CALL FOR AN INTERNATIONAL INQUEST INTO THE CORRUPTION AT THE VATICAN
Press Release of the Organizing Committee
February 28, 2020
In accord with the right of all the faithful in the Catholic Church, as expressed in Canon 212 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, we cordially invite the Legal Scholars and Bishops of the Catholic Church to attend an Inquest on Corruption in the Vatican, so that there may be presented in canonical form a libellus of complaints about grave canonical irregularities in the functioning of the Apostolic See, for which, in accord with the teaching of Robert Bellarmine, when the See is impeded by a real positive doubt as to the legal claim to the title of the papacy by any claimant, it is the duty of the Bishops to intervene (Bellarmine, De Concilio, II, 19), as they did at the Holy Sacrosanct and Ecumenical Council of Constance.
We invite legal scholars to participate in a Committee of preparation for the International Inquest at which, we invite members of the College of Apostles, whether Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, or emeriti to participate.
The goal of the inquest is merely to give a public evaluation of the evidence and charges as to whether it would be suitable and useful for the College of Bishops to convene together to hear the cases and judge what is to be done to urge their correction and amendment.
The Committee does not propose, by this Inquest, that the Roman Pontiff be judged, since the first see can be judged by no one (canon 1404), but rather, in accord with the established precedent — that the College of Bishops has the right to judge the claim of any man to hold the office of the Roman Pontiff in cases of disputed elections, loss of office by heresy, and invalid renunciations — that the College of Bishops now act on account of the manifest grave disorder in the organs of the Apostolic See.
Date of Inquest: Q2-Q3, 2020 Location: to be determined
Organized by the Committee for the International Inquest
The sign of a man is that he fights back when his cause is just. The sign of a Catholic Bishop is that he not only calls a heretic, “a heretic”, but that he treats him as one, that is, as one who has no jurisdiction in the Church. This is the true and ancient faith: a heretic loses all jurisdiction in the Church ipso facto. This is also the teaching of Pope John Paul II in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, canon 1364.
Accused of saying things which are improper and publicly denounced by the local Bishop — who is a former Intelligence officerof the Polish Communist State — Archbishop Lenga has gone on the warpath!
Christ gave me authority through the Church to proclaim the truth, and I’ll do so as long as I live.
I won’t yield to (canonical) degradation by those whose own statements and actions are entangled with heresy and sectarianism.
What right do they have to recall what pertains to the Church when they themselves have never upheld it?
The context of these comments appears to be this, that Archbishop Lenga has called Bergoglio and those advancing his agenda of Apostasy what they truly are, heretics. The NCR reporter, Jonathan Luxmoore writes of Archbishop Lenga:
He added that he had no wish “to belong to a church run by Protestants, Islamists and Jews,” and believed his critics should “form their own church, rather than usurping power in the Catholic Church.”
And again,
In a book-length interview, circulating in Polish on YouTube, he said he still recognized Pope Benedict XVI as pope and had dropped the “usurper and heretic” Francis from his prayer intentions after concluding he was spreading “untruths and sins” and “leading the world astray.”
In a Jan. 20 Polish TV interview, he said “many bishops and cardinals” lacked a “deep faith” and had adopted “an attitude of betrayal and destruction” by seeking to “correct Christ’s teaching,” adding that current confusion in the church indicated “the Antichrist is here.”
Archbishop Lenga is acting perfectly as a Catholic Bishop should. Let us pray to God and Our Lady, that more bishops join him and Bishop Gracida in denouncing the heretics and usurpers in the Church!
____________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is a photo of Archbishop Lenga from June of 2013, taken and used with permission of its author according to the terms stated here. The quotes in English attributed to Archbishop Lenga can be found in the Article cited above, and are used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary. — In the quotes attributed to the Archbishop, FromRome.Info has added the honorific capital to the term church, referring to the Catholic Church, since the practice of writing, church, instead of, Church, is a masonic practice of international journalism, which FromRome.Info entirely rejects in principle.
The 1918 influenza pandemic was the deadliest event in human history (50 million or more deaths, equivalent in proportion to 200 million in today’s global population). For more than a century, it has stood as a benchmark against which all other pandemics and disease emergences have been measured. We should remember the 1918 pandemic as we deal with yet another infectious-disease emergency: the growing epidemic of novel coronavirus infectious disease (Covid-19), which is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This virus has been spreading throughout China for at least 2 months, has been exported to at least 36 other countries, and has been seeding more than two secondary cases for every primary case. The World Health Organization has declared the epidemic a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. If public health efforts cannot control viral spread, we will soon be witnessing the birth of a fatal global pandemic.
The Greek myth of Pandora’s box (actually a pithos, or jar) comes to mind: the gods had given Pandora a locked jar she was never to open. Driven by human weaknesses, she nevertheless opened it, releasing the world’s misfortunes and plagues.
Sign up for the Weekly Table of Contents email.
Each week, receive an email with links to the articles published in the current week’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Of course, scientists tell us that SARS-CoV-2 did not escape from a jar: RNA sequences closely resemble those of viruses that silently circulate in bats, and epidemiologic information implicates a bat-origin virus infecting unidentified animal species sold in China’s live-animal markets. We have recently seen many such emerging zoonoses, including the 2003 bat-coronavirus–derived SARS (an earlier severe acute respiratory syndrome, caused by a closely related coronavirus), which came terrifyingly close to causing a deadly global pandemic that was prevented only by swift global public health actions and luck.1 Now, 17 years later, we stand at a similar precipice. How did we get to this point, and what happens next?
We must realize that in our crowded world of 7.8 billion people, a combination of altered human behaviors, environmental changes, and inadequate global public health mechanisms now easily turn obscure animal viruses into existential human threats.1-3 We have created a global, human-dominated ecosystem that serves as a playground for the emergence and host-switching of animal viruses, especially genetically error-prone RNA viruses, whose high mutation rates have, for millions of years, provided opportunities to switch to new hosts in new ecosystems. It took the genome of the human species 8 million years to evolve by 1%. Many animal RNA viruses can evolve by more than 1% in a matter of days. It is not difficult to understand why we increasingly see the emergence of zoonotic viruses.
We have actually been watching such dramas play out in slow motion for more than a millennium in the case of pandemic influenza, which begins with viruses of wild waterfowl that host-switch to humans and then cause human-to-human transmission. A bird virus thereby becomes a human virus. Coronavirus emergence takes a different trajectory, but the principles are similar: SARS, the Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS), and Covid-19 all apparently have their origins in enzootic bat viruses. The parallels between the two SARS viruses are striking, including emergence from bats to infect animals sold in live-animal markets, allowing direct viral access to crowds of humans, which exponentially increases opportunities for host-switching. Such live markets have also led to avian epizootics with fatal human “spillover” cases caused by nonpandemic, poultry-adapted influenza viruses such as H5N1 and H7N9. One human cultural practice in one populous country has thus recently led to two coronavirus near-pandemics and thousands of severe and fatal international cases of “bird flu.”
But these are not the only examples of deadly viral emergences associated with human behaviors.2 HIV emerged from primates and was spread across Africa by truck routes and sexual practices. The origin of Ebola remains uncertain, but in 2014–2016 the virus spread explosively in West Africa in association with fear and secrecy, inadequate infrastructure and information systems, and unsafe nursing and burial practices. Emergences of arenaviruses causing Argentine and Bolivian hemorrhagic fever are associated with agricultural practices, and Bolivian hemorrhagic fever was spread across Bolivia by road building that fostered migration of reservoir rodents. In Southeast Asia, Nipah virus emerged from bats because of the intensification of pig farming in a bat-rich biodiversity hot spot. Human monkeypox emerged in the United States because of a booming international wildlife trade. In the 1980s, Aedes albopictus mosquitoes were being spread globally by humans; in 2014 and 2015, we had pandemics of aedes-borne chikungunya and Zika viruses.
