Vatican City, Dec 5, 2017 / 05:19 pm (CNA).- Despite the recent inclusion of Pope Francis’ 2016 letter to the Buenos Aires bishops on Amoris laetitia in the Holy See’s official text of record, neither the Church’s discipline nor its doctrine have changed.
The move is the latest in the debate over the admission of the divorced-and-remarried to Communion. The Second Vatican Council, St. John Paul II, and Benedict XVI – as well as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts under them – all firmly opposed proposals to admit to eucharistic communion the divorced-and-remarried who do not observe continence.
The debate has received renewed impetus under Pope Francis. His 2016 apostolic exhortation on love in the family, Amoris laetitia, has been met with varied reception and interpretation within the Church. Its eighth chapter, entitled “Accompanying, Discerning, and Integrating Weakness,” deals with, among other things, the pastoral care of the divorced-and-remarried, those who may not be admitted to Communion unless they have committed to living in continence, eschewing the acts proper to married couples.
Yet, for many Church leaders and theologians, ambiguous language in that chapter has led to uncertainties about this practice, and about the nature and status of the apostolic exhortation itself. Some have maintained that it is incompatible with Church teaching, and others that it has not changed the Church’s discipline. Still others read Amoris laetitia as opening the way to a new pastoral practice, or even as a development in continuity with St. John Paul II.
Some Church leaders have noted that Amoris laetitia has led to the disorientation and great confusion of many of the faithful, and at least one respected theologian has argued that Francis’ pontificate has fostered confusion, diminished the importance of doctrine in the Church’s life, and cause faithful Catholics to lose confidence in the papacy.
Pope Francis has been understood to encourage those who interpret Amoris laetitia as opening the way to a new pastoral practice – as he seemed to do in a letter to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region, which is the subject of the latest furor.
His letter approves those bishops’ pastoral response to the divorced-and-remarried, based on Amoris laetitia. The response had said that ministry to the divorced-and-remarried must never create confusion about Church teaching and the indissolubility of marriage, but may also allow access to the sacraments under specific limits. These might include specific situations when a penitent in an irregular union is under attenuated culpability, as when leaving such a union could cause harm to his children, although the circumstances envisioned are not precisely delineated, which, some theologians say, has contributed to the confusion.
The Pope’s Sept. 5, 2016 letter addressed to Bishop Sergio Alfredo Fenoy of San Miguel said, “The text is very good and makes fully explicit the meaning of the eighth chapter of ‘Amoris Laetitia’. There are no other interpretations. And I am sure it will do a lot of good. May the Lord reward you for this effort of pastoral charity.”
It was reported this weekend that Pope Francis’ letter, as well as the pastoral response of the Buenos Aires bishops, were promulgated in the October 2016 issue of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, a Vatican publication in which official documents of the Pope and the Roman Curia are published, and through which universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated.
Dr. Edward Peters, a professor of canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, wrote Dec. 4 that the Buenos Aires document contains assertions “running the gamut from obviously true, through true-but-oddly-or-incompletely phrased, to a few that, while capable of being understood in an orthodox sense, are formulated in ways that lend themselves to heterodox understandings.”
He noted that what prevents the admission of the divorced-and-remarried to eucharistic communion is canon 915 “and the universal, unanimous interpretation which that legislative text, rooted as it is in divine law, has always received.” The canon states that those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
In an August 2017 post anticipating the possible publication in AAS of the Buenos Aires letter or the Pope’s commendation of it, Peters had written that “many, nay most, papal documents appearing in the Acta carry no canonical or disciplinary force.”
He wrote that “Unless canon 915 itself is directly revoked, gutted, or neutered, it binds ministers of holy Communion to withhold that most august sacrament from, among others, divorced-and-remarried Catholics except where such couples live as brother-sister and without scandal to the community.”
“Nothing I have seen to date, including the appearance of the pope’s and Argentine bishops’ letters in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, makes me think that Canon 915 has suffered such a fate.”
He added: “Neither the pope’s letter to the Argentines, nor the Argentine bishops’ document, nor even Amoris laetitia so much as mentions Canon 915, let alone do these documents abrogate, obrogate, or authentically interpret this norm out of the Code of Canon Law.”
While the Pope’s letter and the Buenos Aires bishops’ pastoral response do contain ambiguous “disciplinary assertions”, they are insufficient “to revoke, modify, or otherwise obviate” canon 915, Peters wrote.
Aside from the canonical problems with the admission of the divorced-and-remarried to eucharistic communion is the question of what it means that the Buenos Aires document and the Pope’s letter in support of it are intended to be a part of the Church’s Magisterium.
A rescript from Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, in the AAS notes that their promulgation was intended “as authentic Magisterium.”
The Magisterium is a part of teaching office of bishops, by which they are charged with interpreting and preserving the deposit of faith. In its 1990 declaration Donum veritatis, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith noted that the Magisterium “has the task of discerning, by means of judgments normative for the consciences of believers, those acts which in themselves conform to the demands of faith and foster their expression in life and those which, on the contrary, because intrinsically evil, are incompatible with such demands.”
Catholics are bound to assent to divinely revealed teachings with faith; to firmly embrace and retain those things which are required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the deposit of faith; and to give religious submission of intellect and will to doctrines on faith or morals given through the authentic Magisterium.
The critical question regarding Amoris laetitia is what, precisely, it teaches with regard to faith and morals, and what it doesn’t, or even, can’t, teach. On the latter question, especially, the Church’s existent doctrine is helpful.
Even while some bishops, such as those of the Buenos Aires region and those of Malta, have interpreted the apostolic exhortation as allowing a new pastoral practice, many others have maintained that it changes nothing of doctrine or discipline.
For example, while prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller said that Amoris laetitia has not eliminated Church discipline on marriage, nor has it has permitted in some cases the divorced-and-remarried “to receive the Eucharist without the need to change their way of life.”
“This is a matter of a consolidated magisterial teaching, supported by scripture and founded on a doctrinal reason: the salvific harmony of the sacrament, the heart of the ‘culture of the bond’ that the Church lives.”
The prefect of the CDF said that if Pope Francis’ exhortation “had wanted to eliminate such a deeply rooted and significant discipline, it would have said so clearly and presented supporting reasons.”
“There is however no affirmation in this sense; nor does the Pope bring into question, at any time, the arguments presented by his predecessors, which are not based on the subjective culpability of our brothers, but rather on their visible, objective way of life, contrary to the words of Christ,” Cardinal Müller stated.
It has been the constant teaching of the Church that marriage is indissoluble, that people not married to each other may not legitimately engage in acts of sexual intimacy, that the Eucharist may not be received by those conscious of grave sin, and that absolution requires the purpose of amending one’s life, even with a diminished or limited capacity to exercise the will.
And the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists … Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.”
St. John Paul II promulgated the Catechism in 1992 by the apostolic constitution Fidei depositum, in which he wrote that it “is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.”
“The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represents a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church … of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples, as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine.”
Critical to understanding the character of the Church’s teaching on these issues is a declaration the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts wrote in 2000 that canon 915’s prohibition on admitting to Holy Communion those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin is applicable to the divorced-and-remarried.
“Any interpretation of can. 915 that would set itself against the canon’s substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading,” it said.
This prohibition, the pontifical council continued, is “by its nature derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church.”
This declaration defines a kind of a limit on how the Magisterium can develop; by invoking divine law, the council says that no pastoral approach can transgress the norms of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. While considering questions of subjective culpability do not exceed those norms, the council’s directive explains that the Church can not, and will not, redefine the deposit of faith.
The deposit of faith has not been changed, and nor has canon law. Despite a great deal of anxiety and media attention, truth remains unchanged, and unchanging.
While some find the Pope’s writing to be ambiguous, truth is not. Amoris laetitia must be interpreted in a way that does not contravene truth.
Even when such an interpretation is not readily apparent.
[…]
Lord Jesus Christ preserve us for Your clemency.
My loyalty is with Vigano.
“For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
1 Corinthians 1:11-13
Paul wasn’t crucified, he was beheaded since he was a Roman Citizen.
Correct! And it is said that St. Paul ‘s head bounced three times on the ground before stopping. Nonetheless, there is never an excuse for schism.
Dear GF – that was a totally different situation.
Really?
Then maybe you and he should start your own church, like Luther.
As long as Francis is allowed by true Catholics, clergy and laity, to exercise the OFFICE of Pope, something he has clearly rejected by his words and actions, he will continue to make use of that Office to the detriment of the Church. As he has surrounded himself with modernists like himself, there is little hope that the present Vatican will do the right thing and remove him. That means that the Church Herself, outside of Her present “government” must do what is necessary. All through history, it has been the priests, good bishops and faithful laity that has served to keep The Church holy and in keeping with Christ’s commands.
You are SO right, dear Valerie.
As Jesus taught us, the littlest ones are greatest in His eyes.
“For those who defend authority against rebellion must not themselves rebel.” Tolkien, The Silmarillion
Totally depends on how we define ‘rebellion’.
The fuse has been lit. At the very least, ecclesiastical history will now forever record that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been publicly charged in detail with heresy and apostasy by one of the most eminent prelates in the Vatican Curia.
Yeah, I think if anyone is to be on trial for schism, it isn’t AB Vigano.
FSSPX News website had said, unlike Archbishop Viganò, Archbishop Lefebvre never denied the legitimacy of the Church. Although the following position published by Lefebvre 1974 is similar to what Archbishop Viganò has said:
“We adhere
with all our heart and all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and the traditions necessary to maintain it, and to Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth. On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the neo-Modernist and the new Protestant trend which was clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council in all the reforms which flowed from it” (Declaration Archbishop Lefebvre 1974).
Compare that with:
“I have no reason to consider myself separate from communion with the holy Church and with the papacy, which I have always served with filial devotion and fidelity. I maintain that the errors and heresies to which [Francis] adhered before, during, and after his election, along with the intention he held in his apparent acceptance of the papacy, render his elevation to the throne null and void” (Statement Archbishop Viganò 2024).
Difference may be seen in Viganò’s direct refutation of Pope Francis from Lefebvre’s indirect reference to Pope Paul VI as part of the Modernist Church. What they have in common is the allegation of a faithful Church to which they claim allegiance and a false Church which they repudiate. This identifies a problematic dynamic within the Church, the distancing of one, Left or Right from the other among its members, the Right frequently questioning the legitimacy of the pope. It would be beneficial for those who disagree with specious policies, non binding doctrines like Fiducia Supplicans to resist the errors but refrain from accusations of the illegitimacy of this pontificate.
Otherwise from a justice standpoint, it could be added in defense of Archbishop Viganò, that as an insider, is his access to first hand information that we don’t possess. For example in the recent defense of Pope Francis, “Report on the Holy See’s Institutional Knowledge and Decision Making Related to Former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick”, that report argued the Pontiff’s lack of knowledge of the McCarrick dossier, that report also confirmed several personal meetings [prior to the Archbishop’s allegation that Francis lied when he claimed no knowledge of the dossier] between Francis and Viganò of which Pope Francis says he remembers the meetings but nothing about the content.
Furthermore, there was the silence, a refusal to respond to the allegation that he lied in having no knowledge – but responded only when an accusation was made public of a prosecution case on Viganò’s family financial matters – the Pope remarking, “See! See!, That’s why I kept silent”. Anyone with intelligence can see through that response.
From Viganò’s conscientious perspective considering what he may have gleaned from personal contact he may possess what he honestly believes substantiates his accusations. We, lacking that presumed knowledge cannot place ourselves in his position nor can we say he lacks justification. Although it’s prudent to add that he may have had a greater influence in benefit of the Church on the allegations of errors and mismanagement if he followed the examples of Cardinals Raymond Burke and Joseph Zen.
Excellent points, Fr. Morello.
I think I remember reading an argument that Pope Francis is both the head of the true Church and a valid Pope, and also the leader of the false church. I can see that theory fitting what Archbishop Vigano has said, but he does not clearly state it.
As beloved Jesus Christ instructs us: “No one can serve two masters!”
Excellent comment.
Archbishop Vigano’s move ties the Church into proving one or more of the following, right at this time, or, as from this time:
1. heresy
2, apostasy
3. schismatic leadership
4. non-election
5. non-election by non-intent
6. non-election by non-eligibility.
