“I think there are still various things to be done, but there is no invention on my part: I obey what was decided at the time.”

Readers of this space are well aware of root cause of the Bergoglian Antipapacy, which is the invalid resignation of Pope Benedict. Benedict is still pope, because we easily see elements of substantial error, fear, and coercion in the resignation, nor it being properly manifested, etc.

At any rate, it is interesting to note the eagerness of Bergoglio himself to call out the lawlessness of the faux conclave. It’s like he can’t help it. Lawlessness is always the mark of evil. And if a bunch of apostate Cardinals made backroom deals ahead of time, that means they all excommunicated themselves. Again, the conclave was invalid regardless. Doubly invalid, as it happens. But the fact that he has to keep pointing it out…

From Mark Lambert:

At the beginning of September, in a radio interview with Spanish radio COPE the Pope (sic) made an an under reported comment relating to the discussions which took place between the cardinals before the conclave which elected him. Pope Francis (sic) explicitly confirmed that the current reform of the Church is part of an agenda that was programmed and decided before the 2013 election by a small group of cardinals.

“The reform is what the cardinals wanted from the conclave of March 2013. I did not invent anything, my action since the beginning of the pontificate (sic) consists in achieving what we, the cardinals, had requested in the pre-conclave meetings for the future pope: ‘the next pope will have to do this, this and that. And that is what I have started to implement. I think there are still various things to be done, but there is no invention on my part: I obey what was decided at the time.”

The pope (sic) argues that some of those who supported his election, siding with the most obvious reformers, would not have accepted the full measure of the consequences of their commitment: 

“perhaps some did not realize the significance of what they were saying, or did not imagine the consequences, as it is true that certain themes are disturbing. But there is no originality on my side in the plan implemented,”

These quite brazen comments, when put with the previous reports of a small group of cardinals deliberately plotting to remove Pope Benedict XVI and replace him with a man who would deliver a progressive agenda adds to a growing body of evidence which completely contravenes the current rules on convening conclaves. I can’t help but feel unsurprised, as if we have learnt anything about Pope Francis (sic), it’s that he only cares about rules when they suit him and disregards them if they oppose him. The rules governing conclaves are laid out in section 81 of Universi Dominici Gregis:

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.

Of course, this means very little unless someone is willing to do something about it and there doesn’t seem to be any appetite for that…


8 thoughts on ““I think there are still various things to be done, but there is no invention on my part: I obey what was decided at the time.””

  1. What else, exactly is going to take for traditionalists to get on board? I’m thinking specifically of Mr. Steven O’Reilly.

  2. Pewsitters don’t know these things. Keep helping us to know. It is so disturbing to me to hear that man called holy,father, as on my local Catholic radio. Spirit of Truth help us.

  3. I would say that it is immorality, not lawlessness, that is the mark of evil. Men make laws, which sometimes are just, sometimes are unjust. If I “obey” a law that says Asian people cannot enter a shop because they are Asian, is that lawlessness? No, because it is the law. Is it evil? Yes, it is immoral. If I do not obey that law, I am engaging in lawlessness, but not in immorality.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.