Skip to main content

Does Fr. Z Think he is Smarter than Cd. Burke & Think he is a Cardinal?

Today, Fr. Z, Father John Zuhlsdorf, appeared to say that canon law rules on excommunication override the conclave constitution of a pope and then said:

"If you are going to say that Francis is not a legitimate Pope, you need a better argument than an invalid conclave due to conspiracy."
(Fr. Z's Blog, "Is Francis an Antipope because Cardinals conspired and the conclave was invalid?, October 17, 2019)

Unfortunately for Fr. Z's argument, Cardinal Raymond Burke said:

"The only grounds that could be used for calling into question the validity of the [Francis] election would be were the election organized by a campaign beforehand which is strictly forbidden and that would be difficult to demonstrate."
(Patrick Coffin Show, "141: Dubia Cardinal goes on the Record - Raymond Cardinal Burke")

Moreover, apparently Fr. Z thinks he is a cardinal who can judge Pope John Paul II's conclave constitution.

I suggest that he read paragraph 5 of Universi Dominici Gregis:

"[C]oncerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution... I [Pope John Paul II] Decree that all power of issuing a judgement of this in this regards to the College of Cardinals."

As Bishop Rene Gracida says and the constitution said only the cardinals can interpret it, not canon lawyers or Fr. Z.

Pray an Our Father now that as Bishop Gracida has asked for in his Open Letter to the Cardinals that they convene a imperfect council to investigate the validity of the Francis conclave.

Also, pray an Our Father that the imperfect council investigate the validity of the Pope Benedict XVI resignation and issue a correction of the Francis explicit heresy of Communion for adulterers.





Comments

Aqua said…
I cannot fathom the ease with which Fr. “Z” and all such neo-con Catholics blithely accept an Emeritus Pope; a shared Petrine ministry; two visible Popes; the resulting worldwide apostasy.

And I need a better argument?

The witches and warlocks have taken over; they’ve literally begun adoring demons in our holiest places under the invitation and leadership of this wicca antipope of the apocalypse; fundamental dogmas are being overturned with a wrecking ball. And Z is still back there insisting the Conclave was valid?

That is not reasonable. It is into the realm of diabolical blindness. None of this is reasonable. None of this is Catholic. He is Priest in an apostate Church. And I need a better argument! No. I’m comfortable with my argument.
6:02 AM
jmav said…
The original post appears to inappropriately magnify Fr. Zuhlsdorf's point to make him appear to say something that he does not in fact argue in the post under discussion. Fr. Z addressed a limited question as to whether the presence of cardinals excommunicated 'latae sententiae' casting illicit votes in the conclave would have invalidated the election. Fr. Z demonstrates why that would not have been the case simply under canon law with reference to the penalty prescribed (excommunication 'latae sententiae') for the prohibited actions defined in UDG 81 (a cardinalatial pact/conspiracy occuring outside of or prior to the conclave). Fr. Z does not cite UDG 76 nor does he address the broader questions which it might raise. He also does not, in his post, attempt to respond to all of the various other theories that have been floated as to why the conclave itself or the consequent election of Bergoglio might have been invalid. As he replied to a commenter on his blog, "Dealt with a specific argument about the conclave. There are other arguments about the 2013 [sic] that I didn’t address."
12:48 PM
jmav said…
I'll briefly add, the ultimate bone of contention logically appears to be whether the violation of UDG 81 (i.e. cardinalatial conspiracy) triggers the consequence of nullity for "the election [taking] place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution," as UDG 76 states. And, as Mr. Martinez pointed out, that is neither in Fr. Z's nor our competence to determine.
1:01 PM
jmav said…
Your argument, Aqua, appears to be the "Barnhardt thesis," which Fr. Z did not address in the post discussed. So, yours is not the argument he was referring to in any case.
1:07 PM
Justina said…
But it must BE determined. That much, all of us can tell, and furthermore, we can insist that the competent authorities do so. Father Z's implicit contention that none of this rises to the level of serious concern lacks all merit, because if Bergoglio is an amti-pope, anyone who treats him otherwise by submitting to his heretical teachings risks eternal damnation.
3:59 PM
Aqua said…
Your point, jamb, like Fr. “Z”, ignores the central point in favor of the peripheral. When you don’t have an answer, construct a straw man and attack it.

The Latin original resignation was in substantial error. Plain by the text and Canon Law. Plain by subsequent clarifications. Plain by subsequent actions.

Game over. Conclave invalid while the Pope still lives and reigns. Everything else is white noise.

Answer that. Explain how you keep the Munus, and remain firmly and forever within the enclosure of St. Peter and are not still the Pope. Any support for that in Tradition? Seen an Emeritus anywhere in history we can use for comparison?

It’s pretty simple. Resign the Office (Munus), and go home. Strike 1, strike 2. New Pope has Divine Protection from heresy and error ... uh .... strike 3.
4:51 PM
Fr. VF said…
The only people who risk eternal damnation are those who knowingly adhere to an anti-pope, or who deny in principle that there is a pope.

People will not be damned for honestly, unknowingly adhering to an anti-pope. Canonized saints have done so.
9:02 PM
Justina said…
Do people risk damnation for embracing obvious heresy, such as the situation ethics of Amoris laetitia Chapter 8? I don't believe you can cite any canonized saints who have ever professed such a conviction. The circumstances you are referring to--where the only error in play is discerning who is authentically the pope--do not apply in our present case, because accepting Bergoglio as Pope necessarily entails accepting as true many things which are both obviously and perniciously false. It may have been possible for someone like Saint Vincent Ferrer to get the Pope question wrong, as you say, and still save his soul. By supporting an anti-pope, he did not simultaneously subscribe to a whole host of corrosive subversions of the Catholic Faith up to and not excluding even rank idolatry, as any supporter of Bergoglian validity is now bound to do. That is why I do not believe that the loophole to which you refer will apply, sub specie aeternitatis, to any of us. Your necessary qualifiers "honestly" and "unknowingly" are off the table now that a pagan idol has been paraded around Saint Peter's itself.
11:21 PM
Aqua said…
Justina: A demon from hell has been enshrined in St. Peter’s. It is coming to our local Parishes. It’s coming. The water is boiling.

No more loopholes, indeed. Time is growing short. Opposition to Lucifer’s conquest is utterly lacking while we debate “is he or is isn’t he”.

He stands defiantly before God. He adores demons. Well?
7:00 AM
Justina said…
Aqua: agreed.

All you angels and saints, ora pro nobis!
9:11 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an 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 an 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 A...
3 comments
Read more