Skip to main content

"There is No Reason for Cardinal Burke Not to Call for an Imperfect Council"

Many times the posts in the Catholic Monitor comment section are better than many of my posts. This time a long time reader, Ana Milan, wrote a excellent comment which needed to be a posted:

Ana Milan said…

There is no reason for Cardinal Burke not to call for an Imperfect Council in order to clarify once & for all that the Canons governing papal resignations & PJPII's Rules covering papal election procedures were transparently kept to, as it doesn't appear to the general laity that they were. He must realise that the Papacy cannot be bifurcated & that PBXVI was improperly coerced into abandoning the Church by foul means, so why must adherents to the OHCA Church of Christ continue to tolerate a Marxist/Masonic Bishop of Rome who does not want the title Vicar of Christ?

It was reported that there was an extra vote counted in favour of AF that has never been explained & Cardinals of the St. Gallen Group admitted afterwards that they had made many 'phone calls with the intention of persuading fellow Cardinals to vote for AF who was 'their man'. Such enthusiasm counts as electioneering!

Does Cardinal Burke really believe that a truly elected Pope would hand over 7M Chinese Catholics to the CCP for $2B per annum? How does he stand with the Abu Dhabi Declaration that God desires all religions & the Pachamama disaster within the walls of the Vatican with a follow-up Amazonian Synod later in the year?

Being an American Cardinal he must know that the USCCB is a melting pot of homosexually disordered prelates but never condemns their activities, nor has he pushed for the truth about the McCarrick Investigation to be published - that might just be the end to the American Church! The African Cardinals also are very silent about the slaughter of Christians in their countries, especially Nigeria, which is a public scandal. 
Here is the post:
Dr. Taylor Marshall: "McCarrick... perhaps... [did] something Uncanonical in Regards to the Election of Bergoglio"
 Yesterday, Thomist scholar Dr. Taylor Marshall in his popular YouTube podcast said that "McCarrick... perhaps... [did] something uncanonical in regards to the election of Bergoglio":

"We also learned that McCarrick who is a friend of the St. Gallen mafia. In a Villanova video he talked about when Benedict resigned that a certain distinguished Italian gentleman spoke about getting Bergoglio elected. It almost sounds like a campaign. McCarrick actually confessed that this happened before all this came out about McCarrick. So, we realize that McCarrick was perhaps doing something uncanonical in regards to the election of Bergoglio who goes on to be elected as Pope Francis."
(Watch "Trump Should Investigate McCarrick & His Creepy Bishop Network" on YouTube, July 19, 2020, 38:35-39:08: https://youtu.be/8H99rRDjjEc)

Catholic pundit 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."

According to Cardinal Burke proving that the St. Gallen Mafia "undermined Pope Benedict XVI and at the same time engineer[ed] the election of someone [Francis]" would be "very difficult to demonstrate," but possible if a real investigation for evidence took place it could possibly be proven that Francis is a antipope.

Bishop Rene Gracida has convincingly demonstrated that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II's conclave constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis" which "prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)" was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals. If, after the investigation, Francis is found to be a antipope then a new pope would have to be elected after Benedict XVI's resignation is investigated to see if his resignation was valid.

Renowned Catholic historian Warren 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

Remember what renowned Catholic historian Carroll said:

"A Papal claimant not following these methods [of the Pope John Paul II's conclave constitution] is also an Antipope."

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

Comments

Aqua said…
I agree, I love reading any comment from Ana Milan. Always thought provoking. But I have a different take on this:

The Conclave itself was illegal since we still had, and still do have, a reigning Pope. His resignation was clearly invalid, full stop. Nothing else matters. He remained in Office. No Conclave. Doesn't matter what they did there.

The Conclave was illegal. So of course there were going to be irregularities, plots and schemes in whatever illegal conclave actually resulted from this satanic source based on a massive lie. The Holy Spirit wasn't guiding the Cardinal Fathers to elect a second Pope; an active Pope to pair up with an "Emeritus" Pope - if not the Holy Spirit, then who was guiding them in there? And so, of course it produced an enemy of Christ and and an enemy of Magisterial Tradition.

It is a mistake, an understandable mistake because the errors are so obvious, so gross, but in my view a mistake nevertheless, to consider and judge the illegal acts of an illegal Conclave. It is intrinsic to the nature of the illegal Council to commit illegalities. The imperfect Counci should be called to determine one thing only: did Pope Benedict XVI properly resign his Office or did he retain his Office?

This makes a huge difference because all acts of Bergoglio, especially his appointments, must be overturned root and branch from the beginning second of his invalid reign, resulting from the invalid "Conclave". And Emeritus Pope must be a term placed in the shredder and never heard again - it is a base error growing from this fundamental false resignation deviation.
Unknown said…
Me too.

Ivan
Mark Millward said…
Yes, Aqua can be relied upon to hammer the nails home, time and again. Clarity of thought and word borne of cleaving to Truth
John F. Kennedy said…
"because all acts of Bergoglio, especially his appointments, must be overturned root and branch.."

The problem is Bergoglio always brought his newly picked Cardinals to B16 for his approval. So if B16 is still Pope / Vicar of Christ, he CAN delegate the selection / recomendation to others but still approve them. Bishops always ordain other bishops so no "problem" there except the actual pick. Additionally if B16 "gave up" being the Bishop of Rome to Bergoglio, as bishop of Rome he would have authority to appoint the priests and bishops to the Churches in Rome. Those bishops are the Cardinals who are the electors of the next Bishop of Rome.

BTW, if what I've outlined above is true, I see no way for a successor for the Vicar of Christ to be chosen.
Aqua said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aqua said…
The point is, Benedict cannot "give up" being Bishop of Rome. If he is not that, then he is not anything else related to the Papal Office either. And that means he cannot "approve" Bishops tentatively selected by another - since he no longer retains any portion of the Papal Munus.

"Delegation" in your scenario is something reserved to the Pope. If he is not Pope, he has as much right to delegate that duty as any other Priest in the Church. If he is Pope, the other person who is Bishop of Rome is a usurper, because that See is reserved to the Pope alone.
John F. Kennedy said…
Aqua,
Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom by God himself. He wasn't Bishop of Rome. That selection by God was before Holy Thursday and the Last Supper when the Church acknowledges that the 12 received Holy Orders. So he wasn't in Rome or a Bishop until the Last Supper. History acknowledges that Peter established a See in Antioch. The Bishop of Antioch is not recognized as the head of the Church even though he truly is a Successior to Peter.
When the Papacy was in Avignon, the Pope didn't need to reside in Rome.

I've started to used the title Supreme Pontiff or the Vicar of Christ as they seems to be more relevant to the questions. (Also I think Bergoglio has recently acknowledged that those aren't his titles.)

The use of "Pope" seems to only go back to the 11th century. I no long hang my hat on that term as doesn't seem relevant any more. It seems to be a pet name for the man.

Don't get me wrong. I think Bergoglio is a usurper and I question whether he is a Christian much less a hold of any office (munus).
Aqua said…
John F. Kennedy, That all makes sense to me. And it shows how deceptive it was for the core of the "resignation" to focus on that in which he specifically "resigned the *ministry* of Bishop of Rome; the See (Diocese) of Rome, and the See (Diocese) of St. Peter is vacant".

Everyone, it seems, focused on that practical part that was resigned and missed the essential part of what it takes to make, and be, and remain Supreme Pontiff; Vicar of Christ - the Munus - was retained.

The See of Rome *in today's* Church represents the government of the worldwide Church. It's just how it is, regardless of how it was before in prior ages. And almost every Catholic was fooled to think that government = Supreme Pontiff (Pope). It does not. Government is what he *does*. The Munus is who he *is*.

As you said before, he can lend out, "in extremis" the government or portions of it to another, *as.long.as* it remains under and through the Supreme Pontiff (Pope) as ultimate authority over all acts of governance.

He cannot *lend out* the authority of Pope itself to another while retaining even a molecule of that same authority.

Popular posts from this blog

"Exorcist Fr. Ripperger is asking everyone to say this Prayer until the Election is Resolved"

A good friend of the Catholic Monitor got this from a group message. She said "exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger is asking everyone to say this prayer until the election is resolved": Prayer of Command In His Name and by the power of His Cross and Blood, I ask Jesus to bind any evil spirits, forces and powers of the earth, air, fire, or water, of the netherworld and the satanic forces of nature.  By the power of the Holy Spirit and by His authority, I ask Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from, if it be His Holy Will.  I beseech Thee Lord Jesus to protect us by pouring Thy Precious Blood on us (my family, etc.), which Thou hast shed for us and I ask Thee to command that any departing spirits leave quietly, without disturbance, and go straight to Thy Cross to dispose of as Thou sees fit.  I ask Thee to bind any demonic interaction, interplay, or communications.  I place N. (Person, place or thing) under the protectio

If Kamala Harris' Father is part White & part Jamaican African and her Mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black?

  Is Joe Biden's running mate really Black? If Kamala Harris' father is part white and part Jamaican African and her mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black? Reason.com tries to figure it out: Kamala Harris, Joe Biden's pick to be the Democratic Party's vice-presidential nominee, is the daughter of an Indian immigrant mother and a Jamaican immigrant father. Her father, as I understand it, has ancestors of both European and African origin. [Welcome new Volokh readers. FYI, I've been working on a book on the American Law of Race, with this forthcoming article the first relevant output. My own opinion is that Ms. Harris should be deemed American, period, but there is no such box on government forms, and if you decline to state your race, someone will decide for you… First things first. There is no multiracial or mixed-race category in American law in any jurisdiction. Nor is there an Indian category. So Harris cannot be legally Indian, nor can she b

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 | cocatholicconference.org   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious