Skip to main content

Cdl. Burke: The "Grounds... for... [In]validity of the [Francis] Election would be... Campaign Organized Beforehand which is Strictly Forbidden"

Patrick Coffin on his YouTube show asked Cardinal Raymond Burke:

"I was wondering rather if those rules [of the 2013 conclave that elected Francis] were violated and rather or not the whole election of Francis may be invalid. Is there any foundation for that speculation?"

Cardinal Burke answered:

"The only grounds that could be used for calling into question the validity of the election would be were the election organized by a campaign beforehand which is strictly forbidden and that would be difficult to demonstrate..."

"... If these persons [the St. Gallen Mafia of liberal cardinals] engaged in a active campaign first to undermined Pope Benedict XVI and at the same time to engineer the election of someone [Francis] then that could be a argument. I don't think I have the facts, and there have to be facts, to prove that. That's all I have to say about that."
(Patrick Coffin show, "141: Dubia Cardinal Goes on the Record - Raymond Cardinal Burke (Free Version)," Premiered 13 hours ago, 19:55 to 21:46)

Coffin about a minute later said "Bishop Henry Rene Gracida... has written a Open Letter to the cardinals saying only a imperfect synod could be called and resolve this."

My question to Cardinal Burke is:

Why would proving that the St. Gallen Mafia "undermined Pope Benedict XVI and at the same time engineer[ed] the election of someone [Francis]" be "very difficult to demonstrate"?

Finally, One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec and his collaborator Dr. Taylor Marshall must be shaking in their boots for their credibility because they have been claiming that it was virtually impossible under any GROUNDS for the Francis conclave to be invalid.

Skojec said Coffin by merely mentioning Bishop Gracida's Open Letter and the possibility of a invalid Francis conclave believed a "outlandish conspiracy theory."
(Twitter, December 8, 2018, 9:43AM)

Does Skojec claim that Cardinal Burke believes in a "outlandish conspiracy theory"?

Marshall, it appears, has been saying that anyone who dares claim that there is evidence about the invalidity of the Francis papacy is promoting "Sedevacantism" and Taylor seems to promote the offense against God that people who doubt the validity of the Francis papacy should not attend Mass where Francis is commemorated.
(Taylor Marshall's "Good Luck" Tweet)

In a previous post, I suggested that if this is the case then Marshall may need to go to confession for apparently promoting the mortal sin of not attending Sunday Mass since even excommunicants are obligated to attend Mass under the penalty of mortal sin.

Does Marshall claim that Cardinal Burke is promoting "Sedevacantism"?

Pray an Our Father now for Bishop Gracida's call for a imperfect synod to be called to investigate the validity of the 2013 conclave.

Comments

Aqua said…
“Very difficult to prove”.

They literally put it in a book, with a helpful bow and ribbon.

Upon understanding the depth, depravity and deception of “deep state’ interests I am no longer surprised by statements like this. It is simple to prove if there is a will for it. There is no will for it. Deeply disappointed in Cdl Burke.
BrotherBeowulf said…
Agreed the false conclave was rotten from the gitgo. The conspiracy is blatant and obvious and admitted by McCarrick in his Seton Hall speech of October 2013.

Is it not the case however that as Benedict never relinquished the papacy complete and entire, the conclave that never was . . . well, that dawg won’t hunt.
Aqua said…
To acknowledge the Conclave “irregularities” (invalidities) while asserting they cannot be proven is to strengthen the position that: whatever precedent events happened that produced this antipope and his antipope magisterium must be accepted. There is nothing that prevents nefarious illegalities because ... nothing can be proven. The more nefarious the precedent act, the more certain that act is, because it is less likely to be proven by weak men tasked with guarding the way.

Miracles? The power and omnipotence of God? Courage, strength, honor? A topic for study and exposition, fine; surely not relevant here. Can’t know. Impossible to prove. Do whatever they say.

It fits with the Dubia disaster. Five essential, fundamental questions of the Christian Faith. To Pope Francis they demand in the Holy Name Of God: What.Say.You!?

Oh, nothing?

Ok. That’s fine too.

Which sends the deadly message to the Faithful and the watching world: these five questions - were essential; were fundamental; not any more; who cares.

If you wish to present the Dubia, defend the Dubia. They either matter - or not. Their authors have proven, by inaction, that they don’t matter at all to the Church as it now exists. The antipope has spoken: Dogma not relevant in our day. The Cardinal authors agree. The watching Faithful must now judge whether they matter or not.

1: Divorced and re-married admitted to Holy Communion? Yes.
2: Absolute moral norms that prevent intrinsically evil acts always, everywhere? No.
3: Is there such a thing as intrinsically evil acts; grave sin, such as adultery? No.
4: Can circumstance or intent transform evil into good? Yes
5: Can personal conscience prevail over Magisterial Church teaching authority? Yes

Asked. Answered. Submit.

It is *worse* than had the questions never been asked.

Similarly, Cdl Burke is making the strong case now for the antipope: whatever election related irregularities and illegalities may have occurred before are not relevant now. Can’t know. Won’t know. Don’t want to know. Rules are not relevant to Cardinals because we can never know. Shut up and submit. Heresy? Can’t know. Won’t know. Don’t want to know. Shut up and submit.

I saw this on a small scale when I entered the Church in a heretical RCIA class that demanded we accept abortion and incorporate Wicca into our faith (true story), and almost walked away then. I see it now expressed on a grand scale promoted (or worse) *accepted* by seemingly orthodox Cardinals and Priests. Not me. No way. My Dubia answers differ from this antipope. Unlike Cdl Burke I demand a correction and do not accept the illegalities.
Therese said…
"I saw this on a small scale when I entered the Church in a heretical RCIA class that demanded we accept abortion and incorporate Wicca into our faith (true story), and almost walked away then."

Now that's what I call a miracle. ;-)

It's a blessing to have you with us.
MaryP said…
What about the av equipment and ekectroniccommunications? What about the breaking of the ballot rules? Both are automatically invalidating according to UDG
Aqua said…
Therese, I was convinced that Catholics had something more that could correct deviations like that at the individual and Parish level. I had no idea what was coming. Goodness, it never stops.

My discouragement is from the lack of defense at any level, from anywhere. But, as in those early days, I reference Sacred Tradition. No one can take that away.

Paolo84 said…
Agreed 100% God forgive me I no longer attend Mass in communion with Bergoglio and even when the latter is not mentioned but priest and bishop are part of Bergoglio's new church. Unfortunately I'm far away from a priest who's out of Bergoglio church. We are few but remember "a small remnant"...
Paolo84 said…
I read comments like this and I begin to think that the "small remnant" is not that small after all. Thank you Aqua!
BrotherBeowulf said…
Villanova. October 2013. (Not Seton Hall.)
BrotherBeowulf said…
And the remnant includes our Lady, Queen of Revelation whose Immaculate Heart shall indeed triumph. Regardless of faithless popes (John 23rd who disobeyed Her direct command re the Third Secret) and antipopes (‘Francis’).

Therese said…
No, no one can take Sacred Tradition away. Neither can anyone take away Our Lord's commands or His promises to those who will love Him. In times of bloody persecution saints are made fairly rapidly, but for us it is the slow, grinding down of our resolve. Love resides in the will, and also persistence in the face of evil. Stay very close to God.

Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Wernz-Vidal: "One cannot consider as Schismatics those who Refuse to Obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person Suspect or, because of Widespread Rumors, Doubtfully Elected"

    Pope Francis is tottering on the precipice of Hell. None of this means he isn't the pope, and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right. Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave has come out and said the election was rigged and Bergoglio isn't the pope, that he is in fact an anti-pope . If he is, a future pope can declare that, when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope. But if the very men gathered in conclave haven't made that public accusation,  anyone who is suggesting that better take into account that they too will have to give an account of themselves to Almighty God when they die . Such talk adds to the scandal of the "little ones," the simple, even potential converts, who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media saying he's not really the pope, draw back from approaching the Church. Do any of us desire to stand in front Our Blessed Lord as the Supreme Judge and explain why, in our desire for more c

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk