HERE IS WHAT OUR DYSTOPIA WILL LOOK LIKE


The Chinese social monitoring system and why Americans should take note

Coming to a dystopia near you!Paul Rowan Brian | Oct 19 2018 | 

comment

1
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter forward by email Print Subscribe

Imagine East Germany on steroids and you have the People’s Republic of China today.

Instead of legions of citizen informants spying on their colleagues and family, advanced information aggregation technology does it for you, logging your every move—from the superficial to the deeply personal. The data is then plugged into a psychometric scoring system that impacts your credit, job prospects, and every other measurable aspect of your value and potential as a member of society.

China’s social credit scheme may appear bizarre and abstract to those far away, but it’s very much real. The mandatory program started in 2014 and is being implemented for millions currently. It will be fully operational by 2020 and is being run through a patchwork of municipal government authorities and private technology companies contracted to the government.

Westerners might comment “surely, it can’t happen here?”, but the truth is a lot more disquieting.

The Chinese scoring system

As recently reported, “under the social credit scheme, points are lost and gained based on readings from a sophisticated network of 200 million surveillance cameras—a figure set to triple in eighteen months.” Various factors affect the social credit scores, including what those you associate with do and say. 

If your relative criticizes the government, your score goes down. If the government considers your behavior to be satisfactory, your score goes up, eventually resulting in exclusive advantages such as travel, airfare, dating site advantages, loan access, discounts on bills, improved job prospects, and priority on university applications.

You can sink fast and become a low-ranking citizen, too: “jaywalking, late payments on bills or taxes, buying too much alcohol or speaking out against the government, each cost citizens points.” Penalties are also levied for playing video games too much, posting “fake news” (Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg just applauded), overspending on unnecessary purchases and drinking too much.

Ironically, posting too much on social media can also cost you serious points.

If you fall too low in your ranking you can be barred from air and train travel, have your social media accounts shut down, have your internet specifically targeted to slow down your connection speed, have your kids excluded from applying to private and prestigious schools, and be shut out of various elite occupations such as working in major banks, government jobs, and jobs requiring government approval (which in China is a lot of jobs). 

Public naming and shaming is another punishment: you’ll be on a blacklist as well, in case any employers or associates started getting too easygoing about the system. What if your job involves holding the powerful accountable? Chinese journalist Liu Hu found out the hard way after his reporting turned up government corruption (surprise, surprise).

His social rating plummeted, and he was arrested, jailed, and fined. His social media accounts were nixed, and he now can’t travel by train or plane. Employers are hesitant to go near him.

The Western third-party system

The West recently had to contend with the intersection of free speech and private corporate technology monopolies with the banning of Alex Jones from YouTube, Twitter, PayPal, and many other platforms, ostensibly for breaking the respective services’ terms of service.

Voices on the Right and non-mainstream Left have been shown the door and hounded by social media giants. Some conservatives have defended the bans under the reasoning that private companies can do what they wish (at least it is not the government). What started as a small patter of censorship with the ouster of Brendan Eich from Mozilla, for example, for donating in support of upholding traditional-marriage via Proposition 8 in California, has now become open technological monopolization of acceptable speech.

But, to be fair, the Western corporate censorship and technological control grid is still child’s play compared to that being rolled out in China.

While Edward Snowden certainly demonstrated the global extent of the US surveillance state, the American elite have not yet openly implemented anything on the level of the Chinese social scoring system. Instead, Americans are leaving the steady encroachment on rights to come from the private sphere and the deluded tech bros of Silicon Valley—for now.

Technological-extremists like Sean Parker of Facebook who brag about how they will become “immortal overlords” by way of transhumanism will serve nicely as the useful fools of the hubris and increasing control of technology over our lives.

However, in China those running the social credit system don’t need to focus on self-aggrandizement since they are encoding the system of social control with ironclad algorithms that will last far beyond human lifetimes. The Chinese system is being built on an existing history of authoritarian oppression that has already sunk deeply into acceptance in popular consciousness.

In China you have an out-of-control technocracy buoyed by billions from its unfair global trade strategy and currency manipulation implementing a system for full domestic control. The implications are staggering. Think of it as beta-testing for the world government.

When the warm and fuzzy feelings fade and the velvet glove comes off, it’s likely there’s an iron fist underneath and there’s a good chance it likes squashing anyone who steps out of line without much fanfare or media coverage at all.

China’s “Iron Fist”

Many Muslims in China are already experiencing China’s “iron fist” as unexplained disappearances increase and being a practicing Muslim becomes a life-threatening scenario treated as a dangerous mental illness by China’s government.

Recent reports state that up to one million Uyghur Muslims in internment camps are physically and psychologically tortured, forced to denounce and disobey their religion, compelled to sing Communist propaganda songs for hours per day, and rewarded or punished based on compliance.

Young Uyghur women are also being forced to marry non-Muslim Chinese men, as the state seeks inroads to usurp and control any avenues of familial, cultural, and religious power outside its current domain.

The highest level of faith in Islam is called ihsan. It entails not just “believing” in God and His sovereignty, but having absolutely no doubt whatsoever that God sees everything you do and will judge you one day. The modern technocratic control grid spearheaded by China is a complete and brazen inversion of this theological concept.

Instead of considering how God will see your actions and words, you must first consider how an all-powerful state technological control grid will see your actions and words. Even the outwardly religious citizen must first consider how their friendships, beliefs, and actions will be run through a computer system to determine their future societal salvation or damnation.

China already exerts autocratic control over who can lead different religious denominations and what ideologies are acceptable.

Christianity in China doesn’t get a free pass, either, with the government taking bold moves to establish greater control of Catholic and Protestants in the country who number around 60 million citizens. Some reports also say some Chinese churches have been getting Crosses burned and shut down. The Chinese government has also taken further steps by banning online sales of the Bible and calling for “the development of a Chinese-style Christian theology.”

Christians would do well to consider the words of 1 Corinthians 13:12 “For now we see through a glassdarkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” This verse, among many others, promises that God knows us fully, and we will one day understand the extent to which this is true and significant for everything we do. This Scripture orients the believer to a life that considers our deeds and words in the context of a divine knowledge of our essence and potential that surpasses our own limited, temporal understanding.

China’s social system in America

The Luciferian magnates of Silicon Valley and Beijing want to know us better than we know ourselves in every respect. They don’t want this power for our own ennoblement or guidance. They want this control in order to fully hamstring us as we run out our days trapped on their giant hamster wheel of economic and social exploitation. Amazon knows what you’ll buy before you do and starts shipping it ahead of time in some cases, known as “anticipatory shipping.” 

Do they just do this as cutting-edge business practice? Perhaps, but such a technological ability of predictive psychometrics is powerful beyond belief, particularly in the hands of gargantuan centrally-planned modern states. This is not about feelings or squishy concepts of human rights: this is about who controls the future and what they will work towards in that future.

China is leading the way to an inverted future of totalitarian technocracy full of entitled atheist social engineers running technology systems with borderline supernatural powers. Instead of a moral code based on divine guidance, people will be placed in a cosmic re-education camp and base everything from their social life to their job on what surveillance Skynet wants them to.

Is it really so hard to imagine a future public face of the US spy grid that metes out social scores and compliance ratings to citizen users via a network of smart technology? A system that uses psychometrics and surveillance to analyse and “correct” consumers’ political and religious behaviors is well within the realm of possibility down the road.

These days it seems like powerful forces are trying to make the paranoia of Alex Jones look like muted understatement.

China’s system is the current apex of social engineering elites who want to play God, or the Devil, and are far from joking around about doing exactly that. Those who value freedom of conscience and faith need to realize that the Orwellian Chinese system is not cartoonish hype: it’s a real system coming soon to a country near you unless citizens become passionate advocates of the freedoms ostensibly upheld in Western political philosophy and the US Constitution.

The ink will eventually fade into nothing if it continues to become just words, whether that erasure comes from dictatorial state infringement or out of control technology monopolies. The road to Hell is paved with Google logos and the Communist Chinese flag.

Paul Rowan Brian is a freelance journalist who writes on culture, religion and politics. You can find him on Twitter@paulrbrian or visit his website at http://www.paulrbrian.com. Republished with permission from The Public Discourse.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

CARAVANS

SAT, NOVEMBER 17
sara_carter_logo_320px
MEXICO-HONDURAS-US-MIGRATION
WATCH: Stunning Footage Reveals the ‘Truth Behind the Caravan’
Stunning new footage from deep inside the ‘migrant caravan’ slowly making its way towards the United States’ southern border reveals the shocking truth behind the impending crisis, according to filmmaker Ami Horowitz.

Horowitz took to the streets alongside the Central American migrants to speak with those hoping to enter the United States as asylum…

CONTINUE READING

Learn more about RevenueStripe…
MEXICO-US-POLITICS-IMMIGRATION-MIGRANTS
Feds Arrest 650 MIGRANTS Along Arizona-Mexico Border in Two Days
With thousands of American troops deployed to the United States’ southern border with Mexico in recent weeks, US Border Patrol Agents in Arizona have arrested at least 650 migrants in just two days.

According to Fox News, “Agents in the Yuma Sector said they detained 654 people – most reportedly being family units or unaccompanied minors from Guatemala – on Monday and Tuesday.”

“Larger numbers [of illegal immigrants] have started to illegally cross shallow portions of the Colorado River near Yuma,” said a press release from the Border Patrol Agency…

Continue Reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE TRUTH BEHIND THE CARAVAN INVASION

SAT, NOVEMBER 17
sara_carter_logo_320px
MEXICO-HONDURAS-US-MIGRATION
WATCH: Stunning Footage Reveals the ‘Truth Behind the Caravan’
Stunning new footage from deep inside the ‘migrant caravan’ slowly making its way towards the United States’ southern border reveals the shocking truth behind the impending crisis, according to filmmaker Ami Horowitz.

Horowitz took to the streets alongside the Central American migrants to speak with those hoping to enter the United States as asylum…

CONTINUE READING

Learn more about RevenueStripe…
MEXICO-US-POLITICS-IMMIGRATION-MIGRANTS
Feds Arrest 650 MIGRANTS Along Arizona-Mexico Border in Two Days
With thousands of American troops deployed to the United States’ southern border with Mexico in recent weeks, US Border Patrol Agents in Arizona have arrested at least 650 migrants in just two days.

According to Fox News, “Agents in the Yuma Sector said they detained 654 people – most reportedly being family units or unaccompanied minors from Guatemala – on Monday and Tuesday.”

“Larger numbers [of illegal immigrants] have started to illegally cross shallow portions of the Colorado River near Yuma,” said a press release from the Border Patrol Agency…

Continue Reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Wuerl and Cupich are now in charge of the Church in the United States

Cupich and Wuerl Propose Alternative Sex Abuse Response Plan. Is Anyone Really Surprised?

Steve Skojec

Steve SkojecNovember 17, 2

OnePeterFive

Image courtesy of Archdiocese of Boston/Flickr (CC 2.0)

It’s a story I’ve seen described as both a “shock” and a “bombshell.” But is it really?

Catholic News Agency (CNA) reported yesterday that Chicago’s Cardinal Blase Cupich and the disgraced-into-resignation-but-kept-in-power-anyway Cardinal Donald Wuerl “collborated extensively on a recently proposed policy for handling abuse allegations against bishops”.

To cut to the quick, the American bishops had a plan that involved an independent commission lead by the laity to look into allegations of abuse against Catholic bishops. The Wuerl/Cupich plan, on the other hand, pushed responsibility for investigations to metropolitan archbishops — a hierarchical structure most Catholics these days don’t hear much about. Metropolitans, if accused, would be investigated by senior suffragan bishops.

According to CNA:

Sources in Rome and Washington, DC told CNA that Wuerl and Cupich worked together on their alternative plan for weeks, and presented it to the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops before the U.S. bishops’ conference assembly in Baltimore. Cupich and Wuerl are both members of Congregation for Bishops.

And while Cupich has certainly taken the lead on this particular dance floor — EWTN’s Fr. Raymond de Souza described his abrupt intervention on the first day of the meeting as “a manifestation of influence and assertion of power” — sources inside the Congregation for Bishops told CNA that the idea was known as “Wuerl’s plan.” The picture that comes into sharper focus upon reviewing the reporting from the annual fall bishops’ meeting is that there were a handful of players at the conference who were in the know about what Rome wanted, and then there was everyone else. As Fr. de Souza noted:

It would stand to reason that, if the Holy See entrusted the Chicago archbishop with the news that the U.S. bishops were to be blocked in their reform proposals, Cardinal Cupich’s proposals also originated in the Holy See and are a preview of the path the Holy Father intends to take in February 2019.

Although many seem taken aback at Wuerl’s continued involvement, I admit that I am somewhat mystified by their surprise. We have seen orchestration, manipulation, and the ecclesiastical version of political theater from this Vatican time and time again. Cronyism is, and has been, a driving force behind much that has transpired in this papacy, and Francis is known to reward even his most repellent allies, which explains why Cardinal Godfried Danneels — caught on tape trying to talk a sex abuse victim out of going public — was standing next to him on the loggia the night of his election to the papacy, and was also invited personally by the pope to both family synods. Danneels had helped see to it that Bergoglio became pope. His loyalty was rewarded. It was the same story with McCarrick, until the rug was swept out from under him by the revelation of allegations that he abused minors. which surfaced earlier this year.

Wuerl, like McCarrick before him, is a power player. Unlike McCarrick, Wuerl’s connection to the sex abuse scandals is apparently distant enough — despite his significant role in the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report — that he has not fallen completely from grace. Bishop Martin Holley, recently removed from his post at the diocese of Memphis, publicly stated his suspicion that Wuerl, through his position on the Congregation for Bishops, saw to his ouster in retaliation for Holley’s earlier opposition to Wuerl being appointed to the Vatican Secretariat of State. True or false, the fact that the accusation is credible is evidence of just how influential Wuerl remains from the shadows beyond the resignation of his see — a see, I would remind readers, he still controls until a replacement is named. That replacement, incidentally, was expected during this week’s meetings, but as of yet, no name has been forthcoming. One of the most strongly-rumored frontrunners, Cardinal Joseph “Nighty Night Baby” Tobin of Newark, New Jersey — who faces a petition drive with thousands of signatures from Catholics opposing his appointment to the Washington Archdiocese — flatly denied to George Neumayr of The American Spectator that he would be taking Wuerl’s place in DC. But if not him, then who, and perhaps more importantly, when? Media sources I spoke with who were reporting from the bishops meeting said that no mention was made of a replacement, nor when an announcement could be expected.

Which brings us back to the pre-meeting collusion between Wuerl and Cupich. Though it is not surprising, it is certainly a matter for concern. Many of the faithful believe that the bishops can’t be trusted to police themselves on these matters, and that kicking these allegations upstairs is only going to lead to more of the bad “clericalism” the pope pretends to care so much about. More good old boys clubs. More obscurity. More CYA. Less transparency. More incredibly poor decision making. Exactly the sorts of things prelates of his stripe seem to be in favor of.

One Church leader who has been outspoken on the issue is Bishop Strickland of Tyler Texas, who was also the first to support the Viganò allegations earlier this year. Strickland tweeted about the Wuerl/Cupich story early this morning: “Watch this closely. This crisis needs the strongest lay voice possible.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


THE VALID CARDINALS, i.e. CARDINALS APPOINTED BY POPES BENEDICT XVI AND SAINT JOHN PAUL II, MUST ACT SOON TO REMOVE FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL FROM THE THRONE OF SAINT PETER BEFORE HE DAMAGES THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH EVEN MORE THAN HE HAS ALREADY DAMAGED IT.


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 Gregisparticularly 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. 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 that 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 PlumeUn ami des Papes

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE MALFEASANCE OF BISHOPS AND THE VATICAN IS GOING TO BE REVEALED TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE RICO LAWSUITS BEING FILED AGAINST THE CHURCH IN FEDERAL COURTS

US BISHOPS, VATICAN SLAPPED WITH SIMULTANEOUS LAWSUITS

NEWS:US NEWS

US Bishops, Vatican Slapped With Simultaneous Lawsuits
Print Friendly and PDF

by Stephen Wynne  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  November 16, 2018    96 Comments

Church leaders accused of conspiracy, deception, concealment

You are not signed in as a Premium user; we rely on Premium users to support our news reporting. Sign in or Sign up today!

WASHINGTON (ChurchMilitant.com) – On Tuesday, as the U.S. bishops were still absorbing the news that the Vatican had blocked action on clerical sex abuse, they were slapped with two simultaneous lawsuits, with one naming the Holy See as a defendant.

Both lawsuits seek to force open diocesan secret archives by court order, compelling the U.S. Church to reveal the identities and histories of its predators. 

One suit, launched by six clerical sex abuse victims, was filed in federal district court in Minnesota. It alleges that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) concealed “the known histories and identities from the public, parishioners and law enforcement of clergy accused of sexually abusing children across the country.”


Speaking Tuesday, Jeff Anderson, attorney for the six plaintiffs, warned the Church “maintains” a threat to public safety. 

The same day, a class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both the USCCB and the Vatican itself — an unprecedented legal move.The class-action suit accuses the Church of violating the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which was originally devised to target organized crime syndicates. Tweet

It accuses the Church of conspiracy and running a criminal enterprise under federal racketeering statutes.

According to the 80-page class-action suit:

This case is about the endemic, systemic, rampant, and pervasive rape and sexual abuse of Plaintiffs and Class Members perpetrated by Roman Catholic Church cardinals, bishops, monsignors, priests, sisters, lay leaders, members of Catholic religious orders, educators, and other of Defendants’ personnel, members, agents, and representatives (collectively, “Clergy” or “Catholic Clergy”) while serving in active ministry — with the knowledge of Defendants.

It accuses Church leaders of promoting a public hazard by covering up the crimes of predator priests:

Rather than safeguarding and protecting Plaintiffs and Class Members — who were minor children at the time — Defendants protected the abusive Clergy, took extraordinary measures to conceal their wrongful conduct, moved them from parish to parish, without warning church members or the general public, thereby further facilitating their predatory practices, failed and refused to report the abusive Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law, and — incredibly — even promoted the abusive Clergy. Defendants’ wrongful acts are ongoing and continuous.

The class-action suit accuses the Church of violating the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which was originally devised to target organized crime syndicates. It seeks to triple financial damages for “unlawful and intentional schemes, actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence,” which “constitute assault, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence/gross negligence, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death, public nuisance, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting.”

The class-action suit is historic, in that it attempts to hold the Vatican liable in the United States for the actions of its clergy — a first. Up to now, the Vatican has avoided liability by claiming it has no direct authority over clergy.

But this assertion was shattered on Monday when the Holy See blocked the USCCB vote in Baltimore. 

“If that’s not command responsibility, I don’t know what is,” said attorney Mitchell A. Toups, who is helping lead the class-action suit. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


THE VALID CARDINALS, i.e. CARDINALS APPOINTED BY POPES BENEDICT XVI AND SAINT JOHN PAUL II, MUST ACT SOON TO REMOVE FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL FROM THE THRONE OF SAINT PETER BEFORE HE DAMAGES THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH EVEN MORE THAN HE HAS ALREADY DAMAGED IT.


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 Gregisparticularly 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. 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 that 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 PlumeUn ami des Papes

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE MYSTERY OF DIVINE LOVE

Barnhardt

Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta.

Barnhardt

Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.

“Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.”

-Lao Tzu, Chinese philosopher of the 6th Century before Christ

Let’s replace the word “someone”…

Being deeply loved by Jesus Christ gives you strength, while loving Jesus Christ deeply gives you courage.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on November 17, ARSH 2018 by Ann Barnhardt.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A MEETING OF THE United States CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS THAT DID NOT TAKE PLACE THIS WEEK

PETER KWASNIEWSKI

Featured Image

BLOGS Fri Nov 16, 2018 – 11:27 am EST

How US bishops should have responded to Vatican hijacking their meeting on abuse crisis

  CatholicClergy Sex AbusePope FrancisSex Abuse Crisis In Catholic ChurchUs BishopsUsccbUsccb18VaticanVatican Cover-Up

November 16, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) –  It was with the proverbial whimper that the recent USCCB meeting in Baltimore went out. The hoped-for and indeed expected bang was thwarted by forces without and within.

The Vatican commanded a halt to the United States bishops taking steps about the clerical abuse crisis and its episcopal component. In a particularly obnoxious example of the Peronist “style” of this papacy, the intervention—apparently known only to Cardinal Cupich, papal confidante and de facto head of the USCCB—canceled out subsidiarity, interfered with the legitimate jurisdiction of bishops, and cynically stepped on the very synodality that bishops were forced to vote for in last month’s rigged Youth Synod. 

In this move, we saw an egregious return to the ultramontanist behavior of treating bishops as if they were vicars of the pope, rather than true shepherds who rule their own dioceses in Christ’s name and by His authority. The pope certainly has universal jurisdiction, but individual bishops do not rule on his behalf or by his leave. They rule by a right proper to themselves, which can be removed for bad behavior, but is otherwise inviolable, immediate, and non-transferable.

Put simply, bishops must rule their dioceses; they cannot pass the buck to someone else. They, and not the pope, are officially and normatively in charge of their particular portion of Christ’s Church. To act otherwise would be running away from the sheep and letting the wolves take over. Sadly, it would seem that the wolves have long since moved in and set up shop. It was disappointing, to say the least, that the U.S. bishops were not able to muster the courage to remind the Vatican of a few basic truths of ecclesiology enshrined in canon law, Church tradition, and (just saying) the documents of the Second Vatican Council. 

There were forces within, too, that sabotaged the effectiveness of this plenary meeting. The attempt to frame a respectfully earnest request for all the McCarrick documentation was torpedoed by bureaucratic filibuster and the soft mockery of semi-lavender prelates. Thanks to the leftward-leaning tilt of the pushiest high-ranking members of the American episcopacy, the apparent lack of desire in the conservative minority to stand up to them, and the perpetual self-doubting hesitations of the greater number, the U.S. bishops as a whole could not agree on so much as an initial approach to the disciplining of abusive, complicit, unresponsive, or incompetent bishops. It was a very expensive, time-consuming way to say: “We don’t know what we’re doing; we’re not sure where we’re going; and what’s more, we’re content to leave things as they are, as long as we get to act as errand-boys for the pope.”

How different a world it would be if a number of U.S. bishops had stood up and said:

“We’re tired of this liberal, confusing, autocratic, Machiavellian, and destructive leadership in the Church, and all its pomps and works. 

“We’re tired of ‘official theology’ that contradicts magisterial doctrine. 

“We’ve had enough with the cover-up behind McCarrick, and, in general, with all the hypocrisy and corruption exposed by Viganò, whose testimonies have not only notbeen refuted, but have ended up being vindicated by all the attempts to respond to them (which is why the sound of crickets still predominates).

“We’re done with playing bellboys to a super-bishop rather than taking responsibility for our own flocks, individually and corporately. 

“And most of all, we’re thoroughly sick of an endless stream of unsolicited rambling Vatican documents thick with sociologese and thin on the radical demands of the Gospel. From this point on, we could care less about exhortations, letters, sermons, press conferences, or curial blather. We have more important and more urgent things to do, like teach catechism, feed the hungry, celebrate the sacraments worthily and beautifully, support marriages and families, bring non-Catholics into the one true Church, reach out to people who are lost and wandering in the wasteland of modernity—and above all, save souls. That is our job: to save our own souls and the souls of the faithful entrusted to us, feeding them with sound doctrine, pure morals, and a truly sacred liturgy. 

“So, unless you send us a pithy ex cathedra definition de fide et moribus with a tiara on top and a side of anathemas, we’re done wasting our time on the combination UN-EU that today’s Vatican has become. We’ve got several lifetimes of work to do just cleaning up our own act, the mess in our own backyard.” 

Now that would have been a plenary meeting to remember!

Perhaps, if things keep getting worse, we may see something of this scenario play out, after all. As I like to say: stranger things than this have happened in the 2,000-year history of the Church.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


THE VALID CARDINALS, i.e. CARDINALS APPOINTED BY POPES BENEDICT XVI AND SAINT JOHN PAUL II, MUST ACT SOON TO REMOVE FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL FROM THE THRONE OF SAINT PETER BEFORE HE DAMAGES THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH EVEN MORE THAN HE HAS ALREADY DAMAGED IT.


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 Gregisparticularly 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. 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 that 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 PlumeUn ami des Papes

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Every time Blaise Cupich speaks, he sounds more like a corporate chieftain than a successor of the Apostles. The mystery is: has he been given complete freedom by Rome to control the USCCB conference the way he sees fit, or is he consulting every step of the way and checking in with Rome frequently?

SOME GOOD GUYS, BUT NOT ENOUGH

And one really bad one.

November 16, 2018  

Church Militant

TRANSCRIPT

I’m Michael Voris wrapping up our coverage of the bishops’ sex abuse meeting here in Baltimore, or rather what was supposed to be a meeting about clerical sex abuse — which is mostly homosexual clergy sex abuse.

But it didn’t exactly turn out that way once the gay mob in Rome abruptly ordered the U.S. bishops to cancel their planned vote on trying to get to the bottom of things. After that happened, not much else did.  

There were speeches and grandstanding and controlling of events by Rome’s waterboy, Cdl. Cupich, and as an aside, what a frightening thought that he may very well be voting on the next pope — him and quite a few others.

But some things did happen that were a cause for hope. A number of the less big-name bishops didspeak out and assert Catholicism, which must have been shocking to some of their fellow prelates. Bishops Strickland of Tyler, Texas; Daly of Spokane, Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois; Cozzens of St. Paul and Minneapolis; and McKnight of Jefferson City were the few who publicly insisted on fidelity to the Church’s teaching.

And thank God for them. Privately, a number of other bishops were also applauding them but, because they haven’t quite gotten up the nerve yet, remained in the background. They need to change that — and fast.

But no doubt about it, the entire meeting was dominated by what Abp. Viganò correctly labeled the homosexual current so dominant in the hierarchy. Cupich has clearly emerged as the conductor of this gay orchestra, and the bishops here know it.

At one point, a vote was taken to recommend the Vatican make public the entire file of McCarrick. Cupich seized control and made known — for a bunch of politically motivated reasons dressed up to appear reasonable — that the bishops should vote down any such measure.

They dutifully compiled by a vote of roughly 130-80 — no transparency needed. When Cdl. O’Malley suggested what many consider to be a change in the definition of “vulnerable adults” when categorizing sex abuse victims, it was again Cupich who seized control and said things would be complicated involving priests having sex with adults if the adults were consenting.

Every time the man speaks, he sounds more like a corporate chieftain than a successor of the Apostles. The mystery is: has he been given complete freedom by Rome to control the conference the way he sees fit, or is he consulting every step of the way and checking in with Rome frequently?

At this rate, it is far less than the conference of U.S. bishops, it would be more accurate to describe it as the Cupich Conference and some other bishops just hanging out. Current president Daniel DiNardo has effectively been removed from any serious power or authority. That was evident by the smackdown he received from Francis in August when the Pope told him to take a hike when he asked for an investigation into the McCarrick affair.

Cupich is beyond doubt in control of the U.S. hierarchy, just as his successor Joseph Bernardin — also from Chicago — was in control. And he is in control because Rome — the homosexualist current in Rome — has anointed him to be so.

Cupich has been the one parading around the world announcing a revolution in the Church, a paradigm shift in the Church — all his words. For a papacy claiming to be so down with the idea of local control, it appears that’s the desire — until it’s not.

Cupich is Rome’s man in America and the instrument by which Rome will control everything it can in the United States in the continuing effort to advance modernism.

James Martin will still romp around the nation declaring sodomy is a gift from God and all who oppose it are mean.

Thomas Rosica will go on saying which sites are the only approved sites in Catholic social media and all others are to be not trusted.

And Cupich will continue to assert his will, which is the will of the homosexual current, whenever he feels the need to flex his muscle.

In closing, we bumped into Cupich in the hotel lobby and asked him why he says active homosexual couples should be allowed to receive Holy Communion.

Here’s a very brief clip of the end of our very brief visit.

I asked the question, and he scurried up the escalator.

Yep, got to get to that meeting — very important meeting, got to get to the meeting.

We asked another bishop if he believed what Cupich says about active homosexuals being able to receive Holy Communion, and he said no, he doesn’t agree with that.

When we pressed him and said, “Well then, why don’t you say something to Cupich and challenge him?” he answered back, “Well, he didn’t ask me.”

There are a few good men here. Their ranks need to swell and swell soon if there is any hope for the Church in America. U.S. Catholics have had enough wimps wearing miters.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


THE VALID CARDINALS, i.e. CARDINALS APPOINTED BY POPES BENEDICT XVI AND SAINT JOHN PAUL II, MUST ACT SOON TO REMOVE FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL FROM THE THRONE OF SAINT PETER BEFORE HE DAMAGES THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH EVEN MORE THAN HE HAS ALREADY DAMAGED IT.


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 Gregisparticularly 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. 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 that 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 PlumeUn ami des Papes

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

THE REGISTER’S TAKE ON THE BALTIMORE FIASCO

Register Logo

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, speaks during a press conference at the conference's annual gathering Nov. 12 in Baltimore.

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, speaks during a press conference at the conference’s annual gathering Nov. 12 in Baltimore. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images)NATION |  NOV. 15, 2018Baltimore Bombshell: Vatican Vetoes USCCB’s Planned Abuse-Prevention ReformsAn eleventh-hour Vatican directive blocks a much-anticipated vote on bishop-accountability reforms, but the USCCB president vowed to press for changes.Joan Frawley Desmond

BALTIMORE — Five months after Archbishop Theodore McCarrick’s suspension from public ministry sparked an unprecedented crisis that has alarmed, angered and demoralized lay Catholics and clergy alike, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ annual fall assembly in Baltimore Nov. 12-14 was supposed to signal a sweeping course correction with new reforms designed to prevent future cover-ups.

Atop the agenda were two proposals that would be put to a vote during the three-day meeting: a draft “Standards of Conduct” for bishops and creation of an investigative commission that would receive accusations made against bishops and include lay specialists.

But that plan was upended as Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, the president of the USCCB, dropped a bombshell on the first day of the gathering.

Facing an auditorium packed with hundreds of bishops, he announced that an eleventh-hour directive from the Holy See barred the assembly from voting on the critical proposals.

The decision, he told his brother bishops, was made at “the insistence of the Holy See” and reached him the previous evening.

Later, he explained that the directive had come from the Congregation for Bishops, and he was told the Holy See wanted to delay votes on such measures until the conclusion of the February 2019 meeting in Rome that Francis has called to address the global clergy-abuse crisis.

“I am sure that you have concerns about this, as I do myself,” Cardinal DiNardo told the assembly, as he encouraged conference members to take their concerns to prayer and repeated his apologies to abuse victims who had gathered to address the bishops.

“The faithful and the clergy do not trust many of you. They are angry and frustrated, no longer satisfied with words and even with prayer,” said Francesco Cesareo, chairman of the National Review Board, in a presentation on the board’s findings to the bishops. “They seek action that signals a cultural change from the leadership of the Church.”

Outside the Marriott hotel where the assembly had gathered, protesters carried signs calling for the “reform” of the Church.

Clearly worried that the unexpected order from Rome would stir further frustration and anger, Cardinal DiNardo made clear that the USCCB leadership was undeterred.

“We remain committed to the program of episcopal accountability,” he stated emphatically. “Votes will not take place, but we will move forward.”

The assembly’s subsequent deliberations, often passionate and occasionally painful, and augmented by public comments during press conferences, provided a window into the troubled souls of the assembled shepherds.

Most striking of all, perhaps, was Cardinal DiNardo’s repeated pledge of obedience to Pope Francis.

“We are Roman Catholic bishops in communion with our Holy Father in Rome,” said Cardinal DiNardo when asked to explain why he hadn’t set aside the Vatican directive and moved ahead with the scheduled votes. When the Holy See transmits its decision, he said, “we respond.”

Wide-Ranging Discussion

During a wide-ranging open-floor discussion that touched on the need for reforms, but also explored options that were already available within existing Church practice and the Code of Canon Law, Bishop George Thomas of Las Vegas said Catholics in his diocese were “rightfully” angry that the votes on the proposals were put on hold.

“The perception is that justice delayed is justice denied,” he said, expressing hope that the assembly would move forward with a largely symbolic “advisory vote that reflects the gravity of the issue at hand, the urgency of the matter, the depth of the breach of trust … affecting so deeply the living Body of Christ.”

Canon law already gives metropolitan archbishops oversight responsibilities, and Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, echoed calls for metropolitans to be given greater authority over the bishops in their province along with the power to conduct their own inquiries.

“We have an existing structure, but it needs to be empowered,” said Archbishop Naumann.

Bishop Andrew Cozzens, an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, noted that bishops were already free to engage in fraternal correction, but suggested that few were prepared to do so.

“I dream of a day when we as brothers are strong enough to say, ‘We think you should resign,’ even if he’s not ready to hear that,” he said. “Those are difficult conversations to have, nobody wants to have them, but they can be very important.”

McCarrick’s Misconduct

The pointed exchanges regarding fraternal correction exposed the wounds that Archbishop McCarrick’s alleged history of abuse and misconduct had inflicted on his victims. Reportedly, many Church authorities had heard rumors about him, and others received reports or signed off on settlements but did not try, or did not succeed, in removing him.

The record of failure was indisputable. And one or more teenage boys were allegedly damaged for life, as well as seminarians and young priests under his authority. Now, as he lives in a secluded Kansas friary, those he left behind sought to explain what had gone wrong, even as multiple investigations in the U.S. and Rome could result in further disgrace for sitting or retired U.S. Church leaders who tolerated his actions.

Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, asked whether those who shrugged off Archbishop McCarrick’s behavior still held to Catholic moral teaching.

“It’s part of our deposit of faith that we believe homosexual activity is immoral,” said Bishop Strickland. “How did he get promoted if we are all of one mind that this is wrong? Do we believe the doctrine of the Church or not?”

Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland, Oregon, said the scandal prompted an extended examination of conscience.

“Have we lost sight about what our mission is truly all about?” he asked. “Our mission is to sanctify the world,” and genuine, lasting reform “begins with us individually.”

Cardinal William Levada, who served as the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when McCarrick was appointed archbishop of Washington, D.C., in 2005, suggested that the Vatican might have handled his case differently if strong investigations were routinely conducted before bishops were transferred to new dioceses.

Cardinal DiNardo, for his part, squarely addressed the importance of ongoing investigations into Archbishop McCarrick’s record that are underway in the Vatican and four U.S. dioceses, though no reports have been issued. “This … needs to be addressed,” he agreed. “It’s just bad for our people.”

Meanwhile, bishops also raised concerns about the presence of an alleged homosexual subculture in the Church and the role it may have played in Archbishop McCarrick’s advancement — remarks that were greeted by bursts of applause from the assembly.

The Archbishop McCarrick scandal has “provided clarity,” Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco told the Register.

“It brought things to light that were in the shadows about the need for this kind of accountability.”

He acknowledged the bishops’ disappointment with the Vatican’s decision to block the vote on the two proposals, but he emphasized that they remained unanimous in their support for further reforms that would strengthen bishops’ accountability.

Task Force Created

Denied a consequential vote on the two proposals, Cardinal DiNardo took two further steps, one practical and one a largely symbolic gesture, to help shore up the bishops’ credibility.

First, he announced the creation of a task force — composed of himself and all the former USCCB presidents, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York; Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky; and Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta — that would work with conference committees to examine the substance and possible mishandling of abuse reports and present its findings at the bishops’ June 2019 meeting.

Second, amid lingering questions about the outcome of the Vatican’s archival review of documents related to Archbishop McCarrick’s case and whether relevant materials would be made available to the USCCB, a final vote was designed to “encourage” the Vatican to share the documents related to its investigation of McCarrick.

Yet even this small gesture was challenged by Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey, and other conference members who framed the measure as a sign of disrespect toward the Holy See. The measure was defeated in a 137-83 vote.

Still, Cardinal DiNardo put the best face possible on the assembly’s proceedings, and he did that by straddling what looks like two increasingly divergent responses to the Church’s unprecedented crisis.

First, he affirmed the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ “loyalty and devotion” to the Pope “in these difficult days.”

“I am sure that, under the leadership of Pope Francis, the conversation that the global Church will have in February will help us eradicate the evil of sexual abuse from our Church,” he said. “It will make our local efforts more global, and the global perspective will help us here.” 

Then he promised his brother bishops that their shared goals for reform would be a “springboard for action” by the global Church and that the USCCB’s plan to secure reforms was still “on course,” despite the increasingly visible rift between the Vatican and the USCCB leadership. 

Likewise, Archbishop McCarrick’s dark legacy and the ongoing struggle to investigate and identify the corruption that cloaked his predation has exposed and deepened tensions within the conference that demand prudent leadership if the campaign for reform can begin to move forward, protect the faithful from other would-be McCarricks and rebuild the lost credibility of America’s Catholic shepherds.

Joan Frawley Desmond is a Register senior editor.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

TWELVE VALID CARDINALS CAN END THE PRESENT CRISIS OF THE CHURCH UNDER FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Pope Francis is the Greatest Crisis in Church History: How can he be Removed?

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2018/11/we-are-in-greatest-crisis-in-history-of.html?m=1

We are in the greatest crisis in the history of the Church because we appear to have a pope and his pro-gay bishops network who make the Borgia popes and their inner circles look like choir boys.

The Mundabor blog summed up the situation in the United States: 

“Now, everyone with an IQ bigger than the size of his shoes knows that the Bishops aren’t avoiding to release information so that they can investigate more thoroughly than the public could do. No, they are keeping information away from you so that they can a) protect the vast number of people implicated in the protection and enabling of Cardinal McCarrick, b) avoid the unearthing of a vast, vast homosexual clerical net inside and outside of the Vatican,  and c) pretend that they are acting against clerical abuse when they are, in fact, consolidating it and helping it to fester inside and even at the very heart of the Church.”

“If you thought that the US Bishops would put themselves at the head of the movement (not because of concern for the victims or desire to do Christ’s work; but merely in order to avoid the donations drying out) curb your enthusiasm, because I don’t think that this is going to happen. These people are, evidently, too compromised to risk any degree of openness.”

The solution, at this point, is the handcuffs. I hope AGs all over the Country will soon start to treat the US Bishops like the organised criminal ring they are. Let them feel the cold metal on their wrists, and see whether this helps to, as they say today, “facilitate” a change of attitude.”
[https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2018/11/15/make-purple-the-new-orange/]

This is part of the solution, but as a good priest recently said even if we can get the state or Church to remove all the bad bishops, Pope Francis is only going to replace them with worse bishops. 

Of course, we must continue to work for the removal of Francis’s immoral pro-gay bishops network, but the only way we are going to begin a real restoration of the Church is to remove Francis as well as all his controllers and collaborators.

The only way to end the greatest crisis in the history of the Church is to remove Pope Francis and his collaborators!

How do we do this?

The Vatican is a sovereign state so no government is going to put Francis in handcuffs and even if they did he would still be Pope.

If putting the Pope in handcuffs along with his pro-gay bishops network and collaborators “organised criminal ring” is not the answer then what is?

Theologian Msgr. Nicola Bux , a former consultor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Benedict XVI, is pointing in the direction we must take:

“‘More useful’ than a fraternal correction, he said, would be to examine the ‘juridical validity’ of Pope Benedict’s XVI’s resignation and ‘whether it is full or partial.’ Jesus, he said, did not give the keys of heaven to Peter and Andrew but ‘said it only to Peter.’ Such an ‘in-depth study’ of the resignation, he said, could help to ‘overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.'”
[http://edwardpentin.co.uk/monsignor-bux-pope-francis-must-urgently-issue-profession-of-faith/]

The problem with even Msgr. Bux’s solution is that even if a non-cardinal “juridical” examination is done to see if Francis is a anti-pope or if he acts like an anti-pope most faithful Catholics are not going buy it as the American Catholic website showed:

“Cardinal Joseph Zen… wants to talk to the Pope again, but he told an Asian Catholic media website that ‘this may be the last time.’”

“On November 8, the Shanghai-born Cardinal told the Union of Catholic Asian News (ucanews.com) that “underground clerics have cried to him” since the Vatican signed a deal with China on the appointment of bishops.”

“’They said officials have forced them to become open, to join the (schismatic) Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association and to obtain a priest’s certificate with the reason that the pope has signed the Sino-Vatican provisional agreement,’ Cardinal Zen told the media group.”

“Go here to read the rest.  To repeat, PopeWatch does not believe that the Pope is an Anti-Pope, but if he were, what would he do differently from what he is doing?”
[http://www.the-american-catholic.com/2018/11/15/popewatch-anti-pope/]

The only answer is the Bishop René Gracida solution. 

Bishop Gracida said:

“ONE CAN SAY THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A HERETIC [or a anti-pope] UNTIL ONE DIES BUT IT CHANGES NOTHING. WHAT IS NEEDED IS ACTION… WE MUST PRESSURE THE CARDINALS TOACT. SEND THAT LINK TO EVERY PRIEST AND BISHOP YOU KNOW”: https://wp.me/px5Zw-95e.

The link goes to his Open Letter which shows that there is strong evidence that Francis may be a anti-pope. But only the cardinals can validly make that Church juridical declaration. 

Onepeterfive’s anti-Open Letter Steve Skojec on May 7 rejected Bishop Gracida’s call for the cardinals to judge if Francis’s election to the papacy was valid calling the validity question itself a “potentially dangerous rabbit hole.”
(Onepeterfive, “Cardinal Eijk References End Times Prophecy in Intercommunion,” May 7, 2018)

At the time, Skojec referred back to his September 26, 2017 post where he said:

“JPII has removed the election-nullifying consequences of simony… nowhere else in the following paragraphs is nullity of the election even implied.”
(Onepeterfive, “A Brief note on the Question of a Legally Valid Election,” September 26, 2017)

Bishop Gracida shows that Skojec is wrong in his legally crafted Open Letter quoting Pope John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis’ introductory perambulary and paragraph 76:

-“I further confirm, by my Apostlic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process [the above which Gracida clearly shows in his Open Letter was not maintained thus making the conclave and Francis’s papacy invalid according to the Bishop].”
(Introductory perambulary)

-“Should the election take place in a way other than laid down here not to be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void.”
(Paragraph 76)

Gracida’s Open Letter, moreover, shows that Skojec is wrong above:

“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.”

On top of all that, Skojec ignores paragraph 5 and contrary to what canon lawyer Edward Peters has said about Universi Dominici Gregis when he suggests canon lawyers have a role in interpreting the John Paul II Constitution, the document says:

“Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect. I [Pope John Paul II] Decree that all power of issuing a judgment of this in this regard to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points.”
(Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 5)

Later in the paragraph it says “except the act of the election,” which can be interpreted in a number of ways.

The point is, as Bishop Gracida says and Universi Dominici Gregis said, only the cardinals can interpret its meaning, not Skojec or canon lawyers.

The Bishop is saying what the document says: only the cardinals can interpret it.

He, also, says put pressure on the cardinals to act and interpret it which both Skojec and Peters appear to prefer to ignore.

Moreover, Bishop Gracida’s Open Letter and Pope John Paul II’s document make a number of points which neither Skojec, Peters or anyone else to my knowledge have even brought up or offered any counter argument against.

They are both wrong if they ignore this important Open Letter of Bishop Gracida.

If Skojec and Peters as well as the conservative and traditional Catholic media are ignoring Bishop Gracida because he isn’t a cardinal and retired, remember that St. Athanasius wasn’t a cardinal (that is involved in the selection or election process of the pope of the time) and was retired.

During the Arian heresy crisis, Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius. You don’t get any more retired than being excommunicated.

Skojec gave blogger Ann Barnhardt’s analysis of the papal validity a long article. The only bishop in the world (besides Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano) contesting Francis in a meaningful way deserves as much.

Skojec, Peters and all scholarly Catholics need to answer Gracida’s theologically clear and precise arguments and either clearly and precisely counter them or put pressure on the cardinals to 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.

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: “In-depth Explanation of Dubia Consequences for Pope Francis including ‘Removing him from Office'”: https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2016/12/in-depth-explanation-of-dubia.html?m=1)  or

 2. a invalidly elected anti-pope 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 the Bishop says put: “pressure on the cardinals to act” whichever you think. 

Gracida is calling on pressure to be put on the cardinals to “[a]ddress… [the] probable invalidity” due to a invalid conclave or a invalid resignation by Pope Benedict’s XVI before they attempt to depose him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy. But, just as importantly he is calling all faithful Catholics to act and not just bemoan Francis’s heresy.

There are many ways to put pressure such as pray and offer Masses for this intention, send the Gracida link to priests, bishops and cardinals, make signs and pray the rosary in front of their offices as we do in front of abortion clinics. Use your imagination to come up with other ideas.   

But, the best way to put pressure on the cardinals to remove Francis is the rosary. The solution to the greatest crisis in the history of the Church is the rosary as it was for the Austrians.

The way to victory for the Austrians to defeat the Russians according to Fr. Pater Petrus was “a tithe: that ten percent of the Austrians, 700,000, would pledge to say the rosary daily for the Soviets to leave their country. 700,000 pledged” as told on the Santo Rosario website:

“At the end of World War II, the allies did a nasty thing: they turned Catholic Austria over to the Russians. The Austrians tolerated this Soviet domination for three years, but that was enough. They wanted the Soviets out of their country. But what could Austria do: seven million against 220 million?”

“Then a priest, Pater Petrus, remembered Don John of Austria. Outnumbered three to one, Don John led the Papal, Venetian, and Spanish ships against the Turks at Lepanto, and through the power of the rosary miraculously defeated them. So Pater Petrus called for a rosary crusade against the Soviets. He asked for a tithe: that ten percent of the Austrians, 700,000, would pledge to say the rosary daily for the Soviets to leave their country. 700,000 pledged.”

“For seven years the Austrians prayed the rosary. Then, on May 13, the anniversary of the apparition at Fatima, in 1955, the Russians left Austria.”

“Even to this day military strategists and historians are baffled. Why did the Communists pull out? Austria is a strategically located country, a door to the West, rich in mineral deposits and oil reserves? To them it was an enigma.”

“Al Williams, former custodian of the National Pilgrim Statue of Our Lady of Fatima, heard me tell this story once. He said to me, “You know, Father, I am Austrian. Well, three months before Therese Neumann died, I visited her (June 18, 1962). One question I asked her was, ‘Why did the Russians leave Austria?’ She told me, ‘Verily, verily, it was the rosaries of the Austrian people.’ ‘ “

“In other words, Our Lady’s rosary did what the Hungarian Freedom Fighters could not do with a bloodbath of 25,000 people. John Cortes, brilliant writer and diplomat of the 19th century wrote: ‘Those who pray do more for the world than those who fight. If the world is going from bad to worse, it is because there are more battles than prayers.'”[http://www.santorosario.net/power.htm]

Pray an Our Father now that a Fr. Petrus be risen up by God in the United States and all countries to bring about a tithe: that ten percent of the faithful American Catholics as well as faithful Catholics in every country say the rosary daily for the cardinals to remove Francisand his collaborators. I am going to start praying one of my rosaries everyday for those two intentions.
Extra article by Work of the Angels also known as Opus Angelorum:http://www.opusangelorum.org/Formation/Holyrosary.html

The Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary
I. THE POWER OF THE ROSARY

“If I had an army to say the Rosary,” Pope Pius IX once said, “I could conquer the world.” And he said this because the Rosary, next to the Mass, is the most powerful weapon in the Church’s arsenal.

Now most people are aware that the Christian Navy defeated a large Moslem fleet, against overwhelming odds, at Lepanto on October 7, 1571. And most people are aware that this victory was won because Pope Pius V organized a Rosary procession to pray for the success of the battle. However, most people are unaware of the many amazing victories won through the power of the Rosary in the Twentieth Century. And so it is fitting to study some of these miraculous and divine interventions because this will help us to strengthen our faith in Mary’s intercession and to deepen our trust in the power of her Rosary.

One of the most amazing miracles in history occurred at 8:15 a.m. on August 6, 1945, in Hiroshima, Japan. At that time the Americans dropped the first atomic bomb, and it landed just eight city blocks from the Jesuit church of Our Lady of the Assumption. A half million people were killed instantly when the bomb hit, and homes and buildings for miles around were instantly leveled. Yet the Jesuit church and rectory as well as the four Jesuit priests inside it were undamaged and unhurt. Why? Because the priests prayed the Rosary daily.

This miracle, as great as it was, however, was just the beginning of the many wonders that Mary would work through her Rosary in the second half of the twentieth century.

First, there was Austria. After WWII the communists of Russia took over Austria. To shake off this yoke, a Franciscan priest, Fr. Peter Pavlicek, organized a Rosary crusade in 1948. It began on September 12, the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary. Fr. Peter asked for a tithe of Rosaries. He asked that ten percent of all the Austrians pledge to say the Rosary daily until the Soviets left the country. The people of Austria responded generously. They prayed for seven years, and then on May 13, 1955, the Soviets mysteriously just packed up and peacefully left.

The Soviets, however, did not give up on their plans to take over western countries. Five years later Nikita Krushev visited the United Nations Headquarters in New York City and boasted that he would bury the United States and the Western world. And to emphasize his point, he took off his shoe and pounded it on top of the table.

The West seemed in danger of a Soviet takeover. But Pope John XXIII had read the third secret of Fatima, and so he had authorized the Bishop of Leiria (Fatima) to write to all the bishops of the world, inviting them to join with pilgrims of Fatima on the night of October 12-13, 1960, to pray the Rosary for peace and for Russia’s conversion. About a million pilgrims responded to the request and spent the night outdoors in a bone-chilling rain before the Blessed Sacrament praying the Rosary. And in addition to this, over 300 dioceses throughout the world joined them.

The Rosaries and sacrifices of millions obtained another astonishing intervention. For that same night the Soviets’ new long-range A-bomb missile unexpectedly blew up during a test, killing three hundred top military leaders and scientists. This set back Russia’s nuclear program twenty years.

Shortly after this happened, Dona Amelia Basto organized a Rosary campaign in Brazil to save the country from a communist takeover. She managed to recruit 600,000 women in 1962 to say the Rosary in Sao Paulo for peace. And through this demonstration of faith and prayer, the country was spared a communist dictatorship.

Something similar happened in Portugal in 1975. The communist government in that country was peacefully overthrown after a national Rosary crusade for peace was launched.

All these wonders, however, were surpassed on March 25, 1984, when Pope John Paul II called for a Rosary crusade because of the grave danger to world peace at that time. In response to his request, a major “Rosaries for peace” crusade was launched by the Blue Army and other Marian organizations. There was a magnificent response. And on May 13, 1984, one of the largest crowds in Fatima history gathered at the shrine to pray the Rosary for peace. And that very day an explosion at the Soviets’ Severomorsk Naval Base destroyed two-thirds of all the missiles stockpiled for the Soviets’ Northern Fleet. The blast also destroyed the workshops needed to maintain the missiles as well as hundreds of scientists and technicians. Western military experts called it the worst naval disaster the Soviet Navy had suffered since WWII.

Besides this, the Soviet Defense Minister, the mastermind behind the invasion plans, suddenly and mysteriously became seriously ill and then died in December of 1984. Four years later, during the night of May 12, 1988, as thousands prayed the Rosary at Fatima, another mysterious explosion wrecked the only factory that made the rocket motors for the Soviets’ deadly SS 24 long-range missiles, which carry ten nuclear bombs each.

Now all these events, it should be noted, are understandable and explainable only in light of the Fatima apparitions of the Blessed Mother. For when Mary first appeared at the Cova da Ira on May 13, 1917, she said to the children: “Pray the Rosary everyday in order to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war.” And at each of the other five apparitions, she said: “Pray the Rosary every day.” Also, it should be noted that the Blessed Mother expressly asked for prayers for the conversion of Russia and that she also prophesized that this nation would endanger the peace and security of the entire world if her words were ignored. In the third apparition on July 13, 1917, she warned: 

If my wishes are fulfilled, Russia will be converted and there will be peace. If not, Russia will spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars and persecution of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated. 

And so by making this prophecy, Mary made the Rosary the indispensable and necessary condition for world peace. In other words, there will be no peace in the world–there can be no peace in the world–until the Rosary is prayed on a wide scale.

Before going further, it should be stressed that the Rosary is not only the best protection for countries and societies, but it is also the best protection any individual person could ever hope to have. For St. Louis de Montfort states in his classic book, The Secret of the Rosary: 

If you say the Rosary faithfully until death, I do assure you that, in spite of the gravity of your sins, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory. For even if you are now on the brink of damnation, even if you have one foot in hell, even if you have sold your soul to the devil…sooner or later you will be converted and will amend your life and save your soul. If–you say the Rosary devoutly every day of your life. 

There are several reasons why this is so. “First, the Rosary leads us to meditate on all the major mysteries in the life of Christ and therefore to adore and thank God for his love and mercy, which is the principal duty of all the faithful. Second, this prayer takes place through the mediation of Mary, which is most pleasing to God, since she is our spiritual Mother.” Third, the Rosary puts us into contact with the holy angels. For St. Alphonsus Liguori says that at each Hail Mary the angels are attracted to us, while the devils are repelled. And Pope Leo XIII states that “each time we meditate on the mysteries of our salvation in the Rosary we in some way imitate the sacred duties once committed to the angels. For they revealed each of the mysteries in its due time; they played a great part in them with expressions of joy, of sorrow, and of triumphant exultation.” What then, he asks, “could be greater and more delightful than to mediate and pray with the angels by saying the Rosary?” 

II. THE POPES ON THE POWER OF THE ROSARY

The popes, then, of modern times beginning with Pius IX, have stressed and explained the power of the Rosary and the need for saying it often. Leo XIII is especially noteworthy in this respect, for he wrote no less than twelve encyclicals on the Rosary, more than any pope before or since. “There is no question, then, that his influence on the Rosary and its development was the most significant to come from a pope.” And much of what he said led to “the greatest popularity which the Rosary enjoyed during the high period of its popular development in the first half of the twentieth century.” For this reason, it is important to examine some of his statements on the Rosary. First of all, he directed that the Rosary be recited every day in the cathedral of each diocese and on feast days in all parish churches.

Most importantly, however, he explained the power that the Rosary can unlock. For he said, “the Rosary, if devoutly used is bound to benefit not only the individual, but society at large.” In addition to this, he went so far as to state that “the Rosary is our best hope, since it can more than anything else implore from God the help that we need.” And interestingly, he added, “the Rosary is the best prayer to help the cause of Christian unity.”

To sum up his approach to the Rosary, then, he wrote, “There are, of course, more ways than one to win Mary’s protection by prayer, but as for us, we think that the best and most effective way to her lies in her Rosary.” 

Pope Pius XII echoed Leo XIII’s confidence in the power of the Rosary. He believed its recitation is the key to peace and happiness in our age. For he wrote, “We put great confidence in the Rosary for the healing of the evils that affect our times.” In fact, he said, “there is no surer means of calling down God’s blessings upon the family and especially of preserving peace and happiness in the home than the daily recitation of the Rosary.”

Later on, Pope John XXIII helped to develop our understanding of the Rosary in new directions. In one document he spoke about the Rosary as “a prayer of love breathed from the heart.” And in another he gave us new insights about how to use the Rosary as a form of meditation. He wrote: 

The true substance of the well-meditated Rosary consists in a three-fold element that gives unity and cohesion…to the episodes in the life of Jesus and Mary… For in each decade of Hail Marys there is a picture, and for each picture a three-fold emphasis which is simultaneously: mystical contemplation, intimate reflection and pious intention. 

Now it should be noted here that John XXIII had a great love for the Rosary and that he used to recite the entire fifteen decades everyday with all of the papal household.

Pope Paul VI carried on the papal tradition of adding new insights to the Rosary. In a sermon to some children who were members of the Living Rosary Association, he explained how the Rosary can improve social life on earth and also help the poor souls in purgatory. “Through your Rosary you can succeed in giving comfort to the sick, in saving the dying, in converting sinners, in helping the missionaries, and in freeing souls from purgatory.” 

Besides this, he also strongly recommended praying the family Rosary. “There is no doubt,” he wrote, “that the Rosary should be considered as one of the best and most powerful prayers in common that the Christian family could recite.”

Now everyone is aware of Pope John Paul II’s great love for the Rosary. For he leads the Rosary every First Saturday in St. Peter’s Basilica, and he has been widely quoted as saying that “the Rosary is my favorite prayer.” And so he has, in line with the other popes of the Twentieth Century, strongly promoted devotion to the Rosary. He has stated not only that the “Rosary is a privileged means of averting the danger of war and of obtaining the gift of peace from God,” but also that the Rosary “dispels the seeds of family disintegration.” For this reason he has urged all Catholics, especially families, to pray the Rosary every day. And he has also urged priests to pray the Rosary and to teach their people how to pray it as well.

From the miracles worked through the Rosary in this century and the endorsements given to it by the popes, we can learn something, then, of the great power contained in the Rosary beads.

III. HOW TO SAY THE ROSARY

Now that we have discussed why we should say the Rosary, it is necessary to explain how we should say it, for there are many misconceptions among good Catholics on the best and most effective way to say–or to pray–the Rosary. Fr. Hardon, in a talk given to the Institute For Religious Life a few years ago, offered several interesting, original, and helpful suggestions on how the Rosary might be prayed. In fact, he stated that there are thirty-four different ways in which the Rosary can be said. Most of what follows is adapted from his conference. Not all, however, of the thirty-four different ways are discussed but just some of the more salient points.

1. Frequently. We should try to say the Rosary as often as possible and not just when we feel like it. Otherwise, we will get out of the habit of saying it altogether.

2. Regularly. This means that there should be certain set times in our lives when we pray the Rosary, for example, every morning or evening, every time we drive a car or take a walk, or before or after mass.

3. Intentionally. We should always have an intention in mind when we say the Rosary. In other words, we should always say it for someone or for some specific need.

4. Privately. We should be able to say the Rosary as easily by ourselves as with other people. Some people get into the bad habit of only saying the Rosary with others. And so because of this, they become unable to say it by themselves. The Church, however, encourages individual recitation by granting a plenary indulgence to anyone who says the Rosary in a church, even if it’s done by him or herself alone. 

5. Corporately. Some people have the opposite problem, and they dislike saying the Rosary with others, so we must learn to do it both ways. Again, the Church is our guide here because it grants a plenary indulgence to those persons who pray the Rosary together in a group, that is, two or more persons, inside or outside of a church.

6. Meditatively. This is one of the more important aspects of praying the Rosary. It is most fitting to consciously think about what we are doing and meditate closely on the mystery proposed for each decade. For without doing this, says Pope Paul VI, the “Rosary is merely a body without a soul, and its recitation is in danger of becoming a mechanical repetition of formulas and of going counter to the warning of Christ, who said, ‘in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will win a hearing by their many words.’”

For this reason, the very nature of the Rosary, states Paul VI, stresses a “quiet rhythm and a lingering pace…for in this way the unfathomable riches of the mysteries are unfolded.” Further on this point of method, St. Louis de Montfort says that “it is not so much the length of the prayer, but rather the fervor with which it is said that pleases Almighty God and touches his heart. For one single Hail Mary that is said properly is worth more than 150 that are badly said.”

It should be noted, however, that the Rosary meditation need not be a prolonged reflection. Rather a simple and attentive glance at the mystery is all that is required. A detailed analysis of the mystery and the corresponding prayers is not necessary, for the Hail Marys and Our Fathers should be seen as a kind of background music that gently induces contemplative prayer.

Now before going further, it is helpful if we know exactly what a “mystery” of the Rosary is. The mysteries, quite simply, are merely fifteen different scenes selected from the life of Christ. For these scenes have been found, over the centuries, to have a unique ability to help us understand the most significant events in the life of Christ. And so we can penetrate the truths of the faith more deeply, then, and also learn how to speak the language of God and His angels better by meditating on the fifteen mysteries.

7. Scripturally. From time to time it, it is helpful to say the Scriptural Rosary. “The Scriptural Rosary follows the old medieval custom of assigning a different little thought to each Hail Mary bead. The thoughts are arranged so that the story of each mystery unfolds, bead by bead, in ten consecutive steps. And most importantly, the Scriptural Rosary draws its Hail Mary thought directly from the Old and New Testaments.”

8. Attentively. We must resolve to make a serious effort to keep our mind focused on the mystery on which we are supposed to be meditating. For it is very easy to give into distractions and lapse into daydreaming if we are not vigilant. And so before beginning the Rosary, we should, first of all, put ourselves in the presence of God. Also, it is important to be aware on this point that just by looking at the Rosary beads from time to time is often enough to bring us back to reality.

To help us pray with attention, St. Louis de Montfort recommends “that we imagine that not only God is watching us and that our guardian angel is standing at our right hand, taking our Hail Marys, if they are well said, and using them like roses to make crowns for Jesus and Mary–but also that at our left hand is standing a devil who is ready to pounce upon every Hail Mary poorly said, so that he can accuse us before the Judgment Seat of Christ after our death.”

9. Instinctively. Our motto should be as follows: “When in doubt, say the Rosary.” And so if we are faced with some insurmountable obstacle and do not know what else to do–or if we just have time on our hands because our plane is late or because we are forced to wait extra long for an appointment–then we should instinctively reach for our Rosary beads and begin to pray.

10. Liturgically. It is a good idea to begin the liturgy with a Rosary, for it is an excellent preparation for the Mass as well as an excellent means of thanksgiving afterwards. The Rosary, however, should never be said during any liturgy, especially during the Mass. Elaborating on this point, Pope Paul VI states, “Meditation on the mysteries of the Rosary can be an excellent preparation for the celebration of those same mysteries in liturgical action and can also become a continuing echo of them afterwards.” However, he stresses, “it is a mistake to recite the Rosary during the celebration of the liturgy, though unfortunately this practice still persists here and there.”

11. Ecclesiastically. There are associations approved by the Church that increase the graces we receive from praying the Rosary. Two in particular should be mentioned.

The first is the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary. This is an organization of hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world who join their prayers with others through the recitation of the Rosary. Each member promises to pray at least fifteen mysteries of the Rosary once a week, but this promise does not bind under the pain of sin. Further, each member includes the intentions not only of all the living members of the association, but also of all the deceased members as well. And so because of this, it is as if you had hundreds of thousands of people praying the Rosary for you throughout the world. This led St. John Vianney to say: “If anyone has the happiness of being in the Confraternity of the Rosary, he has in all corners of the world brothers and sisters who pray for him.” And St. Alphonsus Liguori said: “After the Mass, the best means of helping souls in purgatory is to join the Confraternity of the Rosary.”

In addition to these benefits, the Dominicans, who oversee the Confraternity, admit all members to a share in the Masses, prayers, penance, and apostolic works of all the Dominican Fathers, brothers, sisters, cloistered nuns, and third-order members throughout the world.

Next, there is the Living Rosary Association. Again, this is a Dominican-sponsored organization. It is administered by the Dominican Nuns of the Perpetual Rosary in Fatima. Members of the Association promise to spend one hour on the same day of each month praying and meditating on the fifteen decades of the Rosary. The hour is called the “Hour of Guard” and constitutes a place among the royal guard of Mary’s great Rosary family.

12. Apostolically. We should try to become Apostles of the Rosary by getting other people to say it. To do this, we must explain the power of the Rosary and the wonders Mary can work through it. To this end, it is helpful to learn something about the lives of the great saints who specialized in promoting the Rosary, such as St. Dominic and St. Louis de Montfort. Also, it would be helpful to know something about the life of Fr. Patrick Peyton, the great modern Apostle of the Rosary. His life and experiences are described in his autobiography, titled All for Her.

13. Expectively. Expect, that is plan, to say the Rosary at specific times and places and for specific intentions. Unless this is done, it is unlikely that our daily Rosary will be prayed.

14. Promisingly. Get into the habit of promising to say the Rosary for others. We must not, however, promise to say more than we can say in a reasonable period of time. 

15. Giftfully. Give Rosary beads as a gift to others, especially on first communions, confirmations, and marriages. These are ideal times to introduce or reintroduce people to the Rosary. Also, give Rosaries on birthdays and anniversaries. Most good Catholics have Rosaries, but they can always use another.

16. Needfully. The Rosary is meant to meet all our needs. We should not hesitate, therefore, to concentrate on certain mysteries and associate them with particular problems we may be experiencing in our life. In other words, we should try to relate the specific mysteries of the Rosary to the specific needs of our life.

17. Openly. We should not be shy or ashamed about saying the Rosary in public or holding it in a crowd, for simply walking around with a Rosary in our hand is a kind of evangelization and a witness to the faith. And so on this point we should always keep in mind the words of Christ: “Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels (Mk 8:38).

IV. CONCLUSION
Now to conclude, we can do no better than to end with the words of Pope Pius X, speaking of the Rosary: “Of all prayers the Rosary is the most beautiful and the richest in graces; of all it is the one which is most pleasing to Mary, the Virgin Most Holy. Therefore love the Rosary and recite it everyday with devotion.”

Work of the Holy Angels®
13800 Gratiot Ave.
Detroit, MI 48205 USA 
(313) 527-1739 | Fax (313) 527-1729

email: opusangelorum@rc.net    

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


THE VALID CARDINALS, i.e. CARDINALS APPOINTED BY POPES BENEDICT XVI AND SAINT JOHN PAUL II, MUST ACT SOON TO REMOVE FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL FROM THE THRONE OF SAINT PETER BEFORE HE DAMAGES THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH EVEN MORE THAN HE HAS ALREADY DAMAGED IT.


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 Gregisparticularly 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. 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 that 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 PlumeUn ami des Papes

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments