How to remove Bergoglio

Anthony Hopkins stars as a priest, performing an exorcism, in a scene from the 2010 movie “The Rite.” (CNS photo/Warner Bros.)

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

What follows here are the canonical steps by which Bergoglio can be peacefully, easily and lawfully removed from his position of power.

First, any Catholic Bishop or Cardinal, whether holding jurisdiction or not, whether of the Latin Rite or not, in his capacity as a member of the College of Bishops needs to make this public declaration, or its equivalent:

As member of the College of Bishops, whose unity with the Successor of Saint Peter is essential to its proper function in the Church for the accomplishment of the will of Christ, to continue His Salvific Mission on Earth, I hereby declare that I have examined the official Latin text of Pope Benedict XVI’s act of renunciation of February 11, 2013 A.,D., which begins with the words Non solum propter, and I have found that it is not in conformity with the requirement of Canon 332 §2, that states explicitly that a papal resignation only occurs when the Supreme Pontiff renounces the Petrine Munus.  Seeing that Pope Benedict renounced only the ministerium which he received from the hands of the Cardinals, and seeing that he did not invoke Canon 38 to derogate from the obligation to name of the office in a matter which violates the rights of all the Faithful of Christ, and even more so, of the members of the College of Bishops, to know who is and who is not the Successor of Saint Peter, and when and when not he has validly renounced his office, I declare out of the fullness of my apostolic duty and mission, which binds me to consider first of all the salvation of souls and the unity of the Church, that Pope Benedict XVI by the act expressed in Non Solum Propter never renounced the Papal Office and therefore has continued until this very day to be the one and sole and true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor of Saint Peter.  I therefore charge the College of Cardinals with gross negligence in the performance of their duties as expressed in Canon 359 and n. 37 of Universi Domini Gregis by proceeding in February and March of 2013 to the convocation and convening of a Conclave to elect Pope Benedict’s successor when there had not yet been consummated a legal sede vacante. And thus I do declare the Conclave of 2013 was uncanonically convoked, convened and consummated and that the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergogio as Successor of Saint Peter is null and void and irritus by the laws themselves of Holy Mother Church, as established by Pope John Paul II.

Second, Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and indeed all the Faithful should personally examine the text of February 11, 2013 according to the norms of Canons 332 §2, canon 17, canon 38, canon 145 §1, canon 41, canon 126, and in particular canon 188. (see ppbxvi.org for more information.)

Third, the Cardinals and Bishops should hold spontaneous regional or universal Synods to confirm the same and publicly affirm the same.

Fourth, the Bishops and Cardinals should call on the Swiss Guard and Vatican Police to arrest Cardinal Bergoglio and detain him and obtain from him public affirmation of the same.

Fifth, the Cardinals should approach Pope Benedict XVI and ask if it is now his intention to resign the Petrine Munus or not. If not, they should convey him to Saint John Lateran’s and acclaim him with one voice as Pope and ask his forgiveness publicly for having defected from him and elected an antipope. If so, they should ask him to redo the renunciation, this time renouncing the Petrine Munus; and then they should convene a Conclave to elect Benedict’s legitimate successor.

 

The Vatican has now accepted that Bergoglio is an AntiPope

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Rome: September 9, 2019 A. D.:  The Vatican has conceded that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an AntiPope. The concession came tacitly as of Saturday, when, after 90 days since the publication of the news that Pope Benedict had accepted the arguments which demonstrated his resignation was invalid (as reported here), the Vatican took no action to discount the report.

The report was public knowledge at Rome, since it was 4 times accessed by computers at the Vatican (some of which were in the offices of the Secretary of State). In response, that office requested the Corriere della Sera to interview Pope Benedict in an attempt to get him to withdraw his tacit acceptance, with the admission on his part, that “The Pope is one, he is Francis”. The interview having failed to extract those words from Benedict — during an exchange of photographs in the Vatican Gardens in the 3rd week of June, or there abouts (the interview never gave a time or place which was specific) — the Vatican Press Office put out a teaser the day before its publication in the Marxist Newspaper, claiming Benedict HAD said those words (Catholic News Agency).

Veri Catholici, the international Association, discounted the report on Friday, after acquiring a copy of the Corriere della Sera’s actual printed interview (As reported here).  LifeSite News, which initially reported the false assertions of the Vatican Press Office, took back the claim a week later in a full article on July 4, 2019. (Veri Catholic also publicly asked Life Site News to investigate the WHY of it — As of today, they have failed to follow through)

The Corriere della Sera subsequently published the “interview” online (see here).

Even Antonio Socci on July 1st remarked the occurrence of the publicity debacle for the Vatican, as another gross fake news story (see end of Socci’s article, where he cites more evidence that Benedict knows he is stil the pope).

But the import of the event was ignored. Namely, that the Vatican was attempting to discount the report by From Rome of the tacit acceptance.

To which I say: Is everyone brain dead at Rome? Can you not put on your thinking cap and do some reasoning, like this?

  • Vatican Press Agency risks its entire reputation by making a false claim about what Benedict had said
  • Corriere della Sera was asked by the Vatican Secretary of State to attempt to extract such a statement from Pope Benedict
  • Pope Benedict refused to make such a statement
  • Pope Benedict had thus publicly reaffirmed he would not discount the assertion of the From Rome Blogger
  • Therefore, Benedict is aware his resignation was not canonically valid
  • Therefore Benedict is aware that he is still the only true Pope and Vicar of Christ

Now that 92 days have passed, the Vatican, not having discounted anything of the above, has conceded that Bergoglio is not the Pope. But at the same time allow him to keep pretending to be the Pope.

But a pretender to the Throne of Saint Peter is an AntiPope.

Therefore, the Vatican has conceded that Bergoglio is an Antipope.

(BTW, for the record, the Vatican Secretary of State had already conceded that Benedict is the Pope; see the report here). And the Vatican has known the resignation was invalid since March 2013, when they tried to cover it up (see the report here).

For the complete canonical demonstration of the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation, see PPBXVI.org

FOR THE LOVE OF JESUS CHRIST, therefore, please spread the news to the whole Catholic World!

 

 

 

 

Canon Law itself declares Pope Francis, AntiPope

anti-pope-francis

The clear, precise, and sound reading of the Code of Canon Law leads to the inescapable conclusion that Pope Francis is an “antipope” in every sense of the word, and that the law itself declares it.

As has been demonstrated in the article, “How and Why Pope Benedict’s resignation is invalid”, there is no other authentic reading of Canon 332 §2 other than that the renunciation of munus is the necessary sine qua non condition of a papal resignation.

This canonical argument is supported by 35 reasons, debated in Scholastic form, in the article, “The Validity of Benedict’s Resignation must be questioned, Parts I and II”, why a renunciation of ministerium, in the form had in the papal declarations of Feb. 11, 2013, cannot signify a renunciation of munus as per Canon 332 §2, Canon 188 etc..

Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI remains the one and only true Pope of the Catholic Church with all the powers and prerogatives of that office.

As I pointed out in my rebuttal of Roberto de Mattei, canon 359 guarantees that the College of Cardinals has no authority to convene to elect a pope, when there has been an invalid papal resignation.

Therefore, the Conclave of 2013 is without any right in Canon Law to elect a successor to Pope Benedict. Therefore, the one it claimed to elect, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has no authority whatsoever conferred upon him by accepting that election. He is in truth a usurper of the papal office, and must be punished in accord with Canon 1381 §1 for that crime (if he knowingly has done this, otherwise upon demonstration of the delict, he must publicly disavow his claim to the office).

