Not sure what to make of it but this seems like a significant post
But I agree with you that his sentencing seems out of proportion
right so you get it... 40 years is more than some violent crimes. I guess I was just thinking if it's primarily a property-based crime, then he mostly should be paying damages. The strong jail time amounts are a double edged sword; certainly we want to punish crime, but it's also literally draconian to offer too much jail time for certain crimes.
Also housing's kind of a touchy subject: while I'm not advocating for squatting, the hoarding of real estate and letting rents get out of control is disgusting and I'm not as concerned about squatters until housing is made more affordable. I've heard of the OP stories though and that sounds like something above simple squatting, some kind of squat-to-own loophole scheme.
username checks out lol
did read the article u/bruh_man
still asking the question why a fine isn't sufficient
I don't know the law but this sounds excessive, couldn't they just fine him for damages? What's the reason for jail time, the identity theft dimension of the crime?
honestly I'm surprised we don't have more pushes to abolish government licensing requirements for jobs and to legalize more competition to higher education. These twin problems seem like pretty big attacks on freedom today
"sounds like a scandalous candidate, I can't believe the Dems would endorse her!" #demlogic
government monopoly on force go brrrr
Also: "Angel of God, my guardian dear..."
"what an odd thing to say"
some nonviolent legal response is probably warranted though; like some people were getting fired for speaking approvingly of what happened, should more stuff like that happen? what else? need to be on the offensive while the public is sympathetic?
Incredible how close the bullet was
shouldnt twitter only get the location data from the vpn point so you could be anywhere and no one would know where youre connecting to the vpn from
could a vpn fix this for the future
never knew about this but it's national bison (buffalo) month (which is comparable but different than cattle), Native Americans could live off bison meat (which is one reason why American settlers tried to exterminate bison in order to cut off the food supply for Native Americans), it's an interesting topic and food source to look in to
Excommunication is typically not a badge of honor, I agree with this. He's being compared to St. Athanasius who was unjustly excommunicated by Pope Liberius though; the reality is in history, sometimes things get messy. St. Joan of Arc was mistakenly burned at the stake for heresy. During the Western Schism, there were two antipopes and a pope, and confusion for 40 years if there was a pope at all or who the pope was among the claimants; Catholics following one or the other weren't considered as schismatics for simply being mistaken. I believe Vigano and sedevacantists and those who believe Vatican 2 is Catholic (we do not) probably all kind of qualify for being lumped in under a heading of "Catholic" to varying degrees, regardless if Francis is a pope or not.
Vigano is in something of schism if Francis is pope. A bunch of us do not think Francis is a Catholic nor is a pope (and hold the sedevacantist view), so Vigano should have cut ties with Francis a while ago before being "excommunicated". His actions are inconsistent - he is indeed rebelling against the person he believes is "pope", which is arguably a position at odds with Catholic tradition associated with Lefebvre / SSPX / the "recognize and resist" position (sedeplenism?). This makes us suspect he is actually working for the modernists like Francis, to create confusion, as he doesn't promote a clear sedevacantist view (as we think he should), while making statements that seem to basically support sedevacantism.
I am hoping this leads to a widespread rejection of Vatican 2 and election of a Catholic pope, as the Vatican seems to be "doubtfully Catholic, and therefore not Catholic" at present (the principle "a doubtful pope is no pope").
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:
Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he was not mistaken.
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:
Canon no. 9, condemning the heresy of justification sola fide:
If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. [7]
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.
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.
regarding the sister lucys, it sounds plausible but struck me as a distraction from other things (I wasn't aware of the relevance of it to a lot of modern pressing issues)
I'm not ready to go full sede
I understand, although I also don't, as the Vatican seems to have significantly drifted from Catholicism in my view. Like, it hasn't been much of a question once I became aware of the issues, they have quite obviously broken from Catholicism (the Vatican / Vatican 2 / those connected to it) and I wouldn't hesitate to embrace sedevacantism in contrast. It's more a question of how we move that from a minority view to the embraced view and how the Vatican can become Catholic again. I do think it's somewhat of a confusing situation like the Western Schism, i.e. laymen following Francis are not automatically not Catholic for doing so (although they may be to the extent of embracing modern errors)
Vigano history
Yes, well we think JP2 and B16 were also pretty openly anti-Catholic, and so would not have promoted Vigano if Vigano was some kind of traditionalist. JP2 had the assisi "interfaith" prayer events. B16 kissed the Koran and was pretty obviously putting on a "fake conservative" show while promoting modernist philosophy... he was "suspect of heresy" at one point before being elected as "pope": https://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_001_CondemnationRatzinger.htm
Yes, he is acting just like Lefebvre, which we disagree with (I agree with the sedevacantists over Vigano/Lefebvre or Francis, to be clear). literally just seems like a "lefebvre remix" for our culture today
It also seems unlikely to me that Francis would have allowed Vigano to become "archbishop" and to promote the kinds of views he had done, unless he was basically in agreement with Francis on things
So in our view both Francis/Vigano are working together to attack Catholicism
I believe once a large amount of Catholics become aware Vatican 2 is not Catholic and that the popes since 1958 are illegitimate, that a new pope can be elected who is traditional, and the confusion of Vatican 2 can be put to rest. I don't think half-measures of Vigano or of accepting and going along with Francis are really enough given the problems that exist
sure, but in our view these kinds of posters should then go in the direction of sedevacantism, which they often argue much against
because there's also the principle that a "doubtful pope is no pope"; hence, if there is doubt Francis is a Catholic pope, he would be regarded as not a pope - ergo, Catholics have no pope (sedevacantism).
Frequently instead they seem to promote a confusing position of "recognize and resist", where Vigano says Francis is a Catholic pope and won't obey him and then unsurprisingly is "excommunicated" for "schism".
reposting a comment:
well, there's not much to "theorize" on here, Vigano is "guilty" of schism by the letter of the law
which is why we think Vigano is probably working for the modernists / leftists / other side, because his positions promote confusion
He seems to publicly accept Francis as "pope" and yet does not obey him as pope, leading to a false common traditionalist position of "recognize and resist" which has been criticized for a long time
If he thinks Francis to be pope, he must abandon his "rebellion" and obey him
Of course, since Francis seems to be anti-Catholic and promotes anti-Catholic agendas, this instead suggests to us that Francis cannot be a Catholic pope
Thus Vigano should take the position that Francis is not a Catholic nor a pope, which is more logically consistent
Instead, he publicly promoted Francis as pope, and then rebelled against him... which is the definition of schism, and which makes traditionalists look "bad and schismatic", which plays into the modernists' hands
see also: sedevacantism
building 7