I am not judging Archbishop Vigano. I am not a theologian. But I do think a lot of people are rushing far too quickly to go along with him. It reminds me of the time Archbishop Lefevbre went down a similiar road. This was many years ago and he kind of set up his own Traditionalist thing. The Archbishop was considered something of a saint by many and his missionary work was incredible. I don't judge him either, I am not qualified to. I would simply have said I would be very,very uncomfortable going down the same road as him. But as to Vigano there are many, many many commentators who are very happy to go down the road with him. People vastly qualifiied and whom I very highly respect. But I would not do so myself. For me Obedience lies at the very heart of being Catholic and the includes obedience to the Pontiff in Rome. Anything else smacks of...well I can't really see any difference between this and being a Protestant really. Also I am not very happy about Archbishop Vigano constantly referring to the Holy Father as, 'Bergolio', this to me is disrespectful and appears to imply that Francis is not Pope.
I am personally troubled at the extent to which Archbishop Vigano has abandoned the title of Pope for Francis, addressing him more often as Bergoglio. However, the example above of the Abu Dhabi document inspiring the construction of an Abrahamic Family House revives latent feelings of incredulity. I still am convinced that the proposal that God willed a diversity of religions contradicts the Faith. Though when speaking to Archbishop Schneider, Pope Francis personally claimed that his position refers to the permissive will of God only, no clarifying changes were made to the text of the document. The construction of the Abrahamic Family House as an extension of the questionable document has caused Vigano to dig his heels in even further. And so I find both the all out attack on Vigano's part, and Pope Francis' ongoing descent on a slippery slope upsetting and perplexing. Where will it all end? Lord have Mercy!
There we are, Padraig, playing at the same piano at the same time! Again! Ten minutes apart. Safe in the Barque of Peter!
I've read that Wuerl is also a sodomite. Since you're in that area, have you heard anything about this?
With all respect, Sunnyveil, if that is not public information, if it is gossip, is it appropriate to ask about? There's probably lots to discuss about his record.
That strikes me as a hit piece on Archbishop Vigano. I've come across that website before. If memory serves me, I either stumbled across it or someone on the forum linked to it during discussions about Amoris Laetitia and the dubia submitted by the four Cardinals. The dubia Cardinals weren't exactly flavour of the month with the contributors to the website. I could be over-stating things a little, but my overall impression back then was that they were portraying Pope Francis as a new, improved Jesus. I see nothing in the article that shows Archbishop Vigano to be in schism any more than people like St. Athanasius or St. Sophronius were in schism when they weren't in lockstep with the Pope. It seems to me that Archbishop Vigano has a more forthright style than the two saints. Or maybe the records don't contain everything the two saints said while defending the Faith while Popes couldn't or wouldn't. My own opinion is that Archbishop Vigano seems to be an honest and loyal son of the Church doing his best to kick some life into his lukewarm brother Bishops and sound the alarm to let the faithful know that all is not well in Rome. He has certainly put his reputation the line, leaving himself open to the kind of article you have quoted and attacks from some very nasty people "close" to Pope Francis. That the attacks often come from the same people who attacked the dubia Cardinals is a point in the Archbishop's favour. I do think that the Archbishop is leaving himself open to being used by people who don't have the Church's interests at heart. Not all enemies of the Church are in the "progressive" camp. Wouldn't the person who wrote the article do a better service to the Church by answering the Vigano allegations? Or does he think that "Who am I to judge?" only applies when a Pope is dishing out plum jobs to people who have disgraced themselves and the Church?
I think Dolours I would distinguish between a De Facto porition where he (Vigano) formally declares the Holy Father to be a heretic and the Seat of Peter Vacnat (sedeVacante). ..and a De Jure postion where by constant critque he, by implication appears to suggest that the Holy Father might indeed be heretical. It would be that he moves towards this De Jure postion and leads others in the same direction. That would be my concern. De Jure meaning in this case a transient or moving towards postion. Or going down the slippery slope, or the ball being kincked in the air. Or whatever. Of Vigano establishing himself as an alternate Magisterium , almost.
HH, you know, up until recently, I have looked upon Arch. Viganò with great admiration and as this very brave Catholic hero, but lately, I have been starting to have my doubts. So I was surprised to see there are also some on the forum questioning him as well. Kind of an eye opener for me to see how easily I can be lead or possibly miss-lead.
Yes, that's a possibility. It's also possible that we have an apostate for a Pope. And there is some slim, very remote possibility that Francis is not actually a valid Pope. Only God can judge a Pope but I don't know of any rule that says Popes are infallible outside the limits already set. For example, didn't someone declare at Vatican 1 that a Pope can't invent new Doctrine? What if a Pope were to attempt to do so? We're back to the old Honorius 1 issue. Anathematised posthumously. At first he was condemned as a heretic but that was later softened to anathematised for failing to defend the Faith. Old Honorius seems to have been a model of orthodoxy compared to Pope Francis, yet Vigano is the one in schism. Something's rotten. Like Pope Honorius, Pope Francis doesn't spell out heresy plainly in formal documents but he does precious little to stop the spread of heresy. And like Honorius, he seems to favour those who would spread heresy or "develop" Doctrine into a contradiction of itself. I'm reminded of that out and proud Jesuit - Massingdale or Massingham - informing the lavender lobbyists that Pope Francis is running "defense" for them but it's up to them to get the teaching changed. Archbishop Vigano may not be the one in schism. It is possible even for a Pope to be a heretic. Can a Pope be a schismatic from the Faith? I think so unless God suspends his free will. And it's heresy to believe that God overrides man's free will. All that said, I am concerned that Archbishop Vigano is not acting as prudently as he should and I think I was probably the first person to say so on this forum.
This is exactly what I think as well. You said it well. I don’t think we have been too misled up until just recently. Imho he is becoming more extreme and outside the Barque, outside the parameters of his authority. Just my humble opinion. He wasn’t like this a year or two ago. It’s also strange that he is in hiding.
I think with Archbhisop Vigano we go back to his original Solemn Oath as A Vatican Diplomat to keep the Popes Secrets. He borke that Very Solem Oath, for whatever reasons that may have seemed good to him regarding McCarrick. It is a basic principle of Catholic Moral Teaching that you do notattempt to achieve good by doing evil and Oath Breaking is an evil. I trace much of the subsequent problems back to this. A good fruit does not grow on a bad tree.
That's the best argument I have seen made against Archbishop Vigano. It wasn't used much when he went public on the McCarrick stuff. I prefer Bishop Schneider's approach. He's Catholic to the core and, having read Christus Vincet, it's easy to see how he manages to stand firm defending the Faith without hysteria or hyperbole. He learned it at his mother's knee.
Bishop Schneider is a saint. I am afraid I don't have so high an opinion of Archbishop Vigano. Cardinal Burke is a saint as well as is Bishop Strickland. But none of these have been disobedient.
If I were Archbishop Vigano I would refuse him absolution until he went back on bended knee to Rome and made public restitution For Oath Breaking. For the sake of his soul and that of the Church.
I am reminded that we've been told in Fatima, LaSalette (and probably a couple other approved apparitions) Rome will fall and it will start at the top. The Church Christ began will NEVER fall though. PEB predicted the Remnant Church will be far smaller than it is now. What to think of Vigano', I highly respect the Archbishop and his overall opinions. I do have concern though he does not reference Pope Francis as such.
