Catholic Monitor

Friday, January 17, 2020


Might the Remnant’s Matt finally be willing to stop Ignoring the Bishop Gracida Solution? 

Could the Remnant editor Michael Matt’s pro-legitimacy bias, that Francis is pope because that’s an infallible dogma of the Francis Creed, finally be starting to crack?
[Click here to read the Francis Creed: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/01/are-1p5-and-where-peter-is-going-to.html?m=1]

I know from someone who knows the inner workings of Matt’s editorship of the Remnant that he “has not allowed phrases like ‘questionably legal’ before in his newspaper or website that appeared in the article “APOSTASY AND OLD LACE: Do We Have an Uncle Benny Brewster in the Attic?”.

There are a couple more examples in this piece that show Matt’s pro-legitimacy bias may be cracking:

– “The story is changing rapidly. As we went to post this article today, reports had it that Pope [Emeritus—sorry!] Benedict XVI is demoting his name from co-author to ‘contributor’ in the new book: From the Depths of Our Hearts.”

– “… With or without actual circus performers, the Circus that is the post-Conciliar Vatican is really outdoing itself, replete with bearded ladies, two popes, snake charmers, the whole bit! The asteroid can’t come soon enough…”

– “… Nearly seven years after his resignation from the Papacy, (questionably legal, but certainly effective) the good bishop has found himself to be in fine fiddle, enough to coauthor a new book with Robert Cardinal Sarah on priestly celibacy.”

 The above phrases would get one banned from Francis is pope because that’s an infallible dogma Steve Skojec’s One Peter Five comment section with the most interesting phrase being “Pope [Emeritus—sorry!] Benedict XVI” with the use of brackets for “Emeritus—sorry!”. 

According to English Club: 

“Brackets are symbols that we use to contain “extra information”, or information that is not part of the main content.”

But, the philosophical meaning of brackets is even more telling:

Bracketing (or epoché) is a preliminary actin the phenomenological analysis, conceived by Husserl as the suspension of the trust in the objectivity of the world.[2] It involves setting aside the question of the real existence of a contemplated object, as well as all other questions about the object’s physical or objective nature.”

Does editor Matt think there are “two popes” or Emeritus” is not a question of the real existence” while “Pope… Benedict” is in “real existence” or that the Benedict resignation is “questionably legal”?

We are in the greatest crisis in the history of the Church, which is equal to the Arian crisis, because we appear to have a heretical Pope and his pro-gay bishops network who make the immoral Borgia Popes and their inner circles look like choir boys so this three-pronged question is important.

It seems that Matt understands at some level the depth of the crisis saying we must fight for the restoration of the Catholic Church and the papacy including getting a “serious” Catholic pope to replace Francis. 

He says we must join forces with non-Catholic conservatives to help us get rid of Francis by critiquing his globalist evil politics.

All of which I agree, but then he in the past has sounded like Francis apologist Jimmy Akin on the Open Letter saying in the post bracketed below that you can’t make a case of heresy out of twisted “airplane utterances.” 

This sounds like when the National Catholic Register’s Jimmy Akin said you can’t make a case of heresy out of a “Open Letter [that] also fails to demonstrate that Pope Francis obstinately doubts or denies dogma.”

But, Matt and Akin haven’t been able to show how you can’t make a case of heresy out of Communion for those committing adultery which way back in 2017 was endorsed by Francis’s Argentine letter that is called “authentic magisterium” by his Vatican and placed in the Holy See’s AAS.

Please explain how this doesn’t make a case of heresy and “demonstrate obstinately doubts or den[y] dogma.”

Matt then says in the above post that the Open Letter is highly unpopular so forget about it and only attempt to get a “serious” Catholic pope by critiquing Francis’s globalist evil politics.

Even a commenter on his video post said:

Evangeline1031  • 7 hours agoWhy does it have to be either or, why can’t it be both?”

Why can’t we go after Francis for both his heretical teachings and his evil globalist politics? 
The Mundabor blog summed up the best case scenario of the Matt tactic:

“Now, everyone with an IQ bigger than the size of his shoes knows that the Bishops aren’t avoiding to release information so that they can investigate more thoroughly than the public could do. No, they are keeping information away from you so that they can a) protect the vast number of people implicated in the protection and enabling of Cardinal McCarrick, b) avoid the unearthing of a vast, vast homosexual clerical net inside and outside of the Vatican,  and c) pretend that they are acting against clerical abuse when they are, in fact, consolidating it and helping it to fester inside and even at the very heart of the Church.”

“If you thought that the US Bishops would put themselves at the head of the movement (not because of concern for the victims or desire to do Christ’s work; but merely in order to avoid the donations drying out) curb your enthusiasm, because I don’t think that this is going to happen. These people are, evidently, too compromised to risk any degree of openness.”

The solution, at this point, is the handcuffs. I hope AGs all over the Country will soon start to treat the US Bishops like the organised criminal ring they are. Let them feel the cold metal on their wrists, and see whether this helps to, as they say today, “facilitate” a change of attitude.”

This is part of the solution, but as a good priest recently said even if we can get the state or Church to remove all the bad bishops, Francis is only going to replace them with worse bishops. And a conclave packed with Francis cardinal electors is only going to give us not a “serious” Catholic pope, but a Francis clone.

Of course, we must continue to work for the removal of Francis’s immoral pro-gay bishops network and it’s evil globalist politics, but the only way we are going to begin a real restoration of the Church is to remove Francis as well as all his controllers and collaborators, BUT:

The only way to end the greatest crisis in the history of the Church is to remove Pope Francis and his collaborators!

How do we do this?

The Vatican is a sovereign state so no government is going to put Francis in handcuffs.

If putting Francis in handcuffs along with his pro-gay bishops network and collaborators “organised criminal ring” apparently is not the answer then what is?

The only answer is the Bishop René Gracida solution which strangely Matt’s Remnant and Steve Skojec’s Onepeterfive choose to ignore.

But, before I get to the solution, we need to remember what early Church expert Rod Bennett wrote:

“Another historian asserts that the number of episcopal sees that can be shown to have remained in orthodox [Catholic] hands throughout the crisis can be counted on the finger of one hand.”
(“Bad Shepherds,” Page 29)

I have been reading St. Athanasius’s writings lately and his situation was so dire and grim that he keeps referring to the antichrist and apparently the end times.

But, before we get to the Gracida solution here is a short history of his dire situation in a old 1919 book by F. A. Forbes titled “St. Athanasius” which shows we in the rag-tag Catholic resistance have not come close to the persecution that the Catholic heroes of the Arian crisis endured:

“It was indeed the hour of darkness, and it seemed as if the powers of evil were let loose upon the world. The Arians, with the Emperor on their side, were carrying everything before them. Nearly all the Bishops who had upheld the Nicene faith were in exile or in prison.”

“St. Anthony, over a hundred years old, was on his death-bed.”

“… Fear not,” replied the old man, “for this power is of the earth and cannot last. As for the sufferings of the Church, was it not so from the beginning, and will it not be so until the end?”

“… [A] new reign of terror began, in which all who refused to accept the Arian creed were treated as criminals. Men and women were seized and scourged; some were slain. Athanasius was denounced as a ‘run-away, an evil-doers, a cheat and an impostor, deserving of death.”

“… In the meantime, where was Athanasius? No one knew – or, at least, so it seemed. He had vanished into the darkness of the night. He was invisible, but his voice could not be silenced, and it was a voice that moved the world. Treatise after treatise in defence of the true faith; letter after letter… to the faithful, were carried far and wide by the hands of trusty messengers. The Arians had the Roman Emperor on their side, but the pen of Athanasius was more powerful than the armies.”

“… Rumour said that Athanasius was in hiding in the Thebaid amongst the monk. The Arians searched the desert… The monks [of St. Anthony] themselves might of thrown some light on the matter, but they were silent men… even when questioned with a dagger at their throats.”

“Silent, but faithful, their sentinels were everywhere, watching for the enemy’s approach. Athanasius was always warned in time, and led by trusty guides to another and safer place. Sometimes it was only by a hair’s breadth that he escaped, but for six years he eluded his enemies.”

“… Tide and wind were against them; the monks had to land and tow the boat; progress was slow and the soldiers of Julian were not far off. Athanasius was absorbed in prayer, preparing for the martyr’s death that, this time at least, seemed very near.”

“… ‘I have no fear,’ answered Athanasius; ‘for many long years I have suffered persecution, and never has it disturbed the peace of my soul, It is a joy to suffer, and the greatest of all joys is to give one’s life for Christ.'”

“There was a silence, during which all gave themselves to prayer. As the Abbott Theodore besought God to save their Patriarch, it was suddenly made known to him by divine revelation that at that moment the Emperor Julian had met his end in battle… and that he had been succeeded by Jovian, a Christian and a Catholic. At once he told the good news to Athanasius, advising him to go without delay to see the new Emperor and ask to be restored to his see.”

“…. [After meeting  Emperor Jovian] Athanasius was back once more in the midst of his people.”

“He had grown old, and his strength was failing, but his soul, still young and vigorous, was undaunted and heroic as ever…”

“His pen was still busy. One of his first acts on return to Alexandria was to write the life of St. Anthony, a last tribute of love and gratitude to the memory of his dear old friend.”

“… In 366 Pope Liberius [who had excommunicated Athanasius] died, and was succeeded by Pope St. Damasus, a man of strong character and holy life. Two years later in a Council of the Church, it was decreed that no Bishop should be consecrated unless he held the creed of Nicaea. Athanasius was overwhelmed with joy on hearing this decision. The triumph of the cause for which he had fought so valiantly was now assured. His life was drawing to an end.”

“… Scarcely was he dead when he was honoured as a Saint. Six year after his death, St. Nazianzen speaks of him in one breath with the patriarchs, prophets, and martyrs who had fought for the Faith and won the crown of glory.”Now, finally, the Bishop Gracida solution is:

“ONE CAN SAY THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A HERETIC [or a anti-pope] UNTIL ONE DIES BUT IT CHANGES NOTHING. WHAT IS NEEDED IS ACTION… WE MUST PRESSURE THE CARDINALS TOACT. SEND THAT LINK TO EVERY PRIEST AND BISHOP YOU KNOW”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/09/alone-it-is-bishop-gracida-against.html (Scroll to the bottom of this post)

The link goes to his Open Letter which shows that there is strong evidence that Francis may be a anti-pope. But only the cardinals can validly make that Church juridical declaration. 

In 2018, Onepeterfive’s anti-Open Letter Steve Skojec rejected Bishop Gracida’s call for the cardinals to judge if Francis’s election to the papacy was valid calling the validity question itself a “potentially dangerous rabbit hole.”(Onepeterfive, “Cardinal Eijk References End Times Prophecy in Intercommunion,” May 7, 2018)

At the time, Skojec referred back to his September 26, 2017 post where he said:

“JPII has removed the election-nullifying consequences of simony… nowhere else in the following paragraphs is nullity of the election even implied.”
(Onepeterfive, “A Brief note on the Question of a Legally Valid Election,” September 26, 2017)

Bishop Gracida shows that Skojec is wrong in his legally crafted Open Letter quoting Pope John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis’ introductory perambulary and paragraph 76:

-“I further confirm, by my Apostlic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process [the above which Gracida clearly shows in his Open Letter was not maintained thus making the conclave and Francis’s papacy invalid according to the Bishop].”
(Introductory perambulary)

-“Should the election take place in a way other than laid down here not to be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void.”
(Paragraph 76)

Gracida’s Open Letter, moreover, shows that Skojec is wrong above:

“The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave.”

On top of all that, Skojec ignores paragraph 5 and contrary to what canon lawyer Edward Peters has said about Universi Dominici Gregis when he suggests canon lawyers have a role in interpreting the John Paul II Constitution, the document says:

“Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect. I [Pope John Paul II] Decree that all power of issuing a judgment of this in this regard to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points.”
(Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 5)

Later in the paragraph it says “except the act of the election,” which can be interpreted in a number of ways.

The point is, as Bishop Gracida says and Universi Dominici Gregis said, only the cardinals can interpret its meaning, not Skojec or canon lawyers.

The Bishop is saying what the document says: only the cardinals can interpret it.

He, also, says put pressure on the cardinals to act and interpret it which both Skojec and Peters appear to prefer to ignore.

Moreover, Bishop Gracida’s Open Letter and Pope John Paul II’s document make a number of points which neither Skojec, Peters or anyone else to my knowledge have even brought up or offered any counter argument against.

They are both wrong if they ignore this important Open Letter of Bishop Gracida.

If Skojec and Peters as well as the conservative and traditional Catholic media are ignoring Bishop Gracida because he isn’t a cardinal and retired, remember that St. Athanasius wasn’t a cardinal (that is involved in the selection or election process of the pope of the time) and was retired.

During the Arian heresy crisis, Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius. You don’t get any more retired than being excommunicated.

Skojec gave blogger Ann Barnhardt’s analysis of the papal validity a long article. The only bishop in the world (besides Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano) contesting Francis in a meaningful way deserves as much.

Matt, Skojec, Peters and all scholarly Catholics need to answer Gracida’s theologically clear and precise arguments and either clearly and precisely counter them or put pressure on the cardinals to put into action the needed canonical procedures to remove Francis if he was “never validly elected” the pope or else remove him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy.

Francis is not orthodox so there are only two things he could be:

 1. A validly elected pope who is a material heretic (as the scholar’s Open Letter states) until cardinals correct him and then canonically proclaim he is a formal heretic if he doesn’t recant thus deposing him (See: “In-depth Explanation of Dubia Consequences for Pope Francis including ‘Removing him from Office'”: https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2016/12/in-depth-explanation-of-dubia.html?m=1)  or

2. a invalidly elected anti-pope who is a heretic due to an invalid conclave or an invalid resignation by Pope Benedict.

The point is whether you think using all the information available 1. is the objective truth or 2. is the objective truth you must act. 
You must as the Bishop says put: “pressure on the cardinals to act” whichever you think. 

Gracida is calling on pressure to be put on the cardinals to “[a]ddress… [the] probable invalidity” due to a invalid conclave or a invalid resignation by Pope Benedict’s XVI before they attempt to depose him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy. But, just as importantly he is calling all faithful Catholics to act and not just bemoan Francis’s heresy.

There are many ways to put pressure such as pray and offer Masses for this intention, send the Gracida link to priests, bishops and cardinals, make signs and pray the rosary in front of their offices as we do in front of abortion clinics. Use your imagination to come up with other ideas.   

But, the best way to put pressure on the cardinals to remove Francis is the rosary. The solution to the greatest crisis in the history of the Church is the rosary as it was for the Austrians.

The way to victory for the Austrians to defeat the Russians according to Fr. Pater Petrus was “a tithe: that ten percent of the Austrians, 700,000, would pledge to say the rosary daily for the Soviets to leave their country. 700,000 pledged” as told on the Santo Rosario website:
                            “At the end of World War II, the allies did a nasty thing: they turned Catholic Austria over to the Russians. The Austrians tolerated this Soviet domination for three years, but that was enough. They wanted the Soviets out of their country. But what could Austria do: seven million against 220 million?”

“Then a priest, Pater Petrus, remembered Don John of Austria. Outnumbered three to one, Don John led the Papal, Venetian, and Spanish ships against the Turks at Lepanto, and through the power of the rosary miraculously defeated them. So Pater Petrus called for a rosary crusade against the Soviets. He asked for a tithe: that ten percent of the Austrians, 700,000, would pledge to say the rosary daily for the Soviets to leave their country. 700,000 pledged.”

“For seven years the Austrians prayed the rosary. Then, on May 13, the anniversary of the apparition at Fatima, in 1955, the Russians left Austria.”

“Even to this day military strategists and historians are baffled. Why did the Communists pull out? Austria is a strategically located country, a door to the West, rich in mineral deposits and oil reserves? To them it was an enigma.”

“Al Williams, former custodian of the National Pilgrim Statue of Our Lady of Fatima, heard me tell this story once. He said to me, “You know, Father, I am Austrian. Well, three months before Therese Neumann died, I visited her (June 18, 1962). One question I asked her was, ‘Why did the Russians leave Austria?’ She told me, ‘Verily, verily, it was the rosaries of the Austrian people.’ ‘ “

“In other words, Our Lady’s rosary did what the Hungarian Freedom Fighters could not do with a bloodbath of 25,000 people. John Cortes, brilliant writer and diplomat of the 19th century wrote: ‘Those who pray do more for the world than those who fight. If the world is going from bad to worse, it is because there are more battles than prayers.'”[http://www.santorosario.net/power.htm]

St. Athanasius pray for Bishop Gracida, the resistance for Faith in this present time and the restoration of the Church.

Pray an Our Father now that a Fr. Petrus be risen up by God in the United States and all countries to bring about a tithe: that ten percent of the faithful American Catholics as well as faithful Catholics in every country say the rosary daily for the cardinals to remove Francisand his collaborators. I am going to start praying one of my rosaries everyday for those two intentionsPosted by Fred Martinez at 4:53 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Saturday, October 19, 2019

Our Lady of Good Success: Pray for the “Prisoner” Pope Benedict, “the Prelate” probably similar to Athanasius & the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary 

The Our Lady of Good Success apparitions are fully approved by the Catholic Church and are associated with many miracles.

Our Lady of Good Success, who appeared in Ecuador 400 years ago, made the following prophecies:

There would be a worldwide crisis of faith and morals in the 20th century that will continue into our time which will be the “greatest crisis of the Church” when “evil will seem to triumph,” then God will sent a “prelate” and Our Lady to restore the Church and defeat “Satan”:

Fourth Apparition: January 21, 1610:

“The Supreme Shepherd and Vicar of Christ on Earth, who, being a prisoner in the Vatican… “

“… [I]n that greatest crisis of the Church, he who is obligated today speak in due time will remain silent.”
(The Story of Our Lady of Good Success and Novena, Pages 40-41)

Ninth Apparition: March, 1634:

“Then the Church will suffer the dark night from lack of a prelate… “

“Pray with insistence, cry out without tiring and weep with bitter tears in the secret recess of your heart, begging our Heavenly Father, for the love of the Eucharistic Heart of my beloved Son, for the Most Precious Blood poured out with such generosity and for the deep grief and pain of His bitter Passion and death, to have pity on His ministers and put an end, as soon as possible, to such disastrous times, by sending to the Church the prelate who shall restore the spirit of his priests… “

“…. The tepidity of all souls consecrated to God in the sacerdotal and religious state will impede having this prelate and father sooner… “

“… [E]vil will seem to triumph… “

“Then my hour shall arrive, in which I, in an astonishing manner, will destroy the proud and accursed Satan, placing him under my feet and burying him in the infernal abyss, while the Church and country finally shall be free of his cruel tyranny.”
(Ibid., Pages 80-81)

Our Lady of Good Success is showing us what we need to do:

1. Pray for the “prisoner” pope who the evidence points to probably being Benedict XVI.

2. “Pray with insistence… begging the Heavenly Father” to send “the prelate,” probably a bishop similar to St. Athanasius, to help to restore the Church.

3. Pray for all the priests, bishops and religious to end their “tepidity” or lukewarmness and to be on fire with adoration and love of God as well as on fire to save souls for the glory of God.

4. Finally, pray for the Heavenly Father to send the Mother of His Son Jesus Christ to “destroy… Satan… burying him in the infernal abyss.”

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and all the above intentions as well as the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary over Satan.

Please offer up Masses, Rosaries, prayers, fastings and sacrifices for these intentions.


Posted by Fred Martinez at 10:58 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Thursday, October 03, 2019

Italian Canon Law Expert confirms Voris’ Report that people in Rome think Francis may be an Antipope

– Updated January 16, 2020

Italian canon Law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo confirmed journalist Michael Voris’ report that people in Rome think Francis may be an antipope.

Br. Bugnolo wrote:

“In fact, if you walk down the streets in Italy and ask whether they think Benedict or Francis is a true pope, 60% will say Benedict… Only those who don’t believe the faith say Bergoglio.”
(From Rome, “Benedict’s End Game is to save the Church from Freemasonry, January 12, 2020, comment section)

Church Militant veteran reporter Michael Voris who was in Rome to cover the Amazon Synod reported there were “whispers and quiet chatter” that Francis may be a antipope:

“[A]ll over Rome just days before the controversial Amazon Synod kicks off [there are “whispers”] that the conclave which elected Pope Francis might have been an invalid conclave… Quiet dinner conversions are punctuated with topics about whether the conclave that elected him [Francis] was valid.”
(Church Militant, “Pre-Synod Report: Invalid Conclave or Heresy?”, October 3 2019)

Veteran reporter Voris apparently is confirming that Bishop Rene Gracida’s call for a imperfect council of cardinals to investigate the validity of the Francis conclave and the Pope Benedict XVI resignation may be being “whispered… all over Rome” possibly even by cardinals.

Is it possible that Voris has heard cardinals in “whisperings” questioning if Francis is a antipope because of a invalid conclave or for other reasons?

It is known “for a fact” according to former frequent guest co-host on the Taylor Marshall TnT YouTube show Fr. David Nix that a cardinal who is known by the co-host is questioning the validity of the Francis papacy:

“Bishop Gracida of Texas is a great hero of mine for publicly questioning the valid resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. I know for fact that at least one other Cardinal in the world is questioning this, too.”
(PadrePeregrino.org, “Courage over Consequentialism in the Hierarchy,” March 3, 2019)

By coincidence, just a few mouths ago, Voris was interviewed by Fr. Nix in a podcast on his Padre Peregrino website
(Padre Peregrino.org, “Glad Trad 6.2: Michael Voris’ 2018 Stories Revisited,” May 19, 2019)

Before or after the interview might Fr. Nix have conveyed who the “Cardinal” is questioning Francis’s validity to the journalist Voris?

Might Fr. Nix’s “Cardinal” be one of those “whispering” to Voris that Francis may be a antipope?

Moreover, Voris according to researcher Randy Engel has connections to Opus Dei which is the next most powerful player in Vatican politics after Cardinal Angelo Sodano’s Vatican Old Guard and the Vatican Gay Lobby.

If it is true that Voris is connected to Opus Dei and he is openly reporting that “all over Rome” there are “whispers” of a Francis “invalid conclave” then it appears that a imperfect council to investigate if Francis is a antipope may not be far off.

Remember that there are many cardinals in the Opus Dei orbit.

This may be the beginnings of a war of Opus Dei against the Vatican Gay Lobby who together with the Old Guard were behind the election of Francis. Moreover, Francis may now have a two front war with Opus Dei and the Sodano Old Guard since Francis stabbed Sodano in the back by firing him.

It appears a imperfect council may be a real possibility because even the well funded Francis “traditionalist” One Peter Five Steve Skojec who is afraid to answer my five Dubia questions to him against his pro-Francis nonsensical “Universial Acceptance” half baked idea is panicking.

The non-journalist and increasingly hysterical Skojec, who last year according to Fr. Nix was a phone friend, has actually attacked Nix’s “hero” Bishop Gracida as well as real journalist Voris on his reporting from Rome because of the possibility of the Gracida call for a imperfect council coming into actualization.
(PadrePeregrino.org, “The Best Day of my Priesthood,” August 15, 2018, Fr. Nix speaks of a phone conversation with Skojec.)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Posted by Fred Martinez at 9:37 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


Archbishop Viganò: Abp. GänsweinAbusively Controls and Misrepresents Benedict XVI

By David Martin

Former U.S. papal nuncio Archbishop Viganò has again taken the ax to the thicket of deception in Rome by faithfully pointing out how Archbishop Georg Gänswein, long believed to be Pope Benedict’s confidant and mouthpiece in the world, has stood in the way of Benedict XVI by censoring his mail, distancing him from his friends, and lying about him behind his back. https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/marco-tosatti-an-intervention-of-archbishop-vigano

In a letter to La Verità on January 16, Viganò refuted the late-breaking news about Benedict having “disavowed” co-authorship of a new book that he helped write with Cardinal Robert Sarah, showing how this was a fabrication of Gänswein. The fact that the word “we” is frequently used in the book clearly shows it was co-authored.

The book, titled From the Depths of Our Hearts: Priesthood, Celibacy, and the Crisis of the Catholic Church,talks down the idea of married priests against the present Vatican efforts to sanction this. Therein, Benedict firmly defends priestly celibacy, making it clear that from the first century “men could only receive the sacrament of Holy Orders if they had committed themselves to sexual abstinence.”

On Tuesday it was reported that Benedict XVI had “requested” of Ignatius Press, the English publisher of the book, that he be removed as co-author. The request was made by Archbishop Gänswein, who told the Italian news agency ANSA that he had “acted on instructions from the pope emeritus and asked Cardinal Robert Sarah to contact the book’s publisher and request that they remove Benedict XVI’s name as co-author of the book, and remove his signature from the introduction and conclusion.”

Vigano’s letter La Verità puts to shame this report. He opens by saying: 

“It is time to reveal the control that has been abusively and systematically exercised by Abp. Gänswein towards the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, ever since the beginning of his pontificate. Gänswein has habitually filtered information, assuming the right to judge for himself how much or how little to tell the Holy Father.”

