Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò Declared Excommunicated

I understand how you feel but the Church is not a worldly institution; it is divine. Which means that His Office is Holy. And he is a "legit" Pope until an equal authority says otherwise. According to the same Church Law that we are bound to, so too is Pope Francis. Therefore it is unlawful for him to forbid the Traditional Latin Mass. As it is unlawful, we, in good conscience, can disregard this directive. However, when he speaks as the Church - gives a directive that is in communion with the deposit of faith, then we must obey as a subject of the Catholic Church. That's how it has always worked.

We need to obey God rather than men! Said the first pope. And God NEVER would share His awesome glory with pachamama that's 1, nunber 2, God told us to beware of FALSE PROPHETS... through their fruits we shall now them. We cannot... CANNOT obey, follow or commune with a false prophet, and Bergoglio is not a sweet and true prophet but a false one.

You want to commune with that hipocrite? Sure, go ahead, but ask yourself this: why would God told us in Hebrews 13 to stay away from strange teachings (fiducia is not only strange but apostasy, amoris laetitia, etc), Why would Jesus say about the top of the church those days that they had the keys but instead locked heaven for everyone and themselves; IF the power of the office is so strong, like youve said, then Jesus should've not come in the first place. St athanasius then shouldn't be a saint @Carol H

yuca2111: You do not fully understand the Church my friend. The Church is Christ. To disregard Rome is to disregard God. And there have been numerous Popes and Cardinals and bishops and priests who were not worthy of their Office. But God has always allowed the wheat and the cockle to mix. That is why Christ promised (by the power of Grace (divine love) won by the ultimate sacrifice on the Cross) that the Holy Ghost would never allow a Pope to formally change the deposit of faith of the Church. Given that even St. Peter denied him three times, Our Lord is well aware of the weaknesses of man; hence this divine protection. The freemasons, after a number attempts, realised that they couldn't get one of their own on the throne of St. Peter so they changed tactics. They introduced 'Collegiality' (the body leading the head) which is a form of democracy that renders the divine authority of the Pope null and void. When was the last time a Pope spoke ex Cathedra? I believe the last time was on November 1, 1950, when Pope Pius XII solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption of Our Lady into heaven. Certainly since Vatican II was hijacked, the Pope has been rendered to a mere figure-head who seems to swim with the the strong current of the liberal tide. But none of this changes my faith or my duty to the Church. I remain, in communion, with the Office of St. Peter and will obey when the Pope speaks for the Church. When he does not - when he goes against what has always been traditionally accepted or goes against the Law of the Church (such as attempting to suppress the Traditional Latin Mass) - I am allowed to resist as long as it is done respectfully with a Catholic spirit. This is OUR cross.

The Law of The Church states quite clearly that only an equal authority can declare on the Pope. You say he is "obviously a heretic" but your opinion is of no value in this case; it carries no weight or jurisdiction. He may indeed be a heretic. He may indeed have put himself into schism in the eyes of God. But until a Church declares on this, we actually don't know, and more importantly, we have no authority to declare it. This is not my opinion (although I agree with it), it is Law. And the Catholic Church as an institution is governed by this Law. Your problem is - especially as an American - is that you have been imbibed with the socialist spirit of democracy; that you, as one of the crowd, can dictate to the head and make up your own mind about things. Also, as you have raised the point about denying a dogma of the Church - what dogma, doctrine has Pope Francis formally denied?

Sure. Meanwhile I am waiting for you to answer my question; it is very central to this discussion.

Canon 194, 2 (1983 code. Also found in 188,4 of the 1917 code): "The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself...2. a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from communion of the Church...the removal mentioned in 2. can be insisted upon only if established by a declaration of the competent authority." Clearly only those who have the canonical power to confer the office, have the power to take it away. This is supported by St. Thomas Aquinas who writes in the Summa Theologica (II-II,q.60,a.2): "Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice...three conditions are requisite for a judgment...secondly, that it come from one who is in authority...if any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful...(for) when a man judges about matters wherein he has no authority...this is called judgment by usurpation..." In order for a Pope to automatically lose his Office (Canon 188.4) , he must be a proven formal heretic. So again, I ask, what dogma, doctrine has Pope Francis formally denied?

If a claimant to the papal throne is merely suspected of heresy, the common good of the Church always requires a Church declaration of said heresy (canon 2223.4).

That’s a pretty good post Carol!

It does leave me scratching my head a bit though, because Can. 1364 (1) which refers to 194 states:

c. 1364
1. With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, part 1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

So if I’m read this correctly, it suggests a non-Catholic can continue as pope until/unless his heresy is declared…even though membership in the Catholic Church is a requisite.

Carol... Your citation of Canon 194, 2 (1983 code) begins with the false premise that bergoglio was lawfully elected to the papacy.

So if you are going to be a rigorist in following canon law... be consistent and begin with the applicable law applying to the fraudulent conclave of 2014.

Br Alexis Bugnolo and others demonstrated conclusively that bregolio never held the papacy from 2014.

You would do well to reflect upon the following instruction, rather than your misguided interpretation and application of Canon law.

John 10:1-10.

At that time, Jesus said to the Pharisees, Amen, amen, I say to you, he who enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up another way, is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is shepherd of the sheep. To this man the gatekeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them forth. And when he has let out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. But a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers. This parable Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what He was saying to them. Again, therefore, Jesus said to them, Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All whoever have come are thieves and robbers; but the sheep have not heard them. I am the door. If anyone enter by Me he shall be safe, and shall go in and out, and shall find pastures. The thief comes only to steal, and slay, and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it more abundantly.

