How we know a Pope has renounced?
According to the Natural Law or Common Sense
PRESS BUTTON TO SUBSCRIBE TO
FromRome.Info Video Channel on Youtube. — Thank you!
Category Archives: Church History
Pope Benedict’s Renunciation: The Documentary — Part I
Basic Principles to Understand what happened
PRESS BUTTON TO SUBSCRIBE TO
FromRome.Info Video Channel on Youtube. — Thank you!
Father Georg Ratzinger, Great uncle of Pope Benedict XVI
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Pope Benedict XVI comes from a family of priests. You may already know that his older brother, Georg, was ordained a priest on the same day as he was. But he also had a great uncle, on his father’s side, who was a priest: Father Georg Ratzinger. This is his story.
According to My Heritage, Father Georg Ratzinger was born on April 3, 1844, the 1811th anniversary of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ: an providential blessing which his great nephew Joseph Ratzinger would share, who was born and baptized on Holy Saturday, in the 1894th year of the Passion and Death of Our Blessed Lord.
The Ratzinger family originates in centuries past in the Southern Tyrol.
His parents were Johann Georg Ratzinger and Barbara Perlinger. He had one brother, Joseph, who is the great grandfather of Pope Benedict.
From 1855 to 1863 he studied at High School in Passau, on the Danube, in Bavaria. This was presumably a minor seminary. From 1863 to 1867 he studied theology at Munich, in what was apparently a major seminary. He was ordained a priest in 1867. And awarded a Doctorate in Theology in 1868.
In 1869 he was appointed pastor of Berchtesgaden, a tiny village in the Southern Corner of Bavaria, on the Austrian border, which would 70 years later become the haunt of the infamous dictator, Adolf Hitler.
From 1870 to 1871 he was the editor of a journal, known as, “Fränkisches Volksblatt”, or the Frank Popular Newspaper, I believe.
In 1872 to 1874 he was chaplain at Landshut, in central Bavaria, and in 1874 to 1876 he returned to his work in journalism, as editor of the Volksfreund, or People’s Friend, at Munich.
In 1875 he ran for the Parliament of Bavaria, won and served until 1878. In 1877 he ran for a seat in the newly formed German Reichstag, and won, serving one term until 1888.
He served as pastor of Günzelhafen during these years, 1885–1888, while he held political office. In this he continued the ancient Catholic tradition of not excluding the clergy from temporal offices and imbuing in this manner the temporal order with Christian morality.
In 1893, he ran again for the Paliament or Landtag of Bavaria and won, and served until his death. In 1898 he ran again for a seat in the national legislature, the Reichstag and won, serving also until his death.
Wikipedia has a notable mention of Father Ratzinger’s literary achievements:
As a literary man Ratzinger deserves much credit for his scholarly work in political economy and in historical subjects. His chief works, distinguished by erudition, richness of thought, and animated exposition, are: “Geschichte der Armenpflege” (prize essay, Freiburg, 1868, 2nd revised ed., 1884); “Die Volkswirtschaft in ihren sittlichen Grundlagen. Ethnischsociale Studien über Cultur und Civilisation (Freiburg, 1881; 2nd. completely revised ed., 1895).
The later work maintains the ethical principles of Christianity as the only sure basis of political economy and opposes the materialistic system of what is called the “classical political economy” of Adam Smith.
“Forschungen zur bayerischen Geschichte” (Kempten, 1898) contains a large number of studies on early Bavarian history and on the history of civilization, based on a series of unconnected treatises, which had first appeared in the “Historisch-politische Blätter”. Of his smaller works the following should be mentioned: “Das Concil und die deustche Wissenschaft” (anonymously issued at Mainz, 1872) appeared first in the “Katholik”, 1872, I; “Die Erhaltung des Bauernstandes” (Freiburg, 1883).
These writings demonstrate that politically, he was much more a traditional Catholic than his great nephew.
He passed from this life on December 3, 1899, the last day of the liturgical calendar for that year, since the next day was the First Sunday of Advent.
Father Georg Ratzinger’s life thus was marked out as one lived under the shadow of Christ’s Redemption, awaiting His coming in glory.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
Il testimonio di Mons. Livi contro la Mafia di San Gallo
From Operation Gladio to Trad Inc., and how the CIA may have a leading role
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
In my article, Who may have been behind the abdication of Pope Benedict XVI?, I explained what Operation Gladio was and the role played by Gladio organizations in Italy in the political events at the Vatican in recent decades, particularly how they may have opened the Vatican up to infiltration by the St. Gallen Mafia.
This present article is a follow-up. Here I want to lay out the trail of evidence which leads from Gladio to Trad Inc..
CEDI
One of the prominent stay-behind organizations in Europe after the Second World War, was the European Centre for Documentation and Information (CEDI). While the name sounds like an academic organization, it was nothing of the kind.
According to David Bryden, in his book, Franco’s Internationalists: Social Experts and Spain’s Search for Legitimacy, p. 148, the CEDI is politically an organization of socialists:
Munich, for those who know their history, is also the birth-place of the Nazi party. In fact, Munich today is the home of an organization with a similar name as CEDI, the NS-Dokumentationszentrum, or in English, The Documentation Centre for National Socialism, which is a museum dedicated to the documents of the NAZI party, and begun in 2005.
It is important to note that CEDI was funded initially by the government of Franco, who was a close collaborator with Nazi Germany during the war and gave refuge to innumerable war criminals after the war, as well as helping many of them escape to South America. The National Geographic Society, in the USA, produced an impressive multi part documentary alleging that Adolf Hitler survived the war and was spirited out of Europe through Spain.
Of CEDI itself, Wikipedia says:
Francoist Spain made use of the CEDI to get in contact with high-ranking persons of the political, military, economic and cultural life from Western Europe and thus end its post-war international isolation. By preaching the necessity of cultural exchange and the religious unity of the occident, the CEDI aimed at a political, military and economic inclusion of Spain into the beginning process of European Integration.
So the co-incidence that CEDI was founded in Munich may be more significant that merely suggestive. But the fact that CEDI was funded by the Spanish government in the very years that the USA and the UK were collaborating with western governments in Europe for the establishment of stay-behind organizations, cannot be considered a mere coincidence. Especially since, as I have shown in my previous article, how this network might have been intimately involved in manipulating Pope John Paul II into allowing the St. Gallen Mafia, a Masonic organization of the highest levels, to take control of the Vatican before and during February 2013.
Archduke Otto von Hapsburg
CEDI was headed by Otto von Hapsburg. Archduke Otto grew up in Spain, after the fall of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, and resisted the annexation of Austria by Hitler. He fled to the USA during the war, however, when he could easily have returned to Spain. During this time he was a stateless person, but he subsequently obtained a passport from the Principality of Monaco and the Knights of Malta. It is during his time in the USA that he would have been likely approached by the CIA to play a leading role in post war Europe. In fact, after the war he returned to Europe to begin a political career. As his Wikipedia article relates:
Otto von Habsburg was Vice President (1957–1973) and President (1973–2004) of the International Paneuropean Union, and served as a Member of the European Parliament for the Christian Social Union of Bavaria (CSU) from 1979 to 1999. As a newly elected Member of the European Parliament in 1979, Otto had an empty chair set up for the countries on the other side of the Iron Curtain in the European Parliament, and took a strong interest in the countries behind the Iron Curtain. Otto von Habsburg played a notable role in the revolutions of 1989, as a co-initiator of the Pan-European Picnic. Later he was a strong supporter of the EU membership of central and eastern European countries.[11] A noted intellectual, he published several books on historical and political affairs. Otto has been described as one of the “architects of the European idea and of European integration” together with Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, and Alcide De Gasperi.[12]
What is import to note, first of all, is his role in the revolutions of 1989 and his interest in the countries of Eastern Europe. It would be sensible, therefore, to conceive that he had a role in helping Poland oust its Communist government. As I reported in my previous article, the financing for the Solidarity Movement in Poland, came through the Vatican Bank which was laundering money for the CIA. As head of the CEDI, which was a stay-behind organization overseen by the CIA, Archduke Otto is a prime suspect for suggesting to Pope John Paul II to collaborate with the CIA.
Opus Dei
CEDI officially ceased to operate in 1990. The fall of the Iron Curtain was seen as the end of the Cold War and the USA and the UK were no longer interesting in funding the stay-behind networks. However, according to other sources, the CEDI networks were counter-infiltrated by Opus Dei and the organization still exists as a branch of Opus Dei operating through the conservative nobility of Europe.
Today, Opus Dei is one of the strongest supporters of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, head of the St. Gallen Mafia and the closest political ally of Barrack Obama and Hilatry Clinton during their terms of office in the United States as President and Secretary of State respectively. Opus Dei shares the political philosophy of Archduke Otto, officially supporting neither Fascism (in the American sense of this word, as including Franco, Mussolini and Hitler) nor Marxism. In fact, during the Spanish Civil War, Father Josemaría Escrivá prohibited his members from supporting Franco, and even allowed one member to run a newspaper criticizing his regime. For Opus Dei, the Church should not have assisted defending Spain from Marxist take over. It is not surprising then, that Opus Dei, faithful to its founder, sees no problem with the Marxist takeover of the Catholic Church by Bergoglio.
In fact, one of the leading experts in Canon Law at Rome, who admits all the principles which conclude to Bergoglio not being the pope, but who instead says he is certainly the pope, is Mons. Arrieta, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, an Opus Dei member. I spoke with him on December 11, 2019, about the Renunciation of Pope Benedict, and published my notes, here. Personally, I am convinced that Mons. Arrieta knows the Renunciation is invalid, but he has some sort of strong personal motives to say otherwise, which are unknown to me.
All these paths lead to Trad Inc., which also takes the same political stance of not opposing, but only lamenting, the reign of Bergoglio. It is well know that the traditional catholic movement, whatever they stand for, works closely with European nobility, and are supporters of the House of Hapsburg. They recently held a meeting, moreover, in Munich, at which select leaders of the movement were invited to attend, including Archbishop Viganò, who according to many sources moves in Opus Dei circles.
Dr. Taylor Marshall
Dr. Taylor Marshall, of EWTN fame, is an Opus Dei numerary, as it appears, from his FB page:
EWTN has an intern program for Opus Dei members who work in the Vatican or Rome, so this might explain why EWTN features Dr. Marshall so frequently on its network.
Dr. Taylor Marshall also recent revealed that he was the financier and backer and video editor of Alexander Tschugguel’s Pachamama dunking in the Tiber River in October, 2019. Louie Verrecchio takes him to task for that media stunt in his article from yesterday at AkaCatholic.com. Here is a screen shot, of Louie’s article, which shows Dr. Taylor on the right. Louie tells the whole story of the event, so I will not recite it here.
As an aside, I am told that Dr. Marshall claims to be 5 foot 11. And that Alexander is 6 foot 9, but its hard to believe.
Baron von Tschuggül
What most do not know, is that the correct and full name and title of Alexander is Alexander Freiherr von Tschuggül zu Tramin. Freiherre, means Baron. Yes, Alexander is Baron Alexander von Tschuggül of Tramin. The Von Tschuggül’s are a noble family of Southern Tyrol.
