Andrea Cionci: All Bergoglian Cardinals are Null and Void

A timely reminder

Andrea Cionci has asked me to publish an article that dates back to 17 November 2023 providing clarifications regarding the nullity of all acts executed by Bergoglio since 13 March 2013.

________________________________

Bergoglio and why his cardinals cannot participate in any conclave

If there is one thing truly disheartening about this question of the millennium regarding the usurpation of Benedict XVI's papacy, it is not so much the subversive actions of the Sankt Gallen Mafia, which parades its airs of sulfur while occupying the Chair of Peter but lacking the seal of any legitimacy. Rather, the most disturbing reality is the macabre theatrical antics and posturing of supposedly traditional conservative prelates, who are simulating a fake pre-orchestrated clash with Bergoglio in order to foment catholic dissent and division and render it inert by bringing it to a dead end according to the classic art of gatekeeping, as already has been illustrated several times HERE.

What is very visible at this point is that, while their Excellencies Viganò, Schneider, and Müller object to completely ancillary issues (e.g. Bergoglio's heresies, the vice of consent, irregular voting, etc.) that end up being completely useless, pointless, and misleading for the purpose of removing the antipope. In doing so they obfuscate, censor, and confuse the disruptive reality of Pope Benedict's impeded See. Suffice it to say that Archbishop Viganò was supposed to attend in person a U.S.A. sponsored conference in Rome on 09 December 2023 (please, keep in mind that the article dates back to November 17^th, 2023) at which conference any participant even remotely discussing the factual reality of the impeded see had been preemptively excluded. The more this reality is confirmed and supported by Latinists, jurists, and Church historians, the more they do anything they can to hide it, smother it, and pass it off as a "Dan Brown fantasy novel." Meanwhile, The Ratzinger Code has won yet two more journalistic awards, which will be announced in the coming days.

All that is needed to solve the current impasse is to ascertain the nullity of Bergoglio's election, which took place through the convocation of an invalid conclave that was summoned with a still living and reigning and non-abdicatory Pope as per canon 332.2 (CIC) and delineated and enshrined in the apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis.

Consequently, the "Petition for the recognition of the impeded See of Pope Benedict XVI and the summoning of a legitimate conclave" HERE is still collecting signatures. 11,500 signatures already were delivered and protocalled to the Secretariat of State on 08 November 2023. The petition has now reached 12,640. The target goal is to reach 20,000 signatures by the Solemity of the Immaculate Conception (08 December 2023).

So, what these so-called una cum prelates really want is to maintain the status quo, to avoid schism at all costs, aiming for a backroom brokered conclave, which would include false cardinals of Bergoglian appointment and would end up giving the Church another Antipope.

The person elected from such a spurious conclave not only would lack the charism of assistance of the Holy Spirit (the thing that makes the Pope infallible in the extra-ordinary magisterium and especially protected in the ordinary magisterium), but would also be politically an imposition of the antagonistic Gnostic-Modernist church (see HERE ) that seized power in 2013. Thus, this would be the definitive end both spiritually and temporally of the visible canonical Church as we know it.

Who says that such a conclave will produce such a disaster?

Msgr. Nicola Bux's blog, taken up by Marco Tosatti, disputes this potential outcome HERE by citing the case of Pope Martin V, who was elected at the end of the Great Western Schism in 1417 by a conclave composed of genuine cardinals and false cardinals appointed by various antipopes.

Too bad that the author, who signs himself with the presumptuously modest pseudonym of “Agostinus Hipponensis” forgets to mention the fact that Martin V was elected unanimously precisely to obviate the problem of false cardinals.

If a post-Bergoglio backroom brokered conclave unanimously were to elect any individual, would they be considered a valid Pope?

Obviously not, because current canon laws are different from those of 1417. How could one even imagine enforcing medieval Church mores in violation of today's ecclesiastical laws?

In fact, Art. 33 of Universi Dominici Gregis (U.D.G.) stipulates clearly: "The right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs only to the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, with the exception of those who, before the day of the death of the Supreme Pontiff or the day on which the Apostolic See remains vacant, have already reached the age of 80. The maximum number of Cardinal electors shall not exceed one hundred and twenty, the right of active election by any other ecclesiastic office or the intervention of lay powers of any degree or order is absolutely excluded."

To give a paradoxical example, the Ius exclusivae, the right of veto of a Catholic sovereign over a candidate for the papacy, existed for centuries but was nullified by Pope St Pius X in 1904. According to Msgr. Bux's "historical" criterion, then could King Philip VI of Spain veto Zuppi today, since it was once allowed centuries ago?

Canon 351 § 2 (CIC) explains what appears to be obvious, namely that "Cardinals are created by decree of the Roman Pontiff." So, Bergoglio does not have the power to appoint cardinals since he is not the legitimate Pope and, accordingly, all those appointed by him remain bishops or with other ecclesiastical offices as is the case, for example, of Father Raniero Cantalamessa, who remains only an ordained priest.

Since "other ecclesiastical offices" are absolutely excluded from the conclave, Article 76 of the U.D.G. consequently nullifies the election if this norm were to be broken: "If the election has taken place otherwise than as prescribed in this Constitution, or if the conditions established here have not been observed, the election for that very reason would be null and void, without any declaration being made in this regard, and, therefore, conferring no rights to the person elected."

Finally, a Pope elected by a null and void election is an Antipope by definition. He does not have the Munus Petri nor the Charism of special assistance of the Holy Spirit, as previously mentioned. There is no way out.

The blog article by Msgr. Bux, who is close to Cardinal Burke, apart from the instrumental incompleteness of the historical quotation, demonstrates exactly what we stated at the beginning: there is a common will from pseudo-traditional-conservative prelates to broker a backroom conclave at all costs with the above mentioned ramifications. (We feel disappointed to note such an attitude even in circles that are close to Cardinal Burke, whose role has so far remained ancillary compared to other of the above mentioned gatekeepers).

An operation with unimaginable ethical and spiritual responsibilities, which would mean opposing the purification of the clergy desired by the Vicar of Christ. This would also mean sabotaging the Easter of the Church announced for centuries by making it fail in its "final test" cited in Art. 675 of the Catechism (CCC) summoning a conclave with the most absolute disregard for the sacred character of the election of the Pope, who receives the Munus Petri by divine disposition according to art. 53 of the U.D.G.

The prospect of a backroom brokered conclave means operating openly against God. From the perspective of faith, it would be a kind of first-class ticket to hell especially for those clerics who wear red since they have sworn to shed their blood to defend their faith.

The highest of prelates already know everything as they were already informed about the facts months ago through a letter sent to the Secretariat of State, which protocols everything and guarantees delivery to the addressee. Yet, they are letting the rights of the Apostolic See lapse in open violation of Article 3 of the U.D.G.: "Furthermore, I establish that the College of Cardinals may not in any way dispose of the rights of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, and even less so they may let any of them lapse, either directly or indirectly, even for the purpose of settling disagreements or pursuing actions perpetrated against the same rights after the death or valid resignation of the Pontiff. Let it be the care of all the Cardinals to protect these rights."

This perspective makes us realize how isolated Pope Benedict XVI was: even his so called "friends" behaved this way...