The “Fake News” of Viganò and Company. Unmasked by a Cardinal
*
On the serious case of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò the Holy See is keeping quiet. Not a word from the congregation appointed to watch over the "doctrine of the faith.” Not a word from Pope Francis, whose original mandate, as the successor of Peter, is to strengthen his brothers in the faith.
The calculation underlying this silence is plausibly that of letting Viganò go adrift, alone or nearly so.
In effect, since he has lashed out against Vatican II as a hotbed of heresies, maintaining that it would be best to "drop it 'in toto' and forget it,” the buffer of support around the former apostolic nuncio to the United States has been shrinking.
Viganò reached the apogee of his media success on June 6 with his open letter to Donald Trump, "son of light" against the power of darkness, and with the enthusiastic response of the American president in a tweet that went viral.
But back then the themes were different, more political than doctrinal. They were the ones presented in the previous appeal launched by Viganò on May 8 against - according to him - the "New World Order" of Masonic stamp pursued by those "nameless and faceless" powers that are bending to their own interests even the coronavirus pandemic.
After that of Viganò, three cardinals and eight bishops added their signaturesto that appeal. But if today he were to launch another appeal for banning the whole of Vatican Council II, perhaps even among those eleven no one would be found willing to sign it.
Among the members of the Church hierarchy the one closest to Viganò’s positions appears to be Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan.
In fact, it was one of Schneider's own writings, published on June 6, that gave Viganò his opening to lash out from that point on against Vatican Council II.
With the difference that while Schneider was asking that the individual errors of doctrine contained in conciliar documents be "corrected,” particularly in the declarations "Dignitatis Humanae" on religious freedom and "Nostra Aetate" on the relationship with non-Christian religions, Viganò, in a text published on June 9 and then in all of his subsequent texts, goes on to claim that it is the whole of Vatican II that must be scrapped.
To be precise, this is the formulation that Viganò has given to his thesis, in one of his latest statements, dated July 4, in response to questions from the editor of "LifeSite News,” John H. Westen:
“Anyone with common sense can see that it is an absurdity to want to interpret a Council, since it is and ought to be a clear and unequivocal norm of Faith and Morals. Secondarily, if a magisterial act raises serious and reasoned arguments that it may be lacking in doctrinal coherence with magisterial acts that have preceded it, it is evident that the condemnation of a single heterodox point in any case discredits the entire document. If we add to this the fact that the errors formulated or left obliquely to be understood between the lines are not limited to one or two cases, and that the errors affirmed correspond conversely to an enormous mass of truths that are not confirmed, we can ask ourselves whether it may be right to expunge the last assembly from the catalog of canonical Councils. The sentence will be issued by history and by the ‘sensus fidei’ of the Christian people even before it is given by an official document.”
If this rejection by Viganò of the whole of Vatican Council II is not a schismatic act, it is undoubtedly on the brink. But who among the bishops and cardinals will want to follow him? Probably no one.
*
Getting back to Bishop Schneider, it must be said that even his arguments appear fragile to those who have a passing familiarity with doctrine and the history of dogma.
His thesis is that already at other times in history the Church has corrected doctrinal errors, some them serious, committed in previous ecumenical councils, without thereby "undermining the foundations of the Catholic faith.” And therefore it should do the same today with the heterodox statements of Vatican II.
In a statement on June 24 Schneider offered two examples of doctrinal errors that were corrected later:
The first attributed to the Council of Constance:
“With a Bull in 1425, Martin V approved the decrees of the Council of Constance and even the decree ‘Frequens’ — from the 39th session of the Council (in 1417). This decree affirmed the error of conciliarism, i.e., the error that a Council is superior to a Pope. However, in 1446, his successor, Pope Eugene IV, declared that he accepted the decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Constance, except those (of sessions 3 - 5 and 39) which ‘prejudice the rights and primacy of the Apostolic See’ (absque tamen praeiudicio iuris, dignitatis et praeeminentiae Sedis Apostolicae). Vatican I’s dogma on papal primacy then definitively rejected the conciliarist error of the Ecumenical Council of Constance.”
The second attributed to the Council of Florence:
“An opinion different from what the Council of Florence taught on the matter of the Sacrament of Orders, i.e. the ‘traditio instrumentorum’, was allowed in the centuries following this Council, and led to Pope Pius XII’s pronouncement in the 1947 Apostolic Constitution ‘Sacramentum Ordinis’, whereby he corrected the non-infallible teaching of the Council of Florence, by stating that the only matter strictly necessary for the validity of the Sacrament of Orders is the imposition of hands by the bishop. By this act, Pius XII did not implement a hermeneutic of continuity but, indeed, a correction, because the Council of Florence’s doctrine in this matter did not reflect the constant liturgical doctrine and practice of the universal Church. Already in the year 1914, Cardinal W.M. van Rossum wrote concerning the Council of Florence’s affirmation on the matter of the Sacrament of Orders, that this doctrine of the Council is reformable and must even be abandoned (cf. ‘De essentia sacramenti ordinis’, Freiburg 1914, p. 186). And so, there was no room for a hermeneutic of continuity in this concrete case.”
It is not surprising that when reading these lines a distinguished historian of the Church such as Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, president from 1998 to 2009 of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, should have been taken aback by the errors contained therein and evident to him.
He therefore sent Schneider a quick summary of the inaccuracies. Which he then put in writing in this note received by Settimo Cielo:
“The Council of Constance (1415-1418) put an end to the schism that had divided the Church for forty years. In that context, it has often been stated - and recently repeated - that this council, with the decrees 'Haec sancta' and 'Frequens’, defined conciliarism, the superiority of the council over the pope.
“But this is not true at all. The assembly that issued those decrees was by no means an ecumenical council authorized to define the doctrine of the faith. It was instead an assembly of none but the followers of John XXIII (Baldassarre Cossa), one of the three 'popes' who were contending at that time over the leadership of the Church. That assembly had no authority.
“The schism lasted until the assembly of Constance was joined by the other two parties as well, meaning the followers of Gregory XII (Angelo Correr) and the 'natio hispanica' of Benedict XIII (Pedro Martinez de Luna), which happened in the autumn of 1417. Only from that moment on did the 'council' of Constance become a true ecumenical council, albeit still without the pope who was eventually elected.
“So all the proceedings of that first 'incomplete' phase of the council and its documents did not have the slightest canonical value, although they were effective at the political level in those circumstances. After the end of the council the new and only legitimate pope, Martin V, confirmed the documents issued by the 'incomplete' pre-conciliar assembly, except for 'Haec sancta’, 'Frequens’, and 'Quilibet tyrannus'.
“'Frequens’, valid because it had been issued by the three former factions in concert, did not require confirmation. But it does not teach conciliarism at all, nor is it a doctrinal document, but simply regulates the frequency of the convening of councils.
“As for the Council of Florence (1439-1445), it is true that in the decree 'Pro Armenis' it affirmed that in order for priestly ordination to be valid this required the 'porrectio instrumentorum’, meaning the conferral of the instruments of his office upon the one ordained. And it is true that Pius XII in the apostolic constitution 'Sacramentum Ordinis' established that for the future this would no longer be necessary, and declared as the matter of the sacrament the 'manus impositio' and as its form the 'verba applicationem huius materiae determinantia'.
“But the Council of Florence, regarding priestly ordination, did not deal with doctrine at all. It only regulated the liturgical rite. And it must be remembered that it is always the Church that orders the ritual form of the sacraments.”
*
That does it for Cardinal Brandmüller's memo on the “fake news” that is feeding the contestation of Vatican II which has its leading exponents in Schneider but even more so in Viganò.
It is striking that, at 91, Brandmüller should be the only cardinal who is raising an articulate critical voice against the operation for the rejection of the Council that has exploded in recent weeks.
Likewise striking is the silence on the Viganò case of another cardinal who is habitually very combative and vocal, Gerhard L. Müller, former prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith and therefore apt to be quite sensitive to such questions.
Unfortunately, however, Müller is also one of the three cardinals who signed Viganò's political manifesto of May 8 against the "New World Order.” Is it perhaps because of this careless antecedent that he now feels obligated to keep quiet?
22 comments:
The article noted Cardinal Walter Brandmüller's recent correction of the nonsense that Bishop Schneider promoted a few weeks ago in regard to the supposed "error(s)" of the Council of Florence...Bishop Schneider's nonsense in regard to Vatican II...etc.
During the past year or so, I have worried about the increasing amount of nonsense that Bishop Schneider has promoted.
I hope and pray that Bishop Schneider, who continues to speak in a respectful tone in regard to the Vicar of Christ, but has trafficked to a certain extent in nonsense in regard to Pope Francis, as well as Church history, is not on the path taken by Archbishop Viganò.
Except for "V is for Viganò" fanatics who hate Pope Francis, and have worked with Archbishop Viganò to mutiny against God, via their mutiny against Pope Francis and Holy Mother Church, nobody takes seriously the lies and garbage that Archbishop Viganò has promoted.
Archbishop Viganò is a proven liar. He has flow off the rails completely. He has shamed and embarrassed himself. He has mutinied against God.
I don't place Bishop Schneider in Archbishop Viganò's league. But everybody from liberals to conservatives, "modernists" to "traditionalists,"...even sedevacantists...denounced the grave mistakes that Bishop Schneider promoted recently.
What on earth is Bishop Schneider thinking?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Archbishop Viganò has cooperated with powerful "traditional" Catholic Pope Francis-hating networks to attempt to defame, as well as lead a mutiny, against the Vicar of Christ.
God is, if you will, the ultimate "victim" of the Archbishop Viganò's mutiny in question.
It is against God (and His True Church) whom the mutineers have shaken their fists.
Pope Francis-hating "V is for Viganò" fanatics have throw in with Archbishop Viganò as they've perceived that Pope Francis is the focus of Archbishop Viganò's nonsense.
But in many ways, it has been Pope Emeritus/Pope Benedict XVI, rather than Pope Francis, who has been victimized by Archbishop Viganò's lies and mutiny.
Via his initial "testimony," Archbishop Viganò pretended that Pope Benedict XVI had applied strict canonical sanctions to then-Cardinal McCarrick.
Archbishop Viganò then switch the focus/blame to Pope Francis for having rehabilitated supposedly then-Cardinal McCarrick.
The Pope Francis-hating "V is for Viganò" fanatics then jumped on "Bergoglio...Bergoglio...Bergoglio!..."
But it was Pope Benedict XVI who, if Archbishop Viganò is to be believed, permitted then-Cardinal McCarrick to trample the strict canonical sanctions that said Pope had applied to then-Cardinal McCarrick.
Then-Cardinal McCarrick continued to offer Mass publicly. He traveled the world. He even attended, in Pope Benedict XVI's presence, events at the Vatican.
Again, if Archbishop Viganò has told the truth in regard to then-Cardinal McCarrick, then it is Pope Benedict XVI, rather than Pope Francis, who has been made to look ridiculous and incompetent.
Next, Father-McDonald permitting, I would like to explorer Archbishop Viganò recent attack against Pope Benedict XVI's hermenutic of continuity in regard to the Archbishop denunciation of Vatican II.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The very premise of this story seems to be that Vigano's popularity is shrinking in the Vatican. Maybe, maybe not. Using popularity or lack of popularity or approval as the measure of one's legitimacy or the legitimacy of his arguments is not an indicator of validity.
I seem to remember that a lot of people were distancing themselves and even laughing at Noah.
Count me in a “fanatic” if you will ,I pray to Our Lord and Our Lady for the good Archbishop Vigano who is not going go down without a fight to restore the Roman Catholic Church and The Traditional Latin Mass! Just now Vigano has written a prayer for The United States and for President Trump whom I believe will convert to The True Faith under the guidance of Archbishop Vigano and with Melania Trump who was baptized Catholic while growing up in Slovenia a 95% Roman Catholic country. Your hatred of Vigano is utterly disgusting, this man has to be in hiding lest the Vatican and the Jesuit Pope finds him!
Perhaps someone more eloquent than myself could instruct poor Mr. Thomas about a few basics in the realm of arguments...specifically that expressing disagreements is not always an "attack". This puerile drama fixation is getting old.
Anonymous at 1:04 PM,
Archbishop Viganò has not attacked Pope Francis. Archbishop Viganò has engaged in mere "disagreements" with Pope Francis.
Oh, okay. Got it.
Mere "disagreements."
Pope Francis is a Church-wrecking promoter of false teachings, according to Archbishop Viganò.
Archbishop Viganò called for Pope Francis to resign.
Archbishop Viganò has wanted us to believe that Pope Francis protected a sexual predator Cardinal.
Mere "disagreements."
The Archbishop is now on the attack...sorry..."disagrees"... merely in regard to the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council.
Oh. Okay.
:-)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Sorry Father, but when I see full-page, double spaced bullet statements from MT taking over the comments section, I stop reading. I am here to read YOUR blog, not his.
Amen to that Carol!👍
MT is poorly trained in the Faith. He also sounds like a sycophant
Here's a link to a new story about how 50 scholars and journalists have thanked these "attackers" for their civil discussion about Vatican II:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/50-priests-scholars-journalists-thank-vigano-schneider-for-raising-vatican-ii-questions
Pierre,
Thank you for reminding us of our vocabulary options. Sycophant is such a nice word, considering I was thinking more along the lines of "groveling bootlick".
Archbishop Viganò's latest war is against Vatican II, as well as Pope Emeritus'/Benedict XVI's hermeutic of continuity.
Pope Emeritus, a Vatican II insider, is THE expert on the Council. He answered long ago the old anti-Vatican II claims that Archbishop Viganò has rehashed.
Pope Emeritus, when Pope, applied Vatican II in authoritative fashion. That can be said of one holy Pope after another.
Pope Emeritus taught, as did his Vatican II Era predecessors, and has his successor, that Vatican II is orthodox. He taught that the Council is in line with Tradition.
It is not worth going into a big thing about this as the Papal Magisterium has declared authoritatively in regard to the Second Sacred Vatican Council's validity, orthodoxy, and place within Holy Mother Church.
Our holy Popes trump Archbishop Viganò in that regard.
God commands Archbishop Viganò to submit to the Bishop of Rome's authority to teach, govern, and sanctify the Archbishop.
Should he wish to please God, then Archbishop Viganò must teach in union with the Bishop of Rome.
May Archbishop Viganò end his mutiny against Rome....which is actually a mutiny against God
Pax.
Mark Thomas
This will ruin MT's day:
"Today, more than 50 priests, scholars, journalists, and other persons of prominence published an Open Letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, thanking these two prelates for their recent statements in which they discuss some problems of the Second Vatican Council's documents that might need a further evaluation and correction.
The signatories of this letter regard this discourse about the Council and its aftermath to be of crucial importance for the good of the Church.
Among them are prominently the Italian church historian Professor Roberto de Mattei, the U.S. Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst and professor of law, Andrew P. Napolitano, as well as his fellow law professors Brian McCall and Paolo Pasqualucci, well-known Catholic book authors such as Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, Jose Antonio Ureta, Henry Sire, and Dr. Taylor Marshall, the retired Oxford Research Fellow Father John Hunwicke, numerous other priests, as well as journalists such as Marco Tosatti, Aldo Maria Valli, Jeanne Smits, and John-Henry Westen."
This will certainly ruin MT's day:
Today, more than 50 priests, scholars, journalists, and other persons of prominence published an Open Letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, thanking these two prelates for their recent statements in which they discuss some problems of the Second Vatican Council's documents that might need a further evaluation and correction.
"The signatories of this letter regard this discourse about the Council and its aftermath to be of crucial importance for the good of the Church.
Among them are prominently the Italian church historian Professor Roberto de Mattei, the U.S. Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst and professor of law, Andrew P. Napolitano, as well as his fellow law professors Brian McCall and Paolo Pasqualucci, well-known Catholic book authors such as Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, Jose Antonio Ureta, Henry Sire, and Dr. Taylor Marshall, the retired Oxford Research Fellow Father John Hunwicke, numerous other priests, as well as journalists such as Marco Tosatti, Aldo Maria Valli, Jeanne Smits, and John-Henry Westen."
To be frank, I don't think Pope Benedict or too many others in his camp honestly believe this whole "hermeneutic of continuity" thing in the first place. I think, at best, the term was created as an appeasement to those who are so fixated on Vatican II (or as Ratzinger once mockingly called it, a "Superdogma") while Benedict trumped them with Summorum Pontificum. Just like "extraordinary form"--another meaningless term. It is THE form of the Mass and changing it violate Quo Primum. If anything, we should call the Novus Ordo the "Manipulated Form". I think that deep down, Pope Benedict knows most of the "fruits" of Vatican II were poison, but he didn't dare rebuke the council. That atmosphere is changing. Of course, I can't read the pope emeritus' mind, but I'm just speculating. Time will tell.
"This will certainly ruin MT's day:
Today, more than 50 priests, scholars, journalists, and other persons of prominence published an Open Letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, thanking these two prelates for their recent statements in which they discuss some problems of the Second Vatican Council's documents that might need a further evaluation and correction."
Why would that have ruined my day?
Persons of prominence have signed open letters that denounced Humanae Vitae.
Persons of prominence denounced Summorum Pontificum.
Persons of prominence have insisted that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI doesn't have the right to broadcast his opinions publicly.
Persons of prominence insisted that Pope Benedict XVI covered up for sexually abusive priests.
Priests, scholars, journalists, and other persons of prominence have insisted that Pope Venerable Pius XII was silent in the face of Nazi crimes.
Priests, scholars, journalists, and other persons of prominence, such as Cardinals Burke and Müller, have insisted that the SSPX is schismatic.
===================================================================================
What matters in regard to Vatican II is that which the True Church has taught. In turn, the True Church has recognized the Council as Her legitimate, orthodox, 21st Ecumenical Council.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The Magisterium, not an open letter signed by 50 persons of prominence, pronounces upon Vatican II.
Pax.
Mark Thomas.
The encyclopaedia my parents bought me in the 1970s stated quite clearly that after Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church no longer taught it was the one, true church. If this encyclopaedia was wrong many priests after 1965 talked and acted like the Catholic Church was no longer the one, true Church.I have read a number of times converts claiming that when they first approached Catholic priests in the 1970s and 1980s to discuss converting to Catholicism the Catholic priest told them it was unnecessary as it was fine for them to remain Protestants.
Even as a teenager in the 1970s it was fairly clear to me the Church was to a significant extent in the process of reinventing itself.
It was also clear, for example, that Father X could still believe something, while Father Y thought and taught otherwise. Many Catholics believed that a number of beliefs and practises in existence up to 1962 were now theologically outdated and/or “theologically bankrupt” or were “legalistic and Jansenistic nonsense”. To be a “pre Vatican II type person” was for many the ultimate insult.
I believe one does not need to be a theologian to grasp that in the Vatican II era the Church did an about face as regards the ecumenical movement, religious liberty and collegiality. Also, a reasonably smart high school student can be shown that many of the theological experts and advisers at Vatican II were Modernists as that term was understood in the first half of the 20th century.
The changes in the Mass were significant and happened so quickly. There were other overnight changes; overnight eating meat on Friday went from being a sin to not being a sin at all.
How could the liturgy be changed as much as it was, and other changes occur simultaneously, and there not be millions of Catholics who thought that Catholic Church teaching had changed as well?
And, as it was well said above the fruits of Vatican II have largely been poison.
Thank God there are now some priests and educated Catholic lay people who want to take a critical look at the Council and the ways it was implemented.
GS.
Well put, anonymous.
Mark Thomas,
LOL - tell your idol, PF, to follow the Magisterium, instead of sowing confusion and sticking his nose into secular issues for which he has no expertise. Have you disconnected your air conditioning yet? I am fairly certain PF has not
Wow MT..,perhaps some Immodium for what is ailing your mouth?
Pierre & Anonymous:
Again, well put.
Post a Comment