@Somethi65907719 Logic of Catholic neocons..We’re supposed to listen to Mohler, Baptist who doesn’t recognize pope, on political matters. He is wise & not in grave sin. I am not, however, supposed to listen to “grave sinner” @CarloMVigano who rejects Francis. Makes lots of sense!
Logic of Catholic neocons who tweet a lot: We’re supposed to listen to Mohler, Baptist who doesn’t recognize pope, on political matters. He is wise & not in grave sin. I am not, however, supposed to listen to “grave sinner” who rejects Francis. Makes lots of sense!
Comments
For in relation to the Petrine Munus and the Petrine Ministry it is this: the first, an office; the second, however, is an exercise of the office, according to the teaching of John Paul II's Pastor Bonus.
If the canonical norm says that there can only be abdication of the exercise at its origin, that is, in the office, then there has been no abdication.
We find consistency in this regard, according to norms 335 and 412 in the New Canon Code, which means this as a totally barred seat.
Then the Cardinals held a totally illegitimate conclave and thus elected an antipope. According to Universe Domini Grecis, in articles 76 and 77, that his acts thus rendered null and void.
But Viganò has always shown disinterest and rejection of these norms of the Apostolic Constitution. And so he put in schism and apostasy an antipope and even the legitimate post-Council popes, of which he was a part. Moreover, he indirectly demonstrated that the Church came to an end in 1958, when he indirectly attributed a phrase to Lefebvre.
This was very different from St. Bernard who was a true son of the Church when he turned against Anacletus II because he was not a legitimate Pope. He wanted to restore the legitimacy of a legitimate Pope. He sought a canonical resource out of love for the Church.
If a Catholic revolts against the legitimate papacy, then he is no longer a Catholic.
Therefore, his fight against Bergoglio is illogical.