Why, wasn't he ordained in the NO right?

​@@toddpund5761wasn't he conditionally ordained in the Traditional rite?

@HomealonerHill I'm not sure. I heard rumors but never heard 💯....

@HomealonerHill he was born in 1941 so most likely originally ordained after 1969....when new rites went into effect...unless a traditional bishop somehow ordained him..the rumor I heard he may have recently been conditionally ordained...not sure.

Day by day. Today an authority of the novus ordo religion has said a big truth. Courageous!

Amen! I shall say my Rosary for them! ❤🙌❤

Because sspx is united with Bergolio

Not the Pope. Thanks!

I wonder if they have met.

Agreed because it was the very next day that Bishop Vigano replied.

This vigarista is braking the Vows of Obedience to the Catholic Church.

If they are with Satan, are not with Christ

@@EdwardBray-i1w Funny, you just brought up the subject of culpability.

@@EdwardBray-i1w Bishop Sanborn merely teaches the same Catholic doctrines which were taught up until the Modernist heretics took over the Vatican. And the Modernists’ Novus Ordo Mass is a protestantised Mass which was actually designed with input from Protestant ministers.

The Novus Ordo Mass is a protestantised Mass, and Bishop Sanborn adheres to all traditional, ages-old Catholic teaching. ​@@EdwardBray-i1w

​@@EdwardBray-i1wBishop Sanborn is just as much of a bishop (if not more) than Vigano, by literal definition. You don't have to like or agree with Sanborn, but have some respect for the title.

@@JesusChrist-wo8osBy the same logic, Viganò cannot be an archbishop if he does not recognise Pope Francis as pope.

The Church has never defined who or what is holding back the Antichrist in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. One opinion is that it is the pope. If this is true, then by God's decree, this mysterious Antichrist can only appear when there is no pope to restrain him.

As far as I can tell, no-he needs to condemn the previous Vatican to “popes” as well in order to be consistent. Lack of consistency is a sure sign of error.

There is no vacant Pope, since Viganò is it

As long as the bishop's name was not Vitus Huonder, you are definitely confirmed

Yes

sadly no !! follow the Church's teaching. Read the catechism

No problem! So long as it wasn’t by Bp. Huonder, no problem. The other bishops were consecrated by Archbishop LeFebvre, unless you hold his meaningless excommunication to be true. Even if you did, your confirmation is valid but not licit according to the n.o.

If you were “confirmed” by Vitus Huonder, or even by an SSPX bishop using oils “consecrated” by Vitus Huonder (happened these past 2 years), there is a positive doubt. Otherwise, no worries.

Catholic Family Podcast often has sedevacantist clerics on for interviews (such as Bp. Charles McGuire, CMRI priests, etc). There also the sermons uploaded by @traditionalcatholicsermons8507.

God chose and prepare Viganò as vicar of Christ, as it it now

@@rubenangelvarisco9719 I am sure, this is the last thing that will happen.

Because he is the vicar of Christ

I think you are right. R&R people are too cowardly to profess the full catholic faith. They want to be recognized and be in communion with heretics, and yet they refuse communion with us.

Vigano I will never be Pope. He is mentally unstable and besides he can’t become Pope because the bible says Satan will never destroy the Church.

You can add Bishop Sanborn to that list!

Francis is a pervert and traitor: needs be expelled to a distant monastery to do penance for the sin of misleading the flock during his fraudulent papacy. Not a good shepherd entrusted with protecting the flock from wolves.

God elect him as Vicar of Christ

Every day.

Various publications that have appeared under his name are questionably orthodox.

If you are Christian, real one, you must be follow by love of Christ. Then because this love, found by yourselves. You will discover. If not, you judge yourself

The Church, founded by Our Lord Himself, is incapable of teaching error or leading souls astray. But the Modernists who have usurped the positions of (apparent) authority in the Church are doing just that. So what’s there to “come back home” to, especially in view of Our Lord’s warning in Mt. 24:15-16? And Repent of what, exactly?

What do you mean by "the true church"? The 'church' that teaches religious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality? The 'church' that gives communion to adulterers and blesses sodomites? The 'church' that does not require faith for salvation? The 'church' that persecutes Vigano and promotes Fr. Martin?

@@mhtseminary The Church founded by Jesus Christ and handed to Peter. The same church that gave you the faith you’ve broken away from. The same Church that POPE Francis leads today. As flawed as the church may be, the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

@@Mega1989 🤦🏻‍♂️

@@tommastroianni641 when the church moved to Avignon for 70 years what would you have done? Clearly abandoned everything.

The Pope cannot teach error. We sedevacantists base our position on the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. Which is what leads to the necessary conclusion that Jorge Bergoglio, while validly elected, does not possess the form of the papacy-the authority from God to teach, rule, and sanctify-on account of the obstacle he has placed in the way of his reception of that authority. This obstacle is the man’s objective intention to impose a false, non-Catholic religion (Vatican II/the Novus Ordo) on the Church; again, a Pope cannot teach error. The same goes for Bergoglio’s Vatican II predecessors (John XXIII to BXVI). Therefore, he is not a true pope.

@@tommastroianni641 Without a Pope, there is no unshakable rock either. That was the point of my first sentence. False Pope = no Pope = no unshakable rock = no infallibility for the CHURCH. Bad foundations = no foundations => the entire building can collapse => it was NOT different from non divine buildings => christianity is a false religion. IF now we start reasoning with the assertion that it MUST be true, the logical conclusion is that Pope Francis must be right in whatever he teaches…

@@jonathanb.6926 - you have it backwards: it is *because* he is the Pope he is therefore protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching error. That we’re currently deprived of a reigning Pope (i.e., the visible head of the Church) has no bearing on the infallibility of the Church. There were three years of interregnum following the death of Clement IV in 1268. Did the Church cease to be infallible during that time? Or what about the periods of interregnum following the deaths of every other Pope? What we’re dealing with now is unprecedented in the history of the Church: men who possess valid elections to the Papacy but who have not received the authority from God to rule owing to their objective intention to impose a false religion, thus rendering them false popes despite all appearances to the contrary. This is now the longest interregnum in history and God is permitting it, of course, for a greater good. To instead say that God has given authority to a true Pope who, in turn, uses that authority to lead souls astray through false teachings and disciplines-as the Vatican II anti-popes have done-is infinitely worse than a 65-plus year interregnum (and counting).

@@tommastroianni641 If the guardian of the unity of the Church fails, either because he teaches errors or because his position remains vacant, the Church is no longer protected against disintegration. It is no longer infallible. The proof that the Church is no longer infallible during the vacancy of the apostolic see is that, during this period, the Church does not perform any act which requires the grace of infallibility. Besides, if the Church could be infallible without having a pope at its head, why would we care about having one? The difference between the crises of the past and the apostasy of Rome since V2 is that it is not the papacy alone that has turned its back on the traditional faith of the Catholic Church, but almost the entire high clergy - and this, of his own free will. I wonder where the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium would have taken refuge if it was attached neither to the apostolic see nor to the communion of bishops of the whole world... There is one fact which proves that the Church is not infallible and never has been: it has used its supposedly infallible authority to teach things contrary to its traditional teaching. It was not a false pope, then another false pope and a series of false popes who did this; it is, with all these so-called vicars of Jesus Christ, the overwhelming majority of depositaries of apostolic authority = thousands of bishops. Were they, too, false bishops? I know the sedevacantist solution very well. It interested me at first. But ultimately I find it too far-fetched. I see another much more likely and coherent; this solution is that the Church had never been protected from any of the evils from which other societies can suffer. If the Church had remained faithful to certain beliefs for a long time, this was not due to a supernatural privilege, but to the same destiny which causes ancient constructions to remain standing for centuries before finally collapsing. The moral duty, for those who thought they needed it to find God, is to understand why they thought that. The end of their dismay is not to be able to breathe new life into a past which is now dead. It is rather to examine more closely the first foundation of Christianity, namely the mediation of Jesus Christ in the work of our salvation. The Church was originally built to spread the "good news" of an imminent salvation that never happened... It is for this purely virtual salvation that Jesus is considered a savior. Is it really serious to rest our eternal destiny on something so inconsistent?

@@jonathanb.6926 Pure Modernist drivel.

God has the authority to do it through its new Vicar, Vigano

If the result of the last Conclave was due to a conspiracy then the validity of the election is questionable.

No - there cannot be two vicars of Christ. Tying anyone to political nonsense and ideology is ridiculous. It is immaturely smearing your opponent. This goes back to the 60s when TLM was eliminated and the Church fell apart and vocations plummeted as well as Catholic Education which is evangelization commanded by Christ. Vigano is correct. V2 was in error. Benedict's death does not make Francis valid because Benedict was banished for globalists, and open borders to monetize Catholic Charities and infiltrate the US for political purposes and help with wiping out Western European culture as well as the US. One must ask how many cardinal's votes were bought to "install" Francis.

Thank you for stating the facts amidst this blogs sea of errors based upon Vigano's positions of error

@@laabt7610 - Ever hear that there can be only one Vicar of Christ? Did Christ choose two St. Peter figures? No, it is not the royal heir-and-a-spare lineup. A lot of people agree with Vigano, for exactly that reason, and the number is not small. Bishops are political people. They know there will be retribution if they speak out. They just want to keep the peace. Upstarts lose their credentials and are often banished to far flung parts for the earth as punishment.

@@laabt7610 Are you qualified in Canon Law ?

However, the person elected can place an obstacle to his election. We argue that a defect of consent is present in “Vatican II popes”.

Rebellion against God is a crime. Vigano is not the criminal, but the others which are in Vatican today

thethesis.us/chapter-xiv/

And ONE GOD who refuse him

Faith and works Jack. Their faith cause them to merit the forgiveness of Christ.

@@danielsaenz5570 1 John 4:2 KJV Hereby you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist. Note: GOD was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16 KJV) as the SON of GOD, JESUS CHRIST, to shed HIS real blood and give HIS real body on a real cross once for the forgiveness of all sins for whosoever believes. (Hebrews KJV chapters 9 and 10.) In complete contradiction to this, the RCC teaches that CHRIST comes in a wafer as often as a priest pleases.

@@jacktracy8356there is always a price to be paid. And I’m not listening to a KZfaq Protestant when there’s 2,000 years of tradition that speaks contrary to your personal judgement.

@@Dr.Weezil Try to keep in mind that you are responding the the very WORDS of CHRIST WHO is GOD made flesh not to me HIS lowly servant.

Paul talks much more clear than him. Infact the "J'Accusse" document from Vicar Viganò, starts with the anathema from Paul.

Bergoglio is it