Saturday, February 29, 2020

Is Bp. Schneider a "Flying Monkey" or another Type of Enabler?

Is Bishop Athanasius Schneider an enabler of Francis?

If he is then what type of enabler might he be?

The literature on narcissist enablers claims there are types of enablers:

"Narcissism does not exist in a vacuum. It can't. Therefore, there are enablers... who support the narcissist... people the narcissist recruits to their side. These people are usually called 'flying monkeys,' but there are other types of enablers, too."

"These are the people who might not agree with or defend the narcissist, but who enable the narcissist... who says things like, 'She's [he's] your mother [pope]'... 'How can you abandon your husband [pope]'... 'I give in to your sister [pope] to keep the peace.'"

"... If one spouse hits the other, and the assaulted spouse does not leave the relationship or call the police, they've taught the batterer that this behavior is acceptable because there have been no consequences."
(Pairedlife.com, "The Narcissist's Enablers," June 17, 2019)

Bishop Schneider appears to be the second type of enabler as are all Francis traditionalists.

Schneider and all Francis traditionalists don't agree with Francis on pachamama idolatry, diversity of religions, Communion for adulterers and the betrayal of the Chinese underground Church, but he and they enable Francis to keep doing these blasphemies against God and battering faithful Catholics.

Moreover, Schneider the Enabler and all the Francis traditionalists will never stop defending Francis's "papal right" to keep committing blasphemies against God and battering faithful Catholics black and blue such as in China because "he's our pope" and "we must keep the peace and not have schism" despite the blasphemies and batterings.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Quarantine China?: Italy was the Second most Popular European Destination for the Chinese?

- Updated March 11, 2020

According to News Travel, in the "first half of 2019":

"[T]he top... [Chinese] destination in Europe were Russia, Italy... "
(News.travel 168.net, "Big Data: Chinese Tourism to Europe Keep Growing in H1 2019," August 30, 2019)

If Italy is the epicenter of the Coronavirus in Western Europe and it appears to be a top Chinese tourist "destination" then why isn't the Italian and European media calling for a quarantine of China?

Why, if what the media is saying is true about the Coronavirus, aren't they calling for a global travel ban on China like President Donald Trump and Australia have done or even a global "call for the world to advise all citizens to leave China" until the virus is under control?

If the Democrats, the Alex Jones-like conservatives like Steve Skojec and the media are serious in their Coronavirus panic than a quarantine of China is absolutely needed.

Why aren't they calling for a quarantine?

I dare any of the Democrats, the Alex Jones-like conservatives and the media panic-mongers to call for the above actions on China to save the planet from the dreaded Coronavirus.

Even British authorities are advising "all citizens to leave China":

"China’s ambassador to the UK has condemned the British authorities for sowing panic over the coronavirus with its advice for all British citizens to leave the country."

"On Tuesday the British government became the first in the world to advise all citizens to leave China if they could, although unlike the US, Australia and several other countries, it has not banned entry for travellers who have recently visited mainland China."

"Ambassador Xiaoming said the UK position was an overreaction that ignored World Heath Organization advice against sweeping travel restrictions, which he claimed UK officials had privately acknowledged was correct."
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/06/china-ambassador-says-uk-overreacting-with-coronavirus-advice]

There is a debated on a screenshot of Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer which supposedly claims he is against a travel ban on China:

"The tweet was never deleted, because Schumer never sent it."

"Yet some conspiracy minded sites used a screenshot of the alleged tweet to seek to criticize Schumer."

"In what amounts to a plea of ‘guilty’ to the charge of being full of crap and criticizing President Trump no matter what he does, Senator Chuck Schumer has deleted his February 5 tweet," started a post on The American Thinker website.

The screenshot says:

'The premature travel ban to and from China by the current administration is just an excuse to further his ongoing war against immigrants. There must be a check and Balance on these restrictions.'

"Schumer never sent, or deleted the tweet."


ProPoblica, a nonprofit journalism organization, maintains a database of tweets deleted by politicians called Politwoops. Politwoops says it "uses Twitter's Streaming API to find tweets from politicians we track and then checks to see if those tweets have been deleted". The alleged post is not captured in the database.
[https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/29/tweets/chuck-schumer-didnt-delete-tweet-criticizing-trump/]

If this is true then:

Why don't Schumer and all the Democrats call on a worldwide ban on travel to and from China and for all citizens to leave China?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of the Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Why is Bp. Schneider spreading the Doubtful Propaganda of a possible Leftist British Operative?

On LifeSiteNews, Bishop Athanasius Schneider apparently is spreading the doubtful propaganda of a possible leftist British operative Massimo Franco:

"The former Pope Benedict XVI is no longer the pope... During a conversation with a journalist [Massimo Franco] from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, the former Pope Benedict XVI said: “The Pope is one, he is Francis.” These words of Benedict XVI were reported in the written edition of Corriere della Sera, June 28, 2019."

The Italian Massimo Franco who interviewed Benedict XVI with "The Pope is one; [he] is Francis" quote appears to possibly be a leftist British operative of some type whose reporting is doubtful.

LifeSiteNews apparently stated the Franco quotations of Benedict were debunked or at best doubtful propaganda:

"It is unclear from this introductory article if these particular quotations were from the reporter or Benedict XVI himself."
(LifeSiteNews, "Benedict XVI asserts Francis is pope in new interview," June 29, 2019)

According to Wikipedia, Franco "is [a] member of the [British establishment] International Institute for Strategic Studies" which according to "Transparify... gave it it's lowest rating [for a think tank], 'deceptive' on funding transparency."

Wikipedia, also, said Franco "was a Vatican commentator at The [leftist pro-UK British] Guardian" until "2011." Moreover, Wikipedia said according to "Journalist Glenn Greenwald [The Guardian wrote fake news about]... Julian Assange... 'This article is about how those [Guardian's] false claims -fabrications, really - causing... thousands... (if not millions) to consume false news.'"

Journalist Antonio Socci says "Britain... [had] a strong political interest... to have Jorge Mario Bergoglio elected pope."
(The Secret of Benedict XVI, page 47-48)

 Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

John Salza & Prayers of RELEASE FOR FREEMASONS AND THEIR DESCENDANTS

Author John Salza, a former 32nd Degree Freemason, has written a good book "Why Catholics Cannot be Mason's." Hopefully, he know and promotes the following prayers and others like them.

Fr. John Hampsch, C.M.F.


PRAYERS OF RELEASE FOR FREEMASONS AND THEIR DESCENDANTS

If you were once a Mason or are a descendant of a Mason, we recommend that you pray through the following prayer from your heart. Don’t be like the Masons who are given their obligations and oaths one line at a time and without prior knowledge of the requirements. Please read it through first so you know what is involved. It is best to pray this aloud with a Christian witness or counselor present. We suggest a brief pause following each paragraph to allow the Holy Spirit to show any additional issues which may require attention.

“Father God, creator of heaven and earth, I come to you in the name of Jesus Christ your Son. I come as a sinner seeking forgiveness and cleansing from all sins committed against you and others made in your image. I honor my earthly father and mother and all of my ancestors of flesh and blood, and of the spirit by adoption and godparents, but I utterly turn away from and renounce all their sins. I forgive all my ancestors for the effects of their sins on me and my children. I confess and renounce all of my own sins. I renounce and rebuke Satan and every spiritual power of his affecting me and my family.

