The Catholic Message Board

jessica01 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 11:20 am

Stella wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 6:47 pm It's a case of Pope Francis having no options left. For a senior prelate (Vigano) to deny the validity of Vatican II, declare the sitting Pope as an apostate heretic preparing the way for Antichrist and to begin ordaining Priests to the clergy who follow his beliefs, with no intention of obeying or even appearing in his own defence before the Vatican... that just can't be let to fester. All Catholics need to know these beliefs are objectively heretical for the sake of their souls.


Where Peter Is has provided an unofficial translation of the edict...

https://wherepeteris.com/english-transl ... on-decree/

Vigano was excommunicated for schism, not heresy. His refusal to accept Pope Francis as the valid Pope seems to be the main cause. I haven't seen any analysis of his views that claim he is heretical in any way. Schism is a huge deal, and we do need to be concerned when people try to lead others in that direction. Really not sure what you think is heretical about disagreeing with a council that explicitly states it didn't make any dogmatic declarations though, as denying or teaching a contradiction a dogma is required for heresy in its various levels.

I'd like to see Vigano's position of outright rejection of Vatican II addressed more in depth by the Church. He like Lefebvre are declared to be in schism but there a still lots of Catholic traditionalists that hold rejection of Vatican II as almost 'doctrine'. A false doctrine of course.

Rejection of Vatican II is not part of the issue with Vigano, stop obsessing with Vatican II, it is not the be all end all of Catholicism.

Doom wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:13 pm Rejection of Vatican II is not part of the issue with Vigano, stop obsessing with Vatican II, it is not the be all end all of Catholicism.

Doom wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:13 pm Rejection of Vatican II is not part of the issue with Vigano, stop obsessing with Vatican II, it is not the be all end all of Catholicism.

Yes it was. Vigano himself cited the DDF initial request of his presence at the Vatican and that was reproduced in the final decree (Page 2)...

along with the publication of the Decree on social media, the following statement was published (by Vigano): “The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has notified me, by a simple email, of the initiation of an extrajudicial criminal trial against me, with the accusation of having committed the crime of schism and accusing me of having denied the legitimacy of “Pope Francis,” of having broken communion “with Him,” and of having rejected the Second Vatican Council. I am summoned to the Palace of the Holy Office on June 20, in person or represented by a lawyer. I assume the condemnation is also already ready, given the extrajudicial process.”

The final decree cites another of Vigano's statements on Page 7...

h. “Bergoglio’s “church is not the Catholic Church, but that “conciliar church born of the Second Vatican Council and recently rebranded under the no less heretical name of ‘synodal church.’” If it is from this ‘church’ that I am declared separated by schism, I make it my reason for honor and boasting” (June 21, 2024, https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2024/06/2 ... ecarmi-al- sanctuary-and-submit-me-to-a-process-farce/);

i. “These words would be enough to make one understand the gulf that separates the Catholic Church from the one that replaced it with the Second Vatican Council, when the Protestant winds finally invaded the Catholic body.

The decree goes on and on. Page 9 again quotes Vigano...

“I make it a point of honor to be “accused” of rejecting the errors and deviations implied by the so-called Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which I consider to be completely devoid of magisterial authority

On Page 10 summing up the evidence for excommunication it says...

At the basis of the accused’s teaching, the assessors reached certainty about the rejection of the legitimacy and magisterial authority of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council as clear evidence of the Prelate’s schismatic disposition.

https://wherepeteris.com/english-transl ... on-decree/

Sure, but nothing would have happened to him if he hadn't gone off on his sedevacantist tangent

Setting Vigano aside for a moment, most criticism I see of V2 is of the ambiguity that allowed "the Spirit of Vatican 2" to be abused as justification for a lot of bad things. Few go as far as Vigano did. To leap from this specific case to a blanket condemnation of anyone not suitbly enamored with V2 and the mess that has been the aftermath of the council is nonsense.

Criticism ≠ Rejection

No one has ever been disciplined merely for criticizing Vatican II, a council that is 60 years old (that is two full generations) and which, even under the most generous interpretation of events has been a complete failure, like Lateran V, the reforming council held by Julius II on the eve of the Reformation 1512-1517 and which accomplished virtually nothing of note. Of all the documents published by the Council, only one of them, Lumen Gentium, is a Dogmatic Constitution. Yet, it defines no dogmas and little in it cannot be nuanced away by a halfway competent theologian who is uncomfortable with some of the wording. It would be difficult, indeed nearly impossible, to be so opposed to Lumen Gentium that you end up denying a dogma of the faith and become a heretic.

The rest of the documents are all pastoral or question or mere time-limited prudential judgments that do not concern essential matters of faith or morals.

Sure, if one were to say, as some do, that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid, that priests ordained under the 1968 ordination rites are not real priests, that would be schismatic, but I am not sure it would be heretical.

There is actually a lot to criticize about Vatican II and Catholics are free to do so.

peregrinator wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2024 8:04 am Sure, but nothing would have happened to him if he hadn't gone off on his sedevacantist tangent

And it seems to be getting worse, Vigano's last statement on the matter seems to suggest there has been no real Pope since Pius XII, a position which makes no sense because it would almost certainly invalidate his episcopal ordination.

There's a rumor that he got himself conditionally consecrated by Richard Williamson

Still, it is essentially the suicide position. Sedevacantists can't explain how nearly 70 years without a Pope is supposed to be resolved, even theoretically. If you ask "okay, how are we going to get a Pope", the only answer I have heard is an appeal to a future miracle of revelation from God, which is insane.

I agree that sedevacantism is not tenable*, I was simply responding to the part about Vigano's episcopal consecration - some (most? all?) sedevacantists believe that the Montini rite of episcopal consecration is not valid, but Williamson was consecrated in the Roman rite by Abp. Lefebvre, etc.

*I think sedevacantists like not having a Pope, which is why they haven't elected one for themselves.

Stella wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 6:47 pm For a senior prelate (Vigano) to deny the validity of Vatican II, declare the sitting Pope as an apostate heretic preparing the way for Antichrist and to begin ordaining Priests to the clergy who follow his beliefs, with no intention of obeying or even appearing in his own defence before the Vatican... that just can't be let to fester. All Catholics need to know these beliefs are objectively heretical for the sake of their souls.

I don't get to spend as much time here as I might but wanted to get some answers here (asking for a 'friend'...)

1. validity of Vatican II (not sure what to do with this one as I think no new dogma nor belief was defined here so doesn't seem relevant)
2. declare the sitting Pope as an apostate heretic preparing the way for Antichrist (perhaps opinion I didn't/don't believe in except with some thought to the last several years which doesn't seem to follow)
3. begin ordaining Priests to the clergy who follow his beliefs (the italicized part is obviously irrelevant, but I wasn't aware the that bishops were not allowed or needed other permission to ordain priests?
4. no intention of obeying or even appearing in his own defense before the Vatican (certainly seems he should appear in his defense, but he certainly wouldn't be the only bishop in history to not have done this).
5. [All Catholics need to know these beliefs are objectively heretical] for the sake of their souls. - this certainly doesn't follow. putting aside the 'schism' he was declared guilty of, how do you reconcile even to yourself that these 'beliefs' are heretical? At least two of them (1, 3, perhaps 4) are not. 2 seems problematic.

2) is not heretical but is schismatic.
3) can be problematic. It is possible for a bishop to be forbidden to ordain, though I don't know if +Vigano was.

But you are correct. None of these is heretical, and +Vigano was not charged with heresy.

Even if he weren't forbidden to ordain I'm guessing no one he ordained had dismissorial letters.

Tired wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 11:04 pm

Stella wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 6:47 pm For a senior prelate (Vigano) to deny the validity of Vatican II, declare the sitting Pope as an apostate heretic preparing the way for Antichrist and to begin ordaining Priests to the clergy who follow his beliefs, with no intention of obeying or even appearing in his own defence before the Vatican... that just can't be let to fester. All Catholics need to know these beliefs are objectively heretical for the sake of their souls.

I don't get to spend as much time here as I might but wanted to get some answers here (asking for a 'friend'...)

1. validity of Vatican II (not sure what to do with this one as I think no new dogma nor belief was defined here so doesn't seem relevant)
2. declare the sitting Pope as an apostate heretic preparing the way for Antichrist (perhaps opinion I didn't/don't believe in except with some thought to the last several years which doesn't seem to follow)
3. begin ordaining Priests to the clergy who follow his beliefs (the italicized part is obviously irrelevant, but I wasn't aware the that bishops were not allowed or needed other permission to ordain priests?
4. no intention of obeying or even appearing in his own defense before the Vatican (certainly seems he should appear in his defense, but he certainly wouldn't be the only bishop in history to not have done this).
5. [All Catholics need to know these beliefs are objectively heretical] for the sake of their souls. - this certainly doesn't follow. putting aside the 'schism' he was declared guilty of, how do you reconcile even to yourself that these 'beliefs' are heretical? At least two of them (1, 3, perhaps 4) are not. 2 seems problematic.

1. validity of Vatican II (not sure what to do with this one as I think no new dogma nor belief was defined here so doesn't seem relevant)

It was rejection of Vatican II that ultimately sealed Vigano's fate as I cited in my last post.

2. declare the sitting Pope as an apostate heretic preparing the way for Antichrist (perhaps opinion I didn't/don't believe in except with some thought to the last several years which doesn't seem to follow)

Is it a valid position of any Catholic, clergy or lay, to declare a position that the sitting Pope is an 'apostate heretic'? Vigano does not hold this an 'opinion'. He conveys it as a teaching and basis of his alternate movement. He declares as if he is a Pope. As yet, the Vatican doesn't know where he is based, hence having to communicate his trial to him by email. It's suspected that he has eyes on some seat in Russia having stated that Russia has “an epochal role in the restoration of Christian Civilization, contributing to bringing the world a period of peace from which the Church too will rise again purified and renewed in her ministers.”

3. begin ordaining Priests to the clergy who follow his beliefs (the italicized part is obviously irrelevant, but I wasn't aware the that bishops were not allowed or needed other permission to ordain priests?

He has been associated with the Hermitage of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph in Cumberland, Wisconsin and the questionable ordination of an indiviual running it. Bishop Powers has asked for clarification from Vigano.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news ... defamation

4. no intention of obeying or even appearing in his own defense before the Vatican (certainly seems he should appear in his defense, but he certainly wouldn't be the only bishop in history to not have done this).


5. [All Catholics need to know these beliefs are objectively heretical] for the sake of their souls. - this certainly doesn't follow. putting aside the 'schism' he was declared guilty of, how do you reconcile even to yourself that these 'beliefs' are heretical? At least two of them (1, 3, perhaps 4) are not. 2 seems problematic.


If not technically heretical then I hope in time that a category will restore peoples confidence and faith in all that is taught universally by Pope Francis' Magisterium.

Stella wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 8:20 pm
It was rejection of Vatican II that ultimately sealed Vigano's fate as I cited in my last post.

Not quite. It was the rejection of the "the legitimacy and magisterial authority (emphasis mine) of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council..." not plainly of the Council that was part of the conviction of schism.

I wish you would take Doom's advice and stop obsessing about V2 as if we're the end all be all of Catholicism (which thankfully it is not).

zeno wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 6:02 pm

Stella wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 8:20 pm
It was rejection of Vatican II that ultimately sealed Vigano's fate as I cited in my last post.

Not quite. It was the rejection of the "the legitimacy and magisterial authority (emphasis mine) of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council..." not plainly of the Council that was part of the conviction of schism.

I wish you would take Doom's advice and stop obsessing about V2 as if we're the end all be all of Catholicism (which thankfully it is not).

A distinction without a difference really.

The reality is that all the current rebellion today comes down to an indifference or worse, to the reforms of Vatican II which we are assured is an inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The closing brief at the Council by Paul VI makes it's importance very clear...

https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/ ... ancto.html

If you don't or won't see the difference no one is going to be able to help you understand and it is pointless to continue this conversation. I suggest you re-read the responses you have already gotten and try to figure it out.