Feast of Saint Clare of Assisi, 200 years ago:
August 10, 1822: “I see the Holy Father in great anguish. He lives in a palace other than before and he admits only a limited number of friends near him. I fear that the Holy Father will suffer many more trials before he dies. I see that the false Church of Darkness is making progress, and I see the dreadful influence that it has on people. The Holy Father and the Church are verily in so great a distress that one must implore God day and night.“
“Last night I was taken to Rome where the Holy Father, immersed in his sorrows, is still hiding to elude dangerous demands (made upon him). He is very weak, and exhausted by sorrows, cares, and prayers. He can now trust but few people. This is mainly why he is hiding. But he still has with him an aged priest who has much simplicity and godliness. He is his friend, and because of his simplicity they did not think it would be worth removing him. But this man receives many graces from God. He sees and notices a great many things which he faithfully reports to the Holy Father. It was required of me to inform him, while he was praying, of the traitors, and evil-doers who were to be found among the high-ranking servants living close to him, so that he might be made aware of it.“
Let’s unpack this prophecy and consider what it may mean. No one can give certain interpretations of such thins however, except by the gift of God.
I see the Holy Father in great anguish. He lives in a palace other than before and he admits only a limited number of friends near him. — This obviously and accurately refers to Pope Benedict at the Monastery of Mater Ecclesiae. The number of persons who ask to meet with him and never get a response is uncountable. This has given rise to intense speculation that he either does not receive his mail, or is being isolated without his realization, or is imprisoned. Only those who talk about things of no importance or book which he was writing get entrance. Cardinals and Bishops are generally refused.
I see that the false Church of Darkness is making progress, and I see the dreadful influence that it has on people. — This is an accurate and succinct prophetic description of the last 7 years. How many Catholics have gone over to the dark side. The number is frightening.
The Holy Father and the Church are verily in so great a distress that one must implore God day and night. — This is indubitable. But only true Catholics are doing it. The rest want the revolution because it serves their dominant vices.
Last night I was taken to Rome where the Holy Father, immersed in his sorrows, is still hiding to elude dangerous demands (made upon him). He is very weak, and exhausted by sorrows, cares, and prayers. He can now trust but few people. This is mainly why he is hiding. — Here Bl. Anna Catherina explains the motives for the Pope acting as he does. I do not think anyone has refuted this. The recent treachery of Ganswein his personal secretary for more than 30 years is the worst of them all.
But he still has with him an aged priest who has much simplicity and godliness. He is his friend, and because of his simplicity they did not think it would be worth removing him. But this man receives many graces from God. He sees and notices a great many things which he faithfully reports to the Holy Father. — This priest has not been positively identified. Many thought it was Ganswein, but that obviously is now proven to be incorrect. It could be his own brother, but his brother does not live with him. To my knowledge, no priest lives with him.
It was required of me to inform him, while he was praying, of the traitors, and evil-doers who were to be found among the high-ranking servants living close to him, so that he might be made aware of it.“ — Here it seems that Bl. Emmerich is prophetically indicating that she will appear or inspire this priest friend of Pope Benedict. Let us pray that this be and that this priest friend heeds the warnings received!
The situation in which we are living would be considered fantastic and surreal fiction only 8 years ago. No wonder the prophecies of Bl. Emmerich were ignored for 200 years. But what we can gather from this brief passage, is that the Blessed has a special role of mediation in our times, and that we should pay attention to that, pray to her and ask God for special graces to help resolve this crisis. Let us be humble as Bl. Anna Caterina was, so that we might receive them, because God resists the proud, but to the humble He gives graces!
Finally, for the sake of Bl. Emmerich, I would like to invite all of Rome to the Midnight Prayers at the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore. But I cannot do it without running an add in a local paper, which will cost $2750 USD. If there are any of you who are true disciples of and devoted to Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich, please consider that this is the hour in which you need to act.
One reader from the UK has just offered $280 USD, and asks me to publicly challenge 9 others to donate the other 9 tenths of this cost. So here goes:
[simple-payment id=”10053″]
Many thanks to one Donor in Florida, another in New York, another in Northern California, another in Alabama, another in Pennsylvania, another in Nevada, and another in Germany, who have followed through with pledging each 1/10th of the expenses. We need 2 more such zealous souls!
These prayers were begun on the initiative of Veri Catholici, the international association pledged to fight the St. Gallen Mafia (twitter account is @VeriCatholici), 40 days ago. In the meantime, though this Novena ends tonight, the Roman Catholics who join me every night have decided to keep thes prayers going as a Perpetual Prayer Crusade against the Church of Darkness. There are only 3 of us who presently come. I was alone for 18 days and our Lady granted 2 others to join me constantly and a third on occasion. I need your help to increase their numbers, because as Our Lady will say in the next section of the prophecy, which I will comment on, on Monday, She wants all the Catholics of Rome to come and pray.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
As reported yesterday, the Head of the Vatican Press Office, Matteo Bruni, the Corona Virus has officially arrived at the Vatican.
