Canon Peters shows he does not know basic principles of Canon Law

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I do not know whether I should laugh or cry at this tweet by Canon Peters. But I will say something that may be surprising: Steve Skojec did the right thing by asking a canon lawyer to give his opinion. I praise Steve for that, as it is a lot better than insulting everyone on Social Media.

But as for Canon Edward Peters, I have to say he does not know his Canon Law.

I know that sounds like an incredible statement coming from me, who does not hold a degree in Canon Law, but I will demonstrate that it is a true statement.

Canon Peters cites canon 125 §1.

Oh boy!

Here I had to burst out laughing.

Canon 125 regards juridical acts! Juridical acts are acts before a judge, in a tribunal.

But as anyone with the slightest knowledge of Canon Law, like myself, or with eminent amounts of it, like Mons. Arrieta, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legal Texts, knows, the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI is an administrative act not a juridical act.

It is an administrative act, because it is an act of a superior with a munus, in the exercise of his ministerium, deciding something within his whole power and by a motu proprio. It has nothing to do with hearing a case before a judge.

Even if Canon Peters was thinking of putting the Declaratio of Pope Benedict before a tribunal, he errs, because the act of the Roman Pontiff cannot be adjudicated by any power on earth, according to canon 1404: prima sedes a nemine iudicatur. — You know, that canon they are always quoting against Catholics in communion with Pope Benedict, to insist that his Declaration means what they say it means and not what Benedict says it means.

Then, you really have to cry, because Peters thinks that if a Pope for any reason whatsoever, calls another man, “pope”, that means he renounced papacy.  I guess Canon Peters has never been present when the Coptic Patriarch visited the Vatican. The Coptic Patriarch is called pope. I guess too, Canon Peters thinks that if the Pope catches a fever and while you are visiting him at his bedside, he calls you the Pope, then you become the pope!

Canon 125 §2, what does it say?

Let us see what the Canon says, to see if there is any shred of reason why Canon Peters would be citing it to Steve Skojec. It is not a canon cited in controversies over the resignation, to my knowledge.

Here is the Latin:

Canon 125 §2  – Actus positus ex metu gravi, iniuste incusso, aut ex dolo, valet, nisi aliud iure caveatur; sed potest per sententiam iudicis rescindi, sive ad instantiam partis laesae eiusve in iure successorum sive ex officio.

Which in English, I render thus:

Canon 125 §1 – An act placed out of grave fear, unjustly brought to bear, or out of deceit, is valid, unless something else is provided for by the law; but it can be rescinded through the sentence of a judge, whether at the request of the injured parted or of his successors in law or office.

Canon Peters should know not to cite this canon, since both Canons 188 and 332 §2 expressly establish that coercion makes a Papal renunciation invalid. It is not as if anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the controversy can be ignorant of canons 188 and 332, especially if he be a canon lawyer with whom dozens of Catholics have shared on Twitter articles about this matter, as Canon Peters is. Thus his appeal to canon 125 §2 is understood with great difficulty to be something other than dishonest. I can only think he was tweeting after having had one too many beers for Mardi Gras.

Yes, ask Canon Lawyers. But perhaps give some of them some time to respond first and think about what they are going to say. I think this one tweet from Peters shows he either has bad will or lacks the expertise he should have acquired before answering such an important question. But I am confident that with a little study he can acquire it because even Catholics with no such training but good will, can understand it.


CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the Twitter Profile Page of Canon Peters on Twitter, and is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.



Salza & Siscoe’s Theory of Universal Acceptance is Masonic

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Everyone by now knows of the absurd strawman argument of John Salza and Robert Siscoe. It goes like this. I will mark the argument here and there with NDT, to indicate the terms which need to be defined with precision if the argument means anything at all:

The whole (NDT) Church (NDT) immediately (NDT) after the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio accepted (NDT) him as the pope.

Universal (NDT) acceptance (NDT) of a man as pope is an infallible (NDT) sign (NDT) of his legitimate election.

Therefore, it is infallibly (NDT) certain (NDT) that Bergoglio is the pope and that his election was legitimate (NDT).

There are 11 points in the argument which can be changed at any moment to avoid objections, by simply redefining terms. That, in itself, is Masonic, because it is a fundamental rule of the Lodge to speak in ambiguous terms. But let us examine how the ideological structure of their argument is also masonic.


Infallibility according to Catholic Theology is a natural property of the true God alone. No creature by nature is infallible. Infalliblity means the inability to fail. It is the characteristic of a substance as regards its action.

However, truth itself is infallible, because truth is defined by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in a way which makes its infallibility necessary. Here I speak of truth as the truth of a proposition, because of such truth Saint Thomas says the definition is:  the adequation of a created intellect with the object known, or in other words, the right and just relationship between a knowing mind and the think known by that mind.

Examples of infallibly true statements are 1+1 = 2, and The Sun is the star of our solar system. Infallibility pertains to all propositions which regard the natural or supernatural world, when they are true in what they affirm. This is the wonderful way in which Our Creator, Who alone is infallible, has enabled us, fallible creatures, to draw near to Him, through knowing and accepting truth.

But men by nature are not infallible. Hence men can err or fail. Nor are we fallible in the knowledge of things. We can err. We can err also in what we believe is true on the basis of what other men tell us.  Thus human opinion based on things like human testimony is the most fallible of all kinds of knowledge.

But for John Salza and Robert Siscoe the universal acceptance by the Church of a man as pope is an infallible sign that his election was legitimate!

I hope you can see the ontological problem in that assertion. It moves infallibility from God and true propositions to men. And that is totally Masonic.

7 Slippery aspects of the argument

A common sense Catholic responds by saying, the Church does not teach or approve of such an absurd theory, as can easily be seen: because the Church has laws which say when and how a pope is validly elected and when and how a man elected is not legitimately such. Now the Church would be double faced if she taught a theory which said, there is no need for laws on papal elections, there is only need that everyone accept a pope. Also, Holy Mother Church recognizes as valid popes many men who were elected according to the rules but who were never universally accepted during their pontificates (e.g. the Roman Popes during the Great Western Schism). Thus the Church has never resorted to universal acceptance as a sign of a valid election.

It also does not make sense. Because if the election was legitimate, who cares if everyone accepts it or not? The truth of legitimacy is in an entirely different order of knowledge than that of popular opinion. Every Catholic can understand that. But Masons reject that. Truth for them is only at the ballot box, if even then. Moreover, the Masonic Lodge which seeks to overthrow God and all Monarchies in the name of exalting the common man and the masses would find such a trick delightful. It’s their own world view. Universal Acceptance basically is another way of knowing truth, one which the Church rejects in Canon 332 and in the Papal Law, Unversi dominici gregis. Therefore, whence comes this appeal to Universal Acceptance against or in spite of the laws and teaching of the Church? Such an appeal is gnostic and masonic.

Second, the word universal in Latin has a proper sense of each and everyone. However, I do not think any historian has every proven that after any papal election each and every Catholic in the world accepted the man elected as the pope. John Salza and Robert Siscoe evade this obvious fault by inventing a special meaning for universal: morally universal, by which the mean, nearly everyone. This nearly can be expanded as necessary for any arguent. To John Siscoe in debate yesterday, I mentioned I know 13 persons who never accepted it. Siscoe responded that absolute universality is not necessary. And he claimed their dissent was secret, so nobody knew about it. So universal, for S & S, is what they want it to mean. And as such, the theory itself means nothing, but what they say. So in effect, it means that you must accept them as infallible arbiters of who is the pope. And that is masonic.

Third, we come to Sisco and Salza’s idea of acceptance. They never really define it. Without a strict definition, their theory means nothing at all. Does it mean I do or do not like his face, his theology, his attitude, his episcopal lineage and therefore I hold that he is or is not the pope? Of if a Catholic holds that he is de facto pope but not the legitimate pope, has he accepted? Immediately upon the publication of the Declaratio by Pope Benedict scholars said it was invalid and that an antipope would be elected in the upcoming conclave. There was no acceptance, there, in any defined manner. Also, if I hear the news claim so and so was elected pope, does that mean that I accepted it. Does not acceptance mean examining the facts of law and history and then making a judgement? S & S seem to imply that acceptance has nothing to do with Canon 41 or truth, it is merely listening to the TV. But that is not a Catholic concept of acceptance, but it is very masonic. I guess the next step will be to announce that their candidate is the pope on TV and then dispense with any Conclave or Canon Law. How convenient!

