Abortion Kills People: A History Lessonby Judie Brown  https://all.org/abortion-kills-people-a-history-lesson/ Did you know that, in Ohio, a young couple is being charged with a felony “after they allegedly induced the delivery of their 29-week-old preborn baby boy using a type of abortion pill, intentionally causing his death”? After the couple killed their preborn baby, they hid his body in a shoebox.Abortion kills people. Reading this story forces us to confront the fact that, in today’s society, individual human beings are deemed worthless by far too many. After more than two generations of decriminalized abortion, what else can our once-civilized nation expect? This is why we have chosen to dig into pro-life history and share nuggets of wisdom that help us understand why every innocent human being is worthy of our respect and our protection. While much of this is not on the Internet, the facts are consistent and help us see that science does not change. Three examples follow.On June 29, 1967, James H. Ford, MD, who later became a founder of American Life League, appeared on the Joe Pyne radio show. In his prepared remarks we find this: A living, human zygote (fertilized ovum) or embryo is by definition a living, human individual; which by definition is a living, human organism; which by definition is a living, human animal; which by definition is a living member of the human race or human species (Homo sapiens), which by definition is a living, human being or person.I will give $1,000.00 to the first person who can bring scientific proof from an accredited university in this country to refute that statement or its scientific, factual basis.Over the years not a single person came forward to challenge Dr. Ford, because nobody can! On December 27, 1971, the Modern Medicine magazine published a letter by Dr. Ford in which he quoted Nicholas J. Eastman, “who approves of abortion as a means of population control and therefore cannot be considered to be, in any way, biased against it.” Eastman stated in July 1967: “In other branches of medicine the objective of the physician is invariably to preserve life. Only in obstetrics is he asked from time to time to destroy life.” In his comments he explained that ever since the days of the Roman Empire, the preborn child has lacked the protection of civil law.Bernard N. Nathanson, MD, wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1974 about the continuous spectrum of life from its beginning to its end, saying: “Abortion must be seen as the interruption of a process that would otherwise have produced a citizen of the world. . . . Denial of this reality is the crassest kind of moral evasiveness.” From Ford to Eastman to Nathanson we see three doctors who knew and understood early on that the act of abortion was not a simple surgical procedure, but rather an act of killing. So we have to ask why is it that today so few have the moral courage to state this plainly and without apology.Learning from history requires the ability of the individual to distill the truth in the midst of the propaganda barrage. We do this by travelling the pro-life highway paved long ago by others. We will find it leads us all the way back to ancient times. In fact, in 197 A.D. Church father Tertullian taught the same truth, writing: “To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing.”Even though Tertullian did not have access to current science, such as the Carnegie Stages of Human Development published in 1942, he acknowledged that direct killing is always wrong no matter where it takes place—before or after birth.We believe that history obliges us to enlighten ourselves and others. After all, “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”  That little baby boy whose body lay lifeless in a shoebox proves that this is so.Today, after millions of babies have lost their lives, it is long past time America learned the simple truth: ABORTION KILLS PEOPLE !!!!!!!!

NEWS

SISCOE REJECTS THE MAGISTERIUM AND INVENTS HIS OWN

FEBRUARY 25, 2020FROM ROME EDITOR3 COMMENTS

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Here I continue my public conversation with Mr. Siscoe, which I started on his blog, but I will continue here, because I see he is not addressing the argument and I do not have any confidence that he will repost my reply.

Read my previous comment, to understand the context of what I am about to write.

When pushed, claim your theory is Church doctrine

Br. Bugnolo: “There are major problems with your theory and its application.”

Mr. Siscoe: This is not my theory. It is the common doctrine of the Church.

I have been to seminary and studied at 3 Pontifical Universities and have read multiple manuals of theology, some of them 12 volumes long, and I can assure you that Siscoe’s universal acceptance is not the doctrine of the Church, because to be such, it has to be contained in a magisterial document.

To be clear, the notion of a dogmatic fact is precise: it regards legitimate acts. Thus, if Monsignor So and So refuses to be bishop of this or that, even though he was just nominated as Bishop of this or that, the Papal act is not a dogmatic fact, even though it is papal, because it is contrary to fact. It is a dogmatic fact that the pope nominated, but not that the man nominated is the Bishop because he refused to accept.

Thus even a Conclave which followed all the rules — which the Conclave of 2013 did not, according to the testimony of Cardinal Daneels — which pertain to conclaves — which the Conclave of 2013 did not, because the Papal Law requires a legal renunciation as it itself says — and resulted in the election of a man who was accepted by the whole Church, all the while the man insisted he never accepted, then, that he was the pope would not be a dogmatic fact, even though it would be a dogmatic fact that the Cardinals chose him, because to be the pope requires acceptance, as the papal law itself says.

Sisoe is playing a Triple Shell game, as I explained last year:

https://fromrome.info/2019/03/20/siscoes-triple-shell-game/

He has anted up on his game, because now, he not only claims that those who did not have true knowledge of the events of Feb. 11, 2013 are the Church, but that his doctrine of Universal Acceptance as applied to present events is the Doctrine of the Church!

But Canon Law is magisterial. And Siscoe ignores that completely.

