Friday, January 17, 2020
Might the Remnant’s Matt finally be willing to stop Ignoring the Bishop Gracida Solution?
Could the Remnant editor Michael Matt’s pro-legitimacy bias, that Francis is pope because that’s an infallible dogma of the Francis Creed, finally be starting to crack?
[Click here to read the Francis Creed: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/01/are-1p5-and-where-peter-is-going-to.html?m=1]
I know from someone who knows the inner workings of Matt’s editorship of the Remnant that he “has not allowed phrases like ‘questionably legal’ before in his newspaper or website that appeared in the article “APOSTASY AND OLD LACE: Do We Have an Uncle Benny Brewster in the Attic?”.
There are a couple more examples in this piece that show Matt’s pro-legitimacy bias may be cracking:
– “The story is changing rapidly. As we went to post this article today, reports had it that Pope [Emeritus—sorry!] Benedict XVI is demoting his name from co-author to ‘contributor’ in the new book: From the Depths of Our Hearts.”
– “… With or without actual circus performers, the Circus that is the post-Conciliar Vatican is really outdoing itself, replete with bearded ladies, two popes, snake charmers, the whole bit! The asteroid can’t come soon enough…”
– “… Nearly seven years after his resignation from the Papacy, (questionably legal, but certainly effective) the good bishop has found himself to be in fine fiddle, enough to coauthor a new book with Robert Cardinal Sarah on priestly celibacy.”
The above phrases would get one banned from Francis is pope because that’s an infallible dogma Steve Skojec’s One Peter Five comment section with the most interesting phrase being “Pope [Emeritus—sorry!] Benedict XVI” with the use of brackets for “Emeritus—sorry!”.
According to English Club:
“Brackets are symbols that we use to contain “extra information”, or information that is not part of the main content.”
But, the philosophical meaning of brackets is even more telling:
“Bracketing (or epoché) is a preliminary actin the phenomenological analysis, conceived by Husserl as the suspension of the trust in the objectivity of the world. It involves setting aside the question of the real existence of a contemplated object, as well as all other questions about the object’s physical or objective nature.”
Does editor Matt think there are “two popes” or “Emeritus” is not a “question of the real existence” while “Pope… Benedict” is in “real existence” or that the Benedict resignation is “questionably legal”?
We are in the greatest crisis in the history of the Church, which is equal to the Arian crisis, because we appear to have a heretical Pope and his pro-gay bishops network who make the immoral Borgia Popes and their inner circles look like choir boys so this three-pronged question is important.
It seems that Matt understands at some level the depth of the crisis saying we must fight for the restoration of the Catholic Church and the papacy including getting a “serious” Catholic pope to replace Francis.
He says we must join forces with non-Catholic conservatives to help us get rid of Francis by critiquing his globalist evil politics.
All of which I agree, but then he in the past has sounded like Francis apologist Jimmy Akin on the Open Letter saying in the post bracketed below that you can’t make a case of heresy out of twisted “airplane utterances.”
This sounds like when the National Catholic Register’s Jimmy Akin said you can’t make a case of heresy out of a “Open Letter [that] also fails to demonstrate that Pope Francis obstinately doubts or denies dogma.”
But, Matt and Akin haven’t been able to show how you can’t make a case of heresy out of Communion for those committing adultery which way back in 2017 was endorsed by Francis’s Argentine letter that is called “authentic magisterium” by his Vatican and placed in the Holy See’s AAS.
Please explain how this doesn’t make a case of heresy and “demonstrate obstinately doubts or den[y] dogma.”
Matt then says in the above post that the Open Letter is highly unpopular so forget about it and only attempt to get a “serious” Catholic pope by critiquing Francis’s globalist evil politics.
Even a commenter on his video post said:
Why can’t we go after Francis for both his heretical teachings and his evil globalist politics?
The Mundabor blog summed up the best case scenario of the Matt tactic:
“Now, everyone with an IQ bigger than the size of his shoes knows that the Bishops aren’t avoiding to release information so that they can investigate more thoroughly than the public could do. No, they are keeping information away from you so that they can a) protect the vast number of people implicated in the protection and enabling of Cardinal McCarrick, b) avoid the unearthing of a vast, vast homosexual clerical net inside and outside of the Vatican, and c) pretend that they are acting against clerical abuse when they are, in fact, consolidating it and helping it to fester inside and even at the very heart of the Church.”
“If you thought that the US Bishops would put themselves at the head of the movement (not because of concern for the victims or desire to do Christ’s work; but merely in order to avoid the donations drying out) curb your enthusiasm, because I don’t think that this is going to happen. These people are, evidently, too compromised to risk any degree of openness.”
The solution, at this point, is the handcuffs. I hope AGs all over the Country will soon start to treat the US Bishops like the organised criminal ring they are. Let them feel the cold metal on their wrists, and see whether this helps to, as they say today, “facilitate” a change of attitude.”
This is part of the solution, but as a good priest recently said even if we can get the state or Church to remove all the bad bishops, Francis is only going to replace them with worse bishops. And a conclave packed with Francis cardinal electors is only going to give us not a “serious” Catholic pope, but a Francis clone.
Of course, we must continue to work for the removal of Francis’s immoral pro-gay bishops network and it’s evil globalist politics, but the only way we are going to begin a real restoration of the Church is to remove Francis as well as all his controllers and collaborators, BUT:
The only way to end the greatest crisis in the history of the Church is to remove Pope Francis and his collaborators!
How do we do this?
The Vatican is a sovereign state so no government is going to put Francis in handcuffs.
If putting Francis in handcuffs along with his pro-gay bishops network and collaborators “organised criminal ring” apparently is not the answer then what is?
The only answer is the Bishop René Gracida solution which strangely Matt’s Remnant and Steve Skojec’s Onepeterfive choose to ignore.
But, before I get to the solution, we need to remember what early Church expert Rod Bennett wrote:
“Another historian asserts that the number of episcopal sees that can be shown to have remained in orthodox [Catholic] hands throughout the crisis can be counted on the finger of one hand.”
(“Bad Shepherds,” Page 29)
I have been reading St. Athanasius’s writings lately and his situation was so dire and grim that he keeps referring to the antichrist and apparently the end times.
But, before we get to the Gracida solution here is a short history of his dire situation in a old 1919 book by F. A. Forbes titled “St. Athanasius” which shows we in the rag-tag Catholic resistance have not come close to the persecution that the Catholic heroes of the Arian crisis endured:
“It was indeed the hour of darkness, and it seemed as if the powers of evil were let loose upon the world. The Arians, with the Emperor on their side, were carrying everything before them. Nearly all the Bishops who had upheld the Nicene faith were in exile or in prison.”
“St. Anthony, over a hundred years old, was on his death-bed.”
“… Fear not,” replied the old man, “for this power is of the earth and cannot last. As for the sufferings of the Church, was it not so from the beginning, and will it not be so until the end?”
“… [A] new reign of terror began, in which all who refused to accept the Arian creed were treated as criminals. Men and women were seized and scourged; some were slain. Athanasius was denounced as a ‘run-away, an evil-doers, a cheat and an impostor, deserving of death.”
“… In the meantime, where was Athanasius? No one knew – or, at least, so it seemed. He had vanished into the darkness of the night. He was invisible, but his voice could not be silenced, and it was a voice that moved the world. Treatise after treatise in defence of the true faith; letter after letter… to the faithful, were carried far and wide by the hands of trusty messengers. The Arians had the Roman Emperor on their side, but the pen of Athanasius was more powerful than the armies.”
“… Rumour said that Athanasius was in hiding in the Thebaid amongst the monk. The Arians searched the desert… The monks [of St. Anthony] themselves might of thrown some light on the matter, but they were silent men… even when questioned with a dagger at their throats.”
“Silent, but faithful, their sentinels were everywhere, watching for the enemy’s approach. Athanasius was always warned in time, and led by trusty guides to another and safer place. Sometimes it was only by a hair’s breadth that he escaped, but for six years he eluded his enemies.”
“… Tide and wind were against them; the monks had to land and tow the boat; progress was slow and the soldiers of Julian were not far off. Athanasius was absorbed in prayer, preparing for the martyr’s death that, this time at least, seemed very near.”
“… ‘I have no fear,’ answered Athanasius; ‘for many long years I have suffered persecution, and never has it disturbed the peace of my soul, It is a joy to suffer, and the greatest of all joys is to give one’s life for Christ.'”
“There was a silence, during which all gave themselves to prayer. As the Abbott Theodore besought God to save their Patriarch, it was suddenly made known to him by divine revelation that at that moment the Emperor Julian had met his end in battle… and that he had been succeeded by Jovian, a Christian and a Catholic. At once he told the good news to Athanasius, advising him to go without delay to see the new Emperor and ask to be restored to his see.”
“…. [After meeting Emperor Jovian] Athanasius was back once more in the midst of his people.”
“He had grown old, and his strength was failing, but his soul, still young and vigorous, was undaunted and heroic as ever…”
“His pen was still busy. One of his first acts on return to Alexandria was to write the life of St. Anthony, a last tribute of love and gratitude to the memory of his dear old friend.”
“… In 366 Pope Liberius [who had excommunicated Athanasius] died, and was succeeded by Pope St. Damasus, a man of strong character and holy life. Two years later in a Council of the Church, it was decreed that no Bishop should be consecrated unless he held the creed of Nicaea. Athanasius was overwhelmed with joy on hearing this decision. The triumph of the cause for which he had fought so valiantly was now assured. His life was drawing to an end.”
“… Scarcely was he dead when he was honoured as a Saint. Six year after his death, St. Nazianzen speaks of him in one breath with the patriarchs, prophets, and martyrs who had fought for the Faith and won the crown of glory.”Now, finally, the Bishop Gracida solution is:
“ONE CAN SAY THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A HERETIC [or a anti-pope] UNTIL ONE DIES BUT IT CHANGES NOTHING. WHAT IS NEEDED IS ACTION… WE MUST PRESSURE THE CARDINALS TOACT. SEND THAT LINK TO EVERY PRIEST AND BISHOP YOU KNOW”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/09/alone-it-is-bishop-gracida-against.html (Scroll to the bottom of this post)
The link goes to his Open Letter which shows that there is strong evidence that Francis may be a anti-pope. But only the cardinals can validly make that Church juridical declaration.
In 2018, Onepeterfive’s anti-Open Letter Steve Skojec rejected Bishop Gracida’s call for the cardinals to judge if Francis’s election to the papacy was valid calling the validity question itself a “potentially dangerous rabbit hole.”(Onepeterfive, “Cardinal Eijk References End Times Prophecy in Intercommunion,” May 7, 2018)
At the time, Skojec referred back to his September 26, 2017 post where he said:
“JPII has removed the election-nullifying consequences of simony… nowhere else in the following paragraphs is nullity of the election even implied.”
(Onepeterfive, “A Brief note on the Question of a Legally Valid Election,” September 26, 2017)
Bishop Gracida shows that Skojec is wrong in his legally crafted Open Letter quoting Pope John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis’ introductory perambulary and paragraph 76:
-“I further confirm, by my Apostlic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process [the above which Gracida clearly shows in his Open Letter was not maintained thus making the conclave and Francis’s papacy invalid according to the Bishop].”
-“Should the election take place in a way other than laid down here not to be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void.”
Gracida’s Open Letter, moreover, shows that Skojec is wrong above:
“The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave.”
On top of all that, Skojec ignores paragraph 5 and contrary to what canon lawyer Edward Peters has said about Universi Dominici Gregis when he suggests canon lawyers have a role in interpreting the John Paul II Constitution, the document says:
“Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect. I [Pope John Paul II] Decree that all power of issuing a judgment of this in this regard to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points.”
(Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 5)
Later in the paragraph it says “except the act of the election,” which can be interpreted in a number of ways.
The point is, as Bishop Gracida says and Universi Dominici Gregis said, only the cardinals can interpret its meaning, not Skojec or canon lawyers.
The Bishop is saying what the document says: only the cardinals can interpret it.
He, also, says put pressure on the cardinals to act and interpret it which both Skojec and Peters appear to prefer to ignore.
Moreover, Bishop Gracida’s Open Letter and Pope John Paul II’s document make a number of points which neither Skojec, Peters or anyone else to my knowledge have even brought up or offered any counter argument against.
They are both wrong if they ignore this important Open Letter of Bishop Gracida.
If Skojec and Peters as well as the conservative and traditional Catholic media are ignoring Bishop Gracida because he isn’t a cardinal and retired, remember that St. Athanasius wasn’t a cardinal (that is involved in the selection or election process of the pope of the time) and was retired.
During the Arian heresy crisis, Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius. You don’t get any more retired than being excommunicated.
Skojec gave blogger Ann Barnhardt’s analysis of the papal validity a long article. The only bishop in the world (besides Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano) contesting Francis in a meaningful way deserves as much.
Matt, Skojec, Peters and all scholarly Catholics need to answer Gracida’s theologically clear and precise arguments and either clearly and precisely counter them or put pressure on the cardinals to put into action the needed canonical procedures to remove Francis if he was “never validly elected” the pope or else remove him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy.
Francis is not orthodox so there are only two things he could be:
1. A validly elected pope who is a material heretic (as the scholar’s Open Letter states) until cardinals correct him and then canonically proclaim he is a formal heretic if he doesn’t recant thus deposing him (See: “In-depth Explanation of Dubia Consequences for Pope Francis including ‘Removing him from Office'”: https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2016/12/in-depth-explanation-of-dubia.html?m=1) or
2. a invalidly elected anti-pope who is a heretic due to an invalid conclave or an invalid resignation by Pope Benedict.
The point is whether you think using all the information available 1. is the objective truth or 2. is the objective truth you must act.
You must as the Bishop says put: “pressure on the cardinals to act” whichever you think.
Gracida is calling on pressure to be put on the cardinals to “[a]ddress… [the] probable invalidity” due to a invalid conclave or a invalid resignation by Pope Benedict’s XVI before they attempt to depose him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy. But, just as importantly he is calling all faithful Catholics to act and not just bemoan Francis’s heresy.
There are many ways to put pressure such as pray and offer Masses for this intention, send the Gracida link to priests, bishops and cardinals, make signs and pray the rosary in front of their offices as we do in front of abortion clinics. Use your imagination to come up with other ideas.
But, the best way to put pressure on the cardinals to remove Francis is the rosary. The solution to the greatest crisis in the history of the Church is the rosary as it was for the Austrians.
The way to victory for the Austrians to defeat the Russians according to Fr. Pater Petrus was “a tithe: that ten percent of the Austrians, 700,000, would pledge to say the rosary daily for the Soviets to leave their country. 700,000 pledged” as told on the Santo Rosario website:
“At the end of World War II, the allies did a nasty thing: they turned Catholic Austria over to the Russians. The Austrians tolerated this Soviet domination for three years, but that was enough. They wanted the Soviets out of their country. But what could Austria do: seven million against 220 million?”
“Then a priest, Pater Petrus, remembered Don John of Austria. Outnumbered three to one, Don John led the Papal, Venetian, and Spanish ships against the Turks at Lepanto, and through the power of the rosary miraculously defeated them. So Pater Petrus called for a rosary crusade against the Soviets. He asked for a tithe: that ten percent of the Austrians, 700,000, would pledge to say the rosary daily for the Soviets to leave their country. 700,000 pledged.”
“For seven years the Austrians prayed the rosary. Then, on May 13, the anniversary of the apparition at Fatima, in 1955, the Russians left Austria.”
“Even to this day military strategists and historians are baffled. Why did the Communists pull out? Austria is a strategically located country, a door to the West, rich in mineral deposits and oil reserves? To them it was an enigma.”
“Al Williams, former custodian of the National Pilgrim Statue of Our Lady of Fatima, heard me tell this story once. He said to me, “You know, Father, I am Austrian. Well, three months before Therese Neumann died, I visited her (June 18, 1962). One question I asked her was, ‘Why did the Russians leave Austria?’ She told me, ‘Verily, verily, it was the rosaries of the Austrian people.’ ‘ “
“In other words, Our Lady’s rosary did what the Hungarian Freedom Fighters could not do with a bloodbath of 25,000 people. John Cortes, brilliant writer and diplomat of the 19th century wrote: ‘Those who pray do more for the world than those who fight. If the world is going from bad to worse, it is because there are more battles than prayers.'”[http://www.santorosario.net/power.htm]
St. Athanasius pray for Bishop Gracida, the resistance for Faith in this present time and the restoration of the Church.
Pray an Our Father now that a Fr. Petrus be risen up by God in the United States and all countries to bring about a tithe: that ten percent of the faithful American Catholics as well as faithful Catholics in every country say the rosary daily for the cardinals to remove Francisand his collaborators. I am going to start praying one of my rosaries everyday for those two intentionsPosted by Fred Martinez at 4:53 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest