Bishop Emeritus René Henry Gracida
#1
Has anyone heard some of the things Bishop Gracida has said about the acting Pope on his blog since October ?  In addition to openly supporting the Dubia and signing his name to the Filial Correction. He's considered the possibility that Francis is an Antipope. See Below

 
Quote:Only God knows whether or not Francis is an Antipope.
There is no doubt that he was elected a pope, but is he a pope or is he an antipope?
There is doubt that his election was both valid and licit, there is good reason to believe that it was either illicit but valid or licit and invalid. The reason for the confusion is that the Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis [of John Paul II], governing papal conclaves provides for the automatic excommunication of any cardinal who participates in a conspiracy to cause or prevent the election of a cardinal. There is no doubt that Francis was party to a conspiracy to get him elected. Therefore it is a legitimate question whether or not it is possible for an excommunicated cardinal to be both licitly and validly elected pope.
All of this combined with doubt about the validity of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI justifies doubt concerning whether Francis is THE pope.
There is some evidence that Benedict was forced to resign. If that is true, his resignation was invalid. The one person who could have ruled on the validity or invalidity of his resignation was the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura who at that time was Cardinal Raymond Burke. The first act of Francis as Pope was to remove Cardinal Burke as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura and to appoint Cardinal Pinto, a supporter of Francis. If Pope Benedict’s resignation was forced it was invalid and he is still the Pope of the Church but with the chair of Saint Peter occupied by an antipope.
[…]
I hope that all of this helps you to understand the complexity of the present situation in the Church.
ABYSSUM
(“There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven”Abyssus Abyssum Invocat, Sep. 5, 2017; special formatting removed.)

And over the weekend, on his blog, Bishop Gracida wrote that " “Francis’ heterodoxy is now official.”   The sad news is that the Bishop is 94 years old, though I pray God will give him at least a few more years.
Reply
#2
(12-05-2017, 01:05 PM)Eric F Wrote: Has anyone heard some of the things Bishop Gracida has said about the acting Pope on his blog since October ?  In addition to openly supporting the Dubia and signing his name to the Filial Correction. He's considered the possibility that Francis is an Antipope. See Below
 Peace.....some of these articles are so full of "perhaps, doubt, if's, but, question, is or is not possible, if that is true" - how can one actually know anything factual from them?  As you said, "Only God knows".....angeltime
 
Quote:Only God knows whether or not Francis is an Antipope.
There is no doubt that he was elected a pope, but is he a pope or is he an antipope?
There is doubt that his election was both valid and licit, there is good reason to believe that it was either illicit but valid or licit and invalid. The reason for the confusion is that the Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis [of John Paul II], governing papal conclaves provides for the automatic excommunication of any cardinal who participates in a conspiracy to cause or prevent the election of a cardinal. There is no doubt that Francis was party to a conspiracy to get him elected. Therefore it is a legitimate question whether or not it is possible for an excommunicated cardinal to be both licitly and validly elected pope.
All of this combined with doubt about the validity of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI justifies doubt concerning whether Francis is THE pope.
There is some evidence that Benedict was forced to resign. If that is true, his resignation was invalid. The one person who could have ruled on the validity or invalidity of his resignation was the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura who at that time was Cardinal Raymond Burke. The first act of Francis as Pope was to remove Cardinal Burke as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura and to appoint Cardinal Pinto, a supporter of Francis. If Pope Benedict’s resignation was forced it was invalid and he is still the Pope of the Church but with the chair of Saint Peter occupied by an antipope.
[…]
I hope that all of this helps you to understand the complexity of the present situation in the Church.
ABYSSUM
(“There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven”Abyssus Abyssum Invocat, Sep. 5, 2017; special formatting removed.)

And over the weekend, on his blog, Bishop Gracida wrote that " “Francis’ heterodoxy is now official.”   The sad news is that the Bishop is 94 years old, though I pray God will give him at least a few more years.
Reply
#3
(12-05-2017, 01:05 PM)Eric F Wrote: Has anyone heard some of the things Bishop Gracida has said about the acting Pope on his blog since October ?  In addition to openly supporting the Dubia and signing his name to the Filial Correction. He's considered the possibility that Francis is an Antipope. See Below

 
Quote:Only God knows whether or not Francis is an Antipope.
There is no doubt that he was elected a pope, but is he a pope or is he an antipope?
There is doubt that his election was both valid and licit, there is good reason to believe that it was either illicit but valid or licit and invalid. The reason for the confusion is that the Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis [of John Paul II], governing papal conclaves provides for the automatic excommunication of any cardinal who participates in a conspiracy to cause or prevent the election of a cardinal. There is no doubt that Francis was party to a conspiracy to get him elected. Therefore it is a legitimate question whether or not it is possible for an excommunicated cardinal to be both licitly and validly elected pope.
All of this combined with doubt about the validity of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI justifies doubt concerning whether Francis is THE pope.
There is some evidence that Benedict was forced to resign. If that is true, his resignation was invalid. The one person who could have ruled on the validity or invalidity of his resignation was the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura who at that time was Cardinal Raymond Burke. The first act of Francis as Pope was to remove Cardinal Burke as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura and to appoint Cardinal Pinto, a supporter of Francis. If Pope Benedict’s resignation was forced it was invalid and he is still the Pope of the Church but with the chair of Saint Peter occupied by an antipope.
[…]
I hope that all of this helps you to understand the complexity of the present situation in the Church.
ABYSSUM
(“There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven”Abyssus Abyssum Invocat, Sep. 5, 2017; special formatting removed.)

And over the weekend, on his blog, Bishop Gracida wrote that " “Francis’ heterodoxy is now official.”   The sad news is that the Bishop is 94 years old, though I pray God will give him at least a few more years.


The bolded part would seem to be absolutely at odds with the teaching of the Church on this matter, i.e., that the universal and peaceful acceptance of a Pope is an infallible sign that he is the true Pope, EVEN IF there was an irregularity in his election. 

Quote:"Meantime, notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matters in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII is [present tense] the legitimate successor of St. Peter’; similarly … one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.’ For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession." (Msgr. Van Noort, Sources of Revelation, p. 265)

And even more explicity:


Quote:Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope falling into heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.


Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.  Cardinal Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-613

And finally, from St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church.



Quote:“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff.”

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peacefu...ce-of.html

Francis is the Pope, he is just a bad one.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dave01's post:
  • In His Love
Reply
#4
Here's an interview with Bishop Gracida from last year in which he talks about the need for a Lay Uprising. Hard to believe this is a 93 yr old man (he's 94 now), he's so quick and alert.



                                                       Very refreshing words from a Bishop. So much better than the typical "never question anything a Bishop says, because they have theological knowledge you could never acquire in many lifetimes" nonsense that's promoted of late.
Reply
#5
(12-06-2017, 12:45 PM)Eric F Wrote: Here's an interview with Bishop Gracida from last year in which he talks about the need for a Lay Uprising. Hard to believe this is a 93 yr old man (he's 94 now), he's so quick and alert.



                                                       Very refreshing words from a Bishop. So much better than the typical "never question anything a Bishop says, because they have theological knowledge you could never acquire in many lifetimes" nonsense that's promoted of late.

I cannot understand how it is possible that this courageous Bishop Gracida hasn't yet been excommunicated.
He has the same discourse as the colombian Pr Jose Galat who was excommunicated in last july.
Reply
#6
Maybe the acting Pope thinks it would look bad to excommunicate a retired 94 year old Bishop.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)