“Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants because he is “free from disordered attachments [quoting Bergoglio].” Our Church has indeed entered a new phase: with the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture” Father Thomas Rosica, S.J.

The Pope Who Would Destroy the Church

Written by  Christopher A. Ferrara

At this point in the ever-worsening Bergoglian Debacle, Pope Bergoglio would appear to have no remaining staunch defenders in the neo-Catholic establishment, save a couple of unhinged, vituperative outliers with a penchant for obscene rantingboth of whom finally had to be shown the door by EWTN’s National Catholic Register.   This is a papacy only a nutter can continue to defend as soundly orthodox.

The sense of the now almost unanimous non-traditionalist constituency opposing the madness of this Pope is ably summed up by  Dr. Douglas Farrow, a theology professor at McGill University, writing for Catholic World Reportconcerning what he calls “the troubling Bergoglio pontificate”:

The critics are right that the revolution is wrong. This is not reform; it is not even conversion. It is conquestIf it is not stopped, the gates of Hades will prevail against the Church, which will die out everywhere just as it is dying out in the lands of the revolutionaries themselves. We must appeal to Heaven to stop it and be prepared to help stop it, confident in our Lord’s promise that those gates shall not prevail and that his Church will not fail.

One could not find a harsher assessment at a sedevacantist website, yet it appears on the pages of a resolutely “mainstream” publication that could never be accused of the dreaded “radical traditionalism.”

Farrow’s image of conquest is quite striking.  Indeed, we have a Pope who seems bent on conquering the Church in order to level it to the ground and rebuild it according to his own dystopian “dream” of what she should be, which represents the distilled essence of a degenerate neo-Modernist Jesuitism combined with the cunning maneuvers of Argentine-style power politics. Recall Bergoglio’s own statement of intent in Evangelii Gaudium (EG), a sprawling 288-paragraph personal manifesto unlike anything in the history of the papacy:

I dream of a “missionary option”, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation. 

That Bergoglio sees an opposition between his “dream” and the Church’s self-preservation evinces more than the evident hubris. As he told his friend Eugenio Scalfari during that infamous interview with La Repubblica, shortly before EG appeared, not nearly enough has been done to remake the Church since Vatican II: “The council fathers knew that being open to modern culture meant religious ecumenism and dialogue with non-believers. But afterwards very little was done in that direction. I have the humility and ambition to want to do something.”  It seems we are dealing with something of a maniac who, having somehow ascended to the Chair of Peter, poses an unprecedented clear and present danger to the Faith. 

The furious activity of this Pope, who seems bent on a conquest of the Church which, were it not stopped, would indeed mean, just as Farrow says, that the gates of Hell had prevailed against her and that she would die out everywhere, brings to mind that famous citation from the works of Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), Doctor of the Church, in his massive compendium Controversies of the Christian Faith.  In Book II of his volume On the Sovereign Pontiff, Bellarmine addresses various objections to the power of the papacy including the following:

It is lawful for anyone to kill a Pontiff, if he invades any territory unjustly: for that reason, it will be much more lawful for kings or a Council to depose a Pontiff, if he should disturb a commonwealth, or endeavor to slay souls by his example.

To which Bellarmine responds as follows:

I respond firstly by denying the consequent, because no authority is required to resist an invader and defend oneself, nor is it necessary that the one who is invaded should be a judge and superior of the one who invades; rather, authority is required to judge and punish. Therefore, just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so is it lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more if he should endeavor to destroy the Church. I say, it is lawful to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and by blocking him, lest he should carry out his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior. See Cajetan on this matter, and John de Turrecremata.

[Cfr. Controversies of the Christian Faith, trans. Ryan Grant (Mediatrix Press: 2015), p. 303. Cfr. also, Controversies of the Christian Faith, trans. Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. (Keep the Faith: 2016), Third General Controversy on the Sovereign Pontiff, Book II, p. 835]

Note an aspect of Bellarmine’s judgment often overlooked: that resistance to a wayward Roman pontiff who attacks the Church is not a matter of usurping authority but rather one of simple self-defence. Note also that Bellarmine does not regard as impossible the prospect of a Pope who would “endeavour to destroy the Church.” He says, rather, that no authority would be needed to defend souls or the Church against such a Pope.  Quite the contrary, one would have a duty to resist such a Pope and the failure to resist him could would be culpable as what Saint Thomas calls “indiscreet obedience” to a superior, meaning obedience to any command that is “contrary to God or to the rule they [religious] profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.” [Cfr. Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 104, art. 5]. 

Implicit in these judgments is the truth that no one on earth, not even a Pope, is an absolute dictator whose will is law merely by the fact of his having willed it. That is precisely the point Benedict XVI made at the very outset of his mysteriously truncated pontificate:

The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism.  [Cfr. Homily for Mass for Possession of the Chair of the Bishop of Rome, May 7, 2005]

Bellarmine’s judgment is oft-cited in this unparalleled epoch, perhaps worse even than that of the Arian crisis, in which resistance to papal malfeasance has become practically obligatory if one wishes to preserve intact the faith of our fathers. But with advent of Bergoglio and “Bergoglianism,” as Antonio Socci calls it, we are confronted for the first time in 2,000 years with a realization of Bellarmine’s hypothetical Pope who endeavors to destroy the Church—a Pope who openly declares that the Church’s “self-preservation” is of less concern to him than his maniacal dream of “transforming everything.”

The destructive ecclesial transformation Bergoglio envisions includes the unheard-of notion of a “synodal Church” along the lines of schism-ridden Orthodoxy that would literally replace the Church that Christ founded.  In his address on the 50th anniversary of Paul VI’s disastrous invention of a “universal Synod” periodically meeting in Rome, Bergoglio spoke of a “commitment to build a synodal Church,” declaring: “I am persuaded that in a synodal Church, greater light can be shed on the exercise of the Petrine primacy.”

Upon this synod Bergoglio will build his church, and the gates of hell would prevail against it were he the absolute monarch he seems to think he is.  And what is this “synodal Church” if not merely an elaborately contrived fig leaf to hide the naked exercise of Bergoglio’s will, as we have seen with one manipulated Synod after another?

The just-concluded synodal sham “On Young People, the Faith and Vocational Discernment” culminated in an absurdly verbose Final Document of some 25,000 words, pre-written by Bergoglio’s handpicked drafting committee and  laced with subjects the Synod Fathers never discussed, including “discernment” [i.e., excusing adultery and offering Holy Communion while the offender thinks it over], “sexual orientation” and the very “synodality” by which Bergoglio seeks to impose his will.  The document was provided only in Italian on the Synod’s final day and was translated orally only at the moment of hurried paragraph-by-paragraph voting by the prelates in the hall—no amendments allowed!—most of whom were unable to read or speak Italian much less ponder the mountain of verbiage they were voting on.

In an interview with Edward Pentin, Bishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney politely let it be known that the synod was a manipulated joke of a proceeding: “Yes, it [the Final Document] was read so fast the translators struggled to keep up, and the fathers could not take notes in their own language. So, we were not always sure what we were being asked to vote Yes or No to.”   Regarding the insertion of “synodality”—meaning the instrument of Bergoglio’s will—into the Final Document, Fisher offered this devastating assessment:  “Well, it wasn’t in the working document, it wasn’t in the general assembly discussions, it wasn’t in the language-group discussions, in wasn’t in the reports from the small groups — it just appeared, as if from nowhere, in the draft final document.” 

As for the widely reported systematic exclusion of tradition-minded young people from the synodal and pre-synodal proceedings, Fisher had this to say:

But one of the most international of the synod fathers observed that there seemed to be no or few young people of a more “classical disposition” (his words) present to speak for that point of view and that this made the young auditors not entirely representative of their generation….

No, I don’t think it was just the more traditionally minded who were shut down: We all were. The fact was that after our initial short speeches, it was almost impossible for bishops to get a hearing again in the general assembly….

And then voting on it in a matter of minutes, and under terrible pressure of time, with no opportunity for further amendments. To me, that’s not the way to make doctrine.

But it is the way for Bergoglio to “make doctrine” while claiming he is merely implementing the “decisions of the Synod,” shamelessly depicted as an oracle of “the Spirit.” Hence Bergoglio’s promulgation of Episcopalis Communio(EC), which formalizes the operations of his sham synods of his sham synods as a “process [that] not only has its point of departure but also its point of arrival in the People of God, upon whom the gifts of grace bestowed by the Holy Spirit through the gathering of Bishops in Assembly must be poured out.” 

Under the mechanism created by EC, Bergoglio will be able to rubber-stamp the outcomes of the synods he stage-manages from start to finish, label the final documents part of “the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter” (Art. 18) and then declare the pre-written, predetermined synodal documents he approves as “the outcome of the working of the Spirit…” (¶ 5). In this way, Bergoglio can rig one pseudo-ecumenical council after another without all the fuss and bother of a true ecumenical council at which a stubborn conservative minority might impede his designs.

The Final Document of the last Synod begins with this inadvertently telling quotation from Chapter 2 of the Acts of Apostles, deceptively cropped to hide its context, as is typical with Bergoglian citations to Scripture: “… I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.” (Acts 2:17). The preposterous suggestion—which no one, including Bergoglio, really believes—is that young people, simply by virtue of being young, have the gift of prophesy and receive heavenly visions, and that “This is the experience we had in this Synod, walking together and listening to the voice of the Spirit.”  Meaning, of course, the voice of Bergoglio and his inner circle.

But what Bergoglio has hidden in the ellipses is that Peter, quoting the prophesy of Joel, is rebuking his fellow Jews on the day of Pentecost, warning them of what will happen during the End Times:

[And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,)] I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.

Also omitted is the rest of Joel’s prophesy:

And upon my servants indeed, and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy.

And I will shew wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire, and vapour of smoke.

The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord come.

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.

Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know:

This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain….[Cf. Acts 2:18-23]

Not exactly scriptural support for the laughable claim that young people have an inherent prophetic charism on display during Bergoglio’s Roman stage show. Quite the contrary, in context Peter is not speaking at all of an imaginary charism of prophecy in the young, but rather is exhorting the people of Israel to convert before the Christ they have crucified comes again amidst extraordinary signs most certainly not evident in any of Bergoglio’s works.  And three thousand of Peter’s hearers do convert immediately—precisely as a true work of the Holy Ghost acting through the first Pope:

Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren?

But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost…. Save yourselves from this perverse generation.

They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. [Cfr. Acts 2: 22:41]

What does it tell us about Bergoglio that the very first words of the bloated document he rammed down the throats of the Synod Fathers are a blatantly misleading Scripture citation, seemingly plucked at random from the New Testament merely because they say something about young people prophesying?  It tells us that he and his collaborators have a less-than-reliable commitment to the truth, but an unshakeable commitment to obtaining whatever result “the Dictator Pope” desires.

A clearly disgusted Sandro Magister writes that Bergoglio has installed “Anything but a synodal Church” and that “[a]fter extolling ‘synodality’ as the preeminent fruit of last October’s synod of bishops”—even though the bishops never discussed it—he “has dismembered the agenda of the plenary assembly of one of the biggest episcopates in the world, that of the United States” by ordering them to take no action on the homosexual priest crisis in which he himself is deeply implicated.  Likewise, Bergoglio has “abandoned to themselves, in China, those bishops who are not part of the secret accord signed at the end of September between the Holy See and the authorities of Beijing, meaning the thirty or so bishops called ‘underground’ or clandestine who resist undaunted the regime’s despotism over the Church.”

But Magister—I assume he is merely being ironic—does not recognize that “synodality” has never been anything other than a vehicle for the Bergoglian dictatorship over the Church and that it operates only in Rome, where he is in total control of proceedings that are but a masquerade for his own exercise of power.

Perhaps for the first time in her history, the Chair of Peter is occupied by someone who regards his power as absolute, even in matters of doctrine; who makes a great show of humbly acting to decentralize ecclesiastical authority, but in a way that actually concentrates it as never before in the person of the Pope. Admitting as much, the Bergoglian spokesman Fr. Thomas Rosica, the rabidly pro-homosexual English attaché of the Vatican Press Office, exulted as follows:

Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants because he is “free from disordered attachments [quoting Bergoglio].” Our Church has indeed entered a new phase: with the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture.

One could not ask for a better description of a Pope who “endeavors to destroy the Church.”  Following the advice of Saint Robert Bellarmine, the faithful cannot fail to respond to Bergoglio’s efforts, in ways appropriate to their stations in the Church, “by not doing what he commands, and by blocking him, lest he should carry out his will.” Such is the unprecedented state of ecclesial affairs in this, the final stage of the post-Vatican II crisis in the Church.  And such is our lot until Heaven finally grants us the holy and courageous Pope who will restore the papacy and the Church to the order God intended. No doubt that Pope will reign during the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart that Our Lady promised us at Fatima. By then, the reign of the petty tyrant from Argentina, whom God allowed to afflict the Church as our chastisement, will be only a bitter memory.

The Pope Who Would Destroy the Church

The Pope Who Would Destroy the ChurchChristopher A. FerraraAt this point in the ever-worsening Bergoglian Debacle, Pope Bergoglio would appear to have no remaining staunch…




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

About abyssum

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

2 Responses to “Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants because he is “free from disordered attachments [quoting Bergoglio].” Our Church has indeed entered a new phase: with the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture” Father Thomas Rosica, S.J.

  1. hellenback7 says:

    The “Muslim” Bishops caught my attention…are you being literal or speaking of universalist Bishops?

  2. I am a priest of the Dioceses of Austin, retired Navy and have been denied a Diocesan retirement by my Diocese after serving the Diocese for 25 years in civilian ministry in the Diocese. I worked to obtain an MA, a STL and a JCL. Upon the arrival of Bishop Vasquez, due to his racial prejudice, I was forbidden to serve in the Austin Tribunal or to have any parish assignment. The Roman Catholic Church has become nothing more than another political party in the United States with too many pagan or Muslim bishops. May our Blessed Mother protect us and ask her Son to restore the Church to holiness. Fr Bob Kincl

    Sent from my iPhone


Comments are closed.