After expounding somewhat, Viganò goes on to conclude:

“I make this declaration following what has been asserted by Abp. Gänswein to the Ansa agency, in contradiction of what Pope Benedict himself wrote in the exchange of letters made with Cardinal Sarah. It is a sensational as well as slanderous insinuation towards the most eminent Cdl. Robert Sarah, promptly denied by the same.”

Vigano’s testimony lines up with the facts. Cdl Sarah issued a statement on January 14, in which he states: “On November 25, the Pope Emeritus expressed his great satisfaction with the texts written in common, and he added the following: ‘For my part, I agree that the text should be published in the form you have foreseen.’” 

This sharply contradicts Archbishop Gänswein’s statement to ANSA, in which he said that Benedict “did not approve a project for a co-authored book, and that he had not seen or authorized the cover.” 

Pope Francis at the Controls

We now learn that it was Pope Francis who summoned Gänswein and ordered him to make the request of Ignatius Press because he didn’t agree with the new book that defends priestly celibacy against his own designs to allow married priests in the Amazon. Not to mention other things.

According to an inside Vatican report from journalist Antonio Socci, an “enraged” Pope Francis “personally summoned Monsignor Gänswein, Benedict’s secretary, but also Prefect of Bergoglio’s [Francis’] Papal Household and furiously ordered him to have Benedict XVI’s name removed from the cover of the book.” (Rorate-Caeli)

And so, it was Pope Francis who forced Gänswein to request that Benedict’s name be removed from the book, but why did Gänswein listen? Instead of remaining faithful to God and neighbor Gänswein smacked up to Francis to the discredit of Benedict XVI, presumably to safeguard his own position as Prefect of the Pontifical Household.

Given that, we can safely infer that Gänswein was also lying when he publicly stated that Benedict upon his resignation had introduced a new innovation to the papacy: “a de facto enlarged ministry, with both an active and a contemplative member so that we now have “two living successors of Peter among us” that “are not in competition with each other,” i.e. Benedict and Francis. https://veritas-vincit-international.org/2016/09/13/papal-secretary-archbishop-gansweinspeaks-on-benedict-the-two-popes-and-prophecy/      

The truth is that Benedict was forced into abdicating the Chair of Peter, something that Gänswein is covering. Benedict acted freely in stepping down, yes, he freely said “uncle,” a flight that was providentially foreshadowed in his inaugural speech of April 24, 2005, when he said: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.” 

We know from the late Cardinal Danneels of Brussels that he was part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. Danneels, known for his support of abortion, LGBT rights, and gay-marriage, said in a taped interview in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of this “mafia” club that was calling for drastic changes in the Church, to make it “much more modern,” and that the plan was to oust Benedict have Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio head it. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-danneels-part-of-mafia-club-opposedto-benedict-xvi This infamous clique comprised key members of the Vatican “gay lobby” that had clamored for Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, the same that had almost prevented his election in 2005.

It is this same brood of vipers under Francis’ direction that continues to oppress and persecute Benedict XVI. Given the potential that he could one day come forward with the full Third Secret of Fatima and expose the whole mess behind the failed papacy of Francis, this shouldn’t be too difficult to understand. 

The day may be coming in the not so distant future when Benedict XVI will speak the truth, whereby the Church at large will come to realize that the Vatican since 2013 has been home to a prisoner pope who never truly resigned his office.

The entire text of Archbishop Vigano’s January 16 letter is as follows.

La Verità — Jan. 16, 2020

Dear editor,

It is time to reveal the control that has been abusively and systematically exercised by Abp. Gänswein towards the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, ever since the beginning of his pontificate.

Gänswein has habitually filtered information, assuming the right to judge for himself how much or how little to tell the Holy Father.

I can testify that, when Pope Benedict received me in audience on April 4, 2011, a few days after I had sent him my first letter (later abusively published in the course of VatiLeaks) I said to the Pontiff: “I will not speak to you about the situation of corruption in the administration of the Pontifical Villas, because I presume that you have already reviewed the Memorandum in this regard that I gave to your secretary for you, in view of this Audience.”

The Holy Father, in all simplicity and innocence, and without showing any surprise, said, “No, I have seen nothing.”

I further testify another fact that reveals how much Abp. Gänswein controlled information given to the Holy Father and conditioned the liberty of action of the Same. On the occasion of the canonization of Marianne Cope and Kateri Tekakwitha, having requested in writing to the then-Prefect of the Papal Household, Msgr. James Harvey, to be received in an audience with the Pope, and not having received any response, I asked the Prefect, on October 23, 2012, why I had not received any response to my request for an audience.

I recall the circumstance perfectly, because Msgr. Harvey suggested to me that I would participate in the General Audience the following day, so as to at least be able to personally greet the Holy Father with the other bishops present. Msgr. Harvey responded with the following words: “Gänswein said to me: ‘Monsignor Viganò is the last person who can approach Pope Benedict!'”

Harvey then added that at the beginning of the Pontificate, Benedict XVI, pointing at him [Gänswein] with his finger, exclaimed, “Gestapo! Gestapo!”

This unscrupulous attitude was shown from the very beginning of the pontificate in the determination with which Gänswein succeeded in distancing the Pope from his dear assistant and secretary Ingrid Stampa, whom then-Cdl. Ratzinger wanted at his side for well over a decade after the death of his sister, Maria Ratzinger.

And then I note that in order to escape from this total control exercised over his person by Gänswein, Pope Benedict often went to his previous personal secretary, Msgr. Josef Clemens, also inviting to said family meeting Ingrid Stampa.

I make this declaration following what has been asserted by Abp. Gänswein to the Ansa agency, in contradiction of what Pope Benedict himself wrote in the exchange of letters made with Cardinal Sarah. It is a sensational as well as slanderous insinuation towards the most eminent Cdl. Robert Sarah, promptly denied by the same.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Originally published in Italian on Marco Tosatti’s website.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Zmirak: Communist China owns the Bergoglian Regime, but that is not half of it!

by From Rome Editor

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The information related by Mr. Zmirak here in this video raises serious questions about the Renunciation of Pope Benedict, as regards coercion prior to the act

Chinese Intelligence Involvement?

I say this not only on account of what Mr. Zimrak says, but on account of what I know that he does not know. Because, I have it from one of the business men who dined one evening in Shanghai with Cardinal Papalardo, of Palermo (may he rest in peace), heard from his own mouth that the Cardinal was convinced the health of Pope Benedict was so poor that he would die within a year. The news of this comment spread, and the MSM put out stories on Feb. 12, 2012, that there was a plot to assassinate Pope Benedict if he refused to resign within a year.

My question is, now that we know from Cardinal Zen of Hong Kong, that the Vatican Accord signed by Parolin was substantially the agreement of capitulation which Peking demanded Pope Benedict XVI to sign, though he refused: should we not consider it possible that Peking subborned Vatican representatives or connived with McCarrick to bribe Vatican officials (maybe even Gänswein?) to make the resignation happen?

After all, when the Italian businessmen joined the Cardinal in Shanghai for dinner in 2011, they were surprised to find him in China, and he said he was on official Vatican Business.

I find that hard to believe, because one of my sources who was the personal secretary of not a few Bishops in Italy, told me that Pope Benedict XVI sacked Cardinal Papalardo from the Congregation of Bishops because he was selling episcopal nominations for 100 thousand euros a pop! Once sacked, he bore a strong animus against Benedict til his dying days, it is said. And that means it might not have been an unintentional rumor, it might have been a carefully crafty psyop against Benedict by Chinese Intelligence, who somehow got Papalardo to cooperate.

So I think there is more than solid reasons to consider it possible that Pope Benedict XVI was not only urged out of power by the Obama Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, but also with the urging and perhaps financing of the Marxist government of China.

Is the Vatican still laundering money for the CIA?

Key to the Renunciation is the discrepancy of why Cardinal Bertone called Mr. Gotti to his offices on Feb. 7, 2013 to promise his reinstatement in his duties as financial officer at the Vatican — he was dismissed without Pope Benedict’s knowledge, said Bertone, and Benedict only learned of it while watching TV! — and just 4 days later Benedict decides to resign?

According to Gänswein, Benedict prepared for his resignation over many months. Yet the Latin text has more than 40 errors in the Latin and several canonical errors!  And Vatican TV was not even notified to turn their cameras on to catch it all?

It does not add up.

I think another line of investigation regards what Gotti might have possibly discovered if reinstated. And I think it has to do with slush funds in the Vatican Bank used by foreign Intelligence Agencies to bribe foreign officials, including Vatican officials.