Since Bergoglio never had any canonical authority as Pope, all his nominations to the  Roman Curia are null and void. Therefore, all actions taken by the Congregation of Religious against religious communities, or by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith against anyone, or the Secretary of State vis-a-vis treaties with nations, such as China, or appointments of Bishops, etc. etc. are NULL AND VOID.

Since the papal resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is invalid, among other reasons, in virtue of containing a substantial error (canon 188) regarding what words must be expressed to conform to canon 322 §2, that resignation is invalid by the law itself (lege ipso). That invalidation spreads to the Conclave and all acts of Bergoglio as Francis, which are canonical, because they too are founded upon the same substantial error, though compounded.

Therefore, since the invalidity of Bergoglio’s papacy depends upon the law of the Church itself (canon 188), there is no need for a judgement of any ecclesiastical office to intervene to establish that it is so. And thus, Catholics may and indeed are obliged BY DIVINE FAITH and OBEDIENCE to the Apostolic See and to Canon Law to hold Bergoglio to be an Anti-Pope and to insist to Cardinals and Bishops and civil authorities that he be driven from the Vatican as a usurper.

Let all Catholics who love Christ, who are obedient to the Code of Canon Law and who seek the salvation of souls act now and today. Write your Bishop and the Cardinals. Write the Italian Government, which is bound to uphold only the canonically elected governments of the Vatican. Insist with all that the fact of Bergoglio’s invalidity be publicly affirmed and his usurpation denounced.

Its either that, or the end of the Vatican as we know it, as being part of the Catholic Church.

 

The election of Cardinal Bergoglio was a supreme failure of the College of Cardinals

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio takes the vow of secrecy at opening of the 2013 Conclave (BBC, screenshote by From Rome blog, cropped)

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio takes the vow of secrecy at opening of the 2013 Conclave (BBC, screenshote by From Rome blog, cropped)

Rome, March 13, 2015:  Two years ago, this afternoon, the College of Cardinals elected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Roman Pontiff.

A Failure in Law

I will omit, here, a long repetition of that which I have blogged about for 3 1/2 months, namely, that there are very grave and probative reasons and facts regarding the validity of that election, and this for 3 reasons:

  1. Cardinal Bergoglio was elected on the 5th ballot in the afternoon, in violation of the Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis, which allows only 4 ballots per day.  The facts were the subject of Antontio Socci’s bestselling book, Non è Francesco, and the crucial arguments were discussed here.  The facts have never been denied, the reasonings in law for the validity, require a rewriting of 2 sections of the papal law; the reasonings against the validity require no change in the law. That makes the argument against the validity more probable both in law and in testimony.
  2. Cardinal Bergoglio’s candidacy was promoted by a violation of UGD 81, which forbids any and all agreements among Cardinal electors as to whom they are going to vote for, such as any campaigning or promises of votes which is consequent upon canvassing for votes.  The facts were presented by various sources, but summarized and brought to clear relief by Dr. Austen Ivereigh, in his book, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, specifically in chapter 9 of the same, where he names the conspirators, “Team Bergoglio”.  The blog you are reading, From Rome, has made it the point to cover this story from the beginning; you can read all about it in our Chronology of Reports on “Team Bergoglio”.  The consequences of the violation are the invalidation of the election, and this in virtue of the Code of Canon law.  See the discussion here. Note that today Vatican Radio reports that Pope has himself confirmed that he was elected by a 2/3 majority (here), which puts validity in gravest doubt.
  3. Cardinal Bergoglio before his nomination to Cardinal, and after, was notorious for giving communion to those in public sin and for instructing others to do the same.  The allegations are confirmed by Sandro Magister. The consequence is that in virtue of the Papal Law, Cum ex apostolatus officio, of Pope Paul IV, he could not validly be elected Roman Pontiff.  This argument is explained in the petition to the College of Cardinals. The validity in law of the Papal Law of Paul IV, has been discussed here and here.

