There is huge confusion since Vatican II. Being human, the popes since then might have been contaminated to varying degrees by this confusion, except in those cases of Infallible Pronouncements. However, this does not give Vigano justification to dismiss all their Magisterium. For example, Saint Pope John Paul II brought out a huge amount of brilliant and invaluable documentation completely in line with the teaching of the Gospels, which Pope Francis has clearly contradicted and rejected. Pope Benedict's hermeneutics of continuity which implied that Vatican II must be interpreted in line with the prior Tradition of the Church seems the perfect solution to dealing with the ambiguities of the Council. It would be entirely irresponsible to reject this.
Yes He did but why didn't he say anything after V2??? Why did he not stand up?? If you study Bl. Ann Emmerich or Marie Julie Jahenny...the words of consecration will be gone... we may be close to that but I listen and pray. My lamp is lit...why would I run away??
Oy vey! Your three sources above grieve my heart! You don't directly do so, but the fact that Catholics are seeking out and sharing such theological positions to justify their refusal to submit to Pope Francis reveals an ever widening divide within the Church. This is far more than anguish over a Liturgical Gem. Lord have Mercy! O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
I agree Terry. Its heart breaking to see-- but not unprecedented. Robert Moynihan and Fr Charles Murr go through church history--especially St Athanasius and show remarkable similarities. It is not up to the laity to do anything. Its up to the bishops--according to Fr Murr. And he feels sure this is the spark that will open everything up. He is fully confident it will all resolve and obfuscation and confusion will be dealt with. May God give the bishops the grace!!! I think for myself I will just stay in prayer. And avoid controversies.
Everyone needs to watch this episode for a better understanding of the situation with Vigano. Dr. Moynihan points out that even St. Athanasius was excommunicated by his pope and he’s now a canonized saint. I know from my time working in his office with him that he has connections in Rome and elsewhere that few have, even priests and bishops, so he grasps a lot more of what is going on than most of us. I think that’s why he’s broaching these subjects.
I don't know why he didn't say anything, but I can speculate that he might have considered that he had said what he said, was ignored and decided that there was no point in saying any more. I don't think the prophets in the Old Testament were ones to waste their breath repeating themselves.
These points refer to very specific instances and do not wholly apply in the case of Archbishop Vigano who has a much broader agenda than the mere legitimacy of Pope Francis' election. If Vigano has the goods on Pope Francis, let's be having them...the truth can only set us free. Of course, the latter's alleged behaviour might have no bearing on the status of his legality, but only be a reflection on his character and the validity, if any, of his moral authority.
I would suggest to Archbishop Vigano that he not enter any tall buildings or climb any high step-ladders for a while.
His podcasts are so measured and so careful and charitable.. He and Fr Murr are my go-to commentators these days.
As I heard someone say a few days ago, Viganò agrees with Bergoglio if he argues that Francis's sinister pontificate is in line with that of the other post-Vatican II Popes, which is definitely not the case. Francis' false teachings are in complete rupture with those of the Popes who preceded him, as they completely contradict them.
I watched the video you recommended. It was very informative, so thanks for posting it. One of the things I have recognized with this affair is that many have boiled everything down to legalities. Which in my opinion isn't the spirit for which legalities are used in the church. What I mean by this, is that the church has laws because it wants to be in accord with God. If we start taking advantage of laws to advance our own agendas, it then becomes a popularity contest, and this is the realm of politics. Which both Fr. Murr and Dr. Moynihan said that this whole ordeal essentially is. It is even seen on the board currently, pro and counter PF/Vigano positions. I am not judging, just stating the obvious. It is also a possibility that someone who has been ipso facto excommunicated has excommunicated another, which is an entirely bizarre situation, which solves nothing. One side is rebelling, and is using the laws to further agendas in the church which are contrary to it. The other is using the laws to try and stop the corruption. So I really liked it when Fr. Murr said that everything will be taken care of in "God's good time", because this won't be decided by legalisms. God will make everything right in the end. For me, the way which makes the most sense, is to look at this through prophecy and scripture. From what I understand, the attacks and degradation of the Church will only escalate until the TOTIHOM. In the end God sets everything straight. Exodus 14:14 The Lord will fight for you, and you shall hold your peace.
All popes have had faults, starting with the first one. Pope John XXIII had faults; Pope Paul VI had a lot of them, in my opinion; Pope JPI wasn't around long enough to show any; JPII, great as he was had them; likewise Benedict. However, even great pre-VII popes like Leo XIII and Pius XII had faults, the latter, for example, starting the process of messing with the liturgy and being the one who appointed Annibale Bugnini to power. As you say, Pope Francis is a pope of a different order. He might be valid, but this is only a technical matter. What now matters is who he is working for.
