Editor’s Note: It is important for you to share this with all your friends who trust in the World Bank, Globalist Institutions, or believe there is a thing called “Climate Change” that man is responsible for and which throwing money at it will cure.  When you get the gullible to start asking questions, you give them the opportunity and occasion to begin to unplug from the Matrix of Globalist lies.

Editor’s Note: While I am not a fan of Mr. Lennon, who goes by the name of “Tommy Robinson”, probably to conceal that he is Jewish not British, nevertheless, one has arrived at complete ideologically-induced insanity, when innocent citizens can be charged with terrorism for refusing to hand over the PIN number to their cellphones, when border police demand it, in the same country, where only some of the serial rapists, murders and thieves who are welcomed with free housing, food, social welfare and legal advice, actually do go on to commit acts of terrorism, because the police did nothing, even though “they were aware” of the individuals in question.

My advice to my readers is, never enter the United Kingdom again, and make sure that none of your flights layover in a UK airport. In fact, boycott British Airlines especially.

Editor’s Note: I highly recommend this article about Trent Horn, another convert to the Catholic Faith of Jewish ancestry, who is promoting ideas which are not Catholic in the name of the Catholic Faith.

Editor’s Note: Since he signed Fiducia supplicans the tide has turned inexorably against Pope Francis: from the lightning striking the image of Saint Peter divesting it of keys and aureole to the revelations by Archbishop Vigano, that Bergoglio while novice master of the Jesuits, sexually molested some of the novices. Now comes this report, hidden by journalists for 12 years, that while the Archbishop of Buenas Aires, Bergoglio stole the live savings of one of his own Monsignors. Hidden by the journalists of the world, I say, because the case was taken to court and Bergoglio was found guilty, but no one ever told us. So now we have serious reason to believe that the man who claims the  papacy is not only a formal pertinacious manifest heretic and pedophile protector, but that he is a sexual abuser and a thief. What more does Pope Francis’ alleged opposition need to join the Sutri Initiative.

And here, I cannot be silent. Because if you claim to oppose Pope Francis for good reasons, why is it that you all agree not to remove him from office, nor have a council judge that he has no valid claim to it? It has been more than a year, and the Bishops of the First Council of Sutri in 1046 have show us the way, as I have explained in length. But you won’t listen to them or me. I say that you are meriting a worse pit of damnation than Bergoglio himself, because you claim he is evil and a false pope and antipope, but you are as firm as Hell itself in wanting him to remain in power, simply because you refuse the only canonical and juridically valid way of removing him. You are tempting God. You are demanding some sort of divine intervention, rather than doing your duty!

Please share a link to this article on every website which claims it opposes Pope Francis in his errors, so as to bring about a true dialogue in truth and love, for God and for Pope Francis and for the entire Church.

Editor’s Note: At last, the Giorgia Meloni government did something right. Now, let us pray that the laws allowing Abortion begin to be restricted.

Editor’s Note: As of October 19, it will have been one year that Ann Barnhardt has known about the Sutri Initiative but decided to keep silent lest Catholics rise up and obtain in a provincial council the removal of Pope Francis from office. Being indifferent to his continued claim to be pope is the worst kind of Acadia, Anne. And this is your sin and the sin of Don Minutella and Andrea Cionci. When are you going to confront the elephant in the room! I cannot express in words how disappointed I am with the sincerity of each of you!

You each and all seem to imagine, if not believe, that just because you say the truth, the whole Church ought to automatically accept it and live accordingly. As if the Church were a computer, which, when loaded with a new program, did different things! — Whereas the true Church of Christ has ever and always made such important decisions in Councils, general or provincial or regional. — So your credibility is individually and collectively questioned and dashed upon the rocks, when you each individually and collectively omit any call for a Council to depose Pope Francis (Jorge Mario Bergoglio) or declare his claim to the papacy invalid, illegitimate, wrong or false.

Introduction and Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Since 2016, Father Faré who had obtained in 2013 a Doctorate in Theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University at Rome, found himself profoundly shocked by a statement of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and so began years of profound study to understand what was going on in the Church. From the context of his comments he appears to be a priest in the region of Milan. In this discourse, he publicly announces his position on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI with clarity, eloquence and precision.

Not knowing of the Assembly of Apostolic Right, he believes furthermore that Pope Francis has never been validly juridically elected. He states, however, that he is not a sedevacantist in principle — he calls his position, that of recognizing an undeclared sede-vacante resulting from the mere juridical fact that there has been no election of a pope after the death of Pope Benedict XVI. He also cites the other books he has used. He evidently does not read English. And though he cites many juridical sources, he evidently is entirely ignorant of the right of the Roman Church to elect her own Bishop.

Father Faré, despite his doctorate in theology, makes several statements which are grossly erroneous or highly problematic.

First, he states that in virtue of a valid papal election, the person of the pope is incapable of falling into heresy. This is not what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that in virtue of his papal office, which shares in the Church’s own gift of indefectibility, he cannot teach — that is impose as a doctrine to be accepted by a juridical obligation — what is contrary to the faith. But that the man who is the pope can fall into and be the promoter of error is a fact of history and the assertion of many saints, such as Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori, doctor of the Church, affirms explicitly when he writes of the man who is pope and his personal opinions, “Who can be ignorant of the fact that a pope can be obnoxious because of his errors?”, in his tract on papal infallibility. And there is the famous case of Honorius I who signed a letter which contained material heresy in that it affirmed that in Christ there was one animus, not two wills, Divine and Human. — On the other hand, yes, there have been many writers, even Saints and Blesseds, who held that it was probable that Christ would not allow His Vicar to fall into heresy. But they did not specify if this was public or non public heresy. Because canonically, if a man is not condemned for heresy by a legitimate juridical judgement of a legitimate ecclesiastical authority, even his manifest, formal and pertinacious heresy has not be juridically established and thus in law is public heresy, which is what “heresy” in the plain sense of the term means when speaking of heresy, that is of an enemy of God’s teaching. So to what sense Christ would not allow His Vicar to become a heretic is certain a point worthy of debate. But without a Provincial Council to reprehend the man, we can never know with certitude where the grace and favor of the Lord stands.

Second, he holds a novel position that Pope Benedict XVI renounced the ministerium, not the munus, to make the subsequent Conclave canonically invalid, so as to prevent a globalist being elected through the canvassing of votes. While it is certainly possible that Pope Benedict XVI knew of the future intentions of the Mafia of St. Gallen, it is hardly rational to suppose he renounced invalidly to prevent a future Conclave electing invalidly a globalist contender, made invalid by a secret but never known vote canvassing, since there would never have been a Conclave if Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaration had not appeared to be a renunciation! — No, rather, as I have shown, the only rational explanation, if Benedict XVI was not in any way confused or in error was that he did not intend anyone alive in his own time being validly elected, as I explained in my parable, Viva Guadalajara! But even such a supposition, which I humourously advanced, would not leave Pope Benedict XVI free from being charged with grave and exaggerated presumption of attempting to control who would be his successor.

Rather, the only way to entirely exculpate Benedict XVI has to be either to establish he was forced — but all the witnesses who had familiarity with him deny — or that he was operating under some sort of philosophical error, namely, that the Papacy is merely a title and ministry, and does not contain a substantial being, or essere, which has to be properly named with the term “munus”: an error into which he fell not intentionally but as a philosophical consequence of his habitual life-long rejection of the terminological and ideological schema of Scholastic Theology and Philosophy.

Third, Father Faré says that Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI bound the Church in such a wise that a pope cannot be validly juridically elected except by the Cardinals in a Conclave in virtue of the Papal Law. But as I have often said, the preface to the Papal Law, Universi Dominici gregis, does not say that at all. In fact, it admits that the institution of the Conclave of Cardinals is not essential or necessary for a valid papal election. But Father Fare, without a degree in canon law, obviously cannot be expected to understand the hierarchy of rights, and the relationship between Apostolic Right to Canon Law and Papal Law, nor understand that why in every key passage of the canons and the Papal Law, the text speaks not of legal or canonical validity but of juridical legitimacy.

But, fourth, and the worse of all is that of which Father Fare is most likely not at all culpable, namely, that he has considered the problem, but not the solution. Because no affirmation of the invalidity of Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation solves the present problem of a manifest, formal and pertinacious heretic claiming the office of the Papacy. Only the Sutri Initiative addresses that. And unless you call for that, you solve nothing, though you might score points for virtue signalling. And it only makes sense, because nothing in the Church can be done regarding an apparent anti-pope or heretic claiming the papacy, except in a Provincial Council of the ecclesiastical province of Rome.

Father ends, however, with a hopeless situation in which he urges us to have hope, namely, that the Church will one day have a legitimate pope, but we will never know how or why, since he has already affirmed that Cardinals appointed by an antipope cannot validly elect a pope. The fact that he has so carefully considered the past, but not the future, is thus, ultimately the most amazing thing to me, since wisdom consists first in prudence, that is foresight, not in understanding.

His analysis is refreshing, nevertheless, for this, for his repeated urging that Catholics not break from ecclesial communion, not condemn other Catholics or clergy whose personal knowledge of these matter is not so clear, and not join any sect which believes it is the true remnant of believers. And yes he explicitly states that he has no intention of joining Don Minutella’s “Priestly Fraternity”.

Here are other versions of his homily, made by other channels.

French:

English, by Father Minutella:

Editor’s Note: This Bishop claims to “lay hands” on women sent to baptize, as the Apostles laid hands on women. This is pure heresy. The Apostles did no such thing. He is massively gender-confused, and a public liar. He is also involved in the worse kind of sacrilegious fraud, as he is attempting to ordain women in a way that could mean “deacons”, “priests” or “bishops”. It’s a phrase concealing a studied and intentional heretical ambiguity. — Under John Paul II Bishops who did such things were suspended a divinis. He is obviously plotting with Pope Francis to change belief by changing practice, a clear Masonic-Marxist strategy. What more reason do you need to participate in the Sutri Initiative to get Pope Francis removed from office? None!

Editor’s Note: This is an explosive report from Mark Felton, which, when added to the fact that John Paul II was recruited by the CIA and made the CIA founder, Dulles, own nephew a Cardinal, shows who is really running the Vatican — and it’s not those loyal to Jesus Christ.

In fact, when you trace the sources of the money, it now makes total sense why John Paul II made the founder of the St. Gallen Mafia a Cardinal and promoted their members to the episcopate and cardinalate. The story that he made Bergoglio a cardinal for opposing “liberation theology” is thus seen for what it is, a canard, to hide that both men were intimate partners in a Neo-Nazi network of power brokers and bankers, from Himmler to the Italian Freemason Gelli, who founded the P2 Lodge and who controlled Catholic book publishing in Italy.

 Editor’s Note: In this 3+ hour documentary, one can see document after document, never published before, which shows what Pius XII actually did in his struggle with Hitler and Stalin. Share this with everyone who says the Catholic Church collaborated with these monsters.