Is that Schneider in the photo with Francis?  That's a masonic handshake...

While I agree that Jorge Bergoglio was invalidly elected, I do not agree with Archbishop Vigano that the cause was a “defect of consent”.  Even if we assume that “defect of consent” is a valid cause, it is not the a priori cause.  The a prior cause, rather, is that the Pope Benedict XVI did not validly renounce his munus (office).  Therefore, no election could have legitimately been called in the first place.

Benedict couldn't validly renounce his office, because he ALSO had a defect of consent, being he ALSO never intended to be an orthodox, catholic pope.  Same applies to JP2, Paul 6 and John 23.  All of these anti-popes were in favor of V2 and "updating the Church for modern times".  That's heresy.

Let's not forget that Benedict was actively present and working at V2 to bring out the "French Revolution in the Church" (as one Modernist described the destruction).  Even after being elected pope, Ratzinger did NOT condemn V2, or its ambiguities, errors or half-truths.  He simply said they need to be re-interpreted.  But a lie can never be 100% re-interpreted as the truth.  It's impossible.  So Benedict pushed the lie that V2 could be re-interpreted "in the light of Tradition" which is both an oxymoron and a logical impossibility.  Further, Ratzinger never did anything against those modernists who continued to offer the new mass, continued to give communion in the hand, continued to push liberal catechisms, etc. So, Benedict said one thing (which appealed to Trads) and did the opposite (i.e. let the Modernists continue promoting heresy and sacrilege). 

These actions are not catholic and Benedict never had the intention to return the Church back to the days of Pope St Pius X.  He was a fake Trad, a liar and a heretic.  He definitely had a "defect of intention" in regards to the papacy.

Is that Schneider in the photo with Francis?  That's a masonic handshake...

Very interesting that +Vigano posted that picture.  Is he trying to tell us something?  Why would Jorge be all smiley with +Schneider, who's been one of his biggest critics (while also not getting disciplined for it)?  More evidence that +Schneider is working for Bergoglio.

Benedict couldn't validly renounce his office, because he ALSO had a defect of consent, being he ALSO never intended to be an orthodox, catholic pope.  Same applies to JP2, Paul 6 and John 23.  All of these anti-popes were in favor of V2 and "updating the Church for modern times".  That's heresy.

Exactly right.  This started with Roncalli who clearly and publicly laid out an agenda to transform the Church.

It's too bad that +Vigano has distanced himself from "the sedevacantists" in this post.  While he says that the root cause goes back to V2 and the pre-Bergoglian V2 papal claimants are responsible for it, he seems afraid to trace this backward to all these guys.

It's clear to me that Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio have been willing and conscious agents for the deliberate, planned, pre-meditated destruction of the Church by its enemies.  These are not just some liberal-minded Modernist types who happened to be elected to the papacy.  And I also believe that they're not even material popes because Siri was the legitimate pope (canonically) until his death in 1989.

I disagree with you that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had a defect of consent upon his acceptance of his election.

Ratzinger held and taught the same heresy regarding the Old Covenant not having been abrogated and remaining salvific for Modern-day Jews that first caused Father Kramer to hold that Bergoglio was not the pope due to manifest heresy.

Ratzinger held and taught the same heresy regarding the Old Covenant not having been abrogated and remaining salvific for Modern-day Jєωs that first caused Father Kramer to hold that Bergoglio was not the pope due to manifest heresy.

"He (Joseph Ratzinger) then upholds the Catholic doctrine on the relation of the covenants:   'The whole journey of God with his people finally finds its summary and final figure in the Last Supper of Jesus Christ, which anticipates and carries within itself the Cross and Resurrection. We do not need to discuss the complicated problems of the formation of the two traditions: Mark and Matthew on the one hand, and Luke and Paul on the other. In one case, the Sinai tradition is taken up. What has happened there comes to definitive fulfillment here. Accordingly, the promise of the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 is now a present reality. The Sinai covenant was by its very nature always a promise, an approach to what is final. After all destruction, the new covenant is the love of God that goes as far as the death of the Son. The reestablishment of the Sinai covenant in the New Covenant in Jesus’ blood— that is, in his love that vanquishes death— gives the covenant a new and permanently valid form.'"

Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (p. 584). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.

"He (Joseph Ratzinger) then upholds the Catholic doctrine on the relation of the covenants:

This is a minor issue.  The main reason Ratzinger was an anti-pope was his support of the new mass and V2, both of which were "contrary to Trent" as the top theologian, +Ottaviani explained.  Ratzinger made the argument that the new mass was "not a rupture with Tradition" (a lie) and that it was simply a "different usage" of the roman rite.  But this is contrary to Trent, which is, by definition, heretical.