Skip to main content

"Abp. Vigano: 'Too many commentators are more worried about papal doctrine than souls, so they prefer to be governed by an apostate pope rather than recognizing that he cannot head a church to which he does not belong, so they split hairs.'[6:00]"


....Abp. Vigano: Too many commentators are more worried about papal doctrine than souls, so they prefer to be governed by an apostate pope rather than recognizing that he cannot head a church to which he does not belong, so they split hairs. They [6:00] - Canon 212

Comments

Anonymous said…
Archbishop Viganò says that humanly there is no solution on Bergoglio. If he sees humanly the things of God, then he sees the things of God without faith. It is the same mistake of the Jews who rejected the Faith in the Mosaic Law by mere human precepts. This means the same Gnostic hostility to moral rules and precepts on the part of Jews who had been corrupted in the past in captivity in Babylon and Egypt. Therefore, the Domini Universi Gregis is rejected because it is maliciously canonically elaborated by a pope. And the better future of the Church, according to Viganò himself, practically no longer exists.
1:21 PM
Anonymous said…
If someone claims that the pope is an apostate, then that same person claims that he is not a Catholic. When someone says that a pope is not a Catholic, then that very person means that the pope has not been canonically elected. Because the prudent Catholic knows that to go against this path is to go against the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. And this question is thus rational and not by "canonical speculation. Because Bergoglio was elected to hold the Petrine office; Ratzinger, however, had not abdicated the same Petrine office. The conclusion, therefore, is revealed to be canonical. The Universi Dominici Gregis speaks of canon 332,2 in order to be valid for abdication of the Petrine office if it is not ordinary, through the death of a pontiff, thus leaving the Chair of St. Peter vacant. The See of Rome is vacant today not because of a probable ideological speculation, but because of a real evidence that has not yet been canonically resolved.
3:35 PM
Anonymous said…
Both Bergoglio and Viganò have something similar: contempt for canon law. The latter despises her for a canonical solution to the crisis of the Church and cares little about founding a seminary without canonical recognition, while the other cares little that he is not pope and has expelled a conversational bishop, without authority and without canonical justification. Today there is a dualism, that is, apparently opposite agents; but both are one and the same that bring the same disobedience and ruin to souls. Because all this turns out to be a struggle between good and evil, but in fact this is a dialectic to conclude something empty and dark. It is known to all that Christ founded his one Church and placed Peter at the head whose gates of winter cannot destroy it. But both Viganò and Bergoglio are seeking another identity for the church. Therefore, the See of Rome is vacant today because there is no search for a new elected pope because a canonical solution is disregarded. Only the few Catholics who have faith have canonically rescued the Church.
6:37 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more