Tag Archives: Bergoglio

Guest Editorials, News

Viganò reveals the friendship between Maciel and Cardinal Sandri, who will oversee the next Conclave

3 Comments

logo

by Marco Tosatti

Authorized English Translation by FromRome.Info

READ THE ORIGINAL IN ITALIAN AT MARCOTOSATTI.COM

Dear Friends and Enemies of Stilum Curiae, we offer you today an extremely interesting document from the ex-Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, regarding one of the recent nominations by the Bridge-Builder: that of Cardinal Leonardo Sandi, as Vice Deacon of the College of Cardinals.  It will be Leonardo Sandri, who at 76 years of age, who will oversee in reality the functions of the Dean of the Conclave, Giovanni Battista Re, who being 85 years of age cannot participate.  It is a nomination which has stunned us, seeing that Leonardo Sandri was the Sostituo to the Secretary of State (then, Cardinal Sodano) when there was published the unsigned “note” in which it was affirmed there was no ongoing investigation against Marcial Maciel, the diabolic founder of the Legionaires of Christ.  Moreover, the good will of the reigning Pontiff towards Sandri is extraordinary. He has already completed two tours of duty of 5 years each, since 20o7, as Prefect of the Congregation for Oriental churches (and is in the middle of a third) and has completed 76 years, when 75 is already the limit imposed for heads of the Dicasteries and for Bishops. But let us read what Archbishop Viganò has written:

§§§

The Faithful have the right to know

We have just been witnesses to one of the most indecent episodes where we have looked upon the work of the prince of lies intent upon falsifying the book of Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah, by covering them with ignoble insults and vulgar insinuations, by means of the actions of the papal prison guard, who is now serving as a hit-man.  And now again we find him to be involved in another masterpiece of trickery: the confirmation on the part of the Bridge-Builder in the election of Cardinal Bishops and of the new Dean and Vice-Dean of the College of Cardinals.  These acts have passed unobserved, while they conceal a subtle strategy.  It is necessary to keep in mind, indeed, that in June of 2019, Papa Francesco increased the number of Cardinal Bishops, which had remained unchanged for centuries, by promoting 4 new ones at a single stroke. In this manner he insured for himself a majority favorable to himself, a thing which he has always done with new members of the College of Cardinals.

To Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, named Dean at the age of 86, but excluded form the next Conclave, I wish a longer life than his father. But his nomination is a cover for the more decisive one – that of Cardinal Sandri – who is now positioned to steer the next Conclave secundum Franciscum, that is, according to the updated and augmented version of the Mafia of St. Gall.

With Cardinal Leonardo Sandri I am bound by a long friendship, which had its beginning in the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, and then throughout 11 years in the same office as secretary to the Sostituto of the Secretary of State, and then 7 years of collaboration, from when he returned from a mandate as Nuncio to Mexico, after only 6 months, and was named the Sostotuto.

Amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas — This maxim, attributed to Aristotle, and then taken up by Plato in regard to Socrates, and successively by Cicero, is explained in this way by Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Sententia libri Ethicorum, Book 1, Lesson 6, nn. 4-5:

Quod autem oporteat veritatem praeferre amicis, ostendit hac ratione. Quia ei qui est magis amicus, magis est deferendum. Cum autem amicitiam habeamus ad ambo, scilicet ad veritatem et ad hominem, magis debemus veritatem amare quam hominem, quia hominem praecipue debemus amare propter veritatem et propter virtutem… Veritas autem est amicus superexcellens cui debetur reverentia honoris; est etiam veritas quiddam divinum, in Deo enim primo et principaliter invenitur. Et ideo concludit, quod sanctum est praehonorare veritatem hominibus amicis.

In my own translation, it goes like this:

Then, that it be necessary to prefer truth to friends, is demonstrated with this reckoning. To him to whom one is more a friend there goes greater honor.  Being friends of both, that is, of truth and of neighbor, we ought to love more the truth than our neighbor, because we ought to love the neighbor above all according to truth and virtue. Truth, indeed, is the most excellent friend to which one owes the reverence of honor. Truth is something of the divine, it finds itself in the first seat, and in its first principle in God.  From which one must conclude, that it is something holy to prefer the honor of truth to friends.

Moreover, what constrains me to write about Cardinal Leonardo Sandri is inspired solely by the friendship which binds me to him for nearly 50 years, for the good of his soul, for the love of the Truth which is Christ Himself and for the Church His Bride, whom we have served together.

In the first audience which Francis conceded to me after that which I already mentioned on June 23, 2013, in which he asked me about Cardinal McCarrick, he asked me a similar question: “What is Cardinal Sandri like?” Struck with surprise by that question in regard to my dear friend, I did not reply out of embarrassment. Francis, then, opened his hands and moved them up and down like scales — as if to say: “Which one is heavier?” — and he looked me straight in the eyes to see if I agreed.  In reply, I moved to confide in him: “Holy Father, I do not know if you know that the Nuncio Justo Mullor, President of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, was removed from the Apostolic Nunciature in Mexico because he opposed the directives coming from the Secretary of State aimed at covering for the grave accusations against Marcial Maciel”. I said this to the pope, so that he might reckon it for an eventual remedy to the injustice which Mons. Mullor suffered for not joining in the compromise, for remaining faithful to the truth and for his love of the Church. And this is the truth, which we reaffirm to the honor of this faithful servant of the Holy See, on the tomb of which I celebrated a Holy Mass in suffrage, in the Cathedral of Almeria, Spain.

I have already written in my first testimonial that the principal responsible for covering the misdeeds committed by Maciel was the then Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the recent acceptance of whose own resignation as Dean of the College of Cardinals was tied to his being implicated in the affair with Maciel. He, in addition to having protected Maciel, was certainly not outside of the loop in regard to the promotion of McCarrick … In the mean time, it is just that it be known that Cardinal Francis Arinze duly opposed himself, inside the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to the attempt by Sodano to coverup the case of Maciel.

Unfortunately for him, even Sandri let himself be involved by Sodano in this coverup operation for the horrible misdeeds of Maciel.  To replace Mons. Mullor in Mexico City, it was necessary to name someone securely loyal to Sodano. Sandri had already given proof as Assessor of the Secretary of Sate. And so, the Nuncio in Venezuela, who was only there for 2 years, was transferred to Mexico. Of these shady maneuvers, which the ones in charge qualified as normal events, I was a direct witness in a conversation held by them on January 25, 2000, the Feast of Saint Paul, while we were on our way to the Basilica which bears the Saint’s name, for the closure of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.  The connection of these dates for the transfers is also significant: June 19, 2000, the transfer to Moscow of Mons. Giorgio Zur, after being President of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy for only 1 year; February 11, 2000, the nomination of Mons. Justo Mullor as President of the same Academy, after having been only 2 and a half years in Mexico; March 1, 2000, the transfer to Mexico of Mons. Sandri after only 2 and a half years spent in Venezuela. Only six months after this, on Sept 16, 2000, Sandri was promoted to the position of Sostituto of the Secretary of State, as the right hand man of Sodano.

The Legionaires of Christ did not omit to show Sandri their thanks. In the occasion of a pranzo held in the Paul VI Hall in honor of the Cardinals created in the consistory of Nov. 24, 2007, among whom was Sandri himself, we were left shocked when he cut in front of me as I stood in line to speak with Pope Benedict, as the Pope was making his entrance, saying: “Holy Father, excuse me, but I cannot stay for Pranzo, as I am the invited guest of 500 Legionaries of Christ.”

Look how Francis, after having repeatedly and obsessively indicated as the cause of sexual abuse a very vaguely defined “clericalism”, to avoid in this way denouncing the plague of homosexuality, has himself exhibited the worst kind of clericalism, which he has accused others of: to promote Sandri, the Cardinal-Priest in May 2018 to being Cardinal-Bishop only one month later, so that he might be able to name him as Vice-Dean of the College of Cardinals, as the candidate chosen beforehand by Francis to preside over the next Conclave.

The Faithful have the right to know of these sordid intrigues in a corrupt court. In the heart of the Church, it seems to us, there has invaded the shadow of the synagogue of Satan (Apocalypse 2:9).

+ Carlo Maria Viganò

Arciv. tit. di Ulpiana

Nunzio Apostolico

This is an authorized English translation of the Italian Original

from MARCOTOSATTI.COM

logo

Editorials

Do not say the Heretical ‘Our Father’

10 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

It is the height of heresy and pride to presume to correct Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Savior and Redeemer of mankind, and the One Master and Teacher of all.

But this is the madness and insane perfidy of Bergoglio and his luciferian followers: they insist that the Our Father needs to be changed because it is theologically incorrect!

What blasphemy!

What sacrilege!

What diabolic impudence!

These men need to be slapped in the face, like it is said Saint Nicholas of Myra did to Arius the heretic. I say, heretic, because to break from Jesus Christ’s version of the Our Father is to break with Christ and His Church totally. And that is what heresy, means, to divide.

The Pater Noster

When we speak of the prayer, known as the ‘Our Father’, we are speaking of THE prayer taught by Jesus Christ — the only prayer He actually taught us — which is found in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, chapter 6, verses 9 though 13.

The argument these godless deceivers use to support their claims and confuse the faithful — I think you have to be a read idiot of a Christian to think the pope can change the Our Father — is that God does not tempt anyone.

First, I do not understand their objection. Because it is clear that their god is the Devil and their glory is in their shame. And everyone knows the devils tempt every man.

But as to the text of the Our Father:

In English:

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

In Latin:

et ne nos inducas in tentationem sed libera nos a malo.

In the Greek of the Scripture text (sources everywhere), which faithfully and inerrantly reproduces the exact words of Our Lord:

KAI MH EIΣENEΓKHΣ HMAΣ EIΣ ΠEIPAΣMON, AΛΛA PΥΣAI HMAΣ AΠO TOΥ ΠONHPOY

The words of controversy are lead and temptation, or in the Latin: inducas and tentationem, and in the Greek EIΣENEΓKHΣ and ΠEIPAΣMON.

First, I will comment on the Latin. Those who think the Latin word means always and only the kind of occurrence in which a thing or person or demon tempts you to commit a sin, by suggesting it to your, or being the occasion of a vicious habit you have to commit sin, are completely ignorant of the Latin tongue. Because tentatio means a testing or a being tested. The sense of temptation is only a Late classical usage.

