Wednesday, December 14, 2022

Michael Lofton defended Bergoglio

Did Vigano Just Deny Francis is the Pope?
Reason & Theology | 12 Dec. 2022

1:06 [R&T / Michael Lofton starts out to ask whether Viganò is truly Catholic, whether he truly submits to "Pope Francis"]

Obviously, in order to submit to "pope Francis" one would have to answer yes to the question whether he is a Catholic (and more specifically, as valid Popes cannot lose the faith, probably, whether he was one in 2013).

2014 "magic wand" speech (in line with what Wojtyla and Ratzinger did in the 90's, but even further) is one big reason to say rather no. He was not a Catholic. Hence he was not eligible.

Pius XII stated in an "imposed compromise" (by definition not infallible) that each position had to be defended with the preparedness to submit to a judgement by the Church.

Now, he did not specify it had to be a future one. I submit herein to Trent Session IV and to Trent Session V.

The Bible must be read with the consensus of the Church Fathers and Adam was as an individual person originator of Original Sin.

So, the crackdown on Fundamentalist exegesis "THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH" (1994) is not the judgement Pius XII (insofar as he was Pope) was referring to, since it contradicts more fundamental decisions of the Church. Ergo, its perpetrators in chief, Ratzinger and Wojtyla were not Catholics.

4:43 He did not say "the visible Church is no longer Church" but "the visible Church to which etc is no longer Church" ... in other words, there can very well be a visible Church that's not Bergoglio's.

For my part I would like to know exactly where he puts the real visible Church.

So far he hasn't told FSSPX, "let's continue to recognise and resist" and he hasn't told Sedes that he is in communion with Society of St. Pius V, or with Mother of Good Council or with Feeneyite Sedes (yes, they do exist, even as clergy, I think they make up the German Sedes, who have priests), or that he's in communion with the heirs of the late Pope Michael. Nor has he submitted to the Fourth Palmarian Pope (which as an ex-Palmarian I am aware of, and wouldn't quite approve if he did).

I'm not sure whether the conclave is postponed to 2023 for his sake, if one's giving him a chance, but I am so far unaware of his having taken it.

AND he's also not saying (yet) "we need to get a conclave going" ... which would theoretically be the logical conclusion of what he said.

5:30 "he would be in schism, if Pope Francis is truly the Pope" - big if. Very big if.

6:12 [R&T / Michael Lofton mentions examples from the Western Schism of people in material schism who were saints.]

Thank you for evoking St. Vincent Ferrer, in part of his life, I think ... some Catholics or Catholic wannabes who are at least materially under Bergoglio have not thought it out how to deal with me (according to them) having been under the wrong Pope.

Actually, there is another solution with St. Vincent Ferrer. Dubius papa sicut non papa. Meaning, it is not even materially schismatic to not be under a pope with at least some reasonable doubt on whether he really was one.

9:03 You can't state that we've dealt with "apostasy invading the Church" since the Arian crisis. And even that one largely left the West untouched.

Hosius of Cordoba at one moment complied with Imperial wills to impose some version of Arianism, but then told St. Athanasius that he hadn't truly meant it, he had spoken under duress.

I don't see the pretended Assumptionist who denied the individuality of Adam and Eve saying the République forced him to do so, taking a parishioner hostage through CPS or shrinks, and I also don't see there are major regional exceptions. And where there are - like Poland, I suppose, at least there were - they would not fall under Viganò's "at least" clause. Quoting:

"at least with regard to those cardinals, bishops, and priests who convincedly profess another doctrine and declare themselves to be adherents of the “conciliar church” in antithesis to the “preconciliar church.” "

9:18 Would you mind telling me for what exact reason you deny we are in the great apostasy?

It never happens? Contrary to the Bible.
It's result is only Atheism or only Neopaganism? That's not how the Protestant Apostasy in the 16th C. worked. Luther had (most moments) Chalcedonian Christology, he believed most books of the Bible, he believed Baptismal Regeneration, he would have had only few details to differ from Trent Session V on what happened in Genesis 3 ... and yet the Reformation was one very major apostasy.

So, I would very much like to know why we are not in the time of the Great Apostasy, on your view.

11:20 Ouch, in individual souls, in their cordis fides ... but what about the bodies and the oris confessio?

Sounds a bit too much like Luther.

Me: where was the Church before Hus?
Lutheran: it existed in individual souls that did not share the errors of Papism ...

No, this is not a solution worthy of Viganò, if he pretends to remain himself Catholic ....

11:53 Local union with the bishop can be deceptive.

Bishop Peder Månsson was a real Catholic bishop (of Westeros*, no less) and he was forced to consecrate (really or sham) Laurentius Petri as new Archbishop (heretical and schismatic) of Uppsala. This latter person certainly did not consecrate or ordain anyone to be able to say the sacrifice of the Mass or to be able to ordain for that sacrifice. Hence his own acts of "ordination" or "consecration" are certainly invalid.

From then on, Lutherans could say "see, you need to be in communion with your local bishop" ...

12:33 "those who are united to the see of St. Peter"

Here's exactly where a little reading of St. Robert Bellarmine is useful. A heretical Pope is not a Pope because he is not a Catholic.

The bishops in communion with the Pope is not as final as the Pope in communion with preceding Popes.

13:23 A remnant, if actually identified, identifiable, does not destroy the visibility of the Church.

14:26 [R&T / Michael Lofton considered an unorganised array of individual faithful, priests, are not a hierarchy, not the visible Church. Even if they are visible as dissenting from modernism and assenting to tradition.]

And in the months, probably starting 1989, leading up to the emergency conclave, a certain David Bawden foresaw this problem, and that's why he thought the emergency conclave was due.

Wojtyla had already visited the Synagogue of Rome, he had already invited non-Christians to pray at Assisi (remember Sutri!) and soon after Pope Michael was elected and accepted, Wojtyla and his associate Ratzinger issued "THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH" and changed the Christmas Proclamation, and did not excommunicate the USCCB for mistranslating to "unknown ages" ...

14:47 Luther would have agreed on the "invisible church" meme. He would not have agreed on who was still faithful.

Most importantly, he was not adressing something which could with at least apparent reasons be described as an invasion of apostasy, and he was not confronting it with the magisterium of just a few centuries or even decades earlier.

15:59 [R&T / Michael Lofton stated one college of bishops in communion with one pope is the go to.]

You are forgetting that the Western Schism did not exactly offer that. There were two colleges of bishops, in communion with two rival popes and at the end actually three.

17:08 [R&T / Michael Lofton stated it's deficient theology of the Church, deficient ecclesiology, to state the fidelity of the Church started as the Conciliar Church, with Vatican II]

Are you sure you have not just called out Bergoglio for deficient ecclesiology?

Again, when it came to German Synod, Trent Horn was saying "Pope Francis cannot approve of it, because it's wrong" and said Bergoglio on his part told the German Synod "you can't make doctrinal decisions binding bishops and faithful locally, until the whole Church does so" which is in fact wrong, it is contrary to the normal Catholic view of what a Local Council is.

Some local councils have an extra layer of authority by getting a direct stamp of approval by the Pope, it's the case with the councils of Orange and of Toledo, and I think also the council of Cologne in 1860, which condemned Evolutionism, very timely. Approved, if I am right, by Pope Pius IX.

Guess what three "popes" are not complying?

But apart from that, it has not been the deal with Vatican and local bishops that the latter cannot bind in conscience until and only insofar as the Church universal does so.

The 1277 condemnations by Bishop Stephen II Tempier were never revoked, and are still binding in Paris and in England. I suppose this means also in French and English colonies of the Americas.

[Index in stephani tempier condempnationes]

And I know there is an urban legend saying they were revoked, but the only thing revoked was the suspicion of St. Thomas' works falling under the condemnations. Furthermore, the revocation of that suspicion, by bishop Stephen III Bourrel, happened before Rome dared to canonise St. Thomas.

"Furthermore, the revocation of that suspicion, by bishop Stephen III Bourrel, happened before Rome dared to canonise St. Thomas."

Citing Laval théologique et philosophique "L’« averroïsme latin », la condamnation de 1277 et Jean Pic de la Mirandole (1463-1494)" Louis Valcke, Volume 56, numéro 1, février 2000

"Cependant, un retournement de perspective n'allait pas manquer de se produire. Redoutant cette dérive fidéiste qui s'était amorcée suite à l'intervention de Tempier, le pape Jean XXII allait réhabiliter la doctrine thomiste par la canonisation, en 1323, de Thomas d'Aquin, suivie, deux années plus tard, de la levée, par Etienne Bourret, de tout interdit que cette doctrine avait pu encourir de par la condamnation de 1277, comme il a été dit ci-dessus."

I was actually wrong, the possible forbidding of Thomism was lifted two years after the canonisation, not the reverse. But clearly, what he lifted was not the condemnation itself, only any ban on Thomism which could have resulted from it. And his name with Bourret, not Bourrel. My bad.

And this is not hypocritical. The closest the two came to a conflict was individuation of angels. St. Thomas said that two angels cannot be two different ones without being distinct species, and Stephen condemned "not even God could make them distinct except by different species" ... in other words, Stephen Tempier carved out the doctrinal line close to but not crossing the statement of St. Thomas. So, "in this precise world, Gabriel and Michael can only be distinct by being distinct species, but God could have created the world in another matter" is a statement that is Thomist and which is also OK by bishop Tempier.

Btw, you may notice I said "bishop" and not "archbishop" - the see of Paris was only elevated to archsee in the time of Lewis XIV, between two Condi, uncle and nephew, being incumbent.

Here is Bergoglio on the Preconciliar Church and the role of Vatican II:

The Italian Jesuit magazine La Civiltà Cattolica published on June 14 a long interview granted by the Holy Father on May 19 on the war in Ukraine, the renewal of the Church, the Synodal Path in Germany, judged by many as “heretical,” and on the evangelization of young people. He describes on this occasion the temptations of “restorationism” which has come “to gag the Council.” We quote here some significant passages, published by Vatican News this same June 14.

“It is very difficult to see spiritual renewal using old-fashioned criteria. We need to renew our way of seeing reality, of evaluating it. In the European Church, I see more renewal in the spontaneous things that are emerging: movements, groups, new bishops who remember that there is a Council behind them. Because the Council that some pastors remember best is that of Trent. What I'm saying is not nonsense.”

“Restorationism has come to gag the Council. The number of groups of ‘restorers’ – for example, in the United States there are many – is significant. An Argentine bishop told me that he had been asked to administer a diocese that had fallen into the hands of these ‘restorers.’”

Immediate source, FSSPX News. I am not sure that Civiltà Cattolica is available online for that long interview, and I don't think FSSPX are misquoting.

[Francis Fights a “Preconciliar Mentality” in the Church

So, Bergoglio thinks it is impermissible that things should be like before the Council in any given diocese. In other words, you just called out Bergoglio for deficient ecclesiology.

18:32 [Viganò doesn't refer to the college of bishops]

Have you noted how Bergoglio is changing "the college of bishops"?

In Philadelphia, there was a man, Chaput, who said "homosexual persons who are married, may use their sexuality within marriage" and he is now replaced by another guy who is asking the LGBT community to forgive and forget how his predecessor had his own version of "conversion therapy" ....!

Who made that replacement? Bergoglio.

18:51 The conciliar revolution has torn the bond of identity between the Church of Christ and the clergy (including apparent hierarchy) accepting that revolution.

Precisely as the bishop of Westeros* tore the bond of identity between the Church of Christ in Westeros* and the acceptance of him as bishop of Westeros*.

So, for a few decades, according to Pope Michael, the Catholic bishops were reduced to vagante bishops as one by one those faithful to preconciliar teaching went.

This process started in 1958 and ended in 1990, when a new hierarchy existed in one bishop elect that of, not residing in, Rome.

20:22 "Please don't damage the Church ..."

Please don't equate denying Bergoglio is pope with Protestant ecclesiology.

"by buying into an equally problematic ecclesiology that will cause more harm and more damage to the Church"

Good reason to not buy into Bergoglio's!

* [footnote] Swedish pronunciation is more like Westerose than **Westeross, and I think this exact spelling Westeros occurs in some texts. Especially as it is short for Westra Aros.

No comments: