Tag Archives: Pope Benedict XVI

Steven O’Reilly’s Theory of Meta-Signification

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________

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

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

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

 

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

Editor’s Note: The phrase, “The Benedict Bot”, as used above in the title of the present article, is a term coined by Frank Walker, editor of Canon212.com, and used to characterized the apparently manufactured and artificial statements by others in the Vatican, which are attributed by the Vatican Press Office to the Roman Pontiff, in such wise as to raise grave concerns whether they are in any way an authentic expression of his mind. Thus the Benedict Bot is the persona created by the Vatican. This term obviously refers to a theory of interpretation, because without video confirmation that Pope Benedict XVI has said something, the matter is always capable of doubt, especially after the Vatican has been caught twice falsifying the letter and statements of Pope Benedict, as FromRome.Info has reported previously, not to mention every translation of his Declaration of Feb. 11, 2013.

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

Cardinal Ratzinger on the Third Secret

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

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

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

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

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

STATEMENT FROM FATHER PAUL KRAMER
Regarding the Recent Confirmation by Fr. Ingo Döllinger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, Cardinal Ratzinger before becoming pope.

The Benedict Bot Responds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+ + +

 

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

Michel Piccoli, dead at 94: Acted out Benedict’s Renunciation 2 years beforehand

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Il Reformista reports that on May 18, 2020, there passed away Michel Piccoli, one of the most famous French actors of his generation, who appeared in more than 170 films.

In 2011, he played the part of what could arguably be identified as Pope Benedict XVI in the Movie, “Habemus papam” by Nanni Moretti, which “prophetically” showed the Pope renounce using an invalid formula. See the video above, for the key scene in the film.

Even in February of 2013, this film was spoken of in relation to the events of that month.

The cause of Michel Piccoli’s death was listed as a stroke. He was 94 years old. Wikipedia, however, omits any reference to his historic role as the Pope, in the Film, Habemus Papam. And, I think that is significant, because I know that Wikipedia only hides information for ideological reasons.

Michel Piccoli’s death comes within days of the tremendous revelations of Pope Benedict XVI in the new biography by Peter Seewald, Ein Leben, in which there is attributed to the Pope words which express that he never intended to validly resign, that he intended rather to retain the spiritual mandate (Verantvortung, Munus).

The producer of the film, in which Piccoli played the role of Pope Benedict XVI, Nanni Moretti, is a self-declared atheist and Marxists. Several of his films have won awards at important film festivals, an honor only given to those who push the narrative of the global elites. He lives at Rome, and thus is certainly known to the Scalfari, the founder of the Repubblica newspaper, who is a close friend of Jorge Bergoglio, them man whom, historically speaking, is the pope elected in Moretti’s film. In fact, Google.com shows that there more than 10 articles at La Repubblica about Moretti. That is a lot of free publicity for a fellow atheist and Marxist, a lot of friendship.

Scalfari is widely suspected to be the “important and influential person” at Rome, identified by Cardinal McCarrick as the one who lobbied for Bergoglio’s election. The pieces seem all to fit together nicely, don’t they?

Nanni Moretti’s article at Wikipedia also hides the fact that he produced this same film on Pope Benedict’s XVI renunciation 2 years before Benedict XVI “resigned”, by concealing the name of the film under its English title.

Michel Piccoli, when asked about the events of Feb. 11, 2013, at that time, reacted somewhat violently to reporters questions. He definitively refused to discuss his role in the film by Moretti, for some reason.

Well, with his unforeseen death — which is perhaps timely for those in the Vatican — that reason goes to the grave with him.

The use of films to psychologically condition minds in the future to predetermined events, has long been a tactic of the CIA, as I have reported previously. This film, Habemus Papam, must then been seen as part of the calculated and planned coercion put on Pope Benedict XVI from 2011 wards to leave the scene (see here).

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

 

 

 

Pope St. Pius X foresaw Pope Benedict XVI as the true Pope until his death

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In 1909, during his audience with the Franciscans, Pope St. Pius X fell into an ecstasy.

When he came out of it, he was asked, “What I have seen is terrible! Is it I or one of my successors. I do not know. I saw a pope flee from the Vatican, walking upon the cadavers of his priests.”

Of a second vision, sometime before his death on August 20, 1914, the Saintly Pope said again, now with more precision: “I saw one of my successors, with my same name, who fled, walking upon the cadavers of his brothers. He will take refuge in a hidden place. But after a short rest, he will die a cruel death.”

The source of this testimony is repeated by several Italian authors, such as Antonio Socci, as something which was considered credible by even those who work in the Vatican, but I can find no certain person or source for it.

