Petition to the Cardinals of the Roman Church regarding the grave improprieties of Pope Francis

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio takes the vow of secrecy at opening of the 2013 Conclave (BBC, screenshote by From Rome blog, cropped)

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio takes the vow of secrecy at opening of the 2013 Conclave (BBC, screenshot by From Rome blog, cropped)

Reblogged from http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/petition2CardinalsReFrancis

As a Baptized member of the Catholic Church, in accord with my divine right to make known to my sacred pastors, the things which I see as necessary to the unity of the Church, the preservation of the Faith and the salvation of souls, I herewith submit this petition to the College of the Cardinals, as princes of the Roman Church, to whom it belongs both in law to elect the Roman Pontiff, and by immemorial right, to judge the man who holds the Pontificate if he err from the faith, and depose him, as Fr. Matthias a Corona taught in his, Tractatus Postumus (Liege, 1677), Tract I, Chapter XXI, n. II, “Whether the Cardinals have any power about the Pope?”:

A Pontiff, lapsed into heresy, can be most justly deposed. Thus Duvallius, above in q. 10. The reason is, that it is not credible that Christ wants to retain him as Vicar of His Church, who pertinaciously segregates himself whole from Her, since Christ has especially commanded Her, to hear His Voice as a faithful people, and to comply with Him, just as sheep hear the voice of their shepherd. John 10: 3: The sheep hear His Voice and they follow Him. Verse 4: The sheep follow Him. But far be it, only, that the Church should hear a Pontiff lapsed into heresy, She who rather is bound to stop up Her own ears against his violent speech, lest She be infected by the venom of his doctrine, and his casting-out and new election ought to be urged by the assembly of the Sacred Cardinals. The reason is, for, since the Pontiff is the fundament of the Church, the Rock, the Cornerstone, the Base, the Teacher, and the general Shepherd, his heresy abolishes all his privileges, and cancels (them), because he is a destroyer and scatterer of the Church, and consequently is no longer the Pontiff. And/or if he remains there, after he will have been judicially denounced as a heretic, he is to be immediately dispossessed of the Pontificate, if his heresy is external and manifest through the evidence of fact, and/or the declaration of a Council. But not if it be internal and only mental. The reason is, because he is no longer a member of the Church, nor Her head, nor does he cleave to Her by the internal union, which is through faith, nor by the external, which is through the confession of the Faith, and has been cut off from Her in each manner. A schismatic Pontiff incurs the same punishment, as Turrecremata, bk. 4, of Summa Ecclesia, part 1, ch. R1, says; Cajetan, II, II, q. 37, a. 1. Duvallius teaches above in q. 9, that he can enter into schism. First, if he no longer fulfills the office of the Pontiff, or does not wish to be subject to him, who would be elected in his place, but would join himself to the Conciliabula of the Schismatics. Second, if he should wish to change the ancient rites and customs of the Church, remaining from Apostolic tradition, or, rather, if he would pluck away and separate from the unity of the Church those wanting to retain these ceremonies. Third, if he would separate himself on account of an unjust cause from the communion of the whole Church and of all the Bishops, and at the same time will to communicate with certain adherents of his, as is shown in the divine Cyprian, bk. 4, epistle 2, Novatian did, who was pointed out by Cyprian a little after as a Schismatic, and outside the bosom of the Church. And though (this is to be deplored), he had patiently tolerated tyrants for Christ’s sake, Saint Cyprian wrote back that thereafter there was inflicted upon him a death outside the unity of the Church, not the crown of a Martyr, but the punishment of perfidy.

