Monday, March 25, 2019

Bp. Schneider is a Good Man, but Compared to St. Athanasius he is a "Cowardly Rabbit"

In 2016, Bishop Athanasius Schneider called "semi-heretical" Church leaders "cowardly rabbits."
(LifeSiteNews, "'Cowardly Rabbits' Bishop Schneider's candid remarks on 'semi-heretical' Church leaders," February 1, 2016)

Now, he appears to be the "cowardly rabbit" as compared to St. Athanasius when he says the "attempt to depose a heretical pope... is... [a] human solution."

Does he, also, think the attempt to depose semi-heretical Church leaders is a human solution?

So-called good bishops like Schneider since Vatican II have been telling us we can't depose semi-heretical and heretical as well as homosexual bishops who cover-up for sex abuse predators because it would cause a "schism."

Now, Schneider says we can't depose a heretical pope who covered-up for sex abuse predators because it will cause a "schism."

It appears that Schneider, although a good man, compared to St. Athanasius is a "cowardly rabbit."

Athanasius demanded the Arian semi-heretical and heretical Church leaders of his time be deposed unless they repented.

Schneider is directly contradicting the traditional teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales in saying the Church can't depose a heretical pope.

And in saying there is no formal Church definition saying the Church can depose a heretical pope so let's sit in our hands he is showing he is very unlike Athanasius.

Again, Athanasius shows Schneider to be a cowardly rabbit as compared to him by his defense of the as yet not formally defined traditional teaching that Jesus is God and demanding a Church formal definition that Jesus is God.

We need to act like Athanasius did, and not act like Schneider, in demanding that the traditional teaching that a heretical pope can be deposed be formally defined by the Church.

Sadly, the sincere Schneider is apparently like many good men in the Church in our time and I hope he proves me wrong. He speaks well of the truths of the Church, but is afraid to act on those truths.

There is only one bishop in our time acting like St. Athanasius. That is Bishop Rene Gracida.

All good, but fearful Catholics needs to hear the following:

- St. Justin Martyr:

"To be able to speak of truth and and yet to remain silent is to draw down the anger of God."

- Bishop Fulton Sheen:

"Cowards go to Hell. Never forget that. No matter what happens in your life never forget that basic truth."

- Pope Leo XIII:

"[Catholics] are born for combat."

- St. Joan of Arc:

"I fear nothing for God is with me."
(CatholicMilitant.com, "Saints and Popes Quotes")

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Saturday, March 23, 2019

Is 1P5 Expert Siscoe a Poor Scholar or a bit Disingenuous in Francis Validity Defense in leaving out St. Alphonsus's full Quote?

It appears that the OnePeterFive website papal validity expert Robert Siscoe could possibly be 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)

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"?

He nor I know when this "certain time" is?

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."

This quote of John of St. Thomas agrees with renown Catholic historian Warren Carroll's declaration about valid popes having to be "lawfully elected":

"A Papal claimant not following these methods [which are the laws of the conclave constitution of a previous pope] is also an Antipope."
(EWTN.com/library, "Antipope")

Strangely, Siscoe is a sedevacantist expert and should know they use that full quote to say all popes after Vatican II are Antipopes because "for a certain time [the Vatican II popes were]... not accepted universally."

(The sedevacantists reject Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales teaching that the Church [i.e. the cardinals] need to declare a pope a formal heretic before as St. Alphonsus says "the pontifical see would be vacant.")

Why did the sedevacantist expert Siscoe leave out the the second part of the quote?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.






Friday, March 22, 2019

Deposing Heretical Popes: Bp. Schneider's Opinion vs. Doctors of the Church, St. Francis de Sales & St. Athanasius

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 hersey. 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 Pope 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.












Thursday, March 21, 2019

Why are Skojec & Siscoe Afraid of a Conclave Investigation by Cardinals?

The Catholic Monitor received a comment from Steve Skojec today that was puzzling.

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

Below is the comment I received from Steve:

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

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

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

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

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

Skojec in his post writes:

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

But then tells me at the Catholic Monitor:

"I'm not claiming it as infallible."

Why is he saying "the Church teaches that it is infallible" then saying "I'm not claiming it as infallible"?

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

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

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

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

He then provides his answer:

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

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

"[T]his man in particular, lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff."
(Trueorfalsepope.com, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope," 2-28-19 and 3-13-19)

This bring us to the renown historian Warren Carroll statement:


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


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

What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the "election procedures... [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope":

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

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

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

"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

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

Besides "acceptance" a valid pope needs to be "lawfully elected."


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Does Skojec's Theologian of "Universal Acceptance" happen to be Vatican II Architect Maritain's Top Theologian?

Steve Skojec has been apparently claiming John of St. Thomas's idea on "universal acceptance" of popes is infallible Catholic doctrine.

It appears that he got this conviction about the importance of this theologian from Robert Siscoe.

So far, as far as I can find, the only other modern theologian who considers John of St. Thomas (John Poinsot) that important is Jacques Maritain whose disciple was Pope Paul VI. Paul VI said:

"I am a disciple of Maritain. I call him my teacher."

Paul VI's teacher was a close collaborator of Saul Alinsky who wrote in Rules for Radicals: "I have always believed birth control and abortion are personal rights."

Maritain called Alinsky a "practical Thomist" according to lawyer Chris Ferrara.

Maritain is considered by many to be a architect of Vatican II.

According to the American Maritain Association:

Pointsot (John of St. Thomas) is central to understanding Maritain's theology which was central to Paul VI's Vatican II:

"Maritain's own advocacy of Pointsot, whose writings are a sine qua non for understanding Maritain's own 'intellectual locale' as a Thomist."
(American Maritain Association, Maritainassociation.com, "John Deeply and Jacques Maritain Chair of Philosophy," Professor Schulz, 2 years ago)

Just how infallible is Pointsot?

If Skojec can't find a pope or council to support his idea, can he at least find a Doctor of the Church or at least a saint to support it.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.


Sunday, March 17, 2019

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

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

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

In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope.

In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II.

How is this possible?

St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops."
(St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72)

Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for Anacletus?

Historian Warren Carroll explains:

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

The majority or "sanior pars," five cardinals out of eight of "the electoral commission," elected Pope Innocent II as St. Bernard said and as evidence shows was the will of the previous pope in what we can call a constitution for the election of his successor.

In the same way, is it possible that Francis was not elected pope even though he received a absolute majority of cardinals votes and is now as in the case of Anacletus proclaimed pope by the same absolute majority?

As with the case of Anacletus, it is possible Francis is a antipope if his election contradicted or violated the constitution promulgated by Pope John Paul II for electing his successor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Finally, it is worth pointing out here, that even if all the aforementioned be cast in doubt or discredited, all opposing arguments collapse with Cardinal Danneels’s admission in his biography, that he and a group of cardinals, the “Mafia Club”, plotted to force Benedict XVI to resign. When you have a confession, proof is not necessary."
Bishop Rene Gracida, also, brings forward evidence that the conclave that elected Francis was invalid because there were "serious irregularities" against John Paul II's constitution that governed the 2013 conclave.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. a invalidly elected antipope who is a heretic.

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

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

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

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


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

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


Remember that many who are calling those like Bishop Gracida, journalist Munguia  and others "schismatics" for calling for a cardinal investigation are following in the footsteps of the real schismatics who promoted and followed Antipope Anacletus II.

Renown Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the "election procedures... [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope":

"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]

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

Why are so many traditional and conservative Catholics afraid of a cardinal investigation of the apparent "serious irregularities" against John Paul II's constitution that governed the 2013 conclave that could invalidate the conclave which elected Francis?

