A great and wonderful miracle happened and is happening this week in the Catholic Church. A thing we have never seen since the reign of Pope Pius XII, nay, not since the Reformation.
Faithful Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops, even whole Episcopal Conferences have decided to publicly take a stand with Faithful Laity, Religious and Priests against a lunatic innovation from the Pope and the Roman Curia!
We did not see this regarding Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae, Communion in the hand, the Traditional Latin Mass, or even the disciplines regarding the safeguarding of the Sacraments of Matrimony and the Eucharist.
It’s a first.
And lifetime warriors against the Aggiornamento all can sense it.
It is a miracle. A moral miracle, which is greater than even a physical miracle.
And this miracle has a cause.
Because for the first time since April 13, 1059 A. D., that is in 964 years, we have a Pope elected by the Catholics of Rome and not by the Cardinals, that is, by Apostolic Right and not by Papal Law or canon.
And this was done on January 30, 2023, when the Faithful of Rome, who recognized that Canon 332 was bound in Heaven, and thus that Pope Benedict XVI was pope until death, for not having fulfilled the terms of that canon, came together in accord with the decision of Saint Peter the Apostle, that the Faithful of the Church of Rome elect their own pastor, and elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
This decision of the Apostle was a work of the Holy Spirit. And this obedience to the will of the Apostle united the entire Church for the first time in nearly 1000 years with the Roman Pontiff in the way most pleasing to the Holy Spirit.
The spiritual consequence of this was and is that the entire Church is invigorated now with much greater alacrity in responding to the Holy Spirit, and thus has resisted this horrible attack on the Church, contained in Fiducia supplicans, with the most admirable and stunning alacrity and vigor.
We have seen the end of the tide of the Revolution in the Church. The counter-Revolution has begun.
To the Lord, Giver of Life, let us thank Him, this week, for having given us all a lesson in humility, faith and perseverance with the truth. Words have meaning to God the Holy Spirit and He wants us to oppose error, vice and fraud.
For these reasons, I am more confident than ever that the goal of the Sutri Initiative will be attained. And I thank all the Faithful Catholics at Rome and around the world that made this miracle happen, by believing against all the world, hoping against all despair, and persevering in the darkest and most lonely battles.
Thank you, Lord Giver of Life! Thank you comrades in arms!
The Globalists knew that they can never achieve Agenda 2030 without crushing their opposition.
And in 2013 they realized that opposition in the USA and in the Catholic Church was rising to threatening levels, as rank and file citizens and believers woke up out of the last 100 years of propaganda.
So now it appears that the Globalists are positioning us into a situation where we turn on one another rather than fight them. Divide and Conquer.
In the USA, it looks increasingly likely that neither major political party will accept as valid the final vote in the Electoral College on January 6, 2025. A disagreement there could be disastrous, as the first Civil War in the USA began with a disagreement precisely over that: who was the winner of the election of 1860.
In the Catholic Church, the Church Militant has awoken and unsheathed Her sword against the perverse dishonesty launched by the Globalist puppet, Pope Francis, called “Fiducia supplicans”. The refusal of the papal document is unprecedented in the entire history of the Church, precisely because for the first time in roughly 1600 years there is a document bearing the Papal signature which is doctrinally dishonest and erroneous, not to mention perverse.
If both institutions are embroiled in internecine warfare in 2023-2025, then the Globalists will have a free hand to push their agenda world-wide. Which is exactly what they want.
Foreboding are the implications of such a strategy.
I am not making this observation as a pacifist, urging each side to reconcile. I am rather urging everyone to wake up and pay attention to the larger battle at hand.
Anyone who has been carefully watching the reign of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a.k.a. Pope Francis, for the last 10 years can see the forest through the trees about his character and behavior. And just like the analogy, so too when dealing with any act or statement of Pope Francis, one has to recognize in which forest each tree stands, so as to correctly identify its species.
From the beginning, the international press, controlled by the Rothschilds and intel agencies of the leading Masonic powers of the world, hailed Bergoglio as “the humble pope” “from the peripheries”. To anyone familiar with how the same press treated Barrack Obama just 7 years before, the parallelisms were crystal clear: the man Bergoglio was being praised as a saint, a savior and a messiah before he even did anything. This was psychological conditioning to prepare us for the revolution he planned from the start.
Even his nephew in Florida admitted the truth, namely, that once Pope, his uncle would change Catholic teaching on the fundamental points of marriage, divorce and sodomy.
Soon, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was channeling Barrack Obama in all his actions and homilies, from washing the feet of non-Christian convicted criminals on Holy Thursday — while omitting Holy Thursday Mass at Saint John’s Basilica — to celebrating mass on an altar built into a wooden boat used by illegals to cross the Mediterranean to invade Europe. Each act was calculated to be politically disgusting in every detail.
And on the topic of sodomy, “Who was I to judge?” became the slogan shouted round the world, from his lips to the dens of iniquity the world over.
And while many tried to explain away the scandals, the scandals grew even more.
So Fiducia supplicans, while shocking in its nefarious argumentation and goals, shocked no one with its intention: the legitimization of sodomy.
But for the right thinking Catholic, who takes a look at the entire forest, something else also becomes evident, namely, that with the publication of this document the Sacrament of Catholic Marriage is changed forever, or better yet, destroyed in its unique character as the only stable form of human relationship among sexual partners wherein God’s blessing can be received from a Catholic Priest, the ambassador of the Only True God.
And here is where the goal of the nefarious document becomes evident even in the propaganda that Cardinal Fernandez has well thought out to counter opposition to the Infernal Declaration: namely the talking pionts distributed by his office to Bishops round the world, to enable them convince the Faithful to accept this Abomination of Desolation.
For if you read the responses of Bishops from any part of the world, which do not oppose the Declaration, they are all repeating the same talking point: “the Catholic doctrine on Marriage has not changed”, “the Church teaching on sexual morality has not changed”.
If you have any experience talking to swindlers, crooks, shiesters and street-corner hucksters, like Barrack Obama, then you recognize easily that the disco-bouncer Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his crew have the same expertise.
Like the game played on the world by Pope John Paul II, when he was about to go into surgery to survive from his shooting on May 13, 1981, in that document which “authorized altar girls”, we’ve seen the same dishonest game played on us for a long time. The document said one thing, but the effects allowed were quite another. The document said that only when no men were present, such as in cloistered convents and women’s retreats, a woman could do what an acolyte did. But the implementation was quite another: for now women can be admitted to the role of acolyte and serve even when the Church is full of men and boys, and any priest who would refuse to use them would be sacked in 24 hours.
The Catholic Faithful have seen this shell game played on us since the first day of the Second Vatican Council. It’s time that we stop playing the game and putting cheese out to encourage these rats from infesting the Barque of Holy Mother Church.
For my personal recommendation how to respond to Fiducia supplicans in your parish, see my video comments here.
The Catholic Church had a tradition regarding priestly formation which endured from the time of the Apostles until the Council of Trent. Whereupon, there was instituted the form of formation we know today, of Seminaries in the major dioceses and priest formed in Seminaries.
But before the Council of Trent, that was not how priests were chosen and formed.
And a return to the ancient traditional system would have advantages combating the infiltration of the priesthood by sodomites and pedophiles.
For in ancient times, a priest became a priest through a long community monitory system.
First, before Vatican II, Orders were not limited to Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
No, they included, all the minor orders: porters, exorcists, acolytes, lectors, subdeacons as well as the major orders, deacons, priests and bishops. Although subdeacons were classified with major orders.
Catholic men who were faithful and piously attended the Divine Liturgy on a regular basis were invited to join the minor orders.
Invited.
That is the key word. And in each step of promotion it was by invitation only. There was no right to be promoted, and a candidate could be stopped for any length of years at any grade in Orders, if he failed to get the acknowledgement of his superiors or peers.
Also, the place of formation was the parish and the local churches. NOT some distant institution separated from the laity.
The practice led to men chosen for their virtue and constancy of honorable comportment. Since members of the minor orders worked side by side with married and celibate men until they were 30 years of age, there was a long process of observing their character, before they were ordained as priests.
There were also long intervals required for holding each munus. A man served as a deacon until he was 30 years of age, at least. Saint Bonaventure, for example was ordained at 32. That means most men were in minor orders for 16 or more years, twice the amount of time many are as seminarians today.
The medieval system broke down only because of the Black Death, which decimated the clergy of Europe. As a result many candidates were rushed to formation leading to a system which no longer promoted men with caution. By the 15th century, it was not infrequent for men in orders to be involved in horrible scandals.
Observations from an Anthropologist
The lack of patience and faith on the part of Bishops, in regard to the promotion of vocations, is, yes, at the root cause of most of the problems in priestly formation today. But the Church cannot afford to ignore that a different context for the promotion of vocations and a greater participation of the faithful and parishes and local churches in selecting and promoting candidates as was done for the first 15 centuries of Church history does have its advantages.
As an anthropologist — I hold a B. A. in Cultural Anthropology from the University of Florida, 1986 — I have had occasion to reflect on the formation of the clergy through the last 40 years of my vocation, having attended formation programs in minor seminary, major seminary, monasteries and 3 pontifical institutes at Rome. So, reflecting on what I was witness too and all the problems I have seen with the modern system of formation, I would make these observations, why the ancient system was better.
First, because in parishes families knew one another and thus could point out to the pastor or Bishop men who should be invited to assume minor orders. They could also warn the pastor or Bishop of scandalous behavior. The candidate would have to show himself at all times and in all situations a man of virtue and faith.
Second, because in the ancient system, Pastors, accordingly, had too emphasize catechesis over homilies in the Sunday sermons to make sure all the men were inspired to a life of virtue. — The modern practice which continually discourages this on the unproven claim that teaching the scriptures raw, rather than explaining the Cathechism well — and I speak of the Roman Cathecism — has had undeniable and disastrous results. And indeed it is not too obvious that a hierarchy which does not feel obligated to believe in the Cathechism is the same one which does not want it preached, not even to have good vocations.
The other advantages over the modern system are also obvious. At the present, “vocations” can be recruited at bars, night clubs, saunas and other unseemly places by corrupt and degenerate priests and bishops. If a Bishop wants a seminarian for vicious reasons, there is no one who can stop him, even when it is obvious that the seminarian is a dissolute or wicked man.
The Church today needs a system where any member of the faithful and especially the men of the parish can in an institutionalized manner be heard regarding the suitability of a man for promotion to orders. The laity need to be encouraged to promote men of worthy character. The Church needs minor orders restored to institutionalize a system which encourages vocations and makes it normal for a young man to go from active participation in his parish to being seen as a vocation. And the Church needs the help of a formation process which schools men in the liturgy by requiring the men of the parish to serve with their priest at the Altar at every Mass, Baptism, Marriage, as well as accompany him vising the homes for blessings, last rites etc..
In suchwise it will become impossible for the Gay Mafia to continue to promote their candidates and the Church can have once again a generation of sound chaste men to serve at the Altar of God.
My Recommendations from a veteran of formation programs
I began my vocational discernment, as they call it today, when I was in high school, more than 40 years ago, and since I have never been a very social person, the vast majority of men, whose names I know, were fellow seminarians, friars or priests and deacons. I have seen dysfunctional systems everywhere, and because I am not a priest, I have the freedom to speak out about what has and is going wrong.
But here I want to talk about fixing the problem, since the problems are well known in the inner circles of the clergy.
And so, in the mean time, I would urge pastors to restore as much as this medieval formation process as possible in their parishes, a thing which they can do on their own authority in a limited manner.
First, they should explain to the men of their parish in the principle Masses of each year, that in Christ all men are called to dedicate themselves to the salvation of the world. They are not like women, who in Mary already perfectly fulfilled their duties at the Altar of Calvary. They are like the Apostles who fled leaving only Saint John to serve that August Sacrifice. And since all men, married or not, can serve in the roles of porter, acolyte, and lector, all men should have the devotion and loyalty to Christ to make themselves available to serve.
Second, pastors should preach about the dignity of serving Christ at His Altar, and the duty of the Faithful to point out to him men of faith, of all ages 16+, to be invited to this august ministry. He should give them regular classes in the Faith and the liturgy, and establish schedules of service, being as inviting as possible. And he should teach all who serve at Mass to be men of prayer, devotion, self discipline and attentive to the worship of God, not being seen by men. This is not an extra-curricular activity of a parish priest. For it not only redounds to but is the essential means for promoting the salvation of all souls entrusted to him in his parish territory. He cannot succeed on his own, he needs to form an “army” of collaborators.
Third, and most fundamental in this reform is restoring the recognition of the presence of the Divine Father in the lives of all Catholics, especially at Mass. This requires not only a catechetical emphasis on God the Father in all things, but also the restoration of the image of the Eternal Father in the altitude and apex of the Sanctuary, to which all return by facing Him when they pray to Him. It makes no sense and is destructive of respect for all fathers, that a priest with the faithful face some other direction, when praying to the Eternal Father. In this way, the men of the parish will realize that they are not on a stage to please men, but are standing before their eternal and divine Archetype of all manhood and fatherhood, when they participate in the worship of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit led by their priest. In this way, the entire and most profound truth of our Holy Religion, of the Redemption of Mankind and of the restoration of the Human Family will become most clear and easily grasped.
Fourth, and finally, a promoting of the right kind of devotion to the Blessed Virgin, of the kind that does not make men effeminate but teaches them that sonship to the Virgin means that they should excel in sonship to the Eternal Father, a thing which means sharing in the Cross of Christ and worshipping the Father with the Crucified, alongside their priests at daily mass. That is where Our Lady wants men. She does not want men who cling to the aprons of their mothers, as She never had such a Son.
Christ never intended that laymen and women preach, teach or rule His Church. He intended and does intend and will intend only that the Apostles, Bishops and priests do these things in accord with the laws He and the His Church have established.
But since the Second Vatican Council, which was instigated by the US Department of Defense’s Program for Ideological Warfare against the Church (see here) and executed under the leadership of Henry Luce Booth and Time/Life CIA assets, who coined “the spirit of the Council”, there has arisen in the Catholic Church a group of laymen who without any ecclesiastical mandate from their Bishops or the Pope, undertake to lead and guide the Faithful, though nearly none of them have a degree in theology, and the few who do do not even accept the Magisterium of the Church or the obligation of Canon Law.
And so we have, what I call “the grifter Collective”, which is a group which strives to garner likes, favs, and above all donations, fame and influence, by teaching things they have no right to teach and embracing every novelty which helps them arrive at such goals.
Thus they employ themselves in a daily criticism of Church events, and especially are devoted to promoting scandal in the Church by reporting it only in a spirit of defiance of authority and desperation that there is no other solution other than supporting them in reporting it today, lamenting about it tomorrow, and holding fast to the one rule they have, which is that you do nothing but financially support them.
For this Grifter Collective, because of their very nature, the decision by Archbishop Viganò to start a house of formation for priests, as well as the reports that he has begun to ordain priests and maybe even Bishops, without any ecclesiastical license or faculty to do so, will be rock upon which they shipwreck their souls and those of the millions of souls who follow them in their follies.
For they will praise him for defying the Pope, for being pragmatic in the face of unjust persecution, for promoting vocations, and for doing the only thing he can do. And in this, they will lead souls astray by misrepresenting Canon Law, the nature of the Church, and Christ’s will for His Church.
And since the Grifter Collective have no inclination to forsake their own will for the sake of the Church, since they have never forsaken anything for the sake of Jesus Christ, as Priests and Religious do, then, since they have no true ecclesiastical spirit, they will be drawn like iron dust to the magnet of their own vain pursuit of favs, clicks, and donations.
This will include the tactics of the double face and of the double mind, in which on one day they will praise the Archbishop, and another concede he is doing wrong, and the third day praise him again for doing something to defy the pope, admitting the truth of the faith on some occasions while equating the falsehood of disobedience and despair at other times.
This Archbishop, then, will be the source of their moral and intellectual confliction, because they will be conflicted as to what pole of loyalty to adhere to, the Catholic one by which they draw unsuspecting souls to follow them, or the vainglorious one by which they draw souls to themselves rather than to Christ.
For this they will have to trouble themselves greatly in the next few months and years to figure out how to feign to be Catholic while unmasking themselves as adherents and promoters of schism.