Mindful, that by the decree of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio (Dec. 21, 1566), the College and indeed the entire Church is gravely bound to only choose and recognize as validly chosen a man of the Catholic Faith; and mindful that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has both before and after his election on March 13, 2013, expressed himself and acted in ways long condemned by the Apostolic See, as one of many faithful, I humbly ask you to fulfill your duty to protect the Church and the Apostolic see from corruption, by convening at a place chosen among yourself, to judge the questions:

1) Whether Jorge Mario Bergoglio was validly elected, in fulfillment of the decree of Paul IV, just mentioned,* inasmuch as prior to his election he promoted for years in Argentina the concession of communion to those in irregular marriages during the Curas Villeros (cf. Sandro Magister, “Francis’ Patient Revolution”, Expresso Online Oct. 24, 2014), which directly contradicts the teaching of the Council of Trent, Session 13, canon XI:

CANON XI.: If any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, howsoever contrite they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.

Since, if he was subject to this censure, then in accord with the decree of Pope Paul IV, above mentioned (n. 6), he was invalidly raised to the dignity of the Cardinalate, and also invalidly elected Roman Pontiff.

2) If, however, you should judge that he was validly elected, I then ask you to judge whether he has lost the office of Roman Pontiff on account of his pertinacious denial of the Faith and/or his malicious manifest intent to persecute the faithful attached to the ancient ecclesiastical traditions, each of which is in violation of the anathema of the Second Council of Nicea, held in 787 A.D.: If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.” (4th Anathema on Holy Images), among which traditions are the celebration of the Ancient Roman Rite and the perennial practice of the Catholic Church, from Apostolic times, of refusing communion to adulterers and public sinners.

For, if he falls under this censure of Nicea, then likewise would his election be invalidated by the decree of Pope Paul IV.

3) Finally, even if the anathemas and canons, which Pope Paul IV declares valid in perpetuity (ibid. n. 2), would not be enough reason for any member of the Sacred College to convict the man of heresy or perfidious malice to overthrow ecclesiastical tradition, it remains a theological truth of the divine law and ecclesiology, that no one who seeks to harm the Church in anything essential, such as Her fidelity to Christ’s Magisterium, can be in communion with Her; and as such, even a schismatic, morally speaking, cannot be considered in communion with the Church, and thus should and must be removed from office. Wherefore, I ask you to judge whether he is morally in schism from the Church, regarding Her immemorial faith and practice which can never be changed.

Considering the gravity of what is petitioned, I the undersigned, for the love of Christ Jesus, request a diligent and thorough investigation and ask that you princes of the Sacred College gather to judge these matters in special meeting at a place chosen by yourselves.

(To sign this petition go to the link above)

—————-

SOURCES:

Cum ex apostolatus officio (English & Latin)

http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm

Second Council of Nicea

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum07.htm

Council of Trent (English):

https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

Matthias a Corona, Tractatus Postumus (PDF Latin)

http://books.google.com/books?id=mclFAAAAcAAJ&dq=Tractatus+Postumus&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Sandro Magister, “Francis’ Patient Revolution”, Expresso Online Oct. 24, 2014

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350910?eng=y

————–

Other Reading:

Robert J. Siscoe, “Can the Church Depose an Heretical Pope?” (Remnant Newspaper, online edition of Nov. 18, 2014)

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope

_________, “True or False Pope?”, A treatise on what Catholics do with Heretical Popes, http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/

Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (See Highlights for discussion of n. 34 of this decree)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19451208_vacantis-apostolicae-sedis_lt.html

Advertisements

This ‘Amoris Laetitia’ cannot be tolerated in silence

o-POPE-ROLLING-STONE-570Rome, April 9, 2016 A.D:  The universal scandal given by and contained in the new Papal Post-Synodal Exhortation on the Family, Amoris Laetitia, cannot be tolerated in silence. It must be denounced.  Numerous commentators throughout the world and Church have pointed out how it is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the teaching of Christ, the Apostles and Apostolic Tradition on the matter of the discipline of the Sacraments and the nature and discernment of the gravity of sin.

What many have not noticed is that the entire argument advanced in Amoris Laetitia presupposes that Ecclesiastical Tradition is merely a human hand-me-down, left over from a darker more puritanical age, and that it does not come from Christ nor was it faithful to the Apostolic Preaching.

For this reason, one must say with many others that this document is in toto, heretical. That is represents, from even a brief study of the history of the Pontificate of Cardinal Bergoglio, a manifest and pertinacious attack upon the Church and denial of revealed truths.

It is exceedingly pertinacious, since the Pope received the corrections of numbers of theologians formally and informally, yet still published it.

On account of the universal scandal given by it, on account of its universal reception by the press as signifying the abandonment of Scripture and Tradition as the remote Rule of Faith in the Church; inasmuch as it is recognized by all and the author itself to contain novel doctrines, which contradict the past ones and past pastoral practice, every Catholic is obliged to REJECT and CONDEMN it AND DISREGARD the authority the author pretends to exercise in it.

Furthermore, the document Amoris Laetitia in itself is sufficient canonical evidence for the Cardinals of the Roman Church, the clergy of Rome and the bishops of the Catholic Church to now issue the first public rebuke to Francis, pointing out that unless he rescind or repudiate the document, that he has ipso facto lost his office on account of formal manifest pertinacious heresy.

If he does not, they must warn him 2x more, and if he still does not change, they must convene a Synod and declare him self-deposed.

Finally, it is obvious on account of the gravest moral obligation of charity for the whole Church, that these three groups are obliged to act, and that if they do not act, each of them individually merits ETERNAL DAMNATION for having loved themselves more than Christ and His Church.

In the coming day and weeks, we shall see which of these cleaves to Christ and which deny him by an effeminate silence.

Our Lord works miracle to confound heretical and immoral proposals of Team Bergoglio

miracle

KEARNS, Utah — The Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City is investigating an event that some are calling a miracle inside the Saint Xavier church in Kearns.

Last week, during the holy communion, a host was returned to the father overseeing the service. A host is the small wafer handed out as part of the communion. The father placed the host in glass of water near the head of the church. Typically, the host will dissolve away in a few minutes.

Three days later, members of the church say the host was still floating and it appeared to be bleeding. Word spread, and the church filled with people. For a short time, the host was on display.

The Salt Lake City Diocese has taken possession of the host, appointing a committee to look into the incident. The head of the committee, Monsignor M. Francis Mannion issued this statement:

“Recently, reports of a bleeding host at St. Francis Xavier Church in Kearns have been circulating within the diocese. Monsignor Colin F. Bircumshaw, Diocesan Administrator, has appointed an ad hoc committee of individuals with various backgrounds to investigate the matter. The work of the committee is now underway. The results will be made public.

The host is now in the custody of the Diocesan Administrator. Contrary to rumor, there are NO current plans for public exposition or adoration.

Whatever the outcome of the investigation, we can use this time to renew our faith and devotion in the greatest miracle — the Real Presence of Jesus Christ that takes place at every Mass.

Msgr. M. Francis Mannion
Committee Chair”

There are no plans to make the host available for public view or adoration, according to the Diocese. However, the results of the investigation will be made public when it is complete.

Original article with video: http://fox13now.com/2015/11/25/catholic-diocese-of-salt-lake-city-investigating-after-wafer-appears-to-bleed-three-days-after-communion/

 

Vatican Expert confirms Cardinal Danneels ties to “St. Gallen Mafia”

Reblogged from the Radical Catholic

Vaticanist Paul Baade (Photo: CNA)

Vaticanist Paul Baade
(Photo: CNA)

The German Edition of Catholic News Agency published an interview with Vaticanist Paul Baade today, in which the latter reveals what knowledge he had of the St. Gallen “Mafia-Club” back in 2005, as well as few interesting details regarding the election of Pope Benedict XVI. The relevant section of the interview is posted below in an original Radical Catholic translation (to be updated if CNA puts out their own English translation):

CNA: There’s a minor scandal brewing in the background [of the Synod on the Family]: Pope Francis invited former Belgian Archbishop Godfried Danneels, who recently admitted before rolling cameras to having belonged to a kind of “Mafia Club” within the Church, to the Synod.
Continue reading from the Radical Catholic

The Myths used to defend Team Bergoglio from UDG 81

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio takes the vow of secrecy at opening of the 2013 Conclave (BBC, screenshote by From Rome blog, cropped)Rome, October 1, 2015 A.D:  Following the revelations, reported by noted Vaticanistas, Edward Pentin and Marco Tosatti, that Cardinal Danneels, in his new biography, admits that a group of Cardinals, in direct violation of the Papal Law, for Papal Elections, Universi Dominici Gregis, organized in 1996 a group which is named, the “Club of St. Gallen” — so called, after the town in Switzerland where it met, and which group Cardinal Danneels called, a “mafiaclub” — formed for the purpose of radically changing the Church and the Catholic Religion, and in recent years formally committed to the promotion of the election of Cardinal Jorge Bergolgio as the next pope:  a series of commentators, notably “Msgr. Athanasius” at the Remnant and Canon Peters have alleged that the penalties of UDG 81, namely, excommunication latae sententiae, on all who violate the proper proceedures of papal elections by canvassing for votes or vote promissing, are not applicable or if they are do not touch upon the validity of the papal election of 2013.

You need to read Latin to read the Law

First, both commentators, writing in the English language, show themselves ignorant of the distinction in Canon Law between an excommunication which is threatened and an excommunication which is declared or imposed.

When the Code of Canon law specifies that a specific crime is to be punished by excommunication, an excommunication is threatened.  In such canons, the law specifies that the maximum punishment, excommunication, may be imposed.

When the Pope or some competent authority by a specific act declares the penalty upon an individual, the excommunication is declared.

But some special laws can impose an excommunication in virtue of the very deed committed, ipso facto. These impositions by special law for all who in the future commit such actions are true impositions, as the Latin language indicates by the use of the verbs, incurrere, irrogare and innodare.

We see this in the Code itself, which specifies in the Official English translation:

Can. 1314Generally, a penalty is ferendae sententiae, so that it does not bind the guilty party until after it has been imposed; if the law or precept expressly establishes it, however, a penalty is latae sententiae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed.

This becomes evident in the Latin text of that canon, which reads:

Can. 1314 — Poena plerumque est ferendae sententiae, ita ut reum non teneat, nisi postquam irrogata sit; est autem latae sententiae, ita ut in eam incurratur ipso facto commissi delicti, si lex vel praeceptum id expresse statuat.

In Latin, Irrogari means “to inflict” or “impose”, incurrere means to run into or upon; innodare, beings to be bound up by.  The metaphors are equivalent, for when one has been penalized for a crime, he has has its penalty bound to himself and has run into or been tied up by the penalty.  Ferendae sententiae means a punishment which “is to be placed” upon the criminal, latae sententiae means a punishment which “has been placed” upon the criminal.  Thus, it is evident that in cases of excommunications which are latae sententiae ipso facto, the penalty has already been imposed.

Pope John Paul II made it clear he was imposing a penalty upon all future violators

Now in the case of the actions prohibited by UDG 81, Pope John Paul II uses very specific language in the original Latin.  As I wrote back on Nov. 28, 2014, but which seems to have been forgotten by the recent commentators:

Let’s take a look, then, at the Latin original, to understand better how, not just any specific form of vote canvassing is a crime according to the Pope who “brought down the Wall”:

81. Cardinales electores praeterea abstineant ab omnibus pactionibus, conventionibus, promissionibus aliisque quibusvis obligationibus, quibus astringi possint ad suffragium cuidam vel quibusdam dandum aut recusandum. Quae omnia, si reapse intervenerint, etiam iure iurando adiecto, decernimus ea nulla et irrita esse, neque eadem observandi obligatione quemquam teneri; facientes contra iam nunc poena excommunicationis latae sententiae innodamus. Vetari tamen non intellegimus, ne per tempus Sedis vacantis de electione sententiae invicem communicentur.

The official English translation from the Vatican Website, renders this text, thus:

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. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.

 This translation is not exact.  Here is my own exact translation:

81. Let the Cardinal electors, moreover, abstain from all pacts, agreements, promises and any other obligations you like, by which they might be constrained to give or refuse support (suffragium) for anyone (sing. & plural).  All of which, if these were to occur, even when with a foreswearing, We decree are null and void, and none of them are to be held by any obligation of observance; those acting against (this), We now, hereby, bind up with the punishment of excommunication latae sententiae.  Yet, We do not understand to be forbidden, that they communicate with one another concerning the election, during the time of the Sedevacante.

As can be seen, Pope John Paul II, at that moment IMPOSES the penalty of excommunication ipso facto, and this, not upon the act but upon all the persons who will commit the act.  Thus all who commit the forbidden acts are excommunicated automatically for having committed them and the penalty is imposed not by a written decree after the fact, but by a written decree before the fact, that is, by this his special law for Papal Conclaves, Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG).

Indeed, as logic dictates, that if this were not the correct reading of the law, then the threat of an excommunication in UDG 81 would be nothing but a flourish of words, since it would have no effect and the guilty could get away with stealing a papal election by means of vote canvassing.  Clearly Pope John Paul II was not an idiot, who merely threatened a penalty which could only be imposed after the fact by the very individual elected uncanonically by the criminal violators of UDG 81!  To say such a thing would be an absurdity and calumny.

The Myths used to undermine a right understanding of the Law

Canon Peters, for his part, attempts a subtle shell game by replacing the word “imposed” by “formal”, when he writes (I quote from Fr. Z’s blog):

But that same cursory glance at Canon 1331 will not show (unless one is trained in canon law) that most consequences of excommunication become relevant in the external forum only if the excommunication is “imposed or declared”. That short, technical phrase means that, while one who is “automatically” excommunicated labors under the personal burdens of this sanction, it is only when an excommunication is “formal” that actions performed by canonical criminals raise questions for Church life and governance.

As I have shown, the penalty for violation of UDG 81 is already imposed by the promulgation of the papal law itself, on all future violators.  Thus the consequences of that penalty effect not only the liceity but the validity in law of all acts of those persons after the crimes committed. There is no distinction made in canon 1314 of formal and material excommunication. Canon Peters is attempting to alter the law by altering the terms, in a clever shell game.

Msgr. Athanasius, instead, attempts to argue, that since the former papal law explicitly allowed excommunicated electors to vote and be elected, the new papal law, while not explicitly saying such a thing — which is nonsensical in the new Code, if you think about it, since the new Code does not have the distinction between excommunication simplex and excommunication vitandis (simple excommunication of penalty and excommunion which excludes from the Church) — should be read and interpreted as if it did say such a thing.  Msgr.’s opinion is rejected by the noted Canonist, Jesus Minambres, which I reported upon here. The erroneous opinion of the Msgr., is also obviated by the careful consideration of what the new papal law does allow, the voting and election of all Cardinals, regardless of any reason or cause. Because in the CIC 1983, canon 171 prohibits not the voting of excommunicated electors, but the tallying of their votes.  Furthermore, since the College of Cardinals did prohibit de facto the Cardinal of Scotland from attending, because of the scandals he was involved in,  it is clear that their own understanding of whom the Papal Law allows to be prohibited from voting does not correspond to the wide reading the Mgsr. would have it read. Thus since neither the indulgence of UDG 81 can be said to cover excommunication, as the old law did, and since canon 171 does not conflict with it if it did, the argument of Msgr. Athanasius falls flat on its face as contra iurem and praeter rem.

For more on the effects of being formally excommunicated (canon 1331) by the violation of UDG 81, see my article of Dec. 12, 2014 A.D., The Monstrosity of the Allegations against “Team Bergoglio” = Cardinal Bergoglio is not the Pope.