The English translation of the Latin, therefore, is simply literal. English, it must be remembered, as we speak it today, is the product of Catholic Monks working for centuries to teach the Normans and Angles, Welsh and Scottish to speak coherently. When a monk wrote temptation he was thinking of the Latin sense of tentatio not temptation as it is used in modern English commonly.

Some idiots who parade as scholars hold that the masses are so ignorant that you better change the words rather than teach them the proper meaning of words. This is complete elitist and intellectualist C**P — excuse my English!

As a Latin translator, I know that all you need to do, to correct problems of mis-comprehension is to put a footnote. A single homily on the topic can serve the same purpose. There is no need to change the translation because it is obvious from Scripture that God puts men to the test, and that since the grace to weather God’s tests is not our by right, but by gift, we ought in humility pray not to be put to the test, rather than in pride and presumption, to pray for the grace to resist all tests, as if we were some sort of supernatural champion who never falls or fails in a test.

As for the Greek, all the Greek Lexicons of the New Testament agree with the Latin Translation: for the first Greek word means to lead into and the second Greek word means a testing or trying.

So if you hear anyone in your Parish start saying the wrong words, correct them. And if the priest insists on the wrong words, SHOUT HIM DOWN and tell him if he will not submit to Jesus Christ as his Master, to GET the hell OUT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH and become a Lutheran!

___________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of https://www.lonweb.org/ourfather/pn-gre-ing.htm and complies with fair use.  The text of the Our Father is copyrighted by God and cannot be infringed without the penalty of eternal and everlasting torments in Hell.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

SSPX reluctant to fault Bergoglio, quick to attack Pope Benedict

8 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I cannot be silent at the diabolic attack made against the Vicar of Jesus Christ by FSSPX.NEWS the official news outlet of the Society of Saint Pius X, founded by Archbishop Marcel-François Lefebvre, C.S.Sp. (1905 – 1991).

Little has been published about the heresies and blasphemies and idolatries of Bergoglio, the anti-pope par excellence. But within a week of the publication of a book defending priestly celibacy against Bergoglio’s fiendish plan to destroy it, there is the SSPX quick on the attack, like hounds.

You can read their absurd critique here. To say their argument is strained or in search of evidence to prove its a priori accusations, would be an accurate assessment. Let us take a look at the errors in this article:

A GRAVE DEVIATION?

The author of the article begins by attacking Pope Benedict’s declared intention of explaining the priesthood apart from the “methodological defect in the reception of Scripture as the Word of God.” Evidently the author here shows his complete ignorance of historical theology. The term “word of God” was never in the entire history of the Church prior to the 1260’s applied to Sacred Scripture. For Christians before 1260, the Word of God was only one: Jesus Christ. It was at the University of Paris that an analogy was made, based on phrases in the Old Testament which refer to revelations made to the prophets as, “the word of the Lord”, between Sacred Scripture as revealed truth and Jesus Christ as the Truth revealing.

This attribution by the Scholastics was innocent at first, but with time it became divorced from the concept of analogy and with the Reformation it became not “the word of God”, but “The Word of God”, replacing the Mass and the Most Blessed Sacrament with the Bible as the new medium of union with God, under the control of the expert layman, who dictated what Scripture meant, without reference to the Tradition of the Church.

This, since the time of the Reformation, has become indeed a grave theological and methodological error in interpreting Christianity or Sacred Scripture. And thus to fault Pope Benedict XVI for this approach is to adhere to the very errors of Luther and Bergoglio, who just made Scripture Sunday a new day of cult in his Church, with the placement of the Scriptures on the central axis of the nave of Churches, where the Eucharist and the Tabernacle had pride of place before the Council.

A FLAWED EXEGESIS

The next chapter bears a critical title, but the text does not display any substantive disagreement.

Granted that it is better to talk of offices than ministries, but it does not fundamentally alter a theological exposition which is non technical.

WORSHIP IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH

In this chapter, the author agrees, without making much of the praise due to the Holy Father for his exposition. Remarkable, as his affirmations here cut directly against the notion of the priesthood promoted during the Aggiornamento, of the priest as actor, guide and facilitator.

AN ERRONEOUS THEOLOGY?

In this chapter, the author attacks Pope Benedict for writing: “The crucifixion of Jesus is not in itself an act of worship.” And the author admits that the Pope is referring to the action of the Roman Soldiers. But nevertheless, the author goes on the attack and tries to draw the expression of the Pope over to a denial of Christ’s offering of His Passion as an act of worship. This is the absurd method of reading used by Sedevacantists. It is most unworthy of a Catholic priest or priestly society.

In truth, it is a historical fact, that the Roman Soldiers did not put Jesus Christ to death as an act of worship to the Emperor or any Roman or Greek god. Neither did the High Priests sacrifice Jesus as an act of worship of any God. So what the Pope says is perfectly correct. The pope is using “crucifixion” in its active sense, as the crucifying of Jesus, not as ‘the being crucified of Jesus.’  The one is an act of public execution, the other is the matter which Christ offered in the Holy Spirit to the Eternal Father for the Redemption of all. And I do not think you need a degree in theology to understand the difference. The former was objectively a sin, that of condemning the Just to death, the latter was a great act of Mercy, which merited the freedom from condemnation for all those destined to eternal death, who would receive His Sacrifice in faith.

When Archbishop Viganò exposed Bergoglio for covering for pedophiles, the Society was one of the last to speak on the issue. It has been seven years of continual heresies, scandals and blasphemies, but the Society rarely denounces publicly Bergoglio. Suffice it to say, that to publish such a flimsy and error-ridden attack within a week on Pope Benedict’s Book with Cardinal Sarah raises a lot of questions as to the real goals and agenda of a priestly society which still insists that all its priests offer their Masses una cum papa Francisco.

I won’t even mention that the Italian version of this released at Rome (see here) insults the Holy Father by calling him by his baptismal name at the end of the second paragraph of the essay. Nor will I mention, that which is no secret, that the big money behind the SSPX comes from Eastern Switzerland, the power base of the St. Gallen Mafia.

 

Editorials, News

Did Bergoglio just cry, “Uncle!” ?

7 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I think Bergoglio just cried, “Uncle!” — This expression in American English means that he surrendered to his opposition.

I say this because of the announcement yesterday, that Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re was nominated by him as Dean of the College of Cardinals, and Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, the vice-Dean.

As you may know, if you read my recent article just a few days before the announcement:  The House of Cardinal Re, that Cardinal Re is the head of a large and powerful faction in the Church, on account of his having co-consecrated more than 160 Bishops, including Cardinal Sandri and Cardinal Burke.

To name Cardinal Re and Cardinal Sandri to 2 of the 3 positions of actual power in the College of Cardinals is a stunning development.

Stunning, because neither is a member of the House of Rampolla del Tindaro, and thus neither shares an episcopal lineage with Bergoglio.

Stunning, because by giving that one faction 2 of the 3 votes necessary to call a Conclave or to decide NOT to call a Conclave, he has conceded the complaints from all the other factions in the Sacred Hierarchy and in the College of Cardinals that he not put these important offices in the hands of his own creatures.

Cardinal Re was made a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II.

Cardinal Sandri was made a Cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI.

What does this mean?

I think, first of all, it means that the complaints and protests which the faithful want to hear from the Bishops and Cardinals in public, have been made in private in an overwhelming matter. The College of Cardinals is first of all an ecclesiastical club of the highest order. They run the Church more than anyone thinks, and their power comes from this, that no one becomes pope without their placet and election.

Second, I believe it means that there is now widespread and universal opposition to Bergoglio in the College of Cardinals and in the College of Bishops, which is not spoke of in public, but which is at fever pitch in private.

Finally, I think it means that Bergoglio has caved to these complaints. By putting the next Conclave, or lack thereof, in the hands of another faction, he has admitted that the House of John Paul II and the House of Benedict XVI have definitively rejected his attempts at making the Church into another religion.

But perhaps I am being too hopeful. So keep praying!

In the meantime, insist with your local pastors TO REJECT EVERYTHING OF THE PONTIFICATE OF BERGOGLIO and point to this act of surrender as the sign to begin the rebellion to his faux pontificate of apostasy!

And write to Cardinal Re and URGE him not to convoke a conclave if Pope Benedict XVI is still alive and Bergoglio is gone, or to convoke one, if Benedict passes away, while Bergoglio remains. You can write the Cardinal at this address:

Sua Eccellenza Cardinale Giovanni Battista Re
Cardinale Decano
Collegio dei Cardinali
Palazzo Apostolico Vaticano
00120 Citta del Vaticano

_________

CREDITS: The featured image was taken for FromRome.Info this morning on the Via Conciliazione, here at Rome, by the author.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

Editorials

The pan-handler and the Ostriches

7 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

One is a true story, the other a vignette. You decide.

The pan-handler

His true name I do not know, but he called himself Andrea. I met him in front of the Bambino Gesu Hospital this morning. I had seen him before and he begged me for some groceries. So this time I felt obligated in justice and charity to help him.

He waited patiently while I conducted some other affair in the area and then followed me to a discount supermarket. Where I let him select what he wanted: some ingredients for a soup for his family, which he said lived under a bridge along the Tiber River. After the purchase I shook his hand and promised to pray for his wife and two children, so he told me he had.

Having another affair to conduct, I found myself on another street about 15 minutes later, and there was Andrea with his shopping bag empty. He did not even have time to go to the river and return. He was coming out of a shop where he had traded his groceries for money, because he wanted to buy liquor.

It was at that moment, Andrea gave me a lesson worth more than the groceries. He said to me, “You get around a lot, don’t you. You are on every street!” He was shamefaced that I caught him in his deception. But he spoke in the hope that by listening to his words I might not notice what he was doing.

The Ostriches

In the year 2041, when the Antichrist has taken up his throne in the Vatican, the only resistance left in his Church of Abu Dhabi — that is what it is now called — is a group which is called The Ostriches. This year they are meeting in a remote sandy place in Patagonia to perform yet another of what they call the most effective acts of resistance and defiance against the Supreme Pontiff of Surprises.

Their protest consists in arranging themselves in a circle, digging a hole in the sand big enough for the head of each of them, and then placing their head in the hole, while leaving their posterior stick out in the air. And they do this for 15 minutes, while contemplating the silence of ”resisting while recognizing.”

After a press conference, in which they denounce the Supreme Pontiff of Abu Dhabi for heresy and left-wing politics, one of the last German Noblemen invited to the secret, private protest, asks all of the leading ‘Recognize but Resistance’ Movement leaders, how they can say at the same time that the Supreme Pontiff is a heretic, while affirming that he has the grace of Pachamama to be infallible? Moreover, why protest here in remote Patagonia, and not in front of the Vatican?

To this none of them could respond, directly, they just continued with their press conference praising one another on the brilliant wisdom, prudence and strategy of recognizing and resisting with such outstanding public stunts as they had just accomplished for all the world to see, on Social Media — but only after the fact.

In Fine…

The pan-handler should teach us a lesson: when you see fraud in action, do not allow what the fraudster says, in the moment you catch him in his dishonestly, to keep you from recognizing that he is dishonest.

In this way you will remember that you are being played every time you go to their websites to read the carefully crafted controlled media stories they put out. Because their only lasting objective is to remain in communion with the High Priest of Pachamama. And the longer it takes you to recognize that, the more likely it will be that you lose your immortal soul and those of all your family.

Perhaps they do not do what they do under orders from you know who, but what difference does that make?

________

CREDITS:  The Featured Image is a photo take by Yathin S Krishnappa, and released under the CC Atribution Share Alike 4.0 International License. For more information see here.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Editorials, Faith

How Bergoglio’s permanence means the apostasy of the Flock

14 Comments

From Rome has been ahead of many issues way before the general public confronted them. One of these regards the problem of having a man whom you think is the Pope be a man whom you know is a heretic.

From Rome answered this in an editorial of May 12, 2016, nearly 3 and a half years ago. Back then nearly no one took notice. It was too politically incorrect. But now many, having seen the unending monstrosity of Bergoglio who is willing to publicly slap and excoriate with the most foul language a woman merely for pleading for the help of fellow Catholics who were being persecuted by his Marxist allies in China, and his total lack of insouciance at the publication of a book by Pope Benedict on Celibacy, the barriers of non-think have, are or about to fall in the minds of the general populace.

Some readers have remarked that From Rome does not speak so much about the heresies or errors of Bergoglio anymore, but this is not because he has stopped, or that this publication finds them tolerable, but because the solution to the problem of Bergoglio is simple: Restore Benedict XVI because he was robbed of the Papacy, and we were robbed of his Pontificate!

In this editorial, written when the pretensions to the Papacy of Bergoglio were still commonly held, hope was held out for his repentance. But now after nearly 4 years, that is clearly never going to come about. Those still hoping for it, are deceiving the faithful.

Nevertheless, we share with our readers now in January of 2020, what we published in May of 2016, for your edification and thought, and to share with your fellow Catholics who are still struggling to understand Bergoglio and why the clergy are obsessed with remaining in communion with him.

How Bergoglio’s Permanence means the apostasy of the Flock

Rome, May 12, 2016 A.D:  There is no greater and more radical challenge for the Christian believer than to take another as his Master.

Indeed, Christians are recognized by the fact that they regard Jesus Christ, and Him alone, as their Master, in accord with the scripture verse, in which Christ condemned the religious leaders of ancient Israel, Matthew 23:10 ff:

10 Neither be ye called masters; for one is you master, Christ. 11 He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Indeed, its very tempting, in today’s world in which truth is up for grabs and violent political clashes are being waged on all sides, for the Christian to take an “I’m ok, you’re ok” view, that is, a “get along with everyone” kind of attitude, in which truth does not matter, only co-existence.

The Loadstone of Hope

The only problem is, that there is a vast difference between the man who thinks Christ is a religious teacher and the man who is loyal to Christ no matter what.  First first regards Him as one might regard a philosopher:  taking the man’s teachings here and there, according to his personal tastes and likes, but not as a rule of life.

The second regards Him as the Incarnate Son of God, apart from Whose teaching No man on Earth can escape eternal and perpetual damnation in the fires of Hell.

As St. Augustine said, “If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.”

Indeed, what distinguishes the Christian from all other men is Hope.

Hope is that theological virtue least spoke of today, because in modern times a proper understanding and appreciation of it has been so attacked in the minds of men, that nearly nobody appears to have it or cultivate it or use it.

Hope is that theological virtue which puts full faith and confidence in the promises of God for those who keep them.  Its the most essential and key Christian virtue, given to us in Baptism, but cultivated only with good works.  If you do not really hope that God will reward you for fidelity to Christ, then obviously you will not be faithful to Him.  Likewise, if you think that you can manage for yourself the rules by which you will get into Heaven, there is no need for you to have hope in God’s promises, you can presume for yourself — a presumption which is both your ultimate self-deceit and the absolute guarantee of your own damnation.

All of this has an ecclesiological impact, that is, all of this effects the Church, what She is and your place in or outside of Her, who alone is the ark of Salvation, the Pillar of the truth, apart from AND outside of which no man woman or child can be saved.

The Temptation of Bergoglio

The great temptation presented by the election and presence of Bergoglio on the Apostolic Throne, then, is precisely this: the offer of a Church, of a Christianity, in which Christ is no longer The master, but merely a guide post from which one can wander here or there and remain a “christian” without fidelity and without the need to practice hope.

This temptation is offered the Cardinals, the Bishops, the priests, the religious and the laity, is offered thus to the whole Church, because in Bergoglio they have, without any shadow of a doubt, a man who does not believe in Christ as his Sole Master, who does not love or tolerate the Church as Christ founded it or gave it, does not suffer the rules the Apostles, the Faithful Disciples of the Lord handed down to us, and is filled with compassion and love for the traitor who sold Christ for 30 shekels of silver.

To have a public manifest heretic on the throne of the Apostle Peter, and tolerate him, presents for every true Christian, the opportunity of pretense, to keep the name “Christian” or “Catholic” without any more obligation to Christ.  Its the ultimate game-plan of Lucifer.

Either Bergoglio must Change or the Church has changed

Finally, if one were to accept this situation and the principles which erroneously lead to it, as have been briefly described here, it would be enough to end this article with the usual lament.  Because with faith it is possible to lament these things, but with hope it is not possible to tolerate them.  Nearly every author on the Internet today, and as far as we know, all the Cardinals and Bishops of the Catholic Church since April 8, 2016, the date on which “Amoris Laetitia” what released, do not have or are not acting faithfully to Christian Hope.

For the man with Christian hope, would declare and manifestly insist and demand that Bergoglio be canonically reprimanded, and if refusing 3x, be declared to be in open schism with Christ and His Church, and self-deposed by reason of his malice and heresy against Him and His Bride, the Church, whose first duty is to keep herself immaculate and worthy of Him.

Either Bergoglio must change or the Church has in fact changed, because if he repents, the Church is saved in Her fidelity to Christ, and Christ is glorified above all human whim, even the human whims of the Roman Pontiff. But if Bergoglio does not change AND the Church tolerates him, it is the Church which has changed, She has committed adultery with Bergoglio, accepting him rather than Jesus Christ as Her spouse, the God above all other gods…

__________

CREDITS: The featured image is of the Medieval Manuscript depicting The False Shepherd, a detail of the illumination from the mss. Douce 266 in the Bodleian Library. As a faithful reproduction of a work of art produced more than 200 years ago, it is in the public domain.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

George Neumayr — The Prisoner of the Vatican

3 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

George Neumayr has shattered the controlled narrative of the Bergoglian revolution, with a devastating piece in the American Spectator, Sunday Edition, entitled: The Prisoner of the Vatican: Benedict XVI is pressured into taking his name off a book about clerical celibacy.

In it he precisely and accurately studies the Book Spat which erupted this week between Cardinal Sarah and Bergoglio, and shows what it means about Pope Benedict being totally under the power and control of the St Gallen Mafia Media Establishment.

His piece opens thus:

In one of his last speeches before abdicating in 2013, Pope Benedict XVI decried the liberalism that had seeped into the Church after Vatican II. To this liberalism, he traced “so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed, the liturgy was trivialized.” But he then proceeded to hand the Church to the very liberals responsible for these problems and to a successor set upon liberalizing the Church even more.

Not long after assuming power, Jorge Bergoglio took a veiled swipe at his predecessor. He told an interviewer that Vatican II had encouraged openness to “modern culture” but that “very little was done in that direction,” a shortcoming he promised to correct: “I have the humility and ambition to want to do something.”

To accelerate his liberal revolution in the Church, however, Pope Francis had to make sure that his predecessor was under control. He accomplished that by having Benedict live on the Vatican grounds — an arrangement designed to muzzle him that has amounted to turning Benedict into the prisoner of the Vatican.

Read the rest at American Spectator: https://spectator.org/the-prisoner-of-the-vatican/ where the screenshot used as the Featured Image above was taken.

And for comparisons, you may want to take a look at From Rome’s Article, The Imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI, from July 8, 2019, where the events before and after the Renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013 where studied in chronological order to reveal the same reality. An article which was roundly mocked by Bergoglian apologists and Trad Inc. at the time, but which has been proven in the substance of its analysis by recent events.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

Petition President Trump to speak out for Pope Benedict’s care!

4 Comments

DON’T BE LIKE THE 3 OUT OF 4 WHO READ THIS
AND NEVER SIGN THE PETITION!

Petition to President Trump to advocate for the protection of all the elderly, including POPE BENEDICT XVI!

TEXT OF THE PETITION

As recent events at the Vatican have shown, the elderly and frail Pope Benedict is being housed in a facility where the man responsible, Archbishop Gänswein, is attacking his collaborators and claiming he did not do or say or approve what he did approve and say and do. We are concerned that this elderly man is being manipulated for political reasons, which is elder abuse. We are also concerned because of his fidelity to Catholic teaching, that he might be further victimized in the near future by members of Bergoglio’s government. We therefore ask President Trump to raise concern about this issue by issuing one tweet:

“I am concerned for the welfare of all the elderly and that they not be abused or manipulated, including Pope Benedict XVI. I urge all to take effective steps for their care!”

– – –

TO SIGN THIS PETITION, GO TO: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/petition-president-trump-advocate-protection-all-elderly-including-pope-benedict-xvi

100,000 Signatures are needed to get the White House to act on the petition!

Please share this petition on all Social Media venues!

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

Chinese Intelligence takes down Ordo Militaris Inc server in apparent reprisal

4 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

This report is disturbing and menacing. Just after FromRome.info published the invitation to join the Ordo Militaris Catholicus, this afternoon, Rome Time, a massive computer assault from Mainland China was launched against the server of the Order, at such a high level of sophistication, that it shut the server down physically.

Logs at the Order’s Website show numerous queries from dozens of cities in China in rapid succession doing a deep scan on the website.

The server physically turned itself off within 15 minutes of posting the Invitation article.

The company hosting the website said only the server on which the Order’s website was affected no others. The company hosts 10s of thousands of websites on shared and reserved servers.

The attack was not a Denial of Service, it was some sort of sophisticated back door hack.

FromRome.Info, earlier today, in its report about John Zmirak’s exposé of China’s control of the Bergoglian Regime, might have been the flash point. In that post, I discussed the ties of Chinese Intelligence to efforts to force the Resignation of Pope Benedict.

I think I can safely say that the vicious underhanded attack just proved everything I said in that report.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

Zmirak: Communist China owns the Bergoglian Regime, but that is not half of it!

Video 4 Comments

https://youtu.be/9qWGEkfEwhM

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The information related by Mr. Zmirak here in this video raises serious questions about the Renunciation of Pope Benedict, as regards coercion prior to the act

Chinese Intelligence Involvement?

I say this not only on account of what Mr. Zimrak says, but on account of what I know that he does not know. Because, I have it from one of the business men who dined one evening in Shanghai with Cardinal Papalardo, of Palermo (may he rest in peace), heard from his own mouth that the Cardinal was convinced the health of Pope Benedict was so poor that he would die within a year. The news of this comment spread, and the MSM put out stories on Feb. 12, 2012, that there was a plot to assassinate Pope Benedict if he refused to resign within a year.

My question is, now that we know from Cardinal Zen of Hong Kong, that the Vatican Accord signed by Parolin was substantially the agreement of capitulation which Peking demanded Pope Benedict XVI to sign, though he refused: should we not consider it possible that Peking subborned Vatican representatives or connived with McCarrick to bribe Vatican officials (maybe even Gänswein?) to make the resignation happen?

After all, when the Italian businessmen joined the Cardinal in Shanghai for dinner in 2011, they were surprised to find him in China, and he said he was on official Vatican Business.

I find that hard to believe, because one of my sources who was the personal secretary of not a few Bishops in Italy, told me that Pope Benedict XVI sacked Cardinal Papalardo from the Congregation of Bishops because he was selling episcopal nominations for 100 thousand euros a pop! Once sacked, he bore a strong animus against Benedict til his dying days, it is said. And that means it might not have been an unintentional rumor, it might have been a carefully crafty psyop against Benedict by Chinese Intelligence, who somehow got Papalardo to cooperate.

So I think there is more than solid reasons to consider it possible that Pope Benedict XVI was not only urged out of power by the Obama Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, but also with the urging and perhaps financing of the Marxist government of China.

Is the Vatican still laundering money for the CIA?

Key to the Renunciation is the discrepancy of why Cardinal Bertone called Mr. Gotti to his offices on Feb. 7, 2013 to promise his reinstatement in his duties as financial officer at the Vatican — he was dismissed without Pope Benedict’s knowledge, said Bertone, and Benedict only learned of it while watching TV! — and just 4 days later Benedict decides to resign?

According to Gänswein, Benedict prepared for his resignation over many months. Yet the Latin text has more than 40 errors in the Latin and several canonical errors!  And Vatican TV was not even notified to turn their cameras on to catch it all?

It does not add up.

I think another line of investigation regards what Gotti might have possibly discovered if reinstated. And I think it has to do with slush funds in the Vatican Bank used by foreign Intelligence Agencies to bribe foreign officials, including Vatican officials.

I  base this observation on a very detailed report published in the USA on how Pope John Paul II cooperated with the CIA to fund the Solidarity Movement in Poland, which brought down the Communist Government there. The report said that the money was laundered through the Vatican Bank.  Did accounts like this remain operative after 1988? And if so, for what purposes?

The internecine battle in September between the Vatican Financial Oversight authority and the Secretary of State’s foreign investments in London, through a Swiss Bank and a financier in Luxembourg may have to do with the same slush funds, because almost immediately the Italian press published information showing that the current Prime Minster of Italy was paid money, ostensibly as a salary, about the time he was chosen as Prime Minister, out of a life of political obscurity. Since that time, Conte has run Italy strictly for the political agendas of France and Germany. While at the same time the Bergoglian Regime has forcefully defended the antics of one ship in the Mediterranean  Sea which imports illegals, which the European Press has unmasked as financed by Cardinal Marx and perhaps even German Intelligence.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

Editorials

YouTube is despicably Bergoglian

10 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I am not accustomed to write posts about the Internet, but when I run upon something really disgusting, I feel compelled.

It’s YouTube.

No, and I am not talking about so many of its videos.

I am talking about its search engine. Well, at least how its search engine works when I use it.

I did a search for Videos about Benedict XVI. And in the results it gave me videos of “Pope Francis” in the mix.

If you know anything about search engines, that is not supposed to happen. There is no Pope Benedict in anything of those which appeared entitled “Pope Francis”.

So to avoid the annoyance, I added another search term to the same search, “-Francesco”, which according to the custom of search engines is supposed to guarantee that the search will exclude occurrences of “Francesco”.

But that is not what happened.

In my second search, I also lost videos of Pope Benedict.

That means that YouTube, ostensibly at the request of Bergoglio, has tied the name of “Benedict XVI” to the name “Pope Francis”, so if you try to avoid seeing the Argentine Usurper, you miss out on the Catholic Pope.

That is Despicable!

We are in full 1984 George Orwell mode.

And someone’s ego is over sensitive!

I suggest you fight back. I post the above image
to do my part. We must speak the truth to godless power.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Guest Editorials

Antonio Socci: The Furor of the Despot Against the Catholic Pope

4 Comments

 

by Antonio Socci

January 14, 2020

Authorized Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino
Italian Original on Facebook

Reliable sources from inside the Vatican reconstruct the whole affair in this way. The book “Des profondeurs de nos coeurs” is clearly written by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah (as is indisputably demonstrated by the letters the two exchanged last fall made known by Sarah [on his Twitter account].) Everything was decided and agreed upon together from the beginning.

The other day – when the excerpt in defense of celibacy was issued [in Le Figaro] – the end of the world broke out in the Vatican because Bergoglio was furious. Such an authoritative pronouncement from Benedict XVI prevents him from smashing priestly celibacy, as had been his intention to do in the forthcoming Post-Synodal Exhortation.

And so BERGOGLIO PERSONALLY called Archbishop Gänswein, who is personal secretary to Benedict XVI but also Prefect of the Papal Household of Bergoglio and – furious – he ORDERED him take the name of Benedict XVI off the cover of the book (since he could not demand that the text of the book be changed).

Bergoglio demanded a complete and total disavowal. For this reason the first news that filtered through spoke of sources “close to Benedict XVI” saying that Benedict had not co-authored the book with Sarah, had not approved the cover (which said that he is the author of the work).

This however was not true and Benedict XVI could not accept saying something false, thereby implicitly accusing Cardinal Sarah of having involved him without his consent. Nor did Pope Benedict have any intention of taking back what he had written in defense of celibacy in the book.

Cardinal Sarah immediately revealed the letters the two had exchanged, which demonstrated that the book was planned by both of them, and certainly Sarah revealed these letters with the consent of Benedict XVI – in order to re-establish the truth.

On the other hand, Benedict also needed to shelter his secretary [Gänswein] from the South American “vendettas” since Gänswein had received a peremptory order from Bergoglio.

Thus a compromise solution was adopted: in the successive editions of the book the author of the book will be Cardinal Sarah “WITH THE CONTRIBUTION OF BENEDICT XVI.” The text of the book in any case remains the same.

With this messy solution the Bergoglian courtiers can tell the media that “Benedict XVI has removed his signature from the book” (even though this is not true) and yet the book remains as it was, with the signature of Sarah and the name of Benedict XVI as the author of the parts written together.

A most ugly story of clerical bullying that in the end led to the gagging of Benedict XVI.

THERE IS STILL THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION: IF BERGOGLIO, IN HIS EXHORTATION, STRIKES AT CELIBACY (BY PERMITTING THE ORDINATION OF “VIRI PROBATI”) HE PLACES HIMSELF IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH RESTATED IN THESE DAYS BY POPE BENEDICT XVI. THUS HE ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR A SERIOUS RIFT OF THE CHURCH FRAUGHT WITH CONSEQUENCES.

Editorials, Faith, Spirituality

Marks of the Beast: Solidarity in Dissent

9 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I have previously written an extensive description of how the horrible sin of pride is the hallmark of wicked men in the Church since the time of Vatican II, in my article on The Downfall of Luciferian Pride.

Today, I want to focus on one of the outstanding characteristics of the unfaithful who are members of the Church of the Antichrist, though they may not realize it or admit it. I want to do this because it is very easy to fall into the camp of Lucifer without realizing it, because, as I said in the previous article, the vice and sins of pride, being the most evil, are the hardest to discern and recognize, because they are full of the deprivation of the being that should be in an act of virtue. And that makes them spiritually invisible, except to the very humble who desire to glory solely in the Divine Majesty of God.

Ann Barnhardt’s Righteous Indignation

I am continually impressed by the righteous indignation of many devout Catholics on social media. Righteous indignation is the sense of disgust and anger which rises in the heart of someone who loves God and puts God first, and this kind of indignation is expressed solely because the rights of God are being transgressed.

As you may know, in recent years, months and weeks certain clergy, religious and laymen, who insist Bergoglio is the pope, because they refuse to doubt for a moment that Cardinals and Bishops are infallible, have begun to fault Our Lord Jesus Christ, in His promises to Peter, the teaching of Vatican I on Papal Authority and Infallibility, and the credulity of the Saints in regard to the Roman Pontiff’s authority and magisterium.

A recent example is the declaration of the Hermits of Westray, Scotland. Who know well what the arguments for Benedict still being the pope are, but refuse to harken to them, because they prefer to deny the indefectibility of the Catholic Church or the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff which they cannot reconcile with their more cherished “belief” that Bergoglio is the Pope.

One of the more shocking and sustained attacks came recently from Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, in his blog post entitled, How Francis may be vindicating the “inopportunists” of the First Vatican Council, published by Lifesite News, run by the Campaign for Life Coalition, a political organization out of Toronto, Canada, whose editor is a Mr. John-Henry Westen, co-founder of Lifesite and of the Voice of the Family Coalition, one of the leading “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” politicians-journalists.

Ann Barnhardt rightly unloaded a cartload of righteous indignation on Dr. Kwasniewski’s attempt to undermine the infallible teaching of Vatican I, in her recent post, entitled, Hey! Here’s a wacky idea. Instead of assuming that God is incompetent and Vatican I and the declaration of the infallible dogma of Papal Infallibility was all a big mistake…

I will quote the key passage, which I want to focus on, as a preamble to a discussion of the Marks of the Beast.  Ann Barnhardt, addressing the problem many Catholics are having, from Cardinal Burke down to the last man in the pew, to understand how a man like Bergoglio could be the pope, says decisively:

Maybe if people would attack this controversy from the base assumption that GOD ALMIGHTY is THE PERFECT ONE as manifested in His Spotless and Indefectible Bride the Church, in His Angels, and in His Saints, and that THEY THEMSELVES are deeply fallible and so very capable of error, INSTEAD OF THE EXACT OPPOSITE,  there might be a bit more clarity of thought round about.

(Bold Face in the original)

What Ann Barnhardt is addressing is PRIDE. And a particularly diabolic kind of pride, which holds that the unholy fallible trinity of “I, me, and myself,” knows better than the Holy Infallible Trinity of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

No use talking about modern errors, if you embrace them without so much as a wink of the eye

What is so ironic about her observation is that it is valid against a good number of popular writers and speakers and YouTube personalities, who either ascribe to or have been leading members of the so-called “Traditional Movement” in the Catholic Church since the time of the Second Vatican Council. A group which has made it a point and raison d’entre to fault the errors of modernity.

These errors consist in Modernism, Neo-Modernism, Relativism, Individualism, Secularism, Humanism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Hedonism…  Have I left any out? Probably.

However, when it comes to the controversy of how a man like Bergoglio can be thought to be the Vicar of Christ and act more heretical than any lay leader of one of the main line Protestant “churches”, then their opposition to certain modern errors is cast to the wind and instead some of these errors are readily embraced.

First of which is Modernism, which holds that that which validates religious belief is interior religious sentiments, not objective revelation. For the Modernist, Papal Infallibility is not a gift from God, but the habit of mind of believers to take whatever a Pope says or does and regard it as a religious doctrine. For that reason, there is nothing wrong in criticizing Catholics throughout history who had this sentiment.

Second of which is Neo-Modernism, which holds that there is no unchanging eternal truth revealed by God, but that religious truth consists in conformity of the mind to modern life. Neo-Modernists think that the Church is dead unless She is in the process of continual aggiornamento, that clergy are not properly formed unless they are undertaking continuous formation, etc. etc. For them no event can be condemned by religious doctrine because events themselves are the goal posts of truth and the sacred. They worship history, but not as something that once was, but which is always changing. Hence, papal infallibility must also now be reconsidered and redefined in light of Bergoglio’s way of acting.

The Third of which is Relativism, which holds that there are no absolute moral truths implicit in human nature or in an eternal unchanging law. Truth is found in the right relation of things and actions in the here and now. And right, here, means what is suitable to me. Relativism in turn gives birth or opens the door to Hedonism and Individualism, the definitions of which are well known. Hence, what papal infallibility should mean today is not limited to what it meant before. And what I think it should mean is more important than what any Saint, Doctor of the Church, or previous Pope said it meant, because what is most important is that I have a pleasant experience of Catholicism.

Bergoglio is certainly the Pope, because …

Many Catholics unwittingly have adopted the errors which I just mentioned in a very imprudent attempt to rationally explain why they hold the position that Bergoglio is certainly the pope.

None actually confront the historical facts, which are as follows:

  1. Pope Benedict, as the man who is the pope, renounced the ministerium in his declaration of Feb. 11, 2013.
  2. Canon 332 §2 says a Roman Pontiff renounces when he renounces the munus.
  3. Canon 17 says that Canon 332 § must be read in accord with the Code of Canon Law’s usage of terms, canonical tradition, and the mind of its legislator, Pope John Paul II.
  4. Benedict behavior after Feb. 28, 2013, shows that he retains the papal dignity in all respects.
  5. The idea that Benedict’s renunciation of ministerium means a renunciation of the papacy comes from a tweet by Giovanna Chirri, an ANSA reporter, minutes following the Consistory of Feb. 11, 2013.
  6. No meeting of canonists was called to examine the act of the Renunciation to determine if it was valid or not.
  7. The Vatican has never officially claimed that the renunciation was valid.
  8. The Cardinals have never claimed that they did anything to verify that the See was Vacant before meeting in the Conclave of 2013 to elect Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
  9. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a public manifest and pertinacious heretic, idolater and fomenter of schisms, who by divine right cannot be a member of the Catholic Church, let alone hold any office in Her.
  10. The Church has NEVER taught that the Cardinals or Bishops or even all the clergy are infallible in matters of canonical interpretations or knowledge of historical facts.

Instead, these “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” Catholics take another route.  They hold that the solidarity of opinion of the vast majority, who say Bergoglio is the pope, is more authoritative than:

  1. God who is infallible by nature.
  2. Christ Jesus who created the office of Saint Peter and promised it infallibility.
  3. Christ Jesus’ Prayer for the person of the Pope that his faith may NEVER fail.
  4. The First Vatican Council in its decree, Pastor Aeternus.
  5. The Code of Canon Law of 1983 promulgated by the Vicar of Jesus Christ, Pope John Paul II.
  6. The words of Pope Benedict himself during and after the Renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013.

Solidarity in Dissent, is a Mark of the Diabolic

The essence of pride, the vice, is dissent. This is because pride as the worst of all vices is directed more principally against the truth and against knowing the truth, than all other vices.  Pride is a spiritual vice and since the intellect is the most spiritual of all the powers of the soul, pride takes root first of all in it.

We can see this in Scripture, where, from the name of Saint Michael, who according to Saint John the Apostle, in his Book of the Apocalypse, was the first Holy Angel to act out of holy indignation and take up arms to fight against Lucifer and his angels, that the sin of Lucifer was pride.  For Saint Michael’s name means, Who is like unto God? A name, which, according to the Fathers of the Church, he merited for repelling the evil suggestions of Lucifer who suborned and seduced a third of the Angels of God with a sin of pride.  Lucifer then was probably saying something like, Worship me, because I am like unto God!

But this is also the sin of all prideful men.  When you by any act of mind or will or body or soul do something which presupposes any affirmation that you have the merit, right, worthiness, power, protection, etc.. that only God has by Nature, then you are committing a sin of pride. This is so, because you are acting as if you were like unto God in such a way as to fail to distinguish that you are much more unlike God than like Him, and that you fail in being like Him in 3 principle characteristics:  You are not omniscent, You are not omnipotent, You are not infallible.

Omniscent means all knowing. Omnipotent means able to do all things by your own power or ability. Infallible means able not to err.  I could add impeccable, which means unable to sin, but since a proud man is already entirely oblivious to his ability to sin, I will omit that here.

It follows, then, that since Lucifer seduced the Angels of God by pride, and that those who fell with him and were cast out of Heaven by the Divine Power and Saint Michael and his Angels, that one of the marks of the diabolic community is their solidarity in pride. And that means solidarity in the misuse of their intellects in dissenting from the truth.

Dissent, which merely means disagreement, can be good or evil. But when it disagrees with objective reality or revealed truth or even a truth which we know is true on account of other truths, natural or revealed, then it is evil, a mortal sin. This is the dissent of which I speak in this article.

Our Lord points this out for our observation, when He calls Lucifer a liar and a murderer from the beginning.  Because a liar attacks a truth because he disagrees with it. And a murders kills a living thing, because he disagrees that it should be allowed to live.

Solidarity in Dissent is, therefore, the Mark of the Beast

Solidarity in dissent, therefore, must be the chief mark of the Beast, that is, the chief distinguishing characteristic of all the members of the Church of the Anti-Christ, the Mystical Body of Satan.

Saint John the Apostle indicates this symbolically in his Apocalypse, when he says that in the days of the Antichrist no one will be able to buy or sell anything without having the mark of the beast inscribed upon their right hand.  According to the Fathers of the Church this is a symbolic expression, chiefly, for the conspiracy of the wicked in acting on principle out of falsehood. The biblical number, often translated as 666 is actually in the Greek text written very similar to sss, three Snake like symbols which were used in Asia Minor, in the time of Saint John, as the symbol for the number 6, which in the bible indicates the fullness of imperfection.  And since pride is the fullness of all vice, and vice is the moral habitual failing which leads to imperfection and wickedness, 666 is a pre-eminent symbol for pride and dissent.

Whether the number 666 means more than this, is another consideration. I am here giving a mystagogic reading of the text, that is, a reading which applies to the moral or spiritual life and how we should or should not be living our lives today.

But the “Bergoglio is certainly the Pope” people are doing just this. They are acting out of a spirit of solidarity in dissent from the 10 truths which I listed above.  They ignore all arguments, refuse all reflections and reasons, even conversations, which would lead them to confront the fact of what they are doing. They have willfully blinded themselves to the truth and they show absolutely no worry whatsoever of what might or will befall them for denying and dissenting from truth. They do this because they do not want to separate themselves from the massa (damnata)* who define themselves as dissenters from these truths. They do not want to disagree with the Cardinals and Bishops who reject these truths or close their eyes to them. They are literally willing to risk their eternal salvation on the basis of this solidarity in dissent.

And it is true dissent, because they do not even attempt to give reasons for what they are doing. They only lash out with insults or vicious punishments, calumnies etc..

These catholics are profoundly confused. The unanimous or near unanimous opinion of men might be truth in the political order, but it is not the criterion of truth in matters of canon law. That many of these Catholics are very political people might indeed explain why they cannot understand that in the Church democracy or politics means nothing. Truth means everything.

Indeed, it is the teaching of Christ, Scripture, the Apostles, the Fathers of the Church, the Doctors of the Church, the Saints and the Magisterium throughout the ages, that to deny even one truth is a mortal sin meriting eternal damnation. But a godless politician will never accept or understand this.

This is why solidarity in dissent is the preeminent spiritual mark of the beast. If you have this mark, then you are a member of the Church of the Anti-Christ, no matter what religion you practice, what mass you attend, what Cardinal you follow, or what you otherwise might think of yourself, as holy or impious.

Solidarity in dissent can last a long time. It is what destroyed and is destroying the Protestant Churches, who agreed in the Reformation to deny certain Catholic truths, and in that tradition, from which they refuse to break, they ran into the necessity of denying other truths. — This follows the spiritual law of moral degradation, namely, that if you deny one moral truth with unbending firmness and fidelity, then you will be forced to sacrifice your adhesion to other moral truths, until you become utterly depraved and ultimately are driven insane. This is why among men, insanity is a hallmark of the diabolic. — And this is why Protestant Churches, or any group which practices solidarity in dissent, such as those who deny the 10 truths above, cannot be saved: they are doomed by that solidarity to fall into continually worse and more diverse errors and vices.

So I warn all: solidarity in dissent is a mark of the Beast and so long as you are marked with that mark, you belong to that Beast.

________

* “Massa damanata” is a Latin phrase used by Saint Augustine of Hippo to name the collectivity of all the damned souls. Massa in Latin means mass, damnata, means damned.

 

News

There is a plot to dethrone Pope Benedict

18 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

And no, I am not talking about the events leading up to February 11, 2013.

The Plot

I am speak about the plan moving through sections of the Roman Curia right now to “solve” the problem of a “Pope emeritus”. I have this on the word of a very highly respected member of the Roman Curia who told me of it.

The enemies of Christ realize that this title proves that the resignation was never complete and therefore that Pope Benedict never renounced the Papal Office at all, and is still the pope. That means Bergoglio’s entire reign of terror was uncanonical,  a fraud, of no value, not legally binding on the Church in anything.

They cannot tolerate that. So now they feel confident in removing “the evidence of the problem”.

I wonder whether there are different points of view here. Do some want Benedict to stop calling himself “pope”, signing as the “Pastor of Pastors, Pope Benedict XVI” (Benedictus XVI P.P.)*, wearing the white cassock and skull cap? Do others go so far as to want him out of the Vatican and no longer cared for by the Head of the Pontifical Household? Do still others want a “canonical” solution which pretends or keeps up the pretense of a valid resignation?

I believe dissent on this matter is visceral, right now, in the Vatican. The Head of the Vatican Police seems to have been a partisan of the group which holds that Bergoglio has no valid claim, since, when he tendered his resignation this fall, Bergoglio demanded of him that he mention, in his letter of resignation, that he recognizes “Pope Francis as the Successor of Saint Peter”, a textual statement which has nothing to do with a letter of resignation per se, but which proves that Bergoglio is on the war path to punish anyone who thinks otherwise. (Did Sodano’s sacking have anything to do with this? — I do not know, but he certainly does know of the controversy since there is nothing going on in the Vatican that he does not know through his many clients there).

And do not doubt it. The whole Roman Curia knows that Benedict is still the pope and that in their haste they were wrong in presuming that he resigned the office of St. Peter in February 2013. I make this claim on the basis of the human reactions I get when discussing this with learned partisans of the Bergoglian regime. It’s a topic with which they are very familiar and know precisely what to say and not to say to pretend otherwise. They also employ their most forceful anger against those facts and points-of-law-in-application which directly address the problem. It’s such a hot potato, that few are even willing to speak about it. And some even run away when they see you coming, if you have requested to speak with them on this topic.

Their hope is that most of the laity are dopes and will keep eating up the propaganda that their handlers in the press and social media keep putting out: Shut up! Do not think about it! It does not matter! You are seeing things! You are a heretic and a schismatic if you say otherwise!** The Revolution, in the minds of the Bergoglian party, must go forward. They have to have approbation of all that is evil and the utter destruction of the Church which claims to be founded by the true Jewish Messiah. That is the end game.

The Battle of 2020

Pope Benedict XVI for his part has made it quite clear that his “yes” to accept the Papal Office is a “forever” yes. There is thus going to be a battle, and it will break out in 2020.  Catholics who love and remain in communion with Pope Benedict need to go on the war path.

We need to identify and contact the 40 to 70 Cardinals, whom the Vaticanista, Edward Pentin, said in 2017,*** were inclined to call an imperfect council to remove Bergoglio on the grounds that his claim to the papacy is vitiated by some canonical problem, whether heresy, schism or invalidity.

We need to mobilize Catholics to financially support any effort which is necessary to defend the person of the Roman Pontiff, Pope Benedict.

We need to keep up the heat on the partisans of error: those devilishly bold individuals who lie in public and are willing to say anything to keep you from realizing

  1. that in Canon Law the Latin word munus HAS NEVER meant MINISTERIUM,
  2. that Pope Benedict NEVER SAID HE RESIGNED the petrine munus
  3. that Pope Benedict NEVER AFFIRMED THAT HE INTENDED to resign the petrine munus.
  4. that the Cardinals and journalists are not infallible, when they say the contrary of nn. 1, 2, or 3.
  5. that the Cardinals, journalists, and Bishops have NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to interpret the act of renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013 as an act of renunciation of anything other than ministerium.

Those who are telling these lies are all getting hefty salaries from someone. Those who are calling out the liars get salaries from no one. That should tell you which side is from God and which is from Mammon. As public liars and frauds, they have no right to be seen for what they are not: honest men who are intellectually respectable or reliable. For more than 6.5 years they have marshaled no arguments against the canonical invalidity. And yet they insist that they should be listened to!

Operation Portugal

We need to organize Catholics in Portugal to prepare a place or places of refuge for the Pope, if He should chose to flee Rome, since, as Our Lady hinted in BOLD LETTERS during the apparitions there, “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will be preserved.” And all who know their Catholic theology well, know that that implies that Portugal will at the very least remain in communion with the true Pope, if not be a place of refuge for him and His valid successors, if needed.

May the Holy Saints of the Knights Templar**** in Portugal and their devotees in our own time MOBILIZE.

May we all do our duty now in the most important battle, in the Church, to come in 2000 years.

 

_________

* Which clearly indicates he has in his own mind never resigned or intended to resign the Papal dignity, despite what some Cardinals are conjecturing.

** This plot to dethrone Benedict is thus evidence that their propaganda has been just that. It has served to hide the evidence from public view, it never was an honest denial.

*** See the timely report by Fred Martinez at http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/12/is-fear-factor-keeping-francis-in-power.html

**** I mention this Order because it took refuge from an unjust suppression in Portugal and was refounded there in the 14th century. There are thus many faithful Catholics devoted to their memory, in Portugal, and I pray they become the network for helping Pope Benedict.

News

Former President of the Italian Senate brutally denounces Bergoglio

6 Comments

translation by From Rome Blog

Interview of President Marcello Pera, by Bruno Volpe (Full Text, Italian, here)

President Pera, it seems that the Catholic Church is no longer raising Her voice to protest blasphemies against God…

Catholicism for some time now has degraded, it is losing the cultural and religious war. Catholic leaders are afraid and offer a sad spectacle of behavior. And the most faithful example of this is the one at the top.

You mean pope Bergoglio?

Certainly. He is openly going against Tradition, Doctrine and is introducing innovations, disciplines and inexplicable acts. This pontificate is a scandal in the biblical sense of the word: it leads souls astray and make the faithful stumble, it does not bear good fruits, nay it makes them diminish. Vocations and mass attendance have collapsed, fundraising too, at the Wednesday Angelus attendance has thinned and we can see it in the online photos even if the politically correct MSM wont speak of it. As much as regards the fundaments of the Catholic Faith, this pontificate is an outrage to reason. Nevertheless no one here in Italy, faithful or bishop, says anything, no one has the courage to rebel, even though many are filled with doubts. The problem is that the Church has been reduced to a kind of NGO, which attends mostly to social works, which has made Greta into an idol, which runs after the dreams of socialism, both politically and economically, after the dreams of being-nice-to-everybody, while the shepherds often forget that the salvation of souls is their principal duty.

(President Pera is a devout atheist)

Pera does not exaggerate!

No need to mention that Bergoglio has effectively sanctioned adultery, by allowing adulterers, even public ones, to receive Communion, sacrilegiously, nor that he calls God a liar by claiming capital punishment is always morally inadmissible, nor that his appointees are saying Greta is a Saint nor that you can attend a person committing suicide through euthanasia, But just today, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has published a study insisting that the truth of Scripture according to the literal sense, in passages which condemn sodomy, should not be presented, but that what Scripture intends without its historical conditioning (read prejudices of homophobia) is what should be pastorally employed to evangelize modern man ! (see report here)

At this point, I think it is neither an exaggeration to call into question the sexuality of anyone who still thinks this man is the Pope.

Videos

A Father of Lies cannot be the pope

11 Comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaC1dHZL4EY

A Father of lies cannot be pope, because, since Christ prayed for Peter that his faith not fail, a man who is pope could not give himself up to perpetual lying about matters of faith and morals and everything else. Therefore, either one must call Christ a liar, in His claim to be God and the beloved Son of God, or one must hold that Bergoglio is not the pope. There is no middle ground.

The safer ground is to hold that Christ told the truth, and that the Cardinals, who hold Benedict’s resignation to be valid, are in error. As a rule of practical conscience, one must chose always that which is not evil, even if your peers consider it is politically incorrect. You may not particularly care if Christ is God, but on the chance that He is, you better not call Him a liar. Likewise, no one ever taught that the Cardinals are infallible on anything, so why believe their novel claim?

Unfortunately, after Feb. 11, 2013, a legion of false apostles sprouted up, or might I say, a legion of devils took possession of a lot of men’s minds and hearts.

There are a lot of false voices out there. Unlike Mr. Walker, in the video above, they want to gaslight you into not believing in what you see and hear on a daily basis, and they want you to idolize the Cardinals in their judgement of a canonical act, wherein the Cardinals have no more authority to judge than you or I do, and then they want you to draw the conclusion that Bergoglio is not the worst pope ever by comparing him with some evil man of he past (such as Dr. De Mattei recently attempted), so that you remain in communion with a public idolater, blasphemer, heretic and apostate. Because, as Mr. Walker says of these false apostles, to them “Nothing is more important than being in communion. …. Sounds like Hell, doesn’t it!”

I say, there is nothing more ignoble in a man, than that he be a boot-licker. Because such men to not worship God or Christ, they worship their career or their visible superior. And that is a sin of idolatry, even when your superior is or seems to you to be the pope.

As it stands, Bergoglio was never the pope, because Pope Benedict never resigned the papal munus, nor has he ever indicated that he has ever intended to resign it, because he considers the munus to be the grace and vocation of the Papal Office, to which he gave his irrevocable “yes”, never to be taken back (cf. Final Address, Feb. 28, 2013).

 

News

Pope Benedict’s forced Abdication

6 Comments

HOW IT WENT DOWN

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As the long time readers of my blog, From Rome, know, I have extensively covered the Renunciation of Pope Benedict in articles analyzing it’s canonical value (here), who perpetrated the seizure of power from him (here), how it lead to his de facto imprisonment (here) and how, nevertheless, He has triumphed over all his enemies by it (here). Moreover, I have covered the signs he has given after the fact that he never resigned validly (here, here and here). And in many other articles.

Now I want to focus on how the Renunciation happened, that is who was behind it and how it went down, to show that in some respects it might have been a forced and in others, a free act, and how and why Benedict may have sound reasons to be continually hesitant to admit what he really did and why.

History is Context

Fred Martinez, of Catholic Monitor Blog, is doing some excellent work at cutting through the propaganda of the controlled Catholic media. In his post of Monday, October 29, 2018, entitled, “Is Francis our first gay Pope?” he laid out in great detail all the evidence that the core agenda of Bergoglio is to achieve the agenda of the LGBTQ movement.

Two days and one year later, Raffaela, who blogs at, Il Blog di Raffaela. Riflessione e Commenti fra gli amici di Benedetto XVI, published a very excellent historical chronical of Pope Benedict’s war against pedophilia in the Church, in a blog post entitled, “Le decisioni e l’esempio del Papa Benedetto XVI nel combattere la piaga della pedofilia nella Chiesa. Cronologia“ (English translation: The decisions and example of Pope Benedict XVI in fighting against the plague of pedophilia in the Church. A Chronology).

These two excellent contributions to Church history by lay bloggers are the necessary context to understand the forced abdication of Pope Benedict, or rather, to discern what I believe are the general and specific indications that in some way the Renunciation was demanded of Pope Benedict and in some way it was a free act.

Rules of Power

The first forensic criterion to employ is the common principle, often quoted here in Italy, of Cui prodest? This Latin maxim means, literally, Who is profiting from it? And the soundness of this principle in forensic investigations is based on the principle of moral theology, that no one does anything purposeful without a reason, and thus no one commits a crime unless something is to be gained by it.

So, Rafaella shows us that Benedict was a strong opponent of pedophilia in the clergy and was willing to remove Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, priests and even place Commissioners on large and powerful groups, to punish this abominable vice.

But after his abdication (I use this term to refer to a forced renunciation), there comes into power Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Mafia of St Gallen and the Lavender Mafia, who are pushing the gay agenda, openly and flagrantly.

The common sense inference, then, is that one of these three groups or all of them insisted on the removal of Pope Benedict.

This is less a conjecture than a simple application of the rules of power struggles. The Papacy since the time of the Italian Risorgimento, has lost all real temporal power. It can be invaded at any time, and the powers of the nations can at any time take away its status as an independent diplomatic entity. The result of this loss of temporal power, means in truth, that the Papacy is left with a small enclave which is populated only by the Roman Curia and ruled by the Cardinals.

Now while the Cardinals each do not have as much power as the Pope, all of them together, with all their political and financial connections round the world, do in fact have more power than the pope.  Therefore, it would not be surprising if in the century following the suppression of the Papal States, that the College of Cardinals would come to dominate the power structure of the Vatican and that the Pope might become simply the public pawn of an all male club of ecclesiastics.

Now if these political inferences are correct, it would be expected that if a Pope started to impose discipline upon the subjects of each faction of Cardinals, by booting out of the priesthood or suspending some of their best friends and supporters, who were pedophiles, that eventually a zealous pope might in fact undercut all the power structures which put him in and maintain him in power.

What was happening in the year prior to the Renunciation?

With these speculations as a preface, let’s consider just some of the groups that Benedict XVI penalized in the year prior to Feb. 11, 2013, and watch how the timeline supports the inferences of risk, which I just outlined.

  1. On Feb. 2, 2012, Mons. Scicluna (who now leads Bergoglio’s pro gay clerical investigation team) marks out Pope Benedict as the person responsible for punishing pervert priests.  This may sound like praise, but it also might be painting a bull’s eye upon the target to be removed.
  2. From Feb. 6 to 9, 2012, there is a Conference in Rome for Bishops and heads of religious orders on the need to remove perverts. Members of the Conference again finger Pope Benedict as being the prime mover of it.
  3. Feb. 16, 2012 onwards: The Legionaires of Christ, their Movement and their woman’s branch come under strictures and strong measures against sexual perversion and the evil role of their founder.
  4. Spring, 2013: Church of Ireland rocked by allegations.
  5. May, 2012: Members of the Legionaires of Christ are reduced to lay state, new strictures upon the institute imposed by Papal order. New investigations.
  6. Spring and Summer, 2012: Pope Benedict begins to demand resignations of bishops.
  7. July 2, 2012: Pope Benedict appoints Archbishop Muller to the CDF. Shortly after this, he begins considering a renunciation. Before the end of summer, he mentions it to Cardinal Bertone, the then Secretary of State, who was effectively the real monarch at the Vatican and who was blocking Benedict on many things. (Why mention this to your chief opponent?)
  8. October 2012: Don Oko publishes the book, Pope Benedict against the Homo-Heresy.
  9. October 11, 2012: The investigation into the Legionaries is put on pause, allegedly because the Cardinal assigned needs to rest.
  10. January 30, 2013: the Acts of the Conference from a year ago are published an presented to Pope Benedict.
  11. February 1, 2013: Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles announces that Cardinal Mahoney is banned from all public activities as a Bishop on account of his gross mishandling of cases of pedophilia in that Archdiocese. At the same time he names 126 priests of the Diocese as involved in such crimes. (Sicluna and Mahoney share the same episcopal lineage)
  12. Feb. 5, 2013: New promoter of Justice at the CDF, Fr. Oliver, mentions Sicluna in a statement wherein he fingers Benedict as the key man in the Vatican for punishing pervert priests.
  13. Feb 7, 2013 — From Rome Blog has it from a source at Rome, that on this day, Mr. Gotti, who had been dismissed from IOR the previous summer, without the knowledge or consent of Pope Benedict, had an hour long meeting at the Vatican with Cardinal Bertone, the then Secretary of State, in which the Cardinal affirmed Benedict’s decision to reinstate him fully and back him in his investigation of the Vatican Bank.
  14. Feb. 11, 2013 — On a single sheet of paper, to the surprise of nearly everyone, who is left speechless, except Cardinal Sodano, Pope Benedict reads out a statement of renunciation.

In short, in one year Pope Benedict had shown himself willing to take down the most powerful priestly institute in the conservative flank of the Church AND to take down one of the most powerful Cardinals in the liberal flank of the Church.

Further information on what was going on in the Vatican Bank is neatly summarized by the Blog, Informatii si mesaje, in their post of Dec. 18, 2018, entitled, “Cardinals’ Mafia — plot against Benedict XVI“, which excerpts reports by Edward Pentin, Marco Tosatti (Rorate Caeli translation), Maike Hickson and Louie Verrechio from 2015.

An Examination and Discussion

The decision to tell Mr. Gotti that he would be reinstated on Feb. 7, and the decision to renounce on Feb. 11 simply do not add up. You cannot have any real hope that you will reinstate someone if you are planning ahead to resign in 4 days. That makes no sense. Also, it makes no sense that Benedict was planning to resign since the summer (as Bertone claims in 2016), and never find the 14 errors in the Latin text you are planning to read out-loud in the Consistory of February.

We do know that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is ground zero of a  Jewish Gay Mafia with strong ties to the financial industry, and that the Archdiocese has strong ties with this Mafia. We know that on Jan. 5, 2013, the ATMs at the Vatican were shut down by Deutch Bank, a move many have speculated was a signal to Benedict that the financial powers wanted him out.

Conclusions

I believe, therefore, that the demand for the Pope’s resignation was most probably made after February 7, 2013 and before the consistory of Feb. 11, 2013. — If Giuseppe Auricchio, the seer of Avola, Italy, can be believed, he foresaw that Benedict would receive a demand he could not agree to. — If you examine the text of the renunciation, you will find a Latin rife with errors, of the kind which would result if a non expert wrote it and had only 4 days or less to find errors in it. So it is very possible that Benedict was given a text, and that He modified it to make it appear to be a valid resignation, but in fact rather to make it to be an invalid resignation. And that, not knowing who was behind those demanding his resignation, he has never admitted what he really did, so as to protect himself and the Church from this Mafia.

I have not proven a crime, however, I have only outlined a chronology that needs to be further investigated, a chronology which leads me to use as an operative hypothesis, that Benedict DID NOT write the original text of the Renunciation, only changed perhaps the word munus to ministerium.

In my next report, I will discuss the errors in the Latin text and what they show about who may have written it.

News

The Shameful Confession of Cardinal Burke: Those who doubt Bergoglio is the Pope hold an “extreme” position

19 Comments
U.S. Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, patron of the Knights and Dames of Malta, center left, and a group of priests pose with Pope Francis during his general audience in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican Sept. 2. (CNS photo/Paul Haring) See POPE-AUDIENCE-SMILE Sept. 2, 2015.

It has been six and a half years of blasphemies, insults against God and His Teaching, against His Son and His immaculate Mother, open attacks on the truth of Scripture, the Divinity of the Son, the Resurrection, the discipline of the Sacraments etc. etc., topped off by acts of open idolatry and apostasy in the Vatican and Saint Peters.

And now, Cardinal Burke chooses to speak on what he thinks of “Pope Francis”, In a November 9, 2019, Interview by Ross Douthat. Here is an excerpt (see the entire article here):

Douthat: I agree that the Catholic subculture you describes exists. But I also see, as this pontificate has advanced, a growing paranoia and alienation among conservative Catholics, a temptation toward conspiracy theories that shade into sedevacantism, the belief that the pope is not the pope. I’m curious whether you worry that criticism of the pope contributes to this.

Burke: It’s true that for all the good social media does, they also give a voice to these extreme positions. And in my criticism I’ve been deeply concerned not to call into question respect for the papal office.


Douthat: You believe Francis is a legitimate pope?

Burke: Yes, yes. I’ve had people present to me all kinds of arguments calling into question the election of Pope Francis. But I name him every time I offer the Holy Mass, I call him Pope Francis, it’s not an empty speech on my part. I believe that he is the pope. And I try to say that consistently to people, because you’re correct — according to my perception also, people are getting more and more extreme in their response to what’s going on in the church.

Draw your own conclusions. But to help you do that I will merely cite the Code of Canon Law of 1983 promulgated by John Paul II, Vicar of Christ, which code is binding on earth and heaven. From my article, “Bergoglio definitively leaves the Catholic Church“:

According to Canon 1364… which reads….

PART II : PENALTIES FOR PARTICULAR OFFENCES

TITLE I: OFFENCES AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 – 1369)

Can. 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.

From my article, “The Monstrosity of Allegations against ‘Team Bergoglio‘”:

Canon 1329, § 2 reads, in the Latin:

Can. 1329 — §2. In poenam latae sententiae delicto adnexam incurrunt complices,qui in lege vel praecepto non nominantur, si sine eorum opera delictum patratum non esset, et poena sit talis naturae, ut ipsos afficere possit; secus poenis ferendae sententiae puniri possunt.

The official English translation of this, from the Vatican website is:

§2. Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them; otherwise, they can be punished by ferendae sententiae penalties.

These canons apply both to those who perpetrate or participate in idolatrous worship but also those who are heretics or promote heresy, such as attacking the Teaching of the Christ against giving the Sacraments to public sinners.

As for the canons which demonstrate that the Renunciation of Benedict was invalid, see ppbxvi.org.

Just to make sure everyone recognizes the current context of events, according to my encounters with laypeople in Italy who do not work for the Church and speak freely to me in private, more than 60% of Catholics in Italy do not believe Bergoglio is currently the pope, either because he was never validly elected, or loss the office by heresy or apostasy. To Catholics, clergy included, to whom I present the contents of the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope  Benedict, there is 100% unanimity that Benedict is still the pope and that Bergoglio never was. So basically, Cardinal Burke’s comment needs to be seen as something impinging upon a majority of Catholics in Italy, at least. This makes his comments very newsworthy.

In Conclusion

The comment of Cardinal Burke clearly refers to Conservatives, not Sedevacantists, and therefore ostensibly to all Catholics who entertain or sustain the possibility that Bergoglio either never was validly elected or lost his office, on account of WHAT THE CHURCH HERSELF TEACHES about the nature of heresy, schism, apostasy, idolatry.

Therefore, there is no contextual way to explain this away, without recourse to the gratuitous assertion that the Cardinal did not mean what he said, and did not hear what Ross Douthat was saying. I find that incredible. Thus, I conclude:

Cardinal Burke has followed the lead of Cardinal Sarah and impaled his reputation* for the sake of supporting Bergoglio, jettisoning in the process not only the Code of Canon Law and any appeal to right reason in its understanding, but also the law of Charity enshrined in the Eighth Commandment of the Decalogue, and in the Greatest and First Precept of Jesus Christ: Love one another as I have loved you.

He has also jettisoned his reputation as a Canon Lawyer, because after the Academic Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict, to which the Cardinal was invited but did not attend, I was told the argument presented was very sound by a Canonist who works in Rome.

In fidelity to both Christ Jesus and Moses, I ask all to pray for Cardinal Burke, who does not realize in how great an error he has fallen simply to please a man. Let us hope that he apologizes for saying such a nasty thing about faithful Catholics and explain why it is he has adopted such a non-think position, when by profession and duty he should be an advocate for applying Canon Law equally to all.

Finally, I have moderated my own emotions in writing this post, but I will not censor the comments of those who believe it necessary to speak more pointedly. That is because (1) I have written Cardinal Burke offering to speak with him about the Renunciation, and do not consider it proper to say anything more about this matter in public, but (2) recognize the right of all Catholics in virtue of Canon 212 to make their voices heard, even if times what God might consider respectful, those needing correction might not think is respectful.

My Public Question for Cardinal Burke:

Q. Do you really mean to say that an apostate, heretic, schismatic, usurper, theoretically can be a member of the Church or the Pope? Or are you saying that you feel your loyalty to the man whom you think is the Pope is greater than your loyalty to seek and defend the truth of history? — I ask this because I want to know where you stand.

_________

* Anomianism is the error of thinking that Christian Charity frees the person from the obligation of following laws or rules. Saint Paul condemned this in his Letters to the Corinthians. — The Catholic position has always been that inasmuch as written law, promulgated by the State or Church, enshrines principles of the Natural, Moral, Divine or Evangelical Law, it requires our observance and obedience, because it is directly or implicitly invoking the authority of God.  All Church Law does this as regards the authority of Christ, Her Founder. Thus, to adopt an anomian approach to any question or dispute, and call those who honestly seek answers in the laws or teaching of the Church, extremists, is to completely reject the Divine Authority as the rule by which all things must be judged.

News

May 30, 2010, Our Lady of the Pine forewarned the world about Bergoglio, the imposter

22 Comments

Here at the From Rome Blog private unapproved revelations are not normally discussed. But when an as-of-yet unapproved private revelation exactly foretells 9 years beforehand what is happening today, every Catholic has to stop and wonder and pay attention, because God alone knows the future of contingent events… Here follows our English translation of the words of Our Lady of the Pine on May 30, 2010, to a humble soul in the environs of Avola, Sicily, in the Diocese of Noto: (Italian original)

Our Lady: “My Sons, today I desire to share with you this wonderful friendship and the joy, that one finds in helping others.

All this while I have been inviting you, as a preparation, to the parousia of My Son in His second coming. I am pointing out to you this bridge of protection which We are giving you, and you will be escorted to My triumph, by means of the purification I am providing.

You must understand that We are protecting your souls.

Do not fear what will happen, these are things which must happen, but occupy yourselves solely with your duty to My Son.

You, Giuseppe, have the great responsibility to reveal to the world Our messages, but do it with joy, as an instrument of God.

Except for the messages of March 25, 2010, of the night of April 9, 2010 and that of April 11, all the others have been published, but no one wanted to listen to Our words.

Everything which has happened and which will happen has been revealed and no one can say: “We were not told beforehand”.

You have been called to be a living witness of God.

Announce that sorrows, horrors will yet occur.  Entire nations will disappear from the Earth and all humanity will drink the bitter chalice.

My Sons, walk on this bridge which I have indicated to you, to share with Us the joy and the era of peace on earth for yourselves.

Evil will be driven out and the victory of My Son will liberate you, but you must pray to have guidance, because very soon you will see a schism in My Church.

My faithful remnant follows the present Pope, Benedict XVI, whom they want to eliminate.

Continue to follow him and to remain faithful to Him and to the teaching of My Church, founded upon the Apostles. Do not allow yourselves to be turned aside by the apostasy and by heresies.

I tell you, that the next pope will be an imposter and the forces of evil stand behind this schism.

My Sons, be prepared, in this way you can follow those priests who are faithful to the Pope and to the teaching of the Church. Preserve the holy Missals and the books of the old Holy Mass, because the apostates will change the words in a dramatic way.

My sons and daughters, have courage and trust.  You, My son, do not fear if you are persecuted for Our cause, I and My Son will be with you to protect you and to help you in this hard trial.

Blessing you all, I am Mary, the Immaculate Virgin, the Mother of Sorrows.

News

Bergoglio declares to Scalafari: “I am the proof … that Jesus Christ was not God at all!”

7 Comments

Scalfari-Bergoglio

The Quote comes from his best friend Scalfari. The citation is discussed by the renowned Vaticanista, Marco Tosatti (link: here).

Schermata-2019-10-09-alle-10.25.19

Here is the English translation (by From Rome):*

When it happened that I discussed these phrases with him, pope Francis said to me:

I am the proven proof that Jesus of Nazareth, once he became man, though a man of exceptional virtue, was not God at all

The ego-mania of that is extraordinary. I would say, it is a totally diabolic boast.

Maybe Bergoglio is not the Anti-Christ, but he certainly seems to think he is!

It is important, that though the Vatican issued a statement attacking the reputation of Scalfari, it did NOT repudiate the quote as unauthentic!

Here Bergoglio is Excommunicated, AGAIN, by canon 1364. — Honestly, one cannot name this man any more in the Canon of the Mass, anywhere or any time. Please read this article (link: here) on what to do now. Though it applies to the idolatry he practiced in the Vatican Gardens on Friday, it’s just as applicable now, for this latest outrageous apostasy.

(Image Credits: A montage of Scalfari and Bergoglio: AKA, Scalfari and Bergoglio: Close collaborators)

_____________

* A Note on this Translation:  The Italian main sentence lacks a pronoun for the verb, so it can be read either as translated here, or as They are the proven proof ….. Also, the final clause says in Italian:  is not at all a God. — Regarding the last clause, I have translated it without the indefinite article, “a”, because the adverb “affatto”, which I render as “at all”, expands the denial of ‘God’ to all senses. And since the sense of “God” is The Divine Nature, the phrase “a God”, refers to “The Divine Nature and Existence”, I have held it unnecessary to say “not at all a God”, since that would be a reduplicative denial. — As for the main verb, I understand it according to the context of the speaker, Scalfari, whom history shows is the real spokesman for Bergoglio when he wants to speak to his initiates of things which he does not yet want to say publicly and openly. This is because he uses Scalfari to emotionally drain those who oppose his heresy and apostasy, by speaking with programmed and intentional language which is capable of a plausible denial after the fact. This is a trick to blame his opponents so as to get them emotionally to be incapable or unwilling to publicly criticize him in the future when he does worse things. — To his initiates, who recognize the Scriptural form:  And he said to me, I am the Way, the truth and the Life, the main verb must be read in the first person singular. But for plausible deniability, Scalfari has inserted the quote without a subject into a discourse on the passages of the Bible in which, according to the doctrines of the Jehovah Witnesses (to which Bergoglio seems to be familiar, if not a believer) prove that Jesus is not God. — Being a hermit, who is more concerned with the theological signification of expressions than other senses, I have translated the phrase into English to manifest what more probably both Scalfari and Bergoglio intended it to mean, when they were speaking in private and discussing how to use it for maximum effect against his enemies, because, obviously, Scalfari and Bergoglio both could have included a subject of the main verb, either Esse (frasi) or something similar, to tie down the meaning to one sense only. So my translation could be called the translation of the Occult meaning as intended and formulated.