Saturday, September 08, 2018

If Reuters' Canon Law Expert is Right then Pope Benedict is Probably or Surely still Pope not to Mention the Bishop Gracida Evidence that the Francis Conclave was Invalid

Reuters is saying that if pressure is put on "Pope Francis to resign [it] could make it difficult, if not impossible, for him to do so, Church experts say.":

“'The pope has the right to freely resign. That’s what the canon says. The doubt is whether the situation Francis is in now really allows for a free choice because there is a political faction in the Church trying to force it,' said Nicholas Cafardi, former dean of Duquesne University School of Law."

“'I don’t see how (the pope can resign freely) when you have people campaigning for it,' said Cafardi, who is also a former member of the Board of Governors of the Canon Law Society of America."
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1LN1IL#ampshare=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-abuse-law/can-the-popes-accusers-force-him-to-resign-idUSKCN1LN1IL]

If Reuters and Canon Law expert Cafardi are right that it is "difficult, if not impossible" for a pope to resign "if a political faction in the Church if trying to force it" then Pope Benedict XVI probably, if not for sure, is still Pope which would mean Francis is not a valid or real pope.

On August 27, author and philosopher Dr. Taylor Marshall reported that force or pressure from financial blackmail apparently lead to Benedict's resignation. He said:

"Sexual deviancy, that is paired up with financial irregularity. This is what moves the Pope to resignation. And just to make sure there is enough pressure on him to do it and do it quick something funny goes on with the Vatican Bank beginning on January 1, 2013."

The author and philosopher on YouTube in "Dr. Taylor Marshall ties together Vatican financial scandal with homosexual activity" summarized what lead to Pope Benedict XVI's resignation and Pope Francis's papacy:

If Archbishop Carlo Marie Vigano is telling the truth then it appears that the Vatican gay lobby apparently forced Pope Benedict's resignation and it appears that Pope Francis has "reinstated and promoted" all those who brought about the pressured resignation according to the author and philosopher.

Marshall stated:

"First of, Vigano blew the whistle on money laundering."

"Two, the accusations of money laundering leads to the Vatileaks scandal."

"Three, the Vatileaks scandal leads Benedict to form a secret investigation with three cardinals."

"Four, those three cardinals expose moral rot, sexual deviancy, that is paired up with financial irregularity."

"This is what moves the Pope to resignation. And just to make sure there is enough pressure on him to do it and do it quick something funny goes on with the Vatican Bank beginning on January 1, 2013."

There is more evidence that Benedict was forced or pressured to resign.

Akacatholic.com reported that evidence points to financial blackmail being involved in the Benedict abdication who appeared to be attempting to uncover "financial improprieties.":

"An article by Italian journalist Maurizio Blondet is making the rounds alleging that Pope Benedict XVI was blackmailed into abdication by forces allied with SWIFT (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), which had a hand in the shutdown of ATM and bank card services at the Vatican in January of 2012."

"According to Blondet:

There was a blackmail of Benedict XVI, coming from who knows where, through SWIFT. The underlying reasons for this have not been clarified, but it is clear that SWIFT has intervened directly in the management of affairs of the Church..."

"...It strikes me as interesting that more attention isn’t being paid to the role played by Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz, the acting President of the IOR [Vatican Bank] Board at the time, given his ties to Deutsche Bank."

"I mean, one would think that the former Deutsche Bank Executive Director, even if unable to leverage his contacts within the German banking giant to forestall such a drastic move, would have at the very least been well aware of what was coming and could have perhaps taken steps to secure the services of another financial institution, as happened in short order soon afterwards."

"This leads me to wonder where Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz’s own interests may have lied as this was taking place."

"Let me be clear; I have no information implicating Schmitz in any nefarious activity; I am simply making common sense observations and asking questions that, curiously enough, have apparently never been addresses by those in the media; in spite of the extensive coverage these events received."

"In any case, one is still left to wonder what motivated Gotti Tedeschi’s removal."

"Given that the reform of the IOR [Vatican Bank], for all intents and purposes, was all but halted while interim President Schmitz acted as caretaker until a new President could be found, one might assume that this interruption alone was the primary motive."

"It seems rather clear for reasons addressed below, however, that the motive went well beyond simply protecting the interests of those whose financial improprieties Gotti Tedeschi was laboring to uncover, making it seem far more likely Gotti Tedeshi’s demise was undertaken in order to set in motion the events that would secure the abdication of the man who appointed him."

"Circumstantial evidence strongly attesting to this being the case can be found in the fact that the Vatican reached an agreement with a Swiss firm to resume ATM and other bank card transactions effective February 12, 2013, just one day after Benedict XVI announced his intention to abdicate.

Indeed, as far as I can tell, nothing of note had changed between the cessation of bank card operations on January 1st and their resumption on February 12th relative to the Vatican Bank’s compliance with international banking standards. Rather, the only noteworthy thing to change was the status of Benedict’s pontificate."

"Further evidence suggesting that the motives for Gotti Tedeschi’s removal extended beyond mere financial concerns." [https://akacatholic.com/money-sex-and-modernism/]

Moreover, besides the apparent likely probability that Francis is not pope, if Reuters' Canon Law expert is right, because Benedict was pressured or forced to resign there, also, appears to be strong evidence that the conclave that elected Francis was invalid.

Onepeterfive's Steve Skojec on May 7 apparently rejected Bishop René Gracida's call for the cardinals to judge if Francis's election to the papacy was valid calling the validity question itself a "potentially dangerous rabbit hole."
(Onepeterfive, "Cardinal Eijk References End Times Prophecy in Intercommunion," May 7, 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skojec gave blogger Ann Barnhardt's analysis of the papal validity a long article. The only bishop in the world contesting Francis in a meaningful way deserves as much.

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

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

1. A validly elected pope who is a material heretic until cardinals correct him and then canonically proclaim he is a formal heretic if he doesn't recant thus deposing him or

2. a invalidly elected anti-pope who is a heretic.

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

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

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

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


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

"ONE CAN SAY THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A HERETIC UNTIL ONE DIES BUT IT CHANGES NOTHING. WHAT IS NEEDED IS ACTION... WE MUST PRESSURE THE CARDINALS TO ACT. SEND THAT LINK TO EVERY PRIEST AND BISHOP YOU KNOW": https://wp.me/px5Zw-95e.


Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for Catholics to not just bemoan heresy, but put pressure on the cardinals to act.

7 comments:

Christine Hurley said...

Bishop Gracida is right. Bergoglio is most likely not the Pope.

Christine Hurley said...

The reasons Bergoglio is probably not the pope is three-pronged like a pitchfork. Each of the reasons by themselves means Pope Francis was invalidly elected. (1) Benedict's resignation was invalid (read Ganswein'speech regarding the "expanded Petrine ministry" and commentary by Ann Barnhardt thereon); (2) the Saint Gallen Mafia (need I say more?); and (3) Bergoglio was a heretic before the supposed election, and still is a heretic (anyone who thinks he's not a heretic is either not in reality, doesn't know the Catholic faith, or is a heretic themselves - My Sheep hear My Voice and another they won't follow because they don't recognize his voice [and I don't]).

Christine Hurley said...

Nearly every time I post the link to Bishop Gracida's website on Church Militant, my comment gets removed. This is both before and after Vigano's statement came out.

Christine Hurley said...

Nearly every time I post the link to Bishop Gracida's website on Church Militant, my comment gets removed. This is both before and after Vigano's statement came out.

Christine Hurley said...

I emailed the link to Bishop Gracida's "open letter" to the New York Archdiocese and to my pastor as soon as it came out. Not shocked I haven't heard back from them.

Charmaine said...

"Pope Benedict XVI did not renounce the munus petrinum; and therefore, the question is, who is the true pope, Francis or Benedict? I have systematically analyzed (as did far more systematically and thoroughly, Canon Law Professor Fr. Stefano Violi) Benedict’s own words, in which he very carefully states his intention to renounce only the petrine ministry, but NOT the petrine munus."
https://abyssum.org/2018/03/21/much-has-been-written-about-benedicts-resignation-and-francis-election-here-is-the-best-analysis-i-have-read-up-to-now/

Charmaine said...

"The Resignation of Benedict XVI Between History, Law and Conscience" - Stefano Violi
http://archive.fatima.org/news/newsviews/newsviews031315.pdf