"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven,
saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Monday, October 6, 2014

Socci's New Book disputes Francis’ Legitimacy

Socci's New Book disputes Francis’ Legitimacy

Antonio Socci’s explosive new book Non È Francesco: La Chiesa Nella Grande Tempesta (“It’s Not Francis: The Church in a Great Tempest”), a work in which the Italian Novus Ordo journalist makes the case that Benedict XVI’s resignation in February 2013 was invalid and therefore the man elected to replace him is not in fact the Pope. The timing of the release of this book is surely no accident — it first hit the shelves throughout Italy on October 3, two days before Francis’ Synod on the Family will open, a Vatican gathering of select Modernist bishops that has the potential to revolutionize Novus Ordo Church law and/or practice with regard to the reception of the “sacraments” by the divorced and “remarried”, that is, by unrepentant public adulterers.

Socci’s book has now begun to be mentioned and talked about on blogs, on media sites, and in other places on and off the internet; the secular media has picked up on it as well. This book is sure to cause a ruckus throughout Italy, and its impact in the world will likewise not be insignificant, given the power and influence of the mass media and especially the blogosphere and internet forums. Sooner or later, the Vatican press secretary “Fr.” Federico Lombardi will have to address its claims.

The October 1 edition of Libero, the Italian newspaper for which Socci writes as a columnist, carried a special article today introducing the explosive book, entitled “Francesco è il Papa di Scalfari ma dimentica noi Cristiani”. You can download the article (in Italian) in PDF format at this link

Socci’s book will force a discussion that has long been overdue in the mainstream media.
The publisher of this controversial new book is Mondadori. Their web site provides the following interesting description of the book:

While the Church is going through a dramatic period of history, of internal crises and violent attacks on Catholics all over the world, the Vatican continues an unprecedented “co-existence of two Popes”, which no one has yet had the courage to think about. In this book, Antonio Socci does precisely this, wondering what the still unknown reasons are for the historical resignation of Benedict XVI and if it can be considered a true papal resignation, as many canonists have raised serious doubts. Questions that are now intertwined with those of the conclave that took place on March 13, 2013, which, according to the author’s sensational reconstruction, violated some of the norms of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis that would automatically render Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s election null and void. The question of who is the real Pope (or if there is a need for a new conclave) comes at a time when the Church is experiencing dramatic rifts and clamorous things are happening.

Who is at the helm? Many liked how Francis began. It seemed like a return to the simplicity of the Gospel. However, many faithful are now disappointed. What was expected was a moral rigor against the “filth” (also within ecclesiastical circles) denounced and fought by Ratzinger. But how should we interpret the signal given by the new pontificate to the world, that of laxity and surrender on moral principles? And the surrender against antichristian ideologies and forces, even persecutors? And the traumatic break with the tradition of the Church? A lot of supernatural events, from the apparitions at Fatima to the vision of Leo XIII, the prophecies of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich on the age of the “two Popes”, seem to point to our times, announcing catastrophic events for the papacy, the Church, and the world. Are they inevitable or is there another way? And with which Pope?

A crucial excerpt from Antonio Socci's new book, It's Not Francis, on the canonical irregularity of Bergoglio's election and the canonical nullity of his pontificate (in intelligible but less than perfect English).

That afternoon of March 13, 2013, in Rome it was raining. Not many expected a puff of white smoke from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel for the conclave was only the second day. Instead it was announced l '"Habemus Papam."

He was elected Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio. At the fifth vote, she told herself. But after some time it became known that he was in fact elected in the sixth, that she should not be done in the afternoon.
What had happened?
Elisabetta Piqué is a good Argentine journalist, working for the newspaper "La Nación" of Buenos Aires dealing with the Vatican (and Italy) and is a collaborator of CNN in Spanish and Deutsche Welle.

It is a very good friend for years of Bergoglio, it is even his biographer. Indeed, to read the book " Francis. Life and Revolution " will notice a decidedly apologetic tone. In the pages dedicated to the fatal hour of the Conclave, the Piqué describes the evolution of votes, nominations, reactions, and on pages 39 and 40 - among other things - relates in a few lines a curious anecdote on just the fifth vote:

" After the vote and before the reading of the sheets, the cardinal scrutineer, which first mixes the papers placed in the urn, realizes that there is one more: they are 116 and not 115 as they should being. It seems that, by mistake, a cardinal has deposed two ballot sheets: one with the name of his chosen and one in white, that had remained attached to the first. Stuff happens. Nothing to do, this vote is immediately canceled, the package will be burned later without having been seen, and there shall be a sixth vote. "
It is precisely from this sixth vote that elected Bergoglio released. The anecdote is a mere curiosity, at first glance seems to be part dell'aneddotica.

A friend of the Vatican-Argentine journalist and very close, too, to Pope Bergoglio, whose rooms have access, Andrea Tornielli, on 'Vatican Insider',November 16, 2013, at the exit of the book of Piqué signed an advance which illustrates all the attributes of volume and shows, among other things (like a small scoop) the new episode revealed by the author.

The book has a "release" in the Vatican media fanfare, almost official biography. In fact, 19 November 2013 the Piqué being interviewed by Vatican Radio, 3 directed by Father Federico Lombardi. While November 16 already, "L'Osservatore Romano" had exalted the volume suggesting that the same Bergoglio he were the prime source:

"It's a Bergoglio told first-hand, direct and true, what coming out from the pages of Elizabeth Piqué in the book Francisco, vida y Revolución (in bookstores in Italy from November 21 editions Lindau under the title Francis. Life and Revolution ). Seven months of inquiry 'old-fashioned', seeking confirmations and crossing sources in 373 pages full of new details on the Conclave and the lives of Jorge Bergoglio. Pages to understand Francis, the Pope calls, writes and speaks clearly. "

It's a bit 'peculiar praise of the new details on the Conclave made by' "Observer" (since it would be in force and the pontifical secret grave sin, even excommunication, to disclose the outside of the Sistine Chapel), but if you really like lets imagine in the preceding lines, to reveal them was just Bergoglio there is no violation because he, as Pope, he did not need permission to talk about it.

In any case, no one has had anything bad to say about those details of the Conclave, which indeed have all been accredited by these indisputable sources.
There is only one - so to speak - "small" problem that nobody seems to have noticed so far: according to the facts reported by Piqué - and so authoritatively confirmed - the election of Bergoglio is nothing.

In fact, article 69 of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis , which regulates the Conclave reads:
'Where in vote counting the Scrutineers should discover two ballots folded to look like completed by one elector, if they bear the same name they are counted by a single vote, but if you bring two different names, neither the vote will be valid; However, in none of the two cases will cancel the vote. "

The first violation of the rules that you can catch a glimpse of it then having canceled a vote that had to be considered valid and scrutinized. But as if that was not enough you can recognize a second violation, because we proceeded with a new vote - the fifth of that day (the one that has elected Bergoglio) - where the same Apostolic Constitution, however, requires that we should make four votes per day two in the morning and two in the afternoon (Article 63).

Because it would be violations that involve the nullity of the election? Because Article 76 of the Universi Dominici Gregis says:
"If the election had taken place otherwise than as prescribed in this Constitution or were not observed the conditions set forth herein, the election is for that reason nothing and void, without the intervention of any statement in purpose and, therefore, it does not confer any right to person elected. "

Nor is it possible that the Conclave has been able to change the "Running" those rules because John Paul II, in the Apostolic Constitution, remember several times that the Conclave has absolutely no power to change the rules. Not even by voting unanimously.

So - if that is the facts are - I think we can conclude that the election to the papacy of Bergoglio simply never existed. Nor is it a problem remedied a posteriori because you can not heal what has never existed.

That the regularity of canonical election is "conditio sine qua non" of its validity, the rest of the formula says the same ritual of '' acceptance and proclamation "of the elect. Indeed, Article 87 of the Universi Dominici Gregis reads:

"Happened canonically [ sic ] the election, the last of the Cardinals Deacon summons into the election, the Secretary of the Board Cardinals and the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations; therefore, the Cardinal Dean, or the first of Cardinals Order and seniority, on behalf of the entire college of electors calls the consent of the one with the following words: accept your election canon [ sic ] as Supreme Pontiff? And just received consensus, asks: How do you want to be called ? Then the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations, with the function of notary and having two witnesses who will be called Masters of Ceremonies at that time, draw up a document about the acceptance of new Pontiff and the name taken by him. "

If there is no regularity rectory there was no election.
As I have already stated, the invalidity of the procedures followed in the Conclave and the subsequent election does not imply any fault on the part of Bergoglio. And the invalidity of the election is in no way a value judgment on the person.

By: Antonio Socci, "It is not Francis" (Knopf)
Link to the original Italian:


  1. So if Francis is not Pope then is he just a bishop dressed in white. Yesterday Fox News reported on a letter meant for Pope Francis by the Fort Hood shooter, declaring Jihad and threatening Catholics. Fatima unfolding rapidly.

    1. No, BXVI is.

    2. So if BXV1 is the bishop in white, then he will be killed so is Pope Francis the one to do the consecration of Russia? You should do a video clarifying this idea in light of Socci's latest claim. Thanks, Richard Smith :)

    3. Hi Richard! No the successor of BXVI will in my opinion. Ill be doing another blog tomorrow...and perhaps down the road maybe clarify more