Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Texana on June 27, 2024, 03:05:37 PM
-
URGENT: Stop the imminent "extrajudicial" excommunication of Pope Vigano!
Remember this? On 14 October 2019
"...In this extraordinary situation, before God and before the Church, I realize my duty as an orthodox Catholic bishop, and therefore I elect Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano as the rightful Pope." "...In order to prevent the conversion of the Church of Christ into a pagan anti-Church of the New Age, an extraordinary step had to be taken: the election of the rightful Pope."
"An open letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano elected as the rightful successor of the Apostle Peter"
Your Holiness,
the manifest heretic Francis Bergoglio occupies the papal office and works towards destroying not only the papacy but the whole Church of Christ. What is the will of God in this extraordinary situation? God wants You to accept the papal office.
We beseech You in the name of God and on behalf of the bleeding Mystical Body of Christ, the Church, to accept the election despite the fierce opposition of the enemies. Even if You stay in office for several days or weeks facing the struggle, it is an important step towards preserving orthodox doctrine and the Church of Christ.
Your installation as Pope will not cause a papal schism because Bergoglio, being a heretic, has never been a valid Pope. So the Church was de facto in a state of Sede Vacante. This state ends with Your acceptance of Peter's keys.
In Christ,
Patriarch Elijah
and Bishops of the Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate
+ Marcian
+ Methodius
+Samuel
+Basil
+Timothy
See "Habemus papam/English/" on YouTube from the Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate
https://bcp-video.org/habemus-papam-3/
-
:laugh1:
-
:laugh1:
???
-
"If we assume that +Vigano is sincere and not an infiltrator, then his conditional consecration provided him with the full effects of his office and we are witnessing the power of grace..."
Pax Vobis
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/jaccuse/
-
It's ridiculous, just like "pope michael".
I was speaking of the full effects of his EPISCOPAL office (because, being a "bishop" in the new rite, means he either was never a bishop, or only had part of the office). +Vigano is not the pope...
-
It's ridiculous, just like "pope michael".
I was speaking of the full effects of his EPISCOPAL office (because, being a "bishop" in the new rite, means he either was never a bishop, or only had part of the office). +Vigano is not the pope...
Dear Pax Vobis,
Please provide evidence that Archbishop Vigano was conditionally consecrated, including the date.
-
:laugh1: Why?
You'd rather believe that a handful of random, orthodox prelates have the ability to elect a pope, rather than believe that +Williamson conditionally consecrated +Vigano? We have no evidence that these orthodox prelates even KNOW +Vigano, yet we have ample evidence that +W and +Vigano have met numerous times, in person.
Why would you believe a fantastical story, yet question the plausible one...a story which +W has even implicitly backed up and which others have confirmed for him?
-
"It would be ironic if +Vigano became the next pope, having been the nuncio to the United States, and then reclaim the Tiara which has now been exiled to the US."
Ladislaus
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/jaccuse/15/
-
Dear Pax Vobis,
Please provide evidence that Archbishop Vigano was conditionally consecrated, including the date.
I know an individual who speaks regularly with Bishop Williamson and who told me that Bishop Williamson personally confirmed the conditional consecration to him. I know another individual who is in contact with Father Chazal, who in turn is in contact with Bishop Williamson, who states that Father Chazal the same thing to him. Finally, the forum moderator Matthew stated that the conditional consecration was confirmed by him as fact.
-
:laugh1: Why?
You'd rather believe that a handful of random, orthodox prelates have the ability to elect a pope, rather than believe that +Williamson conditionally consecrated +Vigano? We have no evidence that these orthodox prelates even KNOW +Vigano, yet we have ample evidence that +W and +Vigano have met numerous times, in person.
Why would you believe a fantastical story, yet question the plausible one...a story which +W has even implicitly backed up and which others have confirmed for him?
Dear Pax Vobis,
If you "believe" from secondary sources that Bishop Vigano was conditionally consecrated, why do you laugh at the proof of his Papal election?
I know that bishops of the Catholic Church "have the ability to elect a pope", in certain circuмstances, based on the writings of Cardinal Billot.
Bishop Vigano's election is a fact. It is a matter of knowledge, not a "belief". The evidence of that fact is in the OP which includes the date, 14 October, 2019, the video of the bishops, the results of the election docuмent, and the Open Letter to Archbishop Vigano. The only thing we do not know is whether or not he said, "Yes".
-
I know an individual who speaks regularly with Bishop Williamson and who told me that Bishop Williamson personally confirmed the conditional consecration to him. I know another individual who is in contact with Father Chazal, who in turn is in contact with Bishop Williamson, who states that Father Chazal the same thing to him. Finally, the forum moderator Matthew stated that the conditional consecration was confirmed by him as fact.
Dear Ladislaus,
Thank you for your clear affirmation. I want it to be true, but as Bishop Williamson has said, "Show me the E-VI-DENCE". Perhaps Bishop Vigano is showing us the fruit of that consecration today in "J'accuse"!
-
Dear Ladislaus,
Thank you for your clear affirmation. I want it to be true, but as Bishop Williamson has said, "Show me the E-VI-DENCE". Perhaps Bishop Vigano is showing us the fruit of that consecration today in "J'accuse"!
What do you need "evidence" for? Are you being served by a priest who was ordained by +Vigano?
-
What do you need "evidence" for? Are you being served by a priest who was ordained by +Vigano?
Dear Ladislaus,
The faithful have the right to know where the Church is.
-
Bishop Vigano's election is a fact. It is a matter of knowledge, not a "belief". The evidence of that fact is in the OP which includes the date, 14 October, 2019, the video of the bishops, the results of the election docuмent, and the Open Letter to Archbishop Vigano. The only thing we do not know is whether or not he said, "Yes".
If +Vigano didn't say "yes" then there's no election, it's simply a group of random people who decided to take a vote.
Please provide proof that 1) +Vigano is even aware of this "vote", 2) his response and date.
-
Please provide evidence that Archbishop Vigano was conditionally consecrated, including the date.
I'd be happy if either he or Bishop Williamson would just publicly announce it.
-
If +Vigano didn't say "yes" then there's no election, it's simply a group of random people who decided to take a vote.
Please provide proof that 1) +Vigano is even aware of this "vote", 2) his response and date.
Dear Pax Vobis,
The election took place, regardless of Bishop Vigano's answer. Remember Cardinal Siri? Please see the entire OP!
The bishops issued an Open Letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano (please see the OP).
"The only thing we do not know is whether or not he said, "Yes". Perhaps we should make Bishop Vigano aware of his election to the Papacy today, and ask if he accepts the office?
-
I'd be happy if either he or Bishop Williamson would just publicly announce it.
Dear 2Vermont,
Yes! Today would be a great time, but God alone knows the perfect time.
-
I'd be happy if either he or Bishop Williamson would just publicly announce it.
Again, what does this have to do with you? You're not served by priests ordained by +Vigano.
-
Again, what does this have to do with you? You're not served by priests ordained by +Vigano.
As if you wouldn't want a public announcement if you weren't "in the know". Why are you so unable to let others want a public confirmation? When it comes to this topic you should just shut up.
-
Dear 2Vermont,
Yes! Today would be a great time, but God alone knows the perfect time.
It's been months and I still scratch my head wondering what's the hold-up? Why is it a secret except to just a few special people?
-
Wait a minute!
Bishop Vigano is already excommunicated! Since Bishop Williamson was excommunicated for consecrating bishops without the Papal Mandate, so are all the bishops he consecrates. Since we are told that Bishop Vigano received conditional consecration from Bishop Williamson, Bishop Vigano is also excommunicated from the Conciliar sect!!
Woo-hoo!
-
Wait a minute!
Bishop Vigano is already excommunicated! Since Bishop Williamson was excommunicated for consecrating bishops without the Papal Mandate, so are all the bishops he consecrates. Since we are told that Bishop Vigano received conditional consecration from Bishop Williamson, Bishop Vigano is also excommunicated from the Conciliar sect!!
Woo-hoo!
Correct. There is, however, a difference between simple excommunication and a declaration of being a schismatic. One can be excommunicated without being a schismatic.
Although he's not really excommunicated from the Catholic Church, since the Canon Law assumes that there's actually a Pope there from whom one might request permission to consecrate.
-
As if you wouldn't want a public announcement if you weren't "in the know". Why are you so unable to let others want a public confirmation? When it comes to this topic you should just shut up.
No, you need to shut up. You've persisted in slandering +Vigano since the very beginning and refuse to let up. It makes absolutely no difference to you whether +Vigano publicly declares his conditional consecration, since you're not served by any priests he's ordained. You're just looking for one more reason to attack +Vigano, in a long line of attacks. Then, when his conditional consecration does become fully public, you'll find something else.
-
No, you need to shut up. You've persisted in slandering +Vigano since the very beginning and refuse to let up. It makes absolutely no difference to you whether +Vigano publicly declares his conditional consecration, since you're not served by any priests he's ordained. You're just looking for one more reason to attack +Vigano, in a long line of attacks. Then, when his conditional consecration does become fully public, you'll find something else.
Vermont is just being cautious, and rightly so. Even though I’m 95% on board with Vigano, I too would like a public confirmation of his consecration.
-
I know an individual who speaks regularly with Bishop Williamson and who told me that Bishop Williamson personally confirmed the conditional consecration to him. I know another individual who is in contact with Father Chazal, who in turn is in contact with Bishop Williamson, who states that Father Chazal the same thing to him. Finally, the forum moderator Matthew stated that the conditional consecration was confirmed by him as fact.
This is good enough for me, but I do think he needs to eventually come out publicly with this information. BTW: his latest writing is absolutely excellent!
-
This is good enough for me, but I do think he needs to eventually come out publicly with this information. BTW: his latest writing is absolutely excellent!
I think that it would be required if it affects the faithful publicly. If he starts, for instance, ordaining priests, consecrating holy oils, etc. Apart from some kind of practical implications that affect the Church in some way, it's just a curiosity IMO. People want to hear that he was conditionally consecrated because that means he has positive doubt about the NO Rite of Holy Orders. What I find humorous is that he was "consecrated" by none other than "Saint" John Paul II Wojtyla "the Great". People want to know ... but they don't really need to know. +Vigano could make the same statements he's making even if he were simply a priest. Other people use it as a reason to attack him if he's NOT conditionally consecrated. But there's no practical need to know in either case.
-
I think that it would be required if it affects the faithful publicly. If he starts, for instance, ordaining priests, consecrating holy oils, etc. Apart from some kind of practical implications that affect the Church in some way, it's just a curiosity IMO. People want to hear that he was conditionally consecrated because that means he has positive doubt about the NO Rite of Holy Orders. What I find humorous is that he was "consecrated" by none other than "Saint" John Paul II Wojtyla "the Great". People want to know ... but they don't really need to know. +Vigano could make the same statements he's making even if he were simply a priest. Other people use it as a reason to attack him if he's NOT conditionally consecrated. But there's no practical need to know in either case.
I disagree. He’s a public figure and we’re in the midst of the worst crisis that the Church has ever experienced. The faithful need certitude and openness in a deceptive and deceitful society.
-
I disagree. He’s a public figure and we’re in the midst of the worst crisis that the Church has ever experienced. The faithful need certitude and openness in a deceptive and deceitful society.
And I disagree with your disagreement. Why do they need certitude about an individual's episcopal consecration if there's no practical impact? Certitude about doctrine, yes. Certitude about who the pope is (under normal circuмstances), yes. But about the Orders of a specific individual with whom I have no connections? Bishop Williamson did other secret consecrations and then the SSPV kept a lid on theirs from Bishop Mendez for a couple of years (and could have been longer had he lived longer). In neither of those cases, either, was there a need to know. Now if the SSPV had started sending out new priests ordained by +Kelly, that would have been a different matter. I need certitude about the priests I receive Sacraments from, but not so much about some guy in Argentina that I never heard of.
-
The election took place
You obviously don’t understand the difference between a vote and a valid election.
-
Vermont is just being cautious, and rightly so.
One can be cautious without being slanderous and uncharitable.
-
The title of this thread is No One Can Judge the Rightful Pope! (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/no-one-can-judge-the-rightful-pope!/msg941185/#msg941185)
Exactly.
The question is whether or not Bergolio is the rightful pope.
The answer is that he is not, due to the irregulatities (violations of Canon Law) in his so-called election.
The Story Behind the Pope’s Election
A new book sheds light on it, focusing on the “St. Gallen Mafia.”
https://spectator.org/story-behind-pope-election/
The existence of the group became known in 2015 after one of its prominent members, Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium, bragged about its role in the election of Pope Francis. (https://spectator.org/bidens-visit-to-the-vatican/) “The St. Gallen group is a sort of posh name. But in reality we said of ourselves, and of that group: ‘The Mafia,’” he told the press. The group, he explained, had met since the mid-1990s in the Swiss town of St. Gallen. Its members included a roster of prominent progressive cardinals in the Church: Achille Silvestrini, Carlo Maria Martini, Walter Kasper, and Basil Hume, among others.
“The election of Bergoglio was prepared in St. Gallen, without doubt,” said (https://www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/godfried-danneels-a-oeuvre-pendant-des-annees-a-l-election-du-pape-francois/article-normal-420243.html?cookie_check=1636133023) Karim Schelkens, a biographer of Danneels. “And the main lines of the program of the pope is carrying out are those that Danneels and company were starting to discuss more than ten years ago.” (Schelkens later said (https://www.ncregister.com/blog/cardinal-danneels-biographers-retract-comments-on-st-gallen-group) his statement was incorrect, but that “election of Bergoglio corresponded with the aims of St. Gallen, on that there is no doubt.”)
The group had hoped to elect Jorge Bergoglio at the 2005 papal conclave. “On the eve of the conclave, in Silivestrini’s Vatican apartment, various mafia members and allies converged on Bergoglio’s candidacy,” Meloni writes. “‘The cardinals linked to the Sankt Gallen group and others too concluded that Bergoglio was the candidate best suited to be the next pope,’ says a vaticanista. ‘They believed that, in a pastoral sense, he represented a change from the previous pontificate, and so they decided to support him in the election.’”
But the group couldn’t muster the votes for Bergoglio and Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI. This had an embittering effect on members of the St Gallen Mafia, who chafed under Ratzinger’s talk of a “dictatorship of relativism,” according to Meloni.
“The night of Pope Benedict’s election, a Latin American cardinal ran into Silverstrini on the street close to St. Peter’s,” she writes. “He was a ‘defeated man,’ says the cardinal of Sliverstrini. The cardinal saw Silvestrini’s ‘dull anger’ — saw his refusal to accept a papal election that marked the very negation of his life’s work. He saw Silvestrini’s stubborn notion that Ratzinger would only be a transitional pope. That evening, the cardinal saw that Silvestrini had declared ‘a form of war.’”
Much anonymous grousing and sniping during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI came from members of the St. Gallen Mafia. The controversies of his pontificate that they stoked appear to have broken his spirit and led to his resignation. Meloni writes that Pope Benedict XVI did not anticipate a liberal successor: “‘It is generally thought,’ says historian Henry Sire, ‘that Pope Benedict’s purpose in abdicating was to bring about the succession of Cardinal [Angelo] Scola.’”
But the St. Gallen Mafia and its friends blocked the conservative Scola. Meloni notes that the St. Gallen Maifa’s campaign to promote Bergoglio at the 2013 conclave was so widespread even CNN’s Chris Cuomo appeared to know about it. “Outside the conclave, some caught wind of the campaign to elect Bergoglio,” she writes. “CNN’s Chris Cuomo revealed on air that that he had been ‘offered up’ the name of Bergoglio as ‘the perfect compromise candidate.’”
“Benedict was caught off guard” by the election of Pope Francis, according to Meloni. He told an interviewer, “I did not think he was among the more likely candidates.”
She argues that all of the progressive priorities of the St. Gallen Mafia — from its enthusiasm for “synodality” to its dilution of traditional doctrine — foreshadowed the pontificate of Pope Francis. She details in particular the influence of the late Cardinal Martini on the pope’s thinking. Martini, who belonged to the Jesuit order as does Pope Francis, famously complained that the Church is “200 years behind” the times.
He longed for a religion adapted to post-Enlightenment liberalism. He has more or less gotten his wish. Meloni’s welcome focus on the St. Gallen Mafia — she brings together in one well-sourced book (https://amzn.to/3o1xr6l) all that is known about it — will surely benefit and inform concerned Catholics, for whom the group’s “dream” is playing out as a nightmare.
(https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fspectator.org%2Fstory-behind-pope-election%2F)
(http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The Story Behind the Pope’s) (https://telegram.me/share/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fspectator.org%2Fstory-behind-pope-election%2F&text=The Story Behind the Pope’s Election) (https://spectator.org/story-behind-pope-election/)
-
No, you need to shut up. You've persisted in slandering +Vigano since the very beginning and refuse to let up. It makes absolutely no difference to you whether +Vigano publicly declares his conditional consecration, since you're not served by any priests he's ordained. You're just looking for one more reason to attack +Vigano, in a long line of attacks. Then, when his conditional consecration does become fully public, you'll find something else.
So predictable. Still waiting for evidence of your false accusations. You've yet to produce them. Put up or shut up.
And you wonder why people don't post about Vigano? :laugh1:
-
One can be cautious without being slanderous and uncharitable.
You're another one. Where are my posts that are slanderous and uncharitable to Vigano? Put up or shut up.
-
Vermont is just being cautious, and rightly so. Even though I’m 95% on board with Vigano, I too would like a public confirmation of his consecration.
Nope. There is no such thing as being cautious nor asking valid questions about Vigano if Ladislaus (or Pax Vobis) doesn't like it.
-
Correct. There is, however, a difference between simple excommunication and a declaration of being a schismatic. One can be excommunicated without being a schismatic.
Although he's not really excommunicated from the Catholic Church, since the Canon Law assumes that there's actually a Pope there from whom one might request permission to consecrate.
Dear Ladislaus,
Thank you!
-
https://x.com/mljhaynes/status/1809185607047905538?s=46&t=yY6JbkiegjrKivhJsQ2KVA
Excommunication of Bishop Vigano?
HT: josefamenendez