THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE THOUGHT PROCESSES OF FREEMASONS AND CATHOLICS. THE FORMER ARE GNOSTIC AND THE LATTER HAVE BEEN EDUCATED IN AN ARISTOTELIAN AND THOMISTIC SYSTEM OF THOUGHT

EDITORIALS

SALZA & SISCOE’S THEORY OF UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE IS MASONIC

FROM ROME EDITOR

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Everyone by now knows of the absurd strawman argument of John Salza and Robert Siscoe. It goes like this. I will mark the argument here and there with NDT, to indicate the terms which need to be defined with precision if the argument means anything at all:

The whole (NDT) Church (NDT) immediately (NDT) after the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio accepted (NDT) him as the pope.

Universal (NDT) acceptance (NDT) of a man as pope is an infallible (NDT) sign (NDT) of his legitimate election.

Therefore, it is infallibly (NDT) certain (NDT) that Bergoglio is the pope and that his election was legitimate (NDT).

There are 11 points in the argument which can be changed at any moment to avoid objections, by simply redefining terms. That, in itself, is Masonic, because it is a fundamental rule of the Lodge to speak in ambiguous terms. But let us examine how the ideological structure of their argument is also masonic.

Infallibility

Infallibility according to Catholic Theology is a natural property of the true God alone. No creature by nature is infallible. Infalliblity means the inability to fail. It is the characteristic of a substance as regards its action.

However, truth itself is infallible, because truth is defined by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in a way which makes its infallibility necessary. Here I speak of truth as the truth of a proposition, because of such truth Saint Thomas says the definition is:  the adequation of a created intellect with the object known, or in other words, the right and just relationship between a knowing mind and the think known by that mind.

Examples of infallibly true statements are 1+1 = 2, and The Sun is the star of our solar system. Infallibility pertains to all propositions which regard the natural or supernatural world, when they are true in what they affirm. This is the wonderful way in which Our Creator, Who alone is infallible, has enabled us, fallible creatures, to draw near to Him, through knowing and accepting truth.

But men by nature are not infallible. Hence men can err or fail. Nor are we fallible in the knowledge of things. We can err. We can err also in what we believe is true on the basis of what other men tell us.  Thus human opinion based on things like human testimony is the most fallible of all kinds of knowledge.

But for John Salza and Robert Siscoe the universal acceptance by the Church of a man as pope is an infallible sign that his election was legitimate!

I hope you can see the ontological problem in that assertion. It moves infallibility from God and true propositions to men. And that is totally Masonic.

7 Slippery aspects of the argument

A common sense Catholic responds by saying, the Church does not teach or approve of such an absurd theory, as can easily be seen: because the Church has laws which say when and how a pope is validly elected and when and how a man elected is not legitimately such. Now the Church would be double faced if she taught a theory which said, there is no need for laws on papal elections, there is only need that everyone accept a pope. Also, Holy Mother Church recognizes as valid popes many men who were elected according to the rules but who were never universally accepted during their pontificates (e.g. the Roman Popes during the Great Western Schism). Thus the Church has never resorted to universal acceptance as a sign of a valid election.

It also does not make sense. Because if the election was legitimate, who cares if everyone accepts it or not? The truth of legitimacy is in an entirely different order of knowledge than that of popular opinion. Every Catholic can understand that. But Masons reject that. Truth for them is only at the ballot box, if even then. Moreover, the Masonic Lodge which seeks to overthrow God and all Monarchies in the name of exalting the common man and the masses would find such a trick delightful. It’s their own world view. Universal Acceptance basically is another way of knowing truth, one which the Church rejects in Canon 332 and in the Papal Law, Unversi dominici gregis. Therefore, whence comes this appeal to Universal Acceptance against or in spite of the laws and teaching of the Church? Such an appeal is gnostic and masonic.

Second, the word universal in Latin has a proper sense of each and everyone. However, I do not think any historian has every proven that after any papal election each and every Catholic in the world accepted the man elected as the pope. John Salza and Robert Siscoe evade this obvious fault by inventing a special meaning for universal: morally universal, by which the mean, nearly everyone. This nearly can be expanded as necessary for any arguent. To John Siscoe in debate yesterday, I mentioned I know 13 persons who never accepted it. Siscoe responded that absolute universality is not necessary. And he claimed their dissent was secret, so nobody knew about it. So universal, for S & S, is what they want it to mean. And as such, the theory itself means nothing, but what they say. So in effect, it means that you must accept them as infallible arbiters of who is the pope. And that is masonic.

Third, we come to Sisco and Salza’s idea of acceptance. They never really define it. Without a strict definition, their theory means nothing at all. Does it mean I do or do not like his face, his theology, his attitude, his episcopal lineage and therefore I hold that he is or is not the pope? Of if a Catholic holds that he is de facto pope but not the legitimate pope, has he accepted? Immediately upon the publication of the Declaratio by Pope Benedict scholars said it was invalid and that an antipope would be elected in the upcoming conclave. There was no acceptance, there, in any defined manner. Also, if I hear the news claim so and so was elected pope, does that mean that I accepted it. Does not acceptance mean examining the facts of law and history and then making a judgement? S & S seem to imply that acceptance has nothing to do with Canon 41 or truth, it is merely listening to the TV. But that is not a Catholic concept of acceptance, but it is very masonic. I guess the next step will be to announce that their candidate is the pope on TV and then dispense with any Conclave or Canon Law. How convenient!

Fourth, we come to Salza and Siscoe’s concept of Church. As every Catholic knows, the Church is one thing, and its members another. This touches upon the formal definition of the Church and the material definition of the Church. As you will see, Salza and Siscoe will play with these two aspects. Arguing in their major premise, regarding the principle of universal acceptance, using the formal definition, but arguing in their minor premise as regards the facts of the present case, in the material sense. I pointed this out in my article on Siscoe’s triple shell game. If you do not hold Bergoglio was the pope, then S & S will just put you outside the definition of the Church which they happen to be using at the moment. They play this game especially with dogmatic facts. A dogmatic fact regards the formal definition of the Church, but they assert human opinions which regard the material definition of the Church as dogmatic facts. And that is masonic.

Fifth, we come to S & S’s concept of immediacy. When does the vague universality of the vague acceptance need to take place. In one minute, in one day, in one week, in one month, in one year? They do not say. I think it would not be unreasonable to speculate that after every legitimate election, there is a delay even when there is canonical acceptance. It is never immediate. There are missionaries in remote regions of the past who never knew the name of the pope, because he died before the news arrived. I guess there was no infallible sign of their being the true pope, according to S & S! The level of absurdity here is manifest. They set up another criterion for true popes. And that is masonic.

Sixth, we come to S & S’s concept of certitude. This is closely allied with the concept of infallibility. We can be certain that a truth is true, because truth is of itself infallible and the assertion of truth is infallible. Certitude as quality of notion does not apply to opinion, because opinion by definition is the assertion of a thing with knowledge that its contradiction is a possibility. But human recognition of a man as the pope, when based solely on human testimony without any facts of history or law being established, is the most uncertain kind of news: it is common opinion! To say that any news in the modern world is certain, would take a very strict definition of terms, especially since journalists and news outlets are notorious for their mendacity. But to say opinion is certain is simply a contradiction of the very definition of the word. But contradiction and double speak is the very hallmark of the Freemason, who is told he can lie to everyone except a superior level mason. And that is masonic.

Seventh, we come to S & S’s concept of legitimacy. Legitimate means done in accord with a right which inheres in the subject by nature or grant. It differs from legal, in that it does not require positive law. It differs from lawful, because its measure is not in accord with the terms of any law. Of papal elections some were said to be legitimateothers canonical others legal.  This is because throughout history the election of popes was at the beginning done in accord with Apostolic right, as I have previously mentioned, and since there was no law or canon about how to do such things, a legitimate election was every election in which the part of the Church of Rome regarded as valid immediately, and which all of the Church of Rome, long afterwards regarded as valid, even if there were rival claimants at the time. When the Councils established canons for episcopal elections, then some papal elections were said to be canonical or uncanonical in accord with whether the canons were followed. However, of some of these elections, the Church has regarded as valid and legitimate men who were uncanonically elected. This is because the Church of Rome has never accepted any law or canon established by Councils held outside of her jurisdiction as binding on Her ability to elect the Roman Pontiff. THIS IS IMPORTANT, and this explains why many theologians speak of universal acceptance of a papal election despite whether it was canonical or not. Because in such a case they are not speaking of obligatory canons, just customarily observed canons. Finally, some papal elections can now be legal or illegal, because Pope John Paul II published a law on papal elections which regulates what the College of Cardinals should do in such matters. Violations of this law make an election illegal and invalid. Elections perfectly in harmony with the norms of this law make an election legal and valid. Such elections are also legitimate, when they are legal and valid, because the Cardinals have the right to act lawfully. — Thus we can see that the theory of universal acceptance, by the mere fact that it is employed by S & S now, when it arise in ages past to be applied to times when there was no papal law for elections, only canons or the lack of them, is misapplied. It is anachronistic, in the technical sense of the term, because it does not apply to elections governed by papal laws. This is especially true when the current Papal Law EXPRESSLY says that no election which violates it is valid regardless. The current high bar of validity and legitimacy is what is lawful, not what is accepted. To reject that is masonic, because the freemason rejects Papal authority in principal.

Salza and Siscoe’s Theory as applied is Masonic

In summation, I would say that John Salza and Robert Siscoe’s theory, as applied, is Masonic for the following reasons:

  1. It rejects the binding norms of the Papal Law of Pope John Paul II which alone determine when a man elected by the College of Cardinals in a Conclave is legitimate, legal and lawful, excluding all other things as signs or causes of the validity.
  2. It is founded upon badly or poorly defined terms which can be held to mean whatever you want them to mean on any occasion.
  3. It places infallibility in human opinion rather than in God and His words to Peter: Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in Heaven, words which obviously apply to all papal laws on elections.
  4. It ignores all facts of history and places the criterion of truth outside of historical fact, thus divorcing truth from reality.
  5. It is designed to force Catholics to accept whatever the Masonic Lodge in the Vatican says is true, regardless of historical facts or papal laws, and this is in accord with the Masonic principle that the higher lodges rule the lower lodges.
  6. It effectively makes the facts of a papal election a gnostic deposit of knowledge which no Catholic who is not initiated has the right to examine or seek to know.
  7. Salza and Siscoe use the theory as Freemasons, because as I have experienced on several occasions, if you point out errors in it, they response: You do not understand what universal acceptance isand then proceed to point out how you have not the right knowledge to comprehend it, as if you were some sort of intellectual inferior or non-initiate. At times they say the sign is an effect not a cause, but they treat it as a cause not an effect. Oh, and they ignore all examination of legal doubt.

John Salza admits he joined the Lodge. He also admits that Masons do not publicly contest his writings. I do not know if Robert Sisco is a member or has been a member. I do know that it is a rule of the Lodge never to argue in public with another member. I also know that many converts from non Catholic religions never quite reject some of the errors they learned there.

I must conclude, therefore, that Sicoe and Salza’s theory of Universal Acceptance is masonic because it inverts the notions of infallibility, universality, acceptance, Church, legitimacy, and plays games with the notions of immediacy and certitude. And just as everything which is of Hell, inverts the order of things which God has established, their theory reflects a diabolic way of thinking about the papal claims of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whose own intelligence officer admits is a Freemason. Is that the real reason that Salza and Siscoe seek so zealously to defend his claim to the papacy? To defend a brother in the Lodge?

I hope this essay of mine own, helps both John Salza and Robert Siscoe see their errors and repent of them. But also, so that all the faithful see their theory for what it is.

______________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a 1805 water color of a rite of initiation into the Masonic Lodge at Paris.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

FROM THE MOMENT JORGE BERGOLIO, IMPROPERLY DRESSED, WALKED OUT ONTO THE BALCONY OF SAINT PETER BASILICA ON THE LAST DAY OF THE 2013 CONCLAVE FLANKED BY TWO MEN WHO I HAD REASON TO BELIEVE WERE HOMOSEXUALS MY INTUITION (PERHAPS GUIDED BY THE Holy Spirit) TOLD ME THAT JORGE BERGOLIO IS NOT TRULY THE POPE

NEWS

BISHOP GRACIDA JOINS ARCHBISHOP LENGA IN DENYING BERGOGLIO IS THE POPE

FROM ROME EDITOR6 COMMENTS

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I will merely quote, the Most Rev. Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, USA, from his blog today:

THERE ARE SEVERAL SUPPOSEDLY ORTHODOX WEBSITES THAT INSIST THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A VALID POPE. PERHAPS HE IS FOR SOME OTHER CHURCH OR CULT, BUT HE IS NOT NOW NOR HAS HE EVER BEEN A POPE OF THE Roman Catholic Church.

Bishop Gracida has publicly stated he doubted the validity of the renunciation from day one, and that he doubted the validity of the Conclave for the same reason. Even more so, he doubted the validity when news of vote canvassing broke in 2014.

Thus, it would be more proper to say that Archbishop Lenga now agrees with Bishop Gracida, than the other way around. But regardless, there is now a Collegial Denial by Bishops of the Catholic Church of Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy.

The allies of Bergoglio have censored the news of his public positions, however, because they are not interested in truth, only in the grasp for power and wealth. Trad Inc. too.

+ + +

SHARE THIS:

RELATED

Archbishop Lenga: Benedict XVI is the Pope, and Bergoglio is an antichrist

Archbishop Lenga: Benedict XVI is the Pope, and Bergoglio is an antichrist

In “News”Polish Bishop Conference attacks Archbishop Lenga for defending Celibacy

Polish Bishop Conference attacks Archbishop Lenga for defending Celibacy

In “News”Bishop Gracida and the Magisterium of the Church on Patients' rights to food and hydration

Bishop Gracida and the Magisterium of the Church on Patients’ rights to food and hydration

In “Church History”ARCHBISHOP JAN PAWEL LENGAARCHBISHOP LENGAMONS HENRY GRACIDARENE HENRY GRACIDA

Post navigation

PREVIOUS POSTAdrian Willaert: Verbum bonum et suave

6 THOUGHTS ON “BISHOP GRACIDA JOINS ARCHBISHOP LENGA IN DENYING BERGOGLIO IS THE POPE”

  1. althesilentcrusaderBlessed be God- YES!!! Where is Cardinal Burke, et.al?Liked by 6 people
  2. Ordo Militaris RadioReblogged this on Ordo Militaris Radio and commented:
    Two Bishops Against BergoglioLiked by 4 people
  3. Em SAnother brave emeritus bishop! The emeritus sector is a sleeping giant in the hierarchy that is rising to defend The Church Militant. They are realizing that Bergoglio is not the legitimate authority, and the emeritus bishops will act in the Name of the Church, by Apostolic Right, which is above that of an antipope and which takes precedence in a state of necessity. Halleluyah!!!Liked by 1 person
  4. Vincent FitzpatrickBishop Gracida has a lifelong history of being a majority of one. During the Pro-Life Rescue Movement, he was the only bishop who ever instructed the police (correctly) that removing obstacles (rescuers) that were preventing abortions is a mortal sin. (Removing an obstacle that one knows is preventing a crime is one of the ways of making oneself an accomplice to the crime.)Like
  5. Ana MilanNow that he has retired, I hope Archbishop Chaput will also add his name. However, there are a great many silent Cardinals & Bishops who are still holding out & I feel it will be necessary for them to come forward & demand an imperfect council to fully & transparently investigate the legitimacy of BXVI’s resignation as per the Canons governing papal resignations & also the hastily called conclave which ignored PJPII’s rules pertaining to papal elections together with the electioneering & coercion by the St. Gallen Group. This farce has to come to an end & I would implore these red & pink hatted men to consider their own salvation before their blind obedience or fear of the person they collectively elected to the PO.Liked by 1 person
  6. Luis SilveyraArchibishop Lenga has been punished, but will no obey the sanctions.
    It is logic , Because he is a Bishop and …. Benedict has not punished him …
    Bergoglio has a real problem !
    May be this is a matter of time..
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE MOST WIDESPREAD, IT IS ACTUALLY A PANDEMIC, SICKNESS ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH, FOUND PRIMARILY IN THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES WHERE PORNOGRAPHY IS READILY AVAILABLE 24/7 ON TELEVISION AND IN PRINT MEDIA

The American Mind
The American Mind

Porn and the Laws of the Soul

Response12 minutesLibertarians Are Coming for Your Sexual DignityBedivere Bedrydant

Perversion can never be stripped of shame.Response9 minutesThe Marketplace of Brain WormsJosh Hammer

Talk of the free market is laughable when it comes to porn.Response7 minutesPorn is a Form of WorshipMarlo Safi

The American people have become acolytes of a religion of the flesh.Response7 minutesPorn Law is Not EnoughSpencer Klavan

Aristotle points the way to true virtue through free will.Response10 minutesThe Problem of Tolerance—and a CureDr. Benjamin Wiker

How to find our way out from our culture-wide sex addiction.

Helen Andrews reflects upon the drastic increase in availability and immediacy of pornography over the past several decades. Josh Hammer, Marlo Safi, Bedivere Bedryant, Benjamin Wiker, and Spencer Klavan respond.

Feature

OpeningObscenity BlindnessHelen Andrews

In 1949, the British research group Mass-Observation conducted a survey into English sex habits, which, among other questions, asked respondents how they had first become aware of sex. About 20% said their parents had explained it to them. Eight percent said they had learned it from a book, usually a medical textbook or a pamphlet… Read more about: Obscenity BlindnessShare this Feature with your network or email it instantly.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THERE ARE SEVERAL SUPPOSEDLY ORTHODOX WEBSITES THAT INSIST THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A VALID POPE. PERHAPS HE IS FOR SOME OTHER CHURCH OR CULT, BUT HE IS NOT NOW NOR HAS HE EVER BEEN A POPE OF THE Roman Catholic Church

CANON LAWEDITORIALSNEWS

THE THEORY OF UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE IS CONTRARY TO FAITH, LAW AND FACT

FROM ROME EDITOR15 COMMENTS

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Over at True and False Pope, Mr. Salza has published a reply to Ann Barnhardt full of vile insults, which is most unworthy of any man.

I do not usually comment on blogs, but I decided to join the fray. After soliciting from Mr. Siscoe a clear definition of the theory of Universal Acceptance, I show why that Theory in this case is contrary to Faith, Law and Fact. Here is my reply:

There are major problems with your theory and its application.

First of all, no theory of interpretation trumps canon law, because if it did, then Jesus Christ would be a liar Who said of Peter and the laws of all his successors, Whatsoever you bind upon Earth, shall be bound also in Heaven. Thus if a man were accepted by all in the Church as the pope, when however he had no legitimate claim to the papacy because of the non compliance with any papal law regarding becoming pope, then Christ would be proved a liar.

Therefore, to assert such a theory is applicable in such a circumstance is contrary to the Faith. Therefore, in such a case, if you want to use it, I would have to conclude you are a blasphemer and a heretic, and also a schismatic, since you would thereby adhere to a false pope.

The other problem with your theory is that in the present case, there never was universal acceptance. Bishop Gracida never accepted the renunciation or the election. And I just met about 12 persons at a Conference here in Rome, over the weekend, who told me they did not accept Bergoglio the moment he came out of the Loggia and said, Buona Sera!

The use of this theory of Universal Acceptance in the case of a papal renunciation has been abrogated explicitly by Canon 332 §2, which said that the acceptance of a renunciation by anyone whomsoever is not required for its validity. Therefore, it is not the cause of its validity, nor a sign of its validity. Therefore, to resort to it in the present case is to be a rebel against the papal law, and thus to be condemned by Unam Sanctam, because it is a grave duty of the Faith that we be subject to papal laws and to the true pope.

Finally, you resort to this theory of Universal Acceptance because you manifestly reject to accept the norm of Canon 332 §2 which defines the essential juridical act as a renunciation of munus, which never occurred. Nor can you legitimately read munus where ministerium is written in the Declaratio, because as Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori says in his tract on Interpretation of Law in his Theologial Moralis, that such an interpretation would require a positive additional act of the lawgiver. But such a requirement means the original act is not clear in itself. And as Mons. Arrieta of the Pontifical Council of Legal Texts affirmed for me on De. 11, 2019, such a renunciation which is not clear in itself would be invalid.

Please note, that I have used no ad hominems in my response to you. Unlike the comments you publish here which hurl them at me.

* * *

I add here, not at the other blog, that the use of the theory of Universal Acceptance is the last resort of the willfully blind. Because everyone trained in law knows that the validity of a juridical act has nothing to do with whether it is accepted as valid or not.

I will admit, here, however, that I only read True or False Pope Blog, because the authors of it admitted in substance that they did solicit the financial support for the Fatima Center and that the requirement of the donor was that the center be purged of anyone who held the opinion of Father Gruner, that Benedict was still the Pope.

So, here, I will ask Mrs. Siscoe, Salza and Ferrara a public question: Did any of that financial support arrive in your pockets directly or indirectly? And was it given before you adhered to the theory of universal acceptance?

Finally, it does not surprise me that the authors of the Book True or False pope cannot comprehend the present Church Crisis, in which we have both a True AND a False pope. When you begin with a false premise which you use as a principle of epistemology, then you have blinded yourself from the outset.

__________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screenshot of the blog mentioned in this article and is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

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

$10.00

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DID YOU KNOW? ABORTION KILLS A HUMAN BEING !!! HUMAN BEINGS ARE PROTECTED IN MOST (CIVILIZED) STATES !!!

Abortion Kills People: A History Lessonby Judie Brown

 https://all.org/abortion-kills-people-a-history-lesson/

Did you know that, in Ohio, a young couple is being charged with a felony “after they allegedly induced the delivery of their 29-week-old preborn baby boy using a type of abortion pill, intentionally causing his death”? After the couple killed their preborn baby, they hid his body in a shoebox.Abortion kills people.

Reading this story forces us to confront the fact that, in today’s society, individual human beings are deemed worthless by far too many. After more than two generations of decriminalized abortion, what else can our once-civilized nation expect?

This is why we have chosen to dig into pro-life history and share nuggets of wisdom that help us understand why every innocent human being is worthy of our respect and our protection. While much of this is not on the Internet, the facts are consistent and help us see that science does not change.

Three examples follow.On June 29, 1967, James H. Ford, MD, who later became a founder of American Life League, appeared on the Joe Pyne radio show. In his prepared remarks we find this:

A living, human zygote (fertilized ovum) or embryo is by definition a living, human individual; which by definition is a living, human organism; which by definition is a living, human animal; which by definition is a living member of the human race or human species (Homo sapiens), which by definition is a living, human being or person.I will give $1,000.00 to the first person who can bring scientific proof from an accredited university in this country to refute that statement or its scientific, factual basis.Over the years not a single person came forward to challenge Dr. Ford, because nobody can!

On December 27, 1971, the Modern Medicine magazine published a letter by Dr. Ford in which he quoted Nicholas J. Eastman, “who approves of abortion as a means of population control and therefore cannot be considered to be, in any way, biased against it.”





