Editor’s Note: This is a much needed bucket of cold water in the face of anyone who has drunk the kool-aide of the political psychological game being played by the Trump team.
Monthly Archives: November 2024
How Fr. Ripperger has been misrepresenting Catholic Doctrine on Salvation
Editor’s Note: Here is a fine article by Br. Andre, discussing Father Chad Ripperger’s recent statements about the ability of those outside the Church of being saved. — Saint Alphonsus would disagree with Br. Andre on only one point, namely, that the desire to receive the sacrament (votum) of which Trent speaks is a supernatural movement, not merely a wish or whim or preference of the non-Catholic individual. Thus, that the same God who grants this grace also provides the occasion in history for this person to join the Catholic Church and receive baptism is a reasonable conclusion, for otherwise, one would have to implicate God in a deception.
I have experience of this in my apostolic work, where this truth became visible. As I was returning from the Ancient Latin Mass, celebrated at Holy Trinity German Church, in Boston, in about the year 1998, one man who gave me a ride partially back to where I was living at the time, told me of a loved one in a nursing home who could benefit by my visit. And to insist that I make such a visit, required that I promise to do so, if he gave me a ride. He left me right infront of the elderly care facility which was a former hospital. After some negotiation, I found his loved one and made a visit. And that person was so pleased that they asked me to return. So I returned on another Sunday, and on my second visit, this same person told me of another woman, bedridden, in the room next door, who could benefit by a visit.
Now this elderly woman, was an atheist her whole adult life, having been raised in the Congregational Church as a child. After making her friendship by some conversation, and seeing that I had brought some images of Jesus and Mary for her neighboring patient, she asked me to leave some for herself. I was surprised greatly at this request, because she said she was an atheist. It was then she revealed to me something she had never told anyone: that for many years she had desired to become a Catholic and did not know how to do it, as all her friends were protestants and atheists, and would ridicule her if she mentioned such a desire.
So I began to instruct her in simple terms, and when the hospital staff found out they began to do everything they could to obstruct my visits. I finally arranged with the local pastor of the Catholic Church to visit her and told him she expressly asked to join the Catholic Church, but needed to be catechized. He promised to visit and to baptize her. So I left it with him, as the hospital staff would no longer allow me to visit.
This woman was a quadriplegic, having suffered a series of health problems that did not allow her to move at all, except her hands. She was, in her advanced age, as it were chained to her bed, and these images of Jesus and Mary were the only thing she had to look at, as I taped them to the wall opposite.
This woman did all she could to join the Church, and I prayed that she receive the grace of baptism. But she clearly had the votum, that is, the grace of God to move her to do all she could do.
As to whatever became of this woman, I called the pastor of that parish months later, and I was told by the secretary, that she was baptized into the Catholic Church and died a holy death, but that her relatives had her buried in the Congregationalist Church, against the insistence of the Catholic pastor.
The truth of this real story of this real woman makes me believe entirely the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, that for those who receive such a spiritual desire (votum), God will provide the circumstance. But I shudder to think what would have been my guilt before God, if I had omitted to do anything which was the occasion of myself arriving at the door of her hospital room, that day many years ago; because any sort of deviation would have kept me from ever meeting this woman.
So I ask my readers to never omit an invitation to visit the sick, especially if this person is not a Catholic, because we know not the depths of the providence of God for those whom He has chosen to love from all eternity.
Pope Francis wants to be buried at Saint Mary Major’s, not the Vatican
Europe: 2500 Hate Crimes committed against Christians in 2023
John Henry Westen: “Is Francis the Pope?”, an apology for his position
Editor’s Note: Here is a video which allows comments, and comments are probably what you might want to leave for John, due to the numerous opinions he reports and expresses which are contrary to canon law, fact, and recent history.
Personally, I cannot imagine the morality which, while knowing fully of the Sutri Initiative, gives a talk like this, without mentioning even the concept of a Provincial Council, let alone with all the boasting he makes that he is open to discussing all sides and looking for more participants in the “open debate” he is hosting on his website. When his followers find out that he knew all along yet censored that knowledge and misdirected them with such boasting, the “sh*t is going to hit the fan”, as they say in popular American English.
VATICAN: Pope Francis’ efforts for abuse victims is an well-wrapped but empty gift-box
Editor’s Note: The fact that this article is written by the wife of a liberal ex-priest whose marital status is somewhat unclear, and not a Traditionalist, speaks volumes about the depth and depravity of the Catholic Hierarchy world-wide regardless of what language they offer mass in. But she has spoken well and pointedly. This is an article to read and save for future reference. — The hype about protecting victims was just that and nothing more. Pope Francis has consistently protected predators and their patrons and publicly praised and promoted them.
5 Years Ago: Clamorous errors in the Latin of Benedict’s “Renunciation”
Editor’s Note: 5 Years ago, FromRome.Info published (on Nov. 20, 2019) the definitive critique of the Latin text of Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013. Even to this day, no other author in the world has published a similar critique nor one as perspicacious and complete. This article represented one of my unique contributions to the debate on the validty of Pope Benedict XVI’s abdication. It thus has an important and irreplaceable place in the history of that controversy. Only the readers of FromRome.Info and UnaVox.It were allowed to see the full text of my critique, which in Its Italian version is still hidden on all search engines, while being very difficult to find even in English on any google search. This one article totally unmasked the fake narrative fed to Catholics the world over by every Cardinal and nearly every Bishop and Priest and Deacon who sucked up the fake narrative and regurgitated it, some of whom employed and do now still employ Nazi style tactics to quash any discussion of its fake-itude.
News of this article was brought to light to the Italian press by Andrea Cionci on June 11, 2020 and caused a sensation in Italy. — Here below, I republish the original English article, and the Italian translation of which, which with friends in Italy, and at the urging of Andrea Cionci, I personally prepared in 2020. — In response, the Bishop’s Conference official Newspaper, L’Avvenire, found a defrocked priest to write an editorial calling me an “idiot” who does not know Latin. — But in the end, I was vindicated by none other than Archbishop Gaenswein, Pope Benedict XVI’s ex-personal secretary, who years later, just months before the death of the Holy Father and presumably with his permission, did in August/Sept of 2022, in a telephone call to Father Helmut, admit that there are errors in the Latin text. His admission of errors is the strongest canonical testimony that a Provincial Council must be convened to judge the validity of the abdication. That is one of the reasons for the Sutri Initiative, which I suggested in basic form several times, before and immediately after the Archbishop’s admission.
5 Years Ago.
Clamorous errors in the Latin of Benedict’s “Renunciation”
THIS IS A REPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL
DI SEGUITO LA TRADUZIONE ITALIANA
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Thus read the headlines in the newspapers within days of the publication of the official Latin text of the Act of Renunciation made by Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013: Clamorous Errors in the Latin text of the Renunciation. (here and on point, here). These articles only spoke of the errors of commissum not commisso and vitae instead of vita.
And in this case, the headlines were not misrepresenting the reality. For I have discerned at least 40 errors!
