FAITH, NEWS

5 QUESTIONS FOR BISHOP SCHNEIDER & DR. TAYLOR MARSHALL

MARCH 4, 2020

FROM ROME EDITOR5

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Over at Catholic Monitor, Fred Martinez has cut through all the deception and lying of Bishop Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall in their recent YouTube Video, and has proposed to them 5 yes or no Questions, and asked them publicly to respond.

His article is entitled, Do Marshall and Schneider think they are greater theologians than Doctors of the Church, Sts. Robert Bellarmine and Francis de Sales?

This article follows upon Martinez’ rebuttal of their arguments in several articles:

1. Why did Taylor Marshall Chicken Out in Questioning Bp. Schneider on the Bellarmine teaching on Heretical Popes Ceasing to be Pope? 
2. Is Bp. Schneider a “Flying Monkey” or another Type of Enabler?
3. Why is Bp. Schneider spreading the Doubtful Propaganda of a possible Leftist British Operative?
4. Schneider’s Opinion has next to Zero Merit when standing next to the Teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales
5. Is Bishop Schneider a Pelagianist?
6. Schneider’s Opinion vs. Cdl. Burke: ‘If a Pope would Formally Profess Heresy he would Cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s Automatic.”
7. Doubtful Schneider vs. St. Bellarmine & Bp. Gracida: “A Doubtful Pope is no Pope”
8. Bp. Schneider vs. Pope Innocent III, Trent & the Ancient Fathers 

5 Questions for Bishop Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall

I urge all Catholics to confront these men on social media and in email and in person. Also share these questions with all who claim to find their false arguments to be convincing. The faith is in danger by the errors spread by these two men.

Fred Martinez writes:

To make it really easy for them it has been formatted so that they only have to answer: yes or no.

1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said “The Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See.” Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a schismatic? Answer: yes or no.

2. “Universal Acceptance” theologian John of St. Thomas said “This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff.” Was John of St. Thomas for saying “the supreme pontiff” must be BOTH “lawfully elected and accepted by the Church” a Sedevacantist or a schismatic? Answer: yes or no.

3. Do you think that a “supreme pontiff” if “universally accepted” is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on “dubious election[s]”, that he is “a woman… a child… a demented person… a heretic… a apostate… [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law”? Answer: yes or no.

4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:

“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses… A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”

Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or schismatics? Answer: yes or no.

5. Is Bishop Gracida really a Sedevacantist and schismatic for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no.

Answer or show you are a fraud!

Fred Martinez is an excellent master of rhetoric. He knows how to posit a question, the answer to which will expose the one to whom it is addressed either as a liar or force him to admit that he was lying and take back his lie. It’s inescapable debating style.

Consequently, short of an act of public repentance, I think that neither the Bishop nor the Doctor will respond to Fred’s 5 Questions. And that means, that neither should you follow the Bishop or Doctor anymore, because by their silence they show themselves to be dishonest liars. For an honest liar should admit at least in public that he is lying.

____________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the Video by Dr. Taylor Marshall interviewing Bishop Schneider. The text in quotes is taken from The Catholic Monitor Blog, by the intrepid Fred Martinez.

+ + +

CANON LAW, CHURCH HISTORY

WAS IT SUBSTANTIAL ERROR OR DIVINE INSPIRATION?

MARCH 4, 2020

FROM ROME EDITOR

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

A frequent question that I receive is that which regards why Pope Benedict XVI renounced the ministry which was committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals and not the petrine ministry which he received when he accepted his election as Roman Pontiff.

The First to Answer is Ann Barnhardt

The first to answer this question substantially, was Ann Barnhardt. And she did that in June of 2016, way before anyone else. Her explanation is that Pope Benedict XVI made a substantial error. His declaration, therefore, does not effect the loss of the papal office because this error of naming the wrong thing in the act of renunciation causes the act to be irritus – Ann, however,  nearly always says, “invalid” for simplicity sake — in virtue of Canon 188, which means that it has no legal effect.