I  base this observation on a very detailed report published in the USA on how Pope John Paul II cooperated with the CIA to fund the Solidarity Movement in Poland, which brought down the Communist Government there. The report said that the money was laundered through the Vatican Bank.  Did accounts like this remain operative after 1988? And if so, for what purposes?

The internecine battle in September between the Vatican Financial Oversight authority and the Secretary of State’s foreign investments in London, through a Swiss Bank and a financier in Luxembourg may have to do with the same slush funds, because almost immediately the Italian press published information showing that the current Prime Minster of Italy was paid money, ostensibly as a salary, about the time he was chosen as Prime Minister, out of a life of political obscurity. Since that time, Conte has run Italy strictly for the political agendas of France and Germany. While at the same time the Bergoglian Regime has forcefully defended the antics of one ship in the Mediterranean  Sea which imports illegals, which the European Press has unmasked as financed by Cardinal Marx and perhaps even German Intelligence.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


We need to re-examine the Renunciation minus Gänswein

by From Rome Editor

The Coast of Arms of Archbishop Gänswein before 2017 when he removed those of Benedict and replaced them with those of Bergoglio.

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

So many lines of supposition, speculation, investigation, analysis and examination pursued theories and explanations of Pope Benedict’s actions in February 2013 and beyond, on the basis of what Georg Gänswein told us. We presumed he was telling the truth, that he was reliable, faithful, honest and expressed only what the Holy Father wanted him to say.

Now that the masque has been ripped off by multiple reports (Socci, Tosatti 1 2Viganòmyself) the entire history of the Renunciation needs to be examined minus Gänswein, that is, without presuming he is telling the truth.

Here are some questions I propose for investigators as they reread the reports from 2005 to 2020, which talk about Pope Benedict, the opposition he faced, why he Renounced, what it all meant:

  • Was Gänswein co-opted into the St. Gallen Mafia as early as the Conclave of 2005? I move this question on the basis of the testimony of Marco Tosatti’s source in the Curia, that something profoundly changed Gänswein with the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope.
  • Is it Gänswein who put into the head of Benedict the idea that he should, could, or must renounce?
  • Did Gänswein over several years psychologically condition Benedict to renounce?
  • Did Gänswein encourage or foster ideas of renunciation at the request of Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
  • Did Gänswein allow Pope Benedict’s letters to be stolen from his desk during the Vatileaks as a part of a plot by the St. Gallen Mafia to psychologically isolate, reduce and destroy Pope Benedict, inducing him to resign?
  • Did Gänswein play a double role in the fall of 2012, so as to obtain from Benedict the elevation to Archbishop and Head of the Pontifical Household, precisely so he could serve the St Gallen Mafia as a prison warden after the Renunciation?
  • Did Gänswein write the text of the Renunciation?
  • Did Gänswein sign off on the concept of a renunciation of ministry, based on his recourse to the German translation of the code in canon 145 §1?
  • Is Gänswein bitterly defending the validity of the Renunciation because of his role in procuring it, forming it, directing it?
  • Is the presumption that the Renunciation means a renunciation of office something which Gänswein put into the head of Pope Benedict, in a weakened state, by means of gaslighting, as he tried to do with me via phone?
  • Is the presumption of the Cardinals that the Renunciation is valid or means a renunciation of the papacy, based on Gänswein’s claim that this is what Benedict means and meant and wants?
  • Is the refusal to clarify the questions after the Renunciation have everything to do with Gänswein and nothing to do with Benedict?
  • Is Benedict BEING KEPT A VIRTUAL PRISONER AND ABUSED on a daily basis to prevent him from communicating to the world that he never intended to renounce the munus petrinum?
  • Does Benedict know he is the pope and say he is the pope in private?
  • Are the public statements attributed to Pope Benedict XVI after Feb. 2013 the creations of Gänswein and not at all the faithful expressions of the mind of Pope Benedict?
  • Since we can now be morally certain that Benedict does NOT tell Gänswein everything, how can we be sure that Gänswein even understands or knows what Pope Benedict’s Intention was when he read out his Declaratio on Feb. 11, 2013?

These questions are devastating, but the Church and all historians who examine the Renunciation must NOW ask them and must find the answers.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment



Jean-Francois Orsini

In a book of Sophia Institute Press, Fr. Nicolas J. Laforet entitled Unbelief the author lists a series of reasons for which some (if not most) people do not believe (or fully believe) the teachings of the Church.

According to Father, Science is not a cause of unbelief. However, ignorance, indifference, materialism, skepticism, sophistry and the appeals of “natural religions” are source of unbelief to the French speaking priest. He wrote the book in 1864 which was praised by Pope Pius IX.

At this point, I’d like to introduce the wisdom of a business management professor, Dr. Russ Ackoff. Dr. Ackoff, was my Jewish professor during my doctorate at Wharton School. He was famous for being the founder of the Operations Research Society (creating many mathematical tools to deal with mostly problems of logistics that appear in business management) and a lead consultant employed by the US government to devise a plan for clearing Tokyo bay from the mines that the same government had installed. He shared that position with the estimable William A. Wallace who later became Fr. Wallace, OP of the Dominican House of Studies, Washington DC, and a great defender of Realistic Thomism.

Ackoff who had a very original and interesting plan to form doctoral students, taught that there are three ways to deal with problems. They can be solved, resolved or dissolved.

Solving a one variable equation is solving that problem. It is to find the unique solution of the problem. On the other hand, most engineering problems are usually resolvable. That is that one among several possible solutions one can be selected and implemented, hopefully the best one.

Dissolving a problem consists in showing that there was no problem to begin with. Whenever possible this is the path to follow as it is the most effective and elegant way of getting rid of a problem.

To dissolve a problem, one must realize that the conditions of the problem can be changed and then take advantage of it.

 Alexander the Great was presented the Gordian knot. It was a huge knot that nobody has been able to untie.  Alexander took out his sword and cut the knot. 

Christopher Columbus was reportedly asked to stand an egg upright. He tapped the large end of the egg on the table thus making it flatter and not really breaking it and not spilling the content because at the large end there is an air pocket.

Yes, dissolving a problem often resembles cheating. But it is also to the credit of the solution maker who has seen that the condition presented to him could possibly be changed. Alexander was not told not to use his sword. Columbus was not told not to crack – even a little bit – the egg.

During our life on earth we are constantly presented with problems, problems on how to achieve a desirable goal, problems on how to remove an annoying obstacle. 

The real solution seeker understands that he must change the conditions of the problem, to think outside of the box.

The box is full of the relatively petty elements of our environment and especially our myopic look at this environment. What my mother would call: “not being able to see further than the tip of one’s nose”. Outside of the box is the Kingdom of God and how it impinges directly on the same petty elements of our environment.

One important reason for our disbelief is the incapacity of looking outside of our personal existential box. Apparently, it requires a mindset tantamount to the mindset of an explorer to question the presumed validity of the limits of our environment. It requires a thirst for truth. Maybe not the same truth sought for looking at a specimen under controlled conditions and a microscope, but the truth to be had in setting sail in a direction never sought previously by anyone.

To start believing in the doctrines of the Church, the witnessing of so many saints, is the ultimate stepping out of the box of our daily concerns and into the immense true cosmos of our existence. 

Kurt Lewin’s “There is nothing more practical than a good theory” can be extended to the Christian paradigm. So many practical everyday problems can be dissolved when we learn from Our Lord His existence and creation, His love and the love of His mother, the role and value of His Church, the requirements of the Decalogue, the comfort of the Sermon on the mount.

But most practically we understand the Christian message that each of us has a purpose and was given a singular plan of life by God who made us for a unique environment and with a unique set of aspirations and talents. All we need is to ask God what he wants from us and to set up and accomplish His will for us. All we need is to constantly listen to the Holy Spirit that resides in us. He will tell us how to dissolve our problems.


Jean-Francois Orsini is a graduate of a top French business school, and has earned both a MBA and Ph.D. from the Wharton School. His latest book is “Love is God – True love; true happiness for the serious seekers”. His free website HolySpiritedArsenal.com has for objective to complete the religious education of the newly confirmed and/or poorly catechized so they can become true soldiers in the Army of Christ as the Confirmation sacrament commits them to. He is a They Third Order Dominican and past prior of his chapter.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


“O Salutaris Hostia,Quae caeli pandis ostium!”(“O Saving Victim, opening wideThe gate of heaven to man below!”)—A hymn in praise of Jesus Christ, composed by St. Thomas Aquinas, writing in the 1200s. Aquinas says the work of Jesus Christ was, through his sacrificial death, to open the gates of Heaven (eternity) to man. (Here is a link to a sung version of the hymn: link). This teaching — that Christ, through his sacrificial death, re-enacted at every Mass, opened the gates of Paradise to fallen mankind — is the essential basis for the veneration all Catholics have for the priesthood, and both Emeritus Pope Benedict and Cardinal Robert Sarah teach in their new book that the priesthood is a sublime calling because the priest, conformed to Christ (including through priestly celibacy), actually participates in Christ’s ultimate work: opening heaven to fallen humanity
The Controversy that Continues to IntensifyThe controversy over the Cardinal Robert Sarah-Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI book on priestly celibacy, and the chaos surrounding its publication; the revelatory comment today of Archbishop Viganò; and the great conflict over celibacy and the Catholic priesthood, and so over the sacramental heart of Christianity itself By Robert MoynihanCardinal Robert Sarah (right) and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI spent many weeks during 2019 corresponding by letter and preparing essays about the meaning of clerical celibacy in what was ostensibly a joint project — a co-authored book.Cardinal Robert SarahNote: If you would like to become a sponsor of these letters, which would be very helpful in these interesting times, please click here. A monthly donation, even if very small, is very much appreciated. – RMThe book was published this week, in French, and it will soon be published in other languages, with the book’s authorship attributed to both men. (Link for a report on the Ignatius Press English-language edition.)Suddenly, through a process that has not been fully explained, Archbishop Georg Gaenswein (below, left – pictured with Pope Francis), the personal secretary of Benedict, announced that there had been “a misunderstanding” and that the book was not co-authored by Benedict, but authored only by Cardinal Sarah “with” Pope Benedict making a contribution.Italian journalist Antonio Socci now claims — without giving attribution to any source, so it is not known whether the account is true — that the change was ordered by Pope Francis himself (link to Socci’s article in Italian.)According to this account, Francis learned of the book publication, became enraged(!), summoned Gaenswein, and in person commanded Gaenswein to do whatever was necessary to take the Emeritus Pope’s name off the book as co-author. (Indeed, Socci’s sources told him that Francis at first asked for a “total retraction,” in other words, that Benedict say he had not written any part of the book; but no “total retraction” could be made because Benedict had authored some parts of the book.)Gaenswein then made a public announcement that Cardinal Sarah had “misunderstood” the agreement between Pope Emeritus Benedict and himself, and that, for this reason, Benedict’s name would be taken off as “co-author.” (See these links for reports on this: in German, in the Catholic News Agency report in the Catholic Herald by Hannah Brockhaus, and in the National Catholic Reporter report by Joshua McElwee.) Pope Emeritus Benedict, left, and Pope FrancisHere is an account, based on Socci’s report, from LifeSiteNews yesterday which tells this astonishing, but not yet fully confirmed, story:Vatican insider: ‘Furious’ Francis demanded Benedict retract name from priestly celibacy bookVaticanist Antonio Socci said that Pope Francis ordered Benedict’s secretary to remove the name of Benedict XVI from the cover of the book.Wed Jan 15, 2020 – 2:39 pm EST By Dorothy Cummings McLeanROME, January 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Vatican-based journalist has alleged that Pope Francis was “furious” over Pope Benedict’s contribution to a book co-authored with Cardinal Robert Sarah defending priestly celibacy, demanding that Benedict retract his name from the work. Antonio Socci, an Italian Catholic journalist best known for his coverage of Church news, has reported on social media that Pope Francis was infuriated by the texts in Des Profondeurs de nos coeurs (“From the Depths of Our Hearts”) supporting priestly celibacy. “The day before yesterday… the end of the world broke out in the Vatican because Bergoglio was furious,” Socci wrote on Tuesday. “In fact, that very authoritative pronouncement of Benedict XVI prevents him from taking a pickaxe to ecclesiastical celibacy as he had planned to do in the next post-synodal exhortation,” he continued.  “Thus, [Pope Francis] personally called Archbishop (Georg) Gänswein, the secretary of Benedict XVI as well as the Prefect of Bergoglio’s Pontifical Household, and ― furious ― ordered him to remove the name of Benedict XVI from the cover of the book …”Socci said that “reliable sources within the Vatican” had given him the “behind the scenes” story leading up to the Pope Emeritus’ decision to distance himself from the book he co-authored with Cardinal Sarah. The prolific author of such works as The Secret of Benedict XVI: Is He Still the Pope? stated that Pope Francis wanted his predecessor to renounce his authorship entirely ― which would have been a falsehood. “Bergoglio demanded a full and total retraction,” Socci wrote. “For this reason the first filtered news spoke of sources ‘close to Benedict XVI’ who said that Benedict had neither co-authored a book with Sarah nor approved the cover, that is, his signature on the book,” he continued. “This, however, was not true, and Benedict XVI could not bring himself to bear false witness implying that Cardinal Sarah had involved him without his consent. Nor had Pope Benedict the least intention of retracting what he had written in defense of celibacy in that volume.”  Socci noted that at the outbreak of the scandal Cardinal Sarah had published his correspondence with the Pope Emeritus that demonstrated that the book was the work of them both and that the book had Benedict’s consent. The Pope Emeritus’ instructions to publishers to downplay his authorship in future editions of the work, however, was allegedly to protect Archbishop Gänswein. “….Benedict also found it necessary to shelter his secretary from South American ‘vendettas,’ given that he had received a peremptory order from Bergoglio,” Socci wrote. “Thus this compromise solution was adopted: on the cover of future editions of the book the author will be Cardinal Sarah ‘with the contribution of Benedict XVI,” he continued. “The text in the book, in any case, will remain the same.”  Socci said that this “messy compromise” means that Pope Francis’s “court” are able to tell the media that the Pope Emeritus has retracted his signature from the book, “even though this is not true” and his name still appears on the agreed-upon parts of the work. “A most ugly story of clerical power that in the end points to a gagging of Benedict XVI,” Socci remarked.“However, there remains the underlying question: if Bergoglio, in his exhortation bashes celibacy, with the ordination of ‘viri probati,’ which is in fact in direct conflict with the doctrine of the Church recently reaffirmed by Pope Benedict XVI,” Socci stated. “Thus he assumes responsibility for a most serious breach with heavy consequences.” The American publisher of the English translation of the work, Ignatius Press, has affirmed the co-authorship of the work. The company’s founder and editor-in-chief, a former student of Joseph Ratzinger, told LifeSiteNews on Monday that claims Benedict had not co-authored the book were “fake news.” “I just got a call from Cardinal Sarah. He confirms that Pope Benedict is co-author with him,” said Fr. Joseph Fessio.Ignatius press confirmed Tuesday that it will continue to list the two prelates as co-authors.According to an official letter written to the bishops of the world, but leaked to LifeSiteNews, Pope Francis wants to publish a final document on the Amazon Synod by early February. One of the most controversial topics of the synod, the possibility of ordaining married aboriginal men in the Amazon to the priesthood, is expected to be addressed in this post-synodal exhortation. [End LifeSiteNews article on Socci’s Italian report]================So here we are…So here we are: the controversy over this new book on priestly celibacy has exploded and is raging…Critical issues are at stake in the battle over the publication of this book. They range from the question of:(1) the role of celibacy in the priesthood to (2) the nature of the relationship between Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict Under the first point, it is generally agreed that celibacy is a “discipline” not a “dogma.” There are married Catholic priests. For example, there are about 120 married Anglican priests who, upon becoming Catholics, have been recognized as Catholic priests (link); and, in the eastern rites, priests are permitted to marry before they are ordained. However, it is the view of many — and, in particular, of Pope Emeritus Benedict and Cardinal Sarah — that the tradition of a celibate priesthood is of central importance for the identity of the priest, who is devoted exclusively (“married”) — like Christ Himself — to the Church. Regarding the second point, this controversy raises the question of whether a retired Pope could or might have any magisterial or governing authority, and if so, of what type. So, this controversy seems to reflect an unresolved institutional crisis related to the lack of clarity about the present situation of “two Popes” — though most commentators might say that that itself is a false way of putting the matter, since, they would insist, there are not “two” Popes at all, only one — as has always been Catholic tradition and belief.The key point today is that clarity about these issues remains frustratingly elusive because the two central characters — Emeritus Pope Benedict and Pope Francis — have not themselves spoken on the matter. Everything that is being said about this controversy is coming from intermediaries: from the book’s co-author, Cardinal Sarah; from Archbishop Gaenswein; from publishers, like Fr. Fessio; and from anonymous “sources” of various reliability…Only if Benedict and Francis would speak, without intermediaries, could some semblance of clarity emerge.
