Tag Archives: papacy

Church History, Editorials

How Benedict has defeated “Francis”

6 Comments

Or, Why did Pope Benedict XVI do what he did on Feb. 11, 2013?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Pope Benedict XVI, who has been lauded by many as a brilliant theologian, is in my opinion, a more brilliant chess player, for he has defeated the AntiChurch with the most incredibly subtle and effective manuever which could ever be conceived, and which takes a great deal of study to recognize, if you, like myself, took at face value the hearsay which has been put out for the last six years.

Admittedly, the honor and glory for it belong first of all to God, Who enlightens all men and inspires them at times to do things mere mortals could never conceive of. But also, thanks goes to God for sending Our Lady to Fatima to reveal to Sr. Lucia a secret which has until this day remained hidden, so as to give sound counsel to the true Successor of Saint Peter in the End Times.

How Pope John Paul II strengthened the Bulwark of the Church against the AntiChurch

I believe that with that knowledge, Pope John Paul II did 3 things: first, he chose Joseph Ratzinger to come to Rome and prepared him to succeed him (perhaps because he sensed that Ratzinger had the gift of prophecy); second, in 1983, he added the term munus to canon 332 §2, to constrain all of his successors to the obligation of renouncing the Petrine Munus so as to resign the papacy; and third, in 1996, he promulgated a new law on Papal Elections, which would nullify any attempt of the AntiChurch to usurp the Papacy or elect successors to AntiPopes (by requiring that all valid conclaves meet within 20 days after the death of valid popes).

Pope John Paul II warned the Church of the AntiChurch which was rising. He beatified Ann Catherine Emmerich (on the Vigil of St. Francis of Assisi, in 2004) to give papal approval to her own visions in this regard. It should not be surprising then, that in secret, or I should say, in the bright light of day, in papal acts he prepared the Church against that Evil to come!

By these three acts, Pope John Paul II set the chess board and enabled his chosen successor, Ratzinger to enact a stratagem of deception to defeat the forces of darkness.

The Forces of the AntiChurch struck quickly

No sooner than Pope John Paul II had died that the St Gallen Mafia, which had been meeting in that Swiss town for some years, mobilized to put Bergoglio on the Apostolic Throne in the Conclave of 2005. Bergoglio, as is now known, garnered the most votes after Ratzinger. In his campaign to get elected he promised radical financial reforms in the Vatican, so he could pose as a savior and reformer, though his agenda was that of Cardinal Martini, to make the Church into the Bride of the Anti-Christ.

Recently an Argentine Priest revealed, that Pope Benedict, soon after his election in 2005, had asked Bergoglio to be Secretary of State (see report here). Benedict intended by this offer to diffuse the conflict which arose in the Conclave, and to draw out the real intentions of Bergoglio. Bergoglio’s refusal manifested his deceit, because all the reasons given in the Conclave for his election, which in truth could be done by a Secretary of State, if honest, would have spurred him to accept Benedict’s offer. But without the papal authority, his evil and malign agenda could not be advanced. — By this sign of offering the olive branch of peace, Benedict signaled to his own supporters, that after himself there would come an Anti-pope (cf. Prophecy of St Malachy).

With the threefold knowledge of the future had from the Third Secret, from Pope John Paul II and from his own experience in the CDF, Pope Benedict now knew what he had to do. He knew Bergoglio wanted power and would be blinded by its offer. He took preparations to defend the Church with tradition and as the pressure built from the St Gallen Mafia, he crafted their defeat in secret. At the same time, he openly warned the faithful, that the Message of Fatima was about to be fulfilled (On May 13, 2010, saying “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete…”).

Benedict knew that removing the Lavender Mafia from the Vatican was key to defending the Church. But as court documents revealed, in the WikiLeaks controversy, as that effort led to the destruction of the careers of many sodomites, they moved against Benedict to have him removed. His Pontificate had removed hundreds perverts from the clergy.

As I have written before, there was in my estimation a formal attempt at a Coup d’etat (see report here). And this was actually put in motion, with the intent to effectively imprison Pope Benedict (see Report here). — The Conclave pact in 2005 among the warring factions of Ratzinger (Church) and Bergoglio (Anti-Church) also prepared the way (see report here). But, with their cause lost at that conclave, the St. Gallen Mafia would have to wait for Benedict to resign, because being old, he revealed that he was inclined to resign in a few years, anyhow. As he lingered on, however, their rage and impatience exploded.

The restoration of the Ancient Mass (July 7, 2007) and the expansion of the permissions for its use (April 30, 2011) caused a general outburst among the wicked clerics. I myself know this took place in the Italian Bishop’s Conference in 2011, because a Bishop who attended told me how Cardinals and Bishops stood up, one after another, and said the most vile things against Benedict. I also know personally, from the testimony of a Sicilian Businessman, who was in Shanghai, that the Cardinal of Palermo had warned that Benedict could die within a year from poor health. The St Gallen Controlled Media expanded this and reported it as if the Cardinal has said that Benedict had a year to live or else. That report was published around Feb. 11, 2012! (note the date)

Benedict’s Master Stroke

Pope Benedict XVI then played his master stroke. In the Summer of 2012 he indicated to Cardinal Bertone that he was going to resign. He discussed the matter with no one but his secretary Ganswein and a few others. I believe that he wrote the text of abdication in the Fall of 2012. I also postulate that he intentionally showed the Latin text (the invalid one) and a faulty German translation (which makes it appear the Latin is a valid formula) to members of the St Gallen Mafia, to obtain their consent to it. By that act he sealed their doom.

Because only one who was fluent in Latin and knowledgeable about Canon Law and who accepted the traditional metaphysics of the Church would be able to see that the resignation by that formula would be invalid. Ratzinger further prepared the ground by emphasizing for years before, that his favorite theologian was Saint Bonaventure. This caused scholars, like myself, to start studying St. Bonanveture’s Scholatic method for textual analysis of the signification of expressions, which is unparalleled among all the Doctors of the Church.

On Feb. 11, 2013, he read out-loud in Consistory the text of the invalid formula. On Feb. 28, 2013 he explained that he had resigned the “active ministry”. The St. Gallen Mafia spread the word of a valid resignation. The rest is history.

The only thing is, that Benedict began to give signs of the truth, not only for the sake of the Faithful, but to annoy the St Gallen Mafia. He kept wearing the papal cassock, retained the titles of Your Holiness and signed with PP. Benedictus XVI, and continued to give the papal blessing. He did these things to get faithful Catholics to examine the text of resignation and discover it was invalid. — He did this also, because, I believe, he was obeying Our Lady’s word at Fatima, in which She had revealed that there would come a time in which the Catholic world thought there were 2 popes, but only one of which was the true pope. The one who was the true Pope would continue to wear white, the other would usurp the office; and that the Anti-Church would attack the true Pope and the faithful gathered about him.

By an invalid resignation Pope Benedict has canonically invalidated everything Bergoglio has done, can do, and can ever do! Bergoglio is now an AntiPope because of the clever trick Benedict played on him. And Bergoglio is so entangled by this stratagem of Benedict that he cannot admit its existence, because if he does, he must give up his claim to the papacy.

If Benedict should die, then there will be no valid Successor of Saint Peter unless the pre-Bergoglian Cardinals meet in conclave within 20 days. Otherwise, as Pope John Paul II declares in the promulgation of Universi Dominici Gregis, at the end of the text, any action the Cardinal Electors take will be invalid. If they fail to do this, the Church will not be bereft of a pope, because, as Pope John Paul II taught in UDG’s prologue, the institution of the College is “not necessary for a valid election” of the Roman Pontiff: there is still the ancient Apostolic Law regarding the right of the Roman Church to elect the Pope.*

Benedict has defeated “Francis”!

mrxwmdna

Note: I wish to publicly apologize to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for anything I have said in criticism of him, since it was not until today that I understood what he had did and why he had done it, nor that as Pope he was acting for the good of the Church in the best and only way he could see to do, acting on the  basis of the counsels of Our Lady and Pope John Paul II. — Finally, I entertain the possibility that some Cardinals know of this grand stratagem of Benedict and that is why they act so dumb when asked about the question of validity or invalidity of the resignation.

FOOTNOTE:

* The right of election will fall to those Catholics of the Diocese Rome, who recognize that Benedict always was the only true pope, and that Bergoglio was always and is only, and nothing more, an Antipope. See my Disputed Question on Defecting Cardinals, here.

 

 

 

 

Ecclesiology, Editorials, Faith, News

Divine and Apostolic Right takes precedence in a State of Emergency

12 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

REBLOGGED from DEC. 23, 2019 — For Spanish and German translation see below.

We live in a very bizarre age, when professional gossipers (aka journalists) are the puppet masters of the masses, because 95% of everyone allows them to dictate the boundaries of reality, history, morality and religion. And until some noted journalist uses the word, “Heresy”, “Schismatic” or “Apostate” in reference to someone who merits the term(s), then no rational person would ever accuse a fellow Catholic of such a horrible offense on his own judgement, because as they say, “everyone knows that it is schismatic to refuse communion with a fellow Catholic in good standing. And good standing means, he has not yet been officially condemned by the Church!”

This is gaslighting, of course.  Gas-lighting is a term which everyone should familiarize themselves with. It is the tactic of those practiced in psychological manipulation used to get clients, subjects, inferiors to deny the reality they see and know and accept that the reality is what the manipulator claims it to be.

As soon as Bergoglio was “elected” the gaslighting began.  You are seeing things, He is the pope, you cannot talk that way about the pope. Dissent is a mortal sin. If you do not accept him you are outside the Church. You are not Catholic!

Lately, as the heresies and malevolence of Bergoglio explode out of all proportions to any previous heretic in the history of the Church, some Catholics who were formerly famous for their doctrinal and moral orthodoxy are going into apoplectic fits in their attempts to stifle recognition of the reality. ‘Recognize and Resist’, is their mantra. They are hell bent, literally, on remaining in communion with Bergoglio and don’t you dare rain on their fantasies by showing them facts of Canon Law (canon 1364, 1329 etc.) which show that by Divine right, heretics are outside of the Church as soon as they profess heresy.

These apologists of the revolution are just as hell bent on denying the reality of the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict (cf. ppbxvi.org for complete information).  They become discombobulated and lash out. They show that their attachment to “Pope Francis” is neither rational or reasonable, it is visceral. How visceral depends, I suppose, on whether they observe the 6th or 9th Commandments.

This complete psychological and intellectual and spiritual breakdown is a result of what I call the Iscariot Conundrum. I use “Iscariot” here in the sense of the Aramaic word for a man from the same town as the false Apostle, Judas Iscariot. Since like him, they have sold the true Christ for the 30 pieces of silver of public recognition by the Cardinals as a “faithful Catholic”* and since they did it for purely selfish, sentimental, non-rational and non-legal or non-dogmatic reasons, they explode with emotion the more you point out to them that they have built their house upon a false premise. So they lash out more and more and lose all traces of the fine Character they once exhibited, becoming in the process, ironically, the very likeness of dialogue which Bergoglio is, a nasty, name-calling Troll.

A State of Emergency

No less that Archbishop Gänswein, the personal secretary of Pope Benedict XVI and the Head of the Pontifical Household (which has only one guest, HINT HINT) said that what Benedict did in February 2013 was on account of a state of emergency.

His words and opinions are debated as to what they mean, but it would be ludicrous to deny the reality which is visible to all the world, namely, that THE APOSTOLIC SEE IS IMPEDED.

To say the Apostolic See is impeded, means that the Pope cannot act as Pope for some reason, either external coercion, or there is no pope, or the pope refuses to act out of some irrational or rational conviction. This ‘being impeded’ causes a state of necessity, because the visible head of the visible Church is for all practical purposes non-functioning. The state of necessity is necessity of the kind which is required for continued functioning of the Church.  Since the normal order of governance is obstructed, the observance of merely positive laws upon which it are based, by necessity, must be omitted.

Our Lord teaches us this general principle on the small scale, when, on one occasion He and His Apostles crossed a wheat-field during a time in which they had had nothing to eat (Mark 2:23), and some of them ate the grains of wheat which were near to being harvested, some Pharasees complained they were violating the Sabbath Laws against doing work on the Sabbath. Our Lord pointed out that the necessity of their hunger allowed them to not observe the law on harvesting. He replied with a forceful Semitic way of speaking, saying, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath!” (Mark 2:27)

The law against harvesting was instituted no less than by Moses (Exodus 23:12, Deuteronomy 5:12,14), who had a lot more authority in the Old Covenant (Moses basically wrote the entire thing, under God’s inspiration and direction) than the Pope has in the New Covenant (the pope cannot change the Bible, not even the Our Father — though a lot of clergy are confused on this point).

Also, it is clear, by the principles of logic (ex minore),** that if Our Lord says it is licit to appeal to a state of necessity, to suspend laws of the Old Covenant given by Moses, because men are hungry on a Saturday afternoon, then obviously it is licit to suspend laws of the Pope, in the New Covenant, WHEN THE SALVATION OF ALL SOULS ON EARTH UNTIL THE END OF TIME is put in grave and imminent danger. To deny this would be sheer insanity. This is poignantly true, when one faction in the Church wants to suspend the New Covenant and found a new religion, and the other faction must chose between observing certain man made laws and allowing the Covenant to be transgressed, or not observing them so as to prevent the transgression of the Covenant.

This principle of the abeyance of positive law in a state of necessity is sanctioned by no less than Pope Pius VI, in his Bull, Cum nos superiori anno, of Nov. 13, 1798, where he grants to the Cardinals the right to derogate from all non essential aspects of the papal laws on Conclaves, on account of the de facto suppression of the Church of Rome by the Roman Republic, led by French Revolutionaries.***

Extending this lesson to the affairs of the Church, it follows then, as good Christians, we ARE OBLIGED by divine faith to return to the general principle which Jesus laid down, namely, THE SALVATION OF SOULS IS THE HIGHEST LAW. For the Salvation of Souls the Eternal Father sacrificed His own Son, and His own Son accepted His ignominious death on a Cross. FOR THE SALVATION OF SOULS.

If there is anyone, therefore, in the Church, that holds that we must wait for the Pope (Benedict) to do something, or some future pope to do something, THEY ARE OUT OF THEIR MINDS and more correctly, THEY ARE PHARASEES who are raising up the positive laws established by the Church (which indicate what cannot be done without permission of superiors) to the level of rules which would require the Church to commit suicide waiting for some sort of divine intervention without human collaboration. A divine intervention without human collaboration, in the present case of the impeded See, HAS NEVER BEEN explicitly PROMISED. (I understand that there are some great promises from Our Lord and our Lady, but none of them refer explicitly to a promise to solve this problem.)

Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum)

The concept of Divine Right (ius divinum) is a concept of classical late scholasticism, very popular in the time of the Council of Trent and thereafter. It refers to things which have been decreed by God. The office of Peter exists by divine right, for example.

Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum) is not as well recognized. It refers to the decisions of the Apostles for the governance of the Church. It is of Apostolic right that the church in one city can be governed by several priests, for example.

Both Divine Right and Apostolic Right are superior to Canon Law. As an aside, what most Catholics do not know, is that for more than 1000 years, except for canons decreed in Councils, the Church had no canon law. Canon Law is not of Divine or Apostolic institution, though the First Council of Jerusalem c. 45 A.D. did hand down decisions and is the exemplar for all Councils and Synods in the Church.

Apostolic right also includes some things which are not observed in the normal course of affairs, because since the time of the Apostles the Sacred Hierarchy, for the good ordering of the Church in normal circumstances has laid down canons or established laws to conduct the affairs of the Church differently.

Take for example the election of Bishops. The Apostles appointed Bishops before they died. But when they had passed to eternal Glory, they left it to each diocese by Apostolic Right to chose their own bishop. And by “to each diocese”, I mean to the Catholics of each diocese, laity, religious and clergy. This is how the Church survived 10 Roman persecutions. No one was writing Rome to ask for an appointment, when their Bishop died.

Also, it is of Apostolic Right that every Bishop serves as ordinary of his diocese until death. There was no retirement. That is a novelty created by Paul VI to eliminate Catholics from the College of Bishops and replace them with sodomite revolutionaries. Canon Law implicitly recognizes that this concept of mandatory retirement is contrary to Apostolic Right, in that it does not require Bishops to resign, it says only that they should submit a letter of resignation upon reaching the age of 75.

It is also of Apostolic Right that the Bishops can convene in Synods and Councils. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence that every Synod in Church History, which is regarded as a true hierarchical act, was approved of by the Pope. The current positive laws require that the Pope consent, but Apostolic Right does not require that.  Apostolic Right is more rational, because when there is no pope or when the pope is a prisoner, how can the Bishops get permission?

But the general reason for the revival of Apostolic Right has to do with the inherent principle of subsidiarity in a perfect society. This principle was recognized by Pope Leo XIII. It holds that when the higher authority in a perfect society fails, then the lower authority has the right to take up the duty of the higher authority and act inasmuch it is necessary to act to preserve or defend that society. Since the College of Bishops as a whole succeeds the Apostles, when the See of Peter is impeded, each and every Bishop has the moral and Apostolic Right to exercise in a certain sense the authority of the Apostles to put the Church back in proper working order. This is an awesome responsibility reserved to extreme cases of necessity, such as is happening today, with both a public heretic ruling the Vatican and a Pope (Benedict) who thinks it is no longer his duty to govern the Church or vindicate his own rights as Christ’s Vicar.

In a State of Emergency, Apostolic and Divine Right revive on points which are now, in the regular course of Church affairs, regulated by canon law, presupposing an Apostolic See which is not impeded. These positive laws of the Church, which if observed, would lead to the destruction of the Church or the loss of souls are suspended in force. That is, it is no longer a canonical crime or moral fault NOT to observe them with due reason.

If there are any Catholic Bishops or Cardinals on earth, then they need to recognize this before it is too late, or the woeful warning of Our Lady of Akita will come to pass, that the faithful become deprived of the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist and Orders, because no Bishop had the sense to see that he had the Apostolic or Divine right to act to preserve the Sacred Hierarchy during an impeded Papacy.

This is because, with the Apostles no longer on Earth, and the See of Peter silent, each and every member of College of Bishops who remains Catholic can licitly assume the duties of the Apostles for the propagation and preservation of the Faith.

Some of the things any Bishop, with or without jurisdiction, can do, by Divine or Apostolic right, during an impeded Papacy are as follows:

  1. Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the causes of the impeded See, and or condemn those who are perpetrating it. (Pope Julius II sanctions this in principle)****
  2. Call for and Convene a Synod or Council, to depose claimants to the papacy who do not hold valid canonical titles. (This was done at Sutri in 1046 and sanctioned by St. Peter Damian, Pope St. Gregory VII and Bl. Pope Victor III)
  3. Reprove a pope for resigning partially and neglecting his Apostolic Duties of Ministry. (This arguably is not as extreme as nn. 1 or 2, an thus ex maiore is also approved)
  4. Condemn heretics by name, condemn heresies. (All bishops have this duty and right by Divine and Apostolic right)
  5. Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the heresies and perversities being spread by the Enemies of the Church, whether inside or outside the Church.
  6. Ordain Catholic Bishops for Dioceses which have been taken over by a heretical bishop or where the Catholic Bishop has declared for heresy or apostasy. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)
  7. Ordain Catholic priests and deacons for the faithful of each Diocese who are deprived of the Sacraments due to heretical or schismatic clergy in their area. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)

In fact, during the first 1500 years of the Church, we see Bishops regularly doing many if not all of these things. They had the benefit of not being plagued in conscience by positive Church law, but the system worked. Now that the Apostolic See, nay the Vatican,  is completely impeded and taken over by heretics, the Bishops must act!

This is not the imaginary case of Sedevacantists who don’t like a pope nor the sounder case of Traditionalists don’t want to abandon liturgical traditions of their Rite: this is the case of a direct frontal attack on the the New Covenant: the Deposit of the Faith, Scripture and Tradition, through open denials of key dogmas and doctrines and disciplines which come from Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

Prayer and Petitions

Please pray for the Bishops of the Church, for if they do not act, the entire wealth, power, prestige of the Church will be robbed by a sect of marxist sodomites and 100s of millions of souls will perish without right doctrine and sacraments.

Please also talk to your Bishop, if he appears to be somewhat Catholic. This is crucial. I know Catholics who have contacts and who are doing this right now. But more needs to be done.

The Catholic laity, on account of the inaction of the Bishops, are being forced to accept Sacraments from heretics and schismatics and perverse sodomites. They have the Divine right to be cared for pastorally by Catholic clergy who are in communion with the true Pope.  And this right is being DEMONICALLY AND UNIVERSALLY TRANSGRESSED in all dioceses throughout the Catholic world in the present Crisis.

We have the Divine and Apostolic right to act with insistence and with full approval of Christ’s teaching and example.

__________

GERMAN TRANSLATION: https://beatimundocorde.wordpress.com/2020/01/03/divine-and-apostolic-right-german/

SPANISH TRANSLATION: https://fromrome.info/2019/12/25/el-derecho-divino-y-apostolico-toma-precedencia-en-estado-de-emergencia/

__________

* I use quotes here, to point out how nonsensical this approach is, devoid of any reasonable assessment of historical events, because the Cardinals accepted an invalid resignation and then invalidly elected an Arch-Heretic Psychopath, so it is no exaggeration to doubt that the Cardinals are willing or able to recognize what a Faithful Catholic is!

** Ex minore is a technical term of medieval logic which refers to illations (arguments) which are based on appealing to something which is true in a lesser case, and argues from that, that it must be true in a greater case. Our Lord is doing this all the time, as for example in His parables of the King preparing for war, the architect preparing to build a tower etc., as examples of how if prudence is necessary in earthly things, it is all the more necessary in questions of eternal salvation.

*** Agostino Paravincii Bagliani & Maria Antonietta Visceglia’s, Il Conclave: continutità e mutamenti dal Medioevo a oggi, Viella Editrice, Rome, 2018, pp. 60-61 and p. 62 in fn. 75.

**** This Apostolic Right was incorporated into Pope Julius II’s, Si summus rerum Opifex of Feb. 16, 1513, Fifth Lateran Council, which provided that if this law on Papal Conclaves were violated as regards a simoniacal election, the Cardinals not involved in the simony could have recourse to a Synod or Council to dethrone the uncanonically elected antipope.  Bagliani & Visceglia, op. cit, p. 40. This papal law was published previously as the Bull, Cum tam divino quam humano iure, January 14, 1505 (ibid., p. 39). This principle, acknowledged by Pope Julius II and the Fifth Lateran Council, is that which authorizes the calling of “imperfect” Synods in the time of necessity, such as ours.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Church History

Our Lord did not call Simon, “the Rock”, for nothing

1 Comment

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The student of the history of the Catholic Church cannot ignore the fact of its longevity. It is the only visible institution in the history of mankind to outlast every government and temporal power, and every other kind of institution — using the term properly — of mankind. Countless Empires, Kingdoms, Duchies, Principalities, Unions and Nations have come and gone, but the Catholic Church remains.

This truth is found also in regard to the Apostolic See: the institution of the Papacy.

A fisherman — we do not even know if he was literate — from Galilee one day drops his nets and follows Jesus’ call to be a fisher of men. He tramps around the dusty byways of Galilee for 3 years hearing Him preach and seeing Him work astounding miracles. And one day, after giving the right answer to a single question, he received in return, the promise of the an amazing office, and had his name changed, from Simon bar Jonah, to Cephas, the Rock — which is rendered in Latin, as “Peter”.

The meaning of this name has been variously explained by theologians and ecclesiastical writers for 2000 years, but, here I want to consider the effect of that name in history.

Because, if you read the history of the Church, you see that that Name also has a meaning: the Rock, against which every power which takes up its hand, has been broken and destroyed from history.

This fisherman, after many labors and wanderings, came to Rome, and probably was seen fishing along the Tiber, where the fish are wont to be seen, down near where the Via Conciliazione leads today. He preached Jesus and with another man, called Saul of Tarsus, but who changed his name to Paul, they founded the Catholic Church at Rome.

There was Nero, who put Saint Peter to death. But Nero was almost immediately murdered by his supporters.

There were 9 more persecutions in the Roman Empire, and every one failed to exterminate the Church at Rome. Each of the Emperors involved, was quickly removed from power by his enemies.

When the Roman Empire fell, the Church of Rome and its Pope remained. The entire inheritance, cultural and physical of the eternal city fell into the hands of the Church, in a historic irony the importance of which is not ignored by all historians of Rome. Even the chief title of the religious leader, the Bridge-builder, in Latin, Pontifex, was inherited by the successors of that Galilean fisherman.

The Lombards sought to subject the Pop to their authority in the 6th Century, but the Kingdom of the Lombards has passed into history. The Greek Emperors tried in the 7th and 8th centuries, and their Empire has long ago fallen. The German Emperors were rather unique in this that they often came to the help of the Apostolic See, when it was tossed hither and thither by the rival clans of Roman Nobility, all of which have passed into history.

In the Middle Ages, a King of France at the beginning of the fourteenth century, sent his thugs to beat the pope to death. And not only did he die shortly afterwards, his dynasty is extinct, and his Kingdom is no more.

In more recent centuries, the Kingdom of Piedmont — which renamed itself the Kingdom of Italy — attempted to exterminate the Papacy, but it too is no more. The very enemy of the Apostolic See, after little more than 70 years, was conquered by all the forces of the West, in the Second World War and the Dynasty which governed it remains still, in its male heirs, exiled from the Italian peninsula.

From this we can see, that the Apostolic See, the Office of Peter, is the Rock of history. It is a Rock like a shoal in the sea, where, if any man dare to chart a course against it, he is smashed and defeated.

For these reasons, we can be sure that we shall soon see the power of that gift which Our Lord gave to that Fisherman from Galilee. Those who attacked him over His book on Celibacy, will shortly see their entire project smashed.

It cannot be otherwise, because he alone is the True Peter, the true Rock of the Ages.

___________

CREDITS: The Featured Image if a photograph of Saint Peter’s Basilica, built over the spot where the Fisherman from Galilee was buried in 69 A. D.. It was taken by Br. Bugnolo.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Editorials, Faith, News

Separated from the True Pope, you won’t remain Catholic for long

11 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Pubblicato in Italiano a ChiesaRomana.Info

Saint Paul warned us long ago: Beware, he said, for not all men have the Faith! He said this at the end of his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, to whom he revealed so many things about the last days and the Anti-Christ(s) to come. Here is the Douay Rheims English version of 2 Thess. 3, which the Modernists do not preach on any more. But which I want to speak of in this article. The Apostle writes:

For the rest, brethren, pray for us, that the word of God may run, and may be glorified, even as among you; 2 And that we may be delivered from importunate and evil men; for all men have not faith. 3 But God is faithful, who will strengthen and keep you from evil. 4 And we have confidence concerning you in the Lord, that the things which we command, you both do, and will do. 5 And the Lord direct your hearts, in the charity of God, and the patience of Christ. 6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.7 For yourselves know how you ought to imitate us: for we were not disorderly among you; 8 Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nothing, but in labour and in toil we worked night and day, lest we should be chargeable to any of you. 9 Not as if we had not power: but that we might give ourselves a pattern unto you, to imitate us. 10 For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat.

11 For we have heard there are some among you who walk disorderly, working not at all, but curiously meddling. 12 Now we charge them that are such, and beseech them by the Lord Jesus Christ, that, working with silence, they would eat their own bread. 13 But you, brethren, be not weary in well doing.

14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed: 15 Yet do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

16 Now the Lord of peace himself give you everlasting peace in every place. The Lord be with you all. 17 The salutation of Paul with my own hand; which is the sign in every epistle. So I write.

18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Bad Company makes bad companies

God made us to know the Truth and the Truth will set us free, because God our Creator is the Truth. It follows then, that we exercise our minds and wills in that which is most essentially directed to our own perfection and destiny when we assent to any truth and will to find it and keep it and put it into practice.

But any member of the Clergy, religious or laity — any hermit — who would hide the truth from you, then, is clearly not being honest, is not doing that which the Creator wants. This is especially true if the truth they are hiding is a truth revealed by God or the importance of which depends directly from what God has said.

The enemies of Peter are the enemies of Christ

Christ said to Peter that whatsoever he would bind on Earth would be bound also in Heaven. All true Catholics accept that. All fake catholics ignore it.

The Catholic Church for more than a 1000 years took this doctrine as so central to true Christianity that it was willing to leave a schism with the Greeks in place and not back down on the duty of all Christians to regard the doctrinal and disciplinary decrees of the Roman Pontiff as obligatory, in virtue of these very words of Jesus Christ.

That is why, you cannot be honestly a Christian, if you are not honestly a Catholic who submits to the Roman Pontiff. And that is also why the enemies of Peter are the enemies of Christ, because if you refuse the one you are calling the other a liar or regarding Him as not God.

Peter has told us when Peter is and is not Peter

And lest anyone be confused, it is the Roman Pontiff who has established in Canon Law the terms by which all can objectively and easily know when a man is the Roman Pontiff and when he is not.  To ignore these rules of Canon Law is just as grave as to disobey the Roman Pontiff and go off into schism, because it is an act whereby you say, “Let’s make up our own way of being Christian, apart from submission to the Roman Pontiff.”

This is why we can be 100% absolutely and supernaturally certain that  Christ Jesus does not regard any man His Vicar on Earth, if that man’s claim to be pope is not in accord with the norms of Canon Law and papal law.

The corrollary is that, we can be 100% absolutely and supernaturally certain that Christ Jesus does not regard any Vicar of His on Earth no longer His Vicar, if that man’s renunciation is not in accord with the norms of Canon Law and papal law.

Because this is the Catholic Faith, I have extensively investigated both questions, the first in regard to Bergoglio, the second in regard to Benedict. I did not do this on a whim, I did it out of supernatural faith.

There is no doubt about this principle: A man is or is not pope, or is or is no longer the pope, based on the laws of the Church at the time he begins or ceases to be the pope. This legal principle was recognized in the antipapacy of Anacletus II and his defeat by Pope Innocent II, a defeat which was secured by Saint Bernard of Claivaux, who came to Rome to preach the facts of law about the disputed election of 1130 A.D..

All the books printed in the Catholic Church since 1130 up until Feb. 2013 were in agreement. Pope Innocent II was the valid pope, Anacletus was the antipope, because Pope Innocent was elected in accord with the law of his predecessor, who changed the terms of a papal election in the last weeks of his life. But Anacletus claimed to be elected to the prior norm.

For the Modernist, even if he claims to be a Trad ….

For the Modernist, there is not fixed nor lasting truth. What was true yesterday, may not and probably is not true today. Everything is in change and development. Everything mus be alive, they say, but they really mean, has to die.

All those who changed their concepts on what makes a true Pope, on Feb. 11, 2013, are deceived by Modernism or are modernists, even if they claim to be a Traditional Catholic. This includes all the publication of the so called Traditional Catholic Movement who hold that Benedict is no longer the pope. Because canon 332 §2 has not changed and it says a pope resigns when he resigns suo muneri, not  ministerio. The Vatican knows this and has tried to hide it, and I have proven that indisputably more than 6 months ago. (See the Index to Pope Benedict’s Renunciation)

Stunningly Ann Barnhardt, in her recent podcast, revealed that even Chris Ferrara, the famous attorney, who writes for several Trad publications, admitted to her, that she is probably right on the points of Canon Law regarding the failed renunciation. That was like back in 2016. But Chris still recognizes Bergoglio as the pope. The only honest assessment is that Chris is not being honest either with the public or his own conscience.

From my work here at Rome, I sense the same is true for all the experts. You just mention that Benedict is the Pope and they do not laugh, they attack. They want you to shut up, or to go away. These are signs of deeply conflicted consciences.

If it is not Catholic, it is not Catholic

Men who want to be seen as Catholics but who won’t be responsibly faithful to the duties of the faith, should not be considered faithful Catholics. Those who knowingly deceive the faithful about who is the true pope and who is not the true pope are NOT involved in a little or small controversy. They ARE ACTIVELY SCHISMATIC AND PROMOTING SCHISM.

Saint Paul warned us of such men, and he told us what to do about it.

The true Pope is the mystical Neck of the Church

If you are separated from the true Pope, you won’t remain a Catholic for long. Yes, these men who act like modernists — I do not imagine they are, but they are being constrained by their love of being accepted by errant men and errant men with money and power — have let go of essential truths of the Catholic Faith. But even you, if you follow those who deceive you in such matters, will soon lose your faith. The Church will become something like what the Anglicans have, an all-is-up-for-grabs Christianity, which keeps the names and outward appearances, but has long ago dumped doctrine, morality and faith.

The same thing we see happening with these fake Trads. They are now trying to reinvent the definition of papal infallibility and have totally ignored the teachings of Christ and the saints about papal indefectibility. They are bending doctrine to invent an excuse to remain in communion with an obvious fake and antipope, while refusing communion with the true Pope who defends celibacy. They even attack the true Pope to justify their falsehoods!

This is why all Schismatics lost the true Faith, because they are no longer in union with the mystical neck of the Mystical Body and hence no longer in communion with Christ the Head. Those who fall into such sins cannot be saved, because there is no salvation for those who die separated from Christ.

________

CREDITS: The Featured Image of the Piazza of St Peter’s at the Vatican, is by Br. Bugnolo.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Ecclesiology, Editorials, Faith, News

Divine and Apostolic Right takes precedence in a State of Emergency

14 Comments
Saint Athanasius, the first Bishop non-martyr venerated as a Saint, during the Arian Crisis, when neigh but 5 Bishops remained Catholic, employed Apostolic Right to defend the  Church against Apostasy.

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

We live in a very bizarre age, when professional gossipers (aka journalists) are the puppet masters of the masses, because 95% of everyone allows them to dictate the boundaries of reality, history, morality and religion. And until some noted journalist uses the word, “Heresy”, “Schismatic” or “Apostate” in reference to someone who merits the term(s), then no rational person would ever accuse a fellow Catholic of such a horrible offense on his own judgement, because as they say, “everyone knows that it is schismatic to refuse communion with a fellow Catholic in good standing. And good standing means, he has not yet been officially condemned by the Church!”

This is gaslighting, of course.  Gas-lighting is a term which everyone should familiarize themselves with. It is the tactic of those practiced in psychological manipulation used to get clients, subjects, inferiors to deny the reality they see and know and accept that the reality is what the manipulator claims it to be.

As soon as Bergoglio was “elected” the gaslighting began.  You are seeing things, He is the pope, you cannot talk that way about the pope. Dissent is a mortal sin. If you do not accept him you are outside the Church. You are not Catholic!

Lately, as the heresies and malevolence of Bergoglio explode out of all proportions to any previous heretic in the history of the Church, some Catholics who were formerly famous for their doctrinal and moral orthodoxy are going into apoplectic fits in their attempts to stifle recognition of the reality. ‘Recognize and Resist’, is their mantra. They are hell bent, literally, on remaining in communion with Bergoglio and don’t you dare rain on their fantasies by showing them facts of Canon Law (canon 1364, 1329 etc.) which show that by Divine right, heretics are outside of the Church as soon as they profess heresy.

These apologists of the revolution are just as hell bent on denying the reality of the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict (cf. ppbxvi.org for complete information).  They become discombobulated and lash out. They show that their attachment to “Pope Francis” is neither rational or reasonable, it is visceral. How visceral depends, I suppose, on whether they observe the 6th or 9th Commandments.

This complete psychological and intellectual and spiritual breakdown is a result of what I call the Iscariot Conundrum. I use “Iscariot” here in the sense of the Aramaic word for a man from the same town as the false Apostle, Judas Iscariot. Since like him, they have sold the true Christ for the 30 pieces of silver of public recognition by the Cardinals as a “faithful Catholic”* and since they did it for purely selfish, sentimental, non-rational and non-legal or non-dogmatic reasons, they explode with emotion the more you point out to them that they have built their house upon a false premise. So they lash out more and more and lose all traces of the fine Character they once exhibited, becoming in the process, ironically, the very likeness of dialogue which Bergoglio is, a nasty, name-calling Troll.

A State of Emergency

No less that Archbishop Gänswein, the personal secretary of Pope Benedict XVI and the Head of the Pontifical Household (which has only one guest, HINT HINT) said that what Benedict did in February 2013 was on account of a state of emergency.

His words and opinions are debated as to what they mean, but it would be ludicrous to deny the reality which is visible to all the world, namely, that THE APOSTOLIC SEE IS IMPEDED.

To say the Apostolic See is impeded, means that the Pope cannot act as Pope for some reason, either external coercion, or there is no pope, or the pope refuses to act out of some irrational or rational conviction. This ‘being impeded’ causes a state of necessity, because the visible head of the visible Church is for all practical purposes non-functioning. The state of necessity is necessity of the kind which is required for continued functioning of the Church.  Since the normal order of governance is obstructed, the observance of merely positive laws upon which it are based, by necessity, must be omitted.

Our Lord teaches us this general principle on the small scale, when, on one occasion He and His Apostles crossed a wheat-field during a time in which they had had nothing to eat (Mark 2:23), and some of them ate the grains of wheat which were near to being harvested, some Pharasees complained they were violating the Sabbath Laws against doing work on the Sabbath. Our Lord pointed out that the necessity of their hunger allowed them to not observe the law on harvesting. He replied with a forceful Semitic way of speaking, saying, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath!” (Mark 2:27)

The law against harvesting was instituted no less than by Moses (Exodus 23:12, Deuteronomy 5:12,14), who had a lot more authority in the Old Covenant (Moses basically wrote the entire thing, under God’s inspiration and direction) than the Pope has in the New Covenant (the pope cannot change the Bible, not even the Our Father — though a lot of clergy are confused on this point).

Also, it is clear, by the principles of logic (ex minore),** that if Our Lord says it is licit to appeal to a state of necessity, to suspend laws of the Old Covenant given by Moses, because men are hungry on a Saturday afternoon, then obviously it is licit to suspend laws of the Pope, in the New Covenant, WHEN THE SALVATION OF ALL SOULS ON EARTH UNTIL THE END OF TIME is put in grave and imminent danger. To deny this would be sheer insanity. This is poignantly true, when one faction in the Church wants to suspend the New Covenant and found a new religion, and the other faction must chose between observing certain man made laws and allowing the Covenant to be transgressed, or not observing them so as to prevent the transgression of the Covenant.

This principle of the abeyance of positive law in a state of necessity is sanctioned by no less than Pope Pius VI, in his Bull, Cum nos superiori anno, of Nov. 13, 1798, where he grants to the Cardinals the right to derogate from all non essential aspects of the papal laws on Conclaves, on account of the de facto suppression of the Church of Rome by the Roman Republic, led by French Revolutionaries.***

Extending this lesson to the affairs of the Church, it follows then, as good Christians, we ARE OBLIGED by divine faith to return to the general principle which Jesus laid down, namely, THE SALVATION OF SOULS IS THE HIGHEST LAW. For the Salvation of Souls the Eternal Father sacrificed His own Son, and His own Son accepted His ignominious death on a Cross. FOR THE SALVATION OF SOULS.

If there is anyone, therefore, in the Church, that holds that we must wait for the Pope (Benedict) to do something, or some future pope to do something, THEY ARE OUT OF THEIR MINDS and more correctly, THEY ARE PHARASEES who are raising up the positive laws established by the Church (which indicate what cannot be done without permission of superiors) to the level of rules which would require the Church to commit suicide waiting for some sort of divine intervention without human collaboration. A divine intervention without human collaboration, in the present case of the impeded See, HAS NEVER BEEN explicitly PROMISED. (I understand that there are some great promises from Our Lord and our Lady, but none of them refer explicitly to a promise to solve this problem.)

Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum)

The concept of Divine Right (ius divinum) is a concept of classical late scholasticism, very popular in the time of the Council of Trent and thereafter. It refers to things which have been decreed by God. The office of Peter exists by divine right, for example.

Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum) is not as well recognized. It refers to the decisions of the Apostles for the governance of the Church. It is of Apostolic right that the church in one city can be governed by several priests, for example.

Both Divine Right and Apostolic Right are superior to Canon Law. As an aside, what most Catholics do not know, is that for more than 1000 years, except for canons decreed in Councils, the Church had no canon law. Canon Law is not of Divine or Apostolic institution, though the First Council of Jerusalem c. 45 A.D. did hand down decisions and is the exemplar for all Councils and Synods in the Church.

Apostolic right also includes some things which are not observed in the normal course of affairs, because since the time of the Apostles the Sacred Hierarchy, for the good ordering of the Church in normal circumstances has laid down canons or established laws to conduct the affairs of the Church differently.

Take for example the election of Bishops. The Apostles appointed Bishops before they died. But when they had passed to eternal Glory, they left it to each diocese by Apostolic Right to chose their own bishop. And by “to each diocese”, I mean to the Catholics of each diocese, laity, religious and clergy. This is how the Church survived 10 Roman persecutions. No one was writing Rome to ask for an appointment, when their Bishop died.

Also, it is of Apostolic Right that every Bishop serves as ordinary of his diocese until death. There was no retirement. That is a novelty created by Paul VI to eliminate Catholics from the College of Bishops and replace them with sodomite revolutionaries. Canon Law implicitly recognizes that this concept of mandatory retirement is contrary to Apostolic Right, in that it does not require Bishops to resign, it says only that they should submit a letter of resignation upon reaching the age of 75.

It is also of Apostolic Right that the Bishops can convene in Synods and Councils. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence that every Synod in Church History, which is regarded as a true hierarchical act, was approved of by the Pope. The current positive laws require that the Pope consent, but Apostolic Right does not require that.  Apostolic Right is more rational, because when there is no pope or when the pope is a prisoner, how can the Bishops get permission?

But the general reason for the revival of Apostolic Right has to do with the inherent principle of subsidiarity in a perfect society. This principle was recognized by Pope Leo XIII. It holds that when the higher authority in a perfect society fails, then the lower authority has the right to take up the duty of the higher authority and act inasmuch it is necessary to act to preserve or defend that society. Since the College of Bishops as a whole succeeds the Apostles, when the See of Peter is impeded, each and every Bishop has the moral and Apostolic Right to exercise in a certain sense the authority of the Apostles to put the Church back in proper working order. This is an awesome responsibility reserved to extreme cases of necessity, such as is happening today, with both a public heretic ruling the Vatican and a Pope (Benedict) who thinks it is no longer his duty to govern the Church or vindicate his own rights as Christ’s Vicar.

In a State of Emergency, Apostolic and Divine Right revive on points which are now, in the regular course of Church affairs, regulated by canon law, presupposing an Apostolic See which is not impeded. These positive laws of the Church, which if observed, would lead to the destruction of the Church or the loss of souls are suspended in force. That is, it is no longer a canonical crime or moral fault NOT to observe them with due reason.

If there are any Catholic Bishops or Cardinals on earth, then they need to recognize this before it is too late, or the woeful warning of Our Lady of Akita will come to pass, that the faithful become deprived of the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist and Orders, because no Bishop had the sense to see that he had the Apostolic or Divine right to act to preserve the Sacred Hierarchy during an impeded Papacy.

This is because, with the Apostles no longer on Earth, and the See of Peter silent, each and every member of College of Bishops who remains Catholic can licitly assume the duties of the Apostles for the propagation and preservation of the Faith.

Some of the things any Bishop, with or without jurisdiction, can do, by Divine or Apostolic right, during an impeded Papacy are as follows:

  1. Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the causes of the impeded See, and or condemn those who are perpetrating it. (Pope Julius II sanctions this in principle)****
  2. Call for and Convene a Synod or Council, to depose claimants to the papacy who do not hold valid canonical titles. (This was done at Sutri in 1046 and sanctioned by St. Peter Damian, Pope St. Gregory VII and Bl. Pope Victor III)
  3. Reprove a pope for resigning partially and neglecting his Apostolic Duties of Ministry. (This arguably is not as extreme as nn. 1 or 2, an thus ex maiore is also approved)
  4. Condemn heretics by name, condemn heresies. (All bishops have this duty and right by Divine and Apostolic right)
  5. Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the heresies and perversities being spread by the Enemies of the Church, whether inside or outside the Church.
  6. Ordain Catholic Bishops for Dioceses which have been taken over by a heretical bishop or where the Catholic Bishop has declared for heresy or apostasy. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)
  7. Ordain Catholic priests and deacons for the faithful of each Diocese who are deprived of the Sacraments due to heretical or schismatic clergy in their area. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)

In fact, during the first 1500 years of the Church, we see Bishops regularly doing many if not all of these things. They had the benefit of not being plagued in conscience by positive Church law, but the system worked. Now that the Apostolic See, nay the Vatican,  is completely impeded and taken over by heretics, the Bishops must act!

This is not the imaginary case of Sedevacantists who don’t like a pope nor the sounder case of Traditionalists don’t want to abandon liturgical traditions of their Rite: this is the case of a direct frontal attack on the the New Covenant: the Deposit of the Faith, Scripture and Tradition, through open denials of key dogmas and doctrines and disciplines which come from Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

Prayer and Petitions

Please pray for the Bishops of the Church, for if they do not act, the entire wealth, power, prestige of the Church will be robbed by a sect of marxist sodomites and 100s of millions of souls will perish without right doctrine and sacraments.

Please also talk to your Bishop, if he appears to be somewhat Catholic. This is crucial. I know Catholics who have contacts and who are doing this right now. But more needs to be done.

The Catholic laity, on account of the inaction of the Bishops, are being forced to accept Sacraments from heretics and schismatics and perverse sodomites. They have the Divine right to be cared for pastorally by Catholic clergy who are in communion with the true Pope.  And this right is being DEMONICALLY AND UNIVERSALLY TRANSGRESSED in all dioceses throughout the Catholic world in the present Crisis.

We have the Divine and Apostolic right to act with insistence and with full approval of Christ’s teaching and example.

__________

GERMAN TRANSLATION: https://beatimundocorde.wordpress.com/2020/01/03/divine-and-apostolic-right-german/

SPANISH TRANSLATION: https://fromrome.info/2019/12/25/el-derecho-divino-y-apostolico-toma-precedencia-en-estado-de-emergencia/

__________

* I use quotes here, to point out how nonsensical this approach is, devoid of any reasonable assessment of historical events, because the Cardinals accepted an invalid resignation and then invalidly elected an Arch-Heretic Psychopath, so it is no exaggeration to doubt that the Cardinals are willing or able to recognize what a Faithful Catholic is!

** Ex minore is a technical term of medieval logic which refers to illations (arguments) which are based on appealing to something which is true in a lesser case, and argues from that, that it must be true in a greater case. Our Lord is doing this all the time, as for example in His parables of the King preparing for war, the architect preparing to build a tower etc., as examples of how if prudence is necessary in earthly things, it is all the more necessary in questions of eternal salvation.

*** Agostino Paravincii Bagliani & Maria Antonietta Visceglia’s, Il Conclave: continutità e mutamenti dal Medioevo a oggi, Viella Editrice, Rome, 2018, pp. 60-61 and p. 62 in fn. 75.

**** This Apostolic Right was incorporated into Pope Julius II’s, Si summus rerum Opifex of Feb. 16, 1513, Fifth Lateran Council, which provided that if this law on Papal Conclaves were violated as regards a simoniacal election, the Cardinals not involved in the simony could have recourse to a Synod or Council to dethrone the uncanonically elected antipope.  Bagliani & Visceglia, op. cit, p. 40. This papal law was published previously as the Bull, Cum tam divino quam humano iure, January 14, 1505 (ibid., p. 39). This principle, acknowledged by Pope Julius II and the Fifth Lateran Council, is that which authorizes the calling of “imperfect” Synods in the time of necessity, such as ours.

Church History, Editorials

How Benedict has defeated “Francis”

35 Comments

Or, Why did Pope Benedict XVI do what he did on Feb. 11, 2013?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Pope Benedict XVI, who has been lauded by many as a brilliant theologian, is in my opinion, a more brilliant chess player, for he has defeated the AntiChurch with the most incredibly subtle and effective manuever which could ever be conceived, and which takes a great deal of study to recognize, if you, like myself, took at face value the hearsay which has been put out for the last six years.

Admittedly, the honor and glory for it belong first of all to God, Who enlightens all men and inspires them at times to do things mere mortals could never conceive of. But also, thanks goes to God for sending Our Lady to Fatima to reveal to Sr. Lucia a secret which has until this day remained hidden, so as to give sound counsel to the true Successor of Saint Peter in the End Times.

How Pope John Paul II strengthened the Bulwark of the Church against the AntiChurch

I believe that with that knowledge, Pope John Paul II did 3 things: first, he chose Joseph Ratzinger to come to Rome and prepared him to succeed him (perhaps because he sensed that Ratzinger had the gift of prophecy); second, in 1983, he added the term munus to canon 332 §2, to constrain all of his successors to the obligation of renouncing the Petrine Munus so as to resign the papacy; and third, in 1996, he promulgated a new law on Papal Elections, which would nullify any attempt of the AntiChurch to usurp the Papacy or elect successors to AntiPopes (by requiring that all valid conclaves meet within 20 days after the death of valid popes).

Pope John Paul II warned the Church of the AntiChurch which was rising. He beatified Ann Catherine Emmerich (on the Vigil of St. Francis of Assisi, in 2004) to give papal approval to her own visions in this regard. It should not be surprising then, that in secret, or I should say, in the bright light of day, in papal acts he prepared the Church against that Evil to come!

By these three acts, Pope John Paul II set the chess board and enabled his chosen successor, Ratzinger to enact a stratagem of deception to defeat the forces of darkness.

The Forces of the AntiChurch struck quickly

No sooner than Pope John Paul II had died that the St Gallen Mafia, which had been meeting in that Swiss town for some years, mobilized to put Bergoglio on the Apostolic Throne in the Conclave of 2005. Bergoglio, as is now known, garnered the most votes after Ratzinger. In his campaign to get elected he promised radical financial reforms in the Vatican, so he could pose as a savior and reformer, though his agenda was that of Cardinal Martini, to make the Church into the Bride of the Anti-Christ.

Recently an Argentine Priest revealed, that Pope Benedict, soon after his election in 2005, had asked Bergoglio to be Secretary of State (see report here). Benedict intended by this offer to diffuse the conflict which arose in the Conclave, and to draw out the real intentions of Bergoglio. Bergoglio’s refusal manifested his deceit, because all the reasons given in the Conclave for his election, which in truth could be done by a Secretary of State, if honest, would have spurred him to accept Benedict’s offer. But without the papal authority, his evil and malign agenda could not be advanced. — By this sign of offering the olive branch of peace, Benedict signaled to his own supporters, that after himself there would come an Anti-pope (cf. Prophecy of St Malachy).

With the threefold knowledge of the future had from the Third Secret, from Pope John Paul II and from his own experience in the CDF, Pope Benedict now knew what he had to do. He knew Bergoglio wanted power and would be blinded by its offer. He took preparations to defend the Church with tradition and as the pressure built from the St Gallen Mafia, he crafted their defeat in secret. At the same time, he openly warned the faithful, that the Message of Fatima was about to be fulfilled (On May 13, 2010, saying “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete…”).

Benedict knew that removing the Lavender Mafia from the Vatican was key to defending the Church. But as court documents revealed, in the WikiLeaks controversy, as that effort led to the destruction of the careers of many sodomites, they moved against Benedict to have him removed. His Pontificate had removed hundreds perverts from the clergy.

As I have written before, there was in my estimation a formal attempt at a Coup d’etat (see report here). And this was actually put in motion, with the intent to effectively imprison Pope Benedict (see Report here). — The Conclave pact in 2005 among the warring factions of Ratzinger (Church) and Bergoglio (Anti-Church) also prepared the way (see report here). But, with their cause lost at that conclave, the St. Gallen Mafia would have to wait for Benedict to resign, because being old, he revealed that he was inclined to resign in a few years, anyhow. As he lingered on, however, their rage and impatience exploded.

The restoration of the Ancient Mass (July 7, 2007) and the expansion of the permissions for its use (April 30, 2011) caused a general outburst among the wicked clerics. I myself know this took place in the Italian Bishop’s Conference in 2011, because a Bishop who attended told me how Cardinals and Bishops stood up, one after another, and said the most vile things against Benedict. I also know personally, from the testimony of a Sicilian Businessman, who was in Shanghai, that the Cardinal of Palermo had warned that Benedict could die within a year from poor health. The St Gallen Controlled Media expanded this and reported it as if the Cardinal has said that Benedict had a year to live or else. That report was published around Feb. 11, 2012! (note the date)

Benedict’s Master Stroke

Pope Benedict XVI then played his master stroke. In the Summer of 2012 he indicated to Cardinal Bertone that he was going to resign. He discussed the matter with no one but his secretary Ganswein and a few others. I believe that he wrote the text of abdication in the Fall of 2012. I also postulate that he intentionally showed the Latin text (the invalid one) and a faulty German translation (which makes it appear the Latin is a valid formula) to members of the St Gallen Mafia, to obtain their consent to it. By that act he sealed their doom.

Because only one who was fluent in Latin and knowledgeable about Canon Law and who accepted the traditional metaphysics of the Church would be able to see that the resignation by that formula would be invalid. Ratzinger further prepared the ground by emphasizing for years before, that his favorite theologian was Saint Bonaventure. This caused scholars, like myself, to start studying St. Bonanveture’s Scholatic method for textual analysis of the signification of expressions, which is unparalleled among all the Doctors of the Church.

On Feb. 11, 2013, he read out-loud in Consistory the text of the invalid formula. On Feb. 28, 2013 he explained that he had resigned the “active ministry”. The St. Gallen Mafia spread the word of a valid resignation. The rest is history.

The only thing is, that Benedict began to give signs of the truth, not only for the sake of the Faithful, but to annoy the St Gallen Mafia. He kept wearing the papal cassock, retained the titles of Your Holiness and signed with PP. Benedictus XVI, and continued to give the papal blessing. He did these things to get faithful Catholics to examine the text of resignation and discover it was invalid. — He did this also, because, I believe, he was obeying Our Lady’s word at Fatima, in which She had revealed that there would come a time in which the Catholic world thought there were 2 popes, but only one of which was the true pope. The one who was the true Pope would continue to wear white, the other would usurp the office; and that the Anti-Church would attack the true Pope and the faithful gathered about him.

By an invalid resignation Pope Benedict has canonically invalidated everything Bergoglio has done, can do, and can ever do! Bergoglio is now an AntiPope because of the clever trick Benedict played on him. And Bergoglio is so entangled by this stratagem of Benedict that he cannot admit its existence, because if he does, he must give up his claim to the papacy.

If Benedict should die, then there will be no valid Successor of Saint Peter unless the pre-Bergoglian Cardinals meet in conclave within 20 days. Otherwise, as Pope John Paul II declares in the promulgation of Universi Dominici Gregis, at the end of the text, any action the Cardinal Electors take will be invalid. If they fail to do this, the Church will not be bereft of a pope, because, as Pope John Paul II taught in UDG’s prologue, the institution of the College is “not necessary for a valid election” of the Roman Pontiff: there is still the ancient Apostolic Law regarding the right of the Roman Church to elect the Pope.*

Benedict has defeated “Francis”!

mrxwmdna

Note: I wish to publicly apologize to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for anything I have said in criticism of him, since it was not until today that I understood what he had did and why he had done it, nor that as Pope he was acting for the good of the Church in the best and only way he could see to do, acting on the  basis of the counsels of Our Lady and Pope John Paul II. — Finally, I entertain the possibility that some Cardinals know of this grand stratagem of Benedict and that is why they act so dumb when asked about the question of validity or invalidity of the resignation.

FOOTNOTE:

* The right of election will fall to those Catholics of the Diocese Rome, who recognize that Benedict always was the only true pope, and that Bergoglio was always and is only, and nothing more, an Antipope. See my Disputed Question on Defecting Cardinals, here.

Canon Law

Barnhardt’s 2nd Video and the other Meaning of Benedict’s Tacit Consent

2 Comments

Yesterday, Ann Barhnhardt posted her second Magisterial Study of Pope Benedict’s Invalid Resignation and the theological currents behind it. See here. You have to listen to this entire video to understand anything about what is going on in the Vatican today.*

_______________

*There is only one small factual error in what Mrs. Barnhardt says in this video, namely, when she says that all the vernacular translations of Benedict’s Act of Renunciation were made from the Italian translation, that is not true, the German is unique, as I have shown previously.

Considerations

It’s rationally impossible to exclude, after Barnhardt’s marshalling of evidence, that Pope Benedict did not have a vicious and malign intention in renouncing only the Petrine Ministry, and not simply a substantial error of saying ministerium instead of munus.

This being the case, I can now offer a reasonable explanation of Why the Pope did NOT contest ANY of the 39 arguments I sent him?, which argue his resignation of ministerium did not effect a resignation of munus:  The surprising answer is that Benedict acknowledges that it was NEVER his intention to resign the petrine munus, and was in fact his intention to resign only the petrine ministerium.  — If you recall, in my Scholastic Question, which I sent him, I openly stated that I did not dispute the act effected a renunciation of ministerium.

There are 2 conclusions from this inference, which I say has sound probability on the basis of the 55 year history of Joseph Ratzinger in the speculations regarding transforming the papacy.

The first is that, if asked, Pope Benedict will admit openly and candidly before witnesses that he retains the Petrine Munus.  He will however, on account of his error, say he does not hold the Petrine Office or the Papacy.  This will seem to be an illogical self-contradiction, since it does not accord with the Latin text of Canon 145 §1: but in the Germanic School of theology to which Ratzinger belongs, the office of the Papacy is conceived as pertaining to the Petrine Ministry, that is, the active exercise of grace and vocation.

The second conclusion is, that every Catholic who accepts the teaching of Vatican I, will see that there are now 2 reasons for the renunciation of Benedict being null and void:*  namely, not only substantial error, but malign intention.  The malign intention (dolus) being to split the Papal Office.  Both causes are causes of  the act being null and void in canon 188.*

If these 2 considerations are true, then it will be difficult to understand from speaking with Benedict at any time, for a direct answer which indicates the renunciation was invalid to effect his no longer being the Pope.

The solution of the problem, therefore, must come solely from a canonical analysis, because neither as a private theologian, Joseph Ratzinger, nor as the Pope, does he have any authority to split the Papal Office from the Papal Ministry, nor to ascribe the office of the Papacy to the one who has the Papal Ministry, but not the Papal Munus.

Finally, I wish to praise Mrs. Barnhardt for her correct theological and moral characterization of those who have contested that the renunciation was invalid, arguing instead with a faulty notion of “universal acceptance”, as “demonic”, “satanic” and “free-masonic”.

For the Good of the Church, I will close by calling on all the Cardinals, Bishops, Clergy, Religious and Laity, especially of the Roman Church, to return to the norm of Canon 332 §2 and recognize that

  1. Pope Benedict is still the Pope, Bergoglio was never the Pope.
  2. His renunciation of ministry effects nothing in Canon Law.
  3. He is theologically confused as regards holding that the Papal Office is constituted by the one who exercises the Petrine Ministry, not the One who holds the Petrine Munus.
  4. His deliberate intention to renounce only the Petrine Ministry was morally reprehensible and should be reprehended.
  5. Anyone who speaks with Pope Benedict must resort to correcting him, because he not only committed a juridical error, but also a moral error, in renouncing only the Petrine Ministry.

_____________________________

* Barnhardt and myself, as well as nearly all the other commentators on this controversy, have been saying that Benedict’s resignation was invalid. The correct Canonical phrase, however, is that Benedict never renounced the Papal Office. Because, Benedict resigned nothing, in that he never used the verb resign.  (The English translation of Canon 332 §2 has “resign” in the place of the Latin “renounce”.)  Also, Canon 188 does not declare acts of renunciation invalid, it declares them “irrita“, that is, not properly done, or in other words, never done at all.

Can. 188 — Renuntiatio ex metu gravi, iniuste incusso, dolo vel errore substantiali aut simoniace facta, ipso iure irrita est.

The importance of the distinction in Canon Law regarding juridical acts which are invalid and juridical acts which are irrita is that, if a juridical act of the pope be in question, since one cannot dispute the legitimacy of papal acts, you cannot judge them valid or invalid. But if they were never done, never existed, that is, if they were irriti, then they never happened. And it’s no sin or crime, but true justice to say that they are such.

 

 

Ecclesiology, Editorials, News

Christ regards Benedict alone, as His Vicar on Earth

4 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

ben+xvi+corpus+dni

In controversies, we often forget the higher principles and end up disputing only in regard to the minutiae. This is dangerous, because the chief motives, especially in controversies in the Church, should depend upon Eternal and Divine principles.

For this reason, it is important for us to remember that Christ Jesus founded the Catholic Church and is the Author and Grantor of all ecclesiastical offices: offices, which are of supernatural origin and to which He has affixed a gift of grace (munus) which cannot be alienated except by explicit renunciation.

We know this by Divine Revelation. For when He asked Simon bar Johan what men thought of Himself, Peter responded:  Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

To which Our Lord, Messiah and Redeemer responded:  Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Gospel of Saint Matthew, Chapter 16)

We often fail to recognize, that by a Divine Promise God, who cannot be bound and obligated to man, has nevertheless bound and obligated Himself to man in what He has promised.  In regard to the Petrine Office (munus petrinum), Christ has actually bound HIMSELF to the official acts of the Roman Pontiff and to the words thereof. He has thus WILLED as GOD not to act, if the Roman Pontiff does not allow Him to act, and to act when the Roman Pontiff allows Him to act.

While this binding of God to Peter is not universal, it nevertheless does regards Papal Acts, where the man who is Pope acts as pope.  It also regards the man who is pope, inasmuch as he is a man, in the matter of accepting and renouncing the Papal Office (munus petrinum). For when a man accepts his election or acclamation as Pope, Christ bestows on the man the office and gift of grace (munus) which he gave Saint Peter to be passed on to the Bishops of Rome until the end of time.  The Church in Her wisdom has signified this office and gift of grace with the only Latin word which means both office and gift, “munus”.

No other Latin word having such a meaning, Pope John Paul II, as legislator of the New Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1983, added munus to Canon 322 §2, as the fundamental condition to spark, as it were, the recognition of a papal resignation.

While men can ignore that word in canon 332 §2, Christ cannot.

This is no exaggeration, no mere human opinion. Because since it is of Divine Faith that Christ promised to bind and loose according to the word of His Vicar. His vicar in adding that word to the canon regarding papal resignation, did bind Christ Himself not to withdraw the office and gift of grace (munus), if the munus were NOT renounced.

The Sacred Hierarchy, and especially the College of Cardinals, need to recognize this fundamental theological truth of Christology and Ecclesiology, and return to a correct recognition of the facts of the case.  They must ignore what men say about what happened on February 11, 2013 on the basis of what a pool reporter, with little knowledge of Latin thought Benedict signified. They must ignore what all who think what that act signified. They must attend solely to Canon 332 §2 according to what that canon says in its Latin official text. They must read it in accord with canon 17 and the text Non solum propter.

They must recognize, that when the Vicar of Christ does not renounce the office and gift of grace which Christ gave to him alone, Christ cannot transfer it to another, even if the whole Church wants Him to transfer it. He cannot act, until His Vicar acts. And even if His vicar is confused due to old age, He cannot act.

Thus, it’s indubitably true that Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope, and that Christ Himself regards Benedict alone as His Vicar on Earth. God Himself can do no other. He cannot break His promise to Peter.