Her analysis and argument was the first to break through the Big Lie of our age. And it has rescued countless minds from the lies and propaganda of the Bergoglian party. It was the first convincing argument I ever heard. I watched it in one of her videos in August of 2018 and in October of 2018 I actually made the time to look at the Latin of the Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013 and the Latin of the Code of Canon Law, canon 332 §2, two things I had never done. I saw she was 100% correct in about 5 seconds.

That is all it should take for anyone to see that she is correct. Because the act of the intellect which is needed to see it is the first act of the mind: that ability — given to us by the Most Holy Trinity who creates our soul out of nothing in the moment of our conception — to recognize the essence of any thing for what it is before comparing it to anything else.

And there is only 3 ways to not be able to exercise that ability. The First is that your are mentally impaired or retarded. The Second is that, in this case, you cannot read.  And the third case is that you allow your will to prevent you from thinking, either by bad will or because you allow yourself to be seduced by an unsubstantiated doubt, gratuitously asserted.

Those who have the first problem are not guilty. Those who have the second problem should study if they can. And those who have the third problem will be damned, because in matter so grave as who is the true Pope, the forcible intervention of will to prevent the mind from seeing what God gave it the ability to see, is a direct attack on the Divine Will for you, and thus a mortal sin.

As regards a substantial error, it can be caused by any number of causes. But that is another thing all together. Regardless of what was the cause, the substantial error is objective. No amout of ink, argument or bluster, no amount of insults or villainy can change the historical fact that Benedict renounced the ministerium, but Canon 332 §2 requires the renunciation of munus.

The Second Answer is Divine Inspiration

I was not the second to give answer, nor was I the first to suggest divine inspiration. Archbishop Gänswein himself said that Pope Benedict XVI was inspired by God to do what he did. I think in the book length interview with Peter Seewald, Pope Benedict XVI confirms this.

But what many do not realize, there are at lest 19 kinds of Divine Inspiration, and not all of them have the same effects. I know this because many years ago, when I was in a library with some ancient manuscripts, I read Saint Bernardine of Sienna’s tract on divine inspiration written in the 15th century, in Latin.

I will not summarize the 19 kinds, but I will simplify the classifications.  There is Divine Inspiration which is perfectly efficacious and is the cause of the whole act. There is Divine Inspiration which is efficacious but requires collaboration in the act by the fallible recipient of the inspiration, and then there is Divine Inspiration which is only motive and puts all the burden of work in the one inspired, infallible as he is.

So, even if it be true that Pope Benedict XVI was divinely inspired to renounce, that does not mean that what he did was Divinely Inspired in every aspect of it.

I have no reason to think Pope Benedict XVI is a liar and thus accept what he says about being inspired by God. And in several articles, here at FromRome.Info I have speculated that he acted to defend the Church from Freemasonry. In this I presume not to judge the Pope, as the Rule of Saint Francis requires me. I also presume that he did not sin in the least.  And in this I am merely obeying charity, which thinketh no evil of any man.

Third Answer is Both

The third possibility is that he was both inspired by God and made a substantial error. And that this happened because God gave him the inspiration to resign, but not the grace to do it perfectly. And that God did this because God wanted to protect the Church from Freemasonry, but did not want Pope Benedict XVI to be guilty of making a fake resignation or of being accused of deceiving anyone.

If such was the case, God also acted perfectly. Because He owes no man grace to be perfect and impeccable in what he does, not even the Roman Pontiff.

In this case, too, it may be that God blinded the minds of the Cardinals and Bishops to not see the substantial error in the act of renunciation because He was completely disgusted with them and wants to cut them off from His Church, or at least to so humiliate them before men as to produce from them a wholesome repentance and conversion which would not be achieved through any other means.

In this third supposition, Pope Benedict XVI may have sinned through pride, imprudence, haste, fear or avarice, depending whether the substantial error was conceived and executed out of vanity, neglect of seeking sound counsel, fear to avoid being assassinated or desire to have something after resigning that he had no right to have.