Yet, the propaganda machine immediately went to work and anyone who on social media in 2013 began talking about errors was immediately and viciously attacked as judging the pope! — The real purpose was that the Lavender Mafia was very worried about anyone questioning the validity. I remember my professor in Canon Law diverting the lectures he made in February and March of that year to teach things about certain canons in an erroneous way so as to stifle any consideration of the invalidity. But he did it with such subtlety that only after all these years do I recognize what he did. — The other voices shouting down criticism of the Latin are all part of the circles of those conservative Cardinals who just impaled their reputations by demanding unquestioning obedience to Bergoglio after his acts of idolatrous worship and reverence. That was when the controlled opposition of Trad Inc. was born. It was their first act of loyalty to the regime. And it indicates they were positioned to respond and were told what to do.
So for the sake of a more exact historical truth, I will discuss here these errors and give an English translation of what Pope Benedict XVI’s Latin said (in a Later post, since there are too many errors to be discussed). I do this to correct any misunderstanding given by my previous English translation of the Act of Renunciation, in the article I entitled, “A Literal English translation of Benedict XVI’s Discourse on Feb. 11, 2013“, where by “literal” I mean faithful to the sense, not to the grammar of the Latin employed.
I base my comments on the Latin text on my own knowledge of the Latin tongue garnered in 14 years of translating of some nine thousand Letter sized pages of medieval Latin ecclesiastic texts into English. I will be the first one to say that I do not think I am an expert in the matter, but I do think it would be no exaggeration to say that there are only a handful of men alive today in the Church who have translated more Latin than myself. I also wrote a popular Ecclesiastical Latin Textbook and Video series, which I produced for Mansfield Community TV, in Massachusetts, USA, and which The Franciscan Archive distributed for some years after the publication of Summorum pontificum.
And thus, conceding I can always learn from others, I will also draw from two German Scholars who publicly critiqued the Latin text: the professor of Philology, Wilfried Stroh (see here) and those of Attorney Arthur Lambauer, a Vienese lawyer, whose comments are recorded in part here.
I can also give personal witness to the fact that the Latinists who have worked in the Vatican during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI are aware of all of these errors (and probably of more) and have only been reticent for personal reasons, from what I gather from having had the occasion to dine with one at an Agritourismo, at Bagnoregio, Italy, in the summer of 2016.
First, the Latin Text in Black, with RED indicating the errors of expression (numbering each), after which I will comment on each error section by section, because there are so many. The official Latin text can be found at the Vatican Website (here).
Fratres carissimi
Non solum propter tres canonizationes (1) ad hoc Consistorium (2) vos convocavi (3), sed etiam ut vobis (4) decisionem (5) magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita (6) communicem (7). Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata (8) ad cognitionem certam (9) perveni (10) vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse (11) ad munus Petrinum aeque (12) administrandum.
- To say propter tres canonizationes is to mean for the sake of or on account of, three acts of canonizing. This grammatical structure in Latin means, not that the Pope has called the Cardinals together to conduct or announce the canonization of three groups or individuals, but that somehow the Cardinals have been convoked to honor the acts of canonizing or because the acts themselves cannot be completed without them. But the act of canonization is a papal act which does not require the Cardinals. Therefore, the correct Latin should be in trium canonizationum annuntiationem, that is, to announce my decision to decree three acts of canonization, as the Latin construction beginning with the preposition in is used to express purpose. This is a common error of those who have never carefully read any Latin text and who impose a modern meaning upon what they think a Latin preposition means.
- To say ad hoc Consistorium may very well be the custom of the Papal court — to this I cannot comment — however, in Latin, since consistorium is an act of standing together, not a place to which the Cardinals are convoked, but a solemn way of gathering together, the correct grammatical structure should be in hoc consistorio.
- A pope when he acts, speaks in the first person plural, that is, with the royal “We”. The man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man and not the pope, speaks with the first person singular, “I”. Therefore, the correct form of the verb here should be convocavimus.
- The Latin verb communicem takes the preposition cum not the dative of reference, and thus vobis should read instead vobiscum. As it stands, the only possible grammatical function of vobis would be as a dative of possession for decisionem!
- I agree here with Dr. Stroh, that the word should be consilium not decisionem, because this latter Latin word means a “act of cutting off”, or at best an “act of making a decision”, which clearly is not apropos to the thing at hand, because the Pope has not included them in the decision making process, only declaring a decision which he has already made. And consilium is the proper word for such a thing as that, when done by a superior with authority.
- This is the most absurd error of them all. The person who wrote this does not even understand that in Latin you use the dative of reference not a phrase beginning with a preposition as in modern languages. This should read Ecclesiae vitae, for as it stands it says on behalf of the life of the Church or for the sake of the life of the Church; unless of course he is making a reference to a grave threat to the life of the Church for which this act is intended to defend that life. This may be, but as nearly all modern computer programs which do translations into Latin get this wrong in just this way, I will presume it is ignorance, not a hint.
- Since the renunciation is by the person, not the pope, we see in the next sentence that He begins speaking in the first person as the man, but I think since this subordinate clause is still that part of the text said by the Roman Pontiff, as the Pontiff, it should be in the first person plural. communicemus. The sentence which follows, therefore, in the first person, should begin a new paragraph, to show this distinction of power.
- This is entirely the wrong word. Because this word in Latin refers to the exploration of a place or region or the investigation into a thing which physical dimensions or size, or is the military term for spying or watching something to gain information. It is never used with spiritual things, for certainly your conscience is not a world unto itself, it is a faculty of knowing. The correct term should be one which means exposed or settled, on account of the reference to being before or in the presence of God.
- These words are not only badly chosen but insufficient to precipitate the indirect discourse which follows. The correct Latin way of saying this is to write nunc bene cognosco quod (I now recognize well that) instead of ad cognitionem certam perveni (I have arrived at certain knowing).
- This verb does not have the sense of arrived, in matters which deal with knowledge. It rather means to attain, which would make sense if you were spying on the enemy, but to say you have attained certain knowledge by examining your conscience is absurd, because the conscience only recognizes moral truths, it is not the fount of knowledge or certitude.
- Here there is a clause in indirect discourse following cognitionem certam. The correct form, if such an expression be kept at all (cf. n. 9 above) should be introduced with quod and be in the nominative, not accusative, because the object of the certain knowledge is a fact known, not a knowing that. And thus, on account of the error in n. 9, the verb here should be sunt, the whole phrase reading vires mihi ingravescente aetate non iam aptae sunt. I think the emphatic dative of possession mihi should be used rather than the possessive adjective meae, because the strength spoke of is intimate to his physical being, not just some exterior possession.
- Doctor Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong adverb. The correct one should be recte or apte or as I suggest constanter (rightly, aptly, or consistently).
Bene conscius sum (1) hoc munus secundum suam (2) essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo (3) et loquendo exsequi (4) debere (5), sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis (6) rapidis mutationibus subiecto (7) et (8) quaestionibus magni (9) pro vita fidei (10) perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium (11) etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae (12) necessarius est, …
- The use of conscius is more common of knowledge had with others, but when of oneself, in the rare usage of the Latin poet, Terrence, this construction must be formed thus: mihi sum conscius, and not conscius sum, to show that the knowledge is of oneself but that the adjective precipitates indirect discourse. And thus a comma should be placed after conscius to conform to modern standards of punctuating Latin.
- Here there is simply the error of someone who thinks in Italian, because the possessive adjective for the third person, in Latin, is NEVER used for a thing in a sentence, only for the subject of a verb. The correct Latin, therefore should be eius though it could be omitted entirely since the phrase secundum essentiam spiritualem is a standard of measure and its object is implicitly understood. Dr Stroh rightly points out that naturam should be used instead of essentiam. I agree, because St Bonaventure says nature refers to the being of a thing as a principle of action.
- Here whoever wrote the text is ignorant that in Latin agere refers to all actions, physical or spiritual, and thus is an improper pair with loquendo which is also an act. It is difficult to understand to what the writer is referring, since nearly everything a pope does is by speaking. It is not as if he cleans toilets or does manual labor. Perhaps, the better word would be scribendo, that is writing.
- The Latin verb here is badly chosen, because exsequi refers to a work done, but the subject is not a work but a munus or charge, which is a thing. The proper Latin would be geri that is, conducted in the sense of the modern fulfilled or executed.
- This is the wrong verb to express what is intended. It is proper or necessary that the duties of the office be fulfilled. But it is not a debt, which is what debere means. The correct Latin should be oportere that is, that it is proper or necessary so as to reach the goal intended.
- Whoever wrote this has no experience reading Latin, as tempus refers to seasons. The concept of time in Latin is not the same as with moderns. The idea that seems to be the intent of the expression is in our our contemporary world, but Latin would say that as in saeculo nostro, because saeculum is the Latin term for the world in the sense of time, this generation, or culture, not mundum, which refers to the cosmos as a physical reality or place.
- And on account of error n. 6, this phrase must be rewritten entirely, as velocium or celerium mutationum using the genitive of description not dative of reference, and hence there is no need for subiecto. The Latin rapidus is used for hurried or swift changes, which is simply not historically accurate.
- And thus, likewise, on account of the dropping of subiecto this conjunction can be entirely omitted.
- Here the magni, of great value, seems hardly appropriate, because the questions of faith in modern times are nearly all the product of unbelievers fretting over their imagination of a world without God; magnis to agree with quaestionibus or magni momenti would be more correct. But magni can stand because it is so Ratzingerian as anyone can tell from his writings.
- Here there is the same error as before, and thus the Latin should read fidei vitae or fidei.
- Here you have the error of a First year Latin student who forgets that object go before verbs in Latin, not afterwards: the reading should be Evangelium annuntiandum.
- Here the wrong word is chosen, because clearly the soul does not grow old or weak by age, but the spirit does. And thus the correct Latin should be animi. Dr. Stroh agrees with me.
qui ultimis (1) mensibus in me modo tali minuitur (2), ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum (3) agnoscere debeam (4). Quapropter bene conscius (5) ponderis huius actus plena libertate (6) declaro (7) me ministerio (8) Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium (9) die 19 aprilis MMV commisso (10) renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae (11), sedes Sancti Petri vacet et (12) Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.
- In Latin you signify recent things by saying praecedentibus not ultimis. Dr. Stroh suggests: his praeteritis since the emphasis is on recent in the past.
- Here the tense is wrong, since the reference is to what has happened in recent months, and is still happening, the correct tense is the imperfect minuebatur and take mihi as a dative of reference not in me.
- It is nonsensical to say that you are administering a ministry, the better word should be gerere, as before. But the entire phrase is incorrectly formed, since incapacitatem should follow the rule of capax and take an infinitive in predications (as in the Vulgate) or a genitive (Seneca) with adjectives or gerundives, so the whole should read ministerii mihi commissi bene gerendi.
- Seeing that the text is being read as if a decision is already made, to say that you “ought to acknowledge” is contextually out of place, according to time. Also, as a clause subordinate to an imperfect, it must be in the perfect subjunctive. The phrase should read something like iustum fuerit, “it was just that”.
- Attorney Lambauer rightly points out that this construction with conscius takes the reflexive pronoun mihi before it. But in proper syntax the ponderis huius actus should precede conscius. Two errors here.
- Now come the errors which touch upon the nullity, invalidity and irregularity of the act. Because the renunciation has to be made freely. That it is declared freely is good too, but presumed and not necessary, unless there is someone apt to think it was being forced. Why say this? So this phrase, if kept, should be with the verb renuntiare, and both should NOT be in indirect discourse, because to announce or declare that you are renouncing, is not to renounce anything, but to announce something, and that is not the act specified in Canon 332 §2 which requires a renunciation as the essential act, not a declaration.
- This verb if left should introduce a phrase which prepares the listeners about intent or such like, not the act of the renunciation.
- This is the wrong object of the Act of renunciation, which according to Canon 332 §2 should be muneri. Dr Stroh, writing it seems in February 2013, notes that this error makes the renunciation invalid. I agree!
- The Petrine Munus and Ministerium are not entrusted to the elected pope, but received by him in the Petrine Succession immediately as he says, “Yes, I accept my election”. This is basic papal theology 101. If you get that wrong, it can sanely be questioned whether you were compos mentis at the time of the act. Unless of course the entire phrase ministerio … per manus Cardinalium … commisso is meant to rebuke the Cardinals for allowing him a ministry but not conceding him any real authority. Though such an intent would be both sarcastic and effect the invalidity of the resignation. So this should read in succesione petrina or something similar
- This should be a me accepto or a me recepto, that is, “accepted by me” or “received by me”.
- This is the one phrase which is correct, but which no one but an expert in the Secretariate of State would know, because, as an eminent Vatican Latinist told me, it is the customary way of indicating the Roman time zone in Latin. Dr. Stroh and Attorney Lambauer, writing from Germany, did not know this.
- Here the indirect discourse should end, or rather, the expression of the first person, I, should end, because the calling of a conclave is a papal act, the man who is pope, who just renounced, has NO authority to call one. So here the Latin should resume with the Papal WE, et declaramus.
Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis (1) pro omni amore et labore (2), quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis (3). Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus (4) sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro (5) vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim. (6)
Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII
- Again, the error of the First Year Latin student. The phrase should read gratias vobis agimus. First because of the proper word order of Latin, second because He is now thanking them as the Roman Pontiff, because they collaborated with him, not as a man, but as the Pope, the verb should return to the first person plural. Two errors here.
- If you are grateful for their service and collaboration, you do not say amore et labore, which refer to physical work and physical affection; you say, rather, omnibus amicitiabus operibusque to show that the friendship and works were multiple and united one with the other. Four errors here.
- Again, the First Year Latin student’s error of getting the word order wrong. It should read: pro omnibus defectibus meis veniam peto and the phrase should be introduced by de vobis or de omnibus. Two errors here. It is also awkward to return to the use of the first person singular here, even though it it necessary regarding the confession made.
- Dr. Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong verb, the correct Latin is committimus.
- Dr. Stroh again reminds that the correct Latin temporal expression is in futurum.
- In Latin there is no conditional. The subjunctive is used to express wishes, but not with the verb to wish! You say rather serviam, “may I serve” not servire velim, “may I wish to serve” which makes no sense, simply be more direct and say, “I wish to serve” (servire volo).
CONCLUSION
I think it would be no exaggeration to say, that if anyone saw even some of these errors and did not ask the Holy Father that they be corrected before the act was published, he sinned mortally against his duty of loyalty to the Roman Pontiff. I also think that the number of these errors is qualified forensic evidence that IF Benedict wrote this text and read it freely, that he was either not in a proper state of mind or did not act with mature deliberation.
Finally, if anyone says that the Act of Renunciation has no errors or must be accepted to be a Papal resignation, not merely a renunciation of ministry so as to devote oneself to prayer, then they are clearly talking about another document, because there are so many errors in this Act that no sane person could ever claim that it is binding on anyone. For if it was intended as an act of papal renunciation, and was written by the Pope, then clearly he has already lost too much of his mental faculty to renounce validly, because to renounce validly you at least have to know how to write an intelligible sentence, in whatever language you chose to renounce, and you have to name the office with a word which means the office. Duh!
Public Notice: I spent only 2 hours analyzing the text, so the Vatican surely had enough time to correct it before February 28, 2013, which was 17 days later. I speculate that they did not, because then someone would have objected that the word ministerio had to be changed to muneri, and the reality was that Pope Benedict was insisting that it not be, because He did not intend and had never intended to renounce the papal office or its grace.
ITALIAN TRANSLATION
Di frà Alexis Bugnolo
Ringrazio i miei collaboratori per il loro aiuto nella traduzione di quest’articolo
A pochi giorni dalla pubblicazione del testo latino ufficiale dell’Atto di Rinuncia fatto da Papa Benedetto XVI l’11 febbraio 2013 alcuni giornali titolavano così: “Errori clamorosi nel testo latino della Rinuncia”. ( qui e sul punto, qui ). Questi articoli citavano solo due errori, quelli di “commisso” al posto del corretto “commissum” e quello di “vita” al posto di “vitae”.
I giornali avevano ragione, ma io ho individuato almeno 40 errori, non solo quei due!
Eppure, la macchina della propaganda si è messa subito al lavoro e chiunque sui social media, nel 2013 iniziava a parlare di errori è stato immediatamente e brutalmente attaccato perché “osava giudicare il papa”!
Il vero scopo era che la “”Mafia della lavanda”, ovvero la lobby del clero gay, era molto preoccupata per chiunque mettesse in dubbio la validità della Rinuncia. Ricordo che il mio professore di Diritto Canonico manipolava le lezioni tenute in febbraio e marzo di quell’anno per insegnare cose su certi canoni in modo errato così da soffocare qualsiasi considerazione sull’invalidità. Ma lo faceva con tale sottigliezza che solo dopo tutti questi anni ho potuto riconoscere ciò che aveva fatto.
Le altre voci che criticavano quelli che hanno sollevato dubbi sul latino della Declaratio di Papa Benedetto parte appartenevano ai circoli di quei cardinali conservatori che l’anno scorso hanno distrutto la loro reputazione professando indubbia obbedienza a Bergoglio persino dopo i suoi atti di adorazione e riverenza idolatrici (episodio della Pachamama etc). Fu allora che nacque l’opposizione controllata di Trad Inc. (Termine colletivo per parlare in modo generale dei siti che criticano Bergoglio per non essere cattolico ma insistono che egli è il Vero Papa). Fu il loro primo atto di lealtà verso il regime. E la loro azione indicava chiarament che già erano posizionati per rispondere e che gli era stato detto cosa fare.
Quindi, per fornire una verità storica più esatta, discuterò qui questi errori e fornirò una traduzione italiana di ciò che il latino di Papa Benedetto XVI ha detto.
Faccio questo per correggere qualsiasi malinteso dato dalla mia precedente traduzione inglese dell’Atto di Rinuncia, nell’articolo che ho intitolato “Una traduzione inglese letterale del discorso di Benedetto XVI dell’11 febbraio 2013“, dove per letterale intendo fedele nel senso, non nella grammatica del latino impiegato.
I miei commenti sul testo latino sono basati sulla mia conoscenza della lingua latina acquisita in 14 anni di traduzione in inglese di circa novemila pagine letterarie di testi ecclesiastici latini medievali. Sarò il primo a dire che non credo di essere un esperto in materia, ma penso che non sarebbe esagerato dire che oggi nella Chiesa c’è solo una manciata di uomini che hanno tradotto più latino del sottoscritto. Ho anche pubblicato un popolare libro di testo e video per il latino ecclesiastico, che ho prodotto per la Mansfield Community TV, nel Massachusetts, negli Stati Uniti, e che The Franciscan Archive ha distribuito per alcuni anni dopo la pubblicazione di Summorum pontificum.
E così, pur ammettendo che posso sempre imparare dagli altri, citerò anche due studiosi tedeschi che hanno criticato pubblicamente il testo latino della Declaratio: il professore di filologia, Wilfried Stroh (vedi qui ) e l’avvocato viennese Arthur Lambauer, i cui commenti sono registrati in parte qui.
Posso anche dare una testimonianza personale del fatto che i latinisti che hanno lavorato in Vaticano durante i pontificati di Giovanni Paolo II e Benedetto XVI sono a conoscenza di tutti questi errori (e probabilmente di altri) e sono stati reticenti solo per motivi personali, così come mi è stato riferito da uno di loro durante un incontro a Bagnoregio, in Italia, nell’estate del 2016.
Evidenzio in ROSSO gli errori di espressione (numerando ciascuno), dopo di che commenterò ogni errore sezione per sezione, perché ce ne sono tanti. Il testo latino ufficiale è disponibile sul sito web del Vaticano ( qui ).
Fratres carissimi
Non solum propter tres canonizationes (1) ad hoc Consistorium (2) vos convocavi (3), sed etiam ut vobis (4) decisionem (5) magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita (6) communicem (7). Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata (8) ad cognitionem certam (9) perveni (10) vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse (11) ad munus Petrinum aeque (12) administrandum.
- Dire propter tres canonizationes significa per o a causa di tre atti di canonizzazione. Tale struttura grammaticale in latino significa, non che il Papa abbia convocato i Cardinali per condurre o annunciare la canonizzazione di tre gruppi o individui, ma che in qualche modo i Cardinali siano stati convocati per onorare gli atti di canonizzazione o perché gli atti stessi non possono essere completati senza di loro. Ma l’atto di canonizzazione è un atto pontificio che non richiede i Cardinali. Pertanto, il latino corretto dovrebbe essere in trium canonizationum annuntiationem, cioè per annunciare la mia decisione di decretare tre atti di canonizzazione, poiché la costruzione latina che inizia con la preposizione in è usata per esprimere uno scopo. Questo è un errore comune di coloro che non hanno mai letto attentamente alcun testo latino e che impongono un significato moderno a ciò che pensano che significhi una preposizione latina.
- Dire ad hoc Consistorium potrebbe benissimo essere un’usanza della corte pontificia – non posso commentare – tuttavia, in latino, poiché consistorium un atto di stare insieme, non un luogo in cui vengono convocati i cardinali, ma un modo solenne di radunarsi, la corretta struttura grammaticale dovrebbe essere in hoc consistorio.
- In un atto ufficiale un papa parla in prima persona plurale, cioè adotta il pluralis maiestatis. L’uomo che è il papa, in quanto uomo e non papa, parla con la prima persona singolare, “io”. Pertanto, la forma corretta del verbo qui dovrebbe essere convocavimus.
- Il verbo latino communicem prende la preposizione cum, non il dativo di riferimento, e quindi invece di vobis si dovrebbe leggere vobiscum . Così com’è, l’unica possibile funzione grammaticale dei vobis sarebbe quella di un dativo di possesso per decisionem!
- Concordo qui con il dott. Stroh, che la parola dovrebbe essere consilium, non decisionem, perché quest’ultima parola latina significa un “atto di separazione” come nella parola “potatura”, o tutt’al più un “atto di prendere una decisione”, che chiaramente non è qui appropriata, perché il Papa non li ha compresi nel processo decisionale, dichiarando solo una decisione che ha già preso. E consilium è la parola giusta per una cosa del genere, se fatta da un superiore con autorità.
- Questo è l’errore più assurdo di tutti. La persona che ha scritto questo non capisce nemmeno che in latino non usi il dativo di riferimento in una frase che inizia con una preposizione come nelle lingue moderne. Questo dovrebbe essere Ecclesiae vitae, poiché, così com’è vuol dire a nome della vita della Chiesa o per il bene della vita della Chiesa ; a meno che, naturalmente, non si riferisca a una grave minaccia alla vita della Chiesa per la quale questo atto intende difendere quella vita. Può essere, ma poiché quasi tutti i moderni sbagliano in questo modo, si presuma che in se stesso sia prodotta dall’ignoranza, non mediante allusione.
- Dato che la rinuncia è della persona, non del papa, nella frase successiva vediamo che inizia a parlare in prima persona come uomo, ma penso che poiché questa clausola subordinata è ancora quella parte del testo detto dal Romano Pontefice, in quanto Pontefice, dovrebbe essere in prima persona plurale: communicemus. La frase che segue, quindi, in prima persona, dovrebbe cominciare un nuovo paragrafo, al fine di mostrare questa distinzione di potere.
- Questa parola è completamente sbagliata perché in latino si riferisce all’esplorazione di un luogo o di una regione o all’indagine sulla grandezza di una cosa o su sua dimensione fisica, o è il termine militare per spiare o guardare qualcosa per ottenere informazioni. Non viene mai usato con le cose spirituali, perché certamente la propria coscienza non è un mondo a sé stante, a una facoltà del conoscere. Il termine corretto dovrebbe essere uno che significhi esposto o risolto, a causa del riferimento all’essere davanti o alla presenza di Dio.
- Queste parole non sono soltanto scelte male, ma insufficienti per sostenere il discorso indiretto che segue. Il modo latino corretto per dire questo è nunc bene cognosco quod (ora ben ravviso che) invece di ad cognitionem certam perveni (sono pervenuto alla certezza).
- Questo verbo non ha il senso di “essere pervenuto” nelle materie che riguardano la conoscenza. Significa piuttosto raggiungere, il che avrebbe senso se si stesse spiando il nemico, ma dire che sei pervenuto alla certezza esaminando la tua coscienza è assurdo, perché la coscienza riconosce solo verità morali, non è la fonte della conoscenza o della certezza .
- Qui c’è una clausola nel discorso indiretto che segue cognitionem certam . La forma corretta, se tale espressione deve proprio essere mantenuta (cfr. N. 9 sopra), dovrebbe essere introdotta con quod ed essere nel nominativo, non nell’accusativo, perché l’oggetto di una certa conoscenza è un fatto noto, non un “sapere che”. E quindi, a causa dell’errore nel n. 9, il verbo qui dovrebbe essere sunt , leggendo l’intera frase: vires mihi ingravescente aetate non iam aptae sunt. Penso che si sarebbe dovuto usare il dativo enfatico di possesso mihi piuttosto che l’aggettivo possessivo meae, perché la forza di cui parla è intima al suo essere fisico, non solo un possesso esteriore.
- Il dottor Stroh sottolinea giustamente che questo è l’avverbio sbagliato. Quello corretto dovrebbe essere recte o apte o — io propongo — constanter (correttamente, appropriatamente o coerentemente).
Bene conscius sum (1) hoc munus secundum suam (2) essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo (3) et loquendo exsequi (4) debere (5), sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis (6) rapidis mutationibus subiecto (7) et (8) quaestionibus magni (9) pro vita fidei (10) perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium (11) etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae (12) necessarius est, …
- L’uso di conscius è più comune parlando della conoscenza che si ha degli altri, ma quando si parla della conoscenza di sé, nel raro uso del poeta latino, Terenzio, questa costruzione deve essere formata così: mihi sum conscius, e non conscius sum, per dimostrare che la conoscenza è di se stesso ma l’aggettivo provoca il discorso indiretto. E quindi una virgola dovrebbe essere posta dopo conscius per conformarsi ai moderni livelli di interpunzione latina.
- Qui c’è semplicemente l’errore di qualcuno che pensa in italiano, perché l’aggettivo possessivo per la terza persona, in latino, non è MAI usato per una cosa in una frase, solo per il soggetto di un verbo. Il latino corretto, quindi, dovrebbe essere eius sebbene possa essere omesso del tutto poiché la frase secundum essentiam spiritualem è una misura e il suo oggetto è implicitamente compreso. Il dottor Stroh sottolinea giustamente che naturam dovrebbe essere usato al posto di essentiam . Sono d’accordo, perché San Bonaventura afferma che la natura si riferisce all’essere di una cosa come un principio di azione.
- Qui chi ha scritto il testo ignora che in latino agere si riferisce a tutte le azioni, fisiche o spirituali, e perciò è impropria la accoppiata con loquendo, che è pure un atto. È difficile capire a cosa si riferisca agendo, poiché quasi tutto ciò che fa un papa è parlare. Non è come se pulisse i bagni o facesse qualsiasi lavoro manuale. Forse, la parola migliore sarebbe scribendo , cioè scrivere.
- Il verbo latino qui è mal scelto male, perché exsequi si riferisce a un lavoro svolto, ma il soggetto non è un lavoro ma un munus o una carica, il che è una cosa. Quello giusto sarebbe geri, cioè ”condotto” nel senso del moderno di “adempiuto” o “eseguito”.
- Questo è il verbo sbagliato per esprimere ciò che si intende. È giusto o necessario che i doveri dell’ufficio siano adempiuti. Ma non è un debito, che è ciò che debere significa. Il latino corretto dovrebbe essere oportere, cioè adatto o necessario a raggiungere l’obiettivo prefissato.