March 18 & 19, 2019 Note:

I have gotten some push back from Skojec's blog in a post by Robert Siscoe and from someone about a bishop who attacked Bishop Gracida apparently using Siscoe's claim that it is a infallible dogma that a man is infallibly a pope if there is "peaceful and universal acceptance" by the Church.

Was there peaceful and universal  acceptance?

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

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

"[T]his man in particular, lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff."
(Trueorfalsepope.com, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope," 2-28-19 and 3-13-19)

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

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

Besides "acceptance" a valid pope needs to be "lawfully elected."

Again, Bishop Gracida is asking for a cardinal investigation. He is saying what John Paul II's conclave constitution says about the question of if Francis was "lawfully elected" or not: only the cardinals can investigate it and interpret it, not Siscoe, Skojec, canon lawyers or John of St. Thomas.

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

More importantly, why are Siscoe and Skojec apparently so afraid of a investigation by cardinals?

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

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


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

Thursday, March 14, 2019

Pope Francis's Gay Lobby, his Private Secretary & the "Magic Circle" Hotel

In 2013, at the beginning of Francis's pontificate according to the Monday Vatican blog, known for its insider knowledge of the Vatican, the Pope was already promoting his gay lobby:

"Ilson de Jesus Montanari... catapulted to the number two position in the Congregation for Bishops... rumored to be a close friend of Msgr. Fabian Pedacchio Leaniz... the Pope's personal secretary... [by] Battista Ricca... [Ilson was]... introduced to Cardinal Bergoglio... Was also Ilson part of the gay lobby as Ricca was accused to be?.. Ricca was appointed ... prelate of the IOR... [Is the] Pope Francis... promotion of people presumably part of a gay lobby... a strategy to keep everyone under control?"
(Monday Vatican, "Pope Francis wants to govern the Curia. And possibly with an absent Secretary of State," October 21, 2013)

Gay activist Frederic Martel in his Vatican book wrote of the "magic circle" hotel which is run by Ricca who is "presumably part of a gay lobby" whom Francis promoted:

"The director of the Casa [del Clero] and all the Vatican residences, Mgr. Battista Ricca, also lives there... you can also bump into Fabian Pedacchio, a private secretary to Pope Francis, who has lived at the Domus for a long time, and who is said to keep a room where he is able to work calmly with the Brazilian bishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari... A couple of boys, dinkies and bio-queens who listen to Born this Way by Lady Gaga, live there too... A Basque priest also enjoys some delightful associations within this 'magic circle'... sometimes, holy offices have been celebrated by gay groups."
(In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy, Pages 305-306)

When Pedacchio Leaniz and Montanari apparently aren't at the "magic circle" hotel room in Rome they "spend holidays together":

"Pedacchio... the Pope's private secretary, Pedacchio and Montanari are... great friends; they also spend holidays together, and in the past years Pedacchio introduced Montanari to familiarity with what would become pope."
(La Stampa, "Bishops, the mystery revealed...," 10/16/2013)

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in his September 27 statement said Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the Perfect of the Congregation for Bishops, is undermined "by two homosexual 'friends' of his dicastery."

Vatican expert Marco Tosatti according to Gloria.tv reported how Francis's "private secretary" (and Montanari) apparently undermine Ouellet:

"Ouellet categorically excluded one of them [from episcopal nomination] for moral reasons. But the next day Pedacchio told Ouellet, 'The Pope wants him."
(Gloria.tv, "Two Homosexuals are bypassing Cardinal Ouellet," September 28, 2018)

If Viganò's and Tosatti's reports are true then apparently Francis's allegedly gay private secretary helps him appoint morally questionable bishops.

Are Francis and his allegedly gay private secretary expanding the gay lobby by appointing and promoting gay bishops?

Is there growing evidence that Francis may be a member of the gay lobby?

Remember the question asked by the Monday Vatican:

"Was also Ilson part of the gay lobby as Ricca was accused to be?"

Is also Francis part of the gay lobby as his private secretary is accused to be?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.