Cdl. Burke: The "Grounds... for... [In]validity of the [Francis] Election would be... Campaign Organized Beforehand which is Strictly Forbidden"
Former intelligence officer Steven O’Reilly strangely wrote about the evidence he presented in which it appears there was invalidating campaigning before the conclave that "even if a 'campaign' by itself might not invalidate a [Francis] conclave." Turning the table on him, isn't it possible that the evidence might be the beginning process to invalidate "a [Francis] conclave." Here is what he wrote:"Prior to March 2nd, McCarrick was not ‘talking up Bergoglio’ but after the visit from the “influential Italian gentleman,” a friend of Cardinal Bergoglio, he commenced doing so. As I opined before (see The Influential Italian Gentleman: McCarrick “touted the praises” of Bergoglio Prior to the Conclave), it seems unlikely that a narcissist like McCarrick would have been moved to action had this request come from some random acquaintance who did not have a direct link to Bergoglio. What seems more probable is that he would be moved to action if he knew this request ultimately came from Bergoglio, someone who could specifically favor McCarrick in return. That Bergoglio had knowledge of McCarrick’s efforts on his behalf seems to be a reasonable deduction, given Bergoglio’s otherwise inexplicable lifting of restrictions imposed upon McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI. Archbishop Vigano, as well, in his Testimony suggests this was done due to the “important part he (McCarrick) had played in his (Bergoglio’s) recent election.” Thus, it does not seem so outrageous to suppose as likely, if not probable, that the “influential Italian gentleman” acted as an emissary not only on behalf of Bergoglio but he had done so with Bergoglio’s prior knowledge, consent, and direction."
"All the above considered, even if a “campaign” by itself might not invalidate a conclave, there is evidence to suggest that Bergoglio was an active participant in the campaign that elected him, if not the probable instigator of it. For me at least, there are too many “happy coincidences”, as I outlined earlier….and as a former intelligence officer: ‘there are no such things as coincidences.’ The evidence suggests planning for a Bergoglian campaign had begun prior to the effective date of Benedict’s resignation." [https://romalocutaest.com/2020/08/16/the-we-in-we-did-it-and-what-they-did/]
Patrick Coffin on his YouTube show asked Cardinal Raymond Burke is it possible that evidence might invalidate a "[Francis] conclave":
"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 gay lobby St. Gallen Mafia 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."
My question to Cardinal Burke is:
Why would proving that the gay lobby St. Gallen Mafia "undermined Pope Benedict XVI and at the same time engineer[ed] the election of someone [Francis]" be "very difficult to demonstrate"?
The leftist Fittipaldi who considers Francis a man of "courage" says the
Vatican gay lobby is "often composed" of "conservatives" who apparently “campaigned” to
cause Pope Benedict XVI to resign with the "war of documents" that was
"The story of the gay lobby has... importance in the Vatileaks and the dismissal of Pope Ratzinger... He destroyed the careers of those who were with them. To stop this group, a group of supporters of Ratzinger began to issue a series of documents, which was called Vatileaks. [Para travar este grupo, um grupo de apoiantes de Ratzinger começou a fazer sair uma série de documentos, a que se chamou Vatileaks 1.] I can say this shock, this war of [Vatileaks] documents led to the end of Ratzinger."
"... [T]hey [the gay lobby] are often composed of the most conservative men in the Church. It is a paradox, but it is so. Certainly the doctrine [against homosexuality] has not been changed because the conservative homosexual and heterosexual world is in the majority. Francis, from this point of view, is considered a heretic. In this I very much support the courage of Francis, a visionary courage, because if the Church does not change and does not open to the world, it risks entering into an irreversible crisis."
"... Ratzinger made... war against pedophilia... [h]e just started and resigned."
(Comunidadeculturaearte.com, "Emiliano Fittipaldi: For Francis paedophilia is a secondary issue," October 20, 2017) [[https://www.comunidadeculturaearte.com/emiliano-fittipaldi-para-francisco-a-pedofilia-e-uma-questao-secundaria/]
There appears to be lots of evidence that "these persons [the gay lobby St. Gallen Mafia cardinals] engaged in a active campaign first to undermined Pope Benedict XVI and at the same time.. engineer[ed] the election of someone [Francis]."
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.