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!
Remnant's
Matt: Francis is implementing a global ban on Old Normal Catholicism in
order to make room for the New Normal Religion of Equity and Climate
Change.
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."
[https://onepeterfive.com/if-francis-is-an-antipope-we-cant-know-it-yet/]
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:
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? [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/07/dr-taylor-marshall-mccarrick-perhaps.html?m=1] 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
heterodoxy.
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
Recently
many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have
decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made
from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope
Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even
suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of
error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports.
Claiming
heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material
error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff,
suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his
authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The
Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an
authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church? This is so because each
Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility.
So,
before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate,
one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly
good and safe fruit of Infallibility. If he seems repeatedly to engage
in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his
election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff
miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in
matters of faith or morals. So to what do we look to discern the
invalidity of such an election?
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.
His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis)
which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear
and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from
its norms. For example, Paragraph 76 states: “Should the election take
place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution,
or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is
for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration
on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”
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.
Only
valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately
(secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and
preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to
the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic
Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. While thousands of the
Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated
in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the
information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there
was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with
moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid
conclave, an utter nullity.
What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregis
particularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at
the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”). The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis
thus concludes definitively with these words: “. . . knowingly
or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.” (“. . .
scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint
excogitata.”) [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat
similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now
abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but
his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead. This
similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an
entirely different legal significance than scienter.]
This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter
has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or
willfully knowing, criminal intent. Thus, it clearly appears that Pope
John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the
nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely
pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not
miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the
Promulgation Clause, combined with: (1) the tenor of the whole
document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76;
(3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g.,
Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the
Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a
reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was
never validly elected Roman Pontiff.
This is so because:
1.
Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication
did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside,
including a television audience, before, during or even immediately
after the Conclave;
2.
Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action”
planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive
decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs;
and,
3.
Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting
process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:
each
was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was
present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor,
but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the
norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the
validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings.
Quite
apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a
cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by
cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts
destructive of conclave validity occurred. Keeping in mind that Pope
John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on
“the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the
whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more
easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy
Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this
seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis.
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.”
Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis
and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera
situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious
non-compliant act which became an open and notorious invalidating
violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to
broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”. While
these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis
actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves,
nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify
automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular
offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter,
having recognized the offenses and having had some power or
voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against
them: “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be
discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to
grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55]
No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter
to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would
nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real
Pope is elected and adjudges them. Thus, those otherwise valid
cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can
still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing
any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff. In contrast,
the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred
conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals
to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action
(even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ),
is established not only by the word, “scienter,”
in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this
case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces
the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must
interpret the general rule as truly binding.
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.
Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of
simony: “If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the
crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all
those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At
the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal
provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors
— the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this
reason be challenged.” His Holiness made an exception for simony. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.
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.
While it is not necessary to look outside Universi Dominici Gregis
in order to construe or to interpret its plain meaning, the first
source to which one would look is the immediately prior constitution
which Universi Dominici Gregis abrogated or replaced. Pope John
Paul II replaced entirely what Pope Paul VI had legislated in the
immediately previous Constitution on conclaves, Romano Pontfici Eligendo, but in so doing, Pope John Paul II used Romano Pontfici Eligendo
as the format or pattern for His new constitution on conclaves. Making
obvious changes, nonetheless, Pope John Paul II utilized the content
and structure of his predecessor’s constitution to organize and outline Universi Dominici Gregis. Therefore, while it is not legally necessary to look outside Universi Dominici Gregis, the primary reference to an extraneous source of construction would entail an examination of Romano Pontfici Eligendo,
and that exercise (bolsterd by the use of the key word “scienter” in
the Promulgation Clause) would reinforce the broad principle of
invalidity.
Comparing
what Pope John Paul II wrote in His Constitution on conclaves with the
Constitution which His replaced, you can see that, with the exception of
simony, invalidity became universal. In the corresponding paragraph of
what Pope Paul VI wrote, he specifically confined the provision
declaring conclave invalidity to three (3) circumstances described in
previous paragraphs within His constitution, Romano Pontfici Eligendo. No such limitation exists in Universi Dominici Gregis. See the comparison both in English and Latin below:
Romano Pontfici Eligendo,
77. Should the election be conducted in a manner different from the
three procedures described above (cf. no. 63 ff.) or without the
conditions laid down for each of the same, it is for this very reason
null and void (cf. no. 62), without the need for any declaration, and
gives no right to him who has been thus elected. [Romano Pontfici Eligendo,
77: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam uno e tribus modis,
qui supra sunt dicti (cfr. nn. 63 sqq.), aut non servatis condicionibus
pro unoquoque illorum praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et
invalida (cfr. n. 62) absque ulla declaratione, et ita electo nullum ius
tribuit .”] as compared with:
Universi Dominici Gregis,
76: “Should the election take place in a way other than that
prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid
down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and
void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently,
it confers no right on the one elected.” [Universi Dominici Gregis,
76: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio
statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis,
electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque
electo nullum ius tribuit.”]
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.
It would seem then that praying and working in a discreet and
prudent manner to encourage only those true cardinals inclined to accept
a reality of conclave invalidity, would be a most charitable and
logical course of action in the light of Universi Dominici Gregis,
and out of our high personal regard for the clear and obvious intention
of its Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. Even a relatively
small number of valid cardinals could act decisively and work to restore
a functioning Apostolic See through the declaration of an interregnum
government. The need is clear for the College to convene a General
Congregation in order to declare, to administer, and soon to end the
Interregnum which has persisted since March 2013.
Finally,
it is important to understand that the sheer number of putative
counterfeit cardinals will eventually, sooner or later, result in a
situation in which The Church will have no normal means validly ever
again to elect a Vicar of Christ. After that time, it will become even
more difficult, if not humanly impossible, for the College of Cardinals
to rectify the current disastrous situation and conduct a proper and
valid Conclave such that The Church may once again both have the benefit
of a real Supreme Pontiff, and enjoy the great gift of a truly
infallible Vicar of Christ. It seems that some good cardinals know that
the conclave was invalid, but really cannot envision what to do about
it; we must pray, if it is the Will of God, that they see declaring the
invalidity and administering an Interregnum through a new valid conclave
is what they must do. Without such action or without a great miracle,
The Church is in a perilous situation.
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.
In this regard, all of the true cardinals may wish to consider what Holy Mother Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
¶675, ¶676 and ¶677 about “The Church’s Ultimate Trial”. But, the fact
that “The Church . . . will follow her Lord in his death and
Resurrection” does not justify inaction by the good cardinals, even if
there are only a minimal number sufficient to carry out Chapter II of Universi Dominici Gregis and operate the Interregnum.
This Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis,
which was clearly applicable to the acts and conduct of the College of
Cardinals in March 2013, is manifestly and obviously among those
“invalidating” laws “which expressly establish that an act is null or
that a person is effected” as stated in Canon 10 of the 1983 Code of
Canon Law. And, there is nothing remotely “doubtful or obscure” (Canon
17) about this Apostolic Constitution as clearly promulgated by Pope
John Paul II. The tenor of the whole document expressly establishes
that the issue of invalidity was always at stake.
This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its
Promulgation
Clause [which makes “anything done (i.e., any act or conduct) by any
person . . . in any way contrary to this Constitution,”] the
invalidity of the entire supposed Conclave, rendering it “completely
null and void”.
So,
what happens if a group of Cardinals who undoubtedly did not knowingly
and wilfully initiate or intentionally participate in any acts of
disobedience against Universi Dominici Gregis were to meet, confer and declare that, pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis,
Monsignor Bergoglio is most certainly not a valid Roman Pontiff. Like
any action on this matter, including the initial finding of invalidity,
that would be left to the valid members of the college of cardinals.
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.
In
fact, even before a righteous group of good and authentic cardinals
might decide on the validity of the March 2013 supposed conclave, they
must face what may be an even more complicated discernment and decide
which men are most likely not valid cardinals. If a man was made a
cardinal by the supposed Pope who is, in fact, not a Pope (but merely
Monsignor Bergoglio), no such man is in reality a true member of the
College of Cardinals. In addition, those men appointed by Pope John
Paul II or by Pope Benedict XVI as cardinals, but who openly violated Universi Dominici Gregis
by illegal acts or conduct causing the invalidation of the last
attempted conclave, would no longer have voting rights in the College of
Cardinals either. (Thus, the actual valid members in the College of
Cardinals may be quite smaller in number than those on the current
official Vatican list of supposed cardinals.)
In any
event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy
Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal. So, we must pray that
The Divine Will of The Most Holy Trinity, through the intercession of
Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and Saint Michael, Prince of Mercy,
very soon rectifies the confusion in Holy Mother Church through action
by those valid Cardinals who still comprise an authentic College of
Electors. Only certainly valid Cardinals can address the open and
notorious evidence which points to the probable invalidity of the last
supposed conclave and only those cardinals can definitively answer the
questions posed here. May only the good Cardinals unite and if they
recognize an ongoing Interregnum, albeit dormant, may they end this
Interregnum by activating perfectly a functioning Interregnum government
of The Holy See and a renewed process for a true Conclave, one which is
purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual. If we
do not have a real Pontiff, then may the good Cardinals, doing their
appointed work “in view of the sacredness of the act of election”
“accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit” and provide Holy
Mother Church with a real Vicar of Christ as the Successor of Saint
Peter.
May
these thoughts comport with the synderetic considerations of those who
read them and may their presentation here please both Our Immaculate
Virgin Mother, Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and The Most Holy Trinity,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
N. de Plume
Un ami des Pape
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.
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? [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/07/dr-taylor-marshall-mccarrick-perhaps.html?m=1]