Eastman stated in July 1967: “In other branches of medicine the objective of the physician is invariably to preserve life. Only in obstetrics is he asked from time to time to destroy life.” In his comments he explained that ever since the days of the Roman Empire, the preborn child has lacked the protection of civil law.Bernard N. Nathanson, MD, wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1974 about the continuous spectrum of life from its beginning to its end, saying: “Abortion must be seen as the interruption of a process that would otherwise have produced a citizen of the world. . . . Denial of this reality is the crassest kind of moral evasiveness.”


From Ford to Eastman to Nathanson we see three doctors who knew and understood early on that the act of abortion was not a simple surgical procedure, but rather an act of killing. So we have to ask why is it that today so few have the moral courage to state this plainly and without apology.Learning from history requires the ability of the individual to distill the truth in the midst of the propaganda barrage. We do this by travelling the pro-life highway paved long ago by others. We will find it leads us all the way back to ancient times.

In fact, in 197 A.D. Church father Tertullian taught the same truth, writing: “To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing.”Even though Tertullian did not have access to current science, such as the Carnegie Stages of Human Development published in 1942, he acknowledged that direct killing is always wrong no matter where it takes place—before or after birth.We believe that history obliges us to enlighten ourselves and others. After all, “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” 


That little baby boy whose body lay lifeless in a shoebox proves that this is so.Today, after millions of babies have lost their lives, it is long past time America learned the simple truth: ABORTION KILLS PEOPLE !!!!!!!!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DIALOG WITH SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT RECOGNIZE TRUTH WHEN THEY ARE CONFRONTED WITH IT

NEWS

SISCOE REJECTS THE MAGISTERIUM AND INVENTS HIS OWN

FROM ROME EDITOR3 COMMENTS

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Here I continue my public conversation with Mr. Siscoe, which I started on his blog, but I will continue here, because I see he is not addressing the argument and I do not have any confidence that he will repost my reply.

Read my previous comment, to understand the context of what I am about to write.

When pushed, claim your theory is Church doctrine

Br. Bugnolo: “There are major problems with your theory and its application.”

Mr. Siscoe: This is not my theory. It is the common doctrine of the Church.

I have been to seminary and studied at 3 Pontifical Universities and have read multiple manuals of theology, some of them 12 volumes long, and I can assure you that Siscoe’s universal acceptance is not the doctrine of the Church, because to be such, it has to be contained in a magisterial document.

To be clear, the notion of a dogmatic fact is precise: it regards legitimate acts. Thus, if Monsignor So and So refuses to be bishop of this or that, even though he was just nominated as Bishop of this or that, the Papal act is not a dogmatic fact, even though it is papal, because it is contrary to fact. It is a dogmatic fact that the pope nominated, but not that the man nominated is the Bishop because he refused to accept.

Thus even a Conclave which followed all the rules — which the Conclave of 2013 did not, according to the testimony of Cardinal Daneels — which pertain to conclaves — which the Conclave of 2013 did not, because the Papal Law requires a legal renunciation as it itself says — and resulted in the election of a man who was accepted by the whole Church, all the while the man insisted he never accepted, then, that he was the pope would not be a dogmatic fact, even though it would be a dogmatic fact that the Cardinals chose him, because to be the pope requires acceptance, as the papal law itself says.

Sisoe is playing a Triple Shell game, as I explained last year:

He has anted up on his game, because now, he not only claims that those who did not have true knowledge of the events of Feb. 11, 2013 are the Church, but that his doctrine of Universal Acceptance as applied to present events is the Doctrine of the Church!

But Canon Law is magisterial. And Siscoe ignores that completely.

Siscoe’s theory does not apply to contested elections

Siscoe also ignores that John of St. Thomas explicitly said that the concept of universal acceptance regards a legitimate election. That any theologian before or after omits that condition proves nothing, because as anyone who knows theology knows, many authors repeat doctrines imprecisely and incompletely, and their doing of such does not alter the doctrine. Thus you cannot escape from the fundamental condition of the notion of universal acceptance which only regards LEGITIMATE ELECTIONS.

Thus, it appears that what he is saying, is that Blessed Urban II, for example, and every legitimate pope after whose election the Cardinals or part of them, elected another, as an antipope, was not the true pope. I say “his theory” because no one with a sane mind would put in doubt a dogmatic fact of a valid election simply because there was no universal acceptance. But that is what he is doing. He is saying law does not matter, only opinion.

Ignore the events of Feb. 2013

Mr. Siscoe is also playing another game. He admits, the following in his recent reply to me:

The universal acceptance has nothing to do with the renunciation. It is an infallible sign of a legitimate Pope, not the infallible sign of a legitimate abdication.

Well then, WHY ON EARTH are you resorting to using your theory, Mr. Siscoe, if you admit it has nothing to do with renunciations! When you know well the validity of the renunciation is contested and has been from day 1, as I showed in the preface to my scholastic question.

It seems that Mr. Siscoe simply wants to condone law breaking, and refuses to consider anything else.

When the facts do not fit your case, massage them

Finally, notice how Mr. Siscoe alters reality when it does not suit his pet theory:

Br. Bugnolo: “The other problem with your theory is that in the present case, there never was universal acceptance. Bishop Gracida never accepted the renunciation or the election And I just met about 12 persons at a Conference here in Rome, over the weekend, who told me they did not accept Bergoglio the moment he came out of the Loggia and said, Buona Sera!”

Mr. Siscoe: The universal acceptance only requires a moral unanimity, not a mathematical unanimity. There’s over a billion Catholics in the world and you know of 13 who rejected him IN SECRET.

Does he think that Mons. Gracida and those 12 persons are holding that Benedict is the Pope or that the renunciation is dubious in secret? If it was in secret, how do I know about it? Siscoe has just implied I have the grace to read minds!

That being the case, Mr. Siscoe, I will use that gift and say you are not being honest. Because no honest man replies to facts that way. You would be laughed right out of every tribunal and court in the world, if you attempted such a legal argument. You have adopted the absurdity of a Skojec.

All Bergoglians are blasphemers

Finally, I will observe that Siscoe doubles down on his theory and seals it with a blasphemy, like all Bergoglians. Notice how a Catholic, when using a contrary of fact, uses the conditional, but Siscoe uses the indicative: for him blasphemy is a real option:

Br. Bugnolo: First of all, no theory of interpretation trumps canon law, because if it did, then Jesus Christ would be a liar Who said of Peter and the laws of all his successors, Whatsoever you bind upon Earth, shall be bound also in Heaven. THUS IF A MAN WERE ACCEPTED BY ALL IN THE CHURCH AS THE POPE, WHEN HOWEVER HE HAD NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM TO THE PAPACY BECAUSE OF THE NON COMPLIANCE WITH ANY PAPAL LAW REGARDING BECOMING POPE, THEN CHRIST WOULD BE PROVED A LIAR.

Mr. Siscoe: But Francis was accepted by all in the Church as Pope in the days, weeks and months after his election. Therefore, according to your own reasoning, Christ would be proven a liar if Francis had no legitimate claim to the Papacy because of non complains with ecclesiastical law. Therefore, either Christ is a liar, or the Francis DID have a legitimate claim to the Papacy based on ecclesiastical law.

Mr. Siscoe has a real problem, for him the Church means what he says it means. And if you do not agree with him you are not part of the Church. He is a perfect bergoglian. He also cannot read, because the context of my statement regards the presumption of the theory of Universal Acceptance being a valid theory of interpretation, but Siscoe reads my statement as if it was made in reference to fact, not the theory. He also ignores the context of proved a liar, which is that Christ would accept the illegitimate election on the basis of common opinion, and not on that of the law.

I have argued on street corners and sidewalks with every kind of protestant, and whenever you catch them in a lie or false statement, they change the argument. So I am not fooled by Mr. Siscoe’s slippery way of responding to anything said to him. His manner of argumentation is simply another proof that his opinion does not come from God. Indeed, he speaks as if Christ is not God.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

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

$10.00

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

OUR PROLIFE VICTORIES ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN AND FOR THAT REASON WE NEED TO CELEBRATE THIS VICTORY IN THE 9TH U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, OF ALL PLACES AN INCREDIBLE VICTORY.

Victory: 9th Circuit Upholds President Trump’s Protect Life Rule
Pro-life Rule Honors the Will of Americans by Stopping Taxpayer-funded Abortion in Title XWashington, D.C. – Today an 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals upheld, in a 7-4 ruling, President Trump’s Protect Life Rule, declaring that plaintiffs challenging the Rule “will not prevail on the merits of their legal claims” and vacating preliminary injunction rulings issued by three district courts.
The majority opinion written by Judge Sandra Ikuta also states that “There is no ‘gag’ on [nondirective] abortion counseling.”
The national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) issued the following statement in response to the news:
    “Today’s ruling is a vindication of President Trump’s pro-life policies and a victory for the American people,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Abortion is not ‘family planning’ and a strong majority          of Americans – including 42 percent of Independents and more than one third of Democrats – oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. President Trump’s Protect Life Rule honors their will and the plain language of the            Title X statute by stopping the funneling of Title X taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry, without reducing family planning funding by a dime. We thank President Trump and HHS Secretary Azar for their strong                 pro-life leadership and look forward to the end of further frivolous litigation by the abortion lobby.”

Finalized in 2019, the Protect Life Rule advances President Trump’s promise to stop taxpayer funding of abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood.

Under the Protect Life Rule abortion centers cannot serve as taxpayer-funded family planning centers (“co-location”). In addition, Title X locations cannot refer for abortion. The Protect Life Rule does not prohibit Title X providers from providing neutral, nondirective counseling about abortion and does not prevent anyone from obtaining Title X services. It does not reduce family planning funding by a dime. Instead, it directs tax dollars to Title X centers that do not promote or perform abortions, such as the growing number of community and rural health centers that far outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities. Similar regulations were upheld by the Supreme Court in 1991 in Rust v. Sullivan (500 U.S. 173).
Represented by the Thomas More Society, SBA List has filed 10 amicus briefs in support of the Protect Life Rule and the federal government in multiple cases being litigated throughout the country. In August, Planned Parenthood – the nation’s largest abortion business – announced it would drop out of the Title X program and forego nearly $60 million in taxpayer funding rather than comply with the rule.A Marist poll in January of this year found that 60 percent of all Americans – including 42 percent of Independents and 35 percent of Democrats – oppose taxpayer funding of abortion.SBA List is a network of more than 837,000 pro-life Americans nationwide, dedicated to ending abortion by electing national leaders and advocating for laws that save lives, with a special calling to promote pro-life women leaders.#

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

No theory of interpretation trumps canon law, because if it did, then Jesus Christ would be a liar Who said of Peter and the laws of all his successors, Whatsoever you bind upon Earth, shall be bound also in Heaven. Thus if a man were accepted by all in the Church as the pope, when however he had no legitimate claim to the papacy because of the non compliance with any papal law regarding becoming pope, then Christ would be proved a liar.

CANON LAWEDITORIALSNEWS

THE THEORY OF UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE IS CONTRARY TO FAITH, LAW AND FACT

FROM ROME EDITOR8 COMMENTS

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Over at True and False Pope, Mr. Salza has published a reply to Ann Barnhardt full of vile insults, which is most unworthy of any man.

I do not usually comment on blogs, but I decided to join the fray. After soliciting from Mr. Siscoe a clear definition of the theory of Universal Acceptance, I show why that Theory in this case is contrary to Faith, Law and Fact. Here is my reply:

There are major problems with your theory and its application.

First of all, no theory of interpretation trumps canon law, because if it did, then Jesus Christ would be a liar Who said of Peter and the laws of all his successors, Whatsoever you bind upon Earth, shall be bound also in Heaven. Thus if a man were accepted by all in the Church as the pope, when however he had no legitimate claim to the papacy because of the non compliance with any papal law regarding becoming pope, then Christ would be proved a liar.

