By Cliff Kincaid December 10, 2018 Citizen journalist David Risselada has written a book, Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest, in which he explains how so many are being led astray by what passes for the “conservative media.” Consider the case of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was sold by Fox News and other beltway groups as a conservative pro-lifer. After Kavanaugh’s Monday ruling in favor of Planned Parenthood, many grassroots conservatives are beginning to realize they were misled about his real record. One conservative website called it a “betrayal.”
It wasn’t a surprise to us. My group, America’s Survival, Inc., was virtually alone in exposing Kavanaugh’s real record on abortion and other social issues. We published the 44-page report “The Deep State Wears Black Robes” and called his nomination a “Trojan Horse.” Yet, Fox News and other conservative media, as well as various Washington, D.C.-based conservative groups, advertised Kavanaugh as a strong conservative. Many of them were invited to the White House to listen to Kavanaugh hail the legacy of “liberty” of the man he would replace, pro-abortion and pro-gay Justice Anthony Kennedy. That turned out to be an indication of Kavanaugh’s liberal direction on the court.
We had conducted a careful study of Kavanaugh’s record, noting that he was a virtual clone of Justice Kennedy. A liberal Catholic, Kavanaugh actually had a record of ruling against evangelical chaplains. But one leading conservative told me I had gone off “the deep end” by opposing Kavanaugh. Fox News refused to cover our detailed critique of his record. It was a very controlled “debate” with “both sides” defined so as to exclude the real truth.
But Fox News wasn’t alone in stacking the deck. All of the major conservative websites fell for the ruse that Kavanaugh was a conservative. They know who they are. They owe their readers an apology.
Kavanaugh’s ruling against pro-lifers will protect taxpayer funding of the abortion industry. A liberal commentator was ecstatic: “Justice Kavanaugh just saved Planned Parenthood from red states attempting to defund the clinic network.” Another said Justices Kavanaugh and John Roberts “joined with the court’s progressives to preserve Planned Parenthood’s public funding.”
Drawing upon the material at our website, America’s Survival, Inc., Risselada’s book quotes from one of our reports on Kavanaugh’s Deep State and Washington insider background. Of course, Soros-funded groups were organizing against Kavanaugh. But we saw the opposition as largely fake and designed to get liberal-left forces agitated about the future of the court. In short, it was an organizing tool that accelerated when the sex charges were launched against him. In truth, Kavanaugh was one of the best judges they could hope for from a Republican president.
Our opinion was that they were going through the motions of opposition in a dialectical maneuver designed to force conservatives in line behind him. A much better nominee would have been Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative woman with a clear pro-life record. But she didn’t have Kavanaugh’s Washington establishment connections.
In light of Monday’s ruling, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel said that he isn’t ready to throw in the towel on Kavanaugh just yet, expressing the hope that another abortion case could come before the court in 2019 and that Kavanaugh and Roberts could end up on the right side.
But pro-life author Gregg Jackson, who opposed Kavanaugh, isn’t surprised by his ruling in favor of the abortion industry: “We all know President Trump and the Republicans promised to defund Planned Parenthood in the run-up to the 2016 election, to get the pro-life Evangelical and Catholic vote. Instead of defunding Planned Parenthood when they had the ability to do so with a Republican congressional majority, Republican president, and Republican-appointed majority Supreme Court, not only did they fully fund Planned Parenthood baby killers/body parts sellers, giving them over a billion dollars in the last 24 months, but they also increased funding by 37 percent. Republican-appointed judges gave us the pro-abortion rulings Roe and Casey and have funded Planned Parenthood at a greater clip then Democrats have!”
It’s fascinating to note that an old photograph has surfaced showing a young Brett Kavanaugh appearing with a young lawyer by the name of Rod Rosenstein. It turns out they were both on the staff of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who went through the motions of investigating the Clintons without pursuing charges of murder in the Vincent Foster death case. Rosenstein, now the United States Deputy Attorney General, appointed Robert Mueller as the Russia-gate prosecutor.
As we argued in “The Deep State Wears Black Robes,” if Mueller or another prosecutor subpoenas Trump and Trump refuses to comply, the case could very likely appear before the Supreme Court, where Kavanaugh could emerge as the deciding vote.
We noted that the progressives are already calling for Kavanaugh to recuse himself from anything related to the Russia investigation if it comes before the Supreme Court. But rather than recuse himself, Kavanaugh could actually rule in favor of Mueller and the Russia-gate probe. He could vote against Trump in order to counter the criticism that he believes presidents can’t be subpoenaed and are “above the law.”
The chickens are coming home to roost. President Trump, who is in the midst of a White House staff shake-up, should root out those who betrayed him in the Kavanaugh matter.
For their part, responsible conservatives who backed Kavanaugh and either were deceived or consciously deceived the American people concerned about human life issues have no option other than to propose impeachment of the court’s newest Justice.
* America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI) President Cliff Kincaid has had a nearly 40-year journalism career that includes serving as a co-host for the debate show “Crossfire” on CNN in the 1980s. He currently appears in a popular film on media bias and anonymous sources that is being shown in the Newseum, the journalism museum in Washington, D.C. Kincaid has written or co-authored more than 20 books and hosts an Internet-based Roku TV channel called America’s Survival TV that is available in more than 60 countries and is also on YouTube. Cliff’s book on Marxist dialectics, The Sword of Revolution, has been translated into Portuguese to reach people in Brazil, where an anti-communist revolution has taken root.
Abuse. Conspiracy. Hush money. Bribes. Power players. Politics. Global agendas. The threat of violence. These are some of the themes that James Grein, the alleged longtime abuse victim of former cardinal Theodore McCarrick, discussed with Dr. Taylor Marshall in a new podcast interview. Grein, who claims to have been abused by McCarrick for 18 years, beginning at age eleven, explained the close family connection he had with McCarrick – a connection that began even before he was born.
“He had been part of the family,” says Grein, “since 1950. Probably ’48, when he met my uncle – my mother’s younger brother – at Fordham University. And they did everything together. And my grandfather adopted him, basically, because he had no father. And so he became the very fabric of the family.”
Grein says his grandfather took a liking to McCarrick immediately and offered to help pay his way through school.
He then revealed something interesting: “My grandfather was from Sankt Gallen, Switzerland.” Grein says McCarrick first traveled to Sankt Gallen to meet his grandfather’s friends. “Sankt Gallen is not a very large city. And my grandfather knew everybody. And so he introduced McCarrick to everybody. And in fact, he went there on a regular basis – on a yearly basis – probably for 20 years.”
Grein says McCarrick went to visit a language school in Sankt Gallen in 1951 and came back a different man – someone who wanted to be no longer a parish priest, but a power player within the hierarchy of the Church. When McCarrick came back, says Grein, his grandfather – a wealthy and influential man – introduced him to powerful members of the American episcopacy like Cardinals Spellman and Cooke.
Marshall brought up the Sankt Gallen “Mafia” – the group that conspired against Pope Benedict and sought to replace him with Jorge Bergoglio.
“This is really key … that it begins in Sankt Gallen,” says Marshall. “This [conspiracy] really goes into the ’90s. But before that, there’s this connection with McCarrick and Sankt Gallen. Do you see that there’s an organic connection between McCarrick’s work in the ’50s and then later on with the conspiracy, they say, to remove Benedict XVI?”
“Yes,” responds Grein. “I’ve known this, and I’ve felt this for a long time.”
“This is where it all starts.”
Although he does not substantiate or elaborate on the claim, Grein says he believes that Pope Benedict was forced out of office.
“I now believe he was a predatory man for all his life.”
Grein makes clear that McCarrick had a “pretty good ego” and “needed to be in power … needed to be the number-one person in the room” at any given time.
And his means to obtaining power was not just his facility for building relationships through charisma and strategy, but his focus on fundraising.
“It’s all surrounded by that wonderful little word called money,” Grein says.
Grein discusses McCarrick’s facility for getting large donations from wealthy families like the hotel magnates the Hilton family. The fundraising was often done, alleges Grein, under a pretense (emphasis added):
He [McCarrick] was traveling on the guise that ‘I’m raising money for the poor.’ And that, he was, he needed money for the poor. Well…I won’t say that. I don’t think they gave a lot of money to the poor. I think they gave a lot of money to themselves. And they used the guise of, uh, of the poor always. It’s always how we’re going into South America, we’re going into Africa, and how these small, uh, communities need money because they have nothing…it’s an amazing game that he played. So he played everybody in the room to give him money, and he played his superiors by giving them the money so that they would leave him alone, and he was there in the middle, and he got to do anything he wanted to do, and what he wanted to do was prey on young people so that he could enjoy, have his own ideas and his own little world where he was the king of the world and he could just prey on and take anyone that he wanted to. And that nobody could possibly, possibly grow better than he. And as it progresses, he’s introduced to some of the most powerful people in the world, and some of the most powerful people in the world believe him. They don’t know what’s behind the mask. And those of us who knew what was behind the mask – the Viganòs, the James Greins, and the other people in the world – were too afraid to come out because he would kill us. Literally.
The implicit threat of violence, reiterated by Grein – who says in the interview that he now has a security detail – underscores the reason Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò went into hiding in fear of his life following his own revelations of the extensive ecclesial cover-up of the McCarrick abuse, going all the way to the pope.
Grein discusses how McCarrick would use blackmail, threats, and coercion to force him to stay with him and to keep quiet about the abuse. He would also tell Grein that he should go to confession “only to him.”
“In essence, I lost faith in the Church,” says Grein, “and gained only faith in him.”
Grein relates a story in which he threatened McCarrick in turn:
The last time I saw him in 2012, at my mother’s funeral … I told him if he didn’t come and say my mother’s funeral Mass, I was gonna open my mouth. Well, he was under sanctions, now that I know that. But he came, and he said to me at the end of the luncheon, “Don’t you know how powerful I am? I am the most powerful man in the United States. Nobody can touch me, and if you say anything at all, you’re going to go down. You’re going to be the bad guy. It is impossible for me to go down.”
Grein says that because of threats like this, he was hugely relieved when another story of McCarrick’s abuse broke in New York in the summer of 2018. It detailed accusations against McCarrick by another boy, who was also a minor at the time the abuse was alleged to have taken place decades ago.
“I hit my knees immediately and thanked God. And it took me two days to get off my knees to go talk to somebody. And finally I was able to tell my brothers and sisters, who I tried once before, and they, they didn’t want to believe me. They didn’t want to hear it. I don’t blame them. And that I was finally going to be free. It was my turn. It was my turn. That’s just how huge it is.”
“It’s amazing,” says Grein, “that, uh, you hide all this stuff, because if you tell somebody else, who else is gonna do this to me? You know, uh, you hear all about the trafficking now, thank goodness I didn’t tell anybody, because I could have been trafficked everywhere. [Like] those poor kids that were in Pennsylvania. And it’s all over Syracuse, New York now, too.”
Grein also claimed that he was not the only one subject to McCarrick’s abuse. He was aware of others. “There were four of us” who would always go to a fishing camp with McCarrick, he says.
“Did you get the impression that there were other priests, bishops, anyone in the hierarchy that was aware that he had this double life?” Marshall asked.
“Every one of his secretaries had to know.” Grein says. “In Metuchen, in Newark, even when he was with Cooke in New York. Had to know. And I know that there are some prominent politicians who know also. ‘Cause I was introduced to them as somebody of interest. I know that Cardinal Wuerl knows. And, uh, that’s…that was just, uh, the day that I met Wuerl at the Hilton in Washington, D.C. right after he was made the archbishop of Washington, D.C. was a very hard day for me to take. I’m gonna stay right there because it’s in my case that’s…needs to be quieted right now.”
The Money, the Knowledge, and Viganò
Pivoting to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s accusations, Marshall asked Grein: “Viganò says that Francis knew. Benedict knew. The apostolic nuncios knew. That Meyers in Newark knew. Metuchen knew. He names a lot of names. Were you surprised by that, or did you know that they all knew?”
“I knew that they all knew,” answers Grein. “I knew that John Paul II knew.”
“How does that make you feel about John Paul II and Benedict? That they knew?” asks Marshall.
“I’ll take John Paul II first. John Paul II changed his needs. He needed money. He needed his, uh, his papacy to be raised up. He had a lot of projects that he wanted to do. And the only way he was getting any kind of money donated to the Church was through McCarrick. And he didn’t want to shut that off. And so he…while he knew he needed McCarrick as his tool to get as much money into the papacy as possible…”
“How much money are we talking here?”
“Five hundred million, maybe? Two hundred ten, we know for a fact. Two hundred ten, we know for a fact, but I know there was much more coming from the Hiltons, from the, uh…and from the left-wing agenda in the United States. And so that, uh, it was a, it was a faucet. And, uh, John Paul did not want to turn off that faucet. Because he needed that money to, uh, in all of the aura of feeding the poor, it was no longer really feeding the poor, it was making him, uh, his legacy much stronger, and where he can be, uh, he can expand into more countries.”
“Benedict didn’t like that. Wanted to tie up all the loose ends. Because he saw through what John Paul was doing, and he needed to say, ‘Well, this has got to stop. We are part of a church. We are not part of a money-gaining…we’re not looking for power here through money.’ So Benedict really wanted to tie things together. And he got the best guy to do it. Viganò. He tied up all the loose moneys that were in the United States, across the world, he got ’em all together.”
“Vatican bank?” Marshall interjects.
“Vatican bank, you got it. And he pulled it all together. And a lot of the 45 million, or the 55 million that was pulled out of the United States and brought to the Vatican bank…there’s always, I talked to A.G.s [attorneys general] about that, I’ve wanted to talk to some stronger men in the United States, um, about a RICO investigation on that, because it’s definitely laundering. But that’s another story.”
Grein says later on that while John Paul II was part of the agenda for the Sankt Gallen group, he didn’t change things fast enough for them.
The Impact of McCarrick on the Larger Church
Grein claims that Cardinal Cupich of Chicago is now becoming “the new McCarrick” in terms of his connection to Rome and influence within the American clergy. “There’s no doubt, because Francis needs an ally in America, and McCarrick is too dirty.”
Grein admits that he remains frustrated with how much of the corruption is still going on. “Every morning I come downstairs and I read, you know, OnePeterFive or Complicit Clergy,” he says, “and I read this stuff, and I just, sometimes I have to just go for a long run because I’m so angry. Why are these people doing these things, they’re still doing it? But finally they’re being exposed.”
“If we go back and look at the influence of Sankt Gallen being the the epicenter of the antichrist. And how they have finally forced people into doing things that they don’t really want to do. Things are happening faster today out of Sankt Gallen because they are becoming impatient. They’ve been waiting a hundred years for their turn to step forward. It’s not happening as fast as they want it. So Benedict was cleaning up, and they said, ‘No, no, we can’t clean up, because if you clean up, we’re toast. Sorry. We’re done. And so we need to have somebody who can come in and help us. And so that we can carry out everything that we need to do.’ And if you go back and listen to what McCarrick said, about, he was approached by some very significant people that he knew, and that needed him to bring up Francis, and let’s politicize this.”
In this, Grein was referencing a talk given by McCarrick at Villanova University in 2013, shortly after Bergoglio was elected to the papacy. In it, McCarrick says that before the conclave, “nobody thought there was a chance for Bergoglio.” Then he related how he was visited by a “very interesting and influential Italian gentleman” not long before the conclave was to take place. This man had a proposition: he wanted McCarrick to use his influence to “talk up” Bergoglio. “If we had five years,” the mystery man is said to have speculated to McCarrick, “the Lord working through Bergoglio in five years could make the Church over again.”
McCarrick claims to have gone on to do just that, telling his fellow cardinals that they should “elect someone from Latin America who could identify with the poor.”
On the question of that “prominent Italian gentlemen,” Grein does not claim specific knowledge, but he has a theory: “I don’t think it was Italian. I think it’s Swiss. He just covered it so that they couldn’t connect the dots. Or, if it was an Italian gentleman, then it was definitely a politician. But he says, oh, an influential man. Did he know him? He may have passed a note: ‘If you don’t do this, you’re out.’ These people are very, very powerful.”
On the endgame for Sankt Gallen, Grein talks about the opening of borders and the socializing of everything, and he speculates that “the idea is that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, and if they can get the United States to do that, then they can come forward and take over the entire world with the communistic agenda and be in power. That’s what I believe that they have had in mind for themselves, and that’s what they want to go forward with. But they haven’t been able to do it because, what Bella Dodd said, is that, because of the patriotism, and because of the belief in Jesus Christ. And we need today to rise up and have ourselves believe in Jesus Christ more than we ever have in our lives. And we need to rise up right now.”
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 inUncategorized|Comments Off on SANKT GALLEN IS SATAN’S HEADQUARTERS ON EARTH
Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta.S
Diabolical Narcissism Concepts: Projection
The hugantic Diabolical Narcissism video is in post-production but I want to get started on essays now. And yes, discussions have been had about a book, in fact a professional writer wants to write it, the topic is so big and so important. But I will write extensively here. In fact, if you look above at the Menu Bar, I have added a “Diabolical Narcissism” page. Everything will be filed there after being posted here on the homepage. The problem I am having personally in this is the opposite of writer’s block. This topic is so huge, and I see citations and examples all day every day, and I sit down to write and there is JUST SOOOOO MUUUUUUCH that instead of starting SOMEWHERE, I become distracted by bacon, and occasionally also cashews.
Well, I et all the bacon, and the cashew dish is nothing but a few grains of salt. So, let’s get started. First topic up: PROJECTION. I will attack these tactics from both the macro level – politics and the Church, specifically, and then from the micro level, so that we can understand and fortify ourselves against diabolical narcissists that we encounter directly (or have already encountered) in our own lives.
First, Projection. Projection is when someone accuses you of doing the bad things that THEY do, or of possessing the character flaws that THEY possess. I found this definition that I think sums it up very well:
“Projection: A defense mechanism narcissists use that involves condemning others for their own emotions, traits, reactions and behaviors. A narcissist projects without being provoked. Although the narcissist may project their positive attributes onto you (mirror image), most of the time they are scraping the mud off of themselves and smearing it onto you. Everything they say precisely describes them, but it mind screws you so bad it may leave you asking yourself the question, ‘Am I the narcissist?’”
Because remember, Diabolical Narcissists, like the fallen angels they mirror, are INVETERATE AND FACILE LIARS. Projection is a specific form of lying.
Unless you have been in a very, very deep coma for the past half century, you have seen this on a daily basis out of the political class. If I may be so bold, every day I see you all who still cling to the legitimacy of the political system trying to square the circle and process these events as if the Constitutional Republic still existed and this isn’t kabuki theater entertainment, and the term “mind screwed” leaps to mind, indeed.
Every time a politician puffs himself up and starts bloviating about “fiscal irresponsibility”, “disregard for the Constitution” or any such thing, whilst committing capital crimes on a near-daily basis – crimes of treason, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace that literally merit execution, this is the quintessence of “projection”.
Having the people who exposed the PlannedParenthood baby parts trafficking prosecuted for attempted baby parts trafficking is societal end-stage projection.
Hillary Clinton railing that all women who report rape should be assumed to be telling the truth while she has spent her entire adult life character assassinating (and possibly having murdered) women who were raped by her serial rapist husband is societal end-stage projection.
Judas Iscariot lecturing Our Lord and the other Apostles about THE POOR (TM) and how the flask of spikenard Mary was anointing Our Lord with should be sold and given to THE POOR (TM), while being himself a thief (John 12: 3-6). Yeah, that’s projection. Just a l’il bit. L’il bit.
When our lord and savior jorge bergoglio, a textbook diabolical narcissist and likely sociopath, rails, for example, against “namecalling” and “labeling”, whilst delivering homily after homily doing exactly that – Hor-hay project-ay. The best example of this is in Bergoglio’s um, document, Evangelii Gaudium, specifically the jawdroppingly oblivious paragraph 94. Behold:
94. This worldliness (said the man who is completely obsessed with being adored by the world) can be fuelled in two deeply interrelated ways. One is the attraction of gnosticism, a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console (like Soul Annihilation, or false ecumenism, or “who am I to judge?”, for example?) and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings. The other is the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers (I’m in charge around here! All authority rests in me! I’LL TAKE THEIR HATS…!) and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past (like 1974?). A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic (wheee!) and authoritarian elitism (WHEEEEEE!!), whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others (“O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men…” said the inveterate namecaller, literally AS HE IS NAMECALLING), and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying (said the pathological, persistent namecaller). In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others (like when he refuses to genuflect to the Consecrated Host, and tells atheists NOT to convert so that they can continue to amuse him). These are manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism (said the man who openly preaches humanism). It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity (said the most violent and enthusiastic adulterer of Christianity, well, since his homeboy Luther).
In micro terms, a Diabolical Narcissist will tell you that you are insecure, needy, self-absorbed, judgmental – whatever the DN is, he will accuse you of being that. If he is a liar, then YOU are the liar. If he is a cheater (assuming a romantic relationship or marriage), then he will inevitably accuse YOU of cheating. If he is stealing from you, he will accuse you of stealing from him. If he is acting like a child, he will accuse you of acting like a child. If he is lazy, he will accuse you of being lazy. If he drinks too much, he will accuse you of drinking too much whether you do or not. I could go on like this ad infinitum.
The most advanced form is when a DN accuses you of doing a physical action that you both know that he did – and that you may have even vocally protested at the time. “Shouldn’t we roll the windows up? It might rain later.” “No. It won’t rain. LEAVE IT!” Four hours and very wet seats later, the DN will say… “Damn you! I told you it was going to rain! But you REFUSED to roll up the windows!” At which most victims of DNs can only stand there, stupefied by the stunning brazenness that the DN displays. Oftentimes, it is incidences of projection like these that cause female victims to become psychologically unglued, and if the victim is a male (like a father-son relationship, boss-employee, commander-subordinate, or two sodomites), it is incidences like these that cause people to snap into violence. This is also a method of psychological torture used on POWs and in cults.
And make no mistake, oftentimes the DN will have meticulously planned out the initial set-up – in this example the DN would have specifically thought through the whole NOT rolling up the windows thing, betting and even fantasizing that he could parley any rain into an opportunity to “flex his power”, warping reality by 180 degrees, blaming his victim. As we will discuss later, for the DN, oftentimes the diabolical rush derived from the actual malefaction itself pales in comparison to the GETTING AWAY WITH IT – with observing the victim, thrashing about like a fish out of water, eventually settling into a capitualtion to the DN’s “omnipotence” in being able to re-write the real timeline itself – at least in the mind of his victim. In short, the DN, like the demons whose psycho-spiritual posture he mirrors, really is looking to break your spirit.
I hope this helps. One of the goals and hopes I have for this whole Diabolical Narcissism project is for those of you who read this to start calling this stuff out when you see it. The absolute best defense and way to defeat these DN tactics is to call it as it happens. Like the child in the fable of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, having people in comboxes or on talk radio shows or even in personal interactions, saying, “Hey! That’s projection! That is a classic tactic of diabolical narcissists! I’m not falling for that!” is all that is sometimes needed to let reality and sanity regain a foothold in this world, or in the soul of someone being targeted by a Diabolical Narcissist.
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 inUncategorized|Comments Off on ANN ANALYZES THE PRACTICE OF PROJECTION IN THE CASES OF DIABOLICAL NARCISSISTS
Justice Thomas Blasts Supreme Court for Sidestepping Planned Parenthood: “Quit Abdicating Our Judicial Duty”
NATIONAL MICAIAH BILGER DEC 10, 2018 | 1:08PM WASHINGTON, DC
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas criticized his fellow justices Monday for refusing to do their job when they rejected a case about state efforts to defund the abortion giant Planned Parenthood.
Both states, and several others, moved to revoke taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood after videos exposed the abortion giant allegedly selling the body parts of aborted babies. Planned Parenthood sued the states, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Kansas cannot defund Planned Parenthood, despite an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into its aborted baby body parts trade.
Then, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a similar effort by Arkansas to defund the abortion chain in 2017. Because of the circuit split, pro-life groups thought Supreme Court would take up the case.
Thomas said the court made a “mess” of the matter, and blamed the other justices for not wanting to touch a case involving the abortion giant Planned Parenthood.
“What explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood,’” Thomas wrote in his dissenting opinion.
Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas, but Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the four liberal justices in refusing to hear the case.
Thomas said he was particularly troubled by the majority decision, because the case has nothing to do with abortion. Instead, it is about Medicaid and patients’ rights.
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
“It is true that these particular cases arose after several States alleged that Planned Parenthood affiliates had, among other things, engaged in ‘the illegal sale of fetal organs’ and ‘fraudulent billing practices,’ and thus removed Planned Parenthood as a state Medicaid provider,” Thomas wrote.
“But these cases are not about abortion rights,” he continued. “They are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Resolving the question presented here would not even affect Planned Parenthood’s ability to challenge the States’ decisions.”
“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas concluded.
Americans United for Life President Catherine Glenn Foster echoed Thomas’s disappointment. The pro-life legal group filed two friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Louisiana and Kansas.
“We join the dissent in calling on the Court to ‘do its duty,’” Foster said. “But the good news is that there are other similar cases pending in lower courts, which may give the Supreme Court another opportunity to decide this important issue. In the meantime, AUL will continue to fight to protect states from being forced to use their limited public funds to subsidize abortion businesses.”
In its lawsuit, Planned Parenthood accused the de-funding effort of being “politically motivated” and claimed that it would cut off women’s access to health care. Even though hundreds of other health care options exist for the small number of women who get non-abortion health care at Planned Parenthood, the judges agreed with Planned Parenthood’s claim that de-funding it would somehow strip them of their health care.
In August 2015, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal canceled a state contract with Planned Parenthood that provided the abortion company with family planning funding through Medicaid. Planned Parenthood quickly sued to block the move.
After the expose showed Planned Parenthood selling aborted babies, Jindal said: “In recent weeks, it has been shocking to see reports of the alleged activities taking place at Planned Parenthood facilities across the country. Planned Parenthood does not represent the values of the people of Louisiana and shows a fundamental disrespect for human life. It has become clear that this is not an organization that is worthy of receiving public assistance from the state.”
The expose videos catching Planned Parenthood officials selling the body parts of aborted babies have shocked the nation. Here is a list of all 14:
In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.
In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.
In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”
In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”
In the sixth video: Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”
In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”
In the eighth video: StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits Planned Parenthood sells “a lot of” fully intact aborted babies.
The ninth video: catches a Planned Parenthood medical director discussing how the abortion company sells fully intact aborted babies — including one who “just fell out” of the womb.
The 10th video: catches the nation’s biggest abortion business selling specific body parts — including the heart, eyes and “gonads” of unborn babies. The video also shows the shocking ways in which Planned Parenthood officials admit that they are breaking federal law by selling aborted baby body parts for profit.
Unreleased Videos: Unreleased videos from CMP show Deb Vanderhei of Planned Parenthood caught on tape talking about how Planned Parenthood abortion business affiliates may “want to increase revenue [from selling baby parts] but we can’t stop them…” Another video has a woman talking about the “financial incentives” of selling aborted baby body parts.
The 11th video: catches a Texas Planned Parenthood abortionist planning to sell the intact heads of aborted babies for research. Amna Dermish is caught on tape describing an illegal partial-birth abortion procedure to terminate living, late-term unborn babies which she hopes will yield intact fetal heads for brain harvesting.
The 12th video in the series shows new footage of Jennefer Russo, medical director at Planned Parenthood in Orange County, California, describing to undercover investigators how her abortion business tries to harvest intact aborted babies’ bodies for a local for-profit biotech company and changes the abortion procedure to do so.
The 13th video: exposes a Planned Parenthood medical director admitting that babies born alive after abortion are sometimes killed.
The 14th video: catches Planned Parenthood executives discussing gruesome abortion procedures and the sale of body parts from aborted babies for profit.
Banning Christmas In The Schools December 10, 2018Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on attempts to ban Christmas in the public schools:
There is much ignorance about the state of the constitutional law as it applies to Christmas celebrations in the public schools. To cut to the quick—they are permitted.
A Christmas play by the Minden Junior Service League, performed at Minden High School in Webster Parish, Louisiana, was recently the source of much controversy. Two of the 35 minutes of the play discussed Jesus, and some objected, including the Webster Parish School Board.
The Superintendent Johnny Rowland was sympathetic to those who wanted the play, but insisted that there is a “federal court order [that] clearly spells out what is allowable and what is not.” Despite attempts to censor the play, it was performed anyway, and was greeted with a standing ovation.
Officials at Manchester Elementary School, which is part of the Elkhorn Public Schools in Nebraska, got all ginned up over Christmas and decided to ban displays of Santa Claus, Christmas trees, Christmas songs, and the colors red and green. Candy canes were also banned. Thanks to Liberty Counsel, the decision was reversed and sanity prevailed.
What is permissible at Christmastime in the public schools?
In 1995, Secretary of Education Richard Riley issued a directive on this subject at the behest of President Bill Clinton. Here is the language of how the operative paragraph begins:
“Official neutrality regarding religious activity. Teachers and administrators, when acting in those capacities, are representatives of the state and are prohibited by the establishment clause from soliciting or encouraging religious activity, and from participating in such activity with students.”
This first part makes good sense: it is not the business of school officials to lead students in religious activities. But the second part also makes good sense, yet it is frequently ignored.
“Teachers and administrators are also prohibited from discouraging activity because of its religious content, and from soliciting or encouraging anti-religious activity.”
In other words, school officials cannot ban voluntary, student-led religious activity at Christmastime. Students cannot be punished for singing Christmas carols, distributing Christmas cards, wearing red and green, giving Christmas presents, writing Christmas poems, giving speeches paying tribute to Jesus, etc.
No federal court has ever ruled that Christmas must be censored in the public schools. It’s about time the superintendents and their lawyers got up to speed and stopped listening to cultural fascists bent on banning Christmas: they know nothing about the First Amendment provisions regarding freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
The below Study has now been completed. The data was collected from April 1 through November 30, 2018. All told, there are samples from 15 states located all over the USA map. I have someone helping me from a statistical view to help break down the findings in a more analytically approved method. To the layman, the differences are quite striking. In 1960 about 80% of Catholics were going to weekly Mass and now it is 99% for the TLM and 22% for the Novus Ordo. Most of my numbers were gathered post 2018 scandal. There has been a visible drop in Mass attendance among the Novus Ordo attendees from the 22% of 2016. How much we’ll only know in a few years when the 2018 Novus Ordo numbers become available. The TLM numbers were not affected by the scandal since the vast majority of the 1700+ samples were taken after September 1st. The birth rate of 3.6 is just below the 1960 birthrate of all USA women of 3.65, but significantly higher than the 2.3 of the average Novus Ordo woman. The monetary giving in the collection has got to turn heads. The TLM attendees give 5 times what their Novus Ordo counterparts give (6% vs. 1.2%). Blessed and fruitful Advent, Fr. Kloster —– Forwarded Message —–From: Rev. Fr. Donald Kloster <revfrkloster@yahoo.com>To: Rev. Donald Kloster <frkloster@diobpt.org>Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018, 8:35:33 PM ESTSubject: 2018 Norwalk National TLM Study Once again here are the most recent numbers we have from the Novus Ordo Catholics: 1.) 89% of Catholics agree with contraception Pew Research 20162.) 47% of Catholics agree with abortion Pew Research 20163.) 22% of Catholics attend Mass weekly CARA 20164.) 67% of Catholics agree with gay marriage Pew Research 20175.) 1.2% of income donated by Catholics in the USA Catholic Philly.com 2013 Protestants as of 2016 give 2.5% Catholics gave 3.3% during the Great Depression6.) 62% of Catholics attending weekly Mass go to yearly Confession CARA 20087.) 37% of monthly attending Catholics go to yearly Confession CARA 20088.) 6% of a few times a year Catholics go to yearly Confession CARA 20089.) 2.3 birth rate among Catholics Pew Research 2015 Online poll of Traditional Latin Mass Catholics was 451 samples from 10 states (Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Florida, Connecticut, New York, Missouri, Kansas, Idaho, Virginia, and West Virginia. The remaining (+/-) 1300 samples are from 5 in pew parish surveys in the following cities: Dallas, Texas – Denver, Colorado – San Diego, California – Tacoma, Washington – Nashua, New Hampshire Question 1.) (Contraception) 1773 samples (1734-39) 98% said no to the use contraceptionQuestion 2.) (Abortion) 1769 samples (1755-14) 99% said no to the possibility of abortionQuestion 3.) (Mass) 1763 samples (1746-17) 99% attend Mass weeklyQuestion 4.) (Gay Marriage) 1759 samples (1723-36) 98% are against gay marriageQuestion 5.) (Donations) 1702 samples 6%Question 6.) (Confession) 1753 samples (1723-30) 98% of weekly Mass attendees go to monthly confession Question 9.) (Live Births) 1085 samples 3.6
At his longtime blog, Creative Minority Report, 1P5 and Remnant contributor Patrick Archbold has a five-part series about “actuating” the schism in the Church. Some of you are going to want to read the whole thing, but I’d like to offer a Cliff’s Notes version here by way of introduction.
In the first installment, Archbold begins with a quote attributed to Pope Francis back in 2016 – which we covered here – wherein he is alleged to have said, “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”
“That quote,” Archbold writes, “is from Der Spiegel. But it is Spiegel’s correspondent in Italy, Walter Mayr, who characterizes that statement as self-critical. Based upon all the evidence to date and what I think may be coming, I suspect that is a misreading of the statement. The Pope wasn’t being self-critical, he was telling you the plan.”
He was telling you the plan.
For years, something it appears that many Catholic commentators have missed in trying to make sense of the current papacy is that gaffes, well intentioned mistakes, malformation, and even outright incompetence do not explain the Francis phenomenon.
Intentionality does.
I can’t read hearts and minds, and I certainly can’t read souls. But I can tell you where the evidence points. And every indication I’ve seen shows that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the man who became Pope Francis, looks at the Catholic Church as it exists with destruction and reconfiguration at the forefront of his mind.
Archbold uses as a launching point the obvious manipulations of both synods on the family, and then the absolutely transparent fait accompli that was the Youth Synod this past October. Archbold writes:
Not only did they do away with all the rules in advance and pack the synod with the pliant, but they actually published a synod document that was substantially about a topic that wasn’t even discussed at the synod, synodality itself. You must hand it to these folks, they are the honey badgers of heretics, they just don’t care.
Archbold argues that the ramping up of synod-rigging came in direct response to “faithful Catholics” who have been “very loud and have caused them more problems than they are willing to put up with.” (Yes. He’s talking about you and me, among others.) His thesis is that the Church “has been in a de facto state of schism for some time” but that while those who reject the Church’s teaching used to just refuse to leave, now “they are in charge.”
“They didn’t want their own Church,” he writes. “They wanted ours. Now they have the power and they use the power.”
The overarching question that follows is, how do they rid themselves of the Catholics who are fighting against their power? Or, more to the point, “How do you turn a de facto schism into a real one?”
In part two, Archbold argues that those who are now in power in the Church “have been putting in place mechanisms that will give faithful Catholics no quarter.” And by no quarter, he means:
… they are taking a series of steps intended to give faithful Catholics, particularly traditional Catholics, no place to go other than where they want us. In short, they are executing a series of plays from their playbook intended to put traditional Catholics in a position in which they must capitulate or be disobedient to some degree. It is the disobedience they seek.
It is his theory that this mechanism – forced disobedience – will be used to “separate traditional Catholics from the Church.”
He gives examples. The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. A South American visitation used to take out a tradition-friendly bishop who had been critical of other bishops in his region. The never officially explained removal of Bishop Martin Holley from Memphis. (Holley appears to believe it was a retributive act by the disgraced-but-still-powerful Cardinal Wuerl for a previous slight.) The “visitation and destruction” of the Petites Sœurs de Marie Mère du Rédempteur, who, says Archbold, “committed the double crime of being a little ‘too conservative’ and having some assets that the local Bishop coveted.” The Sovereign Military Order of Malta.
There are probably more who could be added to the list.
“Whether you are a traditional leaning order,” writes Archbold, “moderately conservative, or even a bishop not getting with the program, the message and method is clear. When they want you gone. They can make you gone.”
Recently, additional directives from Rome have made it even harder for such people to have recourse when they are treated unjustly. Even bishops, so often pointed to by Francis as those who should be making decisions for their regions, now have to get permission from Rome before erecting institutes of consecrated life in their dioceses – something bishops have always had the power to do.
The third part of Archbold’s series focuses on what is being done to religious life. He says, quoting Hilary White, that some of the rule changes made recently by the Vatican signal “the end of the contemplative monastic life.” He quotes Hilary further on the vital nature of cloistered religious, and it bears repeating here:
Once they’re inside, the world forgets about them. But contemplative religious life is like the mitochondria of the Church. The power source of the cell that makes all the other systems function. The mitochondria are the most unobtrusive and hidden of the organelles of the body, and for a very long time their purpose was not fully understood. But now we know our lives depend on the health of this tiny, secret and hidden little thing. And mitochondrial disease – when the mitochondria fail to function – is devastating.
I won’t go into the level of detail Archbold does here, but he highlights a number of indicators that “Pope Francis clearly dislikes contemplative orders” and has acted accordingly. “Traditional Catholic monasticism,” he concludes, “is done. It cannot and will not survive this onslaught, if nothing changes.”
And this is not just about ending things. It’s about killing off new beginnings. Think about this:
Step by step they have been destroying avenues for religious to practice traditional Catholicism. They are simply not giving traditional Catholics with a vocation anywhere to go, except where they want you to go. They are diligently and systematically cutting off all avenues of escape. This is critical in understanding my thesis about how they may in the future cause the split in the Church for which Pope Francis has openly pined.
Part four of the series is about “synodality” – the strange, ill defined concept that was the major takeaway from the Youth Synod, a topic which, as Archbold argues, was not even discussed at the synod itself. Rather than attempting to summarize, I will quote at some length here:
The politburo approved Catholic media will tell you that synodality is all about decentralizing the governance of the Church closer to the people in the form of the Bishop’s conference. This, obviously, could not be further from the truth. In an incredible validation of the lie, before the ink was even dry on the synod document on synodality, the Pope personally intervened to publicly castrate the USCCB before they even thought about even discussing doing something useless about the abuse scandal. It was quite the show, even for veteran Church watchers.
In order to understand what the push for synodality is all about, you have to look at the above described pattern. In every step, they have restricted the rights of bishops and other groups to act on their own and under their own authority in a way that conflicts with the super-dogma of Vatican Two-ism. Synodality is not about empowering Bishop’s conferences, as undeniably demonstrated in Baltimore. It is about restricting the ability of any single bishop to act on his own. It is about making sure that no stray orthodox bishop can be a bastion of tradition and a safe space for traditional Catholicism. He can’t allow new groups of religious to form in his diocese, he can’t invite traditional nuns to set up shop in his diocese, and if he does anything too traditional, he will be on the receiving end of an apostolic visitation for the crime of not getting along with his Bishop’s conference. All of this has been about cutting off all escape paths for traditional Catholics.
That last line, Archbold concedes, is “not entirely true.” This is the critical point:
Some escape paths they will leave open. I opened this essay with a quote from Sun Tzu, “To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape.” Cut off all paths of escape but one. Get your enemy all into one place by making them think they have no place else to go.
Archbold then cites a story we covered here a couple of weeks ago, in which a bishop at the Italian Bishops’ Conference (CEI) meeting in November attacked Summorum Pontificum and its assertion that the traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated and thus, everywhere permitted.
As Archbold speculates, this universal permission to say the old Mass without a go ahead from the local ordinary or Rome “is what must be done away with. This is an escape hatch they just cannot abide.” He continues:
How do you turn a defacto schism into a real one? How do you get the faithful Catholics to be on the outside, seen to be in schism? To surround the enemy, you must cut off all other paths of escape. You need to get the enemy, traditional and red-pilling conservative Catholics, all into one place where they feel safer, before you lower the boom. …
I believe they intend to do away with Summorum Pontificum and its individual right of priests to say the mass and force all traditional Catholic into one or a few approved sources, perhaps the FSSP and the ICKSP or some juiced up Ecclesia Dei commission, if they can’t close the deal on the SSPX.
Archbold calls this “the Honey Pot, the place to gather all the recalcitrant under one roof, where they lie in wait for the final blow.”
In his fifth and final part of the series – entitled “The Hammer Drop” – Archbold outlines how he sees this happening.
He believes that Rome will “move us back to the indult era and consolidate us into a few groups.”
He continues:
They will claim, and their lickspittle brethren in the mainstream Catholic media will gush, that this is not an anti-Traditional move. “The Pope hasn’t done away with one single Traditional mass, this is about governance only.”
And when the dust settles, that is when the Pope will lower the boom. No, he won’t ban the Traditional Latin Mass outright, I don’t think. Too much blowback for that and there is a much easier way to achieve his aims. The Pope will do something much worse than ban it. He is going to change it. He is going to change the 1962 missal.
The Pope will exercise his legitimate authority to aggiornomento the 1962 missal. Perhaps he will replace the lectionary with the current 3 year one, changes some prayers, permit communion in the hand, or some other changes that will shock the consciences of traditional Catholics. They will Vatican Two the TLM. You can hear them now, “The Pope didn’t ban the Latin Mass, he just used his legitimate authority over the liturgy to make it more meaningful.”
In his predicted vision of the Church, Archbold says that the consequence of such an action is clear:
Any approved group that resists the changes or complains too loud gets the Apostolic Visitation and is squashed for refusal to submit to the Pontiff. Any diocesan indult community that resists is squashed. And any Catholic who thinks he can go underground and just have masses said in someone’s house? Nope. Individual priests no longer have the right to say the mass. Do it and you have refused to submit to the authority of the Pope. You are a schismatic. So too any bishop. You either accept the Vatican Two boot on your neck or you are a schismatic.
Any attempt to live an authentic traditional Catholic life, whether as a religious, or just attending the mass of the ages, will make you a schismatic by default. Go SSPX, you are schismatic. Go to an underground mass. Schismatic. Form a group of faithful under a traditional rule without permission of Rome, schismatic. They will turn any and all attempts to live a traditional Catholic life into an act of disobedience.
It’s a dim view of what may come, but it hasn’t stopped raining for months in the trenches, the shelling goes day and night, and it seems that whenever we appear fresh out of the ability to believe in new horrors, they conjure another one up.
I stress here that Archbold’s take on this is only a theory, and it’s pretty dour. So I put it to the readers: what do you think?
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
All creation emanated from the voice of God uttering: “Let there be light.” There was nothing and no one yet to hear it, only God himself. As animate creatures came into being, they were able to make sounds, and some of them are beautiful, but only human beings have the gift of being able to consciously praise God by a right use of intellect and will. One of the Advent mysteries is “Judgment” and, in addition to our Creator’s assessment of us, it includes the use of speech as a correct expression of human dignity. To “take the Lord’s name in vain” does not diminish God, who is eternal, but it does corrupt our dignity in relation to him as his sons and daughters. Poor Job’s wife knew this when she told him, albeit ill-advisedly, “Curse God and die!” (Job 2:9). If we use profane language, our Creator does not wash our mouths with soap, but he becomes less accessible to us. “Profane” actually means “outside the temple.” Our culture is degraded by an increasing use of vulgar speech. There are plenty of artful ways to insult, but when script writers and stand-up comedians resort to coarseness, they reveal their lack of verbal skill, not to mention their lack of self-respect. It is worse for a woman to use vulgar language than for a man. If this is a double standard, it is so in a good sense, for by nature the female is meant to civilize the male. Invoking Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Aristotle before him, “The corruption of the best is the worst.” Cole Porter remarked on this degradation even back in 1934 in a somewhat insouciant way: “Good authors, too, who once knew better words, / Now only use four-letter words. / Writing prose, / Anything goes.” One way to discipline the use of speech is to make a quiet act of reparation when someone curses. Simply utter to yourself the holy name of Jesus. Save for the angels, we are the only creatures who can do that. While Advent hymns are often blocked out by Christmas music sung too early, they are among the Church’s most beautiful sounds, giving voice to the anticipation of Christ’s birth and the prospect of his Second Coming. Among them is one translated by Edward Caswall, an Oxford classics scholar who converted to Catholicism in 1847 and joined John Henry Newman’s Oratory in Birmingham three years later. There is nothing in his vocabulary that needs to be bleeped or asterisked, although such speech may confuse and even scandalize those in our present day who grunt like animals instead of singing like humans, who are—after all—only a little lower than the angels:Hark! A thrilling voice is sounding; “Christ is nigh,” it seems to say; “Cast away the works of darkness, O ye children of the day!”
The Jamal Khashoggi affair has captivated an American nation that believes firmly in a free press, and therefore, was horrified by the murder of the Saudi journalist, but the saga continues. The Trump administration has placed sanctions on seventeen Saudi citizens that they say are guilty, or at least accomplices, in Khashoggi’s death, but has stopped short of blaming Saudi Arabia’s young leader, the Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (known as MBS). The latest bipartisan Senate resolution, which received the support of high-profile Senators Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio in President Trump’s GOP, asserts that MBS was complicit in the murder. The debate continues to rage in Washington, and so, the troubling questions must be asked.
What if this charismatic leader of an Islamic monarchy with a strict system of Sharia-based laws is guilty? What if MBS, who rules a country in which hands are cut off for shoplifting, in which a Muslim can be killed for abandoning Islam, and in which husbands are routinely allowed to hit their wives, is found guilty of ordering the Khashoggi execution? Should the Trump administration censure him and seek to see him overthrown?
Let me be clear that the writer asking these questions is an Israeli, but also an American. I was born and raised in a pretty tough place called Brooklyn, but twenty-six years ago, I moved to a tiny country called Israel, which, as always, was struggling for survival in a region called the Middle East, which is far more brutal than Brooklyn. The values of almost every country in the Middle East are barbaric when compared to Western norms, but in order to survive and even thrive, we Israelis often need to cooperate, even covertly, with those whose values we find reprehensible.
Let’s place all of this in historical context. The Khashoggi killing, which may have been ordered by the Saudi leadership, replicates killings that are carried out frequently in many countries around the world, with equally ruthless despots. In Erdogan’s Turkey, for example, the country in which the Khashoggi murder was committed, unfriendly journalists have been known to disappear at a moment’s notice, at the whim of that nation’s increasingly dictatorial leader. The geo-political lessons are abundant. Let’s not forget that the non-Communist allies in World War II cooperated with the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin, who was guilty of far more numerous crimes than the one Khashoggi murder that which many claim MBS was involved. Despite his huge crimes, Stalin was a full partner with Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in bringing about the downfall of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi movement in Europe.
FDR chose to work together with Stalin, despite his obvious widespread brutality. In foreign policy, a wise leader must make priorities based on the full picture. Defeating the Nazi menace and halting the atrocities was far more critical than giving Stalin a report card for his indisputable human rights crimes. Yes, we have been in this before. President Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran, who was ruthless in suppressing his enemies, even though the Shah broadly cooperated with the US, and even with Israel. In his stead, we got the even more ruthless, America-hating and Israel-hating Ayatollah Khomeini, along with his razor-focused goal of exporting his Islamic revolution and placing the nuclear bomb in his, or his successor’s fanatical hands. As with Carter’s failure to adequately back a flawed ally, President Obama abandoned the cooperative Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who had ruled his nation with an iron fist, and his replacement was the fanatical, jihadist Muslim Brotherhood.
It is critical that America get it right on this issue before events quickly spin out of control and steps are taken that will be regretted later. Remember that Americans, and especially Israelis, live in a very tough world in which most people don’t always share our values. If we punish everyone who doesn’t act according to our values, both the US and Israel will have no allies in the world. That would be contrary to our interests. The guiding principle for an American leader should always be “Project American values but protect American interests”. Saudi Arabia, as led by MBS, has been a very good ally for America, and increasingly for Israel, in the very dangerous Middle East, in which, and from which, terrorism is spreading, throughout the world, and Shiite Muslim Iran is the primary perpetrator. The Sunni Persian Gulf nations, led by MBS’s Saudi Arabia, are even more concerned about the Iranian regime than we Israelis are, even though we are the primary (with America being the secondary) target of their fanatical hatred and megalomania.
When seeking to improve the human rights policies of allies with less than stellar history, one must lead and gradually influence mainly by example, since preaching and sanctioning can often backfire, bringing about a far worse result than that intended. MBS won’t change his behavior so quickly, even though there have been some small, yet relatively significant social changes taken under his leadership. However, harshly sanctioning him will only disrupt the vital Saudi-American-Israeli axis, which is working productively towards the critical goal of stopping Iran’s race to attain the nuclear bomb and increase its exporting of terrorism around the globe. Removing MBS would also cause damage to the American economy, since there is great cooperation with the MBS-led Saudis. The Trump administration has made a strategic decision based on this line of reasoning. MBS is clearly better than what came before him, and therefore, in the pursuit of cooperation and stability, it is highly unlikely that President Trump will encourage a change in the current Saudi leadership. Once again, that decision is an expression of smart and far-sighted leadership, based on the historically-proven maxim that I spoke about earlier, “Project American values, but protect American interests”.
———————————————————————————–
Bio: David Rubin is the former Mayor of Shiloh Israel and author of the new book, “Trump and the Jews”. Rubin is the founder and president of Shiloh Israel Children’s Fund, established after he and his then three-year-old son were wounded in a terror attack. He can be found at www.DavidRubinIsrael.com
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on PRESIDENT TRUMP MUST TREAD LIGHTLY IN THE KHASHOGGI AFFAIR AND REFRAIN FROM APPLYING WESTERN JUSTICE TO MBS PRECIPITOUSLY
I recently read an interesting item regarding Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, on Maurizio Blondet’s blog. That link takes you to his full article, excerpts of which I reproduce here. Excuse the poor translation.
From Maurizio Blondet, “Ratzinger Could Neither Sell Nor Buy”.
When, in February 2013, Pope Benedict XVI resigned suddenly and inexplicably, the IOR (Vatican Bank) had been excluded from SWIFT; thus, all the Vatican payments were made impossible, and the Church was treated as a state-terrorist (secondum America), such as Iran. It was the economic ruin, well prepared by a violent campaign against the IOR, which was confirmed by the opening of criminal investigations of the Italian judiciary (which never fails to obey certain international orders).
Few know what SWIFT is (the acronym stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication – Company Interbank Financial Telecommunication): in theory, is a world “clearing house” uniting 10,500 banks 215 countries. In fact, it is the most occult and sole center of American financial power-globalist, stick to blackmail on which the hegemony of the dollar, the most powerful means of economic espionage and political (to the detriment especially for us Europeans) and means by which the most feared global finance crushes legs to states that do not obey. (…)
The Belgian site Media-Presse (SWIFT is based in Belgium) in giving the news of the SWIFT alternative launched by Beijing and Moscow, April 5, recounted as an example:
When a bank or territory is excluded from the system, as it did in the case of the Vatican in the days before the resignation of Benedict XVI in February 2013, all transactions are blocked. Without waiting for the election of Pope Bergoglio, the Swift system has been unlocked the announcement of the resignation of Benedict XVI.
This explains and justifies the unprecedented resignation of Ratzinger, that many of us have (considered) an act of cowardice; the Church was treated as a state “terrorist”, but worse – note that the dozen banks falling into the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria “are not excluded from SWIFT” and continue to be able to make international transactions – and the Vatican finances could no longer pay the nunciature, to convey transport missions – in fact, the same ATM of Vatican City had in fact been blocked. The Church of Benedict could not “neither sell nor buy”, its economic life had counted the hours.
It just has to sign (indicate) what Saura Plesio says: Ratzinger “who fought against the prevailing relativism, never would accept” openings “on gay and gender policies. He never would prostrate to the “world” (and globalism) as this pope (Bergoglio), which competes with the prevailing secularism of the EU to create a form of “divorce sacramental” through “the short cancellation”. He never would have (been) paid to do the great farce of Lampedusa made by his successor, which moreover is not even its territory, but the Italian state. The great powers have globalists quickly and Ratzinger was a blatant obstruction, a slowdown on their meteoric trajectory.”
How quickly was implemented the expulsion of Ratzinger also suggests that a particular drew out Luciano Canfora. Sympathetic unrepentant communist, but good historian of the Roman and Latin scholar, he has noticed in the motu proprio with which Benedetti has justified his resignation with age (“worsening Aetate “) a series of errors of Latin elementary errors in the concordance of the cases, as to blush a schoolboy. Now Ratzinger can not have committed these errors. The text was written by others, and he was sent away from the Vatican blatantly, helicopter resumed broadcast worldwide?
Immediately after his departure, SWIFT unlocks Vatican transactions, reopens ATMs, back to the honor of the world the IOR. They did not wait until Bergoglio’s election; all it took was the expulsion of the “white terror”.
In the salons and unreachable between Wall Street and Washington and London, already they knew that the conclave would give the throne to a modernist, one they could trust. Why? The SWIFT sanction had been coordinated with the “conspirators” in purple, led by Carlo Maria Martini (a cardinal who requested euthanasia for himself, remember ..) (1) Bergoglio had marked as their candidate for years? There was an agreement of the conspirators with a strong external power, which are close to ideology? [NOTE: Here he refers to the St. Gallen Group, or Mafia-Club as per Cdl Danneels]
Maybe the election of Bergoglio will not be invalid. But it understands that the resignation of Ratzinger is – was forced to come down from the throne of Peter …. The ambiguous behavior of the same Ratzinger, maintaining the white robe and the title of the Holy Father, can confirm it: he wants to give a signal to those who can understand, without being able to say, that was driven out, not gone voluntarily. Now, as a marriage is void if one of the spouses has signed under duress, it will also be a Pope who surrender under duress, and also knows that he is Pope ….
This hypothesis explains very well the triumphal reception that Bergoglio received in America, the UN, Obama, the standing ovation in Congress – already, because then a reigning pope was invited to the US Congress? The thing is very strange and unusual. The relationship of Washington with the Vatican have always been from bad to very bad; not only for Protestant hatred against “popery.” Now, they have become excellent. The Pope is ‘willing mediator of the United States in Cuba’, its the “radical battles”, opens the new morality compulsory, short stops being the antagonist moral that “this world” hates.
That would explain also the astute management to win the sympathy of progressive media; and the brutal but accurate “purge” that Bergoglio (with his council of Eight) has worked in the Vatican, as if he had in his hand a list long prepared. His willingness to dissolve Catholicism (into) Protestantism in general, vacuous, secular and worldly …
Bergoglio enjoins Christians to accept more immigrants, without limits, with total “welcome” and charity – Well: “With an official statement, signed by as many as 28 different allegiances (including as many as eight French and one Italian, the Grand Lodge ‘ Italy ), the Masons call on European governments to accept immigrants, indeed to embrace more and more. Thus demonstrating a convergence of intent with few precedents not only each other, but also with respect to the new strategies adopted by the Member States “(Correspondenza Romana, 11 September). here he presents the evidence from the Masons themselves. Rorate posted on this earlier this year.
It’s no lie that some cardinal contexts not elect Bergoglio, but invalidates the resignation of Benedict: money is at stake, and the risk of being at the head of a Church “holy” but put into misery by SWIFT definitely makes’ hesitation also the more traditionalCardinals .
As a believer, it calms me this idea: we still have a Pontifex, although speechless. The promise made to Peter is still maintained; the apostolic line is not interrupted, given the sacraments remain valid. And this only matters in the storm.
As men of this generation, we have better identified the false lamb of Revelation 13, with the power to starve and to block, so that “no one could buy or sell” without “The mark on the hand and forehead.” SWIFT, and the bank number (BIC) revealed even more clearly the essence of anti-Christ, and the true purpose of globalization. And you do not call it more conspiracy … But what plot? Here are acting openly, blatantly, without hiding more – and very quickly. Because he “knows he has little time.”
A few days ago, the Fed Chairman Janet Yellen has suffered a sudden illness as she spoke at the University of Massachusetts. On that occasion, as if by accident, we learned from the newspapers who would replace if not possible: the number two, Stanley Fischer, who was governor of the Central Bank of Israel until 2013, and has left that position to assist the Yellen . Even more fans pretend.
Apocalypse 13: 11-17: [11] And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns, like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon. [12] And he executed all the power of the former beast in his sight; and he caused the earth, and them that dwell therein, to adore the first beast, whose wound to death was healed. [13] And he did great signs, so that he made also fire to come down from heaven unto the earth in the sight of men. [14] And he seduced them that dwell on the earth, for the signs, which were given him to do in the sight of the beast, saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make the image of the beast, which had the wound by the sword, and lived. [15] And it was given him to give life to the image of the beast, and that the image of the beast should speak; and should cause, that whosoever will not adore the image of the beast, should be slain. [16] And he shall make all, both little and great, rich and poor, freemen and bondmen, to have a character in their right hand, or on their foreheads. [17] And that no man might buy or sell, but he that hath the character, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
Note
1) Painful truth foreshadowed in the letter of the nephew of Cardinal, Giulia Facchini Martini, published in the “Corriere della Sera” on September 4. The text reads: “You were afraid, not of death itself, but the act of dying, of death and of all that precedes it. We talked together in March and I, as a lawyer I also deal with the protection of the weak, I’d be called upon to clearly express your wishes and the care that you wanted to receive. And so it was. You were afraid, afraid above all of losing control of your body, to die suffocated. (…) With the shared awareness that the time was approaching, when you did it more, you asked to be asleep. So a doctor with two clear eyes and clear, an expert care that accompany death, you sedated “(Mario Palmaro and Alessandro Gnocchi With the death of Cardinal Martini was canonized theology of the doubt, Correspondence Roman, 12 September 2012).
Dear Readers, note that SWIFT is based in Belgium, home of Cardinal Danneels – and also Marc Dutroux who steadfastly held that he was only a henchman for prominent men in international finance. Our post, “The Vatican’s Lavender Heel” shows that the Vatican’s Lavender Lobby is linked to its international financial corruption. The two go together. The most recent homosexual orgy also involved drug smuggling using a car with Vatican license plates to avoid searches. For the latest on the Vatican’s most recent homosexual orgy see this post.
† Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of our hearts, Mother of the Church, do thou offer to the Eternal Father the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the conversion of poor sinners, especially our Pontiff.
† St. Joseph, guardian of the Holy Family, protect our families, protect our priests!
† St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle
~ by evensong for love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ, King. Vouchsafe that I may praise thee, O Sacred Virgin! Give me strength against thine enemies!
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
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.