Monthly Archives: December 2023

Ecclesiology, Editorials, Faith

With the Holy Spirit, let us go to War against Pope Francis’ Spirit of Apostasy

10 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

Mater Semper Victoriosa

Holy Mother Church cannot be defeated, because as Her Wedding Gift, the Lord Jesus promised Her the Holy Spirit, so that the gates of Hell never prevail against Her.

Thus, while Her faithful sons and daughters move always in accord with the inspirations of the Holy Spirit they can also never be defeated. Because even if you martyr them, God will glorify them.

But in addition, we should pay attention! Because when God’s holy ones are martyred, He raises up hundreds more in their place.

Yes, the blood of the Martyrs is the seed of Christians, as we are often wont to repeat in regard to the Saints whose memories we foster at the Altars of the Lord.

But this is also true on a lower plane, namely, that if you persecute a faithful Catholic, God will raise up a multitude in his place.

In this sense, Holy Mother Church is incapable of being defeated, since like a medusa, when one of Her faithful is cut down, She raises up dozens of others.

The Blood of Martyrs is the Seed of Christians

And this truth we have seen in our own days, and it is wonderful to behold.

Because Pope Francis to silence his critics has removed Bishops who opposed him. Not just Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas, though he is one of the most recent and well known to Catholics in the English speaking world.

And by doing this Pope Francis thought he would silence the Faith of Holy Mother Church and stifle the Voice of God in Her.

But lo! Now that he has put his signature on the outrage which is Fiducia supplicans, DOZENS AND DOZENS of Bishops  have overnight become other Bishop Strickland!

And not from the USA, but from 10+ other nations.

So now Pope Francis is opposed from Asia, Africa, South America, Europe, and even from Italy.

And this is the work of the Holy Spirit. We have seen it, and thus we must rejoice and give thanks! Loudly!

The Holy Spirit wants you!

But let us not stand on the side lines. Let us join this War of the Holy Spirit against the spirit of apostasy which is promoted by Jorge Mario Bergoglio. —  For it is a thing most glorious to fight with the Saints in time so as to merit a crown with them in Eternity.

So as our Lord and God, the Vivifier of Souls is now pouring forth his graces of righteous anger, zeal for the Faith, integrity of morals and honesty of life and priestly zeal for the salvation of souls, let us promote these things too and join in supporting Cardinals, Bishops and Priests who have joined the ranks of the Holy Ghost and now militant upon Earth against Fiducia supplicans!

Our leaders in this fight at the faithful Bishops who hold jurisdiction, because in them resides the capacity to express the perennial Magisterium of the Church.

So pay attention to what they say and write.

A Word of Caution …

At the same time we should recognize that the forces of darkness will be pushing the counter narrative and flooding social media with falsehoods, misrepresentations, errors, mistakes, disinformation and misinformation.

So be on your guard from paying attention or giving your allegiance to talking heads, laymen and laywomen who have no authority to teach or preach. Whose motives are nearly always to garner fame and attention, and will want to grab your attention during this historic crisis in the Church.

Pope Francis is clearly in the hands of Satan and the intelligence agencies and Globalist interests of this world. We should expect therefore that ever trick of the astute Serpent of old will be employed against these good bishops.

A Good Grand Strategy

For that reason, I urge all to focus on removing the cause of scandal and error which is Fiducial Supplicans. That is, on insisting:

  • First, that Pope Francis remove his signature from the document.
  • Second, that Pope Francis remove Cardinal Fernandez from office, and along with him the Monsignor who co-signed the document.
  • Third, that Pope Francis repudiate the horrendous blasphemies, errors, heresies and errors contained in the Document.
  • Fourth, that Pope Francis declare as contrary to the Catholic Faith the assertion that it can be morally licit to bless sin, sinful unions or give approval to vice, error, or sexual immorality of any kind, including that abomination which cries to God for vengeance.
  • Fifth, that Pope Francis condemn sodomy and define that no one who assents or consents to this sin can ever be saved, with out repentance.
  • Sixth, that if Pope Francis refuses to do the above, that he should renounce the papacy.
  • Seventh, that if Pope Francis refuses to do the above and refuses to renounce, that a provincial council be called to declare him a heretic and self-deposed from the Papacy, the seat being then in a legitimate sede vacante.

And, to accomplish this, to write the faithful Bishops letters of gratitude and thanks for what they have done so far, and urging this 7 point plan to be adopted.

While at the same time contradicting, exposing and refuting all the talking heads who attempt to oppose any of the 7 points.

I give this counsel, for the sake of honesty, so that more Catholics might follow the lead of the Holy Spirit, Who never does anything without a purpose, Who desires the repentance of all sinners, and Who wants all the causes of scandal be removed, so that poor souls be saved and not be turned from the path of salvation.

Holy Mother Church has heard the Voice of the Holy Spirit, and is going to War. Let us who want to be Her faithful sons and daughters, also draw our swords and fight at Her side!

Editorials, Faith

Yes, Christ was born on December 25: Here is the proof

10 Comments
Screenshot_2019-12-22 IMG_20191210_075744021_BURST000_COVER jpg (JPEG Image, 3264 × 2448 pixels) - Scaled (28%)
The Christmas Creche at the Vatican, December 2019, awaiting the Birth of the Child Jesus.

UPDATED ON JAN. 2, 2022

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

In this Article I will collect all the pertinent evidence. As I am trained in Cultural Anthropology, I will proceed by a forensic method.

Universal Christian Tradition

… holds that Christ Jesus, the Eternal Son of God, was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary in a grotto of Bethlehem, in the early hours of December 25, in the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus, while Saturinus was governor of the Roman Province of Syria (which held jurisdiction over Iudaea), and Herod the Great, King, at Jerusalem.

The forensic requirement to disprove the universal tradition, therefore, must be of the highest level. Namely, those who claim that Christ was NOT born on December 25th have to prove their claim. The presumption of right is with tradition.

For this reason, I am not going to presume the tradition is false or wrong. I aim to cite the evidence which is known that corroborates it.  I am not a Cartesian who thinks that an a priori doubt makes an investigation scientific, because it actually obstructs an impartial consideration of the evidence, wherein there should neither be doubt nor prejudice to either side of the outcome.  Nevertheless, I am an anthropologist, so I know that the universal Christian testimony of the ages is EVIDENCE which cannot be discounted.

In such an investigation, we look for evidence which requires that the birth of Jesus be no later than an no earlier than. These two limits or time points, are called the non postquam and the non antequam, or the point not after which, and the point not before which, respectively.

The Life of King Herod sheds light on the Non Postquam

The narrative in the Gospel of Saint Matthew cites some important historical facts. Let’s begin with the visit of the Magi to the court of Herod. The presupposition of this testimony of Saint Matthew is that Herod was holding court at Jerusalem.

Herod, at the end of his life had very poor health and knew his end was near. At the same time he grew arrogant and insisted on imposing his religious views upon the Jews of Jerusalem. Herod was half jew and mixed-in pagan practices. He went so far as to set up an image of the imperial Roman Eagle above the gate of the Temple, at the entrance to the Court of the Gentiles. This was outside the Temple precinct, but it outraged the zealots. Their rabbis convinced their young men to tear it down. This caused a riot and Herod had the rabbis and the young men who participated in stealing the image sent to Jericho to be executed. They were executed, by being burnt alive, on the night of a Full Moon. We know of these events from Josephus Flavius’ history of the era, entitled the Antiquities, Book XVII, chapter VI, n. 5.

We can deduce several things from Josephus’ account: Herod was still in Jerusalem when the zealots were executed. He was capable of great brutality just as Saint Matthew says. And that the execution took place on January 10, 1 B.C.. (Note that after 1 BC comes 1 AD, there is no year 0), because that is the only Full Moon visible at Jerusalem in this period.

According to historians, Herod left for Jericho, to partake of its curative waters some time no later than the mid of February of the same year.  This means that the Magi had to have found Herod at Jerusalem no later than Mid February, 1 B.C.  This is the non postquam, since the Magi could not have visited both the Child Jesus and Herod after mid February, 1 B.C..

Tradition holds that the Magi visited Christ on the Epiphany, which is on January 6th.

This non postquam is confirmed by the Roman Historian, Macrobius, in his Saturnalia, Book II, n. 11, where he says that Herod ordered the slaughter of newborns under 2 years of age, at the time of the death of his own son, Antipater.  Antipater died 5 days before Herod, who himself perished on April 8, 1 B.C.. So the slaughter of innocents had to have been ordered after April 2nd and executed before Herod’s death.  — It is interesting to note that Passover took place on April 6, in 1 B.C.. — The loss of his heir, Antipater, would have given Herod strong reasons to seek the slaughter of any rival King of the line of the House of David, thus confirming Saint Matthew’s account.

The non postquam enables us to make a first guess at a non antequam when we add the requirements of the Gospel of Luke who says that after 40 days, Our Lady presented the Child Jesus in the Temple, and then the Holy Family returned to Nazareth. Therefore, the Magi had to visit before the 40th day after the birth of Jesus. This means, that the birth of Jesus had to have been before January 6th, 1 B.C..

The Baptism of Jesus sheds light on the Non Antequam

According to the Gospel of Luke 3:23, we know that Jesus was about 30 years old when He began His public ministry, and that this ministry began with His Baptism by John. John himself began preaching a baptism of repentance in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, according to Saint Luke 3:1. Roman Emperors counted their regnal years from January 1 to December 31, even if they assumed power before January 1. This means that the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar began on January 1, 29 A. D.. This corresponds to the Prophet Daniel 9:25 who said that in 483 years after the issuing of the Decree to Rebuild Jerusalem (issued in 454 B.C.), the Messiah would be revealed.

Hence, counting back 30 years, Jesus was born sometime in the Fall to Winter of 2 B.C..  This means that Christ could not have been born before Sept 21th, 2 B.C..

The prophet Daniel also foretold that the Messiah would be “cut off” after a 3.5 year public ministry (Danial 9:27). This is confirmed by Saint John in His Gospel who records 4 Passovers celebrated by Our Lord (John 2:13, 5:1, 6:4, and 11:55).  This means that Christ’s Baptism occurred sometime after Nov. 8, 29 A.D., and that therefore, His birth has to be after Nov. 8th, 2 B.C..

It was Jewish custom of the time that Rabbi’s did not begin their public ministry until they were 30 years of age. We also know from the Gospel of Saint Luke, that Our Lord fasted for 40 days in the desert before He began His public ministry. Therefore, since Jewish fasts were preparatory, the fast would have had to ended before His 30th birthday.  Hence, the non antequem must be no earlier than December 18th, which is the 40th day from Nov. 8th.

The Temple Service of Zechariah sheds light on the non antequam

We know from the testimony of Saint Luke that the Archangel Gabriel appears to Zechariah while his turn was up for service in the Temple. From the study of Temple practices and the order of the Levites who served there, we know that Zechariah had to have been in the Temple from September 5 to September 11th of the year he served. That means, with travel and other normal delays, that John the Baptist could have been conceived no earlier than the 15th of September, and probably later, since Elizabeth would only be capable of conceiving naturally one out of every four weeks.  We also know that Saint John was 6 months older than Our Lord, according to the same testimony of Saint Luke, when he refers to the time the same Archangel was sent to Our Lady.  This means that Our Lord was conceived not earlier than March 15th, and thus born no earlier than Dec. 15th. This corroborates the calculation derived from Christ’s Fast and Baptism.

Epiphanius’ testimony on Epiphany sheds light on the non postquam

The ecclesiastical writer of the 3rd century after Christ, Epiphanius says that the Feast of Epiphany was established to commemorate the date of the Wedding Feast of Cana, as the beginning of Christ’s public ministry. If we combine this with the 7 days of Saint John’s Gospel, reckoning that these days were after Christ’s birthday, not before it, then we have a non postquam date of Dec. 31st.. This interpretation is more sound, because it can be expected that after 40 days of Fasting, Our Lord would have returned to Nazareth to meet with His Mother, and from Her learn of the Wedding Feast. It also makes sense, in that Our Lady was giving Him the push to reveal Himself, that He would not have done so before his 30 day birthday, lest He violate established custom.

Conclusion

From the historical record, the Gospel Narratives themselves require that we accept that the Birth of Jesus as occurring after Dec. 18th and before Dec. 31st..

Now, the mid-point between the non antequam and the non post quam, in such studies of this kind is the one with the highest mathematical probability of being the correct date. So what is the mid point of December 18th and December 31st ?……   Calculate it for yourself…

Oh, and if Christ was born on Dec. 25, 2 B. C., then he was conceived near or on March 25, 2 B. C., which in that year was the Eighth and Last Day of Passover.

(See dec25th.info for more information)

+ + +

WISHING ALL MY READERS, FRIENDS AND ENEMIES,

A MOST BLESSED AND HOLY CHRISTMAS

FULL OF THE GRACES AND MERCIES WHICH
THE ETERNAL SON BROUGHT DOWN FROM HEAVEN
AT THE “FIAT MIHI” OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY!

+ + +

POSTSCRIPT

If you have noticed, the evidences point to Christ being born in 2 B.C.. You might ask, “Was not Christ born in the year 0 or 1 A.D.?” — Answer: No, because there is no year 0, the year which follows 1 B. C. is 1 A.D.. — But 1 A.D. begins 1 year and 1 week after the birth of Christ. Why is that? — Answer: Because the regnal year of Emperors begins on January 1st, and only once Christ attains the age of 1, can the regnal year be 1. So the First Year of the Christian era is the first full calendar year in which the Child Jesus is 1 year old. Another way to look at it, is this: the year Zero in which many Christians think Christ would have to be born is really the year 1 B.C., because until the day Christ was born, it was Before Christ’s birth. So, in 2020 A.D., we will celebrate the 2020th year of age, according to His Blessed Humanity, of the Incarnate Word of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

News

Merry Christmas!

17 Comments

Wishing each of the readers of FromRome.info a blessed and holy Christmass of the Lord, filled as it is with all the consolations of the Divine Goodness to be offered to men of good will.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Dec. 24, 2023 A. D.

 

News

ArchHeretic Cardinal Fernandez: Accept the document! because it justifies nothing!

4 Comments

Editor’s Note: The argumentational strategy of the Cardinal reminds me of what a groper says after he touches another person. And in fact, what he has attempted with the publication of Fiducia supplicans is the sexual abuse and manipulation of 1.2 Billion Catholics, so his psychological reaction is merely consequent with the truth of the manner, and is evidence that he has a bad conscience, namely, that he intended what he intended not out of ignorance but with malice of aforethought.

News

Bishop Athansius Schneider: Fiducia supplicans undermines the Natural and Divine Law

Editor’s Note: This fine response of Bishop Schneider, who is an auxiliary bishop and therefore does not exercise the Magisterium, is wounded by a most grievous error and lie, where he says:

(DM): How would you respond to Catholic clergy and faithful who say they don’t want to be in communion with a Pope who would approve such a document?

(AS): The Pope remains in his office, even if he permits or affirms things which harm the Faith or are ambiguous or erroneous. Even if a pope were to pronounce heresy in his daily magisterium, i.e. outside of ex-cathedra pronouncements, and outside a formal definitive teaching, he would not lose the papacy. There have been rare cases in the Church’s history when popes have done this (e.g., Pope Honorius I and Pope John XXII) and they did not lose their office. Nor was their pontificate declared invalid during their lifetime or after their death. The Church will remain always in the almighty hands of Christ, who will not permit that the gates of hell prevail against Her, for He has founded His Church upon the rock of Peter. The Church, also in this respect, is divine: that she can endure such Popes.

First, on the matter of history, Pope Honorius I never uttered a heresy. His letter on the two wills in Christ employed the term “animus” not voluntas, and thus the accusations of teaching that there was one will (divine-human) not two wills (one Divine, the other human) were and have ever been false. Second, to say — as he did — that there is one animus in Christ is not heretical, since the Latin word comprising the concept of mind and will, implies only a unity of purpose, which there was, in Christ, and it was one, being the harmony or unity of the Divine Will and human will in all things. But even when he was condemned in an Ecumenical Council after his death, it was NOT for heresy, but for allowing heresy to spread by ambiguous language.

Second, because Pope John XXI (his correct regnal name) was rebuked at repented, having appointed a commission of Cardinals who ruled that his affirmation that even saints pass through purgatory was heretical, and to hold on to it would mean that he would ipso facto lose the papacy.

And Third, because Popes who had no valid claim to the papacy were deposed in the provincial council of Sutri in 1046. And while that Council deposed two men who are still considered valid popes (Benedict IX and Gregory VI) the juridical validity of its actions was founded on the reason that “a man incapable of proving a valid claim to the office of the papacy” can be pronounced NOT to have one and therefore “deposed”, by a deposition which is a juridical act of discernment, but a canonical act only materially, since a Council having no authority over the office or a man validly holding the office, judges about the man who claims to be the pope, not who is or was the pope.

So Bishop Schneider is being utterly dishonest if by his comments he is intending that we understand that it is wrong to call Pope Francis a “heretic” and militate, that in council he be condemned or expelled from the Church for it. Utterly dishonest and disgusting chichancery.

Bishop Schneider’s response was evidently published by the “Bergoglio-is-certainly-the-Pope” “Unite the Clans” “Recognize and resist” but-do-nothing-ever “The Remnant” because its founder has close ties to the deep state, having graduated from the Front Royal, Virginia, “Catholic” home of the CIA-founded Christendom College. And for men of that ilk, the only rule is to keep Bergoglio in power. Deposing him in a provincial council is definitely not in any way allowed by their true masters.

The true conclusion to the Bishop’s discourse should be that the whole Church join the Sutri Initiative and demand that the Bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome call Bergoglio to order, demand the withdraw of Fudicia supplicans, and if refused, pronounce him separated from Christ and His Church, and consequently from the office of Saint Peter.

As for Diana Montagna this is not the first case of her being involved in foisting horrendous lies upon the Catholics world wide. See here for more.

News

Archbishop Chaput: Pope Francis’ habit of ambiguity is not of God

2 Comments

Editor’s Note: Overnight, Archbishop Chaput has become a Bishop Strickland, with a direct attack on the personal integrity and orthodoxy of Pope Francis, as the latter deserves. Importantly, the Archbishop announces that there is in preparation (ostensibly world-wide) more criticisms of Pope Francis and Fiducia supplicans. Holy Mother Church is on the war-path. — Notably, Chaput is of Souix Indian heritage, and like the Bishops of Africa, having close ties to tribal heritages fixed in Nature, they seen even more clearly the deviousness of the document’s text.