Below I post a video of John-Henry Westen's interview with Dr. Edmund Mazza, a professor of Church history. The topic of discussion is whether or not Cardinal Bergoglio's election to the papacy was valid. More to that point, the question is whether or not Pope Benedict's resignation was valid. There may be enough canonical anomalies to render it invalid, meaning that the real pope is Benedict XVI, not Francis. We know that progressive prelates lobbied for Pope Francis, in possible violation of Canon Law.
Please consider these matters. Moreover, please do NOT beg off your obligation to be informed about them. We are lay people, yes, but no more can we content ourselves with just minding our own spiritual houses, as it were. If this evil continues without YOU shining a light of truth on them, you may well be held culpable for your indifference to these matters. No more of this "but we're only little lay people" cop-out. No more can we blindly trust our prelates to tell us the unvarnished truth; in fact, that may never have been a morally valid option for us to take.
By the way, things may be falling apart for Francis in the Vatican. Please continue to pray your daily Rosaries.
Canon law has nothing to do with the conclave. John Paul twos document Universi Domenici Gregis stipulated that UDG was the only regnant law. And it specifically stated that any campaigning before the conclave nullified the results. It made other stipulations also to of which were violated. It is a slam dunk that the conclave was invalid. Fortunately, John Paul II said that there need to be no decoration on the matter, if a man is invalidly elected, and we do not need to abide by his statements. He was a prophet, I believe.ReplyDelete
Canon law has much to do with the alleged resignation of Benedict. If the resignation was invalid, then Benedict is still pope, rendering any conclave moot.Delete