Too hot for the Catholic Identity Conference:
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-10-01_162532.png)
https://x.com/CarloMVigano/status/1708576386896576662?s=20 (https://x.com/CarloMVigano/status/1708576386896576662?s=20)
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano is ever so close to unequivocally calling Jorge Bergoglio an antipope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12uJT9oFhes
Is there a transcript??
Take THAT, SeanJohnson, your hero (and mine) +Vigano is rejecting the sanatio of a faulty election by citing historical precedents to the contrary that falsify the principle -- exactly as I have argued here.
https://exsurgedomine.it/en/230930-cic-eng/ (https://exsurgedomine.it/en/230930-cic-eng/)
He addresses Billot’s position??
I’ve not had the chance to read or listen to him yet.
He's rejecting +Schneider's recent comments on several points. He did not mention Cardinal Billot by name, but he rejected the notion of a faulty election being "sanated" sanatio in radice by Universal Acceptance, citing historical examples that falsify the notion, in particular the Great Western Schism. There are a couple others that can be cited where a legitimate Pope went into exile, another elected in his place, and that replacement received Universal Acceptance.
Does he explicitly say a faulty election cannot be sanated by universal consent?
He calls out Jorge for heresy on the grounds of 1) Amoris Laetitia and 2) his condemnation of capital punishment.
Starting about 20 minutes in (out of 37), he's arguing from Jorge's lack of intention to be a Catholic pope, mentions Ratzinger possibly being pressured to resign, etc. Not quite sure where he's going with it other than questioning Jorge's legitimacy due to invalid election in 2013.
He's calling out Jorge's malicious intent to "change the papacy". (23 minutes in)
That reminds me of one of Bishop Sanborn's sedeprivationist arguments that the V2 heretic popes did not intend to function as true Popes.
He's characterizing Jorge as a conscious destroyer of the Church.
Yes, he rejects the notion that faulty election can be sanated by Universal Acceptance.
That reminds me of one of Bishop Sanborn's sedeprivationist arguments that the V2 heretic popes did not intend to function as true Popes.
The Vatican II “popes” are not true popes since they posit an obstacle to the reception the authority of Christ. Just as someone can posit an obstacle to the reception of grace from a sacrament (e.g., attachment to mortal sin in the case of Confirmation), so someone can posit an obstacle to the flow of authority from Christ. And this is true even if he has gone through all of the necessary legal steps to attain the authority. In the same way, the person who posits an obstacle to the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation nonetheless exteriorly receives the sacrament. If the pope-elect should remove the obstacle to the flow of authority, he would become the pope, just as he who confesses his sins with true sorrow then receives the effect of the Sacrament of Confirmation.
What is this obstacle to authority? It is theintention of promulgating to the whole Church false doctrines, false liturgy, and evil disciplines, all of which constitute an essential change of the Catholic Faith.
Some will consider the following statement surprising and ironic, but I’d find much more weight behind Viganò’s position if he questioned the legitimacy of all the conciliar popes, rather than just Francis.👍👍
Questioning only Francis’s legitimacy makes it seem merely personal, as though the questions attached to him to not, somehow, attach to the rest.
I agree with the sedes that being a Benny gets us nowhere (and feels like controlled opposition to keep us choosing between liberals and conservatives.
Go all the way, or don’t go there at all.
So, I just finished, and the main takeaways are that it's very clear he does not regard Jorge as a legitimate pope, or at the very least considers him to be highly doubtful, based on the notion that the 2013 election was illegitimate. He rejects the notion that a faulty election would be "sanated" sanatio in radice by subsequent Universal Acceptance. He believes the election and/or continuing papacy of Jorge is invalid primarily due to a defect of consent or intention, along the same lines that Bishop Sanborn outlines above, holding that Bergoglio had a malicious intention to destroy the Church and the papacy, and that prevents him from exercising the authority of St. Peter. He also states that while we must "resist" Jorge, obeying God rather than man, that's not enough and we need to get to the root of the problem (after which he goes into why he believes that Berogoglio may be or is an illegitimate pope). As OP stated, he comes a hair's breadth away from saying Jorge IS illegitimate, but basically indicates that it's very possible or even very likely.
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
Some will consider the following statement surprising and ironic, but I’d find much more weight behind Viganò’s position if he questioned the legitimacy of all the conciliar popes, rather than just Francis.
Questioning only Francis’s legitimacy makes it seem merely personal, as though the questions attached to him to not, somehow, attach to the rest.
I agree with the sedes that being a Benny gets us nowhere (and feels like controlled opposition to keep us choosing between liberals and conservatives.
Go all the way, or don’t go there at all.
Wow.MM is a coward.
Michael Matt screwed up.
The result will be that Vigano will now start to question WHY The Remnant won’t entertain the pope issue, and will push Vigano in the opposite direction.
But questioning only Francis is nothing. Go all the way, or don’t go at all. The subject is far too important for compromise and half measures!
I sense Providence at work here.
MM is a coward.
MM is a coward.
Some will consider the following statement surprising and ironic, but I’d find much more weight behind Viganò’s position if he questioned the legitimacy of all the conciliar popes, rather than just Francis.
Questioning only Francis’s legitimacy makes it seem merely personal, as though the questions attached to him to not, somehow, attach to the rest.
I agree with the sedes that being a Benny gets us nowhere (and feels like controlled opposition to keep us choosing between liberals and conservatives.
Go all the way, or don’t go there at all.
MM is a coward.
Absolutely!
“…we must ask ourselves if the 2013 election was in some way invalidated by a lack of consent; that is, if the one elected wanted to become Pope of the Catholic Church or rather head of what he calls "our synodal church" - which has nothing to do with the Church of Christ precisely because it stands as something other than it.”The problem with his line of reasoning is...how does he prove what Bergoglio's intent was at the time of his election?
I’d need to see this developed a bit, because just as with canonizations, applying principles of sacramental theology (eg., intention; validity) seems slightly out of place. Nevertheless, that matter does no violence to what he’s said thus far…
MM's cowardice is most likely financially motivated as well, as he too fits into the grifter category. He'd alienate a large percentage of his readership if he were to adopt certain unpopular positions. He can sponsor +Vigano but keep him at an arm's length with the old "the opinions expressed by Archbishop Vigano are not necessarily those of the Remnant".
Well, here it is, and it leaves no ambiguity:Does he ever quote Church teaching? Or is this just his personal belief?
“Some may object: But even if Bergoglio acted with malice, he still accepted what the Cardinals offered him: his election as Bishop of Rome and therefore as Roman Pontiff. And so he assumed office and must be considered to be the Pope. I believe instead that his acceptance of the papacy is invalidated,”
But then the rationale, based upon an analogy to sacramental theology (which I’m not sure about):
“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.”
“So here I am, throwing the proverbial stone into the pond.”
Leaves no doubt he believes Bergoglio’s pontificate is invalid, as he’s recognizing himself as the first uncensored prelate to make the claim.
Wow.
The problem with his line of reasoning is...how does he prove what Bergoglio's intent was at the time of his election?
... as he’s recognizing himself as the first uncensored prelate to make the claim.
A retired archbishop who accused Pope Francis of heresy has been ordered to cease celebrating Mass in public.
Archbishop Jan Paweł Lenga, the 69-year-old former Archbishop of Karaganda in Kazakhstan, has also been forbidden to preach at Masses or speak to the media.
The sanctions were imposed by the Diocese of Włocławek in central Poland, where the archbishop retired after serving in Kazakhstan.
Archbishop Lenga immediately defied the ruling by giving an interview to WRealu24.tv, in which he insisted that he would continue to speak out.
...
KAI said the archbishop had refused to mention Pope Francis's name when celebrating Masses. It added that the measures would remain in effect until the Holy See issues a judgment on the case.
The archbishop has repeatedly criticised Pope Francis. Last year the Polish journal Więź reported that he had called Francis a "usurper and heretic."
Więź said the archbishop had given a book-length interview to the author Stanisław Krajski. The journal quoted the archbishop as saying: "Bergoglio preaches untruth, preaches sin, and does not preach a tradition that lasted so many years, 2,000 years... He proclaims the truth of this world and this is the truth of the devil."
“If universal consensus were an indefectibly valid argument for a pope's legitimacy, Clement would have had the right to be considered the true pope, rather than Urban. Antipope Clement was defeated by Urban VI's army in the battle of Marino in 1379 and transferred his See to Avignon, leading to the Western Schism, which lasted thirty-nine years. Thus we see that the universal acceptance argument does not withstand the test of history.”This is historically correct. Ladislaus can confirm my competency to acknowledge Viganò's claim regarding Urban and Clement.
Presuming Viganò’s history is correct, he has here dealt a severe blow to Billot (and not many are capable of that)!
This is historically correct. Ladislaus can confirm my competency to acknowledge Viganò's claim regarding Urban and Clement.
But then the rationale, based upon an analogy to sacramental theology (which I’m not sure about):.
“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.”
“If universal consensus were an indefectibly valid argument for a pope's legitimacy, Clement would have had the right to be considered the true pope, rather than Urban. Antipope Clement was defeated by Urban VI's army in the battle of Marino in 1379 and transferred his See to Avignon, leading to the Western Schism, which lasted thirty-nine years. Thus we see that the universal acceptance argument does not withstand the test of history.”.
Presuming Viganò’s history is correct, he has here dealt a severe blow to Billot (and not many are capable of that)!
Nobody says the Church will always adhere universally to a true pope. That is not what the Universal Acceptance argument states. What it states is that the entire Church will never adhere universally to a false pope. As far as I know, the entire Church never adhered to any of the papal claimants during the Great Western Schism, so that event cannot be used as an argument regarding the Universal Acceptance Position.I don't think I've ever heard it described that way. That certainly makes sense.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by uncensored, but Bishops Lenga and Gracida have both asserted that Jorge is not the pope. I believe that Gracida was first, then Lenga, and now Vigano.Except Vigano was just censored because of his sede-leaning message. This might show whether Vigano has the courage to continue with this line of thinking.
I don't think this changes anything.
I think it is uncharitable to call Michael Matt a coward. I think he is anything but that. I would say he is fearless in calling out the criminals undermining the spiritual and temporal edifices. He shames the neo-SSPX. But he's mixed up. His 'unite the clans' crusade is mistaken, based on a false 'tradecuмenism' and doomed to failure. He is not what most of us would consider a 'turetrad'. But he's no coward. I think it is disappointing if it is true that he decided not to let Archbishop Vigano's address go to air at the conference. Such a champion of the resistance deserves to be heard. But we don't know all the circuмstances so let's not get too judgemental.So up to a point he was not a coward in your opinion. That doesn't mean he's not a coward now. Unless he comes up with some good excuse for censoring the sede-leaning comments of Vigano, I'll still say he is absolutely a coward. Regardless of what you think. As far as I'm concerned, he responded exactly the way I would expect him to respond.
So up to a point he was not a coward in your opinion. That doesn't mean he's not a coward now. Unless he comes up with some good excuse for censoring the sede-leaning comments of Vigano, I'll still say he is absolutely a coward. Regardless of what you think. As far as I'm concerned, he responded exactly the way I would expect him to respond.
Archbishop Vigano's argument against universal peaceful acceptance seems to me uncertain, and would not in any case even constitute a common opinion.
His argument on the grounds of Pope Francis's possible lack of consent to the Papacy is nothing more than a thesis.
I don't think this changes anything.
He did state at the very beginning of his address that he was not providing answers, just asking questions that had to be asked.
He also stated near the end that the situation is humanly irremediable.
Yet in spite of that he does seem to be calling for the application of some human remedy, more than just resistance. He clearly wants discussion, seemingly in the hope that it may lead to some solution to the problem which he has more or less said only God can resolve!
I think it is uncharitable to call Michael Matt a coward. I think he is anything but that. I would say he is fearless in calling out the criminals undermining the spiritual and temporal edifices. He shames the neo-SSPX. But he's mixed up. His 'unite the clans' crusade is mistaken, based on a false 'tradecuмenism' and doomed to failure. He is not what most of us would consider a 'turetrad'. But he's no coward. I think it is disappointing if it is true that he decided not to let Archbishop Vigano's address go to air at the conference. Such a champion of the resistance deserves to be heard. But we don't know all the circuмstances so let's not get too judgemental.
Would "universal acceptance" of a trangender female who managed to get elected pope provide a sanatio in radice for that election?
No. Neither would "universal acceptance" provide a sanatio in radice for the election of a public manifest formal heretic.
Lad says that Clement did FOR A TIME, and if that is true, then it seemingly works against Billot.
Only God can fix this. If St. Pius X said in his time that "humanly speaking, the Church is finished," what would he say about the situation today?
I doubt that Pope St. Pius X would take an extreme position on the matter. He just wasn't that kind of Pope.
Especially since he never gave instructions about what to do with a heretical Pope, though it would have been helpful if he would have done so.
So much for Michael Matt and his "Unite the Clans" baloney. And he boots out Abp Vigano because he doesn't like what he says and may lose some income stream!:laugh2::laugh1:
Remember, the reason Bergoglio is an Antipope is because Pope Benedict obviously never validly resigned. All of the other stuff subsequent to Pope Benedict’s invalid attempted partial resignation in February ARSH 2013 is historically interesting, and points to the fact that “something is terribly wrong”, but it isn’t the root of the problem or the FULLNESS of TRUTH. Jorge Bergoglio doesn’t need to be tried as a heretic or “deposed” because he is not and never has been the Pope.
We can argue about the later, but you missed the point, which was simply that this situation is beyond human resolution. Whether he's already deposed or whether the Church has to declare him deposed, the problem is the same, that you'll not get more than 1% of so-called Conciliar Catholics behind the election of a new pope to replace Bergoglio.
So much for Michael Matt and his "Unite the Clans" baloney. And he boots out Abp Vigano because he doesn't like what he says and may lose some income stream!His "Unite the Clans" never permitted sedevacantists of any stripe.
It does seem that the situation is beyond human reasoning, and yet we still try to reason it out, each of us with our own opinion on the matter.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error
Can anyone confirm +Fellay was present at this conference?
If so, it would have been interesting to read his facial expressions, had MM allowed Viganò’s speech to be played.
A friend says he’d have had a stroke.
Cebu’s comment (a few posts above) highlights the irony of holding a conference under the pretext of uniting the clans, then censoring one of them.
Novus Ordo conservatives, indultarians, and conciliar/neo-SSPX will all unite (aren’t they already United?), but sedes, Resistance, independents, these must not be involved.
PS: Was the speech sidelined because Fellay would have been embarrassed to have people seeing Vigano speaking like Lefebvre, while he remains branded, or did the content simply scare MM?
So much for Michael Matt and his "Unite the Clans" baloney. And he boots out Abp Vigano because he doesn't like what he says and may lose some income stream!It's not about uniting the clans, it's about collecting the CLAMS!
But the important issue for sedevacantists is that we can't throw the Papacy under the bus in order to salvage Bergoglio. Vatican I taught that the Holy See has ever remained unblemished by error. If Vatican II did not blemish the Holy See with error, then there's no such thing.
Vatican I Pastor Aeternus:
I doubt that Pope St. Pius X would take an extreme position on the matter. He just wasn't that kind of Pope.Pope St Pius X actually said it
Especially since he never gave instructions about what to do with a heretical Pope, though it would have been helpful if he would have done so.
Pope St Pius X actually said it
And yet the Holy see is run by men. Men who can err. They are not gods, and they are not divine.
:facepalm: You and your R&R ilk deny the most fundamental doctrine that separates Catholicism from all the other false perversions of Christianity. While the men can err, the Papal Magisterium cannot mislead the Church. Period. End of story.
You people have heretically butchered the Church into a human institution, and reduced the papacy to nothing different than +Fellay's leadership over the SSPX, where he's a man and can err.
So they are basically gods, and divine, in your view?
:facepalm: They themselves are obviously not gods, and can sin, etc. But the MAGISTERIUM is in fact effectively the voice of God and is not capable of leading the entire Church into error. That is THE foundation of Catholicism.
So they are divine? The men who inhabit the Holy See, I mean.
Are you not even able to read, in addition to having no sense of the Catholic faith left whatsoever? What part of where I already answered this question didn't you undertand?
So much for Michael Matt and his "Unite the Clans" baloney. And he boots out Abp Vigano because he doesn't like what he says and may lose some income stream!It's a sad day for the Matt crowd. Pretty embarrassing actually - cutting off the darling bishop so vocal against the constant errors and insanity. "Everyone's welcome !! - unless you disagree with me." Mr. Matt, buddy, put down the glue sniffing and wake up.
:facepalm: You and your R&R ilk deny the most fundamental doctrine that separates Catholicism from all the other false perversions of Christianity. While the men can err, the Papal Magisterium cannot mislead the Church. Period. End of story.The Seat might as well be occupied by Joel Osteen.
So up to a point he was not a coward in your opinion. That doesn't mean he's not a coward now. Unless he comes up with some good excuse for censoring the sede-leaning comments of Vigano, I'll still say he is absolutely a coward. Regardless of what you think. As far as I'm concerned, he responded exactly the way I would expect him to respond..
It's a sad day for the Matt crowd. Pretty embarrassing actually - cutting off the darling bishop so vocal against the constant errors and insanity. "Everyone's welcome !! - unless you disagree with me." Mr. Matt, buddy, put down the glue sniffing and wake up..
.
Indeed. I wonder if this will spell the end of the working relationship between Vigano and Michael Matt?
.Same difference.
I don't think Matt's motive is cowardice, actually. I think it's censorship. He doesn't want to give publicity to anyone who defends sedevacantism because it goes against his R&R position. So he's "canceling" Vigano, to use the modern term.
He said what the Church should do in the case of a heretical Pope?No- that the Church was "over" in a natural sense.
I saw half of it. Michael Matt claims at the time he posted this defense of himself, he hadn't even seen the Vigano video or read the statement. Highly unlikelyHe's basically accusing Vigano of not playing by the Conference rules. So, it's Matt vs Vigano.
He's basically accusing Vigano of not playing by the Conference rules. So, it's Matt vs Vigano.Wow- the Satan card is even worse than the h0Ɩ0cαųst Card! From one "Clans"men to another, even!
Oh, and the division Satan card! Those sedes! :laugh1:
Cry me a river. Something about all of this smells to high Heaven.
Michael Matt explains himself:
https://x.com/Michael_J_Matt/status/1708926355528699925?s=20 (https://x.com/Michael_J_Matt/status/1708926355528699925?s=20)
Michael Matt explains himself:Thank you for posting CK.
https://x.com/Michael_J_Matt/status/1708926355528699925?s=20 (https://x.com/Michael_J_Matt/status/1708926355528699925?s=20)
Thank you for posting CK.And why should anyone believe Matt's story regarding Vigano?
As often happens, we hasten to judge (the person) when we ought not.
Wait- why should a contrary opinion of another prelate be so damaging that they needed to be “protected” from Vigano’s statement? No one was forcing his views on them . The audience deserved to hear from the Archbishop and critically weigh his position . Just being at this conference does not bode any priest or bishop well under Bergoglioism, so what’s the big deal? It doesn’t change the face of their R and R stance if that’s what they subscribe to . It would have made them a bit more magnanimous towards the other clans is all - lol. I think they fear that the dominoes will too easily fall if exposed, and apparently Trad Inc still needs it to stand.Vigano is a big domino
You claim that the magistrium is the voice of God, and (thus) not capable of leading the entire Church into error. How does this work, exactly? Especially when Our Lord set up his Church to be run by men, who can err?Wow! That is the sort of question one would hear from a Protestant. The Magisterium is, yes, the voice of the Holy Ghost active in and through the teaching office of the Church as held by the Pope alone as well as the universal episcopate when teaching with and under the Pope. Even the schismatic Orthodox uphold the authority and infallibility of the teaching office of bishops according their deformed notion of synodal sobornost.
Michael Matt explains himself:M-O-N-E-Y. That is what MM is really admitting, that the Trad Inc. cash flow is the motivation in suppressing Viganò's video.
https://x.com/Michael_J_Matt/status/1708926355528699925?s=20 (https://x.com/Michael_J_Matt/status/1708926355528699925?s=20)
I saw half of it. Michael Matt claims at the time he posted this defense of himself, he hadn't even seen the Vigano video or read the statement. Highly unlikely
Why is it that truth always suffers at the expense of unity?
M-O-N-E-Y. That is what MM is really admitting, that the Trad Inc. cash flow is the motivation in suppressing Viganò's video.
"Unity" in WHAT, Matt? This is the same Ecuмenical nonsense that Vatican II is built on, where we'll form a unity based on the various points people have in common ... rather than rooted in truth and in principle.Right. +Vigano speaking the truth and condemning V2's errors, is forcing indulters like Matt to choose orthodoxy or conciliarism. God will not accept lukewarm compromising on religion, doctrine and truth....he will always raise up people to preach the unadulterated and uncompromising truth.
Great harm comes to Traditional Catholicism by this crop of grifters who have shown up to make a living off being "celebrities" ... when their only real-life skills (to get real jobs) might get them a job bagging groceries. Since their livelihood depends on it, they have to appeal to as broad an audience as they can.Where were these Trad Inc. celebrities before Summorum Pontificuм? They did not exist.
Where were these Trad Inc. celebrities before Summorum Pontificuм? They did not exist.
One might argue them to be a "new generation" that replaced the not-so-celebrity trad leaders of the 1970s/80s/90s, but that argument falls flat.
The old trad leaders did not make livings off of their efforts. Michael Davies was a grammar school teacher. Patrick Henry Omlor was a family man. Hutton Gibson too was a family man, although his game show winnings and Hollywood son made him a celebrity of a different sort. Frs. Wathan, Wickens, and Nelson were all original cancelled priests in the USA. Abbé Georges de Nantes and Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga were cancelled priests in France and Mexico respectively.
To be a trad writer was to be poor and outcast, not brining in hundreds of thousands of dollars through the media and certainly not holding conferences where half or more of the speakers are non-trads.
"Unite the Clans" translates as (re)unite Indulters to the conservative wing of the Novus Ordo. Even if this is not a primary intention of those involved, it is the practical and final end of this effort.
So, he expressed outrage over accusations of "censorship" ... and then basically admits that he censored it. It's his conference, and his choice, so he would have been better served simply to admit that he "censored" the video and then explain why he did it.It will be interesting to see if/how Vigano responds to Matt's "clarification".
What's more at issue is the nature of this "union" of "clans" in the first place.
There's also no conspiracy by "Team Vigano" but simply a lot of individuals who have come to the same conclusion or opinion. He's attributing these criticisms to the devil and to some nefarious group named "Team Vigano" instead of realizing that many individuals came to the same conclusion on their own. In fact, at one point, he even implied that +Vigano himself may have been behind this "organized campaign" to go after him. So much for healing the "rupture" between himself and +Vigano. He knows that he gets a lot "views" when he interviews +Vigano, and so that's the rupture he's most concerned about.
Initial comments at the Remnant seem not to be buying MM’s explanations either:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/6835-censoring-vigano-michael-matt-responds
At the moment, the Remnant is 0 wins/7 losses in the comments section (which includes a couple great ones by one of our own).I just threw in a couple.....the moderator has responded to (Lad?). As you all know, I'm not a fan of Vigano (yet), but this whole obvious anti-sede thing gets me rip-roaring mad.
The Remnant editors dropped this nugget in their response to whom I assume is our esteemed CathInfo poster, Ladislaus:Mr. Matt over-reacts, the Archbishop said "In this speech I will not try to give answers, but to pose a question that can no longer be postponed," The Archbishop is just asking questions not making judgments. Thus, when Mr. Matt talks about unity, he means the funds that unite in his bank account.
"...full roster of speakers dedicating their weekend to a symposium on unity among traditional laymen and clergy committed to remaining loyal to the see of St. Peter."
Sedevacantism is precisely about remaining loyal to the see of St. Peter when there is an illegitimate usurper occupying that see!
:facepalm:
The Remnant editors dropped this nugget in their response to whom I assume is our esteemed CathInfo poster, Ladislaus:
"...full roster of speakers dedicating their weekend to a symposium on unity among traditional laymen and clergy committed to remaining loyal to the see of St. Peter."
Sedevacantism is precisely about remaining loyal to the see of St. Peter when there is an illegitimate usurper occupying that see!
:facepalm:
If Matt wants to go anti-SV, that's fine, and that's his choice. But stop beating around the bush here, saying stuff like "I have friends who are sedevacantists." ... to avoid losing some of his SV subscriber/viewer base.Yes, that is true. I think I will drop out of this conversation here and there because it's a waste of my time and spiritual energy. When all is said and done, Michael Matt and what he does or doesn't do means nothing to me. The ball is in Vigano's court. What he does with it will say a lot about him, I think.
Some websites where you WON’T see Viganò’s speech:
1) The Remnant
2) Catholic Family News
3) LifeSiteNews
4) All SSPX websites.
He's basically long thrown in his lot with the Conciliars (departed from Traditional Catholicism) in order to broader his viewer/subscriber base and increase revenues.Dear Ladislaus,
None of the above websites have ever supported sedevacantism or benevacantism. I'm not surprised that the Remnant wouldn't show Vigano's video. Of course many here will think that this is a heinous crime, which only goes to show that Matt was correct in not showing the video at his conference.
I'm also not surprised that Vigano is starting to be a benevacantist. It was only a matter of time. I'm not a fan of Vigano, so I don't care one way or the other.
But what is interesting to me is that, excepting the SSPX, the other three outlets (and you could throw Marshall in there as well) we’re all Vigano fans, and we’re all part of the “unite the clans” mindset.
Now they all appear to want to separate from Vigano, rather than unite.
Interestingly, some in that crowd (eg., SSPX; Roberto de Mattei, et al) we’re already at odds with Vigano because of his position regarding V2.
The common denominator of both groups separating from Vigano is that they’re both unwilling to separate from conciliarism:
Some are married to the Council, like Mattei, (who ironically himself has I issues with the legitimacy of Francis),
Others are tied to the legitimacy of Francis, but reject the Council.
So one way or the other, they’re all going along with the revolution, even if whining about it along the way.
1) The RemnantAdd the site "One Peter Five" who posted the +Schneider article defending Francis' papacy and butchering St Bellarmine's take on papal heresy.
2) Catholic Family News
3) LifeSiteNews
4) All SSPX websites.
The common denominator of both groups separating from Vigano is that they’re both unwilling to separate from conciliarism:Yes. And the younger generations need to be educated that the above 5 sites are similar to the mainstream media - just for indulters. If one listens to the above, they are being lied to and manipulated to stay part of the conciliar-machine.
Why can't we all just get along and Unite the Clams?Homage to Fr. Cekada, RIP? Perfect.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1708937115176718657
The problem with his line of reasoning is...how does he prove what Bergoglio's intent was at the time of his election?Dear 2Vermont,
Lifesite news leans and supports the new order.
Fr. Paul Kramer made the following comment on Facebook regarding the reason Archbishop Vigano holds that Jorge Bergoglio is not pope:
"His reason is fundamentally that Bergoglio's heresy disqualifies him from holding the papal munus in the Catholic Church, and that he is the pope of a different church. In this he is entirely correct."
I am not sure how "defect of consent" as the key reason stated by Archbishop Vigano relates to Bergoglio's heresy.
Fr. Kramer clarifies:.
"His argument (i.e., Archbishop Vigano's) is that the heresy regarding the constitution of the Church and the nature of the papacy renders him (i.e., Jorge Bergoglio) incapable of consenting to receive the Petrine munus."
Recent post over at the Remnant combox...hilarious:
Resource for Catholic Parents to Aid in the Handling of Awkward Questions from Family Members, Especially Children, on Whether Jorge Mario Bergoglio is Truly PopeSome suggested possible answers:"No""Yes""Don't you have some homework to do?""Not now dear, I'm trying to organize a conference""Have you been listening to that Archbishop Vigano again?""We don't discuss sede.....whatever it is.......around here""What am I.......a lawyer?""This is very short notice, dear. I'll need that in writing two weeks in advance of any further discussion on this matter""Hey.......how 'bout them Dawgs!!?" (For those who live in Georgia, like me).
Bergolio meets and dialogues with devil worshippers who should be publicly corrected. But he says who is he to judge. Bergolio only judges true Christian’s.Viva, your last 2 posts on this thread are excellent.
Vatican II had help from radical liberal Protestants.
There are many who infiltrated the Church. Bella Dodd and Archbishop Fulton Sheen warned us. Communist Infiltrators were put in to destroy the Church from the inside.
These are not huge “mistakes”. These plans are intentional. Most Catholics don’t know their faith. Bergolio and his friends plan on a Church without God.
Read and comprehend your douay Rheim bibles.
Christ is King of the Universe. Not man.
VIGANO: This situation is humanly irremediable, because the forces at play are immense and because the corruption of Authority cannot be healed by those who are subject to it. We must take note that the metastasis of this "pontificate" originates from the conciliar cancer, from that Vatican II which created the ideological, doctrinal, and disciplinary bases that inevitably had to lead to this point. But how many of my confreres, who also recognize the gravity of the current crisis, have the ability to recognize this causal link between the conciliar revolution and its extreme consequences with Bergoglio?
I can see part of deligitimizing Jorge as being a tactical maneuver. Once people come to accept that Jorge is a non-pope, they might then be open to questioning Roncalli et al. in the same light and according to the same principles. I KNOW that +Vigano realizes that the problem did not start with Jorge, ever since his groundbreaking piece where he disagreed with +Schneider by arguing that V2 was unsalvageable and had to be thrown into the trash bin.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger were not simply men whose minds were contaminated by Modernism, poor misguided (yet sincere) souls, but that they were enemy agents, infiltrators, and, as +Vigano says of Jorge, had a deliberate malicious agenda to destroy the Church.
The problem with his line of reasoning is...how does he prove what Bergoglio's intent was at the time of his election?
The comparison with nullity in the marriage context is strikingly probative..
.
Um, no, I don't think it was (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/'vitium-consensus'-archbishop-vigano-catholic-identity-conference-2023/msg906167/#msg906167). Not in comparison with true (pre-Vatican 2) Catholic teaching and practice on marriage.
Vigano knew exactly what he was doing when he submitted his video at the last minute to MM. Vigano is very craftly. He isn't on the side of Tradition, and he's playing some kind of game and he's not thinking of the good of Church. Of course sedes are going to play right into whatever he's up to. Vigano tells them what they want to hear. He's been doing that with trads for awhile now. He is not to be trusted.
Vigano knew exactly what he was doing when he submitted his video at the last minute to MM.
I've never trusted him. I thought you liked him.
But none of this matters. It's not a question of sedevacantism. It's not a question of Vigano.
Vigano is a powerful player right now. His words are listened to by many novus ordos. The last thing he said had a lot of unvarnished truth in it.
We shouldn't look for one faction or another to score. We look for the truth to score. It's not a team sport. It's not a question of Vigano good or bad, or sedes good or bad. It's God, the Omnipotent, and His truth. Period.
Vigano knew exactly what he was doing when he submitted his video at the last minute to MM. Vigano is very craftly. He isn't on the side of Tradition, and he's playing some kind of game and he's not thinking of the good of Church. Of course sedes are going to play right into whatever he's up to. Vigano tells them what they want to hear. He's been doing that with trads for awhile now. He is not to be trusted.:facepalm: It's easy to be cynical. It's harder to provide proof and a motive. Do you have either?
:facepalm: It's easy to be cynical. It's harder to provide proof and a motive. Do you have either?
Vigano knew exactly what he was doing when he submitted his video at the last minute to MM. Vigano is very craftly. He isn't on the side of Tradition, and he's playing some kind of game and he's not thinking of the good of Church. Of course sedes are going to play right into whatever he's up to. Vigano tells them what they want to hear. He's been doing that with trads for awhile now. He is not to be trusted.
I haven't liked Vigano since he praised Our Lord as the 'Sol Invictus', which is a pagan and freemasonic name for Our Lord. That is not Truth. He also signed 5 or 6 of his written communications using a freemasonic signature. That also is not truth. Whatever he is up to, it's not Truth. Sedes won't understand that of course. As long as he tells them what they want to hear, that constitutes "Truth" as they see it.
It's easy enough to prove that he has some sympathy for Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Do you want me to locate where he referred to Our Lord as Sol Invictus? That's easy enough. Or where he gave a freemasonic signature to several of his communications? This was thoroughly debated here last year. Did you miss it?
I have no idea what the motive is exactly. Maybe he's a freemason, or maybe he wants to divide trads even further than they already are. I don't have exact proof though. Go ahead and believe that Vigano is going to save the day. You are of course free to do that. I think you'll be very disappointed though.
So his frequent condemnations of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ indicate that he’s sympathetic to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ??
Wait. What?
Where’s all this coming from?
It's easy enough to prove that he has some sympathy for Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Do you want me to locate where he referred to Our Lord as Sol Invictus? That's easy enough. Or where he gave a freemasonic signature to several of his communications? This was thoroughly debated here last year. Did you miss it?
I have no idea what the motive is exactly. Maybe he's a freemason, or maybe he wants to divide trads even further than they already are. I don't have exact proof though. Go ahead and believe that Vigano is going to save the day. You are of course free to do that. I think you'll be very disappointed though.
I've never trusted him. I thought you liked him.
I haven't liked Vigano since he praised Our Lord as the 'Sol Invictus', which is a pagan and freemasonic name for Our Lord.
So his frequent condemnations of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ indicate that he’s sympathetic to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ??
Vigano knew exactly what he was doing when he submitted his video at the last minute to MM. Vigano is very craftly... Of course sedes are going to play right into whatever he's up to. Vigano tells them what they want to hear.
Would you explain how?.
Wait. What?I see you never got an answer to this question. Michael Matt stated in his "How dare people say I censored Vigano even though I did" video that Vigano waited to the last minute to submit his video/transcript for the Unite the Conciliar Clan conference. So, if someone were to take Matt's side of the story as truth, then one could question why Vigano took so long to submit it. However, there is no proof that there was some nefarious intent on his part. We also don't really know whether Matt's story was what actually happened either.
Where’s all this coming from?
I’m not sold on Vigano either, but your hatred for sedevacantism has blinded your rationality. Meg, you simply don’t think clearly.Neither am I.
.
Yes, this was my explanation (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/'vitium-consensus'-archbishop-vigano-catholic-identity-conference-2023/msg906167/#msg906167).
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 see you never got an answer to this question. Michael Matt stated in his "How dare people say I censored Vigano even though I did" video that Vigano waited to the last minute to submit his video/transcript for the Unite the Conciliar Clan conference. So, if someone were to take Matt's side of the story as truth, then one could question why Vigano took so long to submit it. However, there is no proof that there was some nefarious intent on his part. We also don't really know whether Matt's story was what actually happened either.
Whether Vigano was actively trying to sabotage the Clams Festival we do not know. What we do know, however, is that Matt loves swimming in the Novus Ordo world and never the twain shall meet.
Why would you have to check in advance what an invited guest was going to say, especially a bishop?Right. I'm sure Matt & crew are already on 'high alert' with +Vigano, since he's been openly contradicting Schneider's b.s. and condemning V2.
I would welcome a sabotage of Matt's Ecuмenical kumbaya Novus Ordo lovefest, so that if it came out that it was +Vigano's intent, that would only increase the esteem I have for him. That would mean that he's rejecting the conservative Novus Ordo wing and going more fully Traditional.
Really the excuse given by MM is no excuse at all. Vigano is a VIP. VIP's are certainly allowed to submit something last minute. Their gravitas pre-endorses anything they have to say.Nope. I posted there asking why.
No, this is absolute censorship cuм an effeminate self-justification blame-throw. Matt protests too much that it is not censorship. Furthermore, if not censorship, then why haven't the video and transcript been emailed to conference attendees, and published on both the Remnant website and the conference website?
Or have they?
Has MM published it in any way? For MM has now had time to read and consider it. How much more lame is his excuse if he has conveniently forgotten to publish it?
Clock is ticking........
Nope. I posted there asking why.
Meanwhile, while the Remnant comments box has taken a belated turn with an influx of MM defenders, the comment box under the Vigano speech is filling up with people actually discussing the issue (177 at last count):
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-vigano-catholics-must-seriously-consider-the-possibility-that-francis-isnt-the-pope/?utm_source=popular
Here’s an interesting one:Neat but ultimately wrong as the other vatican 2 'Popes' were just as bad if not worse.
”John Brace
— 15 hours ago (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-vigano-catholics-must-seriously-consider-the-possibility-that-francis-isnt-the-pope/?utm_source=popular#none)
On Dec 7, 2020, Abp Viganò warned of the prophecy of Our Lady of La Salette wherein “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.” Bp Schneider noted the “expression about the throne of the Antichrist in Rome in the (original) prayer of Pope Leo XIII is similar to an expression in the secret of La Salette.”
The public appearance of the Antichrist is preceded by the False Prophet. A number of scriptural exegetes have explained the situation. For example, Fr E Sylvester Berry described the False Prophet in his work ‘The Apocalypse of St John’, 1921, p 138. “There will be a complete organization ─ a church of Satan set up in opposition to the Church of Christ. Satan will assume the part of God the Father; Antichrist will be honoured as Saviour, and his prophet will usurp the role of Pope.”
The False Prophet is a diabolical type of St John the Baptist who preceded Christ. St John was a voice crying in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord, that is, to prepare the Jews to receive their Messiah, Christ. (Mark 1: 3) Similarly, the False Prophet is to prepare the world for the counterfeit, the Antichrist.
On March 7, 1990, Cardinal Oddi, Prefect for the Congregation of the Clergy, warned “the Blessed Virgin (of Fatima) was alerting us against apostasy in the Church.” Most significantly, Cardinal Mario Ciappi, personal theologian to five popes from 1955 to 1989, revealed in his letter to Professor Baumgartner: “In the Third Secret (of Fatima) it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”
Christopher Ferrara warned in an article titled ‘Did Saint Francis Predict Pope Francis of a prophecy of St Francis’. “Act bravely, my brethren; take courage and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase. The devils will have unusual power … a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death … Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them, not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.” (The Remnant Nov 13, 2017).
The counterfeit teachings of Francis lure Catholics into apostasy. Surprisingly on 23 Dec 2016, in an interview with Der Spiegel’s Walter Mayr, he boasted “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”
The silence of lukewarm-but-orthodox bishops and cardinals prove that Francis is the greatest false-prophet in the history of the Church. Why? Because a false-prophet deceives even the elect, for Our Lord Himself said “false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” Matthew 24:22.”
Neat but ultimately wrong as the other vatican 2 'Popes' were just as bad if not worse.
(1) Arcivescovo Carlo Maria Viganò on X: "We must take note that the metastasis of this “pontificate” originates from the conciliar cancer, from that Vatican II which created the ideological, doctrinal, and disciplinary bases that inevitably had to lead to this point. But how many of my confreres, who also recognize…" / X (twitter.com) (https://twitter.com/CarloMVigano/status/1710205126776901985)
This is very good.
I firmly believe that in the years to come the First Vatican Council with be reconvened, and V2 will be anathematized.
I have not listened to this, but Catholic Family News brings up the topic of Abp. Viganò: Bergoglio’s Election “Invalidated” Due to Lack of Proper Consent
Weekly News Roundup: New Dubia, Abp. Viganò on Francis Pontificate, Kevin McCarthy Ousted - Catholic Family News (https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2023/10/05/weekly-news-roundup-new-dubia-abp-vigano-on-francis-pontificate-kevin-mccarthy-ousted/)
Trad 123 I agree. Vatican I did not finish/ Was it Our Lady Mediatrix to be a dogma?
Trad 123 I agree. Vatican I did not finish/ Was it Our Lady Mediatrix to be a dogma?