An Uncanonically Elected Pope?

David Martin imageBy October 21, 2017

 

POPE FRANCIS
With all the controversy that surrounded the election of Pope Francis upon the resignation of Pope Benedict in 2013, it seems that Catholics may have lost sight of a key element in this episode, namely, that Benedict XVI never resigned his papal office, but only the active exercise thereof.

On the eve of his resignation, he said: “Anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church… “The ‘always’ is also a “forever”—there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.” (General Audience, February 27, 2013)

According to these words, Benedict XVI remains pope, with no revocation of his office having occurred. According to Church law, a pope must give up “his office” for his resignation to be valid. (Canon 332) Pope Benedict clearly chose to retain his office “forever,” which means he is still pope, which means that Francis cannot be pope, since there cannot be two popes. The late Fatima expert Fr. Nicholas Gruner points this out in a rare video on Benedict XVI’s resignation.  If Francis is the pope, then Benedict’s office is revoked, but Benedict insists it was not revoked.

To explain away the papal chimera that was born of the historic 2013 conclave, Archbishop Georg Gänswein who serves as prefect of the Pontifical Household told the pressthat Benedict XVI’s resignation announcement on Feb. 11, 2013, marked the introduction of a new institution into the Catholic Church: “a de facto enlarged ministry, with both an active and a contemplative member.” He said the Petrine office is now a “common papacy” comprising more than one member, i.e. Benedict and Francis.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a “shared papacy,” and Gänswein no doubt realizes that this is an argument used by heretics to undermine the Primacy of Peter, but his explanation to the press apparently was the best he could do to cover for a very embarrassing situation that caused the man he honored to be dethroned.

Fr. Gruner on the resignation of Benedict XVI from Louie Verrecchio on Vimeo.
 

What it boils down to is that Benedict XVI was forced into abdicating

What it boils down to is that Benedict XVI was forced into abdicating, i.e. to give up the “active ministry,” but this was done under the guise of a resignation to not split the Barque asunder with controversy. Credible reports from 2015 indicate that Benedict XVI was coerced into stepping down, which was providentially foreshadowed in Pope Benedict’s inaugural speech of April 24, 2005, when he said: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”

We know from Cardinal Danneels of Brussels that he was part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. Danneels, known for his support of abortion, LGBT rights, and gay-marriage, said in a taped interview in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of this “mafia” club that was calling for drastic changes in the Church, to make it “much more modern,” and that the plan was to have Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio head it.

This infamous clique—which is documented in Austen Ivereigh’s book the Great Reformer—comprised key members of the Vatican “gay lobby” that had clamored for Pope Benedict’s resignation, the same members who stirred up so much chaos at the October 2014-15 Synods on the Family.

Ivereigh’s book brings to light the intense lobbying campaign that was spearheaded by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor to get Cardinal Bergoglio elected as pope. Up to 30 cardinals were involved.

According to Ivereigh, “they first secured Bergoglio’s assent” and then “they got to work, touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man.” This was confirmed, in the case of Cardinals Murphy-O’Connor and Cardinal O’Malley, in the Wall Street Journal report from August 6, 2013.  As the conclave neared, they then held a series of closed meetings, known as congregations, one of which featured Cardinal Bergoglio as the keynote speaker

Clearly, there was intense politics and vote canvassing at work around the time of the conclave, which directly violated Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, which lays down the rules for conducting conclaves. Therein he makes it clear that vote canvassing among cardinal electors is strictly forbidden, and that it 1renders the election “null and void.” Key passages are as follows:

81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition…

82. I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void.

76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected. Universi Dominici Gregis (February 22, 1996) | John Paul II

Bearing this in mind, let us consider now the prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi concerning a future pope. This is found in the Opuscula or Works of St. Francis, which was published by the preeminent Franciscan historian Fr. Luke Wadding in 1621.

Shortly before his death in 1226, St. Francis of Assisi called together the friars of his Order and detailed this prophecy of what was to come upon the Church in the latter days. The following is an excerpt taken from Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, R. Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250, with imprimatur by His Excellency William Bernard, Bishop of Birmingham.