Siscoe’s theory does not apply to contested elections

Siscoe also ignores that John of St. Thomas explicitly said that the concept of universal acceptance regards a legitimate election. That any theologian before or after omits that condition proves nothing, because as anyone who knows theology knows, many authors repeat doctrines imprecisely and incompletely, and their doing of such does not alter the doctrine. Thus you cannot escape from the fundamental condition of the notion of universal acceptance which only regards LEGITIMATE ELECTIONS.

Thus, it appears that what he is saying, is that Blessed Urban II, for example, and every legitimate pope after whose election the Cardinals or part of them, elected another, as an antipope, was not the true pope. I say “his theory” because no one with a sane mind would put in doubt a dogmatic fact of a valid election simply because there was no universal acceptance. But that is what he is doing. He is saying law does not matter, only opinion.

Ignore the events of Feb. 2013

Mr. Siscoe is also playing another game. He admits, the following in his recent reply to me:

The universal acceptance has nothing to do with the renunciation. It is an infallible sign of a legitimate Pope, not the infallible sign of a legitimate abdication.

Well then, WHY ON EARTH are you resorting to using your theory, Mr. Siscoe, if you admit it has nothing to do with renunciations! When you know well the validity of the renunciation is contested and has been from day 1, as I showed in the preface to my scholastic question.

It seems that Mr. Siscoe simply wants to condone law breaking, and refuses to consider anything else.

When the facts do not fit your case, massage them

Finally, notice how Mr. Siscoe alters reality when it does not suit his pet theory:

Br. Bugnolo: “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!”

Mr. Siscoe: The universal acceptance only requires a moral unanimity, not a mathematical unanimity. There’s over a billion Catholics in the world and you know of 13 who rejected him IN SECRET.

Does he think that Mons. Gracida and those 12 persons are holding that Benedict is the Pope or that the renunciation is dubious in secret? If it was in secret, how do I know about it? Siscoe has just implied I have the grace to read minds!

That being the case, Mr. Siscoe, I will use that gift and say you are not being honest. Because no honest man replies to facts that way. You would be laughed right out of every tribunal and court in the world, if you attempted such a legal argument. You have adopted the absurdity of a Skojec.

All Bergoglians are blasphemers

Finally, I will observe that Siscoe doubles down on his theory and seals it with a blasphemy, like all Bergoglians. Notice how a Catholic, when using a contrary of fact, uses the conditional, but Siscoe uses the indicative: for him blasphemy is a real option:

Br. Bugnolo: 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.

Mr. Siscoe: But Francis was accepted by all in the Church as Pope in the days, weeks and months after his election. Therefore, according to your own reasoning, Christ would be proven a liar if Francis had no legitimate claim to the Papacy because of non complains with ecclesiastical law. Therefore, either Christ is a liar, or the Francis DID have a legitimate claim to the Papacy based on ecclesiastical law.

Mr. Siscoe has a real problem, for him the Church means what he says it means. And if you do not agree with him you are not part of the Church. He is a perfect bergoglian. He also cannot read, because the context of my statement regards the presumption of the theory of Universal Acceptance being a valid theory of interpretation, but Siscoe reads my statement as if it was made in reference to fact, not the theory. He also ignores the context of proved a liar, which is that Christ would accept the illegitimate election on the basis of common opinion, and not on that of the law.

I have argued on street corners and sidewalks with every kind of protestant, and whenever you catch them in a lie or false statement, they change the argument. So I am not fooled by Mr. Siscoe’s slippery way of responding to anything said to him. His manner of argumentation is simply another proof that his opinion does not come from God. Indeed, he speaks as if Christ is not God.

+ + +

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

Victory: 9th Circuit Upholds President Trump’s Protect Life Rule
Pro-life Rule Honors the Will of Americans by Stopping Taxpayer-funded Abortion in Title XWashington, D.C. – Today an 11-judge panel of the 9^th U.S. Court of Appeals upheld, in a 7-4 ruling, President Trump’s Protect Life Rule, declaring that plaintiffs challenging the Rule “will not prevail on the merits of their legal claims” and vacating preliminary injunction rulings issued by three district courts.
The majority opinion written by Judge Sandra Ikuta also states that “There is no ‘gag’ on [nondirective] abortion counseling.”
The national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) issued the following statement in response to the news:
    “Today’s ruling is a vindication of President Trump’s pro-life policies and a victory for the American people,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Abortion is not ‘family planning’ and a strong majority          of Americans – including 42 percent of Independents and more than one third of Democrats – oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. President Trump’s Protect Life Rule honors their will and the plain language of the            Title X statute by stopping the funneling of Title X taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry, without reducing family planning funding by a dime. We thank President Trump and HHS Secretary Azar for their strong                 pro-life leadership and look forward to the end of further frivolous litigation by the abortion lobby.”

Finalized in 2019, the Protect Life Rule advances President Trump’s promise to stop taxpayer funding of abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood.

Under the Protect Life Rule abortion centers cannot serve as taxpayer-funded family planning centers (“co-location”). In addition, Title X locations cannot refer for abortion. The Protect Life Rule does not prohibit Title X providers from providing neutral, nondirective counseling about abortion and does not prevent anyone from obtaining Title X services. It does not reduce family planning funding by a dime. Instead, it directs tax dollars to Title X centers that do not promote or perform abortions, such as the growing number of community and rural health centers that far outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities. Similar regulations were upheld by the Supreme Court in 1991 in Rust v. Sullivan (500 U.S. 173).
Represented by the Thomas More Society, SBA List has filed 10 amicus briefs in support of the Protect Life Rule and the federal government in multiple cases being litigated throughout the country. In August, Planned Parenthood – the nation’s largest abortion business – announced it would drop out of the Title X program and forego nearly $60 million in taxpayer funding rather than comply with the rule.A Marist poll in January of this year found that 60 percent of all Americans – including 42 percent of Independents and 35 percent of Democrats – oppose taxpayer funding of abortion.SBA List is a network of more than 837,000 pro-life Americans nationwide, dedicated to ending abortion by electing national leaders and advocating for laws that save lives, with a special calling to promote pro-life women leaders.#

CANON LAW, EDITORIALS, NEWS

THE THEORY OF UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE IS CONTRARY TO FAITH, LAW AND FACT

FEBRUARY 24, 2020FROM ROME EDITOR8 COMMENTS

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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.

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 24 feb 

Praise of Freedom, the Real Kind. Dialogue Between a Cardinal and a Lay Thinker

*

The explosion of individual desires transformed into rights for all is a matter of daily news, in the West and beyond. With no limits anymore. It affects birth and death, technology and the environment, politics and migration, in short, the very nature of man. But is it the triumph of freedom or dictatorship, at the expense of the weakest? And what then is the other freedom, the one that feeds on truth and cannot exist without it?

Cardinal Camillo Ruini, 89, a lifelong philosopher and pastor, discusses this with Gaetano Quagliariello, senator, professor of contemporary history at LUISS in Rome and president of the Magna Carta Foundation, in a lucid and impassioned book, on sale in Italy since February 20:

> C. Ruini, G. Quagliariello, “Another freedom. Against the new prophets of ‘heaven on earth’,” Rubbettino Editore, 2020.

The following offers a taste of it. They are three passages in which Cardinal Ruini addresses the issue of voluntary abortion. At first as a matter of fact, then analyzing it in the light of reason alone, and finally with special attention to the teaching of the Church, culminating in the “infallible and irreformable” pronouncement of John Paul II in the encyclical “Evangelium Vitae,” an encyclical that “seems written today,” so much have its predictions come true, but which too many – the cardinal notes – seem to have set aside.

*

ABORTION, MIRROR OF THE CRISIS OF THE WEST

by Camillo Ruini

(from: “Another freedom. Against the new prophets of ‘heaven on earth’”)

1. THE COURAGE TO CALL IT “MURDER”

In cases concerning the beginning of life, the claim to individual freedom is out of place, because one decides not about oneself but about another, the unborn child, unless one thinks that the unborn child is simply part of the mother’s body: an unsustainable absurdity because he has his own “dna,” his own development and interacts with the mother, as is increasingly clear.

The alternative is to think that the unborn child is not a human being but can become one only later (after birth, or after the formation of the nervous system, or after implantation in the uterus…). In reality this is always a matter of the the same being that evolves, as he does even after birth. His continuity is verified as his distinction from the mother. He is therefore never an “animalcule” of a non-human species. To suppress him is always, from conception or from the fertilization of the egg onwards, to suppress a human being. Therefore the encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” of John Paul II does not hesitate to speak of murder and warns against the manipulations of language that hide reality. Instead he asks to have the courage to call things by their name: “voluntary abortion” and not the aseptic “termination of pregnancy.”

2. NO TO ABORTION IN THE LIGHT OF REASON ALONE

Is there a connection between the attack on life and the crisis of the West and of Western humanism? I believe so, and to trace the common trait I refer to the encyclical “Evangelium Vitae.” […] It was written twenty-five years ago but in essence it seems written today, with the only difference being that today the situation has worsened and the risks reported at the time have largely been realized.

In the first of its four chapters “Evangelium Vitae” highlights the current threats to human life, which we all know. However, it does not limit itself to describing the situation but examines its causes.

The basic justification for the attacks on human life is the claim to individual freedom: consider the slogan of the ‘70s, “My body, my choice.” Today, still on the basis of individual freedom, the right to a living will and from there to assisted suicide is affirmed, situations in which I not only decide but bind others, including doctors, to my free choice. […]

But there is a profound contradiction at the basis of the unease and unhappiness of our age, and therefore of its tendency to escape from ourselves and from reality. On the one hand, there is the great assertion of the freedom and rights of the subject, to the point of setting up this freedom as the absolute criterion for our choices. On the other hand, the subject is conceived of simply as a fruit of evolution, a “speck of nature” (“Gaudium et Spes,” 14), which as such cannot be really and inwardly free and responsible and cannot claim any centrality or any right in the face of the nature that ignores him and does not care for him. This contradiction explodes dramatically in cases such as the death of a young person or a disabling illness, which appear to be meaningless and completely unacceptable.

“Evangelium Vitae” takes a rather demanding step forward to get out of the contradiction. In order that the assertion of our freedom may truly make sense, it is not necessary that God not exist – as most of modern thought has believed – but on the contrary that God exist.

In fact, only if at the origin of our existence there is not only an unconscious nature but also and above all a creative freedom can we be really and inwardly free. This is a great intuition of Kant, taken up by Schelling, which the encyclical proposes in its own perspective. […] When we reflect on what makes it possible for a human life to be truly free and truly have a meaning, we realize that we cannot do without God, and not just any God but God our creator, author and foundation of our life and our freedom.

Therefore the claim that we are the masters of life and death, ours or even others’, is wrong for several reasons. First of all because freedom is not something isolated and absolute, but can only exist in relation to reality, that is, to others and to the environment in which we live. Secondly, because our life and our very freedom come from God and are intrinsically in relationship with him, they are linked to him and ultimately depend on him.

It is therefore unfounded to treat them as something that is ours alone, for which we need answer to no one: we must answer for them before the reality that we are, before the society to which we belong and ultimately before God our creator.

In public discussion we never talk about this relationship with God in order to avoid the accusation of defending life for confessional reasons, and it is right to do so. On the other hand, for the sake of thoroughness it seems appropriate to mention this aspect, which sheds light on the ultimate roots of our freedom. Those who defend life and are not believers can, of course, disagree: the defense of life is certainly possible even regardless of the relationship with God.

3. A “DO NOT KILL” THAT APPLIES EVEN MORE TO CATHOLICS

The teaching of “Evangelium Vitae” must be re-proposed with rational arguments, as recommended by the encyclical itself, which is addressed to all and asks everyone for attention and sympathy in the cause of life, without fear of unpopularity and without stooping to compromises. But the same encyclical is addressed first of all to Catholics, starting with the bishops, and proposes a truth that applies to all but applies in a special capacity to believers.

In publishing it, John Paul II intended to perform an act of the highest doctrinal value, strictly binding for believers. This is in fact the document of his pontificate in which he most brings to bear his magisterium, stating that the commandment “Do not kill” has an absolute value when it refers to innocent people. This clarification, “innocent,” is important in relation to the problem of legitimate defense, which can lawfully lead to the killing of the unjust aggressor, and also for the question of the death penalty, which the Church today excludes because human coexistence can be defended without resorting to it, but has not always ruled out in the past.

According to “Evangelium Vitae” this “absolute inviolability of innocent human life is a moral truth clearly taught by Sacred Scripture, constantly upheld in the Church’s Tradition and consistently proposed by her Magisterium.” It is the fruit of the sense of faith, prompted and guided by the Holy Spirit, who “safeguards the People of God from error when ‘it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals’.” “Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors” – John Paul II writes – “and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral” (no. 57). This solemn formula expresses an infallible and irreformable pronouncement. […] The pope uses the word “I confirm” – and not “I declare” – to underline that this is a matter of a truth already belonging to the patrimony of the Catholic faith. […]

Unfortunately many Catholics, even practicing, do not seem aware of all this: in fact they support and even put into practice regarding abortion positions incompatible with the faith they profess. […]

Interesting is what we can qualify as the intra-ecclesial implication of this statement: in the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” of two years earlier, the pope had affirmed that there are truths of the moral order contained in divine revelation, and that the magisterium of the Church can define them infallibly. Various Catholic theologians, of the contrary opinion, had objected that in fact there are no moral truths on which the magisterium has intervened infallibly. The non-reformable position of the encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” regarding the inviolability of innocent human life and in particular abortion responds in a very concrete manner to an objection of this kind.

•  24 febbraio 2020
•  English

Cardinal Schönborn hangs gigantic purple female sweater in Vienna Cathedral for Lent

Other questionable works from an artist known for photos showing genitalia can be found in and around the parish. Fri Feb 21, 2020 – 7:06 pm EST 

By Martin Bürger

---

VIENNA, Austria, February 21, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – For Lent, the high altar of St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna, Austria, where Cardinal Christoph Schönborn is archbishop, is covered in a larger-than-life feminine purple sweater. 

The sweater, consisting of 80 square meters of material, supposedly shows “the priority of warming love of neighbor,” according to the website of the cathedral parish. The cathedral parish claims the sweater is a modern Lenten veil (Fastentuch).

Austrian artist Erwin Wurm is responsible for the sweater. He has also created works that depict naked photographs of men with genitals showing in varying poses.

The Devil Went Down to Texas by charliej373

Below, in its entirety, is an interview of Texas Right to Life (TRTL) President Jim Graham conducted by Church Militant. The article, by Christine Niles, contains additional material concerning Ft. Worth Bishop Michael Olson, who has been the leader in getting the Texas Bishops to support the state’s forced euthanasia law (Texas Advance Directives Act – or TADA). At the end, there is a link to material on how a witness accused Olson, in a court proceeding, of fantasizing about torturing and murdering a Priest. This is not hyperbole. I have been in possession of the court transcripts for about a month.

During the early stages over providing care for baby Tinslee Lewis, Olson publicly said he would gladly help transfer her to a Catholic hospital which would provide care. Several readers sent me notes with links to this saying there was at least one good Bishop in Texas. It sickened me, because I knew that even as he was saying this for public consumption, he was leading the charge to get the Bishops of Texas to file a brief encouraging the court to remove young Tinslee from life support, altogether. Sure enough, that is what they did. It may have been a fatal error for Olson, though, as I have had several credible reports that some Texas Bishops whose name appeared on the filing did not give their permission nor know it was coming. Combined with a canonical lawsuit with over 1,500 individual mandates demanding Olson’s removal from the Diocese because of abusive behavior, the end of his tenure may be in view. If so, that would be a boon to the pro-life movement and to the Catholics of Ft. Worth.

As I always note, I am an occasional consultant to TRTL and am close friends with the Grahams and many of the staff there. – CJ

Fort Worth Bishop Spearheaded Attacks on TX Right to Life

churchmilitant.com/news/article/fort-worth-bishop-spearheaded-attacks-on-tx-right-to-life

FORT WORTH, Texas (ChurchMilitant.com) – Texas Bishop Michael Olson led the charge not only in attacking a prominent pro-life group but also supporting measures that would allow a “death panel” to determine if patients live or die.

“Michael Olson is really the person who drives their political agenda, the Texas Catholic Conference,” says Jim Graham, president of Texas Right to Life, in a recent interview with Church Militant. “It has become solely a political organization.”

Bishop Michael Olson allowed pro-abortion Democrat Marc Veasey to speak in one of his parishes in 2016 while banning TX Right to Life

The Texas bishops issued an advisory in 2018 essentially banning Texas Right to Life from holding events on diocesan property, criticizing its voter’s guide for counseling voters to reject any “faux pro-life” candidates who block authentically pro-life legislation while choosing to compromise with weaker measures.

“They’ve engaged heavily in politics,” Graham said of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, adding, “Bishop Olson is the person that’s driving it.”

While Olson supported the ban on Texas Right to Life, he had no problem allowing a pro-abortion Democrat to speak in his diocese.

In August 2016, Democratic Congressman Marc Veasey, U.S. representative for Texas’ 33rd district, spoke at All Saints Catholic Church in Fort Worth. 

Veasey has been given a 100% rating by NARAL Pro-Choice America, and has consistently voted against pro-life measures, including the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would have protected unborn children who feel pain from abortions. Veasey supports abortion through all nine months, and has attended rallies in support of Planned Parenthood.

Olson has also led the vanguard in supporting the Texas Advanced Directives Act (TADA), “a deadly law,” according to Graham, “the worst in America.”

“Prisoners who’ve been found guilty of heinous crimes by a jury of their peers have more due process and more right to life than a little baby does in Texas,” referring to Tinslee Lewis, a baby at the center of a legal battle between her family and the hospital, which wants to remove life-sustaining care, leading to her immediate death. Tinslee is in a hospital within Olson’s diocese.

While Texas Right to Life supplied attorneys to fight for Tinslee’s right to life, amazingly, the Texas bishops submitted an opposing brief arguing in favor of the hospital’s right to pull the plug based on the judgment of an ethics panel — what critics call a death panel — that determined her quality of life did not warrant further care. In Tinslee’s case, the care is a ventilator and feeding tube.

“I’ve sat in those committees; they are death panels,” Graham said. “In one case they actually said as the argument, ‘Well, this woman will never be able to balance a checkbook.’ And that was the argument for removing her life-sustaining care — not that she was dying, not that she was having systemic organ failure, but that her quality of life was too low.”

In one case they actually said as the argument, ‘Well, this woman will never be able to balance a checkbook.’

Once the hospital decides a patient’s quality of life no longer warrants life-sustaining care, the patient’s family has only 10 days to find another hospital willing to take him in — an unrealistic timeline.

“This is coming back to Michael Olson; he is the main person who has kept this law in place,” said Graham, a faithful Catholic. “Increasingly the general public is aghast at what’s going on, but Bp. Olson is making sure that that law is not changed, remains in place, and that his hospitals and the hospitals around the nation have the power over life and death.”

Bp. Olson Voting Democrat?

Graham has researched the voting records of Texas bishops, which has revealed disturbing results. Out of 15 bishops total, five of them have consistently voted in Democratic primaries in Texas. Another bishop has voted in nine straight Democratic primaries. Most others have a mixed record.

Bishop Olson has voted in three primaries total: Republican in 2016 and 2018, and Democratic in 2010. It’s unclear why he chose to vote in the Democratic primaries in 2010, a year when it was more important than ever to vote Republican, as that involved the Tea Party wave. 

In Olson’s district in 2010, pro-abortion Republican Kay Granger was being challenged in the primary by fellow Republican Michael Brasovan, the pro-life, Tea Party candidate. Granger was the only GOP candidate who supported abortion. Olson had the opportunity to openly oppose her and send a strong pro-life message in that election, but instead chose to vote Democrat. 

Olson also passed up the opportunity to support pro-life Gov. Rick Perry, who experienced a difficult primary fight against pro-abortion Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Instead, the bishop abandoned the Republican races and switched parties.

Olson has been the subject of 10 lawsuits, both canonical and civil, from both priests and laity. More than 1,500 mandates have been signed by Catholics and sent to Rome demanding the removal of Olson from his diocese over malfeasance and abusive speech and behavior. Recently aired testimony from a longtime confidant and friend reveals that Olson allegedly once wanted to torture and murder a priest, leading to questions about the bishop’s psychological fitness for office.

Watch the full interview here.

Catholic Monitor

Sunday, February 23, 2020

Doctor of the Church St. Bellarmine & Bp. Gracida: “A Doubtful Pope is no Pope”

Bishop Rene Gracida summed the situation we are in with the doubtfulness of the Pope Benedict XVI resignation: 

“[I]f the [Pope Benedict XVI] Renunciation is doubtful, then in virtue of canon 332 §2, it is invalid for lack of due manifestation”
[https://abyssum.org/ ]

Moreover, it appears that if someone has definite solid reasons from canon law to doubt the validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation one can it appears possibly commit a sin if he doesn’t resolve that doubt before claiming Francis is definitely pope.

The important theological book “Rodriguez and the Confession of Doubtful Mortal Sins” in page 225 says:

“If one does not resolve the doubt and deliberately does the action anyhow, it means that he is willing to offend God gravely, and therefore he commits a mortal sin.”
(Google: Theological Studies -cdn- 1 PDF by U. Adelman – Cited by 1 Related articles)

Moreover, Dogmatic theology scholar Fr. Elwood Sylvester Berry (1879-1954), who was professor at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Maryland, in his apologetic and dogmatic treatise which according to his introduction “was originally written in Latin” stated that according to Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine: “a doubtful pope is no pope… ‘if a papal election is doubtful for any reason'” therefore a imperfect council of bishops is needed:

“Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope. ‘Therefore,’ continues the Cardinal, ‘if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogma nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.'” 8
(The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, By Rev. E. Sylvester Berry,  Page 229, Note 8: Bellarmine, “De Concilio, ii, 19)

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 2:30 PM

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/02/doctor-of-church-st-bellarmine-bp.html?m=1

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:

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

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

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/FMfcgxwGDWqXvrpxMtfMMxfGHzlWjpdG

Catholic Monitor

Sunday, February 23, 2020

Are Siscoe & Hilary White wrong on Francis’s “Universal Acceptance” according to Renowned Scholars De Silveira & Carroll?

Today, there was a disagreement between Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo and author Robert Siscoe on the validity of the Siscoe’s presentation of the “principle of Universal Acceptance”:

Alexis Bugnolo said…
Let’s use some logic.

Universal acceptance is the effect of a legitimate election of a man to the papacy, not the cause of his being a legitimate pope.

Therefore, if a man was elected in a conclave during the life time of a legitimate pope, who had not resigned according to the norm of law, he would be an illegitimate pope.

Therefore, the principle of Universal Acceptance does not apply.

Therefore, in all cases of legal doubt as to legitimacy for a man who claims to be pope, no appeal to universal acceptance can be made.

But you make such an appeal.

Therefore, please explain to me whether you are trying to deceive your fellow Catholics or if you are simple incapable of understanding was a legal dobut is. 

TrueorFalsePope said… 
Brother,

You don’t understand UPA. If you did, you would not have raised this objection. I will reply this evening.  

Robert Siscoe February 23, 2020 at 7:30 AM   [http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/annbarnhardt-is-liar-and-fool-byjohn.html?m=1]Who is right?
 On November 14, 2019, Remnant writer Hilary White summed up Siscoe’s presentation of the “principle of Universal Acceptance” among other matters dealing with the validity of Francis’s papacy: White twitted: 

Hilary White@hilarityjane  Replying to  @billhowardesq  @BVMConsolatrix and  3 others

“The validity of a papal election rests on more than one thing, the most important of which is his acceptance by the Church in the person of the bishops. Even C. Burke, an elector and canon lawyer, has said nothing about UDG affecting validity. Its the reason the question… … is unanswerable. Only a pope can determine if a person has violated UDG and only a pope can violate UDG. If these are the same person, what have we got? Only a pope can say that a previous pope had been an antipope. So, maybe the answer to your question will simply have to wait.”[https://mobile.twitter.com/hilarityjane/status/1195066222188077057]  White is wrong on her claim that Cardinal Raymond Burke said nothing on the conclave constitution: Patrick Coffin on his YouTube show asked Cardinal Burke: “I was wondering rather if those [Universi Dominici Gregis conclave constitution] rules [of the 2013 conclave that elected Francis] were violated and rather or not the whole election of Francis may be invalid. Is there any foundation for that speculation?” Cardinal Burke answered: “The only grounds that could be used for calling into question the validity of the election would be were the election organized by a campaign beforehand which is strictly forbidden and that would be difficult to demonstrate…” “… If these persons [the St. Gallen Mafia of liberal cardinals] engaged in a active campaign first to undermined Pope Benedict XVI and at the same time to engineer the election of someone [Francis] then that could be a argument. I don’t think I have the facts, and there have to be facts, to prove that. That’s all I have to say about that.” (Patrick Coffin show, “141: Dubia Cardinal Goes on the Record – Raymond Cardinal Burke (Free Version),” Premiered 13 hours ago, 19:55 to 21:46)  Next, White is wrong in saying “Only a pope can determine if a person has violated UDG and only a pope can violate UDG”: White is ignoring paragraph 5 of Universi Dominici Gregis which 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 Rene Gracida says and Universi Dominici Gregis said, only the cardinals can interpret its meaning, not a future pope, not White or anyone else.  Again, White is wrong in saying “The validity of a papal election rests” most importantly on “his acceptance by the Church in the person of the bishops” and, moreover, “Only a pope can say that a previous pope had been an antipope”: The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is a antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope.  In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II.  How is this possible?  St. Bernard who wasn’t a pope said “the ‘sanior pars’ (the wiser portion)… declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops.”(St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) How is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for Anacletus?  Historian Warren Carroll explains: “[C]anon law does not bind a Pope arranging for his successor… [Papal Chancellor] Haimeric proposed that… a commission of eight cardinals should be selected to choose the next Pope… strong evidence [shows] that the Pope [Honorius] endorsed what Haimeric was doing, including the establishment of the electoral commission [of eight cardinals].”(The Glory of Christendom, Pages 36-37) The majority or “sanior pars,” five cardinals out of eight of “the electoral commission,” elected Pope Innocent II as St. Bernard said and as evidence shows was the will of the previous pope in what we can call a constitution for the election of his successor.  In the same way, is it possible that Francis was not elected pope even though he received a absolute majority of cardinals votes and is now as in the case of Anacletus proclaimed pope by the same absolute majority?  As with the case of Anacletus, it is possible Francis is a antipope if his election contradicted or violated the constitution promulgated by Pope John Paul II for electing his successor.  The renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the “election procedures… [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope”: “Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope).”  “During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals.” “But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.” “Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims.”  [http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]  Finally, Remnant writer White got her idea that “The validity of a papal election rests” most importantly on “his acceptance by the Church in the person of the bishops” from Remnant writer Robert Siscoe who claims that it is a infallible dogma that a man is infallibly a pope if there is “peaceful and universal acceptance” by the Church. The problem apparently is Siscoe, who is White’s mentor in the “universal acceptance” claim, is possibly either a poor scholar or possibly a bit disingenuous in his leaving out the second part of a quote by a Doctor of the Church. He says “peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected… nevertheless becomes a true Pope… [by] universal acceptance… curing any defects that may have existed in the election… Here is what [Doctor of the Church] St. Alphonsus taught”: ‘It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff.'” (TrueorFalsePope.com, “Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a  Pope,” 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) [read this whole article here] The problem with Siscoe’s quote is he leaves out the very next sentence: “‘But if for a certain time, he was not accepted universally and truly by the Church, during that time then, the pontifical see would be vacant, as it is vacant at the death of a Pope.’ ‘Verita Della Fede’, vol. VIII, p. 720.'” (CathInfo.com, “Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal,” December 2, 2017) Did Siscoe leave it out because he is a poor scholar or for some other reason or because it said “for a certain time”? What does “for a certain time” mean? Is that “certain time” immediately at the conclave or is it a few years after the conclave? Does this possibly mean that since Francis “afterwards… for a certain time… was not accepted universally… then, the pontifical see would be vacant”? Francis is not “accepted universally.” I am honored to know a successor of the Apostles, Bishop Rene Gracida, who questions the validity of Francis and is calling for the cardinals to investigate if he was “lawfully elected.” Moreover, Siscoe can’t have it both ways in his quotes when they apparently contradict each other. In the above same article he quotes John of St. Thomas saying: “[T]his man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff.” (TrueorFalsePope.com, “Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a  Pope,” 2-28-19 & 3-20-19)  But getting back to Siscoe’s selective quote of St. Alphonsus, a good place to go to find out what the Doctor of the Church really meant is to go to a scholar who quotes him in full. This is Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira who Siscoe respects as shown by his website: “‘Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira’s Endorsement of ‘True or False Pope?'”  Note: Having recently learned of the passing of the great Brazilian scholar, Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, we are publishing a portion of his endorsement of True or False Pope?, which will appear in the upcoming second edition. (1-8-2019)” [http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/?m=1] There is good reason to respect de Silveira’s scholarship has he himself explained: “In the 1970 Brazilian edition of my study of the heretical Pope, in the French edition of 1975 and in the Italian in 2016, I stated that on the grounds of the intrinsic theological reasons underpinning the Fifth Opinion I considered it not merely probable but certain. I chose not to insist on the qualification ‘theologically certain’ for an extrinsic reason, namely, that certain authors of weight do not adopt it.43 This was also the opinion of the then Bishop of Campos, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, as expressed in a letter of 25th January 1974, when he sent my work to Paul VI, asking him to point out any possible errors (which never took place), expressly stating that he referred to the study ‘written by lawyer Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, with the contents of which I associate myself .’”[https://www.scribd.com/document/374434852/Arnaldo-Vidigal-Xavier-Da-Silveira-Replies-to-Fr-Gleize-on-Heretical-Pope] Here is what de Silveira say in his book “Implications Of New Missae And Heretic Popes”:  “On this same sanatio in raclice by virtue of the acceptance of the Pope by the whole Church,  Saint Alphonse of Liguori writes, in less heated but perhaps even more incisive terms:  “It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession  of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope,  since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not  been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been  vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff’ (2).  “4. The Election of a Person who Cannot Be Pope  “The designation, as Pope, of a person who cannot occupy the charge, would constitute a special  case of dubious election. For it is a common opinion (3) that the election of a woman, of a child, of a  demented person and of someone who were not a member of the Church (a person not baptized, a  heretic, an apostate, a schismatic) would be invalid by divine law.  “Among these causes of invalidity it seems to us that it would be necessary to distinguish those  which would admit of a “sanatio in radice” from those which would not. A woman could not become  Pope under any hypothesis. But the same thing would not apply with a demented person, who could be  cured; with a child, who could grow; with a non-baptized person, who could be converted.  “This being laid down, we ask: in the hypotheses of invalidity which admits of sanatio in radice ,  would the eventual acceptation by the whole Church of the invalidly elected Pope remedy the vices of  the election?  “A complete answer to this question would require a detailed analysis of each of the cases of  invalidity. And this would exceed the objectives which we have set for ourselves.  “Such being the case, we shall only consider the hypothesis which is most relevant to the  perspective in which we place ourselves: The election of a heretic to the Papacy. What would happen if  a notorious heretic were elected and assumed the Pontificate without anyone having contested his  election?  (1) Billot , Tract de Eccl. Christi, tom. I, pp. 612-613.  (2) Saint Alphonse de Liquori , Verita della Fede, in “Opera…”, vol. VIII. P. 720, n. 9.  (3) See: Ferreres , Inst. Canonicae, tom. I, p. 132; Coronata , Inst, luris Canonici, vol. I, p. 360; Schmalzqrueber ,  lus Eccl. Univ., tom. I, pars II, p. 376, n. 99; Caietan , De Auctoriatate…, cap. XXVI, n. 382, pp. 167-168.  187  “At first sight, the answer to this question is, in theory , very simple: since God cannot permit that  the whole Church err about who is her chief, the Pope peacefully accepted by the whole Church is the  true Pope (1). It would be the duty of the theologians, on the basis of this clear theoretical principle, to  resolve the concrete question which would then be put: either proving that in reality the Pope had not  been a formal and notorious heretic at the moment of election; or showing that afterwards he had been  converted; or verifying that the acceptation by the Church had not been pacific and universal; or  presenting any other plausible explanation.  “A more attentive examination of the question would reveal, nevertheless, that even on purely  theoretical grounds, an important difficulty arises, which would consist in determining precisely what is the concept of pacific and universal acceptation by the Church. For such acceptation to have been  pacific and universal would it be enough that no Cardinal had contested the election?Would it be  enough that in a Council, for example, almost the totality of the Bishops had signed the acts, recognizing  in this way, at least implicitly, that the Pope be the true one?Would it be enough that no voice, or  practically no voice had publicly given the cry of alert?Or, on the contrary, would a certain very  generalized though not always well defined distrust be sufficient to destroy the apparently pacific and  universal character of the acceptance of the Pope?And if this distrust became a suspicion in numerous  spirits, a positive doubt in many, a certainty in some, would the aforementioned pacific and universal acceptance subsist?And if such distrusts, suspicions, doubts and certainties cropped out with some  frequency in conversations or private papers, or now and again in published writings, could one still  classify as pacific and universal the acceptance of a Pope who was already a heretic on the occasion of  his election by the Sacred College?” [https://archive.org/stream/ SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissa eAndHereticPopes/Silveira% 20Implications%20of%20New% 20Missae%20and%20Heretic% 20Popes_djvu.txt] It is obvious that the renowned theologian de Silveira does not think that St. Alphonsus taught what Siscoe claims he taught that “peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected… nevertheless becomes a true Pope… [by] universal acceptance… curing any defects that may have existed in the election.” Does Siscoe think that “peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected… nevertheless becomes a true Pope… [by] universal acceptance… curing any defects that may have existed in the election” includes “curing” such “defects” as:  – “a special case of dubious [unlawful] election. For it is a common opinion (3) that the election of a woman, of a child, of a demented person and of someone who were not a member of the Church (a person not baptized, a heretic, an apostate, a schismatic) would be invalid by divine law.” Francis is not “accepted universally” as Bishop Gracida has said. But, even more important, it is obvious that besides “acceptance” a valid pope needs to be “lawfully elected.” Lastly, I ask Siscoe and White to specifically answer if Francis was not “lawfully elected” then does a “peaceful and universal acceptance” overturn a unlawful election? More importantly, why are Siscoe and White apparently so afraid of an investigation by cardinals since they continually ignore or avoid addressing the subject by the “universal acceptance” mantra? I ask both to please give a specific answer to why they are apparently so afraid of an investigation.  Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for Catholics to not just bemoan heresy, but put pressure on the cardinals to act as well as for the grace for a cardinal to stand up and investigate and to be the St. Bernard of our time.

Fred Martinez

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/FMfcgxwGDWqXvrqkFwGvsctWWtlgdLjx