I renounce and forsake all involvement in Freemasonry or any other lodge or craft by my ancestors and myself. I renounce witchcraft, the principal spirit behind Freemasonry, and I renounce Bxphomer, the Spirit of Antichrist and the curse of the Luciferian doctrine. I renounce the idolatry, blasphemy, secrecy and deception by Masonry at every level. I specifically renounce the insecurity, the love of position and power, the love of money, avarice or greed, and the pride which would have led my ancestors into Masonry. I renounce all the fears which held them in Masonry, especially the fears of death, fears of men, and fears of trusting in the name of Jesus Christ.

I renounce every position held in the lodge by any of my ancestors, including “Tyler”’ “Master”, “Worshipful Master”, or any other. I renounce the calling of any man “Master”, for Jesus Christ is my only master and Lord, and He forbids anyone else having that title. I renounce the entrapping of others into Masonry and observing the helplessness of others during the rituals. I renounce the effects of Masonry passed on to me through any female ancestor who felt distrusted and rejected by her husband as he entered and attended any lodge and refused to tell her of his secret activities.

1st Degree

I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the First or Entered Apprentice degree, especially their effects on the throat and tongue. I renounce the Hoodwink, the blindfold, and its effects on emotions and eyes, including all confusion, fear of the dark, fear of the light, and fear of sudden noises. I renounce the secret word BOAZ, and all it means. I renounce the mixing and mingling of truth and error, and the blasphemy of this degree of Masonry. I renounce the noose around the neck, the fear of choking and also every spirit causing asthma, hay fever, emphysema or any other breathing difficulty: I renounce the compass point, sword or spear held against the breast, the fear of death by stabbing pain, and the fear of heart attack from this degree. In the name of Jesus Christ I now pray for healing of..(throat, vocal cords, nasal passages, sinus, bronchial tubes etc) for healing of the speech area, and the release of the Word of God to me and through me and my family.

2nd Degree

I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the second or Fellow Craft degree of Masonry, especially the curses on the heart and chest. I renounce the secret ~words JACHIN AND SHIBBOLETH and all that these mean. I cut off emotional hardness, apathy, indifference, unbelief and deep anger from me and my family. In the name of Jesus Christ I pray for the healing of … (the chest/lung/heart area) and also for the healing of my emotions and ask to be made sensitive to the Holy Spirit of God.

3rd Degree

I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the third or Master Mason degree, especially the curses on the stomach and womb area. I renounce the secret words MAHA BONE, MACHABEN, MACHBINNA and TUBAL CAIN, and all that they mean. I renounce the Spirit of Death from the blows to the head enacted as ritual murder, the fear of deaths, false martyrdom, fear of violent gang attack, assault, or rape, and the helplessness of this degree. I renounce the falling into the coffin or stretcher involved in the ritual of murder. I renounce the false resurrection of this degree, because only Jesus Christ is the Resurrection and the Life! I also renounce the blasphemous kissing of the Bible on a Witchcraft oath. I cut off all spirits of death, witchcraft and deception and in the name of Jesus Christ I pray for the healing of…(the stomach, bladder, womb, liver, and any other organs of my body affected by Masonry), and I ask for a release of compassion and understanding for me and my family.

Holy Royal Arch Degree

I renounce and forsake the oaths taken and the curses involved in the Holy Royal Arch Degree of Masonry, especially the oath regarding the removal of the head from the body arid the exposing of the brains to the hot sun. I renounce the Mark Lodge and the mark in the form of squares and angles which marks the person for life. I also reject the jewel or talisman which may have been made from this mark sign and worn at lodge meetings. I renounce the false secret name of God, JAHBULON, and the password, AMMI RUHAMAH and all they mean. I renounce the false communion or Eucharist taken in this degree and all the mockery, skepticism and unbelief about the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. I cut off all these curses and their effects on me and my family in the name of Jesus Christ, arid I pray for…(healing of the brain, the mind etc.)

18th Degree

I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the eighteenth degree of Masonry, the Most Wise Sovereign ‘Knight of the Pelican and the Eagle and Sovereign Prince Rose Croix of Heredom. I renounce and reject the Pelican witchcraft spirit, as well as the occult influence of the Rosicrucians and the Kabbala in this degree. I renounce the claim that the death of Jesus Christ is a “dire calamity”, and also the deliberate mockery and twisting of the Christian doctrine of Atonement. I renounce the blasphemy and rejection of the deity of Jesus Christ, and the secret words IGNE NATURA RENOVATUR INTEGRA and its burning. I renounce the mockery of the communion taken in this degree, including a biscuit, salt and white wine.

30th Degree.

I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the thirtieth degree Masonry, the Grand Knight Kadosh and Knight of the Black and White Eagle. I renounce the password, “STIBIUM ALKABAR”, and all it means.

31st Degree

I renounce-the oaths taken and the curses involved in the thirty-first degree of Masonry, the Grand Inspector Inquisitor Commander. I renounce all the gods and goddesses of Egypt which are honored in this degree, including Anubis with the ram’s head, Osiris the Sun god, Isis, the sister and wife of Osiris, and also the moon goddess. I renounce the Soul of Cheres, the false symbol of immortality, the Chamber of the dead and the false teaching of reincarnation.

32nd Degree

I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the thirty-second degree of Masonry, the Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret. I renounce Masonry’s false Trinitarian deity AUM, and Its parts; Brabma the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer. I renounce the deity of AHURA-MAZDA, the claimed spirit or source of all light and the worship with fire, which is an abomination to God, and also the drinking from a human skull in many Rites.

York Rite

I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the York Rite of Freemasonry, including Mark Master, Past Master, Most Excellent Master, Royal Master, Select Master, Super Excellent Master, the Orders of the Red Cross, the Knights of Malta, and the Knights Templar degrees. I renounce the secret words of JOPPA, KEB RAIOTH, AND MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ. I renounce the vows taken on a human skull, the crossed swords, and the curse and death wish of Judas of having the head cut off and placed on top of a church spire. I renounce the unholy communion and especially of drinking from a human skull in many Rites.

Shriners (America only-doesn’t apply in other countries)

I renounce the oaths taken and the curses and penalties involved in the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine. I renounce the ‘piercing of the eyeballs with a three-edged blade, the flaying of the feet, the madness, and the worship of the false god Allah as the god of our fathers. I renounce the hoodwink, the mock hanging, thy mock beheading, the, mock drinking of the blood of the victim, the mock dog urinating on the initiate, and the offering of urine as a commemoration.

33rd Degree

I renounce the oaths taken and the curses involved in the thirty-third degree of Masonry, the Grand Sovereign Inspector General. I renounce and forsake the declaration that Lucifer is God, I renounce the cable-tow around the neck. I renounce the death wish that the wine drunk from a human skull should turn to poison and the skeleton whose cold arms are invited if the oath of this degree is violated. I renounce the three infamous assassins of their grand master – law, property and religion — and the greed and witchcraft involved in the attempt to manipulate and control the rest of mankind.

(All participants should now be invited to sincerely carry out the following:)

1. Symbolically remove the blindfold (hoodwink) and give to the Lord for disposal.

2. In the same way, symbolically remove· the veil of mourning.

3. Symbolically cut and remove the noose from around the neck, gather it up with the cable-tow running down the body, and give it all to the Lord for His disposal.

4. Renounce the false Freemasonry marriage covenant, removing from the 4th finger of the right hand the ring of this false marriage covenant, giving it to the Lord to dispose of.

5. Symbolically remove the chains and bondage of Freemasonry from your body.

6. Symbolically remove all Freemasonry regalia and armor, especially the Apron.

7. Invite participants to repent of and seek forgiveness for having walked on all unholy ground, including Freemasonry lodges and temples, including any Mormon or other occult / Masonic organizations.

8. Symbolically remove the ball and chain from the ankles.

9. Proclaim that Satan and his demons no longer have any legal rights to mislead and manipulate the person(s) seeking help.

Holy Spirit, I ask that you show me anything else which I need to do or to pray so that I and my family may be totally free from the consequences of the sins of Masonry, Witchcraft, Mormonism, and Paganism.

(Pause, while listening to God, and pray as the Holy Spirit leads you.)

Now, dear Father God, I ask humbly for the blood of Jesus Christ, your Son, to cleanse me from all these sins I have confessed and renounced, to cleanse my spirit, my soul, my mind, my emotions, and every part of my body which has been affected by these sins, in Jesus’ name!

I renounce every evil spirit associated with Masonry arid Witchcraft and all other sins, and I command in the name of Jesus Christ for Satan and every evil spirit to be bound and to leave me now, touching or harming no one, and go to the place appointed for you by the Lord Jesus, never to return to me or my family. I call on the name of the Lord Jesus to be delivered of these spirits, in accordance with the many promises of the Bible. I ask to be delivered of every spirit of sickness, infirmity, curse, affliction, addiction, disease or allergy associated with these sins I have confessed and renounced. I surrender to God’s Holy Spirit and to no other spirit all the places in my life where these things have been. I ask you, Lord, to baptize me in your Holy Spirit now according to the promises in your Word. I take to my self the whole armor of God in accordance with Ephesians Chapter Six and rejoice in its protection as Jesus surrounds me and fills me with His Holy Spirit. I enthrone you, Lord Jesus, in my heart, for you are my Lord and my Savior, the source of eternal life. Thank you, Father God, for your mercy, your forgiveness, and your love. In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.“

This prayer is taken from Unmasking Freemasonry – Removing the Hoodwink by Selwyn Stevens, published by Jubilee Publishers, PO Box 36-044, Wellington 6330, New Zealand. Copying of this prayer is both permitted and encouraged provided reference is made to where it comes from.

NOTE: The Internet contains this prayer and much more on Freemasonry. Do a search on “Freemasonry” or “Unmasking Freemasonry”

May God bless you and protect you today and all days…..

Friday, February 28, 2020

What if Francis has the Coronavirus & dies before Benedict?

Francis traditionalists and one apparent Sedevantist for some reason think that Pope Benedict XVI dying before Francis proves their Francis is definitely pope and all popes since Vatican II were manifest heretics arguments.

But, now that the elderly Francis has been sick for two days possibly with Coronavirus which is mainly dangerous for the chronically ill or elderly, might it be a good time to ask:

What if Francis dies before Benedict?

There would only be one man in Rome wearing white calling himself pope.

Moreover, all the fear sticken cardinals won't have a gun to their head from the Francis Vatican.

They must be sick and tired of the current Vatican dictatorship. Francis's death would surely renew their courage to overthrow the Vatican swamp creatures.

Even some of the swamp creatures out of the motive of revenge such as the Cardinal Angelo Sodano Old Guard might join the "40 to 70 [faithful] Cardinals" who according to Vatican expert Edward Pentin are silent for fear of Francis's totalitarian regime.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Schneider's Opinion has next to Zero Merit when standing next to the Teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales

Turning the table on Bishop Athanasius Schneider's opinion that a heretical pope can't be deposed is easy.

Schneider said: "[N]o... universal... or... Papal Magisterium... would support the theories of the deposition of a heretical pope," but the exact same thing can be said of the bishop's opinion:

"[N]o... universal... or... Papal Magisterium... would support the theories of" not being able to depose "a heretical pope."

Schneider's opinion has next to zero authority or merit when standing next to the teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales:

[T]he Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Schneider, also, apparently is implying sit on you hands and do nothing when he says:

"There is no historical case of a pope losing the papacy during his term of office due to heresy."

So is the bishop saying during the time of the Arian heresy because there was no historical case of the Catholic Church by universal and Papal Magisterium teaching explicitly the dogma that Jesus is God that the last faithful Catholics should have sat on their hands and done nothing.

Sorry, but St. Athanasius and mostly the laity didn't follow your advise. In fact, this historical case goes against your do nothing policy.

They demanded that the Church correct the Arian heretics, universally and papally proclaimed the new explicit dogma that Jesus is God and depose those bishops who refused to recant the Arian heresy.

In the past, when popes were in error it was a one time and minor heresy. Today as never before in the history of the papacy we have repeated errors and heresies from a pope.

The situation today between Francis and the heretical popes of the past is a difference between kind not degree.

In the past, the heretical popes were a matter of degree like minors degrees of burns that don't cause death.

Today, with Francis as compared to the past heretical popes there is a difference of kind such as the minor ailment of a common cold versus a ailment like deadly cancer.

We have Francis by means of Apostolic Exhortations, Encyclicals, AAS, the Catechism and papal statements teaching errors and heresies such as God wills "a diversity of religions," adulterers can receive Communion, the death penalty is "inadmissible" and the error list goes on.

Sorry, but like St. Athanasius we demand that the Church correct the Francis heretics, universally and papally proclaimed the new explicit dogma of deposing a heretical pope and depose those bishops who refuse to recant the Francis heresies.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Is Bishop Schneider a Pelagianist?

The very existence of a response from Bishop Athanasius Schneider confirms in a spectacular fashion what the Catholic Monitor has been saying lately that the Benedict-is-Pope movement and the Bishop Rene Gracida movement are growing! They can't ignore us forever.

I would point out two basic things about Bishop Schneider's arguments in favor of Bergoglian validity:

1. The first section of the argument presumes what it sets out to prove--here is how we have to treat Bergoglio because that is how you have to treat a Pope.  But what if he isn't the Pope?

2. After arguing for Bergoglian validity on the basis of what has been excluded from the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Bishop Schneider goes on to argue that subjective affirmations of Benedict make Bergoglio the Pope, without any reference to UD Gregis or Canon Law at all.  Is Bishop Schneider  the Pelagian?

He says others are Pelagians--in other words, we are using our own strength and trying to have our own way by saying Benedict is Pope.  In truth it is exactly the other way around.

As Bishop Schneider has just demonstrated, it is the champion of Bergoglian validity who superimposes his own thoughts and preferences on Divine Revelation and Canon Law, who tries through brute force of prestige or numbers to induce others to look on a man as the Successor of Peter in the absence of objective evidence--more precisely, flying in the face of both facts and reason.

Note: This post was by a Catholic Monitor contributor.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Schneider's Opinion vs. Cdl. Burke: 'If a Pope would Formally Profess Heresy he would Cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It's Automatic."

Bishop Athanasius Schneider's opinion is:

"Even if — according to the opinion of the automatic loss of the papacy for heresy —  the judgment of the loss of the papal office is pronounced by the heretical pope upon himself, and he automatically falls from office without any judgment by the Church, such an opinion contains a contradiction and reveals a hint of crypto-conciliarism."
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bishop-schneider-releases-essay-on-the-question-of-the-true-pope]

Cardinal Raymond Burke in an 2016 interview with the Catholic World Report website in responding to questions said exactly the opposite:

"CWR: Can the pope legitimately be declared in schism or heresy?"

"Cardinal Burke: 'If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It's automatic. And so, that could happen... '"

"... CWR: Who is competent to declare him to be in heresy?"

"Cardinal Burke: 'It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals.'"
(Catholic World Report, "No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy," December 19, 2016)

As the Catholic World Report interview shows, he knows the teachings of the Doctors of the Church and some of the greatest theologians of the Church summed up by Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales:

"The Pope.. when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Doubtful Schneider vs. St. Bellarmine & Bp. Gracida: "A Doubtful Pope is no Pope"

Bishop Athanasius Schneider's opinion on "doubtful matters":

"[T]he Magisterium of the Church, since Popes Pius X and Benedict XV, has seemed to reject such an opinion, as the formulation of the spurious decree of Gratian was eliminated in the Code of Canon Law 1917. The canons that address the automatic loss of an ecclesiastical office for heresy in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (canon 188 §4) and in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (canon 194 §2) are not applicable to the pope, because the Church deliberately eliminated from the Code of Canon Law the following formulation taken from the previous Corpus Iuris Canonici: “unless the pope is caught deviating from the faith (nisi deprehendatur a fide devius).” By this act, the Church manifested her understanding, the mens ecclesiae, regarding this crucial issue. Even if one does not agree with this conclusion, the matter remains at least doubtful. In doubtful matters, however, one cannot proceed to concrete acts with fundamental implications for the life of the Church, such as, e.g., not to name an allegedly heretical or an allegedly invalidly elected pope in the Canon of the Mas or preparing for a new papal election."
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bishop-schneider-releases-essay-on-the-question-of-the-true-pope]

Schneider is right:

"In doubtful matters, however, one cannot proceed to concrete acts with fundamental implications for the life of the Church."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Bp. Schneider vs. Pope Innocent III, Trent & the Ancient Fathers

Is Bishop Athanasius Schneider's opinion true or false?

Here is the answer from a POPE to Schneider and all the Francis traditionalists who claim that a heretical pope can't be judged by the Church:

 Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in "Si Papa":

"'Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all men cannot be judged by anybody, unless he should be called to the task of having deviated from the faith. (Si Papa)'"

"Pope Innocent III: 'For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.' (propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judican)"
(The Remnant, "Answering a Sedevacantist Critic," March 18, 2015)

Moreover, the important theologian Dominique Bouix in, Tractatus de papa, ubi et de concilio oecumenico, vol. II , pars IIIa, cap. iii, p. 653ff, responded to Schneider's opinion:

It is objected 1°. — This opinion stands contrary to the more common and ancient opinion of the doctors of the school.

It is responded: That is true. But in questions not yet defined and permitted to the free disputation of the schools, it can happen that a more recent and less common opinion is true and ought at length to be recognized as such.

It is objected 2°. — Moreover, it stands contrary to the authority of Innocent III, whose words these are in the third sermon for the anniversary of his consecration: Faith is so necessary to me, that, while I have God for my judge in other sins, I am able to be judged by the Church on account of the sin which is committed against faith (see Sylvius, In IIamIIæ S. Thomæ, tom. III, q. xxxix, art. 3, concl. 2).

It is responded: Indeed, in that text Innocent III supposes that the Roman Pontiff can, as a private person, fall into heresy. But Innocent III spoke thus, following the opinion which was more accepted in his time; nor did he pronounce it as the Pontiff defining the faith; whence it can be said that in this, he erred. But this error of his is not heresy, because this proposition, the Pope cannot become a heretic even privately, even if it be true, is yet not an evident or defined ARTICLE OF FAITH. Therefore the cited dictum of Innocent III indeed favors the opinion which holds that the Pope can become a heretic privately; yet it does not have peremptory force.

It is objected 3°. — The canon Si papa (from the acta of Boniface of Mainz, in Gratian, dist. XL, c. vi) affirms that the Pope is exempt from the jurisdiction of his inferiors, with this exception: Unless he be discovered to have deviated from the faith. And in a similar document of the fifth council under Pope Symmachus it is read: Unless he should deviate from the right faith. Therefore, even in remote antiquity the doctrine held sway undoubted, that the Pope could become a heretic.
Finally, one of the greatest modern theologian Fr. Ioachim Ioachim whom "Msgr. Clifford Fenton in a March 1953 article of the American Ecclesiastical Review [said] 'holds very much the same position in the theological world of the mid-twentieth century that Cardinal Billot occupied in that of fifty years ago'" appears to disagree with Schneider's opinion. In Salaverri’s De Ecclesia Christi, it says:

1056. The doctrine of the Church. The first part is implicitly defined in the Council of Florence’s decree for the Jacobites: D 714. But concerning heretics and apostates, we deduce our teaching also from the formula of faith “Clemens Trinitas”, from can. 23 of the Second Lateran Council, and from the Bull Ineffabilis Deus of Pius IX: D 18 367 1641.

The second part, in which we hold that those excommunicated by perfect excommunication, which the Supreme Pontiff can determine, are separated from the body of the Church, is taught as Catholic doctrine by Pius XII in the encyclical Mystici corporis: AAS 35 (1943) 202ff.
1057. This whole thesis of ours is clearly taught by Pius XII and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.[16]

Pius XII writes: “But in truth, only those are to be numbered amongst the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, who have not miserably separated themselves from the community of the Church or through most grave crimes been separated by the legitimate authority…For this reason, those who are divided from one another in faith or government are unable to live in the one Body of this sort and in its divine Spirit…Nor should it be thought that the Body of the Church, because it is insigned with the name of Christ, consists, even in this time of terrestrial pilgrimage, only of members outstanding in sanctity, or that it is constituted only of the company of those who are predestined by God to sempiternal felicity…Indeed not every crime, even if a grave wickedness, is of such kind that of its very nature it separates man from the Body of the Church—as do schism, heresy, or apostasy.”

In the Catechism of the Council of Trent we read:

“Only three sorts of men are excluded from the Church: firstly, infidels, then heretics and schismatics, and finally excommunicates: pagans indeed, because they have never been in the Church, nor ever known it, nor been made partakers of any Sacrament in the society of the Christian people; heretics and schismatics, because they have revolted from the Church, for they no more pertain to the Church, than do deserters to the army from which they have defected: yet it must not be denied that they are in the power of the Church, as ones who may be called to judgment by her, punished, and condemned by anathema. Finally also excommunicates, because by the judgment of the Church have they been excluded from her, and do not belong to her communion until they come to their senses. But concerning other men, though they be wicked and criminal, it is not to be doubted that they yet persevere in the Church.”

1058. Dogmatic value. The first part, concerning heretics, apostates, and schismatics, is implicitly defined, particularly in the Council of Florence: D 714. The second part, on excommunicates by perfect excommunication, is Catholic doctrine, especially from the words of the encyclical of Pius XII, Mystici corporis Christi, recently cited by us above.

1059. The first part is proved. Heretics, apostates, and schismatics are not members of the Church...


         


... For the minor. That formal and manifest heretics, apostates, and schismatics formally and manifestly have severed the essential social bond of the Church’s faith or government, is clear from the notions themselves. Thus they are not of the Church, which is the congregation of the faithful, because schismatics are not congregated and heretics are not faithful.
1060. The same doctrine is confirmed by the authority of testimonies of the holy Fathers.

a) On heretics. Tertullian: “If they are heretics, they cannot be Christians” (R 298). St. Hilary: “I am a Catholic; I do not wish to be a heretic. I am a Christian, not an Arian.” St. Jerome: “Heretics pass judgment upon themselves, receding from the Church of their own will.” St. Augustine: “Sever yourselves from the members of the Church, sever yourselves from its Body. But what still might I say, in order that they might segregate themselves from the Church, since they have already done this? For they are heretics; they are already without.” The controversy on the rebaptizing of heretics, which was agitated thence from the middle of the third century, supposed as recognized by all that heretics are outside of the Church.[17]

b) On schismatics. Cyprian: “But what pertains to the person of Novatian…you know that we in the first place ought not to be inquisitive of what he taught, since he taught from without. Whosoever he is and of whatever condition, he is not a Christian who is not in the Church of Christ…he who neither held fast to fraternal charity nor ecclesiastical unity, has lost even that which he was previously.” St. Jerome: “Between heresy and schism, we think there to be this difference, that heresy imports perverse dogma; schism, on account of episcopal dissension, separates from the Church…moreover, no schism does not fabricate for itself a heresy, so that it might seem to have receded from the Church rightly.” St. Augustine: “Heretics and schismatics call their congregations churches. But heretics, thinking falsely about God, violate the faith itself; but schismatics burst free of fraternal charity through hostile divisions, although they believe those things which we believe. For this reason, heretics do not belong to the Catholic Church, because she loves God, nor schismatics, because she loves the neighbor” (R 1562). St. Fulgentius: “Most firmly hold and doubt not at all, that every one baptized outside of the Catholic Church is unable to become a partaker of eternal life, if before the end of this life he has not returned and been incorporated to the Catholic Church. Most steadily and in no way doubt, that not only all pagans, but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics, who finish this present life outside of the Catholic Church, are to enter into the eternal fire” (R 2274-5). Pelagius I: “Pollute not a mind ever Catholic by any communion of schismatics. It is clear that the Body of Christ is one, the Church is one…our Savior taught: a vine separated from the grapevine cannot be good for anything, but fire for burning…Do not think that they either are or can be called the Church. And indeed since, as we have said, the Church is one…it is clear that there is no other but that which is founded in the apostolic root.”[18]
[https://lumenscholasticum.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/]

 Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo put it best:

"We are left with repeated examples that defy explanation. Those Cardinals and Bishop who have the reputations for being the most conservative, who often speak in the defense of many truths, openly reject catholic teaching on what happens to heretics. To do such a thing is itself a heresy, because it is asserting that entire dogmatic and canonical tradition of the Church on heresy is not true."

"Heretics will never out heretics. I just hope that this principle is not verified in the case of the men of whom we speak, and that they are only cowards, not heretics."
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/11/why-is-schneider-apologist-of-franciss.html]

 Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.


Thursday, February 27, 2020

Australia on Coronavirus: "Don't Panic," Don't become Totalitarian like China & have a "Travel Ban for China"

Today, The Epoch Times reported that Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison calmly told his country "Don't panic":

"So you can go to the footy [Australian rule football games], you can go to the Chinese restaurant - in fact I encourage you to."
(The Epoch Times, "Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison says 'Don't Panic' about Virus," February 27, 2020)

The Epoch Times revealed in the article that the Australian Deputy chief medical officer Professor Paul Kelly said:

"It may be a one-off wave that comes through and infects a certain percentage of the population, it won't be everybody I can absolutely guarantee that, or it won't come at all - all of those things are still possible, I think the latter one is less likely now."

The article stated the Australian government refuses to use the virus as excuse to become totalitarian like Communist China:

"'But if the virus starts to spread in Australia, 'we won't be dragging people off' like China has done"

Moreover, Australian ABC Radio National reported:

"The Government has also extended Australia's travel ban for China."
"ABC.net, "Australia 'ahead of the curve' on COVID-19 response: Pro. Paul Kelly," February 27, 2020)

Might the globalist's liberal media who are promoting sensationalistic Coronavirus "news" want to promote a panic which brings about totalitarian responses such as the Chinese regime is doing and economic global disruptions such as Down Jones crashes?

Why, if what the globalist's liberal media is saying is true about the Coronavirus, aren't they calling for a global travel ban on China like Australia has done or even a global quarantine on all people and products from China until the virus is under control?

If the liberal media is serious in their Coronavirus panic than a quarantine of China is absolutely needed.

I dare any and all the media panic-mongers to call on a global quarantine on China to save the planet from the dreaded Coronavirus.

If they don't call for a China quarantine then we all know their sensationalistic panic-mongering is just more fake news.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of the Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.









Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Might Archbishop Lenga's Turkmenistan be the first Country to Convene an Imperfect Council to Declare Francis an Antipope?

- Updated March 6, 2020

Archbishop Jan Lenga was formerly the "Apostlic Administrator" of not only Kazakhstan, but of the tiny country of Turkmenistan.
(Fatima, Russia and Pope John Paul II: How Mary Intervened to Deliver Russia," Page 202)

Interestingly, the Catholic Monitor which has given some coverage to Archbishop Lenga's position that Francis is an antipope has begun noticing that the people of Turkmenistan are starting to read the online Monitor.

Might Lenga's former territory of Turkmenistan be the first country to declare Francis an antipope in an imperfect council as St. Bernard of Clairvaux's imperfect council in France was the first to declared the supposed pope in Rome Anacletus an antipope?

Is Lenga in schism as some may be stating for claiming Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was invalid thus Francis is an antipope?

It must be remembered in history that St. Bernard claimed the supposed pope in Rome was an antipope as Lenga is doing and was declared correct by an imperfect council which he headed.

Author Msgr. Leon Cristiani wrote:

"King Louis convoked a Council at Etampes, to consider the question of the double pontifical election... Bernard was received at Etampes as God's envoy."
(St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Pages 70-71)

Was St. Bernard in schism?

The Arian heretics were saying the same thing about St. Athanasius. That he was in schism.

The saint was resisting the Arian heretic bishops even apparently outside the valid pope's approval.

It appears that Archbishop Lenga may force the cardinals and bishops to do an investigation and call an imperfect council into the validity of the Francis's papacy because a bishop cannot suspend a bishop. Only a pope can suspend a bishop.

But, Lenga states Benedict is still pope because of a invalid resignation and therefore Francis isn't pope according to the archbishop.

Cardinal John Henry Newman it appears showed that a validly appointed bishop can't suspend another validly appointed bishop.

Newman said Athanasius ordained priests against the authority of the Arian heretical bishops who were validly appointed bishops.

In fact, scholar Joseph Bingham on page 98 in "The Antiquities of the Christian Church" said:

"Athanasius... made no scruples to ordain... [Bishop] Euesebius of Samosata... ordained bishops also in Syria and Cilicia."

Moreover, Newman in his "The Development of Christian Doctrine" denied that Bishop Athanasius's "interference" in the dioceses of the heretical Arian bishops was schism:

"If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin interference."
(Gutenberg.org, "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine," Sixth Edition)

Was Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius a schismatic?

Moreover, serious scholars are claiming Francis is a material heretic. The 19 Scholar's Open Letter say that Francis is a material heretic which also brings into play the Bellarmine and Francis de Sales option of declaring an explicit heretical pope self-deposed.

Bishop Gracida's Open Letter to the Cardinals analysing and quoting Pope John Paul II's Universi Dominici gregis questions the validity of the Francis conclave calling for an cardinal investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave.

Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo's in-depth thesis "Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983" using exhaustive quotations from canon law showing why canon law explicitly states that ministerium and munus cannot be synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the same thing thus denying the validity of Pope Benedict XVI's resignation.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Sunday, February 23, 2020

Are Siscoe & Hilary White wrong on Francis's "Universal Acceptance" according to Renowned Scholars De Silveira & Carroll?

Today, there was a disagreement between Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo and author Robert Siscoe on the validity of the Siscoe's presentation of the "principle of Universal Acceptance":
       
Alexis Bugnolo said...
Let's use some logic.

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

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

Therefore, the principle of Universal Acceptance does not apply.

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

But you make such an appeal.

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


TrueorFalsePope said...
Brother,

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

Robert Siscoe
"The validity of a papal election rests on more than one thing, the most important of which is his acceptance by the Church in the person of the bishops. Even C. Burke, an elector and canon lawyer, has said nothing about UDG affecting validity. Its the reason the question...
... is unanswerable. Only a pope can determine if a person has violated UDG and only a pope can violate UDG. If these are the same person, what have we got? Only a pope can say that a previous pope had been an antipope. So, maybe the answer to your question will simply have to wait."
White is wrong on her claim that Cardinal Raymond Burke said nothing on the conclave constitution:

Patrick Coffin on his YouTube show asked Cardinal Burke:

"I was wondering rather if those [Universi Dominici Gregis conclave constitution] rules [of the 2013 conclave that elected Francis] were violated and rather or not the whole election of Francis may be invalid. Is there any foundation for that speculation?"

Cardinal Burke answered:

"The only grounds that could be used for calling into question the validity of the election would be were the election organized by a campaign beforehand which is strictly forbidden and that would be difficult to demonstrate..."

"... If these persons [the St. Gallen Mafia of liberal cardinals] engaged in a active campaign first to undermined Pope Benedict XVI and at the same time to engineer the election of someone [Francis] then that could be a argument. I don't think I have the facts, and there have to be facts, to prove that. That's all I have to say about that."
(Patrick Coffin show, "141: Dubia Cardinal Goes on the Record - Raymond Cardinal Burke (Free Version)," Premiered 13 hours ago, 19:55 to 21:46)
 
Next, White is wrong in saying "Only a pope can determine if a person has violated UDG and only a pope can violate UDG":

White is ignoring paragraph 5 of Universi Dominici Gregis which says:

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

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

The point is, as Bishop Rene Gracida says and Universi Dominici Gregis said, only the cardinals can interpret its meaning, not a future pope, not White or anyone else.
 
Again, White is wrong in saying "The validity of a papal election rests" most importantly on "his acceptance by the Church in the person of the bishops" and, moreover, "Only a pope can say that a previous pope had been an antipope":

The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is a antipope.

In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope.
 
In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II.
 
How is this possible?
 
St. Bernard who wasn't a pope said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops."
(St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72)

How is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for Anacletus?
 
Historian Warren Carroll explains:

"[C]anon law does not bind a Pope arranging for his successor... [Papal Chancellor] Haimeric proposed that... a commission of eight cardinals should be selected to choose the next Pope... strong evidence [shows] that the Pope [Honorius] endorsed what Haimeric was doing, including the establishment of the electoral commission [of eight cardinals]."
(The Glory of Christendom, Pages 36-37)

The majority or "sanior pars," five cardinals out of eight of "the electoral commission," elected Pope Innocent II as St. Bernard said and as evidence shows was the will of the previous pope in what we can call a constitution for the election of his successor.
 
In the same way, is it possible that Francis was not elected pope even though he received a absolute majority of cardinals votes and is now as in the case of Anacletus proclaimed pope by the same absolute majority?
 
As with the case of Anacletus, it is possible Francis is a antipope if his election contradicted or violated the constitution promulgated by Pope John Paul II for electing his successor.
 
The renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the "election procedures... [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope":

"Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope)." 

"During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals."

"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."

"Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims."
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt

Finally, Remnant writer White got her idea that "The validity of a papal election rests" most importantly on "his acceptance by the Church in the person of the bishops" from Remnant writer Robert Siscoe who claims that it is a infallible dogma that a man is infallibly a pope if there is "peaceful and universal acceptance" by the Church.

The problem apparently is Siscoe, who is White's mentor in the "universal acceptance" claim, is possibly either a poor scholar or possibly a bit disingenuous in his leaving out the second part of a quote by a Doctor of the Church.

He says "peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected... nevertheless becomes a true Pope... [by] universal acceptance... curing any defects that may have existed in the election... Here is what [Doctor of the Church] St. Alphonsus taught":

'It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff.'"
(TrueorFalsePope.com, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a  Pope," 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) [read this whole article here]

The problem with Siscoe's quote is he leaves out the very next sentence:

"'But if for a certain time, he was not accepted universally and truly by the Church, during that time then, the pontifical see would be vacant, as it is vacant at the death of a Pope.' 'Verita Della Fede', vol. VIII, p. 720.'"
(CathInfo.com, "Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal," December 2, 2017)

Did Siscoe leave it out because he is a poor scholar or for some other reason or because it said "for a certain time"?

What does "for a certain time" mean?

Is that "certain time" immediately at the conclave or is it a few years after the conclave?

Does this possibly mean that since Francis "afterwards... for a certain time... was not accepted universally... then, the pontifical see would be vacant"?

Francis is not "accepted universally."

I am honored to know a successor of the Apostles, Bishop Rene Gracida, who questions the validity of Francis and is calling for the cardinals to investigate if he was "lawfully elected."

Moreover, Siscoe can't have it both ways in his quotes when they apparently contradict each other.

In the above same article he quotes John of St. Thomas saying:

"[T]his man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff."

(TrueorFalsePope.com, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a  Pope," 2-28-19 & 3-20-19)


 But getting back to Siscoe's selective quote of St. Alphonsus, a good place to go to find out what the Doctor of the Church really meant is to go to a scholar who quotes him in full.

This is Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira who Siscoe respects as shown by his website:

"'Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira's Endorsement of 'True or False Pope?'"  Note: Having recently learned of the passing of the great Brazilian scholar, Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, we are publishing a portion of his endorsement of True or False Pope?, which will appear in the upcoming second edition. (1-8-2019)" [http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/?m=1]



There is good reason to respect de Silveira's scholarship has he himself explained:

"In the 1970 Brazilian edition of my study of the heretical Pope, in the French edition of 1975 and in the Italian in 2016, I stated that on the grounds of the intrinsic theological reasons underpinning the Fifth Opinion I considered it not merely probable but certain. I chose not to insist on the qualification 'theologically certain' for an extrinsic reason, namely, that certain authors of weight do not adopt it.43 This was also the opinion of the then Bishop of Campos, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, as expressed in a letter of 25th January 1974, when he sent my work to Paul VI, asking him to point out any possible errors (which never took place), expressly stating that he referred to the study 'written by lawyer Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, with the contents of which I associate myself .'”
 
Here is what de Silveira say in his book "Implications Of New Missae And Heretic Popes":
 
"On this same sanatio in raclice by virtue of the acceptance of the Pope by the whole Church,
Saint Alphonse of Liguori writes, in less heated but perhaps even more incisive terms:

“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession
of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope,
since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not
been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been
vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff’
(2).

"4. The Election of a Person who Cannot Be Pope

"The designation, as Pope, of a person who cannot occupy the charge, would constitute a special
case of dubious election
. For it is a common opinion (3) that the election of a woman, of a child, of a
demented person and of someone who were not a member of the Church (a person not baptized, a
heretic, an apostate, a schismatic) would be invalid by divine law.

"Among these causes of invalidity it seems to us that it would be necessary to distinguish those
which would admit of a “sanatio in radice” from those which would not. A woman could not become
Pope under any hypothesis. But the same thing would not apply with a demented person, who could be
cured; with a child, who could grow; with a non-baptized person, who could be converted.

"This being laid down, we ask: in the hypotheses of invalidity which admits of sanatio in radice ,
would the eventual acceptation by the whole Church of the invalidly elected Pope remedy the vices of
the election?


"A complete answer to this question would require a detailed analysis of each of the cases of
invalidity. And this would exceed the objectives which we have set for ourselves.

"Such being the case, we shall only consider the hypothesis which is most relevant to the
perspective in which we place ourselves: The election of a heretic to the Papacy. What would happen if
a notorious heretic were elected and assumed the Pontificate without anyone having contested his
election?


(1) Billot , Tract de Eccl. Christi, tom. I, pp. 612-613.

(2) Saint Alphonse de Liquori , Verita della Fede, in “Opera...”, vol. VIII. P. 720, n. 9.

(3) See: Ferreres , Inst. Canonicae, tom. I, p. 132; Coronata , Inst, luris Canonici, vol. I, p. 360; Schmalzqrueber ,
lus Eccl. Univ., tom. I, pars II, p. 376, n. 99; Caietan , De Auctoriatate..., cap. XXVI, n. 382, pp. 167-168.

187

"At first sight, the answer to this question is, in theory , very simple: since God cannot permit that
the whole Church err about who is her chief, the Pope peacefully accepted by the whole Church is the
true Pope (1). It would be the duty of the theologians, on the basis of this clear theoretical principle, to
resolve the concrete question which would then be put: either proving that in reality the Pope had not
been a formal and notorious heretic at the moment of election; or showing that afterwards he had been
converted; or verifying that the acceptation by the Church had not been pacific and universal; or
presenting any other plausible explanation.

"A more attentive examination of the question would reveal, nevertheless, that even on purely
theoretical grounds, an important difficulty arises, which would consist in determining precisely what is the concept of pacific and universal acceptation by the Church.
For such acceptation to have been
pacific and universal would it be enough that no Cardinal had contested the election?
Would it be
enough that in a Council, for example, almost the totality of the Bishops had signed the acts, recognizing
in this way, at least implicitly, that the Pope be the true one?
Would it be enough that no voice, or
practically no voice had publicly given the cry of alert?
Or, on the contrary, would a certain very
generalized though not always well defined distrust be sufficient to destroy the apparently pacific and
universal character of the acceptance of the Pope?
And if this distrust became a suspicion in numerous
spirits, a positive doubt in many, a certainty in some, would the aforementioned pacific and universal acceptance subsist?
And if such distrusts, suspicions, doubts and certainties cropped out with some
frequency in conversations or private papers, or now and again in published writings, could one still
classify as pacific and universal the acceptance of a Pope who was already a heretic on the occasion of
his election by the Sacred College?"
[https://archive.org/stream/ SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissa eAndHereticPopes/Silveira% 20Implications%20of%20New% 20Missae%20and%20Heretic% 20Popes_djvu.txt]

It is obvious that the renowned theologian de Silveira does not think that St. Alphonsus taught what Siscoe claims he taught that "peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected... nevertheless becomes a true Pope... [by] universal acceptance... curing any defects that may have existed in the election."

Does Siscoe think that "peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected... nevertheless becomes a true Pope... [by] universal acceptance... curing any defects that may have existed in the election" includes "curing" such "defects" as:

- "a special case of dubious [unlawful] election. For it is a common opinion (3) that the election of a woman, of a child, of a demented person and of someone who were not a member of the Church (a person not baptized, a heretic, an apostate, a schismatic) would be invalid by divine law."

Francis is not "accepted universally" as Bishop Gracida has said. But, even more important, it is obvious that besides "acceptance" a valid pope needs to be "lawfully elected."

Lastly, I ask Siscoe and White to specifically answer if Francis was not "lawfully elected" then does a "peaceful and universal acceptance" overturn a unlawful election?

More importantly, why are Siscoe and White apparently so afraid of an investigation by cardinals since they continually ignore or avoid addressing the subject by the "universal acceptance" mantra?

I ask both to please give a specific answer to why they are apparently so afraid of an investigation.

 
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for Catholics to not just bemoan heresy, but put pressure on the cardinals to act as well as for the grace for a cardinal to stand up and investigate and to be the St. Bernard of our time. 
 
 

Bp. Gracida demonstrated that Salza's statement on Francis's "Universal Acceptance" is False

On February 20, John Salza claimed that Francis was "universally accepted"

"In no case were any of these antipopes universally accepted by the entire episcopacy following their election, as in the case with Pope Francis."
[http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/annbarnhardt-is-liar-and-fool-byjohn.html?m=1]

On March 23, 2019, Bishop Rene Gracida who would have to be part of such a "universal acceptance" demonstrated that Salza's statement is false:

https://abyssum.org/2019/03/23/why-do-intelligent-men-pursue-the-application-of-an-obsolete-concept-universal-acceptance-to-the-problem-of-the-invalidity-of-the-papacy-of-francis-the-merciful-in-this-day-and-age-of-instant-elec/

WHY DO INTELLIGENT MEN PURSUE THE APPLICATION OF AN OBSOLETE CONCEPT “UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE” TO THE PROBLEM OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE PAPACY OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF INSTANT ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION AROUND THE WORLD

I am in receipt of an email from Steve Skojec, publisher of the website OnePeterFive in which he defends his posts in which he argues for the validity of the election of Francis the Merciful on the basis of the “universal acceptance” of Francis’ election by the world’s Catholic population.

