Why doesn't Vigano make it easy by just saying, when this pope/not pope dies, vote for me. Other than that, he gives no solutions just woe is us.
Vos estis qui justificatis vos coram hominibus:Deus autem novit corda vestra:quia quod hominibus altum est,abominatio est ante Deum. Lk 16, 15
. . .
And this happens in a paradoxical situation in which the Catholic Church and its counterfeit coincide in the same hierarchy, which the faithful feel they must obey as an expression of God's authority and simultaneously disobey as a traitor and rebel.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
What type of solution would you yourself suggest?
Why doesn't Vigano make it easy by just saying, when this pope/not pope dies, vote for me. Other than that, he gives no solutions just woe is us.
+Vigano needs to come out and declare the See vacant. He's flirting with it by citing Bishop Lenga, who has done precisely that ... albeit from the SedepleneBennyBergogliovacantist angle. If you denounce Bergoglio for all the evils of V2, how do you absolve his Conciliar predecessors?What is necessary for a declaration of sede vacante? When bishop de castro meyer did it at econe was that official and being the last roman bishop with ordinary jurisdiction should not all catholics obey his declaration? The fact he was telling anyone and everyone it at econe makes me think he was being muzzled in campos.
+Vigano needs to come out and declare the See vacant. He's flirting with it by citing Bishop Lenga, who has done precisely that ... albeit from the SedepleneBennyBergogliovacantist angle. If you denounce Bergoglio for all the evils of V2, how do you absolve his Conciliar predecessors?
Okay, I see what you're saying, but how is that a solution? What will it solve?
What is necessary for a declaration of sede vacante? When bishop de castro meyer did it at econe was that official and being the last roman bishop with ordinary jurisdiction should not all catholics obey his declaration? The fact he was telling anyone and everyone it at econe makes me think he was being muzzled in campos.
That's line with SeanJohnson's "fantasy" thread. This prescinds from the question of sedevacantism, whether the See is vacant now or whether it will be vacant once the entire Church repudiates Bergoglio. Before the Universal Church can repudiate a false pope, SOMEONE has to start the ball rolling. And I think that it needs to roll. Of course, God will intervene, but He usually does so through human agency. At some point, barring someone doing something, how long do we wait before this hierarchy, which is getting less Catholic by the hour, happens to elect a Traditional pope who has the Catholic faith? I know that people criticize SVism of over 60 years, but even having a dysfunctional hierarchy for that long is just as much a problem as having none.
There's the prophecy that Sts. Peter and Paul will appear in a conclave to designated the promised "Holy Pope", so perhaps we'll have to wait.
I'm a strong believer in the fact that this unravelling will begin in 2029, exactly 100 years after Our Lady requested the consecration of Russia. In fact, I'm making my calendar for June 13, 2029.
No one has the authority of course to bind consciences with such a declaration, but I am a firm believer that if someone of +Vigano's stature started the ball rolling, any Catholic who still has faith left will come to agree after some time has passed. Then if there's a Universal Consensus that the See is vacant, there could then be an election. Problem with the Conclavism of the past that brought us the likes of Pope Michael and Pius XIII and Linus II is that such a thing requires a near-universal consensus. It has to be an act of the entire Church, not David Bawden's mom and ex-girlfriend. As it is, most Catholics recognize that Bergoglio is not a Catholic pope and not their rule of faith ... but just differ regarding the legalities. Heck, many of the Modernists who were excommunicated by St. Pius X would themselves excommunicate Bergoglio for heresy.Declare the seat vacant? Cardinals cannot declare the seat vacant - just remember that the cardinals served their purpose when they elected him. Nor is there even a need to start that ball rolling - by him or by anyone.
No one has the authority of course to bind consciences with such a declaration, but I am a firm believer that if someone of +Vigano's stature started the ball rolling, any Catholic who still has faith left will come to agree after some time has passed. Then if there's a Universal Consensus that the See is vacant, there could then be an election. Problem with the Conclavism of the past that brought us the likes of Pope Michael and Pius XIII and Linus II is that such a thing requires a near-universal consensus. It has to be an act of the entire Church, not David Bawden's mom and ex-girlfriend. As it is, most Catholics recognize that Bergoglio is not a Catholic pope and not their rule of faith ... but just differ regarding the legalities. Heck, many of the Modernists who were excommunicated by St. Pius X would themselves excommunicate Bergoglio for heresy.The problem with Bawden et al. is they have no ordinary jurisdiction so cannot declare a conclave. Only ordinary jurisdiction bishops/roman clergy can. If Bishop de Castro Meyer had held a conclave and elected a Pope I would probably accept it. But as he didn't, I think it is right to accept his declaration of sede vacante. But was it ex officio? Can saying it to random laypeople count as an official declaration?
+Vigano needs to come out and declare the See vacant. He's flirting with it by citing Bishop Lenga, who has done precisely that ... albeit from the SedepleneBennyBergogliovacantist angle. If you denounce Bergoglio for all the evils of V2, how do you absolve his Conciliar predecessors?He will do that when Ratzinger and Bergoglio die....if he outlives them.
No one has the authority of course to bind consciences with such a declaration, but I am a firm believer that if someone of +Vigano's stature started the ball rolling, any Catholic who still has faith left will come to agree after some time has passed. Then if there's a Universal Consensus that the See is vacant, there could then be an election. Problem with the Conclavism of the past that brought us the likes of Pope Michael and Pius XIII and Linus II is that such a thing requires a near-universal consensus. It has to be an act of the entire Church, not David Bawden's mom and ex-girlfriend. As it is, most Catholics recognize that Bergoglio is not a Catholic pope and not their rule of faith ... but just differ regarding the legalities. Heck, many of the Modernists who were excommunicated by St. Pius X would themselves excommunicate Bergoglio for heresy.I think most people who currently hold him in high regard would drop him like a hot potato if he went sede.
I think most people who currently hold him in high regard would drop him like a hot potato if he went sede.
No, he needs to say that the Church needs to elect a Pope NOW. Anyone who has the faith left repudiates Jorge Bergoglio and does not recognize him as a Catholic. There's clearly a de facto Universal Rejection of Bergoglio as a rule of faith, despite the fact that there are some who give too much weight to the material occupation of the Holy See.Unless he's called by God, Vigano cannot attempt to do more to oust Bergog. It remains unproven that one man can call a council to depose a pope because he's a heretic. Unless God calls for it specifically. It's one thing to see Bergog is spouting heresy, it's another for a person or persons to do something about it. Who's going to listen to him/them? A few hundred or thousand trads? Another problem is the cardinals will elect the same or worse. What is Vigano going to do? Force good cardinals to vote, and forbid bad cardinals from voting? Vigano is not in a position to manipulate that many circuмstances in the Church with his level of authority, even for Her betterment. He's humbly calling Catholics to prayer and penance for the remaining chastisement still to come. Because God allows such things to His greater glory, it won't be just a man or men who fixes this.
Initially, but it would build momentum over time. You'd have the sedevacantists of course joining him, and the possibly bringing in the Resistance, and perhaps large portions of those who currently got to SSPX Masses but are really sedevacantists at heart. Then, as their numbers grew, more would eventually join the movement. Bergoglio is so bad that it would just take one person to point out that the emperor has no clothes.
Yes, but for the Resistance to go sede, Bp. Williamson would have to go sede, and the problem with that is that the SAJM would not likely go along with it. There would be a serious division.
It's not about going sedevacantist per se, but about getting to the point where the Church would repudiate Bergoglio and then even those who hold to the John of St. Thomas and Cajetan positions would have their criteria met. Bishop Williamson has said that it's possible Bergoglio is not the pope, Avrille that it's not an unreasonable position, and Father Chazal holds Bergoglio to be an impounded heretic with no authority merely awaiting deposition by the Church.
Unless he's called by God, Vigano cannot attempt to do more to oust Bergog. It remains unproven that one man can call a council to depose a pope because he's a heretic. Unless God calls for it specifically. It's one thing to see Bergog is spouting heresy, it's another for a person or persons to do something about it. Who's going to listen to him/them? A few hundred or thousand trads? Another problem is the cardinals will elect the same or worse. What is Vigano going to do? Force good cardinals to vote, and forbid bad cardinals from voting? Vigano is not in a position to manipulate that many circuмstances in the Church with his level of authority, even for Her betterment. He's humbly calling Catholics to prayer and penance for the remaining chastisement still to come. Because God allows such things to His greater glory, it won't be just a man or men who fixes this.
I think most people who currently hold him in high regard would drop him like a hot potato if he went sede.You may be right. However, he has already come out and said that V2 is not Catholic. He's not one of those nutty reform of the reform people. If he hasn't lost them all yet, maybe the NO mover and shakers are ready to shake the filthy dust of V2 from their feet and go sede with Vigano? I don't know. I don't have a silver ball. But I'm with you. I don't have much hope that there is going to be a sudden turn-around and millions of Novus Ordo people quit the Novus Ordo sect and become true Catholics. I think we are getting real close to judgement day. And I'm not a believer in the great monarch thing. There isn't anything in Sacred Scripture about that. At least not anything that the Church has clearly confirmed. Mainly I see that truth is not highly valued by the vast majority of the world's population. I see that mothers routinely murder their own flesh and blood. I see that perversion is now institutionalized almost everywhere in the world. Sodom and Gomorah have nothing on this generation. We make S&G look like child's play. I believe that it is clearly divinely revealed in the Apocalypse that the world is going to be burnt in the end. And it looks like that day is fast approaching. I'm more worried about keeping myself spiritually prepared for that rather than spending a lot of energy worrying about what Vigano may or may not do. But I do find the various speculations interesting.
I think most people who currently hold him in high regard would drop him like a hot potato if he went sede.
Initially, but it would build momentum over time. You'd have the sedevacantists of course joining him, and the possibly bringing in the Resistance, and perhaps large portions of those who currently got to SSPX Masses but are really sedevacantists at heart. Then, as their numbers grew, more would eventually join the movement. Bergoglio is so bad that it would just take one person to point out that the emperor has no clothes.Resistance is already in practice and belief Privationist so I could see them staying put (what meaningful would change about their position?) but the remaining uncontrolled elements in the SSPX (I think in particular laity with sede options nearby are particularly going to be redpilled, priests few but some) will consider jumping ship as well as Independent chapels like OLHC could easily turn sedesomething.
You may be right. However, he has already come out and said that V2 is not Catholic. He's not one of those nutty reform of the reform people. If he hasn't lost them all yet, maybe the NO mover and shakers are ready to shake the filthy dust of V2 from their feet and go sede with Vigano? I don't know. I don't have a silver ball. But I'm with you. I don't have much hope that there is going to be a sudden turn-around and millions of Novus Ordo people quit the Novus Ordo sect and become true Catholics. I think we are getting real close to judgement day. And I'm not a believer in the great monarch thing. There isn't anything in Sacred Scripture about that. At least not anything that the Church has clearly confirmed. Mainly I see that truth is not highly valued by the vast majority of the world's population. I see that mothers routinely murder their own flesh and blood. I see that perversion is now institutionalized almost everywhere in the world. Sodom and Gomorah have nothing on this generation. We make S&G look like child's play. I believe that it is clearly divinely revealed in the Apocalypse that the world is going to be burnt in the end. And it looks like that day is fast approaching. I'm more worried about keeping myself spiritually prepared for that rather than spending a lot of energy worrying about what Vigano may or may not do. But I do find the various speculations interesting.
Disagree, and here's why:What would be the reason why Burke would hypothetically reject Bergoglio? Because of the liturgy? Because he never responded to his dubia? I don't recall him ever taking issue with Vatican II for example. It seems to me that if this repudiation has nothing to do with Vatican II we really aren't where we should be. And then there's the issue of whether these men are truly bishops in the first place.
The big "hangup" I and other R&R types have with the current sedes are these:
1) Bellarmine vs JST/Cajetan, et al.
2) We have issues with violating UPA;
3) We have issues with any declarations/depositions which would not come from the hierarchy (similar but distinct from #1).
BUT
My "Fantasy thread" resolved all those "hangups" by either satisfying them or making them moot issues:
To Problem #1: We fear to side with St. Bellarmine, because on the one hand, there is a dispute that he has been properly understood by the sedes, and on the other hand, supposing he was properly translated and interpreted, what if he is wrong?
But supposing somehow that the bishops would follow JST/Cajetan/Suarez's method (i.e., First declaring the fact of Francis's heresy, then in a second declaration, declaring that God has deposed Francis for heresy), then in concreto, the debate over St. Bellarmine vs JST/Cajetan/Suarez becomes both academic and moot, because in fact, there would be no pope:
Universal peaceful asssent that Francis is NOT pope is just as infallible as that same universal assent saying he IS pope.
But even 5% of cardinals and bishops rejecting Francis would destroy UPA, and with it, the obligations we feel to honor the legitimacy of Francis's pontificate. More on this below...
To Problem #2: Were a quality minority of bishops and cardinals to lobby for a declaration of Francis's heresy (the first step in JST/Cajetan's "method"), then UPA would effectively cease. 5% of the world's bishops and cardinals would suffice to dissolve UNIVERSAL (i.e., moral universality) assent. At that point, people who were previously non-sede would be at ease of conscience to become sedes, since the UPA argument vanishes into thin air, AND it is the Church which is running the process (Keep in mind: It is not the bishops and cardinals deposing the pope! It is the Cardinals and bishops declaring the fact of Francis's heresy, and in a second declaration that GOD has deposed him).
To Problem #3: We believe only those with jurisdiction can make this process legitimate. We know some of the sedes dispute this. No matter: So long as cardinals and bishops with jurisdiction did in fact begin and conclude this process, there is no reason for sedes to oppose it: They still get what they wanted, while R&R also get what they wanted, and both are happy. The argument over whether jurisdiction was necessary, as with Problem #1, becomes merely academic and moot.
This is why I think that R&R would support a declaration of sedevacante, so long as the process worked out this way: The process removes the danger of error, which all R&R prudently apprehend.
In my Fantasy Thread, I laid out a scenario which could start this ball rolling.
I chose ++Burke precisely because he has jurisdiction (with +Vigano being the mastermind behind the scenes, and supplying the doctrinal firepower).
Once UPA is destroyed, +Vigano is elected Pope, and we are back to the GWS, with competing claimants, none of which enjoy UPA, but it is necessary to pass through this phase until one side or another gains UPA.
The Fantasy Thread lays out a scenario as to how +Vigano and his successor build momentum which eventually wins for them the UPA needed, and restores the Church from the top down.
As am I. I think it's becoming increasingly more evident that we are at the End.
I'm in substantial agreement with this.
I know that people criticize SVism of over 60 years, but even having a dysfunctional hierarchy for that long is just as much a problem as having none.Having a dysfunctional hierarchy still leaves a possibility for a future conclave, and pope, to judge the the heresiarch who held office. Going the route of some sedevecantist positions (I'm not saying this is you, necessarily) would leave even that route out of the question. Hence your appeal to Sts. Peter and Paul prophecy (reminds me of the BODer appeal to an angel baptizing someone if they truly wanted unity with the Church). I mean, how many of those "hardline" sedevecantists would accept +Vigano's calling out Francis and electing another pope- even if it were done? Not many, I'd guess.
...It's just that trads can't really agree on where the Church is exactly, or who belongs to it....Bingo
Sede v is a vacant seat, and looking for a true pope. If there is a true pope, then why do the people have resistance.Easy. The pope is human.
Having a dysfunctional hierarchy still leaves a possibility for a future conclave, and pope, to judge the the heresiarch who held office. Going the route of some sedevecantist positions (I'm not saying this is you, necessarily) would leave even that route out of the question. Hence your appeal to Sts. Peter and Paul prophecy (reminds me of the BODer appeal to an angel baptizing someone if they truly wanted unity with the Church). I mean, how many of those "hardline" sedevecantists would accept +Vigano's calling out Francis and electing another pope- even if it were done? Not many, I'd guess.Dysfunctional? Really? Are you kidding? A few weeks back I went to a trad gathering on Gaudete Sunday. There were several people who used to be ardent anti-sedes who recently went over to the Bennyvacantist position (Benedict is the true pope). I wanted to know what caused them to change positions and I was basically expecting the Pachamama incident to be the last straw. But no! It was the Traditiones Custodes thing. That's right, the pope can worship idols and still be recognized as pope. But if you cramp Fr Indult's style, the pope has gone too far and needs to be sacked. That just sums up the utter madness of the R&R position. Millions of Catholics died rather than do what Bergoglio did with the Pachamama idol. But no one cares anymore. It's all about maintaining the comfort of their little Mass center. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad people are finally starting to realize that Bergoglio has no authority. But I'm not very impressed with the reasons why. And I also think it is ridiculous to think that somehow Ratzinger or Woytyla or Montini or Roncalli where innocent of the very same crimes that Bergoglio has committed. If you are Bennyvacantist, you must believe that V2 was a perfectly fine council too. Because that was the overriding theme of his entire "reign". Even Vigano has repudiated V2 so how can the Novus Ordo "popes" be legitimate? Why would you expect a church/sect which is less Catholic than the High Church Anglicans (whose clergy are more likely to be valid than the NO clergy) to produce a Catholic pope? There's a better chance that Justin Welby is the true Archbishop of Canterbury than that any of the Novus Ordo "popes" were true popes.
Joe Rogan is more Catholic than Bergoglio.
Easy. The pope is human.
Also, Sede v will never find a true pope. It's a dead end and a detrimental position. Sorry.
To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church—what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. ...
Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church. ... That is no longer the Catholic Church: that is the Conciliar Church with all its unpleasant consequences. ...
This talk about the “visible Church” on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the “visible Church”, meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.
One Year After the Consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre, interview published in Fideliter, July-August, 1989.
No, Traditional Catholics agree with where the Church is. That's nonsense. We disagree on various legal matters, but Archbishop Lefebvre clears it up.This talk about the “visible Church” on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the “visible Church”, meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly stated that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church, and that Traditional Catholics are the ones who have them.
This talk about the “visible Church” on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the “visible Church”, meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.
How are these two bolded statements not contradictory? If the traditional Catholics have the marks of the Catholic Church...and I happen to agree with that...., how can he also say they are not the Catholic Church?
This, the "pope is human" answer is one of the least Catholic things I've seen here in a while ... in how you're applying it. We're not talking about pope as human being but the pope as the Rock of the Church, in his Magisterium, which has always been taught to be protected by the Holy Spirit. Obviously the pope is human, but he's also the Vicar of Christ, and with that come certain promises of Our Lord regarding the indefectibility of the Magisterium.If my "pop" answer seemed gratuitous , maybe you should circle back to the question. "A gratuitous question deserves...". Something like that. You know the rest.
These stupid "pop" armchair theological maxims do a lot of damage and they're applied in a decidedly un-Catholic manner. Your "EASY" ends up being heretical in its implications.
Do you even believe in the indefectibility of the Church and the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Church, or do you believe it to be a PURELY human institution that can fail and falter as any human being might.
If Bergoglio and his predecessors were going around worshipping in pachamama temples on their own and Vatican II and the NOM had not happened, most of us would hardly care less; it's not our problem and let the Cardinals and bishops deal with him. Where it becomes our problem is when they're trying to impose a false Magisterium and blasphemous Rite of Worship on the entire Body of the Church, and we're left in the position of determining whether we can stay subject to them, as there's no salvation without subjection to the Holy Father.
No, Traditional Catholics agree with where the Church is. That's nonsense. We disagree on various legal matters, but Archbishop Lefebvre clears it up.
Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly stated that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church, and that Traditional Catholics are the ones who have them.