Conclusion

As can be seen, the First Answer addresses the objective facts and presumes personal fault or error and excludes divine inspiration. The second presumed divine inspiration and excludes personal fault or error. But the third and last presumes in part divine inspiration but in part some personal fault.

Yes, as Pope Innocent II teaches, we cannot judge the Roman Pontiff except when he errs in matters of the faith. And thus, we must say that it was a substantial error and affirm that it is an error to hold that the papacy can be divided. But as the Church has not definitively taught this truth — though it be clear in the Deposit of the Faith — holding this error does not cause you to be a heretic canonically. And acting on the basis of this error is not the same thing as professing the error, because, as I said, the error can arise out of passion and not dissent of mind.

But whatever was the reason answer, (1) we are all obliged to pray for Pope Benedict XVI and (2) urge that the right canonical order be restored in the Church: that he be recognized as the one and only true Pope, that it be affirmed that Bergoglio was  never the pope, and that Bergoglio be publicly reproved for teaching heresy and promoting schism, if not also for usurping the papal office (on the supposition he does know the resignation is invalid).

Both things need to be done: here at FromRome.Info we are not heroes or better than anyone else in the Church, nor even experts. We just advocate that which the Faith teaches all of us should advocate in such a crisis.

March 3, 2020 8:00 AM

This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—March 1

By ED WHELAN

·          

·          

March 1, 2020 8:00 AM

2005—Relying on “international opinion,” the Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, overturns its own precedent and rules in Roper v. Simmons that execution of offenders who were 17 at the time of their offense violates the Eighth Amendment. Roper starkly illustrates how the same justices who bow to the views of foreigners are disdainfully dismissive of the rights of American citizens to engage in self-governance in this country. Here’s a summary:

When he was 17, Christopher Simmons planned a brutal murder. He assured his friends they could ‘get away with it’ because they were minors. In the middle of the night, Simmons and a friend broke into a woman’s home, awakened her, covered her eyes and mouth with duct tape, bound her hands, put her in her minivan, drove to a state park, walked her to a railroad trestle spanning a river, tied her hands and feet together with electrical wire, wrapped her whole face in duct tape, and threw her from the bridge. Exactly as Simmons planned, his victim drowned an unspeakably cruel death in the waters below.

Simmons confessed to the murder. At the death-penalty phase of his trial, the judge instructed the jurors that they could consider Simmons’s age as a mitigating factor, and the defense relied heavily on that factor. The jury recommended, and the trial judge imposed, the death penalty.

In his majority opinion (joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer), Justice Kennedy aims to discern “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Kennedy looks to the 12 states that have no death penalty and the 18 states that, “by express provision or judicial interpretation, exclude juveniles from its reach” to conclude that a majority of states—30 in total—reject the death penalty for 16- and 17-year-olds. In dissent, Scalia counters that it makes no sense to count states that have no death penalty: “Consulting States that bar the death penalty concerning the necessity of making an exception to the penalty for offenders under 18 is rather like including old-order Amishmen in a consumer-preference poll on the electric car.”

Kennedy then finds “respected and significant confirmation” for his ruling in “the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty.” According to Kennedy, the fact that the United States, alone with Somalia in the world, has not ratified Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—which contains an express prohibition on capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles—supports his conclusion that the juvenile death penalty is unconstitutional. But as Justice Scalia observes in dissent, “Unless the Court has added to its arsenal the power to join and ratify treaties on behalf of the United States,” the United States’ non-ratification of Article 37 undercuts the majority’s position. Scalia also points out that the justices in the majority would never aim to conform American law to the rest of the world on matters like the exclusionary rule, church-state relations, and abortion.

