TnT Guest Co-Host Fr. Nix joins Bp. Gracida & Attorney Chris Ferrara in Calling for a "Imperfect Council" to Investigate if Francis is a Antipope

Frequent guest co-host on Dr. Taylor Marshall's YouTube TnT show Fr. David Nix apparently joined Bishop Rene Gracida and pro-life attorney Christopher A. Ferrara in urging for a "imperfect council" to be called to investigate the validity of the 2013 conclave that elected Francis, the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and possibly for declaring Francis to be a explicit heretic.

Fr. Nix on Twitter in responding to Journalist Edward Pentin's Tweet called for "an imperfect council":

	Edward Pentin  @EdwardPentin	Sep 28
	At 3.30pm today on vigil of Michaelmas, priests will be privately praying Leo XIII's Prayer of Exorcism (the longer prayer to St Michael) at a church near Castel Sant'Angelo w/ intention to expel the "diabolical influence from the Vatican, especially in view of the #AmazonSynod"
	View details ·

	FrDave Nix 📡 @FrDaveNix Replying to @EdwardPentin
Exorcisms don't work if the people attached to the spirits remain. So, the spirits will remain, too. This sounds strong on paper, but it's futile until an imperfect council is called. Calling an imperfect council takes a lot more courage than deliverance prayers at a Church. 1:30 PM - 28 Sep 2019 [https://mobile.twitter.com/frdavenix/status/1178044258739085312] On March 3, Fr. Nix publicly acknowledged that Bishop Gracida "is a great hero." Moreover, he said that not only he, but a cardinal is questioning the validity of the papacy of Francis: "Bishop Gracida of Texas is a great hero of mine for publicly questioning the valid resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.  I know for a fact that at least one other Cardinal in the world is questioning this, too.  But even if you do not buy our 'resignationalist' approach to the current crisis, then at least ask this:  Where are all the bishops denouncing the weekly heresy that we are now hearing from the top down?.. Here is why: The end does not justify the means, whether those means be sins of commission or omission. Have you ever thought of the fact that sins of omission do not justify a good end?" (PadrePeregrino.org, "Courage over Consequentialism in the Hierarchy," March, 3, 2019) [https://padreperegrino.org/2019/03/consequentialism/] On September 17, 2018, lawyer Ferrara, president of the American Catholic Lawyers Association, also, called for a "imperfect council" to be enjoined to investigate and possibly "declare" Francis "deposed" from the papacy: "The Synod [of Sutri in 1046] was convoked by Henry III, the German king and soon-to-be-crowned Holy Roman Emperor, a pious and austere Christian and an exponent of the Cluniac spirit of reform. The Synod declared that Benedict IX (who had refused to appear) was deposed notwithstanding his attempt to undo his resignation. As for Sylvester, the Synod declared that he be “stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a monastery.” Gregory was also declared deposed, either by the act of the Synod itself or by Gregory’s own voluntary resignation in view of the Synod [Historian Warren Carroll states in "The Building of Christendom" that it was by his resignation, Page 464.]." "... What would be the grounds for a declaration of deposition at such a gathering of prelates?  One could readily point to the evidence that a faction that included Bergoglio himself had agreed upon his election before the conclave, and that all those involved, including Bergoglio, were thereby excommunicated latae sententiae in accordance with Article 81 of John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis, which provides: 'The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition.'" "To quote Cajetan on this point (citations taken from the linked article by Robert Siscoe), deposition by an imperfect council is appropriate 'when one or more Popes suffer uncertainty with regard to their election, as seems to have arisen in the schism of Urban VI and others. Then, lest the Church be perplexed, those members of the Church who are available have the power to judge which is the true pope, if it can be known, and if it cannot be known, [it has] the power to provide that the electors agree on one or another of them.'” "I am not saying that such a case has been proven. Rather, what I am saying is that this hypothetical imperfect council could determine that it has been proven and act accordingly, and that the Church would judge any resulting deposition of Bergoglio in the same manner it judges the deposition of Benedict IX." [https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4092-can-the-church-defend-herself-against-bergoglio] This brings us to the conservatives and traditionalists who irrationally oppose the call for a imperfect council by claiming Francis absolutely cannot be a antipope because the majority of cardinals claim he is pope. Is it possible for someone to be a antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is a antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for Anacletus? Historian Warren Carroll explains: "[C]anon law does not bind a Pope arranging for his successor... [Papal Chancellor] Haimeric proposed that... a commission of eight cardinals should be selected to choose the next Pope... strong evidence [shows] that the Pope [Honorius] endorsed what Haimeric was doing, including the establishment of the electoral commission [of eight cardinals]." (The Glory of Christendom, Pages 36-37) The majority or "sanior pars," five cardinals out of eight of "the electoral commission," elected Pope Innocent II as St. Bernard said and as evidence shows was the will of the previous pope in what we can call a constitution for the election of his successor. In the same way, is it possible that Francis was not elected pope even though he received a absolute majority of cardinals votes and is now as in the case of Anacletus proclaimed pope by the same absolute majority? As with the case of Anacletus, it is possible Francis is a antipope if his election contradicted or violated the constitution promulgated by Pope John Paul II for electing his successor. Bishop Gracida in his Open Letter to the cardinals brings forward evidence that the conclave that elected Francis was invalid because there were "serious irregularities" against John Paul II's constitution that governed the 2013 conclave. However, the anti-Open Letter traditional Catholic commentator Steve Skojec on May 7, 2018 apparently rejected Bishop Gracida's call for the cardinals to judge if Francis's election to the papacy was valid calling the validity question itself, using a phrase of Francis's close collaborator Cardinal Blasé Cupich, 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 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 conservative 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, not canon lawyers or anyone else. The Bishop is saying what the document says: only the cardinals can interpret it. He, also, says put pressure on the cardinals to act by calling a imperfect council to investigate the validity of  the 2013 conclave that elected Francis and to declare if Francis is explicitly a heretic. Francis is not orthodox so there are only two things he could be: 1. A validly elected pope who is a material heretic until cardinals correct him and then canonically proclaim he is a formal heretic if he doesn't recant thus deposing him (See: "Unambiguously Pope Francis Materially Professes Death Penalty Heresy: Cd. Burke: 'If a Pope would Formally Profess Heresy he would Cease, by that Act, to be the Pope'": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2018/08/unambiguously-pope-francis-materially.html?m=1) or 2. a invalidly elected antipope who is a heretic. 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.  Bishop Gracida in a email to me and through the Catholic Monitor to all faithful Catholics said: "ONE CAN SAY THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A HERETIC UNTIL ONE DIES BUT IT CHANGES NOTHING. WHAT IS NEEDED IS ACTION... WE MUST PRESSURE THE CARDINALS TO ACT. SEND THAT LINK TO EVERY PRIEST AND BISHOP YOU KNOW": https://abyssum.org/2019/03/19/only-cardinals-appointed-by-popes-saint-john-paul-ii-and-benedict-xvi-can-declare-the-election-of-francis-the-merciful-invalid-and-proceed-to-a-new-conclave-to-elect-a-legitimate-successor-to-benedict/ (Scroll to the bottom of the article for the Gracida Open Letter.). Remember that many who are calling those like Bishop Gracida, Fr. Nix and others "schismatics" for calling for a cardinal investigation are following in the footsteps of the real schismatics who promoted and followed Antipope Anacletus II. Renown Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the "election procedures... [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope": "Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope)."  "During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals." "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. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope." "Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims." [http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt] The schismatic followers of  Antipope Anacletus II didn't want St. Bernard to investigate who was the real pope. It was the followers of the real pontiff Pope Innocent II who asked Bernard to investigate. Why are so many traditional and conservative Catholics afraid of a cardinal investigation of the apparent "serious irregularities" against John Paul II's constitution that governed the 2013 conclave that could invalidate the conclave which elected Francis? Why are so many traditional and conservative Catholics claiming they are against Communion for adulterers while being afraid of a formal correction of Francis for his "authentic Magisterium" teaching of Communion for adulterers which is a explicit heresy? Is it possible that they can overcome their fear and join Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales in calling on the Church to issue two formal corrections on Francis's Communion for adulterers explicit heresy which if Francis doesn't recant means he is deposing himself after the second correction? St. Francis de Sales proclaimed: "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." (The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church. Pray an Our Father now that Fr. Nix's cardinal receive the grace of courage to join Bishop René Gracida in calling for an cardinal investigation into the Pope Benedict resignation and the Francis conclave.