Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: Bergoglio’s continual actions against the faith reveal ‘defect of consent’ to papal office
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò's latest response to Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
In theory, a Pontiff’s governing action remains valid and effective even where a single act may be questionable; but in practice, an unbroken and consistent series of acts blatantly contrary to the purpose for which the Papacy exists demonstrates – not the Pope’s human fallibility in governing decisions (in which he is not infallibly assisted by the Holy Spirit and can therefore err) – but rather the determination to use papal authority and the power that comes with it for subversive purposes: this invalidates the authority itself not only in individual acts, but in their entirety, because it reveals Bergoglio’s mens rea and his incompatibility with the function he holds.
This uninterrupted series of acts, contrary to the purpose of the Munus petrinum, which began from his first appearance on the balcony of the Vatican, confirms his defect of consent in the assumption of the Papacy, which Bergoglio intended to use-and still uses-to destroy the Church and damn souls. Bishop Schneider’s arguments in defense of the thesis that it is preferable to leave the Argentine Jesuit on the Throne rather than recognize the invalidity of his election due to a defect of consent, on the grounds that this would create division in the Church (rectius: the ecclesial body, since the Church is one and indivisible) are completely untenable, because the unity of the Mystical Body – that is, of its members with the Head – is a unity of Charity in Truth, so whoever is not in Truth cannot be in Charity either. The external evaluation of Bergoglio’s governing action cannot be limited to the critique of individual acts as if each were stand-alone, for the same reason that a sinful action has a different moral weight depending on its episodicity (occasional sin) or conversely on its habit (acquired vice as habitus operativus). The sin of a husband who cheats once on his wife does not have the same gravity as a frequent and habitual uninterrupted repetition of sins of adultery. The cancer that has spread in the Church since the conciliar revolution and gradually spread in metastasis during the postconciliar years, has now with the Argentine Jesuit completely conquered the highest level. It is precisely this devastating revolutionary process with its fatal outcome in Bergoglio that conservatives like Bishop Schneider do not want to admit, also because it would make responsible for the present situation all the recent Popes who encouraged and determined it in its premises. This should not be taken to mean that I share the opinions of the Sedevacantists.
Bp. Schneider's reasoning is based on false base premise. That is Francis's pontificate was never challenged by another claimant to the Petrine Office. Well in accordance to visible reality there was pope Benedict XVI, attacked and ousted, who died on 31.12.2022, and unfortunately continuously ignored by Bp. Schneider and many other Churchmen. Will there finally be a man of fortitude to show His …More
Bp. Schneider's reasoning is based on false base premise. That is Francis's pontificate was never challenged by another claimant to the Petrine Office. Well in accordance to visible reality there was pope Benedict XVI, attacked and ousted, who died on 31.12.2022, and unfortunately continuously ignored by Bp. Schneider and many other Churchmen. Will there finally be a man of fortitude to show His Excellency pope BXVI's documents clearly claiming the Office and pictures of him being dressed as pope untill his death ?
Bishop Schneider’s arguments in defense of the thesis that it is preferable to leave the Argentine Jesuit on the Throne rather than recognize the invalidity of his election due to a defect of consent, on the grounds that this would create division in the Church (rectius: the ecclesial body, since the Church is one and indivisible) are completely untenable, because the unity of the Mystical Body –…More
Bishop Schneider’s arguments in defense of the thesis that it is preferable to leave the Argentine Jesuit on the Throne rather than recognize the invalidity of his election due to a defect of consent, on the grounds that this would create division in the Church (rectius: the ecclesial body, since the Church is one and indivisible) are completely untenable, because the unity of the Mystical Body – that is, of its members with the Head – is a unity of Charity in Truth, so whoever is not in Truth cannot be in Charity either.
