+ + +
+ + +
The Book on the Trinity, every faithful Catholic priest would love as his next present
This is Br. Bugnolo's English Translation, of Saint Bonaventure's encylopedic book of theology on the Trinity: With this book, your priest will always have something intelligent and awesomely inspiring to preach to you about
God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!
+ + +
Francis was not valid pope, you said it.
At least for 9 years or so. Invalid pope Francis made invalid Cardinals. For you to ask invalid Cardinals to elect a valid pope is oxymoron.
You should just go ahead now and have people of Rome to elect valid pope ASAP.
Trolling the comments here by making false claims as to what I said or did, I do not appreciate. But I will respond to your last sentence.
Read my article on the Forfeiture of Right first to understand the core legal claim I am avoiding by waiting. Yes, an election now would be juridically valid, but it would not be as defensible against the claims of Cardinals and others in the city, that they were not given time to reconsider their actions. Giving them 90+ days to repent, means that if they do not, there will be no reasonable argument from anyone at Rome or anywhere in the World, that those with the normal right to elect the Pope have forfeited it by invalidly electing Prevost and insisting on him. — Plus, to call a meeting in a large piazza and let everyone know about it, would cost, just for posters, 50 thousand, which has not been raised. Not to mention all the other expenses that must be sustained for things like toilets, security, ambulance, insurance, permissions, radio advertisements, tv advertisements. You ask me to act, but remember, I am a poor franciscan brother, I do not have yet the support from Catholics round the world to do it. Now if you do, then please support the Save Rome Project, and if you are blessed by God to be able to pay all the expenses, then come immediately to Rome and I can take you to all the places necessary to hire and pay who needs to be hired and paid for to organize such a large meeting.
Have you considered replying in a blog post here or a short video to Dorothea Ludwig-Wang, since she wrote to address your points? Naturally she also chided you in other comments for saying you had been banned from using SubStack.
The comment thread is viewable here:
https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/p/what-invalidates-a-papal-election/comment/132881445?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5qfkyc
The full text of that post is verbatim as follows:
“Alexis — Thank you for commenting. I’ll try to keep this as brief and organized as possible.
1. I wasn’t aware that my approach was “rather common” since I have not found a single published scholarly source making the same argument as I did in this article. Would you be so kind as to point me to those sources?
2. Private individuals are permitted to interpret canon law, and this is called doctrinal interpretation. However, they cannot authentically interpret canon law unless such a task has been entrusted to them by the legislator (c. 16). Think of it the same way we treat opinions in theology: you may favor one or disagree with another, but some opinions are well-founded, more or less probable, or merely tolerated, depending on the arguments for or against these opinions and the scholarly credentials of the persons holding them. Without theological opinions or doctrinal interpretation of law, the entire fields of theology and canon law become pointless and nonsensical. My subtitle makes it clear that what I am doing is doctrinal interpretation, and I also call upon the legislator in the last paragraph to issue an authentic interpretation, so the distinction should be clear.
3. Your claim about UDG 5 is not only incorrect but actually the exact opposite of what it states, which is that the College of Cardinals possesses the right of definitive interpretation during the Conclave. Nor does it deny canonists and other scholars the right to have an opinion; however, those opinions are not definitive (refer back to #2 above).
4. The rules of interpretation I cited within the article (including canons 6, 10, 15, 17, 18, and 21) do not restrict their application to general laws and exclude specific laws. On the contrary, canon 17 requires us to examine the purpose and circumstances of the law in question; circumstances are necessarily specific things, and so canon 17 CAN apply to specific laws. Canon 18 even lists entire categories of laws, including laws that restrict the free exercise of rights, penal laws, and exceptions. Rights may be given to many people for many cases or specific persons for specific cases (e.g. the laws surrounding delegation and subdelegation), and the same likewise applies to restricting these same rights. Exceptions are almost always given to deal with specific cases foreseen by the legislator. I could go on but you get the point.
5. I foresaw while writing the article that someone would object to my examples of spelling errors and unforeseen circumstances to discredit my position, and so that objection was already answered in the article itself:
“‘But,’ one may object, ‘these examples concern mistakes made in good faith and circumstances that were genuinely outside of human control. Surely intentional disobedience on the part of the Cardinal electors would lead to far greater canonical consequences!’ While such disobedience could lead to canonical consequences for the individual(s) who broke the law depending on whether such disobedience constituted a canonical delict, the subjective intention of the perpetrators has absolutely no impact on the application of invalidating and disqualifying laws: ‘If [such laws] were to become ineffectual due to ignorance or error, […] there would never be certainty that juridic acts were valid.’ If something is invalid, it is invalid, regardless of whether the act that rendered it invalid was committed through malice, ignorance, or error, a fact that canon 15 states explicitly.”
Now your argument—that UDG 76 applies to “all the prescriptions of the entire constitution as well as those regarding the act of the election”—is in line with what this paragraph responds to. There are a thousand ways in which an election could take place in “any other way” than what the Apostolic Constitution prescribes, including spelling errors and events outside of the Cardinals’ control. Invalidating laws do not cease to be invalidating laws solely due to the gravity or lack thereof of the violation or the subjective intent of the violator. So if your position is that any violation of any part of UDG leads to an invalid election, then you need to OWN your words and recognize that your own interpretation leads to spelling errors and “force majeure” also invalidating an election. You do not get to make an exception for these things simply because you feel like it.
