Could the Church Militant's Michael Voris's pro-legitimacy bias, that Francis is pope because that's an infallible dogma of the Francis Creed, finally be starting to crack?
[Click here to read the Francis Creed: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/01/are-1p5-and-where-peter-is-going-to.html?m=1]
I know from a Church Militant commenter who knows Voris' operation extremely well that Voris' pro-legitimacy bias may be cracking because he is allowing as never before "many pro-Benedict-as-pope comments are being tolerated." She said:
"Interesting post at Church Militant--Voris has featured Socci, with the caveat that Church Militant doesn't necessarily agree. Still the resignation is directly called into question, and many pro-Benedict-as-pope comments are being tolerated."
Voris' Church Militant quotes Vatican expert Antonio Socci":
"There is another passage from Archbishop Ganswein that I would like to highlight:
[https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/watching-the-leaders-of-the-church-work-against-her]
Now that we know that Ganswein is probably a agent of Francis against Benedict the key words in the quote above are:
"'He [Pope Benedict XVI] has not abandoned the office of Peter'... they have never been denied by Pope Benedict."
Might Voris be considering that the Bishop Rene Gracida solution is the right and true path to take?
Here is an overview of the Gracida solution:
"ONE CAN SAY THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A HERETIC [or a anti-pope] 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": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/09/alone-it-is-bishop-gracida-against.html (Scroll to the bottom of this post)
The link goes to his Open Letter which shows that there is strong evidence that Francis may be a anti-pope. But only the cardinals can validly make that Church juridical declaration.
In 2018, Onepeterfive.com's anti-Open Letter Steve Skojec rejected Bishop Gracida's call for the cardinals to judge if Francis's election to the papacy was valid calling the validity question itself 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 legally crafted 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 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 or canon lawyers.
The Bishop is saying what the document says: only the cardinals can interpret it.
He, also, says put pressure on the cardinals to act and interpret it which both Skojec and Peters appear to prefer to ignore.
Moreover, Bishop Gracida's Open Letter and Pope John Paul II's document make a number of points which neither Skojec, Peters or anyone else to my knowledge have even brought up or offered any counter argument against.
They are both wrong if they ignore this important Open Letter of Bishop Gracida.
If Skojec and Peters as well as the conservative and traditional Catholic media are ignoring Bishop Gracida because he isn't a cardinal and retired, remember that St. Athanasius wasn't a cardinal (that is involved in the selection or election process of the pope of the time) and was retired.
During the Arian heresy crisis, Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius. You don't get any more retired than being excommunicated.
Skojec gave blogger Ann Barnhardt's analysis of the papal validity a long article. The only bishop in the world (besides Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano) contesting Francis in a meaningful way deserves as much.
Matt, Skojec, Peters and all scholarly Catholics need to answer Gracida's theologically clear and precise arguments and either clearly and precisely counter them or put pressure on the cardinals to put into action the needed canonical procedures to remove Francis if he was "never validly elected" the pope or else remove him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy.
Francis is not orthodox so there are only two things he could be:
1. A validly elected pope who is a material heretic (as the scholar's Open Letter states) until cardinals correct him and then canonically proclaim he is a formal heretic if he doesn't recant thus deposing him (See: "In-depth Explanation of Dubia Consequences for Pope Francis including 'Removing him from Office'": https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2016/12/in-depth-explanation-of-dubia.html?m=1) or
2. a invalidly elected anti-pope who is a heretic due to an invalid conclave or an invalid resignation by Pope Benedict.
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.
Gracida is calling on pressure to be put on the cardinals to "[a]ddress... [the] probable invalidity" due to a invalid conclave or a invalid resignation by Pope Benedict’s XVI before they attempt to depose him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy. But, just as importantly he is calling all faithful Catholics to act and not just bemoan Francis's heresy.
There are many ways to put pressure such as pray and offer Masses for this intention, send the Gracida link to priests, bishops and cardinals, make signs and pray the rosary in front of their offices as we do in front of abortion clinics. Use your imagination to come up with other ideas.
But, the best way to put pressure on the cardinals to remove Francis is the rosary. The solution to the greatest crisis in the history of the Church is the rosary as it was for the Austrians.
The way to victory for the Austrians to defeat the Russians according to Fr. Pater Petrus was "a tithe: that ten percent of the Austrians, 700,000, would pledge to say the rosary daily for the Soviets to leave their country. 700,000 pledged" as told on the Santo Rosario website:
[Click here to read the Francis Creed: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/01/are-1p5-and-where-peter-is-going-to.html?m=1]
I know from a Church Militant commenter who knows Voris' operation extremely well that Voris' pro-legitimacy bias may be cracking because he is allowing as never before "many pro-Benedict-as-pope comments are being tolerated." She said:
"Interesting post at Church Militant--Voris has featured Socci, with the caveat that Church Militant doesn't necessarily agree. Still the resignation is directly called into question, and many pro-Benedict-as-pope comments are being tolerated."
Voris' Church Militant quotes Vatican expert Antonio Socci":
"There is another passage from Archbishop Ganswein that I would like to highlight:
'He [Pope Benedict XVI] has not abandoned the office of Peter, a thing which would be completely impossible for him following his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.'"
"To me, these seem to be explosive words (and they have never been denied by Pope Benedict). The closest collaborator of Benedict XVI explains to us that for Joseph Ratzinger "the acceptance of the office" of Peter is "irrevocable" and to abandon it is "totally impossible." Although the Vatican continues to pretend that everything is clear, we the Christian people are allowed to ask questions about what really happened in February 2013 and what is the place of Benedict XVI in the Church today."
Now that we know that Ganswein is probably a agent of Francis against Benedict the key words in the quote above are:
"'He [Pope Benedict XVI] has not abandoned the office of Peter'... they have never been denied by Pope Benedict."
Might Voris be considering that the Bishop Rene Gracida solution is the right and true path to take?
Here is an overview of the Gracida solution:
"ONE CAN SAY THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A HERETIC [or a anti-pope] 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": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/09/alone-it-is-bishop-gracida-against.html (Scroll to the bottom of this post)
The link goes to his Open Letter which shows that there is strong evidence that Francis may be a anti-pope. But only the cardinals can validly make that Church juridical declaration.
In 2018, Onepeterfive.com's anti-Open Letter Steve Skojec rejected Bishop Gracida's call for the cardinals to judge if Francis's election to the papacy was valid calling the validity question itself 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 legally crafted 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 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 or canon lawyers.
The Bishop is saying what the document says: only the cardinals can interpret it.
He, also, says put pressure on the cardinals to act and interpret it which both Skojec and Peters appear to prefer to ignore.
Moreover, Bishop Gracida's Open Letter and Pope John Paul II's document make a number of points which neither Skojec, Peters or anyone else to my knowledge have even brought up or offered any counter argument against.
They are both wrong if they ignore this important Open Letter of Bishop Gracida.
If Skojec and Peters as well as the conservative and traditional Catholic media are ignoring Bishop Gracida because he isn't a cardinal and retired, remember that St. Athanasius wasn't a cardinal (that is involved in the selection or election process of the pope of the time) and was retired.
During the Arian heresy crisis, Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius. You don't get any more retired than being excommunicated.
Skojec gave blogger Ann Barnhardt's analysis of the papal validity a long article. The only bishop in the world (besides Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano) contesting Francis in a meaningful way deserves as much.
Matt, Skojec, Peters and all scholarly Catholics need to answer Gracida's theologically clear and precise arguments and either clearly and precisely counter them or put pressure on the cardinals to put into action the needed canonical procedures to remove Francis if he was "never validly elected" the pope or else remove him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy.
Francis is not orthodox so there are only two things he could be:
1. A validly elected pope who is a material heretic (as the scholar's Open Letter states) until cardinals correct him and then canonically proclaim he is a formal heretic if he doesn't recant thus deposing him (See: "In-depth Explanation of Dubia Consequences for Pope Francis including 'Removing him from Office'": https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2016/12/in-depth-explanation-of-dubia.html?m=1) or
2. a invalidly elected anti-pope who is a heretic due to an invalid conclave or an invalid resignation by Pope Benedict.
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.
Gracida is calling on pressure to be put on the cardinals to "[a]ddress... [the] probable invalidity" due to a invalid conclave or a invalid resignation by Pope Benedict’s XVI before they attempt to depose him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy. But, just as importantly he is calling all faithful Catholics to act and not just bemoan Francis's heresy.
There are many ways to put pressure such as pray and offer Masses for this intention, send the Gracida link to priests, bishops and cardinals, make signs and pray the rosary in front of their offices as we do in front of abortion clinics. Use your imagination to come up with other ideas.
But, the best way to put pressure on the cardinals to remove Francis is the rosary. The solution to the greatest crisis in the history of the Church is the rosary as it was for the Austrians.
The way to victory for the Austrians to defeat the Russians according to Fr. Pater Petrus was "a tithe: that ten percent of the Austrians, 700,000, would pledge to say the rosary daily for the Soviets to leave their country. 700,000 pledged" as told on the Santo Rosario website:
Comments