"it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by Our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was first theorized by Masonry"
Archbishop Vigano:
"the presumed legitimacy of the exercise of religious freedom that the Second Vatican Council theorized, contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both."
the presumed legitimacy of the exercise of religious freedom that the Second Vatican Council theorized, contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both.
2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. [...]
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. [...]
So here we have a rejection of Religious Liberty as "contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium" ... that Struthio claimed didn't exist, thus rendering him a heretic.
I didn't claim such a thing. I asked: "Did Viganò explicitly condemn Dignitatis humanae?" Then I saw what Angelus had posted, and I added a correspondig note before my post.
I called him a heretic for being a leader of a modernist false church. He himself now confirms what I said about his heretical sect, and consequently about him.
The "Second Vatican Council theorized"? I'd say, the robber council abolished the First Commandment:
The robber council mocks and accuses God and his Church: God, his First Commandment, and his Church have ridden roughshod over "the very dignity of the human person". The robber council denies dogma, infallibly declared by a Pope, using words which in an examplary way express infallibilty as defined by the Vatican Council.
I didn't claim such a thing. I asked: "Did Viganò explicitly condemn Dignitatis humanae?" Then I saw what Angelus had posted, and I added a corresponding note before my post.
I called him a heretic for being a leader of a modernist false church. He himself now confirms what I said about his heretical sect, and consequently about him.
When I asked you to prove that he's a heretic, you responded with that question. Your charge of heresy is utterly absurd.
men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter]
Holding the position that the Conciliar authorities are legitimate and remaining in material unity with them as a result has absolutely nothing to do with "heresy". That makes him little different than an R&R Traditional Catholic.
Members and leaders of heretical sects are assumed to be heretics.
Incredible statement by Archbishop ViganoThank you Lord! Now let us pray the good Archbishop will be instrumental in obtaining the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested.
https://tradcatresist.blogspot.com/2020/06/incredible-statement-by-archbishop.html (https://tradcatresist.blogspot.com/2020/06/incredible-statement-by-archbishop.html)
(tradcatresist) Whilst the net buzzes with the Vigano/Trump tweets, Archbishop Vigano has since written a far more important tweet which will hardly find as much traction. Whilst the SSPX attempts to bring out its heavy hitters to deny the words of Bishop Tissier regarding the existence of a conciliar church, here we have the words spoken by Archbishop Vigano
[font={defaultattr}]
What is also important is that he rectifies the mistakes spoken by Bishop Athanasius Schneider in 'There is no divine positive.' The full text of his letter appears below.
9 June 2020
Saint Ephrem[/font]
[font={defaultattr}]
I read with great interest the essay of His Excellency Athanasius Schneider published on LifeSiteNews on June 1, subsequently translated into Italian by Chiesa e post concilio, entitled There is no divine positive will or natural right to the diversity of religions. His Excellency’s study summarizes, with the clarity that distinguishes the words of those who speak according to Christ, the objections against the presumed legitimacy of the exercise of religious freedom that the Second Vatican Council theorized, contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both.
The merit of His Excellency’s essay lies first of all in its grasp of the causal link between the principles enunciated or implied by Vatican II and their logical consequent effect in the doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary deviations that have arisen and progressively developed to the present day.
The monstrum generated in modernist circles could have at first been misleading, but it has grown and strengthened, so that today it shows itself for what it really is in its subversive and rebellious nature. The creature that was conceived at that time is always the same, and it would be naive to think that its perverse nature could change. Attempts to correct the conciliar excesses – invoking the hermeneutic of continuity – have proven unsuccessful: Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret [Drive nature out with a pitchfork; she will come right back] (Horace, Epist. I,10,24). The Abu Dhabi Declaration – and, as Bishop Schneider rightly observes, its first symptoms in the pantheon of Assisi – “was conceived in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council” as Bergoglio proudly confirms.
This “spirit of the Council” is the license of legitimacy that the innovators oppose to their critics, without realizing that it is precisely confessing that legacy that confirms not only the erroneousness of the present declarations but also the heretical matrix that supposedly justifies them. On closer inspection, never in the history of the Church has a Council presented itself as such a historic event that it was different from any other council: there was never talk of a “spirit of the Council of Nicea” or the “spirit of the Council of Ferrara-Florence,” even less the “spirit of the Council of Trent,” just as we never had a “post-conciliar” era after Lateran IV or Vatican I.
The reason is obvious: those Councils were all, indiscriminately, the expression in unison of the voice of Holy Mother Church, and for this very reason the voice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Significantly, those who maintain the novelty of Vatican II also adhere to the heretical doctrine that places the God of the Old Testament in opposition to the God of the New Testament, as if there could be contradiction between the Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. Evidently this opposition that is almost gnostic or cabbalistic is functional to the legitimization of a new subject that is voluntarily different and opposed to the Catholic Church. Doctrinal errors almost always betray some sort of Trinitarian heresy, and thus it is by returning to the proclamation of Trinitarian dogma that the doctrines that oppose it can be defeated: ut in confessione veræ sempiternæque deitatis, et in Personis proprietas, et in essentia unitas, et in majestate adoretur æqualitas: Professing the true and eternal Divinity, we adore what is proper to each Person, their unity in substance, and their equality in majesty.
Bishop Schneider cites several canons of the Ecuмenical Councils that propose, in his opinion, doctrines that today are difficult to accept, such as for example the obligation to distinguish Jews by their clothing, or the ban on Christians serving Muslim or Jєωιѕн masters. Among these examples there is also the requirement of the traditio instrumentorum declared by the Council of Florence, which was later corrected by Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis. Bishop Athanasius comments: “One may rightly hope and believe that a future Pope or Ecuмenical Council will correct the erroneous statement made” by Vatican II. This appears to me to be an argument that, although made with the best of intentions, undermines the Catholic edifice from its foundation. If in fact we admit that there may be Magisterial acts that, due to a changed sensitivity, are susceptible to abrogation, modification, or different interpretation with the passage of time, we inevitably fall under the condemnation of the Decree Lamentabili, and we end up offering justification to those who, recently, precisely on the basis of that erroneous assumption, declared that the death penalty “does not conform to the Gospel,” and thus amended the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And, by the same principle, in a certain way we could maintain that the words of Blessed Pius IX in Quanta Cura were in some manner corrected by Vatican II, just as His Excellency hopes could happen for Dignitatis Humanae. Among the examples he presents, none of them is in itself gravely erroneous or heretical: the fact that the Council of Florence declared that the traditio instrumentorum was necessary for the validity of Orders did not in any way compromise priestly ministry in the Church, leading her to confer Orders invalidly. Nor does it seem to me that one can affirm that this aspect, however important, led to doctrinal errors on the part of the faithful, something which instead has occurred only with the most recent Council. And when in the course of history various heresies spread, the Church always intervened promptly to condemn them, as happened at the time of the Synod of Pistoia in 1786, which was in some way anticipatory of Vatican II, especially where it abolished Communion outside of Mass, introduced the vernacular tongue, and abolished the prayers of the Canon said submissa voce; but even more so when it theorized about the basis of episcopal collegiality, reducing the primacy of the pope to a mere ministerial function. Re-reading the acts of that Synod leaves us amazed at the literal formulation of the same errors that we find later, in increased form, in the Council presided over by John XXIII and Paul VI. On the other hand, just as the Truth comes from God, so error is fed by and feeds on the Adversary, who hates the Church of Christ and her heart: the Holy Mass and the Most Holy Eucharist.
There comes a moment in our life when, through the disposition of Providence, we are faced with a decisive choice for the future of the Church and for our eternal salvation. I speak of the choice between understanding the error into which practically all of us have fallen, almost always without evil intentions, and wanting to continue to look the other way or justify ourselves.
We have also committed the error, among others, of considering our interlocutors as people who, despite the difference of their ideas and their faith, were still motivated by good intentions and who would be willing to correct their errors if they could open up to our Faith. Together with numerous Council Fathers, we thought of ecuмenism as a process, an invitation that calls dissidents to the one Church of Christ, idolaters and pagans to the one True God, and the Jєωιѕн people to the promised Messiah. But from the moment it was theorized in the conciliar commissions, ecuмenism was configured in a way that was in direct opposition to the doctrine previously expressed by the Magisterium.
We have thought that certain excesses were only an exaggeration of those who allowed themselves to be swept up in enthusiasm for novelty; we sincerely believed that seeing John Paul II surrounded by charmers-healers , buddhist monks, imams, rabbis, protestant pastors and other heretics gave proof of the Church’s ability to summon people together in order to ask God for peace, while the authoritative example of this action initiated a deviant succession of pantheons that were more or less official, even to the point of seeing Bishops carrying the unclean idol of the pachamama on their shoulders, sacrilegiously concealed under the pretext of being a representation of sacred motherhood.
But if the image of an infernal divinity was able to enter into Saint Peter’s, this is part of a crescendo which the other side foresaw from the beginning. Numerous practicing Catholics, and perhaps also a majority of Catholic clergy, are today convinced that the Catholic Faith is no longer necessary for eternal salvation; they believe that the One and Triune God revealed to our fathers is the same as the god of Mohammed. Already twenty years ago we heard this repeated from pulpits and episcopal cathedrae, but recently we hear it being affirmed with emphasis even from the highest Throne.
We know well that, invoking the saying in Scripture Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat [The letter brings death, but the spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6)], the progressives and modernists astutely knew how to hide equivocal expressions in the conciliar texts, which at the time appeared harmless to most but that today are revealed in their subversive value. It is the method employed in the use of the phrase subsistit in: saying a half-truth not so much as not to offend the interlocutor (assuming that is licit to silence the truth of God out of respect for His creature), but with the intention of being able to use the half-error that would be instantly dispelled if the entire truth were proclaimed. Thus “Ecclesia Christi subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica” does not specify the identity of the two, but the subsistence of one in the other and, for consistency, also in other churches: here is the opening to interconfessional celebrations, ecuмenical prayers, and the inevitable end of any need for the Church in the order of salvation, in her unicity, and in her missionary nature.
Some may remember that the first ecuмenical gatherings were held with the schismatics of the East, and very prudently with other Protestant sects. Apart from Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, in the beginning the countries of Catholic tradition did not welcome mixed celebrations with Protestant pastors and Catholic priests together. I recall that at the time there was talk of removing the penultimate doxology from the Veni Creator so as not to offend the Orthodox, who do not accept the Filioque. Today we hear the surahs of the Koran recited from the pulpits of our churches, we see an idol of wood adored by religious sisters and brothers, we hear Bishops disavow what up until yesterday seemed to us to be the most plausible excuses of so many extremisms. What the world wants, at the instigation of Masonry and its infernal tentacles, is to create a universal religion that is humanitarian and ecuмenical, from which the jealous God whom we adore is banished. And if this is what the world wants, any step in the same direction by the Church is an unfortunate choice which will turn against those who believe that they can jeer at God. The hopes of the Tower of Babel cannot be brought back to life by a globalist plan that has as its goal the cancellation of the Catholic Church, in order to replace it with a confederation of idolaters and heretics united by environmentalism and universal brotherhood. There can be no brotherhood except in Christ, and only in Christ: qui non est mecuм, contra me est.
It is disconcerting that few people are aware of this race towards the abyss, and that few realize the responsibility of the highest levels of the Church in supporting these anti-Christian ideologies, as if the Church’s leaders want to guarantee that they have a place and a role on the bandwagon of aligned thought. And it is surprising that people persist in not wanting to investigate the root causes of the present crisis, limiting themselves to deploring the present excesses as if they were not the logical and inevitable consequence of a plan orchestrated decades ago. If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae. If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms. If the Abu Dhabi Declaration was signed, we owe it to Nostra Aetate. If we have come to the point of delegating decisions to the Bishops’ Conferences – even in grave violation of the Concordat, as happened in Italy – we owe it to collegiality, and to its updated version, synodality. Thanks to synodality, we found ourselves with Amoris Laetitia having to look for a way to prevent what was obvious to everyone from appearing: that this docuмent, prepared by an impressive organizational machine, intended to legitimize Communion for the divorced and cohabiting, just as Querida Amazonia will be used to legitimize women priests (as in the recent case of an “episcopal vicaress” in Freiburg) and the abolition of Sacred Celibacy. The Prelates who sent the Dubia to Francis, in my opinion, demonstrated the same pious ingenuousness: thinking that Bergoglio, when confronted with the reasonably argued contestation of the error, would understand, correct the heterodox points, and ask for forgiveness.
The Council was used to legitimize the most aberrant doctrinal deviations, the most daring liturgical innovations, and the most unscrupulous abuses, all while Authority remained silent. This Council was so exalted that it was presented as the only legitimate reference for Catholics, clergy, and bishops, obscuring and connoting with a sense of contempt the doctrine that the Church had always authoritatively taught, and prohibiting the perennial liturgy that for millennia had nourished the faith of an uninterrupted line of faithful, martyrs, and saints. Among other things, this Council has proven to be the only one that has caused so many interpretative problems and so many contradictions with respect to the preceding Magisterium, while there is not one other council – from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican I – that does not harmonize perfectly with the entire Magisterium or that needs so much interpretation.
I confess it with serenity and without controversy: I was one of the many people who, despite many perplexities and fears which today have proven to be absolutely legitimate, trusted the authority of the Hierarchy with unconditional obedience. In reality, I think that many people, including myself, did not initially consider the possibility that there could be a conflict between obedience to an order of the Hierarchy and fidelity to the Church herself. What made tangible this unnatural, indeed I would even say perverse, separation between the Hierarchy and the Church, between obedience and fidelity, was certainly this most recent Pontificate.
In the Room of Tears adjacent to the Sistine Chapel, while Msgr. Guido Marini prepared the white rocchetto, mozzetta, and stole for the first appearance of the “newly elected” Pope, Bergoglio exclaimed: “Sono finite le carnevalate! [The carnivals are over!],” scornfully refusing the insignia that all the Popes up until then had humbly accepted as the distinguishing garb of the Vicar of Christ. But those words contained truth, even if it was spoken involuntarily: on March 13, 2013, the mask fell from the conspirators, who were finally free of the inconvenient presence of Benedict XVI and brazenly proud of having finally succeeded in promoting a Cardinal who embodied their ideals, their way of revolutionizing the Church, of making doctrine malleable, morals adaptable, liturgy adulterable, and discipline disposable. And all this was considered, by the protagonists of the conspiracy themselves, the logical consequence and obvious application of Vatican II, which according to them had been weakened by the critiques expressed by Benedict XVI. The greatest affront of that Pontificate was the liberal permission of the celebration of the venerated Tridentine Liturgy, the legitimacy of which was finally recognized, disproving fifty years of its illegitimate ostracization. It is no accident that Bergoglio’s supporters are the same people who saw the Council as the first event of a new church, prior to which there was an old religion with an old liturgy.
It is no accident: what these men affirm with impunity, scandalizing moderates, is what Catholics also believe, namely: that despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by Our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was first theorized by Masonry. Expressions like new humanism, universal fraternity, dignity of man, are the watchwords of philanthropic humanitarianism which denies the true God, of horizontal solidarity of vague spiritualist inspiration and of ecuмenical irenism that the Church unequivocally condemns. “Nam et loquela tua manifestum te facit [Even your speech gives you away]” (Mt 26, 73): this very frequent, even obsessive recourse to the same vocabulary of the enemy betrays adherence to the ideology he inspires; while on the other hand the systematic renunciation of the clear, unequivocal and crystalline language of the Church confirms the desire to detach itself not only from the Catholic form but even from its substance.
What we have for years heard enunciated, vaguely and without clear connotations, from the highest Throne, we then find elaborated in a true and proper manifesto in the supporters of the present Pontificate: the democratization of the Church, no longer through the collegiality invented by Vatican II but by the synodal path inaugurated by the Synod on the Family; the demolition of the ministerial priesthood through its weakening with exceptions to ecclesiastical celibacy and the introduction of feminine figures with quasi-sacerdotal duties; the silent passage from ecuмenism directed towards separated brethren to a form of pan-ecuмenism that reduces the Truth of the One Triune God to the level of idolatries and the most infernal superstitions; the acceptance of an interreligious dialogue that presupposes religious relativism and excludes missionary proclamation; the demythologization of the Papacy, pursued by Bergoglio as a theme of his pontificate; the progressive legitimization of all that is politically correct: gender theory, sodomy, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage, Malthusian doctrines, ecologism, immigrationism… If we do not recognize that the roots of these deviations are found in the principles laid down by the Council, it will be impossible to find a cure: if our diagnosis persists, against all the evidence, in excluding the initial pathology, we cannot prescribe a suitable therapy.
This operation of intellectual honesty requires a great humility, first of all in recognizing that for decades we have been led into error, in good faith, by people who, established in authority, have not known how to watch over and guard the flock of Christ: some for the sake of living quietly, some because of having too many commitments, some out of convenience, and finally some in bad faith or even malicious intent. These last ones who have betrayed the Church must be identified, taken aside, invited to amend and, if they do not repent they must be expelled from the sacred enclosure. This is how a true Shepherd acts, who has the well-being of the sheep at heart and who gives his life for them; we have had and still have far too many mercenaries, for whom the consent of the enemies of Christ is more important than fidelity to his Spouse.
Just as I honestly and serenely obeyed questionable orders sixty years ago, believing that they represented the loving voice of the Church, so today with equal serenity and honesty I recognize that I have been deceived. Being coherent today by persevering in error would represent a wretched choice and would make me an accomplice in this fraud. Claiming a clarity of judgment from the beginning would not be honest: we all knew that the Council would be more or less a revolution, but we could not have imagined that it would prove to be so devastating, even for the work of those who should have prevented it. And if up until Benedict XVI we could still imagine that the coup d’état of Vatican II (which Cardinal Suenens called “the 1789 of the Church”) had experienced a slowdown, in these last few years even the most ingenuous among us have understood that silence for fear of causing a schism, the effort to repair papal docuмents in a Catholic sense in order to remedy their intended ambiguity, the appeals and dubia made to Francis that remained eloquently unanswered, are all a confirmation of the situation of the most serious apostasy to which the highest levels of the Hierarchy are exposed, while the Christian people and the clergy feel hopelessly abandoned and that they are regarded by the bishops almost with annoyance.
The Abu Dhabi Declaration is the ideological manifesto of an idea of peace and cooperation between religions that could have some possibility of being tolerated if it came from pagans who are deprived of the light of Faith and the fire of Charity. But whoever has the grace of being a Child of God in virtue of Holy Baptism should be horrified at the idea of being able to construct a blasphemous modern version of the Tower of Babel, seeking to bring together the one true Church of Christ, heir to the promises made to the Chosen People, with those who deny the Messiah and with those who consider the very idea of a Triune God to be blasphemous. The love of God knows no measure and does not tolerate compromises, otherwise it simply is not Charity, without which it is not possible to remain in Him: qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo [whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him] (1 Jn 4:16). It matters little whether it is a declaration or a Magisterial docuмent: we know well that the subversive mens of the innovators plays games with these sort of quibbles in order to spread error. And we know well that the purpose of these ecuмenical and interreligious initiatives is not to convert those who are far from the one Church to Christ, but to divert and corrupt those who still hold the Catholic Faith, leading them to believe that it is desirable to have a great universal religion that brings together the three great Abrahamic religions “in a single house”: this is the triumph of the Masonic plan in preparation for the kingdom of the Antichrist! Whether this materializes through a dogmatic Bull, a declaration, or an interview with Scalfari in La Repubblica matters little, because Bergoglio’s supporters wait for his words as a signal to which they respond with a series of initiatives that have already been prepared and organized for some time. And if Bergoglio does not follow the directions he has received, ranks of theologians and clergy are ready to lament over the “solitude of Pope Francis” as a premise for his resignation (I think for example of Massimo Faggioli in one of his recent essays). On the other hand, it would not be the first time that they use the Pope when he goes along with their plans and get rid of him or attack him as soon as he does not.
Last Sunday, the Church celebrated the Most Holy Trinity, and in the Breviary it offers us the recitation of the Symbolum Athanasianum, now outlawed by the conciliar liturgy and already reduced to only two occasions in the liturgical reform of 1962. The first words of that now-disappeared Symbolum remain inscribed in letters of gold: “Quicuмque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est ut teneat Catholicam fidem; quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit – Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith; For unless a person shall have kept this faith whole and inviolate, without doubt he shall eternally perish.”
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020 (https://twitter.com/pellegrino2020)
Originally published at Marco Tosatti’s blog (https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/06/10/vigano-writes-on-the-vatican-ii-we-are-at-the-redde-rationem/)[/font]
it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.
[57] [...] king Antiochus set up the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God, and they built altars throughout all the cities of Juda round about:
[...]
[62] And on the five and twentieth day of the month they sacrificed upon the altar of the idol that was over against the altar of God.
And here's another blunder of dogmatism, understanding the Conciliar Church simpliciter as a heretical sect and likening belonging to it as the same thing as being, say, a Greek Orthodox. Unlike the formally schismatic churches which have been condemned as such, the Conciliar Church still pretends to be the Catholic Church. Adhereing to it due to seeing it as such is in fact a MATERIAL error at best.
when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple
[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
[9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
The "Second Vatican Council theorized"? I'd say, the robber council abolished the First Commandment:
The robber council mocks and accuses God and his Church: God, his First Commandment, and his Church have ridden roughshod over "the very dignity of the human person". The robber council denies dogma, infallibly declared by a Pope, using words which in an examplary way express infallibilty as defined by the Vatican Council.
Yes. He says it "theorized." It did more than that. That's risible.
I think that we need to stop jumping to conclusions. His word choice here may have been so as not to dignify Religious Liberty as Catholic "teaching". I read it in context as implying that it's a novelty that contradicition Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.The statements of an ecuмenical council are not a "teaching"? They were. Then either it was Catholic, or it wasn't.
If it wasn't, then, again, we have the issue of an ecuмenical council approved by a pope issuing non-Catholic teaching.
While DH is grave error, it is not heresy.I gave a link to the Daly article in this thread. I agree with him, and disagree with you.
Secondly, it is not possible for an Ecuмenical Council of the Catholic Church which has papal approbation to teach grave error to the Church, but that's a separate discussion.Yet if I'm right, it did.
Yet if I'm right, it did.
I gave a link to the Daly article in this thread. I agree with him, and disagree with you.Well, you see, this is the sedevacantist position in a nutshell. An ecuмenical council in union with a true pope can't teach grave error. Ergo....
Yet if I'm right, it did.
I believe that's a prophesied anomaly to what is otherwise a truth which you express - an (if not the) abomination of desolation.
I'll leave it to you to try to explain otherwise how an ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church taught grave error, apparently if it requires a reading that betrays the language of the texts at issue in my opinion.
Well, you see, this is the sedevacantist position in a nutshell. An ecuмenical council in union with a true pope can't teach grave error. Ergo....I know that.
I know that.Does it solve the problem? No. But it correctly diagnoses it.
Then you have to explain how what happened happened - something appearing to be an ecuмenical council approving something that's heresy under a man that appears to be pope.
I see that "appearance" - never before, and never again - as a prophesied anomaly, a one shot eclipse of the Church of Christ.
I don't think it gets us very far, in understanding what this is all about, in simply saying, he wasn't a true pope, and let's go on from there to . . .
Well, yeah, but whether you're right is what's under discussion. "I'm right if I'm right" is a tautology.Of course.
Is there a contradiction between Vatican II’s declaration on religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) and traditional Catholic doctrine as expressed in numerous encyclicals, and most especially in Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura? In recent years some intellectual conservatives have audaciously denied that there is any such contradiction. Before commenting on their attempts, let us remind ourselves of the texts:
Quanta Cura: “…against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that ‘the best condition of civil society is that in which no duty is attributed to the civil power of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except insofar as public peace may require.’
“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, viz., that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man and ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society’.”
Dignitatis Humanae (Vatican II): “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious liberty. Such liberty consists in this: that all men must be immune to coercion whether on the part of individuals, social bodies or any human power so that in religious matters no one is constrained to act against his conscience or prevented from acting in accordance with his conscience in private and in public, alone or with others, within due limits [these due limits are defined in paragraph 7 as being those of public peace and morality].
“It further declares that the right to religious liberty is truly founded on the very dignity of the human person as known by the revealed word of God and reason itself.
“This right of the human person to religious liberty in the juridical ordering of society is to be recognised so as to become a civil right.”
Now to all appearances these texts are in radical contradiction on three points. Pope Pius IX condemns the following ideas: 1. all men have a right to liberty of conscience and of worship; 2. this right of religious liberty should be made a civil right in every well-ordered society; 3. the best state of society is that in which men’s civil right to religious liberty is limited only by the demands of public peace.
These three points condemned by Pius IX are all three apparently taught by the Vatican II text. Moreover Pope Pius IX is exercising the Extraordinary Magisterium and teaches that these propositions are opposed to Holy Scripture (written divine revelation) while Vatican II declares its opposing doctrine to be founded on the revealed word of God and requires all Catholics to observe its teaching religiously.
https://romeward.com/articles/239750983/religious-liberty-the-failed-attempts-to-defend-vatican-ii (https://romeward.com/articles/239750983/religious-liberty-the-failed-attempts-to-defend-vatican-ii)
Interestingly, I just realized that Vigano was ordained in March, 1968 (ie., Three months BEFORE Paul VI promulgated his Apostolic Constitution changing the forms of priestly ordination or episcopal consecration), so all other things being equal, there is NO DOUBT regarding the validity of his orders (nor of the orders of the bishop who ordained him).He is certainly a priest, but not bishop.
I had erroneously presumed otherwise.
He used the word “theorized” to distinguish from doctrine. He was saying that V2’s non-doctrinal theories were anti Tradition and anti previously defined doctrine. He obviously believes, as many theologians have said (both pre and post V2), that not everything from an ecuмenical council is “doctrine” or “infallible”.Ok. I will wait for the day he grapples with the problem of a papally approved ecuмenical council stating heresy in an officially promulgated, Magisterial docuмent.
Ok. I will wait for the day he grapples with the problem of a papally approved ecuмenical council stating heresy in an officially promulgated, Magisterial docuмent.It's not an Archbishop's job to fix the V2 crisis in the Church. His job is to explain the problem, preach the truth and try to wake people up. Only a future pope can fix this mess. You're expectations are too high and also misplaced. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Ok. I will wait for the day he grapples with the problem of a papally approved ecuмenical council stating heresy in an officially promulgated, Magisterial docuмent.The Holy Ghost will not permit that.
It's not an Archbishop's job to fix the V2 crisis in the Church. His job is to explain the problem, preach the truth and try to wake people up. Only a future pope can fix this mess. You're expectations are too high and also misplaced.Yes. We are orphans wandering in the desert and one good shepherd has given us a big drink of water. Let's enjoy that and see what happens next before the nitpicking.
Ok. I will wait for the day he grapples with the problem of a papally approved ecuмenical council stating heresy in an officially promulgated, Magisterial docuмent.
It's not an Archbishop's job to fix the V2 crisis in the Church. His job is to explain the problem, preach the truth and try to wake people up. Only a future pope can fix this mess. You're expectations are too high and also misplaced. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You're expectations are too high and also misplaced
There's no grappling needed, since the proposition is heretical.::)
But didn't Vigano say there was heretical "theorizing" on religious liberty in DH?
Do you realize all Resistance and sedes (and in former days, the SSPX) are (or logically should be) in complete agreement with Vigano’s letter in the OP?
So far as I can tell, the only thing he has yet to do in order for all to recognize he has arrived at Tradition, is to return to exclusive use of the old sacraments.
The transformation of Vigano in the last month is very much what the conversion of Rome should look like.
This is what the SSPX should have been looking for among the Roman clergy, Curia, and pope:
An official recognition of the faulty principles of V2, and a rejection of them, and their encouragement and exhortation to the Church at large to reject them.
If that would happen, there would be no need for Resistance, and such priests would be the most valued in the Church.
Even sedes could happily be reconciled and supportive of such a movement.
But so far, Vigano stands alone.
Bishop Athanasius comments: “One may rightly hope and believe that a future Pope or Ecuмenical Council will correct the erroneous statement made” by Vatican II. This appears to me to be an argument that, although made with the best of intentions, undermines the Catholic edifice from its foundation. If in fact we admit that there may be Magisterial acts that, due to a changed sensitivity, are susceptible to abrogation, modification, or different interpretation with the passage of time, we inevitably fall under the condemnation of the Decree Lamentabili [...]
It's almost as if Bishop Schneider is proposing an R&R type of approach, while Vigano rejects it and seems to be on a trajectory toward sedevacantism.
He said that the DH notion of Religious Liberty was at odds with Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.
EVERY error is contrary to Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium ... to VARYING DEGREES. Some directly contradict the Deposit and defined dogma [...]
He said that the DH notion of Religious Liberty was at odds with Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.
EVERY error is contrary to Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium ... to VARYING DEGREES. Some directly contradict the Deposit and defined dogma, others contradict it based on one more more logical degrees of separation. And it's these logical degrees of separation that determine the theological note of the error (and the corresponding truth). Dogmatic sedevacantists don't take heed of these notes of error, and it's one of the root causes of their dogmatism. One could be guilty of very grave error, commit mortal sin against the faith, but the bar for heresy is quite high, and it is only for heresy properly speaking that people forfeit their membership in the Church. So, for instance, John Daly can argue that RL contradicts Tradition and the Deposit and is therefore objectively heretical, and he could very well be right (and I don't dispute that he is), but the logic used to arrive at that conclusion prevents his conclusion from being anything more than a personal opinion which cannot bind the consciences and the faith of others de fide.
I read with great interest the essay of His Excellency Athanasius Schneider published on LifeSiteNews on June 1, subsequently translated into Italian by Chiesa e post concilio, entitled There is no divine positive will or natural right to the diversity of religions. His Excellency’s study summarizes, with the clarity that distinguishes the words of those who speak according to Christ, the objections against the presumed legitimacy of the exercise of religious freedom that the Second Vatican Council theorized, contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both.
So, for instance, John Daly can argue that RL contradicts Tradition and the Deposit and is therefore objectively heretical, and he could very well be right (and I don't dispute that he is), but the logic used to arrive at that conclusion prevents his conclusion from being anything more than a personal opinion which cannot bind the consciences and the faith of others de fide.Lad,
In the context of our discussion, all that matters is whether DH is materially heretical in terms of religious liberty. You have conceded that Daly "could very well be right (I don't dispute that he is)."
Well, regardless, Vigano (the thread topic here) has stated that RL is erroneous, so accusing him even of material heresy is unwarranted.I said in post #44 of this thread:
And I point out to you - not wanting to take the time to respond to all of your responses to me on this subject - I have not accused a single other Catholic, certainly not Vigano whom I have commended, of heresy. Not one.
Archbishop Viganò, Donald Trump, and The Americanist Delusion of Traditional Catholics (http://rosarytotheinterior.com/archbishop-vigano-donald-trump-and-the-americanist-delusion-of-traditional-catholics/)
Since Vigano has been resigned, as of age 75, now what? He is still New Order, correct? Does he give sacraments? I take it, that he does. He someone asks for the sacrament of Extreme Unction, will he give that sacrament or a mere blessing?
If Vigano needs Extreme Unction, who will give it? A new order clergy? a mere blessing.
I do question, if Vigano is of a changing heart, why does he stay new order? If sees the wrongs of the new order church, what is his solution?
Imperative questions. You have a good mind.They are mostly questions that anyone who knows the first thing about Archbishop Viganò would not be asking.
The larger world is well aware of the danger to their narrative that ++Viganò represents. So it is deplorable to see an uncomprehending Trad parvenu, like the author of this article, joining the enemy's attack.Great points, Claudel. Some Trads are so used to fighting that the occasional Trad-friend who wanders in from the novus ordo desert is met with fire power, out of habit. Sure, we have to be prudent and not trust everyone (ie I’m still hesitant about Cardinals Sarah, Burke and Schneider) but we can at least applaud Vigano’s truth when it is spoken. And let’s not continue to pray for more Vigano truth-bombs, that he may prove genuine.
For example, as part of his critique of ++Viganò's letter, the author writes, "an estimated 10 to 18 times as many unborn babies are murdered by contraception than surgical abortion." Any man who lacks the fundamental understanding that a creature needs to be alive before it can be murdered excludes himself ipso facto from consideration as an analyst to be taken seriously.
Let’s not overlook the fact that neither Vigano or his translator (or both) did NOT add “St” before John XXIII or JPII. That’s food for thought.
Not all of the points are great, Pax.
There are so called contraceptive drugs, which actually are contraceptive and abortive. A high percentage of their "efficacy" is based on abortion. (This is not said to approve that dubious website.)
… I’m still hesitant about Cardinals Sarah, Burke and Schneider …
Dangerous Heresy [Naturalism] in attractive Wrapping Paper: Viganò’s Letter to Trump (https://novusordowatch.org/2020/06/heresy-naturalism-in-vigano-letter-to-president-trump/)
This is an irrelevancy. Contraception is not abortion, just as abortion is not contraception. If a drug company executive wants to call an abortifacient a contraceptive, he might be a liar, but his action has not changed reality.
Geremia, are you linking to this article simply to stimulate debate, or do you actually have respect for the noxious crowd that publishes Novus Ordo Watch?Debate with those who see nothing wrong from Vigano? Or who ignore or defend things they would normally oppose if they weren't written by Vigano? Come on now claudel. Many of you are ready to canonize him. There is nothing I or anyone from the "noxious crowd" of NOW could say to sway you.
It appears that it's mainly sedevacantists who are against Vigano. Surely that says something. Sedevacantists seem to expect that only someone perfectly traditional (preferably sedevacantist) in their eyes should be bothered with or paid attention to. I certainly don't think that we should hang on every word of Viganos', since he's likely to get some things wrong. But he does get a lot of things right.I'm all for pointing out those things he gets right so long as others are willing to point out those things he gets wrong. Even here you say he is "likely to get some things wrong". Well, he already has. Why are the non-sedes not willing to speak to those things? Why is the tendency to ignore, dismiss or defend them? Could it be because it is mostly the sedes who are pointing them out? It reminds me when Trads would criticize Francis and the conservative Novus Ordos would come up with every possible excuse for his words and actions (and no, I'm not saying Vigano = Francis).
As Sean said earlier in this thread, Rome's [eventual?] conversion should look like that of Viganos' conversion (or words to that effect).
Archbishop Lefebvre held out hope that Modernist-occupied Rome would one day convert back to the Catholic Faith. There's that word "Hope," which many of the sedes don't have. Do the sedes even want modernist Rome to convert back to the Faith, or have they totally given up on that?
Conversions don't happen overnight, and when Rome converts, it won't likely happen overnight, IMO. Unless there's some kind of miracle or divine intervention.
I've felt for awhile now that the Francis papacy is a good thing, because it will wake some Catholics up to the reality and ugliness of modernism. That seems to have happened for Vigano. If someone like Cardinals Sarah or Burke would have been elected to the papacy, it would have been more of a conservative modernist papacy, like that of B16.
I'm all for pointing out those things he gets right so long as others are willing to point out those things he gets wrong. Even here you say he is "likely to get some things wrong". Well, he already has. Why are the non-sedes not willing to speak to those things? Why is the tendency to ignore, dismiss or defend them? Could it be because it is the mostly the sedes who are pointing them out? It reminds me when Trads would criticize Francis and the conservative Novus Ordos would come up with every possible excuse for his words and actions (and no, I'm not saying Vigano = Francis).
Agree, Claudel. I’ve never heard Schneider, Burke, or Sarah even whisper the idea of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in new-rome, much less criticize V2, besides complaining about the “false interpretation” of it, which is a wimpy and false opposition to heresy. Vigano just nukes the idea that V2 is even salvageable (which is more hardcore than even +Fellay et al) and then says we’ve had a false/parallel church since the 60s. I hope Vigano didn’t get knocked off. He needs many prayers and hoping he’ll keep up the truth-bombs. He could really wake up a lot of people.I actually remember Schneider criticize V2 to the point where he called for correction of errors. I will agree that Vigano seems to go farther, but then again on one hand he condemns Vatican II and on the other he writes letters that seem to espouse some of the very same things.
Sedes and non-sedes don't think alike. I tried to show the difference in my last post, which you didn't seem understand. But that's okay; there's not much that I can do about it.Oh I understood it Meg, but it seems you have completely missed my point though as you didn't even respond to it.
There has always been a big gulf between sedes and non-sedes. That's not likely to change. That's the basic problem, IMO.
Oh I understood it Meg, but it seems you have completely missed my point though as you didn't even respond to it.
Well then, it seems that we are both guilty of not responding to each other's points. ;)But you see, I actually responded to your post. You didn't respond to mine.
Welcome to the divide between sedes and non-sedes.
But you see, I actually responded to your post. You didn't respond to mine.
Let's not pretend that *this* is about the divide between sedes and non-sedes. ;)
In what way did you respond to the point that I was making? I must have missed it.I responded to a portion of your post. Since when is anyone expected to respond to everything in it? On the other hand you completely ignored all of the content in my post.
I responded to a portion of your post. Since when is anyone expected to respond to everything in it? On the other hand you completely ignored all of the content in my post.
We all know that sedes and non-sedes think differently. This is not a revelation.
Now, if you would like to have a real conversation rather than beat around the bush, perhaps you could revisit and respond to something I wrote in my post.
Meg, the only one going round and round is you.
I've made it clear that I am willing to discuss positive points about Vigano. You refuse to address the negative.
I'm sorry. I thought you were actually trying to engage in a sincere conversation. Silly me. ::)
Yes, I refuse to address the negative. That's because I don't debate by the rules of sedes. They (you) seem to believe that sedes have the only real and true views, and that everyone else (non-sedes) are wrong. Let it sink in: I don't play be sede rules.Well, at least you admitted it. Thank you.
Well, at least you admitted it. Thank you.
I actually remember Schneider criticize V2 to the point where he called for correction of errors. I will agree that Vigano seems to go farther, but then again on one hand he condemns Vatican II and on the other he writes letters that seem to espouse some of the very same things.This is what I was thinking of:
Some of us will still try to defend the position of +ABL, though it isn't easy, or accepted by most of the forum members.
Bishop Athanasius comments: “One may rightly hope and believe that a future Pope or Ecuмenical Council will correct the erroneous statement made” by Vatican II. This appears to me to be an argument that, although made with the best of intentions, undermines the Catholic edifice from its foundation. If in fact we admit that there may be Magisterial acts that, due to a changed sensitivity, are susceptible to abrogation, modification, or different interpretation with the passage of time, we inevitably fall under the condemnation of the Decree Lamentabili [...]
Did you notice that Viganò says that the position of Lefebvre implies modernism? More precise, that the idea of a future Pope correcting V2 undermines the Catholic edifice from its foundation by contradicting the anti-modernist syllabus of St Pius X?Struthio,
Did you notice that Viganò says that the position of Lefebvre implies modernism? More precise, that the idea of a future Pope correcting V2 undermines the Catholic edifice from its foundation by contradicting the anti-modernist syllabus of St Pius X?
Or do the remarks of Vigano indicate, in his mind, that V2 was a valid ecuмenical council, since "correcting" it would run counter to the Decree Lamentibili? In light of his remarks about it contradicting Scripture etc. regarding religious liberty, that would be a major issue - as I've been suggesting.
Once he's established this credibility among the Novus Ordo conservative types, he than starts going after not only Bergoglio's errors but describing how they're rooted in Vatican II, that there has been a "counterfeit Church" set up as a direct result of Vatican II, and that Bergoglio aspires to be the head of this counterfeit Church. Once he gets more conservative Novus Ordites to wake up and embrace the truth/reality of this, then he could come out with the bombshell declaration that the Holy See is vacant. Imagine how this would be received by groups like Church Militant. They'd be gobsmacked.If that were so, and he planned this out that way, that would be wonderful.
If that were so, and he planned this out that way, that would be wonderful.
As I noted, he accused V2 in DH of heresy, contradiction of Scripture and the Magisterium on religious liberty. He has to come terms with that and address it in a subsequent letter, the ramifications of that theologically.
I think he has to come out Sede at this point. I hope so, and let's see.
Yes, his logic appears to be leading him inexorably to sedevacantism. I've re-read this a few times, and it's impossible to escape. Archbishop Vigano admits to having been deceived and realizes it was wrong to go along with everything out of a false sense of obedience. So I don't understand all the critics who declare him a heretic for "having gone along" with it. Even if people believe that, then this amounts to a public abjuration of this "going along with it" in very clear terms.Yes. Incredibly well-written and articulate, like an Encyclical. I had wanted to mention that before, glad you did.
This letter is groundbreaking and monumental and might mark a watershed moment in the Restoration of the Church. Of course, I was also personally moved by the fact that it was written on June 9th, my birthday, and he made reference to Holy Trinity Sunday (which happened to fall on June 9th the day I was born). He still had Trinity Sunday in mind as he wrote this, as he made several references to Catholic Trinitarian doctrine.
This letter is so incredibly well written that it could be a Papal Encyclical (once the necessary conclusions are added). Compare this to the garbage that has been emanating from the Vatican for the past 60 years or so.
Vigano’s identification of basically all who mean well with the Children of Light spoken of in the Bible is an utter theological nightmare.He didn’t say “mean well” or “good intentioned”, he said “good will”. Big difference. The angels at Christmastime said “peace on earth to men of good will”. So, yes, he’s right. You and others are just searching for something to whine about.
He didn’t say “mean well” or “good intentioned”, he said “good will”. Big difference. The angels at Christmastime said “peace on earth to men of good will”. So, yes, he’s right. You and others are just searching for something to whine about.Speaking of good will (or lack thereof), nice job of skipping over the first paragraph I quoted where NOW indeed used the term "good will".
suppose a future pope "corrected" V2 by declaring Paul VI an anti-pope heretic, and throwing out the whole darn thing - false pope, false council, not a valid expression of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Couldn't you call that a "correction"? And would that "contradict the anti-modernist syllabus of St. Pius X"?
I think not.
Perhaps what Vigano is attacking is the referenced position of Bishop Schneider, and limited to that, which is what he was discussing.
I'd like to see what the position of Archbishop Lefebvre was on this "correcting" of V2.
Or do the remarks of Vigano indicate, in his mind, that V2 was a valid ecuмenical council, since "correcting" it would run counter to the Decree Lamentibili? In light of his remarks about it contradicting Scripture etc. regarding religious liberty, that would be a major issue - as I've been suggesting.
I think he has to come out Sede at this point. I hope so, and let's see.
This operation of intellectual honesty requires a great humility, first of all in recognizing that for decades we have been led into error, in good faith, by people who, established in authority, have not known how to watch over and guard the flock of Christ: some for the sake of living quietly, some because of having too many commitments, some out of convenience, and finally some in bad faith or even malicious intent. These last ones who have betrayed the Church must be identified, taken aside, invited to amend and, if they do not repent they must be expelled from the sacred enclosure.
Quote from: NovusOrdoWatchLet us repeat: It is a very grave error to think that all who are of good will — who work for a living, strive not to hurt anyone, and help the poor — are the spiritual progeny of the Blessed Mother, are the Children of Light, are part of the Kingdom of God. It is heresy! That is the sort of theology one expects to get from “Pope” Francis, but not from a man who has recently been profiling himself as the orthodox antidote to Francis, even to the point of rightly calling into question the Second Vatican Council.
.....
Vigano’s identification of basically all who mean well with the Children of Light spoken of in the Bible is an utter theological nightmare. We are not talking about a simple gaffe, the mere result of a quibble about a theological nuance. No, this is a huge heresy with tremendous practical repercussions, as it indirectly confirms all good-willed non-Catholics in their errors and promotes a sort of “generic religion of the good-willed” or a “generic Christianity” at best. But that is a false Christianity, because there is only one true Christianity, and that is the Roman Catholic religion, of which “Abp.” Vigano considers himself a representative. Ironically, this Indifferentism promoted by Vigano is one of the core doctrines of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
These two sides, which have a Biblical nature, follow the clear separation between the offspring of the Woman and the offspring of the Serpent. On the one hand, there are those who, although they have a thousand defects and weaknesses, are motivated by the desire to do good, to be honest, to raise a family, to engage in work, to give prosperity to their homeland, to help the needy, and, in obedience to the Law of God, to merit the Kingdom of Heaven.He lumps (or identifies?) the merely good-willed people ("who are the majority"?) with the "offspring of the Woman", who are a minority in Protestant, Mary-indifferent and Mary-hating America.
Not all of the points are great, Pax.Did you discover yet
There are so called contraceptive drugs, which actually are contraceptive and abortive. A high percentage of their "efficacy" is based on abortion. (This is not said to approve that dubious website.)
In the United States, according to polls (Pew and Gallup), 91% of its citizens believe in contraception, and this despite the fact that an estimated 10 to 18 times as many unborn babies are murdered by contraception than surgical abortion.
Did you discover yet
that water is wet?
Go back and check.
Either you did not read the article, or have trouble with literacy. "That dubious website" rosarytotheinterior.com states, on the page linked
There is a very different vocabulary and purpose at work. It's dumbed down, imprecise, and more aimed at the exhortation of virtue and perseverance than [at] catechetical instruction.
I suggest you comment the OP of Matthew in that recent thread of his, where he is counting energy in kW and not kWh!
I don't trust him.
Yes, exactly. How are all men of good-will "Children of the Light" or "offspring of the Woman"?
Viganò writes (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-viganos-powerful-letter-to-president-trump-eternal-struggle-between-good-and-evil-playing-out-right-now):He lumps (or identifies?) the merely good-willed people ("who are the majority"?) with the "offspring of the Woman", who are a minority in Protestant, Mary-indifferent and Mary-hating America.
Viganò makes it seem like "merit[ing] the Kingdom of Heaven" automatically follows from exercising purely natural virtues. This is naturalism, the religion of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, as Pope Leo XIII explains in Humanum Genus (http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18840420_humanum-genus.html).
Americanism, too, is characterized by the "over esteem of natural virtue" (Testem Benevolentiae Nostræ (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/americanism.htm) addressed to Cdl. Gibbons).
Numerous practicing Catholics, and perhaps also a majority of Catholic clergy, are today convinced that the Catholic Faith is no longer necessary for eternal salvation;
...
Last Sunday, the Church celebrated the Most Holy Trinity, and in the Breviary it offers us the recitation of the Symbolum Athanasianum, now outlawed by the conciliar liturgy and already reduced to only two occasions in the liturgical reform of 1962. The first words of that now-disappeared Symbolum remain inscribed in letters of gold: “Quicuмque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est ut teneat Catholicam fidem; quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit – Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith; For unless a person shall have kept this faith whole and inviolate, without doubt he shall eternally perish.”
Yet again, you dismiss an accurate diagnosis of error or ill will as mere nitpicking. Your comments and replies bespeak a closed-mindedness typical of those who believe that review and reflection are tasks only other people need undertake.
You ought to consider changing your screen name to Rash Judgment. You have given us a dozen or so examples of that disorder on this thread alone, and that's just for starters. Furthermore, your patently inadequate comprehension of English words on a page does not entirely exempt you from culpability for your distasteful habit of making unfounded and invariably invidious presumptions that distort and misrepresent the statements of anyone who, thank God, lacks your fervor for the intellectually nonsensical and morally offensive theory of sedevacantism.
Like 2Vermont, with whom you have much in common, you would do well to recall the old maxim that God gave us two eyes, two ears, and one mouth because he wishes us to look and listen fully twice as much as we speak. You and she, alas, are among the many who evidently would claim that typing and speaking are unconnected operations and that because you have ten fingers, it's peachy keen to write ten times as much drivel as you would ever dare utter.
I don't trust him. He is "intellectually honest" and with "great humility" admitting to have been led astray by bad wolves, and without further ado implicitly excuses himself from having been co-perpetrator for five decades destroying the Church of Our Lord and leading hundreds of millions of sheep astray. May the Lord be clement. But how can He, while Viganò paints himself as a victim? Objective sin has to be repented when the misdeed is finally recognized, even if committed bona fide.
Who cares?
Yes, exactly. How are all men of good-will "Children of the Light" or "offspring of the Woman"?
Who cares? Your distrust and $7 might get me a cup of Starbucks coffee. What is there to trust? It's not like you're assisting at his Mass. What implications do his words have for you? What's more important is how his words against Bergoglio, against V2, against the New Mass, and against Modernism will affect those of good will in the Novus Ordo. You're already a Traditional Catholic, so it doesn't even pertain to you. You'd do better to praise and encourage Archbishop Vigano than to criticize and deride him at every turn. Welcome the granting of these graces to him, just as you had received them earlier. Vigano's enlightenment as well as your own are both just the free grace of God. If he sees crappy attitudes like this among Traditional Catholics, he'd be more inclined to write us off as a schismatic crackpot cult.What he write us off as is irrelevant.
You'd do better to praise and encourage Archbishop Vigano than to criticize and deride him at every turn.
Perspective. :laugh1:
Calm down! If God chose him, Struthio.nobody@cathinfo won't be able to impede anything.
What's more important is how his words against Bergoglio, against V2, against the New Mass, and against Modernism will affect those of good will in the Novus Ordo. You're already a Traditional Catholic, so it doesn't even pertain to you. You'd do better to praise and encourage Archbishop Vigano than to criticize and deride him at every turn. Welcome the granting of these graces to him, just as you had received them earlier. Vigano's enlightenment as well as your own are both just the free grace of God.Lad, I am including Vigano in my prayers. I just hope that we aren't witnessing the next Burke who had nothing but empty words and promises. I also still have nagging doubts due to his inconsistent words, sometimes sounding very much Novus Ordo and other times sounding very Catholic. I hope that the latter turns into some actions as well, but I'll admit I'm not sure what that would be given he is still in hiding.
Vigano is more of a Traditional Catholic than Fellay at this point..
I would not be surprised if soon it was announced that he is joining the SSPX (more infiltration).
He's probably way too outspoken against Francis for the SSPX to let him join.
:laugh1: ... you're not wrong.
.
Indeed. Something like this was alluded to months ago.
I would suggest to you that as the archbishop's aim is "the exhortation of virtue and perseverance," it is less than fair to characterize his contextual vocabulary as "dumbed down" and "imprecise." On the contrary, in light of the eloquence of ++Viganò's expression and, in my opinion, his remarkable success, while advancing what might be called a "generically Christian" thesis, at managing never to actually or implicitly soft-pedal or depreciate Catholic doctrine—no easy trick to turn!—I judge ++Viganò's vocabulary both admirable and notably fit for its purpose..
Lad, I am including Vigano in my prayers. I just hope that we aren't witnessing the next Burke who had nothing but empty words and promises. I also still have nagging doubts due to his inconsistent words, sometimes sounding very much Novus Ordo and other times sounding very Catholic. I hope that the latter turns into some actions as well, but I'll admit I'm not sure what that would be given he is still in hiding.
You got upset because I called him a manifest heretic for being a senior offical of the heretical concilar sect.
I meant those adjectives relative to what one would expect from a theological journal, where the audience is Catholic and initiated into the jargon. I didn't mean his prose was imprecise or dumbed down in an absolute sense. I pretty much agree with you.
You talk as if he is a Catholic Archbishop. In fact, he is a virtual catechumen, a neophyte.
I am concerned at his hiding away.
Your distrust and $7 might get me a cup of Starbucks coffee.
would you lump a fervent Pro-Lifer together with the most ardent abortionist without any distinction between them? They're all the same to you?A "a fervent Pro-Lifer together" and "the most ardent abortionist" can both lack the supernatural virtue of faith.
A "fervent Pro-Lifer together" and "the most ardent abortionist" can both lack the supernatural virtue of faith.
You are treating a possibility recognizable in the immaterial realm of the mind as if it were something readily verifiable in the realm of the senses and then treating the latter as if it were a sound basis for thought and action. It isn't, and you shouldn't.
Groundless presumptions are bad enough when they merely impact daily life—think of the fantastic and dishonest presumptions underlying the covid hoax—but they imperil the soul when they involve faith and morals.
I think that if one wants to critique Vigano's theology, they should do it when he is writing to Catholics.
He is writing to a man who is not a Christian in any palpable sense of the word, and who is of ill moral repute to boot-- who leads a nation of people who are just like him, in a world that is just like him.
You are treating a possibility recognizable in the immaterial realm of the mind as if it were something readily verifiable in the realm of the senses and then treating the latter as if it were a sound basis for thought and action.Do you deny that "a fervent Pro-Lifer together" or "the most ardent abortionist" can lack the supernatural virtue of faith?
Incredible statement by Archbishop Vigano
https://tradcatresist.blogspot.com/2020/06/incredible-statement-by-archbishop.html (https://tradcatresist.blogspot.com/2020/06/incredible-statement-by-archbishop.html)
You got upset because I called him a manifest heretic for being a senior offical of the heretical concilar sect.
Absolutely I got upset at that, because it's nonsense.
Even if I were to grant that you're correct, that was the past, and he is NOW clearly expressing his regret for having remained supportive of the Conciliar aberrations.
IF someone held an R&R type position where he considered the NO hierarchy to be legitimate, despite their errors, then where exactly is the "heresy" in remaining in communion with them?
I'm not seeing heresy.
Archbishop Lefebvre remained in good standing as an Archbishop of the Novus Ordo for about a decade after Vatican II concluded. Was Archbishop Lefebvre a "manifest heretic" between 1965 and 1976.
For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.
Great quote.
Please note that I call manifest heretics manifest heretics or short heretics, while you talk about material/formal heretics. I use the approach of St Robert Bellarmine, who uses the traditional concept of a manifest heretic:
Quote from: St Robert BellarmineQuoteFor although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.
A manifest heretic may or may not be a heretic. The point is: I should act as if he was one.This is a very theologically imprecise statement and is the root of your errors.
If it walks like a duck, etc. It is not generally "safer" to not judge someone as a heretic. If you hesitantly fail to do so, you may e.g. end up taking part in a sacrilege, and be guilty of not having used your God given reason to avoid that.You need to do more research about +Bellarmine. "Manifest heresy" does not mean what you think it does. It is a canon law term; it does not mean that some "sounds/acts like a heretic". "Manifest" in this case, does not mean what the dictionary says it means. It implies perniciousness and other legal aspects.
while you talk about material/formal heretics.+Bellarmine used the term "manifest" before the material/formal designations were invented. Over the centuries, various theologians have used all kinds of words to describe the MULTIPLE levels of error, schism and heresy. You can't just pick a term and use it out-of-context. If you want to use the term "manifest heresy" correctly, you need to research when and how it was used and then correlate that to when/how the modern terms are used (i.e. material/formal). That's assuming you want to have an intellectually accurate conversation. As it is now, you are just using a term haphazardly, and incorrectly. It's lazy, theologically wrong and (since you're using the term to condemn others) it's uncharitable.
A "a fervent Pro-Lifer together" and "the most ardent abortionist" can both lack the supernatural virtue of faith.
This is a very theologically imprecise statement and is the root of your errors. You need to do more research about +Bellarmine. "Manifest heresy" does not mean what you think it does. It is a canon law term; it does not mean that some "sounds/acts like a heretic". "Manifest" in this case, does not mean what the dictionary says it means. It implies perniciousness and other legal aspects.
.+Bellarmine used the term "manifest" before the material/formal designations were invented. Over the centuries, various theologians have used all kinds of words to describe the MULTIPLE levels of error, schism and heresy. You can't just pick a term and use it out-of-context. If you want to use the term "manifest heresy" correctly, you need to research when and how it was used and then correlate that to when/how the modern terms are used (i.e. material/formal). That's assuming you want to have an intellectually accurate conversation. As it is now, you are just using a term haphazardly, and incorrectly. It's lazy, theologically wrong and (since you're using the term to condemn others) it's uncharitable.
+Bellarmine used the term "manifest" before the material/formal designations were invented.
Neque cuм liber definitur haereticus, definitur eo ipso quod
auctor fuerit formaliter haereticus: poluit enim imprudenter errare.
Do you deny that "a fervent Pro-Lifer together" or "the most ardent abortionist" can lack the supernatural virtue of faith?
A manifest heretic may or may not be a heretic. The point is: I should act as if he was one.
What??? A "manifest heretic may or may not be a heretic"? That's a self-contradictory proposition. Please take a Logic 101 class and check back in with us. If you find a particular OPINION or POSITION to be erroneous, then by all means, reject the position, but otherwise you may certainly not act as if he were one. It is not for you to arrogate unto yourself the authority to determine who is and is not a Catholic. So if you were a priest, you'd consider yourself entitled to refuse Vigano communion if he came to receive? And "manifest" to whom? To you? It's manifest to YOU that he's a heretic, but it's not manifest to most Catholics. So he loses membership in the Church based on your own private judgment, however insane and unhinged it might be?
It sounds like you're using the term "manifest heretic" as meaning someone who is suspect of heresy. That is not how St. Robert Bellarmine used the term, since he declared that manifest heretics lose membership in the Church.
For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one
they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.
Your comment shows that you either didn't understand the quote I have posted, or you didn't read it at all. It starts with
and it ends with
I suggest that you go back to my post, read it again, think about it, and then post a new comment.
I suggest that you go back and reflect on the fact that this was an act of Church authority and not your private judgment.
Can I take this your comment as a confirmation that you finally have understood what "manifest heretic" means?
Are you aware, that all Catholics use their own judgment to decide whether they accept V2 or not, whether Bergoglio is a Pope or not, whether they resist an apparent authority or not, etc. pp.? You don't seem to, coming up with the tedious "private judgment" drivel.
I've always understood the term, but you've made it clear that you have no clue, and then insist on condemning people as heretics despite your crass ignorance of core theological terms. You have no concept whatsoever regarding the distinction between formal and material error. You falsely equate manifest error with material error. This despite the fact that, in the case of Vigano, you can't even produce a single heresy that he holds but condemn him as a heretic anyway.
You're not honest. I have never even used terms like "manifest error" or "material error".
No, you used manifest heresy. Is heresy not an error?
Struthio, you are way confused. First you said this:It was obvious to me what Struthio meant. When he said a manifest heretic "may not be a heretic," he meant a public heretic who may not have the pertinacity of will to be culpable as a formal heretic, and may not be a heretic internally if you will, but only exteriorly and publicly.
A manifest heretic may or may not be a heretic.
So if a manifest heretic isn’t a heretic (I cant believe I just wrote that illogical phrase but I digress...)
I was obvious to me what Struthio meant. When he said a manifest heretic "may not be a heretic," he meant a public heretic who may not have the pertinacity of will to be culpable as a formal heretic, and may not be a heretic internally if you will, but only exteriorly and publicly.
If you want, I can quote you Van Nort and probably other theologians who indicate that a public, material heretic is considered outside the Church even if lacking the pertinacity of will of formal heresy is lacking, thus in a very real sense showing a manifest heretic who is yet not a "heretic" in a meaningful sense.
I was obvious to me what Struthio meant. When he said a manifest heretic "may not be a heretic," he meant a public heretic who may not have the pertinacity of will to be culpable as a formal heretic, and may not be a heretic internally if you will, but only exteriorly and publicly.Sure, of course that's what he meant, but that's not how +Bellarmine defines 'manifest heresy', which is the ultimate problem. He's incorrectly using +Bellarmine's term, therefore he's incorrectly applying +Bellarmine's conclusions and practical applications.
If you want, I can quote you Van Nort and probably other theologians who indicate that a public, material heretic is considered outside the Church even if lacking the pertinacity of will of formal heresy is lacking, thus in a very real sense showing a manifest heretic who is yet not a "heretic" in a meaningful sense.
Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ's Church, p. 241-242
b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy" (MCC 30; italics ours).
By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.
Sure, of course that's what he meant, but that's not how +Bellarmine defines 'manifest heresy', which is the ultimate problem. He's incorrectly using +Bellarmine's term, therefore he's incorrectly applying +Bellarmine's conclusions and practical applications.
b) That merely material heretics, even if manifest, are members of the Church, is argued by Franzelin, De Groot, D’Herbigny, Caperan, Terrien, and a few others. But the contrary opinion is more common.[13] (https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/#_ftn13)[13] (https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/#_ftnref13) Those who include material heretics, even if manifest, in the Church: Franzelin, Theses de Ecclesia Christi, th. 23, pp. 402-423; J. V. de Groot, De Ecclesia, q. 8, a. 3; D’Herbigny, n. 355; L. Caperan, Le problème du salut des infidels (1912); J. B. Terrien, La grâce et la gloire I (1901) 330.https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/#_ftn13
Here's Salaverri:
Heresy and error are not synonymous.
It was obvious to me what Struthio meant. When he said a manifest heretic "may not be a heretic," he meant a public heretic who may not have the pertinacity of will to be culpable as a formal heretic, and may not be a heretic internally if you will, but only exteriorly and publicly.
You said it wasn't "logical," which is attacking the very structure of his thought.
Now, you're saying, "sure . . . but that's not how Bellarmine defines."
Father Jenkins calls the letter "earth-shattering".Yes, I watched this excellent video a few days ago. Fr Jenkins also brings up his concerns over the Trump letter due to the Naturalism contained in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyDLIBz5gtA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyDLIBz5gtA)
Illogical statement = "A manifest heretic may or may not be a heretic."
Do you deny that "a fervent Pro-Lifer together" or "the most ardent abortionist" can lack the supernatural virtue of faith?
Fr Jenkins also brings up his concerns over the Trump letter due to the Naturalism contained in it.And in the follow-up video, Fr Jenkins said that the NEWEST letter that +Vigano wrote, condemning V2, was an answer to almost all his objections to the Trump letter. Conclusion: the Trump letter was written for a Christian/Protestant/atheist audience. The V2 letter was written for a catholic audience.
For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.
Great quote.
Puts all the moaning about not being able to say the V2 popes were "formal" heretics in perspective: a convenient evasion of the head(s) of the roaming monstrum.
Struthio, for the 18th time, I’ll repeat my objection. You use the term “manifest heretic” in a different way than does +Bellarmine. Admit that, and you can post all you want about Van Nort or St Thomas. Just know that both of their definitions of heresy are also different from +Bellarmine’s and yours. So you’re trying to piece together 4 different definitions of the word “heresy” and that’s why your conclusions make as much sense as a Protestant bible study group.
This dispute is due to the error of attempting to apply the notion of material heresy to those who profess false religions, i.e., the claim that Protestants or Orthodox and the like can be "merely material" heretics ... with the equally-erroneous corollary that non-members of the Church can still be within the Church and therefore saved.Lad,
I doing so, they confounded the meaning of material heresy, claiming that it could apply to those in formal error so long as they were "sincere" in their error.
Others redefined the term so that material heresy no longer existed, claiming that heresy of its nature can only be formal, while so-called material heresy isn't heresy at all.
In reality, FORMAL heresy pertains to those who do not believe what they believe with the correct formal motive of faith, i.e. based on the teaching authority of the Church. MATERIAL heresy is the holding of an objectively heretical proposition due to ignorance, THINKING that it was taught by the Church. FORMALLY they believe the proposition due to the correct formal motive, believing in their ignorance that it was taught by the Church, but they are mistaken about the fact of whether it was taught by the Church. THAT is the correct distinction that got warped into "sincerity" vs. "insincerity".
b) That merely material heretics, even if manifest, are members of the Church, is argued by Franzelin, De Groot, D’Herbigny, Caperan, Terrien, and a few others. But the contrary opinion is more common.[13] (https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/#_ftn13)[13] (https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/#_ftnref13) Those who include material heretics, even if manifest, in the Church: Franzelin, Theses de Ecclesia Christi, th. 23, pp. 402-423; J. V. de Groot, De Ecclesia, q. 8, a. 3; D’Herbigny, n. 355; L. Caperan, Le problème du salut des infidels (1912); J. B. Terrien, La grâce et la gloire I (1901) 330.
https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/#_ftn13 (https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/#_ftn13)
You also then cling to the erroneous notion of the formal vs. material distinction, where formal heresy is tied to sincerity and culpability, the internal vs. external forum. This is simply wrong.Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, then I'd be happy to be corrected. I do not want to rest in a place of error on anything.
Yes, I watched this excellent video a few days ago. Fr Jenkins also brings up his concerns over the Trump letter due to the Naturalism contained in it.
And that would mean Bp. Vigano is ”judaized”, according to Father Denis Fahey.That is why I have repeatedly mentioned his letter to the Rabbi (and have gotten nothing but defense or silence from other posters here). That letter and the one he wrote Trump are not Catholic. How does the same man write those as well as the latest letter against Vatican II which sounds completely Catholic? And I'm not buying the "well, we should only critique his theology when he speaks to Catholics". Hogwash. His theology should never contradict the Faith.
Judaized, as in Opus judei. :jester:
Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, then I'd be happy to be corrected. I do not want to rest in a place of error on anything.
What I'm not wrong about is the falsity of the claim that Struthio was being "illogical" for saying "a material heretic is not a heretic." That's really just saying that someone is not a heretic for expressing a material heresy.
That is why I have repeatedly mentioned his letter to the Rabbi (and have gotten nothing but defense or silence from other posters here). That letter and the one he wrote Trump are not Catholic. How does the same man write those as well as the latest letter against Vatican II which sounds completely Catholic? And I'm not buying the "well, we should only critique his theology when he speaks to Catholics". Hogwash. His theology should never contradict the Faith.
Together with numerous Council Fathers, we thought of ecuмenism as a process, an invitation that calls dissidents to the one Church of Christ, idolaters and pagans to the one True God, and the Jєωιѕн people to the promised Messiah. But from the moment it was theorized in the conciliar commissions, ecuмenism was configured in a way that was in direct opposition to the doctrine previously expressed by the Magisterium.
......
But whoever has the grace of being a Child of God in virtue of Holy Baptism should be horrified at the idea of being able to construct a blasphemous modern version of the Tower of Babel, seeking to bring together the one true Church of Christ, heir to the promises made to the Chosen People, with those who deny the Messiah and with those who consider the very idea of a Triune God to be blasphemous.
I use the approach of St Robert Bellarmine, who uses the traditional concept of a manifest heretic:.
Your quotes above of Gerard van Noort and Joaquín Salaverri S.J., theologians of the 20st century, show that they basically agree with St Robert.They don't "basically agree". Obstinacy of the will is a HUGE factor. One side believed that obstinacy was necessary to lose membership in the Church and the other side didn't. (But that's overly-simplistic, as there are other factors too).
Struthio, your below statement is the problematic one. Your use of 'manifest heretic' is not the same as +Bellarmine's. So, your explanation of heresy is illogical.
..They don't "basically agree". Obstinacy of the will is a HUGE factor. One side believed that obstinacy was necessary to lose membership in the Church and the other side didn't. (But that's overly-simplistic, as there are other factors too).
No, he was wrong. It's an equivocal use of terms and a logical contradiction. It's just basic logic. You cannot say that A is not A. If you're claiming that a "material heretic" is not a "heretic," then the term must be changed, as some theologians did by declaring that there's no such thing as material heresy. You could say that a manifest heretic is not necessarily a formal heretic, or some other such expression, but you cannot say that a heretic is not a heretic.
I plan on doing some study on this, and maybe I'll start another thread soon - it's an important issue.
For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one [...] they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.
There's no doubt in my mind that Archbishop Vigano intends to accept whatever is and has been taught by the Catholic Magisterium. He, like many others still do, clung to the notion that V2 was a question of ambiguities that COULD be interpreted in light of Tradition, with the hermeneutic of continuity. When someone has this attitude, it's prima facie evidence that they are not formal heretics, because they belief that everything must be consistent with Church teaching.I totally agree. +Vigano’s condemnation of V2 is the most positive thing to happen to the Church, doctrinally speaking, in the last 60 years (maybe since the Ottaviani study).
I simply said: Viganò is a manifest heretic, I judge him by his acts. And I quoted St Robert Bellarmine.And for the 19th time, your use of “manifest” contradicts +Bellarmine’s definition. :facepalm:
And for the 19th time, your use of “manifest” contradicts +Bellarmine’s definition. :facepalm:
.
Do you understand what I’m saying at all? I’m starting to question your sanity.
I understand what you say. You say that my use of "manifest" (I assume you refer to "manifest heretic") contradicts St. Robert's definition..
for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.St Bellarmine was a canon lawyer, he was a Cardinal, he was a Church official. When he said the above, in the story of Liberius, he was TALKING TO CHURCH OFFICIALS (i.e. Cardinals, Bishops, Canon Lawyers). No laymen (and no simple priest) is allowed to take this advice and act on it. We have no authority, no calling, and no training to do anything about heresy, error or untruths, except to avoid those who cause scandal. Church officials removed Liberius, and ONLY church officials can condemn anyone, or remove them from office, or judge anyone guilty of error.
Uhm, no, I did address this quote. It's not about theology but about context. You can speak of certain things in natural terms and speak of the same thing in supernatural terms. So, for, instance, when he speaks about the good vs. the bad, the context is the natural divisions and not the supernatural ones. Certainly you can speak of the good (pro-lifers who uphold natural moral principles) vs. the bad (Satanists, the impure, promoters of abortion and sodomy, etc.). Even Father Jenkins granted that this could be the explanation and said that one would have to ask him whether it's what he meant. Unlike several on this board, Father Jenkins withheld rash judgment about his meaning and intent.(I didn't say nobody addressed it. I did say people either remained silent or defended it. In your case, you defended it).
You know, it's actually a proposition that has been condemned by the Church that everything outside the Church is sin and evil. There is such a thing as natural goodness.
Time will tell about Vigano.
Correct. And that's precisely my point. It's too early to write him off. He's gone well beyond anything Burke or Schneider ever said. Fr. Jenkins himself called his latest June 9th letter "earth-shattering." As Father Jenkins said, Vigano has just admitted that Traditional Catholics have been right all along. Never have the statements written by Archbishop Vigano have been heard from anyone inside the Conciliar Church. He's clearly still early in this awakening process, and the attempts to torpedo him, criticize him, etc. are not helpful. Welcoming him, praising/encouraging him, and charitably pointing out where his thinking might need additional adjustment are what is called for at this stage.I'm more with you than against you. I am praying for him, and he may well be the beginning of the end of the Novus Ordo sect "IF" he fully converts. In the mean time, let's stop defending/dismissing those things that appear to be evidence that he has not fully converted yet. That's my main issue with most of the Vigano supporters in this thread.
Unlike those who claim they don't "trust" him, based on what he wrote, I certainly trust him that he's open to the truth. Is he perfect? Of course not. But then he's only been a Traditional Catholic for a few months, weeks, or perhaps even days. How long does it take to purge all the bad thinking patterns from someone's mind after 50 years of it? As Bishop Williamson points out, we're ALL still infected to some extent. So the fact that he could so clearly and correctly lay out the case for Tradition after 50 years in the Conciliar Church is astonishing and is a miracle of God's grace.
Give him some time. If he Burkes out on us, then we just ignore him like we ignore Burke. Big deal. No harm done beside some disappointment that he didn't follow through all the way with it.
I'm more with you than against you. I am praying for him, and he may well be the beginning of the end of the Novus Ordo sect "IF" he fully converts. In the mean time, let's stop defending/dismissing those things that appear to be evidence that he has not fully converted yet. That's my main issue with most of the Vigano supporters in this thread.
.
As it is, you quote Bellarmine regarding Liberius as an example for how to treat a manifest heretic, yet NOWHERE does Bellarmine even use the word 'manifest' when describing Liberius. When Bellarmine does explain manifest heresy, in a different chapter, he says the manifest heretic loses membership in the church and is automatically deposed from office. None of these things happened to Liberius, so Liberius isn't an example of how to treat manifest heresy. So, you're wrong. Get it?
None of these things happened to Liberius
During this time the Roman clergy "deposed" him, i.e. they considered the papacy to be vacant, and accepted St. Felix as Pope.
tunc vero Romanus Clerus, abrogata Liberio Pontificia dignitate, ad Felicem se contulit
Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix
From what he says (including more than a hundred uses of the adjective manifest in all sorts of contexts), it is clear that a manifest heretic is a non-occult heretic, is a heretic who acts or shows himself as such.And also the key factor of obstinacy in error, which is similar to the modern term 'formal heretic', which is why Bellarmine says an obstinate/manifest heretic is no longer a member of the church.
It is true that Bellarmine does not use "manifest heretic" in the context of Liberius, nevertheless Liberius is like a textbook example.Absolutely, not. Bellarmine said that Liberius was NOT A HERETIC (from the quote that YOU provided), though he was treated as such (because he did not fully condemn error). If Liberius was a manifest heretic (according to Bellarmine) then he was obstinate in heresy, and was no longer a member of the church. Yet, Liberus was NOT obstinate, as Bellarmine confirms.
The Roman clerus learns that Liberius in exile is acting like a heretic, and says: then he's become a heretic and is no longer Pope. Why should Bellarmine say "manifest heretic" instead of simply "heretic", when he even more specifically says sed quem externis operibus haereticuм esse vident, simpliciter haereticuм judicant (seeing by his works that s.o.'s a heretic, they simply judge he's a heretic)."Acting like a heretic" is not 'manifest' (according to Bellarmine). You are using the word 'manifest' according to the dictionary definition. This is not how Bellarmine uses it. For Bellarmine, someone is only manifest (i.e. plain to see) if they have been rebuked/corrected and thus...obstinacy in error is proven.
And also the key factor of obstinacy in error, which is similar to the modern term 'formal heretic', which is why Bellarmine says an obstinate/manifest heretic is no longer a member of the church.
.
You, on the contrary, wrongly define a manifest heretic as still being a member of the church, since you wrongly say "they may or may not be a heretic" (i.e. it's not yet determined). For Bellarmine, a manifest heretic is a DETERMINED state - they are obstinate and no longer a catholic.
.
How you don't see this difference is shocking.
.Absolutely, not. Bellarmine said that Liberius was NOT A HERETIC (from the quote that YOU provided), though he was treated as such (because he did not fully condemn error). If Liberius was a manifest heretic (according to Bellarmine) then he was obstinate in heresy, and was no longer a member of the church. Yet, Liberus was NOT obstinate, as Bellarmine confirms.
."Acting like a heretic" is not 'manifest' (according to Bellarmine). You are using the word 'manifest' according to the dictionary definition. This is not how Bellarmine uses it. For Bellarmine, someone is only manifest (i.e. plain to see) if they have been rebuked/corrected and thus...obstinacy in error is proven.
I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop. If he follows his own logic in this letter, the logical consequence is that V2 was not a legitimate Ecuмenical Council. Will he declare that he believes the Holy See to be vacant? He has REPEATEDLY referred to Francis as Bergoglio and only once referred to him as "Pope Francis," but that was in quotes when he was citing someone else. All other times he calls him simply Bergoglio. I think he might be tipping his hand here.Unfortunately, there are many R&R folks (and some conservative Novus Ordos) who call their pope "Bergoglio" (and if you go back to his writings, I believe he has been doing so since he's been in hiding), so I'm not entirely convinced that this necessarily means he believes the seat is vacant. Obviously, as a sedevacantist, I would like to see him declare the current seat vacant, Vatican II illegitimate, AND declare all of the Vatican II popes as false popes given they were the ones who promulgated, taught and professed the False Religion that emanated from it. And if he did that, I suspect that many who are praising him now will no longer praise him.
My hope is that he's a man of connections in the Vatican, can perhaps get access to the Third Secret and other records in the Vatican archives, and start exposing the criminals who have infiltrated the Vatican.
I recommend that you start to substantiate your claims with quotes from St. Robert Bellarmine, if you're interested in convincing any serious reader in his right mind.Struthio, here's the quote from +Bellarmine and it's from his famous 4th opinion, (De Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2). Took me 5 minutes to find on google.
quod attinet ad realem incorporationem in visibili Ecclesia Christi de qua nunc sermo, thesis nullum ponit discrimen inter haereticos formales vel materiales
Verumtamen et ipsos haereticos materiales extra visibile Ecclesiae corpus versari satis docent Patres, cuм excludunt omnes qui ab haeresiarchis seducti ad eorum congregationes utcuмque pertinent, nullo discrimine facto inter eos qui sceleris participes exsistunt, et eos qui bona forsitan fide alienos istos sequuntur.
cuм ergo in ordine ad praesentem quaestionem nihil referat an formalis vel materialis haereticus quis exsistat, magis
attendenda est aha divisio in haereticos occultos et notorios.
This shows that +Bellarmine uses the term "manifest heretic" only when obstinacy has been proven, only after 2 rebukes/warnings of error, because that is what St Paul ordered us to do in Scripture.
St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.
St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.What +Bellarmine is saying above is that a manifest heretic separates themselves from the church SPIRITUALLY (i.e. he sins in his heart) before the rebuke process proves such TEMPORALLY (i.e. his obstinacy proves he's openly not a member). In other words, the Church doesn't kick people out, but heretics leave by their own sins. The Church, through the rebuke process, makes externally known the error that was only internally held.
Fundamentum hujus sententiae est, quoniam haereticus manifestus nullo modo est membrum Ecclesiae, idest, neque animo neque corpore, sive neque unione interna, neque externa. Nam catholici etiam mali sunt uniti et sunt membra, animo per fidem, corpore per confessionem fidei, et visibilium sacramentorum participationem: haeretici occulti, sunt uniti et sunt membra , solum externa unione , sicut e contrario, boni cathecuмeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa: haeretici manifesti nullo modo, ut jam probatum est.
Most Catholics, most conservative Catholics, do not question the Second Vatican Council, do not hate gαy people, do not think the Second Coming is just around the corner and it will be bad for just about everyone. The pre-conciliar understandings of the faith the site [LifeSiteNews] peddles bear no resemblance to the teachings of St. Pope Paul VI, or St. Pope John Paul II, or Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, that is, the teachings most Catholics have heard at Mass these many years.
So the "liberal" "Catholics" are already getting into a lather about the Vigano letter:
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/will-conservative-catholics-be-horrified-latest-vigan-letter (https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/will-conservative-catholics-be-horrified-latest-vigan-letter)
They certainly got that last part right.
Well, except for the part where they call these men "St." and also "Pope".
It looks like Vigano still believes Bergoglio is the pope of the Catholic Church
It looks like Vigano still believes Bergoglio is the pope of the Catholic Church:Give him time.
Dear Tosatti,
I read with interest the Appeal that “Big Shot” addressed to me on the pages of Stilum Curiae. Since it addresses a very serious question that is rightly in the hearts of many of your readers and of great concern to them, I hasten to give an answer.
The response which immediately comes to my soul is the one we find in the Gospel: “Estote parati, quia nescitis diem, neque horam” [Keep watch, because you do know the day or the hour] (Mt 24:44). We must be prepared, not only for the coming of the Son of Man, but also for the trials that will precede it and which will oblige us to choose which side we are on: either with Christ or against Him.
If it is true that “Whoever watches the wind never sows, and whoever looks at the clouds will not reap” (Eccl 11:4), it is equally true that the time available to us does not permit us to wait for the wind to die down or for the clouds that darken the Church to be dispelled. If we want to sow a little good and reap its fruit, with the grace of God, we can act like the prudent virgins: waiting with lighted lamps for the coming of the Bridegroom – holding the lamps of Faith and the Holy Mass, the Sacraments and prayer. The foolish virgins, who did not take care to keep their lamps filled with the oil of the life of grace and virtue, will too late discover that they are unable to go and meet the Lord who comes.
Another important thing is to know how to decipher what is happening in this historical moment. We must learn to know and evaluate the facts, not only taken in themselves as individual tesserae, but also in their placement in the overall mosaic, which, permits us to discover the entire design in the light of Faith.
For decades now, we have heard inflated words that have emphasized only a generic eschatological dimension of existence, neglecting preaching about the Last Things. This has certainly not prepared us to face the final trial and has left us unprepared to defend ourselves from the enemy, even completely unable to recognize him and his underhanded deceptions. With firm determination, we must oppose the empty phrases of those who seek to surround us with the eternal words of the Word of God, which the politically correct discourses of the foolish virgins crash against. According to some, the vision of the Gospel is asimplistic vision that horrifies those who, loving the world and its false and hypocritical mentality, cannot love the Lord, the blazing Truth who admits of no exceptions: divisive just as light compared to darkness and as good compared to evil.
Let us learn to call things by their name, with simplicity and calmness; let us stop following, for the sake of living quietly, the illusions of those who speak to us of tolerance and acceptance only when it comes to making room for error and vice; let us stop using their magic words like “dialogue,” “solidarity,” and “freedom” which conceal the adversary’s deception and veil the exploitation, tyranny, and persecution of dissenters.
We are Christians, so let’s speak the language of Christ! “Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the Evil One” (Mt 5:37). We are at war with an enemy who even wants to decide the weapons with which we are able to resist him. We have allowed him to penetrate to the point of profaning our altars, our sacraments, and the Most Holy Eucharist! The rules have been imposed on us in order to shamelessly favor the opposing side. The time has come for us to refuse to accept this obscene invasion and the way in which the enemy makes impossible any efficacious action on our part to drive him out!
The first thing to do is to be aware that we are at war with the world, the flesh, and the devil. In this war we cannot remain neutral, we cannot ignore it, and even less can we take sides with the Enemy. We find ourselves in the absurd situation in which our own commander himself appears to refuse to guide us. It even seems that he flirts with our adversary, pointing a finger at us as enemies of concord and fomenters of schism, while our generals ally themselves with the opponent and order their troops to lay down their weapons. It is apparent that, without the help of God, all hope fails. And yet we must fight, we must be ready, we must keep our lamps alight and our loins girt, certain that together with Christ we have already conquered. All that we can do – prayer, especially the Holy Rosary, faithfulness to the duties of our state in life, responsibility towards the people entrusted to our care, the witness of Faith and Charity, social commitment – all of this must be carried out as is possible for each one of us, in accordance with what Providence has disposed for each of us. Let us allow ourselves to be guided by the Lord with total trust, and we will understand what is required of us, day by day, moment by moment.
Along with “Big Shot” I again take up the beautiful Oratio Universalis [Universal Prayer] of Clement IX: Redde me prudentem in consiliis, constantem in periculis, patientem in adversis, humilem in prosperis. Make me prudent in planning, courageous in danger, patient in adversity, humble in prosperity. Discam a Te quam tenue quod terrenum, quam grande quod divinum, quam breve quod temporaneum, quam durabile quod aeternum. May I learn from you how fragile are the things of earth, how great are the things of heaven, how brief what happens here on earth is, and how enduring is that which is in eternity.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020 (https://twitter.com/pellegrino2020)
https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/06/17/vigano-what-to-do-tell-the-truth-speak-as-christians-yes-yes-no-no/ (https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/06/17/vigano-what-to-do-tell-the-truth-speak-as-christians-yes-yes-no-no/)
donkath, I was thinking about posting the whole five books of Bellarmine De Romano Pontifice, to prove my point. I didn't.
Without further reasoning or ado: Could you please post some 20-30 lines of Wathen as a here relevant teaser in case you want me to read some of the epic workmanship of his. I am not sure what you're commenting on, please just forget this comment in case it's inapplicable.
Give him time.It turns out that this letter was written in response to what appears to be Novus Ordo reader of the Tossatti blog regarding his "Appeal". It doesn't surprise me that he used the wording he used.
It also could be just a manner of speaking. Whether he's a true pope or not - not! - he's sitting in the chair, and to call him the pope or "general" in that sense could be just a recognition of that fact. For example, theologically or legally (de jure) it might be an oxymoron it to call the pope a heretic, but it's an accurate description of things. In fact, that's how the debate is framed, recognizing the titular fact of the man at issue - can a pope be a heretic?
I wouldn't read too much into that.
It turns out that this letter was written in response to what appears to be Novus Ordo reader of the Tossatti blog regarding his "Appeal". It doesn't surprise me that he used the wording he used.
I do wonder why he feels the need to hide though.+Vigano's been in hiding, off and on, since 2018, because he exposed the sex abuse going on in new-rome, specifically pointing the finger at Bergoglio.
+Vigano's been in hiding, off and on, since 2018, because he exposed the sex abuse going on in new-rome, specifically pointing the finger at Bergoglio.
.
https://pjmedia.com/faith/debra-heine/2018/08/28/archbishop-vigano-in-hiding-fearing-for-his-life-after-bombshell-letter-accusing-pope-francis-n101960 (https://pjmedia.com/faith/debra-heine/2018/08/28/archbishop-vigano-in-hiding-fearing-for-his-life-after-bombshell-letter-accusing-pope-francis-n101960)
He must know something about the extent of the gαy mafia and what they can and will do to take him out.Yeah, it's all the same group. The Modernists are luciferians, are commies, are child abusers, are pro-V2, and are gαy. It's all connected and it's all the same people at the top, who are involved in all of this. I hope he figured he "outed" them on the abuse issue, so he might as well out them on all of it - V2, anti-Christ, etc. He surely needs prayers!
I have been reading this forum for a while and finally decided to post here as I recall this article https://akacatholic.com/opus-deis-role-in-the-vigano-affair I am sure most of you are familiar with. There are a few more about his connection with Archbishop Nienstedt as well.
That begs the question, if those past interferences are still in effect?
Source: The full rendition of The Great Sacrelige , James Wathen : Chapter two . The link to the full work has been posted a couple of times on CI.
Cardinal Journet explains that the Church cannot depose a pope, no matter how wicked he may be because there is no authority above the Papacy. God Himself must do it.7 If he is a heretic, the Church can declare him “worthy of deposition.”
The Church's action is simply declaratory; it makes the fact plain that an incorrigible sin of heresy exists; then the authoritive action of God disjoins the Papacy from a subject who, persisting in heresy after admonition, becomes in divine law, inapt to retain it any longer.
These words do not mean that the Church, i.e., the bishops in council, have the power to deprive even an heretical pope of his office and jurisdiction. They mean that the Church may use every moral means to force his abdication or prevent his acts from causing too great confusion and scandal. [...]
but I will not get into the debate
He must know something about the extent of the gαy mafia and what they can and will do to take him out.Except, it is impossible to hide and conceal own location these days, given the technology and people tracing. Especially for individuals of that caliber.
The reason I picked out the teaser is because it has often cropped up that the Holy Spirit will prevent the Pope from saying or doing anything contrary to the faith.
But Vigano remains in hiding in fear for his life because he exposed the pedophiles at the top.
This is what the SSPX should have been looking for among the Roman clergy, Curia, and pope:
An official recognition of the faulty principles of V2, and a rejection of them, and their encouragement and exhortation to the Church at large to reject them.
SSPX because they are doing their own coverup of pedophiles in their ranks. They look just as bad as the Vatican right now.Perhaps because Opus Dei-funded ChurchMilitant.tv has been focusing so much on them.
.......I think that when you are really praying the gift of Understanding kicks in and it is like being a child listening to a beautiful story being told probably by the same spirit that guided the author to write it in the first place. And I also feel that the author himself is praying for the person who is reading his material which he wrote because of his great love for Our Lord.
I have never thought and even less have I affirmed that Vatican II was an invalid Ecuмenical Council: in fact it was convoked by the supreme authority, by the Supreme Pontiff, and all of the Bishops of the world took part in it. Vatican II is a valid Council, supported by the same authority as Vatican I and Trent.
In a letter answering John Henry's question whether he believes "Vatican II to be an invalid council" (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-vigano-i-do-not-think-vatican-ii-was-invalid-but-it-was-gravely-manipulated), Viganò writes:I still think there may be hope for him, but with this statement it’s looking very slim.
In a letter answering John Henry's question whether he believes "Vatican II to be an invalid council" (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-vigano-i-do-not-think-vatican-ii-was-invalid-but-it-was-gravely-manipulated), Viganò writes:Thank you. At least I'm not the only one who got the impression that he's backtracked on his Vatican II stance.
Haec omnia et singula quae in hac Declaratione edicta sunt, placuerunt Sacrosancti Concilii Patribus. Et Nos, Apostolica a Christo Nobis tradita potestate, illa, una cuм Venerabilibus Patribus, in Spiritu Sancto approbamus, decernimus ac statuimus et quae ita synodaliter statuta sunt ad Dei gloriam promulgari iubemus.
Romae, apud S. Petrum die VII mensis decembris anno MCMLXV.
Ego PAULUS Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus
Sequuntur Patrum subsignationes
Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Declaration have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God.
Rome, at St. Peter’s, December 7, 1965
I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church
There follow the signatures of the Fathers.
[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
Valid pastoral council?
Thank you. At least I'm not the only one who got the impression that he's backtracked on his Vatican II stance.
I have never thought and even less have I affirmed that Vatican II was an invalid Ecuмenical Council: in fact it was convoked by the supreme authority, by the Supreme Pontiff, and all of the Bishops of the world took part in it. Vatican II is a valid Council, supported by the same authority as Vatican I and Trent. However, as I have already written, from its origin it was made the object of a grave manipulation by a fifth column that penetrated into the very heart of the Church that perverted its purposes, as confirmed by the disastrous results that are before everyone’s eyes.
And as I posted in the other thread, it *is* an ecuмenical council:
A council of the Church that is approved by a pope is still infallible no matter what nuanced title you give it. VII Contains error, thus.......
This or a similar statement can be found below each of the 1960s Robber Council's docuмents. In his letter to Dr. Guarini (http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2020/06/lettera-di-mons-vigano-in-seguito-alle.html), Viganò has said that these docuмents contain heretical propositions.
The ca. 2440 fathers of the Robber Council have proposed a false Gospel in the name of the Holy Spirit to the whole Church, and consequently condemned themselves.
All the talk about fallibe or infallible, ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium is vain. Heretics don't need an office or the charism of infallibility to condemn themselves.
Dismissing the Council's docuмents for heresy implies the declaration that those adhering to the docuмents, were/are heretics.
stjosef.at (https://www.stjosef.at/index.php?id=konzil__suche&doc=DH15&la=lataas&lb=eng&ui=ger)
And as I posted in the other thread, it *is* an ecuмenical council:Of course, but sometimes (and unfortunately) people hate to face reality.
Ecuмenical Councils are those to which the bishops (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm), and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) or his legates (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09118a.htm), and the decrees of which, having received papal (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) confirmation, bind all Christians (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm). A council, Ecuмenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm) of the whole Church or of the pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), and thus not rank in authority with Ecuмenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12110a.htm) in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm) and Basle (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02334b.htm).
Of course, but sometimes (and unfortunately) people hate to face reality.All I hear coming from his latest communique is, excuses, excuses.
Great link. Thanks.
stjosef.at (https://www.stjosef.at/index.php?id=konzil__suche&doc=DH15&la=lataas&lb=eng&ui=ger)