Wow, so much confusion here...and yet our Faith is so simple: the mission of the Church and Her supreme law is SALVATION OF SOULS. Therefore, legitimizing Bergoglio’s diabolical seduction means helping him to destroy souls. On the other hand, calling him out for what he really is - a heretic and a false prophet - means opening the eyes of millions of confused souls and helping them to be saved, ultimately fulfilling the mission of Church and God’s Holly Will. Amen.
After speaking with a very well-known Traditional Catholic apologist, who is very vocal about publicly opposing and resisting the errors of Pope Francis both in speech and in the written word, I have an update on my previously stated position below.
This excellent apologist explained that there is absolutely no established mechanism in the Church for formally investigating and declaring that Pope Francis has either lost the Office through obdurate heresy or never possessed the Office because of a problematic election.
He said we are in a situation where it is essentially impossible to prove this in a formal manner and that to insist he is "not Pope" as a matter of policy in the public forum is actually purposeless and dangerous for those in the Hierarchy who do so and for the Catholic faithful.
For those in the Hierarchy who do so publicly, it is purposeless and dangerous because they will simply be taken out and silenced by the Church and no longer able to use their positions of influence to denounce and resist the errors now being spread within the Church and by the Pope himself; and for the Catholic Faithful it is dangerous because it will throw the sheep into confusion and they may abandon the Barque of Peter because of "Peter".
HOWEVER: He explained that even though it cannot be proven and that there is no formal mechanism in the Church to definitively judge a sitting Pope, that this will not and should not stop us from ceaselessly condemning his errors publicly and resisting him in every manner necessary and possible.
Nor should it stop members of the Hierarchy from doing the same and speaking among themselves on how to proceed for the good of the Church.
He said for this reason it was best that Archbishop Vigano's video not be used at the conference (valid and helpful though his considerations may be -- and they can always/still be viewed independently by all of us for the help they offer) simply because it would have compromised the standing and the platforms of those Bishops who were present at the Conference, and who are not backing down from publicly fighting the battle within their dioceses and in the wider Church.
It would also have compromised the standing of the apologists and speakers who are doing the same in the Catholic media and Catholic circles of influence.
This apologist said it's a matter of prudence and fighting a more effective, strategic battle, since there is no formal, definitive mechanism within the Church that can be used to prove that Pope Francis has either lost the office or never possessed it; and thus it would be purposeless and self-defeating for Catholics to attempt to do so without that possibility.
Archbishop Vigano's Video: "Vitium Consensus" - Catolich Identity Conference 2023
Let me ask you one question: have any of these bishops rejected the position of Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio that the Church has no mission to the Jews? The men that Matt is promoting are participants in the heresy of Modernism. It's time to attack the crisis in the Church at its source: the heresy named and defined by Pope Pius X. This promotion of the search for heroes and the consequent hero-worship at the expense of Catholic dogmatic teaching demonstrates - especially by the comments on this web site concerning this issue - that there is truly only a remnant of Catholics remaining in the world. But is is definitely not Matt's Remnant.
@Simon North There is definitely too much of the 'cult' status around online Catholic media figures. Some people seem to adopt one and then become fixated on that person's opinions and can't believe they could be wrong on anything.
@Simon North I absolutely agree with you, and that's exactly what I said in my post.
Yet, we are up against the hard facts: i.e. there is no formal mechanism in the Church to depose a Pope or to declare that he is not Pope. That's the reality we are dealing with.
YES....let us denounce the errors of all the post-Vatican II Popes, as has done the apologist (for decades) with whom I consulted: hundreds of articles, books, public appearances, etc.
But, to declare he is "not Pope" is without any definitively provable basis (for even heresy can be purely "material" and not obdurate), without any authority or mechanism in the Church -- so it's purposeless for us as lay Catholics to do so.
It might make us feel better, but it still achieves absolutely nothing and can even be decidedly self-defeating if it's not done in a strategic manner.
Can you explain what conceivable practical outcome it would produce for us or for lone Bishops to make such declarations?
Nothing....he would still remain in Office, and nothing would change. We are still left with the only weapons we have: opposition to his errors, public renunciation of same and resistance to his unjust mandates.
To declare he is not Pope is not something we even have the authority to do. Neither do Bishops of the Church have that authority as individual Bishops.
The only conjecture as to how it could be done in past centuries consists of some kind of "imperfect Council" that would be held to make a juridical review and formal determination. Yet, even that is merely speculation and conjecture among theologians and Saints and has never been formally set forth by the Church.
So why shoot ourselves in the foot to no purpose? Let's keep at the resistance and denunciation of the errors over and over and over again. THAT is useful to the Catholic Faithful.
And the more Bishops who "convert", "crystalize" and join us in fighting Modernism -- even after having been its unwitting servants since Vatican II -- the better.
My point has nothing to do with them saying anything about Bergoglio and his papal status. My point is that Catholics who supposedly embrace the Ancient Fatih should be denouncing the bishops that Matt is promoting - not embracing them.
@Simon North I am puzzled why you would say that (?) since these Bishops are now publicly resisting Pope Francis, calling out the errors of the Church and -- it would seem -- these Bishops are now "converted" and can be allies in the cause. I remember Strickland resisting publicly during the Synod on the Family and his very edifying public statements then.
Let's face it, virtually all of us have had a "conversion" experience in our lifetime when we were suddenly awakened to the more radical call of our Catholic Faith. It would appear that is happening with these Bishops. They're only human like we are. Some are now crystalizing against Modernism.
@Ave Crux Please don't be puzzled. If these bishops have not rejected the Modernist policies and doctrines of John Paul II and Benedict, they are participants in the heresy of Modernism. Modernism did not begin with Francis.
Here are pictures from Stricklands Mass there: Traditional Mass celebrated today by Bishop Strickland during the "Catholic Identity Conferences" … – gloria.tv
Yea, Michael Matt's response was widely criticized and negated yesterday. So let's run it again and see if we can get a different reaction this time.
R&R ? Is this even possible? A Catholic by definition cannot R&R. The Sedes are onto something. Many are coming to this realization. Vigano knows this. It's a disturbing dilemma.
I've just re-listened to this, having listened late last night. 1) You can't have unity at a conference whilst ignoring the fact that some possible speakers won't agree with each other. So you don't let anyone speak who may upset people. Otherwise there will be no unity. 2) If it was too much hassle to set up for a video at short notice, why did Matt bother say he'd read it? Presumably the hassle would have been worth it if Vigano had been speaking in union with everyone else there??? 3) As far as I'm aware, there was no bomb. Hasn't Vigano previously suggested that Francis isn't the Pope? 4) I'm curious as to what they replaced it with. Something less disturbing of the 'unity', so as not to upset attendees too much?
How can you possibly have a conference about Catholic Unity whilst completely ignoring everything which is wrong with it and the fact that there is disunity everywhere. How do you tackle the disunity whilst demanding at great length that everyone concentrates on some ephemeral 'conference' unity.
If I'd paid good money to hear Vigano (or anyone else), I'd be fuming that I had to go and search the internet to do so. This is coming from someone who is no particular fan of Vigano. The correct procedure would have been simply to have said "I'm very sorry, your Grace, but we are unable to change the programme at such short notice, but we can still go ahead with the interview, as planned, but you must now agree to only discuss matters allowed at this conference".
Matt's argument sound reasonable to me. Viganò wanted to use/abuse the stage of Matt for his own interests
Strickland, Burke and Mueller are all Modernists. Check their positions on various issues. Why would you defend them?
Does Matt determine in advance what all the speakers can say? I don't agree with Vigano on this but Matt showed very bad form. If you disagree with the speaker you invited , you say where you disagree and have a discussion you don't torpedo him!
The whole problem is this theme of "unity" and attempting to protect one narrative over another. Isn't that the whole bogus notion of the Modernist Church -- everyone has to be "unified", regardless of facts that ought to be put on the table -- FINALLY -- by members of the Church Hierarchy rather than mere conjecture by laymen like Michael Matt who have neither the grace of state, nor authority over Archbishops of the Church (no less!) to speak on such matters and to be gatekeepers for these Churchmen....?
Michael Matt is a traditional Catholic. He speaks on what the Church has always taught; what the Apostles have taught, and what 'Christ' Himself has taught, which is articulated with clarity in The Apostles Creed "Credo" I believe..... It is on that basis & fidelity to that belief, that we will all be judged.
The Church is not a democracy where one can pick or choose on what to believe in. The Apostles have spoken, The Church has spoken, 'Christ Himself' has spoken. Thus unity comes from holding fast to the Faith Of Our Fathers.
Michael Matt is one of the best commentators in Catholic circles, and I salute him in his attempt to hold fast to what 'Christ' has taught. - "To love one another as I have loved you". - "Keep up the good fight Michael!".
Has Abp. Vigano ever publicly declare he is sede-vacantist or it's Mr Matt's strawman ? The devil isn't in Vigano controversy but unity in falsehood disguising usurpacy of the Petrine Office.
You'll know the truth, and truth will set you free.
While I applaud the Conference's initiative and focus, it does strike me as discordant that all of the speakers were expected to speak from a given songbook as directed by choirmaster Matt. Archbishop Vigano has not gained his notoriety (I do not think that is an unfair word) by saying what some people (i.e. the Vatican) have wanted him to say. He is a maverick, not against the Gospel, but against certain sinister tides within the Church today. Was this recorded speech a form of 'sabotage' which Mr. Matt suggests? I have no idea. I only know that we cannot act like Bergoglio and company and expect to save the Church if we fall into disarray amongst ourselves. I beg Archbishop Vigano and Michael Matt to publicly clear the air on this together so we can fight the true adversaries of the Faith with all of our united and catholic (universal) might.
The idea of Viganò as saboteur would be supported at least by Rorate-Caeli. Viganò is a diplomat - he knows that he didn't act correctly towards Matt.
Pray for your enemies rate now my calculation Francis has 2 tons of burning coals over his head
The angels will separate the wheat and weeds yes we need great patience Matt really not censoring Vigano just a delayed telecast . Ever one has internet
You refer to Vigano's team. Who is on this team.
This is the point! Vigano has to be very discrete in that. His and their lives are at stake and that is no joke.
One more comment from True Mass
Mike I don't like how you lump Vigano in with sedes. He is a Benevacantist. Big difference.
Without Viganò the whole movement of unity would have never commenced, Michael Matt just divided the clan, that is called pride!
Bishop Schneider was the first one to polarize by ruling out strictly that Bergoglio is not the not the pope.
Michael Matt has sided with +Strickland, +Burke and +Mueller - under the rubric of "unity." Unity with what and whom? These men neither represent nor advocate for the Ancient Faith. They have participated in the Modernist Revolution for decades. By their continued acceptance of the New Mass and all of it's desacralizing liturgical accoutrements; with their applauding and utilization of the 1983 Code of Canon Law which institutionalized the Conciliar Revolution: these are all unequivocal indicators that these men are part of the problem not the solution. Matt and The Remnant and all of his ilk are sell-outs.
All Strickland, Burke and Mueller want is a return to the status quo ante Bergoglio. Is that what you're advocating, Mr. Matt? Is this the substance of "uniting the clans"?
Thank you! I think you said it as it really is! God bless you! Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima, pray for us!
I'm not judging their thoughts or the state of their souls. Where, from what I said, could you have possibly concluded that I had? I'm merely stating that these men have long held positions that stink of the heresy of Modernism, and the fact that they're being promoted by Matt and others like him is a disgrace.
@Strong and Steadfast. Fully agree! - These good men are in the process of waking up, or already have woken up to the false rational of modernism.
@Strong and Steadfast
You forgot Thomas who refused to believe and have faith and also James and John and their mother who were squabbling for first place. ALL the Apostles ran away abnd deserted Christ into the bargain, but John returned to the Cross. I honestly believe that this was part of God's plan, to demonstrate the reality of His forgiveness. "And then come, and accuse me, saith the Lord: if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow: and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool."
I wonder if the fact that John wasn't martyred reflects the fact that those who repent and return to the Cross will not die the second death, but be saved (as, obviously they all were!). Just musing here.
@Credo Until they reject - outright renounce - their Modernist positions, neither you nor I can assume, in prudence, that they are on the side of Catholic orthodoxy.
@Strong and Steadfast: Until they renounce their Modernist positions - publicly - I may assume in good conscience that they still hold those positions. Before making such charges as you've made, it may be helpful if you read some moral theology that reflects Catholic orthodoxy.
@Strong an @Strong and Steadfast & @Credo: The only point I'm trying to make here is that all of these bishops that are now being promoted as either new found friends of authentic Catholic orthodoxy or being promoted as such: ALL of them have participated throughout their priestly lives in the heresy of Modernism that was institutionalized in the Church at the Second Vatican Council and with it's implementation with the New Code of Canon Law. Due to the fact that these men have operated - and continue to operate - with the assumption that both of those instruments of the Magisterium are orthodox and have nothing to do with Modernism, they display no sign of being aware that they profess a different Catholic Faith than the authentic one. If we slide over this and ignore this reality, they will want to return us to the "good 'ol days of orthodoxy under Wojtyla and Ratzinger." They will be returning the Church to what they believe to be perfect Catholic orthodoxy: everything that is pre-Bergoglio. They need to abjure the heretical elements of their assumptions, not because I demand a pound of flesh, but because charity (which can never be shorn of truth) demands it - both for their own souls and for the integrity of the Church at large. This has nothing to do with my or your forgiveness. It is all about returning the Church to the Faith of our Fathers.
@Strong and Steadfast: I, too, await the intervention of heaven. The dilemmas seem insurmountable. Just as with Arianism, the (Catholic} world awakened and found itself Modernist. Our Lord then gave the Church St. Athanasius and others who would have no truck or compromise with Arianism. We must apply that same moral and historical principle to our own day. Any compromise with Modernism - or the toleration of those bishops who have compromised with this "synthesis of all heresies" (St. Pius X) - whether they're fault or not - is not the answer. So, in the end, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Mark my words: the level of Bergoglian persecution one suffers at this time is a measure of true witness to Christ in His Church. And likewise, the fear of persecution and acquiescence are measures of betrayal of Christ.
But do not be fooled my friend! There is a communist dialectic at play! Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
Obviously Matt is a skilled communicator but at the end of the day he is choosing friends in high places over the inconvenient truth (while masking it with his care for Strickland). But that's not the way that God works...
Since November of 2019, for almost four years now, Archbishop Vigano has stated very clearly and repeatedly his position that Pope Francis is not the Pope. His position is not a surprise to anyone. Archbishop Vigano offered to do a zoom, but Matt instructed him to send a video and then acted like the video format was a problem. He vetted the transcript of the video and decided that this was not compatible with Bishop Strickland's stance and cancelled Archbishop Vigano. What about this is different from what was said about Matt from the beginning? Matt wants to claim that "unity" was the format. What "unity" are we talking about? Unity in criticizing the direction the Church has and is currently taking. That is the actual theme. Archbishop Vigano is an OG and a key player in that group, but is Bishop Strickland? Let's all let Michael Matt decide. Right? It's all about what Michael Matt decides.
I think Michael Matt and Bishop Strickland have both clearly shown who they are. Now believe them.
I'm for unity, as long as it meand unity to fight against Pope Francis and bring him and his people down and out.....of the Vatican and the Catholic Church.
But Vigano is right in saying that Pope Francis is not the Pope. NO POPE WOULD ALLOW FOR GAY BLESSINGS...............OR THE IDEA OF WOMEN PRIESTS WHEN IT WAS CLOSED DOWN BY JPII IN 1994.
Protecting Strickland is more important than Viganò's ego.
Protecting Strickland from whom? Himself? Strickland is a Modernist. Not as extreme as Bergoglio and Tucho, but a clear and committed Modernist.
I'm not sure - in fact I've no idea - why they all need protecting in this. I admire Strickland immensely for taking a stand, particularly given that he is a diocesan Bishop, but how much worse could things get for him? Francis can take him out by demanding his resignation any time. How does being 'associated' with Vigano's statement change his position? He's made his position clear and I pray he'll stick with it, but one might just as well say that he shouldn't be seen in the company of any Traditionalist, so let's not invite any.
Many modernists are evolving. They didn't know. As a cradle Catholic what did I know. I was born into NO. The scales began falling in recent years and continue to fall every day. Vigano, Strickland and others have only in recent years begun offering Trad Mass. This can only be good.
Michael Matt's position is very well argued. You cannot come up just before a conference and submit a video without being invited to that and then cry "censorship" afterwords.
He was instructed by Matt to send the video. He didn't just decide to do it. Matt told him to do it. Then Matt decided it was a "problem" after he vetted it and knew Strickland wouldn't want to appear to agree with it. But, he knew before he ever saw the video that Strickland wasn't going to appear on the same stage with Vigano if Vigano was free wheeling. I'm sure that was how Matt got Strickland to agree to participate. Matt thought he might be able to control what Vigano could say with an "interview." And Vigano would have none of it. So Matt cancelled him. That's what happened. Isn't it ironic that the Unity conference so ecstatically inflated by Michael Matt had to censor anyone ie Bishop Vigano who just wouldn't unify.
So much for unity: “we want to stand by Schneider, Burke and Mueller...” but we censor Vigano and label him sedevacantist for stating the inconvenient truth! Talking about Bergogio’s heresy is now controversial topic! Wow! Christ must have been so controversial for calling out Pharisees when he could have made sure not to inconvenience Nicodemus or any other member of the Sanhedrin. What a way to rally the resistance to the gates of Hell and prepare for the synod from Hell! God help us!