Laramie Hirsch (formerly of Forge and Anvil) has a new substack, which I highly recommend. He needs your help, as he explains here, so if you could manage even a meager subscription, say $4/month, anything helps. Today’s post starts with prophecy and ends with a throttling. Keep with it. -nvp
God’s Prophecies For Cardinal Burke…
…who even MET with Ann Barnhardt
Hindsight is 20/20. And now that the damage has been done and we are left with smoking craters, table scraps, endless clerical effeminacy, and a desolated, low-trust culture, let’s take a look back and consider some Catholic prophecies that likely transpired for those of us living through the Bergoglian regime. Namely, those surrounding Cardinal Burke, who at one time had the power to interrupt the evil machinations subverting the Church today.
There are many prophecies about this laxity from Catholic hierarchy. Today, we will examine just a few. First, we’ll start with antipope Bergoglio’s namesake prophet, St. Francis of Assisi:
“Some preachers will keep silent about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them, not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.”
– from Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, pp. 248-250
A rather broad prophecy. But we get the gist. Some bad things will cascade from the top of the Catholic Church, and the priests will either ignore what’s going on, or they’ll even actively work to destroy Catholicism. They will “keep silent about the truth.” Consequently, there will not be a real pope, but an antipope.
However, we can look to the Americas for a more specific prophecy, directed squarely at the Bergoglian regime. Namely, this prophecy from Quito, Ecuador. I will note in brackets who, particularly, I feel the following prophecy is addressing.
The Sacrament of Holy Orders will be ridiculed, oppressed, and despised [ALL OF THIS WAS DONE BY BERGOGLIO], for in this Sacrament, the Church of God and even God Himself is scorned and despised since He is represented in His priests. The Devil will try to persecute the ministers of the Lord in every possible way [CANCELLED PRIESTS]; he will labor with cruel and subtle astuteness to deviate them from the spirit of their vocation and will corrupt many of them. These depraved priests [FR. JAMES MARTIN], who will scandalize the Christian people, will make the hatred of bad Catholics and the enemies of the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church fall upon all priests.
This apparent triumph of Satan will bring enormous suffering to the good Pastors of the Church, the many good priests, and the Supreme Pastor and Vicar of Christ on earth, who, a prisoner in the Vatican [THIS WAS LIKELY POPE BENEDICT XVI], will shed secret and bitter tears in the presence of his God and Lord, beseeching light, sanctity and perfection for all the clergy of the world, of whom he is King and Father. Further, in these unhappy times, there will be unbridled luxury which will ensnare the rest into sin and conquer innumerable frivolous souls who will be lost. Innocence will almost no longer be found in children, nor modesty in women.
In this supreme moment of need of the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent [THIS IS CARDINAL BURKE].
– Our Lady of Good Success to Mother Mariana of Jesus Torres, January 21, 1610
Okay. Perhaps there’s plenty of blame and culpability to go around. There are other players in this drama that I’m intentionally not mentioning here. But certainly, the main characters in this cast are: Bergoglio, James Martin, Pope Benedict, and Cardinal Burke. I would say the role of these men was instrumental in putting us where we are today.
Cardinal Burke Did Nothing
I hope that Cardinal Burke is having a wonderful time wherever he’s at right now. I wonder if his present endeavors are “off limits” for Prevost’s demolition teams.
Before his current retirement job, His Eminence was Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. He was the leading canon lawyer in the Vatican’s highest court. He had a lot of power and ability to prevent enormous destruction in the Catholic Church. And he did nothing.
He was then removed from his Vatican privileges by antipope Bergoglio in 2014, and sidelined into the role of Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Cardinal Burke took it and liked it. And what is he doing these days? He states that he’s devoting himself to a shrine in Wisconsin.
Why come down so hard on Burke? Why express such disappointment in the man? Because we know with certainty that former-canon-lawyer Burke knows precisely what is wrong in the Catholic Church. He knows quite well that Bergoglio was a fake pope, and that now Prevost is likely another antipope. He knows everything that we, laity, know. And he’s done nothing about it. For years.
As a matter of fact, he had the facts clearly laid out for him by none other than Ann Barnhardt.
Yes, Ann Barnhardt met with Cardinal Burke.
After years of being silent about the matter, Ann Barnhardt finally has told the public about her meeting with the cardinal in her latest podcast: Barnhardt Podcast #233: The Surreptitious Social Life of Ann.
Cardinal Burke had a meeting with Barnhardt before the Covid lockdowns. He took copious notes. The way Ann described it, it is as though that was the first time Burke heard of the antipope situation described in this way. He asked Barnhardt what should be done in regards to the evil cardinal appointments by Bergoglio. She had to explain Ecclesia Supplet to the cardinal—the canon lawyer, the illegally deposed Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. This laywoman had to explain to him the idea of supplied jurisdiction, and that it can’t be used to ratify acts of evil or malice.
Cardinal Burke agreed with Barnhardt that a pope can’t just do whatever he wants, regardless of canon law. He agreed with Barnhardt—at that time when Pope Benedict and Bergoglio were still alive—that it was absurd to think that Pope Benedict had some sort of a master plan to fix the Church. Burke did not think Barnhardt was nuts. From her account, he seemed convinced.
In fact, Barnhardt was allowed to meet with Cardinal Burke a second time in 2020, at a time during the Pandemic when everyone was paranoid and masked up. She sat with him for an hour and forty five minutes and discussed the ongoing disaster.
They went over the Miller Dissertation. This is a 1980 paper more properly called The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology, and it explores the distinction between the Petrine Munus (office) and Ministerium (ministry/function) of the Papacy. This paper lays the groundwork for understanding how Benedict’s resignation from the papacy in 2013 was invalid. Barnhardt went over this with Card. Burke, and he did not disagree with her presentation.
He asked Barnhardt to give her absolutely every note she had on the matter.
Ann flatly essentially told Burke: “This is on your shoulders. You’re basically the highest living churchman right now. Though there are churchmen in the Vatican with higher positions than yours, they aren’t even Catholic.” And she told him that everyone she’s shared this information with agrees that this “Bennyvacantist” explanation—that Bergoglio is an antipope—makes sense and that this is an excellent case; however, these parties can’t “go along with this” until Cardinal Burke gives his approval of this. “I’m waiting for Cardinal Burke to say something.” As Ann recounts saying to the cardinal: “The remnant Church is looking at you, waiting, with bated breath—you—to act on this.”
She added, to his face: “I would solve this before dinner this evening. I would have people come—multiple people come with their phones, with video cameras—and if I were you, I would record a statement saying: ‘Serious canonical irregularities have been identified with regards to the putative resignation proffered by Pope Benedict XVI in February of 2013. Pending further investigation, I hereby declare a state of emergency suspense.”
He did nothing.
Cardinal Burke said to Barnhardt that her argument was extremely logical, extremely well-reasoned, canonically sound. The canonical citations are sound. And “YOU, ANN, ARE NOT CRAZY. AND YOU, ANN, ARE NOT A SCHISMATIC.” The cardinal said this to her.
The Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura has said that Ann Barnhardt’s “Bennyvacantist” stance is neither crazy, nor schismatic. This canon lawyer—the highest in the world—has said that her position is sound.
Yet he did nothing.
And now? The focus of his life is devotion to the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse, Wisconsin.
The highest churchman who knows everything we laity have been discussing for years, who knows our plight, our position, our problems—how we’ve been terrorized and abused—this man who should be coming to our rescue…he has done nothing.
Bittersweet Conclusions
It may well be depressing and a huge let down to know that the right men were in the right place at the right time, and they did absolutely nothing for us. But there are some positive takeaways. For one, we can rest assured that the “Bennyvacantist” position is fine and not schismatic at all. We already knew that, but we can now say we’ve heard it from the lips of Cardinal Burke, himself.
Furthermore, while it seems that the Church will not avoid slipping into a dark period of Judases, we are at least assured that Providence knew this would happen, and we are promised that God will triumph in the end, and that these trials only purify the faithful all the more. As for Cardinal Burke and prelates like him who have done nothing to wrest control of the Church from the grip of Antichrist forces, fortune does not smile upon them:
“Within a short time, all the laws of the Church will fall under the blow of a most unjust and culpable violation. When reports of a threatening order reach their ears, many priests will not be last in breaking the laws (of the Church.) I grieve at the laxity of such a number that it makes Me shudder. I grieve at the little faith that abides in them. They are very guilty; not all of them, but many.
“In their [priests’] aberration, they will break their oaths. The Book of Life contains a list of names that ‘rends the heart.’
“Because of the little respect it has for the apostles of God, the flock grows careless and ceases to observe the laws. The priest himself is responsible for the lack of respect because he does not respect enough his holy ministry, and the place which he occupies in his sacred functions. The flock follows in the footsteps of its pastors; this is a great tragedy.
“The clergy will be severely punished on account of their inconceivable fickleness and great cowardice which is incompatible with their functions.
“A terrible chastisement has been provided for those who ascend every morning the steps of the Holy Sacrifice. I have not come on your altars to be tortured. I suffer a hundredfold more from such hearts than any of the others. I absolve you from your great sins, My children, but I cannot grant any pardon to these priests.”
– The Holy Spirit to Marie Julie Jahenny, June 1881
Not typically vindictive, I would not wish eternal punishment on a guy like Cardinal Burke. I say pray for his soul and ask God for mercy in regards to what he failed to do. And do the same for Pope Benedict as well. I don’t think that any of us would want to see these men not come out of this one way or another. It’s just that their inaction was so completely damaging to all of us. Honestly, it’s ultimately in God’s hands. But I’d choose to pray for these men.
As for the satanic cabal who now lord over us and wait to drop the hammer—in regards to them, I say: pray to God for deliverance.
https://theweltgeist.substack.com/p/gods-prophecies-for-cardinal-burke
Frankly, I believe we’ve reached the point where this sort can only be displaced by violent means. Same for every Western government.
They know this too, and are taking preliminary steps to keep you under by the same coercive means.
Perhaps the soldiers killing the man who looks like the Pope in the text alleging a prophecy of him dying whilst riddled with arrows are actually Catholics.
Burke isn’t stupid. Meeting with Barnhardt didn’t open his eyes. Burke already knew about all of Barnhardt’s revelations
Burke simply has something in his past that Bergoglio threatened to expose. Same with Cardinal Sarah.
Very few are willing to pay the ultimate price for Truth.
Bing!
You know this how?
A simpler explanation is already more evident: DOUBT.
A common fault of “good” men, particularly rationally-driven ones, is a mawing feeling that they are missing something. They will doubt themselves before they will doubt their adversary. And exercise undue restraint upon themselves imagining it prudence and humility.
Conmen and gaslighters know how to take advantage of these traits in the people they exploit. Even now you can find people bending over backwards to give Leo the benefit of any far-fetched doubt over his meetings with Martin and his alphabets. The good ol’ Innocent-until-proven-guilty by quantum measures of certainty excuse.
We see it all the time in what is commonly labelled “conservatism.” Lefties let criminals go free, and Conservatives let Lefties go free, because maybe the Lefty accidentally did it or didn’t know or we misinterpreted him. This is why nothing happens.
“Judge not, lest ye be judged,” is the attitude of the Conservatives, who forget that the whole quote discusses hypocrisy, which is why the modernists love deceitfully leveraging it against them.
Sad but most likely true…their silence leaves us no option but to arrive at this conclusion. God have mercy on them and us all.
Mike, let’s be honest, you didn’t listen to the podcast. Cardinal Burke was taking notes at a brisk rate, and asking many questions. Then he invited her back for a second audience. But I am afraid you are probably quite right about the blackmailable part.
Hmm, I thought she requested a second audience..
Regardless of whether she requested it, she was invited back for a second audience. My words do not deceive.
Context and narrative matter Mark, you know that – it can spin the story. She initiated and he was gracious to have her back to hear what she had to say. The same applies with Fr. James Martin meeting with the Pope. Did Martin request or did Pope Leo initiate the meeting. If Pope Leo initiated it, why? Cardinal Burke met and listened to Ann and perhaps ultimately decided that she was wrong. I don’t believe that he was being blackmailed. And of course, Our Lady of Good Success prophesying in the 17th century about our time, was not prophesying about Cardinal Burke. Of course not. It’s probably about the Pope(s), Benedict and Leo specifically, remaining silent amidst the chaos in the church.
This is all from a guy who is convinced we’ve lived through 13 years of the most obvious anti-Pope in Church history.
Devil’s Advocate time…
“For one, we can rest assured that the “Bennyvacantist” position is fine and not schismatic at all. We already knew that, but we can now say we’ve heard it from the lips of Cardinal Burke, himself.”
No, we actually cannot say that we’ve heard it from the lips of Cardinal Burke.
We’ve got hearsay. Anne says she met with Cardinal Burke twice, what does Cardinal Burke have to say about that meeting? Has he confirmed these meetings even took place? Anne said she’s got the receipts for this meeting in the form of emails with Cardinal Burke’s staff. I’d like to see those too.
I’m not going to just take someone’s word for something of this magnitude.
I could easily say, “I met with Benedict XVI in Rome before he died, and he told me he was proud of the job Francis was doing.” You’d all be right to want a little bit more proof and evidence for such a meeting and such a statement than just merely my say-so.
Cardinal Burke could have to gone to this meeting. He could’ve taken copious notes. And finally…
Cardinal Burke could 100% believe that Ann has not made a good enough case. I could be just that simple.
Ask any lawyer. A prosecutor could 100% believe they arrest the right guy, they’ve got all the evidence that points to him, they think they’ve got him dead-to-rights, and ten minutes after the Jury goes to deliberate, they come back with a verdict of “Not Guilty.”
The jury can all say, “We don’t think you made your case.”
It could be that Cardinal Burke 100% believes Ann, and he just doesn’t want to do anything because he is just that lazy. That’s another possibility.
It could also be that they’ve got some blackmail material on Burke from his past. They could threaten him, his staff, their families with false blackmail material. They could’ve told him that if he does anything gigabytes of illegal videos and images will be found on his computer and the computers of his staff and their families. They could’ve told him they’re going to burn him, and the entire Catholic Traditional movement down with him.
They could’ve left manilla envelope under his door after word of this “meeting” with Ann got out that just contained a photo of Cardinal Pell to “send a message.”
Cardinal Burke could have decided that acting would do more harm than good to Traditional Catholicism. He might know that if he acts, another document waiting in the wings that fully suppresses the TLM will come out, and he doesn’t want to be the cause of that.
He could’ve looked at the stats, and he’s decided that it is just better to let the Novus Ordo die over this century, and after looking at seminarians and new priests under his wing, he knows future Bishops and even Cardinals among them will be the only ones left standing to pick up the pieces, and restore things.
My own two worthless cents on another topic:
All that being said, I think Ann needs to do a better job of explaining why Leo XIV is an “antipope.” She made a very good argument that Benedict never validly resigned, he was still Pope up until his death, bergoglio was an antipope because the Pope was still alive and in office, not to mention bergoglio did everything he seemingly could to show the world he wasn’t Pope.
But both the Pope and the antipope were dead at the time of the conclave of 2025. Just because the guy you don’t like was elected, and is probably going to be a horrible Pope as time moves on, doesn’t make him an antipope.
The arguments she is starting make for that point can also be applied to every other Pope, Benedict XVI and back to John XXIII. That’s the path the 1958-Sedes are on.
POP, good comment.
“They could’ve told him they’re going to burn him, and the entire Catholic Traditional movement down with him” – But that’s the key, isn’t it? The only way to defeat blackmail, without becoming a criminal blackmailer-murderer yourself, is to release all blackmail material yourself.
On the one hand, we don’t want to scandalize the (shaky) faithful. On the other hand, what “traditional” prelates are doing up to now clearly does not work. Going through a period of extreme scandal, confessing to crimes, apologizing for crimes, in order to destroy the blackmail machinery (and hopefully much of the Antichurch too), may be the only real way forward.
“do a better job of explaining why Leo XIV is an antipope” – I’m no expert & can’t speak for AB or anybody, but the 2 arguments that I do keep seeing are 1) heresy – if the Pope is too manifestly evil / heretical, he loses authority, and 2) allegations that Leo’s election was pre-arranged too much, i.e., pre-arranged enough to violate canon law. Point (2) to me seems shaky or ‘in the eye of the beholder”.
The bene-sedes do seem to be moving into a stance of “Every Pope from Bergoglio onward is an Antipope, chiefly because we are the Faith’s defenders and we don’t like him, until & unless we happen to get to a Pope whom we do like.” I’m not saying they’re wrong, mind you. I’m saying, it is what it is. The issue is destined to drag on.
If Ann was lying about meeting Burke or the things Burke told her, then he can publicly deny it.
If Ann gets attacked for telling the truth, he ought to publicly affirm it.
If Burke believes Ann was right, or at least had something of substance that needs investigation, he is obligated to pursue it, lest souls be lost to an Antipapacy.
If Burke believed Ann was wrong, he ought to have publicly addressed it and explained why, otherwise he is sitting on his butt allowing souls to be in errant schism.
He has chosen silence. And there is no sign that he is even doing anything quietly.
If Burke is being blackmailed, there’d be no reason for any of the open petty retributive actions they’ve taken against him. Even then, he still has no excuse.
At best they can hold something else hostage, like TLM, but priorities dictate that is also not an excuse. If the only TLM in town is being said by an open heretic and suspect sodomite, I ain’t going.
If the questions lead to further consideration of ’58 sedevacantism – so what? Are we interested in the TRUTH, wherever it leads, or aren’t we?
It is more probable that Burke feels the historic weight on his shoulders, but doesn’t want to carry that cross. Just as Putin is aware that NATO is all in on war with Russia, but doesn’t want to announce the obviousness of WWIII even after every pretext for war has been triggered from NATO troops and personnel and satellite targeting directly involved in attacking undisputed Russian tertitory and nuclear detection systems… No, he’ll keep redefining terms to “terrorist activities”, “special military operations”, and dialogue.
Burke doesn’t want to go down in history to make the declaration and push the nuclear button. Likely because he doesn’t even want to believe it’s happening.
But it IS HAPPENING!
If Burke has mawing doubts, I’ve got the best cure for him – sunlight!
Call for the honest investigation, and let providence take it’s course. Sometimes all God requires of you is to tap the first domino.
How can she make a good argument for Pope Leo not being the Pope – She does not have one!! And neither does Mazza. It’s all feelings in my opinion. Their arguments on Benedict were very good. So Leo has not fired Tucho and also Leo allegedly tweeted in support of Amoris Laetitia when he was Cardinal Prevost and may therefore have been a material heretic. These are their arguments. They need to take some time off and stop following church current affairs for some time.
Easy – demonstrate that Leo does and promotes whatever Franky did, knowing like Franky that they contradict the faith, and therefore Leo cannot be Catholic. So valid election or not, we have an objective obstinate heretic on our hands.
What’s your solution, Kevin?
Nothing?
If they take time off, who’s going to watch the watchmen?
You?
Do you have any meetings with Burke or Prevost scheduled?
Why is it left to Ann to do what all the red-hatted morons who attended the conclave are supposed to do? When are they going to come back from their decades of time off and do their jobs?
“Easy – demonstrate that Leo does and promotes whatever Franky did, knowing like Franky that they contradict the faith,…”
Johnno – do you think that Benedict and the other post V2 popes did not push the V2 agenda? They promulgated the new mass. What’s the difference between Leo and them. Bergoglio was different and the argument for him being an antipope based on Benedict’s resignation is strong and valid in my opinion. There’s no evidence that Leo is a FORMAL heretic. He’s only suspected of material heresy, and I believe that’s in the past.
It’s also not left for Ann to do this. This is not a vocation.
Very good question Kevin.
The sede side has been asking that for years.
Perhaps they’re on to something?
You’re right that Ann doesn’t have any vocational obligation to do this. Neither did Joan D’Arc. And neither did all of us unelected unlettered non-experts during covidamageddon.
Sit out if you want beside Burke and don’t rock the Barque. The rest of us will not be lukewarm and will try to nudge it back on course, even if the entire crew and it’s “captain” are drunk on their new wine.
The Moderator approves of this comment.
The one who should speak will fall silent. Has a Galadriel like quality to it. It’s a mess of gargantuan proportion now. I don’t know that declaring a state of emergency would have done anything. I also don’t quite get how Burke would not have already discerned the invalid resignation long before AB did.
A few comments have been made about the 2025 Conclave.
Was it valid or invalid? Did it produce a pope or an anti-pope?
To argue that the papacy of Leo is decided by something he did AFTER the 2025 Conclave is to put the cart before the horse.
The 2025 Conclave answered the validity question if one looks at it through the appropriate lens(es).
No interpretation needed, just invoke the applicable Canon Law and Conclave law.
It takes more than an election to produce a valid pope.
All the laws of the Church having to do with papal elections, no matter how remotely related, must be obeyed.
They were not obeyed, and so the 2025 Conclave was invalid.
This bears repeating again and again and again.
Unless we ask the right question, we have no hope of arriving at the right answer.
The Cardinals claimed a dispensation from the maximum number of 120 Cardinal-Electors set by papal conclave law in UDG, no. 33 (JPII’s Universi Dominici gregis).
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html
They allege they were given a dispensation by the fact that “Pope” Francis [sic] appointed more than 120 Cardinals.
This argument fails on the basis that their appointment is to the office of Cardinal, not to the function of Cardinal-Elector.
Besides, such a dispensation from WRITTEN law requires a WRITTEN document verifying the dispensation, and no such document exists.
As Canon Lawyers, Cardinals Burke and Prevost know this.
Hence, the Cardinals knowingly and willfully violated several other laws, as will now be elaborated.
Canon 335 forbids the modification of any law of Church governance during the Sede Vacante (no sitting pope) period.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann330-367_en.html
That’s what the Cardinal-Electors did; they modified laws of Church governance.
Hence, they violated Canon 335.
As Canon Lawyers, Cardinals Burke and Prevost know this.
On top of that, UDG no. 4 explicitly forbids dispensations from UDG, so that was also violated.
It further declares such dispensations null and void.
“4. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, laws issued by the Roman Pontiffs can in no way be corrected or modified, nor can anything be added or subtracted, nor a dispensation be given even from a part of them, especially with regard to the procedures governing the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Indeed, should anything be done or even attempted against this prescription, by my supreme authority I declare it null and void.”
As Canon Lawyers, Cardinals Burke and Prevost know this.
UDG no. 68 was violated that forbids counting ballots and requires they be burned when the number of [allowed] Cardinals doesn’t match the number of ballots.
UDG no. 5 that allows Cardinal-Electors to adjudicate doubtful points is not applicable because the limit of 120 Cardinal-Electors is not a doubtful point.
The Cardinal-Electors alleged their right to dispensation from UDG no. 36 which states that “A Cardinal of Holy Roman Church who has been created and published before the College of Cardinals thereby has the right to elect the Pope”.
However, the way Church law works that has been laid out stepwise, as UDG was, is that a precept is subordinate and subject to all precepts occurring before it.
Thus, no. 36 must abide by no. 33’s limit of 120 electors.
And guess what, no. 36 says so explicitly by stipulating “in accordance with the norm of No. 33 of the present Constitution”.
As Canon Lawyers, Cardinals Burke and Prevost know this.
UDG no. 76 is the nuclear result of violating multiple precepts of UDG.
“76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”
The 2025 Conclave took place in a way other than that prescribed by UDG, and so it is “null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”
The Promulgation Statement at the end of UDG reads:
“Wherefore, after mature reflection and following the example of my Predecessors, I lay down and prescribe these norms and I order that no one shall presume to contest the present Constitution and anything contained herein for any reason whatsoever. This Constitution is to be completely observed by all… I declare completely null and void anything done by any person, whatever his authority, knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.”
In an ABC News interview of one of Cardinal Prevost’s brothers, Mr. John Prevost, he says that his brother was contacted about his high standing vis-à-vis the papacy.
John Prevost says straight out that his brother was told he was in the top three for the papacy 1-2 days after Bishop Bergoglio’s death, before the Conclave started.
Watch starting at about 40:10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpvn9M63-Iw (actual video of John Prevost interview at about 40:54)
This could only have come about by an agreement which committed votes to Prevost prior to the Conclave.
That’s a high ecclesial crime.
This activates UDG no. 81.
All who participated incurred Latae Sententiae automatic excommunication with no need for declaration.
“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.”
Thus, an unknown but large number of Cardinal Electors were excommunicated by their pact-making.
This renders them incapable of voting since Canon 1331 strips all ecclesial functions from a person who is excommunicated.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib6-cann1311-1363_en.html
It matters not that we don’t know who was involved, which is reason enough to declare the Conclave irrita (as if it never occurred) and begin again.
The Cardinal-Electors have absolutely no valid principle of law to justify their lawless act.
That lawless act invalidated the 2025 Conclave.
Any talk of all the bad things Leo [sic] has done is incomplete without at least a cursory explanation that the 2025 Conclave was invalid.
The 120 cardinal electors was dispensed with as every Cardinal of voting age has a right to participate in the conclave, as per canon law, so there!
Unlike a Pope whose office is from Divine Law, a Cardinal’s office is from Church Law. Thus, everything a Cardinal does is defined by Church Law.
As for the specific function of voting in a Conclave, rights and limits are defined by JPII’s Universi Dominici gregis (UDG).
This is part of the Magisterium, so its legal force survives beyond the lifetime of JPII until such time as it is revised by another Pope, just as JPII revised Paul VI’s Papal Conclave Law, and just as is true of ANY AND ALL Popes’ actions until they are abrogated by another Pope.
All actions of all Popes survive those Popes deaths until abrogated by another Pope.
That is, and was, and always will be the way the Papacy works.
After all, it would be rather illogical to say we’ll apply this part but not that part of UDG. It would be rather illogical to say we don’t follow Canon Law anymore because that was revised by JPII, but now he’s dead, so Canon Law no longer applies.
Obviously, JPII’s revised Canon Law still applies after JPII’s death.
Similarly, JPII’s UDG still regulates conclaves until another Pope revises it.
I would point out Canon 359 which limits a Cardinal’s rights in the Sede Vacante period.
“Canon 359 When the Apostolic See is vacant, the college of cardinals possesses only that power in the Church which is attributed to it in special law.”
Canon 359 says explicitly that the College of Cardinals rights during the Sede Vacante period is determined SOLELY by special law, that is, NOT Canon Law.
That special law is UDG, and only UDG.
The claim that the right to vote in a conclave is found in Canon Law is erroneous; Canon Law says it doesn’t determine the voting rights of Cardinals in the Sede Vacante period.
So, when UDG no. 33 says 120 Cardinal-Electors maximum, 120 it is, and any deviation is a serious violation of non-negotiable law.
JPII states in the introduction to UDG that “In the present historical circumstances, the universality of the Church is sufficiently expressed by the College of one hundred and twenty electors, made up of Cardinals coming from all parts of the world and from very different cultures. I therefore confirm that this is to be the maximum number of Cardinal electors…”
UDG no. 36 does state the right of a Cardinal to vote (if under 80), but it also stipulates that this precept is subject to the 120 limit of UDG no. 33.
UDG no. 4 forbids any dispensation from the precepts of UDG, so no dispensation was legally possible.
Hence, the alleged dispensation was dead in the water and a high ecclesial crime the moment it was uttered.
UDG no. 76 states “76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”
Therefore, the 2025 Conclave election was null and void, and Cardinal Prevost retained no right to the Papacy.
Thus, “Leo” is not a valid pope.
If a man who sits in the Chair of Peter is not a valid Pope, then he is an antipope.