Canon Law itself declares Pope Francis, AntiPope

anti-pope-francis

The clear, precise, and sound reading of the Code of Canon Law leads to the inescapable conclusion that Pope Francis is an “antipope” in every sense of the word, and that the law itself declares it.

As has been demonstrated in the article, “How and Why Pope Benedict’s resignation is invalid”, there is no other authentic reading of Canon 332 §2 other than that the renunciation of munus is the necessary sine qua non condition of a papal resignation.

This canonical argument is supported by 35 reasons, debated in Scholastic form, in the article, “The Validity of Benedict’s Resignation must be questioned, Parts I and II”, why a renunciation of ministerium, in the form had in the papal declarations of Feb. 11, 2013, cannot signify a renunciation of munus as per Canon 332 §2, Canon 188 etc..

Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI remains the one and only true Pope of the Catholic Church with all the powers and prerogatives of that office.

As I pointed out in my rebuttal of Roberto de Mattei, canon 359 guarantees that the College of Cardinals has no authority to convene to elect a pope, when there has been an invalid papal resignation.

Therefore, the Conclave of 2013 is without any right in Canon Law to elect a successor to Pope Benedict. Therefore, the one it claimed to elect, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has no authority whatsoever conferred upon him by accepting that election. He is in truth a usurper of the papal office, and must be punished in accord with Canon 1381 §1 for that crime (if he knowingly has done this, otherwise upon demonstration of the delict, he must publicly disavow his claim to the office).

Since Bergoglio never had any canonical authority as Pope, all his nominations to the  Roman Curia are null and void. Therefore, all actions taken by the Congregation of Religious against religious communities, or by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith against anyone, or the Secretary of State vis-a-vis treaties with nations, such as China, or appointments of Bishops, etc. etc. are NULL AND VOID.

Since the papal resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is invalid, among other reasons, in virtue of containing a substantial error (canon 188) regarding what words must be expressed to conform to canon 322 §2, that resignation is invalid by the law itself (lege ipso). That invalidation spreads to the Conclave and all acts of Bergoglio as Francis, which are canonical, because they too are founded upon the same substantial error, though compounded.

Therefore, since the invalidity of Bergoglio’s papacy depends upon the law of the Church itself (canon 188), there is no need for a judgement of any ecclesiastical office to intervene to establish that it is so. And thus, Catholics may and indeed are obliged BY DIVINE FAITH and OBEDIENCE to the Apostolic See and to Canon Law to hold Bergoglio to be an Anti-Pope and to insist to Cardinals and Bishops and civil authorities that he be driven from the Vatican as a usurper.

Let all Catholics who love Christ, who are obedient to the Code of Canon Law and who seek the salvation of souls act now and today. Write your Bishop and the Cardinals. Write the Italian Government, which is bound to uphold only the canonically elected governments of the Vatican. Insist with all that the fact of Bergoglio’s invalidity be publicly affirmed and his usurpation denounced.

Its either that, or the end of the Vatican as we know it, as being part of the Catholic Church.

 

Advertisements

Where Robert de Mattei is wrong

This week, Catholic Family News, the traditional private Catholic Newspaper founded by the late John Vennari, publishes an article entitled, “Socci’s Thesis Falls Short: Review of the Secret of Benedict XVI“, an English translation of an article which was published on Jan 8, 2019 online at Cooperatores Veritatis. The translator is a Giuseppe Pelligrino. (Socci’s book details facts and canonical arguments why Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope, and Bergoglio an Anti-Pope, that is uncanonically elected). I will comment on the English version of the article.

The author, Dr. Roberto de Mattei, I have long admired, and have had the occasion to meet in person. His foundation, the Lepanto Foundation does much good work, and thus I bear him no animus. Nay, if the author of that article was someone unknown or not influential at Rome, I would probably have paid it no attention at all.

Moreover, the purpose of this present article is not to defend Socci’s book.  Rather it is to address the grave errors contained in De Mattei’s article, which on account of his personal reputation are magnified in the minds of many, and thus represent a danger to souls.

Here, then, I will discuss the errors briefly in the order they appear in that English translation by Signor Pellegrino.

The first error of which is that De Mattei sustains that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is valid, because there has been a peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

I will put aside the fact that several recent polls (not scientific) have shown that as much as 70% of Catholics reject Bergoglio as pope, because there is a more serious error to address, than disputing whether there is in fact a peaceful and universal acceptance of Bergoglio’s election.