Ed Whelan ewhelan@eppc.org via gmail.mcsv.net	2:12 PM (1 hour ago)

From NRO’s Bench Memos:

Senator Schumer Thuggishly Threatens Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh

By ED WHELAN

·          

·          

March 4, 2020 3:01 PM

·          

Senator Schumer made these appalling statements at a pro-abortion rally outside the Supreme Court today:

[Video here: https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Schumer_threatens_two_justices.mp4?_=1]

·          

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Why is Senator Schumer making comments that sure seem to threaten violence against two Supreme Court justices—and that, at a minimum, certainly can reasonably be interpreted that way—if they don’t rule as he wishes? Why, for that matter, is he addressing two Supreme Court justices by their last names and not even extending them the honorific of Justice?

In very limited defense of Schumer: We can all get carried away at times and allow our passion to get the better of our judgment. Plus, President Trump’s grossly inappropriate remarks about judges may well have lowered the bar for what some deem acceptable. But Schumer’s ugly threats go far beyond what even Trump has said.

It is incumbent on Schumer to apologize promptly and fully for his remarks and to repudiate emphatically the proposition that any justice or judge should be threatened with violence.

EDITORIALS

A CHURCH OF HIV HAS NO COURAGE AGAINST THE CORONA VIRUS

MARCH 1, 2020

FROM ROME EDITOR

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Bergoglians are running in terror. They have closed worship in two entire dioceses in Northern Italy. They are refusing to distribute the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar in mouths. They are positively terrified.

It makes no sense, since the Corona Virus only attacks those who are already in poor health and most of these are the very elderly who cannot make it to church anyhow.

But it makes sense if the leadership of your Church is HIV positive, because you have no or a very weakened immune system.

Those who want to make up their religion have no supernatural motives and no real hope of eternal life. They know that, because they know that howsoever much they might pretend, their god, themselves, is not a god and cannot save them from Death.

Catholics on the other hand continue to go bravely to Mass and to communion, placing all their hope in the God of Life who rose from the death and can protect His own from eternal death and temporal death.

Many Catholics in Italy have never accepted communion in the hand. This current trial is helping many open their eyes to the fact that the Bishops in communion with Bergoglio are atheists, that is, they believe in nothing but their own ideologies. They have, thus, no courage or hope against the Corona Virus.

The closing of Churches and refusal of the Sacraments, however, shows that the Bergoglian Church has the long term goal to close churches and end the Sacraments. They want a religion where you pay them to enjoy themselves in debauchery, and to receive from them the thinking points for the one world order.  All those who insist Bergoglio is the pope are collaborators with that agenda whether they want it or not.

Oh, any let us take note of this: AIDS is 100% lethal, Corona Virus is 1.9% lethal. But they never shut the Churches or insisted on communion in the Hand for the former plague. They had no fear of it, they did not want to “stigmatize” those who had it. They acted as if they already had it, or if those with it were already their own. Telling. Very telling.

____________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a detail of a photo by Br. Bugnolo of the Reliquary of the Holy Cross at the Basilica of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, at Rome.  The base of the reliquary, made out of gold and silver, shows two angels holding the instruments of Christ’s passion: the sponge of vinegar and the spear which pierced His Side. They are positioned as if to say — after the manner of the Cherubim who guarded the way back to Paradise — Stand back all of you, who have not the faith, the True Tree of Life is not for your tasting!

CANON LAW, ECCLESIOLOGY, EDITORIALS

THOSE WHO REJECT BENEDICT HAVE NO BISHOP WITH A CANONICAL ARGUMENT

MARCH 2, 2020FROM ROME EDITOR3 COMMENTS

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

For 14 months, Catholics who have demonstrated and sustained that Pope Benedict XVI is still the true pope have been ridiculed with the assertion that we have no Bishops to support us. I do not know how long Ann Barnhardt and those she led back to the truth on this question have been so ridiculed, but probably much longer.

Now that Archbishop Paul Lenga, a hero of the Soviet Era underground Church, and Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, a hero for moving the Magisterium to define complex questions on the care of the terminally ill, have publicly stated Bergoglio is not the pope and has never been the pope, because the resignation of Pope Benedict is doubtful, and therefore invalid, the enemies of the truth are irked.

So they trotted out Bishop Athanasius, who in the most charitable assessment simply does not understand the controversy, to support them. But he failed badly. So badly that the criticism of his argumenthas been left in the air, with no response.

So now the tables are turned: those who say Benedict is no longer the pope HAVE NO BISHOP OR CARDINAL WHO CAN MUSTER A CANONICAL ARGUMENT to support their claim. They are actually trying to sustain their position on silence and publicly proven errors, lies, mistatements, falsehoods.

They try to defend Bergoglio at all costs and  they become Bergoglio.  Their supporters in praising them have become like Bergoglians too. Praising a Bishop for falsehoods, denials of Catholic teaching, canon law, facts and for citing fake news reports. They insist his is personally holy and should be the Pope some day, for the merit of what he attempted to do.

But Bishop Schneider is now objectively even more dishonest that Bergoglio. Because Bergoglio has never attempted to canonically justify his own claim to the Papacy. Ardent Bergoglians and all of those in the Vatican have remained likewise silent. They are smart enough minds to know that you do not enter a battle field if you cannot win.

The Truth has won 3 battles

The Renunciation has been shown to have no canonical effect but to remove consent by Pope Benedict to everything they have been doing in the Vatican since Feb. 29, 2013. That is the first battle. The canonical defense of this truth, which has been expressed clearly by Ann Barnhardt in 2016 and by others since then has has no canonical counter-reponse. Those who disagree, remain silent, or hurl unfounded assertions or non pertinent facts, when they are not hurling insults. This is the second Battle.

There is now a collegial act in the same week by two members of the College of Bishops declaring Bergoglio is not the pope and that Benedict is still the pope. This is the the third and Huge victory.

The rest of the war will be a mop up exercise

The number of Bishops and clergy and religious and laity returning to Pope Benedict’s allegiance will grow. If Benedict is in error this will help him see it. If he is not in error but waiting for support this will fulfill his desire.

Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich foresaw it all 200 years ago. The evil dark pope will flee Rome. The Church of Jesus Christ, whom she saw in vision as a tall Lady, will humble herself by accepting the truth. We shall have victory!

Therefore, let us amass supplies, volunteers and support to bring it about sooner. Please spread the news of the International Inquest.This inquest will provide the information to the Bishops so that they can have sound reasons to move against Bergoglio and depose him as an antipope and heretic. They will then have the moral courage to call Synods and Councils, either locally or internationally to canonical declare their judgements against him.

And this kind of opposition will make Bergoglio’s position unstable. He will flee because he is a coward. Or if he dies first, his invalid illegal and illicit successor as Antipope will flee.

Stock Market Roars Back in Response to Overblown Coronavirus Fears – Largest Point Gain Ever…

Posted on March 2, 2020

by sundance

Corporate media initiated panic about the Coronavirus in 2020 the same way the media attempted to manufacture panic about an upcoming U.S. recession in 2019.

Everything about Coronavirus is hyped with political purpose. The CDC official who lit the fuse to create the panic was Dr. Nancy Messonnier who read a script handed to her by resistance operatives inside government.  Dr. Messonnier is Rod Rosenstein’s sister.

(VIA CNBC) Stocks rebounded sharply from their worst week since the financial crisis on Monday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average posting its best day in more than a decade. Expectations that the Federal Reserve would cut rates drove the gains, which accelerated aggressively into the close.

The Dow closed 1,293.96 points higher, or 5.1%, at 26,703.32. The move on a percentage basis was the Dow’s biggest since March 2009. It was the largest-ever points gain for the 30-stock average. (more)

The Coronavirus issue hits on three main points of policy outlined by President Trump since his announcement of candidacy in 2015: (1) The need for secure borders and strong immigration controls. (2) The need to stop reliance on Chinese manufacturing; and (3) The need for the U.S. to have independent control over key sectors of manufacturing; including healthcare products and pharmaceuticals, as a matter of national security.