Monday, April 9, 2018

Texas Bishop Suggests the Cardinals Consider a New Papal Conclave

FIRST Bishop to say this.  From Texas just to the south of us Okies, no less. 

Bishop Emeritus Rene Gracida

94 year old retired Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Corpus Christi.  In excellent health.  Interviewed last year by Michael Voris.

Says the TLM. 

Here is his argument. Click HERE.

In a nutshell,  he suggests Bergoglio's election was invalid because it broke church law about papal elections,  based on John Paul II's new conclave laws that prevent breaking of conclave. 

Not to mention, Bergoglio's heretical statements,  he says. 

Francis' Cardinal appointments would be invalidated (I suppose his bishop appointments too...hmm) ,  and the one's who conspired to elect him would be excommunicated,  per JPII's legislation. 

Solution?   He says the remaining valid Cardinals would have to call a new conclave to elect a new pope.

Cardinal Burke,  the tee ball has just been placed on top of the tee.   We need you to step up to the plate.

As in now. 


  1. So why would he appeal to John Paul II while describing Francis as a heretic ? Since Francis constantly quotes JPII's abominable heresies...

  2. He was appealing to JPII's papal election laws, not his teachings, however heretical they may or may not be. I appreciate that strategy. Francis refuses to answer the dubia directly, so some in the College of Cardinals may not move for impeachment on the grounds of heresy, even though the heresy is obvious. Keep in mind he is a conciliar Bishop, who isn't sedevacantist. He very likely doesn't hold JPII to be a heretic, as you do.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Also worth reading from a recent post on Bishop Emeritus Rene Gracida's blog.

  5. The good bishop's understanding of infallibility is off. The Pope does not have that gift except and only when defining doctrine ex cathedra. Outside of the very narrow sliver he doesn't enjoy the gift of infallibility as defined in Vatican I.

    1. I had the same thought. It seems like one of his premises is that if a certain pope is really the pope, he couldn't personally believe in heresy or make erroneous statements, like Francis has done. Being ordained pre-VII, perhaps the ecclesiology he received in the seminary was more "ultra-montane." But I think his main argument is that Francis' election was invalid because of the conspiring of the St. Gallican group, if I got that name right. Now, what can we Okie Trads do to urge the Cardinals to take action?
      This bishop basically said the impetus is on the laity to get them to act, in his Voris interview, but how I'm not sure blogs and petitions are cutting the mustard. Yet anyway. Francis may be in office for years to come, and his "Magisterium" more set in stone.