Editor’s Note: It has been 6 years since I wrote about this topic, and 15 months since I published the petition to the Bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome, called The Sutri Initiative; but I am nevertheless glad that at least Matt Gaspers is approaching the full truth regarding the proper and only canonical way of rebuking and removing a heretical pope, even if he couches his discussion in merely a theoretical scenario. Let us hope that a comment might be allowed at that post regarding the Initiative.
I posted a comment on the lifesite article directing any reader to your Sutri Initiative page. Hopefully you will get some traffic.
Please go by the lifesite article and give my comment a thumbs up. This way it is more visible in the list of comments and Brother Bugnolo’s Sutri page gets more traffic.
Done.
I tried to comment, but was not allowed. I was told, “LifeSite is in the process of changing it’s commenting system. In the meantime, all new comment registrations are suspended.”
I just commented no problem.
Thanks Liam
Very strange that I am not even able to view the comments at this time in order to read let alone “like” John’s comment.
Gasper’s follow up article can be found at this link:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/pope-francis-election-was-peacefully-and-universally-accepted-a-response-to-mr-mccusker-and-dr-lamont/
I’ll keep trying to comment and/or to like Sutri-type comments.
I am not posting Gasper’s second part, since it is full of grave errors, in that he does understand the distinction between heresy as a crime and heresy as a sin, nor has recourse to the proper principles of law but again like all the Traddies, quotes opinions of theologians who discuss similar issues under a different legal system of their own age, and not under the current code of Canon Law.
However, Lou Verrecchio (https://akacatholic.com/heretic-pope-is-there-a-canonical-loophole/) for his part correctly distinguishes between losing office ipso facto by the pertinacious profession of heresy from being removed from office by a juridical sentence of competent authority. He seems to be approaching, at least in principle, the Sutri Initiative, which clearly distinguishes and contemplates a process of declaring the Apostolic See impeded by patent profession of heresy, and a trial of the man who claims to be pope to see if his claim be truth, a point which a provincial council can try when the metropolitan see is impeded, to a declaration of pertinacity in heresy after a triple rebuke and remonstration with the man.
But as of yet, Verrecchio wont say the words, The Sutri Initiative, probably because being a sedevacantist, his interest is in destroying not repairing the Church.
Try cleaning your cookies and then accessing lifesitenews.com
Thank you @John for your “clearing my cookies” suggestion.
Here’s the scoop: My commenting privileges have yet to be reinstated since being blocked from commenting by Mr. Westen himself back in 2018 for commenting and linking to FromRome.info for the canonical evidence of munus/ministerium and purposeful mistranslations by the Vatican Press Association.
Grifters will continue to grift.
I was, however, able to submit a news tip regarding the need to be the first to do an expose on the Council of Sutri from 1046 and the Sutri Initiative that was proposed back in October 2023. Surely LifeSiteNews isn’t into censorship, is it?
How can any Catholic org not allow Catholics to speak of something which has been discussed since 2018, namely a council to remove a pope? That is censorship. Why are they all censoring to keep Bergoglio in power? Why are all the groups doing this either run by converts, jews or people whose career began in DC or a CIA founded college?
Perhaps others will submit similar “News Tips” to LifeSiteNews and other grifter sites.