Print Friendly, PDF & Email

First Novus Ordo Bishop to question Francis’ legitimacy

Retired “Bishop” of Corpus Christi:
‘Francis might be an Antipope!’

It has finally happened: A Novus Ordo bishop has announced that he suspects that Francis is not in fact a true Pope.

We are talking about René Henry Gracida, the retired “bishop” of the diocese of Corpus Christi, Texas. Yes, he is officially a part of the Vatican II Church, and he is in good standing to boot. You can find information about him on the diocesan web site here. We are clearly not talking about some whacko whom the Novus Ordo Sect doesn’t recognize or approve of.

Retired or not, for an official “Catholic bishop” to announce that the man all of his confreres accept as Pope might not be what he claims to be, is a huge milestone in the post-conciliar drama — even if it comes at the expense of the same individual affirming, alas, that the Modernist Benedict XVI might still be the true Pope.

“Bishop” Gracida was ordained a priest for the Benedictine order on May 23, 1959, so he is definitely a valid priest. In 1971, “Pope” Paul VI appointed him bishop, and he received “episcopal consecration” in the invalid Novus Ordo rite on Jan. 25, 1972 (source). Gracida has welcomed the recent “Filial Correction” of Francis and has publicly asked for his name to be added as a signatory (and it now appears on the official web site).

Despite his 94 years of age, Gracida maintains a lively blog, entitled Abyssus Abyssum Invocat / Deep Calls to Deep. On his “About Me” page, he invites people to correspond with him about his posts.

On Sep. 5, 2017, the “bishop” emeritus of Corpus Christi published on his blog the following post:

It is essentially a re-publication of the post “The Time Has Come” by Jonathan Byrd, a layman who has been editing the blog Traditional Catholic Priest since its original author, “Fr.” Peter Carota, fell ill and died last year.

When Gracida first published Byrd’s post on his blog, he put it up without any comments of his own; but he has since appended some “supplemental information” to the end of the post which relativizes a little the most salient line found in the body of the text: “In my estimation, for what it is worth, Jorge Bergoglio is an Anti-Pope and Pope Benedict is still the reigning pontiff.”

In substance, the comments added by “Bp.” Gracida are the following:

Only God knows whether or not Francis is an Antipope.

There is no doubt that he was elected a pope, but is he a pope or is he an antipope?

There is doubt that his election was both valid and licit, there is good reason to believe that it was either illicit but valid or licit and invalid. The reason for the confusion is that the Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis [of John Paul II], governing papal conclaves provides for the automatic excommunication of any cardinal who participates in a conspiracy to cause or prevent the election of a cardinal. There is no doubt that Francis was party to a conspiracy to get him elected. Therefore it is a legitimate question whether or not it is possible for an excommunicated cardinal to be both licitly and validly elected pope.

All of this combined with doubt about the validity of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI justifies doubt concerning whether Francis is THE pope.

There is some evidence that Benedict was forced to resign. If that is true, his resignation was invalid. The one person who could have ruled on the validity or invalidity of his resignation was the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura who at that time was Cardinal Raymond Burke. The first act of Francis as Pope was to remove Cardinal Burke as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura and to appoint Cardinal Pinto, a supporter of Francis. If Pope Benedict’s resignation was forced it was invalid and he is still the Pope of the Church but with the chair of Saint Peter occupied by an antipope.

[…]

I hope that all of this helps you to understand the complexity of the present situation in the Church.

ABYSSUM

(“There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven”Abyssus Abyssum Invocat, Sep. 5, 2017; special formatting removed.)

There is no need to dissect this commentary now and debate whether or not Gracida has properly understood Novus Ordo church law governing conclaves, whether “Cardinal” Burke’s removal was indeed among Francis’ first acts (in fact, it did not happen until well over a year into his “pontificate”), or why in the world the retired “bishop” would think that violating a law set up by John Paul II could bar Bergoglio from a valid papal election but not his public departure from orthodoxy.

Rather, the important point is simply that the first Novus Ordo bishop has now gone on record at least questioning the validity of Mr. Bergoglio’s claim to the Papacy.

Any way you slice it, that is a huge crack in the facade of the Novus Ordo Sect, one that will hopefully lead eventually to its well-deserved total demise.