IT BECOMES MORE AND MORE CLEAR THAT THOSE WHO DEFEND THE LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE ELECTION OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL TO THE OFFICE OF VICAR OF CHRIST ARE BLIND TO THE POWER OF SAINT Pope John Paul II TO BIND THE LEGITIMACY OF ALL FUTURE CONCLAVES UNTIL ONE OF HIS SUCCESSORS WOULD REVISE AND PROMULGATE AN APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION TO REPLACE UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS

Catholic Monitor

Sunday, February 23, 2020

Bp. Gracida demonstrated that Salza’s statement on Francis’s “Universal Acceptance” is False

On February 20, John Salza claimed that Francis was “universally accepted”

“In no case were any of these antipopes universally accepted by the entire episcopacy following their election, as in the case with Pope Francis.”
[http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/annbarnhardt-is-liar-and-fool-byjohn.html?m=1]

On March 23, 2019, Bishop Rene Gracida who would have to be part of such a “universal acceptance” demonstrated that Salza’s statement is false:

https://abyssum.org/2019/03/23/why-do-intelligent-men-pursue-the-application-of-an-obsolete-concept-universal-acceptance-to-the-problem-of-the-invalidity-of-the-papacy-of-francis-the-merciful-in-this-day-and-age-of-instant-elec/

WHY DO INTELLIGENT MEN PURSUE THE APPLICATION OF AN OBSOLETE CONCEPT “UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE” TO THE PROBLEM OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE PAPACY OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF INSTANT ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION AROUND THE WORLD

I am in receipt of an email from Steve Skojec, publisher of the website OnePeterFive in which he defends his posts in which he argues for the validity of the election of Francis the Merciful on the basis of the “universal acceptance” of Francis’ election by the world’s Catholic population. 

The idea of “universal acceptance” of the election of popes of the past may have had it’s origin in the first centuries of the Church when popes were chosen by acclamation of the assembled citizens of Rome, and perhaps later when the princes and kings of Europe decided on the legitimacy of papal contestants in the time of the Avignon captivity of the papacy.

But the idea of “universal acceptance” as the principle determining the validity of Francis’ claim to the Chair of Peter is absurd in this day of instant electronic communication. There is not a world-wide Pew or Gallup poll that can determine the degree of “acceptance” of the Bergolian regime as valid by the world’s Catholic population.

From the moment that Francis appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica improperly dressed and accompanied by men of known or suspected homosexual orientation many Catholics besides myself were shocked and dismayed.

Almost immediately almost every word publicly uttered by Francis shocked Catholic sensibilities, such as telling the woman with several children to “stop breeding like rabbits.” Many Catholics withheld their “acceptance” and adopted a wait-and-see attitude.

Then the Amoris Laeticia debacle unfolded and now an even larger percentage of Catholic around the world began to express reservations about the ‘papacy’ of Francis the Merciful. There was never universal acceptance of the validity of Jorge Bergoglio.

One thing is certain, the popes of the Twentieth Century were aware that the election of future popes was now no longer subject to the interference of kings and princes as in the past, now the corruption of the democratic processes for choosing the heads of nations was threatening the papal conclaves of the Church. Pope Paul VI, perhaps alarmed by the forces for radical reform of the Church follow the lead of his recent predecessor and published a revision of the Apostolic Constitution which governs papal conclaves.

It is unthinkable that Pope Saint John Paul II was unaware of the plotting that began with the St. Gallen Mafia in the early 1990s.

 His magnificent Apostolic Constituion, Universi Dominci Gregis, was his prescient action to head off the corruption of the conclaves of the future. Yet, the rot at the center of the hierarchy had progress to such point that Jorge Bergoglio was almost elected instead of Joseph Ratzinger, but the St. Gallen conspirators succeed in 2013 with the election of Francis the Merciful.

What is the sure test of the validity of the election of a cardinal to the papacy? It is not the medieval concept of ‘universal acceptance.’ It is compliance with the law of the Church. The Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis is the only law in effect since it was published by Pope Saint John Paul II in 1992.

If there is one characteristic that is common to the leadership of the Church since the Second Vatican Council is disregard for law, all law, divine law and canon law. Men who would be architects of the Church of the Future ignore the law of God and the law of His Church. That is why some cling to the outmoded concept of ‘universal acceptance’ of a man who obtained the Chair of Peter through the manipulations of many who by their immoral lives reveal their contempt for law, all law, including Divine Law.

His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, having known a prodigious amount of information on this,
was fully knowledgeable in the details of dogmatic and doctrinal principles which previous
to his Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, could and would be applied to resolve
questions about the validity of a particular historic Papacy, and that His Holiness categorically
and specifically intended to dispense with, and utterly to preempt, the need for, and use of,
any principles which had been applied historically to resolve ambiguities and doubts
about the incumbency of any Pontiff putatively emerging from a Conclave to which His
Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis applied.

 This means that because the status of Monsignor Bergoglio can be determined completely
by a fair and just application of Universi Dominici Gregis without reference to any guidance
external or extrinsic to such Constitution, having recourse to such historic doctrinal and
dogmatic concepts, e.g., universal acceptance, is neither material nor relevant, and never
necessary or proper for the rational discernment of the question of whether or not
Monsignor Bergoglio was validly elected as a true Roman Pontiff.  The “scienter” Promulgation
determines this certainty of discernment confined within the “four corners” of the Constitution:

“This Constitution  .   .   .  is to be fully and integrally implemented and is to serve as a guide
for all to whom it refers.  As determined above, I hereby declare abrogated all Constitutions
and Orders issued in this regard by the Roman Pontiffs, and at the same time I declare
completely null and void anything done by any person, whatever his authority, knowingly
or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.”[Promulgation Clause, Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis]

This language does not admit of any exception, and certainly not an exception based on
the degree to which a putative Pope has “acceptance” as such.  “Universal acceptance”
originated in an age before the printing press, a time when what was required was known
by few and what was performed was understood by even less.  It simply has no place
in discerning a Conclave called subject to Universi Dominici Gregis.  What Skojec,
Does not seem to understand is that, long in advance and lawfully, His Holiness, Pope
John Paul II, has forbidden anyone from resorting to “universal acceptance”
or any other principle extrinsic to Universi Dominici Gregis to discern the outcome of papal election.

Thus, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, having known a prodigious amount of information on this,
was fully knowledgeable in the details of dogmatic and doctrinal principles which previous
to his Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, could and would be applied to resolve
questions about the validity of a particular historic Papacy, and His Holiness categorically
and specifically intended to dispense with, and utterly to preempt, the need for, and use of,
any such principles which had been applied historically to resolve ambiguities and doubts 
about the incumbency of any Pontiff putatively emerging from a Conclave to which His
Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis applied.

This means that because the status of Monsignor Bergoglio can be determined completely
by a fair and just application of Universi Dominici Gregis without reference to any guidance
external or extrinsic to such Constitution, having recourse to any such historic doctrinal and 
dogmatic concept, e.g., universal acceptance, is neither material nor relevant, and never 
necessary or proper for the rational discernment of the question of whether or not 
Monsignor Bergoglio was validly elected as a true Roman Pontiff. The “scienter” Promulgation
determines this certainty of discernment confined within the “four corners” of the Constitution:

“This Constitution . . . is to be fully and integrally implemented and is to serve as a guide
for all to whom it refers. As determined above, I hereby declare abrogated all Constitutions
and Orders issued in this regard by the Roman Pontiffs, and at the same time I declare
completely null and void anything done by any person, whatever his authority, knowingly
or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.” [Promulgation Clause, Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis]

This language does not admit of any exception, and certainly not an exception based on 
the degree to which a putative Pope has “acceptance” as such. “Universal acceptance” 
originated in an age before the printing press, a time when what was required was known 
by few and what was performed was understood by even less. It simply has no place
in discerning a Conclave called subject to Universi Dominici Gregis. 

Some do not seem to understand that, long in advance and lawfully, His Holiness, Pope
John Paul II, has forbidden and anyone from resorting to “universal acceptance”
or any other principle extrinsic to Universi Dominici Gregis in order to discern the outcome.
[https://abyssum.org/2019/03/23/why-do-intelligent-men-pursue-the-application-of-an-obsolete-concept-universal-acceptance-to-the-problem-of-the-invalidity-of-the-papacy-of-francis-the-merciful-in-this-day-and-age-of-instant-elec/]
———————————————————————–

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Fred Martinez at 2:47 PM

About abyssum

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

1 Response to IT BECOMES MORE AND MORE CLEAR THAT THOSE WHO DEFEND THE LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE ELECTION OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL TO THE OFFICE OF VICAR OF CHRIST ARE BLIND TO THE POWER OF SAINT Pope John Paul II TO BIND THE LEGITIMACY OF ALL FUTURE CONCLAVES UNTIL ONE OF HIS SUCCESSORS WOULD REVISE AND PROMULGATE AN APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION TO REPLACE UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS

  1. First and foremost, a Catholic population would certainly not accept the election of a man to the Papacy whose heresy was external and made public and notorious, when as a cardinal, he stated in his book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex sexual relationships, and thus same-sex sexual acts, prior to his election as pope, on page 117, demonstrating that he does not hold, keep, or teach The Catholic Faith, and he continues to act accordingly:
    “If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected. Now, if the union is given the category of marriage, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help shape their identity.”- Jorge Bergoglio, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and the fact that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, while denying sin done in private is sin.

    1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”121
    1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125“

    See Catholic Canon 750.

Comments are closed.