Tag Archives: Pope Benedict XVI

News

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

13 Comments

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.

+ + +

 

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

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

8 Comments

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.

+ + +

 

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

Opus Dei Member since 1967 declares for Pope Benedict XVI

1 Comment

https://youtu.be/k52kNNRL8MQ

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.

News

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

10 Comments

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.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

Don Enrico Bernasconi declares for Pope Benedict XVI

9 Comments

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.

 

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

Editorials, News

Father Lombardi is shaking in his boots

5 Comments

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.

+ + +

 

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

 

 

 

Church History

Father Georg Ratzinger, Great uncle of Pope Benedict XVI

2 Comments

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.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

Don Minutella’s warning to the Clergy of the world: You have till Easter to repent

22 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

There was much interest, the other day, when I made reference to the warning given by Don Alessandro Minutella, pastor of the Church of San Don Bosco, Palermo, who has been admonishing Catholics, and clergy especially, for more than 2 years, that Bergoglio is a heretic, and thus cannot be the Vicar of Christ or the Pope. He has always said that he was acting on the basis of a special interior inspiration from the Blessed Virgin Mary, to whom he is very devoted.

Last weekend, he gave this warning to the world (see below English translation). I publish this for its news worthiness, not because I have seen any evidence that Don Minutella has or does not have a special grace of inspiration. But his discourse reminds me of Revelations 18:4-8.

But he is absolutely correct, Pope Benedict XVI according to the norm of Canon Law, and thus the will of Heaven, is the only true Successor of Saint Peter, Vicar of Christ, Pope and Bishop of Rome, as I and many others have demonstrated with never-refuted arguments of canon law, logic, philosophy, and common sense. (see my Index to the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI for more information).

So for the sake of those who do not speak or read Italian, here is an English translation of the transcription of the warning he gave in Italian on live video, last weekend.

+ + +

Dearly beloved brethren,

.. there writes to you, in order to reach you, a brother of yours, possibly the smallest and, perhaps, the most unsuitable, to give you a message from heaven.

There is no more time to waste getting out of the false church. You are offered a last, precious supplement of time, which will last until April 12, the Solemnity of the Resurrection of the Lord.

Humanity has entered into the last times. The sin of idolatry accomplished by Bergoglio with the placing of pagan and satanic idols, has given the official start to the chastisements of Heaven, already predicted many times, both in Fatima and in other apparitions.

Scripture speaks to us at length of the last times and of the final clash between good and evil, with the advent of the Antichrist and the kingdom of perdition. Do not let secular voices and even atheists notice this, while the shepherds pretend not to understand it!

I come to plead with those of you who, and you are not few, have followed my story in one way or another in these years. I have been sent by God on an important mission. Believe me, if only for the constancy in the trials I have shown so far: the final time has come.

To those of you who have had doubts about the validity of the 2013 election, to those who still look to Benedict XVI as the Pope, to those who are aware of the apostate and multi heretical drift of the false church, the Blessed Virgin makes a final appeal: GET OUT!

Come out, dear priests.

Make a video or any other public gesture to make it known that you are not in communion with the false pope, forerunner of the Antichrist, and that instead you will celebrate, from now on, publicly (because you already do it privately), in communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Our Heavenly Mother says to you: can’t you see how many people are dying now? Do you not see the beginning of the great warning promised? What still, now, is holding you back? You will lose everything, if you hesitate, but you will also lose yourself if, even now, while the breath of the Apocalypse deserts the world, you hold back from coming out for fear of losing something. And do you not see the signs of the times? The closed churches, the private masses at home, the forbidden sacraments, St. Peter’s Square empty, in a word the Catholic Church become a desert. As Jesus says in Lk 21:22: “they will in fact be days of vengeance, that all that has been written may be fulfilled”.

Do you wish, perhaps, to remain blind to the signs of the times? Remember, I pray you, the Lord’s words: “Look at the fig tree and all the plants; when they already sprout, look at them and see for yourselves that summer is near. So also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near” (Lk 21:29-31).

Dear confreres, I invite you to enter openly and officially into the Marian Priestly Society, in open communion with Pope Benedict XVI. You will save yourselves and the souls entrusted to you.

There is no more time.

This time of crisis will soon cease, but only for a pause. It will serve to compact more and more the small Catholic remnant around Pope Benedict who, by now, is increasingly on his way to God.

Afterwards, when it will seem to fall into oblivion over the pandemic virus now underway, more terrible punishments will come again. What we are experiencing is the beginning of the great warning, but what, after the pause of a few months, will happen, will be the entrance into the time of punishment.

You know that I have been considered mad, and yet the things I have prophesied in this three years, so far, have all occurred, as it is before your eyes.

Come out!

The time has come. Do not delay. It’s heaven’s last chance. By April 12th.

After that you too will be marked with the sign of the beast.

The Holy Virgin is waiting for you…

And, if nothing else, you will not be able to tell God that you were not warned, even though the instrument He is using, that is, me, is the least suitable and the most inconvenient. But that is God’s logic.

I pray for you, forgive me, give me your blessing, especially believe me. And finally come out!

Your brother,

Don Minutella

News

Definitive Canonical Study of the Renunication of Pope Benedict: Spanish

2 Comments

 

 

 

This Canonical Study is the first Scholarly work towards the International Inquest which is preparing the way for a Special Synod
to restore Pope Benedict and depose Bergoglio

THIS IS THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE IMMINENT
PUBLICATION OF 4 VIDEOS EXPOUNDING THE ENTIRE LEGAL ARGUMENT

FromRome.Info will publish each of the 4 videos, in Spanish and give a summary

For now, What follows is a Deepl.com translation
of the text at YouTube describing this video

+ + +

ADORACIÓN Y LIBERACIÓN PRESENTA…

THE DEFINITIVE CANONICAL STUDY
OF BENEDICT XVI’S RESIGNATION
AND THE ELECTION OF JORGE MARIO BERGOGLIO!

A CONCLUSIVE WORK ON THESE TWO THEMES, SO CLOSELY RELATED, THAT THEY HAVE BEEN BRINGING THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITHFUL TO THEIR SENSES FOR THE PAST SEVEN YEARS.

A WORK OF MONTHS CARRIED OUT BY A TEAM COORDINATED BY MAURICIO OZAETA AND THE LAWYER ESTEFANIA ACOSTA

A WORK THAT MAURICIO OZAETA PRESENTS TO US IN THIS BRIEF MEETING, EXCLUSIVELY FOR ADORATION AND LIBERATION, AND THAT, GOD WILLING, WILL BE EXPLAINED IN DETAIL IN FOUR SPECIAL PROGRAMS IN WHICH, THE MAIN AUTHOR HERSELF, ESTEFANÍA ACOSTA, WILL EXPLAIN THE STUDY POINT BY POINT.

IN ADDITION, YOU CAN ACCESS FROM OUR LINKS TO THE FULL DOCUMENT, AND HAVE IT FOR READING AND PERSONAL TRAINING.

ONLY IN ADORATION AND LIBERATION!

THERE ARE SEVERAL STUDIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS WHO HAVE TOUCHED ON THIS SUBJECT IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

IN ADORATION AND LIBERATION, WE HAVE ECHOED, WITHOUT GOING ANY FURTHER, FOR EXAMPLE, THE WORKS OF BRO ALEXIS BUGNOLO

BUT THIS STUDY SURPASSES ALL THE OTHERS FOR A SIMPLE REASON: IT DEALS WITH THE “SUPPOSED” RENUNCIATION OF H.S. POPE BENEDICT XVI AND THE “SUPPOSED” ELECTION OF BERGOGLIO, FROM AN INTEGRAL CANONICAL JURIDICAL POINT OF VIEW, AND FROM ALL ASPECTS.

DO NOT MISS THE PREMIERE, TOMORROW, FRIDAY APRIL 3, 2020, AT 8:00 PM (Spanish time) (1:00 PM COLUMBIA TIME)

THE ULTIMATE STUDY!

1 PM COLOMBIA TIME IS EQUIVALENT TO

11:00 A.M. LOS ANGELS
12.00 MEXICO CITY / COSTA RICA /GUATEMALA/SAN SALVADOR
13.00 BOGOTÁ / LIMA / QUITO /PANAMÁ
14.00 WASHINGTON /CARACAS /PUERTO RICO/ASUNCION/STO.DOMINGO/SUCRE
15.00 BUENOS AIRES /SANTIAGO DE CHILE /RIO DE JANEIRO
19.00 FATIMA / LONDON
20.00 MADRID / ROME /BERLIN / LOURDES / WARSAW
21.00 JERUSALEM

Action Items

Join the League of Prayer for Pope Benedict XVI

6 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

This is a reposting of the original article of Dec. 19, 2019

There are a lot of prayer initiatives around, which are merely human in origin. But when we pray, we should do so out of supernatural motivation and especially when requested by Heaven.

One of the most important prayer initiatives in Catholic History, is the Request that we pray much for the Holy Father. This request comes from no less than the saintly Children at Fatima, who urged us not only to pray very much for sinners, but that we should pray very much for the Holy Father.

This prayer request for the Holy Father comes from Sr. Lucia and from Jacinta, who being shown the grave difficulties in the Church spoke of the need to pray for the Holy Father for 2 reasons:  That he might perform the Consecration to Russia requested by Our Lord; and that he might endure the persecution that he would one day suffer from those all around him.

Regarding the first reason, Sr. Lucia makes this statement in her Memoirs, p. 414:

“‘The Holy Father! Pray very much for the Holy Father! He will do it, but it will be late. Nevertheless, the Immaculate Heart of Mary will save Russia, which has been entrusted to it.'”

EG1srINWwAE_wLu

Jacinta’s Two visions

Regarding the second reason, Jacinta calls for prayers for the Holy Father, after seeing TWO of the events which are now taking place in the Church (Source): which Sr Lucia relates her third Memoir:

Also, in her third memoir, she tells us about two incidents in which Jacinta saw visions of a future Pope, and these also relate to the secret.

One day, while they were near the well at Lucia’s home, Jacinta asked her if she had seen the Holy Father. When Lucia replied, “No,” Jacinta said: “I don’t know how it was, but I saw the Holy Father in a very big house, kneeling by a table, with his head buried in his hands, and he was weeping. Outside the house, there were many people. Some of them were throwing stones; others were cursing him and using bad language. Poor Holy Father, we must pray very much for him.”

Sr Lucia then tells us: “At another time, we went to the cave called Lapa do Cabeço. As soon as we got there, we prostrated on the ground, saying the prayers the Angel had taught us. After some time, Jacinta stood up and called to me: ‘Can’t you see all those highways and roads and fields full of people, who are crying with hunger and have nothing to eat? And the Holy Father in a church praying before the Immaculate Heart of Mary? And so many people praying with him?’ Some days later, she asked me: ‘Can I say that I saw the Holy Father and all those people?’ ‘No. Don’t you see that that’s part of the secret? If you do, they’ll find out right away.’ ”

Let us respond!

Many authors believe that this FIRST vision of Jacinta is a prophetic revelation of what Pope Benedict is suffering since February 2013, because at no time in the history of the modern Papacy has a Pope resided in a small house, and been nearly universally derided by those in the Church. The image of a house being pelted with stones by those around it, also seems to imply that the worst enemies of the Holy Father are those in the Vatican which surrounds where he presently lives: in the Monastery of Our Lady Mother of the Church, at the heart of the Vatican Gardens.

The second vision of Jacinta appears to be Heaven’s indication of how to respond to the First vision: namely by JOINING WITH THE HOLY FATHER in prayer to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!

Let us be that “so many people” praying with the Holy Father “before the Immaculate Heart of Mary”!

Chose whatever prayers you wish, but PRAY, PRAY, PRAY!

THIS IS THE LEAGUE OF PRAYER for the Holy Father. Spread the word and recruit others to offer:

  1. Daily prayers.
  2. Worthy communions and confessions.
  3. Acts of penance and sacrifices.
  4. Fasting and abstinence.
  5. Alms for the poor.
  6. Recitation of THE MOST HOLY ROSARY.
  7. Acts of Consecration to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart, whether personal or in groups, parishes, Dioceses etc.

Versione Italiana: https://www.chiesaromana.info/index.php/2019/12/19/la-lega-di-preghiera-per-papa-benedetto-xvi/ (This version is a deepl.com translation, if you find errors, leave a comment there)

The Following Blogs or Websites have joined

… in this League of Prayer by promoting it with a re-posting of the call to prayer:

(Listed in order of their adhesion, according to time)

Please let us know of your adhesion to this Effort, via comment or ping-back. Thank you!

Liturgy

Palestrina: Tu es Petrus!

Video

As we continue our perusal of the sacred repertoire of  Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, the greatest Italian composer of the 16th century, we sample his Tu est Petrus, a musical composition for the Feast of Saint Peter the Apostle.

This performance is  by the Tallis Scholars, with Peter Philips conducting.

FromRome.Info features at 5 P.M. daily, Rome time, a selection of sacred music for the edification of our readers, so that they can better grasp how contrary to the very nature of Catholic liturgy were the so called “reforms” of Vatican II.

 

News

Pope Benedict XVI & Santa Maria Maggiore

1 Comment

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has a great devotion to Our Lady. And as the Roman Pontiff he had occasion to visit the chief place for Her devotion in the Eternal City, which is the Papal Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore.

Here is a video from his first year of pontificate, which shows how beautiful the basilica is and reminds us of happier times:

In this moving video, we see the Holy Father come as Pope for the first time to Our Lady’s Basilica. It was on this occasion that he gave the prophetic prayer, which is said each night at the beginning of the Perpetual Supplica to Our Lady, Salus populi romani:

(Our English translation in Blue — Original in Italian: Black)

The Prophetic Prayer of Pope Benedict XVI

TO OUR LADY OF SANTA MARIA MAGGIORE

KNOWN AT ROME AS: SALUS POPULI ROMANI*

(May 7, 2005)

salus

Tutta Santa, degna di ogni onore,
Tu la migliore offerta
che l’umanità possa presentare a Dio.

All Holy, Worthy of every honor,
Thou, the best offering
Which humanity can present to God.

Vergine Madre, Madre sempre vergine,
supplichi materna al Figlio Tuo.

Virgin Mother, Ever-Virgin Mother,
Offer a maternal supplication to Thy Son.

Conduci sino al porto la barca della Chiesa,
scansando gli scogli ​​e vincendo i mar rossi.

Bring the Barque of the Church to port,
avoiding the reefs and overcoming red seas.

Custodisci questa città;
Conforta chi vi giunge,
senza tetto né difesa,
ed estendi a tutti il Tuo sostegno.

Guard this City;
Comfort who comes here,
without shelter nor defense,
and extend Your protection to all.

Con fede professiamo a Te, Genetrice di Dio;
Con amore Ti onoriamo,
Con speranza Ti preghiamo,
Ti proclamiamo beata.

With faith we venerate Thee, Mother of God;
With love we honor Thee;
we hope to come before Thee
and through Thee to proclaim every blessedness.

Tu, mia Signora, mio conforto da Dio,
aiuto alla mia inesperienza,
accogli la preghiera che rivolgo a Te.

Thou, My Lady, My consolation from God,
help for my inexperience,
receive the supplication which I make to Thee.

Tu per tutti fonte di gioia,
rendimi degno di esultare insieme a Te.

Thou, who for all are a fountain of joy,
make me worthy to exult together with Thee.

Guarda l’assemblea dei credenti,
Madre del Salvatore;
allontana da loro sventure e afflizioni;
liberali dal male e dal maligno;
proteggili con l’abbondanza della Tua benevolenza.

Watch over the assembly of believers,
Mother of the Savior;
remove from them the misfortunes and afflictions;
free them from evil and from the Evil One;
protect them with the abundance of Thy benevolence.

Al ritorno glorioso del Tuo Figlio, nostro Dio,
difendi con la Tua materna intercessione
la nostra fragilità umana
ed accompagnaci sino alla vita eterna
con la Tua mano gentile,
Tu che sei potente, perche Madre.

At the glorious return of Thy Son, our God,
defend with Thy maternal intercession
our human fragility
and accompany us unto eternal life
with Thy gentle hand,
Thou who art powerful, as a Mother.

Amen.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

Canon Law, Guest Editorials

What does it mean, “To be loyal to the Pope?”, if we do not care who is the pope?

9 Comments

English translation of Italian Original

Che vuole dire, “Essere leale al Papa”,
se non ci sentiamo obbligati a conscere chi è il vero papa?

ChiesaRomana.Info

What does it mean, to be loyal to the Pope,
if we do not consider ourselves obligated
to know who is the true pope?

It is already clear that the whims of politicians has substituted any desire for the truth, and that the Dictatorship of Relativism has exalted itself unto the heavens. Hence, it is necessary duty that we Roman Catholics distinguish now between falsehood and truth.

The criterion of truth differs according to different subjects. In a vote, political truth consists in the final count of the votes. In the empirical sciences, scientific truth consists in what can be observed and demonstrated by repetitive experimentation. In matters of faith, the truth is the teaching which God has revealed. But in questions of who is and who is not the true pope, the truth consists in Canon Law, because the law of the Church regulates whose claim to the papacy is valid and legitimate, and whose is not.

As everyone knows, it is neither whim nor popularity nor a poll which confirms that a man is the Pope. A man becomes pope solely when he is elected in a Conclave. But to be more precise: a man becomes the pope when HE ACCEPTS his canonical election in a legitimate conclave. And a legitimate conclave is a Conclave which observes the papal law of Pope John Paul II, Universi dominici gregis, on the convening of conclaves during a vacancy (sede vacante) of the Apostolic See (see the Latin or English text at Vatican.va).

Obviously, therefore, even if all the Cardinals say the Pope is a man, who was not elected in a conclave which observed the norms of that papal law, he is NOT the pope, because even the Cardinals are obliged to observe the Canon Law of the Catholic Church! In fact, canon 359 says expressly that the Cardinals have no decision making power when the Apostolic See is vacant.

Therefore, to know who is the true pope, it is not sufficient to recognize him who has been elected in Conclave. Every Catholic also has the duty to verify if there was a sede vacante. This, however, is not a problem when a Pope dies, because there is a corpse.

But, how about when a Pope renounces?  There a problem can arise. In fact, Pope John Paul II expressly foresaw the possibility of a invalid renunciation in paragraph 3 of his law on Conclaves, Universi dominici gregis, and indirectly in paragraph, n. 37

Pope John Paul II also foresaw the possibility of an invalid renunciation in the Code of Canon Law which he promulgated in 1983, because in Canon 332 §2, it speaks in these terms regarding a Papal renunciation:

Canon 332 §2 — Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validiatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero a quopiam acceptetur.

Which in English means:

Canon 332 §2 — If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounces his munus, for validity there is required that the renunciation be freely made and be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.

In many translations of this canon, the Latin word munus (which is employed in the dative form, muneri) is translated as office, in accord with the terms of canon 145 §1, which defines every ecclesiastical office (officium) as a munus. This way of translating munus, however, is not faithful, because an ecclesiastical office per se is merely an ecclesiastical dignity. But the munus of the Successor of Saint Peter is a supernatural dignity, an evangelical duty, and a charge imposed by Jesus Himself, by reason of which the law of the Church reckons it as an ecclesiastical office according to the norm of law.

At this point, we need to recognize that in every discussion of canon law, the Latin text of an act is normally the only text which has juridical authority. On this account, Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, in Consistory with the Cardinals, expressed himself in the Latin tongue, saying in the first person singular (as Joseph Ratzinger) the following:

Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso ​renuntiare ita ut  a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

A Papal Renunciation is a special kind of juridical act

A papal renunciation of munus is a special kind of juridical act.  As Mons. Arrieta, the Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legal Texts, in his meeting with Br. Alexis Bugnolo, on December 11, 2019, affirmed, a papal renunciation is not subject to interpretation by anyone, that is, no one in the Church has the legal right to interpret it. Not even the Pope. Because if the renunciation was valid, then he is no longer the pope. And if it was not valid, his interpretation cannot make it valid. “It has to be certain in itself”, as Mons. Arrieta affirmed.

Hence, as can be seen from the official Latin text of the renunciation, quoted above, Pope Benedict XVI renounced the ministerium (ministery). Hence, it is not legitimate for anyone to say that he renounced anything else. In particular, it is not permitted that anyone say that he renounced his munus or ecclesiastical office, for such an affirmation would be an interpretation which substitutes officio (office) or muneri (munus) where Pope Benedict XVI said ministerio (ministry).

Hence, Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope. There never was a sede vacante.

The Haste and Imprudence of the Cardinals on Feb. 11, 2013 was historic and extraordinary

According to Mons. Arrieta, there never was, as far as he knows, any meeting of expert canonists to examine the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI, before Father Lombardi gave the go-ahead to Giovanna Chirri, an ANSA pool report, to tweet out to the world that Pope Benedict had resigned from the papacy.

Obviously, then, no one in the Church is obligated to follow Father Lombardi or Mrs. Giovanna Chirri or even the Cardinals in their error. Rather, we are obliged by the Divine and Catholic Faith to give our loyalty still to Pope Benedict XVI, as the Pope.

Pope John Paul II took precautions against errors of this kind in his Code of Canon Law of 1983, because in that Code, he as the supreme legislator of the Church, changed the canon which regarded the renunciation of the Roman Pontiff. He did this because, for more than 20 years, theologians had put in discussion the possibility of separating the papal government from the papal office, by means of a sharing of the papal dignity among two or more persons, one charged with the papal munus, and the other with the papal ministerium. He put a stop to any such future possibility by adding the words muneri suo as the object of the verb “renuntiare” (to renounce) — the Code of Canon Law of 1917 has no object to the verb.  Moreover, he impeded the possibility of renouncing by renouncing anything else, through canon 188, which declares every renunciation irritus — invalid or never to have existed — which contains a substantial error as regards what is to be renounced.

Thus, even if Pope Benedict XVI wanted to renounce only the ministry but not the munus, he could not do it. Moreover, Mons. Arrieta affirmed — likewise in his meeting with Br. Bugnolo — that such a renunciation, so as to share the papal dignity with two persons, would be contrary to the Divine law itself.

A Divine obligation for all

Everyone in the Church is obliged to follow the true pope. A man, elected in a Conclave which was convened during the lifetime of a canonically elected pope, is obviously not the pope!  Canon 359 formally forbids the Cardinals to elect another pope during the lifetime of the reigning Pope. And the reigning Pope remains pope until he either dies or renounces in accord with the terms of Canon 332.

If the Clergy has hastily followed the opinion of a journalist or Vatican spokesman who were not qualified in Canon Law, their error obliges no one. If the Cardinals, in haste and without due discretion, presumed the renunciation of ministerium was a renunciation of the papacy, their error obliges no one.  Even if Pope Benedict XVI, with his advanced age, though that he could renounce the power and office of the papacy, without renouncing or even intending to renounce the munus, because he wanted to retain the papal dignity afterwards, this error obliges no one. It obliges no one, because not even Pope Benedict XVI has a power or authority which extends over the papal office.  Only the Creator of that office, Jesus Christ, has that power. Hence, not even the intent expressed in the act (that of vacating the Apostolic Throne) can repair the error of not renouncing the petrine munus.

What are we to do now?

We must insist with our sacred pastors that they stop naming the man, who never received the petrine munus, as  pope in the Canon of the Mass, and return to naming Pope Benedict. Each priest needs to employ canon 41, which gives him the authority to read the text of the Renunciation and to declare it null.

We need to do everything we can to convince the Cardinals to recognize their error and to return their loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI. Finally, we need to insist that the Cardinal Archbishop of Buenas Aires returns home to Argentina.

This is a solemn duty for every Catholic. We can not do otherwise, if we want to attain Heaven, because to obey an Anti-pope is the worst sin of disobedience possible in the Church on Earth.

Note, in this English translation, some of the terms and phrases were rendered according to the custom of English, rather than literally, and some Italian expressions which are clear in the Italian context, were expanded or made more precise, for clarity in English.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

 

 

 

 

Editorials

Fatima is about Pope Benedict XVI

7 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Everything good can be willed for another higher good. That is the beauty of goodness. For this reason I believe that Our Lady came to Fatima for the sake of Pope Benedict XVI and the whole Church, to save the Church from the present Crisis of Apostasy, usurpation and heresy.

You see, when Pope Benedict wants a sign from Heaven that he should recognize his resignation was invalid or that he should return to the governance of the Church; and when the Church, the Cardinals and the Bishops want a sign from Heaven that Benedict is still the pope and that Bergoglio never was — Our Lady has already given the means!

Pope Benedict XVI, in communion with all the Bishops who recognize him to be the pope, need only Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and Russia as a nation will convert TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH and recognize Pope Benedict XVI as Christ’s Vicar on earth. I  believe that this conversion would take place by Our Lady appearing in the Sky above every Russian city and town, telling the Russians in Russian that Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Her Son, the Successor of Saint Peter.

This miracle of conversion will be the extraordinary intervention which Our Lady promised at Quito in the 16th century. It will fulfill the requests She made at Fatima. And it explains why the condition of the consecration was made impossible during the Soviet era when there was NO Russia, and why the condition of it being done by the Pope in union with all the Bishops in communion with him — which seems an impossibly achieved thing — may have been left for a time in which the number of Bishops in communion with the Pope is so small.

This is only my guess. I claim no inspiration for it. But I have unlimited trust in Our Lady’s providence for the Holy Father and for the Church of Her Son.

But I publish it here, so that if anyone who does meet regularly with Pope Benedict XVI reads it, they can share it with him.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

Video Reviews

What the movie, Admiral, can teach us about the current crisis in the Church

1 Comment

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In 2008, in Russia, there premiered the move, Admiral (Russian title: Адмиралъ – See official trailer below). The movie is worth watching in whatever language you can find a copy because of the important lessons it teaches about national psychology during a revolution in an absolute monarchy.

The movie is set in Russia, in the years before and during the Russian Revolution. And its antagonist is the famous Russian Admiral, who would become the leader of the White Russians — the anti-Bolshevik forces: Admiral Kolchak.

It starred Konstantin Khabenskiy as the Admiral, and Elizaveta Boyarskaya as Anna Timiryova, the poet.

Here is the official trailer:

https://youtu.be/IESTueKuCDk

Here is the English trailer, distributed by 20th Century Fox:

https://youtu.be/CjKHYENLThw

The movie recounts the sad tragedy of the overthrow of the Russian Empire by a devious, vicious and anti-Christian conspiracy of Jewish Marxists, led by Vladimir Lenin, who himself was a jew.

The English trailer was released in another version also:

https://youtu.be/iuB3wI2ZpOU

Why I recommend the film

When nations are overthrown from within by political conspiracies, one can observe how different persons and organizations in that society react to the threat and respond, and from this see why different groups respond differently. This kind of study might be called national social psychology: how the actions of sections of society cause other sections of society to react and alter their behavior.

The Russian Revolution was without doubt the greatest tragedy to befall a Christian people in the history of Christendom. It resulted in the death of 60 to 90 million Christians, and those guilty for this mass genocide were never punished, tried or faulted by the international community  or the Main Stream Press. Their race and politics had everything to do with the pass they got.

But why I recommend the film to the readers of FromRome.Info, is that it shows why groups like Trad Inc are acting they way they do.

Let me explain why:

Absolute Monarchies have only 1 principle of loyalty

Imperial Russia was a lot like the Catholic Church. It was an absolute monarchy where nothing functioned without the nod or order of the Tsar.  Everything everyone wanted to do had to encounter this reality on a daily level. There were imperial decrees about this and that. And if you wanted to serve in the Russian Empire in any official position, your loyalty to the Tsar was the first criterion of character which got you promoted.

But once the revolution broke out and the Tsar was captured and then executed, Russians no longer knew what to do. They did not love Russia as Russia. They loved the Tsar. Without the Tsar they had to act on personal initiative and they were not habituated to acting like that.

In a Vacuum, existing ambitions rule the day

And so when the central authority broke down, it was every man for himself. But each Russian, who had loved the Tsar, had to now find a new motivation for his actions. And what prevailed was the pre-existing secondary motives each had: whether it was pure ambition for power, wealth, prestige, safety, prosperity etc..

Those who sought safety, fled Russia, most never to return. They abandoned Mother Russia because they had no love for Russia as Russia. They loved themselves more.

Those who sought prosperity did whatever was necessary to make money, regardless of which side was in power in their local area. They did not fight to save Russia from the Bolsheviks, because they did not love Mother Russia, they loved money.

Those who sought power seized power and fought to keep power, regardless of which side they found it on. They did not fight to save Russia from the Bolsheviks unless that meant power for themselves. And as soon as they saw that it no longer meant that, they changed sides or fled Russia. They did not love Mother Russia, they loved power.

And finally, there was those who like Admirak Kolchak who loved both the Tsar and Mother Russia.

In this movie, you see his tragic and heroic fight to save Russia from the Christ-hating Marxists. He never seeks power and is surprised when the Tsar gives him power. He relinquishes power to save his men, when power is not longer real power. He reluctantly becomes the head of the White Russians and does what is necessary to suppress the foreign funded takeover of Russia (the Bolsheviks were funded by Wall Street, it is alleged, Jewish interests).

In the end, Admiral Kolchak is betrayed by the Czechoslovakia Brigade, which began fighting against the Marxists in the Ukraine, but when they needed money and a way out of Russia cut a secret deal with the Reds to escape through the Pacific port of Vladivostok. They were not Russians and so had no love for Russia.

The Bergoglian Revolution of 2013

We are currently in the Catholic Church’s Bolshevik Revolution. Bergoglio was put in power illegally in 2013 by foreign interests: Obama and Peking and Freemasonry and George Soros (a Nazi and a Jew).

With Pope Benedict XVI effectively isolated or imprisoned, which ever you prefer, there is now no central authority in the Church. Each is free to take the course his own motives suggest.

There are those who want to keep their pensions and salaries. For them Bergoglio is their pope. There are those who want to keep getting the funding they are getting from Soros organizations, for them there is no doubt that Bergoglio is the Pope.

There are those who are ambitious, and think they can achieve their goals by prancing in front of Catholics as their savior or hero but still insist on serving Bergoglio as pope, because they have some sort of explicit or tacit agreement with him, to get a promotion.

And then there are simply Catholics who love the Church for the sake of God and had no ambition for power, money, prestige or acclaim before the revolution broke out. They are the ones who are fighting for Holy Mother Church. They are the only ones willing to lose and risk everything for God.

Which side are you on?

I am my house shall chose the Lord…. Joshua 24:15.

____________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is the official poster for the Film, Admiral. It is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary and movie reviews.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

News

Leading Newspaper at Rome shows Benedict XVI as Pope in news report

3 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The house of lies and frauds upon which Bergoglio stakes his claim to the papacy is crumbling fast. The leading Roman Daily Newspaper, which is left wing and generally pro-Bergoglian on all topics, has chosen to challenge the regime on a crucial point.

And they have done it in a particularly Italian way.

They ran a story about concern for the health of the Pope Benedict XVI.

Not a story about the health of Pope Francis.

They also mean to speak about Pope Benedict XVI, because instead of using a photograph of Pope Benedict as he looks today, they dug up an old photo from before Feb. 28, 2013, when he was wearning the simar, the white papal caperone which is worn above the white papal tunic.

The simar is the sign of one who holds jurisdication. The photo means that Pope Benedict is the Supreme Pontiff, the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of Saint Peter.

And just in case you did not get the implication of the photo, they chose a photo which is unusual: one in which the wind of the Holy Spirit catches the simar and inflates it to maximum size:

Screenshot_2020-03-03 Coronavirus, Ratzinger a elevato rischio contagio più controlli Vaticano sulla sua residenza

If you do not believe me, go to the article yourself: source here.

 

Church History

The “renunciation” which never happened

9 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

If you read the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI, which he made to the Cardinals in the Consistory of Feb. 11, 2013, you are left with the news that the Pope is going to renounce the ministery on Feb. 28, 2013 at 8 PM..  This was not just the opinion of Catholics 2, 4, 6, or 7 years later. It was the avid expectation of the faithful that very evening of Feb. 28, 2013.

This is proven by the fact of the huge crowds of cheering Catholics at Castel Gandolfo which gathered to hear the Pope renounce, carrying signs which hailed him AS POPE Benedict!

And the video shows a fervor and love which Bergoglio as NEVER received.

Before 8 p.m., Pope Benedict XVI comes out to speak with the crowds. The journalist narrating calls him, the Pope. He is dressed as the Pope. He is even wearing the dreaded Papal Ring that Bergoglians insist no longer wears and has.

And oops! He even says, I am still the Supreme Pontiff!

And oops! He never says, I renounce the Papacy. Nor, I renounce the Petrine Munus. Why he does not even say, I renounce the Petrine Ministry!

In fact he does not renounce anything!

Oops!

No wonder the link from the Vatican Website, in the official page of the text of the short speech by the Pope, to the video no longer works.

And the journalist even says that we might see Pope Benedict as Emeritus speak to the Crowds like this again! Oops!

He is speaking as the Pope! as the journalist says this. Oops!

No renunciation of anything occurred on Feb. 28, 2013. Whether this was intentional or not, whether the Pope was confused or not, because he omitted a renunciation of petrine munus, he is still the pope, whether anyone cares or not, whether anyone accepts that or not, whether they want it or not.

And after 7 years, Pope Benedict still has not found a black cassock in all of Rome. Imagine that!

___________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot from the video embedded in this article, showing the exultation of the Catholic Faithful for the true Pope.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

News

Cardina Zen replies to Dean of College of Cardinals’ circular letter

10 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

On Feb. 26, Cardinal Giovanni Battisa Re, the Dean of the College of Cardinals sent a circular letter to every member of the College in response to the letter of complaint about the Vatican-China accord which Cardinal Joseph Zen, of Hong Kong, had sent likewise to every member in October of 2019.

Cardinal Re’s letter was published here and commented upon, yesterday.  Today, Cardinal Zen published his response. Here is the text and my brief comments.

First the original Italian, which I copy here from Cardinal Zen’s personal Blog, then my English translation below:

A S.E. Rev. ma Sig Card. G.B. Re

Decano del Collegio Cardinalizio

Sig. Cardinale

Mi sia permesso di usare il mezzo di una lettera aperta per una comunicazione più tempestiva.

Per via indiretta ho preso visione della sua lettera del 26 Febbraio la quale (Prot. N. 1/2020) ha anche l’onore di aver così inaugurato il suo alto ufficio di Decano del Collegio Cardinalizio.

Ammiro il suo coraggio nell’avventurarsi in questioni che Ella pure riconosce essere “complesse”, mettendo a rischio il prestigio del suo appena inaugurato onorevole ufficio. Ma si sa che oggi c’è un vicepapa che riesce a mettere coraggio a tutti i servitori nella Santa Sede.

Veniamo alla lettera.

1. Per chiarire la visione di Giovanni Paolo II e di Benedetto XVI riguardo al comunismo mi basta ora rimandarLa a pag. 161-162 del libro “ultime conversazioni” (Papa Benedetto mi fece avere una copia con la dedica “in comunione di preghiera e di pensiero”).

La domanda del giornalista Peter Seewald:

“Ha condiviso e sostenuto attivamente la Ostpolitik del papa (Giov. Paolo II)?”

Benedetto rispose: “Ne parlavamo. Era chiaro che la politica di Casaroli, per quanto attuata con le migliori intenzioni, era fallita.

La nuova linea perseguita da Giov. Paolo II era frutto della sua esperienza personale, del contatto con quei poteri.

Naturalmente allora non si poteva sperare che quel regime crollasse presto, ma era evidente che, invece di essere concilianti e accettare compromessi, bisognava opporsi con forza.

Questa era la visione di fondo di Giov. Paolo II, che io condividevo.”

2. Per provare che l’accordo firmato era già stato approvato da Benedetto XVI basta mostrarmi il testo firmato, che fino ad oggi non mi è stato concesso di vedere, e l’evidenza dell’archivio, che Ella ha potuto verificare. Rimarrebbe solo ancora da spiegare perchè allora non è stato firmato.

3. Il cambiamento “epocale” del significato della parola “indipendenza” temo che esista solo nella testa dell’eminentissimo Segretario di Stato, indotto magari da una errata traduzione dal cinese fatta dal giovane minutante della Congregazione dell’Evangelizzazione dei Popoli, ormai monoculus rex in regno caecorum, il quale fu corresponsabile anche degli almeno 10 errori nella traduzione della lettera di Papa Benedetto del 2007.

Data però l’intelligenza dell’Eminentissimo mi è difficile credere che sia stato ingannato, è più probabile che abbia voluto “lasciarsi ingannare”.

4. Non capisco l’ultima parte della sua lettera, quantomeno confusa. I fatti sono lì. Ho evidenza che Parolin manipola il Santo Padre, il quale mi manifesta sempre tanto affetto, ma non risponde alle mie domande. Davanti a delle prese di posizione della Santa Sede che non riesco a capire, a tutti i fratelli desolati che si rivolgono a me dico di non criticare chi segue quelle disposizioni. Siccome, però, nelle disposizioni si lascia ancora la libertà a chi ha una obiezione di coscienza, incoraggio questi a ritirarsi allo stato delle catacombe, senza opporsi a qualunque ingiustizia, altrimenti finirebbero per rimetterci di più.

In che ho sbagliato?

5. Sono al cento per cento d’accordo con l’invito a pregare.

Ricordo che recentemente la Santa Sede pure ha raccomandato l’invocazione alla Madonna “Sub tuum praesidium” e quella all’Arcangelo S. Michele.

Ovviamente c’è l “Oremus pro Pontifice” che conclude con “et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum ejus”.

Le auguro momenti più felici nel suo lungo servizio come Decano del Collegio Cardinalizio.

obblig, mo

Card. Zen

Now, my English translation, for those who do not read Italian:

To His Eminence, the Most Rev. Lord Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re

Dean of the College of Cardinals,

Lord Cardinal,

Permit me to use the means of an open letter as a quicker response.

Indirectly, I came to know of your letter of February 26 (Protocol number 1/2020), which also had the honor of having thus inaugurated your high office as Dean of the College of Cardinals.

I admire your courage to jump into question which You yourself recognize are “complex”, risking the prestige of your just inaugurated honorable office. But now everyone knows that there is a Vice-pope who is succeeds in encouraging all the servants of the Holy See.

Let us come to Your letter.

1. To clarify the vision of John Paul II and Benedict XVI in regard to communism, it is sufficient for me to direct your to pages 161-162 of the book, “Recent Conversations” by Pope Benedict (a copy of which he gave me with the dedication, “in a communion of prayer and thought“).

To the question of the journalist, Peter Seewald:  “Did you share and sustain actively the Ostpolitik of the pope (John Paul II)?”

Benedict replied:  “We spoke of it. It was clear that the politics of Casaroli, as much as it was implemented with the best of intentions, had failed.

“The new direction pursued by John Paul II was the fruit of his personal experience, of his contacts with those powers.

“Naturally, then, one could not hope that that regime would quickly collapse, but it was evident that, instead of being conciliatory and accepting compromises, it was necessary to oppose it with force.

“This was the basic vision of John Paul II, which I shared.”

2. To prove that the Accord as signed had been approved by Benedict XVI it would have been sufficient to show me the signed text, which even til today has not been permitted to me to see, and the evidence of the Archive (of the Secretary of State), which You were able to verify.  There would then only remain to be explained why it was not signed.

3. The “epochal” change of meaning for the word “independence”, I fear, exists only in the mind of his eminence the Secretary of State, caused perhaps by a faulty translation of the Chinese by a young clerk of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, which already has become a monoculus rex in regno caaecorum (a one eyed king in a kingdom of the blind), who was co-responsible for at least 10 errors in the translation of the Letter of Pope Benedict in 2007.

Given, however, the intelligence of His Eminence, it is difficult for me to believe that he was deceived, and more probable that he wanted to deceive others.

4. I do not understand the last part of Your letter, as much as it is confusing.  The fact are this: I have evidence that Parolin manipulated the Holy Father, who always showed me great affection, but never responded to my questions. In regard to some of the positions taken by the Holy See, which I do not manage to understand: to all the desolate brothers who turn to me, I say do not criticize those who follow those directions. For just as, however, in the directions there is still left the liberty for the one with objections of conscience, I encourage these to withdraw to the state of the catacombs, without opposing any injustice, otherwise they would end up dealing worse with us.

In this, have I erred?

5. I am 100% in agreement with the invitation to pray.

I remember that recently the Holy See also recommended the invocation to Our Lady, “Sub tuum praesidium” and that to Michael the Archangel.

Obviously, there is the “Oremus pro Pontifice” (Collect for the Holy Father) which concludes “et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius” (and do not hand him over to the desire of his enemies).

I wish for you happier moments in your long service as Dean of the College of Cardinals.

With respect,

Card. Zen

Read the letter again to see the subtle irony used by the Chinese Cardinal. The Dean will serve only 4 years as such, before he must retire, and his admiration for the courage of the Dean to enter into questions which are not his competence. He also refers to the fact that the Dean did not share with him his backstabbing circular letter. This is one mad Chinese Cardinal.

Cardinal Zen also called Cardinal Re’s bluff and demanded the evidence of the Papal Signature by Pope Benedict. He also pointed out that he has intelligence on how the document was prepared on the basis of intentionally faulty translations.

In short, Cardinal Zen just dropped the bomb on Parolin and Re, and exposed them both as clumsy liars. The real implication of his letter, then, in wishing a long career to Cardianl Re is to say that Re has just doomed himself in the eyes of the members of the College as not reliable nor trustworthy, which are the key requirements to remain Dean.

___________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screenshot of the header image of Cardinal Zen’s blog, used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary, and with the text of the open letter, with the presumed permission of His Eminence.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]