The idea of “universal acceptance” of the election of popes of the past may have had it’s origin in the first centuries of the Church when popes were chosen by acclamation of the assembled citizens of Rome, and perhaps later when the princes and kings of Europe decided on the legitimacy of papal contestants in the time of the Avignon captivity of the papacy.

But the idea of “universal acceptance” as the principle determining the validity of Francis’ claim to the Chair of Peter is absurd in this day of instant electronic communication. There is not a world-wide Pew or Gallup poll that can determine the degree of “acceptance” of the Bergolian regime as valid by the world’s Catholic population.

From the moment that Francis appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica improperly dressed and accompanied by men of known or suspected homosexual orientation many Catholics besides myself were shocked and dismayed.

Almost immediately almost every word publicly uttered by Francis shocked Catholic sensibilities, such as telling the woman with several children to “stop breeding like rabbits.” Many Catholics withheld their “acceptance” and adopted a wait-and-see attitude.

Then the Amoris Laeticia debacle unfolded and now an even larger percentage of Catholic around the world began to express reservations about the ‘papacy’ of Francis the Merciful. There was never universal acceptance of the validity of Jorge Bergoglio.

One thing is certain, the popes of the Twentieth Century were aware that the election of future popes was now no longer subject to the interference of kings and princes as in the past, now the corruption of the democratic processes for choosing the heads of nations was threatening the papal conclaves of the Church. Pope Paul VI, perhaps alarmed by the forces for radical reform of the Church follow the lead of his recent predecessor and published a revision of the Apostolic Constitution which governs papal conclaves.
 
It is unthinkable that Pope Saint John Paul II was unaware of the plotting that began with the St. Gallen Mafia in the early 1990s.

 His magnificent Apostolic Constituion, Universi Dominci Gregis, was his prescient action to head off the corruption of the conclaves of the future. Yet, the rot at the center of the hierarchy had progress to such point that Jorge Bergoglio was almost elected instead of Joseph Ratzinger, but the St. Gallen conspirators succeed in 2013 with the election of Francis the Merciful.

What is the sure test of the validity of the election of a cardinal to the papacy? It is not the medieval concept of ‘universal acceptance.’ It is compliance with the law of the Church. The Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis is the only law in effect since it was published by Pope Saint John Paul II in 1992.

If there is one characteristic that is common to the leadership of the Church since the Second Vatican Council is disregard for law, all law, divine law and canon law. Men who would be architects of the Church of the Future ignore the law of God and the law of His Church. That is why some cling to the outmoded concept of ‘universal acceptance’ of a man who obtained the Chair of Peter through the manipulations of many who by their immoral lives reveal their contempt for law, all law, including Divine Law.

His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, having known a prodigious amount of information on this,
was fully knowledgeable in the details of dogmatic and doctrinal principles which previous
to his Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, could and would be applied to resolve
questions about the validity of a particular historic Papacy, and that His Holiness categorically
and specifically intended to dispense with, and utterly to preempt, the need for, and use of,
any principles which had been applied historically to resolve ambiguities and doubts
about the incumbency of any Pontiff putatively emerging from a Conclave to which His
Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis applied.

 This means that because the status of Monsignor Bergoglio can be determined completely
by a fair and just application of Universi Dominici Gregis without reference to any guidance
external or extrinsic to such Constitution, having recourse to such historic doctrinal and
dogmatic concepts, e.g., universal acceptance, is neither material nor relevant, and never
necessary or proper for the rational discernment of the question of whether or not
Monsignor Bergoglio was validly elected as a true Roman Pontiff.  The “scienter” Promulgation
determines this certainty of discernment confined within the “four corners” of the Constitution:

“This Constitution  .   .   .  is to be fully and integrally implemented and is to serve as a guide
for all to whom it refers.  As determined above, I hereby declare abrogated all Constitutions
and Orders issued in this regard by the Roman Pontiffs, and at the same time I declare
completely null and void anything done by any person, whatever his authority, knowingly
or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.”[Promulgation Clause, Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis]


This language does not admit of any exception, and certainly not an exception based on
the degree to which a putative Pope has “acceptance” as such.  “Universal acceptance”
originated in an age before the printing press, a time when what was required was known
by few and what was performed was understood by even less.  It simply has no place
in discerning a Conclave called subject to Universi Dominici Gregis.  What Skojec,
Does not seem to understand is that, long in advance and lawfully, His Holiness, Pope
John Paul II, has forbidden anyone from resorting to “universal acceptance”
or any other principle extrinsic to Universi Dominici Gregis to discern the outcome of papal election.

Thus, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, having known a prodigious amount of information on this,
was fully knowledgeable in the details of dogmatic and doctrinal principles which previous
to his Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, could and would be applied to resolve
questions about the validity of a particular historic Papacy, and His Holiness categorically
and specifically intended to dispense with, and utterly to preempt, the need for, and use of,
any such principles which had been applied historically to resolve ambiguities and doubts
about the incumbency of any Pontiff putatively emerging from a Conclave to which His
Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis applied.
 
This means that because the status of Monsignor Bergoglio can be determined completely
by a fair and just application of Universi Dominici Gregis without reference to any guidance
external or extrinsic to such Constitution, having recourse to any such historic doctrinal and
dogmatic concept, e.g., universal acceptance, is neither material nor relevant, and never
necessary or proper for the rational discernment of the question of whether or not
Monsignor Bergoglio was validly elected as a true Roman Pontiff. The “scienter” Promulgation
determines this certainty of discernment confined within the “four corners” of the Constitution:


“This Constitution . . . is to be fully and integrally implemented and is to serve as a guide
for all to whom it refers. As determined above, I hereby declare abrogated all Constitutions
and Orders issued in this regard by the Roman Pontiffs, and at the same time I declare
completely null and void anything done by any person, whatever his authority, knowingly
or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.” [Promulgation Clause, Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis]


This language does not admit of any exception, and certainly not an exception based on
the degree to which a putative Pope has “acceptance” as such. “Universal acceptance”
originated in an age before the printing press, a time when what was required was known
by few and what was performed was understood by even less. It simply has no place
in discerning a Conclave called subject to Universi Dominici Gregis.

Some do not seem to understand that, long in advance and lawfully, His Holiness, Pope
John Paul II, has forbidden and anyone from resorting to “universal acceptance”
or any other principle extrinsic to Universi Dominici Gregis in order to discern the outcome.
[https://abyssum.org/2019/03/23/why-do-intelligent-men-pursue-the-application-of-an-obsolete-concept-universal-acceptance-to-the-problem-of-the-invalidity-of-the-papacy-of-francis-the-merciful-in-this-day-and-age-of-instant-elec/]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.