The person who has left the Catholic Church is the one who participates in the worship of pagan idols, puts pagan idols in Catholic churches, and apologizes to pagans after he has the pagan idols fished out of the Tiber River.

Accepting a person who teaches heresy as the legitimate Pope is tantamount to leaving the Catholic Church. (I am not sedevacantist).

Ummm......

Vigano: "Let's not give in to the temptation to leave the Catholic Church."

Sean John,

yes, Vigano said that in his interview. But then, how many famous heretics have admitted they were leaving the Church.

In the interview, while talking about possible "globalist apostasy" in this "pontificate" etc, he had the golden opportunity to clarify "but of course, we remain faithful to the See of Peter and Pope Francis, despite the errors which we must criticise" (Arshbishop Lefebvre said this so many times), but not a word. Vigano's refusal to unambiguously accept the Papacy is the elephant in the room.

And if he does so tomorrow, we're going to have to ask ourselves how serious this guy is, if it never occurred to him in his hundreds of pages of letters and interviews condemning the Papacy to add that little note "we still accept Pope Francis as Pope", and by this I don't mean his mealy-mouthed talk about hierarchs "occupying" "illegally" "bureaucratic" positions in an "institutional" Church.

As Bishop Tissier made clear in the 2013 study which Vigano falsely represented, in almost all cases the "institutional" positions occupied by modernists are 100% within the "true" Catholic Church. That's why there's a crisis IN the Church.

The SSPX DICI news site has just made the very important point (after noting a letter thanking Bishops Schneider and Vigano for their debate on Vatican II) that we must not simply try to analyse what the Council will mean to history, but do something PRACTICAL to keep the traditional faith going. The SSPX has its seminaries, chapels, schools, its dispensing of all the sacraments. Other religious institutions have also been doing this for decades.

What is Vigano doing, apart from writing letters and giving interviews, where his shifty position changes by the day. Where is his ministry, seminaries, etc? Being a real successor to the Apostles might mean doing more than hating the Successor of Peter, might it not?

Well I echo the comment of Bishop Tissier in his interview  of 25/3/2020. He said that till the end of his life, Archbishop Lefebvre's politics regarding Rome were to keep in contact with them, to change them, to "convert" them, to get them to "tolerate" us.
But of course, real reconciliation was never likely with people of modernist spirit, as Archbishop Lefebvre also said. It's still not likely now. Pope Francis is quite capable of unilaterally recognising the SSPX. This doesn't really mean reconciliation, only justice. The Society of St Pius X should never have been "suppressed", but there won't be real agreement with the present authorities until they understand the problems of the Council, modernism etc.

The SSPX's Roman strategy is a matter for them.

A few observations:

The world of tradition has been arguing over what is the “Conciliar Church” for decades and the suggestion that any “divergence of opinion [is] not because the issue is difficult” really shows a disrespect for all those, including the Archbishop, who have made a sincere effort to make sense of this crisis.

If we take two lay-men, who I think most would agree are fairly clued up on the crisis, Louie Verrecchio and John Lane - who can hardly be called Society ‘yes men’ - they say respectively:
“… we live in such extraordinarily trying times that even the most saintly defenders of tradition are at a loss to fully explain it.”
“The situation is indeed mysteriously complex. The one thing which can be said with the greatest confidence is that in the face of an objectively complex problem, any purported solution which is truly simple, must be erroneous.”

If it’s not difficult, why does Sedevacantism even exist? Clearly, it is difficult and what we find is that there is no single position that completely answers the problem.

It is kind of funny that for some in order to ‘prove’ their thesis they must have it approved by Archbishop Lefebvre. Bp Tissier de Malarais does this by taking the archbishop’s words “I consider that a spirit of modernist and protestant tendency shows itself in the conception of the new Mass and in all the liturgical reform.” and then claims he didn’t mean it, that is, it was a “strategic backing off by the prelate of Econe is perfectly justified by the circuмstances: the Holy office was entering into a process which could lead to his condemnation.” Fine, but if that’s true two responses can be made:

1. If some statement can be minimised for some perceive advantage or benefit, then what about Bp. Fellay’s diplomatic discourse with Rome? If Bp. Fellay by backing off reasoned he could get some benefit, why not? There can be no complaints, what is good for the goose is good for the gander;

2. If there’s a time for backing off there must also be a time for coming forward. What about a comparison with St. Thomas More? When asked to give an oath he remained resolutely silent and during his trial he quoted a legal maxim "he that holds his peace, gives consent.” But, when found guilty (and interrupting the Lord Chancellor to remind him it was customary to allow defendants to speak before the imposition of sentence) he let go with both barrels. So, when was this double barrel moment for the Society? Surely it must have been just after the Episcopal Consecrations and Rome declaring the six bishops ipso facto excommunicated. But what do we read in the open letter to Card. Gantin from the Superior General and District Superiors just days after, “We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church…”

Bp.TdM may be right or wrong in his thesis but he certainly cannot claim the archbishop did not truly believe what he said in his examination by the CDF. The position of the SG in 1976 is identical to that of the SG in 1988 as the SG – and I might add the SG from 1994-2018.

That Abp. Vigano concurs with Bp. TDM is neither here nor there but it seems that he agrees because it more aptly fits with the vision of Anne Catherine Emmerich. He doesn’t delve into the thesis as the questioner asked, “It would be beneficial if Archbishop Viganò addressed the argument Bishop Tissier presents and explain if he agrees with it or what objections he would raise to it.”, so the reader is left to ponder, unless of course the vision is reason why, which would only confirm he agrees with the conclusion not the theology behind it.

The claim that The Resistance is united on this point is false. To quote Bp. Zendejas:
“… the modern ecclesiastical orientation, which started with the spirit of the council (Aggiornamento). This Modernist spirit has been continued nowadays by the New Evangelization’s fever, and is being promoted by the attitude of the “Hermeneutic of Continuity” in traditionalist groups.” (Blue Paper #300).

John2020 "Rome Is the Rock" has been banned. I am referring to his e-mail address.

If that doesn't scream "conciliar", "Indult" or at least "r'approchement" (new SSPX orientation - heading back to Conciliar Church, begging for permission to be Catholic) I don't know what does.

This forum is for TRADITIONAL Catholics, which means not focusing on the "Rome is the Rock" element to the exclusion of the "Crisis in the Church, Rome is now the seat of Modernism" element.

John2020 "Rome Is the Rock" has been banned. I am referring to his e-mail address.

If that doesn't scream "conciliar", "Indult" or at least "r'approchement" (new SSPX orientation - heading back to Conciliar Church, begging for permission to be Catholic) I don't know what does.

This forum is for TRADITIONAL Catholics, which means not focusing on the "Rome is the Rock" element to the exclusion of the "Crisis in the Church, Rome is now the seat of Modernism" element.