Archbishop Viganò keeps spewing forth schismatic sentiments under the disguise of orthodoxy as though he is the pope. Perhaps there is a pathology in his life, a narcissism, or simply delusions of grandeur? Perhaps he sees himself as an accusatory prosecutor rather than a bishop of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church who has promised respect and obedience to the reigning pope.
The more Catholic than the pope crowd in the “orthodox” movement are undermining the movement toward sane orthodoxy and renewal in continuity which the Emeritus Pope articulated so well without rancor or pathology.
Archbishop Vigano, Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Mueller and Cardinal Marx and his German schismatics are not the pope. The pope alone is the pope and every pope either dies or resigns and the Church proceeds and the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church even though the devil will have a field day in desert periods of the Church which could last decades and centuries.
So, if you are an orthodox Catholic follow the pope, respect His Holiness and pray for him and do not foment schism or join semi-schismatic ecclesial communities who set themselves up as the pope.
Obedience to the pope is only in the areas of faith, morals and canon law. We can respectfully disagree with him when he pontificates on politics, the weather, the economy, ecology and war and peace. But we should not disavow him when we disagree with those things outside his competence as a priest and bishop.
And if you don’t like your parish liturgies, your priests and the way things are carried out, suck it up if you can’t find a parish, priest or liturgy that conforms to you will. Are you a snowflake or a man, woman, boy or girl? Get over it and seek humility for the things you have absolutely no control short of leaving the Church Jesus Christ founded and has chosen Peter to be the visible head of the Church.
34 comments:
I agree with what you have said Father....especially the " suck it up" part. Having said that, there is an issue for me with the Pope that just won't go away, and that is the whole "pachamama" controversy. I saw pictures of that prayer service with a Franciscan bowing before a pagan idol, in front of the Pope. I was shocked by this and truly felt a line had been crossed on many levels. Is here a point where you just have to say "this is SO wrong". Aren't we obligated to say it?
I don't know that you are obligated to publicly say it, you can certainly write your bishop or the pope for that matter, his secretary of state. But if you go public, it need to be a charitable correction.
There are many things this pope has said and done that I scratch my head and long for the days of Benedict. But I have no power over anything. This pope is a classic priest formed by 1970's theology of South America and the "spirit of Vatican II."
We won't have him forever and in fact we won't be here forever. That keeps me sober; I hope you too.
Next to Pope Francis, Archbishop Vigano is uber orthodox and did the Church a huge service on blasting the Church for its failure to deal with Mr. McCarrick in a timely manner. A better focus would be faux clergy like Marx, Cupich and Gregory who continue to heap disgrace and uncertainty.
TJM you are acting like a snowflake and if you were truly traditional and orthodox you would know that since you are not a bishop of the Church you have no authority to defrock any bishop or priest since, in effect, calling them fake is what you are doing. Maybe you don't realize how "spirit of Vatican II" you are?
"Spirit of Vatican II" is such a useless term in describing Pope Francis.
It is SO broad in its meaning, it is useless in most circumstances.
Pope Francis is a Jesuit. He is a classic Jesuit formed in Catholic theology through the lens of Ignatian spirituality and praxis.
Francis is not a dogmatic theologian, one of many non-dogmatic theologians who have served in the See of Peter.
Francis is formed in Ignatian spirituality which is not well known to many Catholics, unfortunately. Here's the barest description I could find:
"What Is Distinctive about Ignatian Spiritual Direction?
Spiritual direction is a feature of many Christian traditions. In fact, forms of spiritual direction are found in all religions. What distinguishes Ignatian spiritual direction from other approaches? The Irish Jesuit Brian O’Leary lists these elements.
A theological vision rooted in the Spiritual Exercises. The theology of the Exercises is optimistic. It affirms the goodness of the world. But it also is acutely aware of the pervasive problem of evil. At the same time it is contemplative and service-oriented.
Flexible. The Ignatian spiritual director does not impose a program on the directee. The manner of the direction is adjusted to fit the person’s personality, life history, and spiritual experience. The director “cannot know beforehand what he or she will suggest.”
A partnership. Ignatian spiritual direction is a partnership. It thus demands mutual respect and openness to the other’s frame of reference. It follows Ignatius Loyola’s admonition, “Let it be presupposed that every good Christian is to be more ready to save their neighbor’s proposition than to condemn it.”
What do you really want? Ignatian spiritual direction attempts to uncover the deepest desires of the human heart. Typically, these are smothered by superficial desires for transitory things. Our most profound desires are shaped by the Holy Spirit and point toward new choices for spiritual growth and fruitful service.
Rules for discernment. Ignatius Loyola’s rules for discernment of spirits permeate Ignatian spiritual direction. These are methods for identifying inner movements, reflecting on them, and understanding where they come from and where they lead us.
(See Brian O’Leary, SJ, “What Is Specific to an Ignatian Model of Spiritual Direction?” The Way, Jan/April 2008, pp. 9-28).
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2007/01/15/what-distinguishes-jesuits
Archbishop Vigano has stated his reasons for speaking out. This statement concerns the McCarrick scandal but his general response is the part about particular judgment.
'Allow me to repeat this one more time. I am an old man and will be appearing in front of the Good Judge before too long. My silence would make me complicit with the abusers and lead to yet more victims. I know that I am motivated by these concerns, and God knows it. I cannot worry about what others think about my motivation.
In any case, my motivation is not the point, and questions about it are a distraction. The truly important question is whether my testimony is true. I stand by it, and I urge investigations so that the facts may appear. Unfortunately, those who impugn my motives have been unwilling to conduct open and thorough investigations.'
Father, once again the Gospel reading for today supports what you’ve said here and must guide us.
The sins against charity just on this blog (mine included!) sometimes boggle the mind. How can we hope to influence anyone, let alone the larger society in which we live when we set such a poor example. Before we receive our Lord in Holy Communion, as my Pastor homilized today, “THINK, people!”.
Anon12
Father, extraordinary times often produce extraordinary people. I believe Vigano is one such person. I hope you are not going to resort to name-calling and labeling me "snowflake" because I disagree with you.
I am not a bishop, nor do I purport to be. But the Catholic faith is NOT so complicated that it takes a bishop to see that something is terribly amiss. Vigano has a large number of trustworthy, orthodox and solid bishops who insist his points are credible and worthy of further investigation. I do not think that makes him schismatic.
Ronald Reagan used to joke, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." And so it goes with the Catholic Church. Little, by little, step by step, we have been like the proverbial frogs in a pot of cold water while the heat has been slowly applied. We can no longer deny or pretend that the pot isn't boiling. If you look at the main points of what the Church has always taught and compare it to what its highest leaders are teaching today...there can be no comparison because they are completely different. We are living in with a Church in which the leaders are embracing just about everything contrary to what their Church has always taught, embracing the modernism Pius X warned us about and marginalizing anyone who dares to call them out for it.
I know you are between a rock and a hard place. You are in a diocese that values "company men" and are about to get a Francisbishop who, unless he is an exception, is going to insist that you propagate this "new enlightened" way of the Church. I just don't think Vigano deserves to be labeled as a "schismatic". The authorities that we SHOULD be able to trust but have betrayed that trust are far more schismatic than this one courageous man who dares to speak out. His motives? Save it for the mind-reading seminar...I'm not qualified to discern them.
Vigano is fomenting schism the opposite of what a bishop should do. He won't be schismatic until the pope says he is because schism is separating oneself from the pope.
There is truth in Vigano's concerns but the manner in which he is going about it is wrong headed and divisive. In the pre-Vatican II Church, he would have been excommunicated by now or at the least a censure placed against him.
Read the catechism of the Catholic Church and the role of the Supreme Pontiff and remember the use of the word Supreme is significant. There is no one on earth who can remove a pope except the pope himself if he resigns.
Fomenting a secular kind of revolution, as we see on the left in the USA today, but in Vigano's case a "right wing" revolution, that seeks to topple the pope and the Second Vatican Council will only result in a schism. Read Church history. The Orthodox thought they were right and the Protestants thought they were right and both schismatic groups continue to persist in this. Vigano could be fomenting a new reformation and another sect. That's all we need, right?
I might add that Martin Luther, John Calvin and even King Henry VIII as well as the Eastern bishops all had legitimate complaints. But they were extreme in what they wanted and they wanted to be the head of the Church or at least act as head.
Vigano is kind of like Martin Luther, he has legitimate concerns and complaints, but like Martin Luther, he is going about it in a schismatic way that will only lead to schism. But the pope will determine if he is in schism, no one else.
I have served as a priest for 35+ years in the Diocese of Savannah, five years fewer than Fr. McDonald.
The idea that this diocese values "company men" is complete nonsense. In some ways, Fr. McDonald and I could not be more different, yet we both serve as pastors of large parishes, we both have held appointed curial positions, both of us have served as appointed members of the College of Consultors, and we enjoy each other's company to boot.
I have disagreed with our bishops very directly, as, I suspect, has Fr. McDonald. I have been blunt with them - all three that I have served under - when I have considered their actions and or their words to be wanting. I imagine Fr. McDonald has done the same.
I have never, not once, experienced any attempt by the bishop of this diocese to "propagate" anything but the Gospel and the Church's teachings. None of the three I have served under have ever tried to influence how I preach, what topics I teach in Adult Ed, the manner in which I write about or speak of social situations, or any other such thing.
But, we both carry on as pastors, we both continue to serve in positions of responsibility, we both have enjoyed the trust and confidence of our bishops.
The description of the Diocese of Savannah being a place where "company men" are favored and others are "marginalized" is a slur on the bishops who have shepherded this diocese.
I would agree with FRMJK on this. And Bishop Hartmayer, for the most part, was hands off and allowed a lot of flexibility with certain of my liturgical initiatives. He allowed the EF Mass at St. Anne's and he allowed me to restored the altar railing at St. Joseph Church in Macon.
And yes with all three bishops I have served I have offered my two cents worth and once in a rather dramatic fashion that I am sure is in my clergy file.
File? They keep a FILE???
Oh, wait, I was vice-chancellor. I think that means I was responsible for those files...
And, yes, yours was substantial.
But, then, so was mine!
Father, you have some good points, but
A). I don't really think Vigano is "fomenting" anything. He is just creating awareness, especially for people who have been ignoring it for so long
and
B). As far as the divisiveness goes, THAT started LONG before Vigano. Paul VI and JPII (blessed be their memory) permitted the postconciliar divisiveness to spread during their pontificates. It is already so firmly entrenched and in place...the obvious example was the split reaction in the Church to the election of Ratzinger.
Please don't back me into a corner about the "company man" issue. Having a few things in your file hardly makes either of you rebels. Fr. McDonald, you are an expert at tempering your language, even about what might be considered "reactionary" in some circles and Father Kavanaugh, you could explain away anything. You may not be "company men" in the purest sense, but then again, its been a long time since either of you worked in the chancery, if you get my drift. I'm not smearing any bishops either. Dioceses just tend to work out that way. And the liturgical wasteland of the southern part of your diocese has long been staffed by company men. Probably because of our irrelevance to the chancery.
Zero - I don't agree at all that "Dioceses just tend to work out that way." I've got priest friends from London, Ontario, to Charleston, South Carolina, to San Diego, California. I don't hear anything about "company men" from them, and like Fr. McDonald and myself, they cover the spectrum of priests pretty well.
Yes, it's been a long time since we were in the chancery. But since then we've been promoted to greater responsibilities. I enjoyed my time as vice-chancellor and learned a lot from Bishop Lessard. Fr. McDonald has done a fine job at the parishes where he has been pastor, in places with and, now, without a school. (You can hear him heaving yet another sigh of relief all the way from Richmond Hill.)
As much as you think you are not smearing bishops, think about how it sounds when you talk about "company men" and "marginalized" priests. Who are we supposed to think it the person doing the favoring and disfavoring? The bishop is the only one in such a position. And think how it sounds when you say you are irrelevant to the chancery. Who do you think gives direction to chancery personnel, who gives direction to a diocese, who sets the tone for how things in the chancery work? The bishop is the only one in such a position.
Rebels can be good for any organization; organizations actually need them. But when what a rebel does goes beyond being mildly irritating, when his/her actions or words cause harm, that rebel needs to be brought into line one way or another. Sinking the ship in order to bring about positive change is not rational.
To Father Kavanaugh,
You can sing....and Father Allan? 😊
Sure Father let us Pewsitters sit back and shut up or leave it. I’m not going to be like my parents generation that let the rats ram the barque onto the rocks. Like St. athanasius and St. Peter Damian we need to sound the alarm and speak out against the apostasy and heresy that has spread like weeds among the wheat for gone 60 years. ArchBishop Viganò and a few other Bishops are true shepherds defending the deposit of faith and working for the salvation of souls s so many descend into hell like snowflakes in a blizzard.
As for one Pope I think we are seeing the two bishops in white as mentioned in the third secret or as Saint Anne Cathrine Emmerich saw in a vision.
Benedict was a coward but I think he fooled the Saint Gallen mafia who forced him to resign with the way he supposedly resigned the office and ministry.
The Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary will win in the end. I just hope it comes soon.
Mr. P MC C
Are you related to the author of "The DaVinci code"?
"The Orthodox thought they were right." Uh, not thought (as in the past)---they still think so. As an Orthodox publication I read years ago stated (in part): "The Roman Catholic Church has a completely different eccelesiology than does the Orthodox Church...it's a question of what you believe really happened in 1054 AD, when the Great Schism occurred...much of it came down to the question of papal authority...Either the Roman Church is correct when it teaches...that one must be in union with the Pope in order to be in Christ's Church, or the Orthodox view is correct...that one must hold the original and Apostolic Faith in order to be part of the Church. They cannot both be right."
And that explains why Catholic-Orthodox dialogue never gets very far beyond some nice statements and good will. Each claims to be the one true Church. For both to reunite, one side would have to admit they were "wrong." And that is about as likely as Fulton County (city of Atlanta) and Chatham County (city of Savannah) voting for Trump this November.
Well, hopefully the pope will not pontificate on the question as to whether some of our forts named for Confederate generals have to be renamed. "Holier than thou" Nancy Pelosi, who can never find an abortion restriction she likes, is making a major push for that. You know, because it is really a pressing issue to address names of forts that have been there for decades. I guess anytime we find a blemish on someone, well the building they are named after or their monument has to go---even if done unlawfully, as we have seen by the destruction of Confederate statues along Richmond's Monument Avenue. So, to be "fair and balanced", if we are going to rename "Confederate" forts, we need to change some things named after liberal icons. The FDR Monument in DC? He had Japanese Americans confined to camps during world war 2 and had a 30 or so year fling with Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd, who was present when FDR died at the Little White House 75 years ago. Guess we better move that. JFK Airport in New York? Well, it is pretty well documented his "appetite" for women other than his wife. Better change that name. The Johnson Space Center in Texas? Gotta go. LBJ stole the 1948 Senate election in his state and was less than faithful---akin to JFK---to his wife. A bit ironic that Trump, a brash New Yorker, is resisting calls even from his own party to change the names of the forts, but he knows PC when he sees it!
The "monuments battle" is a distraction from the real serious issues in the minority communities---high crime, poor schools and rampant illegitimacy. We don't hear Black Lives Matter talking about those issues at all. And the destruction of these monuments only inflames racial tensions---perhaps even fueling recruitment efforts of white supremacists, Nazis and other groups whose views clearly are antithetical to Catholic teaching.
The fact remains, the Church has been seriously divided into a de facto schism for decades. Finally, someone is pulling the mask (or blinders) off.
I'll withhold any further comments on company men...for now.
Fr. McDonald sings quite well!
😊
I challenge everyone reading this blog to read every line of everything Archbishop Vigano has said and then attempt to refute it line by line before they attempt to call him an enemy of the Church without actually addressing the problems he brings up. The old tactic of ignoring the elephant in the room by simply appealing to obedience is what got the Church in trouble to begin with.
Read what Vigano has to say and read it with an open mind. If you think you can explain the crisis in a better way be my guest.
https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-11-june-10-2020-the-root-of-the-problem/
The concerns that Vigano raises are very serious. The manner in which he is doing it is questionable and the accusatory style is bad form and sets a horrible precedent and further politicizes the hierarchy and polarizes it and the Church--this is even more serious to say the least. The Eastern Orthodox, Martin Luther, other Protestant reformers all had legitimate points about the corruption in the Church and with popes. So are you saying that we should listen to the Protestant reformers of the 16th century, rehabilitate them and make them saints for the truth they spoke at that time?
Father McDonald,
With all due respect, just how was Archbishop Vigano supposed to handle this? We have all been disgusted with the secrecy, including you, imposed by the Vatican and many dioceses on the wrongdoings of scoundrels like McCarrick. If left to the Vatican, if past is prologue, they would have told Vigano to keep quiet or else. We simply no longer have confidence in the higher ups to do the right thing. The only reason the Catholic Church did anything was because of the investigative reporting down by one of my least favorite groups, the secular media.
TJM he’s is a Catholic Bishop who has directly promised respect and obedience to the pope. He knows how to handle this and what he is doing isn’t the right way. Thus all I can say is what he should not do, acting like rhe Eastern bishops prior to the Great Schism and the Protestant reformers of the 1500’s , etc.
Fr Z recently referred to the:
Vigano Trigger Disorder, VTD.
And this VTD combined with the TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome was always going to drive Catholic liberals crazy!
Whatever can be said for or against Archbishop Vigano he is I think a man who truly believes; he has the faith! he believes in the transcendent. Fr Z also said that when Catholic modernists (who reduce the supernatural to the natural) are confronted with an influential Catholic who actually REALLY believes in the transcendent, that too can drive them mad.
By the way, I am fully aware that almost all who contribute to this blog have far greater theological knowledge than myself; could one of you explain to me part of what Fr Z is stating by giving me a classic example of a Catholic modernist reducing the supernatural to the natural?
Thanks.
Gerard S.
Father McDonald,
Please help me. If the Pope protects sexual predators and the Pope covers it up, the bishop, out of "promised respect and obedience" should just be quiet? If so, that is probably a reason many Catholics have walked away. I am still waiting for the Pope to answer the 4 dubia.
Privately he should alert the legal authorities who should investigate. If there is evidence, he should be placed on trial.
In terms of papal authority, what part of the catechism and the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium as it concern the SUPREME PONTIFF, do you not understand? Or maybe you do understand and are a closeted Martin Lutherite who thinks we don’t need a SUPREME PONTIFF?
Father McDonald,
I am not an ultra montanist. I recall St. Catherine of Siena publicly criticized the Pope.
Before you write off Archbishop Vigano, I would ask that you go over to Father Z and read his take.
Gerard S.
Reading the following should help:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/modernism
I think what Father Z says can be reduced to a general rule, in that Modernists, if they acknowledge any occurrence of the supernatural at all, only do so as a last resort.
Anon@3.34,
Thank you for your reply and that link.
However, I think I have reached a stage where I probably have neither the time nor the intellect to fully grasp all the key ideas and insights (which Pius X et all regarded as dangerous heresies) in the writings of Alfred Loisy d 1940 and George Tyrrell d 1909 etc.....or how and why the supernatural is collapsed into or reduced to the natural in the writings of the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, and whether de Chardin was really a pantheist who didn't believe in a transcendent God....and so on..
For health reasons I took early retirement. I have in recent years had time to complete some courses in philosophy, Church history and scripture; courses that a part of a theology degree. And for several years I have spent MANY hours caught up in online "culture wars" and "history wars" debates and discussions and of course the "liturgy wars" as well....
But now at 60, and recently diagnosed with CLL leukemia, I think my priorities must change.
I now plan to spend much more of my spare time rereading the psalms, meditating and praying and reflecting while listening to Gregorian chant etc rather than spending too much time in online Catholic debates and discussions.
I know this is stating the obvious but when I face my judgement, whether or not I completed a theology degree as a retired middle aged student will be irrelevant...
Instead of struggling to achieve a distinction in an essay on Catholic Modernism 1890-1910 and spending increasing time on online religous debates and discussions I should I feel be getting out and, for example, visiting and or assisting members of my extended family who are either lonely or in poor physical or mental health.....and being lucky enough to now be in that top "1%" financially start increasing my donations to charitable organizations and maybe looking into financially supporting something new like "chaplains without borders" which I was told today was founded by a Catholic priest.
But again, thanks for your reply and that link.
Gerard S.
Gerard,
Prayers going up for you. May God give you strength and peace..
Post a Comment