Please do not make the error of the Pharisees who put their man-made traditions and customs and laws above Truth.

The error you are demonstrating consistently is attempting to apply a code to a problem for which the code was not designed to resolve.

Heretic at best.

Really, apostate.

You clearly don’t understand what malice is: it is a conscious decision to act against Church authority, involving full knowledge and deliberate consent.

The refusal to answer the summons and appear before the DDF is one example. His apparent reconsecration by +BW is another. His many public statements and actions that show a clear intent to reject Church authority. His malice is easily demonstrable.

"Good faith controversy over the IDENTITY of the Vicar of Christ is NOT schismatic, by logical definition.
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully electedon account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8"
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 Antipopes and publicly acknowledge that the See is vacant, when it is, in fact, vacant, as it has been these 552 days and counting… | Barnhardt

Pt Murphy: The Church authorities are not usurpers. And there is no controversy over the identity of the Vicar of Christ except in your head. Therefore all the quotes you listed above do not apply. Your personal feelings on the matter does not change reality.

123jussi: Harry Jones is absolutely correct. In legal terms 'malice' indicates the deliberate intention, without established justification or excuse, to commit an act that is considered unlawful.

Seabass: Anyone who wants us to separate from Rome is a false prophet.

Mark 13:21: "And then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ’; or, ‘Behold, He is there’; do not believe him."

@Carol H "Rome" is not mentioned in scripture as to whom we should be following. We should be following Christ. Again, you should be ashamed of yourself for the games you're presenting on this thread.

So, what's your deal? You'll lose family by admitting Francis is an apostate heretic? Or, perhaps your income is tied to "Rome"?

@Carol H Pfftt...spare me. Think about what I said. You're attachment is obviously to something else that's blocking your devotion to Our Lord Jesus.

I proclaim Christ as King over all the inhabitants of the earth, whether they like it or not. Does that sound masonic to you?

@Carol H Amongst the many reasons why the Immaculate Conception was necessary, is that Jesus could never be under the yoke of sin in any way, shape, or form. Thus, His Mother must be free from Original Sin.

If God has taken the care for His Son in the above manner - not putting Him under the yoke of sin - do you think He loves us less by demanding that we be under subjection to an apostate/heretic who encourages us to sin and offend Him? No one can be the pope who is not first a Catholic. Is it impossible and been stated numerous times throughout the history of the Church. Please think about this!

God loves you. He does not ask you to follow heretics or try to trip you up with canonical questions of obediance vs. what is the good He has commanded us to to.

Do you believe the Church of Christ is divine? Do you believe in the words "the gates of hell shall not prevail?". Over two thousand years of being ruled by unworthy humans, and still the Church holds firm with the same doctrine and dogma of the apostles. This is miraculous. And that's the point. Not even a bad Pope can soil the Church. Moreover, it's the same place, with the same formal teachings, and the same hierarchy. It didn't just stop being the Catholic Church. That's like saying Christ stopped being divine after his disfigurement.

As for Pope Francis not being Catholic - well that's for another Pope to decide. To make such a judgment on my superior is outside my competence. Certainly his interpretation of the deposit of faith in many area is wonky but, given his distorted Jesuit training, there is every possibility he does not even fully realise it. Meanwhile I have the handrail of tradition to lead me straight. Like Archbishop Lefebvre, I recognize as far as I can, and resist when I must.

@Carol H "The gates of hell shall not prevail" means that the Church will crush through the gates of hell and evil will not have it's way, thus losing. The Church can't very well crush through the gates of hell if it's following a satan-infested crew of gay false prophets! Therefore, Francis must not be pope...as he actively, proveably, works to tear the Church down. How can you deny this?! Are you a football player just because you call yourself one? No, Carol, you're not. The Pope is the Vicar of Church's Church on earth. Francis does not even call himself that and has dropped it all together. Again, you can't deny this!

Judging something to be evil and incompatablie with the laws of God is NOT outside your competence! Christ asks us not to be deceived by false prophets...He also asks us to be perfect as His Father is. Therefore, it must be possible for us to judge between what is the Good and what is evil.

I'm not sure what else to say to you other than you obviously have an attachment that's holding you back from making an honest effort to understand these things - or you're lazy and don't feel like looking into this seriously/don't what to deal with the consequences that will result if you do.

I will be praying for you!

My attachment is to basic catechism and thus a solid understanding of what the Church is. The Church is not the infiltration. It is a divine institution like a great castle that withstands the sands of time. And as Christ instructed us, it is built upon a great eternal and immovable rock; the Papacy. It is this that hell will not prevail against. Now I have stated every which way on this site that Pope Francis is a bad Pope. But as Pope he has a special and unbreakable bond with his divine Office. It is a bond that no other human being has, so spare me the footballer analogy. And it is a bond that prevents Pope Francis from formally changing the deposit of faith. The other issue involved here is our duty as a Catholic. There is nothing to stop us living a traditional Catholic life - which means of course, praying for our Holy Father, and maintaining a spirit of obedience even if - because of the infiltration at work - we cannot always subject ourselves physically. Many of the Jews (not all) rejected and mocked Christ when he failed to meet their expectations. They failed to understand that Christ's kingdom was leading us along the way of the cross; that it was by this means the world could be saved. I see the corruption within the Church hierarchy. We have been victims of it. However, the Church itself is above all this and Christ will give us a Holy Pope. But we have to earn it. It our sins that have brought this upon us. It is time to rise up like the soldiers of Christ we should be and defend our beloved castle with the spiritual weapons Our Lady gave us. Anyway, I thank you for your prayers. They are much appreciated.