Was the election of p. Francis invalid?

[otrrl]

On EWTN Radio, Deal Hudson had an interview with the retired bishop who says the election was invalid.

Here is the link to the written document of the allegations:

ELECTION OF FRANCIS PURSUANT TO UNIVERSI DOMINCI GREGIS

Francis blessing a statue of Martin Luther in the Vatican Election of Pope Francis Pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis “My people have been a lost flock: their shepherds have caused them to…

abyssum.org

here is the link to the interview with the bishop, alleging a conspiracy to elect a pope to modernize the Church (which was a reaction to the conservative papacy of Benedict xvi):

https://avemariaradio.net/audio-archive/church-and-culture-november-17-2018-hour-1/

 

[otrrl]

The bishop says there was a “mafia” of cardinals who conspired to have Francis elected, which violates the rules of election of a pope.

There is evidence of this conspiracy. All the cardinals appointed by Francis and all of his actions would be invalidated if the allegations were proven.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Is there a yawning emoji?

 

[Weserthy]

Back when Pope Benedict XVI resigned I took it for granted that his resignation was valid. Now, I am not so sure. I am not saying that I think it was invalid, but rather that I do not know for certain either way. There have been too many disturbing developments over the last five years that point to some kind of backroom dealing that might have had an illicit influence back in the conclave. Technically Cardinals cannot campaign for a candidate for the papal conclave before it takes place, but it is now common knowledge that this law was not observed by several Cardinals who supported then Cardinal Bergoglio who later became Pope Francis. Former Cardinal McCarrick (who was not a voting member of the last conclave) admitted after Bergoglio was elected that he heavily pushed for his election with voting Cardinals before the conclave. There certainly are questions that linger to this day about the last papal election, and doubt will probably only increase as long as things continue trending the way they are in the Church right now with the numerous scandals running rampant.

 

[13pollitos]

The bishop says there was a “mafia” of cardinals who conspired to have Francis elected, which violates the rules of election of a pope.

There is evidence of this conspiracy. All the cardinals appointed by Francis and all of his actions would be invalidated if the allegations were proven.

There are even cardinals (including McCarrick) who stated publically that they conspired with others to get him appointed. They first said this a very short time after his election.

 

[graciew]

If you are not taking Pope Benedict by his word, then what is left to say about conspiracy theories?

 

[MapleLeaf1]

Here’s one place where I agree, Benedict has been insistent that his resignation was free. It would take a lot to cast that into doubt.

 

[twf]

There have been whispers for a while in the “conservative” wing of the Church that Pope Francis is actually an anti-Pope…even the popular blogging priest Fr. Z has implied the possibility without endorsing it (though certainly some of his readers have endorsed it based on blog comments there).
Yet, I remember reading something by Pope Benedict that discussed the concept of “dogmatic facts”. These are not dogmas of the faith as in doctrines, but rather events vital to the life of the Church in which we must have certainty. Examples include the recognition of ecumenical councils, the canonizations of saints…and the election of Popes. The Church recognizes +Francis as Bishop of Rome, thus it is a dogmatic fact that he is Bishop of Rome.

 

[13pollitos]

…and the election of Popes. The Church recognizes +Francis as Bishop of Rome, thus it is a dogmatic fact that he is Bishop of Rome.

This is interesting to me. How were the anti popes recognized throughout history? How was it determined that they were not actually Bishop of Rome, even though they were originally recognized as such? Is there a process followed to determine that, or is looking back at their election and events surrounding it that reveals it?