(Remember, when writing his name to use the umlat over the final letter, u, like this: ü. This is pronounced, ue, and not in the same way that the final û (u with circumflex) is pronounced in J.R.R. Tolkein’s word Nazgül, which is pronounced as the oo in the English word, boom. However, since u with the umlat, is merely the abbreviation of ue, the Baron’s surname can also be spelled, Tschugguel.)
It is difficult, to understand, therefore, why Dr. Marshall is paying the air-flights of a Baron. Especially since air-flights from Vienna to Rome are not particularly expensive and should be within a Baron’s budget. However, I do know that Opus Dei groups were funding a number of activities at Rome during the Amazon Synod. It appears that while Opus Dei supports Bergoglio’s claim to be pope, that they are positioning themselves to put an Opus Dei member on the Throne of Peter after Bergoglio, and present him to the world as the savior of the Church. Thus it is not impossible, that Dr. Marshall was using Opus Dei money to fund the Pachamama Stunt.
St. Gallen Mafia
The principle city of the Tyrol, Baron Tschuggül’s homeland, is Innsbruck. The Apostolic Administrator or Bishop of Innsbruck from 1938 to 1980 was a Rampolla Bishop, Mons. Paulus Rusch. I previously reported how the Rampolla faction of Bishops includes the St. Gallen Mafia and the networks used to help Nazi war criminals escape Europe. Since the USA hired all the former Nazi spies and incorporated them into the CIA, after the war, it is not surprising, then, that the CIA in Europe during the cold war era would be collaborating with the Rampolla faction and promoting them in the Church. The mere fact that the Baron’s family comes from a region ruled for 42 years by a Rampolla Bishop, and possible Nazi collaborator, does not mean that he or his family were anyway involved. But one cannot deny the deep levels of ecclesial perversion and disorder which can possibly arise from such a long reign of a Rampolla Faction bishop.
There may be ties between all these groups at the St. Gallen Mafia, for the simple reason that they all insist Bergoglio is the pope, and they all have connections with the CIA.
Baron von Tschuggül, veteran political activist
Baron Tschuggül has been a political activist since his youth, according to his Wikipedia article:
Tschugguel began working for the conservative political organization Tradition, Family and Property when he was sixteen years old. He has worked with conservative politicians Ewald Stadler and Beatrix von Storch, as well as political activist Hedwig von Beverfoerde, to protest and campaign against abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and the inclusion of gender studies and sex education in schools in Germany and Austria.[6]
Thus, his foundation of the Boniface Institute immediately after the Pachamama stunt, was not the act of a simple layman in need of funds to run an apostolate, as if a layman had any duty or right to teach the faith, but the calculated move a political expert.
Also, it is not widely known, that in 2019, Baron Tschuggül was married. The Most Rev. Athanasius Schneider performed the ceremony. Bishop Schneider is considered a principle cleric of Trad Inc., and holds the same opinion as that Media Cartel, namely, that Bergoglio is without any doubt the pope.
According to his own statements in an interview with Dr. Marshall, we can expect to see more of Baron Tschuggül in the future:
Though there is at least one blogger who is convinced that the Baron is the Antichrist in waiting, I think that the Baron’s statement is merely more self-promotion. Perhaps he intends to run for office. It is, however, disturbing that he says that he will pray for everyone if he succeeds attending Easter Mass, as if he were a priest or monk, and not a married laymen.
_________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is a photograph of the Archduke Otto von Hapsburg, to the far right, at a ceremony for the awarding of the infamous European Prize Coudenhove-Kalergi. The German Chancellor Helmut Khol is second from the left. It is used here in accord with a Creative Commons Share-Alike 3.0 Germany license, as described here.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
Pope Benedict XVI taught reverence to God by his actions
Who may have been behind the abdication of Pope Benedict XVI?
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Most things which are hidden will never be known until the end of time, when on the Last Day, all will be revealed. So in the mean time we have only crumbs of evidence to suggest lines of investigation. Here are some crumbs which may explain how Bergoglio came to power, Benedict was forced out, and why no one will admit it.
Operation Gladio
After the Second World War, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, fearing a Soviet invasion of Europe, which could not be immediately thwarted, created a para-military organization, popularly called Gladio, so that in the case of Soviet conquest, diverse groups could immediately spring into action across Europe as an armed guerilla like resistance.
The chief organizers were the NATO High Command, the US Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency. But the story begins with Allen W. Dulles.
Allen W. Dulles was Presbyterian. He served in the diplomatic corps of the U.S. government from 1916 to 1951, when he became the first civilian director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He was arguably appointed because of his support of Eisenhower’s pro-Soviet Union geopolitical stance, which was not aimed at stopping Marxist infiltration of the United States. He showed this in March of 1950, prior to his appointment, by arguing that the catholic Senator John McCarthy stop investigating the CIA for possible Marxist infiltrators. After his appointment as Director, Dulles had CIA operatives break into Senator McCarthy’s offices to plant false information with the purpose of discrediting him, according to Tim Weiner’s, Legacy of Ashses: A History of the Central Intelligence Agency, published in 2007. Whether this was done because Dulles was an anti-Catholic bigot or a Marxist fellow traveler is not certain.
Allen Dulles significantly was the Director of the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) — a pro one world government organization — from 1927 to 1933, and then its secretary until 1944. The CFR is generally considered to be a Masonic organization. This is probably how he rose to such high office in the U.S. Government.
Operation Gladio was founded in 1948 and overseen by the CIA until the 1990’s. It was a network of stay-behind groups of paramilitaries and at all their annual meetings CIA officials from the CIA offices in each country would be in attendance. Gladio is considered one of the most secret operations organized by the United States in Europe in the post World War II era. For this reason, Dulles, who served as CIA director until Nov. 29, 1961 could not not have known about Gladio and been instrumental in its development and support. According to Wikipedia’s article on Gladio, we know this:
Operating in all of NATO and even in some neutral countries such as Spain before its 1982 admission to NATO, Gladio was first coordinated by the Clandestine Committee of the Western Union (CCWU), founded in 1948. After the creation of NATO in 1949, the CCWU was integrated into the “Clandestine Planning Committee” (CPC), founded in 1951 and overseen by the SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe)
Allen Dulles, therefore, from the first days of his tenure as CIA director in 1951 had to know about Gladio. In addition to all the dirty tricks that Dulles was the director of in his tenure as CIA director (e.g. Bay of Pigs), Dulles was instrumental in the transformation of Gladio into a military organization directed at political involvement in Europe, to thwart the spread of Communist parties. According to the historian Daniele Ganse, the Clandestine Planning Committee (CPC) which directed Gladio was assisted from 1957 onward by the Allied Clandestine Committee:
Next to the CPC, a second secret army command center, labeled Allied Clandestine Committee (ACC), was set up in 1957 on the orders of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (SACEUR). This military structure provided for significant US leverage over the secret stay-behind networks in Western Europe as the SACEUR, throughout NATO’s history, has traditionally been a US General who reports to the Pentagon in Washington and is based in NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium. The ACC’s duties included elaborating on the directives of the network, developing its clandestine capability, and organizing bases in Britain and the United States. In wartime, it was to plan stay-behind operations in conjunction with SHAPE. According to former CIA director William Colby, it was ‘a major program’.
Coordinated by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), {the secret armies} were run by the European military secret services in close cooperation with the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the British foreign secret service Secret Intelligence Service (SIS, also MI6). Trained together with US Green Berets and British Special Air Service (SAS), these clandestine NATO soldiers, with access to underground arms caches, prepared to fight against a potential Soviet invasion and occupation of Western Europe, as well as the coming to power of communist parties. The clandestine international network covered the European NATO membership, including Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey, as well as the neutral European countries of Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland.
Ganser, himself, in his 2005 book, NATO’s Secret Armies alleges that these stay-behind groups were used by the USA in false flag events and acts of terrorism. While his allegations were severely criticized by several experts, the substance of the criticism was not that what he alleged did not happen, but only that he had failed to prove it by documentation — which is quite a revealing commendation of his book, actually.
Evidence that Ganser was correct, however, about Gladio’s use in state sponsored terrorism comes from the events surrounding the assassination of Carmine Peccorelli, an Italian Fascist turned journalist who was murdered on March 20, 1979, apparently by a criminal organization, know as the Banda della Magliana, to prevent his publication of information about Giulio Andreotti, the Italian Prime Minister in that year, who headed the Christian Democratic Party, a close ally of the United States of America. Was Peccorelli’s assasination willed because of his investigation into Gladio? And Andreoitti’s involvement or knowledge of it? The authors of Peccorelli’s Biography at Wikipedia shed some light on this:
After Aldo Moro’s 1978 assassination, Mino Pecorelli published some confidential documents, mainly Moro’s letters to his family. In a cryptic article published in May 1978, Pecorelli drew a connection between Operation Gladio, NATO’s stay-behind anti-communist organization (whose existence was publicly acknowledged by Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti in October 1990) and Moro’s death. During his interrogations by terrorists, Aldo Moro had made reference to “NATO’s anti-guerrilla activities”.[1]
Banda della Magliana
Peccorelli was assassinated by the Banda della Magliana, a criminal organization here in Rome, which had ties to all the main Italian Mafia organizations and the infamous Masonic Lodge Propagana Due (P2), which plotted the overthrow of the Italian government to establish a pro-Western regime in Italy. The previous assassination of Aldo Moro during his kidnapping was never satisfactorily explained. Because the public story was that he was kidnapped by radical Marxists. But he himself was proposing an alliance of the Catholic Christian Democrats with the Marxists in Parliament. However, his potential willingness to admit the existence of Gladio would have made him the target for assassination by CIA interests. The Banda della Magliana was tied by Italian prosecutors to Propaganda Due and to the murder of Roberto Calvi following the revelations of scandals in the Banco Ambrosiano and the Vatican Bank. Calvi’s lifeless corpse was found on the morning of Friday, June 18, 1982, hanging from Blackfriars Bridge in London: a name which indicated that P2, whose members dressed as Black Friars, was behind he hit. In fact, both Andreotti and the Banda della Magliana were P2 members and collaborators.
Vatican Bank Scandal
With the collapse of the Banco Ambrosiano the Vatican Bank became insolvent. It was the declared intention of Pope John Paul I to clean up the Vatican Bank, but he did not live to implement that intention, being found dead in bed on the 33rd day of his pontificate: a number which indicates a Masonic ritualized hit. Calvi was a member of Propaganda 2, strangely enough, and so were his assassins. It seems to have been a hit to prevent him from testifying against them in Italian court.
John Paul II’s response to the Vatican Bank scandal was itself dubious, as the Wikipedia article on P2 explains:
During July 1982, funds to the off-shore interests were cut off, leading to their collapse, and in August the bank was replaced by the Nuovo Banco Ambrosiano under Giovanni Bazoli. Pope John Paul II pledged full transparency regarding the bank’s links to the Vatican and brought in lay bankers including German financial expert Hermann Abs, a move that was publicly criticized by Simon Wiesenthal, due to Abs’ role as top banker to the Third Reich from 1938 to 1945.[4][5] There was much argument over who should take responsibility for losses incurred by the Old Ambrosiano’s off-shore companies, and the Holy See (Vatican) eventually agreed to pay out a substantial sum without accepting liability.