Therefore, to assert such a theory is applicable in such a circumstance is contrary to the Faith. Therefore, in such a case, if you want to use it, I would have to conclude you are a blasphemer and a heretic, and also a schismatic, since you would thereby adhere to a false pope.

The other problem with your theory is that in the present case, there never was universal acceptance. Bishop Gracida never accepted the renunciation or the election. And I just met about 12 persons at a Conference here in Rome, over the weekend, who told me they did not accept Bergoglio the moment he came out of the Loggia and said, Buona Sera!

The use of this theory of Universal Acceptance in the case of a papal renunciation has been abrogated explicitly by Canon 332 §2, which said that the acceptance of a renunciation by anyone whomsoever is not required for its validity. Therefore, it is not the cause of its validity, nor a sign of its validity. Therefore, to resort to it in the present case is to be a rebel against the papal law, and thus to be condemned by Unam Sanctam, because it is a grave duty of the Faith that we be subject to papal laws and to the true pope.

Finally, you resort to this theory of Universal Acceptance because you manifestly reject to accept the norm of Canon 332 §2 which defines the essential juridical act as a renunciation of munus, which never occurred. Nor can you legitimately read munus where ministerium is written in the Declaratio, because as Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori says in his tract on Interpretation of Law in his Theologial Moralis, that such an interpretation would require a positive additional act of the lawgiver. But such a requirement means the original act is not clear in itself. And as Mons. Arrieta of the Pontifical Council of Legal Texts affirmed for me on De. 11, 2019, such a renunciation which is not clear in itself would be invalid.

Please note, that I have used no ad hominems in my response to you. Unlike the comments you publish here which hurl them at me.

* * *

I add here, not at the other blog, that the use of the theory of Universal Acceptance is the last resort of the willfully blind. Because everyone trained in law knows that the validity of a juridical act has nothing to do with whether it is accepted as valid or not.

I will admit, here, however, that I only read True or False Pope Blog, because the authors of it admitted in substance that they did solicit the financial support for the Fatima Center and that the requirement of the donor was that the center be purged of anyone who held the opinion of Father Gruner, that Benedict was still the Pope.

So, here, I will ask Mrs. Siscoe, Salza and Ferrara a public question: Did any of that financial support arrive in your pockets directly or indirectly? And was it given before you adhered to the theory of universal acceptance?

Finally, it does not surprise me that the authors of the Book True or False pope cannot comprehend the present Church Crisis, in which we have both a True AND a False pope. When you begin with a false premise which you use as a principle of epistemology, then you have blinded yourself from the outset.

__________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screenshot of the blog mentioned in this article and is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

In the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor,” the Pope John Paul II had affirmed that there are truths of the moral order contained in divine revelation, and that the magisterium of the Church can define them infallibly. Various Catholic theologians, of the contrary opinion, had objected that in fact there are no moral truths on which the magisterium has intervened infallibly. The non-reformable position of the encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” regarding the inviolability of innocent human life and in particular abortion responds in a very concrete manner to an objection of this kind.

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 24 feb 

Praise of Freedom, the Real Kind. Dialogue Between a Cardinal and a Lay Thinker

Libro

*

The explosion of individual desires transformed into rights for all is a matter of daily news, in the West and beyond. With no limits anymore. It affects birth and death, technology and the environment, politics and migration, in short, the very nature of man. But is it the triumph of freedom or dictatorship, at the expense of the weakest? And what then is the other freedom, the one that feeds on truth and cannot exist without it?

Cardinal Camillo Ruini, 89, a lifelong philosopher and pastor, discusses this with Gaetano Quagliariello, senator, professor of contemporary history at LUISS in Rome and president of the Magna Carta Foundation, in a lucid and impassioned book, on sale in Italy since February 20:

> C. Ruini, G. Quagliariello, “Another freedom. Against the new prophets of ‘heaven on earth’,” Rubbettino Editore, 2020.

The following offers a taste of it. They are three passages in which Cardinal Ruini addresses the issue of voluntary abortion. At first as a matter of fact, then analyzing it in the light of reason alone, and finally with special attention to the teaching of the Church, culminating in the “infallible and irreformable” pronouncement of John Paul II in the encyclical “Evangelium Vitae,” an encyclical that “seems written today,” so much have its predictions come true, but which too many – the cardinal notes – seem to have set aside.

*

ABORTION, MIRROR OF THE CRISIS OF THE WEST

by Camillo Ruini

(from: “Another freedom. Against the new prophets of ‘heaven on earth’”)

1. THE COURAGE TO CALL IT “MURDER”

In cases concerning the beginning of life, the claim to individual freedom is out of place, because one decides not about oneself but about another, the unborn child, unless one thinks that the unborn child is simply part of the mother’s body: an unsustainable absurdity because he has his own “dna,” his own development and interacts with the mother, as is increasingly clear.

The alternative is to think that the unborn child is not a human being but can become one only later (after birth, or after the formation of the nervous system, or after implantation in the uterus…). In reality this is always a matter of the the same being that evolves, as he does even after birth. His continuity is verified as his distinction from the mother. He is therefore never an “animalcule” of a non-human species. To suppress him is always, from conception or from the fertilization of the egg onwards, to suppress a human being. Therefore the encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” of John Paul II does not hesitate to speak of murder and warns against the manipulations of language that hide reality. Instead he asks to have the courage to call things by their name: “voluntary abortion” and not the aseptic “termination of pregnancy.”

2. NO TO ABORTION IN THE LIGHT OF REASON ALONE

Is there a connection between the attack on life and the crisis of the West and of Western humanism? I believe so, and to trace the common trait I refer to the encyclical “Evangelium Vitae.” […] It was written twenty-five years ago but in essence it seems written today, with the only difference being that today the situation has worsened and the risks reported at the time have largely been realized.

In the first of its four chapters “Evangelium Vitae” highlights the current threats to human life, which we all know. However, it does not limit itself to describing the situation but examines its causes.

The basic justification for the attacks on human life is the claim to individual freedom: consider the slogan of the ‘70s, “My body, my choice.” Today, still on the basis of individual freedom, the right to a living will and from there to assisted suicide is affirmed, situations in which I not only decide but bind others, including doctors, to my free choice. […]

But there is a profound contradiction at the basis of the unease and unhappiness of our age, and therefore of its tendency to escape from ourselves and from reality. On the one hand, there is the great assertion of the freedom and rights of the subject, to the point of setting up this freedom as the absolute criterion for our choices. On the other hand, the subject is conceived of simply as a fruit of evolution, a “speck of nature” (“Gaudium et Spes,” 14), which as such cannot be really and inwardly free and responsible and cannot claim any centrality or any right in the face of the nature that ignores him and does not care for him. This contradiction explodes dramatically in cases such as the death of a young person or a disabling illness, which appear to be meaningless and completely unacceptable.

“Evangelium Vitae” takes a rather demanding step forward to get out of the contradiction. In order that the assertion of our freedom may truly make sense, it is not necessary that God not exist – as most of modern thought has believed – but on the contrary that God exist.

In fact, only if at the origin of our existence there is not only an unconscious nature but also and above all a creative freedom can we be really and inwardly free. This is a great intuition of Kant, taken up by Schelling, which the encyclical proposes in its own perspective. […] When we reflect on what makes it possible for a human life to be truly free and truly have a meaning, we realize that we cannot do without God, and not just any God but God our creator, author and foundation of our life and our freedom.

Therefore the claim that we are the masters of life and death, ours or even others’, is wrong for several reasons. First of all because freedom is not something isolated and absolute, but can only exist in relation to reality, that is, to others and to the environment in which we live. Secondly, because our life and our very freedom come from God and are intrinsically in relationship with him, they are linked to him and ultimately depend on him.

It is therefore unfounded to treat them as something that is ours alone, for which we need answer to no one: we must answer for them before the reality that we are, before the society to which we belong and ultimately before God our creator.

In public discussion we never talk about this relationship with God in order to avoid the accusation of defending life for confessional reasons, and it is right to do so. On the other hand, for the sake of thoroughness it seems appropriate to mention this aspect, which sheds light on the ultimate roots of our freedom. Those who defend life and are not believers can, of course, disagree: the defense of life is certainly possible even regardless of the relationship with God.

3. A “DO NOT KILL” THAT APPLIES EVEN MORE TO CATHOLICS

The teaching of “Evangelium Vitae” must be re-proposed with rational arguments, as recommended by the encyclical itself, which is addressed to all and asks everyone for attention and sympathy in the cause of life, without fear of unpopularity and without stooping to compromises. But the same encyclical is addressed first of all to Catholics, starting with the bishops, and proposes a truth that applies to all but applies in a special capacity to believers.

In publishing it, John Paul II intended to perform an act of the highest doctrinal value, strictly binding for believers. This is in fact the document of his pontificate in which he most brings to bear his magisterium, stating that the commandment “Do not kill” has an absolute value when it refers to innocent people. This clarification, “innocent,” is important in relation to the problem of legitimate defense, which can lawfully lead to the killing of the unjust aggressor, and also for the question of the death penalty, which the Church today excludes because human coexistence can be defended without resorting to it, but has not always ruled out in the past.

According to “Evangelium Vitae” this “absolute inviolability of innocent human life is a moral truth clearly taught by Sacred Scripture, constantly upheld in the Church’s Tradition and consistently proposed by her Magisterium.” It is the fruit of the sense of faith, prompted and guided by the Holy Spirit, who “safeguards the People of God from error when ‘it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals’.” “Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors” – John Paul II writes – “and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral” (no. 57). This solemn formula expresses an infallible and irreformable pronouncement. […] The pope uses the word “I confirm” – and not “I declare” – to underline that this is a matter of a truth already belonging to the patrimony of the Catholic faith. […]

Unfortunately many Catholics, even practicing, do not seem aware of all this: in fact they support and even put into practice regarding abortion positions incompatible with the faith they profess. […]

Interesting is what we can qualify as the intra-ecclesial implication of this statement: in the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” of two years earlier, the pope had affirmed that there are truths of the moral order contained in divine revelation, and that the magisterium of the Church can define them infallibly. Various Catholic theologians, of the contrary opinion, had objected that in fact there are no moral truths on which the magisterium has intervened infallibly. The non-reformable position of the encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” regarding the inviolability of innocent human life and in particular abortion responds in a very concrete manner to an objection of this kind.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

CARDINAL CHRISTOF SCHOENBORN, FRIEND OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL, CATERS TO THE LARGE HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION OF VIENNA WITH EROTIC ART IN THE SANCTUARY OF SAINT STEPHEN CATHEDRAL; AFTER PACHAMMAMA IN THE VATICAN WHY ARE WE SURPRISED. THE CHURCH (THE WORLD) IS GOING MAD


Cardinal Schönborn hangs gigantic purple female sweater in Vienna Cathedral for Lent

Other questionable works from an artist known for photos showing genitalia can be found in and around the parish. Fri Feb 21, 2020 – 7:06 pm EST 

Featured Image
TWITTER

By Martin Bürger


VIENNA, Austria, February 21, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – For Lent, the high altar of St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna, Austria, where Cardinal Christoph Schönborn is archbishop, is covered in a larger-than-life feminine purple sweater

The sweater, consisting of 80 square meters of material, supposedly shows “the priority of warming love of neighbor,” according to the website of the cathedral parish. The cathedral parish claims the sweater is a modern Lenten veil (Fastentuch).

Austrian artist Erwin Wurm is responsible for the sweater. He has also created works that depict naked photographs of men with genitals showing in varying poses.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment