40 Days of prayer against the Church of Darkness — Day 30

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

ALL ARE INVITED TO JOIN US IN PRAYER AT MIDNIGHT EACH NIGHT, IN FRONT OF THE BASILICA OF SANTA MARIA MAGGIORE AT ROME

Intro

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!

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

Modern “Marriages” and fake Papal Renunciations

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

One of the things I love about Our Lord Jesus Christ is how He crafts parables and uses comparisons to help us understand the things of Heaven.

That is what I find also so delightful in reading the Scholastics like Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Bonaventure, the use of analogy.

Following at a great distance behind all three, I want to help everyone understand how wrong it is to say that the act contained in the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013 caused him to be separated from the Office of the Roman Pontiff on Feb. 28, 2013.

Modern “Marriages”

Back in the year 2000, I found myself invited to an engagement party. What I did not realize, until it began, that it was a modern marriage. I was not told the whole truth, because the one inviting me, who was a close friend of the couple, knew that if they told me the truth, I would not come.

It had all the ceremony of a wedding. There was the Bride and Groom in proper and elegant attire. There were the Bride’s maids and a great host of friends and family. There was a large banquet hall and a beautiful Wedding Cake. There was a minister of some sort, and then came the central act.

Both the woman and the man read out personal statements how they were giving up the single life and starting a life together. The man then proposed to the woman, and the woman accepted.

They they began celebrating as husband and wife.

At this point I asked those who invited me, what was going on. All the appearances were of a wedding, but the essence of the act was that of an engagement. The statements of the man and woman clearly indicated they were going to begin from that night onwards a life together. But there was no exchange of vows.

Once I realized the reality of what I was participating in, I left, as I wanted no part in it.

Fake Papal Renunciations

Imagine an analogous case of a Pope in the future who decides to organize a papal renunciation with all the pomp and ceremony which is due such a solemn occasion. He convenes the College of Cardinals, the Swiss Guard stand at attention, the cameras are turned on, and the whole world listens to the Pope read his statement. Then everyone expresses their sorry to see him go and they go off and celebrate a Mass for the end of his pontificate. And he flies off in a helicopter, dressed as a regular Bishop, to Fiumicino Airport and then returns home to his native land.

But, there is a problem, because in the statement the Pope does not say, I renounce that which he needs to renounce according to the Code of Canon Law.

What happened, therefore, is not a papal resignation. But it is understandable that all those who participated in the celebration might have a hard time realizing it, because, why, they were there, they partied and the pope left.

Canonical Acts

A canonical act, whether juridical or administrative, is an act expressed in words which have an objective meaning. Like marriage vows they have to have the correct signification, and for that reason certain words have to be used. If those words are lacking, the marriage vows will be invalid. Many annulments are granted on this grounds.

A papal renunciation is no different. A pope by renouncing separates the office he holds from himself. If what he says does not signify such a separation, then he has not renounced, howsoever much he or those around him celebrate or solemnize the occasion.

Celebrating a wedding is one thing, taking vows is another. Likewise, solemnizing a papal renunciation is one thing, actually renouncing is another.

February 2013

Nearly all of us were not paying attention to anything but the celebrations and the solemn ceremonies. The text of the Declaratio was in Latin and nearly no one was reading it. I did not read it, and I am a Latinist. We all assumed it meant that which was fittingly being celebrated. And it was in that, that nearly all of us were deceived.

This is the great historical fact we all need to confront.

Epistemology of a Historical Event

Epistemology is the philosophy about how we know what we know. In regards to a historical event, which is controversial, it is necessary that we strip away all knowledge we have about it, and go back to the actual documents, videos, TV reports and radio broadcasts, interviews and anything else which might record the event and events surrounding it, to understand the event objectively and not according to hearsay.

A lot of Catholics, however, simply took the word of a few persons and never examined the evidence. As such, they never really accepted what happened, because you cannot accept anything without true knowledge. Just as you cannot validly marry another person unless you know who they are and they are whom you know them to be.

We all  need to do this in regard to the events of Feb. 2013. I think a lot of ink is being spilled and a lot of arguments and insults are being hurled because everyone has not yet done their homework.

As someone who has a degree in Anthropology and has studied the principles of Archeology, I know that it is very dangerous to assume anything before you begin an excavation. You need to approach the evidence in a forensic professional manner, free from an preconceptions. Historical events need to be approached in this manner too.

I firmly believe that all who want to be faithful Catholics will receive the grace from the Holy Spirit to know the truth, if they seek the truth. Let them put aside any claim by anyone as to what that which happened means, and examine what actually happened and what the Code of Canon Law says should happen. That is they way forward.

Ignore, for the time of your investigation, how anyone reacts to those events. Because the reactions to events which are canonical have no power to alter their meaning, just as at a modern marriage, the celebrations surrounding an engagement do not make it a marriage, howsoever much they appear to be wedding celebrations.

_________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of a video taken by Vatican TV on Feb. 28, 2013, showing Pope Benedict XVI leave the Vatican on an Italian State Helicopter, dressed and escorted as a Head of State, the Roman Pontiff. The helicopter took him to Castle Gandolfo a papal estate. Those with eyes open saw the problem. On Feb. 28, Pope Benedict gave some speeches, but made no act of renunciation.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

 

Adrian Willaert: Pater, peccavi

This Ash Wednesday, we continue our perusal of the sacred repertoire of Adrian Willaert, with his Pater, peccavi, the Antiphon inspired by the words of Christ in His parable of the prodigal son, a most fitting piece for today’s meditation on our own sinfulness.

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.

 

Bishop, who banned Lenga, is himself an ex-Commie Agent

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Bishop Wieslaw Mering of Wloclawek is the bishop who recently imposed a ban on Archbishop Lenga, ordering him not to make public appearances in his diocese of Wlockaweck.

The action has all the appearances of a Soviet style isolation operation. And it is clearly coming from the Vatican.

But it may be more Soviet than just appearances, according to many Poles who are knowledgeable about the collaboration of high members of the Catholic Clergy with the State Intelligence apparatus of the former Polish Communist State.

According to the publicly revealed and studied archives of the former Marxist government, the name of Bishop Wieslaw Mering of Wloclawek figures prominently.

According to https://10przykazan.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/biskupi-u-spowiedzi/

# ordynariusz włocławski bp Wiesław Mering – zdemaskowany przez ks. prałata Henryka Jankowskiego (ps. Libella, a później Delegat) jako jeden z osaczających go niegdyś agentów SB, a według akt IPN współpracujący też z wywiadem podczas pobytu we Francji;

Which in Deepl translate reads:

# Bishop Wieslaw Mering, Bishop of Wloclawek, bishop of Wloclawek – unmasked by Father prelate Henryk Jankowski (a.k.a. Libella, and later the Delegate) as one of the agents of the Security Service who once imprisoned him, and according to the files of the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) who also cooperated with intelligence during his stay in France;

Mons. Mering was named a Bishop in 2003, by Pope John Paul II. Archbishop Lenga served heroically in the USSR as a clandestine priest, opposing the Communist repression of the Catholic Church.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

 

Pope Benedict is now flanked by 2 Bishops

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

One of the most ancient customs of the Papal court, is that whenever the Roman Pontiff sits in formal audience or session, he is flanked on each side by a Catholic Bishop. The reasons for the double accompaniment go back to the days of the Roman Empire, when Imperial Officials were accompanied on such occasions by other high officials, local or imperial. To sit at the right or left had signified that you were consenting to the acts of the One at the center, you showed his authority by submitting to it, and you were shown your dignity by being on occasionally asked for counsel. In the Catholic Church, this is all true, but it is also done because, as Our Lord says, in Deuteronomy 17:6: condemn no one except on the testimony of two or three witnesses.  The presence of the flanking Bishops therefore fully signifies the jurisdiction of the Pope.

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, gloriously reigning, now has his two flanking bishops: Archbishop Lenga and Bishop Gracida. Both have in a collegial act publicly recognized that Bergoglio never was the pope and that Benedict XVI is the pope.

Many, many Catholics for seven years have lamented that Bishops were not speaking out. Now they have.

Many, many Catholics for seven years have lamented that Bishop were not doing anything. Now they have.

Many, many Catholics for seven years have lamented that the Bishops were not breaking from Bergoglio. Now they have.

Many, many Catholics for seven years have wondered what will become of the Church, if no Bishop does anything. Now they have.

What Archbishop Lenga and Bishop Gracida have done is historic.

Catholic Bishops have not pronounced that the man controlling the Vatican is an antipope in more than 870 years!

That was when after the election of Pope Innocent II, the majority of the Cardinals elected the antipope Anacletus II.  Pope Innocent, lacking support in the Eternal City had to flee to France, where council after council began to declare Anacletus II an antipope. You can read more about this in the article I wrote on Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Patron and Modle for those who fight against anti-popes.

The Battle has now begun

In declaring for Pope Benedict, the College of the Apostles has denounced in the strongest fashion possible the schism which began on March 13, 2013 and which has by guile, lies and intrigue co-involved nearly all the other Bishops of the Church.

Collegial acts and dogmatic facts regard the Church in the formal, canonical and theological reality of what the Church is. Error regards the Church in the human and material aspect of what She is.

For this reason, we can rightly say, both formally, canonically and theologically, that Holy Mother Church has spoken: Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope and all who are NOT in communion with him are schismatics. They need to return to allegiance to Pope Benedict immediately. Any delay will incur their loss and deprivation of all office in accord with canon 1364, which punishes schism with the Roman Pontiff with immediate excommunication, which does not need to be imposed, because the canon itself imposes it. This means not only Cardinals and Bishops, but also Priests, Religious, Deacons, all al laymen and lay women.  To die in schism is to perish in Hell for all eternity.

Therefore, let us proclaim the truth the Church now solemnly professes in the testimony of these two successors of the Apostles and in the Declaratio of Pope  Benedict. Yes, he has renounced the ministerium, but that does not mean his is no longer the one and only true Roman Pontiff and Successor of Saint Peter. However, it does mean that Bergoglio is not and never was the pope.

Priests and Bishops should show their adhesion by naming only Benedict XVI in the canon of the mass and in omitting the name of the local ordinary until such time as he too names Benedict in the Canon of the Mass.

We who are not clergy should seek out the Masses only of clergy in communion with Pope Benedict. And if we do not have the opportunity, I hold that we are obliged at least, if we attend such masses, to say his name out-loud during the canon of the mass to make everyone know, that schism is a serious sin and we can no longer ignore the truth of what happened in Feb. 2013.

We should and are gravely obliged to seek to convince all to return to allegiance to the true Pope. And here is a booklet length article which explains how to do this:

https://fromrome.info/2019/12/14/saving-souls-in-the-time-of-apostasy/

Finally, I invite all to join in person or in spirit with the Prayers in front of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, every Midnight, here at Rome, and transmitted at FromRome.Info Video, as Our Lady said if the people keep coming to pray, She will grant the victory in this battle. FromRome.Info publishes these every night at 11:54 PM Rome time, which is 6 hours ahead of New York City and 10 hours behind Sydney, Australia.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

 

Make this Lent the event that will change your life forever…

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The season of Lent is something so regular in its advent that it is easy to lose the proper sense of what we should be doing differently, and why this season is so important for our lives as Catholics.

Indeed, so scheduled and habitual are the events of modern life, that it is easy to let the season of Lent go by without ever making those changes necessary in our daily schedule, without which it is impossible to gather and taste the spiritual fruits of the season.

Lent is a Season for Good Works

First, let’s enumerates many good works that can be done during Lent, which though salutary each in a different manner, do not comprise the essential act that we should be engaged in, frequently, during this season.

Thus, first, there is the lenten resolution, which, even when I was a child, was still quite commonly practiced among Catholics — a sort of Catholic version of the New Years resolution, but us much more Christian.

While, yes, it is a good thing to resolve at the start of lent, to undertake some work of charity or devotion, to sanctify this holy season.  That is not the essence of Lent.

Thus, it is a good and holy thing to resolve to go to Daily Mass, receive the Sacraments more frequently, give alms to the poor in the third world, purchase a book about spiritual things, and read some of it, or attend devotional exercises such as the Stations of the Cross, while not neglecting to keep Friday’s meatless, these things while they should never be omitted, are not precisely what Lent is about.

Preparation for Holy Week and Easter is only the Secondary purpose of Lent

Now frequently we hear that the purpose of Lent is to prepare us to celebrate worthily the Sacred Feasts of Holy Week and Easter.  This too, while true, is only a secondary purpose behind Lent.

True, Lent is a liturgical season, which originated to prepare converts to the Faith, for Baptism on Easter, in the early centuries of the Church.

But Lent, as a liturgical season, is not directed principally to preparing the individual or the local Catholic Community to celebrate liturgical ceremonies worthily.  Rather, it has a higher purpose, just as the ceremonies do not exists for themselves, but for a higher purpose.

There is a certain sort of error, which has quietly creeped into the Catholic world in the last century, which conceives Catholic life to consist essentially in liturgical celebrations.  So widespread is this error, that you find Catholic laity reading out loud the entire rite of the Mass in Latin or in the vernacular, when the priest is absent, going so far as to say the priest’s parts; while thinking that on Sundays when there is no Mass in their area, that it would be a sin or fault or imperfection to omit the similitude of the liturgical celebration, so essential they believe that is to Catholic life.

Without a doubt the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is essential to the life of every Catholic and to the entire church.  But the liturgical ritual’s enactment is not the center of life.  Its what that ceremony represents, which is the center of our life:  the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, through which, and without which, we cannot be saved and receive grace.

And hence the scope or role of the liturgical functions is not to be an end in themselves, but to be instruments and occasions for us to do those acts which are essential to Christian life:  the practice of the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity; the contemplation of God and of Heavenly things, and the consideration of the present state of our souls in the light of God.

The Primary Purpose of Lent

Lent, essentially, is for this:  to be an occasion in which we consider profoundly and anew, the state of our souls in the light of God, and in considering this, weighing the immense travesty of our sins against the dire and extreme eternal punishment, which we most certainly merited for them.

This most sober of considerations is what Lent is about.  Without that consideration and that done frequently in this holy Season, we miss the whole importance of Lent.

Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell:  these are the 4 Last Things, and these should be the objects of our frequent consideration, in Church, and out of Church.

The Saints made the consideration of the state of their soul in the light of God their habitual, daily reflection and habit of mind.  It was for this reason that the Saints did so many things which startle the mind and stir the soul of whomsoever hears or reads of them.

Essential Practices for Lent

We will soon enter into the season of Lent.  It will therefore, be very useful for us, now to consider its essential practice, ordering all the other customary practices of Lent towards this one essential thing:  our own repentance.

The mere consideration that we have sinned, is necessary, but this is not the only step we need to take.

We need to examine the causes of our sinfulness:  in which things or places are have we most sinned:  with whom, about what things, during which activities.

A wise Catholic who actually wants to save his soul, does not take likely the consideration of such things.  This is so, because he is a prudent Christian who realizes that unless he corrects a minor spiritual problem, it can easily grow into a greater one.

A humble Catholic too, realizes that, in the reconsideration of ones past sins, one can often find that one’s past confessions were much too superficial, and that in failing to remove one’s self from the occasions of those sins, that the vice which bore their deadly fruit has grown deeper still in one’s soul.

Let’s consider, therefore, the motives we should have in examining our conscience during Lent.  I do not mean “examining one’s conscience” in the perfunctory and quick manner in which we are accustomed, rightly, to do prior to receiving the Sacrament of Penance.

I mean this in the sense of the habit of meditation we should have to do this, whenever we do this, but especially throughout every day of the season of Lent.

Just as one’s house will soon be filthy as a pig-sty, if one does not regularly clean every corner of it; so the soul gathers moral filth through very tiny and unnoticed daily sins.

These grow the vices in our soul; and when these vices are strong enough they give birth to the evil fruit of mortal sin.  And since one mortal sin, unrepented of, is sufficient to lose eternal life, and merit the everlasting and unimaginably excruciating fires of Hell, the prudent Catholic will not take lightly the importance of cleaning the house of his soul.

The first difficulty in this work that we find is that venial sins, each of them, reduce quite unnoticeably the ability of our souls to recognize sin and its effects.

Thus, unless we have a strong habit of examining our soul, when it comes time to think of our sinfulness, we cannot find anything to convict ourselves of!

If this is the case, with yourself; then you have found the first thing to confess and the first thing you must investigate with prayer and meditation:  the fact that you do not recognize yourself to have sinned.

As the Psalms say, even the holiest of men sins seven times a day.  If you are not a Saint, you surely sin more than 7 times a day; if you are a Saint you will already be convinced that you sin much more than this.

However, to counter super-scrupulosity, which is the spiritual disease of those who are convinced that certain things are sins, and that they have committed these quite frequently, even though their real sins are much greater, and by this too anxious of self-accusations they omit the consideration of their vices of pride or despair in the power of God’s grace to forgive them in the Sacrament of Penance; nevertheless for the majority of us, we have not this fault, we just don’t see our sins; we do not suffer from a preoccupation of believing we have sinned when we have not; we suffer from the opposite spiritual fault, of considering we have not sinned, when we have!

One rule of thumb is, that if you do not consider you have committed any sins in the last year, you probably have the habit of committing many mortal sins:  its just that since the effect of sin is the darkening of the mind, you have been so blinded by your sins that you can’t see it.

Lent is a prosperous spiritual time to seek the cure of such a blindness.  And one must seek it, to escape from the dire punishment of Hell which would surely engulf such a blinded soul!

Practical Remedies to Cure one’s own Impenitence

There are some practical remedies to obtain this cure, which need to be mentioned, because they are never preached.

The first is that for most of us, a direct attack upon this blindness does not convince of anything.  Even a very moving sermon, has little or no effect beyond recognizing that it was such.

The actual change of heart, which is the goal of repentance evades the sinner.

A direct attack upon this spiritual insensitivity to sin does not work, because one can only recognize sin, inasmuch as one opens one’s mind to the ability to see it and fear it.

Spiritual blindness is accompanied by a lack of fear of sin; a certain habit of easily excusing major sins, as if they were light faults; and venial sins and imperfections.  There is a certain distortion of judgment in the soul, which has resulted by ignoring the immortality of sin for so long.  And it is, admittedly, a very evil consequence of sin, to free one’s self from.

And to be absolutely frank, its is very rare that a single confession will be sufficient.  Just as those with cancer are not cured by taking just one pill, but often have to endure very painful procedures and months and years of treatment; so this kind of insensitivity to sin requires a long and protracted treatment.

The key to progressing against this awful spiritual disability, is to take tiny steps towards weakening and conquering this disability.

Regaining one’s ability to see one’s own sins, is not some mysterious spiritual practice.  It begins with the recognition of one sin which our conscience still can see is a sin.  Perhaps, however, we only think it is an imperfection or venial sin; but if we consider its causes or nature or occasion, it certain, in a soul which does not consider itself to be a great sinner, that he has overlooked something which conceals the fact that he is in reality a great sinner.

I won’t speak about the fact that it is already a mortal sin of pride to consider that you are not a sinner: because such a declaration for such a soul is usually too much to understand.  Pride is a very spiritual sin, and one who has lost the sense of morality, has lost the sense of what is spiritual.

However, at the start it is always useful to consider and recognize intellectually that this is true; even if affectively and effectively we do not understand how this can be the case, because of our blindness.

How to dispose one’s self to the great Grace of Repentance

So, uprooting spiritual blindness begins with considering the one thing we can still see as a sin or imperfection.  This is the first step, because the very nature of spiritual progress is an re-capacitation of the power of the mind to consider spiritual things.  And like dominoes which when aligned properly, cause the next one to fall, when they themselves are toppled, so sins, when recognized and repented of, are the occasion to open our minds to the recognition of other sins.

In each step of the process, the recognition of one sin is the work of the conscience in its present state.  But this recognition cannot enable us to make the second step, which is repenting of the sin, because this second step is the work of prayer, devout and persistent to obtain the grace to repent of it.  And this can only be obtained by humble supplication.

All kinds of fasts, prayers, liturgies, meditations, pilgrimages, spiritual readings, alms, etc., are not going to assist your soul, if you do not use them as accompaniments to the work of earnestly begging for the grace of repentance, and disposing yourself to it by acts of self humiliation before God, in private, in the recesses of your heart and mind, wherein you declare, decide and resolve, that God is God, and that you are just a poor sinner, who in no manner deserves anything but judgment and damnation!

Humility is the key here:  how often a sinner might struggle to overcome one vice all his life, but fail to do so, simply because he never got down on his knees in private, and admitted to God and to himself that he was incapable of virtue by himself, and that he could only be virtuous and good, by the gift of God, earnestly begging Him for it on such an occasion!

This humble prayer and devout, secret supplication for grace, is the key step and the essential prerequisite for repentance, though, it can in fact be done in the secret of one’s heart, even in public places, while driving, or traveling, or even during other occupations, when the soul is properly disposed and God in His Mercy bestows the actual grace for it to occur.

During this essential step of humble recognition, a sorrow is engendered in the soul, along with a fear and realization of the danger of damnation, that the heart and mind turns vivaciously towards God and stirs it to ardently appeal for grace.

During such times it sometimes happens that this movement is responsive to grace sufficiently to receive the gift of tears, and during such a gracious movement, the dispositions of the soul can be cleansed and purged from years and years of distorted affections; leaving the heart with a new and healthy sense of sin and its gravity, and a new and healthy vivacity for things spiritual and heavenly.

The Proper Place and Role of Self-mortification

Essential to preparing the soul for such a humble recognition is the practice of mortification.

Mortification consists corporally with fasting from beverages and food, abstaining from meat and rich foods; use of cold showers, and the endurance of sensations which are painful or sacrificial.

Mortification of the body does not work, when such activities are undertaken by a spirit of self-sufficiency, a kind of presumption that without God one can work his own repentance, or that in doing such things, one proves that he is not a sinner or is some sort of spiritual giant or athlete.

Such a spirit makes such corporal mortifications sinful!

Rather such practices should be undertaken only with the motivation to humble oneself, detach oneself from such a spirit of self sufficiency, and open the door of the spiritual world to the virtue of humility.

This desire to seek spiritual enlightenment, to leave aside one’s pride, to change one’s life at its root, to gain a sense of spiritual things and to loose one’s carnal view of things, should be the motivation of spiritual mortifications, which are very helpful to dispose our souls to the grace of repentance:  such as all those customary acts of Lent, which were mentioned at the beginning of this essay, a snot being the principal purpose of Lent.

Repentance is the principal purpose of Lent, and all other things must be ordered to that.  But repentance has as its goal the reuniting of the soul with God and the resumption of the path toward perfection in the pursuit of eternal salvation. Lent thus finds it glory, not in preparing us for liturgical celebrations in time, but in being an occasion to return to the quest for eternal salvation in eternity.

_________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is Giovanni Bellini’s, Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, which correctly depicts the fortitude of Christ in spiritual warfare, unlike so many more recent paintings which show Him collapsing under the sight of the sufferings He as about to endure. The image is used here in accord with a GNU Free license, though the work of art is in the public domain.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

 

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.

First, for those who know nothing at all about the controversy over the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI. Please read my Index to Pope Benedict’s Renunciation. There are 8 canonical reason why the declaration did not separate Pope Benedict from the papal office, as I detailed in my letter to the Dean of the College of Cardinals, by way of courtesy, for those who need a short list. As can be seen from both links, the controversy has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with a claim that coercion was involved as a cause of invalidity. I understand that such an idea is common among many Catholics, but here we discuss canonical problems, not popular opinions. This is the first reason why I have to laugh, because, Canon Peters gets the very nature of the controversy wrong!

But back to the topic of his tweet:

Canon Peters cites canon 125 §2.

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 said.

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 party or of his successors in law or ex officio.

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.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

 

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

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 known by the mind and expressed in 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 thing 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 infallible 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 argument. 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 HISTORICAL FACT 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 by the Cardinals illegal and invalid. Elections in Conclave 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 arose 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. Its applicatoin by S & S 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.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

 

 

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.