- Chiunque abbia scritto questo non ha esperienza nella lettura del latino, poiché tempus si riferisce alle stagioni. Il concetto di tempo in latino non è lo stesso dei moderni. Sembra voler dire “nel nostro mondo contemporaneo” , ma in latino si direbbe in saeculo nostro, perché saeculum è il termine latino per definire il mondo nel senso del tempo, di generazione o cultura, non mundum, che si riferisce al cosmo come realtà fisica o luogo.
- A causa dell’errore n. 6, questa frase deve essere interamente riscritta, come velocium o celerium mutationum usando il genitivo della descrizione e non il dativo di riferimento, e quindi non c’è necessario di subiecto . Il latino rapidus viene usato per cambiamenti rapidi o affrettati, semplicemente non accurati storicamente.
- E così, allo stesso modo, a causa della caduta del subiecto questa congiunzione può essere completamente omessa.
- Qui magni, ”di grande valore” , sembra poco opportuno, perché le questioni di fede nei tempi moderni sono quasi interamente il prodotto di non credenti che si agitano con la loro immaginazione senza Dio; magnis concordato con quaestionibus oppure magni momenti sarebbe più corretto. Ma magni può reggere perché è così Ratzingeriano come chiunque può dire dai suoi scritti.
- Qui c’è lo stesso errore di prima, e quindi in latino si dovrebbe dire fidei vitae o fidei .
- Qui si ha l’errore di uno studente latino di primo anno che dimentica che il complemento oggetto in latino vada prima dei verbi, non dopo: dovrebbe essere Evangelium annuntiandum.
- Qui viene scelta la parola sbagliata, perché chiaramente l’anima non invecchia o si indebolisce con l’età, ma lo fa lo spirito. E quindi il latino corretto dovrebbe essere animi. Il dottor Stroh è d’accordo con me.
qui ultimis (1) mensibus in me modo tali minuitur (2), ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum (3) agnoscere debeam (4). Quapropter bene conscius (5) ponderis huius actus plena libertate (6) declaro (7) me ministerio (8) Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium (9) die 19 aprilis MMV commisso (10) renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae (11), sedes Sancti Petri vacet et (12) Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.
- In latino si indicano le cose recenti dicendo praecedentibus, non ultimis. Il dottor Stroh suggerisce: his praeteritis poiché si dà molta importanza al recente passato.
- Qui il tempo è sbagliato, poiché il riferimento è a ciò che è accaduto negli ultimi mesi, e sta ancora accadendo;, il tempo giusto è l’imperfetto minuebatur e prende mihi come dativo di riferimento non in me.
- Non ha senso dire che si sta amministrando un ministero, la parola migliore dovrebbe essere gerere, come prima. Ma l’intera frase è formata in modo errato, poiché incapacitatem dovrebbe seguire la regola del capax e prendere un infinito (come nella Vulgata) o un genitivo (Seneca) con aggettivi o gerundi, quindi il tutto dovrebbe scriversi ministerii mihi commissi bene gerendi.
- Visto che il testo viene letto come se fosse già stata presa una decisione, dire che “si dovrebbe riconoscere” è contestualmente e temporalmente incorretto, secondo il tempo. Inoltre, come clausola subordinata a un imperfetto, deve trovarsi nel congiuntivo perfetto. La frase dovrebbe riportare qualcosa come iustum fuerit , “era proprio quello”.
- L’avvocato Lambauer sottolinea giustamente che questa costruzione con conscius prende il pronome riflessivo mihi prima di essa. Ma nella giusta sintassi ponderis huius actus dovrebbe precedere conscius . Qui ci sono ben due errori.
- Ora arrivano gli errori che riguardano la nullità, l’invalidità e l’irregolarità dell’atto. Perché la rinuncia deve essere fatta liberamente. Che sia dichiarata liberamente va bene, ma ciò è presunto e non necessario, a meno che non ci sia qualcuno incline a pensare che sia stato costretto. Perché dire questo? Quindi questa frase, se mantenuta, dovrebbe essere con il verbo renuntiare , ed entrambi NON dovrebbero essere in discorso indiretto, perché annunciare o dichiarare di rinunciare non significa rinunciare a qualcosa, ma annunciare qualcosa, e quello non è l’atto specificato nel Canone 332 §2 che richiede una rinuncia come atto essenziale, non una dichiarazione.
- Questo verbo, se lasciato, dovrebbe introdurre una frase che prepara gli ascoltatori circa l’intenzione o qualcosa di simile, non all’atto della rinuncia.
- Questo è l’oggetto sbagliato dell’Atto di rinuncia, che secondo il Canone 332 §2 dovrebbe essere muneri. Il dott. Stroh, scrivendolo a febbraio 2013, osserva che questo errore rende invalida la rinuncia. Sono d’accordo!
- Il Munus petrino e il Ministerium non sono affidati al papa eletto, ma vengono immediatamente ricevuti da lui nella successione petrina dicendo: “Sì, accetto la mia elezione”. Questa è la teologia papale rudimentale. Se uno sbaglia, si può in modo sensato mettere in dubbio se al momento dell’atto fosse compos mentis (sano di mente). A meno che ovviamente l’intera frase ministerio … per manus Cardinalium … commisso non abbia lo scopo di rimproverare i Cardinali per avergli concesso un ministero ma non gli ha concesso alcuna vera autorità. Anche se una tale intenzione implicherebbe sia sarcasmo e sia inciderebbe sull’invalidità della rinuncia. Quindi si dovrebbe leggere in successione petrina o qualcosa di simile.
- Questo dovrebbe essere a me accepto o a me recepto, cioè “da me accettato” o “da me ricevuto”.
- Questa è l’unica frase che è corretta, ma che nessuno se non un esperto del Segretariato di Stato saprebbe, perché, come mi ha detto un eminente latinista vaticano, è il modo consueto di indicare il fuso orario romano in latino. Il dottor Stroh e l’avvocato Lambauer, scrivendo dalla Germania, non lo sapevano.
- Qui il discorso indiretto dovrebbe finire, o meglio, l’espressione della prima persona, io, dovrebbe finire, perché la chiamata di un conclave è un atto pontificio, l’uomo che è papa, che ha appena rinunciato, non ha l’autorità di convocarlo. Quindi qui il latino dovrebbe riprendere con il NOI pontificio, et declaramus.
Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis (1) pro omni amore et labore (2), quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis (3). Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus (4) sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro (5) vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim. (6)
Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII
- Ancora una volta, un errore da studente di latino del primo anno. La frase dovrebbe leggere gratias vobis agimus . In primo luogo a causa del corretto ordine delle parole del latino, in secondo luogo perché ora li sta ringraziando come il Romano Pontefice, perché hanno collaborato con lui, non come uomo, ma come Papa, il verbo dovrebbe tornare alla prima persona plurale. Due errori qui.
- Se uno è grato per il loro servizio e collaborazione, non dice amore et labore, che si riferiscono al lavoro materiale e all’affetto fisico; ma piuttosto omnibus amicitiabus operibusque per dimostrare che l’amicizia e le opere erano molteplici e unite l’una con l’altra. Quattro errori qui.
- Ancora una volta, un errore da studente di latino del primo anno che sbagliare l’ordine delle parole. Si dovrebbe leggere: pro omnibus defectibus meis veniam peto e la frase dovrebbe essere introdotta da de vobis o de omnibus. Due errori qui. È anche imbarazzante tornare all’uso della prima persona singolare qui, anche se è necessario riguardo alla confessione fatta.
- Il dottor Stroh sottolinea giustamente che è il verbo sbagliato: il latino corretto è committimus.
- Il dottor Stroh ricorda ancora che la corretta espressione temporale latina è in futurum.
- In latino non c’è condizionale. Il congiuntivo è usato per esprimere i desideri, ma non con il verbo desiderare! Si direbbe piuttosto serviam , “che io possa servire” non servire velim , “possa io desiderare di servire” che non ha senso; si può semplicemente essere più diretti e dire: “desidero servire” (servire volo). Ma San Bonaventure nei suoi Commentarii su Lombardo fa lo stesso errore.
IN CONCLUSIONE
Penso che non sarebbe esagerato dire che se qualcuno avesse visto anche solo parte di questi errori e non ha chiesto al Santo Padre di correggerli prima della pubblicazione dell’atto, avrebbe peccato mortalmente contro il suo dovere di lealtà verso il Romano Pontefice. Penso anche che il numero di questi errori sia una prova forense qualificata che SE Benedetto ha scritto questo testo e lo ha letto liberamente, o che non era in uno stato mentale adeguato o non ha agito con deliberazione matura.
Infine, se qualcuno dice che l’Atto di Rinuncia non ha errori o deve essere accettato come una rassegnazione papale, non semplicemente una rinuncia al ministero per dedicarsi alla preghiera, allora stanno chiaramente parlando di un altro documento, perché ci sono molti errori in questa dichiarazione che nessuna persona sana di mente potrebbe mai affermare che è vincolante per nessuno. Perché se era inteso come un atto di rinuncia papale, ed è stato scritto dal Papa, allora è chiaro che non era in possesso delle sua facoltà mentali per rinunciare validamente, perché per rinunciare validamente devi almeno sapere come scrivere un intelligibile frase, in qualsiasi lingua tu abbia scelto di rinunciare, e devi nominare l’ufficio con una parola che significa ufficio. E dai!
Avviso pubblico: ho trascorso solo 2 ore ad analizzare il testo, quindi il Vaticano ha sicuramente avuto abbastanza tempo per correggerlo prima del 28 febbraio 2013, diciasette giorni dopo! Io suppongo che non l’abbiano comunque fatto, perché altrimenti avrebbe potuto che la parola ministerio doveva essere cambiata in muneri, e la realtà era che papa Benedetto insisteva che non lo fosse, perché non aveva intenzione e non aveva mai avuto intenzione di rinunciare all’ufficio papale o sua grazia.
+ + +
What is the Jerusalem Cross?
Editor’s Note: Donald Trump, whose family has served the Masonic Skull & Bones Lodge for nearly a century, has nominated as Secretary of Defense a man who wears a Jerusalem Cross tattoo on his arm. So what does the National Catholic Register do? They publish this rather fine but marred report, explaining the symbol and the tradition of the tattoo. But they mar it by saying the most famous persons to wear this tattoo are arch-Freemasons of the fake Royal Dynasty currently occupying the Throne of the United Kingdom. — If you have been paying attention, you can now understand who is funding the National Catholic Register, and how its signalling that it won’t be your ally in the fight against the Church.
What the article neglects to say, is that Christians of the MidEast have been tattooing the Cross on themselves long before the First Crusade, so that, if killed while traveling, all might know to what religion they belonged and how they wanted to be buried. This practice is common among the Ethiopian Copts to this day.
However, generally speaking, for other reasons that is, tattooing is considered by all sound Catholic moral theologians as a mortal sin, because being made in the image and likeness of God, we should not write or mark anything upon our flesh, as the pagans do, who by tattoos consecrate themselves to demons and false gods. In fact, one exorcist tells me that every person with a tattoo who comes to him has serious spiritual problems.
So let us continue to discourage all Catholic from marking themselves with tattoos, even though, at times and places in the past and in distant lands, marking the Cross upon the flesh was a necessity.
Melody Lyons tells Fr. Matthew Schneider to stop his serial lying about the DeathVaxx
Editor’s Note: Here Mrs. Lyons drops an important piece of evidence about the role played by Father Schneider during the Scamdemic: that government agents used his writings to persecute opponents of the Scam. I have several times reported that Father’s writings are also used by all search engines to defame and calumniate me daily, as they are full of libel and libelous innuendo. So, at last Father is getting tongue lashed by someone who know what he really is and the great evil he really did.
Screen shots of the Conversation:
She was replying to this previous exchange:
Meanwhile hundreds of millions are injured, maimed, sterilized, dead or dying. But Father won’t stop gaslighting the world. There is nothing that can be done to save their lives, since the DeathVaxxes each contained up to 53 agents designed to kill the recipient. And how can you cure from 53 adverse causal agents at the same time: Limit the damage from rare side-effects? I do not think a propagandist for Pfizer would be so bold to speak like this.
The Shocking Realities of the New Trump Cabinet
Fr. Heimerl: Pope Francis’ ‘Magisterium’ is a system of heretical lying
Dr. Jane Ruby: Don’t let the Trump Administration Psyop you!
Chinese Spy Agency Hacks every phone in USA using “Patriot Act” back-doors
Bishop Strickland: Pope Francis is not teaching the Catholic Faith
Editor’s Note: This is the latest testimony from a member of the hierarchy that Pope Francis is a heretic, manifest, pertinacious and intending on destroying the Church. As the Sutri Initiative said more than a year ago, but without any call for action, as the Sutri Initiative takes.
Indeed, ironically, while even Bishop Strickland keeps silence about the duty of the Church to solemnly rebuke him in council, he faults his brother bishops for doing the same thing! See here. I shake my head in dismay! He also was reported to say in private that Pope Benedict XVI never validly resigned, but has not yet had the courage to say it in public.
I admit, however, that, it is highly likely that many Bishops already in private were saying that Bergoglio was a heretic years ago, they just do not have sufficient manliness and love and respect for Christ Jesus to say it publicly. Let us pray for them. God is giving them a lot of time, but soon that mercy will expire and He will send scourge upon scourge.
In fact, it was St. Hildegard of Bingen, canonized by Pope Benedict XVI and declared a doctor of the church by him, who said that the city of Rome (and presumably the Vatican) would one day be “wiped off the face off the earth” by fire from heaven, for the sin of sodomy.
I think, therefore, that it is highly likely that God has already launched that asteroid, because day by day Pope Francis is shaking his fist of defiance and perversion in the very Face of God. And God will not be mocked!
VATICAN: New Preacher of Papal Household condemns St. Paul’s teaching on sodomy
Editor’s Note: If you reject any of the teachings of Saint Paul, you are an apostate, since the Catholic Faith is nothing other than the Faith of the Apostles. Also, if you are a Franciscan and approve of such abominations, Saint Francis will be first in line to send you into the eternal fires of Hell on the day of Judgement. — Here is another report which is damning evidence that all who do not call for the solemn rebuke and judgement of the validity of the claim to the papal office of Pope Francis merit to burn in the same eternal hell fire. And thus, this report fully justifies FromRome.Info nomenclature for the fake opposition to Pope Francis, which laments everything, but never wants him gone, as “Gay Opposition”.. They are in fact nothing but the “catholic” version of the Alt-Right.
USA: The Catholic, Marco Rubio, to be named Secretary of State
News Commentary and Appeal to all Catholics in the USA, by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
I realize that the future presidency of Donald Trump is going to give a lot of Catholics false hope, because Trump’s politics is to promise the sky, period. But at least having a nominal Catholic like Marco Rubio as his Secretary of State might be just what the Catholic Church needs, seeing that Hilary Clinton, the Secretary of State of Barrack Obama, put Jorge Mario Bergoglio into power after arranging a “spring time” in the Catholic Church, Catholics might have some human hope that that perverse revolution might be overturned.
I say, “nominal Catholic” because he is known to attend Protestant services, and won’t even call himself a “Catholic” on his twitter account. His wife is a Catholic. But there is good reason to believe that Rubio is of Sephardic descent on his paternal and maternal sides of the family. If so, he will follow Blinken as another Jew in the same office. And yes, he is rabidly pro-Zionist.
But, we can at least try to use the occasion of his appointment for something really good: resolving the crisis in the Catholic Church.
And so, I suggest the Nuclear Option:
That is, petition Marco Rubio now to urge the Sutri Initiative. For even if Trump does not act on it, nor give him permission to act on it, by formally petitioning the Bishops of the Roman Province to convene a provincial council, if the new-to-be Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, even says the words, “The Sutri Initiative”, it will cause such an outburst of public interest that other influential Catholics and governments round the world might formally request it.
For, after all, if the German King Henry III can ask the Bishops to find out if the persons claiming the papacy are legitimate or not (as he did at the Council of Sutri in 1046 A .D.), then certainly ANY HEAD OF STATE with diplomatic relations with the Vatican can do so!
Grifters, on guard!
So let the record stand that I was first to suggest this, and let all those who walk under the suspicion of grifting on the cause of Pope Benedict XVI, because they refuse to have the legitimacy of Pope Francis’ claim to the papacy questioned and investigated in a provincial council — which is the only tribunal which can judge the legitimacy of his claim to be a Catholic or to be validly elected — let them too, join with me in this appeal, lest they convince the world that they are only just Freemasons faking to be Catholic (“converts”) and lamenting 24/7 about Bergoglio to grift money and popularity off of it!
–> And yes, I am calling you all on the carpet. but I won’t mention your names, for charity sake! And that means you, too, all you Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and clergy! You know of whom I speak!
And, to achieve this rapidly, I would suggest you share it on social media, especially since Musk is on team Trump, he probably will allow this tweet to go viral if you tweet the same message in your own words:
Marco Rubio is uniquely capable of doing this
I think that Mr. Rubio is uniquely capable of at least mentioning this. First, he has a degree in Law. Second, he regularly attends Mass at St. Theresa of the Little Flower Catholic Church in Coral Gables, Florida, and can be met by Catholics there. You can read more about his career and experience at Wikipedia, which has more than 250 footnotes therein, which means that they are intensely watching his career.
Floridians, you have a mission!
As for all my readers in Florida, can you do this for Christ Jesus? Go to his parish and speak with him about demanding the Catholic Bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome settle the doubts of hundreds of millions of Catholics who believe their Church has been, as Cardinal Mueller has said, “ideologically taken over” by an illegitimate pope.
A Definitive Litmus Test for the Trump Presidency
In sum, while there is a lot of evidence that Pope Benedict XVI was pressured to resign, if not drugged and manipulated, and that Bergoglio was installed by a concerted action of the Deep State, the Masonic Lodges and powerful Banking interests, if President Trump wants the Catholic World to actually believe his claim to be now opposed to globalism and the Deep State, he must back the Sutri Initiative or actions similar to it, in order to show that as a world leader, he is honestly and sincerely interested in having diplomatic relations only with legitimate governments, including the Vatican City State!
For transparency sake, FromRome.Info informs its readers that Br. Bugnolo is a former resident of the State of Florida, and a graduate of the University of Florida, like Senator Rubio. But he has never met nor voted for Rubio in any election, because he ceased being a resident of Florida in 1986. Nor has he voted for Trump.
A Response to Viganò’s claim that only Satan-worshipers support Ukraine
Msgr. Bux: Pope Francis’ Episcopal Appointments are destroying the Church
Editor’s Notes: If those Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Monsignori who are openly saying that Pope Francis is destroying the Church — though they couch their language in a lot of indirect expressions — actually called for the same thing as the Sutri Initiative, I submit, that they would be actually living the Christian Faith. Whereas, if they only talk and lament and do nothing, then they must realize that the APOSTASY has already begun with them, and is being brought to completion BY THEM!
Is the Church headed to another “seismic schism”?
Editor’s Note: I can hardly agree with the author of this article when he compares Archbishop Viganò, in a positive way — if that be possible — and Bishop Strickland, with the arch-heretic Martin Luther. But what he says about the evil effects of continual scandals out of the Vatican is true, that it had a large influence in making the Protestant Rebellion possible.
But it is persons like Viganò who speak continually of these scandals but refuse to back the Sutri Initiative, while saying such deluded things, as he did recently, that those who support the Christians being genocided in Ukraine are “psychopathic” and “worship Satan”, who are making the next Schism possible.
Still, he is correct, that the scandals of Pope Francis are worse than those of Leo X or Julius III. Since Pope Francis has openly and without repentance repeatedly denied and insulted revealed dogmas and doctrines of the Faith, not to mention the very Persons of the Holy Trinity and the Blessed Virgin and many Saints.
But Complict Clergy should be ashamed of themselves, in this, that they have published an article praising Luther as an authentic reformer, when he was nothing more than a simoniac and murderer, having attempt to purchase a Bishopric during his trip to Rome and having murdered his friend in a dual the year before he joined the Augustinians.
If Complicit Clergy wants to grift on the problems at the Vatican, let them say so. But if they want to solve the problems at the Vatican they should at least allow their readers to know of the Sutri Initiative.
In fact, I dare them to say the words, “How about the Sutri Initiative?”
Let them know of this challenge, so that they can have the occasion to show the world who they really are and what really motivates them.
Finally, I can now reveal that John Henry Westen, the publisher of LifeSite News, now knows of the Sutri Initiative. So you can write to him and ask that he report on this, You can contact him through his many social media profiles.
Cardinal Zen: Pope Francis has intentionally attacked the Catholic Faith in each of his “Synods”
Editor’s Note: While the Cardinal stops short of a formal canonical accusation of heresy and schism, anyone can write to the Cardinal and request or suggest that he read the Sutri Initiative and file a formal petition to the Bishops of the Roman Province to convene a Provincial Synod to put Bergoglio on trial for attempted destruction of the Faith.