You can't even quote me correctly - I said the doctor was a no-name doctor and that the ALLEGATION was unsubstantiated. Do you even read your own quotes? Do you know what an allegation even is? Apparently not, either look it up or I will tell you - an allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof. It is for this reason the allegation is unsubstantiated, not because I say it is unsubstantiated.
For brevity I paraphrased your argument as "one unsubstantiated doctor," still a fair paraphrase of your attempt to pretend there was only one "no name" accuser who had no proof. In point of fact, not only was the
named doctor Invereigh an accuser, but
one of the perpetrators, Danneels, confessed his role precisely as Invereigh described.
From
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-danneels-part-of-mafia-club-opposed-to-benedict-xvi :
At the launch of the book in Brussels this week, 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 docuмented in Austen Ivereigh's biography of Pope Francis,
More details here[/b]: http://www.unavox.it/ArtDiversi/DIV1309_Tosatti_Francesco_elezione_preparata.html
Your other claim:
For the record, "lobbying" is not a violation and does not nullify the election, see my post #77 where JP2 states: "...as was already established by my Predecessors..." - his predecessors state: "No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort."
Contrary to your "does not nullify," Wojtyla specified that any such lobbied votes are "null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it." Double jeopardy for Jorge because his automatic excommunication also disqualifies him from the papacy.From
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/the-myths-used-to-defend-team-bergoglio-from-udg-81/ :
Pope John Paul II made it clear he was imposing a penalty upon all future violators
Now in the case of the actions prohibited by UDG 81, Pope John Paul II uses very specific language in the original Latin. As I wrote back on Nov. 28, 2014, but which seems to have been forgotten by the recent commentators:
Let’s take a look, then, at the Latin original, to understand better how, not just any specific form of vote canvassing is a crime according to the Pope who “brought down the Wall”:81. Cardinales electores praeterea abstineant ab omnibus pactionibus, conventionibus, promissionibus aliisque quibusvis obligationibus, quibus astringi possint ad suffragium cuidam vel quibusdam dandum aut recusandum. Quae omnia, si reapse intervenerint, etiam iure iurando adiecto, decernimus ea nulla et irrita esse, neque eadem observandi obligatione quemquam teneri; facientes contra iam nunc poena excommunicationis latae sententiae innodamus. Vetari tamen non intellegimus, ne per tempus Sedis vacantis de electione sententiae invicem communicentur.
The official English translation from the Vatican Website, renders this text, thus:81. 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.
This translation is not exact. Here is my own exact translation:81. Let the Cardinal electors, moreover, abstain from all pacts, agreements, promises and any other obligations you like, by which they might be constrained to give or refuse support (suffragium) for anyone (sing. & plural). All of which, if these were to occur, even when with a foreswearing, We decree are null and void, and none of them are to be held by any obligation of observance; those acting against (this), We now, hereby, bind up with the punishment of excommunication latae sententiae. Yet, We do not understand to be forbidden, that they communicate with one another concerning the election, during the time of the Sedevacante.
As can be seen, Pope John Paul II, at that moment IMPOSES the penalty of excommunication ipso facto, and this, not upon the act but upon all the persons who will commit the act. Thus all who commit the forbidden acts are excommunicated automatically for having committed them and the penalty is imposed not by a written decree after the fact, but by a written decree before the fact, that is, by this his special law for Papal Conclaves, Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG).
Indeed, as logic dictates, that if this were not the correct reading of the law, then the threat of an excommunication in UDG 81 would be nothing but a flourish of words, since it would have no effect and the guilty could get away with stealing a papal election by means of vote canvassing. Clearly Pope John Paul II was not an idiot, who merely threatened a penalty which could only be imposed after the fact by the very individual elected uncanonically by the criminal violators of UDG 81! To say such a thing would be an absurdity and calumny.
Topic: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR. (Read 11979 times)