In re-publishing the reports that follow, I attempt to make a contribution to clarifying the issues at stake, without pretending to offer a definitive conclusion about the truth of what has transpired.===============Two key pointsThere are two key points to keep in mind: (1) A puzzling delay in an expected decision on celibacy in the priesthood from Pope Francis.Pope Francis had been expected to issue his “wrap-up” statement on the Amazon Synod, held during October in Rome, either just before or after Christmas, 2019. Speculation was that his statement would approved the ordination of married men in the Church in the special context of the Amazon region. But it was widely understood that, if the approval was granted for the Amazon Region, it would “inevitably” (so observers on all sides judged) slowly be extended to places like Germany, and then to other countries, and finally to the whole world. But that statement has not yet come out. But now two weeks have passed by since the end of 2019. Something seems to be holding up the post-Synod statement. And at this precise moment, this book has appeared, containing a direct appeal from the old Pope (Benedict) to the new Pope (Francis) not to take the step many expect Pope Francis is about to take. So this is the drama of the situation. Benedict in the book is appealing to Francis not to take a step many were expecting Francis has decided to take.(2) A public “slap” against both Emeritus Pope Benedict and Cardinal SarahThe events of the past three days are being read by most Vatican observers as a public “slap” against both Cardinal Sarah and Emeritus Pope Benedict by “someone” who evidently has authority over both of them. That “someone” is evidently Francis himself. But this is still not entirely clear, because — as some observers say — it could be that someone in the circle of Francis has acted on Francis’ behalf.In this view, Francis may not be fully aware of what is being done under his authority. It would not be the first time, in the Vatican, that decisions are taken and commands issued without informing the Pope.=====================Two additional articlesHere follow two articles of considerable interest: (1) a comment today by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on the role of Archbishop Gaenswein, and (2) a more general reflection on these matters in First Things written by Francis X. Maier, the Chancellor of Archbishop Charles Chaput in the archdiocese of Philadelphia — and at one time, when I worked at the National Catholic Register in the 1980s, my editor and mentor.Archbishop Carlo Maria ViganòArticle #1: Today’s Comment by Archbishop ViganòAbp Viganò denounces Benedict’s secretary for ‘abusive and systematic control’ of Pope Emeritus‘Gänswein,’ Viganò claims, ‘habitually filtered information, arrogating to himself the right to judge how opportune or not it was to send it to the Holy Father.’LifeSiteNews Thu Jan 16, 2020 – 1:00 am EST By Diane MontagnaROME, January 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — In the wake of the controversy surrounding the genesis of Cardinal Robert Sarah’s new book with Benedict XVI on priestly celibacy, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has released a testimony denouncing Archbishop Georg Gänswein for what he calls his “abusive and systematic control” of the Pope Emeritus.“It is time to reveal the abusive and systematic control exercised by Archbishop Georg Gänswein over the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI since the beginning of his pontificate,” Archbishop Viganò writes in the one-page testimony released on January 16 (see official English text below). LifeSite has reached out to Archbishop Gänswein, and will update readers if he responds.Archbishop Viganò’s testimony follows several days of fierce backlash against the pope emeritus and the cardinal, portraying them as opposed to Pope Francis and undermining his widely anticipated apostolic exhortation on the Amazon Synod. It also comes after the Archbishop Gänswein openly contradicted Cardinal Sarah’s official account of the genesis of the book, claiming instead that Benedict “did not approve a project for a co-authored book and he had not seen or authorized the cover.”In the new testimony, Archbishop Viganò asserts that “Gänswein habitually filtered information, arrogating to himself the right to judge how opportune or not it was to send it to the Holy Father.”Archbishop Gänswein, who currently serves as personal secretary to Benedict XVI and as prefect of the papal household in the current pontificate, has worked alongside the pope emeritus for over two decades. In 1996, Gänswein joined the staff of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and in 2003, he replaced Josef Clemens as Ratzinger’s secretary. When Cardinal Ratzinger was elected pope in 2005, Gänswein was appointed his principal private secretary. In 2012, he replaced Cardinal James Michael Harvey as prefect of the papal household. In this post, the German prelate oversaw the majority of Pope Benedict XVI’s public and private events, correspondence, visitors, and apostolic journeys.In his January 16 statement, Archbishop Viganò offers two personal experiences he had of Gänswein’s alleged “control” of Benedict, the first as a high-level official in the Vatican Secretariat of State and the second as apostolic nuncio to the United States. He says what has moved him to take this step is Archbishop Gänswein’s “sensational and slanderous insinuation” against Cardinal Robert Sarahfollowing the release of the new co-authored book, titled From the Depths of Our Hearts: Priesthood, Celibacy, and the Crisis of the Catholic Church.In comments to the ANSA news agency on Tuesday, Archbishop Gänswein said he has “acted on instructions from the pope emeritus and asked Cardinal Robert Sarah to contact the book’s publisher and request that they remove Benedict XVI’s name as co-author of the book, and remove his signature from the introduction and conclusion.” “The Pope Emeritus knew that the cardinal was preparing a book and he sent him a text on the priesthood authorizing him to use it as he wished,” Gänswein continued. But contrary to an official statement released by Cardinal Sarah earlier on Tuesday, the German prelate claimed that Benedict “did not approve a project for a co-authored book, and he had not seen or authorized the cover.”“It is a misunderstanding that does not raise questions about Cardinal Sarah’s good faith,” he said.Just a short time after, Cardinal Sarah openly said he stood by his official statement, affirming that it “remains my one and only version of the course of events.”Ignatius Press, which is publishing the book in English, has stood by the co-authorship and cover.Here below is the official English text of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s testimony.* * *Testimony by Archbishop Carlo Maria ViganòJanuary 16, 2020By Archbishop Carlo Maria ViganòIt is time to reveal the abusive and systematic control exercised by Archbishop Georg Gänswein over the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI since the beginning of his Pontificate.Gänswein habitually filtered information, arrogating to himself the right to judge how opportune or not it was to send it to the Holy Father.I can testify that, when Pope Benedict summoned me in audience on April 4, 2011, a few days after I had sent him my first letter (that was later illegally published during Vatileaks), I said to the Pontiff: “I will not speak to you about the situation of corruption in the management of the Papal Villas, since I assume that you have already taken note of the memo on the matter, which I delivered to your secretary for you, in view of this audience.”The Holy Father, in all simplicity and innocence, and without showing any surprise, said to me: “No, I didn’t see anything.”I also testify to another event that shows how Monsignor Gänswein controlled information for the Holy Father and conditioned his freedom of action. On the occasion of the canonization of Marianne Cope and Kateri Tekakwitha, having requested in writing to the then-prefect of the papal household, Archbishop James M. Harvey, to be received in audience by the Pope, and having received no response, I went to the same Prefect on Tuesday, October 23, 2012, asking him why I had received no response to my request for an audience. I remember perfectly the circumstance, because Archbishop Harvey suggested that I attend the general audience the next day, so that I could at least greet the Holy Father personally, with the other bishops who were present. Archbishop Harvey answered me with the following words: “Gänswein said to me: ‘Archbishop Viganò is the last person who can approach Pope Benedict!’” He then added that, at the beginning of his pontificate, Benedict XVI, indicating Gänswein to him with his index finger, exclaimed: “Gestapo! Gestapo!”This unscrupulous attitude was revealed from the very beginning of his pontificate, also in the determination with which Gänswein managed to distance from the pope his precious assistant and secretary, Ingrid Stampa, whom then-cardinal Ratzinger had wanted at his side for well over a decade after the death of his sister Maria Ratzinger.Furthermore, it is known that to escape this total control exercised over his person by Gänswein, Pope Benedict often went to visit his previous special secretary, Bishop Josef Clemens, inviting Ingrid Stampa to these familial gatherings. I am issuing this statement following what Archbishop Gänswein asserted in recent days to the ANSA news agency, contradicting what Pope Benedict himself had written in his correspondence with Cardinal Sarah. This statement is a sensational and slanderous insinuation against the most eminent Cardinal Robert Sarah, which he swiftly denied.Translation by Diane Montagna of LifeSiteNews.
Article #2: The First Things Comment of Francis X. MaierAuthor’s noteOn January 14, in the latest curiosity from Rome, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI asked through a spokesman that his name be removed from a pending book on priestly celibacy, in which he and Cardinal Robert Sarah were listed as coauthors. While acknowledging that the Pope Emeritus had collaborated with Sarah, the spokesman stated Benedict had never agreed to be named coauthor. Cardinal Sarah, for his part, stressed that Benedict had been fully aware of the book project, and following “several exchanges in order to develop the book,” he had sent a “complete manuscript” to the pope emeritus in November: “as we had jointly decided, the cover, a common introduction and conclusion, the text of Benedict XVI and my own text.” In an alternate, more tranquil (and healthier) reality, one with less frenzied media and less toxic ecclesial politics, the book with its shared concerns might proceed to public consumption. If it did, a review, based on the actual, advance-copy text, would go like this:SEX, CELIBACY, AND THE LATEST CURIOSITY FROM ROMEby Francis X. Maier1 . 15 . 20In the wake of the recent Amazon Synod, Catholics are living through another conflict on the matter of priestly celibacy. Happily, From the Depths of Our Hearts, by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah, serves our obligation to honesty and clarity exceptionally well in any discussions of a married priesthood.Mandatory priestly celibacy has been a source of controversy since Vatican II. Among the arguments advanced against it are today’s obvious need for more priests, as well as the centuries-long tradition of a married priesthood in Eastern Orthodox and various Eastern Catholic communities. If priestly celibacy is merely a discipline of the Western Church, then disciplines can be changed. Moreover, a married presbyterate—so the reasoning goes—would have practical advantages: Mission cultures often see celibacy as an alien and negative value; more men would be willing to consider the priesthood if they could marry; and incidents of clerical sex abuse might thereby be reduced. The Amazon Synod seemed to offer hope that a married priesthood, initially limited in scope and restricted to narrowly defined circumstances, might finally be possible for the Latin Church. Ordaining viri probati, or men of proven virtue, to serve as priests in mission territories would set the necessary precedent for a gradual reexamination of celibacy’s theology and utility.In From the Depths of Our Hearts, Benedict and Sarah dismember such reasoning in a brief but brilliant defense of priestly celibacy. And they achieve it in a genuine spirit of fidelity both to Pope Francis and to the historic corpus of the faith. The two men differ stylistically in their approach to the subject matter, but the book mirrors their extended, private exchange of concerns out of which the text emerged. Benedict deals with the history and theology of priestly celibacy. Sarah focuses on the pastoral significance of a celibate priesthood, and the destructive implications of undermining it. Benedict is among the premier Christian theologians and intellectuals of the last 100 years. A master of biblical exegesis and historical evidence, he makes his case for celibacy with clear, articulate, and persuasive logic. Sarah, a native son and former pastor of African mission territory, argues with elegant passion from direct experience. The result of their collaboration is complementary and compelling.Benedict notes: “In the common awareness of Israel, priests were strictly obliged to observe sexual abstinence during the times when they led worship and were therefore in contact with the divine mystery. . . . Given that the priests of the Old Testament had to dedicate themselves to worship only during set times, marriage and the priesthood were compatible.”But because of the regular and often daily celebration of the Eucharist, the situation of the priests of the Church of Jesus Christ has changed radically. From now on their entire life is in contact with the divine mystery. This requires on their part exclusivity with regard to God. Consequently this excludes other ties which, like marriage,…
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


Septima Buccina: We need to rescue Benedict and we need to do it now!

by From Rome Editor

Pope Benedict’s recent black eye concerned many as to why it happened.

From Rome wants to publicly commend Michael, over at Septima Buccina Blog, for his public statements on behalf of Pope Benedict. It is a question of the grave moral duty the whole Church has towards the care of the most honored elderly man in the Church right now, whether you call him Ratzinger, the Pope Emeritus, or Pope Benedict. It touches upon our duties to defend life, to defend the weak and to defend the elderly, as well as our duties to respect seniors, Bishops and Popes. It is clear to the whole world now that the Vatican is an abusive place and that Benedict is being abused.

Here is the opening statement at Septima Buccina Blog, read the rest and my dialogue with Michael in the comments section:

The Real Reason Folks Want You
To Ignore Benedict’s Situation

“The Supreme Shepherd and Vicar of Christ on Earth, who, being a prisoner in the Vatican… in that greatest crisis of the Church, he who is obligated to speak in due time will remain silent.”

Our Lady of Good Success (approved)

Ever wonder why even good Catholics, men and women you respect, sometimes irrationally and hostilely reject any possibility that Benedict’s resignation might have been coerced, and that he may not be a free man? To be sure, there are myriad reasons. The biggest one I see is pride. Actually, being attached to any sin will do it, but pride is the biggest culprit. See 2 Thessolians 2:10-11. I’ve written quite a lot on social media about the blinding spirit of the age, but that’s not the topic of this post. Let’s think about this for a minute.

Consider this scenario: Suppose your elderly father, grandfather, or any dear loved one had hired a live-in nurse or assistant. Suppose further that this beloved family member (we’ll call him “grandpa” for the sake of clarity) was always loving, communicative, and sharp when you would visit, and often called you up in between visits.

Then, one day, that all stops. Suddenly when you call, grandpa no longer answers the phone, Mr. Nurse does. When you ask to speak with grandpa, he says “grandpa is sleeping. How can I help you?” When you visit, grandpa is out of it, and seems more lethargic and slow

Continue Reading at: https://7thhorn.com/2020/01/16/the-real-reason-folks-want-you-to-ignore-benedicts-situation/

Ordo Militaris Catholicus: Is an international Catholic Military Association for the protection of Christians, headed by Br. Bugnolo. To learn more go to their website at: ordo-militaris.us

Share this:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


The news that Benedict renounced the Papacy is itself canonically invalid

by From Rome Editor


by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As I have said before, everything in the Bergoglian Church is founded upon lies and falsehoods. And the more you investigate, the more you find that this is true.

In many posts, here at The From Rome Blog, I have focused on the canonical problems of the Declaratio read aloud by Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013, during the Consistory of Cardinals called for the canonization of the Martyrs of Otranto and other saints.

Today I want to share only a short reflection, directed that those who think, that since everyone accepted that Benedict resigned the papacy, upon the news published that day, that we are canonically or morally bound to hold fast with that interpretation until some authority says otherwise.

The truth is, however, exactly the opposite.

And the truth is the opposite, because, once again, Pope John Paul II saved the Church from that kind of false thinking when he promulgated the Code of Canon Law in 1983, specifically including canon 40, which addresses this very issue.

That canon reads as follows in the Latin, official text:

Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.

Here is my English translation:

Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his office (suo munero), before he receives the documents (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) their integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of them has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.

And here is the problem, plain to see. Pope Benedict XVI read his Declaratio on that day between 11:30 and 11:40 A.M. It was so unexpected, that Vatican TV had to turn the cameras on several moments after the reading had begun. — Tell me again, that this was planned for months in advance, as Archbishop Ganswein keeps insisting in recent years!

Then at 11:58, Father Lombardi gives Giovanna Chirri, the ANSA pool reporter, the go ahead to tweet out that Benedict was resigning, he will leave the Pontificate on Feb. 28th.

But from Feb. 11, 2013 to about Feb. 18, 2013, the Vatican Press Office was publishing varying versions of the Renunciation, correcting now this, now that.

Thus, only until the final version was had, could anyone VALIDLY respond to it in canonical form, since Canon 40 requires that those with an office in the Church NOT act until they have the administrative act in hand in its integral form.

This means that the idea that Benedict had resigned the Papacy arose in that period of time in which Pope John Paul II forbid any canonically binding actions. That means that whoever told Lombardi to tell reporters anything, acted invalidly according to Canon Law. Which means that their act binds no one! And can never bind anyone.

It also means that once the final version was published, ALL who held office in the Church were canonically obliged TO RE-EXAMINE the act. — Did they do that?

I suggest the next time anyone says Bergoglio is certainly the Pope, ask them if they did that on Feb. 19, 2013. I bet you will find that the answer is that they did not.

So the next time anyone attempts to gaslight you into thinking that you are wrong to disagree with the “universal acceptance” of Benedict’s renunciation, you might want to ask them if they have ever read Canon 40 and considered that not only was the news Fake News, but its publication lacks ALL CANONICAL AUTHORITY.  This means, that the news never came from the Church of Jesus Christ, as an ontological entity.

As the sheep of Christ, then, we are gravely obliged to stop regarding it as authoritative. Indeed, to continue to do so is to transfer our loyalty, which we should show to the Church, to some other entity. And that is precisely the shell game of the AntiChrist.

Share this:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment