Lad,

Thanks for cluing me in on how to watch the speech after the fact. I did, and it was excellent on the whole.

Vigano makes an important point about the irrelevance of "canonical arguments," how that's a waste of time, etc. Bergolio is a "false prophet," to whom no obedience is owed. This is what we know, and all we need to know.

I will also add that these endless arguments about "he's pope; he's not pope" are irrelevant and a waste of time, like the canonical arguments.

Indeed arguing about the finer points of the "5 Opinions" is a waste of time, as I've repeatedly stated, since we're not going to resolve the matter here on CI, and, as you point out, in the PRACTICAL order, it does not matter.  You could be as dogmatic an SV as they come (and anti-sedeprivationist), but at the end of the day, the SVs, sedeprivationists, and sedeimpoundists ... all put Bergoglio into the "ignore" category.

Now, with classical R&R, you can't do that.  You'd have to obey anything Bergoglio commanded or taught that was not contrary to your conscience.  But all the others put him in the category of needing to be categorically ignored and treated as if he were not the pope.

What matters, however, is that to assert BOTH that 1) Bergoglio is (formally) the pope and 2) Bergoglio has a corrupt Modernist-imbued Magisterium and has promoted a non-Catholic Rite of Public Worship that displeases God, is to deny the indefectibility of the Papal Magisterium and Universal Discpline.  It's to reject the teaching of Vatican I that the See of Peter cannot be blemished by any error.

It is also my understanding that St Bellarmine in that particular section is talking about a pope who subsequently commands something that would help to destroy the Church while pope.  Not becoming pope with the intention to do these things which is what I think Vigano is saying.  [As a side note, this section was also not about a pope teaching error to the Church.

Two responses.

First, the issue goes beyond the pope issue. I've repeated that over and over in our discussions. The issue is, there is not a single ordinary of the Catholic Church who is not either a heretic or a schismatic by being in union with a heretic pope and remaining in union with other bishops who embrace heresy. So the "Church" has defected in the sense that she has no "governing authority," not a single ordinary with true exective/legislative power over Christ's sheep to command and rule.

Second,  the above simply does not comport with the notion of indefectibility, in two senses: the complete usurpation of the hierarchy in a pope in union with almost every single bishop, but certainly the the moral majority of bishops, in promulgation of heresy, etc. According to Pius IX (Etsa Multi"), that equals a defection of the Church. The second sense is the loss of a "governing body," i.e. no bishop with true and real authority of command.

The facts indicate the Church, in this scenario, has defected . . . if you follow the understanding of Pius IX and the official teaching regarding indefectibility.

You can call out "Old Catholic" all you want, but that's the reality. And that's not heresy. Even  Christ, as human, "defected"- his physical body died and was in the tomb. He DIED, which is a defect in an entity with a body.

The Church follows the life of her Lord, and she has "defected" too under the old definition,  as understood by Pius XI, expressed in Etsa Multi.

Now, you can understand that and come to terms with that as God's will, outlined and given to us in the revelation of Scripture, and therefore no contradiction by following the design of a God who works in aeons and ages, spans and blocks of time under certain covenants and governing laws and terms, or you can insist that the Church remains "indefectible" during the Great Apostasy, just as it was "indefectible" during the Church age and the spread of the Gospel, when God willed it to be so, which does not square with the facts and the reality. The facts  and the doctrine did indeed square during the Church age, when the Church was indeed indefectible.

It's a matter of consistency, which matters when we're arguing truth, the weighing of concepts and hypotheses against facts, and that's what we do here.

But practically speaking, we both recognize, with Archbishop Vigano, that Francis is a false prophet, has lost his right to rule by virtue of his apostasy, and can be told to take a hike. And as Vigano indicates by dismissing canonical arguments, that is what matters, and what will determine the salvation of souls.

Would you please provide this precise teaching that you are referring to here, Ladislaus. This seems to be at the very heart of our personal disagreement at least, and clearly your difference with DR too.

Pope Leo X: You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does not permit errors.

Pope Pius 9th: This chair [of Peter] is the center of Catholic truth and unity, that is, the head, mother, and teacher of all the Churches to which all honor and obedience must be offered. Every church must agree with it because of its greater preeminence — that is, those people who are in all respects faithful….

Again: Nor will We permit anything against the sanctity of the oath by which We were bound when, however undeservingly, We ascended the supreme seat of the prince of the apostles, the citadel and bulwark of the Catholic faith.

Pius 9th again: …t is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

Pope Leo 13th: On its side the Holy See, faithful to the mission it has received to teach all men and to preserve the faithful from error, follows with attentive and vigilant eye all that happens within the Catholic fold, and, when it is judged necessary and opportune, it will not fail in the future — any more than it has ever failed in the past — to give appropriate light and direction by its teaching. It is to the Holy See first of all — and also, in dependence upon it, to the other pastors established by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God — that belongs by right the teaching ministry.

Pope Pius 11th: For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained.

(Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 9)

.

Right here. Teachings from numerous popes. Just read five or ten of these quotes from true popes and you'll see the problem with saying the papacy can be corrupted by error in its teaching, or that people can say that the pope is leading people astray by his public teaching. These ideas are contrary to the Catholic Faith.

Just a few excerpts:





There are numerous other similar teachings of the magisterium in the page I cited. That's why we reject the idea that people can recognize someone as pope while resisting his teachings on the Faith. Because they contradict everything above.

Quote

The issue is, there is not a single ordinary of the Catholic Church who is not either a heretic or a schismatic by being in union with a heretic pope and remaining in union with other bishops who embrace heresy. So the "Church" has defected in the sense that she has no "governing authority," not a single ordinary with true exective/legislative power over Christ's sheep to command and rule.

This is your interpretation.  Another interpretation is that the same thing happened above during the Arian heresy.  St Athanasius was said to be “against the world” and he had no ordinary jurisdiction nor diocesan authority.  But he had supplied jurisdiction.  Same as all the current Trad clerics.  That suffices for the Church to continue.