A False Attack On The Real Antipapacy

From time to time we can meet in the Catholic world an opinion, which deals with an important issue of the current Church’s crisis, and apparently leads to the proper solution of the problem. But when we look closer to its content, it appears that, however the sole conclusion seems right, nevertheless the reasoning is wrong-based. It is worth to spend a longer time on investigating the issue, because such an error does not only help to foster the truth contained in the conclusion, but also hinders its fruitful, persistent propagation by placing it on a false basis, thus making it vulnerable to attacks from the opponents of the thesis. It is also an opportunity to become familiar with more detailed argumentation regarding the discussed issue and help other people in this field.

Last autumn, I came across an article of Mr. Andrew Cionci regarding the Bergoglian antipapacy republished on the “From Rome” website run by Brother Alexis Bugnolo OFM. The piece was posted under the title “How Bergoglio unmasked so many Traddies and Conservatives as Modernists” on the 10th of October 2021 A.D at the following location:

https://www.fromrome.info/2021/10/10/how-bergoglio-unmasked-so-many-traddies-and-conservatives-as-modernists/

Having noticed some flaws in the main argumentation of the article and inquired further into them, I prepared a commentary and sent it to the site for authorisation and publication. It has not happened so far, therefore I find it useful to publish my remarks on this site. Moreover, since the title of the abovementioned publication seems to mark some not-liberal Catholics as modernists: particularly H.E. Archbishop Charles Mary Vigano named in the editor’s note, what, in my opinion, borders to slander, it could be also morally advantageous to stand up in their defense by highlighting the futility of such hasty accusations.

 

***

Laudetur Iesus Christus!

I would like to make some comments regarding the quoted above article, as I find it advisable to attract the attention of the readers to some doctrinal aspects of the Church’s Magisterium. Please excuse my language errors; I am not a fluent speaker of this language. [Unfortunately the formatting of my text has been cleared, thus no emphasis for crucial parts will be shown.]

The quotation from a catechism is taken out of its full context; the whole article is as follows:
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.”

My comment: The Ordinary Magisterium (of itself) does not employ infallibility; logically it does not require (of itself) the assent of faith since Divine faith implies infallibility; while The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium does it require. Divine assistance, as concerns the discussed case, does not imply infallibility; in case of an infallible (ergo definitive, i.e. irreformable) teaching Divine assistance assures both possibility of attaining the truth and preservation from falling into error.

See further the “Tuas libenter” letter from H.H. Pius IX:
“(…)For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”

Please read carefully the quotation from H.E. Louis Francis Ladaria:
“It is important to reiterate that infallibility concerns not only the solemn pronouncements of a Council or of the Supreme Pontiff when he speaks ex-cathedra, but also the ordinary and universal teaching of the bishops throughout the world, when they propose, in communion with each other and with the Pope, Catholic doctrine to be held definitively.”

My comment: Monsignor Ladaria states that: infallibility concerns not the ordinary teaching as a whole, but only the ordinary and universal teaching, thus provided further conditions are fulfilled: in communion… – which is quite obvious (but in fact requires a deep understanding as it concerns not only synchronic but also diachronic consistency), and in a “definitive manner”. One can easily fall into a “pars pro toto” error and hastily extend infallibility to the whole ordinary teaching, contrary to the literal meaning of the quotation.

Behold some of the teachings of the Vatican Council on the sources of the infallible Magisterium (it is only a translation which I put for the sake of popular understanding, and probably not an exact one, so in case of any doubt please refer to the original text which can easily be found in the internet):

Session III, Chapter 3 on Faith:
“Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.”

Session IV, Dogmatic Constitution I on the Church of Christ:
“And so We, (…), teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”

Then also please check: Catechismus Catholicus Cura et studio Petri Cardinalis Gasparri Concinnatus; Catechismus pro adultis hominibus qui pleniorem doctrinae catholicae cognitionem habere exopant, p. 132:
Q. 144. In munere docendi Ecclesia estne infallibilis?
R. In munere docendi Ecclesia, ob perpetuam Spiritus Sancti assistentiam a Iesu Christo promissam, est infallibilis, quando, sive ordinario et universali magisterio, sive solemni iudicio supremae auctoritatis, veritates fidei et morum vel in se revelatas, vel cum revelatis connexas ab omnibus tenendas proponit.

My comment: Infallibility covers not only directly revealed truths (of faith and morals), but also those, which are connected with them; obviously it is necessary to defend the Deposit of faith.

Finally, brief quotations from the “Si, si, no, no” (The Angelus English-language article reprint of January 2002) with references to some theological sources:
a) on classification of magisterial (papal) acts:
“The “Authentic Magisterium” cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the “Authentic Magisterium”. The Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique under the heading of “papal infallibility” (vol VII, col. 1699ff) makes the following distinctions: 1) there is the “infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I” (col. 1699); 2) there is the “infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium” (col. 1705); 3) there is “non-infallible papal teaching” (col. 1709).
Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed. Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following: 1) Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592ff); 2) Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645ff); 3) Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticum, that is, only “authentic” or “authorized” as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no. 659ff).

While he always has full and supreme doctrinal authority, the pope does not always exercise it at its highest level, that is at the level of infallibility. As the theologians say, he is like a giant who does not always use his full strength. What follows is this:
1)”It would be incorrect to say that the pope is infallible simply by possessing papal authority,” as we read in the Acts of Vatican I (Coll. L ac. 399b). This would be equivalent to saying that the pope’s authority and his infallibility are the same thing.
2) It is necessary to know “what degree of assent is due to the decrees of the sovereign pontiff when he is teaching at a level which is not that of infallibility, i.e., when he is not exercising the supreme degree of his doctrinal authority” (Salaverri, op. cit. no. 659).”

b) on different kinds of assent required for magisterial acts:
“As regards those non-infallible doctrinal decisions given by the pope or by the Roman congregations, there is a strict duty of obedience which obliges us to give an internal assent… that is prudent and habitually excludes all reasonable doubt, but this assent is legitimized [not by infallibility, but rather] by the high degree of prudence with which the ecclesiastical authority habitually acts in such circumstances” (entry “Eglise” in the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, vol. IV, col. 2209).
That is why we owe the “authentic” Magisterium not a blind and unconditional assent but a prudent and conditional one:
Since not everything taught by the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, we must ask what kind of assent we should give to its various decisions. The Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and moral truths defined by the Church’s Magisterium. He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith. In this case if suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one’s superior… Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question (Nicholas Jung, Le Magistere de l’Eglise, 1935, p. 153,154).”

My comment: As far as I remember H.E. Archbishop Charles Mary Vigano indicated an erroneous act of the Ordinary Magisterium exercised by The Ecumenical Council of Florence and approved by H.H. Eugene IV (by the way: the same error which Aquinas had adhered to). In no way such a statement challenges the infallibility of the Church since it was neither an extraordinary nor a universal (and definitive of course) teaching, i.e. absolutely binding; quite the opposite: it clearly shows that, notwithstanding the human fallacy experienced at the top of the organization, She enjoys Divine protection. The problem was finally resolved only by H.H. Pius XII five centuries later; it never resulted in the destruction of the Church, however, one can easily imagine what could possibly have been done with the Apostolic succession.

T. M. A. Bogucki

A Confused Catholic from Polonia Minor

My name is Michael Bogucki. I was baptised into the Church in the Dioecesis Sandomiriensis, which area largely covered the historic Duchy of Sandomir (Ducatus Sandomiriensis) in Polonia Minor – a historical country which lies north of Carpathian Mountains and south/east of Pilica river while being placed on the both sides of Vistula River flowing to the Baltic sea. The area of the dioecese was divided into two parts by the bull Totus Tuus Poloniae Populus issued by H.H. John Paul II: the first one with the capital in Sandomir and the second one with the capital in Radom (Dioecesis Radomiensis) – the city I was born and live in currently.

The patron saint of the dioecese is Saint Casimir, heir to the throne of the Regnum Poloniae, known for His chastity and fervent devotion to the Blessed Mother (“omni die dic Mariae”) which resulted i.a. in the fruitful administration of the state exercised in the name of the king, e.g.: simultaneous suppression of the public cult of the Eastern Schism (which shall be named pseudo-Orthodox sect, and a heretical one as it fully embraced heresy at least since the Ecumenical Council of Florence, while Orthodoxy equals to the Catholic Faith) and material help for the needy members of this sect: a model for activity in the public sphere and an implementation of the Saint Augustine’s rule of Christian life: “cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum”. The main shrine of this land is the Holy Cross Monastery in the Holy Cross Mountains known for its possesion of ancient relics of the Holy Cross most probably sprinkled with the Pretiosissimus Sanguis; a place notorious for its religious (sensu largo of course) cult since the pagan times and traditionally connected with the visitation of Saint Emeric, a son of Saint Stephen the King and heir to the throne of the Regnum Hungariae.

Od vremena još od Krista*
Nova lica, scena ista
Vražje sile se trude
Da nas ne bude

Tracing the origins of the True Religion in this country we have to go back to the ninth century and take a look at Our Blessed Fathers, equal-to-the-Apostles, Saints Cyril and Methodius (vide: the Grande Munus encyclical by H.H. Leo XIII). These luminaries of the Faith did not only win the doctrinal disputation with the false religions’ doctors (judaistic and mohameddan in particular) in the Crimean peninsula before the ruler of the Khazar Empire; gathered the relics of Saint Clement the Pope; implemented/strenghtened the Faith in the Slavic countries and Hungary which entailed a collection of saintly rulers (vide: Saint Ludmila and Her grandson Saint Venceslaus the Duke, Saint Stephen the Great and His son Saint Emeric, Saint Olga and Her grandson Saint Vladimir the Great); developed/propagated the Slavonic language liturgy (exact translations of Roman/Greek rites) by the use of the newly invented alphabet; fought the “trilingual heresy”; but also achieved on this battlefield a remarkable victory over the internal enemy of the Church by defeating an emanation (a pantheistic/talmudic cancer specifically in the Germanophonic area of the Church having developed for centuries and then bursted in the XV-Hus, XVI-Luther et al., XVII-Jansen, XVIII-Weishaupt, XIX-Dollinger, XX-Kung et el., centuries) of the mystery of iniquity, which has been at work since Judas the Apostle till George the Humble and will operate until the consummation of time endavouring to use the Church’s structure as an instrument for seizing the secular power over the entire world, thus preparing the coming of the Antichrist.

Antikristi i masoni
Komunisti ovi, oni
Šire sotonske fraze
Da nas poraze...”

Having known that above, we can attentively observe, looking from the heights of the Faith, what processes are being carried out currently in my particular church and in the Church as a whole from the one side, and from the second side: in my country and in my state, which happens to be, as for now, The Third Polish Republic, but not for long I guess. In fact this misleading name covers a masonic on-the-spot political construct which leads millions of my people (to wit: inhabitants of Polonia Minor; sensu stricto: only Catholic, sensu largo: historical inhabitants which at least implicitly subsribe to the Latin Civilization – a secular daughter of the Church based on the Natural Law – as defined by Professor Felix Koneczny) and others to hell by introducing neo-marxist agenda everywhere in public life under the coat of arms representing misused eagle (the historical Polish heraldic emblem) with wings pinned by two five-pointed stars (a symbol widely used in state herldry at least since XVIIIth century with remarkable application in four notorious masonic projects: the USA, the Soviet Union, the PRC-China, the EU). I do not have to elaborate on the subject of the Church; with an unarmed eye a barely sober Catholic can recognize blatant blasphemies forming a wide torrent of Cloaca Maxima in Rome and flowing through malodorous administrative canals to each local parish intoxicating consequently every single area of our lives. Therefore, having been thirsty for a drink of refreshing doctrinal (both: religious and secular) water of truth, we have to look not only for ever-young historical sources of dogmatic teachings, but also for contemporary springs of practical implementations of them allowing us to fend off this diabolical onslaught of neo-paganism executed by step children of Mr. Mordechai Marx a.k.a. Charles Marx, and at the same time the cronies of His Majesty Lucifer the Prince Himself.

A mi gluhi, nijemi, slijepi
Svatko u svom mraku strepi
Narod biran od Boga
Guši nesloga

I spent a lot of time gathering information on what is going on. I came across outstanding people who shared a lot of light by their writtings and their deeds: Professor Felix Koneczny (an eminent scholar of history of civilzations, law and social disciplines), Father Michael Poradowski (an eminent scholar of theology, social disciplines and researcher of marxism in particular), Father Maximilian Mary Kolbe OFM, H.Em. Josheph Cardinal Mindszenty, H.E. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, H.E. Bishop Anthony de Castro Mayer, H.E. Bishop Michael Osadich, Father Nicholas Gruner, H.E. Bishop Rene Henry Garcia, H.E. Archbishop Charles Mary Vigano, as well as many of their pupils, inheritors and collaborators. I met many people influenced by them and propagating knowledge and skills necessary for handling the current state of affairs. Unfortunately, from secular point of view, in the Church no moral unity can be seen even in parts, since many singular problems tend to divide seemingly consistent groups as Archbishop Lefebvre’s FSSPX. We can personally notice the in-fight among the spiritual sons of His Excelency. Well, c’est la vie

Generacije junaka
I pobjednička vojska jaka
Još se brine i gine
Zbog Domovine

It is a hindrance – no doubt about it, but overcoming them makes us stronger, allows us to better know the Faith and become familiar with distant (geographically or intelectually) communties which would help us to achieve this target. That is why I reached so-called indult, then FSSPX, then so-called “Resistance”, then Father Paul Leonard Kramer’s doctrine on the papacy, and then have I come to the Ecclesia Militans site sharing (at the first, but not superficial I expect, glance) the same position as me. Above all we shall continue efforts of our forefathers in fighting errors of our age, thus it could be advisable for me to contribute to some extent to this site (“For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation” as St. Paul teaches). Of course, it is only an insignificant episode of a war against masonic spirit, which is on within the Church (specifically against the formal authorities) since 1958 A.D. at least and reached its local culmination on the critical, in my opinion, theatre of operation i.e. Archbishop Lefebvre’s movement in the year 2012 A.D. We have no morally acceptable option, but to pursue this struggle on and on…

S nebeskih tih visina
Daj nam Bože opet Sina
Da nas vodi iz bijede
Sve do pobjede...”

…until we win: dead or alive.

T. Michael. A. Bogucki

* Quotations in original taken from a Croatian poem by Mr. Mark Perkovic (“E moj narode”).

Budapest, the Elisabeth bridge, at the foot of the Saint Gerard’s hill. A view on the western (Buda) bank of the Danube with the tower of the Saint Catherine of Alexandria Church (on the left), the Royal Castle of Buda (in the centre) with the distant tower of the Assumption Church (on the right) and famous architectural monuments: the Fisherman’s Bastion and the Chain Bridge leading to the Saint Stephen’s Basilica with His incorruptible right hand relic.

Abp. Viganò: Both society and Church ‘infiltrated’ by people who want to ‘destroy’ them

“Archbishop Viganò noted how Archbishop Lefebvre ‘was one of the few, very few prelates who wanted to denounce the conciliar revolution, understanding its subversive nature,’ an intervention which is now understood.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/abp-vigano-both-society-and-church-infiltrated-by-people-who-want-to-destroy-these-institutions/

CDC States that the Virus Has Not Been Isolated – Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano

It is good to see that Archbishop Vigano recognizes that the so called “SARS-COV-2 virus” has not been isolated.  Think about it my friends; no virus has been proven to exist let alone proven to cause the so called “COVID-19 disease”.  This is an outrage!

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/sold-out-to-satan-vigano-unloads-on-coronavirus-pseudo-health-regime

“…..On the Occasion of the Election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio…..” – Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano

“It is indicative that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Planned Parenthood are both expressing their satisfaction for the presumed electoral victory of the same person. This unanimity of consensus recalls the enthusiastic support of the Masonic Lodges on the occasion of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, which was also not free from the shadow of fraud within the Conclave and was equally desired by the deep state, as we know clearly from the emails of John Podesta and the ties of Theodore McCarrick and his colleagues with the Democrats and with Biden himself. A very nice little group of cronies, no doubt about it.”
(Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano)

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-vigano-slams-us-bishops-conference-for-claiming-biden-is-second-catholic-president

Archbishop, please take it to the next step, that is, that Jorge Bergoglio is not pope!

Bishops Lament the Actions of Jorge Bergoglio Yet Still Accept Him as Pope

Cardinal Raymond Burke laments the actions of Jorge Bergoglio.  Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano laments the actions of Jorge Bergoglio.  Bishop Athanasius Schneider laments the actions of Jorge Bergoglio.  Nevertheless, they all still accept him as pope.  My friends, what is it going to take for these bishops, the majority of the bishops and priests, and the majority of the faithful to realize that Jorge Bergoglio is a public manifest formal heretic?  What is it going to take for them to realize that Benedict XVI is still pope?  Our Lord has given us so many signs that Jorge Bergoglio is not and never was pope, but excuses keep getting made to defend him as pope.  Even the Catholic Resistance bishops, priests, and faithful are doing the same.  I am starting to question whether Jorge Bergoglio conducting a public black Mass would suffice for them to change their position.  I have no doubt, however, that Our Lord is not happy.  If you think that the punishment currently upon us (i.e., coronavirus hype) is not partially because of the refusal to renounce submission to Jorge Bergoglio as pope, think again.  We must stop appealing to Jorge Bergoglio for anything.  He has no jurisdiction as pope.  Rather, he is an enemy of the Catholic Church and hence of Jesus Christ and Our Immaculate Mother.  Let us acknowledge him as such and then perhaps Our Lord will alleviate our current suffering.