Signor De Mattei is learned enough to own a copy of the Code of Canon Law. So I humbly suggest he read Canon 359 and consider publicly withdrawing his assertion that a peaceful and universal acceptance of an apparent papal election establishes it to be held as valid by Catholics.  For, that canon reads in Latin:

Can. 359 — Sede Apostolica vacante, Cardinalium Collegium ea tantum in Ecclesia gaudet potestate, quae in peculiari lege eidem tribuitur.

When translated into English — here I give my own translation — that canon says:

Canon 359 — When the Apostolic See is vacant, the College of Cardinals only enjoys that power in the Church, which is granted to it in particular law.

This is the reference to the power of the College to elect the Pope.  So, according to Canon 359, when there is no pope, the Cardinals have the authority to elect a pope.

Now, if the resignation of a pope is in doubt, then obviously, there is a doubt whether the Apostolic See is vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have doubtful authority. And when a resignation of a pope has not taken place, or a pope is not dead, the Apostolic See is not vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have NO power to elect another.

So, it should be obvious then, that “the peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of a pope by a College of Cardinals” which HAS NO POWER to elect a pope, because the See is NOT vacant, DOES NOT MAKE THE ELECTION VALID.

Second, De Mattei claims this principal regarding the acceptance of the election of a pope on the basis of commonly held opinion. But if he has studied Canon Law, he should know that Canon 17 does not permit common theological or canonical opinions to be interpretative guides to reading any canon, when the text of the canon expressly forbids an act to take place by denying the body which acts the power to act. For in such a case the mind of the Legislator takes precedence.

Third, what is worse, De Mattei then cites the Vatican translation of Canon 332 §2, where he admits that it denies that a papal resignation is valid on the grounds that anyone accepts it (in its final condition)! How that squares with the theory of peaceful and universal acceptance is impossible to imagine, since it undermines the validity of its application to the case of a disputed resignation. It does so, because obviously a Conclave called during the life of a pope who has not resigned, is called either because that College knows he has not and does intend to elect an Anti-Pope, and then it does not matter who accepts him, his election is invalid; or in the case the College opines that a resignation is valid, and they proceed to act as if there is no pope. But as canon 332 §2 declares, that they think it is valid, does not make it valid. Therefore, even if they think it is valid, when it is not valid, they cannot appeal to Canon 332 §2 to claim the authority in Canon 359 to lawfully elect another. Rather, they must follow Canon 17 and apply it. And so, whether the subsequent election be accepted or not, in the case of elections which follow papal resignations, the principal cited by De Mattei is improperly cited at best because it pertains to another case.

Finally, De Mattei is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest, when he says that Violi’s canonical study of Pope Benedict’s act of Feb 11, 2013 contributes to the confusion. Because that study, which is cited in the preface of the Disputed Question, published here in November, is a very scholarly well thought out and precise study without any animus or polemic, which gives great clarity to the canonical signification of that papal act. To say that it causes confusion therefore is not based on Violi’s work, but rather seemingly on a desire to advance his own opinion by insulting a scholar who shows greater knowledge of Canon Law than himself.

As for Archbishop Ganswein’s discourse at the Gregorian University, at first glance it does seem to be confusing. But when you research, as Ann Barnhardt has done, what opinions regarding the mutability of the Papacy were being discussed at Tubingen, when Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was a professor of Theology there, then you would rather say its revealing, not confusing at all.

For those who want to understand the correct canonical argument, why Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope and why Bergoglio was never pope, supported by Canon Law and all the evidence, and put in simple terms, see “How and Why Pope Benedict’s Resignation is invalid by the law itself.”

Bergoglio was a pertinacious public heretic years before the 2013 Conclave

As the prophecy given by Zacharia gives in Chapter 11:16-17:

For behold I will raise up a shepherd in the land, who shall not visit what is forsaken, nor seek what is scattered, nor heal what is broken, nor nourish that which standeth, and he shall eat the flesh of the fat ones, and break their hoofs. [17] O shepherd, and idol, that forsaketh the flock: the sword upon his arm and upon his right eye: his arm shall quite wither away, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened!

Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s revelations point to Conclave Pact to elect Bergoglio

Archibishop Georg Gänswein of the Pontifical Household, former private secretary to Pope Benedict XVI

Archibishop Georg Gänswein of the Pontifical Household, former private secretary to Pope Benedict XVI

Rome, May 24, 2016:  The recent revelations by Archbishop Georg Gänswein point to a stunning possibility, that during the Conclave of 2005, which elected Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI,  Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio and his supporters consented to his rival’s election, on the condition that after a fixed number of years, he would resign, and the next conclave elect himself Pope.

This theoretical postulate is based on the following reasoned speculations:

  1. There is precedent in the history of Conclaves for deals among rival factions:  As we noted in the article, “Team Bergoglio” and the legacy of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro, during the Conclave which elected Saint Pius X, there was the curious consequence that Rampolla’s supporters were consecrated Bishops by Pius X following his election, and Pius X’s supporters, bishops, by Cardinal Rampolla.
  2. Archbishop Gänswein confirms the existence of the St. Gallen group, a self-named “mafia” organization in the Church which worked actively to promote the election of Cardinal Bergoglio in 2005. This confirmed what Vaticanist Paul Baade admitted last year.
  3. Pope Benedict XVI explained his reason to retire for reasons which do not seem credible:  namely for poor health, even though he has not lost the capacity to speak, think, walk or make decisions.
  4. Pope Benedict XVI planned his retirement well in advance:  according to Cardinal Bertone, as much as 7 months in advance; according to publish reports, the former Cardinal of Palermo knew more than 2 years before, a fact which he revealed during a dinner in a restaurant in China.
  5. Pope Benedict XVI has not issued one word of criticism of Pope Francis’ outrageous statements and scandalous actions.
  6. The supporters of Pope Benedict XVI have not personally criticized Pope Francis in public for any of his heretical, erroneous or scandalous words or actions during the latters’ pontificate.
  7. There is constant emphasis, by Pope Benedict XVI and now Archbishop Gänswein that in some way both Benedict and Francis share the Petrine ministry.

None of this seems possible to From Rome without there having been a formal agreement among the Cardinals in the conclave of 2005 to share the Papacy among the 2 rival candidates.

Finally, if such a pact were made, it is not clear whether it would violate UDG 81 or canon law. But seeing that there is yet no firm evidence of the existence of such a pact, we will omit speculating as to its effect in law on the basis of UDG 81 (read more about this in the series of articles published here).

However, if this pact to elect Bergoglio did in fact happen, it would be more than sufficient explanation why none of the Cardinals have made any objection or heard any petitions regarding the Team Bergoglio scandal, in which it appears that up to 20+ Cardinals canvassed for votes for Bergoglio, most likely with his consent, in the 2013 Conclave, in violation of UDG 81, the violation of which is an excommuncate-able offense. For, if the College made an pact regarding votes in 2005, they might very well have been excommunicated, in virtue of the Papal Law, since that time. This might explain the utter breakdown of public virtue and faith which is spreading like a wild fire among the Sacred College, as a spiritual punishment for that most occult crime.

How Bergoglio’s permanence signifies the Apostasy of the Flock

The False Shepherd, an detail of the illumination from the manuscript Douce 266 in the Bodleian Library

The False Shepherd, a detail of the illumination from the mss. Douce 266 in the Bodleian Library

Rome, May 12, 2016 A.D:  There is no greater and more radical challenge for the Christian believer than to take another as his Master.

Indeed, Christians are recognized by the fact that they regard Jesus Christ, and Him alone, as their Master, in accord with the scripture verse, in which Christ condemned the religious leaders of ancient Israel, Matthew 23:10 ff:

10 Neither be ye called masters; for one is you master, Christ. 11 He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Indeed, its very tempting, in today’s world in which truth is up for grabs and violent political clashes are being waged on all sides, for the Christian to take an “I’m ok, you’re ok” view, that is, a “get along with everyone” kind of attitude, in which truth does not matter, only co-existence.

The Loadstone of Hope

The only problem is, that there is a vast difference between the man who thinks Christ is a religious teacher and the man who is loyal to Christ no matter what.  First first regards Him as one might regard a philosopher:  taking the man’s teachings here and there, according to his personal tastes and likes, but not as a rule of life.

The second regards Him as the Incarnate Son of God, apart from Whose teaching No man on Earth can escape eternal and perpetual damnation in the fires of Hell.

As St. Augustine said, “If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.”

Indeed, what distinguishes the Christian from all other men is Hope.

Hope is that theological virtue least spoke of today, because in modern times a proper understanding and appreciation of it has been so attacked in the minds of men, that nearly nobody appears to have it or cultivate it or use it.

Hope is that theological virtue which puts full faith and confidence in the promises of God for those who keep them.  Its the most essential and key Christian virtue, given to us in Baptism, but cultivated only with good works.  If you do not really hope that God will reward you for fidelity to Christ, then obviously you will not be faithful to Him.  Likewise, if you think that you can manage for yourself the rules by which you will get into Heaven, there is no need for you to have hope in God’s promises, you can presume for yourself — a presumption which is both your ultimate self-deceit and the absolute guarantee of your own damnation.

All of this has an ecclesiological impact, that is, all of this effects the Church, what She is and your place in or outside of Her, who alone is the ark of Salvation, the Pillar of the truth, apart from AND outside of which no man woman or child can be saved.

The Temptation of Bergoglio

The great temptation presented by the election and presence of Bergoglio on the Apostolic Throne, then, is precisely this: the offer of a Church, of a Christianity, in which Christ is no longer The master, but merely a guide post from which one can wander here or there and remain a “christian” without fidelity and without the need to practice hope.

This temptation is offered the Cardinals, the Bishops, the priests, the religious and the laity, is offered thus to the whole Church, because in Bergoglio they have, without any shadow of a doubt, a man who does not believe in Christ as his Sole Master, who does not love or tolerate the Church as Christ founded it or gave it, does not suffer the rules the Apostles, the Faithful Disciples of the Lord handed down to us, and is filled with compassion and love for the traitor who sold Christ for 30 shekels of silver.

To have a public manifest heretic on the throne of the Apostle Peter, and tolerate him, presents for every true Christian, the opportunity of pretense, to keep the name “Christian” or “Catholic” without any more obligation to Christ.  Its the ultimate game-plan of Lucifer.

Either Bergoglio must Change or the Church has changed

Finally, if one were to accept this situation and the principles which erroneously lead to it, as have been briefly described here, it would be enough to end this article with the usual lament.  Because with faith it is possible to lament these things, but with hope it is not possible to tolerate them.  Nearly every author on the Internet today, and as far as we know, all the Cardinals and Bishops of the Catholic Church since April 8, 2016, the date on which “Amoris Laetitia” what released, do not have or are not acting faithfully to Christian Hope.

For the man with Christian hope, would declare and manifestly insist and demand that Bergoglio be canonically reprimanded, and if refusing 3x, be declared to be in open schism with Christ and His Church, and self-deposed by reason of his malice and heresy against Him and His Bride, the Church, whose first duty is to keep herself immaculate and worthy of Him.

Either Bergoglio must change or the Church has in fact changed, because if he repents, the Church is saved in Her fidelity to Christ, and Christ is glorified above all human whim, even the human whims of the Roman Pontiff. But if Bergoglio does not change AND the Church tolerates him, it is the Church which has changed, She has committed adultery with Bergoglio, accepting him rather than Jesus Christ as Her spouse, the God above all other gods…

Da Ivereigh all’abdicazione

I passi canonici resi necessari dallo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio”

Traduzione dell’originale inglese da Antonio Marcantonio

Life-sized 18th c Manger Scene, venerated for centuries at Acireale, Sicily (Photo by Br. Alexis Bugnolo)

Life-sized 18th c Manger Scene, venerated for centuries at Acireale, Sicily (Photo by Br. Alexis Bugnolo)

Roma — 6 gennaio 2015: In occasione della solennità dell’Epifania del Signore, la Chiesa Cattolica celebra il trionfo della luce sulle tenebre, il trionfo della Luce Eterna sulle tenebre che questo mondo ha ereditato dal peccato di Adamo, tenebre che sono la conseguenza del peccato e consistono nella separazione da Dio e nella perdita della Luce di Dio che – se non fosse stato per il peccato originale – avrebbe condotto la stirpe di Adamo a una splendida gloria, già a partire dalla sua prima progenie. Nella giornata di oggi la Chiesa celebra la rivelazione della Luce Eterna incarnata nel seno della Santissima Vergine, rivelata a tutti i Gentili che cercano Dio; non a tutti i Gentili, si badi bene, bensì solo a quanti di loro – come i Magi di un tempo – Lo cercano con sincerità e con zelo.

Questo grande Mistero che oggi celebriamo deve riecheggiare in tutte le scelte di vita che facciamo, deve riecheggiare nell’intera vita della Chiesa e in tutte le Sue scelte, e deve riecheggiare anche nel governo della Chiesa tramite le scelte che la Gerarchia Sacra fa.

Una Chiesa che non osservi le Sue stesse leggi, quindi, non può in nessun modo affermare di essere la Chiesa che proclama il Mistero dell’Epifania; per questa ragione, la corruzione all’interno della Chiesa è da considerarsi un’abominevole negazione della verità di tutto ciò che l’Epifania rappresenta.

È pertanto assolutamente opportuno affermare ancóra una volta che i fatti vincolati allo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio” e le sue conseguenze legali richiedono in modo estremo e supremo lo scioglimento dei dubbi e delle questioni che hanno sollevato.

Per questa ragione, il blog From Rome procede ora alla stesura di un riepilogo della Causa Canonica contro il “Team Bergoglio” e a mostrare le ragioni per cui la validità dell’elezione del Cardinal Bergoglio ne risulta palesemente invalidata, lasciando alla tesi contraria scarse probabilità di dimostrarsi certa. Un riassunto dei reportage sullo scandalo del “Team Bergoglio” è disponibile – insieme ai post del blog From Rome che ad esso si riferiscono – nella nostra Cronologia dei reportage sul Team Bergoglio, che viene aggiornata regolarmente. Per maggior comodità del lettore, riassumiamo i fatti contenuti negli articoli elencati nella Cronologia stessa.

L’infrazione del paragrafo 81 della Universi Dominici Gregis

Nel nono capitolo della sua biografia di Papa Francesco, Il Grande Riformatore: Francesco e la creazione di un Papa radicale, il Dr. Austen Ivereigh, ex-portavoce del Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, afferma che otto Cardinali hanno conspirato con successo per l’elezione del Cardinal Bergoglio, sollecitando la promessa di voti da parte di venticinque Cardinali elettori al primo scrutinio del Conclave del 12 marzo 2013. Dal testo di Ivereigh si deduce che due o tre tra i cospiratori non erano elettori. In base ai termini del paragrafo 81 della costituzione apostolica Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG), gli elettori che partecipano a qualsiasi tipo di patto, accordo o promessa di voti stretta per mezzo di qualsiasi tipo di obbligazione – tanto di carattere leggero come di carattere forte – incorrono nella pena della scomunica. I termini utilizzati dall’UDG 81 indicano chiaramente che la scomunica deve essere intesa come una scomunica ipso facto che viene imposta nell’atto stesso della trasgressione. In una trasmissione della BBC del 12 marzo 2013, il Dr. Ivereigh ha ammesso di aver incontrato il presunto leader della campagna elettorale, il Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, riconoscendo anche – nella stessa apparizione sulla BBC – che ogni tipo di accordo relativo ai voti è proibito dalla norma papale. In un’intervista sul giornale, Catholic Herald, del 12 settembre 2013, il Cardinale ha ammesso di essere stato il leader di una campagna a favore di colui che sarebbe poi stato eletto come Papa Francesco e che quest’ultimo non solo era a conoscenza del fatto, ma gliene rese anche grazie il giorno successivo all’elezione; il Cardinale ha anche confermato nella stessa intervista che all’epoca del 12 marzo 2013 il Cardinal Bergoglio sapeva che sarebbe stato un candidato e che avrebbe ricevuto un gran numero di voti al primo scrutinio. Nessuno dei Cardinali di cui è stato fatto nome come persone implicate ha mai sostanzialmente o totalmente negato queste affermazioni dal momento in cui sono diventate per la prima volta di dominio pubblico, sei settimane fa, il 23 novembre 2014.*

Le pene stabilite dal Canone 1329 si applicano al Cardinal Bergoglio

In base al Canone 1329, tutti i Cardinali elettori che hanno partecipato a un accordo di questo tipo – dato che il reato non avrebbe potuto essere compiuto senza di loro – incorrono nello stesso tipo di scomunica. Tra questi rientra il Cardinal Bergoglio: se si considera che avrebbe potuto arrestare la campagna che si stava organizzando manifestando semplicemente la sua ripugnanza nei confronti della perpetrazione di un reato, si deve riconoscere, l’eventualità che egli non fosse a conoscenza della natura di quest’ultimo deve essere considerata virtualmente impossibile. In un video di unintervista diffuso recentemente, il Dr. Ivereigh ammette che il Cardinal Bergoglio arrivò a Roma per partecipare al Conclave con l’intenzione di essere un candidato. L’insistenza con cui egli espresse il desiderio di acquistare biancheria intima il giorno dopo l’elezione può anche indicare che fosse cosciente del fatto che il modo in cui fu eletto avrebbe potuto incriminarlo qualora non si fosse mostrato libero di ogni intenzione di essere eletto. Sostenere che Bergoglio non fosse consapevole della natura della campagna significherebbe pretendere che non abbia mai parlato con nessuno dei suoi sostenitori prima delle sessioni chiuse del Conclave, che non abbia esercitato alcuna forma di controllo sulla sua elezione, che non abbia cercato di ottenere il papato e che non si aspettasse di essere eletto.

Il Cardinal Bergoglio fu eletto con 78 voti

Secondo le voci trapelate, il Cardinal Bergoglio avrebbe ottenuto 16 voti al primo scrutinio e avrebbe vinto poi le elezioni all’ultimo ballottaggio del 13 marzo 2013 con 78 voti, solo due in più rispetto alla maggioranza di due terzi richiesta per l’elezione (76). I Cardinali Elettori e quanti hanno loro prestato assistenza nella Cappella Sistina il 12 e 13 marzo 2013 sono le uniche persone che conoscono il numero esatto dei voti. Tuttavia, tutti sono vincolati dal giuramento a non rivelarlo senza il permesso esplicito del Papa. I numeri riportati provengono da presunte indiscrezioni di qualcuno di loro, sorte nel clima d’euforia nel momento che ha seguìto l’elezione di Papa Francesco.

Il Canone 171 invalida l’elezione in ragione della violazione dell’UDG 81

In base alla norma stabilita dal Canone 171 §1, i voti degli elettori scomunicati non possono essere inclusi nel conteggio; il Canone 171 §2 stabilisce che, nel caso in cui essi vengano conteggiati come parte dei voti necessari per raggiungere il numero richiesto per l’elezione, quest’ultima è nulla e non valida. Il comma 3 del primo paragrafo del Canone 171 fa menzione di persone scomunicate per sentenza giudiziale o per decreto; il Canone 20 specifica che tutte le leggi papali come la UDG sono decreti generali; il testo latino dell’UDG 81 usa lo stesso verbo di imposizione specificato come condizione per il Canone 171 §1, ° 3 (innodare). È quindi fuor di dubbio che il Canone 171 invalidi delle elezioni papali in cui il numero di voti necessari per raggiungere il quorum (la maggioranza di due terzi) è stato ottenuto includendo nel conteggio 16 voti di altrettanti elettori scomunicati, come sembra essere il caso dello scandalo del “Team Bergoglio”. Certo, è possibile che qualcuno dei 16 voti emessi al primo scrutinio non siano stati promessi, ma è virtualmente impossibile che meno di due lo siano stati.

Cosa si deve fare adesso

Dato che il caso ha raggiunto un livello sufficiente di attendibilità per quanto riguarda la sua facti species, ossia, in base all’apparenza dei fatti, esso deve essere giudicato dalle autorità competenti.

Inoltre, dato che il caso riguarda l’invalidità delle elezioni, è necessario assicurare la validità di un giudizio in merito in modo tale che – indipendentemente dalla sentenza emessa dal giudizio stesso – le sue conclusioni siano raggiunte in base a un metodo che tutte le parti considerino, di comune accordo, lecito, legittimo e valido.

Se il Cardinal Bergoglio è stato eletto validamente, la sua autorità come Papa sarebbe sufficiente a sbrogliare la materia. Ma nell’ipotesi in cui egli non sia stato eletto validamente, il compito di farlo spetta al Sacro Collegio dei Cardinali in virtù dell’autorità conferita loro dall’UDG 5.

Sembra quindi saggio proporre quanto segue per giudicare il caso dello scandalo del “Team Bergoglio”:

  1. Il Papa convochi un concistoro cui partecipino sia i Cardinali elettori all’epoca in cui è stato eletto tanto quelli che non erano elettori al conclave del 2013, insieme ai Cardinali creati sotto il pontificato di Papa Francesco, che tuttavia non avranno diritto di pronunciarsi e di voto, per loro propria libera decisione.
  2. Il Papa esprima in un concistoro, in tutta umiltà, la sua volontà di abdicare qualora si scoprisse che la sua elezione non era valida.
  3. Il Papa, nel concistoro, esima tutti i Cardinali riuniti dal loro voto di segretezza riguardo a tutte le informazioni concernenti il conclave, in modo che essi possano parlare liberamente.
  4. I Cardinali stabiliscano per voto unanime che il successore di Papa Francesco, nel caso in cui questi abdichi o la sua elezione sia invalidata, esima allo stesso modo tutti loro da tale voto.
  5. Il Decano del Collegio chiami i Cardinali a rispondere – presentando testimonianza individuale – se gli sia stato chiesto di promettere di votare per qualche Cardinale specifico.
  6. I Cardinali, in virtù dell’autorità loro conferita dall’UDG 5, determinino se le testimonianze date mettano in dubbio la validità dell’elezione del 2013, e decidano con giudizio unanime se tale dubbio sia da ritenersi ragionevolmente una minaccia per l’unità della Chiesa.
  7. Papa Francesco confermi qualsiasi cosa essi determinino.
  8. Papa Francesco, nel caso di un giudizio affermativo, abdichi al suo ufficio tramite decreto scritto, in presenza dell’intero Sacro collegio; nel caso di un giudizio negativo, pubblichi i risultati dell’indagine e garantisca ai Cardinali la libertà di parlare in pubblico dell’intero affare una volta che il concistoro sia terminato, al fine di confermare la sua autenticità e mettere a tacere ogni dubbio.

 

Essendo che il caso sembra tanto solido, se quanti sono a conoscenza della falsità o della verità di qualcuno dei fatti o delle interpretazioni canoniche di cui sopra tacciono in questo momento, peccano gravemente o per mancanza di amore per la verità e per la reputazione delle persone coinvolte, o come complici dei fatti. Se le autorità competenti non emetteranno un giudizio su un caso indiscusso, la Chiesa Stessa sarà gravemente danneggiata nella Sua reputazione e nella Sua adesione al Mistero dell’Epifania, quello della manifestazione della Luce, della Verità eterna, incarnata in mezzo a noi.

_____________________

*  Vedi l’articolo Linfondatezza delle recenti smentite del Team Bergoglio– in inglese; ma qualche ora dopo la pubblicazione di quest’articolo, il Nieuwsblad.be in Belgio, pubblica un articolo in quale il Cardinale Danneels, tramite il suo portavoce, smentisce il patteggiamento di voti fatto da lui prima il conclave.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Conner admits Pope Francis recognized his leadership of “Team Bergoglio”

Catholic Herald, Sept 12, 2014: Online edition (Screen Shot by From Rome blog)

Catholic Herald, Sept 12, 2014: Online edition (Screen Shot by From Rome blog)

Dec. 6, 2014: In a letter to the editor of the Monday edition of the Telegraph, Nov. 25th last, the former Cardinal of Westminster strongly denied that he had asked Cardinal Bergoglio to assent to a vote-lobbying campaign in his favor and the involvement of Cardinals in that effort, known as “Team Bergoglio”.

But, in a stunning revelation, published by Miguel Cullen in the Catholic Herald, Thursday, Sept. 12, 2013, and entitled,  Pope sent greetings to the Queen straight after his election, says cardinal, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor had already contradicted his own denial, when he confessed to being the ring-leader of what Dr. Ivereigh nick-named, “Team Bergoglio”, and admited that Pope Francis recognized this, just 2 days after the conclusion of the Conclave in 2013.

The key passages of that report read:

The cardinal also disclosed that he had spoken to the future Pope as they left the Missa pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice, the final Mass before the conclave began on March 12.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor said: “We talked a little bit. I told him he had my prayers and said, in Italian: ‘Be careful.’ I was hinting, and he realised and said: ‘Si – capisco’ – yes, I understand. He was calm. He was aware that he was probably going to be a candidate going in. Did I know he was going to be Pope? No. There were other good candidates. But I knew he would be one of the leading ones.”

The admissions of the Cardinal in that report blow a hole in the hull of the denial, issued by Maggie Doherty, his spokeswoman, just 2 weeks ago, whereby he denied involvement and denied Cardinal Bergoglio knew about the vote-canvassing.

That Pope Francis knew about the Cardinal’s leadership in “Team Bergoglio” is admitted by the Cardinal in the same report, where it says:

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor said: “All the cardinals had a meeting with him in the Hall of Benedictions, two days after his election. We all went up one by one. He greeted me very warmly. He said something like: ‘It’s your fault. What have you done to me?’ 

For a time-line of reports about “Team Bergoglio” from sources round the world, as well as by this blog, see here.