A Failure in Prudence

But, moreso, the election of Cardinal Bergoglio by the College was a supreme failure of human prudence.  Because, it is not prudent to elect quickly and without reflection someone who merely claims to be in favor of solving problems.  One must look to his life and deeds, and that requires reflection.  It is obvious to everyone in the Church, that if you spoke with Jorge Mario Bergoglio for 15 minutes, you could easily detect that he is not suitable for the office — that is, if you have any supernatural prudence at all, a prudence founded on an immaculate faith and resolute virtue.

I pity the man whom the Church’s Cardinals and Bishops regard as the Pope: it was a horrible sin against fraternal charity to promote to the office of Pope, a man whose entire career, from all accounts, has been obsessed with having and holding on to power.  If any of the Cardinals had any question, in conclave, they could have certainly spoken to Cardinal Sandri, who was well acquainted with Cardinal Bergoglio’s failings.

I really do not see how the College of Cardinals was so possessed to elect such a man.  But I feared that they had lost all sense, when during the general congregations for the Conclave, on March 7, the Cardinal Dean read out a message of condolence for the death of the dictator of Venezuela.*

It seems, from the continued silence of the College to so many scandals which have occurred on account of their choice, that that sense, after March 13, 2013, has not yet returned.

________________________

* Disturbing, too, was the fact that the first twitter user to recognize the newly elected Cardinal by face, that afternoon, was a male-prostitute.

In My hour of darkness, will you stand by Me?

When He is reviled by High Priests & theologians, His Disciples remain silent?

Featured Image -- 1451Rome, March 5, 2015:  In a telling editorial, Edward Pentin, a noted journalist who covers the Vatican, describes the woeful situation in the Catholic Church under Pope Francis:

One of the most frustrating aspects of covering the Church today is the unwillingness of trusted and reliable sources to go on the record. Strangely, this seems most common when it comes to defending doctrine, and the Church generally, in the face of attack.

Whether it’s Church teaching coming under fire at the Synod on the Family, Vatican officials with vitally important and helpful information to share, or German bishops outnumbered by their dissenting brother bishops, few appear willing to go public and speak up for Christ and the truth…

Read the rest of his piece, entitled, “Why the Reticence in the Face of Attacks on the Church?”, at the National Catholic Register.

Pentin goes on to speculate as to the causes, but omits the most probable one of all.  Jorge Mario Bergoglio was notorious, in his tenure as Archbishop of Buenos Aries, for violently castigating those with whom he disagreed, going so far as to use crude and vulgar insults as he shouted at them, in person, or on the phone.

But, let us not pretend otherwise, it is not the Church alone which is being attacked by the vile proposals of “Team Bergoglio” theologians like Cardinal Kasper or Cardinal Marx, it is Jesus Christ Himself who is being denied in His teachings regarding the necessity of both faith and penance for salvation, as a prerequisite for receiving His love in the Eucharist.

Indeed, it is quite logical, that those who would crucify the Lord anew by a sacrilegious communion, and who in fact are currently crucifying Him by such unworthy communions — for all who oppose Christ’s teachings are in mortal sin and receive sacrilegiously — be refused from receiving Him, Who died the bloody death on the Cross to deliver them from the Prince of Darkness and Lies, and transfer them into the Kingdom of Light, Truth and Purity.

That so many Cardinals, Bishops, priests, deacons and religious, men and women, are silent in the face of these attacks on the Person of Our Lord, recalls the treachery and cowardice of the 11 Apostles who abandoned Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane in 33 A. D..

Ten of them had this excuse, that Our Lord had not yet risen from the dead, and they had not yet received the Holy Spirit.

But none of those who are silent today, have this excuse.

Clergy and religious who are silent because they fear a phone call from a mad-superior who wants to punish all who will not go along with open apostasy from Christ their Lord, are not worthy of Jesus Christ.  Such without a doubt shall burn for all eternity in the pit of Hell with Judas Iscariot at their side.

But for those who claim some devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and have some likeness to the virgins St. John, St. Mary Magdalene and St. Martha, IT IS YOUR DUTY TO STAND BY THE CROSS AND SPEAK OUT, for Our Lord has no voice to reach the ears of sinners, but through YOU!

 

An Argentine Prosecutor speaks about Jorge Mario Bergoglio

Pope Francis, as Archbishop of Buenas Aires, Argentina

Pope Francis, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina

An Interview with Señor Jack Tollers

February 12, 2015: There has been avid interest in the person behind Pope Francis since the evening he first walked out on the loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica on the fateful day of March 13, 2013.  Since that time the main stream media has done little to inform the world about who Jorge Mario Bergoglio really is or really was.

To fill in this lacuna, the From Rome blog is honored to host an exclusive and new interview with a leading Catholic from the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, Señor Jack Tollers, who has extensive experience in criminology. He is the author of the book, Fr. Leonardo Castellani: an Introduction, available from Smashwords.com.

Here is the text of our unedited interview, which we conduced by email:

____________

Q.1 Can you tell the readers of the From Rome Blog something about yourself, where you are from, what’s your education and professional background?

I’m a middle aged Argentine with an English mother and an Argentine father, born in Buenos Aires, partially educated in England and France. A criminal prosecutor, I have been married for the better part of nearly 40 years, with one of those “bunny-like” families Bergoglio seems to hate so much (fifteen grandchildren and counting).

Q.2 What parts of Argentine have you lived in?

I have lived most of my life in Buenos Aires’ outskirts.

Q.3 When did you first hear the name Jorge Mario Bergolio?

Colegio Maximo de San Jose: San Miguel, Buenos Aires

Colegio Maximo de San Jose: San Miguel, Buenos Aires

I think that that was in the early eighties when he became the Rector of the “Colegio Máximo”, the Argentine Jesuit’s main college, not far from where I live. In those days a group of us youngsters were very good friends with a local Jesuit priest very much known for his anti-progressive stance. In those days, most Catholics in this country leaned one way or the other. But I remember quite distinctly how this Jesuit told us that this Bergoglio fellow played quite another game, playing the progressive music most of the time, but now and again switching sides to the more conservative band if need be. This was when John Paul II had been recently elected and of course there was quite a lot of “band switching” going on in those days. But Bergoglio did it in a somehow blatant manner that was the talk of those days, all of it underscored by a surprisingly successful career.

Q.4. What did the newspapers say of him when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires?

Bergoglio was very wary of the Press in general, and had few friends among journalists in general. However he was always very much highly touted by “La Nación”, the country’s “serious” newspaper (if you know what I mean), and always openly praised by it’s  foreign correspondent in Rome, one Elisabetta Piqué, who’s 2001 interview of the recently appointed Archbishop was something of a scoop. By 2005 she wrote that Bergoglio had very good chances of being elected Pope, and when Benedict was finally chosen, said that Bergoglio had been the Cardinal’s second favorite. Of course, none of us believed it, not for one second. Now we take her more seriously. But going back to your question, I don’t remember any Argentine newspaper (except “Página 12”, and that for political reasons only) criticizing Bergoglio, ever, on any count (even when same-sex marriage was legally approved in the country: despite the general brouhaha that preceded and ensued, Bergoglio kept to himself in a very who-am-I-to-judge fashion).

Q.5. Do you know any of his family or friends personally?

Rabbi Abraham Skorka greets Pope Francis

Rabbi Abraham Skorka greets Pope Francis

His family is very small and from quite humble origins (the class question cannot be discarded here, it is quite obvious that Bergoglio resents any mention of his parents or sister). So nobody that I know of has ever known or met anyone of his family. As to friends, he never had them, not old friends, that is to say, friends who have nothing to do with his personal ambitions, his power games, his downright careerism. Not a single Jesuit, not a single priest, not a single friend from old times, shall we say. A quite different story you will hear if you refer to people like Rabbi Abraham Skorka who happens to live with him in Santa Marta, believe it or not.*

Q.6. Do the Jesuits in Argentine have or did they at one time have, a reputation for fidelity to the Catholic Faith?

