Tag Archives: Pope Benedict XVI

News

Pope Benedict XVI never abdicated and he told us as much

8 Comments

Or How Uguccione di Pisa explains what Munus and Ministerium mean in Ecclesiastical Law

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

Pope Benedict XVI never abdicated, and I have demonstrated and proven that by a myriad of articles and investigations already, as can be seen in my Index to the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI.

Some of these demonstrations have been extrinsic and some have been intrinsic. That is, some have argued from facts and laws not cited by the Declaratio Pope Benedict XVI read and published on Feb. 11, 2013, and others have been argued from the very words and grammatical structure of the text itself.

But as of yet, I have not made mention of one of the strongest arguments yet, which is intrinsic.

So, now I will, for the sake of posterity and for all those who want to know the truth.

First, I will remind everyone, that since Pope Benedict XVI is the one who published the Declaratio, no one but he could interpret it. Canon 16 in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 makes it clear that it was the intention of Pope John Paul II that this principle be respected, namely that the intention of the legislator must be given by the legislator himself. As I showed in my article on Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori, it is not licit for subordinates to interpret the decrees of their superior. Moreover, a most weighty testimony was given me in person, by Monsignor Arrieta, the Secretary for the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts, when I visited his offices in 2019, as I reported here, namely that for Pope Benedict XVI to interpret his Declaratio, he must do so by written, published decree, a thing which he never did.

Hence it is, that without any authentic or official interpretation of Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaration, one must presume in any controversy over what it effected, that it did NOT effect the loss of the papal office nor of the right to claim to hold the papal office, according to the juridical principle which is valid in all codes of law: the cessation of right is never presumed. This principle was affirmed to me by no one less than the present Cardinal Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S. J., who graciously agreed to grant me an audience in November of 2019, while he was still a humble professor of jurisprudence at the Gregorian University, as I reported here.

This is the fundamental error of presuming the cessation of right, which is committed by the Cardinals and all the Bishops, clergy, religious and laity who claim that in renouncing the “ministry which I received through the hands of the Cardinals”, Pope Benedict XVI intended to renounce the papal office or Petrine munus. For they read “munus” in the key phrase where Pope Benedict XVI said and wrote “ministerium”.

One way in which they attempt their illicit interpretation is, however, to appeal to all kinds of sources for the Latin language in which someone used the word “munus” or “ministerium” or both in similar senses.

While I have refuted even that recourse, by citing canon 17, which forbids reading the terms of Canon Law in other ways than the Code makes clear it uses them, that has not stopped them inventing all kinds of unlawful arguments. And I have showed in a definitive manner nearly 5 years ago, that the Code of Canon Law of 1983 never equates munus with ministerium, which demonstration given in an academic conference at Rome has never been refuted by any author or speaker.

So, I will here shatter, not only their appeal to other sources, but drawing on Canon 17, I will cite a most authoritative Latin source for Latin as used in ecclesiastical law to show them that Pope Benedict XVI never intended to fulfill Canon 332 §2, which is the only canon which speaks of Papal resignations, when it speaks of a Roman Pontiff renouncing his “munus”.

Uguccione di Pisa explains what Munus and Ministerium mean in Ecclesiastical Law

The source I will cite is the Magnae Derivationes of Uguccione di Pisa (died in 1210 A. D — see biography, here in Italian — see a biography here in English), who was not only a professor of Ecclesiastical Law at the University of Bologna, and Bishop of Ferrara (1190-1210 A. D.), Italy, but also the professor who taught one of the greatest canonists of the middle ages to become a Pope, Pope Innocent III, Lothar of Segni (Pope from 1198-1216 A.D.), who was born at Gavignano, Italy, where I have resided the last two years I was in Italy.

The Magnae Derivationes was a Lexicon of Latin terms with their definitions in Latin. On account of the authority of Uguccione as a Canon Lawyer and teacher of Pope Innocent III, he is a weighty authority in the meaning of Latin terms in texts regarding Ecclesiastical Law.

So let’s see what the Magnae Derivationes says about the key word, “munus”. I quote from here, since the Dante Medieval Archives currently has a copy of this work online, and since under the rubric “munus”, Uguccione refers you to his entry for “donum”, where he distinguishes the two.

He does this, because both words can be translated as “gift”, so it is important to understand the difference of their significations.

If you look for his definition of donum, it is quite extensive, but the key phrase I want to cite is this one:

Item donum dantis est, a dando vel donando, munus accipientis, a manibus vel muniendo vel monendo.

Here is my English translation.

Likewise, the gift {donum} belongs to the one giving, by giving and/or donating, the munus belongs to the one accepting, by hand, when being munerated and/or being warned.

The implications of this explanation are astounding.

What Uguccione is saying is that a thing is called a gift (donum) when one is speaking about the giver giving it. But it is called a “munus” when one is speaking about the one receiving it.

But Pope Benedict XVI speaks of renouncing the “ministerium” which he received through the hands of the Cardinals. He does not say the “munus” which he received through their hands. If he was talking about the Papal Office, he could have used donum or munus, to refer either to the Cardinals giving it to him or him receiving it from them. But he did not. He spoke of the ministerium.

This means that he intentionally avoided the equation of “munus” and “ministerium” as the total object of his renunciation, by not naming the Papal Office as the thing he received from the Cardinals. By saying, instead, the “ministerium which I received” he was removing the Petrine Munus from any context in which it could be understood to be that which he was renouncing.

in other words, by connecting the ministry with the concept of being received, he syntactically removed the petrine munus from the equation, since by its very definition the word “munus” refers to the gift received and accepted, and if he intended to renounce it he would had used it in the phrase regarding receiving.

This means, that Pope Benedict XVI DID NOT intend to signify the Papal Office or “munus”, which he understood to have received AS A GIFT from Someone Else, namely Jesus Christ, when he spoke of the “ministerium” he was renouncing.

This he never rejected nor renounced the Petrine Munus. And this is consonant with Pope Benedict XVI’s insistance that he never renounced his verantwortung, which is the correct and precise German translation of “munus”.

Therefore he remained pope until death.

This citation from Uguccione adds to the rationale whereby the Declaratio cannot be authentically interpreted by anyone as signifying a Papal Abdication.

This is fortified by what Uguccione says about “ministerium”, as cited here:

Minor componitur cum sterion, quod est statio, et dicitur hic minister, quasi minor in statione; vel minister dicitur quia offìcium debitum manibus exequatur; [11] et hinc hec ministra et minister -a -um et ministerculus -a -um diminutivum, et ministralis -le et hoc ministerium, servitium, offìcium ministri; [12] unde hic et hec ministerialis -le et per sincoparti hoc misterium, vel potius derivabitur postea a mistis. [13] Item a minister ministro -as, et componitur administro -as, comministro, subministro: a ministrante obsequium redditur, a subministrante subsidium prerogatur; et est activum cum omnibus suis compositis.

Which in English is:

Minor is composed with -sterion, which is station, and here one says minister, as if one lesser in station; or minister and ministerculus the diminutive, and ministral and this is a ministry, service and office of a minister; whence this and that ministerial and through syncopation this is mysterium, and/or rather will be derived afterwards from “a priest of the mysteries” (mystes). LIkewise from “to minister” minister, and this is compounded as “to administer”, “to co-minister”, “to sub-minister”: by the one ministering there is rendered a due-service, from the one subministering, there is granted a subsidy; and it is an active verb with all its compounds.

From this definition of “ministerium”, it is therefore clear that the ministry refers to what is the service rendered as a duty of the office, not the office itself. Thus by renouncing the “ministry which I received from the hands of the Cardinals”, Pope Benedict XVI literally and explicitly resigned from active service, while not renouncing the gift he had received from Christ.

All of this responds to the shock and consternation of thousands of Catholics in February 2013, when they came to know that Pope Benedict XVI had “renounced the ministry which I received through the hands of the Cardinals”, since every Catholic knows that the Papal Office is received from Jesus Christ, not from the Cardinals. Their consternation and shock was founded on their being deceived into thinking that Pope Benedict had abdicated, when he clearly only went into retirement. For retirement means keeping the dignity of an office while laying aside its duties. But since the dignity of an office remains only with the office, that he retained the dignity of the Papal office means simply and plainly that he never resigned it. Also, that the Church recognized that he retained it till death is the universal acceptance that he never abdicated, regardless of how many gaslighting liars want you to believe otherwise.

These laws and facts are pertinent even unto today, because they mean that the Dicastery which excommunicated Viganò has no authority to judge him, because it was not created by a man holding the Petrine Munus, since Pope Francis received nothing on March 13, 2013, but was a usurper and anti-pope right up to the final moments of Pope Benedict XVI’s mortal life. It also means that the canons cited in the trial and sentence against Viganò are non existent, because they were never promulgated by John Paul II nor Benedict XVI.

Finally, all this confirms that the Catholic  Church is founded upon the Eternal Word, and can only be saved in the present age by attending to His Words and the words of His true Vicars on earth, in Declarations and Canon Law. Everyone doing something else is an enemy of the Eternal and temporal words by which the Church must always be governed.

In conclusion, let us pray for all the Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops of the Catholic Church, because we are living in an age where there is widespread and profound incompetence among the Sacred Hierarchy, not only as regards morality or academics, but even the laws of Holy Mother Church, and until the light of humility convinces them of their own incompetence in these matters, they will never come to know the truth by which alone the Church can be saved from all present crises and troubles.

Canon Law, Church History, Editorials

A Meditation for the 11th Anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI’s Renunciation of Ministry

4 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

It was 11 years ago, on February 11, 2013 A. D., at shortly after 11:30 A. M., that his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI read his now famous declaration, “Non solum propter”. — Above, if you click the image, you can access FromRome.Info’s complete Index to the history, debate and controversy over the events of that day and the meaning or effect of that declaration.

By that act he clearly and manifestly intended to retain the petrine munus and renounce only the petrine ministry, so that by retiring but not abdicating he could retain the Papal Dignity and Mandate, while conceding to his opponents the other powers of governance. While there are many, many opinions about the morality, intention, cause, motives and purpose of such an act, the juridical value of it was NOT and abdication.

But, for today’s anniversary, I want to offer a reflection on the moral errors committed in the Vatican before and during that controversy, which might help explain why even to this day, notable clergy incardinated at the Vatican, such as Cardinals Burke and Mueller, Brandmuller and Sarah, and even Archbishop Viganò seemingly find it impossible to admit their error in thinking he declared that he would abdicate from the Pontificate on that day.

As I have shown in my Index to Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, there are more than 53 errors in the Latin text Pope Benedict XVI read on that day. And why it has been admitted by experts at the Vatican, that Pope Benedict XVI wrote the text without any consultation with Canon Lawyers or Latinists, even Archbishop Gänswein admits there are errors in the text — though he has not yet had the charity to the Catholic world to admit which ones he recognizes.

Thus, the national Catholic newspaper in Italy, Avvenire, which is run by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference there, though they called me an “idiot” for claiming there are errors in the text, now has to eat crow. And yes, I still await an apology for their calumny, for the sake of removing the scandal they have placed before millions of souls.

But that they resorted to the services of a defrocked priest to gaslight the Catholic world about the deficiencies in the text, showed how desperate they were to keep the narrative of an abdication going, and how they knew all in their hearts, at least by 2021 that Benedict XVI never abdicated.

This collective sin and guilt and complicity is the principal embarrassment of the Catholic Hierarchy, not only in Italy but round the world. These men are pragmatic, and they realize that their moral authority over the faithful will be utterly destroyed when it comes to be known that they collectively were incapable of understanding how Canon 332 §2 worked and what was necessary for an abdication — a thing which should be a basic concept taught in a general Canon Law class on juridical acts.

So individuals who have doctorates in Canon Law such as Archbishop Gänswein really have no excuse. And there are 1000s like him, who were all silent. Though the worst sin was of those who should have known and attempted to defend the indefensible, namely, that a renunciation of ministerium in Latin signified a renunciation of munus.

But it was not I, but Cardinal Burke himself who immediately recognized that the declaration did not contain what it should contain to effect a valid abdication. He himself spoke to friends and acquaintances from Rome to Arizona about this. But he otherwise hid this opinion of his from the press. And I surmise that if he attempted to speak with Pope Benedict XVI before February 28, 2013, he failed in his request, because Pope Benedict XVI was not wont to speak with him about “canonical details”. The other Cardinals and clergy at the Vatican also failed, either out of human respect, or complicity in the plot by Hilary Clinton to push Pope Benedict XVI from power and have a new “spring time” in the Catholic Church.

I will guess too, without any evidence, that if there were a group of Cardinals and Bishops who realized the errors in the text in February 2013, they became conflicted in their private counsels, because they considered it somehow wrong to request that Pope Benedict XVI make a proper and correct renunciation on Feb. 28, 2013, to correct the errors of his Feb. 11th text. Indeed, for men like Cardinal Burke, it was his grave duty to make his way to Castle Gandolfo on Feb. 28th, with the proper text written on paper and carried in hand, to obtain an audience and insist Pope Benedict XVI sign the document in the presence of two other Bishops or Archbishops. Perhaps he was too unfit to climb to the balcony by rope ladder or thrown himself on the ground in front of the main door, to make a spectacle, to obtain this juridical rectification. We cannot judge the man on his personal sentiments, but all who knew of the defect should have had such a zeal.

Contrariwise, if anyone knew that the act of Pope Benedict XVI did not validly cause an abdication, or that Pope Benedict XVI knew, understood or did not understand this they had a grave solemn duty to announce this to the world as soon as they knew of it. Cardinal Burke did not do this. Why? Did the Cardinals discuss this in the canonically invalid Conclave of 2013 ? We may never know. But shortly after they came out of that “Conclave” we know that they had formed a silent eternal pact to never speak of this fraud perpetrated upon the Catholic World, because immediately the Vatican began publishing falsified translations in all major languages of the world, to conceal this from 1+ Billion Catholics. And this is the greatest crime against the rights of the Faithful in the entire history of the Church!

However, the official canonical and juridical declaration that ‘Pope Benedict XVI remained pope until his death’ is a question about which the Catholic Bishops of the Roman Province are competent to judge in a Provincial Council. Anyone can request them to do it. And all honesty requires that they,  who know of it, make such a request. Moreover, if they fail to rectify the historical and juridical record, those who know of it, who could be influential to obtain this, will go to their graves to encounter a most Terrible and unforgiving Judge, Whose Immaculate Bride has been raped and sullied by such a great injustice.

And yet, all those who insist that Bergoglio has never been the pope, fail to avail themselves of the most important confirmation of the invalidity of the Conclave of 2013, which they could obtain by the convocation of such a Council. Why is this? Those who insist he has always been the pope, also fail to seek this solution. Why?

So as we commemorate and remember that fateful day 11 years ago, we should make a renewed effort to admit the truth, connect the dots and study the sources, if we have not yet understood what really happened on that day and who is at fault for it.

And I encourage all the Catholics who have had the grace of the Holy Spirit to do this and complete this necessary task, to pray for all those who live within the ideological limits imposed upon by the boy’s clubs and magic circles in which they move, who out of human respect have preferred not to ask the question or worse to denigrate the messengers of truth, whom God has sent to His Church in the last 11 years.

Many have urged me to write a book about Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, but I make all the articles and videos available for free, because as a Franciscan Brother I realize that my vocation is to give freely, when one has received freely, and to work for the repair of Christ’s Church. — Of everything I have written and mentioned, here, you can find reference and articles in the above index. Just click the top image in this post.

FromRome.info is an electronic journal chronicling the events of the Church without keeping silent about the duty of Catholics to respond with faith-filled action, rather than as mere spectators. This article is one of more than 10,000 published since September 2013 A. D.. For more information about our journal, see our About Page.

News, Videos

Pope Benedict XVI News for December, 2022 A. D. with Br. Bugnolo

10 Comments

With important announcement for Catholics world wide. — In addition, in this video, Br. Bugnolo explains why we must definitively dump the “Benedict’s Renunciation” Narrative and what Benedict XVI really did under the authorization of Canon 333.

UPDATE: Many thanks for the volunteers from, Virginia, Philippines, Poland, Texas and New Zealand.

News

Bergoglio concedes that Benedict is still the Pope

8 Comments

REPUBLISHED FROM FEB 2, 2019 A.D.

We republish the words of Bergoglio, without comment, as their meaning is obvious:

UPDATE: Nov. 15, 2022 A. D..

Editor’s Note: Notice that Bergoglio begins by saying, “El Papa Benedicto…”, “El” in Spanish is the singular definite article, which means, “the only one”, or “the real one” etc..  This statement by Bergoglio was reflected in letters from the Secretary of State (Secretariate of State) in 2021, which called Pope Benedict XVI, the Supreme Pontiff, and in 2022, with the publication of the Annuario Pontificio, in which Bergoglio was identified by no claim to any title, such as Roman Pontiff or Vicar of Christ, or Successor of St. Peter.

But why would Bergoglio hold the reigns of power and yet say in public that another is the true pope? This has to do with the method of operation of the Illuminati, who reveal their plans to their victims or take off their masks during their rituals. It is to boast and test their power. To say that Benedict XVI is the pope is their way of saying, “We have such confidence that our system of psychological and political control over you is so firm, that we could say even the truth, and you would still obey and submit to us, in the name of that truth, even though by doing so you are in fact denying that truth!”

This is the spiritual sadism in which the fallen are perfect adepts.

Church History

Pope St. Pius X foresaw Pope Benedict XVI as the true Pope until his death

21 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

REPRINTED FROM FEB. 8, 2020 A. D.

In 1909, during his audience with the Franciscans, Pope St. Pius X fell into an ecstasy.

When he came out of it, he was asked, “What I have seen is terrible! Is it I or one of my successors. I do not know. I saw a pope flee from the Vatican, walking upon the cadavers of his priests.”

Of a second vision, sometime before his death on August 20, 1914, the Saintly Pope said again, now with more precision: “I saw one of my successors, with my same name, who fled, walking upon the cadavers of his brothers. He will take refuge in a hidden place. But after a short rest, he will die a cruel death.”

The source of this testimony is repeated by several Italian authors, such as Antonio Socci, as something which was considered credible by even those who work in the Vatican, but I can find no certain person or source for it.

As for what these words of the Saintly pope mean. First, let me explain that the term, “brothers” in the mouth of the Pope in those times refers to his brother Cardinals. Second, the Italian, which I have translated as “with my same name”, means one who has the same name. This could be Pius or his baptismal name, Joseph.

Well since Pope Pius X there have been 2 popes named Pius: Pius XI and Pius XII, but neither of them had to flee the Vatican, nor did either die a cruel death — a phrase which I translated literally from the Italian, and which means a death in which there is a shedding of blood.

But Pope Benedict XVI’s baptismal name is Joseph.

So if this vision pertains to him, then it not only foretells a horrible end for him, but signifies that in the mystical visions of Pope Saint Pius X, God had revealed that Pope Benedict XVI will be the true successor of Saint Peter unto the very day of his death. And that means Bergoglio was never the pope.

Canon Law, Debates, Editorials

Father Z’s Dares Righteousness but needs some major guidance

10 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Father John Zuhlsdorf, who is known on the Net simply as, “Father Z”, from his famous blog by the same name, did something the other day which only a handful of Catholic priests have dared to do in the last 8 years: he spoke publicly about the controversy over the “resignation” of Pope Benedict XVI.

His post is entitled, “The Question of Two Pope Bothers a lot of people. Some Thoughts” and it was published on June 29, 2021.

I know at least 4 priests who would not have the courage, even though they privately recognize Benedict XVI as the true pope.

And so, for that daring, Father Zuhlsdorft deserves praise and applause from all Catholics everywhere.

We live in a time when the clergy, alas, have fallen nearly totally silent about the truths of the Faith and about the errors and falsehoods of our day. And of the greatest of these errors is that which regards understanding what happened — or, as Ann Barnhardt rightly says in a more correct language, what did NOT happen — on Feb. 11, 2013, in the Sala Clementina, from approximately 11:30 AM local time until about 11:40 P.M..

The Vatican announced that Benedict XVI had resigned. Benedict XVI three years later, in his official biography interview by Peter Seewald, however, would explicitly deny that he had abdicated. In other words, he is still the pope, but some sort of revolution or coup d’etat has taken place at the Vatican. A thing which is undeniable by all, since there are two “Popes” at the Vatican.

But since Father Zuhlsdorf has publicly opined upon the matter, and since he has in true humility admitted, as a prologue, that he is not an expert on the controversy, I will make some comments here about what I see are the grave errors which pepper his discussion and keep anyone reading it from arriving at a certain and true conclusion regarding which is the true pope.

Where Father Hunwicke got mislead

Father Zuhlsdorf opens by citing a historical example of a case in which there were two popes, believing by such reference to obtain some light on how to explain the current situation.  So he cites another rather well known Catholic priest blogger, Father Hunwicke, a convert, who lives in the United Kingdom.

Here I follow the citation of Father Zuhlsdorf:

Over at his splendid blog, Fr. John Hunwicke had an engaging piece provoked by the whirling of your planet back to the annual Feast of St. Silverius, Pope and Martyr (+537).

Fr. H used this occasion to look into a question which vexes many a thoughtful Catholic these days: two popes at the same time.  Possible?  Fact: Francis is going around doing pope things while Benedict lives in the Vatican Gardens still looking a lot like The Pope.  It’s a head-scratcher.

NB: Some people wave away questions about “two popes” or an invalid resignation.  To my mind, it is wrong-headed to gloss over hard questions that vex people, to turn a blind eye to them and whistle a happy tune with fingers deep into one’s ears.  There are people who are really upset by this situation.  We have an obligation to tackle these questions head on in order to put people at ease about them.   Let’s do that.

Back to Fr Hunwicke’s piece.

Background first:  In 537, the Byzantine general Flavius Belisarius entered Rome and deposed Pope Silverius who had been elected the previous year.  Belisarius brought in his own guy, Vigilius, and made him Pope while Silverius was still alive (for a few months, at least).  So, who was the real Pope?

Father Zuhlsdorf’s recourse to a historical example seems a reasonable way to proceed. But I submit that it is colored by the fact that he has grown up in the United States and come to believe that the Common Law principle of precedent is a good principle to apply in a dubious legal case of two popes.

Here Father gets it completely wrong in his presumption. Because the Roman Church has always chosen Roman Law not Common Law — which by the way did not even exist for some 800 years after the faith came to Rome — as Her legal system.  In Roman law, precedent has nearly no worth. What matters is what is the statuary law at the time a dispute arises, not what happened in past cases when the laws where different.

And such is the case of the example brought up by Father Hunwicke. Thus, whatever happened in that case, simply has no bearing whatsoever in regard to a solution in the present case.  This is true because in the present case, the laws which bear on determining whether the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI was valid or not, were promulgated in 1983 in the New Code, which expressly abrogated and obrogated all past laws. Whereas, the case cited by Father Hunwicke took place some 1400 years before when there were no canons or laws regarding papal resignations, forced or otherwise.

Dom Guéranger’s quip is worthless and misleading in this debate

Now, in a controversy over law or rights, it is important to cite authorities. No one denies that. But the value of the authority depends on whether he has said anything pertinent to the debate.

Now there is no doubt that Dom Prosper Guéranger is a man worth citing. But since he died before the canons of the Church were codified in 1917 by Pope Benedict XV, he obviously approached the problem of a papal schism differently than we do today.  He had to, because there was no law to appeal to.

So citing this very learned Benedictine, as Father Zuhlsdorf does in citing Father Hunwicke, is again simply useless, even if the argument sounds good:

Hunwicke provides something from dom Gueranger concerning Silverius and Vigilius (my emphases):

“The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church … acknowledges in the person of a certain pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself.”

Do you get that?   No matter how strange a path by which some fellow became the one with his “bum in the chair”, when “the Church” acknowledges him, then he is the legitimate Pope.

It is simply useless, because we cannot pretend today that there is no law determining whether Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is valid or not or makes him no longer the pope or not!  Nearly all who claim Bergoglio is the pope do entertain such a pretense, because if you don’t then you have to recognize that the law gives you no leg to stand on.

But that is not the only error, implicit in the citation of Dom Guéranger. Because, when we cannot know the facts of a case or the moral or legal principles by which it can be solved with certitude, we are forced to resort to reflex principles which indicate a probable or more probable solution.

So Dom Guéranger was right to resort to a reflex principle in a case in which he could not have known the facts well or personally. But we are wrong to do so, since we can easily have the facts of the case with certitude and can easily find the code of canon law in Latin which sets out the principles by which we can arrive with certitude at the correct answer.

A Shameful error in reading Latin

Now if anyone sees the Latin term, which is key in this controversy, and mistranslates it as office — for wont of a better term — I as a Latinist can excuse him, because I have done the same. But since Father Zuhlsdorf is rather famous for his Latinity, I will have to say that when he renders munus as office, it is a shameful error.

Admittedly Father Zuhlsdorf claims no expertise in this debate, and so perhaps does not know that Canon 17 explains how to understand the word munus, but after all that has been written, which is not hard to find on the internet, it is simply irresponsible to cite a translation of munus as office without at least pointing out the translation is wrong or insufficient to understand this controversy.

For if munus meant office, then in canon 145 §1, the Code would not define officium as a munus, under a certain sort of specification. It would simply say they mean the same thing. But it does not, therefore, in the mind of the legislator we must understand, as Canon 17 requires us, that the words do NOT mean the same thing.

And if you want to know what munus means, you can avail yourself of the only academic paper every submitted in a Conference at Rome, which followed the norm of canon 17 to discover what it means. And you can read it here. It was delivered 21 months ago and has never been refuted by anyone, anywhere.

Father Zuhlsdorf then wanders into quacksand

At this point, the learned Father Zuhlsdorf, who evidently does not know the principles of Canon Law, wanders off into speculating that the Office of the Pope can be separated from the Office of the Bishop of Rome.

This speculation has found favor and pleasure among some who are participating in this debate. But out of respect for them, I will not mention them by name.

Suffice it to say, that the office of Peter cannot be separated from the Bishopric of Rome, when both are understood properly, that is, according to the correct understanding of their terms.  We can know this with certainty, because Vatican I infallibly declared that the Pope has no authority over the deposit of the Faith. And the Deposit of the Faith includes Apostolic Tradition. Apostolic Tradition means what the Apostles handed down, left to us, for our instruction.  And obviously the office of St. Peter was left to the Church of Rome BY THE APOSTLE PETER. Hence it cannot be alienated from it by anyone.

To say otherwise is simple heresy. For it implies that Apostolic Tradition can be overthrown, corrected or changed. Now that is the doctrine of Bergoglio (e. g., in regard to the Our Father), but it is not Catholic.

And to imply that Pope Benedict XVI intended that, is not only unsubstantiated by any explicit statement, but requires a reading of his Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013 which is artificial and strained at the best, and totally imaginary at the worst.

You do not have to play games of theological speculation, to find out whether the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI is valid or not.  Simply read canon 332 and the text of the Declaratio and it is clear enough, if you want to see it, and if you are not a priest who is naming Bergoglio as the pope in the canon of the mass.

In Conclusion

Father Zuhlsdorf’s exposition of the controversy does contain some accurate parts, where he lays out the basic argument for the invalidity of the Declaratio to cause Benedict XVI to no longer be pope.

But for the most part his exposition is rambling and confusing and seems inconclusive.

I object strongly at his blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, in saying that that Divine Person might rig a papal election with the intent of giving us a bad pope.  God cannot will evil. To say so, is to call God the Devil.

And I demure at the entire post by Father Zuhlsdorf, because I think that if a priest open his mouth, he should at least give clear doctrine and not muddle the waters.

But what is lacking is grave also in this, that Father seems to think, by his noticeable omission, that if a priest names someone he doubts is the pope in the Canon of the Mass that he is not gravely sinning, or that if he names someone whom God knows is not the pope, he is not gravely sinning.  This omission in the article is very shocking, because it pretends to a form of Catholicism in which the manner of the offering of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is one which is acceptable to God when it is rubrically correct, regardless of whom it is offered in communion with, a true or false pope. And that makes a mockery of the Divine Majesty.

News

Pope Benedict XVI admits he played a Carnival joke on the Cardinals

9 Comments
https://twitter.com/MilitarisCath/status/1410126011983880192

 Introduction & Summary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Once again the intrepid Cionci, who reads German, has dug up in the official Biography-Interview of Pope Benedict XVI another pearl to shed light on what he is up to. For all those who demand that Benedict speak and explain himself, he has done so dozens of times. It is just that those who are possessed by the devil, globalism, freemasonry and personal careerist pride, cannot see it.

But for those who still admit truth exists and that words have meaning, Cionci focuses in on this passage from the book, “The Last Conversations” by Peter Seewald.  Pay close attention to the words.

Seewald: “Originally you wanted to resign as early as December, but then you decided on February 11, Carnival Monday, the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes. Does this have a symbolic meaning?”

Benedict XVI: “That it was Carnival Monday I was not aware of. In Germany it also caused me some problems. It was the day of Our Lady of Lourdes. The feast day of Bernadette of Lourdes, in turn, coincides with my birthday. That’s why it seemed right to me to choose that day”.

Seewald: “The date therefore HAS…. “

Benedict XVI: “…an inner connection, yes.”

Click the image above to read Cionci’s full article, where he points out that no German could be ignorant of two things, that Feb. 11, 2013 was the day of Carnival, and that in Germany they play jokes on one another, on that day.

I will add my own comment:  Since February 11th commemorates the first apparition of Our Lady at Lourdes, where she revealed her celestial name, saying, “I am the immaculate conception”, a name which is utterly singular in all of humanity, so Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013, did something entirely singular in the history of the Papacy, so that just as Satan was crushed by Our Lady’s purity and virginity, so the breed of Satan, who have infiltrated into the College of Cardinals and College of Bishops and clergy world wide, might be crushed by his trick of renouncing ministry but not munus, remaining the Pope and letting the wicked fool themselves.

For those who have already succumbed to the Marxist Critique, Catholics cannot trick the wicked, because that is “unjust” and “dishonest”. Only the wicked have the right to lie to Catholics, Catholics have the duty to be 100% sincere and tell the truth always to the wicked, as good little submissive servants.

For those who are careerists in the Church, but care nothing for God, a Pope cannot trick the clergy, because it is his duty always to reward and honor them and never correct them unless they happen to all agree to cast one or two out from their number, like Don Minutella or all those other honest priests after Vatican II who said that the Aggiornamento was wrong or of the devil.

But for Catholics, we confess that when an entire class is so morally corrupt that they need to be cut off from the living body of the Church, and are willing to cut themselves off from it, by pursuing with abandon the grab for power which accompanies a papal resignation, even if the resignation is not an abdication as the law requires, it is perfectly legitimate for the Vicar of Jesus Christ to be so discrete as to allow the fools, idiots and wicked run down the wrong path, to their own destruction.

If you have not yet noticed, we are living in the end times. The Mass was suspended at Easter and in many parts of the world even for an entire year. There are now orders to commit daily sacrilege and blasphemy in Church during the Mass. The clergy are 99% on board with this new religion of Satanic affrontery to the Living God.

And yet some devlishly proud and obstinate souls still insist that Christ’s Vicar be 100% sincere with those who are 100% insincere, and 100% straight-forward with those who are 100% crooked.

Pope Benedict XVI pulled the greatest joke on the Devil in the history of the Church after Pentecost. And now we Catholic have the right to laugh with him at his breed’s downfall.

+ + +

Biblical Exegesis, Church History

Did Pope Benedict XVI receive instruction from St. Hildegard of Bingen for his faux resignation?

22 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

FRENCH VERSION

In the quest to understand the events surrounding Feb. 11, 2013 A. D., many writers have so far explored nearly every aspect of the events leading up to and following.  But one event which has not yet been explored may have been a crucial influence on the decision making of Pope Benedict XVI.

And it is this.

On October 7, 2012 just 4 months and 4 days before he read out his Declaratio, Pope Benedict XVI declared St. Hildegard of Bingen a Doctor of the Church.

That he chose to do this on the Feast of Our Lady of Victories, a. k. a., the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, which commemorated in that year the 441st anniversary of the Catholic victory at the Battle of Lepanto, cannot be a mere administrative detail.  Nay, it shows that the doctrine and teaching of St. Hildegard, for Pope Benedict XVI is intimately associated with Our Lady’s Mediation and Intervention in history.

Moreover, on May 10, 2012, in the Month of May, two days after the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel and 3 days before the Remembrance of the First Apparition of Our Lady at Fatima, 95 years before, Pope Benedict XVI extended the feast of St. Hildegard to the entire Church, making her a de facto Saint.

But just what this connection could be, needs to be explored.

Who was St. Hildegard of Bingen?

Lauded even by seculars as the most learned woman of the Middle Ages, St. Hildegard was born around 1098, the year before the Crusaders, at the behest of Bl. Urban II, took Jerusalem in the First Crusade. She died at the age of 81, in 1179, on September 17th, about 7 years before the birth of St. Francis of Assisi.

Her feast day, therefore, September 17th, is the same as the Feast of the Stigmatization of St. Francis, which is celebrated on that day, though it occurred on Sept. 14th.

At the age of 14 she took vows as a Benedictine Nun at the monastery of Disibodenberg, in 1112 A. D.. Twenty four years later, her fellow nuns elected her Abbess, a title and office she held for the rest of her life.

St. Hildegard was a mystic, that is, from her earliest years she experienced extraordinary mystical graces. Hers being a habitual participation in the Beatific Vision regarding that lower level of knowledge of human affairs present and future.  Our Lord, as a Man, had this habitually also, but very few are the Saints who shared this carism with His Sacred Humanity. The other, I know of, is Bl. Anna Maria Taigi, a third order member of the Trinitarians.

By means of this habitual vision, St. Hildegard was helped to become one of the most learned women of her day and wrote on a large variety of topics, even though she never spoke of it and was ashamed that others would think her strange if she admitted to having it.

St. Hildegard’s Visions of the End times

But the topic which seems to have the most to do with Pope Benedict XVI is this, that she wrote more than any other Saint of her age about the Antichrist and his coming, and seems to be relating what she saw of the future.  That she did this some 800 years ago, adds to the credibility of her prophecies, because there is absolutely no human way she could have known or guessed of the events of our own days, by mere human wisdom.

As a demonstration of the validity of her powers of prevision, she predicted accurately the following events which have shaken the Catholic world:

  1. The dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire
  2. The abolition of Catholic Monarchies by a diabolic sect which dedicated itself to the destruction of the Church
  3. The loss of the Papal States and the confinement of the Popes to a small territory at Rome with a number of small jurisdictions scattered round about.
  4. The Industrial Revolution, during which time the supply of food, medicine and sane laws would improve the daily life of the poor throughout the world.
  5. The rise of a world empire ruled by the Kings of England
  6. The rise of nation states ruled by their own leaders who are not monarchs.

These prophecies are contained in her tract on the Antichrist, in part III, Vision 5, of her monumental work, The Book of Divine Works, or the Liber Divinorum Operum.

But what she says of the Antichrist is completely astounding, and A. J. Baalman who has a copy of this book in hand, and I, will be discussing it in a series of programs at Ordo Militaris Radio, this week.

St. Hildegard prophesied the Two Popes

But for now I want to speak of only one of her prophecies, of which no one heretofore has spoken: the prophecy of 2 popes, one of whom would be a deluded servant Satan and antipope.

This prophecy is founded in the stated book, in the edition published by the Catholic University Press, on page 464, n. 29, and the words of it are as follows:

Take care too that no one dispose you to being misled in any circumstance by illusory or fantastical deeds. For only when that time has come when the Church’s sublimity has been squandered and the truth faith crushed underfoot — this is what is understood to be the revolt that will happen in the time of the accursed son whose mother is unclean, since she knows not by whom she (here begins p. 465) conceived — then he will be revealed who will be the man of sin, for he will be wholly infused from his beginning by sin, so that as a sinner he will collect and then boast of his sins. …

… For in the age of the son of perdition, the faith, already falling away from its strength, will be toppled over and enfeebled. For the one who keeps the Church’s sublimity in God and holds the right faith keeps something great, because it is through those things that he will enter the heavenly kingdom. But the one who does not keep the faith holds on to nothing, for he will go to perdition.

Here I will give an exposition, or explanation.

When St. Hildegard of Bingen speaks of the future she does so in very abbreviated manner placing emphasis as she does on virtues and vices. Though she speaks in chronological order, she is thus more interesting in spiritual causes.

In this passage she uses a phrase which needs to be understood properly to unlock the meaning of her text. And this is, the phrase the “sublimity of the Church” or the “Church’s sublimity” as it is here translated. In Latin, that which is sublime is that which is most exalted, highest and most superior. As such it is a term which refers to the supreme order of dignity in some measure or office.

So in one sense, this term can refer to the exalted nature of the Church’s virtue or grace. But in another sense it can refer to the highest hierarchical office, that of the Papacy.

In the passage above. St. Hildegard is explaining the text of the Letter of St. Paul in his Second Letter to the Thessalonians, chapter 2, verses 2 to 4, which regards St. Paul’s own prophecy regarding the Antichrist and his coming. So since St. Hildegard is commenting on this precise passage of St. Paul we can be sure that she is referring to the end times and not merely commenting on corruption in the Church at any time.

So, in this sense, when the Saint speaks of “the Church’s sublimity has been squandered and the truth faith crushed underfoot “, she can be understood to be speaking of the seizure of the Papal Office, since to squander a thing, is to misuse a precious thing, and all who have no right to a thing, misuse it inasmuch as they use it without the right to hold and posses and exercise it.

The Saint then ties this to the great revolt, spoken of by St. John in the Apocalypse, when the tail of the Dragon will strike out of the heavens a third of the stars therein — a passage that the Fathers of the Church refer to the mass apostasy of the Clergy at the end of time.

Now this is what we have seen precisely in these 8 years and more manifestly in these last 15 months. Because all the clergy have followed the antipope, being deceived willingly or not by liars, who are the sons of the Dragon.  In fact, in exorcisms, Satan has called Freemasons his “beloved children”, and so Freemasons in the Hierarchy can rightly be understood to be his tail. Moreover, at the request of Bergoglio, all the clergy of the world stopped offering public mass, which is the sign of the times of antichrist foretold by the Prophet Daniel when he speaks of the cessation of public sacrifice.

And the truth of the Faith has most certainly been crushed underfoot during this time in which Bergoglio has squandered the sublimity of the Faith.

Then, after speaking of the Antichrist and his mother, the Saint speaks of our own age clearly, when she says, For in the age of the son of perdition, the faith, already falling away from its strength, will be toppled over and enfeebled. —  This is a most accurate description of the post Vatican II era.  The verb, toppled, means to knock over or strike down, and this is clearly what Vatican II did. And the Aggiornamento clearly weakened the faith everywhere.

Then she speaks of 2 popes, the true and the false.  First of the true:

For the one who keeps the Church’s sublimity in God and holds the right faith keeps something great, because it is through those things that he will enter the heavenly kingdom.

Here she is speaking, in my opinion, of Pope Benedict XVI, who as pope is at the sublimity of the Church’s earthly hierarchical order. He keeps the right faith, not the false preached by others, and keeps something great, that is the petrine munus. And his meek suffering of persecution and imprisonment as Pope, will merit him eternal salvation.

But then she speaks of the antipope:

But the one who does not keep the faith holds on to nothing, for he will go to perdition.

Here, in identifying Bergoglio with the masculine singular , “the one who” and ” does not keep the faith” — as is obvious to everyone who believes — does NOT hold the petrine munus, (“holds on to nothing”), and will go to damnation for his usurpation.

Pope Benedict XVI and St. Hildegard

Clearly Pope Benedict XVI was cogniscent that the Faith had been gravely weakened and damaged after Vatican II. In fact, he spoke precisely about this on Feb. 14, 2013, just 3 days after reading his Declaratio.

He declared St. Hildegard a Doctor of the Church, for which we can be certain that he not only had read these words of the Saint which we just read, but that he had the greatest appreciation for them.

Finally, as a theologian who had written many articles on the Petrine munus, as a thing held, and the Petrine ministry as a thing to be done, we can say with a high probability that Pope Benedict XVI may have understood this same passage in the way I have proposed, as referring to a future time in which there would be 2 popes. One with the Petrine Munus and the Catholic Faith who was promised by God through St. Hildegard of eternal salvation, and one without the Munus and the Faith, who would go unto perdition.

So is Pope Benedict XVI by declaring St. Hlidegard of Bingen a Doctor of the Church on the feast of our Lady of Victories, sending a sign to the whole Catholic world — in this distinction between munus and ministerium, of a Pope who remains faithful and retains the former, and a false pope who has neither — that he has found in her writings the great stratagem by which he will overthrow the work of Freemasonry? unmask it to the world? and protect Holy Mother Church in Her truth faithful ones, and separate Her from the corrupt College of Cardinals and Bishops who have preyed upon children and faithful for some many decades?

Seeing that Pope Benedict XVI as a theologian was a firm supporter of the necessity of the Church in the end times to separate herself from the church of the Antichrist, this possibility appears to be something which we can no longer ignore.

Interviews, News

Judge Giorgianni: Benedict XVI never abdicated, Bergoglio is a Cardinal dressed in white!

6 Comments

Interview by Andrea Cionci

Now we can speak openly of the New World Order: the concept is no longer under embargo

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION
of the Original Italian linked under the above image.

“There is only one pope, Benedict XVI. Bergoglio is a cardinal dressed in white, an accomplice of the New World Order” — the well-known anti-Mafia magistrate Angelo Giorgianni, former Under-Secretary of Ministry of Justice & Pardon of the Prodi government, said briefly in a public speech in Messina two days ago.

Naturally, he made these statements not in his institutional capacity, but as president of the “World Life Organization,” a voluntary association he founded, which is concerned with the defense of human life and all the rights that pertain to his. protection and dignity paying particular attention to the various individual freedoms not always guaranteed, such as that of opinion, freedom, thought, worship and the sacredness of human life from the moment of conception to the natural end.

Cionci: Dear Doctor, after the lawyer Taormina HERE, you are the second secular and Italian lawyer to raise doubts about the abdication of Pope Ratzinger …

Giorgianni: I have followed this story and I am absolutely convinced that Benedict XVI has drawn up an act of renunciation of the papacy that is completely null and void: a real “cocktail” of legal invalidity made to be discovered over time. Just to quote the best known: in the Declaratio of 2013 he renounces, instead of the Petrine munus, it is the ministerium – or the practical exercise of power – which does not involve renouncing the papacy: at most it could mean the delegation to some bishop of some functions practices. The trivial Latin errors in the document, coming from a refined Latinist like him, are obviously a way to keep attention on the legal act.

Not to mention his conduct over the next eight years; just remember how he always repeats “the pope is one” without ever declaring which of the two he is, or the unequivocal phrases that have recently emerged from his interview books such as ” has been discharged in the last thousand years ”.

Cionci: Aren’t you afraid of being considered a “conspiracy theorist”?

Giorgianni: Look, I – for work – have foiled conspiracies for a lifetime. Conspiracy is when bold theories are built without these being based on facts. In the judicial field, on the other hand, a unique series of clues constitute proof and here, there is an even excessive amount of clear clues, verifiable by anyone.

Cionci: Why do you say that Bergoglio is a cardinal dressed in white?

Giorgianni: Because if pope Ratzinger did not abdicate the throne, as evident, the conclave of 2013 was completely invalid and elected a cardinal who remains a cardinal. So Bergoglio is an anti-pope, as there have been so many in the history of the Church.

Cionci: A burning issue, but it doesn’t seem to upset the clergy too much …

Giorgianni: It is very serious in fact. Some clergymen fear being excommunicated (but the excommunication of an anti-pope is worth nothing), others think that, at the resignation or death of card. Bergoglio, a new conclave can put things right. But if the college of cardinals has 80 new cardinals appointed by Bergoglio, they are not true cardinals and therefore do not have the right to elect a new pope. Therefore the succession line after Francis would be all composed of anti-popes. History demonstrates this: in the first half of the 12th century, the anti-pope Anacleto II reigned for eight years and, upon his death, he was succeeded by Victor IV, another anti-pope, until Saint Bernard of Clairvaux ousted the latter by restoring a papal succession line legitimate.

Cionci: Orthodox Catholics continually complain about Francis’ reforms. Now they fear for the Latin Mass (“vetus ordo”), given that Bergoglio seems to want to limit his celebration by revoking Benedict XVI’s motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”.

Giorgianni: And what are they astonished at? The Holy Spirit assists the pope not only on those rare times when he pronounces ex-cathedra on important dogmas of faith. There is a specific article in the Catechism, 892, which speaks of his ordinary assistance:

“Divine assistance is also given in a special way, to the Bishop of Rome, when, even without arriving at an infallible definition and without making a definitive pronouncement, he proposes, in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium, a teaching that leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals ”.

How do you think that Bergoglio is the real pope if he is demolishing the Catholic identity from its very foundations? And, paradoxically, Orthodox Catholics despair over his measures instead of checking if he has what it takes to be pope: how to worry about the effects without investigating the causes.

Cionci: Even the laity seem quite indifferent to the question …

Giorgianni: A big mistake! A pope has a fundamental role in the politics of the whole world. Let us think only of the role played by John Paul II in the collapse of communism. The pope is a political leader with influence on over a billion people: he heavily conditions international politics.

Cionci: In this regard, you argue that Bergoglio is a sort of moral sponsor of the New World Order?

Giorgianni: He himself recently declared to a major newspaper (La Stampa of 3 /15/ 21): “We must not waste the pandemic, but use it to build a new world order”. Clearer than that? By now the concept is cleared through customs, we talk about it quietly, without shame. In fact, Bergoglio continually insists on this “interreligious dialogue” … I too am in favor of dialogue, but here it is taken as an excuse to annihilate the Catholic identity and make the church the container of a new globalist religion. A completely reverse process with respect to the uniqueness of Christ’s Revelation. But just look at the position held by the Church during the pandemic…

Cionci: By the way: you are very critical of the management of the health crisis …

Giorgianni: Sure. We are for vaccines, provided they are safe and effective, but we do not explain why rushing the administration of an experimental drug if there are effective therapies, instead completely neglected. A madness. Bergoglio also never talks about therapies, why? Rather, he demonstrated a subjection to civil power against any concordat and constitutional agreement, depriving many people of the minimum comforts of faith, closing churches and denying the sacraments even to the dying. Too many try to ride this health emergency to establish new political and / or financial projects. — But we will bring these truths to every public square: we believe in the rule of law and respect for the rules.

+ + +

Der Magistrat Giorgianni: “Benedikt XVI. hat nicht abgedankt;
Bergoglio ist Kardinal im weißen Gewand”.

Gute, sichere Impfstoffe, aber warum ist nie von einer Behandlung die Rede?

“Es gibt nur einen Papst, Benedikt XVI. Bergoglio ist ein weiß gekleideter Kardinal, ein Komplize der Neuen Weltordnung”: Nicht sehr subtil ging er vor zwei Tagen in einer öffentlichen Rede in Messina vor, der berühmte Anti-Mafia-Magistrat Angelo Giorgianni, ehemaliger Unterstaatssekretär der Justiz in der Prodi-Regierung.

Natürlich machte er diese Aussagen nicht in seiner institutionellen Eigenschaft, sondern als Präsident der Weltorganisation für das Leben, einer von ihm gegründeten freiwilligen Vereinigung, die sich mit der Verteidigung des menschlichen Lebens und allen Rechten, die zu seinem Schutz und seiner Würde gehören, befasst und dabei besonderes Augenmerk auf die verschiedenen individuellen Freiheiten legt, die nicht immer garantiert sind, wie die der Meinung, der Freiheit, des Denkens, des Kultes und der Unantastbarkeit des menschlichen Lebens vom Moment der Empfängnis bis zu seinem natürlichen Ende.
Frage: Herr Doktor, nach dem Anwalt Taormina
HIER https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/26475724/dimissioni-benedetto-xvi-forti-dubbi-avvocato-carlo-taormina.html , sind Sie der zweite weltliche und italienische Jurist, der Zweifel an der Abdankung von Papst Ratzinger äußert …

Antwort: “Ich habe diese Affäre verfolgt und bin absolut davon überzeugt, dass Benedikt XVI. einen Akt des Verzichts auf das Papsttum verfasst hat, der völlig nichtig ist: ein wahrer “Cocktail” von rechtlichen Ungültigkeiten, die im Laufe der Zeit entdeckt werden sollten. Um nur die berüchtigtsten zu nennen: in der Declaratio von 2013 verzichtet er statt auf das munus petrino auf das ministerium – also auf die praktische Machtausübung -, was nicht bedeutet, dass er auf das Papsttum verzichtet: es könnte höchstens bedeuten, dass er einige praktische Funktionen an einen Bischof delegiert. Die trivialen Fehler des Lateins in dem Dokument, die von einem so feinen Latinisten wie ihm stammen, sind offensichtlich ein System, um die Aufmerksamkeit auf den Rechtsakt zu lenken.

Ganz zu schweigen von seinem Verhalten in den nächsten acht Jahren, denken Sie nur daran, wie er immer wieder sagt: “Es gibt einen Papst”, ohne jemals zu sagen, welcher es ist, oder die eindeutigen Sätze, die in letzter Zeit aus seinen Interview-Büchern aufgetaucht sind, wie: “In den letzten tausend Jahren ist kein Papst zurückgetreten.” (HIER n.d.r. https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/27114419/benedetto-viii-mai-abdicato-nessun-papa-dimesso.html )

F.: Haben Sie keine Angst, als “Verschwörungstheoretiker” angesehen zu werden?

A.: “Sehen Sie, ich habe – berufsbedingt – schon immer mit Verschwörungen gewedelt. Verschwörung ist, wenn man kühne Theorien aufstellt, ohne dass diese auf Fakten beruhen. Im gerichtlichen Bereich hingegen stellt eine eindeutige Reihe von Indizien einen Beweis dar, und hier gibt es von offensichtlichen, für jedermann feststellbaren Indizien sogar ein Übermaß”.

F. Warum sagen Sie, dass Bergoglio ein weiß gekleideter Kardinal ist?

A. “Denn wenn Papst Ratzinger nicht abgedankt hat, was offensichtlich ist, war das Konklave von 2013 völlig ungültig und hat einen Kardinal zum “Papst” gewählt, der Kardinal bleibt. Bergoglio ist also ein Anti-Papst, wie es so viele in der Geschichte der Kirche gegeben hat.”

F.: Eine brennende Frage, aber sie scheint den Klerus nicht sehr zu beunruhigen….

A.: “Es ist in der Tat sehr ernst. Einige Kleriker fürchten, exkommuniziert zu werden (aber die Exkommunikation eines Antipapstes ist nichts wert), andere denken, dass bei einem Rücktritt oder Tod von Kard. Bergoglio, kann ein neues Konklave die Dinge wieder in Ordnung bringen. Aber wenn das Kardinalskollegium 80 neue Kardinäle hat, die von Bergoglio ernannt wurden, sind sie keine echten Kardinäle und haben daher keinen Titel, um einen neuen Papst zu wählen. Die Nachfolgelinie nach Franziskus würde also aus lauter Antipäpsten bestehen. Das zeigt die Geschichte: In der ersten Hälfte des 12. Jahrhunderts regierte der Gegenpapst Anacletus II. acht Jahre lang, und nach seinem Tod wurde er von Victor IV. abgelöst, einem anderen Gegenpapst, bis der heilige Bernhard von Clairvaux letzteren verdrängte und eine legitime päpstliche Erbfolge wiederherstellte.”

F.: Orthodoxe Katholiken beschweren sich immer wieder über die Reformen von Franziskus. Nun fürchten sie um die Messe in lateinischer Sprache (“vetus ordo”), da Bergoglio deren Feier durch Widerruf des Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” von Benedikt XVI. einschränken zu wollen scheint.

A.: “Und worüber sind sie überrascht? Der Heilige Geist steht dem Papst nicht nur bei den seltenen Gelegenheiten bei, wenn er sich ex cathedra zu wichtigen Glaubensdogmen äußert. Ein spezieller Artikel des Katechismus, 892, spricht von seinem gewöhnlichen Beistand: “Der göttliche Beistand wird auch in besonderer Weise dem Bischof von Rom gewährt, wenn er, ohne zu einer unfehlbaren Definition zu gelangen und ohne sich endgültig zu äußern, in Ausübung des ordentlichen Lehramtes eine Lehre vorschlägt, die zu einem besseren Verständnis der Offenbarung in Sachen des Glaubens und der Sitten führt.”

Wie kann irgendjemand glauben, dass Bergoglio der wahre Papst ist, wenn er die katholische Identität von Grund auf demoliert? Und paradoxerweise verzweifeln die orthodoxen Katholiken an seinen Maßnahmen, anstatt zu prüfen, ob er das Zeug zum Pontifex hat: wie die Sorge um die Auswirkungen, ohne die Ursachen zu untersuchen.”

F.: Auch den Laien scheint das Thema ziemlich gleichgültig zu sein.

A.: “Ein großer Irrtum: Ein Papst hat eine fundamentale Rolle in der Politik der ganzen Welt. Denken Sie nur an die Rolle, die Johannes Paul II. beim Zusammenbruch des Kommunismus gespielt hat. Der Papst ist ein politisches Oberhaupt mit Einfluss auf mehr als eine Milliarde Menschen: Er bestimmt maßgeblich die internationale Politik.”

F.: In diesem Zusammenhang behaupten Sie, dass Bergoglio eine Art moralischer Sponsor der Neuen Weltordnung ist.

A.: “Er selbst erklärte kürzlich gegenüber einer großen Tageszeitung (La Stampa vom 15.3.21 n.d.r.): “Wir dürfen die Pandemie nicht verschwenden, sondern müssen sie nutzen, um eine neue Weltordnung aufzubauen”. Deutlicher als das? Inzwischen ist das Konzept durch den Zoll gegangen, man spricht leise darüber, ohne Scham. In der Tat besteht Bergoglio ständig auf diesem “interreligiösen Dialog”… Auch ich bin für den Dialog, aber hier wird er als Vorwand genommen, um die katholische Identität zu vernichten und die Kirche zum Container einer neuen Weltreligion zu machen. Ein Vorgang, der der Einzigartigkeit der Offenbarung Christi völlig entgegengesetzt ist. Aber schauen Sie sich nur die Position an, die die Kirche während der Pandemie eingenommen hat…”.

F.: Übrigens: Sie sind sehr kritisch gegenüber dem Management der Gesundheitskrise…

A.: “Natürlich. Wir sind für Impfstoffe, sofern sie sicher und wirksam sind, aber dann erklären wir nicht, warum die Verabreichung eines experimentellen Medikaments hetzt, wenn es wirksame Therapien gibt, stattdessen völlig vernachlässigt. Wahnsinn. Bergoglio spricht auch nie über Therapien, wie kommt das? Vielmehr hat er eine Unterwürfigkeit gegenüber der zivilen Macht demonstriert, die gegen jedes Konkordat und jede verfassungsmäßige Vereinbarung verstößt, indem er so viele Menschen der minimalen Annehmlichkeiten des Glaubens beraubt, Kirchen schließt und sogar den Sterbenden die Sakramente verweigert. Zu viele versuchen, diese gesundheitliche Notlage auszunutzen, um neue politische und/oder finanzielle Projekte zu etablieren.

Aber wir werden diese Wahrheiten auf alle Plätze bringen: Wir glauben an die Rechtsstaatlichkeit und den Respekt vor den Regeln”.

Editorials

Viganò Gives Battle Cry against Great Reset, from the wrong side of the Lines

22 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

June 1, 2021 — Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has given a remarkably complete critique of the Great Reset during his recent talk at a Venice Conference on the matter, hosted by the Italian Philosopher Francesco Lamendola.*  The talk in Italian was recently translated into English and has been published by Catholic Family News. You can read it here.

There is no denying that Archbishop Viganò has been the instrumental cause of many Catholics who hold fast to Bergoglio to begin to doubt, criticize and oppose the Great Reset.

So much have these Catholics been intellectually and morally part of the system of control or under that system of control, that the exclamations of the Archbishop in these weeks are met with acclamation which a true leader on the issue would merit.

They call the Archbishop a “voice in the wilderness” or “the only one who is speaking the truth”, or the “only Bishop who is denouncing the Great Reset”.

For those who do not know what has been going on for the last 18 months, because they have not been zealous to follow the news from trusted sources, but rather have been zealous to buckle down and comply with their Bergoglian Bishop and Globalist political leaders, such acclamations have their sense.

But the truth is that Archbishop Viganò is a Johnny come lately, and he has not yet even changed sides in this battle.

Indeed, the Archbishop has not only made some questionable alliances with arguably Masonic entities, but still refuses obedience to the norms of Canon Law regarding who is and who is not the Pope, preferring to sustain the party of the Globalist Bergoglio, against the Catholic Benedict XVI.

First, the Archbishop undertook a public media campaign which was a “touch all the bases and return home” strategy which is the hallmark of self serving politicians. According to this strategy, while not officially breaking from the ruling party, you speak and visit all the opposition to give them the false hope that you are now on their side, but in the end you return to stand at the right hand of the ruling elites.  The Archbishop did this in the summer of 2018, when he called Bergoglio to resign. But just this past Winter, Viganò insisted that Bergoglio is the Pope and it is divisive to question that!

To those who are really paying attention, the self-contradictions do not end there.

His writings in English are published by Angelico Press, notorious for promoting among Catholics spiritism and divination, the mixture of the occult into Christian Family life.

He wrote the political leader of the Skull and Bones Masonic Lodge Faction in the USA, Donald Trump, and was immediately accorded a personal recommendation by the President — a thing that no Catholic Bishop in U. S. history was ever accorded.

And he studiously refuses to speak in person or via correspondence with anyone versed in the canonical arguments that Benedict XVI is the true pope, despite the fact that Pope Benedict XVI is the one who drew him out of an obscure career in the Vatican Secretary of State to make him Secretary of the Vatican State Governorate and subsequently, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, arguably the most important foreign post in the Vatican diplomatic staff.

He has repeatedly attacked and insulted not only the Catholic Church, blaming Her for sins, but also the Catholic Faithful for not opposing Vatican II.  In the first, he transgressed a rule of faith, whereby Catholic never attribute sin to the Bride of Christ. In the second, his comments are exceedingly cruel, seeing that the Catholic Faithful obediently accepted Vatican II precisely because of the actions and silence of the clergy, not excluding his own.  But both are remarkable forms of despicable clericalism which refuses to admit that the chief problem in the Church today is clerical corruption and chiefly in the Vatican, where he has worked for several decades.

To shout out a battle cry is a good an honorable thing, when you are standing on the right side of the Battle lines. But to do so, from the enemies’ Camp, is at least disingenuous, and at most a diabolic trick of deception to disarm your allies’ enemies.

The story has not ended, and is still in act. But those of us who are Catholics from the cradle and who know that sincerity only has value with fidelity, are finding it more and more incredible that Viganò’s words and actions remain in stark contradiction.

Credibility begins not with speaking, but with action. You have to switch sides in this war, and stand with Christ and His people, against the Globalists and the Bank of International Settlements, in Basel Switzerland, through which they rule the world.

_______________________

*  Lamendola is a high school philosophy teacher, and a staunch denier that Benedict’s renunciation is invalid. He is known, during conferences with those who support Benedict, of intentionally talking as long as possible simply to prevent the supporters of Pope Benedict XVI from having any time to speak at all.

News

May 16, 2021: Dr. Angelo Giorgianni demands investigation into who is the true Pope

3 Comments

On May 16, 2021, at Reggio di Calabria, in southern Italy, Dr. Giorgianni during a public political rally, “Reopen Calabria”, made the following remarks, at 23:45:

“But I am every more enraged, against this “pope”, who has folded in front of the earthly order, (against the dictum), “A free state and a free Church, a free Church in a free state”. — No! —  And from this piazza I want to immediately say something:  I  believe that the Church has a need  to give clarity.  I want to know if this pope is a Pope or a Cardinal dressed in white!  I want to know if the Pope Emeritus has abdicated from his functions or whether he is still the true Pope.  Because I want to undeceive myself … Because I want to snap myself out of thinking thinking a true Pope, illuminated, inspired by the Holy Spirit, can turn his gaze away from the sight of the suffering of his people.  Because I want to snap myself out of thinking that in China there is no more persecution of Christians, who cannot enter freely a church, that at the heights of power in the Vatican there is no blindfold over the eyes of our pope.”

Dr. Giorgianni’s testimony is fortified by the fact that he is an Italian Magistrate, that is, a judge, with a Doctorate in Civil jurisprudence.

______

CREDITS:  Video by Francesco Toscano, Translatation by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

News

Which is the true Pope? — The Canonical Question which cannot be ignored

12 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Recently, I had the opportunity to have as a guest a fellow Franciscan hermit. And in the course of our discussions, we came to the topic of who is the Pope. He gave me his reasons, mostly drawn from a canonist whom he respects.

Since our discussion would be helpful if it be known by the entire Catholic world, I share it here:

That canonist replied to me in this vein — this is not a direct quote:  If Br. Alexis Bugnolo is correct about the meaning of the term, “munus” then Benedict is still the Pope.  But until the Church comes to an agreement about this, we should not risk schism by breaking from Bergoglio. We must be very careful not to presume to say one word means this or that, especially when by error in this matter we could separate ourselves form the true Church.

Having received this reply, I explained to my guest, how wrong this answer is, and this for several reasons:

  1. This argument is guilty of a petitio principii, that is, of presuming that that which it attempts to prove is true and arguing back to that truth, without ever putting it into question.  For it presumes that Bergoglio is the vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontiff, and then argues that since he is, we would be risking our eternal salvation by breaking from him on our own judgement of whether munus means or does not mean the papal office. And it concludes by saying we should stick with Bergoglio unless the Church decides otherwise.
  2. This argument pretends that what “munus” means is merely a question of opinions, and that since there is no authority which has declared it, we should refrain from making a judgement and follow the consensus of our ecclesiastical superiors.
  3. This argument also errs in ignoring the proper canonical procedure in resolving the doubt of a juridical question.
  4. This argument should conclude with the call for a Council to declare one way or another who is the Pope, but by resting in indecision shows that it pretends to honesty while, rather resting in dishonest indecision, which is in fact a form of intellectual and moral sloth, and this, in a matter which touches upon the salvation of the entire Church and of billions of souls now and in the future.

Here is my response to the comment by the canonist:

It is not a matter of opinion as to the meaning of munus, as if it were possible to sustain both that meaning by which munus means the papal office in a formal or substantive sense and that meaning by which munus can be named through the term ministerium.

Nay, rather, since no one has the right to interpret a papal act, and since Monsignor Ignacio Arrieta, President of the Pontifical Council on Legal Texts says, that no one has the right to interpret a renunciation — since if it is to be interpreted it is dubious and not manifest — the only way to understand the meaning of an act of renunciation is to have recourse to the obligation of the Code of Law, canon 17, which obliges us to understand the words of a juridical act as the Code of Law uses them.  For in understanding a papal renunciation according to the obligation of law, we remove our method from every opinion of men and submit our own personal judgement to the declared authority of the Church:

Thus,

  • Given that in canon 145 every ecclesiastical office is a munus
  • Given that in canons 331, 332, 333, 334, the only word for the office of the Roman Pontiff is munus
  • Given that in canon 1331, n. 2, iv, an excommunicated person cannot attain any dignity, office or munus but can obtain a ministerium
  • Given that the members of the Roman Curia assist the Roman Pontiff in the execution of his office, that is, his ministerium, but do not share in his office, that is, his munus,
  • And given that in renouncing X one separates himself from X, whereas, if X be that which can be had by one who is not the pope or not in communion with the Church, then its renunciation by the Pope cannot have the consequence of causing him to lose that which he shares with no other man, namely, that which makes him the pope,
  • That Canon 12 declares that ALL are bound by the canons of the Church, when a canon has been promulgated for them, and thus in renouncing the man who is the pope is not above Canon Law
  • Canon 332 §2 declares, that a pope renounces when he renounces his munus as pope, not his ministerium
  • That to fulfill canon 332 §2, the man who is pope is obliged by canon 124 §1, which requires him to make an act of renunciation which regards the same essence of act specified in canon 332 §2, and that if he does NOT, then canon 124 §2 says that there is no presumption as to its validity, nay rather, in accord with canon 188, if the act contains a substantial error, it is irritus by the law itself (ipso iure), that is, it must be considered to have never been posited.
  • If the act of renunciation of ministerium is not a juridical but only an administrative act, it must be understood in accord with canon 36, which reaffirms the same principles as canon 17.

Hence it results that in renouncing the ministerium and not the munus, the man who is Roman Pontiff cannot be understood to have meant to have renounced the munus without imposing an interpretation upon his words.

And therefore we must assume that the Renunciation made by Pope Benedict as Ratzinger on 11 Feb. 2013 does not mean a renunciation of the papacy, the office, nor the dignity or munus of the Roman Pontiff.

And therefore it does not appear that such renunciation produces a sede vacante.

Hence, We are obliged to hold that such renunciation is dubious and therefore invalid to produce the effect of the loss of office

Therefore by virtue of the words declared by the lips of the Living Incarnate God, Jesus Christ, Head of the Church, and sole Teacher of all, given to Simon Peter: “What you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven,” which directly refer to the Code of Canon Law, we must ALL hold that Jesus did not transfer the grace and office to another, since He Himself has bound Himself to the Code of Canon Law promulgated by His Vicar, John Paul II.

And that therefore, Benedict XVI remains the pope.

End of the canonical argument.

By the way, IF YOU HAVE NOT NOTICED,  Pope Benedict XVI still

  1. Wears the white of a pope
  2. Signs with his papal name
  3. Adds the abbreviation, P. P, to his name, which only a pope can do.
  4. Gives the Papal Blessing, which only a pope can do.
  5. Lives in the Vatican.

Which is all consistent with the above canonical argument. Hence, it is not even credible to counter argue, by saying, “But until Benedict says otherwise, we must presume Bergoglio is the pope.”

Hence it is entirely without any foundation in reality, that those, who say Bergoglio is the pope, continue to do such. They have been hoodwinked, if they are innocent and without bad will. But God is counting the years and soon His Wrath will fall upon all the slothful and bad-willed, for as it is says in the Book of the Apocalypse, the first to be cast into the eternal pit of Hell are the slothful: those who know there is a problem or something that needs to be done for the salvation of themselves or others, but dismiss taking any action on it.

The correct response from all honest Catholics would simply be to call a council and have all the Cardinals and Bishops of the World expert in theology, philosophy, and canon law to discuss the matter. To fail in that, is to risk the damnation of most of the faithful and the destruction of the Church. And that is the treachery of Judas Iscariot.

 

News

Don Minutella interviews Br. Bugnolo, on What will happen when Pope Benedict XVI dies?

INTERVIEW BY DON ALESSANDRO MARIA MINUTELLA OF FRA ALEXIS BUGNOLO,
TAKEN FROM THE CATECHESIS AIRED ON THE YOUTUBE CHANNEL OF RADIO DOMINA NOSTRA
ON APRIL 19, 2021
ENTITLED: “Il Papa Vincitore” (Click for original)

(From minute 39.06)

Don Minutella: Praised be Jesus Christ, Brother Alexis!

Brother Alexis: Now and forever, Father!

Don Minutella: You have the floor, dear Brother Alexis! There are 1600 people listening live. Please, Brother Alexis!

Brother Alexis: Peace and goodwill to all of you! — It is a historic day, it is the 16th anniversary of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI and we really have to thank God that he gave us the light to see this truth and to recognize it, against all the evil project of the globalists, of the Mafia of St. Gallen and of all these shameful cardinals, bishops, who do not have the character nor the honesty to say that MUNUS is not the MINISTERIUM. — We must follow the words of Jesus and Canon Law. — There are now two churches: the Church of Jesus Christ and the Church of Globalism. — The Church of Jesus Christ is founded on the words that come out of the mouth of the living incarnate God: “What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”(Mt 18:18). — This has to do with the Code of Law, the laws of the Church. — Those who want another Church, not based on the words of Jesus or the laws of the Church, are not Catholics. We must admit this, confess it, preach it. This is the true Catholic religion!

Don Minutella: That’s exactly right! You, Brother Alexis, will go down in history as the first person who, as an expert canonist, made an absolutely incalculable contribution, in a clear, courageous and honest way, when he developed the well-known theses that I later took up verbatim in my book “Peter, where are you?”, on the Declaratio of Benedict XVI. Would you like to briefly remind us of these theses?

Brother Alexis: A reigning pope who wants to renounce is obliged to follow Canon 332 §2 …

Canon 332 §2 of the Code of Canon Law provides that the Roman Pontiff may renounce his office. It requires for validity that the renunciation be freely made and that it be duly manifested, it does not, however, require that anyone accept it)

because as the Laws of the Church say at the beginning of the Code, “these laws compel all the faithful of the Roman Rite and especially those for whom they have been published.” Since there is a canon regarding the case of a reigning pope resigning; the man who is reigning must follow the law and obey it unless he grants a dispensation or modification first. Pope Benedict, if he wanted to renounce the papacy in a new way, had to or could have created a new law, a new system of administration but he did not; therefore we must understand what he did according to the norms of Law. –Having renounced the Ministerium and not the Munus, he did not renounce the papacy. This is a bit difficult to understand because of modern language. Ministerium also means office, assignment (in Italian) it is not so in Latin. — In Latin there are two words: Magisterium: it is done by those who have the office. — Ministerium: is done by his servants who help him exercise his office. — So the reigning pope who renounces the Ministerium does nothing more than renounce the things done by Card. Burke, by Card. Sarah and the Roman Curia. It is therefore impossible for this to mean that he has lost the papacy!

Don Minutella: what would you feel like answering to those within the so-called “little remnant” – which then, I share your opinion, should not be called simply “little remnant” but “Catholics” – who ask why Pope Benedict XVI does not say it openly. What do you feel like saying in the face of this provocation?

Brother Alexis: It seems to me that Pope Benedict XVI has spoken clearly. What we need to distinguish is between the Mass Media of the single thought that wants us to force us psychologically to interpret Pope Benedict XVI’s words according to their opinion, and what the words mean in themselves. — In fact, in Pope Benedict XVI’s official autobiography published last year by Peter Seewald “Ein leben”, he specifically said that he never intended to give up the spiritual aspect of the papal office. — All Catholics for 2000 years understand that the papal office is a spiritual thing, it is not physical. So he expressly said that he did not renounce the Munus, he expressly said that he freely renounced the Ministerium. He never said he renounced the Munus or the office. So we must not use what journalists or cardinals say to interpret that, but we must use what is written in the Code of Canon Law, Canon 17:

Can. 17 – Ecclesiastical laws are to be understood according to the proper meaning of the words considered in the text and context; that if they remain doubtful and obscure, recourse is to be had to the parallel places, if there are any, to the purpose and circumstances of the law and to the intention of the legislator.

Don Minutella: Also because there is a coalition among the cardinals, mostly Freemasons, therefore apostates in the faith, who are no longer credible.

Brother Alexis: Yes. — It began in the Garden of Eden at the beginning of the world. Satan and his always try to interpret the words of God, they add other meanings, and this has always been the trick of every tempter, of every devil, so we must understand that the words have an objective sense, we cannot change what is written.

Don Minutella: We are under Heaven, so under the direction of divine providence. Bergoglio could go before Ratzinger, but if instead God had determined that Benedict XVI should die first.  — I this morning reflected about the great prelate or a possible chosen pastor, as happened in the first millennium by the holy people of God, also because a possible conclave is no longer reliable because they are all, or almost all, apostate cardinals — According to you, what could happen for those who have remained Catholic and therefore no longer look to the false Bergoglian church, regarding a pope as leader, as successor of Peter, after Benedict XVI? What can you tell us about that?

Brother Alexis: Upon the death of Pope Benedict, whether or not Bergoglio lives – because Bergoglio has nothing to do with the papacy – the cardinal electors are obliged to convene a conclave to elect his successor but if they don’t, obviously, they are failing in their duty or if they don’t exist because they are in schism with an antipope (as they obviously are) it remains for the Roman Catholic Church to elect his successor, because in the regulations of the Church established by St. Peter it is the Roman Church that has the right to elect St. Peter’s successor.

Don Minutella: So, in a word, the Catholic laity who have remained so connected to Benedict XVI who are from Rome and the surrounding area …

Brother Alexis: Yes, since the method of election has changed. — For example, many do not understand, do not remember and do not know that it has always been the apostolic right of the Roman Church – therefore this law is superior to the ecclesiastical Law but is followed, respected, implemented when the modality established by the Holy Father no longer exists. Under current Canon Law, the only mode of election of the Holy Father is from among the cardinals in a conclave, obviously the cardinals in communion with the Church.

Don Minutella: Note this well!

Brother Alexis: […] the only recourse is what the people, the faithful of the city of Rome and the clergy of Rome who are in communion with Pope Benedict, at the time of his death, have the duty and the right to elect his successor.

Don Minutella: This is very important! Very important for those of you who are listening; Brother Alexis, we are in the order of 1560 people who are listening. So you are saying – as I was saying this morning – and even adding that it is a right as well as a duty, on the part of the Roman Catholics of the city of Rome attached to Pope Benedict to indicate his successor. I wanted to ask if there is a numerical limit for them to do this, or not? I don’t know if the question is clear.

Brother Alexis: If there is no cardinal in communion with the Church or if they are all dead or no one is able to elect because he is too old and a Holy Father dies, even if there is only ONE resident Catholic left (in Rome), baptized in the City, in the diocese of Rome, he will have the right to elect a successor. That’s how Apostolic right works.

Don Minutella: All of us Catholics in union with Pope Benedict, even now we should slowly begin to pray for our friends in Rome, faithful to Pope Benedict, because at this point – should the scenario not change – God destines them for a highly prohibitive mission, we could say.

Brother Alexis: Yes, we can say that. We hope that Bergoglio dies before (Pope Benedict) and the cardinals receive the grace of repentance, of conversion. Let’s say it’s obvious by now that so many are lovers of lies, it will be difficult for the world to recognize the successor of Pope Benedict, because the globalists don’t want him. And perhaps this is what St. Pius X saw when he had a vision of the killing of his successor named Joseph.

Don Minutella: Very much in agreement! Brother Alexis we are reaching stratospheric numbers tonight, maybe it’s also thanks to him, the Minutella-Bugnolo duet is scary! is still alive, can agree among themselves to identify Pope Benedict’s successor. And then technically what should happen?

Brother Alexis: Technically, according to the most prudent interpretation, if the cardinals do not agree in a conclave after 21 days after the death of the Holy Father, they lose entirely the right to elect him even if they are not in schism and then all the clergy of Rome (the incardinated clergy, not the priests or bishops who are guests in Rome from other nations), and all the faithful residing in Rome have the obligation to meet together, discuss, decide and elect. Considering that they have to do all this under Apostolic right, there are no precise laws, so they are not obliged by the rules of the Conclave nor by other canons of Law, except for those excommunicated or in heresy: these cannot vote.

Don Minutella: Brother Alexis, after how many days did you say since the death of the pope? Because then our friends in Rome can memorize it well. How many days after the pope’s death?

Brother Alexis: There are two interpretations. I consider 21 days, because the cardinals must meet before these days. After the 21 days, it is obvious that they are in schism and have not met to make a conclave. If the faithful of Rome do it before the 21 days, the bad cardinals maybe can say something about their right being neglected but after 21 days it is certain. — On where and how they agree, in what manner … the majority will make the decision.  — The other opinion is that they can meet even 3 days later, because it is obvious that these cardinals are in schism, they are apostates and have no interest in recognizing Benedict as Pontiff.

Don Minutella: Clear! And according to you, Brother Alexis, will it be necessary, then, evidently, that once the possible successor of Benedict XVI has been chosen by the Catholics of Rome, who have remained as such, he must necessarily then – I understand – be a bishop, and if he is not a bishop he must receive the three degrees of Holy Orders?

Brother Alexis: Yes, yes! It would be best for the faithful to elect a bishop, and I hope that Bishop Lenga and Gracida will also be taken as witnesses, and in fact clergy from all over the world can come to this conference in communion with Benedict to give advice and witness to the fact. Obviously the best thing would be to elect someone who is already a bishop or at least a priest because it will be a very difficult task …

Don Minutella: A massacrating one! An exhausting one indeed!

Brother Alexis: So it can’t be a young man, but someone who already knows how to comport himself.

Don Minutella: That’s why Catherine Emmerich says that he won’t be less than 50 years old, but not even older, that’s the right age, more or less, because he is not so young, but he is not so old either, because he has a very difficult mission.

Brother Alexis: According to the teaching of Gregory VII, St. Hildebrand, from the moment he accepts his election, becomes the successor of St. Peter. It is necessary, of course, that he be consecrated bishop but it is not necessary that the consecration take place immediately on the same day, it can also be postponed by a few months. The consecration can also be done in a different country, it is not necessary that it be done in Rome, this can happen later, but from the moment of his acceptance to his election he is the successor of St. Peter.

Don Minutella: Fr. Alexis, one last question, this is a personal curiosity of mine, and I will tell you why. Is it mandatory for the successor of Benedict to reside in Rome, or not?

Brother Alexis: No! The elected person must be:

– Catholic;
– male;
– baptized;
– without canonical problems (it seems to me!)
– must be celibate;
– must not be divorced;
– it seems to me he must not have children (unless his wife is dead).

He doesn’t have to be a resident of Rome, in fact so many very good pontiffs were not Roman, it’s not even necessary that the elected person be present; he can be in another part of the world and informed by phone.

Don Minutella: Thank you Friar Alexis, we hope to hear from you again soon, a greeting from these 1670 people live for this very important episode, after all it is the anniversary of the election of Pope Benedict XVI.

Brother Alexis: Salutations to all of you and I am very honored to speak with you, Father, on this beautiful day, on this topic that is very serious and very important.

Don Minutella: Maybe we’ll look into it. Thank you Brother Alexis. The Lord bless you, thank you for your very valuable contribution.  —  Well, my dear listeners, let us conclude this historic installment here. Obviously, dear Catholics, apostolic, Roman, of Rome, linked to Pope Benedict, you are on the tip of your fingers, I don’t know how many you will be, but from this evening you cannot close your eyes anymore. May the Lord’s holy blessing be upon you all.  — In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen — Praised be Jesus Christ! Forward with Mary! And in any case, long live the Pope!