by Anura Guruge
on July 14, 2021
The 2 Errors — both on Page 49 (Chapter 2).
So, two things on Page 49 that are patently FALSE. (2nd image above). Period. There is NO wriggle room here.
IF there had been an overcount, i.e., one extra ballot, they would have HAD to have burned those ballots at once. See UDG. This is not negotiable. IF the ballots were burned we would have had a 2nd BLACK SMOKE event (i.e., black sfumata).
This supposedly took place in the afternoon, ballot # 4. There had already been a BLACK sfumata before lunch. Those would have been the ballots & papers from rounds #2 & #3. That happened. That we saw. That we know.
After that there was NO black smoke.
We got WHITE smoke to say a pope was elected.
There could NOT have been an overcount. Q.E.D.
Also, UDG explicitly states that another round of voting should take place at once. At once. What UDG says is that there can only be four VALID rounds of balloting.
IF he got such basic stuff wrong, how do I know what else is screwed up.
My expertise in matters papal, as many know, are primarily in the area of conclave history & LAW. That is what interests I. So, I can’t vouch for the veracity of the other stuff.
Some of it sounds plausible.
IF you want a QUICK, easy & ACCURATE guide to conclave laws, protocols & history I do have a book for YOU.
This book available in print & eBook from multiple sources including Apple, Amazon, etc.
Mr G,
You are right as usual on this matter. One thing I would point out is that the rules that governed the 2013 conclave were technically JP2 UDG as modified by Benedict’s 2013 Motu Proprio (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/de/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20130222_normas-nonnullas.html).
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that Motu Proprio; it seems like it was a necessary fix to the part of UDG where JP2 allowed a simple majority winner. I imagine simple majority would lead to major factionalization in papal elections.
Richard Truely
Thank YOU, Richard. I had intentionally left out ‘Normas Nonnullas’ (to minimize confusion) — ESPECIALLY because it made NO CHANGES, whatsoever, to clauses 65 to 69. But, I went back & added a brief phrase. THANK YOU. SMILE.
Richard, I delath with NN EXTENSIVELY in ‘The Conclave’ book — in particular Chapter 1 & VII. In Chapter VII I added NN changes to each CLAUSE & my commentary. NN was RUSHED & was NOT the best document to have carried B16’s name. I THINK you have the book. SMILE. Read bottom of page 36. IF we ever get to this there is a potential for a deadly stalemate. Conclaves of OLD. Cardinals dying in conclave of old-age. B16 closed the escape-hatch. With the 2/3, at any stage, the BEAUTY & danger is that 1/3 of the electors can continually BLOCK an election. In the runoff, per B16, you are locked in. SMILE.
Thanks for this. What are your thoughts on Francis & his apparent obsession with the Latin Mass. Thanks.
Anura
Mr. G,
Regarding Francis and the Latin Mass…I suppose he feels like the Latin Mass is providing a rallying point for the conservative elements in the Church which he sees as opposing his views.
I find it strange that the church recognizes that both the latin mass and the ordinary “vernacular” mass are valid but that it clamped down on the latin mass so hard in Vatican II.
It seems to me that one thing we can count on about human nature is that we desire things which are forbidden to us. With that in mind I find it surprising that Francis would try to tighten the screws down further. If both forms are valid, then wouldn’t a better strategy to depoliticize the mass be something like ordering that Latin Mass be performed on even days and the ordinary vernacular celebration on odd days? Then each can have his own and no one can claim superiority.
Of course I am not a theologian so my simple-minded approach must have many holes in it!
Richard Truely
Thank YOU. Much appreciated. I need to do more careful thinking. Thanks.
Cheers, Anura
It has been stated repeatedly by people preferring the older Mass that the actual documents in Vatican II only permit vernacular Masses and never seek to require them.
Ambiguity has simply been harnessed to its utmost (the same with “ad orientem” celebration as opposed to “versus populum”…the new way being made a permitted version taken by its advocates as making it a requirement).
I am still puzzled why Francis’ is opposed.
Just my two cents here…one wonders if the author (Sire) wants to make a case, by bringing up a bunch of nonsense, for bringing into question the legitimacy of Francis’ election. “Fake News” and all. Or what we once called, during the Cold War, The Big Lie (see also Soviet foreign policy, and more recently, Putin)
[sarcasm]: Yes! Let’s set the stage for the creation of the first antipope in 550 years! THAT’LL solve everything!
Sheesh!
Mark, in this instance, re. the ACTUAL ELECTION, this appears to be an attempt to delegitimize the election. This guy is either extremely ignorant or is a troublemaker. How it got through the publisher is another matter. Apart from this he brings up some interesting stuff that I was not aware of … BUT you may have been, e.g., ‘Friars of the Immaculate’. He does CONFIRM my view that Francis loves to do things FOR SHOW. As I have said, Trump would love to be Francis & vice versa. SMILE. Thanks. Cheers, Anura
No, I’m not aware of the connection between Friars of the Immaculate and Francis. Haven’t read the book here….
But I likewise agree that Francis enjoys immensely being the “happy smiling face of Catholicism”, greeting people at St. Peter’s Square, while letting the Curia (with his select insider appointees) run the nuts-and-bolts of the Church, not intervening unless and until he has no other choice (i.e., public scandal).
Mark, start with this. There is a lot more. Google. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/27784/franciscans-of-the-immaculate-decree-worries-traditionalists