Hey there, Miss? Mrs? Yore, could you give us a few insights as to what happened over at LifeSite last week. Not that this Wolf in particular is interested, but some of the fans would be appreciative he is sure.
Lots of mysteries in Trad Inc that do need some insight, as many are being deceived.
Pope Leo told us to tear the mask off of Freemasonry. I'll be happy if somebody would tear the mask off of Trad Inc.
Oh don’t worry, God will step in. Cardinal Burke gave us an important clue when he was discussing the apparition at Pontavedra.
Contemplate the fact that there are 42 Months between Pontavedra and the Apparition of Tuy, the anniversary of which Israel decided to kick off the next phase of WW3.
I haven’t trusted *Burke for at least 11 years. He has always seemed to be a figure that associates with Tradition, but hasn’t really delivered anything anything defensive against the incumbent Masonic infiltrators
I discern this is dangerous for any time, especially ours. He’s action to me read as someone who seeks to gain trust, while obviously having allegiances somewhere else, or at least not enough conviction to stand up against deterodox
What is there to gain in this, other than for selfish ones?
If he is for God and the Truth of Christ, he should have been as loud as Cardinal Pell against what he knew was evolving as early as 2014. And sadly we know what happened to him. Our good prelates certainly need more courage
To say apostasy is here amongst us, and not say who the protagonist is, while literally in the same week graciously accept accolades from Prevost who just delivered a revolutionary document, I can only assume he means Prevost, big given he’s history, I’m not holding my breath. For he’s likely next week to accept a special Curia position to mandate change
Prevost isn't pope. He was 'elected' by an illegal conclave that had 13 illegal electors which Cardinal Burke took part in. If he didn't put a stop to those 13 illegal electors, which would have been easy, why do you think he would put a stop to anything else?
Universi Dominici Gregis, the active law that governs the sede vacante and the conclave, No. 33 clearly states that there must not be more than 120 electors in the conclave. In the May 7-8, 2025 conclave 133 men voted, thus nullifying the election. I wrote about it here: https://divineoffice.substack.com/p/the-sound-of-silence-and-its-price .
Chris - I know I'm a few days late to this discussion (was on vacation for the past week and just catching up on things now), but since some have linked to articles claiming that Leo XIV was INVALIDLY elected, and my own article from before the conclave positing that it could be ILLICIT has been shared by another commenter below, I think it would be best to add this to the discussion, because there is a difference between validity and liceity: https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/p/what-invalidates-a-papal-election.
I hear a lot about this violation of UDG, too, Chris, but FWIW I think it's a distraction from the larger issue of B16's invalid "partial resignation" and his attempt to create what amounts to a "synodal" papacy in accordance with some theological musings from the heady 70s. (See Archbishop J. Michael Miller's book "The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development, and Mission of the Papacy", available on Amazon, and Ann Barnhardt's essay on this at barnhardt.biz/2022/05/25/the-papacy-is for the relevant background.)
That whole subterfuge has been swept under the rug in all the rough-and-tumble in the trado-sphere about Leo, but it has serious practical consequences for the validity of the conclave that (s)elected Leo.
In particular, has anyone answered the question of whether cardinalatial appointments made by an antipope (in this case Bergoglio) are valid? Did I miss the memo? Bergoglio appointed about 80% of the College of Cardinals during his twelve year Reign of Error, so it is no wonder that his hand-picked successor strolled out onto the Benediction Loggia of St. Peter's Basilica a couple of months ago. But if an antipope's administrative actions and teachings during his anti-papacy are null and void, then...?
So, yes, the conclave that (s)elected Leo had too many voting Cardinals; but what if those Cardinals weren't Cardinals at all? I think that's the larger issue, especially going forward with another putative anti-pope.
Is there a Canon lawyer in the house? Bueller? Bueller?
B16 and Francis are dead. Prevost is very much alive. He is the one we need to be dealing with. In the 2025 Conclave we can point to a clear and unambiguous breach of the law which you can't do with B16 and Francis. This is where you hit them so we don't have to spend another decade wasting our time with munus and ministerium. That's over. We need to get Prevost and we need to get the Cardinals who staged this sham in May.
I understand your desire for a quick and (ostensibly) easy kill, striking low-hanging fruit while the iron is hot; but I doubt nailing L14 and the College of Cardinals (CoC) on what most will perceive as a procedural technicality will accomplish much, except perhaps further confirm the impression of traditionalists as troublemaking gadflies in the minds of the Conciliar Church and those in thrall to it.
I also agree that caviling about munus versus ministerium, while probative in its own right with regard to B16's invalid attempted partial resignation, will appeal to no one but canonists, and will be of interest only to those already subscribing to the invalidity of Benedict's resignation, and hence, the invalidity of the conclave that elected Bergoglio.
At the end of the day, though, without a group of Cardinals (preferably 12, like the Apostles) willing to go to the mat, make the case against the Conciliar Church, and risk excommunication (and thereby incur the dread epithet of "schismatic" - gasp!), all our facts and reasoning are flatus vocis.
They broke the law. The way Bob Prevost was elected was a blatant violation of black letter law that nullifies the election and confers no rights of office on that man. Those are the facts.
I totally get that because of all of the Benevacantist nonsense of the last decade Catholics have been trained to think that anyone who questions a papal election is automatically wearing a tin foil hat, but I don't care. That doesn't change the facts.
You may call it a procedural violation but what I see is that a sick and dying Francis had that consistory last October/December where he appointed a rather large amount twenty one new cardinals, 13 of whom illegally participated as electors in a conclave that magically just happens to have elected Cardinal Bob as pope who just happens to have been running the Dicastery for Bishops and one would think would have had an outsized influence on who gets named a Cardinal. Hmmm...
Please understand that I'm not arguing the facts of the case. I agree with you that, yes, the CoC was "packed" with Bergoglian toadies as tightly as FDR packed the SCOTUS in the 1930s; and yes, 13 too many Cardinals voted in the last (faux) conclave; but what of it? Suppose all the facts surrounding the recent conclave come to light. What do you see as the endgame in all of that? What do you see happening? What would you do with that information if you had it in your hands and you were certain of its provenance? Not trying to be provocative, just trying to see the matter in the way that you do. As for me, having come to the conclusion that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, nothing surprises me except how many soi-disant "Catholics" are still trying to square the circle with V2 using B16's "Hermeneutic of Continuity".
Eric - Repeatedly stating "these are the facts" is not an argument. Assertions aren't arguments. Constantly throwing the fact that "they broke the law" into our faces with increasingly greater force doesn't actually make your JURIDICAL case for INVALIDITY any stronger.
You and I have made our points about why 133 should not have participated. Now we all need to stop freaking out about the legal violation, calm down, and proceed objectively. That's why I wrote my last article. And contrary to my usual custom of closing the combox after a week (a custom I started because I noticed old posts from half a decade ago becoming hotbeds of spam and trolling), I've decided to leave this one open for now, because no one has calmly and objectively refuted my doctrinal interpretation of UDG 76.
Now many have attempted to dismiss my conclusions based on the fact that the examples I provide in the section "Canonical Equity and Reasonableness" are ridiculous. Not only is this argument a cop-out, it actually proves my point: the examples are SUPPOSED to be ridiculous to demonstrate why an overly broad interpretation of UDG 76 would lead to unreasonable results, and because it leads to unreasonable results, it cannot be correct because law is an ordinance of reason.
Surely no sane person would believe that a spelling mistake or a natural disaster would invalidate a papal election. But it IS the absurd conclusion that would logically follow from an interpretation that holds that UDG 76 applies to any violation of any provision within the entire document. People need to have the intellectual honesty to actually OWN the consequences of their own position or humbly accept that they were wrong if they cannot.
If you're willing to die on the "Leo XIV is not the pope" hill in order to prove some kind of point, then you better be willing to simultaneously accept that your argument means that spelling errors also invalidate the election, and be willing to stand by such a ridiculous claim. Interpretating UDG 76's "any other way" broadly so as to include every conceivable violation of any part of UDG necessarily leads to that absurd conclusion. You don't get to arbitrarily decide, "No, of course a spelling mistake cannot invalidate an election. That's crazy. But this is a violation of a different magnitude!" and then get so swept away by your feelings that you render yourself unable to see reason, leading to tossing canons 10 and 15 totally out the window.
Maybe I'm wasting my time and shouting into a void because most people aren't canonists and don't care to research juridical principles, and most people are also extremely tired of this topic. Frankly, I'm starting to tire of the fact that writing blanket assertions in a strong tone on the Internet usually has more impact than actual juridical arguments.
Rara Avis - What do you mean by the "conciliar Church?" Do you posit that there is an actual separate juridical structure called the "conciliar Church" that is entirely separate from the real Catholic Church, or are you using it rhetorically to describe persons and institutions affected by theological error (which is how Archbishop Lefebvre seemed to use it)?
As for where our champion is going to come from, I get the impression that we are asking the wrong question. I have spent many years in the traditionalist world, and the humanistic, rationalistic, hero-worshiping tendency of modern man doesn't disappear simply because one wakes up to the fact that things in the Church are not as they should be. People will rally around someone they wish to make a hero, be it Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, or some other figure, and then become angry and disappointed when said "hero" doesn't live up to their standards (or worse, double down and ignore the hero's flaws to avoid confronting those feelings of anger and disappointment).
There are some things that private individuals cannot do. We can't do what only the pope can do, for example. But instead of focusing on those things and wasting our time following every word and action of Cardinal X or Bishop Y and engaging in outraged commentary online, I really think people need to spend more time praying and building up their local communities. And I mean actually praying: speaking to God and having a relationship with Him, not simply discussing Him as an abstract theoretical concept on online discussion boards or even in Thomistic seminars (though those things have their place).
The biggest problem within the "trad" world is that people have become so allergic to the notion of "relationship" (because it's been abused by happy-clappy hippies from the 1960s for so long) that they've begun to see God as an "it" rather than a "He," and this follows centuries of conceptualizing the Church as an "it" rather than a "she." The Church is the Mystical Body and bigger than just a few corrupt bureaucrats in the Vatican; maybe if the laity actually recognized their own respective roles within that Body and started doing those jobs, then the corrupt bureaucrats will slowly start becoming less corrupt. Rot starts from the head, but restoration starts from the heart, and the heart of the Church, in a way, is all of us.
In re my use of the term Conciliar Church, I use it in the latter sense of your first paragraph. My (perhaps idiosyncratic) view is that the tumultuous 60s ushered in an era of lawlessness in multiple dimensions: social, political, economic, cultural, and, in the case of the Catholic Church, ecclesiastical. Most of these irruptions had their roots in the postwar era, especially the 50s. (David Halberstam's 1993 book, The Fifties, provides a reasonable chronicle of most of these developments.) From an ecclesiastical standpoint, of course, the Vatican II revolution had its roots much farther back, in the so-called "Enlightenment" of the mid-to-late 18th century, against which Popes as far back as Pius VI inveighed. The dire warnings and admonitions of 19th century Popes, and especially Pius X in the early 20th century, sent ecclesiastical modernism underground, only to emerge in full flower in mid-century with the "Nouvelle Theologie", a theological movement which eschewed tradition of any type, and which opened up to question everything that had been settled in Church doctrine, dogma, and discipline. Vatican II was the venue through which the Church essentially repudiated (and began apologizing for) her past and conducted a volte-face in every area of ecclesiastical life and discipline. As a degreed theologian you may have a more nuanced understanding of these events, but from a layman's standpoint what I see is a Catholic Church defined not by the Council of Trent but by theological and ecclesiastical novelties of Vatican II, novelties which vitiate the Catholic faith and render it radically different from the pre-Vatican II Church, an etiolated remnant of what was once a self-confident Church with a clearly defined moral center. If you want to gauge the difference between the Conciliar Church/Faith and the Catholic Church/Faith, ask yourself this question: Would you die for the faith espoused by the Vatican II Church like the martyrs died for the pre-Vatican II Church? If the answer is anything short of "Without a doubt", then I think that goes a long way toward answering the question of whether the post-Vatican II Church is really a valid heir of the faith that gave us the martyrs.
In short: I don't believe that an error in the selection or number of electors leads to the invalidity of an election.
I didn't make mention of any particular person or conclave in that article in the hopes that people would leave their pre-existing emotions and opinions behind and be able to read objectively and use deductive reasoning themselves. That seems to have largely failed, but hey, I tried, and I can't help anyone who won't do their own homework.
I thought I was immune to any more shocks, revelations and horror stories, but reading that Cardinal Burke was apparently (and I stress apparently) partly responsible for actively putting Prevost on St Peter's throne, has completely thrown me. I can't begin to understand why - fear, lack of backbone are one thing. Actively taking part in it is beyond me. Unless, of course, not one Cardinal prepares for a future role in a conclave by researching in detail the agendas of every possible candidate. It beggars belief that ++Burke, or anyone, could possible claim (if he were to do so ) that he knew nothing about Prevost's history and support of Francis/Bernardin etc.. I just hope nobody is spreading porkies about Burke's role in this , to discredit him - but at this stage anything would be believable.
The issue of why such an outlandish breach of the law was permitted at the May Conclave and more importantly the question of why nobody is talking about it is what needs to be gone into here. All I said is that Burke did nothing to stop it. And he didn't. What is actual role was I have no idea. But it appears that absolutely nobody put up any opposition to the illegal nature of this conclave. And that is the problem: once again the hierarchy is just doing whatever it wants and breaking every law on the books, and once again we are just letting them. The bill will have to be paid for this.
Sorry - I didn't mean that you yourself had said that Card. Burke had been active in getting Prevost elected, just that I had read it elsewhere in a few places, but can't remember where. Which is the reason I stressed 'apparently'.
No worries. I don't know what happened. His election happened very fast though. You would have thought with the 13 extra electors it would have been harder to get a two thirds majority and the conclave should have gone on longer but he got elected on the second day. That is another thing that makes me think this whole thing stinks, but who is ultimately responsible I don't know.
Eric - Have you considered the possibility that some people actually just don't see UDG 33 in the manner that we do? This question of what to do if more than 120 cardinals under the age of 80 try to vote in a conclave has been brought up as a hypothetical in canonical circles for years now. The general consensus was to adopt a "wait and see" practical approach while the most common juridical argument was that since the pope can make exceptions to his own law, it won't be a big deal. I don't agree with that position, but I am also aware that most people are not contrarian cholerics like I am. ;)
Most people literally didn't bother to think about the question beyond that, perhaps because it just didn't occur to them to become more interested in the topic. In any case, it doesn't matter. Whether it was genuine error, lack of intellectual curiosity, or malice, it doesn't matter. No serious person with actual authority or influence is going to listen to you if you present blanket assertions as arguments or come to the discussion with the pre-existing assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is dishonest and just wants to defend lawbreakers.
Empty rhetoric is not a substitute for an actual juridical argument. Until someone successfully convinces me that UDG 76 should be interpreted broadly despite the fact that it would logically lead to papal elections being invalidated by spelling mistakes, I'm going to continue referring people back to this: https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/p/what-invalidates-a-papal-election.
You are sincere and can relax. Burke was Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the top Canon lawyer at the Vatican if you will. He is no dummy. He is in charge of the Guadalupe shrine in La Crosse. He carries on the tradition of the Marian Catechist Apostolate from beloved Father Hardon. There is no need to get caught up in any “holier than thou” voices.
Everything you said is irrelevant to this question. Burke's resume is irrelevant to this question. Father Hardon is irrelevant to this question. The Our Lady of Guadalupe Shrine is irrelevant to this question. What IS relevant is that the law clearly states that the number of electors MUST NOT exceed 120 - and 133 men voted. That is the only thing that is relevant.
Not sure, adrienneep, if you're replying to me, but Card. Burke (along with ++Scheider etc) has been sitting on the fence between the pre-VII Faith of our Fathers and the N.O. Church for too many years. As far as I can tell, having to rely on what I've read during those years, they were pretty much fine with VII until they united themselves to the Trad. 'cause'. Card. Burke doesn't recognize the SSPX, unless he's changed that stance in line with Francis allowing them to hear confessions. If you can give me sources for them all fighting VII wholeheartedly during their time as Priests, I'll gladly read them. That goes for ++Vigano also. Did he fight the good fight whilst he was Nuncio and prior to his appointment to that position? Serious question - I'm not American and have no idea what his stance was prior to his last 10 years online.
Did he fight the good fight? Do you know nothing about how Cardinal Burke was “fired” from Vatican position by Francis because he was too orthodox and was too “critical” of him? That he was removed from position with Malta and Francis even tried to revoke his Rome apartment and Cardinal pension? All public persecution from Francis. And you dare to say he is not good enough for you because he doesn’t recognize SSPX?
??? If you can't debate and discuss without being polite, please don't reply to anything I write again. I'm perfectly well aware of the issues you mention, but I did NOT say he was 'not good enough for me', so please don't put words in my mouth/pen. For the record, he has not, to my knowledge condemned VII and that is a stance we are all entitled to agree or disagree with.
Fyi - Cardinal Burke is one of the 27 cardinal electors who were listed on conclave watch by Survival Network for those Abused by Priests meaning he has been accused for protecting pedophile priests. So it is entirely possible that he looked the other way knowing he could be formally charged.
I am surprised that you consider anything from SNAP worth validating. Only a group of atheistic lawyers would hold this view about a Bishop “protecting his priests.” That is, in fact, his job. Of course that has been widely abused in this long sordid recent history. But that does not make SNAP any sort of arbiter of Canon law.
Gathering and publishing credible evidence does not depend on whether one believes in God or not. It depends ones commitment to the truth.
The abuse crisis has been going on for decades without any sign of abating. And now the cardinals elected a candidate (Prevost) who was accused twice in two different places (Chicago, Peru) of having protected pedophile priests. This is beyond scandalous. This shows Catholics and non Catholics alike that the Church is not serious about getting rid of sex abuse from its ranks. So expect sex abuse to spread and increase. And if an atheist group denounces all the pedos in the church all the better. The truth shall set [us] free.
As for Cardinal Burke, he accused Pope Francis of heresy for Amoris Laetitia, and now that a public supporter of this heretical document is elected, he recognizes him as pope when he knows well that a heretic cannot be elected pope per Paul IV's Bull Cum Apostolatus Oficio. So, I think Burke is controlled opposition.
Fyi, a friend of mine once visited Cardinal Burke at around Christmas time at his apartment in Rome and asked on his way out why there was no nativity scene at the entrance, somethinf very common in Italy. He was told by Burke's secretary, that Cardinal Burke did not wanf to offend non Catholics.... so perhaps episcopal freemasons are not just liberals but conservatives as well.
And SNAP has been proven to not have a commitment to the truth. You seem to conveniently forget the invalid and blatant persecutions of Cardinal Burke by the Francis Church. And that blithe apartment in Rome anecdote you cling to—he was even denied funding for said apartment by Francis. You seem intent on persecution of a holy man yourself. Why are you not focused on others who had something more nefarious to do at the Conclave?
Smooth operator, indeed. Your writing & insights shine brightly. I love it when I hear the ding ding announcing a new piece from you! Thank you, as always.
Let's not forget that Burke could still ask for a clear response to the dubia. But that would risk angering the new and improved Francis-pope, and facing the martyrdom of maybe having to clear out his office.
By their fruits you will know them. What are the fruits of V2?TC?FS? We are told to be in the world but not of it. All of these problems stem from trying to change the Church for the world’s approval. But who is the prince of this world? Wanting the world’s approval is madness.
Cardinal Burke is girlishly enthused about a letter from Leo XIV written in Latin praising his 50 years of service. Sounds like the Vatican version of a gold watch.
Same thing with the phony "canonizations" of all the V2 popes, which were handed out like the Schrafft Two-Cent mints that used to be up at the checkout counter, and were worth about as much. "For a lifetime of service to the revolution."
Partially my thoughts as well. On the other hand, maybe let’s give the man who has stood by the orthodox faith a bit of a break. This papacy is not even three months old.
Give him a break? Instead, let’s worry about his immortal soul.
“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit [vomit] you out of my mouth.” (Rv 3:15-16)
Leo senifng him a letter, I cringed. It made me think of the part of Fulton Sheen‘s out a biography where he wounded over a gift of figurines from Pope Paul VI. Rank clericalism.
But I also know Burke has been a decades long friend of tradition and I trust that he’s not a fake, just also subject to cultural conditioning. As am I. So while I think he can benefit from a call out, I think it should also be one that tries to respect intentions and not completely be suspect of them. That’s it. I’m sure we agree more than we disagree.
They have forgotten that sometimes a shepherd has to use a stick or throw stones at the wolves in order to protect the sheep. They are too busy being inoffensive and taking extra special care with their words to be of any use. Vigano is the exception, but of course, they kicked him out of their club. Basically I am hoping the millstones are large and many for all these unfaithful scandalous 'shepherds.'
The Catholic bishop's crozier is to gather the flock and beat off the wolf. The Novus Ordo bishop's crozier is to gather the wolves and beat the proverbial out of Christ's flock.
>> If Leo XIV is the true pope, as Burke insists, then isn’t it his job to end the apostasy? To stop the confusion, reassert doctrine, and reverse the damage?
Precisely.
Burke by his REFUSAL to do his duty has done tremendous harm. How many souls might be saved if Burke would finally just do his duty and follow up on the DUBIA and in a open and MANLY way call for an imperfect council.
And those of the faithful still intent on mollycoddling Burke and his ilk need to examine their roles as well.
Indeed, have you ever heard in the history of the modern papacy, of a Cardinal, within a fortnight of a papal election, praying that the elected receive the grace of office, which he should have received when he said, “Yes, I accept my canonical election”?
Very good article Chris, thank you. Sadly, I wrote Cardinal Burke off a long time ago. He chose the path of weakness and effeminacy when a blatantly obvious antipope was squatting on the Chair of St. Peter, spitting on Holy Mother Church daily. If he couldn’t man-up to Bergoglio, there’s no reason to believe he’ll confront Prevost in any way, shape or form.
Cardinal Burke allowed Bergoglio to rape the Bride of Christ during all of Bergoglio's tenure, and he's doing likewise with Prévost. That really smacks of cowardice. Shame on him!!
The frightening reality is that we Catholics, meaning those who understand that VCII was evil, that the church has been in eclipse for 60plus years, we are being synthesized. These bishops and Cardinals who are now supposed beacons of light and truth have all been part of the dismantling of the Faith all these years. But we are so weary and hoping for a saint to lead us that we will be the deceived that Christ warned about. The same thing that is happening in politics is happening in the Church. The arsonists set fire to the building destroying almost everything and then they show up with an extinguisher and we praise them as hero's, forgetting that they set the fire in the first place.
Perhaps he holds to thoughts of the grace of obedience - the same as Padre Pio, believing that silence in what seems to be intolerable correction will have many graces.
Whatever it is, it is a cautionary tale to the laity to seek discernment and courage re our own boat rocking - especially as we age, mindful of future generations.
Chris Jackson, you are a gift to the Catholic Church.🔥🔥🔥
Thank you, Liz! So are you!
Hey there, Miss? Mrs? Yore, could you give us a few insights as to what happened over at LifeSite last week. Not that this Wolf in particular is interested, but some of the fans would be appreciative he is sure.
Lots of mysteries in Trad Inc that do need some insight, as many are being deceived.
Pope Leo told us to tear the mask off of Freemasonry. I'll be happy if somebody would tear the mask off of Trad Inc.
God knows Chris is trying.
There are a lot of masks which need to be torn off - hoping God will step in pretty soon.
Oh don’t worry, God will step in. Cardinal Burke gave us an important clue when he was discussing the apparition at Pontavedra.
Contemplate the fact that there are 42 Months between Pontavedra and the Apparition of Tuy, the anniversary of which Israel decided to kick off the next phase of WW3.
A Time and Times and Half a Time.
In the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
I haven’t trusted *Burke for at least 11 years. He has always seemed to be a figure that associates with Tradition, but hasn’t really delivered anything anything defensive against the incumbent Masonic infiltrators
I discern this is dangerous for any time, especially ours. He’s action to me read as someone who seeks to gain trust, while obviously having allegiances somewhere else, or at least not enough conviction to stand up against deterodox
What is there to gain in this, other than for selfish ones?
