I was wrong about Biden

For those of you that don’t speak Italian, here is a summarised version that I perfectly share and agree with, as I hope was already evident from my previous post on it a short while ago.

Don Ricossa states that [items in bold and square brackets are my notes]:

• Vigano in his response to the request he presents himself in Rome to answer for his supposed crime of schism, and therefore, ultimately heresy, stated he refuses to present himself in Rome since he does not recognise the legitimacy of the current occupier of the See of Rome and wants nothing to do with it, nor to remain in communion with it since he describes the current Bergoglian hierarchy as the final metastasis of the cancer that is Vatican II.
• Don Ricossa started out by saying that although he does not usually like to discuss current events, since there is such a need of understanding the gospels at present, the present situation that everyone is talking about concerning Vigano is an excellent opportunity to possibly begin to heal the Church, if it is considered and acted upon fruitfully. He goes on to explain how and why as follows:
• In the first place, while it is true that the current situation is terrible, it is important to note that this is merely an effect of the cause and not the cause itself. In short, while it is true that the cancer is bad, the problem started at the origin of the cancer and that is Vatican II. And this being the case, the focus should absolutely be on explaining and detailing the exact issues with Vatican II. This has already been done in various ways by various people [including by me —-in what I believe in the most exhaustive way I am aware of—- in Reclaiming The Catholic Church, where I list at least some of the heresies present in all 15 of the 16 documents that compose Vatican II that have direct heresy in them] and Father Ricossa mentions that one can bring to the attention of everyone (including Vigano) these arguments, and their already detailed and well presented points. Or one can expand on them or even start them anew and as thoroughly as one likes [As far as I am aware a complete listing of all the heresies of the Vatican II documents has not been done for there are so many, but I believe my version is the one that so far comes closest.]
• Further, once you do this, it become obvious that the problem is not just the current impostor on the throne of Peter, but also all those from the very start of Vatican II who have continued to promulgate, promote and agree with Vatican II. [In short, here, Don Ricossa states simply the same thing I have been telling everyone from 2017 on, which is that every single fake Pope from Angelo Roncalli on, and all the Novus Orco clergy are invalid and as such heretics and non-Catholics. Nor is anything they teach related to Catholicism, but rather, its inversion.] Don Ricossa therefore clearly implied that this situation, that is, that Vigano has not yet explicitly stated this, needs to be corrected.
• He goes on that, in order to be coherent, Vigano can only refuse the order to come to Rome, as well as refuse to recognise Bergoglio’s authority if he truly believes Bergoglio is not a legitimate Pope AND he can demonstrate too that this is the case (because Catholics follow the rules, not their feelings about what they think of particular cotta). And once again, this leads back to Vatican II and how it is indeed possible (and the case) that only fake “Popes” has been present in the Vatican since 28th October 1958. Otherwise, failing to obey a legitimate Pope is indeed schism and this can only eventually become heresy.
• Don Ricossa goes on to say that therefore, it is absolutely necessary to explain, formally, and clarify:
  • Why the current occupier of the Vatican is not a valid Pope.
  • And also to clarify Vigano’s position on the matter, [that is of not formally and clearly declaring all the previous fake “Popes” and all previous and current fake “clergy” as the fakes they are] this removing for is the current doubt we have about what is Vigano’s real thoughts on the matter.]
  • He goes on to say that he has never had any communication with Vigano, so it is not a matter of the person of Vigano as such, but rather that while Vigano has expressed an opinion that Don Ricossa agrees with (i.e. that the Novus Ordo Church is a fake mess) Vigano needs to follow through, for the sake of clarity and the truth of it for all concerned, from Bergoglio and his retinue to you and I mere laymen.
• He goes on to say that his suggestion (though he points out no one asked him) to Mr. Vigano, is to hold fast to his position, focusing on the validity (or rather, lack of validity) of Bergoglio’s election as a “Pope”. He also explains that nowadays a lot of people (unlike before when we were the only ones stating the seat of Peter was vacant) are claiming it is vacant with reference to Ratzinger having been the real Pope. And Don Ricossa here states he will not enter into the various theories and details that such “sedevacantists” hold, because it is not our problem/issue to do so, since the reality is that none of rhe Popes from Roncalli on have been legitimate. He specifies that NO ONE who has accepted the so-called cancer of Vatican II can ever be the legitimate authority of the Church, (since Vatican II is heresy and the Church, being infallible, obviously cannot promulgate heresy) and so while Bergoglio is not legitimate, neither was Ratzinger.
• It would be therefore a massive error to allow yourself to be fooled into this error that “Ratzinger was the real Pope” which so many are now trying or thinking of following [Hi Ann, Andrea Tossato, and others].
• Instead, Vigano should hold to his position that regardless of whether you consider the election of any specific “Pope” to have been valid or not, it becomes clear that the incumbent has NOT accepted the election validly because it is clear from his actions, that are habitual, repetitive and obvious, that he has not
• In summary, Vigano must clarify his position, because while it appears that Vigano is rejecting the current usurper of the Roman See, at other times one is left perplexed he says, because in the same document where he rejects Bergoglio, he also says he aligns himself with Msgr. LeFebrve, original position, but Msgr. LeFebrve at the time communicated with all the clergy while telling them they should rebel against the (according to Lefebrve) legitimate Pope [which is why the SSPX position is nonsense, as I and many before me, including Father Chekada before his passing made abundantly clear]. But Vigano says he rejects the authority of Bergoglio, so he cannot claim he aligns with LeFebrve’s position. If he rejects Bergoglio, and thus all of Vatican II he should say and detail how and why, and the same if he does not. And while the man also refers to a book by Lefebrve that defends the validity of the Pope he disobeys, one can only ask: what is then, the real opinion of Mr. Vigano? [Personally I have already expressed that Vigano is not anyone to follow or put any trust in, as per Canon Law. No heretic shall have ecclesiastical authority over anyone even if his repentance were 100% genuine, and Vigano is far from fulfilling the idea his repentance is in fact genuine as far as I am concerned].
• He reiterates once more that Vigano should be clear as to if he does reject Bergoglio as legitimate or not, and he should say so in direct, simple terms, as well as why he does if he does. So as to be perfectly and unambiguously clear.
• As a third and final point, once clarity has been made, and if Vigano in fact refutes Vatican II and all its authors and not just the current impostor in the Vatican, but all those before him [back to Pious XII who was the last legitimate Pope] since, as already explained the Church cannot schism from itself and therefore anyone who does so from it cannot be part of the Church, then what to do? And here he uses the example of Montini who while pretending to talk about the “ongoing destruction of the Church” he was the very one destroying it by the most assiduous enactment of the 14 Vatican II documents replete with heresies he himself produced, along with the 2 produced by his predecessor Roncalli, leat Vigano be another one of these impostors speaking from both sides of their mouth, or, as the errors of those at the time of Montini who kept silent, waiting for Montini to die and hoping a successor would come along to put right all the things Montini had destroyed. And instead he says this was an illusion, aince the successors of Montini only continued with the destruction of the Church. [I must interject a note here that while I respect Do Ricossa and the other members of the IMBC, I cannot, in good conscience be as charitable to those timid and cowardly bishops, cardinals and priests who kept silent at the time of Montini. Logically they had no excuse for their silence, as neither did Vigano for over 50 years. It is only cowardice and self-serving reasons that kept their mouth shut, or, at best, a criminal level of ignorance inexcusable from any member of the clergy, that in secular terms is equivalent to the charge of criminal negligence. Nor, am I wrong, nor can I be criticised on this matter given that St. Luis stated it very clearly that a heretic making a heretical comment in Church should not be argued with, but rather run through with a sword. If a Saint of the Church made that point, mine surely must be valid too. Furthermore, while in no way being disrespectful to the valid clergy of the Church which remain and of which Don Ricossa is undoubtedly a member, it is the absolute duty of any Catholic to call out heresy wherever it is present, and the level and extent of dereliction of duty in this regard, of the clergy at the time is one I will never permit to happen again, as best I can, as ling as I live.]
• Vigano, therefore, inasmuch as he is supposedly a “bishop” (and Don Ricossa specifically states he is not now going to get into the details concerning the validity of Vigano’s legitimacy as such, because the point is that Vigano has a huge “weight” within the “Church” and as such he has the opportunity (unlike the e average layman or even priest) to gather around him as many people as he can with his same perspective, and thus, in essence, create a much more widespread acknowledgements of the situation, while being very clear about the errors of Vatican II and therefore NOT recognising the authority of ANY of those who promulgated them, and if he did so this, there could be many improvements and who knows, perhaps also a beginning of the solution to the current situation.
• He closes stating of course all this needs the help and grace of God and his own suggestions are provided in utmost humility.

Personally I find Don Ricossa to be too charitable and too humble, and while I absolutely understand why and respect his way and his position and his methodology, in good conscience, I can only maintain my position, which is that while all this CAN —and indeed I too very much hope does— improve things, and results in many more proper Catholics returning to the fold in good standing (that is, that of 1958 Sedevacantists) I will always hold the canonical position that once a heretic, even if the repentance is true, a heretic clergyman should spend the rest of his days in perpetual penance with authority over precisely no one.

Nor do I in any way begrudge Don Ricossa or any other valid clergy from holding positions like his. But even a porter was not a priest and yet he controlled the entry to the Church.

And at various times in history it was nobility, duty bound, that helped restore the legitimate Papacy to its throne, and not infrequently by direct and even violent action.

Well, as a Catholic, and even if only a minor noble (the lowest of the ranks: Patrician) it remains my family name’s duty to take as unpleasant and as direct and even offensive a stance as I deem necessary to protect the sanctity of the Church. So, even if Vigano were to truly repent, and even restore the Church, I will never formally recognise him as having any legitimate authority in the Catholic Church. And the same goes for every Novus Orcian “clergy”.