Yes, I suppose so, before Vatican II, Jesuits were generally seen as conservative in a conventional, freezed, deadpan way, I suppose so. Fr Castellani was their enemy and he got into hot water when he decided to confront them in the Forties, long before the Council. He was expelled by these conservative Jesuits who later were to play the liberation-theology game, among other things. But of course, as Louis Bouyer has so frequently pointed out: yesterday’s conservatives are today’s progressives, because they are in the same league, a league in which truth, fidelity and so on are… how shall I put it?, subject to change. But all this is irrelevant: Bergoglio is way over these sort of distinctions, he doesn’t give a fig, he belongs to altogether another cabal.

Q.7 Did he have a reputation for fidelity to Catholic Doctrine, when he was in Argentina?

He certainly did not.

Q.8. There is a very disturbing report by Sandro Magister, “Francis’ Patient Revolution”, Expresso Online Oct. 24, 2014, at  http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350910?eng=y . In this report, it says that as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Bergoglio actively promoted the reception of communion by those who were not living in accord with Church rules.  Is that true, are the sources reliable? Do you have any personal knowledge that this was the case?

Everyone in this country knows of Bergoglio’s typical dealings as those depicted by McGavin (see Magister’s article). By the way, Magister’s take on Bergoglio is, in general, spot on.

Q.9. In all his years as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, can you cite anything which he said or taught which was contrary to the Catholic Faith?

Nope. That wouldn’t be Bergoglio. He just isn’t like that. One must never forget that, before anything else, he’s a Jesuit (and if St Ignatius didn’t want his offspring to take up high positions in the Church, then he had very good reasons to forbid them doing so. Not that they would ever obey him here, ha, ha).

Q.10  Some Catholics, confused by Bergoglio’s speaking style, consider it very likely that he is a sociopath, namely, that for him, there is only the right and wrong which his conscience agrees with, and that this right and wrong is not based on Christ’s teaching, but on his own personal whims.  Do you think that is an accurate description of the man?

Yes, I agree. But a “sociopath”? That was Kolvenbach’s take on him when he quite publicly opposed Bergoglio being appointed Archbishop of Buenos Aires. And yes, lots of people think he’s in some way or another a deranged person. But I’m not so sure. For instance, what we take to be a “confused” manner of speaking is no such thing for him. In Bergoglio it’s deliberate, it’s a way of going forward, it’s an agenda. No “whims” here. His “confused” speak responds to a “confused” faith, which in turn only echoes a very, very, confused character whose name I will not mention here. But who is out to confuse us all. If that maddens us, it doesn’t mean that they (pace C.S. Lewis) Screwtape, his nephew, et al, are entirely mad, in the sense that they think and act meaninglessly, without a purpose.

Q.11. Was Cardinal Bergoglio ever friendly with the Freemasons in Argentina?

As I’ve said, he has no friends. But, yes, I wouldn’t be surprised. In this country now and again they express praise for the man and celebrated his election in quite a public manner.

Q.12 Is it possible that Pope Francis is consciously and deliberating trying to transform the Church into something more compliant with the New World Order?

Of course. If not something worse (but that defies description).

+ + +

For more background, read Jack Tollers essay about Bergoglio, online
at the Unam Sanctam Catholicam blog.

_________________

* Editor’s Note:  Here, Mr. Tollers, who responded to my question in English, has used an English construction which is inexact: for it is one thing to say that, on occasion, when the Rabbi visits the Holy Father, that he stays at Santa Marta, another to say that he lives there as a resident.  Mr. Tollers’ use of “happens”, should therefore be understood as “happens-now-and-then”, which is the sense I, the Editor, have understood the phrase from the start. Yet, I leave Mr. Tollers’ original words, for sake of the record.