If he is for God and the Truth of Christ, he should have been as loud as Cardinal Pell against what he knew was evolving as early as 2014. And sadly we know what happened to him. Our good prelates certainly need more courage
To say apostasy is here amongst us, and not say who the protagonist is, while literally in the same week graciously accept accolades from Prevost who just delivered a revolutionary document, I can only assume he means Prevost, big given he’s history, I’m not holding my breath. For he’s likely next week to accept a special Curia position to mandate change
Prevost isn't pope. He was 'elected' by an illegal conclave that had 13 illegal electors which Cardinal Burke took part in. If he didn't put a stop to those 13 illegal electors, which would have been easy, why do you think he would put a stop to anything else?
I keep hearing about these illegal electors from time to time. Can you link me to a source that talks about this? Thanks.
Universi Dominici Gregis, the active law that governs the sede vacante and the conclave, No. 33 clearly states that there must not be more than 120 electors in the conclave. In the May 7-8, 2025 conclave 133 men voted, thus nullifying the election. I wrote about it here: https://divineoffice.substack.com/p/the-sound-of-silence-and-its-price .
Chris - I know I'm a few days late to this discussion (was on vacation for the past week and just catching up on things now), but since some have linked to articles claiming that Leo XIV was INVALIDLY elected, and my own article from before the conclave positing that it could be ILLICIT has been shared by another commenter below, I think it would be best to add this to the discussion, because there is a difference between validity and liceity: https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/p/what-invalidates-a-papal-election.
http://fromrome.info/2025/06/25/a-canonical-analysis-of-why-the-conclave-of-may-2025-had-no-valid-result/
I hear a lot about this violation of UDG, too, Chris, but FWIW I think it's a distraction from the larger issue of B16's invalid "partial resignation" and his attempt to create what amounts to a "synodal" papacy in accordance with some theological musings from the heady 70s. (See Archbishop J. Michael Miller's book "The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development, and Mission of the Papacy", available on Amazon, and Ann Barnhardt's essay on this at barnhardt.biz/2022/05/25/the-papacy-is for the relevant background.)
That whole subterfuge has been swept under the rug in all the rough-and-tumble in the trado-sphere about Leo, but it has serious practical consequences for the validity of the conclave that (s)elected Leo.
In particular, has anyone answered the question of whether cardinalatial appointments made by an antipope (in this case Bergoglio) are valid? Did I miss the memo? Bergoglio appointed about 80% of the College of Cardinals during his twelve year Reign of Error, so it is no wonder that his hand-picked successor strolled out onto the Benediction Loggia of St. Peter's Basilica a couple of months ago. But if an antipope's administrative actions and teachings during his anti-papacy are null and void, then...?
So, yes, the conclave that (s)elected Leo had too many voting Cardinals; but what if those Cardinals weren't Cardinals at all? I think that's the larger issue, especially going forward with another putative anti-pope.
Is there a Canon lawyer in the house? Bueller? Bueller?
B16 and Francis are dead. Prevost is very much alive. He is the one we need to be dealing with. In the 2025 Conclave we can point to a clear and unambiguous breach of the law which you can't do with B16 and Francis. This is where you hit them so we don't have to spend another decade wasting our time with munus and ministerium. That's over. We need to get Prevost and we need to get the Cardinals who staged this sham in May.
I understand your desire for a quick and (ostensibly) easy kill, striking low-hanging fruit while the iron is hot; but I doubt nailing L14 and the College of Cardinals (CoC) on what most will perceive as a procedural technicality will accomplish much, except perhaps further confirm the impression of traditionalists as troublemaking gadflies in the minds of the Conciliar Church and those in thrall to it.
I also agree that caviling about munus versus ministerium, while probative in its own right with regard to B16's invalid attempted partial resignation, will appeal to no one but canonists, and will be of interest only to those already subscribing to the invalidity of Benedict's resignation, and hence, the invalidity of the conclave that elected Bergoglio.
At the end of the day, though, without a group of Cardinals (preferably 12, like the Apostles) willing to go to the mat, make the case against the Conciliar Church, and risk excommunication (and thereby incur the dread epithet of "schismatic" - gasp!), all our facts and reasoning are flatus vocis.
We need a champion. Where is he?
They broke the law. The way Bob Prevost was elected was a blatant violation of black letter law that nullifies the election and confers no rights of office on that man. Those are the facts.
I totally get that because of all of the Benevacantist nonsense of the last decade Catholics have been trained to think that anyone who questions a papal election is automatically wearing a tin foil hat, but I don't care. That doesn't change the facts.
You may call it a procedural violation but what I see is that a sick and dying Francis had that consistory last October/December where he appointed a rather large amount twenty one new cardinals, 13 of whom illegally participated as electors in a conclave that magically just happens to have elected Cardinal Bob as pope who just happens to have been running the Dicastery for Bishops and one would think would have had an outsized influence on who gets named a Cardinal. Hmmm...
Please understand that I'm not arguing the facts of the case. I agree with you that, yes, the CoC was "packed" with Bergoglian toadies as tightly as FDR packed the SCOTUS in the 1930s; and yes, 13 too many Cardinals voted in the last (faux) conclave; but what of it? Suppose all the facts surrounding the recent conclave come to light. What do you see as the endgame in all of that? What do you see happening? What would you do with that information if you had it in your hands and you were certain of its provenance? Not trying to be provocative, just trying to see the matter in the way that you do. As for me, having come to the conclusion that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, nothing surprises me except how many soi-disant "Catholics" are still trying to square the circle with V2 using B16's "Hermeneutic of Continuity".
Eric - Repeatedly stating "these are the facts" is not an argument. Assertions aren't arguments. Constantly throwing the fact that "they broke the law" into our faces with increasingly greater force doesn't actually make your JURIDICAL case for INVALIDITY any stronger.
You and I have made our points about why 133 should not have participated. Now we all need to stop freaking out about the legal violation, calm down, and proceed objectively. That's why I wrote my last article. And contrary to my usual custom of closing the combox after a week (a custom I started because I noticed old posts from half a decade ago becoming hotbeds of spam and trolling), I've decided to leave this one open for now, because no one has calmly and objectively refuted my doctrinal interpretation of UDG 76.
Now many have attempted to dismiss my conclusions based on the fact that the examples I provide in the section "Canonical Equity and Reasonableness" are ridiculous. Not only is this argument a cop-out, it actually proves my point: the examples are SUPPOSED to be ridiculous to demonstrate why an overly broad interpretation of UDG 76 would lead to unreasonable results, and because it leads to unreasonable results, it cannot be correct because law is an ordinance of reason.
Surely no sane person would believe that a spelling mistake or a natural disaster would invalidate a papal election. But it IS the absurd conclusion that would logically follow from an interpretation that holds that UDG 76 applies to any violation of any provision within the entire document. People need to have the intellectual honesty to actually OWN the consequences of their own position or humbly accept that they were wrong if they cannot.
If you're willing to die on the "Leo XIV is not the pope" hill in order to prove some kind of point, then you better be willing to simultaneously accept that your argument means that spelling errors also invalidate the election, and be willing to stand by such a ridiculous claim. Interpretating UDG 76's "any other way" broadly so as to include every conceivable violation of any part of UDG necessarily leads to that absurd conclusion. You don't get to arbitrarily decide, "No, of course a spelling mistake cannot invalidate an election. That's crazy. But this is a violation of a different magnitude!" and then get so swept away by your feelings that you render yourself unable to see reason, leading to tossing canons 10 and 15 totally out the window.
Maybe I'm wasting my time and shouting into a void because most people aren't canonists and don't care to research juridical principles, and most people are also extremely tired of this topic. Frankly, I'm starting to tire of the fact that writing blanket assertions in a strong tone on the Internet usually has more impact than actual juridical arguments.
Rara Avis - What do you mean by the "conciliar Church?" Do you posit that there is an actual separate juridical structure called the "conciliar Church" that is entirely separate from the real Catholic Church, or are you using it rhetorically to describe persons and institutions affected by theological error (which is how Archbishop Lefebvre seemed to use it)?
As for where our champion is going to come from, I get the impression that we are asking the wrong question. I have spent many years in the traditionalist world, and the humanistic, rationalistic, hero-worshiping tendency of modern man doesn't disappear simply because one wakes up to the fact that things in the Church are not as they should be. People will rally around someone they wish to make a hero, be it Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, or some other figure, and then become angry and disappointed when said "hero" doesn't live up to their standards (or worse, double down and ignore the hero's flaws to avoid confronting those feelings of anger and disappointment).
There are some things that private individuals cannot do. We can't do what only the pope can do, for example. But instead of focusing on those things and wasting our time following every word and action of Cardinal X or Bishop Y and engaging in outraged commentary online, I really think people need to spend more time praying and building up their local communities. And I mean actually praying: speaking to God and having a relationship with Him, not simply discussing Him as an abstract theoretical concept on online discussion boards or even in Thomistic seminars (though those things have their place).
The biggest problem within the "trad" world is that people have become so allergic to the notion of "relationship" (because it's been abused by happy-clappy hippies from the 1960s for so long) that they've begun to see God as an "it" rather than a "He," and this follows centuries of conceptualizing the Church as an "it" rather than a "she." The Church is the Mystical Body and bigger than just a few corrupt bureaucrats in the Vatican; maybe if the laity actually recognized their own respective roles within that Body and started doing those jobs, then the corrupt bureaucrats will slowly start becoming less corrupt. Rot starts from the head, but restoration starts from the heart, and the heart of the Church, in a way, is all of us.
Left a comment for you under my latest article.
Dorothea:
In re my use of the term Conciliar Church, I use it in the latter sense of your first paragraph. My (perhaps idiosyncratic) view is that the tumultuous 60s ushered in an era of lawlessness in multiple dimensions: social, political, economic, cultural, and, in the case of the Catholic Church, ecclesiastical. Most of these irruptions had their roots in the postwar era, especially the 50s. (David Halberstam's 1993 book, The Fifties, provides a reasonable chronicle of most of these developments.) From an ecclesiastical standpoint, of course, the Vatican II revolution had its roots much farther back, in the so-called "Enlightenment" of the mid-to-late 18th century, against which Popes as far back as Pius VI inveighed. The dire warnings and admonitions of 19th century Popes, and especially Pius X in the early 20th century, sent ecclesiastical modernism underground, only to emerge in full flower in mid-century with the "Nouvelle Theologie", a theological movement which eschewed tradition of any type, and which opened up to question everything that had been settled in Church doctrine, dogma, and discipline. Vatican II was the venue through which the Church essentially repudiated (and began apologizing for) her past and conducted a volte-face in every area of ecclesiastical life and discipline. As a degreed theologian you may have a more nuanced understanding of these events, but from a layman's standpoint what I see is a Catholic Church defined not by the Council of Trent but by theological and ecclesiastical novelties of Vatican II, novelties which vitiate the Catholic faith and render it radically different from the pre-Vatican II Church, an etiolated remnant of what was once a self-confident Church with a clearly defined moral center. If you want to gauge the difference between the Conciliar Church/Faith and the Catholic Church/Faith, ask yourself this question: Would you die for the faith espoused by the Vatican II Church like the martyrs died for the pre-Vatican II Church? If the answer is anything short of "Without a doubt", then I think that goes a long way toward answering the question of whether the post-Vatican II Church is really a valid heir of the faith that gave us the martyrs.
But hey, I'm just one guy. I could be wrong.
Rara Avis - Not a canon lawyer (not yet, anyway), but here was my attempt to answer that question: https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/p/what-invalidates-a-papal-election.
In short: I don't believe that an error in the selection or number of electors leads to the invalidity of an election.
I didn't make mention of any particular person or conclave in that article in the hopes that people would leave their pre-existing emotions and opinions behind and be able to read objectively and use deductive reasoning themselves. That seems to have largely failed, but hey, I tried, and I can't help anyone who won't do their own homework.
https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/p/no-133-cardinals-cannot-participate
I thought I was immune to any more shocks, revelations and horror stories, but reading that Cardinal Burke was apparently (and I stress apparently) partly responsible for actively putting Prevost on St Peter's throne, has completely thrown me. I can't begin to understand why - fear, lack of backbone are one thing. Actively taking part in it is beyond me. Unless, of course, not one Cardinal prepares for a future role in a conclave by researching in detail the agendas of every possible candidate. It beggars belief that ++Burke, or anyone, could possible claim (if he were to do so ) that he knew nothing about Prevost's history and support of Francis/Bernardin etc.. I just hope nobody is spreading porkies about Burke's role in this , to discredit him - but at this stage anything would be believable.
The issue of why such an outlandish breach of the law was permitted at the May Conclave and more importantly the question of why nobody is talking about it is what needs to be gone into here. All I said is that Burke did nothing to stop it. And he didn't. What is actual role was I have no idea. But it appears that absolutely nobody put up any opposition to the illegal nature of this conclave. And that is the problem: once again the hierarchy is just doing whatever it wants and breaking every law on the books, and once again we are just letting them. The bill will have to be paid for this.
Sorry - I didn't mean that you yourself had said that Card. Burke had been active in getting Prevost elected, just that I had read it elsewhere in a few places, but can't remember where. Which is the reason I stressed 'apparently'.
No worries. I don't know what happened. His election happened very fast though. You would have thought with the 13 extra electors it would have been harder to get a two thirds majority and the conclave should have gone on longer but he got elected on the second day. That is another thing that makes me think this whole thing stinks, but who is ultimately responsible I don't know.
Eric - Have you considered the possibility that some people actually just don't see UDG 33 in the manner that we do? This question of what to do if more than 120 cardinals under the age of 80 try to vote in a conclave has been brought up as a hypothetical in canonical circles for years now. The general consensus was to adopt a "wait and see" practical approach while the most common juridical argument was that since the pope can make exceptions to his own law, it won't be a big deal. I don't agree with that position, but I am also aware that most people are not contrarian cholerics like I am. ;)
Most people literally didn't bother to think about the question beyond that, perhaps because it just didn't occur to them to become more interested in the topic. In any case, it doesn't matter. Whether it was genuine error, lack of intellectual curiosity, or malice, it doesn't matter. No serious person with actual authority or influence is going to listen to you if you present blanket assertions as arguments or come to the discussion with the pre-existing assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is dishonest and just wants to defend lawbreakers.
Empty rhetoric is not a substitute for an actual juridical argument. Until someone successfully convinces me that UDG 76 should be interpreted broadly despite the fact that it would logically lead to papal elections being invalidated by spelling mistakes, I'm going to continue referring people back to this: https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/p/what-invalidates-a-papal-election.
At this point, I have massive evidence that the pope is chosen years in advance by the Satanic Pederasts that are running this show.
Any appeal to reason or canon law is moot at this point.
In the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
Go ahead and prove with sources. Besides, you give them too much credit to say planned in advance.
You are sincere and can relax. Burke was Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the top Canon lawyer at the Vatican if you will. He is no dummy. He is in charge of the Guadalupe shrine in La Crosse. He carries on the tradition of the Marian Catechist Apostolate from beloved Father Hardon. There is no need to get caught up in any “holier than thou” voices.
Everything you said is irrelevant to this question. Burke's resume is irrelevant to this question. Father Hardon is irrelevant to this question. The Our Lady of Guadalupe Shrine is irrelevant to this question. What IS relevant is that the law clearly states that the number of electors MUST NOT exceed 120 - and 133 men voted. That is the only thing that is relevant.
Not sure, adrienneep, if you're replying to me, but Card. Burke (along with ++Scheider etc) has been sitting on the fence between the pre-VII Faith of our Fathers and the N.O. Church for too many years. As far as I can tell, having to rely on what I've read during those years, they were pretty much fine with VII until they united themselves to the Trad. 'cause'. Card. Burke doesn't recognize the SSPX, unless he's changed that stance in line with Francis allowing them to hear confessions. If you can give me sources for them all fighting VII wholeheartedly during their time as Priests, I'll gladly read them. That goes for ++Vigano also. Did he fight the good fight whilst he was Nuncio and prior to his appointment to that position? Serious question - I'm not American and have no idea what his stance was prior to his last 10 years online.
Burke and Schneider are experts at giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
Did he fight the good fight? Do you know nothing about how Cardinal Burke was “fired” from Vatican position by Francis because he was too orthodox and was too “critical” of him? That he was removed from position with Malta and Francis even tried to revoke his Rome apartment and Cardinal pension? All public persecution from Francis. And you dare to say he is not good enough for you because he doesn’t recognize SSPX?
??? If you can't debate and discuss without being polite, please don't reply to anything I write again. I'm perfectly well aware of the issues you mention, but I did NOT say he was 'not good enough for me', so please don't put words in my mouth/pen. For the record, he has not, to my knowledge condemned VII and that is a stance we are all entitled to agree or disagree with.
Fyi - Cardinal Burke is one of the 27 cardinal electors who were listed on conclave watch by Survival Network for those Abused by Priests meaning he has been accused for protecting pedophile priests. So it is entirely possible that he looked the other way knowing he could be formally charged.
https://www.conclavewatch.org/cardinals/burke
I am surprised that you consider anything from SNAP worth validating. Only a group of atheistic lawyers would hold this view about a Bishop “protecting his priests.” That is, in fact, his job. Of course that has been widely abused in this long sordid recent history. But that does not make SNAP any sort of arbiter of Canon law.
Gathering and publishing credible evidence does not depend on whether one believes in God or not. It depends ones commitment to the truth.
The abuse crisis has been going on for decades without any sign of abating. And now the cardinals elected a candidate (Prevost) who was accused twice in two different places (Chicago, Peru) of having protected pedophile priests. This is beyond scandalous. This shows Catholics and non Catholics alike that the Church is not serious about getting rid of sex abuse from its ranks. So expect sex abuse to spread and increase. And if an atheist group denounces all the pedos in the church all the better. The truth shall set [us] free.
As for Cardinal Burke, he accused Pope Francis of heresy for Amoris Laetitia, and now that a public supporter of this heretical document is elected, he recognizes him as pope when he knows well that a heretic cannot be elected pope per Paul IV's Bull Cum Apostolatus Oficio. So, I think Burke is controlled opposition.
Fyi, a friend of mine once visited Cardinal Burke at around Christmas time at his apartment in Rome and asked on his way out why there was no nativity scene at the entrance, somethinf very common in Italy. He was told by Burke's secretary, that Cardinal Burke did not wanf to offend non Catholics.... so perhaps episcopal freemasons are not just liberals but conservatives as well.
.
And SNAP has been proven to not have a commitment to the truth. You seem to conveniently forget the invalid and blatant persecutions of Cardinal Burke by the Francis Church. And that blithe apartment in Rome anecdote you cling to—he was even denied funding for said apartment by Francis. You seem intent on persecution of a holy man yourself. Why are you not focused on others who had something more nefarious to do at the Conclave?
I haven't seen him out on the street begging for change lately.
Smooth operator, indeed. Your writing & insights shine brightly. I love it when I hear the ding ding announcing a new piece from you! Thank you, as always.
Thank you!
So do I!🙂
Let's not forget that Burke could still ask for a clear response to the dubia. But that would risk angering the new and improved Francis-pope, and facing the martyrdom of maybe having to clear out his office.
If the Vatican tells you to clear out your office you know you are squarely on the Narrow Road.
In the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
By their fruits you will know them. What are the fruits of V2?TC?FS? We are told to be in the world but not of it. All of these problems stem from trying to change the Church for the world’s approval. But who is the prince of this world? Wanting the world’s approval is madness.
Cardinal Burke is girlishly enthused about a letter from Leo XIV written in Latin praising his 50 years of service. Sounds like the Vatican version of a gold watch.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/265263/pope-thanks-cardinal-burke-who-clashed-with-francis-for-50-years-of-priestly-ministry
Same thing with the phony "canonizations" of all the V2 popes, which were handed out like the Schrafft Two-Cent mints that used to be up at the checkout counter, and were worth about as much. "For a lifetime of service to the revolution."
Burke loves the perks.
Excellent little summary!!
Partially my thoughts as well. On the other hand, maybe let’s give the man who has stood by the orthodox faith a bit of a break. This papacy is not even three months old.
Give him a break? Instead, let’s worry about his immortal soul.
“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit [vomit] you out of my mouth.” (Rv 3:15-16)
Look, I get it. When I read about Pope
Leo senifng him a letter, I cringed. It made me think of the part of Fulton Sheen‘s out a biography where he wounded over a gift of figurines from Pope Paul VI. Rank clericalism.
But I also know Burke has been a decades long friend of tradition and I trust that he’s not a fake, just also subject to cultural conditioning. As am I. So while I think he can benefit from a call out, I think it should also be one that tries to respect intentions and not completely be suspect of them. That’s it. I’m sure we agree more than we disagree.
They have forgotten that sometimes a shepherd has to use a stick or throw stones at the wolves in order to protect the sheep. They are too busy being inoffensive and taking extra special care with their words to be of any use. Vigano is the exception, but of course, they kicked him out of their club. Basically I am hoping the millstones are large and many for all these unfaithful scandalous 'shepherds.'
The Catholic bishop's crozier is to gather the flock and beat off the wolf. The Novus Ordo bishop's crozier is to gather the wolves and beat the proverbial out of Christ's flock.
>> If Leo XIV is the true pope, as Burke insists, then isn’t it his job to end the apostasy? To stop the confusion, reassert doctrine, and reverse the damage?
Precisely.
Burke by his REFUSAL to do his duty has done tremendous harm. How many souls might be saved if Burke would finally just do his duty and follow up on the DUBIA and in a open and MANLY way call for an imperfect council.
And those of the faithful still intent on mollycoddling Burke and his ilk need to examine their roles as well.
Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia.
To you as well!
Indeed, have you ever heard in the history of the modern papacy, of a Cardinal, within a fortnight of a papal election, praying that the elected receive the grace of office, which he should have received when he said, “Yes, I accept my canonical election”?
Your Eminence, thou doest protest too much!
https://www.fromrome.info/2025/05/24/cardinal-burke-prays-that-prevost-receive-the-grace-to-be-successor-of-saint-peter/
Very good article Chris, thank you. Sadly, I wrote Cardinal Burke off a long time ago. He chose the path of weakness and effeminacy when a blatantly obvious antipope was squatting on the Chair of St. Peter, spitting on Holy Mother Church daily. If he couldn’t man-up to Bergoglio, there’s no reason to believe he’ll confront Prevost in any way, shape or form.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Cardinal Burke allowed Bergoglio to rape the Bride of Christ during all of Bergoglio's tenure, and he's doing likewise with Prévost. That really smacks of cowardice. Shame on him!!
The frightening reality is that we Catholics, meaning those who understand that VCII was evil, that the church has been in eclipse for 60plus years, we are being synthesized. These bishops and Cardinals who are now supposed beacons of light and truth have all been part of the dismantling of the Faith all these years. But we are so weary and hoping for a saint to lead us that we will be the deceived that Christ warned about. The same thing that is happening in politics is happening in the Church. The arsonists set fire to the building destroying almost everything and then they show up with an extinguisher and we praise them as hero's, forgetting that they set the fire in the first place.
This synthesizing is best illustrated with the " uniting the clans" garbage that too many of the "remnant" are falling for and promoting
Haha! You got it in one line there. I've yet to work out who all the clans are that a certain person is supposedly uniting.
Cardinal Burke is 77. His last stand was the Dubia in 2016. He’s not going to rock the boat at his age.
At 77 what does Cardinal Burke have to lose?
And what does it profit a man to gain the whole world (or some little fiefdom in Wisconsin) and lose his soul?
Precisely rock the boat.
And he did with the Dubia.
But more is now needed?
He wears the red.
Cardinal means “hinge.”
He is 77 and the “final exam” looms for him.
He has been given much; much is to be expected.
Why not more action?
Perhaps he holds to thoughts of the grace of obedience - the same as Padre Pio, believing that silence in what seems to be intolerable correction will have many graces.
Whatever it is, it is a cautionary tale to the laity to seek discernment and courage re our own boat rocking - especially as we age, mindful of future generations.
Another banger
Thanks!