Major epidemics associated with human crowding, movement, and sanitary inadequacy once occurred without spreading globally — for example, interregional plague pandemics of the 6th, 14th, and later centuries; influenza pandemics beginning in the 9th century; and cholera pandemics in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. When truly global pandemics did become common — for instance, influenza in 1889, 1918, and 1957 — they were spread internationally by rail and ship. Then, in 1968, influenza became the first pandemic spread by air travel, and it was soon followed by the emergence of acute enteroviral hemorrhagic conjunctivitis spread between international airports. These events ushered in our modern epidemic era, in which any disease occurring anywhere in the world can appear the next day in our neighbor’s backyard. We have reached this point because of continuing increases in the human population, crowding, human movement, environmental alteration, and ecosystemic complexity related to human activities and creations. Cartoonist Walt Kelly had it right decades ago: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Preventing and controlling future pandemic occurrences remains a global priority.4 With Covid-19, are we seeing a replay of 1918? Although we did not “witness” the beginning of the 1918 pandemic, evidence suggests that wherever it began, it silently spread around the world, causing mostly mild cases but also mortality of 0.5 to 1% or higher — a rate that was initially too low to be detected against a high background rate of death from unrelated respiratory illnesses. Then it suddenly exploded in urban centers almost everywhere at once, making a dramatic entrance after a long, stealthy approach. We are now recognizing early stages of Covid-19 emergence in the form of growing and geographically expanding case totals, and there are alarming similarities between the two respiratory disease emergences. Like pandemic influenza in 1918, Covid-19 is associated with respiratory spread, an undetermined percentage of infected people with presymptomatic or asymptomatic cases transmitting infection to others, and a high fatality rate.5
We are taking swift public health actions to prevent an emergence from becoming a pandemic, including isolation of patients and contacts to prevent secondary spread. But will these actions be adequate? Most experts agree that such measures could not have prevented the 1918 influenza pandemic. In fact, in the past century we have never been able to completely prevent influenza spread at the community level, even with vaccination and antiviral drugs. The problem is that most influenza cases are either asymptomatic, subsymptomatic, undiagnosed, or transmitted before the onset of symptoms. Can we do better with SARS-CoV-2, a virus with a presumably longer incubation period and serial generation time, but with an as-yet-undetermined ratio of inapparent cases to apparent cases and an unknown rate of asymptomatic spread? The answer to this question is critical, because without the ability to prevent such spread, we will cross a threshold where pandemic prevention becomes impossible. And we won’t know that we have arrived there until it is too late.
With luck, public health control measures may be able to put the demons back in the jar. If they do not, we face a daunting challenge equal to or perhaps greater than that posed by the influenza pandemic of a century ago. As the late Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg famously lamented about emerging infectious diseases, “It’s our wits versus their genes.” Right now, their genes are outwitting us by adapting to infectivity in humans and to sometimes silent spread, without — so far — revealing all their secrets. But we are catching up. As we push ahead, we should take heart in the Hesiod version of the Pandora myth, in which Pandora managed to prevent a single escape: “Only Hope was left …, she remained under the lip of the jar, and did not fly away.”
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available at NEJM.org.
This article was published on February 26, 2020, at NEJM.org.
Is Archbishop Lenga in Schism & can a Bishop be “Suspended” by another Bishop?
-Updated March 25, 2020
Archbishop Jan Lenga rejected “being de facto suspended by Wioclawek Bishop Wieslaw Meeting, Poland.” (Glovia.tv, “Archbishop Lenga will not Respect Sanctions,” February 25, 2020)
There are reports that Texas Bishop Rene Gracida supports Archbishop Lenga, but the Catholic Monitor hasn’t been able to confirm those reports.
Is Archbishop Lenga in schism as some are stating for claiming Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid thus Francis is an antipope?
It must be remembered in history that St. Bernard of Clairvaux claimed the supposed pope in Rome was an antipope as Lenga is doing and was declared correct by an imperfect council which he headed.
Was St. Bernard in schism?
The Arian heretics were saying the same thing about St. Athanasius. That he was in schism.
The saint was resisting the Arian heretic bishops even apparently outside the valid pope’s approval.
It appears that Archbishop Lenga may force the cardinals and bishops to do an investigation and call an imperfect council into the validity of the Francis’s papacy because a bishop cannot suspend a bishop. Only a pope can suspend a bishop.
But, Lenga states Benedict is still pope because of a invalid resignation and therefore Francis isn’t pope according to the archbishop.
Cardinal John Henry Newman showed it is not possible for a bishop to suspend a bishop.
Newman said Athanasius ordained priests against the authority of the Arian heretical bishops who were validly appointed bishops.
In fact, scholar Joseph Bingham on page 98 in “The Antiquities of the Christian Church” said:
“Athanasius… made no scruples to ordain… [Bishop] Euesebius of Samasata… ordained bishops also in Syria and Cilicia.”
Moreover, Newman in his “The Development of Christian Doctrine” denied that Bishop Athanasius’s “interference” in the dioceses of the heretical Arian bishops was schism:
“If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin interference.” (Gutenberg.org, “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” Sixth Edition)
Was Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius a schismatic?
Moreover, serious scholars are claiming Francis is a material heretic. The 19 Scholar’s Open Letter say that Francis is a material heretic which also brings into play the Bellarmine and Francis de Sales option of declaring an explicit heretical pope self-deposed.
Bishop Gracida’s Open Letter to the Cardinals analysing and quoting Pope John Paul II’s Universi Dominici gregis questions the validity of the Francis conclave calling for an cardinal investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave.
Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s in-depth thesis “Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983” using exhaustive quotations from canon law showing why canon law explicitly states that ministerium and munus cannot be synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the same thing thus denying the validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation.
