Historical note by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Today is the Feast of Pope Saint Gregory VII, the greatest reforming pope of the Middle Ages, who warred relentlessly against corrupt and heretical rulers of his time. As an acolyte of Pope Gregory VI (Giovanni Graziano) he attended and accepted the decrees of the First Council of Sutri which saw 3 popes deposed: one who was canonically elected, but resigned and attempted to reclaim the throne: Benedict IX; another who usurped by papacy while he was only Metropolitan of Tusculum: Sylvester III; and the third, who was canonically elected after simonaically purchasing the papacy from Benedict IX: Gregory VI.

Saint Gregory VII accepted the results of the First Sutri Initiative in history. Even Saint Peter Damian, greatest enemy of the gay mafia in the Church, accepted the Council of Sutri. Both attended the coronation of the Henry III, the German King, as Emperor of the Romans on Dec. 25, 1046: the very man who urged the Council on the same terms as the Sutri Initiative t today.

Why then is it that so many who claim to be Catholic journalists, commentators, canonists, theologians, influencers, personalities, cardinals and bishops refuse to even talk about what happened at Sutri in 1046? let alone endorse it 100% as these two great saints, enemies of corruption and sodomy did?

That is my question for them. Ask them. If they remain silent they will only condemn themselves as fake Catholics.

In the meantime, standing as I do with the emperor Henry III, I urge everyone in Christendom to walk in the footsteps of Saint Gregory VII and Saint Peter Damian by supporting the second Sutri Initiative in history, to see Pope Francis deposed for his perfidious behavior and false claim to the papacy: in that he has never intended to accept the Papal Office for the up-building of the Church, but only to change our Holy Faith, and is thus simultaneously guilty of schism, apostasy and heresy.

di Frà Alexis Bugnolo

Versioni: Inglese e Francesce

Ieri ho spiegato da Sutri, in Italia, come il Primo Concilio Provinciale o Sinodo di Sutri– mise fine all’orribile caos della Chiesa Romana nel 1046, quando tre uomini diversi rivendicarono l’ufficio di Papa: uno un predatore sodomita, un altro un vero e proprio usurpatore, e un altro ancora un flagrante simoniaco.

Chiedo oggi a tutti i fedeli del mondo intero di ascoltare una voce sana di mente: fare ciò che fecero i fedeli dell’XI secolo e chiedere che si tenga nuovamente un Concilio provinciale, per porre fine agli anni di scandali, bestemmie, eresie e scismi, per non parlare delle persecuzioni, perpetrate e promosse da Jorge Mario Bergoglio, il quale pretende di ricoprire la carica di Romano Pontefice.

L’Iniziativa Sutri è l’unica soluzione giuridica e reale per porre fine alla crisi della Chiesa romana, poiché affronta il problema direttamente e in modo canonicamente valido e facile.

Ma per giungere alla convocazione di un tale Concilio, noi fedeli dobbiamo far sentire la nostra voce e chiedere ai Vescovi della Provincia Romana di convocarlo.

Questi Vescovi e Vescovi Ausiliari appartengono alle seguenti 20 giurisdizioni. Cliccando sui link sottostanti potrete trovare gli indirizzi del Vescovo o dei Vescovi Ausiliari. Vi esorto a scrivere a tutti, individualmente, una lettera personale.

Roma {Rome}: Albano (Sede Suburbicaria), Anagni-Alatri, Civita Castellana, Civitavecchia-Tarquinia, Frascati (Sede Suburbicaria), Frosinone-Veroli-Ferentino, Gaeta (Arcdiocesi), Latina-Terracina-Sezze-Priverno, Montecassino (Abbazia territoriale), Ostia (Sede Suburbicaria), Palestrina (Sede Suburbicaria), Porto-Santa Rufina (Sede Suburbicaria), Rieti (-S. Salvatore Maggiore), Sabina-Poggio Mirteto (Sede Suburbicaria), Subiaco (Abbazia territoriale), Tivoli, Velletri-Segni (Sede Suburbicaria), Viterbo

Poiché in 4 casi, un Vescovo governa 2 diocesi contemporaneamente (come nei casi di Frascati & Velletri, Porto Santa Rufina & Civitavecchia-Tarquinia, Tivoli & Palestrina, Frosinone-Veroli-Ferrentino & Anagni-Alatri), e poiché non esiste più una Diocesi (Ostia) separata da Roma, gli attuali 15 indirizzi dei 15 Vescovi da contattare via lettera sono i seguenti. Qui li scrivo nello stile in uso in Italia.

​Msgr. Vincenzo Viva
Vecovo di Albano
Curia Vescovile
Piazza Vescovile, 11
00041 Albano Laziale (ROMA)
Italia

Msgr. Ambrogio Spreafico
Curia Vescovile
Via dei Villini, 82
03014 Fiuggi (Frosinone)
Italia

Msgr. Marco Salvi
Curia Diocesana
Piazza Matteotti, 27
01033 Civita Castellana (Viterbo)
Italia

Msgr. Gianrico Ruzza
Piazza Calamatta 1
00053 Civitavecchia (Roma), Italia

Msgr.Stefano Russo
Curia Vescovile
Piazza Paolo III 10
00044 Frascati (Roma)
Italia

Msgr. Luigi Vari
Piazza Arcivescovado 2
04024 Gaeta (Latina)
Italia

Msgr. Mariano Crociata
Vescovado
Via Sezze 16
04100 Latina
Italia

Abbate Antonio Luca Fallica, O.S.B.
Abbazia
Via Montecassino,
03043 Cassino (Frosinone)
Italia

Cardinale Angelo De Donatis
Vicariato di Roma
Piazza S. Giovanni in Laterano 6/a
00184 Roma, Italia

Msgr. Mauro Parmeggiani
Curia Vescovile
Piazza Gregorio Pantanelli 8
00036 Palestrina (Roma)
Italia

Msgr. Gianrico Ruzza
Curia Vescovile
Via del Cenacolo 53
00123 Roma – La Storta (ROMA)
Italia

Msgr. Vito Piccinonna
Vescovado
Via Cintia 83
02100 Rieti
Italia

Msgr. Ernesto Mandara
Vescovado
Piazza Mario Dottori 14
02047 Poggio Mirteto (Rieti)
Italia

Abbate Mauro Meacci, O.S.B.
Piazza S. Scolastica 1
00028 Subiaco (ROMA)
Italia

Msgr. Orazio Francesco Piazza
Palazzo Vescovile
Piazza S. Lorenzo 9/a
01100 Viterbo
Italia

Lettera proposta

Possiamo farlo tramite lettere o parlando di persona. A riguardo, possiamo agire in due modi diversi: uno, elencando tutti gli errori, le eresie, le bestemmie e le persecuzioni perpetrate da Jorge Mario Bergoglio negli anni in cui ha rivendicato il Papato; oppure possiamo illuminare i Vescovi sul corretto modo canonico di procedere, dato che la maggior parte dei suddetti forse non ha le idee chiare.

Questo secondo aspetto del problema è il più cruciale perché è quello meno evidente.

E quindi, nell’Iniziativa Sutri, vi esorto a rendere la vostra lettera efficace, dovreste assicurarvi che contenga la corretta giustificazione canonica e argomentazione.

Presento una proposta di testo, che potrete indirizzare a ciascun vescovo e firmare con il vostro nome, cognome e indirizzo. Potete scrivere in italiano, francese o inglese, oppure, se scrivete in un’altra lingua, allegate una traduzione della vostra lettera in una di queste tre lingue.

Testo proposto

Sua Eccellenza,

Le scrivo in accordo con i miei diritti nel canone 212, §2, per chiedere che si ponga fine agli scandali, alle eresie, alle bestemmie e alla confusione dottrinale e morale promossi da Papa Francesco e dai suoi nominati nella Curia Romana, in quanto ciò provoca la perdita di decine di milioni di anime, che vengono così poste nel più grave pericolo spirituale, confusione e disorientamento per la costante affermazione di cose contrarie alla Divina Rivelazione, alla Tradizione Sacra e Apostolica, alla Dottrina Cattolica e alla dogmi definiti dai Concili di Trento e Vaticano I.

Pertanto, in accordo con il canone 1752, il quale afferma che la salvezza delle anime è il bene più grande e il fine più alto di ogni ordinamento giuridico nella Chiesa di Gesù Cristo, vi prego di riconoscere che a causa dei continui gravi scandali perpetrati da Jorge Mario Bergoglio, la Sede Apostolica è stata messa in stato di impedimento, poiché milioni di cattolici non riescono a conciliare i suoi ostinati errori ed eresie come compatibili con l’appartenenza alla Chiesa cattolica, cosa senza la quale qualità egli non può essere legittimo detentore del Munus petrino o pretendente al Dignità apostolica

Pertanto, poiché secondo i can. 440 ss., il Concilio provinciale nella Provincia ecclesiastica romana ha il potere di giudicare e discernere tutte le questioni che riguardano il bene comune della Chiesa, e poiché il dubbio sulla cattolicità di un pretendente alla  Sede Apostolica rende impossibile alla Chiesa in buona coscienza di restare in comunicazione con il suddetto, perché un papa dubius papa nullius est, diventa suo grave dovere davanti al Dio vivente e alla Chiesa intera, sollecitare la convocazione di tale Concilio Provinciale  secondo il diritto espresso nel canone 440 §1.

Tale Concilio può essere legittimamente convocato a norma del can. 442 § 2, perché un dubbio circa la pretesa di un uomo all’ufficio di Romano Pontefice crea un tale conflitto di interessi che egli non può legittimamente impedirne la convocazione né ne ha alcun diritto finché persista in gravi errori morali e dottrinali, come quest’uomo ha fatto per anni secondo il giudizio di milioni di anime. Lo stato di impedimento esiste di fatto a causa della sua incapacità di ritrattare i suoi errori pubblici, il cui elenco si allunga settimanalmente.

Esigo pertanto che per la salvezza delle anime, per allontanare ogni scandalo e per ottenere l’eventuale grazia della conversione di quell’uomo, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, dai suoi cammini sbagliati, che tale Concilio sia convocato a norma dei canoni 443 e 444, e che eserciti la sua autorità plenaria in conformità al canone 445, pronunciando se l’uomo che rivendica l’ufficio del Papato rifiuta la fede cattolica, ha rotto la comunione con la Chiesa, o è un apostata e idolatra. Che l’imputato venga chiamato a spiegare le sue ragioni. I Padri conciliari lo interroghino su questioni di fede e di morale cattolica; sia permesso che i suoi scandali pubblici siano elencati perché li ascolti. Sia richiamato alla fede cattolica, alla retta morale e ad una sana pastorale dei fedeli. Gli si chieda di ritrattare i suoi errori e, se lo fa, lo si preghi e si consigli di ritirare i suoi rovinosi decreti. Se rifiuta il rimprovero, sia dichiarato colpevole di uno o più delitti puniti con la scomunica latae sententiae nel can. 1364 e il Concilio dichiari che la Sede di Pietro è legittimamente vacante.

Il Concilio Provinciale di Roma rimproverò Papa Marcellino per il suo atto di pubblica idolatria del dio romano Marte, e il Concilio Provinciale tenutosi a Sutri nel 1046 depose tre indegni pretendenti al Trono Apostolico, per la loro grave immoralità e pretese illecite: Benedetto IX, Silvestro III e Gregorio VI.

È suo dovere davanti al Dio vivente provvedere alla salvezza delle anime. Il Consiglio provinciale della Provincia ecclesiastica romana ha l’autorità per diritto e per precedente di agire in tal senso. In gioco ci sono più di un miliardo di anime.

Abbia timore del Dio vivente circa quale sarà il suo giudizio se non darà ascolto ad una soluzione così ragionevole, giuridicamente valida e onesta, alla più grande crisi della storia del Papato. E abbia fiducia come ha fatto san Paolo apostolo, quando andò ad Antiochia per rimproverare faccia a faccia san Pietro, per non aver rispettato i decreti del primo Concilio di Gerusalemme.

Perché, se crede che quell’uomo sia Pietro, deve avere fiducia che lo Spirito Santo lo ricondurrà a uno stato d’animo cattolico; e se non crede che sia Pietro, ha il solenne dovere di attivarsi per dichiarare legittimamente vacante la Sede Apostolica.

Cordiali saluti,

​Per Maggiori Informazioni

Su la procedura giuridica in un concilio provinciale per riprendere e deporre un papa eretico, vedi QUI

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Sutri Initiative is the only canonical way of removing Pope Francis from the papacy for heresy, schism, idolatry, apostasy, blasphemy and idolatry. Catholics have known about this initiative since it was launched on Oct. 20 2023.

But since that time, it has amazed me how many from all sides are openly attacking the initiative.

Whether they be Globalists, homosexualists, Modernists, liberals, Jews — who would be expected to support Pope Francis — or whether they be Sedevacantists, Minutellians, Cioncians, Bergoglio-is-certainly-the-pope-ists, they are united in one mystical body of depravity to insist that this initiative be stopped.

The comments coming from all these groups are so similar as to be personally shocking, and of the kind I cannot republish due to their vile verbiage.

But one thing is true: the mystical body of the Antichrist is enraged in every cell of its body against this initiative.

And this is another reason why sincere and authentic Catholics should united against them and join this Movement to remove Pope Francis, the fraud, from the Apostolic See.

Click the image to read and sign the petition at Ipetitions.com

Please note, that in English, “depose” in this context, means “to dethrone”, “to cast down”, “to remove from office”.

__________

CREDITS: The Featured image is a sketch of the Synod of Sutri, held in 1046, when the clergy of Rome deposed 3 false claimants to the papacy.

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Back in September of 2018, I called for a Second Synod of Sutri. And days later, the international Association, “Veri Catholici” joined the call with a specific and formal list of accusations to be heard.

And just last week, I called on Archbishop Viganò not to ignore the precedent set there. — An article which I thank Mr. Walker of Canon212.com for making more widely known.

But, yesterday, the day toward Sutri hastend in double march, however.

For Cardinal Sarah publicly denied that Peter (Bergoglio) is the Rock on his twitter feed, just hours after been dismissed as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.

And Aldo Maria Valli, the journalist who assisted Viganò to launch his apostolate of letter writing in denunciation of the corruption in the Church, published an Essay in which he expressly denied that Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of St. Peter, the exerciser of the Petrine Ministry.

I have it also, that Bergoglio dismissed Cardinal Camastri, the caretaker of the Basilica of St. Peter, on the same day as Cardinal Sarah for nothing coincidental.

I surmise that they both had remonstrated with Bergoglio in private as regards his statement made last Sunday about God “being contaminated”. — I surmise also that their dismissal means that Bergoglio is pertinacious in his heresy. — And I surmise furthermore that Cardinal Sarah’s tweet concludes rightly, that Bergoglio holds no office in the Church.

Archbishop Viganò last month, in his recent letter, admitted that he was publicly suspending judgement as to who is and who is not the Pope.  Valli’s declaration yesterday seems to explain what Viganò may be thinking.

Sara and Vigano are two leading incardinated members of the Clergy of the Roman Church. And their positions on Bergoglio are not surprising: they are merely refusing to continue in the pretense that that man is a Catholic. But they are not single men. With Camastri they lead a huge number of Roman Clergy here in the Diocese and around the world. Their public positions of dissent or disagreement will now become public positions in the Church among thousands and tens of thousands, and soon millions and tens of millions. This particularly true because they are seen by many as faithful Catholic clergy, not loony-bin heretics, of the kind with which Bergoglio loves to surround himself.

While these have not yet publicly admitted or realized that Benedict is still the pope, the problem rightly posed and rightly answered, as only a Second Synod of Sutri may be able to do, hastens closer.

And this is no layman’s call, because I have it from a contact in the Roman Curia, that Sutri is being talked about and is being recognized as as valid canonical method of solving the problem.

Therefore, as a member of the Roman Church, I call on Cardinal Sarah and Archbishop Viganò to publicly call for a Second Synod of Sutri. I call on Catholic journalists of integrity everywhere, friend or foe, to urge such a call.

The situation in the Church cannot be tolerated any longer.  It is no longer a time to remain silent!

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

There is a lot of talk about the Pope resigning, being constrained to resign, or being deposed. So much so, that Reuters (a news agency founded by Jews and allied to Freemasonry) ran a story saying a Pope cannot be deposed.

This of course is a lie.

Let’s consider the question, then, “Can a Pope be deposed?” by first defining our terms.  Here, “pope” means the Bishop of Rome, who ex officio is the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of Saint Peter.

By “deposed” there is meant removal from office.

The first determination we must make is to distinguish the auxiliary verb “can”.  A thing can be done physically, morally and legally.  An enemy of the Church could arrest the Pope, force him under pain of death to sign a decree of abdication. That is a physical deposition.  A moral deposition, is where the Pope is asked to resign and he acquiesces and signs a decree of resignation.  A legal deposition, would be where the Church by trial and in Synod or Council removes him from office.

Clerics can be canonically, that is legally, removed from office by their superiors, generally speaking.  But since the Pope has no superior on earth, being the Vicar of Christ, many think he cannot be canonically removed from office.

That argument sounds valid on the face of it, but the Synod of Sutri in 1046 argues against it.  In that Synod, which the Church to this day considers canonically valid, the Clergy of the Diocese of Rome, at the invitation of the German King, Henry III, met to decide the fate of Pope Benedict IX and two other anti-popes Gregory VI and Sylvester III.  Gregory VI claimed the papacy on account of having bought it from Benedict IX; Sylvester III claimed it, having been elected after mobs drove Benedict IX from Rome. Neither were canonically elected, nor true popes, regardless of what some historians say, because to be pope you must be canonically elected after the death or resignation of your predecessor.

The events are summarized by John Cardinal Newman, and summarized in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes the events:

The proceedings of the Synod of Sutri, 20 December, are well summarized by Cardinal Newman in his “Essays Critical and Historical” (II, 262 sqq.). Of the three papal claimants, Benedict refused to appear; he was again summoned and afterwards pronounced deposed at Rome. Sylvester was “stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a monastery”. Gregory showed himself to be, if not an idiota, at least a man miræ simplicitatis, by explaining in straightforward speech his compact with Benedict, and he made no other defence than his good intentions, and deposed himself (Watterich, Vitæ Rom. Pont., I, 76); an act by some interpreted as a voluntary resignation, by others (Hefele), in keeping with the contemporary annals, as a deposition by the synod. The Synod of Sutri adjourned to meet again in Rome 23 and 24 December. Benedict, failing to appear, was condemned and deposed in contumaciam, and the papal chair was declared vacant. As King Henry was not yet crowned emperor, he had no canonical right to take part in the new election; but the Romans had no candidate to propose and begged the monarch to suggest a worthy subject.

Thus, The Synod deposed all three claimants to the papacy.*  Gregory VI admitted his claim to the office was “vitiated” by simony. Pope Benedict IX objected,  but the Church has always accepted his deposition as valid. The King of Germany then appointed Clement II as Pope, who promptly crowned the King, Holy Roman Emperor. Benedict IX, after the death of Clement, claimed the papacy again! The Church to this day recognizes Clement II as a true Pope.

That seems to run in the face of the current Code of Canon Law which expressly says a pope’s resignation cannot be forced and must be free.  The relevant Canon is 332, which reads in Latin:

Can. 332 —  2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

And in the official English translation:

Can. 332 — § 2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

But from this canon, its obvious, that there is no definition of the freedom required. Thus, just as a man freely resigns by an act which separates himself from the office, as Pope Benedict XVI intended to do, so a man can freely resign by acting in a manner so contrary to the office and the good of the Church, that he no longer wishes to act according to its duties.

Some argue, that since a thousand years have passed, and since we now have a College of Cardinals who elects the Pope, that a pope cannot be deposed like Benedict IX was.

But such an inference, which is by no means supported by anything but conjecture, assumes that the principles which validated the Synod of Sutri are not valid today. I am talking about canonical and theological principles.

Let’s look at what they were:

1. The Clergy of the Roman Church acting for the good of the Church
2. Against a corrupt Pope, who was by all impartial observers, unfit for the office.
3. With the patronage of Henry II, King of the Germans.

I think all can agree, that though Henry II’s intention was Church reform, that his motives were not pure, since He had come to Italy to be crowned Holy Roman Emperor, a thing which only a Pope could grant him, and either Benedict IX would not grant it, or he was of such a degraded morality, that Henry II did not want to receive the crown from him.

Nevertheless, Henry II proceeded by canonical grounds: He convened the clergy of the Church of Rome, whose good was immediately threatened by Benedict IX. The Synod was called by Gregory VI, but deposed all three Popes. Benedict IX objected, but the Church accepted the results of the Synod, inasmuch as it recognizes as canonical the election of Clement II which followed immediately.

I think anyone who argues that the same could NOT be done today, therefore, has a very tenuous argument. He would have to argue that the form of canon 332 overrides the good of the entire Church, the good of the Diocese of Rome, and that it is more authoritative than the canonical precedent of the Synod of Sutri, which for the last 1000 years the Church has considered just and valid in all which it did. Indeed, the fact that Saint Hildebrand, later the great reforming pope, Gregory VII, attended this Synod and accepted its decisions to depose all three popes, argues strongly for its validity. Saint Peter Damnian, though there is no record that he attended, was in Rome the day after the Synod concluded and accepted its judgement. Pope Blessed Victor III also wrote about the Synod and accepted its judgments.

I for one think any opinion in law which has as its authority 1000 years of Church witness, 2 Canonized Saint Reformers, and 2 holy Popes, is much stronger than any interpretation of a canon which appears intended only for enemies of the Church.  Especially since, Benedict IX does not seem to have accepted his deposition, yet is regarded by the Church and historians to have been validly deposed.

But, for those who love the Church, its obvious who the enemy is here.

NOTA BENE;  For historical sources on the Synod of Sutri, look to the original sources and not to historians who were trying to make it appear, after the Council of Constance, that a Pope can never be deposed by anyone. And hold fast to the testimony of John Gratian (Gregory VI) at the Council of Sutri, who admitted his claim to the papacy was vitiated by the objective crime of simony. That Saint Hildebrand took the name of Gregory VII, to honor his patron John Gratian, proves nothing but his respect for the man and what he was trying to do (remove a bad Pope and begin a Reform), since in that age the numbers after a name did not prove or disprove the validity of the claim to the papacy. Those who attack the validity of the Synod of Sutri will run into crucial problems: if they accept Gregory VI as having a valid claim, they must recognize that he both convened the Synod and declared, therein, that his claim to the Papacy was invalid by reason of Simony; if they accept Benedict IX as having a valid claim, and deny the validity of his deposition, then how do they explain that Clement II is regarded by all subsequent Popes as canonically elected? The legitimacy of the Synod, therefore, must canonically be attributed to this, that it convened the Clergy of Rome to judge the man who was the Pope, not the Pope as Pope, so as to end all controversy as to who was pope and to put out of office all those who were morally unfit for office.

The Best Source we have found so far, besides that of Cardinal Newman, is the Dialogues of Blessed Pope Victor III, Patrologia Latina, vol. 149, columns 1004/5, which give the same history as above.

Finally, note, that in the Codex Iuris Canonicis of 1983, promulgated by John Paul II, in canon 188, it is explicitly stated that a resignation made by way of simony is invalid. Hence, it appears the Church never recognized as valid the resignation of Benedict IX, when he sold the papacy to Gregory VI. Which bolsters the argument, that Benedict IX’s deposition from the papacy by the Synod of Sutri, meeting at Rome in its second session, was indeed of epochal significance. A Pope can be deposed for immorality: for simony of his own office at least.

Veri Catholici, the international Association for protecting the faith from Kasperite heresies, is advocating calling a Synod like Sutri to depose Bergoglio, if he won’t resign. See vericatholici.wordpress.com for more information about that.)

______________________

*  Synods which depose clerics are canonical trials, where the accusers and accused appear and are interrogated by the Tribunal, which includes senior clerics or all the clergy present. There is a libellus of accusations and testimonies are given. For this reason, there is no reason to call for an investigation in the matter of Viganò’s Letter of Accusation. What is needed is that the witnesses and accused appear and give their defense against what is charged. This is the Catholic and Legal way of ending the controversy.