As for what these words of the Saintly pope mean. First, let me explain that the term, “brothers” in the mouth of the Pope in those times refers to his brother Cardinals. Second, the Italian, which I have translated as “with my same name”, means one who has the same name. This could be Pius or his baptismal name, Joseph.

Well since Pope Pius X there have been 2 popes named Pius: Pius XI and Pius XII, but neither of them had to flee the Vatican, nor did either die a cruel death — a phrase which I translated literally from the Italian, and which means a death in which there is a shedding of blood.

But Pope Benedict XVI’s baptismal name is Joseph.

So if this vision pertains to him, then it not only foretells a horrible end for him, but signifies that in the mystical visions of Pope Saint Pius X, God had revealed that Pope Benedict XVI will be the true successor of Saint Peter unto the very day of his death. And that means Bergoglio was never the pope.

Msgr. Nicola Bux rewrites Canon 332 §2

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which in English would be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________

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

+ + +

 

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

Those who say Benedict renounced validly, now have no credibility

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

Benedict XVI remains on a Mission from God

by Antonio Socci

Originally published by the Libero Quotidiano: May 4, 2020

Authorized English translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino
Reprinted with permission of the translator

Like the Biblical prophets and the great popes of history, Benedict XVI is both hated by the powers of this world and loved by simple Catholic people. And every time that he comes out of his hermitage to speak the truth, he illuminates the darkness of the present situation of humanity and the Church. He is the object of furious attacks – which have been going on ever since his election as pope – that have now come to the point of the distortion of his words and his moral lynching.

This week great controversy has broken out over the anticipation of the release of Ratzinger’s biography written by Peter Seewald, Benedict XVI. Ein Leben, which is being published in German and will appear in Italian [and English] this fall.

In the book, the Pope Emeritus responds to various questions and explains, for example, his dramatic and enigmatic statement in his homily given at the inauguration of his pontificate [on April 24, 2005]: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”

It is a phrase that has taken on enormous significance since February 11, 2013, when Benedict XVI announced his stepping back. What was he alluding to with those words? Is this where we should try to find the reason for his “resignation”? Was he forced to step aside in such a way that it makes that resignation invalid?

And so Pope Benedict, responding to these questions, invites us to reflect on “how much fear can strike a pope.” Many observers – especially after his stepping back – thought that it had to do with the unfortunate episode of Vatileaks, “but the true threat to the Church and thus to the Petrine ministry,” the Pontiff explains, “does not consist in these things but rather in the world dictatorship of apparently humanistic ideologies that oppose anyone who does not conform to the established social consensus. Even one hundred years ago, everyone would have thought it absurd to speak of homosexual marriage. Today those who oppose it are excommunicated from society. Things are similar for abortion and the production of human beings in laboratories. Modern society is formulating an antichristic faith, which you cannot oppose without being punished with excommunication from that society. And thus it is more than natural to have fear of this spiritual power of the Antichrist, and it really takes the prayer of an entire diocese, indeed of the universal Church, to oppose and resist it.”

In these few lines, Ratzinger – as always – manages to condense extraordinary reflections that merit our deep consideration and reflection.

Of course, the Repubblica immediately tried to distort Benedict’s words, reducing his comments to a rant against “abortion” and “gay marriage,” thereby giving the nod to the entire media establishment and unleashing an onslaught on social media against the pope, who has once again been covered in mud. Ironically, by doing this the champions of one-way tolerance immediately proved the truth of Benedict XVI’s words: anyone who does not fall in line with the mainstream is declared to be anathema.

But the Ratzingerian reflection is much more profound. In perfect continuity with the Magisterium of Paul VI and John Paul II, Benedict XVI has spoken once again to denounce the dominant modern ideology that not only is anti-Christian but is also dramatically opposed to human life.

Like Montini and Wojtyla, Ratzinger captures the apocalyptic connotation of the present moment, in particular that of the “dictatorship of relativism” which opposed him during his pontificate and that today holds power, since it is also widespread within the Church.

Benedict XVI is not afraid to speak of the Antichrist, causing many critics who believe they are enlightened and progressive to rise up against him, but ironically by doing so they simply display their ignorance of the many books and philosophical and theological debate on this topic. There are actually many non-Catholic thinkers who have addressed the theme of the Antichrist in recent years. The Marxist philosopher Mario Tronti said in 2013 after the “resignation” that the pontificate of Joseph Ratzinger was “an heroic attempt hold back the post-modern form of the Antichrist.”

Similarly dramatic reflections have been made by Massimo Cacciari (I refer to them in my new book Il Dio Mercato, la Chiesa e l’Anticristo [The God of the Market, the Church, and the Antichrist]). Among other things, Cacciari declares: “We could speculate that Ratzinger resigned because he was no longer able to hold back the antichristic powers within the Church herself.” But now “the Church finds herself facing, for the first time, the true essence of the Antichrist.” Cacciari also published a more philosophical reflection in 2013, Il Potere che frena [The Power that Restrains]. The essay by Giorgio Agamben is also valuable: Il mistero del male (Benedetto XVI e la fine dei tempi) [The Mystery of Evil: Benedict XVI and The End Times].

In light of Benedict XVI’s words – “And thus it is more than natural to have fear of this spiritual power of the Antichrist” – we could well be led to believe that he had to flee “before the wolves,” which would render his “resignation” invalid.

But what sort of “resignation” did he make? As he explained on February 27, 2013, he remains pope “forever” and he preserves his papal name and title.

In my book, The Secret of Benedict XVI (Angelico Press, 2019), I demonstrated that, due to the enormity of the Enemy who was facing him – and since he felt his strength diminishing – Benedict XVI humbly made “a step to the side” in order to make space for someone whom he could assist by his prayer and counsel in the task of being the Kathécon (“the one who restrains” cf. 2 Thess 2:6-7). Thus was opened a new and unprecedented era of “collegiality” in the papacy – unprecedented because it is apocalyptic.

But then the cardinals chose the man who had opposed Ratzinger in 2005, who is now the pope beloved by the worldly powers. And so today Benedict XVI finds himself called mysteriously to a task that only God knows. He remains on a mission from God.

LifeSite news, on the threshold of returning to Pope Benedict XVI

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Following my article yesterday, on May, 6, 2020, which sustained that Peter Seewald’s new Biography of Pope Benedict XVI demonstrated that Benedict XVI is still the pope, because his renunciation was vitiated by substantial error, LifeSite News published a very fine article by Maike Hickson, entitled, “Pope Benedict: I resigned but I kept ‘spiritual dimension’ of papacy”.

Praise is deserved where praise is due. And it has been a long time since LifeSite News or Hickson confronted the problem without any polemics: that is, without any push to interpret the facts one way or another.

Here is the meat of her article:

It is here that Pope Benedict then draws a comparison with the papacy. For, such a retired bishop, he adds, “does not anymore actively have an episcopal seat, but, still finds himself in a special relationship of a former bishop to his seat.” This retired bishop, however, thereby “does not become a second bishop of his diocese,” explains Benedict. Such a bishop had “fully given up his office, yet the spiritual connection with his former seat was now being acknowledged, also as a legal quality.” This “new relationship with a seat” is “given as a reality, but lies outside of the concrete legal substance of the episcopal office.” At the same time, adds the retired Pope, the “spiritual connection” is being regarded as a “reality.”

“Thus,” he continues, “there are not two bishops, but one with a spiritual mandate, whose essence it is to serve his former diocese from within, from the Lord, by being present and available in prayer.”

“It is not conceivable why such a legal concept should not also be applied to the bishop of Rome,” Pope Benedict explicitly states, thus making it clear that according to his own ideas, he fully resigned his papal office while maintaining a “spiritual dimension” of his office.

As can be seen Hickson has laid out the problem. If Pope Benedict still retains the mandate of the papal office in any sense, he has not completely renounced. And if he has not completely renounced, then he is still entirely the only one true pope, because a partial resignation is a doubtful resignation, and a doubtful resignation is an invalid resignation.

At the end of her article she quotes Msgr. Nicola Bux who says that the Petrine Office contains 2 mandates, the spiritual and the visible, and that you cannot renounce just one of them and share that with someone else.

I am not sure what Hickson means by “mandate”, whether she has translated the German, Mandat, or the German, Verantvortung. (Hopefully, someone on Twitter will ask her and post her reply in a comment below.)  Regarding the papal mandate, it might be described in spiritual and visible terms, but it is only one. So Msgr. Bux is partly right and partly wrong.

But the Papal munus is the Verantvortung, or charge, and, as everyone knows, Benedict never renounced that.

It is important to note here, that Verantvortung, is often rendered as responsibility in English. And, in fact, as was shown by Dr. Edmund J. Mazza, here at FromRome.Info, in March, and as I explained the same day, in my commentary on his article, for Pope Benedict XVI it is clear that he never had the intention to renounce the spiritual responsibility of the petrine office, only the active ministry, and that thus, he remains pope.

LifeSite’s decision to turn off the polemics of “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” and “The Renunciation is certainly valid” marks, I hope, a watershed moment for LifeSite News.

All of us who remain or have returned to communion with Pope Benedict XVI want nothing other than that all come to the truth through knowing the facts.

Therefore, Maike Hickson and Lifesite News deserves high praise today. And I gladly give it.

In the future, I think the papal law on elections should require the Cardinals to give the newly elected a catechism lesson on what the papacy is, before asking him to accept it, because it is becoming increasingly likely that the truth is, that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not know what he accepted the day he accepted his canonical election — And though that does not touch the validity of his accepting it, nevertheless, it does make it impossible for him to renounce it, because as I said in the documentary I produced recently, on the Renunciation, to renounce a thing, you have to know what you are renouncing, so that you name it.

Finally, perhaps I am being too hopeful for LifeSite News, because they recently changed their position and included sodomy as a Family-related issue, seemingly to placate the LGBT Movement, which is rejoicing over this change. So this article about Pope Benedict XVI might be neutral to a certain extent only to draw traffic to their site.

+ + +

 

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

Seewald’s new book on Pope Benedict XVI confirms his renunciation was invalid

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Having read many reports regarding Peter Seewald’s new biography on Pope Benedict XVI, it is clear that it provides no new light on what happened on Feb. 11, 2013. While the entire Book needs to be read to make a certain determination on this, let us review the major reports about the book to show that this is most likely a correct assessment of its contents.

The German Press ignores the Renunication

DomRadio.De in its report of May, 4, 2020, entitled, Peter Seewald legt neue Biografie von Benedikt XVI. vor 1.184 Seiten über den früheren Papst (Peter Seewald publishes a new Biography on Benedict XVI: 1184 pages about the former Pope) does not even speak of what happened using the correct terms, but does reveal that the Pedophilia Crisis was the cause of the decision:

Resignation from the papal office

Or for the reform process of the “Würzburg Synod”, which he left without saying a word in 1974 when he realized that he could not influence him in his understanding. And also for the surprising step with which he has secured a place in church history for all time: the resignation from the papal office (Papstamt) and the entry into the office (Amt) of an emeritus pope, which he invented.

Seewald describes the departure in the life of the 93-year-old with empathy, he usually protects him against criticism. He always provides really new insights when he draws from personal conversations with the old pope (or with his secretary).

Such a very last, mostly written interview in autumn 2018 is the final chapter of the book. In it Benedict XVI. with old and new arguments, why he decided to resign in 2012 and how he understands and exercises the spiritual office of “Papa emeritus” (Amt de Papa emeritus). With a bit of bitterness, he also rejects the sharp criticism of his public statements.

One of the strongest chapters of the book with 1,150 pages of text and a detailed picture section includes the description of the abuse crisis and other scandals in the late phase of the Benedictine pontificate, which then led to the decision to resign – without having triggered this step, however, like Seewald and to insure his protagonist. The description of the meticulous preparation of the world-shattering event is exciting to read. Now you know who was informed when and how they managed to keep the sensational plan secret for months.

This report is uninformed, because Benedict XVI never renounced the Papal Office (PapstAmt) he only renounced the Petrine Ministry (PapstDeinst), as anyone who can real Latin can see. Evidently the author of this article cannot read Latin, but followed the German translation available on the Vatican Website, which I have shown to be falsified, and which our German correspondent showed was most likely subsequently manipulated by an English speaker.

Br.de suggests that no other information will be found in the Biography, which was written to defend Ratzinger and which contains interviews with more than 100 individuals:

Defense of a pontificate: a biography for Benedict fans

A book about Benedict XVI. for fans of Benedict XVI: The new Pope biography by Peter Seewald is told in an exciting way, but in an obvious effort to defend Benedict. There is only criticism of the pontiff in small doses.

In 1993 Peter Seewald metCardinal Ratzinger for the first time. Peter Seewald was supposed to write a portrait for the Süddeutsche Zeitung magazine about this man, who was perceived in Germany primarily as a “tank cardinal”: Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect of the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, must have liked the encounter and the resulting article.

Because Seewald accompanies Ratzinger even after the papal election. He was the only journalist who managed to have a detailed discussion with the Pope and to publish it.

The Featured Image above is a screen shot of the Br.de article.

The English speaking press, however seems more eager to frame the Biography as proof that Benedict did resign validly

For example, NCRonline.org in its report of May, 4, 2020, “Former Pope Benedict XVI sees Church threatened by pseudo-humanism” which is a reprint of an article by Katholische Nachrichten-Agentur, the emphasis, first of all, as can be seen from the title of the article, is on Former:

He also explained the reasons for his resignation as pope in 2013. He denied that it was because of corruption in the Vatican or the “Vatileaks” scandal. Instead, he said it had become increasingly clear to him that in addition to possible dementia, “other forms of insufficient ability to hold office properly are also possible.”

In this context Benedict XVI revealed that he, like Paul VI and John Paul II, had signed a conditional declaration of resignation “in the event of illness which rendered the proper performance of duties impossible.” He had already done this “relatively early” in his pontificate, Benedict said.

He commented at length on criticism of his resignation. The office of a “papa emeritus” that he had created should be compared to that of a bishop who had retired for age reasons. This legal status could also be applied to the Bishop of Rome. It prevented “any notion of a coexistence of two popes: a diocese can have only ONE incumbent. At the same time, it expresses a spiritual bond that can never be taken away.”

The former pope also likened his situation to that of an old farmer in Bavaria who has passed his farm to his son, lives in a small house next to it and has ceded his fatherly and commanding rights.

I find it curious that the Pope might have used the very analogy I used to show his resignation was invalid, in my article about the Grandfather on his Farm. I am not a prophet, but Pope Benedict XVI might read FromRome.Info.

If Seewald can be believed, and if the words he attributes to Pope Benedict XVI reflect his own mind, then it is clear that Pope Benedict XVI still is operating under the grave error of thinking that you can renounce the Papal Munus by giving up the power and governance but retaining a spiritual bond with the Papal dignity. Such an error is substantial, and in accord with Canon 188 would make the Renunciation irritus, that is, something which must be recognized by the whole Church has having never happened.

In Conclusion

Other reports cite statements which are incompatible with the truth that Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation. But their incompatibility only demonstrates that Benedict XVI does not understand what he did or does not want to say openly what he did, and is simply muddying the waters. As Pope Benedict XVI warned us at the beginning of his pontificate, we must avoid the Dictatorship of Relativism, which determines truth not according to facts and reality, but according to opinions and claims. That a man is or is not pope is not demonstrated according to opinion or claims, by himself or by others. It is established by his acceptance of his canonical election OR his renunciation in accord with canon 332. In the former case, Pope Benedict XVI is the pope no matter what others or he himself thinks. In the latter case, Pope Benedict XVI, since he did not renounce in accord with canon 332, is still the pope, no matter what others or he himself thinks or says — until he says, before 2 witnesses:  “I renounce the munus which I received when I accepted my canonical election,” or something logically equivalent to that.

As far as the evidentiary value of Seewald’s book, it has to be regarded as hearsay evidence, unless he can provide voice recordings of the statements made by Pope Benedict XVI, and demonstrate that the Pope made them without the presence of others who would monitor, report or coerce him for what he said.

As for the Italian press, Antonio Socci says nothing much about the controversy, but concludes that only God knows the role that Benedict has in the present crisis. He is surely exaggerating, because everyone knows what role the Pope has. They might not understand the kind of confusion into which a person can fall on account of error or what they might to out of fear, but that is because they have failed to really look at the matter with Christian Faith, which being based on the Incarnation, knows it must confront both the omnipotence of immutable truth and the vagaries of human flesh.

+ + +

 

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

Opus Dei Member since 1967 declares for Pope Benedict XVI

Translation of the original Spanish of the Letter of Testimony of Mrs. María Justa Carpio Sierra, of Badajoz, Spain, which was sent to the the editor of the channel, Auturo Periodista Cattolico, on Youtube, in reply to his report of Don Francesco d’Erasmo declaration for Pope Benedict on April 1, 2020.  Auturo felt necessary now to reveal the letter he received, today.

The editor, Auturo Periodista Cattolico, prefaces her letter with the following words:

In that video, I read Don Francesco d’Erasmo’s letter, and two days later (April 4) a supernumerary subscriber of Opus Dei wrote me an e-mail with a strong letter saying this:

“My name is María Justa Carpio Sierra, I’m a laywoman, married, with four children.

I was born on January 6, 1948, in Fuenlabrada de los Montes, Badajoz, Spain.

I have been in Opus Dei since 1967. Thanks to its founder, I learned from his lips and his writings the formation that I have today, and also from other people in the work. I don’t think I have ever valued so much what the founder taught us until these very difficult moments in the Church, because I feel capable of discerning, with God’s help, where there is good and where there is evil.

That is why I join in, regardless of the consequences, with what Don Francesco D’Erasmo says, because I think exactly the same thing. From the beginning I felt that Bergoglio was not the Pope. His ways and manners left much to be desired, for he never dressed with the dignity of a Pope. And not only that, but his words, his actions and so many heresies he has said.

In short, I am writing this letter of mine and I would like so many people who are hesitant to take a step forward, because I do not understand why people with very good training are like that and do not see it.

I am writing this letter with total freedom and I am only responsible for what I say.
I give you permission to publish my letter.

Thanks Arturo, I watch all your videos.

God bless us all.

Salutations.

Justy

Finally, Auturo comments that he is very impressed by the letter because he says he knows many in the Opus Dei movement who are outstanding Catholics but who cannot speak with sincerity about Bergoglio and Pope Benedict XVI.

Pope Benedict XVI signals he was forced from power, in new Biography

By Alexis Bugnolo

Pope Benedict XVI has indicated that he was forced from power. His remarks are contained in a new biography by Seewald, which will be published on May, 4, 2020.

He makes his remarks in regard to the controversies and difficulties posed by opposition to his pontificate. I quote from the LifeSite News article, of May, 1, 2020, by Maike Hickson, entitled, Pope Benedict links dominance of ‘homosexual marriage…abortion’ to spiritual power of ‘Anti-Christ’.

When further asked by Seewald as to whether Benedict had foreseen all that would come down upon him — the Pope, at the beginning of his pontificate, had asked Catholics to pray for him that he may not “flee from the wolves” — Benedict stated that the generally perceived scale of problems that a pope can be “afraid of” is much too “small.”

“Of course,” he went on to say, “events such as ‘VatiLeaks’ are a nuisance and not understandable for the people in the world at large and deeply disturbing. But the real threat to the Church and with it to the Petrine Office does not come from such things, but from the world-wide dictatorship of seemingly humanistic ideologies.” To contradict this dictatorship, Benedict explained, “means the exclusion from the basic consensus in society.”

By saying, “world wide dictatorship of humanistic ideologies”, he is clearly referring to the globalists. And by saying, “exclusion from the basis consensus in society”, he is clearly indicating — since the context is the chief problems of his pontificate — that he was rejected by those powers for what he was attempting to do.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

Don Enrico Bernasconi declares for Pope Benedict XVI

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Don Enrico Bernasconi, assistant pastor of Santa Maria della Strada, Torremaggiore, Italy has declared for Pope Benedict XVI!

He made his declaration in a lengthy interview granted to Samuel Colombo, an Italian vocalist and political activist: the interview was published at Rivelazione.net, here in Italy. FromRome.info has requested permission to translate it, which is required in EU Law.

Don Bernasconi is a late vocation, being ordained a priest only 3.5 years ago. He serves in the Catholic Diocese of San Severino, in the region of Puglia (Apulia), on that part of the Italian Peninsula which looks like the heel of the boot. His parish at Torremaggiore is not far from San Giovanni Rotondo, famous throughout the entire world for the presence and tomb of Padre Pio.

But fair use policy does allow FromRome.Info to cite a small part of the interview, and translate that, for its news worthiness.

Who is the pope to you today? Francis or Benedict XVI?

First of all I would like to say that it is not a question of sympathy or of feeling closer to one pope than another: it is a question of truth. There cannot be two popes at the same time. I believe that, due to the fact that Pope Benedict XVI has not duly renounced the munus petrino, in his declaratio, as required by can. 332 §2 for the validity of the act of his resignation, he remains the Vicar of Christ. As some well qualified scholars have said, Benedict XVI has renounced the active exercise of the ministry but not the Petrine office; in other words, it is as if he has renounced ‘doing’ the pope but not ‘being’ the pope. This fact, from the canonical point of view, is then confirmed by the subsequent attitude taken by Benedict XVI, who did not renounce the name of Holiness, the name, the signature with the acronym that belongs only to the reigning Pontiff, P.P. (Pontifex Pontificum), remained in Vatican territory, kept the white cassock and intervened several times in the last seven years. The title of pope emeritus is something insignificant and all the more so is the concept of ‘extended’ ministry.

Do you say communion with Benedict XVI?

I celebrate in union with Benedict XVI, being still the Vicar of Christ on earth. I have in fact matured in conscience the decision that it would no longer make any sense to celebrate in union with those who are not the legitimate pope, even if they are recognized as such by the majority. And those who celebrate in union with the legitimate pope certainly cannot be schismatics; rather they can be, in this anomalous situation, unjustly sanctioned or excommunicated.

Let us pray for this heroic priest who is loyal to truth and to the Catholic Religion. By his decision he is risking persecution and the loss of not only his entire salary but room and board.

From the rest of his interview, it is clear that he is very well informed about the current state of the Church and the cause of the problems under which She is being crucified with Her Lord, Jesus Christ.

Don Bernasconi’s profession of truth adds to the growing numbers of clergy world wide who are declaring for Pope Benedict XVI:

  • Archbishop Lenga, Poland
  • Bishop Gracida, Texas, USA
  • Several Bishops in Italy, who are still unnamed
  • Don Alessandro Minutella, Palermo, Sicily
  • Don Enrico Roncaglia, Veneto, Italy
  • Don Francesco D’Erasmo, Tarracina, Italy,
  • Several priests here at Rome, who are still unnamed
  • Father Walter Covens, Martinique
  • Father Paul Kramer, USA
  • Many other priests, whose names are  not yet known to FromRome.Info.

To these clergy, there are thousands of laity who could be named. But the following Associations which have declared for Pope Benedict XVI are:

Veri Catholici, which has more than 3000 members world wide.

 

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

 

Father Lombardi is shaking in his boots

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Father Lombardi, who was the spokesman for Pope Benedict XVI in February of 2013, is shaking in his boots. You can see this in the fact that, after 7 years he is still trying to control the narrative about what happened in that fateful month.

He did so in an interview with La Stampa, a leading daily newspaper, yesterday on the 93rd Birthday of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI.

Here is a brief list of the lies, Father Lombardi repeatedly uttered during the interview:

  • He calls the renunciation, a renunciation of the papacy, when the whole world knows that it was a renunciation of the ministry committed to Pope Benedict XVI by the Cardinals!
  • He claims that on Feb. 11, 2013, Pope Benedict said he did not have the strength to make decisions, when Pope Benedict said nothing of the kind!
  • He contradicts himself, saying on the one hand that Pope Benedict XVI does not have the strength to make decisions, and on the other, that he has a brilliant mind which has not weakened with age!

And you can see what Pope Benedict XVI thinks of La Stampa by refusing an interview on the occasion of his birthday. — Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the newspaper has Batman, the gay icon, flying all over their pages? — When a newspaper has to dig up someone from 7 years ago to pretend to say something informed today about what is going on in the Vatican, you know that they have found a lot of doors shut in their face. And that is significant, but not surprising, on account of the questions that remain and are being asked.

But here is the really juicy part of the interview (my English translation), in the sense of the narrative that Lombardi is urgent to propose for credence, but which has lost all credibility:

From what was born this clamorous renunciation of the papacy?

From a responsible liberty which knows how to look at one’s own duties and to one’s own responsibility before God and the Church. That of the renunciation was an act characteristic of his own conscience.  He always showed himself to be fully aware of a vocation received from God and exercised in the call to serve others. It was a gesture totally alien to constrictions.

There is talk of external conditioning…

I have always held as unfounded and unjustified the attempts to interpret the renunciation of Benedict XVI as the consequence of pressures, discomfort or disappointment.  Significantly, the renunciation of the Pope to be valid must have one characteristic: it must be free.  And the decision of Joseph Ratzinger is attributed exclusively to his capacity to see with great clarity and a profound sense of responsibility the growing disproportion between his own strength and the duties implied by the task of the Pontiff.  A choice for liberty and responsibility of which he has never repented

As they say in Italian, you can only be sure something is true, when it is denied in public, especially when it is denied repeatedly for 7 years in public.

If rather what Lombardi said were true, why would he feel the need to constantly repeat himself? Especially, why are you so insistent to repeat the word “responsible” or “responsibility” so many times?

It sounds as if, psychologically, Lombardi is shouting: IT’S NOT MY FAULT! I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

Perhaps he is being repetitious, because, since it is not true, Father Lombardi, is destined to go to a very dark, dark place, for having been instrumental in robbing the loyalty of 1 Billion Catholics from the true Pope, by giving Giovanna Chirri the go-ahead to tell the world a big, fat lie.

As I have demonstrated in my recent documentary, where I speak expressly about Father Lombardi’s key role in deceiving the world on Feb. 11, 2013 (see Episode 5).

And you can see what La Stampa and Father Lombardi are really worried about in the title of the article: I 93 anni di Benedetto XVI. Padre Lombardi: “Troppo debole fisicamente per fare il Papa”.  Which in English means:  The 93 years of Benedict XVI. Father Lombardi: “Too weak physically to act as the Pope”.

Notice they still call him by his Papal name? So they recognize that he still holds the papal dignity, which is impossible if he renounced the petrine munus, as Lombardi is attempting to say. Also, the phrase attributed to Father Lombardi (“Too weak physically to act as the Pope”) is not in the past tense, it is in an infinitive construction, applicable to past and present. But why attempt to deny he is took weak to be “the Pope” today, unless you fear his return as the one true Pope?

That says it all. This interview is an excellent piece of misinformation, disinformation and narrative control. It’s sole purpose is to deceive.

But it also reveals great fear on the part of La Stampa, Lombardi and the Vatican authorities which permitted it. A fear directed entirely against the truth of what really happened and the growing awareness of that truth by the faithful.

And some news agencies are aware of that, like the Premium Times and the Daily Post of Nigeria, which have Gänswein say in English, that Pope Benedict is under “house arrest”, as if to tease their readership.

____________

CREDITS: The Featured Image above is a screen shot of the page of La Stampa, online, from whence the citation of the interview was taken, and is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

 

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

 

 

 

 

Father Georg Ratzinger, Great uncle of Pope Benedict XVI

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Pope Benedict XVI comes from a family of priests. You may already know that his older brother, Georg, was ordained a priest on the same day as he was. But he also had a great uncle, on his father’s side, who was a priest: Father Georg Ratzinger. This is his story.

According to My Heritage, Father Georg Ratzinger was born on April 3, 1844, the 1811th anniversary of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ: an providential blessing which his great nephew Joseph Ratzinger would share, who was born and baptized on Holy Saturday, in the 1894th year of the Passion and Death of Our Blessed Lord.

The Ratzinger family originates in centuries past in the Southern Tyrol.

His parents were Johann Georg Ratzinger and Barbara Perlinger. He had one brother, Joseph, who is the great grandfather of Pope Benedict.

From 1855 to 1863 he studied at High School in Passau, on the Danube, in Bavaria. This was presumably a minor seminary. From 1863 to 1867 he studied theology at Munich, in what was apparently a major seminary. He was ordained a priest in 1867.  And awarded a Doctorate in Theology in 1868.

In 1869 he was appointed pastor of Berchtesgaden, a tiny village in the Southern Corner of Bavaria, on the Austrian border, which would 70 years later become the haunt of the infamous dictator, Adolf Hitler.

From 1870 to 1871 he was the editor of a journal, known as, “Fränkisches Volksblatt”, or the Frank Popular Newspaper, I believe.

In 1872 to 1874 he was chaplain at Landshut, in central Bavaria, and in 1874 to 1876 he returned to his work in journalism, as editor of the Volksfreund, or People’s Friend, at Munich.

In 1875 he ran for the Parliament of Bavaria, won and served until 1878. In 1877 he ran for a seat in the newly formed German Reichstag, and won, serving one term until 1888.

He served as pastor of Günzelhafen during these years, 1885–1888, while he held political office. In this he continued the ancient Catholic tradition of not excluding the clergy from temporal offices and imbuing in this manner the temporal order with Christian morality.

In 1893, he ran again for the Paliament or Landtag of Bavaria and won, and served until his death. In 1898 he ran again for a seat in the national legislature, the Reichstag and won, serving also until his death.

Wikipedia has a notable mention of Father Ratzinger’s literary achievements:

As a literary man Ratzinger deserves much credit for his scholarly work in political economy and in historical subjects. His chief works, distinguished by erudition, richness of thought, and animated exposition, are: “Geschichte der Armenpflege” (prize essay, Freiburg, 1868, 2nd revised ed., 1884); “Die Volkswirtschaft in ihren sittlichen Grundlagen. Ethnischsociale Studien über Cultur und Civilisation (Freiburg, 1881; 2nd. completely revised ed., 1895).

The later work maintains the ethical principles of Christianity as the only sure basis of political economy and opposes the materialistic system of what is called the “classical political economy” of Adam Smith.

“Forschungen zur bayerischen Geschichte” (Kempten, 1898) contains a large number of studies on early Bavarian history and on the history of civilization, based on a series of unconnected treatises, which had first appeared in the “Historisch-politische Blätter”. Of his smaller works the following should be mentioned: “Das Concil und die deustche Wissenschaft” (anonymously issued at Mainz, 1872) appeared first in the “Katholik”, 1872, I; “Die Erhaltung des Bauernstandes” (Freiburg, 1883).

These writings demonstrate that politically, he was much more a traditional Catholic than his great nephew.

He passed from this life on December 3, 1899, the last day of the liturgical calendar for that year, since the next day was the First Sunday of Advent.

Father Georg Ratzinger’s life thus was marked out as one lived under the shadow of Christ’s Redemption, awaiting His coming in glory.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00