Yet? I'll believe it when I see it. Quite honestly, I think he'll just continue to write, and write, and write....and then he'll die.
I think the same. That's all he's done for the last 4-5 years, and there's no indication he will every do anything different, and he is now in his 80s and doesn't have a huge amount of time left for this world.
I don't understand why people on here are so impressed by him. He was alive before Vatican 2 and saw what the Church really looks like, and lived through all the changes, and never objected to anything that we know of. Then, a few years ago he makes a big issue out of the carnal sins of a few Novus Ordo prelates and the conservative wing of the Novus Ordo (i.e., Michael Matt, indult groups in general) starts fawning all over him. Why? I have no idea. Personal immortality of a few clergy is not a problem of the Church.
Then, a year or two later, he finally(!) realizes there are doctrinal and liturgical problems in the Church, something that pious old ladies were aware of 50 years ago. But fair enough, so he starts condemning Vatican 2 and the new "Mass". Better late than never. He even attacks Bergoglio as a heretic, which really wows a lot of people.
Unfortunately, he maintains that Bergoglio can only be deposed as pope by "the Church", a not-uncommon opinion, but never defines who "the Church" is. But let's suppose he is referring to the college of cardinals. Okay, but the college of cardinals refuses to depose Bergoglio. Well, doesn't that make them complicit? That is what both common sense and theology teach, and after all, if a pope can be a heretic and need deposition, can't the same be true of the college of cardinals? All of this is what Vigano could have discerned with 30 seconds of thoughtful reflection, even without recourse to any theological treatises (which he doesn't appear to read, anyway, or at least he never cites any theologians).
So if the college of cardinals espouses heresy and/or protects a heretical antipope, they must be judged and deposed by "the Church" too, right? And who is that now? Well, who is below the cardinals except the bishops? But wait, isn't Vigano a bishop, in fact an ARCHbishop? So doesn't that mean he has the duty, as a member of "the Church", to depose the pope and cardinals?
Well, he made it absolutely clear that he will
never fulfill this obligation when he said that he would not declare Bergoglio an antipope because "that's just what Bergoglio wants", and he was absolutely terrified that Bergoglio would excommunicate him. Seriously??! What traditional Catholic wouldn't want to be excommunicated by Bergoglio -- in fact, wear such an excommunication as a badge of honor?
Vigano's failure to do his duty is not due to an ignorance of what he is supposed to do -- which would be bad enough in itself -- but due to a lack of courage and trust in God. He is one of the only people on earth who is uniquely positioned to do the
one thing that every trad of whatever stripe agrees would solve the crisis in the Church, which is to have the Church formally condemn Bergoglio and the modernist cardinals and bishops and pass sentence of excommunication on them, removing them from office in the Church. If Vigano were to do this, everyone from Indultarians to Michael Matt to the recognize-and-resist people to sedevacantists and everone in-between would accept it as legitimate and accept the new pope following on such a judgment as a true pope of the Church, and the crisis in the Church would be over.
But instead, Vigano chooses to be a hireling and a coward, and unless he does his duty he will be held guilty of the loss of millions of souls who would otherwise have been saved by such a restoration of the Church, and he will be buried as deep in hell as Cardinal Siri who was similarly a hireling and a coward, and who refused to reveal what happened in the 1958 conclave, thus allowing the loss of millions of souls and an unprecedented apostasy.
Topic: Dimond Brothers on Taylor Marshall (Read 9018 times)