Mel Gibson to Archbishop Viganò: ‘You are a modern day Athanasius!’
(www.lifesitenews.com)
Comments (17)
sorted by:
Athanasius for those interested. In a brief cliff notes TLDR. Was Bishop of Alexandria in the early Christian Church and one of the main defenders of Christian Orthodoxy and the idea of the Holy Trinity in the early Christian Church. Particularly during the brief life of the since declared heretical Arianism sub-denomination of Christianity.
The argument was that since God begat Christ, there was a time when the Son was not. Athanasius preached that this denied the Trinity and that Christ was not of a like substance as God but the same substance.
Athanasius was exiled 5 times by four Roman Emperors and spent 17 of his 45 years as Bishop of Alexandria in exile.
It is an apt comparison by Mel. Both Athanasius and Vigano were/are persecuted for calling out heresy and apostasy in the Church. Begoglio is a false pope. He is an apostate and a heretic. His goal is the destruction of the Church and the formation of a new one world false religion.
Edit: Being a devout Roman Catholic my entire life, I now question the purpose of all organized religion. It is being used to control the sheep and not to rejoice in the Trinity.
I am coming to the same conclusion with respect to organized religion being a system of control.
People think God is stupid. Why call Christ His Son if it's Him? Is your child you? So illogical that nowhere is the trinity mentioned in the bible. Not even inferred unless you come up with twisted logic to half try amd explain it. The hebrews were not waiting for God to come. They awaited a man, one who could have decided to not redeem man. He even asked God to change the plan but said not my will but thy will be done. So we are to believe Jesus as God who is Holy Spirit needed to be baptized and recieve holy spirit upon him. We are to believe God died and then somehow raised himself from the dead. We are to believe that when God's says "God is a spirit and no man hath seen Him at any time" he was lieing? Are we to believe that when God says He does not tempt man neither can He be tempted and that Jesus Christ was tempted in ALL ways yet without sin, God was lieing. Are we to believe that when Christ said "the works that i do shall ye (the believer) do also, and greater works than these shall ye do because I go unto the Father" that Jesus was lieing. How are we to do greater works than Christ if he is God? How can the created do greater works than the creator? Read God's Word rather than what the God guessers say about it. Nicene creed 385AD... I'll stick to what Gods Word says not some monstroscity of an organization where man made doctrine and useless works are twisted into truth.
Thank you. Interesting stuff!
mormonism is a modern day incarnation of arianism ... or islam. They both deny the divinity of Christ.
Do you speak in tongues? If not you also are like Islam. Christ divinity is man made theology. It leaves the believer powerless. Oh by the way, God says in 1jn that we are also Sons of God. Does that make us God too?
i feel like im bout to learn a cool piece of history
Athanasius Contra Mundum
Quick Quick dip... Interesting
The Athanasian Creed is one of the Ecumenical Creeds. Though attributed to Athanasius, the creed seems to have appeared later.
https://bookofconcord.org/ecumenical-creeds/
How is Vigano saying:
"No Catholic worthy of the name can be in communion with this “Bergoglian church,” because it acts in clear discontinuity and rupture with all the Popes of history and with the Church of Christ."
not akin to spiritual genocide as a result of all the Catholics who will follow him away from the Mother Church?
Like, cool opinion, but you don't sit in the Chair of Saint Peter and so you don't get to personally make such a determination without being guilty of exactly what you're accused.
Vigano may be based, but that doesn't make him perfect. This is no different from Martin Luther calling for a mass exodus because he refused to submit to higher authority. Whatever you may think, it isn't Catholic.
Bergoglio / Francis has himself jumped off the rock with his numerous heresies. You can't bless homosexual couplings, suppress the TLM, and deny the Immaculate Conception and say that you're in communion with the Church of Christ.
I'm still pretty skeptical of Vigano tbh
He is basically repackaging the confusion of Lefebvre / SSPX, without becoming sedevacantist (which we think is the correct response - Francis is not Catholic nor a pope and Catholics ought not obey him as if he were a pope), the "recognize and resist" approach of believing Francis to be a pope he ought to obey and then disobeying him (arguably a position contrary to Catholic tradition). I'd tend to think he's working with Francis to create confusion on the issues.
Vigano has said,
https://onepeterfive.com/vigano-invoking-lefebvre-faces-the-vatican-summons/
That would logically resolve to sedevacantism. He should have therefore rejected Francis as "not a pope" much before being "excommunicated", then, but he still recognizes him as "pope" and resists him instead.
I do agree with that quote though and am optimistically hoping this whole incident gets people to draw that conclusion. I think Vatican 2 and the current Vatican must be understood as not Catholic, and when there is a widespread awareness of this being true, then a traditional Catholic pope can be elected.
It's also worth noting Mel Gibson's father Hutton Gibson has been known to traditionalists; he took the "sedeprivationist" position which is similar to sedevacantism, but I consider such view distinct and disagree with it.
Let's consider this analogy like the alleged 2020 stolen presidential election in the United States; assume the election was stolen. Until now, the mass of people still kind of accept the stolen election. But say irrefutable evidence became accepted and widespread, proving Biden is illegitimately elected. I am not 100% sure what would happen, does anyone know? Presumably he'd have to step down as president and would be considered as never having been president, and his acts as alleged president would be considered invalid.
That is what I think some of us believe has gone on with the Vatican's elections, except for some decades now. Upon the issues being understood and agreed upon across the world, it would lead to agreement Vatican 2 is not Catholic and therefore Francis cannot be a Catholic pope (sedevacantism). The sedeprivationist view in contrast argues Francis is not "formally" pope, but materially has some claim to the papacy. We think instead if the elections truly were stolen, we wouldn't consider Biden to be president at all, nor Francis to be a "material pope" but fully as never having been pope at all.
edit: we think the "Birther" analogy is probably more accurate, like with it being claimed Obama wasn't a U.S. citizen and therefore legally couldn't have become president; the papal claimants for however many decades were not Catholic, therefore were ineligible to be elected as pope. Defective / illegal "reforms" of Vatican 2 were made and accepted, which would make them ineligible to have become popes.
To decry the Pope as not being Catholic is probably the single most uncatholic thing one could do; it is textbook heresy.
This is just another flavor of Protestantism, as you're pretty much saying that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church, thereby disqualifying it from being God's Church. Additionally, you're saying that you personally are in a position to make such a claim.
Also, you're describing secular political maneuvering to achieve your personal goals/desired outcome. The thing is: apostolic succession is not some feudal dynasty war. You can't just boot out one guy, put some new guy in, and then claim an unbroken succession from St. Peter. "Oops, that last election was a bust, we'll get it right this time!" is a vehemently uncatholic concept. What even is a "stolen Pope election"? What does that even mean? If we're being honest, it means you're a Protestant.
The ultimate reality that many Catholics simply don't want to accept, is that their (our) opinion on any given topic doesn't matter and that the hierarchy of the Church puts them (us) at the bottom. Submission to God means submission to teachers and spiritual leaders He provides for us.
Edit: While downdoots are irrelevant, I'd still like to clarify that I didn't downvote you.
I'm not sure where you're coming from in making this comment as a lot of these objections have been covered at length. You can read many old theology books and find torturous contradictions with present teachings and practice, which naturally seem to resolve to this necessary conclusion that the Vatican is not Catholic currently.
For example, Francis had said:
https://onepeterfive.com/recant-lutheran-heresy-francis/
As I understand it, Lutherans believe people are justified by "faith alone" without works, while Catholics believe faith and good works are necessary for salvation.
Hence, Francis contradicts the Council of Trent:
Additionally though, if I am accused of being "protestant", apparently Francis is "ecumenically" ok with this. I am justified, right? These are the kinds of problems we've run in to in examining the regime of Vatican 2 and its leaders.