In response to the financial instability of the Vatican, John Paul II conceived the idea of traveling the world to raise funds. But his trips were packaged as Apostolic Visits. They were Apostolic also in the sense of Saint Matthew the Apostle, because they were granted in response to sizeable offers of cash infusion into the Vatican Bank by the national Bishop’s Conferences of the host nations. The first nation he visited was the USA. I remember vividly the excitement of seeing a Pope on US soil, as I was at his first Mass on Boston Commons on October 1, 1979. What most do not know, outside of the US however, is, that the American Bishops receive substantial funding from the US Government by operating welfare programs for the poor. So whether they where laundering money for the US Government to the Vatican Bank during or after this trip, is highly possible.
In addition, it is know that Pope John Paul II collaborated with the CIA to bring down the Communist government in Poland. This was done by the CIA laundering money through Panamanian Banks, and through the Vatican Embassy in Panama through the Vatican Bank. The monies were they distributed in Poland to the Solidarity movement by agents of the Vatican. One can assume that the Vatican Bank also got its share in the process.
The St. Gallen Mafia gets its foothold
But it was John Paul II’s turn to Hermann Abs which might have been more significant than we know. Because by bringing in this man who had such strong banking ties to the Nazi Regime that he may have unwittingly opened the doors to infiltration by the St. Gallen Mafia Group, before it even called itself by that name.
This seems to be indicated by the appointment of Godfreid Danneels as a Cardinal just 7 months after the appointment of Hermann Abs. Danneels is the founding member of the St. Gallen Mafia, and he took as his Titular Church at Rome, the very resting place of the Cardinal Bishop from Portugal who is suspected of introducing the Masonic Lodge to the Vatican. That Church is a center of satanic activity today still. Indeed, one woman who used to sell rosaries there, afterwards manifested clear evidence of profound diabolic possession, in addition to bearing a tattoo of the number 666 under her tongue.
Following Danneels appointment as Cardinal, we see that John Paul II began to appoint all the future members of the St. Gallen Mafia as bishops or Cardinals.
The CIA is rewarded with a Cardinal
Finally, the history I have recounted comes to full circle. Allen Dulles brother was John Foster Dulles. John Foster was the U.S. Secretary of State from 1953-1959, during the tenure of his brother as Director of the CIA, and thus also undeniably cogniscent of operation Gladio. John Foster’s son, Avery Dulles, S. J. was made a Cardinal of the Roman Church by John Paul II in 2001, in an apparent payback to the Dulles family for their support of the Vatican through operation Gladio and CIA slush funds. I remember the news of this appointment at the time. It was a scandal, since everyone knew that Dulles’ family was highly connected to the US intelligence agency. You can see a photograph of the Cardinal in the featured image of this article.
That Avery was a Jesuit and Hermann Abs a Nazi ties up with Propaganda Due, which like the Jesuits and the Nazis had strong ties in Argentina. I have shown that the St. Gallen Mafia are an entity of the Rampolla faction in the Church, which has similar connections with all these groups. And their collaboration in operating and or running the Rat lines in Europe after World War II gave them strong connects to the CIA (who co-opted the entire NAZI intelligence workforce into itself). Archbishop Bergoglio of Buenas Aires, during his tenure in that office, is known to have sold the Archdiocesan investments in 4 major banks and transferred 70 million euroes to the Vatican Bank. After that he was the de facto leader of the St. Gallen Mafia. And to this day, there are rumors that the CIA has numerous slush funds in the Vatican Bank and that it is being used to launder money from other foreign governments, such as China.
Conclusion
It is widely speculated among Catholics, that Pope Benedict XVI was forced out of power by the U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton who publicly endorsed an Arab Spring in the Catholic Church. That Deutsche Bank was harassing the Vatican by shutting down its ATM machines prior to Benedict’s abdication, adds to the suspicion, since Hermman Abs was a Director of that Bank from 1938-1945 and from 1957-1967. And it was no secret that Barrack Obama considered Pope Benedict’s opposition to sexual immorality one of the chief thorns in his side, when campaigning for the Catholic vote in 2008 and 2012.
I think from the evidence presented, that the abdication of Pope Benedict XVI might well have been engineered psychologically or financially by the very collaborations which Pope John Paul II developed with the CIA and operation Gladio entities: a collaboration which allowed the St. Gallen Mafia to infiltrate the College of Cardinals and ultimately take over the Vatican through a bloodless coup, in CIA style.
This might well explain, also, why no one will talk rationally about arguments regarding the canonical problems, which are as obvious as day, as they are studiously attacked by organizations dedicated to narrative control, financed by as of yet unknown organizations.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
Akita and the Message of Fatima
https://youtu.be/H6isd20OPYY
Br. Bugnolo says: Please note, that the author of this Video does not allow it to be viewed except on YouTube, so click the YouTube Link in the Video and watch it there. It’s an excellent Documentary.
The Martyrdom of St. Thomas More – Part I
PART I — EARLY LIFE TO LORD CHANCELLOR
By Frank Magill
The story of St. Thomas More and his ultimately fatal disagreement with King Henry VIII of England leapt from the history books into the popular imagination, at least into that of the anglophone world, in the 1960 stage play by Robert Bolt, “A Man For All Seasons.” Bolt himself later wrote the screenplay for the critically acclaimed motion picture of the same name, released in 1966, for which he won one of the six “Oscars” awarded to the film.
Bolt’s work brought to the wider world the traditional perception of the case, at least among faithful Catholics and other adherents to the Biblical notion of marriage, as an unjust persecution of More and Bishop St. John Fisher by a tyrannical monarch bent on placing his own desires and ego above the law of God. In the play and film, both More and Fisher were convicted of treason and executed on the testimony of one man: Sir Richard Rich, a political weather-vane who, at the time, was a minion of Thomas Cromwell. Cromwell served Henry, among other ways, as the “brains” behind (and possibly the instigator of) Henry’s scheme to break the English church away from communion with Rome, and after the rupture Cromwell and Rich undertook the dissolution and distribution of the English monasteries, allotting them in exchange for political favors, thus destroying the spiritual fruit of centuries of faith. Ironically, at about the same time as Bolt was writing his screenplay for the film, an English historian, J. Duncan M. Derrett, published a work contending that the trial of More was actually a fair one, conducted in accord with then-existing English law.1
The view of Derrett (an Anglican-educated legal positivist whose primary claim to fame was as a scholar of Hinduism and Indian law, and who also wrote several books on interpretation of the New Testamemt) was accepted by a general consensus of historians in the 1960’s and thereafter. Recently, however, in 2011, a comprehensive review of the available documentation of More’s trial was published,2 in which Derrett’s view of the trial was challenged. Derrett, the legal positivist, argued that More clearly broke the law (meaning the statutes, passed at the behest of Henry VIII, upon which More was indicted and tried), and yet the judges at his trial were amenable to reasonable arguments, having dismissed much of the original indictment against him. From this, Derrett concluded More was treated justly by the day’s standards.
On the contrary, the American and Catholic historian Henry Ansgar Kelly argued that Derrett’s view is unreasonable. In light of all the available records, and considering then-existing legal and procedural standards, Kelly concludes that More was actually the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice, convicted largely upon the perjured testimony of an agent of the King who desired More’s conviction out of personal animosity, before a court made up largely of men with vested personal interests in getting More out of the way permanently, and a jury comprised of employees of the king.
More’s Life Before Royal Service
More was the eldest son of Sir John More, himself a lawyer who became a judge of the King’s Bench. More received a top tier education, including in a highly regarded London school, personal tutelage from the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Morton (later a Cardinal), and two years at Oxford. After beginning study of the law back home in London, More was admitted in 1496 to Lincoln’s Inn, one of the four prestigious Inns of Court, where he completed his legal education, becoming a full member of the Bar in 1501. At about the same time, More took up residence at the Carthusian monastery that was next door to Lincoln’s Inn, where he risked the ire of his father by seriously discerning whether he was called to the priesthood. Although More eventually concluded that he did not have a vocation to Holy Orders, his time in the monastery left its mark, as he continued for life to observe the holy habits which the monks had instilled in him, of prayer, fasting and the wearing of a hair shirt.
Having discerned his vocation to be that of husband and father, More married a farmer’s daughter, Joan Colt, in 1504 or 1505, with whom he had four children before her untimely death in 1511. Left with the care of four youngsters under six years of age, More shortly thereafter married a wealthy widow, Alice Middleton, who had one daughter. In addition to practicing law, More wrote a great deal, including works of poetry, history, and fiction, many of which are available free online, though some may be difficult for today’s readers to decipher as they are in old English spelling and typeface, if not in Latin. Perhaps his best-known work from this period is Utopia, a word invented by More which has become a common usage in modern English. The book combined satire, romance and political philosophy in a unique manner, describing a fictional society governed entirely by reason.
More first entered public service in 1510 as one of two “undersheriffs” of London, a quasi-judicial post he resigned in order to enter into the King’s service, full-time, in 1518. Rising through the ranks in various titles, including under-treasurer and Speaker of the House of Commons, More became known as Henry VIII’s “intellectual courtier” as well as being “a very active citizen of London. He developed one of the largest and most lucrative law practices in the city. He took on greater responsibilities in governing Lincoln’s Inn, and he was elected to the prestigious Doctors’ Commons. He also represented the city’s business interests in foreign embassies, and still found time to write and to correspond with Europe’s leading intellectuals.”3 More further burnished his reputation as a defender of the Faith by assisting and supporting Henry in a vigorous exchange of polemics between the king and Martin Luther, capped by More’s Responsio ad Lutherum (in Latin) in 1523.
The “Great Matter” 4
Henry first informed More of his theory of invalidity of his marriage to Queen Catherine of Aragon in September of 1527 at Hampton Court, which issue More thereafter referred to as the King’s “great matter.”5 Citing Leviticus, the King stated his belief that Catherine’s brief marriage to his deceased older brother Arthur meant that, by marrying Catherine, Henry had “uncover[ed] the nakedness” of his brother’s wife (cf. Lev. 18:16). Thus, claimed the king, her marriage to Henry was rendered barren, pursuant to Lev 20:21. More’s doubted that the referenced passages invalidated Henry and Catherine’s marriage, and opined as much, noting this would be true especially if, as Catherine maintained, she and Arthur had never consummated their union. Henry maintained that Leviticus ruled the issue, and suggested that More study it further.6
While, at this point, the primacy of the Holy See was not yet the central issue, as Henry did undertake to convince Rome to annul his marriage to Catherine, More did as Henry asked and made a serious study of the question of the royal marriage via Scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church (such as Saints Jerome , Cyprian and Gregory) and the records of the general Councils. In this, More’s opinion of the validity of the marriage of Henry and Catherine did not change. Moreover, the review led him to conclude that Papal primacy had been instituted or established “by the corps of Christendom”, manifested through “the general counsell of the whole body of Christendome” or the “whole catholike church lawfully gathered together in a generall counsell” governed by the spirit of God, corroborated by continual succession of popes over at least a thousand years; thus it did not matter whether the primacy had been instituted immediately by God or ordained by the Church; “it had become a matter of consensus and authoritative tradition.”7 Thus, More concluded that no secular authority had the power to overrule any papal decree. This, of course, would ultimately prove to be the cause of the fissure between More and Henry, and between England and the Catholic Church.
In 1529, while working full time on judicial and administrative duties at Westminster and at court, and even as he began involvement as a representative of England in the lengthy peace negotiation which eventually produced the historic Treaty of Cambrai , More expanded his long-standing efforts to defend the Faith from the growing Lutheran heresy by writing A Dialogue Concerning Heresies,8 This was More’s first work published in the vernacular instead of in Latin, the purpose of which was, according to Ackroyd, “to
celebrate that common culture [ i.e., that of Catholicism] which was under threat; by employing the stories and proverbs that were in the air around him and by drawing upon the resources of the medieval tradition of caricature and speech he was implicitly appealing to his audience to consider what would be lost if Christendom fell into schism. A religion and a way of life might disappear.” 9
Also in 1529, a more ominous development occurred as Henry’s long effort to convince the pope to annul his marriage to Catherine ended in failure. The pope had dispatched an aging Cardinal Campeggio from Rome to England to preside over a legatine court that would hear Henry’s case. The court opened on the last day of May, and on June 21, Henry and Catherine both appeared and made their arguments. 10 Catherine’s emotional speech protesting the annulment, delivered kneeling at her husband’s feet, probably was responsible at least in part for the court adjourning without reaching a decision, as was her written direct appeal to Rome to deny Henry’s case. Also of no small moment was the fact that troops in the service of Catherine’s nephew, Charles V, King of Spain, had invaded and sacked Rome two years earlier, and the occupation was effectively holding the Pope, Clement VII, prisoner at Castel Sant’Angelo.
Thus, the pope was unlikely to grant Henry an annulment even had he been so inclined, at the risk of further jeopardizing his personal situation. 11
The failure of Henry’s case was decidedly bad news for Cardinal Wolsey , whom Henry had charged with the responsibility of obtaining the annulment. In October 1529, after the legatine court was adjourned without a decision, Wolsey was indicted under the Statute of Praemunire , a fourteenth-century law that prohibited appeals of English court cases to the pope, and charged with overstepping his legatine authority. Having thus been effectively deposed as Lord Chancellor, Wolsey surrendered the Great Seal of his office to Henry on October 18 or 19.12 Wolsey retired to York, and later was arrested for treason, on November 4, 1530, but died before he could return to London.
Henry met with various councillors, including More, for several days to choose a successor, and on October 25 More was notified that he was to be the next Lord Chancellor. Henry gave him the Great Seal that same day, and he was ceremoniously installed on the marble Seat of Judgment in the Chancery.
What Were They Thinking?
Henry knew More did not support his “great matter”, and More obviously knew he was opposed to the king’s fondest wish at the time, i.e., to be rid of his marriage to Catherine so that he could make his mistress, Anne Boleyn, queen in her stead. Both men must have known that a confrontation was inevitable between the monarch’s desires and the position of the Church. Why, then, would Henry appoint More to the highest office in the land short of his own, and why would More accept the appointment? Unfortunately, neither man left a clear record of his thinking on these questions, although much can be inferred from the records that do exist. For Henry’s part, his selection of More made sense from a purely practical perspective. More was, after all, well known and highly regarded throughout England. He had built a reputation as a first-rank lawyer, and had demonstrated the ability to deal with Parliament as Speaker of the Commons. The clergy had selected him as their polemicist in the fight against the Protestant heresy.13 Ackroyd then adds: “Perhaps most importantly, he had worked closely with the king for more than ten years; Henry believed that he could rely upon his loyalty and good judgment as the proceedings against his marriage continued their serpentine course. But by appointing a layman as chancellor for the first time in almost a hundred years, Henry was also reasserting his own power over that of the Church. Wolsey’s fall and More’s appointment, therefore, were directly associated with the king’s desire to separate himself from Catherine of Aragon.” 14
What, then, of More’s acceptance of the position? Did Henry discuss with him the “great matter” before offering him the Great Seal? The timing is unclear, though More later wrote that Henry asked him at some early point to ponder the question of the annulment, but declared that More should follow his conscience. Henry “…assigned the Archbishops of Canterbury and York as well as other dignitaries to persuade him of the merits of his case. But More proved obstinate, or merely impassive, and listened with great care to the various arguments without once changing his mind. He believed the original papal dispensation15 to have been valid and the marriage sound. Henry was disappointed but in More’s words, was “neuer the lesse graciouse lord.’ “16 Henry, ever the astute politician, also had personal reasons to elevate More despite their differences over the “great matter,” because Catherine was very popular with the people, especially in London, and More’s support of her was well known. Having More as Lord Chancellor thus may have struck Henry as personal protection against charges of animus against his queen.17
As for More’s own reasons, in light of his history of personal piety and vigorous defense of the Catholic faith, and although there is no evidence that he was compelled or coerced to take the job, the future Saint probably viewed the appointment as not only the culminating honor in the career of any English man of laws, but as a tremendous opportunity to serve the Church. By possibly avoiding the schism between London and Rome that he already feared from the Lutherans, if only he could turn Henry’s mind back to obedience, More also would greatly serve the interests of Catherine, whom he held to be the rightful queen. In ascending to the post of Lord Chancellor, then, More not only served his king and his queen, but he also greatly pleased his father, his wife, and likely of most importance in his mind, his God. 18
_________
FOOTNOTES:
1 J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Trial of Sir Thomas More, in Sylvester, R.S. and Marc’hadour, G.P., eds., Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, Hamden, CT, 1977, pp. 55-78, 591-6, revised from original form in the English Historical Review 79 (1964), 449-77, cited in Kelly, et al., note ii., below.
2 Kelly, Henry Ansgar, Karlan, Louis W. & Wegemer, Gerard B., eds., 2011. Thomas More’s Trial by Jury: A Procedural and Legal Review with a Collection of Documents. Woodbridge, Suffolk, U.K.: The Boydell Press.
3 Center for Thomas More Studies, University of Dallas: https://thomasmorestudies.org/docs/More_as_Statesman.pdf
4 Ackroyd, Peter. 1998. The Life of Thomas More. New York: Doubleday.
5 Ibid., p.268
6 Ibid., 270-1.
7 The Correspondence of Sir Thomas More, 524, 498, cited in Ackroyd 1998, 271.
8 See also Center for Thomas More Studies, https://thomasmorestudies.org/library.html, The Dialogue Concerning Heresies, © CTMS, for free online version with study guides.
9 Ackroyd, 1998, 281.
10 Ibid., 272-3; See also https://famous-trials.com/thomasmore/990-chronology, for June 21, 1529)
11 Ultimately, no decision was ever rendered on the legatine trial, and in 1530, Clement VII made peace with Charles V and crowned him Holy Roman Emperor.
12 Ackroyd, 1998, 287.
13 Ibid., 288-9.
14 Ibid., 289.
15 The pope had granted dispensation for Henry’s marriage to Catherine to deal with the very issue Henry now raised in attempting to attack the validity of the union, that of the Biblical injunction against marrying one’s brother’s widow. See https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-VIII-king-of-England/Loss-of-popularity
16 Ackroyd, 1998, 289.
17 Ibid., 290.
18 Ibid.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Frank Magill is a retired attorney and a 2005 convert to the Catholic faith. He and his wife of 40 years reside near Dallas, Texas, USA.
__________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is a detail of Rowland Lockley’s copy of Hans Holbein’s, Saint Thomas More and Family.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
To vindicate the dead: The Spanish Influenza at Philadephia in 1918
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
I am horrified.
I am horrified at Rorate Caeli that they would stoop so low as to encourage the faithful to go without the Sacraments! And to justify the decision of superiors in Church and State who want to shut down the Catholic Church!
I am especially horrified at the shell game perpetrated by Father Carl Gismondi, FSSP, in his Op-Ed, entitled, Suspending Public Mass is not new, where he cites the example of Philadephia during the Spanish Flu of 1918 as a precedent for closing churches today round the world.
I am personally very incensed. I am such, because my family comes from Philadelphia and lived their during the Spanish Flu Epidemic which struck the city in October of 1918. My great uncle Antonio Cafeo died in that Epidemic.
My grandfather Giovanni Cafeo told me about it, when I was discussing with him one day, nearly 40 years ago, how he survived the Spanish Flu Epidemic. He nearly died himself. He caught it while working as a barber in the U.S. Army in France, as an enlisted soldier. They had to move him to a hospital on the French Coast near Nantes, where he convalesced for 3 months.
I asked him then, about his brothers. It was then he told me that I had a great uncle, who died in the epidemic: Antonio, my grandfather’s older brother. He died at the age of around 28 years. He was a violinist, and very close to my grand dad. I could see in the face of my grandfather the profound love and attachment he had for his brother, even 70 years later, when he spoke of Antonio, briefly though, because it was such a great sorrow to him, that he did not want to remember it for long. I asked him what happened to Antonio. “He got very sick and they took him away. I visited him, but they later told me he had died.”
So I am astounded at Father Gismondi, that he should cite the example of Philadelphia in the Influenza of 1918 to justify the monstrosity of mania which has gripped the Bishops of the world over a virus which is not even as lethal as the common winter flu!
In his article, he cites a book for reference: a book which condemns him and the bishops of today. That book is entitled, The Work of the Sisters during the epidemic of influenza, October 1981, by Francis Edward Tourscher. It recounts the heroism of the Catholic religious who ministered to the sick during the epidemic which gripped the city of Philadephia in 1918. I do not know, where my great uncle was cared for or died, but I like to think it was in a bed under the care of these truly saintly women.
Well the point of my objection to Father Gismondi is this. From reading the book you can see that the sick were brought the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, Baptism and Extremunction (cf. p. 29). And that public funerals were celebrated. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament was still celebrated (p. 23). Seminarian dug graves for the poor (p. 19). Masses were still said with the people.
And if priests were doing all these things for the sick and dying, is Father Gismondi trying to convince us that they were NOT doing these also for the living?
There is absolutely no comparison to be made. The death rates from coronavirus are minuscule. There are not as many confirmed dead in the entire world from coronavirus as there were in Philadelphia from the Spanish Flu of 1918!
As can be seen from the book cited by Fr. Gismondi, p. 53, the death rates were 75% in 1918, as compared to the latest statistics in Italy and the USA of 1-2%.
But as regards the closing of the Churches, the author of the Book cited, Mr.Tourcher discusses this on p. 111 in the appendix. The Churches were NOT locked, attendance at private masses on Sundays or weekdays were NOT forbidden (p. 112), visits to the Blessed Sacrament continued normally. For two Sundays, Masses were celebrated in the open air (p. 112). The order of “closing” lasted only 3 weeks (p. 112).
Is what this book recounts sufficient support for Fr. Gismondi’s argument. Hardly. Rather, it is deeply offensive to the heroic example of the Catholic priests and religious sisters who served so heroically and who had more Catholic faith in their little finger than most of the clergy today combined, who are cowards and lackeys running like little girls as from a bear, which is nothing more than a mouse!
For more information about Philadelphia during the Spanish Flu of 1918, see, 100 years ago, “Spanish flu” shut down Philadelphia — and wiped out thousands, which was published by the Voice on Sept. 27, 2018, from which I have taken the screen shot which is used as the Featured Image here in my editorial.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
The Apostles who went on the First Crusade
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The First Crusade was the most glorious military undertaking in the history of Christianity. It was such because it was the first to internationally testify to the faith of the Church in using military forces for a work of mercy: to restore the order of justice, the rights of the Christian Faith, the mercy to persecuted Christians.
It is also a topic which is nearly universally reviled and hated by those who rule the modern world. It is hated by Muslims, because they see it as a defeat and a work which opposed their theological objectives of world conquest. It is hated by unbelieving Jews, who see it as a transgression of their rights to Palestine. It is hated by seculariest, who conquered Catholic nations since the time of the French Revolution, because they fear that Catholics admire any example of Catholics in an age when the Faith ruled the world.
A good number of ignorant or errant clerics also boo-hoo the Crusades. This is one of the reasons for which I personally have no confidence that John Paul II is a Saint, because he “apologized” for the Crusades, which was a complete act of historical revisionism, by a pope who was promoting to the dignity of Cardinal and Bishop numerous pedophiles and pedophile promoters, as we know today.
But the First Crusade was called by Bl. Pope Urban II by an official act of his magisterial authority, which declared it a work of penitence and charity required by our Catholic Faith.
A large number of Archbishops and Bishops, therefore, attended the First Crusade: that is, to say, they went on the First Crusade to offer spiritual, material, political and military assistance. Back in those days, Bishops own their own domains, had their own military forces, even if they personally did not wield sword.
Here is a list of the names of the Bishops who attended, and their titles:
Most of these Bishops are from the Kingdom of France or subjects of the Holy Roman Empire. At the time of the First Crusade, there was a schism in the Church, and the Kingdom of France remained in loyalty to the true Pope, Urban II, while the anti-pope ruled in Rome.
This is why, for us today, the Archbishops and Bishops of the First Crusade are wonderful examples of what it means to be a true man of God and successor to the Apostles of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
______________
CREDITS: The info graphic of names was prepared by John C. Bugnolo, based on his study of the original texts of the Chronicles of the First Crusade. — The Featured Image is a painting by Emile Signor in 1847, entitled, “The Taking of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, July 15, 1099”, and is kept at the Bridgeman Art library, and is in the public domain.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
Pope Benedict XVI’s Address at Westminister Hall, Sept. 17, 2010 A.D..
Remembering the inauguration of Pope Benedict’s Pontificate
A Tribute to Pope Benedict XVI
A Commentary on the prophecies of Bl. Emmerich – Part III
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
This series will have four installments, one for each paragraph of the prophecies given to Bl. Emmerich in 1820’s regarding the crisis of the two popes
Though I have previously commented on Bl. Emmerich’s prophecies here in 2014 and here in 2015, this series regards the prophecies she received in 1822 in regard to the two popes, as cited here.
In this third and fourth installment, I will comment on the prophecies Bl. Emmerich received on the Feast of Saint Louis IX, King of France, Leader of the 7th and 8th Crusades, member of the Third Order of Saint Francis of Assisi.
Third Installment
August 25, 1822: “I do not know in what manner I was taken to Rome last night, but I found myself near the Church of St. Mary Major, and I saw many poor people who were greatly distressed and worried because the Pope was to be seen nowhere, and also on account of the restlessness and the alarming rumors in the city. These people did not seem to expect the church doors to open; they only wanted to pray outside. An inner urging had led them there individually. But I was in the Church and I opened the doors. They came in, surprised and frightened because the doors had opened. It seems to me that I was behind the door, and they could not see me. There was no office on in the Church, but the Sanctuary lamps were lit. The people prayed quite peacefully.“ „Then I saw an apparition of the Mother of God, and she said that the tribulation would be very great. She added that these people must pray fervently with outstretched arms, be it only long enough to say three Our Fathers. This was the way her Son prayed for them on the Cross. They must rise at twelve at night and pray in this manner; and they must keep coming to the Church. They must pray above all for the Church of Darkness to leave Rome.“
Commentary
“I do not know in what manner I was taken to Rome last night, but I found myself near the Church of St. Mary Major, – Bl. Emmerich in her mystical experiences was transported in spirit to distant places. But what is significant here, is that she was transported at night and not into the Church, but nearby it. In fact, after 8 PM, the Basilica is closed until 8 AM the next morning. So even the Catholics who pray every night there, must stand near the Basilica, like Bl. Emmerich
… and I saw many poor people who were greatly distressed and worried because the Pope was to be seen nowhere, and also on account of the restlessness and the alarming rumors in the city. — Pope Benedict XVI has been hidden away for 7 years. Through the writings of Antonio Socci and others, Italians already recognize by large percentages (60%) that Benedict is the true pope. But this is becoming more evident recently with the admissions by Edward Pentin and Marco Tosatti that a great number of scholars also recognize these things. There are NOW alarming rumors in the city of Rome: CORONA VIRUS. In fact, Catholics can no longer attend any masses or receive the Sacraments — though perhaps in private Confession and Baptism are still being offered.
These people did not seem to expect the church doors to open; they only wanted to pray outside. An inner urging had led them there individually. — This is presently the objective of all the Catholic who are coming to the Basilica. We are praying outside without any expectation of the Church opening. And none of us know one another, the others came on the 18th and 19th day of the 40 Day Novena which recently concluded. One, because he was inspired to do a search on YouTube about Saint Maria Maggiore, the Church, and found my video casts for the 40 day novena.
But I was in the Church and I opened the doors. They came in, surprised and frightened because the doors had opened. — Here Bl. Emmerich’s position has changed. She is now in the Church, in her vision. But her words here are very comforting. In fact, every night we end our prayers, by saying: Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich, pray for us and pray WITH us! The doors of the Basilica have not opened, but grace is stirring inside, because on many nights there is seen in the windows or on the Loggia some individual walking about or taking our photos. If the doors open, it will be a big surprise, as she adds: They came in, surprised and frightened because the doors had opened.
It seems to me that I was behind the door, and they could not see me. There was no office on in the Church, but the Sanctuary lamps were lit. The people prayed quite peacefully. — By office, she means that the Divine Office of the Liturgy of the Hours was not being recited by the Canons of the Basilica, as was done in ancient times: which would be the only reason to open Church doors at midnight, in 1820, as it had been for more than a thousand years. Finally, her vision that we will be allowed to pray peacefully in the Church is a great consolation.
Fourth Installment
“She (the Holy Mother) said a great many other things that it pains me to relate: she said that if only one priest could offer the bloodless sacrifice as worthily and with the same dispositions as the Apostles, he could avert all the disasters (that are to come). To my knowledge the people in the church did not see the apparition, but they must have been stirred by something supernatural, because as soon as the Holy Virgin had said that they must pray to God with outstretched arms, they all raised their arms. These were all good and devout people, and they did not know where help and guidance should be sought. There were no traitors and no enemies among them, yet they were afraid of one another. One can judge thereby what the situation was like.“
She (the Holy Mother) said a great many other things that it pains me to relate: she said that if only one priest could offer the bloodless sacrifice as worthily and with the same dispositions as the Apostles, he could avert all the disasters (that are to come). — Here Bl. Emmerich utters very sobering words. The shock which has descended upon all Catholics in Italy, from the decision of the Bishops to suspend all public services yesterday afternoon, until April 3 (and it is feared that it will not end then) has made everyone realize that we are indeed in apocalyptic times. That worse things might happen would be no surprise. Without the Mass, the forces of darkness will prevail for their hour of darkness. What she says about the one honest priest, I totally believe. But from my contacts among the clergy, I can affirm that they do not believe that one such priest exists among the Roman Clergy. However, the Blessed did not say he would be a diocesan priest. So let us pray that this priest comes forward.
To my knowledge the people in the church did not see the apparition, but they must have been stirred by something supernatural, because as soon as the Holy Virgin had said that they must pray to God with outstretched arms, they all raised their arms. — Every midnight, I ask those present to raise their arms and hold them raised for the space of the 77 our fathers, or about 32 minutes. It is a great consolation knowing that Our Lady has asked us here to do that.
These were all good and devout people, and they did not know where help and guidance should be sought. There were no traitors and no enemies among them, yet they were afraid of one another. One can judge thereby what the situation was like.“ — I pray to God that we are as good as the Blessed saw, but I get the impression she is referring to a crowd, here, and not just 3 to 5, as is the case every night.
Where are the crowds? That part of the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled. See below here.
The situation in which we are living would be considered fantastic and surreal fiction only 8 years ago. No wonder the prophecies of Bl. Emmerich were ignored for 200 years. But what we can gather from this brief passage, is that the Blessed has a special role of mediation in our times, and that we should pay attention to that, pray to her and ask God for special graces to help resolve this crisis. Let us be humble as Bl. Anna Caterina was, so that we might receive them, because God resists the proud, but to the humble He gives graces!
Emmerich Appeal: Let the crowds know!
Finally, for the sake of Bl. Emmerich, I would like to invite all of Rome to the Midnight Prayers at the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore. But I cannot do it without running an add in a local paper, which will cost $2750 USD. If there are any of you who are true disciples of and devoted to Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich, please consider that this is the hour in which you need to act.
One reader from the UK has just offered $280 USD, and asks me to publicly challenge 9 others to donate the other 9 tenths of this cost.
Many thanks to one Donor in Florida, another in New York, another in Northern California, another in Alabama, another in Pennsylvania, another in Nevada, another in Florida and another in Pennsylvania, and another in Germany, who have followed through with pledging each 1/10th of the expenses.
We have met the goal in just 48 hours. Thank you!
These prayers were begun on the initiative of Veri Catholici, the international association pledged to fight the St. Gallen Mafia (twitter account is @VeriCatholici), 40 days ago. In the meantime, though this Novena ends tonight, the Roman Catholics who join me every night have decided to keep thes prayers going as a Perpetual Prayer Crusade against the Church of Darkness. There are only 3 of us who presently come. I was alone for 18 days and our Lady granted 2 others to join me constantly and a third on occasion. I need your help to increase their numbers, because as Our Lady will say in the next section of the prophecy, which I will comment on, on Monday, She wants all the Catholics of Rome to come and pray.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
An answer to why Benedict resigned the ministerium not the munus
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The question has been raised for more than 7 years and numerous scholars have studied it and attempted to answer. The first was Father Stefano Violi, a canonist at the faculty of Lugano. Then, there was Antonio Socci who wrote numerous books on the matter. Then there was Ann Barnhardt who after her famous declaration of June 2016, that Pope Benedict XVI had made a substantial error, in the summer of 2019 published extensive documentation showing Joseph Ratzinger’s participation in discussions about splitting the Petrine Munus from the Petrine Ministerium in a shared papacy.
But the definitive answer on the question why he renounced the ministerium only and not the munus, I think was just given by Dr. Edmund Mazza in his Essay, cited by Edward Pentin yesterday, and republished in full at the suggestion of Dr. Mazza, here at FromRome.Info today and at the Most Rev. Rene Henry Gracida’s blog, Abyssum.org, where Bishop Gracida calls it a “brilliant” exposition.
It is brilliant because its is based only on Pope Benedict’s own words and the norms of Canon law. I will explain why, here, and use the same method.
Dr. Edmund Mazza holds a Ph.D. in Medieval History and was transitory collaborator with me at The Scholasticum, an Italian Non profit for the revival of the study and use of Scholastic method.
The Mind of Pope Benedict
Here I quote the key passage from Dr. Mazza, explaining why ministerium and not munus:
Seewald then observes: “One objection is that the papacy has been secularized by the resignation; that it is no longer a unique office but an office like any other.” Benedict replies:
I had to…consider whether or not functionalism would completely encroach on the papacy … Earlier, bishops were not allowed to resign…a number of bishops…said ‘I am a father and that I’ll stay’, because you can’t simply stop being a father; stopping is a functionalization and secularization, something from the sort of concept of public office that shouldn’t apply to a bishop. To that I must reply: even a father’s role stops. Of course a father does not stop being a father, but he is relieved of concrete responsibility. He remains a father in a deep, inward sense, in a particular relationship which has responsibility, but not with day-to-day tasks as such…If he steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function…one comes to understand that the office [munus] of the Pope has lost none of its greatness…
Benedict again goes to great lengths to contrast the difference between I. “the office of the Pope” and II. the ministry or “function” associated with it. How to “decode” Benedict? By examining the words he has chosen and the ways he has deployed them before.
(Blue coloring added for emphasis)
And Dr. Mazza continues, further below, after citing a key passage from a 1978 discourse by Ratzinger on personal responsibility and the Papacy,
This 1977 speech is, in fact, the key to deciphering, not only Benedict’s 2017 interview, but his 2013 resignation speech.
In 2017 Benedict says: “If he [the pope] steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility” he took on, but not in the “function,” or “day-to-day” tasks. In 1977 Ratzinger says: “this institution [the papacy] can exist only as a person and in particular and personal responsibility…” He adds: “He abides in obedience and thus in personal responsibility for Christ; professing the Lord’s death and Resurrection is his whole commission and personal responsibility.”
For Benedict, “personal responsibility” is the essence of what it means to be pope. To be responsible not as a public official filled with day to day tasks, but metaphysical responsibility for the flock of Christ. In his interview, Benedict says that although he “stepped down,” “HE REMAINS…WITHIN THE RESPONSIBILITY.” Translation: “He remains Pope!”
(Blue coloring added for emphasis)
Far Reaching Implications
Dr. Mazza has ably demonstrated that for Benedict the munus means the personal responsibility which can never be rejected, and the ministerium is the day to take fulfillment of the tasks in public way.
But he has also demonstrated that for Benedict, the Office of the Papacy is the personal responsibility of a single person. This is clearly seen in a brief quote from the 1977 talk, cited at length by Dr. Mazza in his essay:
The ‘‘we’’ unity of Christians, which God instituted in Christ through the Holy Spirit under the name of Jesus Christ and as a result of his witness, certified by his death and Resurrection, is in turn maintained by personal bearers of responsibility for this unity, and it is once again personified in Peter—in Peter, who receives a new name and is thus lifted up out of what is merely his own, yet precisely in a name, through which demands are made of him as a person with personal responsibility. In his new name, which transcends the historical individual, Peter becomes the institution that goes through history (for the ability to continue and continuance are included in this new appellation), yet in such a way that this institution can exist only as a person and in particular and personal responsibility…
(Blue coloring added for emphasis)
Conclusions of Fact and Interpretation
From this we are forced to conclude, the following:
- Pope Benedict XVI knew what he was doing.
- Pope Benedict XVI never intended to lay down the personal responsibility or munus
- Pope Benedict XVI only intended to leave aside the day to day work of the ministerium.
- Pope Benedict XVI therefore is still the pope and he thinks he is the pope.
- Pope Benedict XVI considers his act of renouncing the ministerium just as valid as his retention of the munus.
- Pope Benedict’s concept of Pope Emeritus signifies, thus, the retention of the munus and dignity in the full sense and of the office in a partial sense.
Conclusions of Law and Right
And from this we can conclude the following according to the norm of law:
Canon 188 – A renunciation made through grave fear, unjustly inflicted, deceit or substantial error, or even with simony, is irritus by the law itself.
Irritus, is a canonical term which means not done in such a way as to fulfill the norm of law. According to Wim Decock, Theologians and Contract Law: the Moral transformation of the Ius commune (1500-1650), p. 216, irritus means “automatically void” (Source)
We can see this from the Code of Canon Law itself, in canon 126:
Canon 126 – Actus positus ex ignorantia aut ex errore, qui versetur circa id quod eius substantiam constituit, aut qui recidit in condicionem sine qua non, irritus est; secus valet, nisi aliud iure caveatur, sed actus ex ignorantia aut ex errore initus locum dare potest actioni rescissoriae ad normam iuris.
Which in English is:
Canon 126 – An act posited out of ignorance or out of an error, which revolves around that which constitutes its substance, or which withdraws from a sine qua non condition, is irritus; otherwise it is valid, unless something else be provided for by law, but an act entered into out of ignorance or out of error, can give place to a rescissory action according to the norm of law.
Rescissory means revoking or rescinding. The final clause here means an act done erroneously can be repaired if the law allows for it by a subsequent act. There is no such provision in law for papal renunciations, they have to be clear in themselves or they have to be redone (source). The sine non qua condition here is found in canon 332 §2:
If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus, …..
This is the sine non qua condition. It is a condition because it begins with If, it is sine non qua, because it specifies the form and matter of the juridical act as a renunciation (form) of munus (matter). The form and matter together make the essence of a thing. That essence of a juridical act when posited cause the substance of the thing. Essence is the sine qua non of each thing, because without it a thing is not what it is. An error therefore about the matter to be renounced is thus a substantial error in the resulting act.
And hence, the kind of renunciation posited by Pope Benedict is automatically void, null and of no effect, because it violates the Divine Constitution of the Church, which requires that one and only one person hold both the papal dignity, office and munus. There can be no sharing of the office while there is a retention of the munus and dignity.
This argument is based solely on the words of Pope Benedict XVI and the words of canon law. It has, therefore, the highest authority and probability.
I challenge any Cardinal to refute this argument! — And if they cannot, then if they do not return in allegiance to Pope Benedict XVI, they are ipso facto excommunicated by canon 1364 for the delict of schism from the Roman Pontiff. All of them, each of them. And thus have no right to elect his successor.
I put you all on notice!
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
A Commentary on the prophecies of Bl. Emmerich – Part II
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
This series will have four installments, one for each paragraph of the prophecies given to Bl. Emmerich in 1820 regarding the crisis of the two popes
Though I have previously commented on Bl. Emmerich’s prophecies here in 2014 and here in 2015, this series regards the prophecies she received in 1820 & 1822 in regard to the two popes, as cited here.
In this second installment, I will comment on the prophecies Bl. Emmerich received on the Feast of Saint Clare of Assisi, 200 years ago:
August 10, 1822: “I see the Holy Father in great anguish. He lives in a palace other than before and he admits only a limited number of friends near him. I fear that the Holy Father will suffer many more trials before he dies. I see that the false Church of Darkness is making progress, and I see the dreadful influence that it has on people. The Holy Father and the Church are verily in so great a distress that one must implore God day and night.“
“Last night I was taken to Rome where the Holy Father, immersed in his sorrows, is still hiding to elude dangerous demands (made upon him). He is very weak, and exhausted by sorrows, cares, and prayers. He can now trust but few people. This is mainly why he is hiding. But he still has with him an aged priest who has much simplicity and godliness. He is his friend, and because of his simplicity they did not think it would be worth removing him. But this man receives many graces from God. He sees and notices a great many things which he faithfully reports to the Holy Father. It was required of me to inform him, while he was praying, of the traitors, and evil-doers who were to be found among the high-ranking servants living close to him, so that he might be made aware of it.“
Let’s unpack this prophecy and consider what it may mean. No one can give certain interpretations of such thins however, except by the gift of God.
I see the Holy Father in great anguish. He lives in a palace other than before and he admits only a limited number of friends near him. — This obviously and accurately refers to Pope Benedict at the Monastery of Mater Ecclesiae. The number of persons who ask to meet with him and never get a response is uncountable. This has given rise to intense speculation that he either does not receive his mail, or is being isolated without his realization, or is imprisoned. Only those who talk about things of no importance or book which he was writing get entrance. Cardinals and Bishops are generally refused.
I see that the false Church of Darkness is making progress, and I see the dreadful influence that it has on people. — This is an accurate and succinct prophetic description of the last 7 years. How many Catholics have gone over to the dark side. The number is frightening.
The Holy Father and the Church are verily in so great a distress that one must implore God day and night. — This is indubitable. But only true Catholics are doing it. The rest want the revolution because it serves their dominant vices.
Last night I was taken to Rome where the Holy Father, immersed in his sorrows, is still hiding to elude dangerous demands (made upon him). He is very weak, and exhausted by sorrows, cares, and prayers. He can now trust but few people. This is mainly why he is hiding. — Here Bl. Anna Catherina explains the motives for the Pope acting as he does. I do not think anyone has refuted this. The recent treachery of Ganswein his personal secretary for more than 30 years is the worst of them all.
But he still has with him an aged priest who has much simplicity and godliness. He is his friend, and because of his simplicity they did not think it would be worth removing him. But this man receives many graces from God. He sees and notices a great many things which he faithfully reports to the Holy Father. — This priest has not been positively identified. Many thought it was Ganswein, but that obviously is now proven to be incorrect. It could be his own brother, but his brother does not live with him. To my knowledge, no priest lives with him.
It was required of me to inform him, while he was praying, of the traitors, and evil-doers who were to be found among the high-ranking servants living close to him, so that he might be made aware of it.“ — Here it seems that Bl. Emmerich is prophetically indicating that she will appear or inspire this priest friend of Pope Benedict. Let us pray that this be and that this priest friend heeds the warnings received!
The situation in which we are living would be considered fantastic and surreal fiction only 8 years ago. No wonder the prophecies of Bl. Emmerich were ignored for 200 years. But what we can gather from this brief passage, is that the Blessed has a special role of mediation in our times, and that we should pay attention to that, pray to her and ask God for special graces to help resolve this crisis. Let us be humble as Bl. Anna Caterina was, so that we might receive them, because God resists the proud, but to the humble He gives graces!
Emmerich Appeal
Finally, for the sake of Bl. Emmerich, I would like to invite all of Rome to the Midnight Prayers at the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore. But I cannot do it without running an add in a local paper, which will cost $2750 USD. If there are any of you who are true disciples of and devoted to Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich, please consider that this is the hour in which you need to act.
One reader from the UK has just offered $280 USD, and asks me to publicly challenge 9 others to donate the other 9 tenths of this cost. So here goes:
[simple-payment id=”10053″]
Many thanks to one Donor in Florida, another in New York, another in Northern California, another in Alabama, another in Pennsylvania, another in Nevada, and another in Germany, who have followed through with pledging each 1/10th of the expenses. We need 2 more such zealous souls!
These prayers were begun on the initiative of Veri Catholici, the international association pledged to fight the St. Gallen Mafia (twitter account is @VeriCatholici), 40 days ago. In the meantime, though this Novena ends tonight, the Roman Catholics who join me every night have decided to keep thes prayers going as a Perpetual Prayer Crusade against the Church of Darkness. There are only 3 of us who presently come. I was alone for 18 days and our Lady granted 2 others to join me constantly and a third on occasion. I need your help to increase their numbers, because as Our Lady will say in the next section of the prophecy, which I will comment on, on Monday, She wants all the Catholics of Rome to come and pray.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
On the Expulsion of Jews from Western Catholic Monarchies: Part III
Undoing Historical Revisionism
Expulsions of European Jewry, 1290-1492
by Austin Walsh
Part III: In Spain Terror, Larceny and State Sanctioned Murder
After the Moors invaded Visigoth Spain in 711, the facts were plain and well-known that the Saracens would not have attempted the invasion were it not for the treason by way of intelligence furnished by local Jews who, as it were, held open the Gates of Toledo for the enemy. However, Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin were to plant the foundations of a glorious future only eleven years later, and fittingly, originating from a cave beyond which Saracen advances on Visigoth territory never did advance.
Our Lady of Covadonga and her son Don Pelayo loom large in a chapter of Catholic history that, while separate from this article, prove well worthy of any Catholic reader hungering for restoration. Visigoths surely taught the sons of their sons to be ever mindful of the death of their nation at the hands of treacherous Jews. The Councils of Toledo (400-681) had wisely decreed that Jews incorrigibly subverted the well-being of the state and should be barred in perpetuity from holding government office. However, after eight hundred years of preoccupation with recapturing their ancestral home from the Musselmen, this lesson was to be learned again the hard way. Maurice Pinay, the singular pseudonym for the several authors of the absolutely essential-to-read The Plot Against the Church, recount for us the terror endured by the Spanish in the late Fourteenth Century under Monarch Peter the Cruel. (A full and free PDF download of the English translation of The Plot Against the Church is available via Cognitive Gateway.)
Then the Christian kingdom of Iberia (Spain)… promoted the Jews to government members and even to ministers or royal state treasurers. As a result they violated the decisions of the Holy Church Councils, which excluded the Jews from government offices.
The Jews turned back once again to their traditional tactics, to gain their enemies through seeming good conduct and effective services, thus obtaining valuable offices which made it possible to them to later conquer the states which had offered them protection. They therefore left no opportunity unused in order to get into their hands control over this Christian kingdom, which had already become a second Palestine to them, into which they streamed ready and willing. The Jews came to Castile at a time when they had reached the high point of their power. (20)
Still an adolescent upon ascending the throne in 1350, Peter the Cruel took as his advisor Jewish leader Samuel Ha-Levi Abulafia, whose influence over the King increased, giving him power like no other before him. (21) This influence proved disastrous for Peter’s subjects, who were subject to a reign of terror and murder like no other during that period of history. Interestingly, regarding Peter the Cruel’s appetite for the killing of layman and clergy alike, Pinay traces a direct parallel to the murderous Jewish Bolshevik’s of Soviet Russia. No one in Castile felt safe. Pinay continues,
Unfortunately, however, history proves to us that every time the Jews in a Christian or pagan state attain “the highpoint of their power”, a terrible wave of murders and terror is unleashed, and Christian or pagan blood flows in streams. Thus it also occurred under Peter from the moment when the Jews obtained decisive influence upon education and government…The Jews attained high regard and the synagogues prospered, while the Churches decayed and the clergy and the Christians were disgracefully persecuted. (22)
Here another pattern can be seen in the larger context when considering aforementioned events in England and France: the more power Jews obtain, the greater the abuse and persecution to be suffered by the kingdom’s subjects. The bloodshed arising from such abuse is documented not only in the form of occult ritual killing seen in England and France, but in open murder of subjects by the monarchy so influenced, as noted here about Castile. Fittingly, this pattern also applies to royal treasuries. Whereas in England and France, the lending of money to the crown proved highly pernicious, under Peter the Cruel, who was a veritable thrall of his own Jewish advisors, usury devolved into crass and enormous theft. Such was the case when Peter’s advisor Samuel was betrayed by envious fellow Jews, accused of stealing gold and silver for himself, and forfeited his life. Pinay retells the discovery recorded by a chronicler of the period,
“And it (his death) caused the King much sorrow, when he learned of it, and upon the advice of these Jews he commanded to bring him all his possessions. The houses of Samuel were searched, and they found a subterranean chamber with three mountains of gold and silver coins, bars and pieces. Each individual one was so high that a man could hide behind it. And King Peter inspected them and said: “If Samuel had only given me the third part of the smallest of these heaps, then I would not have had him tortured. But he preferred to die, without telling me.” The fact that Jewish treasurers or finance ministers stole was not new. Many had been deposed for this reason. (23)
Tyrannized by Jew-controlled Peter the Cruel, the subjects of Castile languished until the Pope excommunicated Peter and declared his subjects free of any obligation to submit to Peter’s authority. At the same time, the Pope declared Henry – Peter’s half brother- the lawful King of Castile. With the Pope’s blessing, Henry made war against Peter. In 1369, after a battle driving Peter, that tool of Spanish Jewry, into a castle near Toledo, a meeting was arranged via a certain double-agent envoy, at which Henry slew Peter, thus ending the terror.
Abravanel, the Monarchs and the Final Decree
The next and final chapter of Jew-orchestrated chaos in Spain began in 1483 with the arrival from Portugal of treason-suspect and refugee, the Jew Isaac Abravanel. As per typical historical pattern, Abravanel opened a bank, obtained an invitation to the Court of Ferdinand and Isabella, and succeeded in ingratiating himself with the Monarchy. Returning to Ryssen
Ferdinand and Isabella then entrusted him with the Spanish finances, despite the prohibition, frequently renewed by the Cortes, against entrusting any employment whatever to a Jew. “He himself’, writes Graetz, “recalls that his services brought him riches and honours, that he was highly esteemed at court, and before the high nobility of Castile”. As at Lisbon, he caused his fellow Jews to profit from his elevated position. It was certainly Abravanel who protected the Jews of Castile from the punishments which the inquisitors would have inflicted upon them for supporting the marranos. (24)
Nine years after Abravanel’s arrival in Spain, the southern region of Granada, final holdout for Islamic Spain, fell into Christian hands on January 2nd, 1492. After eight centuries, Visigoth Toledo was avenged, and this time unlike during the previous century, the Monarchs had seemingly crystal clear recollection of Jews’ role in the downfall of 711. Ryssen again,
On 31 March 1492, by an edict dated from the palace of the Alhambra, the Catholic Kings ordered the expulsion of all Jews from Spain. They were ordered, on pain of death, to leave the territories of Castile, Aragon, Sicily and Sardinia within four months. (25)
Now what have our Talmudic friends at the Jewish Virtual Library to say about this expulsion? It seems as if both the JVL and Ryssen use nineteenth century Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz as their source, as both accounts are in agreement. First the Jewish Virtual Library (source),
Tens of thousands of refugees died while trying to reach safety. In some instances, Spanish ship captains charged Jewish passengers exorbitant sums, then dumped them overboard in the middle of the ocean. In the last days before the expulsion, rumors spread throughout Spain that the fleeing refugees had swallowed gold and diamonds, and many Jews were knifed to death by brigands hoping to find treasures in their stomachs.
Now Ryssen,
The rumour of this practice became current, and certain Spaniards did not hesitate to disembowel them in order to search for treasure in their entrails. The captains of Genoese ships treated them with “ferocious savagery”. “Out of greed of simple caprice, to revel in the sufferings and desperate cries of the Jews, they threw large numbers of them overboard”. It was clear that the Spanish had nourished notions of vengeance against the Jews for many years, and were not about to waste their opportunity. (26)
How unfortunate indeed for these murdered Jews, who themselves as individuals were forced to suffer greatly in excess of any anti-Catholic antagonism in which they might have participated.
This is the difficult lesson faced by this subversive sect who, century after century, in Kingdom after Kingdom, so mistreat and abuse their host country that their presence becomes intolerable. In Visigoth Spain their treason was so malevolent, destructive and continuous through history, even as Spain emerged and attempted to unite itself in the fifteenth century, that those enacting the expulsion found themselves avenging the slaughter, enslavement and humiliation of their own ancestors, unrequited for eight hundred years.
While affirming on the one hand, Church teaching that no one has a right to harm the Jew; on the other, the Jew has no right to subvert, slander, swindle or slaughter any Catholic Kingdom or its subjects. This sort of lawlessness is precisely what England, France and Spain’s Jews put into practice.
All murder is regrettable, whether the victim be Christian or Jew. Thus this writer posits without contesting the Jewish Virtual Library’s prerogative to decry the harm done to Jews during their expulsion from Spain. However, the same also asserts the Catholic’s right and duty to mourn and remember all the Catholics murdered by perfidious, Christ-hating Jews, throughout the Church’s history. William of Norwich was a saintly boy who offered harm to no one, but was abducted, tortured, drained of his blood, murdered and discarded as if he were one hundred pounds of rubbish. This writer reserves mourning for the Church Militant, who while gaining a Saint, has endured a deep injustice. Just as no one has the right to harm the Jew, no Jew has the right to cram a phony historiography down the throat of any Catholic.
Weaponized Jewish Historiography vs. Authentic Catholic Counter-Narrative
This inquiry into expulsions from Jews from kingdoms of Christendom leads to surprising discoveries regarding Jewish behavior, which in its malevolence invariably exceeds all rational limits and proportions, to the point where destruction falls upon Jews themselves by way of expulsion.
These excesses continue to this day and are observable in Jewish historiography which denies by way of omission their own culpability in the disasters which befell them. Not one word of acknowledgement is written that would admit even a small portion of responsibility resting with history’s Jews. Neither is one syllable of consideration given to the point of view of history’s Catholic protagonists.
Regarding historiography and education, if the reader take even a cursory look round, he’ll see that history texts are permeated by Jewish publishers, editors, and of course, that comic-book style historiography and the Christ-hating, anti-Catholic bigotry which that historiography attempts to conceal. It behooves today’s Catholics therefore, to speak plainly with one another about this concealed Christ-hatred to be found just beneath the surface of this Judaized historiography.
Once our Catholic voice and vocabulary on this topic is regained, we can again begin asserting our historical counter-narrative among both Catholic and non-Catholic listeners and readers. Prior, however, to both the reasserting and the speaking plainly, is the knowing the truth for oneself. Completing this priority step involves criticizing, questioning and deprogramming from the relentlessly pushed varieties of Jewish comic book history that constantly crop up in media/alt-media/social media, and even Catholic media. Authors like Pinay, Ryssen, and E. Michael Jones can be a great start. It is time that Catholic minds were liberated.
Finally, a word on the intention behind the phony histories promoted by the likes of the Jewish Virtual Library, not only a contempt for the very concept of objective truth, but also a component of a larger and more pernicious long-term agenda. A quote follows, from a Jewish document dating back to 1489, attributed to the Great Sanhedrin, a hidden group alleged to this day to guide the work of world Jewry, and in the following letter encouraging other Jews suffering a setback at the hands of the French. The letter both disturbs and reveals much about the Jewish vision for Jewish-Catholic dialogue.
Dear beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great pain to hear it as yourselves. The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following:
As for what you say that the King of France obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise, but let the law of Moses be kept in your hearts.
1) As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your goods: make your sons merchants, that little by little they may despoil the Christians of theirs.
2) As for what you say about their making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians’ lives.
3) As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons cannons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches.
4) As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix themselves up with the affairs of State, in order that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them.
This concludes the Series.
_________________
FOOTNOTES:
20 Pinay, Maurice; The Plot Against the Church; 1962; Online English Edition, (T. P. Johnson, Trans.), pp. 357-58.
21 Ibid..
22 Ibid., p. 359.
23 Ibid., p. 363.
24 Ryssen, op. cit., p. 254.
25 Ibid., p. 255.
26 Ibid. p. 256.
CREDITS: For the Featured Image, see credits to Part I.
FromRome.Info wishes to thank Mr. Walsh for his research and contribution of this series.
A Commentary on the prophecies of Bl. Emmerich – Part I
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
This series will have four installments, one for each paragraph of the prophecies given to Bl. Emmerich in 1820 and 1822 regarding the crisis of the two popes
On what would be the future date of the first apparition of Our Lady at Fatima 97 years later, Our Lady revealed the future of the Church to Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich:
May 13, 1820: “I saw the relationship between the two Popes. I saw how baleful would be the consequences of this false church. I saw it increase in size; heretics of every kind came into the city (of Rome). The local clergy grew lukewarm, and I saw a great darkness. Then, the vision seemed to extend on every side. Whole Catholic communities were being oppressed, harassed, confined, and deprived of their freedom. I saw many churches close down, great miseries everywhere, wars and bloodshed. A wild and ignorant mob took to violent action. But it did not last long.“ „Once more I saw the Church of Peter was undermined by a plan evolved by the secret sect, while storms were damaging it. But I saw also that help was coming when distress had reached its peak. I saw again the Blessed Virgin ascend on the Church and spread Her mantle [over it]. I saw a Pope who was at once gentle, and very firm . . . I saw a great renewal, and the Church rose high in the sky.“
Let’s unpack this prophecy and consider what it may mean. No one can give certain interpretations of such thins however, except by the gift of God.
Two popes …. this false church. The implication is clearly that the false church is headed by one of these two popes.
I saw it increase in size; heretics of every kind came into the city (of Rome). — This is the constant parade of globalists and heretics which Bergoglio is inviting to the Vatican and installing in positions of power in the Roman Curia and in the Diocese of Rome.
The local clergy grew lukewarm, and I saw a great darkness. — The clergy of Rome have indeed become indifferent to the crisis of a patently heretical heretic loving pope. The truth of the Gospel is now being actively suppresses. This great darkness is surely all these things but especially the alteration of the Our Father, in Italian, which Bergoglio intends to impose upon the Diocese this April.
Then, the vision seemed to extend on every side. Whole Catholic communities were being oppressed, harassed, confined, and deprived of their freedom. I saw many churches close down, — She is now shown in vision what will happen to the whole Church, both in the East and in the West. The Bergoglio’s pact with China has opened a massive persecution there, Churches closed and destroyed, Catholics arrested and put under house arrest if not thrown into prison. Also many religious communities in the west suppressed by the Vatican. Finally, the Corona Virus response has been to close the Churches in many dioceses and stop all sacramental celebrations.
great miseries everywhere, wars and bloodshed. — We should expect terrible upheavals in the world soon: wars and rebellions and plagues. The Corona Virus itself can become much more leathal in just 48 hours, if God permits this to punish humanity.
A wild and ignorant mob took to violent action. But it did not last long. — Whether this refers to riots and where, is not clear. Here in Italy there is already an Italian verison of Antifa which gathers and performs violent riots to keep the universally hated left wing government in power.
Once more I saw the Church of Peter was undermined by a plan evolved by the secret sect, while storms were damaging it. — Here she calls the true Church, the Church of Peter, to signify that one of these two popes is the true successor of Saint Peter, the other is an imposter. The secret sect is clearly the St. Gallen Mafia, but one cannot exclude the Masonic Lodge or the Lavender Mafia.
But I saw also that help was coming when distress had reached its peak. I saw again the Blessed Virgin ascend on the Church and spread Her mantle [over it] — I cannot fail to note that on the facade of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, Our Lady’s statue is placed at its peak. In that Basilica is found the ancient Icon of Our Lady Salus Populi, which is said to be painted by Saint Luke, and whose title means: Salvation of the people. Romans fly to this basilica in times of strife, war and plague to ask Her help.
I saw a Pope who was at once gentle, and very firm . . . I saw a great renewal, and the Church rose high in the sky.“ — Whether this refers to Pope Benedict, or his successor is not clear. But from it we can gather that Bergoglio is certainly not it. The image of the Church rising high in the sky, refers to the return of the splendor of the Church in holiness and conformity to God’s Will, seeking the salvation of souls and practicing chastity and celibacy which detach Her from the base desires of the earth.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
Was it Substantial Error or Divine Inspiration?
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
A frequent question that I receive is that which regards why Pope Benedict XVI renounced the ministry which was committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals and not the petrine ministry which he received when he accepted his election as Roman Pontiff.
The First to Answer is Ann Barnhardt
The first to answer this question substantially, was Ann Barnhardt. And she did that in June of 2016, way before anyone else. Her explanation is that Pope Benedict XVI made a substantial error. His declaration, therefore, does not effect the loss of the papal office because this error of naming the wrong thing in the act of renunciation causes the act to be irritus – Ann, however, nearly always says, “invalid” for simplicity sake — in virtue of Canon 188, which means that it has no legal effect.
Her analysis and argument was the first to break through the Big Lie of our age. And it has rescued countless minds from the lies and propaganda of the Bergoglian party. It was the first convincing argument I ever heard. I watched it in one of her videos in August of 2018 and in October of 2018 I actually made the time to look at the Latin of the Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013 and the Latin of the Code of Canon Law, canon 332 §2, two things I had never done. I saw she was 100% correct in about 5 seconds.
That is all it should take for anyone to see that she is correct. Because the act of the intellect which is needed to see it is the first act of the mind: that ability — given to us by the Most Holy Trinity who creates our soul out of nothing in the moment of our conception — to recognize the essence of any thing for what it is before comparing it to anything else.
And there is only 3 ways to not be able to exercise that ability. The First is that your are mentally impaired or retarded. The Second is that, in this case, you cannot read. And the third case is that you allow your will to prevent you from thinking, either by bad will or because you allow yourself to be seduced by an unsubstantiated doubt, gratuitously asserted.
Those who have the first problem are not guilty. Those who have the second problem should study if they can. And those who have the third problem will be damned, because in matter so grave as who is the true Pope, the forcible intervention of will to prevent the mind from seeing what God gave it the ability to see, is a direct attack on the Divine Will for you, and thus a mortal sin.
As regards a substantial error, it can be caused by any number of causes. But that is another thing all together. Regardless of what was the cause, the substantial error is objective. No amout of ink, argument or bluster, no amount of insults or villainy can change the historical fact that Benedict renounced the ministerium, but Canon 332 §2 requires the renunciation of munus.
The Second Answer is Divine Inspiration
I was not the second to give answer, nor was I the first to suggest divine inspiration. Archbishop Gänswein himself said that Pope Benedict XVI was inspired by God to do what he did. I think in the book length interview with Peter Seewald, Pope Benedict XVI confirms this.
But what many do not realize, there are at lest 19 kinds of Divine Inspiration, and not all of them have the same effects. I know this because many years ago, when I was in a library with some ancient manuscripts, I read Saint Bernardine of Sienna’s tract on divine inspiration written in the 15th century, in Latin.
I will not summarize the 19 kinds, but I will simplify the classifications. There is Divine Inspiration which is perfectly efficacious and is the cause of the whole act. There is Divine Inspiration which is efficacious but requires collaboration in the act by the fallible recipient of the inspiration, and then there is Divine Inspiration which is only motive and puts all the burden of work in the one inspired, infallible as he is.
So, even if it be true that Pope Benedict XVI was divinely inspired to renounce, that does not mean that what he did was Divinely Inspired in every aspect of it.
I have no reason to think Pope Benedict XVI is a liar and thus accept what he says about being inspired by God. And in several articles, here at FromRome.Info I have speculated that he acted to defend the Church from Freemasonry. In this I presume not to judge the Pope, as the Rule of Saint Francis requires me. I also presume that he did not sin in the least. And in this I am merely obeying charity, which thinketh no evil of any man.
Third Answer is Both
The third possibility is that he was both inspired by God and made a substantial error. And that this happened because God gave him the inspiration to resign, but not the grace to do it perfectly. And that God did this because God wanted to protect the Church from Freemasonry, but did not want Pope Benedict XVI to be guilty of making a fake resignation or of being accused of deceiving anyone.
If such was the case, God also acted perfectly. Because He owes no man grace to be perfect and impeccable in what he does, not even the Roman Pontiff.
In this case, too, it may be that God blinded the minds of the Cardinals and Bishops to not see the substantial error in the act of renunciation because He was completely disgusted with them and wants to cut them off from His Church, or at least to so humiliate them before men as to produce from them a wholesome repentance and conversion which would not be achieved through any other means.
In this third supposition, Pope Benedict XVI may have sinned through pride, imprudence, haste, fear or avarice, depending whether the substantial error was conceived and executed out of vanity, neglect of seeking sound counsel, fear to avoid being assassinated or desire to have something after resigning that he had no right to have.
Conclusion
As can be seen, the First Answer addresses the objective facts and presumes personal fault or error and excludes divine inspiration. The second presumed divine inspiration and excludes personal fault or error. But the third and last presumes in part divine inspiration but in part some personal fault.
Yes, as Pope Innocent II teaches, we cannot judge the Roman Pontiff except when he errs in matters of the faith. And thus, we must say that it was a substantial error and affirm that it is an error to hold that the papacy can be divided. But as the Church has not definitively taught this truth — though it be clear in the Deposit of the Faith — holding this error does not cause you to be a heretic canonically. And acting on the basis of this error is not the same thing as professing the error, because, as I said, the error can arise out of passion and not dissent of mind.
But whatever was the reason answer, (1) we are all obliged to pray for Pope Benedict XVI and (2) urge that the right canonical order be restored in the Church: that he be recognized as the one and only true Pope, that it be affirmed that Bergoglio was never the pope, and that Bergoglio be publicly reproved for teaching heresy and promoting schism, if not also for usurping the papal office (on the supposition he does know the resignation is invalid).
Both things need to be done: here at FromRome.Info we are not heroes or better than anyone else in the Church, nor even experts. We just advocate that which the Faith teaches all of us should advocate in such a crisis.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]