Only a meeting of validly appointed cardinals can answer the question as to the validity of the claim of Francis the Merciful and his supporters that he is a validly elected Pope

Posted on March 22, 2019 by abyssum

Catholic Monitor
Thursday, March 21, 2019
Why are Skojec & Siscoe Afraid of a Conclave Investigation by Cardinals?
The Catholic Monitor received a comment from Steve Skojec today that was puzzling.

But before I respond to it I want to say I like Steve. In our few correspondences by email he has being a gentleman. I pray for him and his important work. I have recently been a bit worried about him because lately he has started multiplying disparagements for what someone is calling the “Skojec Little Book of Insults.”

Below is the comment I received from Steve:

1 comment:

Steve11:15 AM
You know, Fred, research isn’t that hard. I’m not claiming it as infallible. That would be absurd. What I said in my actual post, which was only 471 words long and wouldn’t have taken that much time to read, is:

“I am posting this today as a point of reference. I see a lot of argument over what “universal acceptance” means, but it’s much simpler than people think. And if the explanation of John of St. Thomas is correct — and I have no reason to believe that it isn’t — then we can see that Francis was universally accepted.”https://onepeterfive.com/a-brief-word-on-universal-acceptance-of-a-pope/ [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/03/is-skojecs-theologian-of-universal.html?m=1]
I am puzzled because Skojec wrote “You know, Fred, research isn’t that hard. I’m not claiming it as infallible. That would be absurd.”

Here is what he wrote in the pertinent part of the post:

“This is why the Church teaches that it is infallibly certain that a pope universally accepted is the pope. Francis was universally accepted — as Robert Siscoe said, this isn’t mathematical unanimity, but practical universality. John of St. Thomas explains what universal acceptance consists of:
‘All that remains to be determined, then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition de fide. Is it as soon as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found?
I REPLY that (as we have said above) the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops of a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him.'”
“I am posting this today as a point of reference. I see a lot of argument over what “universal acceptance” means, but it’s much simpler than people think. And if the explanation of John of St. Thomas is correct — and I have no reason to believe that it isn’t — then we can see that Francis was universally accepted.”
[https://onepeterfive.com/a-brief-word-on-universal-acceptance-of-a-pope/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Onepeterfive+%28OnePeterFive%29]

The problem is that Steve says “if the explanation of John of St. Thomas is correct” and he assumes it is correct thus infallible, but the only proof he gives is the John of St. Thomas quote.

Skojec in his post writes:

“This is why the Church teaches that it is infallibly certain that a pope universally accepted is the pope.”

But then tells me at the Catholic Monitor:

“I’m not claiming it as infallible.”

Why is he saying “the Church teaches that it is infallible” then saying “I’m not claiming it as infallible”?

Moreover, Skojec in the post says to go to Siscoe’s website which says that what Steve is saying is “de fide” (if John of St. Thomas’s explanation is correct which Skojec assumes is correct thus it is de fide or infallible) which means “doctrines of the Church which are infallibly true” according to the CatholicCulture.com dictionary.

Here is the pertinent part of the Siscoe piece on his website:

John of St. Thomas’ Treatise on the Peaceful and Universal Acceptance

The brilliant Dominican theologian, John of St. Thomas, wrote a lengthy treatise on the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope, in which he explains that the legitimacy of a Pope, who has been accepted as such by the Church, is de fide – that is, it must be accepted with the assent of faith. He also discusses the conditions required on the part of the electors, and on the part of the one elected, and how we can have certitude that they were satisfied.
After defining his terms,[6] he begins his treatise as follows:

“In the present controversy we discuss whether or not it is de fide that this specific person, who has been legitimately elected, is the Pope and the head of the Church, as well as the degree of certitude with which this proposition is to be held.”

He then provides his answer:

“Our conclusion is the following. It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff and the successor of Peter, not only quoad se (in himself) but also quoad nos (in relation to us) —although it is made much more manifest quoad nos (to us) when de facto the pope defines something. In practice, no Catholic disagrees with our conclusion [that his legitimacy is de fide], even though, when he considers it as a theoretical question, he might not think that he believes it with divine faith. (…)”
[read this whole article here]

The problem is that Siscoe didn’t get his “peaceful and universal acceptance” idea from a pope or council, but from a generally good, but a not necessarily infallible theologian John of St. Thomas. Here is the important part of the quote from John of St. Thomas:

“[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 and 3-13-19)

This bring us to the renown historian Warren Carroll statement:

“A Papal claimant not following these methods [which is the conclave constitution of a previous pope] is also an Antipope.”

Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not how many cardinals claim a person is the pope or universal acceptance unless it was a lawful election as prescribed by the last 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.”

Even John of St. Thomas agrees with Carroll when he said as quoted by Siscoe:

Besides “acceptance” a valid pope needs to be “lawfully elected.”

That’s the problem with Skojec’s and Siscoe’s John of St. Thomas selective mantra about “universal acceptance” while ignoring his “lawfully elected” part of the quote.

This is why Bishop Rene Gracida’s call for a cardinal investigation is important.

Bishop Gracida is saying what Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution says about the question of if Francis was “lawfully elected” or not: only the cardinals can investigate it and interpret it.

Siscoe, Skojec, canon lawyers or John of St. Thomas can’t interpret it, John Paul II’s constitution prescribes that cardinals interpret it.

Finally, I ask Siscoe and Steve 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 Skojec apparently so afraid of a 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 a 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.

In fact, please offer Masses, fast and pray the rosary for these intentions during Lent and after the Lenten season.

Fred Martinez at 8:55 PM

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TWELVE VALID CARDINALS, i.e. CARDINALS APPOINTED BY POPES BENEDICT XVI AND SAINT JOHN PAUL II, MUST ACT SOON TO REMOVE FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL FROM THE THRONE OF SAINT PETER BEFORE HE DAMAGES THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH EVEN MORE THAN HE HAS ALREADY DAMAGED IT.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

Recently many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports. Claiming heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff, suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church? This is so because each Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility. So, before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate, one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly good and safe fruit of Infallibility.

If he seems repeatedly to engage in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in matters of faith or morals. So to what do we look to discern the invalidity of such an election? His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question. The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See.

His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis) which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from its norms. For example, Paragraph 76 states: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”

From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility. If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself.

Only valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately (secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. While thousands of the Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid conclave, an utter nullity.

What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregisparticularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”). The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis thus concludes definitively with these words: “. . . knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.” (“. . . scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint excogitata.”) [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead. This similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an entirely different legal significance than scienter.] This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or willfully knowing, criminal intent.

Thus, it clearly appears that Pope John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the Promulgation Clause, combined with: (1) the tenor of the whole document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76; (3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g., Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff.

This is so because:1. Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside, including a television audience, before, during or even immediately after the Conclave;2. Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action” planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs; and,3. Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:each was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor, but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings.

Quite apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts destructive of conclave validity occurred. Keeping in mind that Pope John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on “the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis. These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.: “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.” Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious non-compliant act which became an open and notorious invalidating violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”. While these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves, nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter, having recognized the offenses and having had some power or voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against them: “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55]

No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real Pope is elected and adjudges them.

Thus, those otherwise valid cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff. In contrast, the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action (even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ), is established not only by the word, “scienter,” in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must interpret the general rule as truly binding. Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is: “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.” (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.) In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations. Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of simony: “If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.”

His Holiness made an exception for simony. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave. Comparing what Pope John Paul II wrote in His Constitution on conclaves with the Constitution which His replaced, you can see that, with the exception of simony, invalidity became universal.

In the corresponding paragraph of what Pope Paul VI wrote, he specifically confined the provision declaring conclave invalidity to three (3) circumstances described in previous paragraphs within His constitution, Romano Pontfici Eligendo. No such limitation exists in Universi Dominici Gregis. See the comparison both in English and Latin below:Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77. Should the election be conducted in a manner different from the three procedures described above (cf. no. 63 ff.) or without the conditions laid down for each of the same, it is for this very reason null and void (cf. no. 62), without the need for any declaration, and gives no right to him who has been thus elected. [Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam uno e tribus modis, qui supra sunt dicti (cfr. nn. 63 sqq.), aut non servatis condicionibus pro unoquoque illorum praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida (cfr. n. 62) absque ulla declaratione, et ita electo nullum ius tribuit .”] as compared with:Universi Dominici Gregis, 76: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, 76: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.”]Of course, this is not the only feature of the Constitution or aspect of the matter which tends to establish the breadth of invalidity.

Faithful must hope and pray that only those cardinals whose status as a valid member of the College remains intact will ascertain the identity of each other and move with the utmost charity and discretion in order to effectuate The Divine Will in these matters. The valid cardinals, then, must act according to that clear, manifest, obvious and unambiguous mind and intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, so evident in Universi Dominici Gregis, a law which finally established binding and self-actuating conditions of validity on the College for any papal conclave, a reality now made so apparent by the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion and plain error. It would seem then that praying and working in a discreet and prudent manner to encourage only those true cardinals inclined to accept a reality of conclave invalidity, would be a most charitable and logical course of action in the light of Universi Dominici Gregis, and out of our high personal regard for the clear and obvious intention of its Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. Even a relatively small number of valid cardinals could act decisively and work to restore a functioning Apostolic See through the declaration of an interregnum government. The need is clear for the College to convene a General Congregation in order to declare, to administer, and soon to end the Interregnum which has persisted since March 2013. Finally, it is important to understand that the sheer number of putative counterfeit cardinals will eventually, sooner or later, result in a situation in which The Church will have no normal means validly ever again to elect a Vicar of Christ. After that time, it will become even more difficult, if not humanly impossible, for the College of Cardinals to rectify the current disastrous situation and conduct a proper and valid Conclave such that The Church may once again both have the benefit of a real Supreme Pontiff, and enjoy the great gift of a truly infallible Vicar of Christ. It seems that some good cardinals know that the conclave was invalid, but really cannot envision what to do about it; we must pray, if it is the Will of God, that they see declaring the invalidity and administering an Interregnum through a new valid conclave is what they must do. Without such action or without a great miracle, The Church is in a perilous situation. Once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches age 80, or before that age, dies, the process for electing a real Pope ends with no apparent legal means to replace it. Absent a miracle then, The Church would no longer have an infallible Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Roman Catholics would be no different that Orthodox Christians. In this regard, all of the true cardinals may wish to consider what Holy Mother Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶675, ¶676 and ¶677 about “The Church’s Ultimate Trial”. But, the fact that “The Church . . . will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” does not justify inaction by the good cardinals, even if there are only a minimal number sufficient to carry out Chapter II of Universi Dominici Gregis and operate the Interregnum. This Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which was clearly applicable to the acts and conduct of the College of Cardinals in March 2013, is manifestly and obviously among those “invalidating” laws “which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected” as stated in Canon 10 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. And, there is nothing remotely “doubtful or obscure” (Canon 17) about this Apostolic Constitution as clearly promulgated by Pope John Paul II. The tenor of the whole document expressly establishes that the issue of invalidity was always at stake. This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its Promulgation Clause [which makes “anything done (i.e., any act or conduct) by any person . . . in any way contrary to this Constitution,”] the invalidity of the entire supposed Conclave, rendering it “completely null and void”. So, what happens if a group of Cardinals who undoubtedly did not knowingly and wilfully initiate or intentionally participate in any acts of disobedience against Universi Dominici Gregis were to meet, confer and declare that, pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis, Monsignor Bergoglio is most certainly not a valid Roman Pontiff. Like any action on this matter, including the initial finding of invalidity, that would be left to the valid members of the college of cardinals. They could declare the Chair of Peter vacant and proceed to a new and proper conclave. They could meet with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and discern whether His resignation and retirement was made under duress, or based on some mistake or fraud, or otherwise not done in a legally effective manner, which could invalidate that resignation. Given the demeanor of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and the tenor of His few public statements since his departure from the Chair of Peter, this recognition of validity in Benedict XVI seems unlikely. In fact, even before a righteous group of good and authentic cardinals might decide on the validity of the March 2013 supposed conclave, they must face what may be an even more complicated discernment and decide which men are most likely not valid cardinals. If a man was made a cardinal by the supposed Pope who is, in fact, not a Pope (but merely Monsignor Bergoglio), no such man is in reality a true member of the College of Cardinals. In addition, those men appointed by Pope John Paul II or by Pope Benedict XVI as cardinals, but who openly violated Universi Dominici Gregis by illegal acts or conduct causing the invalidation of the last attempted conclave, would no longer have voting rights in the College of Cardinals either. (Thus, the actual valid members in the College of Cardinals may be quite smaller in number than those on the current official Vatican list of supposed cardinals.) In any event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal. So, we must pray that The Divine Will of The Most Holy Trinity, through the intercession of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and Saint Michael, Prince of Mercy, very soon rectifies the confusion in Holy Mother Church through action by those valid Cardinals who still comprise an authentic College of Electors. Only certainly valid Cardinals can address the open and notorious evidence which points to the probable invalidity of the last supposed conclave and only those cardinals can definitively answer the questions posed here. May only the good Cardinals unite and if they recognize an ongoing Interregnum, albeit dormant, may they end this Interregnum by activating perfectly a functioning Interregnum government of The Holy See and a renewed process for a true Conclave, one which is purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual. If we do not have a real Pontiff, then may the good Cardinals, doing their appointed work “in view of the sacredness of the act of election” “accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit” and provide Holy Mother Church with a real Vicar of Christ as the Successor of Saint Peter. May these thoughts comport with the synderetic considerations of those who read them and may their presentation here please both Our Immaculate Virgin Mother, Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and The Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.N. de Plume
Un ami des Papes

__________________________________________

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

ONLY CARDINALS APPOINTED BY POPES Saint John Paul II AND Benedict XVI CAN DECLARE THE ELECTION OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL INVALID AND PROCEED TO A NEW CONCLAVE TO ELECT A LEGITIMATE SUCCESSOR TO Benedict XVI, PRAY AND WORK THAT IT MAY TAKE PLACE SOON .

Posted on March 19, 2019 by abyssum

Is this what got Cardinal Pell into trouble?

Richard Stokes
12:26 PM
19 MARCH 19

Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claims he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be a antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope?
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 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)

Again, 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 award-winning Mexican journalist and President of Vida para Nacer Jose Munguia who studied theology at the Gregorian University in Rome brings forward evidence that there were “serious irregularities” against John Paul II’s constitution that governed the 2013 conclave that could invalidate the conclave which elected Francis:

“Article 79 of the Constitution Universi Domenici Gregis, which establishes the details of how the conclave must be celebrated, says the following: ‘Confirming the prescriptions of my predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a cardinal, during the Pope’s lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings’.”

“And in article 81 it is established that these agreements are punished with excommunication latae sententiae (i.e. automatic, without the need of a declaration by anybody, ipso facto and eo ipsa).”

“The information revealed by Cardinal Daneels days before the Synod, coincides with that published by Austin Ivereigh, in his book “The Great Reformer” in which he reveals how, during the 2013 conclave, four cardinals from the Mafioso Saint Galen group (Kasper, Lehman, Danneels and Murphy O’Connor) came together to illicitly orchestrate a campaign in favour of the election of Bergoglio, after the latter had agreed to be the beneficiary of this scheming.”

“… After the election came the two books which revealed the serious irregularities committed within the conclave that elected Bergoglio. The first is the [Spanish language] book by Elisabbeta Piqué (Bergoglio’s authorised biographer from Argentina) entitled ‘Francisco, Vida y Revolución’ (Francisco, Life and Revolution). Piqué knew, through Francis himself, what happened inside the conclave. The other book is by the famous vaticanologist Antonio Socci ‘Non é Francesco’ (Francis is not the Pope).”

“The revelations of [Spanish speaking] Piqué [which are almost unknown to the English speaking world] are so well believed as coming from Francis that the Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, published the chapter that deals with how the conclave developed. Vatican Radio and Television did likewise. What happened is that Bergoglio, on being elected Pope, felt that the threat of excommunication – which falls on any cardinal for revealing what happened in the conclave – no longer affected him and related to the journalist the things that happened within the Sistine Chapel.”

“The narration: In the conclave, in the evening of the 13th of March, in the fourth vote count of the day, there were 116 votes when there were only 115 cardinals in the hall. One cardinal put in one paper too many. This fourth vote was won by Cardinal Angelo Scola of Milan (The Italian Episcopal Conference itself released a bulletin congratulating Scola for having been elected Pope). This vote count was improperly annulled. Angelo Scola’s website published that the recently elected Pope had taken the name of John XXIV. Wikipedia also published it. A few minutes later both sites took down this result. What happened is that when the recently elected Pope was on his way to the balcony of Saint Peter’s, a group of cardinals, mostly Germans and Americans, approached him to tell him that he had to return to the Sistine Chapel because the vote count had to be annulled.”

“Now, the Apostolic Constitution Universi Domenici Gregis (Art 69) establishes that if two folded papers came from the same cardinal with the same name or if one was blank, they must be counted as a single vote. If, on the other hand, there were two different names, both papers are annulled and none of the two votes is valid. But it clearly establishes: “In none of the two cases must the election be annulled”. In this case there was an extra white paper. The established procedure was not followed but rather the election was annulled, which was expressly prohibited.”

“Contravening the dispositions of the Constitution, the fourth vote count was declared null, they forced Cardinal Angelo Scola, recently elected and having taken the name of John XXIV, to resign and return to the Sistine Chapel, and they proceeded with a fifth vote in which Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected.”

“This was the second irregularity of the conclave, because the Constitution establishes (Art 63) that there must only be four voting sessions per day, two in the morning and two in the evening.”

“The case for saying that the designation of Bergoglio is effectively invalid is clear, according to canon lawyers, who refer us to article 76 which states: ‘Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected’.”

“This pile of evidence led Cardinal George Pell to declare that Francis could well be the 38th antipope in the history of the church, and not the 266th Pope as the vast majority believe.”

“Finally, it is worth pointing out here, that even if all the aforementioned be cast in doubt or discredited, all opposing arguments collapse with Cardinal Danneels’s admission in his biography, that he and a group of cardinals, the “Mafia Club”, plotted to force Benedict XVI to resign. When you have a confession, proof is not necessary.”

[https://www.ultimostiempos.org/en/blog-en/item/81-antipopes-conclave.html]
Bishop Rene Gracida, also, brings forward evidence that the conclave that elected Francis was invalid because there were “serious irregularities” against John Paul II’s constitution that governed the 2013 conclave.

However, the popular and respected traditional Catholic commentator Steve Skojec on May 7, 2018 apparently rejected Bishop Gracida’s call for the cardinals to judge if Francis’s election to the papacy was valid calling the validity question itself a “potentially dangerous rabbit hole.”
(Onepeterfive, “Cardinal Eijk References End Times Prophecy in Intercommunion,” May 7, 2018)

At the time, Skojec referred back to his September 26, 2017 post where he said:

“JPII has removed the election-nullifying consequences of simony… nowhere else in the following paragraphs is nullity of the election even implied.”
(Onepeterfive, “A Brief note on the Question of a Legally Valid Election,” September 26, 2017)

Bishop Gracida shows that Skojec is wrong in his Open Letter quoting Pope John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis’ introductory perambulary and paragraph 76:

– “I further confirm, by my Apostlic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process” [the above which Gracida clearly shows in his Open Letter was not maintained thus making the conclave and Francis’s papacy invalid according to the Bishop].
(Introductory perambulary)

– “Should the election take place in a way other than laid down here not to be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void.”
(Paragraph 76)

Gracida’s Open Letter, moreover, shows that Skojec is wrong above:

“The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave.”

On top of all that, Skojec ignores paragraph 5 and contrary to what conservative canon lawyer Edward Peters has said about Universi Dominici Gregis when he suggests canon lawyers have a role in interpreting the John Paul II Constitution, the document says:

“Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect. I [Pope John Paul II] Decree that all power of issuing a judgment of this in this regard to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points.”
(Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 5)

Later in the paragraph it says “except the act of the election,” which can be interpreted in a number of ways.

The point is, as Bishop Gracida says and Universi Dominici Gregis said, only the cardinals can interpret its meaning, not Skojec, not canon lawyers or anyone else.

The Bishop is saying what the document says: only the cardinals can interpret it.

He, also, says put pressure on the cardinals to act and interpret it which both Skojec and Peters appear to prefer to ignore.

Moreover, Bishop Gracida’s Open Letter and Pope John Paul II’s document make a number of points which neither Skojec, Peters or anyone else to my knowledge have even brought up or offered any counter argument against.

I have great respect for both Skojec and Peters, but unless Gracida’s Open Letter is squarely responded to my respect for them will greatly diminish for they will be neglecting their responsibility to God and His Church.

They are both wrong if they ignore this important Open Letter of Bishop Gracida.

If Peters and Skojec as well as the conservative and traditional Catholic media are ignoring Bishop Gracida because he isn’t a cardinal and retired, remember that St. Athanasius wasn’t a cardinal (that is involved in the selection or election process of the pope of the time) and was retired.

During the Arian heresy crisis, Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius. You don’t get any more retired than being excommunicated.

Skojec gave blogger Ann Barnhardt’s analysis of the papal validity a long article and podcast. The only bishop in the world contesting Francis in a meaningful way deserves as much. Why is he apparently so afraid of Bishop Gracida?

Skojec and Peters need to answer Gracida’s theologically clear and precise arguments and either clearly and precisely counter them or put pressure on the cardinals to put into action the needed canonical procedures to remove Francis if he was “never validly elected” the pope or else remove him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy.

Francis is not orthodox so there are only two things he could be:

1. A validly elected pope who is a material heretic until cardinals correct him and then canonically proclaim he is a formal heretic if he doesn’t recant thus deposing him (See: “Unambiguously Pope Francis Materially Professes Death Penalty Heresy: Cd. Burke: ‘If a Pope would Formally Profess Heresy he would Cease, by that Act, to be the Pope'”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2018/08/unambiguously-pope-francis-materially.html?m=1) or

2. a invalidly elected antipope who is a heretic.

The point is whether you think using all the information available 1. is the objective truth or 2. is the objective truth you must act.

You must as the Bishop says put: “pressure on the cardinals to act” whichever you think.

There are many ways to put pressure such as pray and offer Masses for this intention, send the Gracida link to priests, bishops and cardinals, make signs and pray the rosary in front of their offices as we do in front of abortion clinics. Use your imagination to come up with other ideas.

Gracida is calling the cardinals to “[a]ddress… [the] probable invalidity” before they attempt to depose him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy. But, just as importantly he is calling all faithful Catholics to act and not just bemoan Francis’s heresy.

Bishop Gracida in a email to me and through the Catholic Monitor to all faithful Catholics said:

“ONE CAN SAY THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A HERETIC UNTIL ONE DIES BUT IT CHANGES NOTHING. WHAT IS NEEDED IS ACTION… WE MUST PRESSURE THE CARDINALS TO ACT. SEND THAT LINK TO EVERY PRIEST AND BISHOP YOU KNOW”:

https://wp.me/px5Zw-95e.

Renown 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”:

“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.”

“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]
The schismatic followers of Antipope Anacletus II didn’t want St. Bernard to investigate who was the real pope. It was the followers of the real pontiff Pope Innocent II who asked Bernard to investigate.

March 18, 2019 Note:

I have gotten some push back from someone about a bishop who attacked Bishop Gracida apparently using Robert Siscoe’s claim that it is an infallible dogma that a man is infallibly a pope if there is “peaceful and universal acceptance” by the Church.

Was there peaceful and universal acceptance?

In Siscoe’s own book “True or False Pope,” he mentions the following scholars who questioned the validity of Francis’s election: Vatican expert Antonio Socci and “Stefano Violin, esteemed Professor of Canon Law” (Page 390). And there is a bishop and many other scholars who question the validity not mentioned by him.

Apparently, Siscoe didn’t get his “peaceful and universal” dogma from a dogmatic statement from a pope or council, but from a good, but a not necessarily infallible theologian John of St. Thomas. Here is his quote from John of St. Thomas:

“[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 and 3-13-19)

This bring us back to the renown historian Carroll statement: “A Papal claimant not following these methods [which is the conclave constitution of a previous pope] is also an Antipope.”

Even John of St. Thomas agrees with Carroll when he said as quoted by Siscoe:

Besides “acceptance” a valid pope needs to be “lawfully elected.”

Again, Bishop Gracida is saying what John Paul II’s conclave constitution says about the question of if Francis was “lawfully elected” or not: only the cardinals can interpret it, not Siscoe, Skojec, canon lawyers or John of St. Thomas.

In fact, please offer Masses, fast and pray the rosary for these intentions during Lent and after the Lenten season.

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html?m=1

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

__________________________________________

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

HERE IS A DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAMA OF THE HEARING ON THE PRO-LIFE BILL SB22 HELD YESTERDAY IN THE TEXAS STATE CAPITOL

Posted on March 19, 2019 by abyssum

Bill Hearing Yesterday

Phil Sevilla

Friends,

It was as a challenging day at the capitol yesterday in the Senate chambers where a number of hearings were being conducted by the Senate State Affairs Committee.
Hearings started at 9 AM but the pro-life bill sponsored by Donna Campbell, SB22, to block taxpayer funds from reaching Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers’ pockets,
wasn’t heard until 4:30 PM. It was a long day at the capitol to testify for two minutes.

To make things worse, the SB 22 hearing was transferred to a tiny meeting room which was jammed wall to wall, around 60 people. Some of you are aware that the State Affairs Committee
is one of the most powerful committees in both the Senate and House of Representatives. Speaker Joe Straus’ would send pro-life bills to crony/henchman Byron Cook, Chair of the House State Affairs Committee to kill pro-life and pro-family bills.

The majority of Senate State Affairs Committee members are strongly pro-life Christians. That’s what I witnessed at the hearing which buttressed my confidence in the conservative leadership in Austin: The chairman is Joan Huffman who is ok … don’t know much about her; the vice chair is a great friend of the pro-life movement, Sen. Bryan Hughes, former House Rep. The members include other conservative giants, Jane Nelson and Bob Hall. Democrats Judith Zaffirini and Eddie Lucio are members and were present. As far as I know Zaffirini is pro-abortion. Lucio votes for the right to life but he supports some of the worst pro-abortion Democrats like Leticia Van de Putte and Wendy Davis. I guess Democrats can’t help themselves. They are fiercely loyal to their party. I’ve heard Lucio gush over extreme liberal Democrats like Van de Putte and Wendy Davis, like he’s apologizing for voting pro-life as if it’s a ball and chain around his neck because he’s Catholic. He did it again yesterday going on and on expressing his admiration for Wendy Davis. Quite sickening.

The overwhelming majority of the testimonies from folks who stayed and hung in there all day were in support of the pro-life SB22 bill. The hearing wasn’t long because quite a few folks who signed up to testify in the morning left after waiting the whole day!

I’m attaching my (3) minute testimony that had to be compressed to the required (2) minute time limit we were given. It was ridiculous, considering there weren’t many testifying, to limit each to 2 minutes and Chairman Huffman decided to wait to hear this bill at the end of the day. Some courtesy and respect for those who waiting patiently all day would have been appropriate. I will send her and Hughes a note. But that’s the way Huffman conducted the meeting and she wouldn’t let you finish if you ran past the allotted time.

The comments from the committee members present showed strong support for the Campbell bill. Bryan Hughes, Bob Hall, Jane Nelson spoke out indicating their strong commitment to pro-life. There were around 20 folks who testified and many more who registered were scheduled to but did not hang around. I only recall three who spoke up against the bill. Two notable ones were a college professor and Wendy Davis who was one of the last to speak after me. Yes, that Wendy Davis. The college professor testified that his “studies” showed that eliminating funding to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood would hurt women. Most of us groaned. Bob Hall challenged him aggressively and asked if he was speaking as an individual or for an organization. He did not get a direct answer.

Wendy Davis (former State Senator) is looking older. She used her time to say what a wonderful experience it was to have Planned Parenthood available to her to abort her first child when she was 18 so she could finish college and go on to a successful career as a lawyer and politician. She’s not what we’d call a model for young American women, isn’t she? She decried how defunding abortion providers would deprive women of health care and how abortion providers had to shut their doors after the major omnibus pro-life legislation was passed a few years ago. Not once did she acknowledge the rights and the humanity of the baby with a separate heartbeat in his mother’s womb seeking nourishment and a chance to be born. Bob Hall responded for all of us by inquiring how can abortion be considered “health care” when its purpose is not to save lives or cure. She didn’t really answer that directly. She didn’t hang around after she spoke. I took a photo of her heading out. See below. I left soon after and saw her and the “professor” heading out the building together. They obviously knew each other and were, I suspect, “commissioned” by ad organization like Planned Parenthood to attend and testify for “women’s rights”.

It was a good opportunity to represent the pro-life cause for San Antonio at the state capitol for such a crucial issue to ensure our state remains pro-life forever and that it never descends to the barbarous levels of a state like New York which has now legalized infanticide. There were a few others from San Antonio who testified as well.

There are other pro-life legislative hearings coming up with regards to protecting babies suspected of disabilities from late term abortions; conscience protections for healthcare professionals; repealing the 10 day limit in the state Advanced Directives Act which frees hospitals after 10 days to withdraw all treatment if a physician signs a DNR which means even basic life-sustaining necessities like water and nutrition are removed starving and dehydrating the patient, resulting in a inhumane death like Terri Schiavo experienced. We’re talking about passive euthanasia.

If you didn’t make the hearing yesterday due to conflicts, I hope you can spend some time in the near future to speak out in upcoming pro-life hearings for those who have no voice. What is more critical today in our nation, in our state than defending the sanctity of life at all stages in this culture of death we’re living in today?

Blessings,

Phil Sevilla

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

ROBERT PATRICK O’ROURKE, AKA BETO O’ROURKE, HAS A MESSAGE FOR ANYONE TEMPTED TO CELEBRATE SAINT PATRICK DAY WITH A LITTLE TOO MUCH SPIRIT(S)

Posted on March 18, 2019 by abyssum

O’Rourke, who calls himself “Beto” in an effort to pretend he’s Hispanic, was arrested for drunk driving in Texas 20 years ago. He was 26 years old at the time, speeding, hit another car, and tried to flee the scene.
After he agreed to some counseling, all the charges were dropped.

No big deal in the scheme of things, but in a political culture where the establishment media’s seething hatred for President Trump has normalized trolling, it only makes sense for the Republican Party to get in on the act, which is why the GOP’s St. Patrick’s Day tweet is so glorious:

In fact, let me count the ways in which this tweet is glorious…
It reminds voters O’Rourke is Irish, not HISPANIC.
It reminds voters that O’Rourke’s “Beto” nickname is an affectation so he can pretend to be Mexican.
It uses O’Rourke’s mugshot, and a mugshot is never a good look for a presidential candidate.
It reminds voters that O’Rourke, while speeding around drunk, caused an accident, jumped the median into oncoming traffic, tried to flee the scene, and then had the charges dropped — which is not how this works for most of us.
Because insecure media simpletons are so easily baited with anything that allows them to signal their own precious virtue, the GOP knew their outrage would spread this tweet far and wide, which is exactly what has happened.
Because it’s again in the news, O’Rourke again has to deal with it, which puts him on defense and knocks him off-message.
This predictable (and hypocritical) outrage is yet another way for the GOP to show the American people just what a bunch of humorless, unattractive, crybaby, stick-up-the-ass prigs the media and Democrats have become, which leads me back to my overall point about the reaction…
BRIETBART

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

IS THERE AN ANALOGOUS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NET CALIFORNIA IS BUILDING BELOW THE GOLDEN GATE BAY BRIDGE AND THE WALL CALIFORNIA WILL NOT ALLOW TO BE BUILT ALONG THE United States/MEXICO BORDER?

Posted on March 17, 2019 by abyssum

Fr. Joseph Illo’s BlogIn illo témpore dixit Pater Illo…B

H/T: AP Photo/The San Francisco Chronicle, John Storey

Salve Crux Spes Unica!
Hail, O Cross, our only hope!

From the Pastor’s Laptop: The Suicide Net3/12/2019 H/T: AP Photo/The San Francisco Chronicle, John StoreyYesterday I was riding across the Golden Gate Bridge with a friend. “They’ve begun building the suicide net,” I said, pointing over the left side of the roadway. We stopped our bikes to have a look. Amazingly, an entire superstructure had appeared beneath the bridge, suspended 230 feet above the Bay. After decades of debate, the City and County of San Francisco finally decided to build a steel-wire net under the bridge at a cost of $220 million. It is hoped that the net will save forty lives a year, which is about how many unfortunate souls hurl themselves over the bridge’s 4-foot railing annually. My parish boundaries include the southern half of the bridge, the San Francisco side, from which a person every ten days, on average, jumps to his or her death. Every First Friday we offer an afternoon Mass for their souls.

Many times have I stopped my bike to peer down into the vast waters. The bridge affords an unimpeded view of sea lions cavorting far below, or container ships passing swiftly through the Golden Gate, or small craft battling current and wind in their search for fish or a good view. To the west an unlimited horizon of sea and sky meets my gaze, and I’ve often marveled how the waters beckon a troubled heart. I can certainly understand how one filled with troubles could cast themselves into that immense space to be swallowed up in beauty. The suicide net will extend about 25 feet out, blocking our view straight down. Maybe that will dissuade potential jumpers, but it will also eliminate the stunning view right below into the Bay.
Eyeing the construction project, my cycling partner observed: how ironic that California decided to spend $200 million on suicide prevention in the same year it legalized suicide. How illogical, actually. Is suicide a good thing or a bad thing? Have we declared it a human right or is it still a crime? I blame our current confusion on poor education. For at least three generations Americans have not received the basic tools of learning, which by the way we are restoring to my parish school this autumn. “Grammar schools” used to be called that because they started first graders studying how language works. Grammar, logic, and rhetoric, the “trivium,” are the classic “three ways” of learning. Most Americans can scarcely discourse rationally on any subject because we lack the basic tools of critical thinking. Because we have lost the ability to think for ourselves, the powerful rule us by appealing to emotion (mostly our fears) and passion (mostly our lusts).

$220 million to save forty lives a year is not unreasonable, but if we ordered our lives together better we would not need to build nets around our public monuments. It would be far better, far less expensive, and far more beautiful to spend our energies building a culture that encourages life rather than death. If every movie has to glamorize violent death, and death is the solution to unexpected pregnancies, and death by one’s own hand is celebrated (as media elites did with Brittany Maynard), then why build suicide nets? If we are in love with death, we will find other ways to kill ourselves.

There is a better way. You don’t have to believe in Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life to see in His beatitudes a solution to life’s problems. The solution is never death, but deeper life. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom. Blessed are those who weep, for they shall laugh.” Every jumper that survives says that suicide is a mistake. There is far more good in life than bad. Maybe the suicide net will give people a second chance. But it would be far better to help people before they reach that level of despair.
************************************************
COMMENTARY CULTURE Share
Build the Wall: Family Begs for Justice After Illegal Immigrant Decapitates Son in Hit-and-Run
BY JOE SAUNDERS
PUBLISHED MARCH 17, 2019 AT 2:41PM
Share on Facebook Tweet Email Print
It’s a scene all too many Americans have had to endure.
The family of a man who was struck and killed by an illegal alien in September watched as the alien was sentenced Friday to up to 33 months in prison for a hit-and-run causing death.
And for the dead man’s mother, it wasn’t nearly punishment enough.
Advertisement – story continues below

According to WTVD, Neri Damian Cruz-Carmano, a man who entered the country illegally, was driving in the early hours of Sept. 1 in Raleigh, North Carolina, when he made a left turn onto another road.
An oncoming motorcyclist, identified as 26-year-old Jamar Rashauan Beach of Raleigh, struck the van Cruz-Carmano was driving. The impact was so hard that Beach was decapitated.
TRENDING: They Want to Literally ‘Take Power and Wealth’: Ex-AOC Aide Bluntly Confirms Everything We’ve Warned About
Cruz-Carmano drove off with Beach’s body still on the van, WTVD reported.
“He had no business here in the first place and he should not have been operating a vehicle,” Cameo Robinson, the mother of the man who died, told WTVD.
Advertisement – story continues below

“He didn’t have a license. So, therefore, he’s being treated better than the citizen who’s been killed.”
Check out the WTVD report here.

This is the side of illegal immigration liberals don’t want the American public to see, much less talk about.
The crimes committed by illegals range in severity, from murders and sexual assaults that make the front pages and go viral on the internet to the kind of “routine” driving infractions like operating a vehicle without a license that mostly get ignored.
But they have one thing in common:
Advertisement – story continues below

The people who commit them would not have been in the United States to do it if they had not flouted American laws – even if the Democratic Party and its mainstream media allies don’t want to admit it.
But the loved ones of the crime victims know what price the country is paying for allowing its sovereignty to be ignored.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

THE PRESENT CRISIS IN THE CHURCH IS ANALOGOUS TO THE CRISIS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY WHEN A MAJORITY OF THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH WERE EITHER HERETICS OR SEMI-HERETICS. THE CRISIS CAN BE ENDED BY TWELVE CARDINALS VALIDLY APPOINTED TO THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS BY POPE Saint John Paul II OR Benedict XVI DECLARING THE APOSTOLIC SEE VACANT AND SUMMONING A NEW CONCLAVE OF VALIDLY APPOINTED CARDINALS TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO THE SEE OF PETER

Posted on March 17, 2019 by abyssum

Sunday, March 17, 2019

Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claims he is Pope?

By Fred Martinez

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html?m=1

Is it possible for someone to be a antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope?

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 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)
Again, 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.

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 award-winning Mexican journalist and President of Vida para Nacer Jose Munguia who studied theology at the Gregorian University in Rome brings forward evidence that there were “serious irregularities” against John Paul II’s constitution that governed the 2013 conclave that could invalidate the conclave which elected Francis:

“This was the second irregularity of the conclave, because the Constitution establishes (Art 63) that there must only be four voting sessions per day, two in the morning and two in the evening.”

“This pile of evidence led Cardinal George Pell to declare that Francis could well be the 38th antipope in the history of the church, and not the 266th Pope as the vast majority believe.”

Bishop Rene Gracida, also, brings forward evidence that the conclave that elected Francis was invalid because there were “serious irregularities” against John Paul II’s constitution that governed the 2013 conclave.