Skip to main content

@EsquireCatholic Now is the time for traditional Catholics to do the right thing, get off the fence, and boldly stand with Archbishop Vigano who is doing what we have been waiting for a prelate to do for years: defend Holy Mother Church and the faith. #IstandwithVigano


The Catholic Esquire
@EsquireCatholic
Now is the time for traditional Catholics to do the right thing, get off the fence, and boldly stand with Archbishop Vigano who is doing what we have been waiting for a prelate to do for years: defend Holy Mother Church and the faith. #IstandwithVigano
youtube.com
I stand with Vigano, and so should you!
Archbishop Vigano is being charged with schism, but schism from what? Now is the time for traditional Catholics to take a stand, not waffle on a fence balanc...
1,212
Views

Comments

Renato said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
8:33 AM
Renato said…
We will focus on Viganò's continued refusal for not defending himself; for he has not now gone to Rome.

And the Archbishop refused to even send a lawyer. That would be a canon lawyer who could defend Ratzinger's "substantial error" (something I don't agree with), but who would be significant for showing a Bergoglio without Munus.

If he did not reap this expected result, then he would reap another good fruit for the Church. Because he would turn this media interest to a reflection against this false pontificate.

But he has shown that he has no interest in the Church either. This connects that he had stated that nothing could be done against this illegitimate pontificate.

The solution is a traditionalist foundation of his that is known as Exsurge Domine.
But this will always be a parallel church of his out of contempt for canonical solutions.

The fact that Bishop Williamson conditionally reconsecrated him, who is excommunicated to always violate all canon and ecclesiastical law to consecrate more bishops without permission from a legitimate pope, Archbishop Viganò. All of this is coherent.

But does it also show that the new sacraments of the "conciliar sect" are not valid and that the pontificate of John Paul II was illegitimate?

Did he name Benedict XVI or Francis in the canon of the Mass? And who will he recognize in the future conclave: the legitimate successor of Benedict XVI, or the successor of Francis, or neither?

That's why I don't think we'll get answers from him about our questions.

But he can still shed light on all of this. Otherwise, it will continue to be a controlled opposition that generates only confusion...
9:15 AM
Justina said…
Renato, you won't get answers because you aren't asking the right questions.
10:22 AM
Fred Martinez said…
Renato, are you a follower for E. Michael Jones and/or Br. Bugnolo?
11:47 AM
Renato said…
Justina, he will not answer my misguided questions. Nor do I believe that he will answer questions that are also well elaborated by others. But one day he can clarify all this for the good of the Church, with God's grace, for nothing is impossible. The above comment is coldly focused on this behavior of Viganò that I have been following for some time.

---

No Fred, I just analyze and try to show the truth.
11:59 AM
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