Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has been excommunicated due to the crime of schism. It is a sad day for him and the Church. Others who abuse women and boys and steal and defraud and bless the sin of sodomy and teach heresy are only "sinners" and are excused.
Viganò is wrong. Bergoglio is the Pope. The priests of the Diocese of Rome recognize Bergoglio as their bishop, therefore, he is the Bishop of Rome, and thus, the Pope of the Catholic Church. That's it, friends. Simple as that.
If he is a heretic he cannot be judged in any process that would remove him. That's the Law. If he is a heretic, he has lost the grace of office, but that doesn't mean he does not have the power and there is no mechanism to remove him.
"The boss is not always right, but he's always the boss." Ergo, the problem.
Sedevacantists, pope-splainers and ultra-montanists have caused this. All of them have elevated the pope to a god and believe that he farts frankincense, it smells nice and we are to enjoy it and that kissing his feet is some kind of reverence to God.
The First and Second Vatican Councils have done this. In the case of the First, it has been abused against what was actually intended, to tie the hands of a pope and infallibility to faith and morals; and, in the case of the Second, abused because of a vague thing called the "spirit" that refuses to be slain.
A future Pope and Council must fix all of this. It may very well make a declaration on Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his actions and they may, including the excommunication of Viganò, be declared anathema.
Until then, friends, we are stuck with the boss who is not always right but remains the boss for good or ill.
9 comments:
It appears the Church Age has come full circle... Once upon a time Popes would die for truth now they persecute truth bearers... Like the way Caiaphas condemned Jesus to death for blasphemy... He was the "boss" then too... And Jerusalem burned as a result... +++
When I was in university I got in a fist fight with some Communists who made a filthy remark about Pope John Paul II. At seminary I daily argued with several professors, telling them that they should not be in the priesthood if they didn't like the teaching of the Catholic Church. My point is that I don't think I have to prove my "street creds" for defending the papacy.
That is, it would take something truly diabolical for me to criticize a pope publicly. And it is out of love for the Petrine Office that I condemn the false teaching of Pope Francis.
As I was not at the last Conclave, I was not privy to the treachery that resulted in the elevation of Pope Francis. But I am certain that the Holy Spirit would never choose a pope who would blasphemously "bless" sodomite unions, "correct" Jesus Christ - or publicly state that "repentance is not needed for absolution".
Though there have been dubious popes in past history, none of them would ever dare blaspheme against the Holy Spirit by attempting to change the Word of God - until the arrival of Pope Francis...
The Baptist called souls to repent of sin and make the way straight for the coming of Christ. Pope Francis inverts and perverts the inspired message of the Baptist by telling souls that repentance is not needed to receive "mercy". As he "makes crooked the straight paths of the Lord" ( St. Paul, Acts ), Pope Francis reveals himself to be the False Prophet as he makes the way straight for the coming of Antichrist.
Though I am not a Canonist, I do know that Pope Francis rescinded his Petrine authority long ago by his repeated, unrelenting, inferred, implicit - if not explicit - heresies, blasphemies and apostasy from the Divinely-revealed Truth.
Speaking truth and falsehood on alternate days, crafty Pope Francis deliberately sows confusion and foments division amongst believing Catholics. He gets the faithful to argue and fight with each other over what they think he may have said or meant - to "divide and conquer". Thereby, Pope Francis prevents the faithful from forming a unified phalanx that could battle effectively against his Anti-gospel.
What Pope Francis did to Archbishop Viganò was not "inclusive", nor was it "tolerant" or "merciful'. Rather, Pope Francis' treatment of Archbishop Viganò was unjust and gratuitously cruel.Instead of increasing his worldly power,this act of treachery merely exposed Pope Francis as a thug, an imposter and an enemy of the True Christ.
Should the cowardice of the bishops of the world not correct the false teaching of Pope Francis as he leads souls to hell, Christ will come down from heven and punish the world.
Father John Matthew Duffy
Toronto, Canada.
Thank you, Father Duffy for your comments. I agree with you. However, I think it actually does go all the way down to his election and the argument for the application of Canon 188 and substantial error. There is evidence that hasn't been officially presented or examined. If we take the position of Vox, that "Vigano is wrong" without doing a proper official trial of this evidence, and determine whether it is worthy of pursuing any action, then we may never be in a position to correct the errors and give justice to those who are being persecuted for asking the questions. Archbishop Vigano deserves more respect than that.
I have great respect for the Archbishop. I believe he is wrong in his determination that Francis is not the pope because we have no concrete evidence nor is there a process. If the archbishop has proof from the conclave or from Argentina, then the good archbishop needs to release the evidence and not simply put it out there as a rumour or gossip. Trust me if you’ve read this long, blog long enough you know my views on the current regime. But unfortunately, he’s the boss.
Ann Barnhardt has definite proof that Bergolio is not the Pope and never was!
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2024/07/05/the-greatest-act-of-violence-one-can-commit-against-the-petrine-see-is-to-call-a-man-peter-who-is-not-peter-if-you-love-the-papacy-and-are-subject-to-it-you-must-call-out-antipop/
Your serious mistake endangers the salvation of your own soul. Does it occur to you to imagine that Saint Michael the Archangel, being of a lower hierarchy, would say the same barbarity that you have written. And how many times have I told you that a heretic like Bergoglio could not become pope. Furthermore, you know perfectly well that the San Gallen mafia elected him in a fraudulent conclave and you continue to incite others to remain united with the false pope. Joining a heretic, a public enemy of God and the Church, is called betrayal, it is called apostasy.
Your serious mistake is your hypocritical and arrogant judgment of me. How many times have you told me? You slimy little coward.
Go read another blog and bog off.
Dear Christ is the Lord
If Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II rationally then he becomes a traditional pope. Then there is no reason to remain in sedevacantism.
So the issue is Vatican Council II rational or irrational.
In 1965 something new came into the Church. It was Vatican Council II irrational. It is interpreting the Council with an irrational premise to produce a non traditional conclusion.
Over the last 15 years, something new has further come into the Church. It is Vatican Council II, rational. It is interpreting the same Council but with a rational premise. This is a discovery. You can read more about it on my blog Eucharist and Mission ( Lionel's blog).
With Vatican Council II rational, the liberals cannot cite the Council to support their liberalism. Pope Francis can no more justify his innovation in faith and morals with Vatican Council II ( irrational)
-Lionel Andrades
I will never understand how so many people believe that a man who is not a Catholic can be Christ’s Vicar on Earth.
Post a Comment