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,

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.