You won’t see FromRome.Info following them in this, since I have never walked in such a path. I trust, rather, in my Lord Jesus Christ, in His words, and in His Holy Ghost, and in the communion of Saints, all of whom have ever come to the rescue of Holy Mother Church and to the assistance of all who are dedicated to loving the Church of Rome and saving Her from the troubles of the age in which they live.
I exhort you all, therefore, who read this, to learn from the mistakes of the past, and not to go down the road of these members of the Grifter Collective would tempt you to take. Hold fast to Saint Francis of Assisi who promised “obedience and reverence to the Lord Pope Honorius III and to his canonically elected superiors and to the Roman Church.” And let us remain united in prayer for all our Bishops, From Pope Francis to Bishop Strickland, and all the clergy of the Roman Curia, from Cardinal Burke to Archbishop Viganò.
Finally a note about the Latin phrase, papa dubius papa nullius est.This is often translated as “a doubtful pope is no pope”, but the correct translation is “A doubtful pope is the pope of no one”; which refers to his authority over others and their duty in conscience to obey him, namely that he has no authority and no one has the obligation to obey him, as soon as they know he is objectively, by law or fact, doubtfully elected, constituted, or claimant to such authority. – If you have such a doubt, then you must denounce the fact to a competent authority, and the only authority is a Provincial Council of Rome. Starting a seminary is, therefore, a big failure in your duty.
Often the results of one’s efforts has the result of obtaining the opposite. Never is this more true, when it pertains to a matter after your own death, beyond the time in which you can have any say in the matter.
All the more is this true in the election of Roman Pontiffs.
For anyone who has bothered to read the history of all the popes, one by one — you can do it for free via the online Catholic Encyclopedia — as I did back in 2020, during the lockdown — you can discern a perennial rule of thumb in the choices made by the College of Cardinals: that there is a pendulum like shift from papacy to papacy.
The nature of this shift could be described thus: that on certain matters in which the living pope went to an excess, on those matters the College of Cardinals decide to chose pope with a different approach, sometimes the opposite, sometimes more conciliatory.
Popes who were holy and intransigent, like Pope St. Gregory VII were followed by popes who were more pragmatic and conciliatory.
As a cultural anthropologist (B.A. University of Florida, Gainesville, 1986), I think this is because the very dynamic of self-preservation coupled with the miniscule or tiny temporal power of the Papal States (now the Vatican City State) leads to the common sense conclusion, that the most urgent problems which arise in one pontificate, are the reason and motivation for the majority of the members of the College of Cardinals in their choice of the next Pope.
If we apply this observation to the dynamic of the next Conclave, then I think it can be said without exaggeration that Pope Francis is unwittingly preparing the way for the election of Cardinal Burke to the Supreme Pontificate, or at least someone like him. And let me explain why this is not merely a catchy theme for an editorial.
The most powerful super power on Earth is the United States. The majority of funds arriving in the coffers of the Vatican City State come from Catholics in the United States. The majority of all donations to the Vatican come from conservative Catholics. And the Vatican cannot survive without donations. Indeed, under Jorge Mario Bergoglio its resources have been dwindling and dwindling.
So the Cardinals in the next Conclave are without a doubt going to talk about how to keep their Club House, the Vatican, afloat. And that means, they have to confront the problem of how to turn the current trend in Vatican finances around 180 degrees.
Common sense will tell these men, who are experts in running large institutions, that the election of an Argentinian might have seemed the chic thing to do. But electing a candidate from an impoverished nation has proven not to be the way to increase the donations arriving at the Vatican.
Indeed, in ages past, the only solution to such a problem was to elect someone from the Kingdom or Empire which was the most powerful and richest. A strategy which worked, since a popular cleric from such a nation would naturally have an entire network of supporters who would come to the aid of the Papacy after his election.
If we apply this rule to the conditions of a Vatican City State whose supporters have fled on account of the denials of Catholic Doctrine, attacks on Catholic Tradition, and open insults of Catholics from the most powerful nations, the probity of this thesis of mine becomes even stronger.
Thus, the recent purges of Bishop Strickland and Cardinal Burke, precisely because they are having such a negative effect and will have an even more negative effect at years end, when most Catholic donors of magnitude consider making or not making donations to ecclesiastical institutions, will combine with the above observation to have a devastating effect.
If Pope Francis lives to see the New Year play out, then donations from Catholics will continue to fall dramatically putting the Vatican City state in dire crisis. This will especially be true among the Catholics of the United States of America.
But if Pope Francis is called to the judgement seat of Christ the King, then the Cardinals in the Conclave will surely be thinking the same thing: how they can solve all their financial problems and publicity problems by electing an American, someone like Cardinal Burke, whose reputation is solid, whose scholarship is known, whose stability of character is tested, and who is well traveled and widely respected throughout the world, especially in the United States.
And this future decision of the College is perhaps the reason why, even if the rest of the Cardinals say nothing about the purge of Cardinal Burke, that that silence in no way means that they agree with Pope Francis.
In the end God wins, no matter what decisions men make. But in the mean time God often also drops a victory on account of the decisions His enemies make. What a comedy is life!
And what a blessing that as Catholics we can appreciate it the best.
The Left has a popular talking point which they use to disarm their enemies. It goes like this: We have to get beyond the primitive mentality of the Us or Them world, in which there are two irreconcilable camps which cannot co-exist. We have to see each other as human beings, equals, with mutual concerns and issues, and learn to cross the divide and work together.
You probably have heard this 1000 times. You know where it comes from and what kind of people speak this way.
But if you dig into history you find that those who actually think this way are the ones who thought up this talking point. And they actually do view the world as two irreconcilable camps, the other of which must be wiped off the face of the map, or at least, reduced to a cruel slavery.
Except that they use this talking point to disarm the other camp so that they can actually achieve their evil world view, by gaining power, influence or control bit by bit over their intended victims.
It’s quite dishonest and vicious. And it is not Christian.
And though we Christians are not disposed to see the world in this light, since we desire that all men come to repentance and are saved; yet we would be in denial of the reality in which we live if we ignore than in history and in our own day there do exist some who actually have gone way beyond the pale of the common criminal and misanthrope and do want to do evil without limit and achieve such a goal, as narrated in this talking point.
And to continue to deny that there are such enemies of God or of Catholics in the world is to do nothing less than enable them to thrive and murder souls and bodies.
For no society can continue to exist if it permits another society which wills its annihilation to thrive. This is common sense.
Now in the Catholic Church it is evident — it is not a conspiracy theory — that there is a group which wants faithful Catholics eliminated from the picture.
We can see this in the case of Bishop Strickland, who is only the most recent example.
For we have seen our Mass, our Sacraments, our Religious Orders, our Churches, our Chapels, our Devotions and the doctrines we have received from Christ, the Apostles and the Saints, progressively altered, restricted, prohibited, mutilated and eliminated.
I can testify to this in regards to religious life. I have been searching for a sound Catholic community of Franciscans for nearly 25 years. I not only cannot find one, I cannot even find a Bishop who wants one. And vocations no longer even desire such a thing. The only thing vocations want is to be ordained a priest as fast as possible. Catholic doctrine and morality are only useful for show.
So if we do not admit there is a Us-Them problem in the Church, at this point, we are plainly suffering from psychosis and should seek help.
This is why spiritual pacifism is the most deadly error right now. We have to stop thinking that it’s o.k. for those destroying the Faith to destroy, but wrong for us to fight back. And we have to stop thinking that the Pietistic response of withdrawing into a world of private or personal faith or practice is the solution. We need to take back our parishes, Dioceses and Church.
And we are not going to do this if we keep listening to milktoast influencers, who complain, lament, cry and rattle the collection can, so that they can complain, lament, cry and rattle the can some more tomorrow.
Now, it does not surprise that the same ignore me. But, I will continue to shout and declare, that there is only one way left to avoid this dire end of the Church. The Sutri Initiative.
Even a pope is automatically excommunciated if he commits the crime of ecclesiastical schism, which consists in refusing communion with members of the Church.
This crime is even greater, when a pope refuses communion with a legitimate and Catholic member of the hierarchy.
But sacking a Bishop without cause and for no crime other than being a Catholic is the worst crime of refusing communion.
Therefore, the act whereby Pope Francis attempted to sack Bishop Strickland of Texas is an act of schism, which has ipso facto merited Pope Francis the penalty of excommunication leveled in Canon 1364.
This means that Catholics in good conscience can refuse all commands and orders of Pope Francis and priests can refuse to mention his name in the Canon.
However, only a provincial or general Council of the Church can declare that Pope Francis has lost his office or is no longer a member of the Church.
Therefore, it becomes the grave duty of all who recognize this as an act of schism, to join the Sutri Initiative and insist on a Provincial Council to judge the crime.
CREDITS: A Photo of Br. Bugnolo visiting the Castle of Tolfa, in the Suburbican Diocese of Porto Santa Rufina, outside Rome, this October.
Sedevacantism is based on a shell game. That is, Sedevacantism, the idea that the Church has no pope, is a sophistic trick of saying one thing and interpreting it as meaning something else, of the classical undistributed middle term, in Logic.
For example,
Every dog has the ability to make a bark.
Trees naturally make a bark.
Trees naturally are dogs.
Here, the phrase in English, “make a bark” is syntactically identical, but it is used in entirely two different senses: in the former regarding the production of a sound, and in the latter in regard to the production of an external superficial covering.
The same game is played by Sedevacantists on a very important thesis. And this is there game:
The Catholic Faith has always taught that a soon as a pope is evidently a heretic, he loses his office.
This man who is claimed to be the pope is evidently a heretic.
Therefore this man is no longer the pope.
This is the same game being launched in the above cited article from LifeSite News, which reports a quote by Cardinal Mueller, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who held that office from July of 2012 until the death of the former pontiff.
Sedevacantism is a game which was launched a man who was eventually convicted on three counts of pedophilia. It does not have a good moral lineage.
The Catholic position is more precise, and it’s rational goes like this:
The Catholic Faith has always taught that a soon as a pope is evidently a heretic, he loses his office.
This man who is claimed to be the pope is evidently a heretic.
Therefore this man is no longer the pope.
But is that not the same argument as the Sedevacantists?
No.
And why, “No”?
Because, in the Catholic rational, “evident” means “evident to the Church”, and such evidentiality requires an authentic act of hierarchical discernment and judgement, which can only emanate from a person or group of persons with the charism of discernment which is from God (the Divine Faith), who hold the authority of jurisdiciton, to render a judgement which binds the whole Church.
This group is the Bishops or a legitimate Pope.
But this authority is limited by Canon Law to specific juridical proceedures or Councils.
So when a man who appears to be the Pope is discerned and judged in Council to be evidently a heretic, then, and only then, can it be said that he has lost his office, even if “lost his office” regards a moment in time in the past, according to the judgement of the same authority.
So what is the problem with Sedevacantism?
The person who argues, as the above, is using “evidently” to mean, “evident to me and you”. And is thus arrogating to himself or to the faithful in general the authority and identity which Christ only gave to the Church, in the persons of Bishops holding ecclesiastical authority.
That stricture even excludes persons like Vigano or Gracida, who currently do not hold any office in the Church.
The cure for Sedevacantism is humility, reality and patience. The humility to understand the faith in its proper sense, the reality of recognizing that the Church does have juridical rules to be followed, and the patience to seek that they be followed by petitions, written or in person, with the persons who have the authority to act.
This is why the Sutri Initiative is the cure for both Sedevacantism and the problems of Holy Mother Church, today.
Earlier this month, Michael Matt, the editor of The Remnant and a descendant from what appears to be a Frankist Jew, on his mother’s side, who began the family’s tradition of printing Catholic news information, won international notoriety by squelching the video of Archbishop Viganò at the former’s Catholic Identity Conference, even though he has sold the conference on the promise of an exclusive interview with the famed Vatican monsignor.
The substance of the Archbishop’s talk, however, was lost in the news cycle, and therefore, because it is important and impinges on the canonical questions regarding the validity of the papacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a.k.a. Pope Francis, I want to take it up in this essay.
The thesis of the Archbishop touches on the principal of acceptance of a canonical or juridically valid election.
And the Archbishop’s thesis is that a man who intends to destroy the Church or who has a heretical intention in wanting to be the Pope, cannot validly consent to accepting the office. He calls this the vitium consensus, or the vice in the act of consent.
Matt squelched the talk because he insists that those who participated in the conference did not want or deserve to have their reputations smeared with the accusation of sedevacantism.
But this argument of Michael Matt is absurd on the face of it. Sedevacantism is the ideology that there is no pope, no matter what the evidence is; but the argument of the Archbishop is a profound one, namely, that inasmuch as being the pope requires a man to receive the Mandate given St. Peter, it is impossible for a heretic to do this, since he has no relationship with Jesus Christ and thus no intention to do so, even if he says yes.
That “yes” then is a deception.
I have briefly commented on this before, saying, while the argument is a good one theologically or morally, it is canonically a difficult solution. This is because, being a baptised, confirmed Catholic, consecrated a Bishop and lawfully nominated as a Cardinal, in law he must be presumed to have consented validly to be the pope, when asked, and when responding, “Yes”.
As I pointed out in my satirical article about the Cardinal from Guadalajara, Spain, here, presumption has its limits. But presuming yes, when someone says yes, is clearly within the ordinary limits.
So from a juridical point of view, it is impossible to prove the case advanced by the Archbishop against Bergoglio. He could sufficiently remain silent and the presumption of the law would be that he validly consented.
But I think that the thesis of Viganò, however, is not to be lightly cast aside, because it does have its place where juridical right is determined by theological discernment. That is, where rights come into being and are extinguished by the authority Christ gave to the Church, under the guide of the Holy Spirit, to judge all things in the light of God.
And that place is a juridically valid Council of Bishops, whether universal or particular, that is, whether in a General Council of the whole Church, or in a Provincial Council of an ecclesiastical province.
Because there, what a man has done and said can be judged. And this judgement can regard whether these acts constitute heresy, apostasy or schism, whereupon if they be judge there to attain to this, the person who is presumed to consent, can be discerned in a juridically valid manner never to have consented and/or in a juridically valid manner to no longer so consent.
In the case of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, if it can be proven, for example, that he became a member of the Masonic Lodge before 1983 he fell under excommunication in the old Code of 1917 for that, and such a council could judge him to be invalidly nominated a Cardinal and invalidly elected and incapable of validly consenting to be the pope. Likewise if he joined after 1983, when the new Code of Canon Law, without this penalty, was approved, on the grounds that he was incapable of validly consenting inasmuch as he holds heretical views or is an apostate in virtue of the Masonic creed.
And that is why the thesis of the Archbishop must be considered in a Provincial Council of the kind proposed in the Sutri Initiative.
So the Archbishop is far smarter than Michael Matt. He is also more of a gentleman and cares more for the whole Church and the salvation of souls than others do of their own reputations.
Michael Matt is a graduate of Christendom College, an institution founded by 3 CIA agents. That Bergoglio was put into power by the CIA under the auspices of Hilary Clinton can be discerned when reading his homilies, which channel Barack Obama 99% on the same issues, such as globalism, immigration, poverty, discrimination, etc..
Here is a brief review of 9 narratives that are being fed to the Catholic World which will not achieve an end to the continual scandals out of the Vatican. Perhaps those who propose these have not thought about the problem deeply. Perhaps, they do not have the courage to confront the reality. Perhaps they do not want a solution, for personal reasons, or because it conflicts with their salary. Regardless, none of them will attain any solution.
Here goes:
1) Just pray, and everything will be all right: which means don’t you dare to do anything but pray and wait for Divine Intervention — whatever that means. (Opus Dei, Legionaires of Christ etc..)
2) Recognize but resist: which means complain and do nothing. (The Remnant and Catholic Family News)
3) Gather the clans: a phrase which means “give me more power and influence over you, so I can tell you when to shut up and when to raise your hand”, and then be happy and do nothing. (Michael Matt)
4) Johnny come too lately: When Benedict XVI retired, say he abdidcated; when it is demonstrated that he did not abdicate, say the arguments are absurd; hold out against all Latin grammar, Canon Law, right reason, logic and evidence, as long as possible. Only 10 months after he is dead and buried, then say you see the light in a 3rd rate video, praised as Fantastic by those who hold one of the other 9 positions related here. (Catholic Esquire etc.)
5) Say the problem is disciplinary not doctrinal (Cardinal Sandoval).
6) Say the problem is doctrinal but not a matter of Faith (Cardinal Mueller).
7) Say there are no canonical solutions (Cardinal Burke)
8) Say the problem is too much ideology (Cardinal Zen)
9) Say that the Church of Rome has no right to elect the Pope (Cionci, Minutella etc..) or depose a heretical Pope (Bishop Athanasius Schneider).
But the actual solution is calling a Provincial Council and examining if Bergoglio is a Catholic and if not, declaring him deposed in virtue of canon 1364 (for heresy, schism or apostasy) and the Apostolic See legally vacant. Medievals did it. And if they can do it, moderns can do it too. But no one who is stuck on 1-9, will cross this bridge, until it is too late. That is why they all need to repent, otherwise, they will burn in Hell for all eternity for collaborating with Bergoglio in the destruction of Holy Mother Church.
And if you think about it, the fake opposition has all the ideological bases covered for appearing to oppose the problem, without doing anything to fix the problem.
CREDITS: The featured image is of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the Funeral of Pope John Paul II.
Israel just funded, supported, armed and trained the Azeri military to genocide 20,000 Christians on live TV. And nearly no one said a word in condemnation.
But to flip the narrative before anyone though Israel was guilty of anything, lo! Hamas undertakes a daring attack inside Israel, allegedly killing hundreds and wounding more than 1000.
Long time observers say it is impossible that the Israeli defense forces did not know about this attack before.
Even the tactics employed show advanced military training way beyond anything Hamas has demonstrated to have previously.
I personally also wonder who in their right mind would organize a large concert-festival near the Gaza Border.
When years come and go by, it will not surprise me to find that the organizer of the event is tied to the same persons who trained the soldiers; and that this link goes not back to Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, nor to Tehran, but to the Rothschilds in the United Kingdom.
Israel needed a war to look like a victim again, after her mask of innocence was ripped off by heir own actions as a blood thirsty racist anti-Christian Jihad terrorist supporter.
But here is where I see a ray of hope for humanity.
There was supposed to be another Plandemic. But now two wars were started, one against Armenians in Artsakh, and another in the flare-up of the long conflict resulting from the illegal racist occupation of Palestine by godless Jews.
And this might mean, that the Globalists have realized that the Plandemic 2.0 trick is not going to work again. The masses won’t be fooled again.
And that at least is a good thing for all of humanity.
So ignore the cries for war. Understand those calling for the defense of Israel to be Rothschild puppets. And keep praying for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart, which is the only real peace plan for our generation.
And, now, remember well! The next time a Jew mentions the Holocaust, to say: “What about the 20,000 Christians Israel help genocide in Artsakh, without apologies or remorse?”
The Catholic media is filled in these days with reports about the Synod on Synodality, but it ignoring the real Catholic Synodality which is prescribed in Canon Law.
The fake kind is organized by a man without the petrine munus, who pretends to be the Holy Father, while the real Pope, Benedict XVI is in retirement, but has not abdicated.
The fake kind is organized according to Chinese Communist Party National Meeting, with a secret agenda, discussion and unknown purposes.
The fake kind fears transparency, Faith, Tradition, and any expression of sound morality, all of which is seen as a threat to the openness of heretical novelty, which itself is repackaged in a most blapshemous manner as being open to the Holy Spirit.
But the true kind is found in Canon Law.
The Cardinals who remain Catholic invite all the Archbishops and Bishops in the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome to a meeting, and invite also Pope Francis. They also invite all the heads of Pontifical Institutes of Religious, Pontifical Universities and Pontifical Seminaries.
Then they Synod together, and ask Jorge Mario Bergoglio to explain what is his personal faith. They ask him questions and listen to his responses. They also explain what the Church has always taught and believed. And they ask him if he believes in all of this, or if he takes this or that and rejects that or this.
Then they vote to call a Provincial Council on the grounds that the man Jorge Mario Bergoglio is doubtfully a Catholic, seeing that his answers demonstrate that the Apostolic See is impeded; and if the majority agrees the See is impeded, then they elect one of the Bishops of the Province to convoke a Provincial Council.
And then, in the same hall on the same day, they vote as to whether Bergoglio is or is not a Catholic. And if they find he is a heretic, apostate or schismatic from the Church, then they rebuke him formally.
And if he refuses the rebuke by refusing to recant his errors, then they vote to declare the Apostolic See legally and legitimately in sede vacante, in accord with canon 1364 which declares separated from the Catholic Church any man who professes pertinacious public manifest heresy.
If however he recants his errors, they submit a list of persons at the Vatican to be deposed from office immediately, for him to sign, and if he refuses, they declare these men excommunicated and defrocked, and ask Bergoglio to recant his errors again, if he refuses to separate himself from these heretics, declare him a relapsed heretic, and proceed to declare the Apostolic See vacant, as before.
This is real Catholic Synodality.
Anything but is vain talk.
CREDITS: An image of the Provincial Council of the Roman Province, held in the year 1046 A. D., at Sutri, Italy, wherein 3 popes were deposed as invalidly elected or false claimants.
NOTE TO READERS: Br. Bugnolo does not write editorials for his own pleasure. Unless you share them with Cardinals, Bishops and Priests, he has written in vain. Each one of you has also the duty to save the Church.
This appears to be a leak from Catholic canonists.
Pope Francis’s move against Bishop Strickland will put Cardinal Burke in the Papal Throne after the next conclave, if Strickland stands firm
All I can say at this moment, is that the Bishop has every right to resist the move — and Fr. Z agrees. He would be a fool to resign. You cannot discipline a bishop for being Catholic and outspoken, or because he has staffing problems. But there might be more to this story that is being reported. As for Veritas Splendor, that scandal broke a few years ago, and not being a man of the world, he was clearly fooled by unscrupulous individuals to put his reputation on the line for them. But it does not appear that led to any financial risk by the Diocese.
The strongest counter move the Bishop could do right now is run a GoFundMe and raise about $10,000,000, because it is clear that this is a move to shake him down and create an excuse to silence him for criticizing so many in the hierarchy who are utter moral failures and openly comport themselves as “functionally not catholic” as Pope Benedict XVI said in his posthumous book.
But the real power move on Strickland’s part would be to call for a Council to discuss the disagreements. If the Vatican removes Strickland and he fights, the Vatican risks a major schism in the Catholic Church in the USA and abroad, since millions could leave communion with the Apostolic See, if led by a man with such a strong reputation, in the face of such a despicable and backstabbing character as sits on the Apostolic Throne.
From the point of view of dynamics, that would be the worse thing for Mafia of St. Gallen, because in the next conclave the Cardinals would be nearly constrained to elect Cardinal Burke, the American Cardinal, to heal the schism. — And if Strickland realizes this, he will be a pit-bull in this fight.
And if Strickland calls Pope Francis’ bluff, the power Bergoglio has used to terrorize everyone in the Church in the last 10 years will be seen for what it is, a paper tiger. While Bergoglio’s reaction will show his true and deepest colors, as he is known, here at Rome, for flying into the most vitrolic and profane rages when opposed.
From a civil law point of view, it is my understanding that a Bishop, in the USA, controls all the assets of the diocese and cannot be forced by the Vatican to resign from that legal entity, since there is no concordat between the US government and the Vatican about such matters.
From a point of view of the Catholics in the United States, there has already begun a tidal wave on all social media platforms in support for Bishop Strickland. So, any action against him will likely have a glacial effect on donations to the Vatican and to those dioceses whose bishops take the Pope’s side. The Faithful in the USA have had enough in the last 10 years with Bergoglio”s constant divisive Marxist rants against them. With the upcoming election, they are ready for war. And they are already seeing this as a ploy by Pope Francis to grant Biden the head of Strickland on a plate. So if Francis wants war, he will most certainly get it in bucket-loads.
(As a historical note: there were quite a few Medieval Popes who indiscreetly annoyed powerful nations of France, Germany or Spain, and ended up badly for it, because they did their own will and not the Lord’s.)
There are 4 different kinds of Catholic Apostolates on the Internet/Social Media, and CATHOLICS should take note to discern which kinds they are BEFORE SUPPORTING THEM FINANCIALLY:
1) Apostolates by Priests who have the care of souls (Pastors). These men have a Divine Mandate (munus) to teach, and if you find any doing it well, support these men first of all, since that is the will of Jesus Christ, and is scripture based (cf. St. Paul). — In this regard, we should give priority to Cancelled Priests, who are being persecuted by their own Bishops for preaching the truth. I highly recommend only one priest in the world, who by his writings, actions and counsel has shown himself to be one of few true Catholic priest warriors still among us: Father Walter Covens, a priest of the Diocese of Martinique (see his blog here or his FB page here).
2) Apostolates by Catholic Religious who are mendicants and live by begging, whether nuns or priests or brothers.
3) Apostolates by registered charities and organizations which espouse Catholic Faith and values, and are required by law to send all such funds to specific purposes.
4) Apostolates by private individuals who keep all the $ for themselves, since they do this as a business.
5) Grifters, who are a species of #4, but talk about all the problems and scandals to milk your outrage but NEVER propose any solutions, because their purpose is to simply ride the waves of discontent
6) Bishops, Priests or Lay men or women who start a “Catholic” apostolate to make themselves the center of all authority, found a sect, start a schism, or go rogue, to promote anything under the cover of the Catholic Faith, so as to steal Christ’s sheep from His Sheepfold, the Catholic Church, or who are govt. agents.
It’s obvious that #1 is the top and #4 should be your last choice. Since Vatican II a good number of clergy are left destitute and religious orders failed, because the laity stopped supporting their apostolates which were vital for Christian formation.
And obviously, we should never support #5 or #6
For the sake of transparency:
IN REGARD TO MYSELF: I am a mendicant, in #2 here, and FromRome.Info is my apostolate.
IN REGARD TO SAVE OLD ST. MARY’S INC., which receives all the donations I solicit for my needs, its a #3.
IN REGARD TO ORDO MILITARIS INC. AND CROSS AZURE UKRAINE: these are #3 organizations. The former is a US for profit corporation, which pays no salaries, and from which no one gets remuneration. The second is a Ukrainian Registered Charity, which supplies life saving materials to the victims of war and support our volunteers who work for the organization in Ukraine while they do this work.
For full disclosure, the Association, Ordo Militaris Catholics, which I and AJ founded, is a group of Catholics who found organizations which are #3 and which support groups of the kinds of 1, 2, and 3. — If you see us attacked on social media, its from groups which are 4, 5, and 6, and they do this because we are are #3. (This is my opinion, obviously).
By “association”, here, said in regard to Ordo Militaris Catholicus, we refer to a private association of the faithful not recognized and not seeking recognition of the Catholic Hierarchy. The Association itself is neither incorporated nor constituted in civil law; and does not receive funds or pay salaries. It exists to begin new initiatives and support the corporations founded by its members. One becomes a member of the Association by paying a subscription to the member services offered by Ordo Militaris Inc. or by supporting our humanitarian works such as Cross Azure Ukraine. The members try to live up to our Holy Rule, which is a document for the inspiration of members and which expresses the moral ideals we hold to in our on the ground works of mercy. To join, see here for more information.
The information here is current as of September 7, 2023: Obviously, with major support any of the four above mentions organizations might be able to hire staff.
Recently I have noticed a lot of traffic from HenryMakow.com coming over and reading articles at FromRome.Info. For that reason I published an article about him, to inform my readers (see here).
However, as this happened again and even more strongly, I went over to his site this morning to see what is going on, and stumbled upon the above comment (which is the title of this Editorial) on his site.
Now, as everyone knows, I am not a doctor of medicine. Nor have I ever worked in pharmacology. Nor am I a disease statistician.
I am an Anthropologist, a Franciscan Brother, and first of all a human being.
But I can state the obvious fact, that there are 3 ways to predict mortality which may be caused by a medical product.
You can under estimate it. You can be spot on accurate. And you can over estimate it.
Now if the product is very deadly, and you under estimate the mortality, then I would agree your predictions (if you called them that) are “not so good”.
And if you were spot on, then I would say, “Your predictions are darn good!”.
But if you predicted greater mortality than occurred so far, and merely cited the pathological dreams of those financing the product, then I think it is more than unfair to say, that the prediction was “not so good”.
So far, according to medical experts who have talked about this, the death toll from the DeathVaxxes is more than 20 million.
But since my June 2021 warning about the DeathVaxxes, numerous individuals have ridiculed me for saying we might see billions die, because that is what the Globalists want.
I remain flabbergasted that with a death toll of 20 million, anyone can take the time to say my warning was “not so good”. We are talking about human beings. And my warnings saved a good number of persons, since they were see by more than 20 million persons, according to the statistics of just FromRome.Info. Many of my warnings have gone viral elsewhere and they are still being shared by persons who do not even read FromRome.Info; and in many other languages.
So I am proud to have saved the lives of millions, and therefore I think my predictions were very good.
Henry Makow, for sure, takes a very negative view, usually, of everything. So I am not surprised at his passing criticism. I think that he is forgetting we are talking about human beings. And any prediction which helps them avoid death is much better than “not so good.”
However, for the historical record, I would point out that I never made predictions about vaccine deaths. I made predictions about mortality rates arising from experimental genetic modification jabs, which by every standard definition are not vaccines. So technically speaking, Makow has totally missed the mark. But for politeness sake, I have nevertheless responded to the substance of his remark.
Finally, I AM GLAD MY PREDICTIONS WERE, FOR THE PRESENT, WAY ABOVE THE ACTUAL RATES OF MASS MURDER, because I would sooner be wrong and take a knock on my personal reputation, than want more people dead than there are.
Click the image above to read the article by Edward Pentin about Fr. Spadaro
It is a grave duty to defend the honor of the Divine Majesty. We should not sit around and talk about Spadaro’s outrageous blasphemies against the Son of God, we should demand his public correction and recantation.
At stake here is the very existence of the Catholic Church as a Christian religion. The Marxist interpretation which Spadaro used to fault the Lord Jesus for being a nationalist, bigot, racist, fake theologian, is a historic outrage against the Living God, the truth of Scripture, and the Faith of the Church.
If he will not publicly recant, then we should demand a Provincial Council in the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome to denounce him, censure him and excommunicate him and all who hold the same opinions. Furthermore, all Bishops in the province who do not likewise denounce his blasphemies and heresies should be forced to resign. Canon Law gives a provincial council this authority. If Pope Francis does not want to denounce Spadaro, in council his resignation, too, should be demanded. And if he professes the same heresies, then the Council should declare him ipso facto deposed from office.
Who can take effective action to call such a Council? Any Bishop incardinated in the Roman Church, that is, at the Vatican, in the Diocese of Rome, or in one of the Dioceses of the Province: Albano, Anagni-Alatri, Civita Castellana, Civitavecchia-Tarquinia, Frascati, Frosinone-Veroli-Ferentino, Gaeta, Latina-Terracina-Sezze-Priverno, Montecassino, Ostia, Palestrina, Porto-Santa Rufina, Rieti, Sabina-Poggio Mirteto, Subiaco, Tivoli, Velletri-Segni, and Viterbo.
Archbishops like Viganò and Cardinals like Burke, as Bishops incardinated in the Roman Curia have the solemn duty to seek such a council, if their requests for disciplinary action against Spadaro are ignored. — Catholics can petition any of these bishops, or the Apostolic Nuncio in their country (who in most countries is also a Bishop or Archbishop incardinated in the Roman Curia) demanding such action be taken. — Every Catholic has a role here.
Demanding Fr. Spadaro’s correction as well as the denunciation of his blasphemies is a duty more meritorious than going to Mass or adoring the Most Blessed Sacrament, in the present moment, because it is directed directly at the reparation of the offense of the Divine Majesty, without which, if we seek it not, our own prayers are worthless before God.
Here is one of those cases where those who say that they complain 24/7 about Pope Francis being a heretic, would have a workable occasion to use this scandal to call for a provincial council in the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome to denounce Father Spadaro and all those who will not likewise denounce him for such disgusting heresy against God the Son. — If they do not, then they too share in that blasphemy and heresy.
God the Father now is watching!
UPDATE:
You can send a message directly or publicly to Father Spadaro via his twitter account at
https://twitter.com/antoniospadaro
However, be away that Twitter AI will create an account for a whore, to interact with all who tweet to Fr. Spadaro in a challenging manner. — A clear sign that someone is paying big money to promote him on social media.
Commentary and Call to Action by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
When the Roman Pontiff speaks as a private theologian he is not protected by the charism of infallibility. There have been celebrated cases of this in recent history, such as Ratzinger’s books written while he was Pope, where he said that God is not only charitas and amor, but also eros, which is a blasphemy since eros is lust.
Then there was John Paul II who said that he doubted there was anyone in Hell.
Pope Francis during his anti-papacy said enough things to scandalize Catholics until the end of time, but it is the things he says now in his Papacy, that we have a grave moral duty to respond to. That is, when he is in error, to rebuke him or denounce him.
The duty to rebuke Peter to his face when he is in error, is of Apostolic Tradition, as it began with St. Paul the Apostle, Doctor of the Gentiles, who after his conversion by the intervention of Jesus Christ Himself, on the Road to Damascus, is held by all the Fathers never to have sinned, even though he was not present at Pentecost.
The objectionable statements by Pope Francis took place in his private meeting with the Jesuits of Portugal. It is obvious that he was speaking freely and with little consideration for theological precision. Like always, he was pushing his narrative of progress.
But nevertheless any error which leaps out from the lips of the man who is the Pope ought to be corrected. And the Faithful have a duty to remonstrate with him.
For the complete conversation, see the article above. I presume here the English translation is correct; but it may be manipulated by Spadaro. So let’s be cautious.
So without more ado, I cite one of the passages which is clearly erroneous and leads the listener most likely to contradict de Fide truths, without which one cannot be saved. There are many more, but I do not want to wax Jesuit by citing them all here.
First a question by a Jesuit, then the response by Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis):
Pope Francis, I would like to ask you a question as a religious brother.[4] I am Francisco. Last year I spent a sabbatical year in the United States. There was one thing that made a great impression on me there, and at times made me suffer. I saw many, even bishops, criticizing your leadership of the Church. And many even accuse the Jesuits, who are usually a kind of critical resource of the pope, of not being so now. They would even like the Jesuits to criticize you explicitly. Do you miss the criticism that the Jesuits used to make of the pope, the Magisterium, the Vatican?
You have seen that in the United States the situation is not easy: there is a very strong reactionary attitude. It is organized and shapes the way people belong, even emotionally. I would like to remind those people that indietrismo (being backward-looking) is useless and we need to understand that there is an appropriate evolution in the understanding of matters of faith and morals as long as we follow the three criteria that Vincent of Lérins already indicated in the fifth century: doctrine evolves ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate. In other words, doctrine also progresses, expands and consolidates with time and becomes firmer, but is always progressing. Change develops from the roots upward, growing in accord with these three criteria.
Let us get to specifics. Today it is a sin to possess atomic bombs; the death penalty is a sin. You cannot employ it, but it was not so before. As for slavery, some pontiffs before me tolerated it, but things are different today. So you change, you change, but with the criteria just mentioned. I like to use the “upward” image, that is, ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate. Always on this path, starting from the root with sap that flows up and up, and that is why change is necessary.
You have been to the United States and you say you have felt a climate of closure. Yes, this climate can be experienced in some situations. And there you can lose the true tradition and turn to ideologies for support. In other words, ideology replaces faith, membership of a sector of the Church replaces membership of the Church.
Bergoglio is fond of misquoting St. Vincent of Lerins, whose chief criterion for progress in doctrine is “according to the same doctrine, the same meaning, and the same judgment”, a passage Bergoglio never cites, as far as I know. There is a discussion on his habitual manipulation of the text, here, which for the sake of argument could be because he was taught an erroneous view of St. Vincent’s doctrine, and is in invinceable ignorance at present of the matter.
So let me address the errors in order.
“It is a sin to possess atomic bombs”
Every statement should be understood according to the meaning of its terms. And each word can have different senses, especially when heard by persons of different levels of education.
“Sin”, in common parlance is an act which was morally deficient or faulty. But in the Bible a “sin” is the obstruction put between you and God, in some passages at least. So sin can be considered (1) as the deviation from the right moral order, whether that order be known by revelation from God or man’s own ability to discern by the use of reason a moral deviation; or it can be considered (2) as the act which contains this deviation; or as (3) the fault which arises from the act which is perpetrated, or as (4) the liabilty for punishment which is merited by the full or partial consent to that act.
Pope Francis does not define his terms. But the common man knows of “sin” only in the first sense.
Then again, “possess” can mean to have legal title, or de facto control over a thing, directly or through its physical location on his physical property or by legal claim, title, etc.. Thus you can possess a thing in one sense because it is in your hand, in your pocket, in your car, in your garage, or listed among your legal possessions in a juridical act, such as a last will and testament. But just because it is possessed in any one of these senses, does not mean that it is possessed in any one or all of the others. Otherwise, when a zealous merchant put an apple in your hand, you would have to buy it, even if you did not want it; or when a kind aunt asked you to take some candy to your niece and gave it to you for that purpose, that you could eat it on the way to your niece’s home.
But most people understand possession in the sense of belong to you as your property with right to dispose of it.
An atomic bomb is a nuclear weapon, that is, one in which a reaction of nuclear fission or fusion causes a massive exothermal explosion, when triggered.
With the terms defined, let us examine the error in the statement.
In the common sense, the statement is erroneous, as can be seen by the fact, that if in a war, in which one side had no nuclear weapons, and another which had them, the armed forces of the side without them — with no intention ever to use them — came upon a warehouse with the atomic weapons of the other side, and captured them, then it would be no sin for the unarmed side to capture and take possession of them. — For if it is a sin to possess them with intent to use them, then it must not be a sin to take possession of them from such an owner. This is a police action. And thus the statement is false and erroneous, and even self contradictory, because if it is a sin to own them, then there would be no way of ridding oneself of that sin but by destroying them on one’s own initiative. — Perhaps in a ideological world — which Pope Francis exhorts us to reject — there could be no crime because ever criminal would rectify his behavior without police intervention. But that world is not our world.
So there has to be cases in which possession of atomic bombs is not a sin. Indeed, there are cases when it is a virtue, that is, when it is used to deter the use of them by others who have them, for in that case possession is had to prevent the use of the legal title to them in war by another.
Is this error, in the above statement, a denial of a revealed doctrine?
This is an important question, because only in such a case would such an affirmation be a heresy. For each and every denial of revealed doctrine is formally a heresy, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, transmitting the perennial magisterium of the Church on this topic.
Answer: No, simply because in Scripture and Tradition there is no affirmation that possessing atomic bombs is of God’s will for man, simply because there were no atomic bombs in the ancient world, so the topic does not even come into consideration. So we have to have recourse to moral principles and revealed truths about God’s will for man and creation.
Could the statement of Jorge Mario Bergoglio be understood in a Catholic sense? Yes, if “sin” is taken in the Biblical sense of something which is an obstacle between man and God.
In this sense, one says that possessing pornography is a sin, meaning to say, possession with intent to use it. If it were illegal to posses, it would not be a sin for the police to take it from you or keep it for evidence, for example.
In this sense, one can say in a very wide sense, that it is a sin for mankind to possess atomic bombs, because no good can come from it. But no good can come from renouncing atomic bombs, so long as the entire human race has not renounced using them. Again, yes atomic bombs are contrary to God’s will and plan for man in the natural world, because He put us here to build it up not to destroy it.
But just because I personally can imagine a sense in which the statement could be understood soundly, does not mean that the statement should be excused or ignored. As stated it is so badly stated as to induce error directly and immediately. And that is immoral. For a pope, it is gravely immoral since everything he says could harm every human person on the planet now and until the end of time.
Now to the next phrase …
“The death penalty is a sin. You cannot employ it, but it was not so before.”
Here we must have recourse to the same distinctions regarding the meanings of the word “sin”.
But in this case, we can see that there is a logical error in the statement, in addition to other errors. Because “capital punishment” is a non-concrete term, that is, it refers to a category of punishment not to a thing, thus it is not a thing nor a moral act. So it cannot be a “sin” in any sense I mentioned above, since for a proper logical statement the thing in the subject of the sentence must be logically withing the grasp of the term in the predicate of the sentence.
Moreover, God commanded capital punishment for many offenses in the Old Testament. Therefore it cannot be of itself a “sin” in any sense as mentioned above.
God also authorized Saints and sinners to impose capital punishment, according to the infallible teaching of St. Paul, “To Caesar God has given the sword to punish evildoers”. And I am sorry, but I will remind all Jesuits, that St. Paul’s authority trumps even than of a Jesuit Roman Pontiff, since it pertains to the Deposit of the Faith which the Roman Pontiff must guard and protect and serve, not alter.
In what sense could the phrase not be an error? Not in any obvious sense, in my opinion. Perhaps one could have wanted to say, that “The indiscreet, indiscriminate and hasty recourse to capital punishment for most crimes would be a sin of injustice, because correction can well amend and make reparation for such crimes.” — This I think would be the Jesuit counter-argument, at least. But it neglects that the reaffirmation of the eternal unchanging moral law of God in certain cases does require that the perpetrator be put to death, even IF he is sorry and completely penitent for his crime. Thus it is an objectively good thing, in all times and places, to put certain kinds of horrible criminals to death, by public execution, even. Pope Sixtus V put 5000 brigands to death. And I know of no Catholic writer before the Council who faulted him for it. Nay, he was universally praised for making the highways of the Papal States safe for travelers.
If one denied that capital punishment of itself is justly imposed by proper authorities for proper crimes, then one would have to say that the Death of Christ itself was entirely and in every sense unjust, and that therefore His Sacrifice of no avail before the Altar of His Father.
While the capital punishment of no criminal rises to such a pure state as the Crucifixion of Christ, it is important to note that no Catholic Author has ever impugned the sentence of capital punishment issued by Pontius Pilate against Christ Jesus, the Living God, on the grounds that “capital punishment is a sin to employ”, simply speaking.
Thus we have two grave errors when understood commonly and without specification.
Therefore, all Catholics have the duty to remonstrate with Pope Francis by some means, directly or indirectly, as they may be able to do, to obtain from him a correction for his words which will cause scandal to soul, if not the total corruption of their personal grasp of the moral law or Church teaching.
Is this second error a heresy. I think it is such a bad error as to definitely impugn Pope Francis as a possible heretic. But because of the syntactical error of calling “capital punishment” a “sin” when it is not a moral act, means that it is a phrase of ignorant propaganda, which is morally scandalous, rather than formally a heresy.
CONCLUSION
Since such a scandal is a moral fault which Catholic should publicly distance themselves from, I do believe that we all have the duty in our own way, in conversation, correspondence, to friends and superiors to bring to their attention these errors and scandals. While we should not correct a superior in public without light reason, the weighty reasons, mentioned by St. Thomas, of defending the Faith and protecting little ones from being led astray, authorize such action in this case. — I would suggest you bring the matter to the attention of those Cardinals and Bishops who may welcome your petitions. Canon 212 gives you the right to speak out on this matter.
As regards my comments on the Papacy of Pope Francis in the last six months, I will only briefly comment that what Pope Francis has said in this interview, on this topic and on other topics such as sodomy, is so scandalous, that he is hastening the day of his own terrible personal judgement before the Throne of God, for Whom religion is not a game of politics, as it is for Jorge Bergoglio. Yes, he has avoided heresy; but no, he has given grave scandal, because it is obvious that he does not have much good will to avoid it.
This article is an example of how a Catholic approaches a public scandal perpetrated by the Roman Pontiff. Compare it to how Sedevacantists might respond, in coming days, to this same news.
It is being said that AI already is 30% of social media, and that the advent of AI will be the end of social media.
Readers of FromRome.Info already know from the many reports about the degrading social media experience on Twitter (now X), how I have expressed my concerns that social media is becoming totally manipulative, not only at the level of information, or social monitoring, but also on the level of impersonations and fake content and fake replies.
I have taken note that AI bots have been faking themselves as commentators at FromRome.Info too.
For this reason, I want to warn all the readers of FromRome.info that as the Plandemic is hatched to expect to see a new wave of highly sophisticated, unending harassment and fake engagement from an new information warrior: the AI Bot.
AI bots can be more vicious and insidious than all others. They will be relentless. Therefore, on social media platforms where you cannot block a troll or bot, you take the most prudent step by simply leaving it aside as a means for social interaction, and using it only briefly for information gathering.
As an anthropologist, who was trained to study the human phenomenon, I want to give you some rules to follow, to help you discern if the engagement on social media is for real or not.
First, never respond to any engagement from someone you do not already know. This is the best rule, because your God given memory cannot be altered, and thus, the best security is to make no new friends. Period.
Second, if you want to vet a new acquaintance, realize that during wartime — and this Plandemic will be a war — it is not at all prudent to make new friends. At all.
Third, only if you see repeated, effective opposition against the Plandemic by an individual who is against the entire narrative, without reservations, don’t even consider befriending them. And even then, if this person just became a warrior against Globalism as the Plandemic breaks out, then you can bet your money that they are a controlled opposition figure.
Fourth, if you want to certify that a social media account is fake, there are obvious signs, such as its inability to produce authentic human engagement responses, now and in the past. Most importantly, their inability to have human sentiments in rational coordination with the whole of their behavior. Their inability to coordinate in a human way the movement of their face with the sounds of the voice you hear. Their inability to show their entire body. Their inability to have human imperfections in their appearance or statements. The inconsistent, non rational, discombobulated syntax, or the ever-hyper consistent rational form: since only humans can mix-up rationality and sentiment in a human way.
In addition to defending yourself against AI bots, you need to keep in mind that they will have an effect, whether you know it or not, upon those who allow themselves to be manipulated by them.
Thus, realize that many of your old friends or even neighbors are going to be under psychological attack, in an attempt to flip them against you, if you are opposed to the Great Reset. The Globalists have been using social media for 20+ years to map our the 6 degrees of association, between everyone and everyone else, such that, if they cannot break your own spirit or change your mind, they will go after those, whom they think can produce such an effect. Remain calm if this happens, and try to help them not to fall into anti-social behaviors, but if they break down, then separate from them before they drag you under.
These AI bots might spread rumors about you in town, on your street, even create fake posts claiming you did or said something. So if you are leaving social media, the best thing to do is tell everyone now that you are, and that you are erasing all your accounts, and not to believe anything claimed to be said by you on social media, after this date, is really you. Otherwise, monitor your social media accounts to make sure that nothing is posted there except by yourself.
In this vein, don’t confuse the importance of the internet for getting opposition information with the danger of the internet for human interaction. Everything you do here is monitored. Consider yourself in open country, where you can be seen at all times, as soon as you log on.
As I and AJ have warned you in July, you have to avoid social media isolation and being targeted on your weak spots.
Finally: don’t think you are going to get through this next War on humanity by yourself. Turn back to Jesus Christ, pray His Holy Mother and His Saints for their protection, and try with all the constancy of your mind, to maintain a faith filled attitude and consoling personal approach to help the victims of this war, who will be many.
In the city of the Vice-Roy, the high ministers of the King are wont to gather in a special Hall of Mirrors and discuss how to manage the kingdom, until the King returns from his military campaigns.
In recent years, many a subject of the King has wondered greatly what sort of mental disease is afflicting the King’s ministers, as the begin to do all sorts of strange things. Some think they have begun to smoke cannabis. All kinds of wild theories are recited in the local pubs.
Then one day, a brave student of law gets the courage to go to the city of the Vice-Roy and bribe his way into the Hall of Mirrors, determined as he is to find out what kind of madness reigns there.
And to his great surprise, the cause of the madness is as he has written in many polemical pamphlets, which are distributed from Rome on a daily basis.
For in the Hall of Mirrors there is in face a huge filthy Elephant, standing on the left side near the image of Our Lady “untier of knots”.
But just as bizarrely, all the ministers of the King are discussing every other sort of trivial affair.
The brave student of law attempts to appeal to each of the high ministers, but the refuse even to speak with him.
Finally, an Arch-minister of the King sends a missive announcing to the world the real problem in the City of the Vice-Roy! The message is heralded by the Ancient and Honorable Gild of Grifters: as Breaking News.
But the breaking news is absurd: the Arch-minister is claiming that he has heard from another high minister, that there is a secret mouse hole behind the Royal Couch, and it is only account of that hole, that the entire Hall of Mirrors smells like an stable for Elephants!
At this the student of law, throws up his hands in despair. For now he knows the entire court is gripped with madness.
Here the satire ends, and below the satire becomes incarnate:
News and Commentary on the Catholic Church
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