Bruni confirmed that “there has been temporarily suspended all the walk-in services of the Office for the Direction of Health and Hygene to enable the sterilization of offices. However, there remains in operation the station for Emergency care.”
The Corona Virus arrived, ironically, via the Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Those attending have been informed of possible infection. Patient 0 was a priest from Bergamo, in Northern Italy, who unwittingly arrived infected. Ironically, the Conference was held from Feb. 27 to Feb. 28, marking the 7th anniversary of the departure of Pope Benedict. The news, this Thursday, that the infection was positively identified as the Corona Virus means that the contagion has had 7 days to spread at the Vatican unnoticed.
As a consequence, Vatican authorities ordered the sterilization of the offices of the Secretary of State (the Vatican Foreign Office), the I.O.R. (the Vatican Bank), the Apostolic Archives and the Vatican Bookstore.
This last place is widely visited by many pilgrims to the Vatican.
Those who might be infected have been notified by email, according to the Vatican spokesman. But panic is reigning in the micro-state, as Ambulances were hear running to and fro in the narrow streets of Saint Peter’s Patrimony all day yesterday.
________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is of Saint Peter’s Basilica seen from the end of the Via Conciliazione, near the Castel Sant’Angelo. Photo by Br. Bugnolo.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
https://youtu.be/VwSiL1XbdmE
But they are not: however, let us thank the Lord that in their absence, He has given us voices like Mr. Walker’s, which are prophetic day in and day out. Canon212.com to support Mr. Walker’s apostolate
FromRome.Info Video, recorded tonight at Santa Maria Maggiore.
ALL ARE INVITED TO JOIN US IN PRAYER AT MIDNIGHT EACH NIGHT, IN FRONT OF THE BASILICA OF SANTA MARIA MAGGIORE AT ROME
In the year of Our Lord 1820, God revealed to Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich that the Church of Rome would one day be attacked from within. That there would be two popes: one false and dark, who strove to found a new Religion which would be the home of every heretic and apostate: one true and aged, who would be paralyzed by inaction and silence.
To drive the Church of Darkness out of the Church of Rome, it was revealed to her that Our Lady asked the faithful to gather at Midnight in front of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, here at Rome, and pray with arms outstretched, in the form of the Cross, for the space of at least 3 Our Fathers.
In nomine Patri et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Pater noster qui es in coelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum;
adveniat regnum tuum, fiat voluntas tua, sicut in coelo et in terra.
Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie,
et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.
Padre nostro che sei nei cieli, sia santificato il tuo nome;
venga il tuo regno; sia fatta la tua volontà, come in cielo così in terra.
Dacci oggi il nostro pane quotidiano,
e rimetti a noi i nostri debiti come noi li rimettiamo ai nostri debitori,
e non ci indurre in tentazione, ma liberaci dal male». Amen. (3 volte)
Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name,
Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our Daily Bread,
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us,
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen. (3 times)
Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto,
Sicut erat in principio, et nunc et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
NOTE: Since, Bl. Anna-Katerina Emmerich had this vision in 1820, before the invention of time zones, midnight here should be understood in solar time, which at Rome makes midnight occur at 12:22 AM, presently, and thus the hour of midnight would be 11:52 AM to 12:52 AM. Try to say your prayers in that hour.
This Novena is explained and announced here in English, and here in Italian, in each place the citations from Bl. Emmerich about these prayers are given.
See the article published yesterday at FromRome.Info, The Church of Light vs. the Church of Darkness for more about this Novena of Prayer.
To put a Newspaper ad calling Catholics at Rome to this pray vigil, will cost 2000 euros. Help us spread the word by a generous contribution here below. Our Lady promised victory, let us mobilize everyone to the battle!
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
There has been a lot of speculation by Catholics about the next Conclave.
Will Benedict die before Bergoglio, or Bergoglio before Benedict?
If Benedict before Bergoglio, will any Cardinal Elector break with the others and elect a successor to Benedict? — Only 1 is required.
If Bergoglio before Benedict, will the Cardinals proceed to a Conclave, or will the recognize that Benedict was always the pope?
Who would be the next Pope? Someone made a Cardinal by Bergoglio or someone made a Cardinal by Benedict or John Paul II.
But so far, I have not seen any Vaticanista or even blogger approach the question of what role the Corona Virus might play in the next Conclave.
So here goes.
The Corona Virus was reported in one patient at the out-patient clinic at the Vatican yesterday. Today, the entire office of the Secretary of State was sanitized.
Panic is spreading at the Vatican. If they sanitized the Secretary of State offices, then the infection probably has spread to the entire Roman Curia and all of the Vatican, since the Secretary of State is the beehive, as it were, of the entire Vatican apparatus. Numerous officials go in and out on a hourly basis. Numerous officials go from the Secretary of State to all parts of the Vatican. Not to mention the mail, which is processed by the Vatican Post Office in restricted spaces above and below ground.
So we can be certain that the Corona Virus will spread at the Vatican in the next 14 days.
Before the arrival of the Corona Virus at the Vatican it was widely reported that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has the flu. This years flu is very powerful. Those who grew up in the New World, like myself and Bergoglio, won’t have resistance to it.
Thankfully, I already had the flu. I was sick for 10 days, in bed constantly. And for another 10 days, I was so weak I was in bed most of the time. I had a lot of time to think of eternity, and when I was nearly recovered, I decided to start FromRome.Info as a full time apostolate advocating for Pope Benedict.
Those who catch this influence are likely to be harmed particularly severely if they catch the Corona Virus at the same time. Its not polite to speculate about a specific person dying at the Vatican, so I won’t.
But not only Bergoglio but every Cardinal who works in the Roman Curia might fall sick.
Thus, the scenario of a new Conclave this spring is now very likely.
Pope Benedict XVI is under quarantine and I think he will have a better chance of surviving the Corona Virus, since he has lived his whole life in Europe and has much more robust antibody preparation.
The prospect of a new Conclave this spring probably sends chills of terror down the spines of many Cardinals. They would have to come to Italy, and remain in the confined quarters of Santa Marta and the Sistine Chapel for several weeks, making their infection by the Corona Virus highly likely. Others might already have succumbed at the Vatican, changing entirely the political dynamic of the next conclave.
Many probably will decide not to participate.
Others will have a lot of reasons to think of Judgement of God.
Also, who will want to be pope? He will have to live at one of the major epicenters of the Corona Virus?
You can be sure that all those Cardinals who might have weakened immune systems will opt out.
The ones who do have the courage might very well be inclined to act on the kind of proposal which I based my Letter to the Cardinal Dean on, or upon that which my proposal to relect Pope Benedict contained.
Because the consequences of electing another pope, while Benedict XVI lives, is having another antipope. And who wants to risk the Corona Virus to be an antipope or have a dubious claim to the papacy? That would not be a good ending to an ecclesiastical career which aimed for real achievements.
But on account of the epidemic, the College might simply refuse to convene, and leave the Church with Pope Benedict on the one hand, and a sede vacante in the Bergoglio Church on the other. And that would make the crisis in the Church even more confusing.
In any event, God is in control and this corona virus might be the divine intervention that some Bishops and Cardinals — who refuse to look at Canon Law and — prayed for instead, which is sent in reply, but not quite the kind they expected.
___________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is a photo of the funeral mass of Pope John Paul II, presided over by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in his capacity as Dean of the College of Cardinals, and attended by the entire College of Cardinals. Source and rights, here.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
I am a Catholic, a Roman Catholic. And that means I hold fast to all Divine, Sacred and immemorial tradition. I love the ancient and perennial rites of the Church, and I do not believe that the Novus Ordo is either of God or within the powers of even the Pope to promulgate. I think rather that what has come from Tradition must be kept, not jettisoned, and it cannot be recast according to modernistic principles. I also believe that one day, we shall have a Pope who complete nixes the Novus Ordo and Vatican II.
I say this as a preface, so that no one misunderstands what I am about to say: namely, that the Sicilian Mafia has a lot in common with the Traditionalist Movement in practice, not in theory.
That is to say, in they way they approach religion, not in the things they believe.
My expertise to make this comparison is that I have attended the Ancient Mass, both at independent chapels and with the Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Society of Saint Pius X. I lived four months with the Capuchins of Morgon, France, and have attended a priests only conference with Mons. Fellay at Albano. I am not an expert on the Traditionalist Movement, but I have seen enough as an anthropologist over about 10 years of personal experience.
I have also lived in Sicily for 3 years and have met several members of the Sicilian Mafia and talked to them about their beliefs. I am also half Sicilian by blood, and thus have many relatives who have told me about them.
So to explain, let me list the things which they share and explain why they are similar or identical.
The Sicilian Mafia traces its origin to elements of organized criminality in the Spanish Empire. Spain once ruled Sicily. These traditions of secret societies and criminality were inherited by the Spanish Kingdom through its reconquest of Muslim Spain. They are Moorish in origin.
But for the Sicilian Mafia these traditions are important. There are generations and lineages of Mafia. These are so well known, that in Italy everyone is required to get a Mafia background check if they are to head a public corporation. Such a check looks at all relatives down to 4 degrees of affinity, if I understand it correctly.
Consequently the Sicilian Mafia and the Traditionalist Movement agree that the Ancient Mass is the true mass.
I was surprised to learn this. But I learned it from a Mafioso in person.
You see, when I lived at Noto as a hermit, I used to hitchhike the 120 KM each Sunday Morning, to attend the Latin Mass at the Church of Saint Anthony, in Acireale. And as of necessity, I accepted every ride which was offered me, as I stood with my thumb out asking for a ride.
One morning, I got a ride on the Autostrada near Siracusa from a Mafioso. He wore a black suit and white shirt and a black tie and pants. He was heading to Catania for an important meeting, but when in conversation I divulged that I was heading to the Old Latin Mass, he told me it was the true Mass, and that he would delay his meeting to drop me off directly in front of the Church. The detour cost him at least 90 minutes of a delay.
I was very impressed by his piety and that led me to do some research. Indeed, in all my years of living in Sicily, I never met a Traditionalist who was so obliging to me in my necessity to get to the Traditional Latin Mass on Sunday.
It was even more impressive, because the meeting he was going to was a mob meeting.
The Sicilian Mafia puts great important in maintaining the public reputation for decency and respectability. And one thing they do is patronize the Church. Some of their sons even become priests.
They love the ancient rituals and pomp of the Old Mass. They consider it an aestetic travesty that Paul VI introduced the New Mass. They detest banality. You cannot promote yourself on the basis of a public image associated with banality.
But the Sicilian Mafia do not see their religious practices in public as anything which binds them to stop their criminal activity. They see the laws of the Italian Republic as optional, and consider whats they do to be legitimate. Its a state of necessity, they would say.
So they keep the laws they need to keep but do not observe the laws they need to not observe. They mostly keep to themselves and are involved in importing products to Italy so as to evade customs laws and tariffs. The are libertarians of a sort.
The Traditionalist Movement is also very anomian. They do not care to violate scores and scores of canons of Church Law when they decide to set up shop in a local diocese. They consider that a state of necessity gives them license to do most anything, even annul marriages. — I am obviously speaking of those groups which do not have faculties.
The Sicilian Mafia are also a very tight knit group. You cannot knock on their door and join. Its more by invitation. They check you out. They have rituals of initiation. They have core beliefs that you have to accept to be a member.
They keep to themselves. You cannot just ask them for an interview. And if you want to know which families are Mafia in the local area, it is difficult to find out, because no one wants to mention their name.
But if you want to start a business where they claim control, then you need their approval. If you try to do it without their approval you will be burned out, but only after several friendly visits. You have to show omertà and pay the pizzo they ask. Omertà is respect. And a pizzo is a monthly payment to insure you wont suffer the misfortunes which they say happen to those who are not insured.
A lot of traditionalists are also very sectarian. If you show up at their Mass they wont even talk to you, or they will ask you questions like an Inquisitor to find out who you are. And you cannot do anything without their permission, like follow the Lord as a religious.
In their places of worship they do not advertise or promote anything but themselves and they expect as the price of attending their Masses that you commit to their organization 100%. If not, you are not to be trusted. Also, they do not exist to serve you as men of God, you exist to serve them.
In addition, both the Sicilian Mafia and most Trad groups exhibit characteristics of the Club. They are all male societies and its invitation only. No amount of merit gets you in. And no amount of demerit gets you kicked out.
Also, you are expect to serve the club. It is a no-no to talk to the police, whether about crimes committed by the Club, or boys raped by members. Though I do admit that as faar as I know the Sicilian Mafia on the score of pedophilia are much more intollerant. They do in those of their own who rape boys, because they have strong family values of loyalty. Wherase in all the Trad groups of which I have read reports, they all act just like the Lavender Mafia, and require that members not report to the police, or else you are out of there.
I could cite some concrete cases, but my sources would be persecuted.
Finally, the Sicilian Mafia and nearly all Trad groups I know of, do nto exist for the good of Society, but for the good of themselves. They are not about promoting virtue, they are about making their own members have more power, influence and reputation and respectibility. When the State of the Church crumble, is not their concern. Not in the least. And you will never see them take any risk to help the State or the Church.
Therefore, as an anthropologist I would conclude that both the Sicilian Mafia and the Traditionalist Movement have a lot in common. They are both counter-cultural, sectarian, traditionalist, anomian, self-serving, closed club like societies. They both do not care about Canon Law in the least and they both recognize without question that Bergoglio is the pope. In fact, in 2010, another Mafioso told me, that they controlled the Vatican and it would soon become clear that they control it. He told me more truth than I ever read at LifeSite News or in the reports of Edward Pentin.
For public disclosure: none of my relatives are Mafia
and all of them either fear it or speak against it.
________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of Google Image Search results for the movie, The GodFather: a romantic vision of the Sicilian Mafia in New York City, which depicted many aspects of the Mafia which I mention in this article. Which image is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary and to show how effective Google Image search can be.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
