Wednesday, November 21, 2018
Why is Pope Francis Promoting Intrinsic Evil & does he believe God wills Evil?
Why is the unscholarly Pope Francis, who thinks a third rate thinkers such as the confused and almost unreadable Postmodernist Michael de Certeau is “the greatest theologian for today,” promoting intrinsically evil acts?
One possibility is because he was “confused and mislead” into thinking Amoris Leatitia is “Thomist” and orthodox by the heretical scholar Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez and the “great theologian” Cardinal Christoph Schonborn.
Latin American Catholic philosopher Carlos A. Casanova shows that dissenter Tony Mifsud and Archbishop Fernandez both of whom “irrationally” misuse Thomism are bedfellows following the lead of Fr. Bernard Haring in dissent from Catholic moral doctrine:
“Mifsud… [i]n p.73 he quotes Bernard Haring holding that the fruit of the II Vatican Council was the spirit of dissent among theologians towards the “dictates of the official Church.”
“… Victor Manuel Fernandez’s concrete reasoning is different… [b]ut the goal is very similar to Mifsud’s, to open the way for the plausibility of “righteous” (or at least not-guilty) violations of God’s law.”
“… What Fernandez means is that the lady of his example does not will what is just, because that does not conform her concrete situation… As one can see in pp. 158 and 160 of his paper, he applies this principle to homosexuals and to spouses who “need” to use the condom.”
(Aemaet, “Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor as Exposition of ‘Natural Law’ Contrasted with Their Irrational Rejection,” Carlos A. Casanova, 2018)
Schonborn didn’t explain to unscholarly Francis that the heretical Fr. Haring’s theology of the denial of intrinsically evil acts which was used by the heretical Fernandez as a ghostwriter of Amoris Laetitia (AL) would destroy all Catholic moral doctrine as it attempted to justify the “violation of God’s law” by promoting “persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion” with the unavoidable logic of unrepentant homosexuals eventually receiving the Eucharist.
Dubia Cardinal Brandmuller says that those who promote intrinsically evil acts are heretics:
“Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic.”(lifesitenews.com, “Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who opens Communion to adulterers ‘some a heretic and promotes schism,'” December 23, 2016)
An example of what appears to have happened to Francis in his promoting of heresy can be found in history.
Pope Francis is the new Pope Horonius.
The unscholarly Pope Honorius was “confused and mislead” into becoming a material heretic who promoted the Monothelitist heresy. He was condemned by a general council and Pope St. Agatho and Pope St. Leo II.
The Catholic Encyclopedia said of Honorius that he “was not a profound theologian, and allowed himself to be confused and mislead.”(Edward Feser.blogspot, “Denial flows into the Tiber,” December 18, 2016)
Theologian Tracey Rowland wrote that Francis before the papacy said “I can’t imagine anything more boring than Fundamental Theology.” She quotes Ross Douthat saying:
“Francis is clearly a less systematic thinker than… his predecessors” to the papacy. (Catholic Theology, page 192)
In other words, Francis is not a profound theologian and often a “confused” thinker.
It was reported that the not very systematic thinker Francis during his visit to Colombia said:
“Amoris Laetitia is Thomist, the morality of the great Thomas. You can speak of it with a great theologian, one of the best today and one of the most mature, Cardinal Schönborn. .”(National Catholic Register, “Pope to Jesuits: Help Critics of Amoris Leatitia to See Its Morality Is Thomist,” September 28, 2017)
In a interview, with the Jesuit magazine America, Schonborn said “one who is in an objective situation of sin can receive the help of the sacraments.”
Schonborn in the interview appears to deny that the truths of the Decalogue of Revelation are eternal or objective:
“The complexity of family situations, which goes far beyond what was customary in our Western societies even a few decades ago, has made it necessary to look in a more nuanced way at the complexity of these situations. To a greater degree than in the past, the objective situation of a person does not tell us everything about that person in relation to God and in relation to the church. This evolution compels us urgently to rethink what we meant when we spoke of objective situations of sin. And this implicitly entails a homogeneous evolution in the understanding and expression of the doctrine.“(America, “Cardinal Christoph Schonborn on the demands and joys of love,” August 15-22, 2016)
This is not Thomist, but appears to be soft historicism which comes from Hegel.
Hegelian historicism doesn’t believe with Thomism that truth is objective and eternal.
Schonborn, in his quote above, appears to believe that historical evolution changes the meaning of truth which is anti-Thomist.
The unscholarly Francis bases his statement that “Amoris Leatitia is Thomist” on Schonborn’s authority as “a great theologian.”
Unfortunately for Francis, Schonborn is misrepresenting the truth about Aquinas’s teachings and Amoris Leatitia is not Thomist.
Thomist scholar Fr. Basil Cole OP said that Schonborn’s theology and Amoris Leatitia contradicts Thomism:
“Another tangle one can encounter is when quoting Aquinas piecemeal or without full advertence to his theological project. St. Thomas was nothing if not a complete and consistent thinker. To pick and choose his statements without considering their context and relation to his other relevant insights would be about as disastrous as proof-texting Sacred Scripture.”
“One might suppose that a situationist ethic is supported by Aquinas when he states, “In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all. […] The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail” (ST I-II, q. 94, a. 4; quoted in Amoris Laetitia n. 304). Isolated from Aquinas’s other statements, it could seem as if the doctor of the Church is saying that no moral rule is absolute, but that discernment is needed in each and every situation to know whether or not a general moral principle applies in a particular situation. However, this is not authentic Thomism.”
“Situation ethics contradicts Aquinas’s firm affirmation that there are some moral norms that always hold for everyone: these are the precepts of the Decalogue (T I-94, q.100, a.8)… Aquinas’s teaching is clear: a person should not receive Holy Communion or absolution from sin who does not intend to change his life and forsake public sin… (ST I-94, q.43, a.1).”(National Catholic Register, “Is ‘Amoris Laetitia’ Really Thomistic?,” December 16, 2016)
The Filial Correction give similar evidence to show how and why Pope Francis’s situation ethics is spreading heresy.
So far, all the Filial Correction attackers, the Pope’s inner circle and supporters who are defending Amoris Laetitia, it appears, are not Thomist, but soft Hegelian historicists who claim there is no objective/eternal morality or discipline.
Francis supporter theologian Giuseppe Lorizio of the Pontifical Lateran University mocked the Correction statement of “eternal discipline” in the area of the Eucharist.
He appears to have forgotten that St. Paul said you can’t receive the Eucharist in a state of moral sin such as having sexual relations in an adulterous relationship.
Lorizio claims the discipline came only after the Council of Trent.(Catholic Conclave, “Anti-Papal manipulation by enemies of the Pope and the Gospel,” September 27, 2017)
Gay activist Michael Sean Winters in his attack on the Correction let the Hegelian historicism cat out of the bag.
He went so far as to attack Fr. James Martin defender Archbishop Charles Chaput for daring to criticize soft Hegelian Fr. Bernard Haring. (National Catholic Reporter, “‘Correction’ of Francis reveals critics don’t come in good faith,” September 27, 2017)
Winters pointed to the source of their problem with the Correction:
Winters, Lorizio, Schonborn and, it appears, Pope Francis don’t believe in objective morality and promote allowing intrincically evil acts which Haring brought into the Church following the Second Vatican Council.
Schonborn following in the footsteps of Haring (who Francis praised), it appears, in a America magazine interview is saying that Amoris Laetitia says that God wills evil:
“In his great experience of accompanying people spiritually, when the Holy Father speaks of “objective situations of sin,” he does not stop short at the kinds of cases that are specified in No. 84 of ‘The Family in the Modern World.’ He refers in a broader way to “certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage. Every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience” while “recognizing the influence of concrete factors” (No. 303).
“The conscience plays a fundamental role.”
Conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while not yet fully the objective ideal (No. 303).”(America, “Cardinal Christoph Schonborn on the demands and joys of love,” August 15-22, 2016)
What is Schonborn saying?
World-renown philosopher, founding Rector of the International Academy of Philosopher and friend of Pope John Paul II, Josef Seifert in a new paper on Amoris Laetitia explains what Schonborn is saying:
“AL says that we can know with ‘a certain moral security’ that God himself asks us to commit intrinsically wrong acts such as adultery…”
“If only one case of an intrinsically immoral act can be permitted and even willed by God, must this not apply to all acts considered ‘intrinsically wrong’?” (“Does pure logic threaten to destroy the entire moral doctrine of the Catholic Church?,” August 5, 2017)
In simple words the friend of John Paul II and renown philosopher says:
Pope Francis’s Amoris Leatitia says God wills evil.
The philosopher’s paper says:
“Let us read the decisive text (AL 303), which is being applied by Pope Francis to the case of adulterous or ‘irregular couples’… :
‘Yet conscience can do more… the most generous response which can be given to God (Relations Finalise 2015, 85) and come to see with a certain moral security that God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal (AL 303).'”
Again, in simple words, Amoris Laetitia says God wills intrinsically evil acts which brings us to Haring’s influence on the current Pope.
Fr. Edmundus Waldstein, O. Cist., at sancrucensis.wordpress.com, gives an overview of why Francis praised dissenter Haring and why Amoris Laetitia promotes allowing intrinsically evil acts:
“In a discussion with the General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, the Holy Father praised Fr. Bernard Haring for having helped overcome a decadent scholastic moral theology that had been fixated on negative commandments, and opened up a way for moral theology to flourish. Now, Haring’s moral theology is a great example of what it might mean to begin processes as opposed to occupying spaces.” (Dubia and Initiating Processes, December 7, 2016, sancrucensis.wordpress.com)
Even Amoris Laetitia supporter Jeff Mirus in a March 7, 2017 article for Catholic Culture.com said anyone who would praise Haring “as one of the first to give Catholic moral theology new life in the twentieth century must be ignorant, confused, or subversive.”
In the beginning of the post, titled “Pope Francis and Bernard Haring: The literally infernal cheek of dissent,” Mirus said:
“Pope Francis praised…Fr. Bernard Haring, for being one of the first to try to revive an ailing moral theology following the Second Vatican Council.”
The article presented some of the moral theologian’s dissenting heretical teachings:
“In his 1973 book Medical Ethics Haring defended sterilization, contraception and artificial insemination…According to Haring, under difficult circumstances, we may engage in a process of discernment which leads to the commission of intrinsically evil acts.”
The Kasper proposal agenda which became Amoris Laetitia is in significant segments about allowing intrinsically evil acts such as adultery and implicitly homosexuality. Fr. Z said at his website on April 16, 2016:
“‘Homosexuality’ was the bigger issue with the Kasperites… This is still the Kasperite strategy.”
The Kasper agenda and Amoris Laetitia’s unavoidable logic is:
It follows that if unrepentant adulterers can receive Holy Communion, then unrepentant homosexuals can receive the Eucharist, too.
The bigger agenda of Cardinal Kasper, Schonborn and Haring (besides allowing intrinsically evil acts), which Francis probably doesn’t understand, is a Hegelian philosophic idealistic subjective metaphysics of historical becoming which denies the eternal and/or objective truths of the Classical Greek/Thomistic metaphysics of being.
Waldstein, O. Cist., explains:
“This is a soft version of certain strands of modern historicism, indebted to Hegel. Having abandoned nature, and an objective teleological order, Hegel and some of his followers give to history a role analogous to that played by nature in classical philosophy…. Haring is proposing something similar for the life of the Church.”
“I call this sort of historicism “soft” since its proponents would not all be willing to affirm the dark core of Hegel’s account of the good. But by adopting historicist terms they tend to draw conclusions that imply the basically subjectivist, modern account of the good, and the account of freedom that follows from it. Thomas Stark has shown how these problems play out in the theology of Cardinal Kasper.” [https://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2016/12/07/dubia-and-initiating-processes/#more-5361]
Those who promote relativistic historicism promote the killing of objective Thomism.
The Thomistic philosophy of being or objective truth and Revelation is a basis of all Catholic infallible doctrinal and moral teachings as well as the basis of Western Civilization and offshoots of it such as charity, objective universal human rights and science.
Thomas Woods in the book “How the Catholic Church Build Western Civilization” explains in detail why and how the Church and Thomistic philosophy alone guarantee sound objective moral teachings and a civilization that brings about charity, human rights and science.
If intrinsically evil acts are allowed through a denial of objective truth and objective Revelation to become the norm in our culture, then not only does Catholic doctrinal and moral teachings collapse, but Western Civilization, also, collapses.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
TWELVE 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