Skip to main content

Might Archbishop Lenga's Turkmenistan be the first Country to Convene an Imperfect Council to Declare Francis an Antipope?

Archbishop Jan Lenga was formerly the "Apostlic Administrator" of not only Kazakhstan, but of the tiny country of Turkmenistan.
(Fatima, Russia and Pope John Paul II: How Mary Intervened to Deliver Russia," Page 202)

Interestingly, the Catholic Monitor which has given some coverage to Archbishop Lenga's position that Francis is an antipope has begun noticing that the people of Turkmenistan are starting to read the online Monitor.

Might Lenga's former territory of Turkmenistan be the first country to declare Francis an antipope in an imperfect council as St. Bernard of Clairvaux's imperfect council in France was the first to declared the supposed pope in Rome Anacletus an antipope?

Is Lenga in schism as some may be stating for claiming Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was invalid thus Francis is an antipope?

It must be remembered in history that St. Bernard claimed the supposed pope in Rome was an antipope as Lenga is doing and was declared correct by an imperfect council which he headed.

Author Msgr. Leon Cristiani wrote:

"King Louis convoked a Council at Etampes, to consider the question of the double pontifical election... Bernard was received at Etampes as God's envoy."
(St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Pages 70-71)

Was St. Bernard in schism?

The Arian heretics were saying the same thing about St. Athanasius. That he was in schism.

The saint was resisting the Arian heretic bishops even apparently outside the valid pope's approval.

It appears that Archbishop Lenga may force the cardinals and bishops to do an investigation and call an imperfect council into the validity of the Francis's papacy because a bishop cannot suspend a bishop. Only a pope can suspend a bishop.

But, Lenga states Benedict is still pope because of a invalid resignation and therefore Francis isn't pope according to the archbishop.

Cardinal John Henry Newman it appears showed that a validly appointed bishop can't suspend another validly appointed bishop.

Newman said Athanasius ordained priests against the authority of the Arian heretical bishops who were validly appointed bishops.

In fact, scholar Joseph Bingham on page 98 in "The Antiquities of the Christian Church" said:

"Athanasius... made no scruples to ordain... [Bishop] Euesebius of Samosata... ordained bishops also in Syria and Cilicia."

Moreover, Newman in his "The Development of Christian Doctrine" denied that Bishop Athanasius's "interference" in the dioceses of the heretical Arian bishops was schism:

"If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin interference."
(Gutenberg.org, "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine," Sixth Edition)

Was Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius a schismatic?

Moreover, serious scholars are claiming Francis is a material heretic. The 19 Scholar's Open Letter say that Francis is a material heretic which also brings into play the Bellarmine and Francis de Sales option of declaring an explicit heretical pope self-deposed.

Bishop Gracida's Open Letter to the Cardinals analysing and quoting Pope John Paul II's Universi Dominici gregis questions the validity of the Francis conclave calling for an cardinal investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave.

Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo's in-depth thesis "Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983" using exhaustive quotations from canon law showing why canon law explicitly states that ministerium and munus cannot be synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the same thing thus denying the validity of Pope Benedict XVI's resignation.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Comments

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...

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...

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...