Maybe there is more he has in mind and we can not surmise about it for the present.
It helps understanding to read universi Dominici gregis which are regulations regarding a Conclave and the biography of Godfried Danneels in which he openly states how he and his group violated them
Thus, we suffer illegitimate pronouncements & actions from an illegitimate pope.
Very helpful thank you. I’m bound to accept the election of Bergoglio since I personally do not know of any voiding defect.
In such a case if it should arise, that something arouses suspicion for me about that, still I must reserve judgment on it, or, finality of decision, or disservice of faith or prudence or impartiality or sound reasoning on my part, until it should be substantiated.
Bergoglio’s majority was well in excess of the required two-thirds margin. It suggests that if there were collusion but the number of individual electors involved does not reduce the voted majority below that margin, the election was not compromised. It would, however, then be up to the new Pope to deal correctly with the “now proven” problem, so uncovered. And also be for us to assess if the new Pope is being true resolving the issue in faith, rationality and prudence.
Right now it could possibly be a mere case that Archbishop has over-shot the issues. I would take no glee from it.
God bless.
‘ Benedict issued De aliquibus mutationibus in normis de electione Romani Pontificis on 11 June 2007 after two years as pope. In this five-paragraph document, Benedict denied the cardinal electors the options John Paul had allowed them and retained only John Paul’s determination that a change was required after many ballots had failed to produce a result. He restored the two-thirds majority rule. ….. Benedict resigned the papacy on 11 February 2013, effective 28 February. On 22 February he issued his second set of instructions on the papal election process, Normas nonnullas. Following his resignation, cardinals had questioned the rule that they delay starting the conclave until 15 days after the papacy fell vacant. Benedict allowed them to begin earlier “if all the Cardinal electors are present” while keeping their ability to delay the start until 20 days pass “for serious reasons”.He modified the oath of secrecy to be taken by all support personnel, making excommunication the automatic punishment (latae sententiae) for violations of the oath, which had previously been punished at the discretion of the new pope. ‘
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_election_reforms_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI
During the 4th century, St. Athanasius found himself in a similar position as Archbishop Vigano. Athanasius was almost the lone voice against the Arian heresy held by the overwhelming majority of bishops. Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius who refused to accept the validity of the excommunication, as Vigano likely will do if he is excommunicated.
It was Athanasius against the world, and in the end, the almost lone voice of the excommunicated Athanasius was right.
Is the Church in that same position today?
Excellent reminder of another courageous bishop who spoke truth to power in defense of the Church; history has vindicated St A
No. Vigano is in open opposition to discipline and refuses to even submit himself before his superiors as is his duty. If he is to be excommunicated, he may only be vindicated by the Church, whom he has chosen in this event to cut his last ties with.
Dear ‘EENS’ that’s not the key issue.
In the opinion of many Catholic experts, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is far more obedient to our KING, Jersus Christ than the revisionist PF administration.
Also, the PF administration has amply demonstrated that it has no interest in proper jurisprudence but is openly biased against everyone who offers logical and factual criticisms. They use a loaded dice.
In PF’s Rome, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò would not get a fair go.
In fact, his life could be endangered if he ventured into the dragon’s den.
Maybe Archbishop Vigano needs hip surgery. Certainly Rome has soom excellent medical doctors.
Dear Patrick – you must be thinking of how convenient it was for the PF lot when Pope Benedict and then Cardinal Pell (were) exited.
Agreed. St. Athanasius never hid. And Pope Liberius was never free, having an imperial sword on his neck. It cannot be said for sure that he freely acted to do anything.
Archbishop Vigano is paranoid, secluded and deluded. Cardinals Burke, Zen, Müller, et al., have not been disobedient or fomented schism. They are acting like St. Athanasius.
Dear GF, surely that is a very eccentric view of the actual circumstances?
Submission to superiors is never absolute. Any duty to submit is forfeited when superiors are spiritually and morally bankrupt. The faithful owe no duty to submit to a renegade pope.
Great point! When it comes to pope Francis, I’ve been suspicious about him for several years because he’s always given ambiguous answers to many subjects which, in the end, he ended up supporting!
It will be interesting how this works out. Will the Archbishop be excommunicated? Stripped of Episcopal and Priestly powers? Or basically just ignored? We shall see.
Here’s Archbishop Vigano on the verge of being excommunicated.
While Rupnik is free to indiscriminately desecrate the most sacred places and forcibly defile the most vulnerable of holy women.
It’s very clear. Bergoglio is the one who deserves to be booted.
Amen.
Two camps debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
“I maintain that the errors and heresies to which [Francis] adhered before, during, and after his election, along with the intention he held in his apparent acceptance of the papacy, render his elevation to the throne null and void,” Viganò wrote. Bravo. There is hope for the Chruch with men like Vigano.
God bless Archbishop Viganò. He has been in hiding for good reason. If he showed up in Rome, he would probably be poisoned.
These Bishops need to remember they must obey the Pope because he is head of the Roman Catholic Church,
If a Latin Mass means so much to a Bishop, especially in the United States where Religious Practices are free, Let them start their own American Catholic Church, where all Mass are in Latin and they could even make Donald Trump a Bishop like evangelicals (60% of American Catholics support him more than fellow Catholic Joe Biden)
As for me, I’m a Roman Catholic and I stand by Pope Frances.
Pardon my laughter.
A devout and faithful Catholic can smell the rot of CINO-Biden’s hypocritical shell of Catholicism which would kill any baby the mother didn’t want though she enjoyed the conceiving of same.
No, the Latin Mass does not mean much to the American Catholic Bishops, witnessing the decreased numbers they’ve permitted under the rule of Francis.
Lastly, Trump is a married and divorced man. He has never attended seminary, has never received the sacrament of Ordination to Holy Orders, and he is not even a Catholic, so your imagination needs a bit of reigning in.
Francis is not a woman, so perhaps you may reconsider how you spell his name. Just remember this little mnemonic: Francis, egotist, narcissist–his “I” is greater than any other letter.
Brilliant!
As with any debate or disagreement, if certain of your position, recoiling or hiding should not be an option to strengthen your argument. If Viganò is right, he should have the courage to face the Curia, win or lose. This the vow he took.
Dear Henry,
If you’d had the horror experience I’ve had of going into a judicial process, with trust that the truth would prevail and then discovering that all those involved had coluded to use any means whatever to destroy me, you would not be urging Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò to submit to PF’s ‘Star Chamber’, pseudo-legal process.
It would be the height of naivette to think justice is of any interest to PF & Co.
Sorry to say this; but still trusting in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Even Jesus walked through the crowd of his townspeople ready to throw him over the cliff. There is a time for every reason. Jesus’ time had not yet come, and Vigano’s may never come.
Staying away from the hands of Francis’ hench-hit-men is a justifiably reasonable and smart move.
May St. Michael the Archangel, through the power of God, protect and defend the good Archbishop if it be God’s will.
I’m not Catholic but this pope is the least Christian pope I’ve ever seen.
If Catholics really & truly knew what was going on behind closed doors of the Vatican, they would be dumbfounded. I understand Archbishop Viganò I find it sad that there are not more couragous bishops like him. I fully stand with Archbishop Viganò.There is much I could say, but I will leave it at that. God bless Carlo Maria Viganò.🙏🏼
Sedevacantism is courageous? Hardly.
If he doesn’t accept the authority of Vatican 2 and also Pope Francis as Pope, why has he been in the Church all these years? And if he doesn’t accept Vatican 2, then what about the Pope’s who came after Vatican 2? Paul 6th, Pope John Paul1st, Pope John Paul 2nd, Pope Benedict and now Pope Francis? Who does Vigano think he is to decide who is a legitimate Pope? And to decide on the authority of Vatican 2? Vigano is guilty of schism!!
Sorry, dear Joseph, that is not the actual situation at all.
“I maintain that the errors and heresies to which [Francis] adhered before, during, and after his election, along with the intention he held in his apparent acceptance of the papacy, render his elevation to the throne null and void,” Viganò wrote.
“He also said he has “no reason to consider myself separate from communion with the holy Church and with the papacy, which I have always served with filial devotion and fidelity.”
We can know through both Faith and Reason, that by denouncing a schismatic who could not possibly be a Vicar of Christ, because prior to his election to The Papacy, he denied Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Teaching of The Magisterium, The Deposit Of Faith that Christ Himself Has Entrusted To His Church, Archbishop Vigano maintains communion with The Body Of Christ, which exists “Through Him, With Him, And In Him, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost(Filioque).
To denounce the election of Jorge Bergoglio to The Papacy, is to affirm The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, and thus the fact that “it is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque). To affirm The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, is to affirm the Papacy, and thus affirm every validly elected Vicar of Christ, and Magisterial Teaching grounded in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.
Jorge Bergoglio, unlike every validly elected Pope, rejects The Office Of The MUNUS, grounded in Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, And The Teaching Of The Magisterium, The Deposit Of Faith That Christ Has Entrusted To His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, Is “Forever”, thus Pope Benedict could not have resigned The Office Of The MUNUS because for a validly elected Pope it remains “Forever”. Even if Pope Benedict was in error when he abdicated The Ministerial Office, who can deny, that by stepping aside, Pope Benedict XVI illuminated the fact that Jorge Bergoglio was not in communion with Christ and The Magisterium Of His Church and could not have possibly hold The MUNUS because he rejected The Deposit Of Faith, and thus Ecclesial Communion, and thus Sacramental Communion. For this is our Sacred Heritage: The Sacred Heritage of all human persons, from the moment of conception, Salvation Is Of The Jews, From The Father, Through The Son, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
https://biblehub.com/drbc/john/4.htm
The pope should resign in order to preserve the RC church from to much liberal ideas .
To keep the traditions as they should be and start a new conclave in order to elect
a more traditional pope .
I humbly ask Pope Francis to consider all that he has done and said and resign for the goodness of the whole RC Church .
Praise be God .
I’m saddened that vigano does not support pope Francis ,at this point in time everybody should be on pope Francis side, with the world gone mad he needs all the support he can get 😇
Francis needs all the support he can get. Right. Would that be help covering for sexual predators, help meeting with homosexualist priests, help undermining the traditional Latin mass,and help dismissing conservative prelates? If that’s the case, the less help and support Francis gets, the better.
Archbishop Vigano would have done better to stick with his early and discrediting revelation that the McCarrick phenomenon was not new news in the Vatican…
A BRIDGE TOO FAR, now, to explicitly pronounce that the pope is not a pope, and to seem to reject Vatican II (but what he seems to say latest is only that the apostasy started there, not that the “real” (Benedict’s distinction) Council, by its very nature and Documents, was the definitive cause).
Archbishop Vigano should have posed his accusations as questions, about the Church cohabiting with the One World Order. The rhyming GNOSTICISM of inventing a script and then prohibiting all contrarian views as inadmissible or even “backwardist”.
Then, instead of surrendering the possible high ground to legal proceedings against a schism, the full spectrum within the Church could be asking, where is the real DIALOGUE? Still a remote possibility…and a remotely possible substitute for what is seen by many as a self-gratifying and self-ratifying “Synod-on-Synodality”. Say what??? A “couple” of synods…
In graduate school even at a secular university, TRUTH can still happen. Why am I reminded, here, of a penetrating professor who denounced research papers that engaged in wool-gathering without demonstrable conclusions worthy of readers outside the echo chamber? Papers larded up with self-referential purple prose and very selectively read references—”a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing” (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5).
WHEN is a synod a crypto-synod?…Accountable only to itself rather than, say, to the relevant particulars of the Council Documents (e.g., Lumen Gentium, Ch. 3 with the Prefatory Note), or to the irreducible Apostolic Succession, or to the Magisterium and the explicitly incorporated Natural Law with its moral absolutes (the Catechism, Veritatis Splendor), or to the real Holy Spirit in union with the Son—“Jesus Christ, yesterday, today and forever” (Heb 13:8)? Or, instead, in step with the 5,000-word Fiducia Supplicans and even cohabiting with the irregular “couples,” as such?
QUESTION: For the fatally overreaching Archbishop Vigano and the fatally self-ratifying synod-on-synodality, both (!), to what extent might the professor’s meme equally apply: “intellectual masturbation”?
Vigano for Pope! Strickland for Cardinal!