Bishop Gracida: "ONE CAN SAY THAT [MASS DESTROYER] FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A HERETIC UNTIL ONE DIES BUT IT CHANGES NOTHING. WHAT IS NEEDED IS ACTION... WE MUST PRESSURE THE CARDINALS [& BISHOPS] TO ACT"
It is sad and almost humorous as you read all the Francis Traditionalists who the renowned Vatican expert Marco Tosatti's website describes as "the traditionalist-sedevacantists who do not want to understand nor even discuss the investigation of ... Bergoglio [Francis]" as they are all screaming at the top of their lungs that Francis is making "illegal laws" and may be a heretic for his most recent attack on the Traditional Latin Mass of the Ages:
….DR. MCCALL: THESE DOCUMENTS ARE ILLEGAL LAWS. THEY ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL BUT RATHER “ACTS OF VIOLENCE.” BEING ACTS CONTRARY TO THE DIVINE AND NATURAL LAW, AND EXCEEDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SEE, THESE DOCUMENTS ARE OF NO LEGAL FORCE AND EFFECT
....Historian, jurist, Fr. Claude Barthe: “It is clear that, in the name of the sensus fidelium, we must oppose Traditionis Custodes and its clarification through non-reception, because it is a doctrinally unjust law"
....Rorate: This grotesque spectacle of a pontificate will come to an end. The Traditional Rite has not seen its last chapter, certainly not under this charade of a ruler, a caricature of a comical Latin American caudillo!
On December 15, in the Tosatti website, in the post "La Sede Impedita, Benedetto XVI, Bertone e Gänswein. Le Dimissioni" (which was translated by From Rome), he seemed to be a bit hard on the Francis Trads calling them "traditionalist-sedevacantists" because I assume they make a lot of noise, but don't act to solve the problems in the Church:
Now, the fact is that if we go to the next conclave with 80 non-cardinals appointed by the antipope, another antipope will be elected. Thus, if we continue to pay attention, on the one hand, to the mainstream that has sold out in block to Bergoglianism, and, on the other hand, to the traditionalist-sedevacantists who do not want to understand nor even discuss the investigation of Plan B and legitimize Bergoglio with canonical follies..
... The upper levels of the clergy, even if they have understood this, have been totally immobilized due to the possible retaliation of the antipope. The only ones who are able to do anything are journalists, but 98% of these are completely sold out to Bergoglianism, and the remaining 2% is held hostage by the anti-Ratzingerian traditionalists, and both categories together prevent there being any debate on this matter. [https://www.fromrome.info/2021/12/16/tosatti-airs-cioncis-impeded-see/]
Now, let get to the point:
In what way do the Francis Trads not act to solve the problem of Francis.
Bishop Rene Gracida put it best:
"ONE CAN SAY THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A HERETIC UNTIL ONE DIES BUT IT CHANGES NOTHING. WHAT IS NEEDED IS ACTION... WE MUST PRESSURE THE CARDINALS TO ACT."
Francis is not orthodox so there are only two things he could be:
1. A validly elected pope who is a material heretic until cardinals correct him and then canonically proclaim he is a formal heretic if he doesn't recant thus deposing him (See: "Unambiguously Pope Francis Materially Professes Death Penalty Heresy: Cd. Burke: 'If a Pope would Formally Profess Heresy he would Cease, by that Act, to be the Pope'": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2018/08/unambiguously-pope-francis-materially.html?m=1) or
2. an invalidly elected antipope who is a heretic.
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 Bishop Garcida says put: "pressure on the cardinals [and bishops] to act" whichever you think.
Strangely enough, a member of the Francis Trads back in 2016 also called on Traditionalists to act and on of all places in One Peter Five which is a card holding member of Trad Inc.
It was five years ago when I used to love to read One Peter Five's comment section that this happened.
Here is a fun flashback when Steve Skojec actually defended Ann Barnhardt from Chris Ferrara and Ferrara called for an imperfect council:
" Chris Ferrara: To declare that Francis is not the Pope... make[s] for good click bait..."
"... Steve Skojec: "Ann writes things that certainly come across as sensationalist... This is who she is. I don't believe she ever publishes something she doesn't truly believe in. I don't think it's fair to call this clickbait... "
".... Chris Ferrara: "My only objection is any of us making final forensic determinations based on 'overwhelming evidence' and then announcing our verdict of one. It's a rather silly exercise."
"Perhaps a better approach is to amass the evidence and send it to every cardinal, DEMANDING they convene [an imperfect council] and issue the kind of judgement Bellermine contemplated in this situation: not that the Pope is deposed, but that he has deposed himself. Such a hypothetical conclave would offer the Pope an opportunity to explain himself."
Moreover, Ferrara explained in 2018 about the need for an imperfect council:
What would be the grounds for a declaration of deposition at such a gathering of prelates? One could readily point to
the evidence that a faction that included Bergoglio himself had agreed
upon his election before the conclave, and that all those involved,
including Bergoglio, were thereby excommunicated latae sententiae in accordance with Article 81 of John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis, which provides:
'The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition.'"
Ana Milan wrote in the Catholic Monitor how this could be started:
Again, the only prelate in the world to take attorney Ferrara's legal advice was Bishop Gracida who "amass[ed] the evidence" and wrote an Open Letter to all the cardinals "DEMANDING they convene [an imperfect council]."
The laity need to force people like Cardinal Burke and other cardinals as well as bishops to
answer the theologically sound, clear and precise arguments put forward
and either clearly and precisely counter them or 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
If Burke and others do not act they could be putting their immortal souls in danger because they are denying the Petrine office of Pope John Paul II who made binding law for the 2013 conclave in Universi Dominici Gregis.
The open letter of Bishop Gracida is an analysis of Pope John Paul Il's Universi Dominici Gregis which appears to establish the "legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff" and calls the Cardinals to "Address... [the] probable invalidity":
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE
His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question. The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See.
From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility. If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself.
These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.: “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.”
Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is: “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.” (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.) In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations.
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.
Of course, this is not the only feature of the Constitution or aspect of the matter which tends to establish the breadth of invalidity. Faithful must hope and pray that only those cardinals whose status as a valid member of the College remains intact will ascertain the identity of each other and move with the utmost charity and discretion in order to effectuate The Divine Will in these matters. The valid cardinals, then, must act according to that clear, manifest, obvious and unambiguous mind and intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, so evident in Universi Dominici Gregis, a law which finally established binding and self-actuating conditions of validity on the College for any papal conclave, a reality now made so apparent by the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion and plain error.
Once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches age 80, or before that age, dies, the process for electing a real Pope ends with no apparent legal means to replace it. Absent a miracle then, The Church would no longer have an infallible Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Roman Catholics would be no different than Orthodox Christians.
This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its
They could declare the Chair of Peter vacant and proceed to a new and proper conclave. They could meet with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and discern whether His resignation and retirement was made under duress, or based on some mistake or fraud, or otherwise not done in a legally effective manner, which could invalidate that resignation. Given the demeanor of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and the tenor of His few public statements since his departure from the Chair of Peter, this recognition of validity in Benedict XVI seems unlikely.
Un ami des Pape