.
Yes, this was my explanation.
Thank you, Yeti. I appreciate your comments.
Let's look at what Vigano said:
I believe instead that his acceptance of the papacy is invalidated, because he considers the papacy something other than what it is, like a spouse who gets married in church but excludes the specific purposes of marriage from his intention, thus making the marriage null and void precisely due to his lack of consent. Not only that: what conspirator who acts maliciously in order to ascend to an office would be so naive as to explain to those who must elect him that he intends to become Pope in order to carry out the
I cannot read the man's mind, so I cannot tell if he is implying that he thinks there is a juridical remedy, by which Bergoglio's state of mind at the time of his "election" can be legally determined, or if he is simply describing a fact pattern upon which to base an understanding of the nature of the crime that has been committed.
If I had to guess, I'd go with the latter. I think it's a wonderful talking point, a point of demonstrative departure.
In a previous post on one of the two relevant threads, I mentioned that I prefer to use the term 'incapacity to receive the Office,' rather than 'defect of intention.' Incapacity suggests the ability of the trier of fact/law to arrive at proofs, based on past and present conduct. With regard to marriage, previous marriages, or medical history revealing physical incompetency to consummate, or extraneous evidence of coercion. With regard to the Papacy, does not
cuм Ex revolve around the question of capacity? Does not
cuм Ex lay out in detail the kinds of extraneous evidence deemed probative by the Church?
As I said somewhere else, this statement by Vigano is no solution to the problem. It's an attempt to knock down an iron curtain. I know not what his motives are, but it's clear that he has scored a touchdown in the arena of rhetoric.
Topic: "Vitium Consensus" - Archbishop Vigano - Catholic Identity Conference 2023 (Read 10359 times)