Revealed: how British cardinal fixed Vatican conclave for his friend Pope Francis

  • Thread starter Thread starter BryantJ33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Convienient the story comes out after the key individual has died…so it’s just a gossip piece. Besides, thats how popes are elected.
 
Just as we thought…right on cue.

The Pope Haters come out of the woods when they learn there are no Mods…they’re having a free for all and we haven’t even moved yet.

Garbage.
Yeah, Go ahead, tell ALL your friends, You can have a little hate fest all together.
Honestly, aren’t there enough of the rad sites for people?

Yuck,
blah blah blah indeed. :mad:
 
pianistclare said:
Just as we thought…right on cue.

The Pope Haters come out of the woods when they learn there are no Mods…they’re having a free for all and we haven’t even moved yet.

Garbage.
Yeah, Go ahead, tell ALL your friends, You can have a little hate fest all together.
Honestly, aren’t there enough of the rad sites for people?

Yuck,
blah blah blah indeed. :mad:
Click to expand...
If this is any clue how the new CAF will be…no es bueno.
 
BryantJ33 said:
JOHN PAUL II
SUPREME PONTIFF
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS
ON THE VACANCY
OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE
AND THE ELECTION
OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF
  1. In the same way, I wish to confirm the provisions made by my Predecessors for the purpose of excluding any external interference in the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, in virtue of holy obedience and under pain of excommunication latae sententiae, I again forbid each and every Cardinal elector, present and future, as also the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and all other persons taking part in the preparation and carrying out of everything necessary for the election, to accept under any pretext whatsoever, from any civil authority whatsoever, the task of proposing the veto or the so-called exclusiva, even under the guise of a simple desire, or to reveal such either to the entire electoral body assembled together or to individual electors, in writing or by word of mouth, either directly and personally or indirectly and through others, both before the election begins and for its duration. I intend this prohibition to include all possible forms of interference, opposition and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree, or any individual or group, might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope.
  2. 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.
  3. I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void.
  4. With the same insistence shown by my Predecessors, I earnestly exhort the Cardinal electors not to allow themselves to be guided, in choosing the Pope, by friendship or aversion, or to be influenced by favour or personal relationships towards anyone, or to be constrained by the interference of persons in authority or by pressure groups, by the suggestions of the mass media, or by force, fear or the pursuit of popularity. Rather, having before their eyes solely the glory of God and the good of the Church, and having prayed for divine assistance, they shall give their vote to the person, even outside the College of Cardinals, who in their judgment is most suited to govern the universal Church in a fruitful and beneficial way.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html
Click to expand...
what i highlighted in red seems to specifically apply to Cardinal electors. Since the Cardinal who supposedly did the “fixing” was over the age limit to be an elector, does that stuff technically apply to him? I dont know, just a question that i thought of.

Anyway, none of this make Pope Francis any less the Pope.
 
The Telegraph has been used as a news source on this forum on numerous occasions, why should this be different. It’s like attempting to shelter oneself from news stories some people are uncomfortable with.
 
Does anyone honestly believe that the shocking elevation of Cardinal Karol Wojtyla to the position of Pope of the Roman Catholic Church occurred in a vacuum? The Conclave is a gathering of human beings , not cherubim and serafim , and while the Holy Spirit is surely active among them , they are still confined by their natures.

God is in charge. The trust must always be that His Holy Will is forever done , regardless of human variables. I know that I am thankful for both St. John Paul II and Pope Francis.
 
Apart from the question as to whether a non-elector cardinal was even bound by the terms of the Apostolic Constitution, surely there is a significant difference between “lobbying,” and “fixing the election,” which implies tampering with the voting process to guarantee an outcome - say, Chicago-style (no offense intended).
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
Apart from the question as to whether a non-elector cardinal was even bound by the terms of the Apostolic Constitution, surely there is a significant difference between “lobbying,” and “fixing the election,” which implies tampering with the voting process to guarantee an outcome - say, Chicago-style (no offense intended).
Click to expand...
Very cogent recognition of the distinction between “influencing (lobbying)”, and "assuring (fixing).
 
pianistclare said:
Just as we thought…right on cue.

The Pope Haters come out of the woods when they learn there are no Mods…they’re having a free for all and we haven’t even moved yet.

Garbage.
Yeah, Go ahead, tell ALL your friends, You can have a little hate fest all together.
Honestly, aren’t there enough of the rad sites for people?

Yuck,
blah blah blah indeed. :mad:
Click to expand...
You people are hilarious. The Telegraph and Catholic Culture make for a hate fest?

How about EWTN?

Oops…

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-danneels-part-of-mafia-club-opposed-to-benedict-xvi

*The cardinal said he was part of a secret club of cardinals opposed to Pope Benedict XVI.

He called it a “mafia” club that bore the name of St. Gallen. The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, to make it “much more modern”, and for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to head it. The group, which also comprised Cardinal Walter Kasper and the late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, has been documented in Austen Ivereigh’s biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer.*
 
WOW, look at all this “hate”!!! From Catholic Answers, owner of this website!!! :bowdown::bigyikes:

Great confusion

As Burke explains at the beginning of the interview, “Portions of [Amoris Laetitia] contain ambiguities that cannot be easily untied and are causing great confusion. Sharing the pope’s devotion to Our Lady, Untier of Knots, we are asking him to clarify these ambiguous statements.” The “we” refers to Burke and three retired cardinals who jointly wrote to Francis: Walter Brandmüller, Carlo Caffara, and Joachim Meisner.

In the interview Burke notes that what the cardinals have done isn’t as cheeky as it may seem. “The process of submitting formal questions is a venerable and well-established practice in the Church,” though, admittedly, such questions usually are addressed to lesser officials than popes. (The dubia also were sent to Cardinal Ludwig Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.)

The four cardinals haven’t been the only ones asking for clarification. “In the summer of 2016,” says Burke, “forty-five academics, including some prelates, wrote to the Holy Father and to the College of Cardinals, asking the pope to repudiate a list of erroneous propositions that can be drawn from portions of Amoris Laetitia. This received no public response.”

That was followed by a publicly circulated declaration backing the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage. Many bishops, priests, and laymen signed the declaration, but it too has received no public response.

Loyal to Christ above all

All well and fine, notes McKenna, but some Catholics think such actions amount to disloyalty.

Not so, answers Burke. He and the other cardinals “are striving to be loyal to the Holy Father by being loyal to Christ above all.” I suppose you could say it’s the Harry Truman principle: the buck stops here, at the pope’s desk, so it is proper to ask the pope to give definitive explanations of what the contested passages mean, particularly since he signed off on them.

“This is my duty as a cardinal of the Catholic Church,” continues Burke. “I was not created a cardinal in order to receive an honorary position. Rather, Pope Benedict XVI made me a cardinal to assist him and his successors in governing the Church and teaching the Faith. . . . I would not be fulfilling my duty as a cardinal, and therefore as counselor to the pope, if I remained silent on an issue of such serious matter.”

Some orthodox Catholics, including at least one prominent apologist, say there was no reason for the cardinals’ action because the ambiguities in Amoris Laetitia already have been clarified sufficiently—not, admittedly, by the pope himself but by surrogates such as Cardinal Christoph Schönborn.

I disagree. The five questions submitted by the cardinals are framed precisely and narrowly, and I don’t think any of them has been answered cleanly by anyone in authority: not Schönborn, not Müller, and not the pope.

Not that answering them would be a burden on anyone. It doesn’t take half an hour to read Seeking Clarity slowly, and the five questions are phrased to elicit a Yes or No answer. I can see no good reason for no response having been forthcoming, and, so far as I know, no one has offered an explanation of why the pope has ignored the submission.

This doesn’t strike me as the best way for him to have ended the Year of Mercy.

Karl Keating
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/sounds-of-silence

–

WITH THEIR SHOCKING publication of new norms for permitting divorced and remarried Catholics to return to the reception of Holy Communion, the bishops of Malta have shown how great errors can grow from tiny seeds…

What an appallingly defeatist idea, and one that is without analog in Catholic morality. Where else do bishops teach that it’s impossible to do what’s right? In what other area does the Church offer people this kind of moral compromise? After all, sexual continence may be hard for other people, too…

In such examples the absurdity is thick. But according to footnote 329 and the bishops of Malta, apparently not when it comes to divorce and remarriage. My earnest prayer is that the pope will repudiate this document, affirm the traditional pastoral discipline regarding marriage and divorce, and help the Catholic flock view all of the gospel’s moral prescriptions not as mere ideals or options among many, but as the Narrow Way: difficult for fallen man but definitely possible by God’s grace.

catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-footnote-that-roared
 
BryantJ33 said:
You people are hilarious. The Telegraph and Catholic Culture make for a hate fest?

How about EWTN?

Oops…

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-danneels-part-of-mafia-club-opposed-to-benedict-xvi

*The cardinal said he was part of a secret club of cardinals opposed to Pope Benedict XVI.

He called it a “mafia” club that bore the name of St. Gallen. The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, to make it “much more modern”, and for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to head it. The group, which also comprised Cardinal Walter Kasper and the late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, has been documented in Austen Ivereigh’s biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer.*
Click to expand...
Yes, it would seem that some cannot accept the fact that sometimes even the upper echelons of the Church hierarchy like to play dirty from time to time. Did his backroom dealing lead to Pope Francis getting elected? Maybe. Maybe not. But it appears likely that he had at least some influential role to play in the last conclave, underhanded or otherwise, or at the very least, the story of his involvement cannot be outright dismissed as false.
 
I’m really hoping that CAF doesn’t become another “Francis is modern so therefore he isn’t to be followed”. Contrary to what many obsessed traditionalists think, CAF has many, many posters who love Papa Francis and have totally turned towards the Church since he is living out the Gospels on a daily basis.🤷
 
BryantJ33 said:
You people are hilarious. The Telegraph and Catholic Culture make for a hate fest?
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s a tactic of the left…name calling. No matter how charitable one is in proclaiming the Truth of Jesus Christ and His Church they will be called hater, homophobic, intolerant and any other name that seeks to bury the Truth in relativism. It is designed to shut you up.

So within the Church many use it in regards to the Pope. It says…‘see your a baaaad person…your rigid and not loving like I am and… and… the Pope agrees with ME so there!’

Actually being called those names has become a badge of honor these days lol.
 
kozlosap said:
I’m really hoping that CAF doesn’t become another “Francis is modern so therefore he isn’t to be followed”. Contrary to what many obsessed traditionalists think, CAF has many, many posters who love Papa Francis and have totally turned towards the Church since he is living out the Gospels on a daily basis.🤷
Click to expand...
I don’t know if you know or not, but we have no mods are we are being overrun by people who now feel very bold to post whatever they want. Here’s a topic where we’ve been discussing it the past few days:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1063474
 
Cardinals are fallible human beings, no more perfect than the rest of us. Just as human as the rest of us. The Church is an institution of humans, subject to the same aspects of human nature that other man-made institutions exhibit. Sure they are called to higher standards of conduct than the rest of us, but that doesn’t make them infallible.

Hence no matter what the conclave rules say, I’d be shocked if there was no lobbying at all. Have to remember it is not necessarily overt, it could easily stem from the relationships formed over many years between these men. Which would include numerous conversations far away from the conclave setting about who’s moving up, who’s moving aside, who’s retiring, who might replace the retiree, etc. So all these relationships are in place by the time a conclave begins and it is from interaction of these relationships together with the Holy Spirit that the consensus is eventually forged. Also because it is an institution of humans, I’d find it difficult to believe any cardinal makes it to that level without some level of office politics playing a part.

I’m not trash talking the institution, I’m just saying they’re not perfect and that must be kept in mind when discussing them.
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
So all these relationships are in place by the time a conclave begins and it is from interaction of these relationships together with the Holy Spirit that the consensus is eventually forged. Also because it is an institution of humans, I’d find it difficult to believe any cardinal makes it to that level without some level of office politics playing a part.

I’m not trash talking the institution, I’m just saying they’re not perfect and that must be kept in mind when discussing them.
Click to expand...
“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope…I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined. There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”

Pope Benedict XVI
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top