+Vigano:

"If we were to submit an anonymous questionnaire to the eminent members of the College of Cardinals, in which they have to answer "true" or "false" to a series of propositions on which the Magisterium has already infallibly expressed itself, we would discover to our horror that the absolute majority, if not almost all, of the Cardinals are not Catholics...Certainly, however, they are not an expression of the universal Church: first, because they are not part of it except only apparently, being precisely heretics..."

And herein lies my problem with the so-called "Universal Acceptance" argument for Jorge's legitimacy.  Universal Acceptance by whom?  By a bunch of non-Catholics?

...but who nevertheless still hold the office and jurisdiction (Billuart and the more common opinion of theologians).

 

The progressive restrictions on the celebration of the ancient Liturgy serve to confine conservatives to hunting grounds, only to channel them to the St. Pius X Fraternity... and cause an exodus of Catholics to what, after the suppression or normalization of the Ecclesia Dei Institutes, will become the "monopolist" of Tradition. But at that point-when, that is, traditional Catholics have migrated into the Fraternity and its leaders believe they have achieved a victory over the competition of the suppressed Summorum Pontificuм-a new intolerable provocation will force at least a parade of the St. Pius X Fraternity to distance itself from Bergoglian Rome, sanctioning the "excommunication" of traditionalism, no longer represented within the official Church, assuming it ever was. That is why in my opinion it is important to preserve a certain parcelization, so as to make the malicious maneuver of ousting traditional Catholics from the ecclesial body more complex.

A la Bishop Williamson? Or is he talking here about maintaining 'traditional' groups within the Conciliar framework? He seems to espouse the same idea, though, of maintaining multiple 'independent' groups of traditional Catholics, rather than having them all under the one authority which could more easily lead them back into the Conciliar pantheon.

It remains a joke, because what has been happening for ten years now pertains to farce rather than tragedy. All that the Santa Marta sect gives birth to is a fraud: the supposed "democratization" of the Synod on Synodality, in which the questions that are submitted to local communities are formulated in such a way as to obtain the desired answers, always according to a precise subversive design that starts from Bergoglio himself. The involvement of women in the governance of the Church is a lie: this is contrary to the will of Our Lord, and no power, however tyrannical and authoritarian it may be, can change the matter of the Sacrament of Orders. The scandalous winks of Prelates and clerics to the vices and lifestyles of the so-called "LGBTQ community" are a deception: they are using the weaknesses of lay people led astray by woke ideology to legitimize their personal sins, which sooner or later emerge in their embarrassing prosaicness. Fernández himself, who has been courting Bergoglio for years with public attestations of esteem, of confidence in his reforming capacity, of certainty of the inexorability of his "prophetic" (in the conciliar neo-language, a synonym for "heretical") action as the Church's supreme Pastor, is also a constructed character.

But "Rome has changed", Bishop Fellay. Indeed it has!
Archbishop Vigano is an extraordinary gift of God. Those who do not see it are blind.
And the SSPX shows clearly its new direction and subversion by not publicly standing with him.

"Thus these, after preaching disobedience to the true Magisterium, find themselves suffering the consequences of a disobedience this time good and rightful, because in obedience to Christ."








- Pope Pius XII
Mystici Corporis

“They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth.”

Uhh, dummy, those teachings presume the pope is himself faithful to Tradition.

Are there any historical precedents to "Recognize and Resist"?


12min

...but who nevertheless still hold the office and jurisdiction (Billuart and the more common opinion of theologians).

I think that there is a strong argument to be made, regarding UPA, that since Francis did not properly accept his election (à la Cassiciacuм Thesis), UPA is impossible, since it requires the consent of the elect*.

Regarding supplied jurisdiction, it seems to me obvious that Christ would supply jurisdiction to say, appoint cardinals, but never for something like the New Mass or Traditionis Custodes. I think it is better to treat Francis as if he were bereft of jurisdiction except for those things strictly necessary for the good of the Church, i.e., appointing electors so that the material aspect of the Church does not die off. This is the end for which Billuart and others conceived of supplied jurisdiction, after all.

* This is the view of the Salmanticenses and others