"There is a reason why they excommunicated Archbishop Vigano.
He called out the Great Reset, the Cabal, the vaccines, supported Trump, and exposed the Satanic Pope.
And now he just said after the French Olympic ceremony and I quote:
"Emmanuel Macron, who passes off a transvestite as his...."
(media.greatawakening.win)
GOD WINS
While he says a lot of things we agree with, he ultimately strikes me as working for the globalists and offering false hope. We believe his theological positions to be inconsistent and incorrect (they don't go far enough) and it's really not necessary to speculate about Obama or Macron and kind of a distraction from an archbishop promoting spiritual remedies to modern ills. I certainly hope God uses him to shed light on a lot of errors common today but he strikes me as a character created as a remix of "archbishop" Lefebvre, for today's audience.
We believe Francis is not a pope and Vatican 2 is not Catholic. Vigano has confusedly recognized Francis as "pope" and then after being "excommunicated" denounced his church as not the Catholic Church. This is inconsistent and we think he should have considered Francis to not be a pope a long time ago. He thus seems to carry on the "recognize and resist" position which we believe is confused, and since it is not as clear as it can be, we suspect Vigano is deliberately spreading confusion rather than a logically consistent view of rejecting Francis and Vatican 2 (the "sedevacantist" position).
To believe this is not Catholic. Imagine going to your local priest in the year 1376 and telling him that you don't think the Church teachings on "xyz" are correct? Absurd and anti-traditional.
There is a hierarchy for a reason.
The difference is today the various papal claimants are contradicting past Catholic teachings, leading to torturous attempts by people to somehow consider them as Catholic
For example, Francis has said:
https://onepeterfive.com/recant-lutheran-heresy-francis/
Luther believed people were justified by faith alone, excluding justification by faith and good works. Thus Francis appears to contradict the Council of Trent:
Naturally though if it's fine to be "protestant" according to Francis, as we are accused of being, then it wouldn't really matter, as we are in good standing with God according to the view shared by Francis.
These are the kinds of problems we are trying to resolve by adopting the position of sedevacantism we have taken.
There is no difference. Do you think every Pope was good and only said things that were true? The Pope making randoms statements doesn't constitute official church teaching. He can say things that are wrong and still be Pope. He isn't God.
It simply doesn't matter what problem you are trying to solve, since decrying the Pope as invalid is a vehemently anti-Catholic thing to do. It IS just cause for excommunication. There is a hierarchy for a reason, and we are on the bottom of it.
I think there definitely is a difference, and what's going on is unprecedented.
I think it's important to understand the "problem(s)" and then possible solutions can be discussed.
The problems are perhaps three-fold (or more):
"Catholicism" has declined since Vatican 2, see these statistics: https://www.olrl.org/misc/jones_stats.shtml
Traditional practice has basically been banned. There are no masses available (know of any?) that offer Tridentine "latin masses" (only the 1962 missal is used in some places).
Many who take the name of Catholic, at least in the U.S., do not believe or practice Catholicism, which has caused practical problems. For example it has been estimated 90% of U.S. "Catholics" believe the use of artificial contraception is moral: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/09/28/4-very-few-americans-see-contraception-as-morally-wrong/
So, I suppose it would be possible to interpret my view as being a reaction to decline, not being able to practice as a Catholic prior to the 1950s, and due to practical problems experienced from those around me not really believing or practicing Catholicism, who say they are Catholic.
Yet it has not been much of a leap of logic to rather instead consider that what is going on is not Catholic instead.
So if you're clear on some of the problems, then you can look at the theological positions which have been suggested as solutions.
If you simply try to follow the Vatican in its current form, it actively suppresses traditional Catholic belief and practice, for example the "Franciscans of the Friars Immaculate": https://novusordowatch.org/2013/12/why-francis-punished-ffi/
It also has the Vatican 2 documents which have been alleged to have errors and/or heresies: https://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html
It also has papal claimants making series of anti-Catholic statements, like Francis saying:
So a Catholic layman in the U.S., going to their local parish church, is unlikely to experience Catholicism as one might in the 1950s. So, such people then look for these "indult" or "latin mass" (1962 missal) communities. But, as mentioned above, groups like the Franciscans of the Friars Immaculate are often suppressed; they also only have the 1962 missal, and don't often require the traditional Lenten fast (which is all 40 days of Lent except Sundays; reduced by the Vatican 2 church only to Ash Wednesday and Good Friday).
They might then find the SSPX, who also follows the 1962 missal and doesn't have the Lenten fast as examples. The SSPX is in a "halfway" position (sometimes called "recognize and resist") which recognizes the Vatican as Catholic, but doesn't submit to it (like where Vigano is, kind of, although he has made statements going beyond this). If the SSPX became more obedient to the Vatican like the Franciscans of the Friars Immaculate, many of their traditional practices would be suppressed, and this happened I think to multiple other "traditional" organizations that did this: https://web.archive.org/web/20140401130141/http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/the-dead/the-whole-picture
So, given that you can't openly be "traditional" under the Vatican without suppression, one naturally concludes the Vatican is not Catholic (in combination with the other things stated by papal claimants and the Vatican 2 documents, which contradict Catholic teaching) and embraces the sedevacantist position (Catholics have no pope).
(Going one step further, without a pope to authorize the creation of bishops, a handful of sedevacantists also believe there are no known clergy available)
I may differ from other sedevacantists in how I think things will be resolved however: I think eventually most people will become aware Vatican 2 can't be Catholic, nor can the papal claimants since Vatican 2 be popes, and once that awareness spreads, then an election of a pope can happen somewhat rapidly. I think of the situation like a modern Western Schism, where there were 2 antipopes and a pope and confusion for 40 years about if there was a pope or who it was; the people following the antipopes were not considered to be non-Catholic because they were simply genuinely confused about what was going on. Today I think those who follow Vatican 2 might be considered to be Catholic, to the extent they are unaware of contradictions in the Vatican 2 documents to Catholic teachings, since the documents appeared to come "from the Church", leading to genuine misunderstanding.
It must be distinguished that a Pope is able to sin, but not able to be a heretic:
Therefore if the Vatican 2 documents are heretical, at least John Paul I onward could not have become popes, as they would have been heretics upon being elected, and so their election would be null and void.
I would appreciate any thoughts you have on moving this discussion forward; it seems to be stalled with a lot of people who aren't aware of the issues, and the of the few that are, of there only being so much discussion. I think more attention needs to be focused on proving the sedevacantist case, which when proven with greater strength or with arguments being strengthened, would naturally lead to Vatican 2 and the recent papal claimants being rejected and a new pope being elected.