Fourth, we come to Salza and Siscoe’s concept of Church. As every Catholic knows, the Church is one thing, and its members another. This touches upon the formal definition of the Church and the material definition of the Church. As you will see, Salza and Siscoe will play with these two aspects. Arguing in their major premise, regarding the principle of universal acceptance, using the formal definition, but arguing in their minor premise as regards the facts of the present case, in the material sense. I pointed this out in my article on Siscoe’s triple shell game. If you do not hold Bergoglio was the pope, then S & S will just put you outside the definition of the Church which they happen to be using at the moment. They play this game especially with dogmatic facts. A dogmatic fact regards the formal definition of the Church, but they assert human opinions which regard the material definition of the Church as dogmatic facts. And that is masonic.

Fifth, we come to S & S’s concept of immediacy. When does the vague universality of the vague acceptance need to take place. In one minute, in one day, in one week, in one month, in one year? They do not say. I think it would not be unreasonable to speculate that after every legitimate election, there is a delay even when there is canonical acceptance. It is never immediate. There are missionaries in remote regions of the past who never knew the name of the pope, because he died before the news arrived. I guess there was no infallible sign of their being the true pope, according to S & S! The level of absurdity here is manifest. They set up another criterion for true popes. And that is masonic.

Sixth, we come to S & S’s concept of certitude. This is closely allied with the concept of infallibility. We can be certain that a truth is true, because truth is of itself infallible and the assertion of truth is infallible. Certitude as quality of notion does not apply to opinion, because opinion by definition is the assertion of a thing with knowledge that its contradiction is a possibility. But human recognition of a man as the pope, when based solely on human testimony without any facts of history or law being established, is the most uncertain kind of news: it is common opinion! To say that any news in the modern world is certain, would take a very strict definition of terms, especially since journalists and news outlets are notorious for their mendacity. But to say opinion is certain is simply a contradiction of the very definition of the word. But contradiction and double speak is the very hallmark of the Freemason, who is told he can lie to everyone except a superior level mason. And that is masonic.

Seventh, we come to S & S’s concept of legitimacy. Legitimate means done in accord with a right which inheres in the subject by nature or grant. It differs from legal, in that it does not require positive law. It differs from lawful, because its measure is not in accord with the terms of any law. Of papal elections some were said to be legitimate others canonical others legal.  This is because throughout history the election of popes was at the beginning done in accord with Apostolic right, as I have previously mentioned, and since there was no law or canon about how to do such things, a legitimate election was every election in which the part of the Church of Rome regarded as valid immediately, and which all of the Church of Rome, long afterwards regarded as valid, even if there were rival claimants at the time. When the Councils established canons for episcopal elections, then some papal elections were said to be canonical or uncanonical in accord with whether the canons were followed. However, of some of these elections, the Church has regarded as valid and legitimate men who were uncanonically elected. This is because the Church of Rome has never accepted any law or canon established by Councils held outside of her jurisdiction as binding on Her ability to elect the Roman Pontiff. THIS IS IMPORTANT, and this explains why many theologians speak of universal acceptance of a papal election despite whether it was canonical or not. Because in such a case they are not speaking of obligatory canons, just customarily observed canons. Finally, some papal elections can now be legal or illegal, because Pope John Paul II published a law on papal elections which regulates what the College of Cardinals should do in such matters. Violations of this law make an election illegal and invalid. Elections perfectly in harmony with the norms of this law make an election legal and valid. Such elections are also legitimate, when they are legal and valid, because the Cardinals have the right to act lawfully. — Thus we can see that the theory of universal acceptance, by the mere fact that it is employed by S & S now, when it arise in ages past to be applied to times when there was no papal law for elections, only canons or the lack of them, is misapplied. It is anachronistic, in the technical sense of the term, because it does not apply to elections governed by papal laws. This is especially true when the current Papal Law EXPRESSLY says that no election which violates it is valid regardless. The current high bar of validity and legitimacy is what is lawful, not what is accepted. To reject that is masonic, because the freemason rejects Papal authority in principal.

Salza and Siscoe’s Theory as applied is Masonic

In summation, I would say that John Salza and Robert Siscoe’s theory, as applied, is Masonic for the following reasons:

  1. It rejects the binding norms of the Papal Law of Pope John Paul II which alone determine when a man elected by the College of Cardinals in a Conclave is legitimate, legal and lawful, excluding all other things as signs or causes of the validity.
  2. It is founded upon badly or poorly defined terms which can be held to mean whatever you want them to mean on any occasion.
  3. It places infallibility in human opinion rather than in God and His words to Peter: Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in Heaven, words which obviously apply to all papal laws on elections.
  4. It ignores all facts of history and places the criterion of truth outside of historical fact, thus divorcing truth from reality.
  5. It is designed to force Catholics to accept whatever the Masonic Lodge in the Vatican says is true, regardless of historical facts or papal laws, and this is in accord with the Masonic principle that the higher lodges rule the lower lodges.
  6. It effectively makes the facts of a papal election a gnostic deposit of knowledge which no Catholic who is not initiated has the right to examine or seek to know.
  7. Salza and Siscoe use the theory as Freemasons, because as I have experienced on several occasions, if you point out errors in it, they response: You do not understand what universal acceptance is and then proceed to point out how you have not the right knowledge to comprehend it, as if you were some sort of intellectual inferior or non-initiate. At times they say the sign is an effect not a cause, but they treat it as a cause not an effect. Oh, and they ignore all examination of legal doubt.

John Salza admits he joined the Lodge. He also admits that Masons do not publicly contest his writings. I do not know if Robert Sisco is a member or has been a member. I do know that it is a rule of the Lodge never to argue in public with another member. I also know that many converts from non Catholic religions never quite reject some of the errors they learned there.

I must conclude, therefore, that Sicoe and Salza’s theory of Universal Acceptance is masonic because it inverts the notions of infallibility, universality, acceptance, Church, legitimacy, and plays games with the notions of immediacy and certitude. And just as everything which is of Hell, inverts the order of things which God has established, their theory reflects a diabolic way of thinking about the papal claims of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whose own intelligence officer admits is a Freemason. Is that the real reason that Salza and Siscoe seek so zealously to defend his claim to the papacy? To defend a brother in the Lodge?

I hope this essay of mine own, helps both John Salza and Robert Siscoe see their errors and repent of them. But also, so that all the faithful see their theory for what it is.


CREDITS: The Featured Image is a 1805 water color of a rite of initiation into the Masonic Lodge at Paris.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.




Frank Walker: Trad Inc more ridiculous than Bergoglians

Frank Walker: If it paid a half a million dollars, even Skojec would name Benedict is the pope. I think Trad. Inc. is going to scrub the pictures of Lenga.  Editor of  Catholic Family praises 1 Pt 5 for preaching despair about the Papacy. For Trad. Inc. the only sin left is to expose the controlled opposition.

40 Days of prayer against the Church of Darkness — Ash Wednesday

FromRome.Info Video, recorded tonight at Santa Maria Maggiore.



In the year of Our Lord 1820, God revealed to Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich that the Church of Rome would one day be attacked from within. That there would be two popes: one false and dark, who strove to found a new Religion which would be the home of every heretic and apostate: one true and aged, who would be paralyzed by inaction and silence.

To drive the Church of Darkness out of the Church of Rome, it was revealed to her that Our Lady asked the faithful to gather at Midnight in front of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, here at Rome, and pray with arms outstretched, in the form of the Cross, for the space of at least 3 Our Fathers.

Prayers being said Tonight at Rome

In nomine Patri et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

Pater noster qui es in coelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum;
adveniat regnum tuum, fiat voluntas tua, sicut in coelo et in terra.
Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie,
et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

Padre nostro che sei nei cieli, sia santificato il tuo nome;
venga il tuo regno; sia fatta la tua volontà, come in cielo così in terra.
Dacci oggi il nostro pane quotidiano,
e rimetti a noi i nostri debiti come noi li rimettiamo ai nostri debitori,
e non ci indurre in tentazione, ma liberaci dal male». Amen. (3 volte)

Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name,
Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our Daily Bread,
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us,
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen. (3 times)

Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto,
Sicut erat in principio, et nunc et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

NOTE: Since, Bl. Anna-Katerina Emmerich had this vision in 1820, before the invention of time zones, midnight here should be understood in solar time, which at Rome makes midnight occur at 12:22 AM, presently, and thus the hour of midnight would be 11:52 AM to 12:52 AM. Try to say your prayers in that hour.

