Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on June 02, 2022, 09:40:20 AM
-
Of all the forms of sedevacantism, conclavism (ie., electing a pope) is the red headed stepchild, and yet for the radicalness of this avenue, there is a certain attractive logic to it, inasmuch as it solves the “indefinite interregnum” issue.
In the course of working out my Vigano fantasy (ie., a very small minority group of Roman bishops/cardinals with ordinary jurisdiction declare the fact of Francis’s heresy, and in a subsequent declaration, announce that God has deposed him), the issue of convening a conclave arises.
My question is: What are the minimal requirements for a legitimate conclave? Must a certain number of cardinals participate? If so, can necessity dispense with the canonical requirements (as Msgr. Benson does that n his book Lord of the World)? Would today’s state of necessity justify similar recourse? How far can this principle be carried (eg., Vigano elected by a handful of Romans vs Pope Michael elected by his mom)?
More issues: In Lord of the World, the hierarchy survived, though whittled down to a few (who therefore retained jurisdiction), but some sedes declare the entire hierarchy deposed (and therefore ordinary jurisdiction and formal apostolicity vanished with it).
Is conclavism a solution for such as these? What about electing another St. Pius X (who’s orthodoxy and traditionalism is perfect in every way, but who’s election is nevertheless viewed as illegitimate because of the absence of jurisdiction)?
Is conclavism ultimately the only solution to the present crisis (ie., which presumes the present conciliarists will never convert/revert to real Catholicism), or is it no solution at all, so long as there’s someone in Rome generally recognized as pope (and would really only have the effect of cleaving the Church with another schism)?
So back to the question:
1) What are the requirements for a valid conclave;
2) To what degree can necessity dispense from these?
3) Who would and would not be happy with such a solution?
-
So back to the question:
1) What are the requirements for a valid conclave;
2) To what degree can necessity dispense from these?
3) Who would and would not be happy with such a solution?
I don't think anyone can answer your questions with any authority, finality, or security. If they could, you could take the answers and act on them -- and you, Sean Johnson (and the priests/bishops you work with) would solve the Crisis in the Church. Deo Gratias!
But as I've said many times, this Crisis won't be undone so easily. My personal opinion is that the Crisis in the Church is akin to a supernatural mystery, that only God can personally untangle or solve. As evidence for my opinion: I present to you the last 52 years of Crisis. We've had holy priests/bishops, learned priests/bishops, both in and out of the Roman authority structure, and NO ONE has been able to slay the dragon. I conclude it is because said dragon is not slayable by a man. And I think that's a pretty logical conclusion, if I do say so myself.
See my thread about the "One Ring". There is no "One Ring" in Tradition, before whose power all are forced to obey OR fall into malice/bad will. No, we just have a bunch of MINOR "rings of power" -- the Ring of Lefebvre whose "power" (let's say the virtues and reputation of the man +Lefebvre: personal charm, truth, logic, prudence, etc.) built up the SSPX. The Ring of Simplicity which spawned many Sede groups. The Ring of Peter which attracts many souls to the FSSP and Indult groups. And so on.
What we need is the ONE RING which will attract every Catholic of Good Will and compel them to join up. A Ring that will answer ALL the questions and doubts. So far that Ring has proven to be elusive, if it even exists yet. Only God can bring said Ring to the table.
52 years of evidence is a lot of evidence. Many things have been tried during that time. Dare I say *everything* has been tried during that time?
And as +Williamson points out, solutions like +Lefebvre (a well known, holy, orthodox bishop who established himself before the Crisis, holding Truth and Authority together by force of his personality) is no longer possible -- those who lived and worked in the age of +Lefebvre are all dead. By that I mean "those who served the Church with honor and distinction in the 1950's". Therefore all the bishops and Trad personalities alive today were at least THEOLOGICALLY TRAINED and did all their PRIESTLY WORK after the Crisis, even if they weren't physically born after 1970.
A man born in 1970 would be 52 years old today. Not exactly a wet-behind-the-ears spring chicken! But that is nothing; what really matters are your first memories, after 5 years old. So a man born in 1965 would have his first memories either of the Novus Ordo or a Trad chapel somewhere. And a man born in 1965 would be 57 today -- 8 years away from RETIREMENT AGE. He would already qualify for membership in the AARP.
-
1) What are the requirements for a valid conclave;
2) To what degree can necessity dispense from these?
3) Who would and would not be happy with such a solution?
#1, My guess is that aside from the death or resignation of the pope, assembling a conclave to elect a pope means a new requirement must be established - is that even possible?
#2, Any dispensation(s) would need to be based on other precedents that have been set under similar circuмstances in the Church's history....unless that is taken care of in item #1.
#3, I think a lot more people would be unhappy than happy.
-
If you aren't sedeprivationist but still a sede, what would make most sense would just be a Catholic male accepting the papacy without an election. After all, Vacantis Apostolicas Sedis forbids anyone but the Cardinals from holding a conclave. If you are totalist, you have to maintain all the Cardinals are gone. Given that God doesn't demand the impossible and the faithful aren't bound by private revelations, it would make sense for someone accepting the papacy without an election being sufficient as that is the only thing in Vacantis Apostolicas Sedis that is possible to obey. (Not saying this is true for sure but it is the most consistent position to take if you are a totalist)
-
What is a "totalist"? In context I can guess, but would appreciate an "official" definition.
This stuff is getting as convoluted as sorting out the 32,000 sects of Protestantism, a corollary of "opinions are like … um… noses; everybody has one."
-
Of all the forms of sedevacantism, conclavism (ie., electing a pope) is the red headed stepchild, and yet for the radicalness of this avenue, there is a certain attractive logic to it, inasmuch as it solves the “indefinite interregnum” issue.
In the course of working out my Vigano fantasy (ie., a very small minority group of Roman bishops/cardinals with ordinary jurisdiction declare the fact of Francis’s heresy, and in a subsequent declaration, announce that God has deposed him), the issue of convening a conclave arises.
Sure, but it's not really a problem limited to SVism, as you admit that it's part of our fantasy as well. With the Cajetan / John of St. Thomas position, you need to come up with some mechanism whereby Bergoglio would be declared deposed in ADDITION to then subsequently covening a conclave. With St. Robert Bellarmine position (taken by most SVs), you only technically need to convene a conclave, since the See would be vacant on its own.
In any case, this is why St. Robert took his position. No authority can actually judge a Pope, so there's no competent authority that can judge a Pope guilty of heresy and to have left the Church, since until the declaration he'd still be the pope. It's a real problem for Cajetan and John of St. Thomas. Of course, Sisco & Salza spent a large part of their tome trying to twist St. Robert into basially having the same opinion as Cajetan (even though St. Robert explicitly rejects it).
Let's say that 50 Cardinals believed the See vacant. What happens if the rest of the Cardinals don't agree and of course the Pope refuses to accept that judgment?
As for the requirements for a legitimate conclave in such a scenario, that's a very sticky question, which gets more sticky if the illegitimate pope appointed most of the Cardinals.
I believe this is a mess that only God's intervention will fix.
-
Under normal circuмstances, a legitimate conclave has to be empowered by the Pope while he's still alive, at least implicitly by his appointing Cardinals. There would be nothing stopping a Pope from abolishing the college of Cardinals and determine some other mechanism for electing the next Pope. He could likely even designate his successor by name.
I believe that it's customarily the Dean of the College of Cardinals who convenes a conclave after the death of a pope. But in the case of someone actually occupying the See of Peter (materially), I doubt you'd get a unanimity of Cardinals agreeing that the See is vacant ... ESPECIALLY now that nearly all of them are Modernists.
There's no solution here except when God decides to intervene and fix this mess.
-
A conclave is a specific type of election. There isn't even any divinely instituted requirement that a pope be elected never mind by a college of Cardinals, never mind by a a conclave of the Cardinals. There is a tradition that the first couple of successors of Peter were designated by Peter, himself. The only requirement is that the candidate be a Catholic male who is not otherwise prevented from entering the clerical state (maybe because he is married with young children). There is no notion of validity as far as how a candidate is selected. The proper term is legitimacy. But a candidate is considered legitimate if he is a Catholic male and is capable of entering the clerical state and the Roman clergy accept his candidacy/claim. Even if all the other rules specified by the latest papal docuмent concerning papal elections are violated, if the Roman clergy accept the candidate peacefully, then the candidate is in fact the pope. The history of papal elections is full of scandal. The papacy has actually been bought from time to time. But even in those cases, the acceptance of the Roman clergy was considered as legitimizing the election. As long as the candidate is Catholic and either already is a cleric or at least willing to enter the clerical state, then he would be pope. If necessary, he would have to agree to be ordained and/or consecrated. That is important since arguably the Novus Ordo has invalid orders. So any scenario that involves someone attached to the Novus Ordo would have to include ordination/consecration. And of course, the candidate must be Catholic. The Novus Ordo is objectively a non-Catholic sect. So the candidate would have to renounce the Novus Ordo. I don't see Vigano as going to those lengths. He may think V2 is a disaster but I don't think he will ever admit that his consecration is doubtful. He has too much invested in that.
-
A conclave is a specific type of election. There isn't even any divinely instituted requirement that a pope be elected never mind by a college of Cardinals, never mind by a a conclave of the Cardinals. There is a tradition that the first couple of successors of Peter were designated by Peter, himself. The only requirement is that the candidate be a Catholic male who is not otherwise prevented from entering the clerical state (maybe because he is married with young children). There is no notion of validity as far as how a candidate is selected. The proper term is legitimacy. But a candidate is considered legitimate if he is a Catholic male and is capable of entering the clerical state and the Roman clergy accept his candidacy/claim. Even if all the other rules specified by the latest papal docuмent concerning papal elections are violated, if the Roman clergy accept the candidate peacefully, then the candidate is in fact the pope. The history of papal elections is full of scandal. The papacy has actually been bought from time to time. But even in those cases, the acceptance of the Roman clergy was considered as legitimizing the election. As long as the candidate is Catholic and either already is a cleric or at least willing to enter the clerical state, then he would be pope. If necessary, he would have to agree to be ordained and/or consecrated. That is important since arguably the Novus Ordo has invalid orders. So any scenario that involves someone attached to the Novus Ordo would have to include ordination/consecration. And of course, the candidate must be Catholic. The Novus Ordo is objectively a non-Catholic sect. So the candidate would have to renounce the Novus Ordo. I don't see Vigano as going to those lengths. He may think V2 is a disaster but I don't think he will ever admit that his consecration is doubtful. He has too much invested in that.
Yes, you highlight the need for humility in this situation... If Vigano asked +ABL line to conditionally consecrate him we would be in the game (anyone remotely serious would accept him) but I think TPTB will kill Vigano and have probably told him as much if he did this. There is no way Francis hasn't thought about Vigano accepting orders from a non NO line... The hidden background information is really the meat of his decision making in this, he may in fact be humble enough to accept conditional consecration but know he will be murdered and is biding his time or something. Who knows, but time for this particular solution is running out.
-
[Vigano] may in fact be humble enough to accept conditional consecration ...
I think he is. He was humble enough to admit that he has been wrong to offer the NOM for all these years and was wrong about Vatican II and the entire NewChurch. So in my mind this wouldn't be too much of a stretch.
-
I think he is. He was humble enough to admit that he has been wrong to offer the NOM for all these years and was wrong about Vatican II and the entire NewChurch. So in my mind this wouldn't be too much of a stretch.
Is he humble enough to admit he was wrong to help the "Father of the Vaccine" get elected?
-
Is he humble enough to admit he was wrong to help the "Father of the Vaccine" get elected?
Instead of just "downvoting" please share evidence.
The reality is: No. He is not sorry.
"How do you know he's not sorry? That's an internal forum issue..."
How do we know?
Easy: Because he is still supporting Trump. He even lies to cover for him.
Trump is still pushing the Trump-juice and wants everyone including children and babies to "get shot",
and Vigano is still supporting mass murderer Trump.
-
Instead of just "downvoting" please share evidence.
The reality is: No. He is not sorry.
"How do you know he's not sorry? That's an internal forum issue..."
How do we know?
Easy: Because he is still supporting Trump. He even lies to cover for him.
Trump is still pushing the Trump-juice and wants everyone including children and babies to "get shot",
and Vigano is still supporting mass murderer Trump.
Sorry Miser, that was me. I do not support Trump and do think it is silly for Vigano to say that none of this would have happened under him. However, I think there are far more wicked people out there that we could be directing our anger towards, rather than Vigano. I'm not convinced that he is anything other than misguided on this issue really. He does seem to be bearing good fruit in other areas too. Of course nobody is perfect and there is a lot of confusion right now. People are going to mess up. I don't understand why we have to jump on those who are at least apparently trying to stand up for something. Seems like it might be better to just pray for him in this case that he may follow the truth wherever it may lead.
-
Sorry Miser, that was me. I do not support Trump and do think it is silly for Vigano to say that none of this would have happened under him. However, I think there are far more wicked people out there that we could be directing our anger towards, rather than Vigano. I'm not convinced that he is anything other than misguided on this issue really. He does seem to be bearing good fruit in other areas too. Of course nobody is perfect and there is a lot of confusion right now. People are going to mess up. I don't understand why we have to jump on those who are at least apparently trying to stand up for something. Seems like it might be better to just pray for him in this case that he may follow the truth wherever it may lead.
This is farrrr bigger than just "not being perfect".
Vigano helped a mass murderer get elected.
Instead of admitting his mistake and calling out the mass murderer
Vigano is still supporting the mass murderer.
"There are far more wicked people..."
What level of wickedness are you willing to support?
Do you support pro-abortion candidates?
That would be a grave sin.
Supporting mass murderer Trump is no less sinful.
-
Do you support pro-abortion candidates?
This is a false dichotomy that traps Dingbat into saying she is pro-abortion if she supports or thinks Vigano may be right about some things. This is outright uncharitable. Nobody here supports abortion. This is the kind of textbook consensus breaking that was leaked by Snowden. Are you interested or otherwise invested in keeping SV/SP/RnR/Indult separated? We agree on many things but this is your most bizarre and unnuanced position.
Nobody thinks this solution is ideal but we absolutely need a pope.
-
This is a false dichotomy that traps Dingbat into saying she is pro-abortion if she supports or thinks Vigano may be right about some things. This is outright uncharitable. Nobody here supports abortion. This is the kind of textbook consensus breaking that was leaked by Snowden. Are you interested or otherwise invested in keeping SV/SP/RnR/Indult separated? We agree on many things but this is your most bizarre and unnuanced position.
Nobody thinks this solution is ideal but we absolutely need a pope.
The question about supporting pro-abortion candidates was not meant to indicate that Dingbat supports abortion.
The point is an analogy that even if a candidate is absolutely wonderful on so many issues, and we really, really, need that candidate to win
we still can't compromise on the abortion issue.
In the same way, Vigano could be spot on about everything
but he continues to promote mass murderer Trump
who is continuing to kill our friends and family as we speak.
A pope who promotes a mass murderer is not a good thing.
-
This is farrrr bigger than just "not being perfect".
Vigano helped a mass murderer get elected.
Instead of admitting his mistake and calling out the mass murderer
You assume a lot.
You assume that it's public knowledge Trump's hands are dripping with blood AND that Vigano has noted this fact, but maliciously carried on supporting Trump.
NO, and NO.
I don't think the Truth is like the Faith where either "you have it, or you don't". Denying or missing one Truth means you're a heretic who doesn't have the Faith.
No, it doesn't work that way.
With the Faith and dogmas, yes. If you deny one dogma, you lack THE ENTIRE FAITH and are a heretic. BUT EVEN THEN, if you are just in material heresy, you are guiltless! If someone corrected you (showed you what the Church teaches) and you'd accept it -- that isn't formal heresy.
You need to learn about "invincible ignorance".
But when it comes to Truth, you could be a real fighter, a truther, a good guy, who is totally ignorant about this or that unpopular truth. That doesn't invalidate everything you're doing in some other area! Not everyone knows everything, or has the 100% full package of truth about what cօռspιʀαcιҽs have happened to date.
Vigano could be invincibly ignorant about the Covid vaccines, and/or Trump's role in promoting/developing them.
Some say Trump didn't know the vaccines were bad either. That he was just ignorant, not malicious. It's not like I can say I have proof to the contrary.
-
A conclave is a specific type of election. There isn't even any divinely instituted requirement that a pope be elected never mind by a college of Cardinals, never mind by a a conclave of the Cardinals. There is a tradition that the first couple of successors of Peter were designated by Peter, himself. The only requirement is that the candidate be a Catholic male who is not otherwise prevented from entering the clerical state (maybe because he is married with young children). There is no notion of validity as far as how a candidate is selected. The proper term is legitimacy. But a candidate is considered legitimate if he is a Catholic male and is capable of entering the clerical state and the Roman clergy accept his candidacy/claim. Even if all the other rules specified by the latest papal docuмent concerning papal elections are violated, if the Roman clergy accept the candidate peacefully, then the candidate is in fact the pope. The history of papal elections is full of scandal. The papacy has actually been bought from time to time. But even in those cases, the acceptance of the Roman clergy was considered as legitimizing the election. As long as the candidate is Catholic and either already is a cleric or at least willing to enter the clerical state, then he would be pope. If necessary, he would have to agree to be ordained and/or consecrated. That is important since arguably the Novus Ordo has invalid orders. So any scenario that involves someone attached to the Novus Ordo would have to include ordination/consecration. And of course, the candidate must be Catholic. The Novus Ordo is objectively a non-Catholic sect. So the candidate would have to renounce the Novus Ordo. I don't see Vigano as going to those lengths. He may think V2 is a disaster but I don't think he will ever admit that his consecration is doubtful. He has too much invested in that.
Father Hesse gave a lecture touching on these points. He said the conclave rules have been modified over the centuries and are subject to change, depending on the necessities of the Holy See.
But, the takeaway was, the Conclave’s validity is subject to the rules of the day.
In the 1958 Conclave, there was a masonic Cardinal who left the group to go out and make a status report phone ☎️ call (to his Jєωιѕн liaison).
That one act invalidated the Conclave.
-
Father Hesse gave a lecture touching on these points. He said the conclave rules have been modified over the centuries and are subject to change, depending on the necessities of the Holy See.
But, the takeaway was, the Conclave’s validity is subject to the rules of the day.
In the 1958 Conclave, there was a masonic Cardinal who left the group to go out and make a status report phone ☎️ call (to his Jєωιѕн liaison).
That one act invalidated the Conclave.
You know, you bring up a very good point.
How do you determine if something is invalid? THE RULES were broken, or not followed. Not the rules from centuries past, or the years to come, but the CURRENT RULES. What other rules could you go by?
This is similar to a modern-day issue. (You'll excuse me for bringing up the two-party political farce in America.) The current rules for who wins the Presidency involves getting 270 votes in the Electoral College. Some say Trump (and others) didn't legitimately win the Presidency, because he didn't win the popular vote. But that isn't/wasn't the objective rule for winning the election in November 2016. You can't just make up rules. If, for some reason, the Electoral College had been done away with in favor of a raw popular vote, then of course Trump would have run a whole different campaign strategy. So you can't deal in hypotheticals and alternate universes -- we must limit ourselves to ACTUAL, PRESENT DAY rules.
If violating the PRESENT RULES IN PLACE doesn't invalidate something, I don't know what would.
-
Vigano could be invincibly ignorant about the Covid vaccines, and/or Trump's role in promoting/developing them.
Some say Trump didn't know the vaccines were bad either. That he was just ignorant, not malicious. It's not like I can say I have proof to the contrary.
I've covered this in other threads but you might not have seen them.
Vigano's own words show that he is not ignorant:
"Let us have no illusions: these servants of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr who have managed to occupy the highest positions of national governments and international organizations are our enemies: enemies of the good and enemies of God. They do not care how many of us will have to die from the effects of the vaccine"
How can Vigano lament the thousands of deaths and injuries and call those government leaders who don't care how many will die the "enemy of the good" and the "enemy of God"
but still support Trump,
who is a government leader Vigano helped get elected who doesn't care how many will die which is public knowledge because Trump continues to promote the shots, on TV and at his rallies and every chance he gets, killing more people?
Why doesn't Vigano call Trump an enemy of the good and an enemy of God?
Instead Vigano told the crowd at the Awaken America Rally that the pandemic farce would have never taken place under Trump. That's a lie. We all know the pandemic farce took place under Trump. Without a pandemic farce under Trump there would have been no need for a vaccine. Without Trump's Operation Warpspeed there would be no vaccine.
If Trump was ignorant about the shots, he isn't any more. There are tens of thousands of deaths reported in VAERS and reporters have called him on that. The anti-vax doctors all speak at the Awaken America Tours!
Why did Vigano reassure the Awaken America Rally crowd in April that Trump is the rightful president when he knows children and babies are continuing to die from his death jab? Who wants a mass murdering president?
Why doesn't Vigano call on Trump (and at the rally call on Eric), to use their influence to stop the deadly genocide before they stab the babies? He's used his letters to influence Trump before. He should be using his influence on Trump now to urge him to stop the genocide.
If you helped get Trump elected and had some influence on him wouldn't you plead with him to stop promoting the shots and tell the people how deadly they are?
Why does Vigano write volumes on who is responsible for the Great Reset and never implicates Trump, the Father of The Vaccine? He's seen as an expert on the subject but in all of his research he never came across Operation Warpspeed?
Why hasn't Vigano apologized for his misjudgement about helping to elect Trump the mass murderer?
On the contrary, he continues to promote him.
Vigano names names and calls out everyone
except the guy he helped get elected.
Instead he lies to cover for him.
Trump--The pause on Johnson and Johnson was stupid and I am the Father of the Vaccine:
1min 3sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8k0KY4fiBE
-
A conclave is a specific type of election. There isn't even any divinely instituted requirement that a pope be elected never mind by a college of Cardinals, never mind by a a conclave of the Cardinals. There is a tradition that the first couple of successors of Peter were designated by Peter, himself. The only requirement is that the candidate be a Catholic male who is not otherwise prevented from entering the clerical state (maybe because he is married with young children). There is no notion of validity as far as how a candidate is selected. The proper term is legitimacy. But a candidate is considered legitimate if he is a Catholic male and is capable of entering the clerical state and the Roman clergy accept his candidacy/claim. Even if all the other rules specified by the latest papal docuмent concerning papal elections are violated, if the Roman clergy accept the candidate peacefully, then the candidate is in fact the pope. The history of papal elections is full of scandal. The papacy has actually been bought from time to time. But even in those cases, the acceptance of the Roman clergy was considered as legitimizing the election. As long as the candidate is Catholic and either already is a cleric or at least willing to enter the clerical state, then he would be pope. If necessary, he would have to agree to be ordained and/or consecrated. That is important since arguably the Novus Ordo has invalid orders. So any scenario that involves someone attached to the Novus Ordo would have to include ordination/consecration. And of course, the candidate must be Catholic. The Novus Ordo is objectively a non-Catholic sect. So the candidate would have to renounce the Novus Ordo. I don't see Vigano as going to those lengths. He may think V2 is a disaster but I don't think he will ever admit that his consecration is doubtful. He has too much invested in that.
How do we know that Vigano hasn’t already had himself conditionally consecrated, and everybody is just keeping quiet about it for now?
-
I've covered this in other threads but you might not have seen them.
Vigano's own words show that he is not ignorant:
Everybody's sick of hearing about your obsession with the jab and with Trump. You pollute and attempt to derail every single thread with this nonsense, while discrediting the anti-jab movement by promoting one insane speculation after another as fact. Take it somewhere else.
-
Everybody's sick of hearing about your obsession with the jab and with Trump. You pollute and attempt to derail every single thread with this nonsense, while discrediting the anti-jab movement by promoting one insane speculation after another as fact. Take it somewhere else.
Well, you are welcome to your opinion about me and to express your feelings.
Is there a point of evidence you would like to dispute?
-
Everybody's sick of hearing about your obsession with the jab and with Trump. You pollute and attempt to derail every single thread with this nonsense, while discrediting the anti-jab movement by promoting one insane speculation after another as fact. Take it somewhere else.
Do you think Vigano is discrediting the anti-jab movement as well?
"[In 2018] at the Davos Forum the CEO of Pfizer Albert Bourla said: “Imagine a biological chip that is included in a pill, that when it is swallowed goes into the stomach and emits a signal. […] Imagine the applications, the possibility of making people obey. […] What is happening in this field is fascinating” (here). And Albert Bourla says “what is happening” because he is talking about existing technologies, not imaginary projects. The presence of graphene and self-assembling nano-circuits is now admitted even by those who a year ago called those who were sounding the alarm “conspiracy theorists.” The populations of the nations adhering to the Agenda 2030 are now mostly “vaccinated,” or rather they have been genetically modified and their immune systems have now been compromised in an irreversible way. And perhaps – as some lawyers are now denouncing – it will be discovered that along with the genetic serum they have injected chips that are capable of controlling even people’s reactions, interfering with their behavior, and making them docile if there are riots, or violent if it is necessary to have a pretext for military interventions." --Vigano
-
Do you think Vigano is discrediting the anti-jab movement as well?
No, but you need to get off this stupid Trump obsession. Trump was a con-man, and he conned many people, including Traditional Catholics, into thinking he might have been genuine and the real deal. So what? That doesn't make them bad Catholics, just mistaken. Give it a rest. I was arguing with a lot of people here for many years, going back to the early days of Trump.
Did you vote for Trump in 2016 and/or 2020? If so, thhen you too were mistaken about him. Most supported him and voted for him in good faith, and +Vigano likewise supported him in good faith, although he was mistaken, and in that he joins a very large club.
And in fact, +Vigano was speaking more to the Trump movement than to Trump himself, and that movement consisted mostly of well-meaning people, even if they were taken for a ride by the con-man. Those very people geneally boo Trump every time he brings up the jab.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-12-22/trump-tells-followers-he-got-a-booster-shot-they-booed
-
No, but you need to get off this stupid Trump obsession. Trump was a con-man, and he conned many people, including Traditional Catholics, into thinking he might have been genuine and the real deal. So what? That doesn't make them bad Catholics, just mistaken. Give it a rest. I was arguing with a lot of people here for many years, going back to the early days of Trump.
Did you vote for Trump in 2016 and/or 2020? If so, thhen you too were mistaken about him. Most supported him and voted for him in good faith, and +Vigano likewise supported him in good faith, although he was mistaken, and in that he joins a very large club.
And in fact, +Vigano was speaking more to the Trump movement than to Trump himself, and that movement consisted mostly of well-meaning people, even if they were taken for a ride by the con-man.
Where did I say that Catholics who were fooled by Trump were bad people?
I did not vote for Trump in either election and tried to warn people about him. No biggie since I got conned and voted for both Bush Sr and Jr.
Vigano got conned. Okay, that's fine.
Now he needs to own it and call Trump out but he won't. We need a pope who will call out mass murdering lying politicians not promote them.
Instead Vigano covers for Trump's murderous deeds and lies to Trump supporters encouraging them to still have faith in their "rightful president". Vigano is taking them for a ride.
As a spiritual leader Vigano should remind Trump he will be held accountable by God.
Vigano should try to save the children and babies by using his influence with Trump to stop the genocide, but he doesn't.
This shows weakness, deceit, and lack of integrity. Is that the kind of pope we want?
This is like saying to a young girl in love, "You do know your boyfriend is lying to your face," and she responds
"But he's sooo handsome, and rich and he has such a cool car and we are in love and we'll get married and live happily ever after!"
Okay.
-
The question about supporting pro-abortion candidates was not meant to indicate that Dingbat supports abortion.
The point is an analogy that even if a candidate is absolutely wonderful on so many issues, and we really, really, need that candidate to win
we still can't compromise on the abortion issue.
In the same way, Vigano could be spot on about everything
but he continues to promote mass murderer Trump
who is continuing to kill our friends and family as we speak.
A pope who promotes a mass murderer is not a good thing.
You still have ZERO way to establish Vigano's culpability, this really is an internal form issue and what you're doing is indistinguishable from consensus breaking.
-
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-12-22/trump-tells-followers-he-got-a-booster-shot-they-booed
This is what is so crazy.
These people know Trump's shot is killing their friends and family but they still love him and still want him as president.
"Trump you're pushing the shot and that's killing thousands and wounding millions so we will booo you. Yet we still love you and want you as our president."
Stockholm syndrome.
-
You still have ZERO way to establish Vigano's culpability, this really is an internal form issue and what you're doing is indistinguishable from consensus breaking.
Hey, I'd love a great pope who would unite the trads.
It's sad to see what people are willing to compromise to get that.
A pope who is clearly either willing to lie to cover for "his candidate" or is sooo out of touch that he has no idea whatsoever that the pandemic farce took place under "his candidate" as well as Operation Warpspeed generating the vaccine when it was nightly headline news for 9 months is not the strong pope we need.
A pope who will make public statements at political rallies without doing at least a little bit of research to see if that candidate he helped get elected and is continuing to support is still promoting the death shot, especially since he is soooo very outspoken about government leaders who promote the shot, is so inept that he should not be making public political statements.
I don't know. Trump said he could shoot somebody in Time square and people would still vote for him. It looks like that would also apply to Vigano.
-
You know, you bring up a very good point.
How do you determine if something is invalid? THE RULES were broken, or not followed. Not the rules from centuries past, or the years to come, but the CURRENT RULES. What other rules could you go by?
If violating the PRESENT RULES IN PLACE doesn't invalidate something, I don't know what would.
It is possible (and I am personally inclined to believe) that skullduggery was involved in the 1958 conclave. The Church does not declare pontifical reigns invalid because of skullduggery. Examples abound in Church history. Particularly amusing is the history of the papacy during the 1040's:
1044: Benedict IX (who obtained the Papal office through bribes in 1032) is chased from Rome by its citizens.
Jan. 1045: Sylvester III is elected.
March 1045: Benedict IX returns to Rome and deposes Sylvester III.
May 1045: Benedict IX sells the office to Gregory VI.
1046: Gregory VI resigns and is replaced by Clement II.
1047: Benedict IX again seizes the throne upon the death of Clement II.
1048: Benedict IX is driven from Rome by the German emperor, to be replaced by Damasus II.
Plenty of material is here to raise doubts about the validity of the beginnings and endings of various pontificates, yet each one is recognized by the Church and is listed in the Annuario Pontificio, including all three reigns of Benedict IX.
Assuming one day one of the various conjectures concerning Cardinal Siri were proved true, the Church would still recognize the pontificate of John XXIII.
-
I don't know. Trump said he could shoot somebody in Time square and people would still vote for him. It looks like that would also apply to Vigano.
Out of charity you should retract this, I do not think this applies to anyone in this thread. You should know this too. Come on.
The rest of your post is being unwilling to grant that you cannot judge his internal form because it doesn't fit a schizo theory. Unnecessary to dignify with a response after I have wasted time on this with you before.
-
Out of charity you should retract this, I do not think this applies to anyone in this thread. You should know this too. Come on.
The rest of your post is being unwilling to grant that you cannot judge his internal form because it doesn't fit a schizo theory. Unnecessary to dignify with a response after I have wasted time on this with you before.
Well, it was a hyperbolic statement to make a point.
The objective truth is that either Vigano lied and is untrustworthy
or
Vigano is inexplicably too incompetent to know that the guy he helped elect and still promotes
oversaw the pandemic farce and pushes the death shots.
But Miser is the "bad guy" for pointing this out because we are desperate for a pope and don't want to look at that.
-
As for the invincible ignorance argument:
It is Vigano's duty to be informed about the political candidates he is promoting. Perhaps he got fooled during the election but there is no excuse for him not knowing Trump's stance at this point. This is especially true since Vigano is so outspoken against government leaders who push the death shot.
And it is Trump's duty to be informed about the deaths and injuries from the shots he is promoting. He wants credit for the shots.
If you got a vaccine, Trump wants you to thank him
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-wants-credit-for-the-vaccine-as-if/2021/03/12/4f40a492-836e-11eb-81db-b02f0398f49a_story.html
Trump takes credit for vaccine rollout: ‘One of the greatest miracles of the ages’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/555247-trump-takes-credit-for-vaccine-rollout-one-of-the-greatest-miracles/
Trump Begs for COVID Vaccine Credit: ‘Just a Mention Please!’
https://www.thewrap.com/trump-begs-vaccine-credit/
Trump claims total credit for vaccines almost exactly a year after saying Covid would disappear ‘like a miracle’
Ex-president says he handed Joe Biden a ‘modern day medical miracle’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-covid-vaccine-credit-cpac-b1808929.html
Those are just a few examples. He says it in every interview.
If Trump wants credit then he also gets credit for the deaths and injuries. It is his duty. He is responsible. The blood is on his hands.