Skip to main content

...."Since when did Archbishop Viganò declare that all the popes since 1958 were antipopes?" ....Vigano’s allegation isn’t that Francis didn’t “fully consent” to be pope but that he “fully consents” to destroy the papacy. ....The 2013 papal election seemingly was null because it was the result of an illicit political campaign to oust Benedict XVI and install Francis. The evidence is mountains high! Lefebvre would have been the first to condemn this!

...."Since when did Archbishop Viganò declare that all the popes since 1958 were antipopes?"


....Vigano’s allegation isn’t that Francis didn’t “fully consent” to be pope but that he “fully consents” to destroy the papacy.


....The 2013 papal election seemingly was null because it was the result of an illicit political campaign to oust Benedict XVI and install Francis. The evidence is mountains high! Lefebvre would have been the first to condemn this!

Comments

Renato said…
The circumstances show that the Viganò and the Society of St. Pius X are focused only on a return of Tradition.

These statements cited in the article about him by an illegitimate Pope Francis are aimed at speculation, not a canonical quest to recognize him as actually an illegitimate Roman Pontiff. And the others who were legitimate are not in his concern. Nothing more.

That's why Viganò said he won't go to Rome for lack of interest.

Thus all this is clear what Father Chazal, who is a member of the Resistance founded by Bishop Williamson, says about the confirmation of the unconditional reconsecration of Viganò according to the same priest, and a mutual cooperation between them until this return – the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEpqo4JomNk

And the Society is not interested if it celebrates its Masses "una cum" Pope Francis.

There is much said that the Society will consecrate more bishops and nothing is said about a papal mandate, although Bergoglio himself favored it on some points.

Lefebvre's foundation today also with Viganò does not care whether he is a legitimate pope or not.
2:17 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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