One of the most ancient customs of the Papal court, is that whenever the Roman Pontiff sits in formal audience or session, he is flanked on each side by a Catholic Bishop. The reasons for the double accompaniment go back to the days of the Roman Empire, when Imperial Officials were accompanied on such occasions by other high officials, local or imperial. To sit at the right or left had signified that you were consenting to the acts of the One at the center, you showed his authority by submitting to it, and you were shown your dignity by being on occasionally asked for counsel. In the Catholic Church, this is all true, but it is also done because, as Our Lord says, in Deuteronomy 17:6: condemn no one except on the testimony of two or three witnesses. The presence of the flanking Bishops therefore fully signifies the jurisdiction of the Pope.
His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, gloriously reigning, now has his two flanking bishops: Archbishop Lenga and Bishop Gracida. Both have in a collegial act publicly recognized that Bergoglio never was the pope and that Benedict XVI is the pope.
Many, many Catholics for seven years have lamented that Bishops were not speaking out. Now they have.
Many, many Catholics for seven years have lamented that Bishop were not doing anything. Now they have.
Many, many Catholics for seven years have lamented that the Bishops were not breaking from Bergoglio. Now they have.
Many, many Catholics for seven years have wondered what will become of the Church, if no Bishop does anything. Now they have.
What Archbishop Lenga and Bishop Gracida have done is historic.
Catholic Bishops have not pronounced that the man controlling the Vatican is an antipope in more than 870 years!
That was when after the election of Pope Innocent II, the majority of the Cardinals elected the antipope Anacletus II. Pope Innocent, lacking support in the Eternal City had to flee to France, where council after council began to declare Anacletus II an antipope. You can read more about this in the article I wrote on Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Patron and Modle for those who fight against anti-popes.
The Battle has now begun
In declaring for Pope Benedict, the College of the Apostles has denounced in the strongest fashion possible the schism which began on March 13, 2013 and which has by guile, lies and intrigue co-involved nearly all the other Bishops of the Church.
Collegial acts and dogmatic facts regard the Church in the formal, canonical and theological reality of what the Church is. Error regards the Church in the human and material aspect of what She is.
For this reason, we can rightly say, both formally, canonically and theologically, that Holy Mother Church has spoken: Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope and all who are NOT in communion with him are schismatics. They need to return to allegiance to Pope Benedict immediately. Any delay will incur their loss and deprivation of all office in accord with canon 1364, which punishes schism with the Roman Pontiff with immediate excommunication, which does not need to be imposed, because the canon itself imposes it. This means not only Cardinals and Bishops, but also Priests, Religious, Deacons, all al laymen and lay women. To die in schism is to perish in Hell for all eternity.
Therefore, let us proclaim the truth the Church now solemnly professes in the testimony of these two successors of the Apostles and in the Declaratio of Pope Benedict. Yes, he has renounced the ministerium, but that does not mean his is no longer the one and only true Roman Pontiff and Successor of Saint Peter. However, it does mean that Bergoglio is not and never was the pope.
Priests and Bishops should show their adhesion by naming only Benedict XVI in the canon of the mass and in omitting the name of the local ordinary until such time as he too names Benedict in the Canon of the Mass.
We who are not clergy should seek out the Masses only of clergy in communion with Pope Benedict. And if we do not have the opportunity, I hold that we are obliged at least, if we attend such masses, to say his name out-loud during the canon of the mass to make everyone know, that schism is a serious sin and we can no longer ignore the truth of what happened in Feb. 2013.
We should and are gravely obliged to seek to convince all to return to allegiance to the true Pope. And here is a booklet length article which explains how to do this:
Finally, I invite all to join in person or in spirit with the Prayers in front of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, every Midnight, here at Rome, and transmitted at FromRome.Info Video, as Our Lady said if the people keep coming to pray, She will grant the victory in this battle. FromRome.Info publishes these every night at 11:54 PM Rome time, which is 6 hours ahead of New York City and 10 hours behind Sydney, Australia.
+ + +
Support FromRome.Info
Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.
Everyone by now knows of the absurd strawman argument of John Salza and Robert Siscoe. It goes like this. I will mark the argument here and there with NDT, to indicate the terms which need to be defined with precision if the argument means anything at all:
The whole (NDT) Church (NDT) immediately (NDT) after the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio accepted (NDT) him as the pope.
Universal (NDT) acceptance (NDT) of a man as pope is an infallible (NDT) sign (NDT) of his legitimate election.
Therefore, it is infallibly (NDT) certain (NDT) that Bergoglio is the pope and that his election was legitimate (NDT).
There are 11 points in the argument which can be changed at any moment to avoid objections, by simply redefining terms. That, in itself, is Masonic, because it is a fundamental rule of the Lodge to speak in ambiguous terms. But let us examine how the ideological structure of their argument is also masonic.
Infallibility
Infallibility according to Catholic Theology is a natural property of the true God alone. No creature by nature is infallible. Infalliblity means the inability to fail. It is the characteristic of a substance as regards its action.
However, truth itself is infallible, because truth is defined by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in a way which makes its infallibility necessary. Here I speak of truth as the truth of a proposition, because of such truth Saint Thomas says the definition is: the adequation of a created intellect with the object known, or in other words, the right and just relationship between a knowing mind and the think known by that mind.
Examples of infallibly true statements are 1+1 = 2, and The Sun is the star of our solar system. Infallibility pertains to all propositions which regard the natural or supernatural world, when they are true in what they affirm. This is the wonderful way in which Our Creator, Who alone is infallible, has enabled us, fallible creatures, to draw near to Him, through knowing and accepting truth.
But men by nature are not infallible. Hence men can err or fail. Nor are we fallible in the knowledge of things. We can err. We can err also in what we believe is true on the basis of what other men tell us. Thus human opinion based on things like human testimony is the most fallible of all kinds of knowledge.
But for John Salza and Robert Siscoe the universal acceptance by the Church of a man as pope is an infallible sign that his election was legitimate!
I hope you can see the ontological problem in that assertion. It moves infallibility from God and true propositions to men. And that is totally Masonic.
7 Slippery aspects of the argument
A common sense Catholic responds by saying, the Church does not teach or approve of such an absurd theory, as can easily be seen: because the Church has laws which say when and how a pope is validly elected and when and how a man elected is not legitimately such. Now the Church would be double faced if she taught a theory which said, there is no need for laws on papal elections, there is only need that everyone accept a pope. Also, Holy Mother Church recognizes as valid popes many men who were elected according to the rules but who were never universally accepted during their pontificates (e.g. the Roman Popes during the Great Western Schism). Thus the Church has never resorted to universal acceptance as a sign of a valid election.
It also does not make sense. Because if the election was legitimate, who cares if everyone accepts it or not? The truth of legitimacy is in an entirely different order of knowledge than that of popular opinion. Every Catholic can understand that. But Masons reject that. Truth for them is only at the ballot box, if even then. Moreover, the Masonic Lodge which seeks to overthrow God and all Monarchies in the name of exalting the common man and the masses would find such a trick delightful. It’s their own world view. Universal Acceptance basically is another way of knowing truth, one which the Church rejects in Canon 332 and in the Papal Law, Unversi dominici gregis. Therefore, whence comes this appeal to Universal Acceptance against or in spite of the laws and teaching of the Church? Such an appeal is gnostic and masonic.
Second, the word universal in Latin has a proper sense of each and everyone. However, I do not think any historian has every proven that after any papal election each and every Catholic in the world accepted the man elected as the pope. John Salza and Robert Siscoe evade this obvious fault by inventing a special meaning for universal: morally universal, by which the mean, nearly everyone. This nearly can be expanded as necessary for any arguent. To John Siscoe in debate yesterday, I mentioned I know 13 persons who never accepted it. Siscoe responded that absolute universality is not necessary. And he claimed their dissent was secret, so nobody knew about it. So universal, for S & S, is what they want it to mean. And as such, the theory itself means nothing, but what they say. So in effect, it means that you must accept them as infallible arbiters of who is the pope. And that is masonic.
Third, we come to Sisco and Salza’s idea of acceptance. They never really define it. Without a strict definition, their theory means nothing at all. Does it mean I do or do not like his face, his theology, his attitude, his episcopal lineage and therefore I hold that he is or is not the pope? Of if a Catholic holds that he is de facto pope but not the legitimate pope, has he accepted? Immediately upon the publication of the Declaratio by Pope Benedict scholars said it was invalid and that an antipope would be elected in the upcoming conclave. There was no acceptance, there, in any defined manner. Also, if I hear the news claim so and so was elected pope, does that mean that I accepted it. Does not acceptance mean examining the facts of law and history and then making a judgement? S & S seem to imply that acceptance has nothing to do with Canon 41 or truth, it is merely listening to the TV. But that is not a Catholic concept of acceptance, but it is very masonic. I guess the next step will be to announce that their candidate is the pope on TV and then dispense with any Conclave or Canon Law. How convenient!
Fourth, we come to Salza and Siscoe’s concept of Church. As every Catholic knows, the Church is one thing, and its members another. This touches upon the formal definition of the Church and the material definition of the Church. As you will see, Salza and Siscoe will play with these two aspects. Arguing in their major premise, regarding the principle of universal acceptance, using the formal definition, but arguing in their minor premise as regards the facts of the present case, in the material sense. I pointed this out in my article on Siscoe’s triple shell game. If you do not hold Bergoglio was the pope, then S & S will just put you outside the definition of the Church which they happen to be using at the moment. They play this game especially with dogmatic facts. A dogmatic fact regards the formal definition of the Church, but they assert human opinions which regard the material definition of the Church as dogmatic facts. And that is masonic.
Fifth, we come to S & S’s concept of immediacy. When does the vague universality of the vague acceptance need to take place. In one minute, in one day, in one week, in one month, in one year? They do not say. I think it would not be unreasonable to speculate that after every legitimate election, there is a delay even when there is canonical acceptance. It is never immediate. There are missionaries in remote regions of the past who never knew the name of the pope, because he died before the news arrived. I guess there was no infallible sign of their being the true pope, according to S & S! The level of absurdity here is manifest. They set up another criterion for true popes. And that is masonic.
Sixth, we come to S & S’s concept of certitude. This is closely allied with the concept of infallibility. We can be certain that a truth is true, because truth is of itself infallible and the assertion of truth is infallible. Certitude as quality of notion does not apply to opinion, because opinion by definition is the assertion of a thing with knowledge that its contradiction is a possibility. But human recognition of a man as the pope, when based solely on human testimony without any facts of history or law being established, is the most uncertain kind of news: it is common opinion! To say that any news in the modern world is certain, would take a very strict definition of terms, especially since journalists and news outlets are notorious for their mendacity. But to say opinion is certain is simply a contradiction of the very definition of the word. But contradiction and double speak is the very hallmark of the Freemason, who is told he can lie to everyone except a superior level mason. And that is masonic.
Seventh, we come to S & S’s concept of legitimacy. Legitimate means done in accord with a right which inheres in the subject by nature or grant. It differs from legal, in that it does not require positive law. It differs from lawful, because its measure is not in accord with the terms of any law. Of papal elections some were said to be legitimateothers canonical others legal. This is because throughout history the election of popes was at the beginning done in accord with Apostolic right, as I have previously mentioned, and since there was no law or canon about how to do such things, a legitimate election was every election in which the part of the Church of Rome regarded as valid immediately, and which all of the Church of Rome, long afterwards regarded as valid, even if there were rival claimants at the time. When the Councils established canons for episcopal elections, then some papal elections were said to be canonical or uncanonical in accord with whether the canons were followed. However, of some of these elections, the Church has regarded as valid and legitimate men who were uncanonically elected. This is because the Church of Rome has never accepted any law or canon established by Councils held outside of her jurisdiction as binding on Her ability to elect the Roman Pontiff. THIS IS IMPORTANT, and this explains why many theologians speak of universal acceptance of a papal election despite whether it was canonical or not. Because in such a case they are not speaking of obligatory canons, just customarily observed canons. Finally, some papal elections can now be legal or illegal, because Pope John Paul II published a law on papal elections which regulates what the College of Cardinals should do in such matters. Violations of this law make an election illegal and invalid. Elections perfectly in harmony with the norms of this law make an election legal and valid. Such elections are also legitimate, when they are legal and valid, because the Cardinals have the right to act lawfully. — Thus we can see that the theory of universal acceptance, by the mere fact that it is employed by S & S now, when it arise in ages past to be applied to times when there was no papal law for elections, only canons or the lack of them, is misapplied. It is anachronistic, in the technical sense of the term, because it does not apply to elections governed by papal laws. This is especially true when the current Papal Law EXPRESSLY says that no election which violates it is valid regardless. The current high bar of validity and legitimacy is what is lawful, not what is accepted. To reject that is masonic, because the freemason rejects Papal authority in principal.
Salza and Siscoe’s Theory as applied is Masonic
In summation, I would say that John Salza and Robert Siscoe’s theory, as applied, is Masonic for the following reasons:
It rejects the binding norms of the Papal Law of Pope John Paul II which alone determine when a man elected by the College of Cardinals in a Conclave is legitimate, legal and lawful, excluding all other things as signs or causes of the validity.
It is founded upon badly or poorly defined terms which can be held to mean whatever you want them to mean on any occasion.
It places infallibility in human opinion rather than in God and His words to Peter: Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in Heaven, words which obviously apply to all papal laws on elections.
It ignores all facts of history and places the criterion of truth outside of historical fact, thus divorcing truth from reality.
It is designed to force Catholics to accept whatever the Masonic Lodge in the Vatican says is true, regardless of historical facts or papal laws, and this is in accord with the Masonic principle that the higher lodges rule the lower lodges.
It effectively makes the facts of a papal election a gnostic deposit of knowledge which no Catholic who is not initiated has the right to examine or seek to know.
Salza and Siscoe use the theory as Freemasons, because as I have experienced on several occasions, if you point out errors in it, they response: You do not understand what universal acceptance isand then proceed to point out how you have not the right knowledge to comprehend it, as if you were some sort of intellectual inferior or non-initiate. At times they say the sign is an effect not a cause, but they treat it as a cause not an effect. Oh, and they ignore all examination of legal doubt.
John Salza admits he joined the Lodge. He also admits that Masons do not publicly contest his writings. I do not know if Robert Sisco is a member or has been a member. I do know that it is a rule of the Lodge never to argue in public with another member. I also know that many converts from non Catholic religions never quite reject some of the errors they learned there.
I must conclude, therefore, that Sicoe and Salza’s theory of Universal Acceptance is masonic because it inverts the notions of infallibility, universality, acceptance, Church, legitimacy, and plays games with the notions of immediacy and certitude. And just as everything which is of Hell, inverts the order of things which God has established, their theory reflects a diabolic way of thinking about the papal claims of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whose own intelligence officer admits is a Freemason. Is that the real reason that Salza and Siscoe seek so zealously to defend his claim to the papacy? To defend a brother in the Lodge?
I hope this essay of mine own, helps both John Salza and Robert Siscoe see their errors and repent of them. But also, so that all the faithful see their theory for what it is.
______________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is a 1805 water color of a rite of initiation into the Masonic Lodge at Paris.
I will merely quote, the Most Rev. Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, USA, from his blog today:
THERE ARE SEVERAL SUPPOSEDLY ORTHODOX WEBSITES THAT INSIST THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A VALID POPE. PERHAPS HE IS FOR SOME OTHER CHURCH OR CULT, BUT HE IS NOT NOW NOR HAS HE EVER BEEN A POPE OF THE Roman Catholic Church.
Bishop Gracida has publicly stated he doubted the validity of the renunciation from day one, and that he doubted the validity of the Conclave for the same reason. Even more so, he doubted the validity when news of vote canvassing broke in 2014.
Thus, it would be more proper to say that Archbishop Lenga now agrees with Bishop Gracida, than the other way around. But regardless, there is now a Collegial Denial by Bishops of the Catholic Church of Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy.
The allies of Bergoglio have censored the news of his public positions, however, because they are not interested in truth, only in the grasp for power and wealth. Trad Inc. too.
Em SAnother brave emeritus bishop! The emeritus sector is a sleeping giant in the hierarchy that is rising to defend The Church Militant. They are realizing that Bergoglio is not the legitimate authority, and the emeritus bishops will act in the Name of the Church, by Apostolic Right, which is above that of an antipope and which takes precedence in a state of necessity. Halleluyah!!!Liked by 1 person
Vincent FitzpatrickBishop Gracida has a lifelong history of being a majority of one. During the Pro-Life Rescue Movement, he was the only bishop who ever instructed the police (correctly) that removing obstacles (rescuers) that were preventing abortions is a mortal sin. (Removing an obstacle that one knows is preventing a crime is one of the ways of making oneself an accomplice to the crime.)Like
Ana MilanNow that he has retired, I hope Archbishop Chaput will also add his name. However, there are a great many silent Cardinals & Bishops who are still holding out & I feel it will be necessary for them to come forward & demand an imperfect council to fully & transparently investigate the legitimacy of BXVI’s resignation as per the Canons governing papal resignations & also the hastily called conclave which ignored PJPII’s rules pertaining to papal elections together with the electioneering & coercion by the St. Gallen Group. This farce has to come to an end & I would implore these red & pink hatted men to consider their own salvation before their blind obedience or fear of the person they collectively elected to the PO.Liked by 1 person
Luis SilveyraArchibishop Lenga has been punished, but will no obey the sanctions. It is logic , Because he is a Bishop and …. Benedict has not punished him … Bergoglio has a real problem ! May be this is a matter of time..
How to find our way out from our culture-wide sex addiction.
Helen Andrews reflects upon the drastic increase in availability and immediacy of pornography over the past several decades. Josh Hammer, Marlo Safi, Bedivere Bedryant, Benjamin Wiker, and Spencer Klavan respond.
In 1949, the British research group Mass-Observation conducted a survey into English sex habits, which, among other questions, asked respondents how they had first become aware of sex. About 20% said their parents had explained it to them. Eight percent said they had learned it from a book, usually a medical textbook or a pamphlet… Read more about: Obscenity BlindnessShare this Feature with your network or email it instantly.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE MOST WIDESPREAD, IT IS ACTUALLY A PANDEMIC, SICKNESS ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH, FOUND PRIMARILY IN THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES WHERE PORNOGRAPHY IS READILY AVAILABLE 24/7 ON TELEVISION AND IN PRINT MEDIA
Over at True and False Pope, Mr. Salza has published a reply to Ann Barnhardt full of vile insults, which is most unworthy of any man.
I do not usually comment on blogs, but I decided to join the fray. After soliciting from Mr. Siscoe a clear definition of the theory of Universal Acceptance, I show why that Theory in this case is contrary to Faith, Law and Fact. Here is my reply:
There are major problems with your theory and its application.
First of all, no theory of interpretation trumps canon law, because if it did, then Jesus Christ would be a liar Who said of Peter and the laws of all his successors, Whatsoever you bind upon Earth, shall be bound also in Heaven. Thus if a man were accepted by all in the Church as the pope, when however he had no legitimate claim to the papacy because of the non compliance with any papal law regarding becoming pope, then Christ would be proved a liar.
Therefore, to assert such a theory is applicable in such a circumstance is contrary to the Faith. Therefore, in such a case, if you want to use it, I would have to conclude you are a blasphemer and a heretic, and also a schismatic, since you would thereby adhere to a false pope.
The other problem with your theory is that in the present case, there never was universal acceptance. Bishop Gracida never accepted the renunciation or the election. And I just met about 12 persons at a Conference here in Rome, over the weekend, who told me they did not accept Bergoglio the moment he came out of the Loggia and said, Buona Sera!
The use of this theory of Universal Acceptance in the case of a papal renunciation has been abrogated explicitly by Canon 332 §2, which said that the acceptance of a renunciation by anyone whomsoever is not required for its validity. Therefore, it is not the cause of its validity, nor a sign of its validity. Therefore, to resort to it in the present case is to be a rebel against the papal law, and thus to be condemned by Unam Sanctam, because it is a grave duty of the Faith that we be subject to papal laws and to the true pope.
Finally, you resort to this theory of Universal Acceptance because you manifestly reject to accept the norm of Canon 332 §2 which defines the essential juridical act as a renunciation of munus, which never occurred. Nor can you legitimately read munus where ministerium is written in the Declaratio, because as Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori says in his tract on Interpretation of Law in his Theologial Moralis, that such an interpretation would require a positive additional act of the lawgiver. But such a requirement means the original act is not clear in itself. And as Mons. Arrieta of the Pontifical Council of Legal Texts affirmed for me on De. 11, 2019, such a renunciation which is not clear in itself would be invalid.
Please note, that I have used no ad hominems in my response to you. Unlike the comments you publish here which hurl them at me.
* * *
I add here, not at the other blog, that the use of the theory of Universal Acceptance is the last resort of the willfully blind. Because everyone trained in law knows that the validity of a juridical act has nothing to do with whether it is accepted as valid or not.
I will admit, here, however, that I only read True or False Pope Blog, because the authors of it admitted in substance that they did solicit the financial support for the Fatima Center and that the requirement of the donor was that the center be purged of anyone who held the opinion of Father Gruner, that Benedict was still the Pope.
So, here, I will ask Mrs. Siscoe, Salza and Ferrara a public question: Did any of that financial support arrive in your pockets directly or indirectly? And was it given before you adhered to the theory of universal acceptance?
Finally, it does not surprise me that the authors of the Book True or False pope cannot comprehend the present Church Crisis, in which we have both a True AND a False pope. When you begin with a false premise which you use as a principle of epistemology, then you have blinded yourself from the outset.
__________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screenshot of the blog mentioned in this article and is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.
+ + +
Support FromRome.Info
Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.
$10.00
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THERE ARE SEVERAL SUPPOSEDLY ORTHODOX WEBSITES THAT INSIST THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A VALID POPE. PERHAPS HE IS FOR SOME OTHER CHURCH OR CULT, BUT HE IS NOT NOW NOR HAS HE EVER BEEN A POPE OF THE Roman Catholic Church
althesilentcrusader
Em S
Vincent Fitzpatrick
Luis Silveyra
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.