This Novena is explained and announced here in English, and here in Italian, in each place the citations from Bl. Emmerich about these prayers are given.

See the article published yesterday at FromRome.Info, The Church of Light vs. the Church of Darkness for more about this Novena of Prayer.

PLEASE NOTE: That until From Rome Info Video Channel at Youtube gets 1000 subscribers, it will NOT be able to broadcast the Nightly Prayers Live. So let all who are devoted to Jesus Christ, Our Lady and Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich know that they need to urge subscriptions to this channel, so that we can promote the fulfillment of Our Lady’s Request for Her Heavenly-Approved prayer solution to the present Crisis in the Church.

To put a Newspaper ad calling Catholics at Rome to this pray vigil, will cost 2000 euros. Help us spread the word by a generous contribution here below. Our Lady promised victory, let us mobilize everyone to the battle!

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.


Bishop Gracida joins Archbishop Lenga in denying Bergoglio is the pope

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I will merely quote, the Most Rev. Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, USA, from his blog today:


Bishop Gracida has publicly stated he doubted the validity of the renunciation from day one, and that he doubted the validity of the Conclave for the same reason. Even more so, he doubted the validity when news of vote canvassing broke in 2014.

Thus, it would be more proper to say that Archbishop Lenga now agrees with Bishop Gracida, than the other way around. But regardless, there is now a Collegial Denial by Bishops of the Catholic Church of Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy.

The allies of Bergoglio have censored the news of Bishop Gracida’s public positions on the renunciation and the Conclave, however, because they are not interested in truth, only in the grasp for power and wealth. Trad Inc. too has shown that they prefer to censor a Bishop and promote instead the opinions of laymen.

FromRome.Info considers the actions reported today by Mons. Lenga and Mons. Gracida to be a complete vindication of our news service and of all the Catholics who hold that Benedict is the Pope. We are the Catholic side in this controversy because we alone have the law and the facts on our side.

+ + +

Adrian Willaert: Verbum bonum et suave

Today, we continue our perusal of the sacred polyphony with one of the greatest Catholic composers of the 16th Century, Adrian Willaert, the founder of the Venetian School of polyphony.

Adrian Willaert, born at Rumbeke, near Roeselare, in western Flanders (now modern Belgium) around 1490 A.D.. He went to Paris to study law, but ended up studying music with Jean Mouton, whose repertoire has already been featured here at FromRome.Info. After his studies, he persued a career in musical composition in Italy.

According to anecdote, when he arrived at Rome, he found that his composition, Verbum bonum et suave was being sung by the Sistine Choir every feast of Our Lady, as if it were a piece by Josquin des Pres. When he informed them it was his own, they never sang it again.

At 5 P.M., FromRome.Info brings you a selection of sacred music from Catholic composers throughout the ages, for your edification and to help us all realize how profoundly inimical the Aggiornamento has been to Catholic worship.


John Salza, how I joined the Masonic Lodge

John Salza is associated with the Fatima Center and the SSPX in the USA.

He is also associated with, where it is impossible to get interviewed unless you get deep approval:

In this second video, Michael Voris asks Salza at about 9:00 mark, Can you recognize the stench of Freemasonry? Listen to his answer: he does not attribute to Freemasons directly, the problems in the Church. He says something like: I am not saying that Freemasonry has a plan to infiltrate the Church, Our Lady is. He further affirms that “good Catholics” can be duped into joining the Lodge.

That Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a Freemason was admitted by his own head of intelligence in Argentina, as FromRome.Info reported recently.

A Catholic who publicly admits to have joined the Masonic Lodge cannot be received back into the Church or to the life of the Sacraments without signing a public document in which he renounces his membership, in due canonical form.

John Salza has authored a number of books, two of which deal with Freemasonry:

Masonry Unmasked: An insider reveals the secrets of the Lodge

The blurb for the Book, at is thus:

A lifelong Catholic, John Salza was initiated into a Wisconsin’s Masonic Lodge, lured by the group’s camaraderie and philanthropies. Yet, as he rose through the ranks, he became increasingly troubled by its dangerous teachings, mysterious rituals, and complete incompatibility with the Catholic Faith. Now, former Freemason, Shriner, and Lodge Officer John Salza reveals the astounding truths about what’s really going on behind the lodge door. For the first time, get a surprising, inside look at the group’s controversial rituals, practices, and philosophies from one of their own ? secrets sworn to be upheld under the threat of death! Essential for anyone affiliated with or considering the Lodge, their families, and their friends, this eye-opening book presents evidence on: ? The deception in recruitment, initiation, and covenant oaths ? The problematic ideology of Freemasonry and relativism ? How their spiritual beliefs contradict Catholicism ? and Christianity at large

And, Why Catholics cannot be Masons, which is described thus at Amazon:

Many good Catholic men have been deceived into becoming Masons. In this powerful little book, a Catholic attorney and former 32nd degree Mason, John Salza, clearly shows why joining Masonry (including the Shriners) means embracing a false religion.

Having authored Masonry Unmasked for general readership, here John Salza writes specifically for Catholics, showing why the Church has always condemmed Freemasonry, and continues to condemn Freemasonry today (despite mistaken claims to the contrary.) He explains Masonic doctrines, history, rituals, oaths and curses, showing that Masonry is totally incompatible with Christianity and the Catholic Faith.

He answers the questions: Who is the god of Freemasonry? How does Freemasonry view the Holy Bible? What are the self-curses of Freemasonry? Why does Freemasonry appear to be compatible with the Christian Faith? What have the Popes said about Freemasonry? Are “Catholic Masons” excommunicated? How does a Catholic exit Freemasonry?

Packed with facts and very well documented, Why Catholics Cannot Be Masons is a brief but potent revelation by a man who has been there – and then returned to the One True Faith.

John Salza has appeared on EWTN, and he hosts Catholic radio programs on Relevant Radio and EWTN Radio. He is the author of several apologetics books including: The Biblical Basis for Purgatory, The Mystery of Predestination, and The Biblical Basis for the Papacy.


Henry VIII and Bergoglio, how alike!

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The history of the defection of the Kingdom of England from the faith is a long one. But its cause was simple. Henry VIII wanted a male heir and his children kept dying because, most likely, of the syphilis he contracted with whores as a young man.

So Henry VIII took prostitutes to be his wives, whoring with them while married Sacramentally or civilly to another woman.

Henry VIII therefore invented a way around the Sacrament of Marriage, he would start his own religion, one in which he could publicly honor his whores as wives.

When you start counting all the sexual perverts around Bergoglio, which he has purposefully surrounded himself with, then you get the strong impression that his motives for starting a new religion, and their motives for supporting him, are the same as Henry VIII.

Only the gender differs.

The Cardinals who insist otherwise and the laymen who follow such Cardinals have a lot to explain, because very soon intense scrutiny will fall upon them, as to what their personal motives are.


CREDITS: The Featured Image is of a painting by Hans Holbein, the Younger, which you can see in person at the Gallerie nazionali d’arte antica, Palazzo Barberini, here at Rome.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.



Siscoe rejects the Magisterium and invents his own

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Here I continue my public conversation with Mr. Siscoe, which I started on his blog, but I will continue here, because I see he is not addressing the argument and I do not have any confidence that he will repost my reply.

Read my previous comment, to understand the context of what I am about to write.

When pushed, claim your theory is Church doctrine

Br. Bugnolo: “There are major problems with your theory and its application.”

Mr. Siscoe: This is not my theory. It is the common doctrine of the Church.

I have been to seminary and studied at 3 Pontifical Universities and have read multiple manuals of theology, some of them 12 volumes long, and I can assure you that Siscoe’s universal acceptance is not the doctrine of the Church, because to be such, it has to be contained in a magisterial document.

To be clear, the notion of a dogmatic fact is precise: it regards legitimate acts. Thus, if Monsignor So and So refuses to be bishop of this or that, even though he was just nominated as Bishop of this or that, the Papal act is not a dogmatic fact, even though it is papal, because it is contrary to fact. It is a dogmatic fact that the pope nominated, but not that the man nominated is the Bishop because he refused to accept.

Thus even a Conclave which followed all the rules — which the Conclave of 2013 did not, according to the testimony of Cardinal Daneels — which pertain to conclaves — which the Conclave of 2013 did not, because the Papal Law requires a legal renunciation as it itself says — and resulted in the election of a man who was accepted by the whole Church, all the while the man insisted he never accepted, then, that he was the pope would not be a dogmatic fact, even though it would be a dogmatic fact that the Cardinals chose him, because to be the pope requires acceptance, as the papal law itself says.

Sisoe is playing a Triple Shell game, as I explained last year:

He has anted up on his game, because now, he not only claims that those who did not have true knowledge of the events of Feb. 11, 2013 are the Church, but that his doctrine of Universal Acceptance as applied to present events is the Doctrine of the Church!

But Canon Law is magisterial. And Siscoe ignores that completely.

Siscoe’s theory does not apply to contested elections

Siscoe also ignores that John of St. Thomas explicitly said that the concept of universal acceptance regards a legitimate election. That any theologian before or after omits that condition proves nothing, because as anyone who knows theology knows, many authors repeat doctrines imprecisely and incompletely, and their doing of such does not alter the doctrine. Thus you cannot escape from the fundamental condition of the notion of universal acceptance which only regards LEGITIMATE ELECTIONS.

Thus, it appears that what he is saying, is that Blessed Urban II, for example, and every legitimate pope after whose election the Cardinals or part of them, elected another, as an antipope, was not the true pope. I say “his theory” because no one with a sane mind would put in doubt a dogmatic fact of a valid election simply because there was no universal acceptance. But that is what he is doing. He is saying law does not matter, only opinion.

Ignore the events of Feb. 2013

Mr. Siscoe is also playing another game. He admits, the following in his recent reply to me:

The universal acceptance has nothing to do with the renunciation. It is an infallible sign of a legitimate Pope, not the infallible sign of a legitimate abdication.

Well then, WHY ON EARTH are you resorting to using your theory, Mr. Siscoe, if you admit it has nothing to do with renunciations! When you know well the validity of the renunciation is contested and has been from day 1, as I showed in the preface to my scholastic question.

It seems that Mr. Siscoe simply wants to condone law breaking, and refuses to consider anything else.

When the facts do not fit your case, massage them

Finally, notice how Mr. Siscoe alters reality when it does not suit his pet theory:

Br. Bugnolo: “The other problem with your theory is that in the present case, there never was universal acceptance. Bishop Gracida never accepted the renunciation or the election And I just met about 12 persons at a Conference here in Rome, over the weekend, who told me they did not accept Bergoglio the moment he came out of the Loggia and said, Buona Sera!”

Mr. Siscoe: The universal acceptance only requires a moral unanimity, not a mathematical unanimity. There’s over a billion Catholics in the world and you know of 13 who rejected him IN SECRET.

Does he think that Mons. Gracida and those 12 persons are holding that Benedict is the Pope or that the renunciation is dubious in secret? If it was in secret, how do I know about it? Siscoe has just implied I have the grace to read minds!

That being the case, Mr. Siscoe, I will use that gift and say you are not being honest. Because no honest man replies to facts that way. You would be laughed right out of every tribunal and court in the world, if you attempted such a legal argument. You have adopted the absurdity of a Skojec.

All Bergoglians are blasphemers

Finally, I will observe that Siscoe doubles down on his theory and seals it with a blasphemy, like all Bergoglians. Notice how a Catholic, when using a contrary of fact, uses the conditional, but Siscoe uses the indicative: for him blasphemy is a real option:

Br. Bugnolo: First of all, no theory of interpretation trumps canon law, because if it did, then Jesus Christ would be a liar Who said of Peter and the laws of all his successors, Whatsoever you bind upon Earth, shall be bound also in Heaven. THUS IF A MAN WERE ACCEPTED BY ALL IN THE CHURCH AS THE POPE, WHEN HOWEVER HE HAD NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM TO THE PAPACY BECAUSE OF THE NON COMPLIANCE WITH ANY PAPAL LAW REGARDING BECOMING POPE, THEN CHRIST WOULD BE PROVED A LIAR.

Mr. Siscoe: But Francis was accepted by all in the Church as Pope in the days, weeks and months after his election. Therefore, according to your own reasoning, Christ would be proven a liar if Francis had no legitimate claim to the Papacy because of non complains with ecclesiastical law. Therefore, either Christ is a liar, or the Francis DID have a legitimate claim to the Papacy based on ecclesiastical law.

Mr. Siscoe has a real problem, for him the Church means what he says it means. And if you do not agree with him you are not part of the Church. He is a perfect bergoglian. He also cannot read, because the context of my statement regards the presumption of the theory of Universal Acceptance being a valid theory of interpretation, but Siscoe reads my statement as if it was made in reference to fact, not the theory. He also ignores the context of proved a liar, which is that Christ would accept the illegitimate election on the basis of common opinion, and not on that of the law.

I have argued on street corners and sidewalks with every kind of protestant, and whenever you catch them in a lie or false statement, they change the argument. So I am not fooled by Mr. Siscoe’s slippery way of responding to anything said to him. His manner of argumentation is simply another proof that his opinion does not come from God. Indeed, he speaks as if Christ is not God.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.



Archbishop Lenga: Benedict XVI is the Pope, and Bergoglio is an antichrist

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

FromRome.Info reported last week, that Archbishop Lenga was denounced by the spokesman of the Polish Bishops Conference for his defense of  priestly celibacy.

Today, the Tablet is reporting that the same Conference is forbidding the Archbishop Emeritus from celebrating Mass and preaching, for two reasons:

  1. the Archbishop is now naming Benedict in the Canon of the Mass as the Pope
  2. the Archbishop has called Bergoglio an antichrist.

The article in the Tablet is entitled, Polish Church silences Kazakhstan Bishop.

The statements which provoked the reaction from the Bishop’s Conference seem to have been made here in these TV interviews, of Feb. 18, 2020,

And Feb. 22, the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter:

Included in the report from the Tablet is this statement, attributed to the Archbishop:

In a book-length interview, still circulating in Polish on YouTube, he said he still recognised Benedict XVI as Pope and had dropped the name of the “usurper and heretic” Francis from his Mass prayer intentions.

“Bergoglio has not confirmed himself in the faith and is not passing that faith to others, he is leading the world astray,” said the archbishop, who trained secretly in Soviet-ruled Latvia and Lithuania and was appointed Kazakhstan’s first bishop in 1991 and Archbishop of Karaganda in 1999. “He proclaims untruths and sins, not the tradition which has endured for 2000 years… He proclaims the truth of this world, which is precisely the truth the devil”.

The entire Catholic Church should rejoice today, that at last one Bishop has begin to publicly name Benedict XVI in the canon of the Mass as the Pope!

The entire Catholic Church owes this Archbishop tremendous thanks for calling a spade a spade.  The Archbishop wrote a book last year in which he criticized the problems in the Church, it is available for sale at Amazon.

Let us pray constantly for Pope Benedict XVI and for the Bishops that they return in allegiance to him!


CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screenshot of Archbishop Lenga from the first video cited in the article above, and is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.



How Bergoglians blaspheme

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Bergoglians are blasphemers like their father.

The latest blasphemy was published over at One Peter Five, written by Dan Millette and published by Steve Skojec, in an article entitled: If Benedict is Still Pope, the Papacy dies with him.

Can you think of a more diabolic title for an article on website which takes as its name a passage from Saint Peter the Apostle?

Over at One Peter Five they have abandoned the Catholic Faith on the origin of the Papal Office and the Nature of God, Who upholds with His Providence all His works.

The entire article by Millette exudes the presumption, that there is NO Divine providence, there is only the work and power of men who side with Bergoglio!

Millette is so certain of his heresy, that he prophesies the future. He seems to want that:

  1. Benedict will not speak about what He did.
  2. Cardinals will  not change their mind and recognize the renunciation was invalid.
  3. The College of Bishops will not take any action.
  4. The Clergy of Rome will bury Benedict physically and metaphorically.
  5. The Holy Spirit of truth will not defend the truth or inspire men to follow it or adhere to it or profess it.

In other words, Millette would want us to give up all hope that there is a God and that the Catholic Church is founded by the Omnipotent God.

Millette is an Apostle of Despair.

To Millette, I have only one question:  When did you join the Masonic Lodge?


CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the Article cited in this Editorial and used here in accord with fair use standards for such commentary.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.