Bishop Gracida who would have to be part an "Universal Acceptance" Demonstrated that the Skojec/Salza claim for "Dubious Pope" Francis is False
The Church's teaching on papal heresy, and the authority of a council
when there exists positive doubt about the validity of claims on the
papal munus have been elaborated by Pope Gregory XVI, St. Robert
Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori, Pietro Ballerini, and others as well.
Their teachings are based on the teachings of Pope, Innocent III, St.
Thomas Aquinas, and on the rulings of the popes on the question of papal
heresy (which I have quoted verbatim in my two volumes*). I have
explained their teaching on these points with ample verbatim quotations
in my volumes on papal heresy and the case against Bergoglio. There
exists no possible justification to quote the bogus scholarship of such a
theological charlatan as Robert Siscoe. In Ch. 9 no. 5 of De Potestate
Ecclesiastica, etc., Ballerini sums up the canonical rulings of the
Church, saying that popes, cannot be judged for any crime, except those
who would deviate from the faith into heresy, because they would fall
from the papacy and lose the primacy by the heresy itself ipso facto:
"In sacris canonibus ... numquam vero judicio cujusquam subjiciendos
indicant, nisi forte sint a fide devii. Quæ hæresis exceptio ea de causa
fit, quia ob hæresim ipso facto a pontificatu decidentes, primatus
jurisdictionem amitterent". Ballerini, whose doctrine on the primacy
formed the basis of the dogmatic pronouncement in Chapter III of Pastor
Æternus, explains that the canonical exception for judging heretic popes
exists precisely because a heretic pope would by the heresy itself fall
from office ipso facto. Gregory XVI comments on Ballerini, saying that
the judgment would not be made against the pope, "but only against the
person, who was before adorned with papal dignity".** Robert Siscoe and
John Salza invert this clear and explicit teaching, and they twist
Ballerini's words, claiming in their writings that according to
Ballerini, the heretic pope would not fall from office until he is first
judged by the Church! Their writings are totally saturated with this
kind of dishonest scholarship, as I have amply demonstrated.
* Vol. I
- To Deceive the Elect - The Catholic Doctrine on the Question of a
Heretical Pope; Vol. II - On the True and the False Pope - The Case
Against Bergoglio by Fr. Paul Kramer B.Ph.,S.T.B., M. Div., S.T.L
(Cand.)
** Gregorio XVI, Il trionfo della santa chiesa contro gli assatti dei novatori, Venezia 1832, Capo - Don Leonardo
said [The Catholic Monitor comment section:
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/04/why-dont-you-mr-ferrara-in-2022-again.html]
Getting back to the professor's article, he next said that according "Antonio Socci, in the volume 'It is not Francis. The
Church in the great storm'" there is probable cause of "nullity of
the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio" as pope" - The Catholic Monitor
On March 23, 2019, Bishop Rene Gracida who would have to be part of such
a "universal acceptance" demonstrated that Salza's thesis is false:
https://abyssum.org/2019/03/23/why-do-intelligent-men-pursue-the-application-of-an-obsolete-concept-universal-acceptance-to-the-problem-of-the-invalidity-of-the-papacy-of-francis-the-merciful-in-this-day-and-age-of-instant-elec/
WHY
DO INTELLIGENT MEN PURSUE THE APPLICATION OF AN OBSOLETE CONCEPT
“UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE” TO THE PROBLEM OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE PAPACY OF
FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF INSTANT ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATION AROUND THE WORLD - The Catholic Monitor
Vatican expert Sandro Magister is the creator of the www.chiesa.espressonline.it website. In 2015, the site had an article "On the election of Pope Francis" which was authored by a unnamed "professor of canon law."
The article presented evidence from journalist Antonio Socci that it disagreed with which said there may have been serious irregularities against Pope John Paul II's apostolic constitution "Universi dominici gregis" that "regulated the vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election of the [new] Roman pontiff."
The constitution governed the 2013 conclave which because of serious irregularities could have invalidated the conclave that elected Francis thus making him an antipope according to Socci.
The post states that Francis’s authorized biographer from Argentina Elisabbeta Piqué revealed in her book "Francis. Life and revolution" that:
"In the election of Pope Francis... [a cardinal] shuffles the pieces of paper placed in the urn, he realizes that there is one more: there are 116 and not 115 as they should be. It seems that, by mistake, a cardinal placed two pieces of paper in the urn: one with the name of his chosen one and one in white, which had remained attached to the first. Things that happen. Nothing to be done, this vote is immediately canceled, the sheets will be burned later without having been seen, and we proceed to a sixth vote »; and this indiscretion would have been confirmed by some cardinal." [https://chiesa-espresso-repubblica-it.translate.goog/articolo/1350960.html?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=it&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=nui,sc: "Elisabetta Piqué, 'Francesco. Life and revolution', Lindau, Turin, 2013, pp. 39-40.?"]
Mexican journalist Jose Munguia who studied theology at the Gregorian University in Rome says that "Piqué knew [Francis], [and] through Francis himself, what happened inside the conclave." [https://www.ultimostiempos.org/en/blog-en/item/81-antipopes-conclave.html]
Getting back to the professor's article, he next said that according "Antonio Socci, in the volume 'It is not Francis. The Church in the great storm'" there is probable cause of "nullity of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio" as pope":
It
is not worth dwelling on the inferences that invariably follow the
conclusion of each conclave, based on alleged revelations by subjects
kept to a strict secret. In any case,
according to this news Antonio Socci, in the volume "It is not Francis.
The Church in the great storm" (3), supported the thesis of the nullity
of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, which was perfected on May 13,
2013. In fact, in his opinion, one would have erroneously (not however
in bad faith, but out of superficiality and approximation, "and the
nullity of the election does not absolutely represent a judgment on the
person": his goodness!) applied n. 68 of the apostolic constitution
"Universi dominici gregis"promulgated on February 22, 1996 by John Paul
II who regulates the vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election of
the Roman pontiff.
This
rule states that if, during the counting of the ballots, the scrutineer
in charge verifies, by taking them visibly one by one from the ballot
box, that the number of ballots does not correspond to the number of
voters, they must be burned and a second ballot proceeded (4).
Instead,
according to Socci, n. 69, which pertains to a subsequent step and
states that if in the counting of the votes the scrutineers find two
ballots folded so as to appear to have been filled in by a single voter,
if they bear the same name they must be counted for only one vote, if
instead they carry two different names, neither of the two votes will be
valid, but in neither of the two cases the ballot is annulled (5).
Therefore
"a vote that had to be considered valid and scrutinized" (p. 110) would
have been canceled: the provisions of the constitution "Universi
dominici gregis" having been transgressed, according to the provisions
of n. 76 the election of Francis would therefore be null and void,
without any declaration on the subject, conferring no right on the
elected person ("Quodsi electio aliter celebrated 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 ").
Among
other things, in the opinion of Socci (which spreads in further
assumptions about the trend of the votes not supported by any feedback
and on which I do not delay here), a fifth vote would have been
immediately carried out in contrast with the no. . 63 which imposes, in
the days following the first, "duo suffragia erunt ferenda, tum mane tum
vespere": according to the author, "on the afternoon of March 13, with
that further vote, the regulation was forced and the the elderly
cardinals to an unexpected stress by making them vote again "(p. 116)...
... Ultimately:
«Bergoglio's election to the papacy simply never existed. It is not
even a problem that can be healed a posteriori because you cannot heal
what has never existed "(p. 111). [https://chiesa-espresso-repubblica-it.translate.goog/articolo/1350960.html?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=it&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=nui,sc]
Magister's professor in the post disagrees with Socci's thesis and says that apparently the Universal acceptance thesis put forward by John Salza that was promoted by former One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec is part of the answer to Socci:
Antonio
Socci finally argues: "Even if only a dubious judgment were expressed
on the validity of the procedures followed that 13 March 2013, it can be
considered that the conclave must be redone because the doctrine
teaches that" dubius papa habetur pro non papa "(a dubious pope he
considers himself not to be pope), as the great doctor of the Church and
Jesuit cardinal St. Roberto Bellarmino writes in the treatise "De
conciliis et ecclesia militant" "(pp. 7, 122). Socci's Conclave
On
the contrary, even if what is reported had happened, the procedure
followed, as demonstrated, would have been integrally "ad normam iuris":
the election of Pope Francis, having reached the expected majority on
the fifth ballot (the first, I remember, occurred May 12), would be
valid, there would be nothing to heal, there would be no doubt, much
less "positive" and "insoluble" (as the law postulates), about its
validity.
Given
the total juridical groundlessness of these suppositions, even if one
wants to give credit to the information on which he claims to take root,
the bogeyman - rashly agitated - of the current sitting on the chair of
Peter of a dubious pope also vanishes. However, canon law has
constantly and unanimously taught that the pacifica "universalis
ecclesiae adhaesio" is an infallible sign and effect of a valid election
and a legitimate papacy (10): and the adhesion of the people of God to
Pope Francis cannot be in no way in doubt. .[https://chiesa-espresso-repubblica-it.translate.goog/articolo/1350960.html?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=it&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=nui,sc]
Most importantly, on March 23, 2019, Bishop Rene Gracida who would have to be part of such
an "universal acceptance" demonstrated that Salza's thesis is false:
https://abyssum.org/2019/03/23/why-do-intelligent-men-pursue-the-application-of-an-obsolete-concept-universal-acceptance-to-the-problem-of-the-invalidity-of-the-papacy-of-francis-the-merciful-in-this-day-and-age-of-instant-elec/
WHY
DO INTELLIGENT MEN PURSUE THE APPLICATION OF AN OBSOLETE CONCEPT
“UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE” TO THE PROBLEM OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE PAPACY OF
FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF INSTANT ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATION AROUND THE WORLD
I am in receipt of an email from Steve Skojec, publisher of the website
OnePeterFive in which he defends his posts in which he argues for the
validity of the election of Francis the Merciful on the basis of the
“universal acceptance” of Francis’ election by the world’s Catholic
population.
The idea of “universal acceptance” of the election of popes of the past
may have had it’s origin in the first centuries of the Church when popes
were chosen by acclamation of the assembled citizens of Rome, and
perhaps later when the princes and kings of Europe decided on the
legitimacy of papal contestants in the time of the Avignon captivity of
the papacy.
But the idea of “universal acceptance” as the principle determining the
validity of Francis’ claim to the Chair of Peter is absurd in this day
of instant electronic communication. There is not a world-wide Pew or
Gallup poll that can determine the degree of “acceptance” of the
Bergolian regime as valid by the world’s Catholic population.
From the moment that Francis appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s
Basilica improperly dressed and accompanied by men of known or suspected
homosexual orientation many Catholics besides myself were shocked and
dismayed.
Almost immediately almost every word publicly uttered by Francis shocked
Catholic sensibilities, such as telling the woman with several children
to “stop breeding like rabbits.” Many Catholics withheld their
“acceptance” and adopted a wait-and-see attitude.
Then the Amoris Laeticia debacle unfolded and now an even larger
percentage of Catholic around the world began to express reservations
about the ‘papacy’ of Francis the Merciful. There was never universal
acceptance of the validity of Jorge Bergoglio.
One thing is certain, the popes of the Twentieth Century were aware that
the election of future popes was now no longer subject to the
interference of kings and princes as in the past, now the corruption of
the democratic processes for choosing the heads of nations was
threatening the papal conclaves of the Church. Pope Paul VI, perhaps
alarmed by the forces for radical reform of the Church follow the lead
of his recent predecessor and published a revision of the Apostolic
Constitution which governs papal conclaves.
It is unthinkable that Pope Saint John Paul II was unaware of the
plotting that began with the St. Gallen Mafia in the early 1990s.
His magnificent Apostolic Constituion, Universi Dominci Gregis, was his
prescient action to head off the corruption of the conclaves of the
future. Yet, the rot at the center of the hierarchy had progress to
such point that Jorge Bergoglio was almost elected instead of Joseph
Ratzinger, but the St. Gallen conspirators succeed in 2013 with the
election of Francis the Merciful.
What is the sure test of the validity of the election of a cardinal to
the papacy? It is not the medieval concept of ‘universal acceptance.’
It is compliance with the law of the Church. The Apostolic Constitution
Universi Dominici Gregis is the only law in effect since it was
published by Pope Saint John Paul II in 1992.
If there is one characteristic that is common to the leadership of the
Church since the Second Vatican Council is disregard for law, all law,
divine law and canon law. Men who would be architects of the Church of
the Future ignore the law of God and the law of His Church. That is why
some cling to the outmoded concept of ‘universal acceptance’ of a man
who obtained the Chair of Peter through the manipulations of many who by
their immoral lives reveal their contempt for law, all law, including
Divine Law.
His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, having known a prodigious amount of information on this,
was fully knowledgeable in the details of dogmatic and doctrinal principles which previous
to his Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, could and would be applied to resolve
questions about the validity of a particular historic Papacy, and that His Holiness categorically
and specifically intended to dispense with, and utterly to preempt, the need for, and use of,
any principles which had been applied historically to resolve ambiguities and doubts
about the incumbency of any Pontiff putatively emerging from a Conclave to which His
Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis applied.
This means that because the status of Monsignor Bergoglio can be determined completely
by a fair and just application of Universi Dominici Gregis without reference to any guidance
external or extrinsic to such Constitution, having recourse to such historic doctrinal and
dogmatic concepts, e.g., universal acceptance, is neither material nor relevant, and never
necessary or proper for the rational discernment of the question of whether or not
Monsignor Bergoglio was validly elected as a true Roman Pontiff. The “scienter” Promulgation
determines this certainty of discernment confined within the “four corners” of the Constitution:
“This Constitution . . . is to be fully and integrally implemented and is to serve as a guide
for all to whom it refers. As determined above, I hereby declare abrogated all Constitutions
and Orders issued in this regard by the Roman Pontiffs, and at the same time I declare
completely null and void anything done by any person, whatever his authority, knowingly
or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.”[Promulgation
Clause, Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis]
This language does not admit of any exception, and certainly not an exception based on
the degree to which a putative Pope has “acceptance” as such. “Universal acceptance”
originated in an age before the printing press, a time when what was required was known
by few and what was performed was understood by even less. It simply has no place
in discerning a Conclave called subject to Universi Dominici Gregis. What Skojec,
Does not seem to understand is that, long in advance and lawfully, His Holiness, Pope
John Paul II, has forbidden anyone from resorting to “universal acceptance”
or any other principle extrinsic to Universi Dominici Gregis to discern the outcome of papal election.
Thus, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, having known a prodigious amount of information on this,
was fully knowledgeable in the details of dogmatic and doctrinal principles which previous
to his Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, could and would be applied to resolve
questions about the validity of a particular historic Papacy, and His Holiness categorically
and specifically intended to dispense with, and utterly to preempt, the need for, and use of,
any such principles which had been applied historically to resolve ambiguities and doubts
about the incumbency of any Pontiff putatively emerging from a Conclave to which His
Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis applied.
This means that because the status of Monsignor Bergoglio can be determined completely
by a fair and just application of Universi Dominici Gregis without reference to any guidance
external or extrinsic to such Constitution, having recourse to any such historic doctrinal and
dogmatic concept, e.g., universal acceptance, is neither material nor relevant, and never
necessary or proper for the rational discernment of the question of whether or not
Monsignor Bergoglio was validly elected as a true Roman Pontiff. The “scienter” Promulgation
determines this certainty of discernment confined within the “four corners” of the Constitution:
“This Constitution . . . is to be fully and integrally implemented and is to serve as a guide
for all to whom it refers. As determined above, I hereby declare abrogated all Constitutions
and Orders issued in this regard by the Roman Pontiffs, and at the same time I declare
completely null and void anything done by any person, whatever his authority, knowingly
or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.” [Promulgation
Clause, Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis]
This language does not admit of any exception, and certainly not an exception based on
the degree to which a putative Pope has “acceptance” as such. “Universal acceptance”
originated in an age before the printing press, a time when what was required was known
by few and what was performed was understood by even less. It simply has no place
in discerning a Conclave called subject to Universi Dominici Gregis.
Some do not seem to understand that, long in advance and lawfully, His Holiness, Pope
John Paul II, has forbidden and anyone from resorting to “universal acceptance”
or any other principle extrinsic to Universi Dominici Gregis in order to discern the outcome.
[https://abyssum.org/2019/03/23/why-do-intelligent-men-pursue-the-application-of-an-obsolete-concept-universal-acceptance-to-the-problem-of-the-invalidity-of-the-papacy-of-francis-the-merciful-in-this-day-and-age-of-instant-elec/]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.