Category Archives: Editorials

The Faith must be our Security Policy, or it means nothing

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

One of the great modern errors is to think that the Catholic Faith is a collection of ideas, doctrines, teachings, and not the adhesion of the mind to revealed truth, which comes from the God Who is Truth and Who cannot deceive.

This error leads us to think that the Faith is something you can find in a book, copy, and repeat, but which does not enter into the firm purpose of your mind AND heart.

The man who allows this error into his mind is very willing to dialogue with unbelievers, because he has already relegated the Faith to a curious anachronism, a body of knowledge, which does not hold him bound in everything and at all times.

But such a faith is not the first principle of thought or action.  It is rather a database to be referred to when it suits the one who knows it, even if he call himself a believer.

But the true notion of the Faith is something which is the first principle of our thoughts and actions, and the security policy of our very existence.

It is the first principle, because in every consideration the Faith is the first rule by which all is judged, measured, examined, questioned and doubted.  And as the first principle of our thoughts and actions, we never question it, doubt it, or put it under examination. Least of all do we put it on the same level as opinion, superstition, error or falsehood. Likewise, we never pretend or tolerate that it be considered a human invention or handiwork.

As the first principle of our thoughts and actions, it is the rule of our heart and the security of our souls. Because just as the very first response to any threat to head of state is the response of his security team, who without asking questions and presuming things benign, takes immediate action to prevent harm, placing itself in a defensive posture, so our Faith must be mobilized whenever there is any threat to our eternal salvation or that of anyone else, even if he is not yet a believer.

Understanding and employing faith in this correct way, we are saved from a multitude of sins, and from all mortal sin, because we turn aside from temptations and occasions of sins before the risk of mortal sin even appears. We choose rather an entirely different course of action and head out on the path to Heaven, in the fulfillment of our duties to God, in works of charity, and in the sanctification and mortification of our own persons.

Against this right notion of faith as a first principle and security policy, the Devil of our age screams, “Tolerance!” so that we lower our defenses and place our faith on the same level of perverse sentiments, ungodly error, and self-destructive superstitions, or politically induced mental diseases. He wants us to tolerate abomination, perversion, insanity, madness, capriciousness, whimsical-ness and fraud and liars of every kind.

The hallmark of the true Christian, however, is his intolerance of evil, sin and error. To the one who is in error or sin, but who does not defend his sin or error, we should always be ready with a word of hope and point them to true salvation, in Christ Jesus our Lord. But to the one who defends his sin and error, we must take a position of absolute intransigence and recognize that they are a threat not only to our souls and those of our loved ones, but to our nation and humanity itself. Such persons should never be allowed to form political parties, movements or hold office. To allow such a thing would be to allow the suicide of the nation, the enslavement of the weak and innocent, the abuse of the institutions of government and civilization.

Contrariwise, as sincere Christians, when we hold office we are obliged by Jesus Christ to enact laws and regulations which defend the whole of society from such insane persons. For the man who cannot govern himself is in no way fit to govern or guide a nation.

This is the true vision of the Catholic Faith. Anything less is a counterfeit product.

+ + +

If you would like to support FromRome.Info, click the banner below.


Donate to support FromRome.Info

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



The Left is working for a Coup d’etat in the USA

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Left has always been inspired by the thought of murdering their opponents. From the revolts in the Commune of Paris in the mid 19th century — whence comes the name, Communists — to the murder of 60 millions souls by the Marxists of Russia, China, Cambodia etc., in the 20th century.

Now in the U.S.A it has become clear that the riots have nothing to do with George Floyd, but everything to do about Marxist revolution. The Left sees black people and leftist dupes as able and controllable puppents to incite race warfare. The burning, destruction and murder of whites who stand against them. They want Trump gone, but not because they hate Trump, because they want a Soviet Union of the United States.

This goes hand in hand with the long term Masonic agenda, which has always supported Marxism.

Will the mayhem burn itself out? Or will it be incited further.

Will Trump and Biden be assassinated so that the House of Representatives can chose an  president pro tempore (Biden). Will elections be suspended to avoid COVID-19? Or be done by mail in ballots, where there is no way to verify the count before it is certified?

We might be seeing the events which will lead to the end of the American Republic. The Soviet Union of America might be rolled out by the end of this year.

There is now only a thin thread of liberty holding American together as a nation. A thin thread, because the Left has declared that it no longer wants anything to do with the historical notion of America or the Constitution, and that they are willing to use the most extreme violence and hate to achieve that end.


CREDITS: The Featured Image above is a selection of Tweets published after the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Since the level of hate has not decreased but only increased from the side of the Left, it would be extremely naive to think that these same intentions are not at the heart of the plan of what is unfolding in the USA today. There are more than 60 million dead from the 20th century who would urge us not to take the Left as a joke. They are deadly, deadly serious.

+ + +


If you would like to support FromRome.Info, click the banner below.


U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Federal Employment is an attack on the Constitution

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Today’s ruling in the Supreme Court of the United States represents yet another usurpation of authority by the Court, but one so grave and perverse, that it would be just that the citizens arrest the justices of the majority opinion and put them in prison, as well as all those who opposed such a sentence.

To arrogate a Divine Authority so as to declare good what is evil, and a right what is merely a perverse desire to do perverse things, is not only diabolic it is fundamentally irrational, attacking as it does the very order by which citizens respect the law.

Courts have been doing this for some time. But until citizens fight back with physical acts, the right to have a legitimate and honest government among men will be denied.

This decision of the Supreme Court lacks all legitimacy and constitutionality. And all who implement it will be criminals and traitors against the natural rights of everyone in the United States of America.

No one has a right to do anything which is evil, contrary to nature, or harmful of themselves or others. All have the duty to live honestly. A State exists so as to maintain the honesty and justice of the society. When it is manipulated by grossly immoral persons or justices, then it becomes a criminal organization, not a state which is owed the obedience and taxes of its citizens.

And the rights of all to have a government which represses wickedness and defends the honest against the wicked precedes all constitutions and laws. Indeed, in defense of this right all men have the right to take up arms and overthrow such criminal states. They moreover have the solemn natural right to use physical force, even deadly force, to prevent the imposition of laws which attack the natural order and the rights of citizens to live, work, hire and fire, buy and sell, speak and worship in accord with the natural order.


CREDITS: Photo by John Ravi, used here according to a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.

+ + +

If you would like to support FromRome.Info, click the banner below.



Clamorous errors in the Latin of the Renunciation



By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Thus read the headlines in the newspapers within days of the publication of the official Latin text of the Act of Renunciation made by Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013: Clamorous Errors in the Latin text of the Renunciation. (here and  on point, here). These articles only spoke of the errors of commissum not commisso and vitae instead of vita.

And in this case, the headlines were not misrepresenting the reality. For I have discerned at least 40 errors!

Yet, the propaganda machine immediately went to work and anyone who on social media in 2013 began talking about errors was immediately and viciously attacked as judging the pope! — The real purpose was that the Lavender Mafia was very worried about anyone questioning the validity. I remember my professor in Canon Law diverting the lectures he made in February and March of that year to teach things about certain canons in an erroneous way so as to stifle any consideration of the invalidity. But he did it with such subtlety that only after all these years do I recognize what he did. — The other voices shouting down criticism of the Latin are all part of the circles of those conservative Cardinals who just impaled their reputations by demanding unquestioning obedience to Bergoglio after his acts of idolatrous worship and reverence. That was when the controlled opposition of Trad Inc. was born. It was their first act of loyalty to the regime. And it indicates they were positioned to respond and were told what to do.

So for the sake of a more exact historical truth, I will discuss here these errors and give an English translation of what Pope Benedict XVI’s Latin said (in a Later post, since there are too many errors to be discussed). I do this to correct any misunderstanding given by my previous English translation of the Act of Renunciation, in the article I entitled, “A Literal English translation of Benedict XVI’s Discourse on Feb. 11, 2013“, where by “literal” I mean faithful to the sense, not to the grammar of the Latin employed.

I base my comments on the Latin text on my own knowledge of the Latin tongue garnered in 14 years of translating of some nine thousand Letter sized pages of medieval Latin ecclesiastic texts into English. I will be the first one to say that I do not think I am an expert in the matter, but I do think it would be no exaggeration to say that there are only a handful of men alive today in the Church who have translated more Latin than myself. I also wrote a popular Ecclesiastical Latin Textbook and Video series, which I produced for Mansfield Community TV, in Massachusetts, USA, and which The Franciscan Archive distributed for some years after the publication of Summorum pontificum.

And thus, conceding I can always learn from others, I will also draw from two German Scholars who publicly critiqued the Latin text: the professor of Philology, Wilfried Stroh (see here) and those of Attorney Arthur Lambauer, a Vienese lawyer, whose comments are recorded in part here.

I can also give personal witness to the fact that the Latinists who have worked in the Vatican during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI are aware of all of these errors (and probably of more) and have only been reticent for personal reasons, from what I gather from having had the occasion to dine with one at an Agritourismo, at Bagnoregio, Italy, in the summer of 2016.

First, the Latin Text in Black, with RED indicating the errors of expression (numbering each), after which I will comment on each error section by section, because there are so many. The official Latin text can be found at the Vatican Website (here).

Fratres carissimi

Non solum propter tres canonizationes (1) ad hoc Consistorium (2) vos convocavi (3), sed etiam ut vobis (4) decisionem (5) magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita (6) communicem (7). Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata (8) ad cognitionem certam (9) perveni (10) vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse (11) ad munus Petrinum aeque (12) administrandum.

  1. To say propter tres canonizationes is to mean for the sake of or on account of, three acts of canonizing. This grammatical structure in Latin means, not that the Pope has called the Cardinals together to conduct or announce the canonization of three groups or individuals, but that somehow the Cardinals have been convoked to honor the acts of canonizing or because the acts themselves cannot be completed without them. But the act of canonization is a papal act which does not require the Cardinals. Therefore, the correct Latin should be in trium canonizationum annuntiationem, that is, to announce my decision to decree three acts of canonization, as the Latin construction beginning with the preposition in is used to express purpose. This is a common error of those who have never carefully read any Latin text and who impose a modern meaning upon what they think a Latin preposition means.
  2. To say ad hoc Consistorium may very well be the custom of the Papal court — to this I cannot comment — however, in Latin, since consistorium is an act of standing together, not a place to which the Cardinals are convoked, but a solemn way of gathering together, the correct grammatical structure should be in hoc consistorio.
  3. A pope when he acts, speaks in the first person plural, that is, with the royal “We”. The man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man and not the pope, speaks with the first person singular, “I”.  Therefore, the correct form of the verb here should be convocavimus.
  4. The Latin verb communicem takes the preposition cum not the dative of reference, and thus vobis should read instead vobiscum. As it stands, the only possible grammatical function of vobis would be as a dative of possession for decisionem!
  5.  I agree here with Dr. Stroh, that the word should be consilium not decisionem, because this latter Latin word means a “act of cutting off”, or at best an “act of making a decision”, which clearly is not apropos to the thing at hand, because the Pope has not included them in the decision making process, only declaring a decision which he has already made. And consilium is the proper word for such a thing as that, when done by a superior with authority.
  6. This is the most absurd error of them all. The person who wrote this does not even understand that in Latin you use the dative of reference not a phrase beginning with a preposition as in modern languages. This should read Ecclesiae vitae, for as it stands it says on behalf of the life of the Church or for the sake of the life of the Church; unless of course he is making a reference to a grave threat to the life of the Church for which this act is intended to defend that life. This may be, but as nearly all modern computer programs which do translations into Latin get this wrong in just this way, I will presume it is ignorance, not a hint.
  7. Since the renunciation is by the person, not the pope, we see in the next sentence that He begins speaking in the first person as the man, but I think since this subordinate clause is still that part of the text said by the Roman Pontiff, as the Pontiff, it should be in the first person plural. communicemus. The sentence which follows, therefore, in the first person, should begin a new paragraph, to show this distinction of power.
  8. This is entirely the wrong word. Because this word in Latin refers to the exploration of a place or region or the investigation into a thing which physical dimensions or size, or is the military term for spying or watching something to gain information. It is never used with spiritual things, for certainly your conscience is not a world unto itself, it is a faculty of knowing. The correct term should be one which means exposed or settled, on account of the reference to being before or in the presence of God.
  9. These words are not only badly chosen but insufficient to precipitate the indirect discourse which follows. The correct Latin way of saying this is to write nunc bene cognosco quod (I now recognize well that) instead of ad cognitionem certam perveni (I have arrived at certain knowing).
  10. This verb does not have the sense of arrived, in matters which deal with knowledge. It rather means to attain, which would make sense if you were spying on the enemy, but to say you have attained certain knowledge by examining your conscience is absurd, because the conscience only recognizes moral truths, it is not the fount of knowledge or certitude.
  11. Here there is a clause in indirect discourse following cognitionem certam. The correct form, if such an expression be kept at all (cf. n. 9 above) should be introduced with quod and be in the nominative, not accusative, because the object of the certain knowledge is a fact known, not a knowing that. And thus, on account of the error in n. 9, the verb here should be sunt, the whole phrase reading vires mihi ingravescente aetate non iam aptae sunt. I think the emphatic dative of possession mihi should be used rather than the possessive adjective meae, because the strength spoke of is intimate to his physical being, not just some exterior possession.
  12. Doctor Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong adverb. The correct one should be recte or apte or as I suggest constanter (rightly, aptly, or consistently).

Bene conscius sum (1) hoc munus secundum suam (2) essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo (3) et loquendo exsequi (4) debere (5), sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis (6) rapidis mutationibus subiecto (7) et (8) quaestionibus magni (9) pro vita fidei (10) perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium (11) etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae (12) necessarius est, …

  1. The use of conscius is more common of knowledge had with others, but when of oneself, in the rare usage of the Latin poet, Terrence, this construction must be formed thus: mihi sum conscius, and not conscius sum, to show that the knowledge is of oneself but that the adjective precipitates indirect discourse. And thus a comma should be placed after conscius to conform to modern standards of punctuating Latin.
  2. Here there is simply the error of someone who thinks in Italian, because the possessive adjective for the third person, in Latin, is NEVER used for a thing in a sentence, only for the subject of a verb. The correct Latin, therefore should be eius though it could be omitted entirely since the phrase secundum essentiam spiritualem is a standard of measure and its object is implicitly understood. Dr Stroh rightly points out that naturam should be used instead of essentiam. I agree, because St Bonaventure says nature refers to the being of a thing as a principle of action.
  3. Here whoever wrote the text is ignorant that in Latin agere refers to all actions, physical or spiritual, and thus is an improper pair with loquendo which is also an act. It is difficult to understand to what the writer is referring, since nearly everything a pope does is by speaking. It is not as if he cleans toilets or does manual labor. Perhaps, the better word would be scribendo, that is writing.
  4. The Latin verb here is badly chosen, because exsequi refers to a work done, but the subject is not a work but a munus or charge, which is a thing. The proper Latin would be geri that is, conducted in the sense of the modern fulfilled or executed.
  5. This is the wrong verb to express what is intended. It is proper or necessary that the duties of the office be fulfilled. But it is not a debt, which is what debere means. The correct Latin should be oportere that is, that it is proper or necessary so as to reach the goal intended.
  6. Whoever wrote this has no experience reading Latin, as tempus refers to seasons. The concept of time in Latin is not the same as with moderns. The idea that seems to be the intent of the expression is in our our contemporary world, but Latin would say that as in saeculo nostro, because saeculum is the Latin term for the world in the sense of time, this generation, or culture, not mundum, which refers to the cosmos as a physical reality or place.
  7. And on account of error n. 6, this phrase must be rewritten entirely, as velocium or celerium mutationum using the genitive of description not dative of reference, and hence there is no need for subiecto. The Latin rapidus is used for hurried or swift changes, which is simply not historically accurate.
  8. And thus, likewise, on account of the dropping of subiecto this conjunction can be entirely omitted.
  9. Here the magni, of great value, seems hardly appropriate, because the questions of faith in modern times are nearly all the product of unbelievers fretting over their imagination of a world without God; magnis to agree with quaestionibus or magni momenti would be more correct. But magni can stand because it is so Ratzingerian as anyone can tell from his writings.
  10. Here there is the same error as before, and thus the Latin should read fidei vitae or fidei.
  11. Here you have the error of a First year Latin student who forgets that object go before verbs in Latin, not afterwards: the reading should be Evangelium annuntiandum.
  12. Here the wrong word is chosen, because clearly the soul does not grow old or weak by age, but the spirit does. And thus the correct Latin should be animi. Dr. Stroh agrees with me.

qui ultimis (1) mensibus in me modo tali minuitur (2), ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum (3) agnoscere debeam (4). Quapropter bene conscius (5) ponderis huius actus plena libertate (6) declaro (7) me ministerio (8) Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium (9) die 19 aprilis MMV commisso (10) renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae (11), sedes Sancti Petri vacet et (12) Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

  1. In Latin you signify recent things by saying praecedentibus not ultimis. Dr. Stroh suggests: his praeteritis since the emphasis is on recent in the past.
  2. Here the tense is wrong, since the reference is to what has happened in recent months, and is still happening, the correct tense is the imperfect minuebatur and take mihi as a dative of reference not in me.
  3. It is nonsensical to say that you are administering a ministry, the better word should be gerere, as before.  But the entire phrase is incorrectly formed, since incapacitatem should follow the rule of capax and take an infinitive in predications (as in the Vulgate) or a genitive (Seneca) with adjectives or gerundives, so the whole should read ministerii mihi commissi bene gerendi.
  4. Seeing that the text is being read as if a decision is already made, to say that you “ought to acknowledge” is contextually out of place, according to time. Also, as a clause subordinate to an imperfect, it must be in the perfect subjunctive. The phrase should read something like iustum fuerit, “it was just that”.
  5. Attorney Lambauer rightly points out that this construction with conscius takes the reflexive pronoun mihi before it. But in proper syntax the ponderis huius actus should precede conscius. Two errors here.
  6. Now come the errors which touch upon the nullity, invalidity and irregularity of the act. Because the renunciation has to be made freely. That it is declared freely is good too, but presumed and not necessary, unless there is someone apt to think it was being forced. Why say this? So this phrase, if kept, should be with the verb renuntiare, and both should NOT be in indirect discourse, because to announce or declare that you are renouncing, is not to renounce anything, but to announce something, and that is not the act specified in Canon 332 §2 which requires a renunciation as the essential act, not a declaration.
  7. This verb if left should introduce a phrase which prepares the listeners about intent or such like, not the act of the renunciation.
  8. This is the wrong object of the Act of renunciation, which according to Canon 332 §2 should be muneri. Dr Stroh, writing it seems in February 2013, notes that this error makes the renunciation invalid. I agree!
  9. The Petrine Munus and Ministerium are not entrusted to the elected pope, but received by him in the Petrine Succession immediately as he says, “Yes, I accept my election”. This is basic papal theology 101. If you get that wrong, it can sanely be questioned whether you were compos mentis at the time of the act. Unless of course the entire phrase ministerio … per manus Cardinalium … commisso is meant to rebuke the Cardinals for allowing him a ministry but not conceding him any real authority. Though such an intent would be both sarcastic and effect the invalidity of the resignation. So this should read in succesione petrina or something similar
  10. This should be a me accepto or a me recepto, that is, “accepted by me” or “received by me”.
  11. This is the one phrase which is correct, but which no one but an expert in the Secretariate of State would know, because, as an eminent Vatican Latinist told me, it is the customary way of indicating the Roman time zone in Latin. Dr. Stroh and Attorney Lambauer, writing from Germany, did not know this.
  12. Here the indirect discourse should end, or rather, the expression of the first person, I, should end, because the calling of a conclave is a papal act, the man who is pope, who just renounced, has NO authority to call one. So here the Latin should resume with the Papal WE, et declaramus.

Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis (1) pro omni amore et labore (2), quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis (3). Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus (4) sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro (5) vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim. (6)

Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII

  1. Again, the error of the First Year Latin student. The phrase should read gratias vobis agimus. First because of the proper word order of Latin, second because He is now thanking them as the Roman Pontiff, because they collaborated with him, not as a man, but as the Pope, the verb should return to the first person plural. Two errors here.
  2. If you are grateful for their service and collaboration, you do not say amore et labore, which refer to physical work and physical affection; you say, rather, omnibus amicitiabus operibusque to show that the friendship and works were multiple and united one with the other. Four errors here.
  3. Again, the First Year Latin student’s error of getting the word order wrong. It should read: pro omnibus defectibus meis veniam peto and the phrase should be introduced by de vobis or de omnibus. Two errors here. It is also awkward to return to the use of the first person singular here, even though it it necessary regarding the confession made.
  4. Dr. Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong verb, the correct Latin is committimus.
  5. Dr. Stroh again reminds that the correct Latin temporal expression is in futurum.
  6. In Latin there is no conditional. The subjunctive is used to express wishes, but not with the verb to wish! You say rather serviam, “may I serve” not servire velim, “may I wish to serve” which makes no sense, simply be more direct and say, “I wish to serve” (servire volo).


I think it would be no exaggeration to say, that if anyone saw even some of these errors and did not ask the Holy Father that they be corrected before the act was published, he sinned mortally against his duty of loyalty to the Roman Pontiff. I also think that the number of these errors is qualified forensic evidence that IF Benedict wrote this text and read it freely, that he was either not in a proper state of mind or did not act with mature deliberation.

Finally, if anyone says that the Act of Renunciation has no errors or must be accepted to be a Papal resignation, not merely a renunciation of ministry so as to devote oneself to prayer, then they are clearly talking about another document, because there are so many errors in this Act that no sane person could ever claim that it is binding on anyone. For if it was intended as an act of papal renunciation, and was written by the Pope, then clearly he has already lost too much of his mental faculty to renounce validly, because to renounce validly you at least have to know how to write an intelligible sentence, in whatever language you chose to renounce, and you have to name the office with a word which means the office. Duh!

Public Notice: I spent only 2 hours analyzing the text, so the Vatican surely had enough time to correct it before February 28, 2013, which was 17 days later. I speculate that they did not, because then someone would have objected that the word ministerio had to be changed to muneri, and the reality was that Pope Benedict was insisting that it not be, because He did not intend and had never intended to renounce the papal office or its grace.


Di frà Alexis Bugnolo

Ringrazio i miei collaboratori per il loro aiuto nella traduzione di quest’articolo

A pochi giorni dalla pubblicazione del testo latino ufficiale dell’Atto di Rinuncia fatto da Papa Benedetto XVI l’11 febbraio 2013 alcuni giornali titolavano così: “Errori clamorosi nel testo latino della Rinuncia”. ( qui e sul punto, qui ). Questi articoli citavano solo due errori, quelli di “commisso” al posto del corretto “commissum” e quello di “vita” al posto di “vitae”.

I giornali avevano ragione, ma io ho individuato almeno 40 errori, non solo quei due!

Eppure, la macchina della propaganda si è messa subito al lavoro e chiunque sui social media, nel 2013 iniziava a parlare di errori è stato immediatamente e brutalmente attaccato perché “osava giudicare il papa”!

Il vero scopo era che la “”Mafia della lavanda”, ovvero la lobby del clero gay, era molto preoccupata per chiunque mettesse in dubbio la validità della Rinuncia. Ricordo che il mio professore di Diritto Canonico manipolava le lezioni tenute in febbraio e marzo di quell’anno per insegnare cose su certi canoni in modo errato così da soffocare qualsiasi considerazione sull’invalidità. Ma lo faceva con tale sottigliezza che solo dopo tutti questi anni ho potuto riconoscere ciò che aveva fatto.

Le altre voci che criticavano quelli che hanno sollevato dubbi sul latino della Declaratio di Papa Benedetto parte appartenevano ai circoli di quei cardinali conservatori che l’anno scorso hanno distrutto la loro reputazione professando  indubbia obbedienza a Bergoglio persino dopo i suoi atti di adorazione e riverenza idolatrici (episodio della Pachamama etc). Fu allora che nacque l’opposizione controllata di Trad Inc. (Termine colletivo per parlare in modo generale dei siti che criticano Bergoglio per non essere cattolico ma insistono che egli è il Vero Papa). Fu il loro primo atto di lealtà verso il regime. E la loro azione indicava chiarament che già erano posizionati per rispondere e che gli era stato detto cosa fare.

Quindi, per fornire una verità storica più esatta, discuterò qui questi errori e fornirò una traduzione italiana di ciò che il latino di Papa Benedetto XVI ha detto.

Faccio questo per correggere qualsiasi malinteso dato dalla mia precedente traduzione inglese dell’Atto di Rinuncia, nell’articolo che ho intitolato “Una traduzione inglese letterale del discorso di Benedetto XVI dell’11 febbraio 2013“, dove per letterale intendo fedele nel senso, non nella grammatica del latino impiegato.

I miei commenti sul testo latino sono basati sulla mia conoscenza della lingua latina acquisita in 14 anni di traduzione in inglese di circa novemila pagine letterarie di testi ecclesiastici latini medievali. Sarò il primo a dire che non credo di essere un esperto in materia, ma penso che non sarebbe esagerato dire che oggi nella Chiesa c’è solo una manciata di uomini che hanno tradotto più latino del sottoscritto. Ho anche pubblicato un popolare libro di testo e video per il latino ecclesiastico, che ho prodotto per la Mansfield Community TV, nel Massachusetts, negli Stati Uniti, e che The Franciscan Archive ha distribuito per alcuni anni dopo la pubblicazione di Summorum pontificum.

E così, pur ammettendo che posso sempre imparare dagli altri, citerò anche due studiosi tedeschi che hanno criticato pubblicamente il testo latino della Declaratio: il professore di filologia, Wilfried Stroh (vedi qui ) e l’avvocato viennese Arthur Lambauer, i cui commenti sono registrati in parte qui.

Posso anche dare una testimonianza personale del fatto che i latinisti che hanno lavorato in Vaticano durante i pontificati di Giovanni Paolo II e Benedetto XVI sono a conoscenza di tutti questi errori (e probabilmente di altri) e sono stati reticenti solo per motivi personali, così come mi è stato riferito da uno di loro durante un incontro a Bagnoregio, in Italia, nell’estate del 2016.

Evidenzio in ROSSO gli errori di espressione (numerando ciascuno), dopo di che commenterò ogni errore sezione per sezione, perché ce ne sono tanti. Il testo latino ufficiale è disponibile sul sito web del Vaticano ( qui ).

Fratres carissimi

Non solum propter tres canonizationes (1) ad hoc Consistorium (2) vos convocavi (3), sed etiam ut vobis (4) decisionem (5) magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita (6) communicem (7). Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata (8) ad cognitionem certam (9) perveni (10) vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse (11) ad munus Petrinum aeque (12) administrandum.

  1. Dire propter tres canonizationes significa per o a causa di tre atti di canonizzazione. Tale struttura grammaticale in latino significa, non che il Papa abbia convocato i Cardinali per condurre o annunciare la canonizzazione di tre gruppi o individui, ma che in qualche modo i Cardinali  siano stati convocati per onorare gli atti di canonizzazione o perché gli atti stessi non possono essere completati senza di loro. Ma l’atto di canonizzazione è un atto pontificio che non richiede i Cardinali. Pertanto, il latino corretto dovrebbe essere in trium canonizationum annuntiationem, cioè per annunciare la mia decisione di decretare tre atti di canonizzazione, poiché la costruzione latina che inizia con la preposizione in è usata per esprimere uno scopo. Questo è un errore comune di coloro che non hanno mai letto attentamente alcun testo latino e che impongono un significato moderno a ciò che pensano che significhi una preposizione latina.
  2. Dire ad hoc Consistorium potrebbe benissimo essere un’usanza della corte pontificia – non posso commentare – tuttavia, in latino, poiché consistorium un atto di stare insieme, non un luogo in cui vengono convocati i cardinali, ma un modo solenne di radunarsi, la corretta struttura grammaticale dovrebbe essere in hoc consistorio.
  3. In un atto ufficiale un papa parla in prima persona plurale, cioè adotta il pluralis maiestatis. L’uomo che è il papa, in quanto uomo e non papa, parla con la prima persona singolare, “io”. Pertanto, la forma corretta del verbo qui dovrebbe essere convocavimus.
  4. Il verbo latino communicem prende la preposizione cum, non il dativo di riferimento, e quindi invece di vobis si dovrebbe leggere vobiscum . Così com’è, l’unica possibile funzione grammaticale dei vobis sarebbe quella di un dativo di possesso per decisionem!
  5. Concordo qui con il dott. Stroh, che la parola dovrebbe essere consilium, non decisionem, perché quest’ultima parola latina significa un “atto di separazione” come nella parola “potatura”, o tutt’al più un “atto di prendere una decisione”, che chiaramente non è qui appropriata, perché il Papa non li ha compresi nel processo decisionale, dichiarando solo una decisione che ha già preso. E consilium è la parola giusta per una cosa del genere, se fatta da un superiore con autorità.
  6. Questo è l’errore più assurdo di tutti. La persona che ha scritto questo non capisce nemmeno che in latino non usi il dativo di riferimento in una frase che inizia con una preposizione come nelle lingue moderne. Questo dovrebbe essere Ecclesiae vitae, poiché, così com’è vuol dire a nome della vita della Chiesa o per il bene della vita della Chiesa ; a meno che, naturalmente, non si riferisca a una grave minaccia alla vita della Chiesa per la quale questo atto intende difendere quella vita. Può essere, ma poiché quasi tutti i moderni sbagliano in questo modo, si presuma che in se stesso sia prodotta dall’ignoranza, non mediante allusione.
  7. Dato che la rinuncia è della persona, non del papa, nella frase successiva vediamo che inizia a parlare in prima persona come uomo, ma penso che poiché questa clausola subordinata è ancora quella parte del testo detto dal Romano Pontefice, in quanto Pontefice, dovrebbe essere in prima persona plurale: communicemus. La frase che segue, quindi, in prima persona, dovrebbe cominciare un nuovo paragrafo, al fine di mostrare questa distinzione di potere.
  8. Questa parola è completamente sbagliata perché in latino si riferisce all’esplorazione di un luogo o di una regione o all’indagine sulla grandezza di una cosa o su sua dimensione fisica, o è il termine militare per spiare o guardare qualcosa per ottenere informazioni. Non viene mai usato con le cose spirituali, perché certamente la propria coscienza non è un mondo a sé stante, a una facoltà del conoscere. Il termine corretto dovrebbe essere uno che significhi esposto o risolto, a causa del riferimento all’essere davanti o alla presenza di Dio.
  9. Queste parole non sono soltanto scelte male, ma insufficienti per sostenere il discorso indiretto che segue. Il modo latino corretto per dire questo è nunc bene cognosco quod (ora ben ravviso che) invece di ad cognitionem certam perveni (sono pervenuto alla certezza).
  10. Questo verbo non ha il senso di “essere pervenuto” nelle materie che riguardano la conoscenza. Significa piuttosto raggiungere, il che avrebbe senso se si stesse spiando il nemico, ma dire che sei pervenuto alla certezza esaminando la tua coscienza è assurdo, perché la coscienza riconosce solo verità morali, non è la fonte della conoscenza o della certezza .
  11. Qui c’è una clausola nel discorso indiretto che segue cognitionem certam . La forma corretta, se tale espressione deve proprio essere mantenuta (cfr. N. 9 sopra), dovrebbe essere introdotta con quod ed essere nel nominativo, non nell’accusativo, perché l’oggetto di una certa conoscenza è un fatto noto, non un “sapere che”. E quindi, a causa dell’errore nel n. 9, il verbo qui dovrebbe essere sunt , leggendo l’intera frase: vires mihi ingravescente aetate non iam aptae sunt. Penso che si sarebbe dovuto usare il dativo enfatico di possesso mihi piuttosto che l’aggettivo possessivo meae, perché la forza di cui parla è intima al suo essere fisico, non solo un possesso esteriore.
  12. Il dottor Stroh sottolinea giustamente che questo è l’avverbio sbagliato. Quello corretto dovrebbe essere recte o apte o — io propongo —  constanter (correttamente, appropriatamente o coerentemente).

Bene conscius sum (1) hoc munus secundum suam (2) essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo (3) et loquendo exsequi (4) debere (5), sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis (6) rapidis mutationibus subiecto (7) et (8) quaestionibus magni (9) pro vita fidei (10) perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium (11) etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae (12) necessarius est, …

  1. L’uso di conscius è più comune parlando della conoscenza che si ha degli altri, ma quando si parla della conoscenza di sé, nel raro uso del poeta latino, Terenzio, questa costruzione deve essere formata così: mihi sum conscius, e non conscius sum, per dimostrare che la conoscenza è di se stesso ma l’aggettivo provoca il discorso indiretto. E quindi una virgola dovrebbe essere posta dopo conscius per conformarsi ai moderni livelli di interpunzione latina.
  2. Qui c’è semplicemente l’errore di qualcuno che pensa in italiano, perché l’aggettivo possessivo per la terza persona, in latino, non è MAI usato per una cosa in una frase, solo per il soggetto di un verbo. Il latino corretto, quindi, dovrebbe essere eius sebbene possa essere omesso del tutto poiché la frase secundum essentiam spiritualem è una misura e il suo oggetto è implicitamente compreso. Il dottor Stroh sottolinea giustamente che naturam dovrebbe essere usato al posto di essentiam . Sono d’accordo, perché San Bonaventura afferma che la natura si riferisce all’essere di una cosa come un principio di azione.
  3. Qui chi ha scritto il testo ignora che in latino  agere si riferisce a tutte le azioni, fisiche o spirituali, e perciò è impropria la accoppiata con loquendo, che è pure un atto. È difficile capire a cosa si riferisca agendo, poiché quasi tutto ciò che fa un papa è parlare. Non è come se pulisse i bagni o facesse qualsiasi lavoro manuale. Forse, la parola migliore sarebbe scribendo , cioè scrivere.
  4. Il verbo latino qui è mal scelto male, perché exsequi si riferisce a un lavoro svolto, ma il soggetto non è un lavoro ma un munus o una carica, il che è una cosa. Quello giusto sarebbe geri, cioè ”condotto” nel senso del moderno di “adempiuto” o “eseguito”.
  5. Questo è il verbo sbagliato per esprimere ciò che si intende. È giusto o necessario che i doveri dell’ufficio siano adempiuti. Ma non è un debito, che è ciò che debere significa. Il latino corretto dovrebbe essere oportere, cioè adatto o necessario a raggiungere l’obiettivo prefissato.
  6. Chiunque abbia scritto questo non ha esperienza nella lettura del latino, poiché tempus si riferisce alle stagioni. Il concetto di tempo in latino non è lo stesso dei moderni. Sembra voler dire “nel nostro mondo contemporaneo , ma in latino si direbbe in saeculo nostro, perché saeculum è il termine latino per definire il mondo nel senso del tempo, di generazione o cultura, non mundum, che si riferisce al cosmo come realtà fisica o luogo.
  7. A causa dell’errore n. 6, questa frase deve essere interamente riscritta, come velocium o celerium mutationum usando il genitivo della descrizione e non il dativo di riferimento, e quindi non c’è necessario di subiecto . Il latino rapidus viene usato per cambiamenti rapidi o affrettati, semplicemente non accurati storicamente.
  8. E così, allo stesso modo, a causa della caduta del subiecto questa congiunzione può essere completamente omessa.
  9. Qui magni, ”di grande valore” , sembra poco opportuno, perché le questioni di fede nei tempi moderni sono quasi interamente il prodotto di non credenti che si agitano con la loro immaginazione senza Dio; magnis concordato con quaestionibus oppure magni momenti sarebbe più corretto. Ma magni può reggere perché è così Ratzingeriano come chiunque può dire dai suoi scritti.
  10. Qui c’è lo stesso errore di prima, e quindi in latino si dovrebbe dire fidei vitae o fidei .
  11. Qui si ha l’errore di uno studente latino di primo anno che dimentica che il complemento oggetto in latino vada prima dei verbi, non dopo: dovrebbe essere Evangelium annuntiandum.
  12. Qui viene scelta la parola sbagliata, perché chiaramente l’anima non invecchia o si indebolisce con l’età, ma lo fa lo spirito. E quindi il latino corretto dovrebbe essere animi. Il dottor Stroh è d’accordo con me.

qui ultimis (1) mensibus in me modo tali minuitur (2), ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum (3) agnoscere debeam (4). Quapropter bene conscius (5) ponderis huius actus plena libertate (6) declaro (7) me ministerio (8) Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium (9) die 19 aprilis MMV commisso (10) renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae (11), sedes Sancti Petri vacet et (12) Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

  1. In latino si indicano le cose recenti dicendo praecedentibus, non ultimis. Il dottor Stroh suggerisce: his praeteritis poiché si dà molta importanza al recente passato.
  2. Qui il tempo è sbagliato, poiché il riferimento è a ciò che è accaduto negli ultimi mesi, e sta ancora accadendo;, il tempo giusto è l’imperfetto minuebatur e prende mihi come dativo di riferimento non in me.
  3. Non ha senso dire che si sta amministrando un ministero, la parola migliore dovrebbe essere gerere, come prima. Ma l’intera frase è formata in modo errato, poiché incapacitatem dovrebbe seguire la regola del capax e prendere un infinito (come nella Vulgata) o un genitivo (Seneca) con aggettivi o gerundi, quindi il tutto dovrebbe scriversi ministerii mihi commissi bene gerendi.
  4. Visto che il testo viene letto come se fosse già stata presa una decisione, dire che “si dovrebbe riconoscere” è contestualmente e temporalmente incorretto, secondo il tempo. Inoltre, come clausola subordinata a un imperfetto, deve trovarsi nel congiuntivo perfetto. La frase dovrebbe riportare qualcosa come iustum fuerit , “era proprio quello”.
  5. L’avvocato Lambauer sottolinea giustamente che questa costruzione con conscius prende il pronome riflessivo mihi prima di essa. Ma nella giusta sintassi ponderis huius actus dovrebbe precedere  conscius . Qui ci sono ben due errori.
  6. Ora arrivano gli errori che riguardano la nullità, l’invalidità e l’irregolarità dell’atto. Perché la rinuncia deve essere fatta liberamente. Che sia dichiarata liberamente va bene, ma ciò è presunto e non necessario, a meno che non ci sia qualcuno incline a pensare che sia stato costretto. Perché dire questo? Quindi questa frase, se mantenuta, dovrebbe essere con il verbo renuntiare , ed entrambi NON dovrebbero essere in discorso indiretto, perché annunciare o dichiarare di rinunciare non significa rinunciare a qualcosa, ma annunciare qualcosa, e quello non è l’atto specificato nel Canone 332 §2 che richiede una rinuncia come atto essenziale, non una dichiarazione.
  7. Questo verbo, se lasciato, dovrebbe introdurre una frase che prepara gli ascoltatori circa l’intenzione o qualcosa di simile, non all’atto della rinuncia.
  8. Questo è l’oggetto sbagliato dell’Atto di rinuncia, che secondo il Canone 332 §2 dovrebbe essere muneri. Il dott. Stroh, scrivendolo a febbraio 2013, osserva che questo errore rende invalida la rinuncia. Sono d’accordo!
  9. Il Munus petrino e il Ministerium non sono affidati al papa eletto, ma vengono immediatamente ricevuti da lui nella successione petrina dicendo: “Sì, accetto la mia elezione”. Questa è la teologia papale rudimentale. Se uno sbaglia, si può in modo sensato mettere in dubbio se al momento dell’atto fosse compos mentis (sano di mente). A meno che ovviamente l’intera frase ministerio … per manus Cardinalium … commisso non abbia lo scopo di rimproverare i Cardinali per avergli concesso un ministero ma non gli ha concesso alcuna vera autorità. Anche se una tale intenzione implicherebbe sia sarcasmo e sia inciderebbe sull’invalidità della rinuncia. Quindi si dovrebbe leggere in successione petrina o qualcosa di simile.
  10. Questo dovrebbe essere a me accepto o a me recepto, cioè “da me accettato” o “da me ricevuto”.
  11. Questa è l’unica frase che è corretta, ma che nessuno se non un esperto del Segretariato di Stato saprebbe, perché, come mi ha detto un eminente latinista vaticano, è il modo consueto di indicare il fuso orario romano in latino. Il dottor Stroh e l’avvocato Lambauer, scrivendo dalla Germania, non lo sapevano.
  12. Qui il discorso indiretto dovrebbe finire, o meglio, l’espressione della prima persona, io, dovrebbe finire, perché la chiamata di un conclave è un atto pontificio, l’uomo che è papa, che ha appena rinunciato, non ha l’autorità di convocarlo. Quindi qui il latino dovrebbe riprendere con il NOI pontificio, et declaramus.

Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis (1) pro omni amore et labore (2), quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis (3). Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus (4) sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro (5) vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim. (6)

Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII

  1. Ancora una volta, un errore da studente di latino del primo anno. La frase dovrebbe leggere gratias vobis agimus . In primo luogo a causa del corretto ordine delle parole del latino, in secondo luogo perché ora li sta ringraziando come il Romano Pontefice, perché hanno collaborato con lui, non come uomo, ma come Papa, il verbo dovrebbe tornare alla prima persona plurale. Due errori qui.
  2. Se uno è grato per il loro servizio e collaborazione, non dice amore et labore, che si riferiscono al lavoro materiale e all’affetto fisico; ma piuttosto omnibus amicitiabus operibusque per dimostrare che l’amicizia e le opere erano molteplici e unite l’una con l’altra. Quattro errori qui.
  3. Ancora una volta, un errore da studente di latino del primo anno che sbagliare l’ordine delle parole. Si dovrebbe leggere: pro omnibus defectibus meis veniam peto e la frase dovrebbe essere introdotta da de vobis o de omnibusDue errori qui. È anche imbarazzante tornare all’uso della prima persona singolare qui, anche se è necessario riguardo alla confessione fatta.
  4. Il dottor Stroh sottolinea giustamente che è il verbo sbagliato: il latino corretto è committimus.
  5. Il dottor Stroh ricorda ancora che la corretta espressione temporale latina è in futurum.
  6. In latino non c’è condizionale. Il congiuntivo è usato per esprimere i desideri, ma non con il verbo desiderare! Si direbbe piuttosto serviam , “che io possa servire” non servire velim , “possa io desiderare di servire” che non ha senso; si può semplicemente essere più diretti e dire: “desidero servire” (servire volo). Ma San Bonaventure nei suoi Commentarii su Lombardo fa lo stesso errore.


Penso che non sarebbe esagerato dire che se qualcuno avesse visto anche solo parte di questi errori e non ha chiesto al Santo Padre di correggerli prima della pubblicazione dell’atto, avrebbe peccato mortalmente contro il suo dovere di lealtà verso il Romano Pontefice. Penso anche che il numero di questi errori sia una prova forense qualificata che SE Benedetto ha scritto questo testo e lo ha letto liberamente, o che non era in uno stato mentale adeguato o non ha agito con deliberazione matura.

Infine, se qualcuno dice che l’Atto di Rinuncia non ha errori o deve essere accettato come una rassegnazione papale, non semplicemente una rinuncia al ministero per dedicarsi alla preghiera, allora stanno chiaramente parlando di un altro documento, perché ci sono molti errori in questa dichiarazione che nessuna persona sana di mente potrebbe mai affermare che è vincolante per nessuno. Perché se era inteso come un atto di rinuncia papale, ed è stato scritto dal Papa, allora è chiaro che non era in possesso delle sua facoltà mentali per rinunciare validamente, perché per rinunciare validamente devi almeno sapere come scrivere un intelligibile frase, in qualsiasi lingua tu abbia scelto di rinunciare, e devi nominare l’ufficio con una parola che significa ufficio. E dai!

Avviso pubblico: ho trascorso solo 2 ore ad analizzare il testo, quindi il Vaticano ha sicuramente avuto abbastanza tempo per correggerlo prima del 28 febbraio 2013, diciasette giorni dopo! Io suppongo che non l’abbiano comunque fatto, perché altrimenti avrebbe potuto che la parola ministerio doveva essere cambiata in muneri, e la realtà era che papa Benedetto insisteva che non lo fosse, perché non aveva intenzione e non aveva mai avuto intenzione di rinunciare all’ufficio papale o sua grazia.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

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


Steven O’Reilly’s Theory of Meta-Signification

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The recent discussions that Dr. Edward Mazza had with Dr. Taylor Marshall and Ann Barnhardt and Mark Docherty have pricked the “Bergoglio is certainly the Pope” Apologist, Steven O’Reilly, to expound a novel theory of verbal signification.

He propounds this in part II of his rebuttal of Dr. Mazza’s conjecture that Benedict intended to separate the Papal Primacy and the Roman See.

First, let me say that I commend Mr. O’Reilly for actually having the integrity to tell his readers to read the arguments of his opponents on their own websites. And I reciprocate and urge all to read his Reponse to Dr. Mazza.

But as regards, this post of my own, I want to address Mr. O’Reilly’s theory of meta-signification, which he trots out as the last defense against looking at the evidence, of the glaring lack of any reference to a renunication of munus in the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI.

Here are the actual words of Mr. O’Reilly:

I will not bother going into the question of whether “ministero” in Latin can be a synonym of “munus” — it is (see Ryan Grant); or whether it is a proper synonym under canon law for “munus.” There is no need to get into the minutiae of that debate to determine the validity of Benedict’s resignation.  There is no need to get into the distinction between ministero and munus, real or imagined.

The problem for the BiP-ers of whatever stripe is that canon 332.2 does not require the word “munus” to appear in a valid papal resignation. The canon only requires that for a valid resignation of the office/munus, it is “required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested.”  To be clear, the canon specifically and clearly states there are only two requirements for a valid resignation:

  1. That it be made freely
  2. That it be properly manifested.

Those are the only requirements despite the attempts of BiP-ers to erroneously attempt to add a third, i.e., that the word “munus” be used in the renunciation.  There is no such requirement for the word “munus” [NB: Indeed, for example, when a man is elected by a conclave, the word “munus” is not used when he is offered the papacy, nor is it used by him when accepting it]. Therefore, assuming the resignation is freely made, the only remaining requirement is that it is properly manifested.

Thus, in terms of actual language used in a resignation, common sense dictates only that it be sufficiently clear to understand that the pope is in fact resigning. It is a rather low bar which is met by Benedict’s Declaratio, in that he communicates the why and the what of the resignation.  He tells us he is resigning due to weakness, i.e., not because he is resigning against his will.  Benedict communicates to us that he is renouncing the “ministry of the Bishop of Rome.”

That Benedict is giving up the “ministry of the Bishop of Rome” appears sufficiently clear to intend the papacy, not some part of it. Remember, the use of the word “munus” is not a requirement of canon 332.2. But even if we concede arguendo that “ministry of the Bishop of Rome” by itself in isolation is not immediately clear, the context of the whole statement makes it sufficiently if not abundantly clear what Benedict is doing. Consider, Benedict tells us he is resigning the “ministry of the Bishop of Rome…so that” (1) “the See of Peter be vacant” and (2) that a conclave is now suitable to elect a “new Supreme Pontiff.”  I addressed points 1 and 2 in the first part of this response (here).

To recapitulate briefly, in telling us the “See of Peter” is vacant, Benedict is clearly manifesting that by his renunciation the Chair of Peter is vacant.  A vacant See of Peter means “no pope.” Next, Benedict tells us a new conclave is required to elect a new Supreme Pontiff, obviously necessitated by his resignation as Supreme Pontiff.  Certainly, all this together “properly manifests,” and can only mean, Benedict’s resignation.  That much is sufficiently clear.

First, let me state that it is a very weak way to open an argument, by saying that you need not examine the meaning of the words munus and ministerium, AND THEN PROCEED to analyze the meaning of every phrase which follows that in that same text!

That is equivalent to opening your argument as Defense Counsel in a Murder trial thus: If we just close our eyes to the fact that John’s knife with his fingerprints is sticking out of the corpse right over the center of the chest where the heart is, it will be easy to see that John cannot be considered a possible perpetrator of the murder!

Second, he trots out the argument, which I refuted already in my 7 part documentary, that a Pope need not use the word “munus” in a papal resignation.  The counter argument to this, is devastating:  While it is true that a pope need not use the word munus, because he can resign in any language or with other words, nevertheless if one were to assert that he does NOT HAVE TO SIGNIFY that which the word “munus” means, then he would be asserting that Canon 332 means nothing at all. A pope might as well renounce bananas, only the verb “renounce” or a synonym is required. The patent absurdity of the position is undeniable. This is a way of continuing your argument in a murder trial, as Defense Counsel by saying: Even though the Penal Code punishes deliberate homicide as murder, it does not require that we presuppose that sticking a knife into the heart of a man in such wise as to cause his death, is a form of homicide or indicates any sort of deliberation in the manner penalized in the Code!

Third, he plays the shell game of all Bergoglian canonists here at Rome, when he says that there are only 2 requirements for a valid resignation, and neither is that the word munus be used.  He fails to say of what kind of resignation he is speaking. In fact, the Canon speaks not of resignation but of renunciation. So by using the word “resignation” when listing the requirements for validity, he is consciously avoiding the word “renunciation”, because if he used that verb, someone might ask, “A renunciation of what?”, and his shell game would be exposed. Because for the validity of a renunciation of munus 2 things are required. Thus he is simply being dishonest with his readers. As I said in my 7 part documentary, you cannot fixate on the conditions for the validity of a renunciation of munus and thereby claim that the renunciation of anything is a renunication of munus. Human language, logic and causality do not work that way, except in the sandbox of a toddler who has never been spanked.

Fourth, then he argues that it is sufficient that it be clear what the pope is doing. That is the whole controversy. He is not resigning, he has not even used the word! He is renouncing, but not what the Code of Canon Law says is a papal renunciation. But Mr. O’Reilly having set forth his doctrine for closing your eyes to munus and ministerium, and reading the Canon as saying resigning and not renouncing, arrives at saying that thus obviously what Benedict XVI did was resign!  This is as if a Defense Counsel in a Murder trial would conclude by saying: Since the Penal Code does not say that sticking a knife in the heart of another person causing his death is a form of deliberate homicide, it is irrelevant that the knife belongs to my client, that the victims blood was found on my clients hands, and that there are numerous witnesses that saw him plunge it into the victims heart, while saying, I am going to kill you! Therefore, I urge you to find my client innocent!

Fifth, it is then on this basis that Mr. O’Reilly trots out the theory that we must understand the nature of what Pope Benedict declared he was doing on the basis of a strict and careful reading of what follows, regardless of whether it is canonically or theologically possible on account of what he did renounce. In his theory, it appears that if the Pope had renounced bananas, papal slippers, wearing a white cassock, or anything else but what the Petrine Munus is or signifies, then the renunciation would be valid if after such a renunciation the Pope say, so that the See of Rome be vacant and a conclave to elect a new supreme pontiff be convened by those who are competent.

This is what I call a theory of meta-signification. It is a theory which determines the meaning of a main clause of a sentence by all the clauses which are subordinated to it. It is really a beautiful theory for a dishonest lawyer, because you can use it to deny the meaning of every sentence on that basis, if you just work at it.  However, such a theory of signification is expressly denied by ALL BOOKS OF GRAMMAR IN LATIN. And since the Pope spoke in Latin and since the Code of Canon Law is written in Latin, his theory is simply a gratuitous assertion to arrive at a predetermined irrational conclusion.

In conclusion, it has been 18 months that Steve O’Reilly has attacked the evidence and law which show conclusively that Benedict XVI is still the pope. He has always trotted out false arguments. At this point I think everyone has the right to either ignore him as intellectually dishonest or ask him his personal reasons for embracing with such lack of personal integrity Bergoglio as his pope.


CREDITS: The Featured Image above is a screen shot of the image of Mr. O’Reilly from the About page of his website, linked above, and is used here according to the fair use standard for editorial commentary. It also shows that Mr. O’Reilly is an educated, civilized, sane and intelligent man with a cheerful character.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

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


FromRome.Info: An appeal for those who can & My dreams for Jesus

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I want to thank all who have and are supporting FromRome.Info, especially in this time of crisis, which has heavily impacted us all.

For that reason I am very thankful for all those who have continued to support FromRome.Info’s work nevertheless. Even without my asking.

As a Franciscan Brother, I live by begging, I do not have an income, retirement fund, savings account, insurance, or any other coverage. And I live month to month, having no benefactor to bankroll me, which is why I am so free to speak the unvarnished truth.

As a Franciscan consecrated to the Lord, all the support you give me goes to my works wherein I try to serve the cause of Jesus Christ and extend His Blessed Reign over the hearts of men, a work which is truly needed today, and which cannot  be done without exposing lies and injustices, wherever they are found, in Church or State.

This spring, by the Lord’s Providence, FromRome.Info has grown its readership many times over and remains the only electronic newspaper in the English-speaking world which has no fear to say the truth about the violation of Canon Law in regard to Pope Benedict’s Renunciation, not to mention about basic human rights of Catholics and citizens during the COVID-19 Stunt.

And so for those who can still help out, despite the grave economic problems caused by ignorant and careless leaders who have trashed the economies of their nations, I would ask you to remember FromRome.Info, when you can.


I dislike asking anyone to help me personally. I much prefer asking everyone to help advance the cause of Jesus Christ by works of mercy. For that reason, I will include here an appendix, to share with you my dreams for God, which I could accomplish or put into motion, if only I had some benefactors to support them:

  1. Defend persecuted Christians from being persecuted: through an international association of Catholics providing security and defense services to the most vulnerable. I have been working on this since 2016, but the work cannot go forwrds without investors: See Ordo Militaris Inc., for more information about this, especially the video page, if you like to watch some videos about it.
  2. Re-establish the teaching of Scholastic Theology, in the manner which Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Bonaventure studied it at the University of Paris, in the 13th century. For this purpose I founded here in Italy a non-profit, called The Scholasticum, and at their website you can read more about it. But since we never found backers for the institute, it has not yet become a reality.
  3. Establish a Catholic Political Party in Italy to take back Italy for Jesus Christ, that is, to liberate Italy from the Masonic nations which have controlled her in since the time of the Risorgimento. I call this party, “Italy for Italians“, and you can read more about it in Italian here.

So, if you think I am a dreamer, I confess that I am. For Jesus everything, even my dreams. And if any of these be His will, I know He will send those persons who can made them a reality.


Note: If you are wondering what is that flag behind my head, see here.

+ + +


Donate to support FromRome.Info

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


Archbishop Viganò omits faith in Jesus Christ and the Church in letter to Rabbi

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In response to the Open Letter on the Covid-Crisis which Archbishop Viganò published with the names of 13 bishops and several Cardinals, and which was subsequently signed by some 40,000 faithful, a Jewish Rabbi in Germany, by the name of Ahrens, objected in an editorial for a German Catholic publication, discounting the statement as an appeal to conspiracy theories.

In response, the Archbishop wrote a public letter to the Rabbi. In it he defends the truth of the problem with the Covid-19 response. And that is good. But in the process he betrays the Gospel and his Apostolic Mission, by writing:

Liquidare queste preoccupazioni – peraltro espresse anche da autorevoli personalità – come «teorie del complotto» non mi sembra un atteggiamento costruttivo: soprattutto se non si entra nel merito, confutando ciò che si ritiene non vero. Le chiedo quindi: in che cosa, in particolare, Lei non concorda con il testo dell’Appello? Cosa, dell’Appello, rappresenta per Lei uno «shock»?

Mi creda: non avrei mai pensato che l’Appello potesse offenderLa; d’altra parte, per quale motivo un Rabbino dovrebbe sentirsi chiamato in causa, quando si parla di Nuovo Ordine Mondiale? Il Messia che Israele attende è Rex pacificus, Princeps pacis, Pater futuri saeculi: non un tiranno senza morale che domina il mondo sottomettendo gli uomini come schiavi. Questo è piuttosto l’Anticristo.

Which in English is:

To dismiss these concerns — expressed, moreover, also by authorative personalities — as “conspiracy theories” does not seem to be a constructive attitude: above all if one does not address the merit of the issue, by confusing it with what one regards as true.  I ask you therefore: in what, in particular, do you disagree with the text of the Appeal? What in the Appeal represents for you a “shock”?

Believe me: I would never have thought that the Appeal could be offensive to you; on the other hand, for what reason might a Rabbi feel called into the debate, when one is speaking of the New World Order?  The Messiah which Israel is awaiting is the Rex pacificus, the Princeps pacis, the Pater futuri saeculi: not a tyrant without morals who dominates the world by making men submit like slaves. This is rather the Antichrist.

There the Archbishop leaves it. In the rest of the Letter he says nothing more of Jesus Christ or the Church. He has conceded that unbelieving Jews are Israel and that their Messiah is yet to come.

Together such affirmations represent a least a decision to be silent about Jesus, and worse a tacit consent in a theory of Two Messiahs, one for Jews and one for Christians, which a godless heresy.

Because while it is true that the Jews of old are Israel — named on account of their descent from Jacob whose  name God changed after he wrestled with an Angel — Saint Paul speaks of their conversion only in regard to faith in Jesus Christ. Such a nation is Israel.

But Christ came, so that nation no longer is awaiting Him. They have either accepted Him or rejected him. There is no other Messiah to come.

But for the people of Israel which awaits another, Christ Himself said those were the sons of the Devil, not of Abraham. Nor can anyone, without playing games with words, theology and doctrine, claim that the Jews today are still waiting the Messiah. If they do not believe in Jesus and reject Him, then they are not awaiting him in any sense or stretch of the imagination!

Nay, rather, the real and true Israel is the Catholic Church and the Jews throughout the ages who have converted to the Faith. And Moses confirms this in Deuteronomy, where he says that those who reject the prophet to come after him, the Messiah, shall be cut off from the People of God by God Himself.

What the Archbishop has done might seem to him fine diplomacy, but Our Lord did not commission the Apostles as diplomats — as anyone who reads the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles can see.

+ + +


Donate to support FromRome.Info

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


Ratzinger vs. The Benedict Bot: A case in point: The 3rd Secret of Fatima


by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

After my revelations that I had been threatened over the phone by Archbishop Ganswein, the revelations which burst out from Archbishop Viganò and others in January about the duplicity of the private secretary of Pope Benedict XVI, shed real light on the need to review all the statements alleged to be from Pope Benedict XVI after February 2013, as to their authenticity. (See links in this paragraph for pertinent articles about this).

Editor’s Note: The phrase, “The Benedict Bot”, as used above in the title of the present article, is a term coined by Frank Walker, editor of, and used to characterized the apparently manufactured and artificial statements by others in the Vatican, which are attributed by the Vatican Press Office to the Roman Pontiff, in such wise as to raise grave concerns whether they are in any way an authentic expression of his mind. Thus the Benedict Bot is the persona created by the Vatican. This term obviously refers to a theory of interpretation, because without video confirmation that Pope Benedict XVI has said something, the matter is always capable of doubt, especially after the Vatican has been caught twice falsifying the letter and statements of Pope Benedict, as FromRome.Info has reported previously, not to mention every translation of his Declaration of Feb. 11, 2013.

Now, on the fourth anniversary of the controversy over the Third Secret of Fatima which exploded in Catholic Media in May of 2016, I think that time has come to compare the real Ratzinger with the Benedict Bot. So lets examine what Cardinal Ratzinger is alleged by a close friend on 3 occasions to have said, BEFORE February 2013, and what he is alleged to have said by the Vatican Press Office in 2016.

Cardinal Ratzinger on the Third Secret

Here is the testimony of Father Paul Kramer, in his interview in the Fatima Crusader edition of 2009, where he reports the testimony of Father Ingo Dollinger, regarding the Third Secret of Fatima, and his conversations with Cardinal Ratzinger.

Then on June 26, 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger published for the world the document [on the Third Secret] contain-ing the vision of a “bishop in white”, claiming that the en-tire Secret is set forth in this document. Yet it can only be understood that way if we say that he is using a mental res-ervation; that what is set forth by Our Lady in Her words is already implicitly contained symbolically in the vision. The elderly German priest, Ratzinger’s long-time person-al friend, took note of the fact that when this vision of the Third Secret was published it

The Fatima Crusader 10 May 2009May 200911 The Fatima Crusader did not contain those things, those elements of the Third Secret that Cardinal Ratzinger had revealed to him nearly ten years earlier. The German priest — Father Döllinger — told me that his question was burning in his mind on the day he concelebrated with Cardinal Ratzinger. Father Döllinger said to me, “I con-fronted Cardinal Ratzinger to his face.” And of course he asked Cardinal Ratzinger, “how can this be the entire Third Secret? Remember what you told me before?” Cardinal Ratzinger was cornered. He didn’t know what to say and so he blurted out to his friend in German, “Wirklich gebt das der etwas” which means “really there is something more there,” meaning there is something more in the Third Secret. The Cardinal stated this quite plainly.

I have tracked down the original article, here. Christopher A. Ferrara refers to this interview in his commentary on the events of 2016, here.

The Fatima Crusader, on its FaceBook page, in on May 17, 2016, reported Father Kramer’s more detailed testimony thus:

Regarding the Recent Confirmation by Fr. Ingo Döllinger

<< Third Secret of Fatima Still Mainly Concealed; Warns Against an Evil Council and Changes in the Liturgy >>

“Fr. Ingo Döllinger is a several decades long close personal friend of Pope Benedict XVI. Cardinal Ratzinger told Dr. Döllinger around 1991 that the 3rd Secret speaks of an ‘evil council,’ and warned against changing and adulterating the liturgy of the Mass — literally against adding extraneous elements into the liturgy (which is exactly what Bugnini & Co. did by adding Protestant elements into the liturgy).

“The Secret, according to Döllinger, also speaks negatively about the Conciliar popes, according to what Ratzinger told Döllinger — comparing one pope to a chameleon, another to a serpent, etc.

“Dr. Döllinger spoke not only to me and Joseph Cain on what Ratzinger had told him, but he related even more details to the young clerics in the seminary of Anapolis (Brazil), where he had been rector. I myself and Joseph have spoken not only with Döllinger, but also with the priests and deacons in Brazil who had heard Dr. Döllinger relate to them the details of the Secret that had been told to him personally by Cardinal Ratzinger around 1991.

“After the publication of the ‘bishop in white’ vision of the 3rd Secret, Döllinger noticed that the details of the Secret that Ratzinger had revealed to him nearly a decade earlier were not in the ‘bishop in white’ version of the secret. When Döllinger had his next opportunity to meet with Cardinal Ratzinger (after a concelebrated Mass), Döllinger asked Ratzinger how it can be said that the whole Secret has been published, since the details of the Secret earlier mentioned to him by Ratzinger were conspicuously absent from the version of the Secret published by Ratzinger on 26 June 2000. Ratzinger was cornered, and therefore blurted out, ‘Wirklich giebt es da noch etwas.’ (‘Really there is more there.’) Dr. Döllinger also told Joseph and me that he had personally known (St.) Pio of Pietrelcina, and that he had made his confession to Padre Pio fifty-eight times.”

Andin 2016, Maike Hickson revived the story and started a firestorm by doing so, by quoting Father Dollinger thus, in her article at One Peter Five, published on May, 15, just two days earlier:

Not long after the June 2000 publication of the Third Secret of Fatima by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told Fr. Dollinger during an in-person conversation that there is still a part of the Third Secret that they have not published! “There is more than what we published,” Ratzinger said. He also told Dollinger that the published part of the Secret is authentic and that the unpublished part of the Secret speaks about “a bad council and a bad Mass” that was to come in the near future.

Thus, Cardinal Ratzinger before becoming pope.

The Benedict Bot Responds

Now for the Vatican Press office response of May 21, 2016:

Several articles have appeared recently, including declarations attributed to Professor Ingo Dollinger according to which Cardinal Ratzinger, after the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima (which took place in June 2000), had confided to him that the publication was not complete.

In this regard, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI declares “never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima”, clearly affirming that the remarks attributed to Professor Dollinger on the matter “are pure inventions, absolutely untrue”, and he confirms decisively that “the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete”.

The first thing to notice is that the Benedict Bot is calling a life long friend and confidant, of impeccable public reputation, a bold face liar.  I do not know of any case in the entire personal history of Pope Benedict XVI that he calls anyone a liar, let alone a close friend. That is entirely out of character for Benedict. But not for Bergoglio and many who now rule the Vatican.

Second, the Vatican Press Office does not quote the sources of the reports they are attempted to rebut. Are they afraid that others might start analyzing the evidence?

Third, the Vatican Press Office does not say to whom Pope Benedict XVI made these recent statements, who was present, who witnesses them, nor reports their entire context, or even if they refer to his conversations with Father Dollinger, because if you notice how the quotations are spliced, important context has been left out to verify such a relation between them — even if they are authentic quotes — to Father Dollinger’s reported statements on the Third Secret.

For these three reasons, one can doubt that the statement from the Vatican Press Office is an authentic representation of anything Pope Benedict XVI said in 2016, if he said anything at all.

Finally, seeing how Archbishop Gänswein was caught in bold face lies when he denied that Pope Benedict XVI had collaborated in certain matters regarding the Book on Celibacy by Cardinal Sarah, I think we might be able to guess where the source of the Benedict Bot statements of 2016 may have come from.

+ + +


Donate to support FromRome.Info

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


The time to return en masse to Ancient Roman Rite has come!

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

You do not see me write often about the Latin Mass, but that is not because I am not in favor of it. The Novus Ordo is a perfect doctrinal and liturgical and formative disaster in every possible way, even in the vernacular used.

But the recent phobias which have been intentionally induced in the masses by globalists who want total domination of every aspect of everyone’s life, is now the occasion to say something that was not taken seriously in modern times, when plagues and epidemics rarely occur and rarely kill with the frequency and inexplicability of past ages.

What am I speaking about?

It is this: the Ancient Roman Rite is more hygienic.

Consider the following comparisons

  1. In the Novus Ordo, the priest says mass facing the people, so if he sneezes, or if any of them sneeze, someone is more likely to get infected. But in the Ancient Roman Rite, the priest celebrates ad orientem, that is, facing the apex of the nave and with his back to the narthex (the lobby at the doors on the west side), thus shielding him from sneezes from the faithful, and them from his own.
  2. In the Novus Ordo, the altar is closer to the people, wheras in the ancient rite it was at the head of the sanctuary, much further away from the pews.
  3. In the Novus Ordo, the canon is much longer, and since it is said aloud, the priest must strive to enunciate it more dramatically, which causes many more explosions of human spittle during the pronunciations, than in the Ancient Roman Rite where the canon is said softly without any strong labial movements, which cause such things.
  4. In the Novus Ordo, there is no separation of the Sanctuary (presbytery) from the main section of the nave, which is often on the same level, whereas in the Ancient Roman Rite the churches had a sanctuary which was 3, 5, 7 or even 9 steps higher than the rest of the nave, and was guarded by a communion rail, or rood screen.
  5. In the Novus Ordo, many more words are said aloud by both the priest and the faithful, than in the Ancient Roman Rite, where for the most part the congregation remains quite and prayerful.
  6. In the Novus Ordo, missalettes are placed in the pews which are shared daily by everyone, thus increasing diffusion of any germs, whereas in the Ancient Roman Rite there was no need, and those who did, brought their own personal missal, which they alone touched.
  7. In the Novus Ordo, the congregation is asked to sing together everything, thus increasing by many orders of magnitude the amount of atmosphere in the Church which shares germs, but in the Ancient Roman Rite the priest or a single cantor chanted the propers of the Mass of the day.
  8. In the Novus Ordo, the sign of peace is a close physical handshake or hug shared by everyone at every mass, whereas in the Ancient Roman Rite it is a brief gesture between the Priest and the deacon and subdeacon at high mass only.
  9. In the Novus Ordo, incense for the most part as been abandoned, but in the Ancient Roman Rite incense, especially myrrh which has natural antiseptic properties, was frequently used on high feast days when the largest numbers gathered together in the Church.
  10. In the Novus Ordo, the faithful are encouraged if not made to feel guilty, if they do not share the Most Precious Blood from the same chalice, whereas in the Ancient Roman Rite the chalice was reserved to the Priest.
  11. In the Novus Ordo, there is concelebration and often even other ministers who stand next to the altar at every mass, whereas in the Ancient Roman Rite there is no concelebration, and even at high mass the Deacon and subdeacon stand at a distance and during the canon at the back of the priest celebrating.
  12. In the Novus Ordo, the Most Blessed Sacrament is often placed in the hands of the faithful who have been touching the pews, missalettes and one another, but in the Ancient Roman Rite it is placed upon the tongue of a kneeling communicant, so that the priest can more easily do so without encountering their saliva.

Therefore, I say, even if you believe the hype of Coronavirus, or whether you simply are more conscientious now of the need of hygiene, you should be able to see that the time for a universal and complete restoration of the Ancient Roman Rite has come.

May God grant it so!


CREDITS: The Featured Image is of Pope Benedict XVI offering the Most Precious Blood of Jesus Christ to the Eternal Father.

+ + +


Donate to support FromRome.Info

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


In a Vaccine Lab, first you cage the rats and then …

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In a Vaccine Lab, first you cage the rats and then you inject them with untested Vaccines.

If you think about that, then you might recognize something.

First, the lockdown which insists we all stay in our homes.

Second, the laws moving forward for obligatory untested vaccines for all of us.

Is this just an imaginary comparison, or is it real. I leave it to you decide.


CREDITS: The Featured Image above is a screen shot of image search for lab rats, to show how good that image search engine is to find images on any topic.

Article 77 of the Italian Constitution is zapping Conte’s Dictatorship into oblivion

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In Italy, according to the Constitution, Article 87, the President of the Council of Ministers — who in other nations is called the Prime Minister — can emanate decrees with have force of law in times of urgency.  It is on this basis that Giuseppe Conte has responded to the co-called COVID-19 Pandemic.

But his efforts to establish a police state of a kind only George Orwell might have dreamed of is slowing being zapped into oblivion by the same Constitution he quotes to justify his tyrannical control of everything in Italy, from handshakes to visiting grandma, from which part of society is deemed essential and which part can be crushed out of existence: the Church and small businesses in the second category.

Article 77 reads in the original:

Il Governo non puo` , senza delegazione delle Camere [76], emanare decreti che abbiano valore di legge ordinaria.

Quando, in casi straordinari di necessita` e di urgenza, il Governo adotta, sotto la sua responsabilita` , provvedimenti provvisori con forza di legge, deve il giorno stesso presentarli per la conversione alle Camere che, anche se sciolte, sono appositamente convocate e si riuniscono entro cinque giorni [612, 622].

I decreti perdono efficacia sin dall’inizio, se non sono convertiti in legge entro sessanta giorni dalla loro pubblicazione. Le Camere possono tuttavia regolare con legge i rapporti giuridici sorti sulla base dei decreti non convertiti.

Which in English would be:

The Government cannot, without delegation of the House [Article 76], emanate decrees which have the force of ordinary law.

When, in extraordinary cases of necessity and urgency, the Government adopts, under its own responsibility, provisional provisions with the force of law, it must the same day present them for conversion into law to the Houses of Parliament which, even if they are in recess, are duly convoked and are summons within 5 days [Articles 612 & 622].

The decrees lose efficacy retroactively, if they have not been converted into law withing 60 days from their publication.  The Houses of Parliament can, however, regulate with laws the juridical relations which arises on the basis of decrees which are not so converted.

So far, the Italian Parliament has converted none of the decrees of Giuseppe Conte or of his government into law. This means that as 60 days pass for the publication of each of them, they not only lose all force of law, but they lose all legitimacy which they had from the day of their publication, and that ALL the actions which the police took to enforce them become illegal and crimes against the persons so fined or arrested or imprisoned.

To give himself a cover, Giuseppe Conte has been issuing new decrees each month, so as to maintain the claim to power. But each month the Parliament refuses to convert them into law, because if they did, it would be the end of their political careers, so odious these Corona decrees are with the people.

And indeed, if the Parliament has refused to convert the first of the decrees into law, it remains a political de facto state, that they will not convert the others. And thus the entire Corona Tyranny has become not only unconstitutional in what it attempts to force upon citizens, but illegal in its very form of execution.

I had a short conversation with a woman who is a member of the Italian State Police the other night. I mentioned Article 77 to her and though she claimed to be a lawyer, she refused it means what it says. She says I have to read it again and in the right way.

I, myself, think that there will come the day, and that day is fast approaching, when policewomen like her will wish they had listened to me, as they face 5 years in prison for the violation of the constitutional rights of each citizen they so violated. For each one. That means more than life in prison for most of the police of Italy right now.

The chief Corona Decree of March 8, 2020 expired last night. Last night, I did not see police stop anyone.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

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


La Crociata III: per la nuova e vera politica italiana

di Frà Alexis Bugnolo

L’Italia dopo la caduta dell’impero romano è stata sempre soggetta alle invasioni ed al dominio degli stranieri: Goti, Longobardi, Bizantini, Franchi, Tedeschi, Arabi, Normanni, Aragonesi, Spagnoli.

La storia dell’Italia è pesantemente condizionata da questo controllo straniero.

In decadi recenti la storia non è cambiata.  Dopo la guerra mondiale, a ragione della lotta feroce tra gli Americani e i Russi per il controllo dell’Europa, la politica italiana è stata influenzata proprio da queste forze estere.

Così in Italia ci sono fomazioni politiche di destra e di sinistra e di altre colorazioni.

Gli Stati Uniti attravero un’associazione segret, denominata Gladio, attentavano ad appoggiare la destra in Europa, quale baluardo contro l’Unione Sovietica. Viceversa l’Unione Sovietica la sinistra. Poiché che la CIA americana aveva il compito di gestire le attività di Gladio in Europa, eo che la stessa era composta da formazione d’intelligenza segreta militare americana (OSS) e dal network di spie naziste, non è sorpredente che molti partiti di destra promovano il razzismo, il materialismo e il controllo della Chiesa per fini exclusivamente politici secolari.

Contemporaneamente la Russia nelle mani dei marxisti attraverso i grandi poteri bancari americani, non sorprende che in Europa la sinistra abbia stretti legami con i globalisti di oggi (come George Soros e Bill Gates) i quali vogliono creare un nuovo ordine mondiale per il controllo sia dei lavoratori che della moneta di tutte le nazioni; quanto sopra senza rispetto della fede cristiana.

Per uscire da questo doppio abuso gli Italiani necessitano di una politica indipendente dalle interferenze straniere. Questa deve essere una decisione basilare per un vero rinnovamento della politica italiana, per la salvaguardia della libertà e dell’identità degli Italiani.

Gli italiani preesistono all’Italia. Non possiamo ignorare che il Risorgimento fu uno strumento della politica francese e britannica per dominare la penisola italiana per i loro interessi. Quindi, anche a fondamento del concetto di cosa sia l’Italia o che cosa debba essere l’Italia dobbiamo avere una visione realistica e contraria alle bugie storiche.

Quindi, se l’Italia deve essere per gli Italiani quali italiani e non come persone assoggettate ai poteri stranieri o alle ideologie straniere il concetto d’Italia deve rivolgersi alla storia, alla cultura, alla razza e alla religione degli Italiani.

Per questa ragione la vera politica italiana deve essere fedele all’identità degl’Italiani del passato e del presente, e non seguire le norme politiche di qualsiasi altro paese.

Facendo riferimento alla storia italiana del dopoguerra dobbiamo riconoscere che gli Italiani sono stati sfruttati, maltrattati ed ingannati dalla politica sbagliata. Sbagliata  perché fatta per gli stranieri e secondo le ideologie straniere.

La dittatura recente stabilita da Giuseppe Conte con i suoi decreti DCPM è un esempio eclatante per capire la fonte e lo scopo di questa politica sbagliata. Esiste per distruggere l’Italia e rovinare gli Italiani, senza alcuna pietà per le loro sofferenze e maltrattamento subito. Al contrario il governo cerca il potere tramite le minacce ed i soprusi irragionevoli e incostituzionali.

Di conseguenza è ormai ovvio a tutti che, così facendo, gli Italiani o si sottomettono morendo a beneficio degli amici europei e americani di Giuseppe Conte, o si ribellano e si adoperano in tutti i modi per fare cadere questo governo di tiranni e dittatori.

Per riparare alle scelte politiche sbagliate fatte dall’Italia dovrà sorgere un nuovo movimento politico che si ispiri ai valori supremi di Giustizia e che lavori per il bene dell’Italia. Questo deve essere come una Crociata I.I.I. ovvero una crociata per l’Italia, gli Italiani e l’Italianità.

Ed auspico che ogni italiano che ha a cuore la sorte del proprio paese, voglia aderire a questo movimento.


CREDITS: L’immagine in evidenza è la bandiera della Marina Mercantile d’Italia. Molto simile è la bandiera bompresso della Marina Militare, che si usa al fronte della Navi italiani.

+ + +

Constitutionality and Right: The 2014 Decision of the Corte Constituzionale



The English Version follows here below

di Frà Alexis Bugnolo

Giustizia e diritto sono il base del Tuo trono (Salmo 88:14-15)

Recentemente il generale Antonio Pappalardo ha chiesto una rivoluzione arancione in Italia per ristabilire la giustizia per il popolo italiano. Parte della sua argomentazione si basa sulla decisione della Corte Costituzionale italiana del 2014. Pertanto, è nostro dovere capire quale sia stata quella decisione e quali siano stati i suoi effetti.


Uno Stato può essere considerato sotto diversi aspetti: come entità geografica, come entità politica, come entità giuridica e come entità demografica o economica.

È un’entità geografica in quanto controlla un territorio geografico che rivendica di diritto.

È un’entità politica, in quanto rappresenta se stessa come titolare di diritti nei rapporti con gli altri Stati e con coloro che vivono all’interno del suo territorio geografico.

È un’entità demografica, in quanto costituita da esseri umani.

È un’entità economica, in quanto svolge attività economica attraverso coloro che vivono nel suo territorio geografico.

Ma è un’entità giuridica, in quanto esiste in virtù della giustizia e del diritto. Perché senza giustizia e diritto, uno Stato non è uno Stato. Infatti, la parola “stato” si riferisce a una stabilità di ordine. E non c’è ordine nel senso proprio dove non c’è giustizia o non c’è diritto.

Ecco perché, per esempio, è corretto dire che l’ISIS non era uno Stato, perché non aveva alcuna pretesa onesta di essere un ordine di giustizia o di diritto in una specifica regione geografica.

Questi principi, essendo evidenti, sono validi anche nei confronti della Repubblica Italiana.

Essere ed effetti

Una delle considerazioni preliminari e necessarie in ogni discussione sulla giustizia e sul diritto è quella che riguarda i principi fondamentali della metafisica, cioè che per ogni cosa che è, si deve distinguere tra ciò che è e quali sono i suoi effetti o le sue azioni.

Così, un uomo è un essere umano, ma le sue azioni sono le sue opere, le sue parole o i suoi pensieri. Le sue opere, le sue parole e il suo pensiero non sono il suo essere, né lui stesso, ma gli appartengono e fluiscono dal suo essere.

Questa distinzione è chiamata dagli Scolastici la distinzione tra il primo atto dell’essere (primum esse) e il secondo atto dell’essere (secundum esse).

Giustizia e diritto

Questo principio della metafisica governa in materia di giustizia e di diritto, come in tutte le questioni che riguardano la considerazione dell’essere e degli effetti.

Così, se una cosa è giusta, i suoi effetti sono giusti. E se una cosa è fatta in accordo con il diritto, i suoi effetti sono in accordo con il diritto.

Così, se una legge è giusta, è giusto anche ciò che la legge fa sì che sia fatto. E se una legge è ingiusta, ciò che la legge fa sì che sia fatto è ingiusto.

Allo stesso modo, se ciò che ha fatto nascere una legge è ingiusto, allora l’applicazione della legge è ingiusta, e ciò che è fatto in accordo con la legge ingiusta sarà fatto ingiustamente.

Tutto questo è vero, indipendentemente dal fatto che le azioni specificate dalla legge siano giuste di per sé.

Per esempio, se un tiranno ti ordina di lavarti i denti, anche se lavarti i denti è una cosa buona per sé, non è solo che ti ordina di farlo, e se obbedisci al suo ingiusto comando, anche se lo spazzolamento è buono, il tuo diritto alla libertà è stato comunque violato anche se hai acconsentito e obbedito.

La sentenza 2014 della Corte costituzionale italiana

La prima decisione della Corte Costituzionale italiana del 2014 è l’oggetto del presente saggio. È possibile leggere la decisione in originale sul sito web del tribunale:

La sentenza della Corte è stata precisa e concisa: sono state dichiarate incostituzionali le modalità di assegnazione dei seggi al Parlamento italiano previste dalle leggi del 1957 per l’elezione della Camera dei deputati e dalla legge del 1993 per l’elezione del Senato, e dalla legge del 1993 che toglieva all’elettore il diritto di scegliere un individuo, piuttosto che un partito.

Questa, ovviamente, è una decisione epocale nella storia della Repubblica italiana. Perché se tutte le elezioni della Camera bassa dal 1957 e tutte le elezioni del Senato dal 1993, e tutte le elezioni del 1993 per i partiti piuttosto che per i candidati sono state incostituzionali, allora tutte le azioni del Parlamento italiano sono state private della giustizia e del diritto per gli ultimi 71 anni.

Non intendo qui contestare la decisione dei giudici del Corte in questa materia. Essi hanno basato la loro sentenza sulla considerazione dei termini della Costituzione italiana che ogni elettore ha diritto a una rappresentanza uguale per tutti gli elettori, e che quindi la rappresentanza proporzionale, se ostacolata dall’assegnazione di più seggi a qualsiasi partito, di quella parte ottenuta in proporzione ai voti ottenuti è stata una violazione di quel diritto costituzionale. E quando un cittadino era tenuto a votare per un partito e non per un individuo, gli veniva negato il diritto di acconsentire a chi lo rappresentava.

Ma ciò che è del tutto degno di discussione è la follia della posizione assunta dalla Corte nel modo in cui ha affrontato gli effetti della sua decisione. Essa ha stabilito che, poiché riguarda il bene comune di tutto lo Stato italiano che rimane in esistenza, ciò che è stato fatto deve essere considerato come un fatto compiuto e, quindi, solo in futuro, tali leggi devono essere modificate. Ma ha lasciato a un Parlamento eletto in modo incostituzionale il compito di approvare le leggi per correggere le leggi sulle elezioni.

La decisione di sanificare gli effetti di leggi incostituzionali, viola molti principi di logica e di diritto.

Prima di tutto, se una cosa è ingiusta, lo sono anche i suoi effetti. Non si può quindi essere razionale e dire che se una cosa è ingiusta, dobbiamo considerare giusti i suoi effetti. Ciò significherebbe affermare che gli effetti che possono venire solo da A e mai da B devono essere considerati come venuti da B solo perché lo diciamo noi.

In secondo luogo, se la Corte ha deciso che tutte le elezioni sono state incostituzionali, e poiché la Corte stessa è costituita dal Consiglio di Stato, i cui membri includono il Presidente della Repubblica, eletto dal Parlamento, così, dichiarando che le elezioni del Parlamento per 71 anni sono state incostituzionali, hanno dichiarato in effetti illegittima la loro pretesa di essere legittimi giudici della Corte costituzionale.

E se la loro pretesa di essere giudici della Corte era illegittima, anche se la loro decisione di dichiarare l’incostituzionalità delle leggi precedenti era oggettivamente vera, la loro autorità di sanare gli effetti ingiusti di tali leggi era inesistente.

In terzo luogo, il loro approccio fondamentale al concetto di continuità dello Stato italiano confonde le nozioni di Stato come entità politica con quelle di Stato come entità giuridica. Lo Stato italiano come entità politica esiste sia che sia giusto o meno, perché sotto questa considerazione lo Stato italiano è l’essere nell’ordine politico, prima di ogni considerazione di giustizia. Ma lo Stato italiano come entità giuridica è l’entità che esiste in virtù della costituzione italiana, e se tale entità è illegittima, allora non solo non ha il diritto di esistere, ma non è mai esistita, perché “essere illegale” è in diretta contraddizione con il suo stesso principio di essere persona giuridica.

Pertanto, il ricorso della Corte alla necessità di continuità dello Stato è un inganno. Si rivendica l’entità giuridica che ha un fondamento solo nei confronti dell’entità politica.

Cosa avrebbe dovuto fare la Corte nel 2014

La decisione della Corte costituzionale italiana del 2014 può avere un solo effetto ragionevole e giusto, cioè che lo Stato italiano come entità giuridica deve essere interamente ricostituito, perché non è più costituzionale dal 1957. Tutte le leggi e le modifiche della Costituzione dal 1957 sono illegittime, illegali, illegittime, ingiuste e inesistenti. La Repubblica italiana deve essere ricostituita nello Stato che era nel 1957 con nuove elezioni del Parlamento. Questo è ciò che la Corte avrebbe dovuto ordinare nel 2014.

Qual è l’effetto della decisione irrazionale della Corte?

Quello che la Corte ha fatto non è solo ultra vires, che è al di là della sua autorità, ma manca di ogni legittimità giuridica. Perché viola il principio che dice che gli effetti di ciò che è giusto sono giusti, e di ciò che è ingiusto sono ingiusti. In agire così, la Corte ha tentato di intervenire come un Leviatano o un Dio e di fare ciò che è ingiusto, giusto, ciò che è malvagio, il bene.

Così facendo la Corte ha attaccato l’ordine costituzionale. Ha commesso una grave frode nella dichiarazione della sua sentenza. Ha messo in atto un colpo di Stato, o più precisamente ha dichiarato che se i politici violano la Costituzione, sono immuni da un crimine. L’unico ricorso, secondo la Corte, è che i reati cessino dopo aver preso una decisione, ma ciò che si ottiene con il reato prima che la sua decisione sia legittimamente ottenuta.

Così la decisione della Corte ha aperto la porta alla tirannia. Ha proclamato che i politici possono abusare dei diritti dei cittadini e violare impunemente la Costituzione. Lo ha dichiarato perché, dicendo che non c’è rimedio alle ingiustizie del passato, ha dato il permesso per tutte le ingiustizie e ha dichiarato che i politici che fanno queste cose sono immuni.


La sentenza della Corte Costituzionale della Repubblica Italiana del 2014 dimostra che non esiste un ordine costituzionale in Italia. La Costituzione non è mai stata osservata per 71 anni, e anche la forma in cui esiste oggi è incostituzionale, essendo stata modificata da parlamenti illegittimi nel corso di 7 decenni.

Quindi parlare oggi della necessità di procedere in modo costituzionale per remediare la situazione è semplicemente assurdo, a meno che non significhi tornare allo status quo del 1957 e indire nuove elezioni.

E per questo credo che Giuseppe Conte, che è avvocato, sappia che i suoi decreti incostituzionali non sono stati un grande crimine e non avrebbero mai portato ad alcuna sanzione per sé o per il suo governo. Sa che non c’è una costituzione, e che il popolo italiano è stato ingannato per 7 decenni. Cosa c’è di sbagliato nella tirannia aperta?


Si potrebbe sostenere che, in virtù dell’articolo 136, la Corte aveva il diritto di sanificare gli effetti delle leggi inconstituzionali e delle elezioni illegittime del passato. Ma quell’articolo dice solo che le norme delle leggi dichiarate incostituzionali cessano di avere effetto il giorno dopo la pronuncia della sentenza. Non dice nulla sul potere della Corte di fare giusto ciò che è avvenuto prima della sentenza. Il significato dell’articolo riguarda solo l’applicazione futura della legge. Così dal silenzio dell’articolo 136 non si può dedurre che la Corte abbia il potere di fare giusto ciò che è stato ingiusto. Né c’è nulla nella Costituzione che conferisca tale autorità allo Stato.


Si potrebbe sostenere che la sovranità del popolo, essendo limitata alla sua espressione nella Costituzione in Articolo 1, rende illegittimo il ricorso a qualsiasi appello a nozioni di diritto o di giustizia provenienti da fonti esterne alla Costituzione. A questo, dico, che interpretare questo articolo in modo così restrittivo viola i principi della giurisprudenza, secondo i quali le norme restrittive devono avere il minor effetto possibile, cioè interpretate nel senso che violano il meno possibile i diritti altrui. Pertanto, questo articolo deve essere inteso semplicemente per affermare che la Costituzione è l’esercizio della sovranità del popolo quando viene osservata. E così, quando non viene osservata, l’Articolo 1 non solo non ostacola l’azione del popolo per cercare la giustizia, ma la garantisce e le conferisce il suo fondamento assoluto nel suo diritto all’ordine costituzionale.


Si potrebbe sostenere che, poiché non è possibile ricorrere alle sentenze della Corte costituzionale secondo Articolo 137 della Costituzione, nessuno può contestare la sua decisione nel 2014 e quindi è al di là del diritto di chiunque di opporsi ad essa. A questa argomentazione, dico, che la decisione della Corte non solo contradice il principio che la giustizia degli effetti scaturisce dalla giustizia della causa, ma invalida anche la stessa pretesa della Corte di emettere una sentenza insindacabile, perché la Corte stessa ha dichiarato che gli stessi poteri che la costituivano sono stati illegittimamente eletti e nominati. Non si può quindi ragionevolmente fare ricorso all’articolo 137, perché si riferisce ad un tribunale costituito costituzionalmente e non ad un tribunale che ammette di essere stato composto in modo incostituzionale.

Frà Alexis Bugnolo, in quanto cittadino italiano, ha la voglia di fondare un partito politico cattolico per guarantire e avvanzare i diritti dei Cattolici in Italia. Se ha interesse in aiutare, lascia un commento qui sotto con il suo recapito. — Grazie!


POSTCRIPTUM: Per una discussione più ampia sull’irragionevolezza della sentenza del Corte vedi: Antonello lo Calzo, La convalida delle elezione e gli effetti della sentenza del Corte Costituzionale n.1 del 2014.


by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Justice and right are the foundation of Thy throne (Psalm 88:15 in the Vulgate)

Recently, General Antonio Pappalardo has called for an orange revolution in Italy as a way of restoring justice for the Italian People. Part of his argument is based on the decision of the Italian Constitutional Court in 2014. Therefore, it behooves us to understand what that decision was and what its effects were.


A state can be considered under several aspects: as a geographical entity, as a political entity, as a legal entity, and as a demographic or economic entity.

It is a geographical entity inasmuch as it controls a geographical territory which it claims by right.

It is a political entity, inasmuch as represents itself as a holder of rights in relations with other states and with those who live within its geographical territory.

It is a demographic entity, inasmuch as it is constituted by human beings.

It is an economic entity, inasmuch as it conducts economic activity through those who live in its geographical territory.

But it is a legal entity, inasmuch as it exist in virtue of justice and right. Because without justice and right, a state is not a state. For, the word “state” refers to a stability of order. And there is no order in the proper sense where there is no justice or no right.

This is why for example it is correct to say that ISIS was not a state, because it had no honest claim to be an order of justice or right in a specific geographical region.

These principles, being self-evident, are valid also in regard to the Republic of Italy.

Being and Effects

One of the preliminary and necessary considerations in every discussion of justice and right is that which regards the fundamental principles of metaphysics, namely, that for every thing which is, one must distinguish between what it is and what its effects or actions are.

Thus, a man is a human being, but his actions are his works, words, or thoughts. His works, words and thought are not his being, nor himself, but belong to him and flow from his being.

This distinction is called by the Scholastics the distinction between the first act of being (primum esse ) and the second act of being (secundum esse).

Justice and Right

This principle of metaphysics governs in matters of justice and right, as in all affairs which regard the consideration of being and effects.

Thus, if a thing is just, its effects are just. And if a thing is done in accord with right, its effects are in accord with right.

Thus, if a law is just, that which the law causes to be done is also just. And if a law is unjust, that which the law causes to be done is unjust.

Likewise, if that which brought a law into being was unjust, then the application of the law is unjust, and that which is done in accord with the unjust law will be unjustly done.

All this is true, regardless of whether the actions specified by the law are just in themselves.

For example, if a tyrant order you to brush your teeth, even though brushing your teeth is something which is good of itself, it is not just that he order you to do it, and if you obey his unjust command, though the brushing be good, your right to liberty was still violated even if you consented and obeyed.

The 2014 Sentence of the Italian Constitutional Court

The first decision of the Italian Constitutional Court in 2014 is the subject of the present essay. You can read the decision in the original at the website of the court:

The decision of the court as precise and concise: the manner of awarding seats in the Italian parliament as specified in the laws of 1957 for the election of the House of Deputies (the lower house in the Italian Parliament) and in the 1993 law for the election of the Senate, and in the 1993 law which took away from the voter the right to chose an individual, rather than a party, were declared unconstitutional.

This, obviously, is a momentous decision in the history of the Italian Republic. Because if all the elections of the lower house since 1957 and all the elections of the Senate since 1993, and all the elections since 1993 for parties rather than candidates were unconstitutional, then all the actions of the Italian Parliament were deprived of justice and right for the last 71 years.

I will not contest here the decision of the court in this matter. They based their sentence on the consideration of the terms of the Italian constitution that each voter be allowed equal representation, and that therefore proportional representation, when obstructed by awarding more seats to any party, than that part obtained in proportion to the votes it garnered was a violation of that constitutional right. And when a citizen was required to vote for a party and not an individual, he was denied the right to consent to whom represented him.

But what is entirely worthy of discussion is the insanity of the position taken by the Court in how it dealt with the effects of its decision. It ruled that, because it pertains to the common good of all the Italian State remain in existence, that what was done is must be regarded as a fait accompli, and hence forth in the future only, such laws must be changed. But it left to a Parliament elected in an unconstitutional manner to pass the laws to correct the laws on elections.

The decision to sanitize the effects of unconstitutional laws, violates a lot of principles of logic and right.

First of all, if a thing is unjust, then its effects are also unjust. Thus, one cannot be rational and say that if a thing is unjust, we must regard its effects as just. That would be to assert that the effects which only can come from A and never from B must be regarded to have come from B just because we say so.

Second, if the court has decided that all the elections were unconstitutional, and since the Court itself is constituted by the Consiglio di Stato, whose members include the President of the Republic, elected by the Parliament, thus, in declaring that the elections of parliament for 71 years were unconstitutional, they declared in effect that their own claim to be legitimate justices of the Constitutional Court were illegitimate.

And if their claim to be judges of the court was illegitimate, even if their decision that the previous laws were unconstitutional was objectively true, their authority to sanitize the unjust effects of those laws was non-existent.

Third, their fundamental approach to the concept of the continuity of the Italian State confounds the notions of the state as a political entity with the state as a legal entity. The Italian state as a political entity exists whether it be just or not, because under this consideration the Italian state is the being in the political order, prior to all considerations of justice. But the Italian state as a legal entity is the entity which exists in virtue of the Italian constitution, and if that entity is illegitimate, then not only does not have the right to exist, it has never existed, because “to be illegal” directly contradicts its very principle of being as a legal entity.

Hence, the Court’s appeal to the necessity of continuity of the State is deceptive. They are making a claim about the legal entity which only has a basis in regard to the political entity.

What the Court should have done in 2014

The decision of the Italian Constitutional Court of 2014 can only have one reasonable and just effect, namely, that the Italian State as a legal entity must be entirely reconstituted, because it has not been constitutional since 1957. All the laws and modifications of the Constitution since 1957 are illegitimate, illegal, unlawful, unjust and non existent. The Italian Republic must be reconstituted again in the state it was in 1957 with new elections for parliament. That is what the Court should have ordered in 2014.

What is the effect of the irrational decision of the Court?

What the court has done is not only ultra vires, that is beyond its authority, but lacks all legitimacy in legal right. Because it violates the principle which says that the effects of what is just are just, and of what is unjust are unjust. The Court has attempted to intervene like a Leviathon or God and make what is unjust, just, what is evil, good.

In doing so the Court has attacked the Constitutional Order. It has committed grave fraud in the declaration of its sentence. It has enacted a Coup d’etat, or more precisely, has declared that if politicians violate the Constitution, they are immune from a crime. The only recourse, according to the Court, is that the crimes cease after it makes a decision, but what is obtained by the crime before its decision is legitimately obtained.

Thus the decision of the court has opened the door to tyranny. It has proclaimed that politicians can abuse the rights of the Citizens and violate the Constitution with impunity. It has declared this, because, in saying that there is no remedy to past injustices, it has given permission for all injustice and declared that the politicians who do such things are immune.


The sentence of the Constitutional Court of the Italian Republic in 2014 demonstrates that there is no constitutional order in Italy. The Constitution was never observed for 71 years, and even the form in which it exists today is unconstitutional, being changed by illegitimate parliaments over the course of 7 decades.

Thus to speak to day of the necessity to proceed in a constitutional manner is simply absurd, unless it means returning to the status quo of 1957 and calling new elections.

And for this reason, I think that Giuseppe Conte, who is a lawyer, knows that his unconstitutional decrees were no great crime and would never result in any penalty to himself or his government. He knows that there is no constitution, and that the Italian People have been deceived for 7 decades. So what is wrong with open tyranny?


It might be argued that on account of Article 136, the Court had the right to sanitize the effects of past illegitimate laws and elections. But that Article says only that the norms of the laws which are declared unconstitutional cease to have effect the day after the sentence is handed down. It saying nothing about the power of the court to make just what took place before its sentence. What the Article means only regards future application of the law. Thus from the silence of Article 136 one cannot infer that the Court has the authority to make just what was unjust. Nor is there anything in the Constitution which grants such authority to the State.


It might be argued that the sovereignty of the people, being limited to its expression in the Constitution, makes recourse to any appeal to notions of right or justice from sources outside the constitution illegitimate. To this, I say, that to interpret this article in such a restrictive manner violates the principles of jurisprudence, which hold that restrictive norms must be have the lest effect possible, that is, interpreted in the sense which violates the rights of others in the least way. Thus, this article must simply be understood to affirm that the Constitution is the exercise of the sovereignty of the people when observed. And thus, when it is not observed, not only does Article 1 not impede the action of the people to seek justice, it guarantees it and grants it its absolute fundament in their right to a constitutional order.


It might be argued that since no recourse is possible to judgements of the Constitutional Court, no one can dispute its decision in 2014 and thus it is beyond the right of anyone to object to it. To this, I say, that not only does the decision of the court invalidate the principle that the justice of the effects flows from the justice of the cause, it also invalidates the Court’s own claim to hand down an unquestionable sentence, because the Court itself has declared that the very powers which constituted it were illegitimately elected and appointed. Thus no appeal to Article 137 can reasonably be made, because it refers to a Court which is constituted constitutionally and not to a Court which itself admits was composed in an unconstitutional manner.

+ + +



Donate to support FromRome.Info

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




Msgr. Nicola Bux rewrites Canon 332 §2

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Denial in times of shock is a human experience and a frequent response, though not virtuous, when the truth of the pain, suffering or threat is so great it cannot be admitted to exist even in the mind. The denial is the escape.

But denial of the truth of reality and of the facts of history or law is simply wrong, and in a scholar it is glaringly dishonest.

Such is my amazement then at the comment attributed to Msgr. Nicola Bux, in the article of Aldo Maria Valli, entitled, Benedetto XVI: “Ho rinunciato, ma sono ancora papa sotto il profilo spirituale”, which was published yesterday, here in Italy.

Apart from the fact that the title of the article repeats in Italian the same exact title of Maike Hickson’s report at LifeSite News — a thing which in itself is a giornalistic faux pas if not unseemly — the article presents nothing new in respect to her article.  Valli is one of the leading journalists here in Italy, on national television. It is clear that he could have done better, in my opinion.

But the end of the article is the real insult to the intelligence of the reader. There, Valli writes:

Se la persona eletta non è un vescovo, prosegue monsignor Bux, deve essere immediatamente consacrata vescovo perché il papato comporta l’esercizio dell’ufficio episcopale, ma è papa dal momento in cui acconsente alle elezioni. “Se la stessa persona, a un certo punto, dichiara di non poter più adempiere alla chiamata di essere il vicario di Cristo sulla terra, perde l’ufficio papale e ritorna alla condizione in cui si trovava prima di dare il consenso a essere il vicario di Cristo sulla terra”.

Which in English would be:

If the person elected is not a bishop, continues, Msgr. Bux, he should be immediately consecrated a bishop because the Papacy requires the excercise of the episcopal office, but he is pope from the moment in which he assents to the election. “If the same person, at a certain point, declares to no longer be able to fulfill the call to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, he loses the papal office and returns to the conditions in which he was found before giving his consent to being the Vicar of Christ on earth”.

Valli is too professional a journalist to be suspected of having invented or distorted the words attributed to Msgr. Bux, which I have highlighted in red.

That being the case, I do not know what the Monsignor is trying to do, pull the wool over the heads of the entire Catholic world?  I say this because Bux has clearly rewritten Canon 332 §2, to mean that which Pope Benedict XVI did on February 11, 2013, when, on the contrary, Canon 332 §2, being a papal law, which according to Christ Jesus, Who is God, Eternal Truth, our Savior, and the only Head of the Church, declared to be bound in Heaven just as on earth, says something entirely different:

If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus, there is required for validity that the renunciation be freely done and duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomever.

Msgr. Bux obviously wants badly to accept the Renunciation as valid, but in doing so he has not only violated the final clause which says his acceptance does not make it valid, and the first clause which says that it happens when the Pope Renounces his petrine munus, not when he says, at any time, that he is no longer capable to fulfill the office.

Bux is in denial, and it is not one which arose out of fear. It is one which arises out of a malign desire to deny the truth.

I never paid attention to anything Bux said until the summer of 2012, when Pope Benedict XVI appointed Mueller to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and there immediately irrupted the shock and objections of the Catholic world, here in Italy, on account of Muellers speculation that Our Lady was not always a physical virgin, only a spiritual virgin, and that in the Sacrament of the Altar, Jesus is present in His Divine and Human Nature, but not with His hands and feet and heart.

It was then that Bux spoke in Mueller’s defense, even though the latter’s opinion regarding Our Lady was condemned in the Synod of the Church of Rome in the 7th century as heretical.

Bux, evidently, still has not learned when it is just better to remain silent.

As an aside, Msgr. Nicola Bux sustains that the Code of Canon Law needs to be changed to provide a canonical status for a pope emeritus, because he wants to hide the reality of what happened over the fig leaf of words. I am told this effort is currently in the works in the Roman Curia.


CREDITS: The Featured Image above is a screen shot of Google Images search for Nicola Bux, to show that it is a good search engine for finding images of the many faces of the Monsignor.

+ + +


Donate to support FromRome.Info

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


Those who say Benedict renounced validly, now have no credibility

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

One of the characteristics of the damned, is that they cannot repent. They have with a firm will and mind rejected the truth of their sin, forever.

This spiritual state can be arrived at even by those still alive in this world. Saint Alphonsus calls this moral state the state of reprobation. It is a definitive sign of a person who has chosen Hell.

For those who have not fully rejected, yet, God, there is always some uncertainty in their adhesion to evil, some small crack in their heart to open back up to the truth, some place in their mind through which the truth can be heard.

Now I publicly ask the entire Catholic world, and especially the entire College of Cardinals and College of Bishops:

Seeing that Peter Sewald in his new book, Benedickt XVI. Ein Leben, has quoted Benedict XVI saying that it was never his intention to renounce the spiritual mandate of the papacy, and seeing that there is no other mandate which constitute the Papal Office other than the spiritual, it must be confessed by all that Benedict XVI has not renounced the Petrine Munus, the Papal Office, even if he thinks he has or even if he thinks he can renounce part of it, while retaining part of it.

Therefore, are you now going to stand with Christ and return to loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI? or are you going to chose the part of the Father of Lies and continue to insist that the Conclave of 2013 was called during a legal sedevacante?

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

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