Retired Bishop Suggests Bergoglio Might be Anti-Pope
[Abyssum Abyssus Invocat] Recent commentaries by blogger Steve Skojec (A Brief Note on The Question of a Legally Valid Papal Election) and canon lawyer Edward Peters (Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded.) are very misleading regarding their interpretation of Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 76. Skojec does not acknowledge or reference Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 5 in his commentary, while Peters casually references paragraph 5 but goes on to makes it sound like canon lawyers have a role in the interpretation of Universi Dominici Gregis.
Neither canon lawyers, nor bishops, nor priests, nor laity have standing with regard to the official interpretation of Universi Dominici Gregis.
“Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect, I (Pope John Paul II) decree that all power of issuing a judgment in this regard belongs to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points. I also establish that should it be necessary to discuss these or other similar questions, except the act of election, it suffices that the majority of the Cardinals present should concur in the same opinion.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 5]
It is essential that my commentary (Election of Pope Francis Pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis) be widelydisseminated. Why? Neither fraternal (i.e., Dubia) nor filial correction will dismantle the modernist infrastructure put in place by Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis) – but a finding that the election of Bergoglio (Pope Francis) was invalid will invalidate his selection of modernist bishops and cardinals. Compared to fraternal/filial correction, all concerned Catholics need to understand the significance of my argument – reference modernist infrastructure – that the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis) was not valid.