The true irony here is that you attempt to deny my right to private interpretation while engaging in precisely the same activity yourself. If you argue that UDG 76 means that any violation of any provision of the Apostolic Constitution leads to an invalid election, you are already presenting a canonical interpretation. You have already taken on a presumed canonical definition of “any other way.” This is doubly so if you are now going to arbitrarily exclude certain valid examples of legal violations for the sole reason that they cast doubt upon your personal reading of UDG 76. So if we’re both going to engage in interpretation here, we might as well get to the heart of the issue, which is whose interpretation is more well-founded upon on established principles of jurisprudence.
It seems to me that question has already been answered, given that you yourself seem to recognize that your interpretation—when not subjected to arbitrary and illogical exceptions—would lead to unreasonable conclusions that would destroy the very notion of law as an ordinance of reason. And if other scholars have made the same “rather common” argument as I have made here, then it becomes even more clear which opinion is more probable.
——-End of quotation——-
Her argument is praeter rem, and I will reply here, not on her blog of lies.
When you say the law means what it means, you are not intepreting, you are reading the law. If the law does not mean what it says, then it is not a law. Wang is interpreting the law because she is trying to create an argument to alter the meaning of the law, by her ridiculous examples.
133 Cardinals voted, claiming that they had a dispensation to vote in the Conclave. They made that claim on April 30. UDG n 4 forbids dispensations from papal laws during a sedevacante. The Cardinals never claimed to have a derogation of UDG n. 4, therefore they invalidly used their claimed dispensation and DID SOMETHING CONTRARY TO UDG N. 33, when they allowed more than 120 Cardinals to vote. For to allow 133, when the precept says the maximum is 120, is to act contrary to the law. UDG penultimate paragraph says that if anything is done which is contrary to this constitution, it is irritus, that is, it must be regarded as never happened, thus, we must regard the use of the dispensation as never having happened. Therefore, UDG 76 says that if the election is done in any other manner than prescribed in this Constitution, the election is invalid and confers no right upon the elect. To hold an election with 133 beyond the maximum allowed 120, is patently to hold an election “in another manner”.
As you can see, I have only recited the facts and the law and the conclusion. To claim that I am interpreting the law is a bold face dishonest lie. And to be accused of interpreting the law by a woman who wants the “in any other way” not to mean “in any other way”, is both absurd and satanically dishonest. Let her read Rev. 22:15 and see where she will end up by manufacturing such lies.
As for UDG n. 5, it explicitly says that the Cardinals cannot intepret those things which regard the act of election, such as sections of UDG which include n. 68 and 76. So Wang is a patent liar. As for the recent conclave, the Cardinals never even claimed to be using their right in UDG 5 to interpret. So she is using UDG n. 5 as a red herring to distract the argument for the core problem.
And if you like you can post a link to this comment on her blog.
As for her claim about me being banned on substack. I have been on the internet for 30 years, and I cannot remember precisely what accounts i have where I have them. Years ago I tried to comment on a substack and was banend. But to reply to Wangs argument I subscribed to substack. Don’t write me there or follow me there, because I have no intention of using that account futher, which does not mean that I will be a liar if I do or do not. Her absurd claim that I was lying is outrageous.
Finally, she is a member of Opus Dei, and is attempting to defend the same thesis as the author from S. Spain. It appears that Opus Dei immediately when to work to create reasons to justify the claim to the dispensation, as soon as it was announced.
I’m wondering about the demise of Church Militant which was very outspoken about Bergilio and probably the same for Prevost. They are gone. Fewer descending voices and now John Henry Westin gone from another critical Catholic news site. This seems like a systematic destruction of English speaking Catholic news sites that have been critical of the Vatican and the Popes since Benedict “resigned “.
Actually not. Because both supported the globalist narrative that Bergoglio was the pope.
Berg was the most strangest catholic I have seen. How in the heck could he have ever been given a burial in Mary Major is beyond me. Get rid of anything associated with him.
Stephen Kokx just mentioned on Dr. Deep state, a rumour that Westen will go to work for Steve Bannon.
https://youtu.be/89WLPk9hOr0?si=UZn2T4EStqy2pZK7
A good many are cancelling their subscriptions and donations
I have just left an appreciative comment over at OMC Radio TV on this excellent show which reveals the full truths that no other Catholic apostolate is publishing, or is ignorant of, or is prevented from doing by their masonic/globalist paymasters.
It has become increasingly clear over the last two months that the “lockstep” of mis-information regarding Cdl Prevost within the Church’s hierarchy & priesthood & entire corrupt Catholic media [excepting FromRome.Info & OMC Radio TV, of course!] and tbe detestable MSM is on a par with the manifestly evil Scamdemic/Covid-19 “lockstep” propaganda……
I ask – do we know of a single Catholic priest or prelate who is speaking the truth in public and/or on the internet about the ‘rigged’ Conclave & the invalid “election” of Cdl Prevost to the Throne of Peter? I do not know of any in the UK at present who are prepared to ‘stick their head above the parapet’……
“When the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment.”
[St John 16: 8 – Communion antiphon for the 4th Sunday after Easter]
Not to my knowledge. However, I was told in the early 90’s by Father Stravinkas, that the Church was already so corrupt, that I should expect to be groped by my superiors if I became a diocesan priest. And at least one priest told me that prior to his ordination to the priesthood, his own Bishop, who was to ordain him, asked to have sex with him. I also know as a fact, that in a certain institute of priests, virgins are expelled and a bisexual ex-prostitute was ordained, knowing what he had been in life. I also know of cases in which honest seminarians were expelled but one who sired a child out of wedlock while a seminarian was promoted to the priesthood. — These are all things which have never come to light. The amount of corruption in the Church we know of through the press is only the very top of the tip of the iceberg. The fact that so many clergy applauded Fiducia supplicans and Amoris Laetitia has a direct relation with the level of sexual perversion in the clergy.
So with all the revelations of sexual malfeasance which have come to light in the last 30+ years, it might be possible that part of the control system on the Catholic Church involves sexual harassment by the Lavender Mafia, and that any priest who spoke out would be destroyed at many levels or at least victimized by a lot of powerful and nasty networks of the upper clergy, because clearly after Vatican II, that is the group which has taken over the Church.
And I have verification of this as a hypothesis from two priests at Rome, who have been threatened or punished for speaking out against Bergoglio, since they say that none of their peers would lift a finger to help them, and even their superiors in private admitted these priests were telling the truth, but that their immediate superiors could not take action to defend them out of fear of repercussions coming out of the Vatican from the St. Gallen Mafia.
As for published cases, I could cite the assassination of Father Kunz, at Chicago, when he began to speak out against the Lavender Mafia king-pin, Cardinal Bernardine, promoted by John Paul II.
At it did not start after Vatican II, here is the case of a serial killer who was a priest before WWI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Schmidt_(priest)
I knew of Fr. Kunz through a close friend and confidante of his, the late Fr. David Przedwiecki. Over the period of years Fr. Alfred Kunz investigated a number of Mid-West American Bishops/ Cardinals, including Bernadine and many bishops. He prepared a detailed dossier on each of them. Fr. David communicated with John Paul II’s secretary, Dziwisz, and a meeting was arranged in the Vatican for Fr. Przedwiecki to meet with John Paul II and hand deliver the dossiers. When Fr. David returned he gave me a beautiful Apostolic Blessing print, a priceless bronze Pentecost Medallion designed by a famous Italian artist (#3 of 150, the pope got the first and the artist the second copy) and an icon of Our lady of Czestochowa signed by the pope which I have to this day. Fr. David did meet with the pope and handed over the documents. Two weeks later, Fr. Alfred Kunz was given a “Colombian necktie” in the hallway of his church. The authorities pretty much know who the murderer is but won’t do anything about it. At one point, they even questioned and investigated Fr. David as a suspect. It is one example, of many I am sure of how devious and corrupt the leadership of the Church is. As Our Lady of La Salette said, “Cesspools of impurities”. God help us.
Thanks for the intel. Sadly, JP2 was most likely compromised by his involvement in the Emnuela Orlandi case, and once he received the dirt on the American Bishops, he shared that with the accused, so that they could silence Fr. Kunz.
Thanks for that very useful information and, yes, I’m sure that the “Lavender Mafia” within the hierarchy & priesthood have found many devious ways to mentally & physically silence/blackmail those courageous & ‘straight’, honest clergymen who seek to expose the disgusting sewer of clerical corruption & gross immorality!
Some thoughts come to mind:-
– I managed to life a chaste single life before my marriage to dear Edith on midsummers day 1975 and we were blessed with nearly 42 years together in a loving, stable, self-giving, mutually enriching partnership which produced two sons [who have produced three grandsons].
– After Edith’s death in early 2017 [mainly due to Alzheimers’ Disease] and a necessary period of bereavement/mourning I eventually discerned that GOD wished me to resume the life of a chaste single man, since when I have been blessed to receive an inspiring variety of liturgical & administrative responsibilites within my local linked-parishes, my diocese, and elsewhere. This could not have been achieved without the personal virtues of humility, meekness, temperance, brotherly love, diligence, and chastity.
– So it is with much astonishment & utter disgust that I read of the horrendously widespread sodomite-culture within the Church’s hierarchy & priesthood as I personally consider the act of sodomy to be the most repulsive of all sexual sins, indeed we are told that even the demons cannot bear to observe this mortal sin which “cries to Heaven for vengeance”……
– Here in England I do wonder how widespread is the clergy-sodomite-culture but I pray & hope that it is nowhere near as toxic as, for example, in the USA? For sure, one encounters the occasional effeminate bishop or priest but it is literally impossible to tell “what goes on behind closed doors”……
St Bonaventure, pray for us.