AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

  1. abyssum says:

    Veri Catholic,

    The system for the appointment of bishops needs to be changed. Here is how bishops are appointed:

    1. A ‘powerful’ cardinal will push a particular friend and the pope bows to the influence of his cardinal and appoints the bishop without consulting anyone.

    2. A few ‘powerful’ cardinals will do the same as No. 1 Two of the most powerful American Cardinals are Wuerl and Cupch who are members of the Congregation of Bishops.

    3. The bishops of a province meet every March and during the meeting the names of bishops “suitable” for being made a bishop are voted on and the top three names are sent to the Nuncio. The Nuncio selects several names of laity from the OFFICIAL CATHOLIC DIRECTORY and sends them a questionnaire about the men selected from their diocese. Based on the information contained in those questionnaires the Nuncio lists them in the order of his first, second, and third choice and sends the recommendation to the Congregation of Bishops where all the bishops of the Congregation vote on the order on the list (Wuerl and Cupich’s opinion undourtedled imfluences the vote of the other cardinals a great deal) and thee list is brought to the Pope on a Saturday and the Pope makes his selection.

  2. abyssum says:

    Bravo Sheepdog,

    You are a wonderful example of the SENSUS FIDEI, the laity making known to the Hierarchy their agreement or disagreement with questionable statements or actions which seem heterodox or even outright heretical. Keep it up !!! May your tribe increase !!!

  3. abyssum says:

    christopherlawrence,

    Nothing in Church law or tradition establishes a minimum number of Cardinal Electors. There is no quorum for a Conclave. Here is what Universi Dominici Gregis states pertaining to this question:

    “37. I furthermore decree that, from the moment when the Apostolic See is lawfully vacant, the Cardinal electors who are present must wait fifteen full days for those who are absent; the College of Cardinals is also granted the faculty to defer, for serious reasons, the beginning of the election for a few days more. But when a maximum of twenty days have elapsed from the beginning of the vacancy of the See, all the Cardinal electors present are obliged to proceed to the election.
    “38. All the Cardinal electors, convoked for the election of the new Pope by the Cardinal Dean, or by another Cardinal in his name, are required, in virtue of holy obedience, to obey the announcement of convocation and to proceed to the place designated for this purpose, unless they are hindered by sickness or by some other grave impediment, which however must be recognized as such by the College of Cardinals.”

  4. abyssum says:

    Jouba

    Jcuba

    First of all you must understand that papal infallibility is not a UNIVOCAL concept, it is an ANALOGOUS concept which admits of MORE or LESS. EXAMPLE: Water is always composed of H20 whether it is steam or ice, whereas health admits of more or less in a person.
    A pope is absolutely infallible when, after consultation with the bishops of the world and prominent schools of theology and the laity, he promulgates a dogma in a solemn fashion either within or outside St. Peter’s Basilica one a matter of faith and morals to the whole world. At all other times he is RELATIVELY infallible if one or more of those factors are present when he speaks.

  5. Jcuba says:

    I’m a little confused. If the Pope is only guaranteed infallibility when speaking ex-cathedra, how can the fact that he puts out a lot of bad teaching and confusion (when not speaking ex-cathedra) be used as evidence that he doesn’t have the gift of infallibility and thus might not be a true Pope? Don’t get me wrong, it seems to me that a true Pope would not wreak this much havoc, but I’m just trying to wrap my head around the infallibility thing.

  6. christopherlawrence says:

    Your Excellency: By what procedures would the legitimate Cardinals elect a new Pope? Aren’t the numbers of such Cardinals at a level that they fall below the required number of Cardinals to elect a Pope? I believe there is a minimum number in that whole calculus.
    Also we cannot rule out the possibility that the line of Peter becomes lost, seemingly forever. However it is exactly this tragedy that the people of Israel faced when the Davidic line disappeared as a result of the Babylonian exile. Of course not coincidentally, that exile was a result of decadent leaders and sin. It seems likely that is going to have to be the same trial of God’s people today. Revelation 12 speaks of the Woman fleeing to and being nourished in the desert for a time, which resonates with the idea that the Church (She) must to go into the desert meaning She is wandering somewhat without clear leadership but still remains the Mystical Body.

  7. Sheepdog says:

    Everyone:

    if you would like the address for Cardinal Burke, I heard from him last October, I have the address. Please be sure to get the CORRECT Address to Bishop Gracida which I provided him. Excellency, if you need the address, I will email you the address I sent it to, as well as the address he replied from.

    I also need everyone’s help here as it relates to this. I have been trying to get the word out on Twitter, but I am currently semi-shadowbanned. I tweet often about Bishop Gracida, I have tweeted the open letter. I have also tweeted things that are directly and indirectly to this, IE, pro abortion politicians going to Communion, and why Francis might not be a valid Pope. Please help spread the word:

  8. The public acceptance by the US Bishop Conference (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/us-bishops-welcome-change-to-catechism-on-death-penalty-95285) of the new heresy on capital punishment creates THE IMMINENT AND GRAVE NECESSITY of providing Catholics in the USA with Catholic Bishops in those dioceses where the ordinary adheres to the heretical thesis. We invite your Excellency to make this provision for the salvation of souls! — The Apostolic See being vacant, by reason of the same heresy, the local Bishops must act, by reason of the principle of subsidiarity!

  9. hellenback7 says:

    It has been difficult to negotiate this blog since this letter was posted Your Excellency.

    I just managed to see your request for comments after coming back for a couple of days to see that there were no further posts.

    I’ve read most of the replies as best I could and don’t see any reference to a question/observation I was going to post about the recent decision of Francis to “change the Catechism” on capital punishment. It seemed a good and obvious example of a couple of important things.

    1. My first thought when I saw the deliberate statement about changing the CCC was that it is incredibly suspicious timing for changing the CCC with the “youth synod” just around the corner. It seemed anoyher attempt at testing the waters before going full throttle on changing doctrine. Because your blog seemed inactive I went to lifesite only to see someone had beaten me to the conclusion that this is a “prelim” for outright changing other teaching (guess which) without all the prevarication and double-talk required over the last few years.

    2. The stark difference (to anyone paying attention) between the “inadvisablity” in this day and age of the death penalty, as preached by JPII and Benedict, and declaring it “not allowed” by the Church. 2000 years of traditional teaching needs to be CHANGED while resorting to the “development of doctrine” trope used every time Francis gets bold enough to risk his next move.

    3. SPIRITUAL COMMUNION under extraordinary circumstances brings much of the Grace of the Sacrament if there is no way to receive in good conscience. I think it is something worth remembering in these confusing and extraordinary times.
    On somewhat of a side note, although related in many ways…
    I have spent the better part of the last couple of days finding out all over again just how much damage the homosexual agenda has done and continues to do to the Church. The Second Coming seems a Blessing over anything else for those who truly love Our Lord.

    Lastly, please excuse any disjointed ir poorly expressed points I tried to make here. I am upset and don’t have the focus to go back over what I have attempted to say.

  10. abyssum says:

    Mary Beth,

    I have seen the photographs assembled over the years and yes, it does seem to show that an imposter was substituted for Saint Lucy. If true, the implications are truly sinister with regard to the contents of the THIRD PROMISE.

  11. abyssum says:

    Sheepdog,

    Thank you !!! Thank you for your zeal and your commitment help bring about an end to the reign of Francis the Merciful. I pray that your zeal is contagious.

    One thing you might do is to send a link to the “Letter” since many have not read it. It is easy to make to available to them. Simply include this link in your correspondence: https://wp.me/px5Zw-95e.

    You asked whether the ordination of priests is valid. If the Cardinal is not aware of any canonical impediments and assuming that the cardinal is himself a priest (there have been lay cardinals but now all cardinals must be ordained a priest and bishop before they receive the red hat).

    If Francis the Merciful is succeeded by a clone, it would be a disaster for the Church.

    Given Pope Benedict’s frail condition I doubt that he would do anything that might invite retaliation by Francis the Merciful. Yes, most certlailnly you can write to him.

    Thank you for all of the support you have given me in the past.

  12. abyssum says:

    Dear christopherlawrence,

    It is entirely possible that those jurisdictional acts of Francis the Merciful that conform to Canon Law and are morally sound will be allowed to stand by his sucsessor.

  13. abyssum says:

    dear unwillingecumenist,

    Thank you. Pray for me that my health will permit me to carry on this fight for the Church !!!

  14. abyssum says:

    Dear Vera,

    Recently many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports.
    Claiming heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff, suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church? This is so because each Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility.
    So, before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate, one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly good and safe fruit of Infallibility. If he seems repeatedly to engage in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in matters of faith or morals. So to what do we look to discern the invalidity of such an election? His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question. The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See.
    His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis) which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from its norms. For example, Paragraph 76 states: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility. If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself.
    Only valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately (secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. While thousands of the Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid conclave, an utter nullity.
    What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregis particularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”). The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis thus concludes definitively with these words: “. . . knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.” (“. . . scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint excogitata.”) [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead. This similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an entirely different legal significance than scienter.]
    This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or willfully knowing, criminal intent. Thus, it clearly appears that Pope John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the Promulgation Clause, combined with: (1) the tenor of the whole document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76; (3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g., Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff. This is so because:

    1. Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside, including a television audience, before, during or even immediately after the Conclave;
    2. Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action” planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs; and,
    3. Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:
    each was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor, but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings.
    Quite apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts destructive of conclave validity occurred. Keeping in mind that Pope John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on “the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis. These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.: “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.”
    Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious non-compliant act which became an open and notorious invalidating violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”. While these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves, nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter, having recognized the offenses and having had some power or voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against them: “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55]
    No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real Pope is elected and adjudges them. Thus, those otherwise valid cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff. In contrast, the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action (even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ), is established not only by the word, “scienter,” in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must interpret the general rule as truly binding. Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is: “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.” (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.) In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations.
    Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of simony: “If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.” His Holiness made an exception for simony. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave.
    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 Plume
    Un ami des Papes

  15. I only noticed tonight on my 2nd reading (the first was when you posted it) that you asked for comments. I agree with as much of it as I can understand, and that being mostly that the actions, sayings and deliberate confusion of GB all indicate that he is not an infallible Pope at all. Looking around for reasons as to how this could be, you brought them all in for review – Benedict’s resignation, the Sankt Gallen Mafia throwing the election and above all that this tree is not bearing fruit remotely faithful to one holding and guarding the Tradition to be handed down. I had quite some time ago, almost a year now, when Universi Dominici Gregis was first brought up as a reason, read this posting by Dr. Edward Peters https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/28/francis-was-never-pope-call-me-unpersuaded/
    But upon reading it again, he seemed to skip over without much notice the points you made, in my mind, taking the idea as silly. If you haven’t read it, please do so and see if he has a valid point in there anywhere.
    God bless you, and I thank you again for being a spiritual life-line to so many of us orphan-like people out here. (Never orphaned!) vs

  16. This simple lucid substantive exposition of the current situation leaves me rejoicing. It is utterly unlike so many of the muddle-headed tangles produced by officious canon law junkies purporting to prove that the Argentinian is a validly elected pope; it appeals both to available evidence of violation of the pastoral constitution invoked and to the common sense — not the winding labyrinths of canonical casuistry — to make the case. God bless the author, and God bless you for posting it!!!

  17. christopherlawrence says:

    Your Excellency – Do you have any insight to offer on who certain jurisdictional acts of Pope Francis should be viewed, as not all of them can be viewed (as one commented mentioned on here re SSPX moves under Francis) in a fully negative light. Thank you!

  18. Sheepdog says:

    First, I wish there was a way to underline comments on here, but maybe you can enlarge the view on your computer so you can see it better. Great comments by all. We all need to share this. This includes social media. I need everyone to share it far and wide. People should do specific things. I am bringing light to people in higher power who support Benedict XVI and Bishop Gracida. We need to coordinate and get this going NOW. We need to make this a Priority, but not live live in a bubble like the cults do. For example, I have eliminated or will eliminate stupid trivial stuff that gets in the way of helping Bishop Gracida. Sorry, Faith and family come first and Bishop Gracida does. Too bad for the others because he needs my help. People are more worried about other’s opinions. Not me. I am going to take a conceal carry class so I can lawfully defend myself and others as required by civil and church law. I am going to do some travels in August and September. I will do what I can to help people and go to them, I am ready. I am going to play a bigger role with helping with boycotting Francis the merciful, but first I must continue to situate myself.

    ONTO THE TOPIC of this post and some tasks which I and others can take up.

    Excellency, you are right about refuting Sedevacantists. Thats a point we need to make clear time after time, especially to those who are confused. Should someone contact each Bishop of each diocese? If so who? How do we keep track of all this? Does someone keep a list of who has responded? What about bloggers like Father Jay FInelli? What about those on the fence like Father John Zulsdorf? I will share this with EWTN but maybe you can share it as your voice will carry more weight than mine. Layperson vs Bishop.

    More importantly, I can write a follow up letter to reply to Cardinal Burke, and Cardinal Sarah. Everyone, let me know by AUGUST 10th what you would like in the letters and I will send it. Please remind me. I do not have other Cardinals contact info at this time.

    Questions at this time:

    What if illegitimate Cardinals ordain Priests, is this valid?
    What if Francis resigns and a third Pope in his liking is elected?
    Can anyone try to reach Benedict and have him speak out? And if someone gets through the filters and he heads for the balcony to tell all, then what? Can I also write a follow up letter to him?

    Sorry this is long 😦 SHEEPDOG STANDS READY TO HELP BISHOP GRACIDA AND THE LAY PEOPLE HERE!!!!

  19. In the last few days, it has been scientifically proven, for the first time, that in 1958 an impostor was created to replace the real Sr. Lucia of Fatima. (see https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/).

    Now, tell me, how can any pope who has gone along with this affront to Our Lady of Fatima, the Mother of God, be accepted as true?

    Mary Beth

  20. Dan Davis says:

    Wonderful discussion here! Thank you, Bishop, for the forum.

    When you read Vatican 1, Session 4, Chapter 3, “On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff”, it is exceedingly clear that we have only two options:

    1) Obedience to the Roman Pontiff
    2) Sedevacantism, be it by “Imperfect Council” or other means.

    There is no third option. I encourage everybody to read that short chapter from Vatican I.

  21. If after 90 days, none of the Cardinals publicly reprove the Pope for his heretical denial of Christ’s teaching in John 19:11, it would be canonically valid to presume that the Sacred College is also to a man, heretical. There is no doctrine of the Church which holds that the College of Cardinals is immune from heresy or apostasy. Their right to elect the pope is merely positive, the right belongs by Divine Ordination to the Church of Rome (all its faithful, both clergy and laity, as history of the early Church proves), and is limited by an 8th century Synod of the Roman Church to the clergy. But even if no priest or deacon of that diocese would remain faithful, even if there were but three Catholics of that Church, they would have the authority before God to pronounce that Bergoglio has lost his office, is a public heretic, that the Sede is vacante and to elect a valid successor to the Pope. So the dire necessity of waiting upon the Cardinals is not so dire. If they remain silent during the next 90 days, they have tacitly retired their office to elect the Pope and the right returns by Divine Ordination to the faithful of the Church of Rome, a Church which enjoys in a special way the charism of indefectibility of the whole Church.

  22. Reading through the comments and I see that you believed that Vatican II was full of error, but that these things can be disregarded as having no consequences due to the alleged pastoral nature of the council. It is argued that the Council was “pastoral” and therefore not “dogmatic” – the two being allegedly incompatible. This claim, however, fails in (a) logic and (b) fact.
    (a) Logically it involves a straightforward category error for it is as absurd to oppose “pastoral” to “dogmatic” as to oppose “circular” to “yellow”. The incompatibility of the two qualities is entirely imaginary. “Pastoral” simply means “after the manner of a shepherd”. In Christian usage the metaphor of the shepherd representing the bishop or pope not only does not exclude the role of authoritative teaching but in fact primarily signifies that role, for the first duty of Christian pastors is to teach as the first duty of shepherds is to feed their sheep on wholesome pasture. There is therefore nothing un-pastoral about teaching religious truths infallibly. A “pastoral” council, if it teaches on faith and morals, is also doctrinal or dogmatic in character.

    (b) In plain fact two of the Council’s constitutions expressly describe themselves as “dogmatic” (viz. Lumen Gentium, the “dogmatic constitution on the Church” and Dei Verbum, the “dogmatic constitution on Divine Revelation”). So the claim that the Council gave no dogmatic teaching directly contradicts the Council itself. Moreover, Paul VI himself, expressly reaffirmed the fact that a pastoral role rather implies than excludes doctrinal teaching in his “motu proprio” Pastorale Munus of 30th November 1963 according to which “Christ Jesus linked the pastoral office to the duty of teaching…” (“Pastorale munus, cum quo Christus Iesus gravissima coniunxit officia docendi…”) – a statement which is entirely traditional.

    I invite you to read the following article on the subject of Vatican II and infallibility. Vatican II taught heresy, something the Catholic Church cannot do. There are logical consequences that follow and eventually one must conclude Sede Vacante.

    https://novusordowatch.org/vatican-ii-infallible-john-daly/

    God bless you and may God give you the courage to accept the truth of the sad state we are currently in.

  23. Quote: Bishop Gracidia:

    “It is illogical and therefore theologically moronic to declare that the Catholic papacy has been vacant since 1958 precisely because no Pope prior to Pope John Paul effectively legislated grounds for conclave invalidity that were binding on Holy Mother Church. Pope John Paul II understood and sympathized with the sentiments of sedevacantists, yet He knew that the sedevacantists were mistaken and had wrong-headed thinking. Therefore Pope John Paul II decreed and enacted a Constitution for Conclaves which finally “had teeth”. That is the reality which the letter from Un Ami des Papes recognizes. And, the Second Vatican Council was entirely valid when understood as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI explained its output. That is why both Karol Józef Wojtyła and Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger were recognized as such great gifts from God.”

    Oooh, Bishop,

    In an effort to give you all a crash course on some of the heretical teachings of the 2nd Vatican Council and not relying on potentially complicit “popes”, I have this point by point comparison of pre-Vatican II authority vs the teachings of Vatican II from the documents themselves. Please ask Our Lady to give you the protection of the Holy Ghost before you read it!

    http://procinctu.info/catholic/vatican-ii-condemned-side-by-side-commentary-with-catholic-teaching/

    After you read this, please read 2 Thessalonians 2. It is quite possible the Church may not be restored before Jesus has had enough.

    “When the Son of Man returns, will He, think you, find faith on earth?” Luke 18:8

    Mary Beth

  24. Quote: Bishop Gracidia:

    “Otherwise, it is most likely that we proceed to the Second Coming and to The Last Judgment, without a reigning Successor of Saint Peter as Chief of The Apostles. The Lord Jesus promised us The Most Holy Eucharist and therefore Holy Orders until The End: “. . . and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” [Matthew 28:20 (“R.S.V.”)] For those Sacraments to be administered validly does not necessarily require a living, reigning, Vicar of Christ.”

    We do indeed have the Sacraments and Holy Orders until the end – because the good priests who have admitted the chair is empty have continued ordaining priests and consecrating bishops with the unchanged pre-Vatican II rites.

    Please, come home to Holy Mother Church.

    Mary Beth

  25. Quote: Bishop Gracidia:
    “Pope John Paul II was acutely aware of the many masonic and related incursions into the life of Holy Mother Church and he was also aware of the grave, but, at that time, not invalidating, irregularities in previous Conclaves, and he consciously and intentionally wrote Universi Dominici Gregis with severe tests for validity should the cardinals do violence to the holy procedures and manipulate a conclave, any conclave, into a human political deliberation, thus effectuating something in the nature of a sacrilege, something His Holiness considered so bad that he “walled” it all around with the very real specter of invalidity. Pope John Paul II provided that the college of electors would do a conclave as an experience of The Holy Spirit, deliberating as group of holy men, or else, that College of Cardinals would do nothing, a nullity.”

    Bishop!

    JPII put a bandaid on the problem, while he FAILED to repair the errors of his predecessors by declaring them anti-popes and erasing their mistakes! Do you see how this makes him complicit? JPII let the Church down unforgivably by doing this. It is a tactic used specifically by Alta Vendita to make a show of actions that look like they are intent on preserving the true faith, while falling just a little too short of restoring complete dignity of the truth.

    Respectfully,

    Mary Beth

  26. bencjcarter,

    The only way #2 can be implemented is if people admit #1. Whatever misconceptions you may have about what sedevacantists hold to be true, it is genuinely just Catholics that believe the Seat is empty (Sede Vacante).

    I have asked Bishop Gracidia to go back further to the pre-Vatican II constitutions on the conclave, just in case it is true we have had anti-popes since 1958, but I don’t know if he accepted that suggestion.

    Here is an article written by a sedevacantist who is dedicating his life to the restoration of the true, unadultered faith that explains it very well:
    https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/

    May the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Sacred Heart of Jesus triumph!

    Mary Beth

  27. abyssum says:

    BRAVO,CATHERINE, WE MUST ALL ACT WITH COURAGE AND SHRUG OFF THE ATTACKS WE WILL SUFFER !!!!!!

  28. Many thanks for your response, Your Excellency. I would say that we have reasons to hope; I do not think the Second Coming, which will be the only possible solution if none of the cardinals act quickly enough, will happen until after a restoration of the Church occurs through the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady. Yet right now it appears that many of the orthodox cardinals and bishops still left in today’s corrupted hierarchy are simply waiting for divine intervention. I will certainly be sending this post to every priest and bishop I know; we’ll likely be dismissed as “schismatics”, but oh well, it needs to be done. —Catherine

  29. abyssum says:

    Catherine,

    Because His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, used the word, scienter, it does not seem that any principle of lenity obtains in the application of Universi Dominici Gregis. Therefore, it certainly appears that The Church cannot take comfort in Deus providebit or Supplet Ecclesia or any similar principle. Nor would it appear that The Church can try to make some distinction between “essentials” and “accidentals” because His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, specifically decreed that so much of the procedure and process is essential. It seems that the point of the article is that, notwithstanding the greatest difficulty in doing what is suggested, this may be (is very likely) the only path, the only way, available to avoid The Church devolving permanently into a society like the Orthodox Christians, a church without having a true central governance, with no chief apostle, ever again, yet nonetheless valid sacraments.

    This situation is the logical and probable consequence of the unrelenting insurgency against the true Church of Rome which has obviously occurred along the lines of the masonic Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita of the Carbonari, an evil plan exposed by Pope Pius IX, and condemned by both Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII, a plan based on the central theme of actively working to corrupt the hierarchy such that the masons would not need to install their own interloper as Pope because the corrupt hierarchy would do this for them. Pope John Paul II was acutely aware of the many masonic and related incursions into the life of Holy Mother Church and he was also aware of the grave, but not invalidating, irregularities in previous Conclaves, and he consciously and intentionally wrote Universi Dominici Gregis with severe tests for validity should the cardinals do violence to the holy procedures and manipulate a conclave, any conclave, into a human political deliberation, thus effectuating something in the nature of a sacrilege, something he considered so bad that he “walled” it all around with the very real specter of invalidity. Pope John Paul II provided that the college of electors would do a conclave as an experience of The Holy Spirit, deliberating as group of holy men, or else, that College of Cardinals would do nothing, a nullity. When the last valid cardinal under the age of 80 either dies or turns 80 years old, there is no way to get back, absent Divine intervention and a miracle, a very great miracle. While such a miracle may, in fact, occur, to presume on such a miracle is prideful and stupid, and likely quite disastrous. Let us pray that the good Cardinals wake up. Otherwise, it is most likely that we proceed to the Second Coming and to The Last Judgment, without a reigning Successor of Saint Peter as Chief of The Apostles. The Lord Jesus promised us The Most Holy Eucharist and therefore Holy Orders until The End: “. . . and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” [Matthew 28:20 (“R.S.V.”)] For those Sacraments to be administered validly does not necessarily require a living, reigning, Vicar of Christ.

    It is illogical and therefore theologically moronic to declare that the Catholic papacy has been vacant since 1958 precisely because no Pope prior to Pope John Paul effectively legislated grounds for conclave invalidity that were binding on Holy Mother Church. Pope John Paul II understood and sympathized with the sentiments of sedevacantists, yet He knew that the sedevacantists were mistaken and had wrong-headed thinking. Therefore Pope John Paul II decreed and enacted a Constitution for Conclaves which finally “had teeth”. That is the reality which the letter from Un Ami des Papes recognizes. And, the Second Vatican Council was entirely valid when understood as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI explained its output. That is why both Karol Józef Wojtyła and Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger were recognized as such great gifts from God.

  30. abyssum says:

    Bravo, bencjcarter, you have “hit the nail on the head”; we are running out of options and the race against time is not in our favor. The problem facing us is that the only canonically approved actions that can be taken is that which I have outlined in the above post. The delimma face the cardinals is that every day they grow older and once they reach the age of 80 they become powerless. The validly appointed cardinals must meet now and act to declare the 2013 election invalid and that act will create an interegnum during which someone appointed by the cardinals will handle necessary administrative acts until the special conclave meets to elect the next pope.
    Time is against us, once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches 80 there is no way that the reign of Francis the Merciful can be ended and the cardinals appointed by him will proceed to elect his clone, Kasper, Marx or Cupich !!!

    A.S. Has said:
    Pope Francis is the only one valid Pope nowadays. Even in the hypothesis, if his election should have aspects of invalidity, which no one can demonstrate convincingly and juridically because of the seal of the conclave, alone by the fact the entire college of Cardinals and all Catholic reigning Bishops and so the entire Church de facto recognize him as the true Pope, an eventual invalid election will be validated in the root (sanatio in radice). This is the most common and sane tradition of the Church, as it was shown in the practice during 2000 years.

    As to the former Pope Benedict XVI, he publicly said before the Cardinals in the context of his abdication, that he will recognize the Pope who will be elected and submit himself to him as to the true Pontiff of the Church. And the former Pope Benedict XVI in several occasions by words and by deeds publicly recognized Pope Francis as the true reigning Pope.

    I add a quotation regarding the above mentioned theme from Prof. Roberto de Mattei, a known historian and absolutely orthodox person: “Regarding the doubts, then, about the election of Pope Francis, Professor Geraldina Boni [Geraldina Boni, Sopra una rinuncia. La decisione di papa Benedetto XVI e il diritto, Bologna 2015], remembers that Canonists have always taught that the peaceful “universalis ecclesiae adhaesio” (universal ecclesial acceptance) is a sign and infallible effect of a valid election and legitimate papacy, and the adhesion or acceptance of Pope Francis by the people of God has not yet been doubted by any of the cardinals who participated in the Conclave. The acceptance of a Pope by the universal Church is an infallible sign of his legitimacy, and heals at the root every defect of the papal election (for example, illegal machinations, conspiracies, et cetera). This is also a consequence of visible character of the Church and of the Papacy”.

    To which I would reply:

    The Professor quoted is quite mistaken in the current age and in the context of the canonical document in question. Since Pope John Paul II decreed Universi Dominici Gregis, no such theory of lenity or mystical absolution obtains. The Church cannot take comfort in “universalis ecclesiae adhaesio” or Deus providebit or Supplet Ecclesia or any similar principle. [In fact, the apparently invalid conclave of March 2013 and doubts about its “fruit” have persisted widely. The fact that the hierarchical bureaucracy has not challenged this relates more to clerical adherence to principles of Macchiavelli than to the Word of God. Books and many articles have been written suchwise that the evidence of invalidity it widely available throughout the World.] Nor would it appear that The Church can try to make some distinction between “essentials” and “accidentals” because His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, specifically decreed that so much of the procedure and process is certainly essential. It seems that the point of the article is that, notwithstanding the greatest difficulty in doing what is suggested, this private (secret) action by good Cardianls may be (is very likely) the only path, the only way, available to avoid The Church devolving permanently into a society like the Orthodox Christians, a church without having a true central governance, with no chief apostle, ever again, yet nonetheless valid sacraments. (The good and holy Bishop Athanasius Schneider should reflect on the problem of presumption, i.e., “presuming on a miracle” to counteract a situation precisely decreed by by a Pope, a very great Pope indeed.)

    This situation is the logical and probable consequence of the unrelenting insurgency against the true Church of Rome which has obviously occurred along the lines of the masonic Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita of the Carbonari, an evil plan exposed by Pope Pius IX, and condemned by both Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII, a plan based on the central theme of actively working to corrupt the hierarchy such that the masons would not need to install their own interloper as Pope because the corrupt hierarchy would do this for them. Pope John Paul II was acutely aware of the many masonic and related incursions into the life of Holy Mother Church and he was also aware of the grave, but, at that time, not invalidating, irregularities in previous Conclaves, and he consciously and intentionally wrote Universi Dominici Gregis with severe tests for validity should the cardinals do violence to the holy procedures and manipulate a conclave, any conclave, into a human political deliberation, thus effectuating something in the nature of a sacrilege, something His Holiness considered so bad that he “walled” it all around with the very real specter of invalidity. Pope John Paul II provided that the college of electors would do a conclave as an experience of The Holy Spirit, deliberating as group of holy men, or else, that College of Cardinals would do nothing, a nullity. When the last valid cardinal under the age of 80 either dies or turns 80 years old, there is likely no way to get back, absent Divine intervention and a miracle, a very great miracle. While such a miracle may, in fact, occur, to presume on such a miracle is prideful and stupid, and likely quite disastrous. Let us pray that the good Cardinals wake up. Otherwise, it is most likely that we proceed to the Second Coming and to The Last Judgment, without a reigning Successor of Saint Peter as Chief of The Apostles. The Lord Jesus promised us The Most Holy Eucharist and therefore Holy Orders until The End: “. . . and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” [Matthew 28:20 (“R.S.V.”)] For those Sacraments to be administered validly does not necessarily require a living, reigning, Vicar of Christ.

  31. As one studying canon law, I feel that the author’s concerns are truly legitimate and must not be easily dismissed. I do believe that we have reasons for grave concern, and that an investigation regarding the validity of the 2013 conclave needs to be done. However, one cannot help but wonder: what if nothing is done? What if the orthodox Cardinals declare that Pope Francis has lost his office for obstinately persevering in manifest heresy and elect a new Pope in the next conclave, but no one ever thinks to examine the validity of Francis’s election, implicitly accepting all his juridic acts as valid? Yes, many of his juridic acts were imprudent, and many of documents he has written are questionable, but we must still draw the distinction between declaring something null and revoking the decision (which pre-supposes the validity of the act). If indeed nothing is ever done, must we presume that Francis was validly elected, or must we regard his juridic acts as presumably valid because of supplied jurisdiction? After all, I don’t see anything which could be used as evidence against the possibility of “common error” in this case. —Catherine

  32. bencjcarter says:

    Bergoglio is already a heretic one hundred times over, but the starkness of this change to the Catechism makes it plain even to those (like myself) who have held on to the “He is the Pope but must be resisted” line that this stance cannot for any or for much longer be sustained.

    There are several options:

    1. Sedevacantism. I for one will not be going down that path. Not yet.
    2. The position of Bishop Gracida, who has now publicly called for the provisions of ‘Universi Dominici Gregis’ to be applied to what he believes to be Bergoglio’s invalid election.
    3. Other option(s) not yet identified.

    Continuing with the simple ‘Recognise but Resist’ stance of the Remnant and others appears now to be a busted flush.

  33. abyssum says:

    sandorbalogh,
    It does no good to beat the dead horse of Francis the Merciful’s history in Argentina, nor to cite the many prophecies of latter day prophets. The time for action is now before the last valid cardinal reaches the age of 80. Here is a link to the post. https://wp.me/px5Zw-95e Send it to every priest and bishop you know.

  34. abyssum says:

    laicosunidosencristo,
    It does not good to lament the doctrinal heresies of Francis the Merciful: he must be removed from the Chair of Peter and the only way for men to do that is outlined sin this post.
    Here is a link to this post: https://wp.me/px5Zw-95e
    send it to every priest and bishop you know.
    +Rene Henry Gracida

  35. abyssum says:

    hellenback7,
    The only hope now for human intervention lies with the few cardinals who were appointed by Popes Saint John-Paul II and Benedict XVI. No amount of hand wringing and wailing about heresy will keep the institutional Church (Peter’s Barque) from being destroyed on the rocks of the Bergolian Revolution. Only action will prevent the impending disaster. The valid cardinals must act while there are still some of them below the age of 80. Once the last one celebrates his 80th birthday it will be humanely impossible to avoid the shipwreck. This is the link to my post: https://wp.me/px5Zw-95e
    Send it to every priest and bishop you know.
    +Rene Henry Gracida

  36. “I am almost certain that bishops around the world would withdraw their allegiance to Rome and we would a church that would look just like fragmented protestantism. We would then be even further from the unity that our Our Lord Jesus Christ asked for.” Bishop Gracida

    Unity can only be achieved by calling all back to Holy Mother Church – as has always been taught before Vatican II. It is the only way – otherwise everything is compromised. There is, indeed, no salvation outside the Catholic Church. The adherers of Vatican II have already splintered off by erroneously falling for Vatican II. It was the creation of a false, counterfeit church. The whole purpose of Vatican II was the Protestantization of the Catholic Church! It is what Scripture called the Great Apostacy – undeniably now.

  37. I dare say, you have an incredible opportunity to “save the Church” by getting as many clergy as possible to agree we are indeed in a state of Sede Vacante. Requiring immediately they abjure the errors of Vatican II, including renouncing their false ordinations and consecrations as bishops, then being prepared for them to be conditionally re-ordained (or re-consecrated) by a valid Bishop (ordained and consecrated with pre-Vatican II rites). I gave you the name and number of one already.

    Pray the Rosary and beg Our Lady, in this month of the Immaculate Heart, for the ability to face all truth. Her Immaculate Heart will triumph, but she needs those soldiers wearing the Scapular and praying the Rosary to help!

    ANYTHING SHORT OF THIS IS A WASTE OF TIME.

    By the way – I struggle every time I try to leave a comment, like something is broken and preventing me from posting.

    Maybe put your email address up encouraging people to email if they have trouble commenting?

    God bless you!

    Mary Beth

  38. abyssum says:

    Mary Beth,

    Thank you for your comment.
    I agree that we must not lose sight of the errors of the Second Vatican Council (which was a pastoral council and not a dogmatic council) as we struggle to find our way out of the present crisis in the Church. We have had two Synods of Bishops so far under Francis the Merciful and they produced error worse than Vatican II. We are racing against the clock. The number of validly appointed cardinals who are below the age of 80 (above which they are ineligible to vote in a conclave to elect a pope} increases almost every month. Soon we will have a College of Cardinals all of whom will have been appointed by Francis the Merciful. It does not take much imagination to think that the Church may next have Cardinal Cupich or Cardinal Kasper as its next pope. What a disaster that would be. I am almost certain that bishops around the world would withdraw their allegiance to Rome and we would a church that would look just like fragmented protestantism. We would then be even further from the unity that our Our Lord Jesus Christ asked for. Here is the link to the Open Letter Post, https://wp.me/px5Zw-95e, I urge you to send it to everyone you know and to your bishop.
    Blessings,
    +Rene Henry Gracida

  39. abyssum says:

    Thank you, Audrey, for this comment. Yes, ultimately the solution for our present crisis in the Church will come from God, but absent the Second Coming the solution must be the work of men and women with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and hence your urging daily prayer is exactly what everyone must do, clergy and laity, everyone !!! Here is the link, https://wp.me/px5Zw-95e, to the Letter post; I urge you to send the link to everyone you know, especially priests and bishops.
    +Rene Henry Gracida

  40. gellerman55 says:

    We must pray daily that the Church gets through this as it got through past crises. May the Holy Spirit continue to flow through the faithful and may Bishop Gracida continue to speak the truth to inspire those who can help to correct the egregious situation we are now in.

  41. Bishop, you don’t need to approve my messages for public viewing.

    I do really encourage you, though, to look at the pre-Vatican II conclave laws (1917 Canon) and the last constitution, as I said before. Also, I would encourage you to talk with some very good Bishops that already know we are in Sede Vacante and are more than aware of all the teachings about how to deal with the crisis you address in this post – the only difference is they have known we have been in a state of Sede Vacante since 1958.

    I can’t imagine how difficult it would be to try to come to terms with the possibility that the Second Vatican Council was an invalid council after all these years in the service of God, but can you honestly look at the current state – not just o the Church – but the world and not associate it with mistakes of the council?

    You may already be aware of these Bishops. Bishop Mark Pivarunas is the Superior General of the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (cmri.org). This order is not in schism and have not been excommunicated – they simply continued practicing the faith without accepting the changes of Vatican II because they believe the last true pope was Pope Pius XII. He can be reached at (402) 571-4404.

    God bless you, Bishop. May Our Lady continue to lead you!

    Mary Beth

  42. Bishop! Look at the constitutions prior to Paul VI for comparison, then, please! Don’t stop with Bergoglio! Every Cardinal that participated in all the conclaves since 1958 need to be called on the carpet! Especially for John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII and Benedict XVI. The Masons were also very happy when Roncalli made it to the throne…

  43. Terri Bradley says:

    Thank you your Excellency for being one of the only voices of reason in the entire Catholic world! It would be nice if we could clone thousands of you!

  44. sandorbalogh says:

    why did this Friend of Popes wait five years? To the “scienter’ (in the good sense) cardinals and theologians thise was obvious years ago, and the “scienters” knew he was a heretic in Argentina, but most important, it was obvious to this writer in Feb 2013 that Benedict’s resignation was invalid, so they should have refused to participate in the conclave. Now a new election would only confuse the situation, and the few cardinals how could force Francis out of the chair? In five years he has so fortified his position that a few cardinals now would need an extraordinary miracle to succeed.More likely they just more confuse a confused the situation
    It is more likely that Paul’s prophecy in 2 Tess. is coming true and we are at the end time, and the cardinals and bishops should spend their energy to warn the faithful about Francis as the False Prophet and the coming of the Antichrist and the coming persecution and the Second Coming. This also more in line with the several private revolution, including Malachi’s about the final times and the last pope.
    S. B.

  45. BiffMcBuff says:

    Does this mean too that Pope Francis’s acts in favor of SSPX (standing explicit jurisdiction for Sacramental confession, and matrimony) are invalid? Or is it more indicative of the Crisis/State of Necessity as always claimed by SSPX such that either way the priests benefit from a supplied jurisdiction?

  46. camroyer says:

    Your leadership, dear Bishop, and the clarity you bring to the present crisis are an incredible consolation to me, as I’m sure they are to others as well.

    May God bless you much for your courage and bless us with many more bishops to have the same courage in leading the way.

  47. Bishop Gracida has been a majority of one on many occasions.

    Just one example: He was the only bishop, and still is, to instruct the police that it is a mortal sin to remove obstacles that are preventing abortions. (Namely, pro-life rescuers.)

  48. The responsibility for taking the action outlined above rests solely with the silent prelates who hadn’t the spiritual strength to support the Dubia Cardinals twenty months ago when the promise of a public formal correction was made but reneged upon. If they continue to ignore their duty to Christ by their calling, then they too must be labelled Apostates & publicly named, excommunicated & defrocked. It will certainly leave a small retinue of Cardinals to convene a council for the necessary denouncement & the calling of a new conclave to elect a truly Catholic Pope in total commitment to God & His sheepfold. No more time wasting – do your duty NOW.

  49. It is very simple simple Bergoglio is not Pope because he was already a schismatic apostate and a manifest and stubborn heretic in Argentina.
    Every moment God himself sends us more and more proofs that this man does not have the Catholic faith but that he is a perverse usurper who promotes a demonic doctrine.
    http://4christum.blogspot.com/2018/07/bergoglio-protected-in-uca-homosexual.html

  50. hellenback7 says:

    With only two Cardinals remaining of the four who submitted the Dubia, it would seem to now be up to those who supported their honest questions/doubts.

    I would like to think this proposal has been submitted to Cardinals Burke and Brandmuller.

    Although Cardinal Brandmuller is beyond voting age, perhaps he could now have some influence on the Cardinals who supported the dubia with words but refrained from any action.
    It is long past the time of giving Francis the benefit of the doubt as he has removed any and all doubt himself about hus support for heterodox position re important and longstanding doctrine.

Comments are closed.