Author Topic: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler  (Read 650 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Marys Anawim

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 132
  • Reputation: +66/-11
  • Gender: Female
Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2020, 01:54:09 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I stand with Vigano, but this is too deep for me...pregnancy brain strikes again LOL

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21512
    • Reputation: +11841/-6030
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
    « Reply #16 on: June 27, 2020, 07:21:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • They are irreconcilable.

    SP is SV with makeup.


    You're wrong, Sean.  Father Chazal is closer to SP than SV is.  SP says that these men lack formal authority on account of heresy, despite the fact that they have been elected to the office.  That's almost identical to Father Chazal's position.  Like Father Chazal (following John of St. Thomas et al.), SP admits that it would be necessary for the Church to materially depose such popes and that private individuals lack the authority to do so.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21512
    • Reputation: +11841/-6030
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
    « Reply #17 on: June 27, 2020, 07:25:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Chazal is classical R&R, despite your lying efforts to turn him into some kind of sede-something.

    Pure and utter garbage, Sean.  You're desperate and pathetic.  And your saying so doesn't make it true.  You keep claiming this but can't and won't refute the distinction between Chazal and Classic R&R.

    Classic R&R:  V2 popes have authority and Catholics are obliged to obey them when they teach the truth but must disobey when they teach or command error.

    Chazal:  V2 popes, being manifest heretics, categorically lack all authority and can and must be completely ignored.  Yet they remain in office until the Church removes them.

    Classic R&R hems and haws about whether the V2 popes are in fact heretics and to what degree, whereas Chazal admits that he concedes to the sedevacantists that these men are manifest heretics.  He simply opts for the Catjetan/John of St. Thomas position rather than Bellarmine's, that these men are deponendi but not ipso facto depositus.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21512
    • Reputation: +11841/-6030
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
    « Reply #18 on: June 27, 2020, 07:29:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And top it with the stupid sede-something (akin to Meg's sede-whateverism).  If you believe that the See is occupied, then you're a sede-whateverist also, a sedeplenist.

    For the record, neither +Lefebvre, nor +Castro de Mayer, nor +Williamson, nor +Tissier are sedeplenists.  They have all publicly doubted the legitimacy of the V2 popes, which you cannot do if you consider their legitimacy to be dogmatic fact ... as sedeplenism requires.  This is the position I have termed sede-doubtism.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21512
    • Reputation: +11841/-6030
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
    « Reply #19 on: June 27, 2020, 07:33:25 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Very true! Though the SP's will never admit it. They are so obsessively focused on the Pope question, that they can't think of much else.

    vs. Archbishop Lefebvre
    Quote
    “Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

    and
    Quote
     “…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)


    It's the papacy and the Magisterium which separates Catholicism from Protestantism.

    R&R, however, is barely distinguishable from Protestantism or Old Catholicism.


    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3564
    • Reputation: +1776/-2766
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
    « Reply #20 on: June 28, 2020, 05:29:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • R&R, however, is barely distinguishable from Protestantism or Old Catholicism.

    Same old silliness on your part. 
    :laugh1:
    "This forum is a space for discussion to defend the Catholic Faith following Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre. It is therefore not for rallying to the conciliar church nor for sedevacantism"
    - From the French Resistance forum (Francophone forum, in France)

    Offline songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3730
    • Reputation: +1358/-162
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
    « Reply #21 on: June 29, 2020, 02:25:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What is the solution?!  Well, at another post on this forum, someone thinks Viagano has the 3rd Secret.  Well, if or not, he never mentioned Our Lady and Her Rosary  as a solution.  No mention that the Mass will come to an end.  A solution that just maybe the Most Precious Blood, might just be mentioned.

    I still say he is all talk and at this point in his life, where does he think his soul is going with all this talk.  We know things have been rotten for how may decades?!

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21512
    • Reputation: +11841/-6030
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
    « Reply #22 on: June 29, 2020, 02:35:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Same old silliness on your part.
    :laugh1:

    :laugh1:


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5325
    • Reputation: +2515/-1654
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
    « Reply #23 on: June 29, 2020, 03:46:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • While yes, he does, disappointingly, seem to be gravitating toward the barely-Catholic (if at all) R&R position, the second sentence here is incorrect.  That's not what Vigano was saying.

    Classical R&R is non-Catholic garbage.  Father Chazal's position, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable ... and also quite probably true.
    Does he gravitate towards R&R here? It seems to me that, although he says Paul VI called it a pastoral council, he seems to question whether that is really the case, no?  I'll admit that I am having a hard time understanding what he's saying.
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 492
    • Reputation: +122/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
    « Reply #24 on: June 29, 2020, 04:22:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Does he gravitate towards R&R here? It seems to me that, although he says Paul VI called it a pastoral council, he seems to question whether that is really the case, no?  I'll admit that I am having a hard time understanding what he's saying.

    I think there is enough range here that he will have to, or at least will, clarify in the future.
    .

    I agree with Bishop Sanborn's comments:


    Quote
    A big surprise. I could hardly believe my eyes as I read this statement of Archbishop Viganò. In the fifty-five years since Vatican II, I have never seen such a succinct presentation of the errors of Vatican II, and an intelligent criticism of the two “cures” of the Council, the hermeneutic of continuity and the Correction Theory. It is also obvious that the Archbishop is deeply familiar with Catholic doctrine.           

    I do not know where the Archbishop will go from here, but he is going someplace. His compass, from all that he has said, is pointing straight toward sedevacantism. For he has utterly trashed the Second Vatican Council, masterfully identifying it as the source of the Church’s problems, and loaded with serious errors. He has trashed, as well, the entire post-conciliar era, calling it a parallel church in opposition to the true Church. And since he rejects the Correction Theory, what is there left to do but to annul the Council as an illegitimate meeting? But to say this necessarily implicates John XXIII and Paul VI. It is impossible to assert that the Council is the mother of a false and parallel Church, but that it was promulgated to us by a true pope. To hold that such a deviation comes from the authority of Christ vested in the pope undermines the Catholic edifice from its foundation, to use Archbishop Viganò’s own words.  

    https://inveritateblog.com/2020/06/29/on-the-recent-statements-of-bishop-schneider-and-archbishop-vigano/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 492
    • Reputation: +122/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
    « Reply #25 on: June 29, 2020, 04:54:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bishop Sanborn:


    Quote
    It is impossible to assert that the Council is the mother of a false and parallel Church, but that it was promulgated to us by a true pope. To hold that such a deviation comes from the authority of Christ vested in the pope undermines the Catholic edifice from its foundation, to use Archbishop Viganò’s own words.


    Bingo.
    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5713
    • Reputation: +3252/-1424
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
    « Reply #26 on: June 29, 2020, 05:29:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 4th to last paragraph.  You must’ve missed this part:
    .
    Quote
    The authority and infallibility of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles will emerge intact and reconfirmed. In fact, they were not deliberately called into question at Vatican II, but ironically they would be on a future day in which a Pontiff would correct the errors that that Council permitted, playing jests with the equivocation of an authority it officially denied having but that the faithful were surreptitiously allowed to understand that it did have by the entire Hierarchy, beginning right with the Popes of the Council.
    He’s saying the “popes of the council” allowed the false idea that V2 was doctrinal to spread in the media, even though they admitted it wasn’t doctrinal.  They are guilty of all the heresies of V2 by being accessory to the lie and remaining silent for decades.  
    .
    J23 and P6 still may be judged anti-pope’s in the future but not because V2 was a doctrinal council that proclaimed heresy.  Just for many other 100s of reasons. 

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21512
    • Reputation: +11841/-6030
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
    « Reply #27 on: June 29, 2020, 07:10:48 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bishop Sanborn:



    Bingo.

    Right.  I've made this same point repeatedly.  One can quibble about the precise extent of infallibility, but this is a question of the Church's indefectibility.  To say that an Ecumenical Council of the Church can lead to the creation of a parallel anti-Church is contrary to the overall indefectibility of the Magisterium and of the Church as a whole.  To say that the Church can promulgate and use a Rite of Mass that displeases God (a Protestantized/paganized Mass as Vigano calls it) and cannot be attended by Catholics in good conscience is contrary to the Church's disciplinary infallibility.

    R&R who keep pushing the narrow view of infallibility are missing the forest for the trees.  Sedevacantists often overreact to this error by promoting an extreme view of infallibility that goes too far, when the battle needs to be waged on the level of indefectibility.

    I immediately noticed that the logical trajectory of +Vigano's June 9th letter is toward sedevacantism.  Thus far he has held back, instead using the same infallibility argument used by R&R.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5713
    • Reputation: +3252/-1424
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
    « Reply #28 on: June 29, 2020, 07:54:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lets not argue about what Vigano SHOULD'VE said, let’s just stick to what he did say.  +Sanborn’s conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from Vigano’s interview.  That’s the point.  I’m not being anti-Sanborn, nor anti-sede, just anti-editorial commenting. 

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5325
    • Reputation: +2515/-1654
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
    « Reply #29 on: June 29, 2020, 08:13:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lets not argue about what Vigano SHOULD'VE said, let’s just stick to what he did say.  +Sanborn’s conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from Vigano’s interview.  That’s the point.  I’m not being anti-Sanborn, nor anti-sede, just anti-editorial commenting.
    That's because I think Bishop Sanborn is responding to the original letter of June 9, not this latest interview.  He may not even know about these comments.
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16