 


“At the time of this tribulation, a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error…. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer.”

The clearest evidence of “an uncanonically elected pope” would be his success in drawing “many into error,” something that has become rampant since Francis was elected. We see many in the Church talking down dogma, praising Luther, and even dignifying adultery, courtesy of Amoris Laetitia which teaches that we can now break the commandments if conscience dictates. (303) And whereas some argue that this is material and not formal heresy, how do they explain the apparent formal heresy contained in paragraph 297 of Amoris Laetita?

“No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.” (AL 297)

This clearly denies the Church’s dogmatic teaching that hell is eternal. In an interview with Catholic World Report (CWR) in December 2016, Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is presently a member of the Apostolic Signatura, said that if a pope were to “formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope.” Burke was reiterating Church teaching, as expressed by famed canonist Franz Wernz in his Ius Canonicum: “In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact.”

There is also the issue of Francis’ ongoing collusion with U.N. globalists. Freemasons the world over praise Francis and see him as a hero for the way he has turned the Vatican into a bully-pulpit for the advancement of left-wing political causes like population-control, open borders, and a communistic one-world government.

THE BIG AND OBVIOUS QUESTION that remains is, if Benedict XVI in fact remains pope, why doesn’t he alert the Church to the nullity of Francis’ election? And why did he even consent to the 2013 conclave if he already knew his continued papacy would invalidate the election?

Perhaps the late Fr. Malachi Martin provided the answer to this in summer 1998. In an interview on the Art Bell show, Father Malachi stated that he read the Third Secret of Fatima in February 1960. Bound by oath not to reveal the text of the Secret, he commented on the basic gist of the Secret, i.e. its prediction of apostasy in the church, while refuting the various apocryphal versions that callers were quoting to him on the program.

However, in response to an alleged quotation from the Third Secret about a pope who would be “under the control of satan,” Fr. Malachi replied, “Yes, it sounds as if they were reading the text of the Third Secret.”

According to Fatima experts, including the late Fr. Nicholas Gruner, this mention of a pope under Satan’s “control” would mean that he is innocently bound and kept under control. Benedict won’t speak the truth about Rome’s present collusion with Antichrist, because he is bound by fears and kept under surveillance by an iron-clad Vatican bureaucracy, if in fact they haven’t threatened him at gunpoint. There could be more to Danneels’ “mafia club” than meets the eye.

This is credible, when we consider that on February 10, 2012, almost one year to the day before Benedict XVI announced his resignation, it was reported that the pope was given only one year to live if he didn’t resign. The Telegraph UK reported that Cardinal Paolo Romeo, Archbishop of Palermo, said these things to a group of people in Beijing toward the end of 2011.

“His remarks were expressed with such certainty and resolution that the people he was speaking to thought, with a sense of alarm, that an attack on the Pope’s life was being planned,” the report said.

The extraordinary comments were written up in a top-secret report, dated Dec 30, 2011, and delivered to the Pope by a senior cardinal, Dario Castrillon Hoyos, in January 2012. The report was written in German, apparently to limit the number of people within the Vatican who would understand it if it was inadvertently leaked. It warned of a “Mordkomplott”—death plot—against Benedict.

Hence Pope Benedict XVI, in an emotional farewell speech at St. Peter’s on February 25, 2013, told a crowd of 100,000that God had called him to step down and devote himself to prayer, and ‘to scale the mountain.’

This suggests that Benedict XVI is “the Holy Father” in Lucy’s vision who scales the mountain, while Francis is the “bishop dressed in white.” In conjunction with the Third Secret message, Sr. Lucy of Fatima received this symbolic vision, which she penned on January 3, 1944. The following is an excerpt of the vision which was published by the Vatican on June 26, 2000.

“We saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.”

In her vision, Lucy sees two popes as it were. The first is a mirrored image of what appears to be the pope, but is actually “a bishop dressed in white” who gives the “impression” he is the pope. The true pope and his followers scale the mountain amidst peril and danger, praying for the spiritually dead along the way, before which they pass through a city half in ruins, representing the Church in shambles. At the end of their journey they are martyred for their allegiance to Jesus Crucified. It is a symbolic picture of the Church being put to death.

It should be emphasized that a reflection in the mirror is not a reality, but only an appearance, an impression. Lucy makes the point that this appearance is “a bishop dressed in white.” Given what we know, it is safe to say that the bishop dressed in white is not Benedict XVI or any previous pope, but Pope Francis.

When we consider all the above, it begins to shed light on the mystery as to why St. Faustina, known for her role in establishing the devotion to the Divine Mercy, penned an unusual entry into her diary on December 17, 1936. Entry 823 is as follows.

“I have offered this day for priests. I have suffered more today than ever before, both interiorly and exteriorly. I did not know it was possible to suffer so much in one day. I tried to make a Holy Hour, in the course of which my spirit had a taste of the bitterness of the Garden of Gethsemane. I am fighting alone, supported by His arm, against all the difficulties that face me like unassailable walls. But I trust in the power of His name and I fear nothing.”—Diary of St. Faustina, 823

It is significant to note that St. Faustina on that day was making reparation for priests, an offering that brought upon her the worst suffering she had ever endured, and perhaps the worst she would ever endure. But too, on that bitter day of December 17, 1936, was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who would later reign as Pope Francis, the 266th pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.

Could it be that on that day St. Faustina was atoning for the many priests, bishops, and cardinals of the future that would be misled by Francis? But too, could it be that her mysterious torment that day signaled the arrival of a future anti-pope?

1. Only in cases of collusion involving simony does the pope lift the nullity in order that the election may remain valid (78).

Source: http://canadafreepress.com/article/an-uncanonically-elected-pope

Whispers in the Loggia: In Magnum’s Wake, Pope “Clarifies” Sarah. Again.

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2017

In an extraordinary rebuke to one of his own Curial cardinals, the Pope has aimed to “explain simply, and hopefully clearly… some errors” in his Worship chief’s understanding of Magnum Principium, his recent motu proprio on liturgical translations, indicating the new norms granting new oversight to bishops’ conferences as a fresh development and declaring several key pieces of the operative rules in 2001’s Liturgiam authenticam “abrogated.”

A year since Francis’ last open clash with his top liturgical aide, a personal letter from the pontiff to the CDW prefect Cardinal Robert Sarah (above, ad orientem), dated 15 October, was published this morning by the Italian outlet La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana and subsequently confirmed by the Holy See Press Office, as well as being placed on the Italian homepage of Vatican Radio. (Ironically enough, even as this Ordinary Sunday takes precedence, today marks the feast of St John Paul II, under whose authority LA was promulgated.)

Noting a recent, lengthy commentary in which Sarah stated that LAremains “the authoritative text concerning liturgical translations,” the Pope responded by relating that paragraphs 79-84 of the 2001 norms – those which deal precisely with the requirement for a vernacular rendering’s recognitio by Rome – were now abolished, going on to note that Magnum “no longer upholds that translations must conform on all points with the norms of Liturgiam authenticam, as was the case in the past.”

In the new balance of responsibility, Francis said, Sarah’s contention that “the words recognitio and confirmatio, without being strictly synonymous [to explain the Vatican’s role], are nevertheless interchangeable” – in essence, that little had changed from LA – was not the case. As the pontiff explained, “the faculty” now belongs to the respective bishops’ conferences “to judge the goodness and coherence of terms in the translation of the original, albeit in dialogue with the Holy See”; in other words, not a unilateral call on Rome’s part, even at the process’ final stage.

Given considerable focus in the new norms’ wake on the use of the word “fideliter” – that is, a conference’s charge of weighing a translation’s fidelity to the original – in Magnum‘s revision of the Code of Canon Law, the pontiff writes that the term, as judged by an episcopal conference, implies a “triple” meaning: “first, to the original text; to the particular language in which it is translated, and finally to the understanding of the text by its audience.

In light of LA‘s revision of translation principles – which placed a premium on accuracy to the original Latin text over a “dynamic equivalence” approach that allowed a looser standard to ensure widespread comprehension – the Pope’s new interpretation is of particular significance.

While Francis began his letter by thanking the Guinean cardinal for his “contribution,” it bears recalling that, on Magnum‘s release in early September, Sarah – who Papa Bergoglio himself named to CDW in late 2014 – was conspicuous by his absence: an explanatory note on the new norms was instead issued by his deputy, the English Archbishop Arthur Roche. A former bishop of Leeds and chairman of ICEL – the global coordinating body for English-language translations – Roche was likewise received by Francis in a private audience earlier this month by himself.

Given the broad circulation of Sarah’s earlier interpretation on the new norms – in particular, among circles routinely critical, or even hostile, toward the pontiff – Francis closed the letter by asking the cardinal to transmit his response to the outlets which previously ran Sarah’s piece, as well as to the episcopal conferences and CDW’s staff and membership.

The letter published today marks the third instance of Sarah’s responses to Francis meeting a very public retort from the Pope. In early 2016, as CDW promulgated the decree formally allowing women to participate in the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday, an attached letter from the pontiff to the cardinal revealed that Papa Bergoglio’s directive for the change had been held up for over a year.

Six months later, Francis (through the Press Office) issued a “clarification” that Sarah had been “incorrectly interpreted” in calling for priests to adopt the ad orientem stance in celebrating Mass, which the cardinal urged days earlier at a conference for traditionalists in London.

In a major speech to Italian liturgists late last summer, Francis declared, “with certainty and magisterial authority,” that the Vatican II reforms are “irreversible” – adding that, for the church, “the liturgy is life, and not an idea to be understood.”
POSTED BY ROCCO PALMO AT 08:01

Source: Whispers in the Loggia: In Magnum’s Wake, Pope “Clarifies” Sarah. Again.

KILLING STATUES: Christophobic Mobocracy in America ~ Remnant TV

Prayers for an aspiring Traditional Latin priest

Tuesday
Oct 2017
Posted by Scoop

I have a young friend that I have known from my parish church since he was little more than a baby. As a child he was diagnosed with Asperger’s which is a high functioning subtype of Autism. This young man showed from a very early age a love for the faith and was profoundly interested in learning all he could about the faith. He subsequently developed a love for the Traditional Latin Liturgy and is fully dedicated to keeping to the 2000 year deposit of the faith. He stood out as an exemplary example of what a good server at Mass looks like: engaged, solemn, reverent and ever cognizant of doing his duties according the book.

He has largely overcome or been able to control the difficulties that accompany Asperger’s Syndrome and went to France on his own to attend college, major in French and minor in Latin. He is very good at both. So good, in fact, that he taught in France after finishing his studies. When he returned to the US he was hired this past summer for a project that required his skills in French to translate some academic texts.

After he finished this assignment, it became clear that he never lost sight of the feeling that he was being called to the priesthood. He surprised his mother when he told her that he was going to visit the Institute of Christ the King to see if that might be the place for him to study and then attend their seminary.

As is the case with many who are called to the priesthood, satan usually attacks their decision to become a priest or else erects roadblocks (stumbling blocks) to their Godly vocations. A few notables come to mind such as the Venerable Solanus Casey and Saint John Vianney, the Cure of Ars, to name but a few. This is what just occurred to my young friend who had been accepted to their pre-seminary training and then dismissed. The reason for this is unknown at this time although I believe that it is because he revealed that he had been diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome as a child, although he seemed to be getting well adjusted to the routine and was sailing through the courses presented without any problems at all. The person responsible for the dismissal was the one that was informed of his condition. My suspicion, as is his mother’s to his release from the program, had to do with this fact and not to how he performed or his abilities to become a good and faithful priest which our Church is so desperate for during this present Crisis of faith that we see throughout the world in Catholicism, Christian ethics and morality.

I am thinking that this may be a test and that satan has dealt him a blow which, due to his condition, will be harder than it would be to most young men. I plan on meeting him tonight for dinner, God willing, if that becomes possible. I want to inform him of the FSSP to let him know that there are other Traditional Latin Mass Societies available.

But the thing I think he needs at this point more than anything else, is our prayer, our novenas, our rosaries and our support for this young man of exceptional holiness and faith. I pray that God will put him to work in His Vineyard. God knows we need all the willing laborers we can find at the moment. So please pour your hearts out to God for this young man, Daniel and keep him in your prayers. I thank you in advance for those willing to do this.

Published first at All Around the Watchtower.

Video: Muslims takeover streets of Chicago, Houston, Dallas, New York

October 14, 2017    https://pamelageller.com/2017/10/asgyra-2017.html/

Did you see any of these events on your local and national newscasts? They’ll give you a glimpse of what the Muslim invasion looks like.

Chicago, Illinois – a two-hour procession through the streets.

Houston, Texas – the audio sounds enhanced to make it sound like a much bigger crowd but it’s a sizable gathering.

Dallas, Texas – another sizable gathering of Muslims in the streets.

Queens, New York

The same Muslims got bloody last year.

Brooklyn, New York

Manhattan, NYC

Virginia

There’s many more in other cities. Some bloody, others not.

And the Shia are a minority.
ashura-2017

Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

Shocking! 84% of Catholics Reject that Satan is a Person and Hell Exists

The Church is Ready to Capsize!

By Fr. Daniel Doctor,

The Roman Catholic Church, that is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is the Bride of Jesus Christ.  This Church was established by Christ Himself to be the sole means of salvation for
all of humanity. As Catholics, we know of no other way to salvation except through the sacramental system established by Christ and given to His Apostles.

Why is the Catholic Church in Near Chaos and Confusion?

Careful analysis of recent studies and polls taken among Catholics reveals that an overwhelming majority of U.S. Catholics simply do not believe in the Devil, or sin, or it’s logical consequences – eternal damnation in hell.  As we can see, with any kind of an reasonable observation of that the outcome, is that the Church is in a state of near chaos and confusion over what She teaches and what She does not teach.  The overriding reason for this is because bishops, the clergy, teachers and parents, have completely failed in their duties to transmit the Faith to each of the successive past four generations.  And there are huge consequences for this failure.

Pray for Our Church

A lack of a belief in the Devil, sin, or hell makes it very awkward for all of us during the Easter Liturgy, when it comes to the renewing of baptismal promises.  When the priest asks the people, “Do you reject Satan?” . . .  “Who Father? We don’t believe in him anymore.  Silly priest, asking us such stupid questions . . . believing in such archaic things . . . .”

What most of us were nottaught – is that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith is an integrated belief system, where one teaching is dependent on every other teaching, creating a whole and concise theology.  Rejection of the Devil as a personal evil, or sin, or even hell, does incredible theological damage to the whole of the Catholic Faith. In fact, like any teaching we like to change, reinterpret, or ignore, the entire faith is undermined and in some cases can even be destroyed.

Read the rest of this important post here: http://www.courageouspriest.com/shocking-84-catholics-reject-satan-person-hell-exist

Chris and Mike in Black & White ~ The Remnant Newspaper

This fits in with the previous two posts.

25th Anniversary of the release of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Fr. Z just put up this post on his website, here, which quotes St. John XXIII’s speech at the opening of the Second Vatican Council. After highlighting much of what the Pope said, Fr. Z asks the important questions:

Does that sound like what is going on today?

“adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness”

“a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine”

The answer, of course, is no.

The Pope changes the Church’s teaching on …

executioner of the Papal States

By Fr. Ray Blake

The Pope changes the Church’s teaching on the death penalty, is running on Twitter and a few blogs at the moment. Well that is not true, Popes do not, cannot, change Church teaching on anything, not even when they speak Ex Cathedra, All Popes can do is clarify.

The two ‘classical’ acts of such clarification, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption in many ways were completely unnecessary at the time of their promulgation, except to promote Papal power. The Church had and always will believe the Theotakos was ‘full of grace’, and had been from her beginning, what the doctrine does is say that Mary’s beginning (and therefore our beginning) happened not at birth or at her quickening, or ensoulment but at the moment of conception. The Assumption, with its deliberate ambiguities reconciles the western doctrine of the Assumption and the Eastern doctrine of the Dormition, it purifies the doctrine of possible unnecessary pious legends.

Do Pope Francis and Archbishop Paglia Believe Hell Does Not Exist?