The traditionalists must use the L.A interpretation of Vatican Council II otherwise Cardinal Fernandez and Archbishop-elect Kennedy will start ticking them off, one by one, for being faithful to Jesus and His Catholic Church. - Lionel Andrades
Thursday, August 1, 2024
Defenders of Archbishop Vigano cite traditional souces without mentioning that something new has been brought into the Church, it is specific and known
There are reports on line which defend Archbishop Carlo Vigano by citing
traditional sources, often from the Scholastic period. This is correct and as
it should be. But they miss the point. The excommunication of the
traditionalist archbishop was based upon Vatican Council II, irrational. This
is something new which has been brought into the Church and needs to be
addressed. He is excommunicated for not accepting the liberalism and
unorthodoxy which emerges when the Council is interpreted with a fake premise
and inference. He is then excommunicated for not being in communion with Pope
Francis who also uses the fake premise and inference. So the pope is not in communion
with the popes over history on de fide teachings of the Church including the
Creeds.
Instead Vatican Council II, rational and irrational should be defined and
clarified. The archbishop like the correspondents of LifeSiteNews must affirm
Vatican Council II, interpreted only rationally.
Once this is settled they can they appeal to Pope Francis and the Dicastery
for the Doctrine of the Faith to interpret Vatican Council II only rationally.
They should also demand that the DDF and the Vatican affirm the Athanasius
Creed, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (
interpreted rationally) and the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( interpreted only
rationally) for example. Since these Magisterial Documents are no more
contradicted by Vatican Council II, rational. They must also ask the DDF to
clarify that the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston
made an objective error and Catholics are not obliged to follow it.They must point out with exact texts how the DDF does not affirm de fide teachings which are not contradicted by Vatican Council II, rational.
So once it is clarified that something new has come into the Church in 1949
and then 1965, the traditional sources can be cited to defend Catholic
orthodoxy.
It must also be noted tha Archbishop Carlo Vigano interprets Magisterial
Documents, as irrationally, as the liberal Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez.
Neither of the two are interpreting LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc
rationally and honestly.- Lionel Andrades
Was Archbishop Viganò really in schism?
In this article we
will examine the Vatican’s charge against Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and ask
whether he is truly guilty of the crime of schism.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganòdon Elvir Tabaković, Can.Reg
(LifeSiteNews) — On July 5, 2024, the
Vatican declared that Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò had automatically excommunicated
himself because he was guilty of “the delict [crime] of schism.”
In this article we will examine the Vatican’s charge
against the archbishop and ask whether he is truly guilty of the crime of
schism.
What is automatic
excommunication?
Excommunication is “a censure or penalty whereby a
delinquent or obstinate person is excluded from the communion of the faithful,
until after abandoning his contumacy he is absolved.”[1]
The Church can exercise this power in two ways.
The first is by attaching the penalty of
excommunication to certain specified crimes, so that if a person is guilty of
one these crimes they are automatically excommunicated by that very fact. This
is called excommunication latae sententiae.
The second way is by passing a judicial sentence
against a person who has been found guilty of a crime. This is called
excommunication ferendae sententiae.
The Vatican has declared Viganò is
excommunicated latae sententiae because, they allege, he has
committed the crime of schism.
The Vatican document states that:
His public statements manifesting his refusal to
recognize and submit to the Supreme Pontiff, his rejection of communion with
the members of the Church subject to him, and of the legitimacy and magisterial
authority of the Second Vatican Council are well known.
But does Viganò’s publicly expressed position really
constitute evidence that he is guilty of the crime of schism?
Lionel: Archbishop Vigano interprets the Nicene Creed irrationally like Cardinal Victor Manuel
Fernandez. Is this schism for the writer? He also projects exceptions for the
Athanasius Creed. This is stated, since he interprets Vatican Council II
irrationally, overlooks the objective mistake in the 1949 LOHO and generally is a
Cushingite traditionalist.
What is schism?
Schism is defined as follows:
Schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the
Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.[2]
To be a member of the Catholic Church, one must submit
to the authority which Jesus Christ, the Divine Head of the Church, exercises
through His Vicar, the Roman Pontiff, and through the college of bishops in
union with him. This power is threefold, that of sanctifying, teaching, and
governing.
Schism is the refusal to submit to the governing
authority of the Church, and thus separates a person from the Church.
Similarly, heresy, which is a refusal to submit to the teaching authority of
the Church, also severs a person from membership.
This teaching was clearly expressed by Pope Pius XII
in his encyclical letter Mystici Corporis Christi, “On the Mystical
Body of Christ”:
Actually only those are to be included as members of
the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not
been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or
been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed… And
therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the
Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are
divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body,
nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
He continued:
[N]ot every sin, however grave it may be, is such as
of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or
heresy or apostasy.[3]
Monsignor Gerard Van Noort summarizes the teaching of
Catholic theologians on schism:
Public schismatics are not members of the Church. They are not members
because by their own action they sever themselves from the unity of Catholic communion. The term Catholic communion, as used here, signifies
both cohesion with the entire body catholic (unity of worship, etc.), and union
with the visible head of the Church (unity of government).[4]
It is clear then that anyone who refuses submission to
the Supreme Pontiff is a schismatic, though it is important to make clear that
there are forms of disobedience to legitimate authority which do not comprise
rejection of the authority itself. Theologian Sylvester Hunter S.J.
writes:
The sin of schism specially so called is committed by
one who, being baptized, by a public and formal act renounces subjection to the
governors of the Church; also by one who formally and publicly takes part in
any public religious worship which is set up in rivalry of that of the Church.
It is not an act of schism to refuse obedience to a law or precept of the
Supreme Pontiff, or other ecclesiastical Superior, provided this refusal does
not amount to a disclaimer of all subjection to him.[5]
Does Viganò refuse submission
to the Supreme Pontiff?
It is clear from his public statements that Viganò
refuses submission to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who currently claims to occupy the
See of St. Peter under the papal name of Francis.
However, it is equally clear that Viganò does not, by
this act, intend to refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff because he does
not believe that Francis holds that position. One clear example, taken from his
statement in response to the
Vatican’s accusation of schism, will suffice to express the
archbishop’s position:
I strongly reject the accusation of having torn the
seamless garment of the Savior and of having departed from being under the
Supreme Authority of the Vicar of Christ: in order to separate myself from
ecclesial communion with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, I would have to have first been
in communion with him, which is not possible since Bergoglio himself cannot be
considered a member of the Church, due to his multiple heresies and his
manifest alienness and incompatibility with the role he invalidly and illicitly
holds.
It is clear therefore that Viganò intends to refuse
submission to Francis, but does not intend to refuse submission to the Supreme
Pontiff. He does not consider Francis to be the Supreme Pontiff.
Two questions therefore
arise:
Is rejection of a doubtful
pope schismatic?
To refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff, or to the
Successors of the Apostles who govern the Church in union with him, is
schismatic.
However, one has no obligation to obey a superior
whose claim to an office is doubtful.
In their commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Fr.
Francis X. Wernz and Fr. Peter Vidal state that it “would be rash to obey such
a man who had not proved his title in law.” They explain further:
[J]urisdiction is essentially a relation between a
superior who has the right to obedience and a subject who has the duty of
obeying. Now when one of the parties to this relationship is wanting, the other
necessarily ceases to exist also, as is plain from the nature of the
relationship.[6]
In other words, a person only has an obligation to
obey when there is someone who has the capacity to receive that obedience. One
can only have the obligation to submit to a pope, when there is a pope to whom
one can submit.
They continue:
However, if a pope is truly and permanently doubtful,
the duty of obedience cannot exist towards him on the part of any subject. For
the law, ‘Obedience is owed to the legitimately-elected successor of St. Peter,’
does not oblige if it is doubtful; and it most certainly is doubtful if the law
has been doubtfully promulgated, for laws are instituted when they are
promulgated, and without sufficient promulgation they lack a constitutive part,
or essential condition.
As explained elsewhere, for a law or command to be
legitimate, it must be duly promulgated by a legitimate authority. If the
legitimacy of an authority is doubtful, then so too is the law or command, and
there can be no intrinsic obligation to observe it. If this were otherwise, it
would lead to the absurd position that anyone with some claim to plausibility
could claim to hold authority, and others would be bound to obey
them.
For example, if that were so, one would be obliged to
obey someone who acted in the role of police officer, or army officer, or
bishop, for as long as one was in doubt as to whether their claims were
genuine. An obligation to obey doubtful authorities would be the end of
legitimate authority and true freedom.
Hence, with reference to the papacy, Wernz and Vidal
continue:
But if the fact of the legitimate election of a
particular successor of St. Peter is only doubtfully demonstrated, the
promulgation is doubtful; hence that law is not duly and objectively
constituted of its necessary parts, and it remains truly doubtful and therefore
cannot impose any obligation.
Indeed, it would be rash to obey such a man who had
not proved his title in law.
And they continue:
The same conclusion is confirmed on the basis of the
visibility of the Church. For the visibility of the Church consists in the fact
that she possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence
is used, she can be recognized and discerned, especially on the part of her
legitimate officers. But in the supposition we are considering, the pope cannot
be found even after diligent examination. The conclusion is therefore correct
that such a doubtful pope is not the proper head of the visible Church
instituted by Christ.
If one cannot see, after due diligence has been
deployed, that a man possesses all those signs and identifying marks proper to
a pope – such as being male, baptized, publicly professing the Catholic faith,
in communion with the members of the Church, in possession of the use of
reason, and duly elected and accepted by the Church – then one cannot
reasonably conclude that such a man is in fact the pope. (For more on what is
required for a valid papal election see here.)
A doubtful pope is to be regarded as not the pope.
Indeed, there is a traditional maxim “papa dubius, papa nullus.” A doubtful
pope is no pope.
To refuse submission to a doubtful pope is an act of
prudence, not an act of schism.
Wernz and Vidal write:
They cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who
refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect
or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation.[7]
This is the standard teaching of Catholic
theologians.
The renowned fifteenth century theologian Cardinal
Cajetan states:
If someone, for reasonable motive, holds the person of
the pope in suspicion and refuses his presence and even his jurisdiction, he
does not commit the delict of schism, not any other whatsoever, provided that
he be ready to accept the pope were he not held in suspicion.[8]
And noted seventeenth century theologian Juan de Lugo
comments:
[H]e will not be a schismatic who denies submission to
the Pope because he doubts probably about his legitimate election or his authority.[9]
And mid-twentieth century theologian Rev. Ignatius J.
Szal writes:
Nor is there any schism… if one refuses obedience
inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity
of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.[10]
Therefore, it is clear that to refuse submission to a
claimant to the papacy because their claim is doubtful, is not
schismatic.
We must now ask whether the claims of Francis to the
papacy are doubtful.
Is Francis a doubtful
pope?
An increasing number of Catholics regard it as morally
certain or at least probable, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly
elected to the papal office or, if he was, has since lost that
office.
There are a number of different arguments that are put
forward to support this position.
To do justice to all these arguments and provide them
in their fullest and most comprehensive form, is beyond the scope of this article.
Instead, we will briefly summarise some of the more important arguments, while
giving references to more detailed presentations or supporting
material.
(i) The argument from membership of the Church
It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that public
heretics are not members of the Church. This doctrine has been explained in
great detail in this article on public
heresy and Church membership.
Dutch theologian Monsignor G. Van Noort summarizes the
position as follows:
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 the three factors – baptism,
profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy – pointed out by Pius
XII as requisite for membership of the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly
pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism and apostasy automatically
sever a man from the Church.[11]
Monsignor Van Noort, like other theologians, makes
clear that what severs a person from membership of the Church is the public
nature of the heresy and not an individual’s personal culpability. He
writes:
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).[12]
It has also been clearly demonstrated that Francis is
a public heretic. For example, the 2017
filial correction identified numerous distinct heresies which
Francis has publicly professed and never retracted, despite being publicly
corrected.
The pope, as head of the Church, must be a member of
the Church, as theologian Rev. Sylvester Berry writes:
He must be a member of the Church since no one can be
the head of any society unless he be a member of that society.[13]
Therefore, if Francis is not a member of the Church,
he cannot be pope.
The argument can be expressed in the following
syllogisms:
Major premise: A public heretic is not a member of the
Catholic Church
Minor premise: Francis is a public heretic
Conclusion: Francis is not a member of the Catholic
Church
Major premise: The pope is a member of the Catholic
Church
Minor premise: Francis is not a member of the Catholic
Church
Conclusion: Francis is not the pope.
Another line of argument that could be pursued is that
Francis is a public schismatic, and therefore neither a member of the Church
nor the pope, due to his persecution of the traditional rites of the Roman
Church.
As famed sixteenth century Jesuit theologian Francisco
Suarez, the Doctor Eximius, wrote: “And in this second mode the
Pope could be schismatic, in case he did not want to have due union and
coordination with the whole body of the Church as would be the case if he tried
to excommunicate the whole Church, or if he wanted to subvert all the
ecclesiastical ceremonies founded on apostolic tradition, as we observed by
Cajetan (ad II-II, q. 39) and, with greater amplitude, Torquemada (1. 4,
c.11).”[14]
(ii) Argument from lack of intention to fulfil the
office of Pope
Archbishop Viganò has argued that Francis did not
assume the papacy because he never intended to carry out the papal office. His
position can be read in detail here. Others have put forward
similar arguments over the years, such as proponents of the Thesis
of Cassiacum.
The general position could be expressed as
follows:
Major premise: A man who resolutely refuses to fulfil
the duties of an office which he putatively holds either tacitly resigns, or
never accepted the office to start with.
Minor premise: Francis resolutely refuses to fulfil the
duties of the office of the papacy which he putatively holds.
Conclusion: Francis has either tacitly resigned or
never accepted the office to start with.
(iii) Argument from the unity of the Church
The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church possesses
four marks by which she is to be always easily identified. These are the marks
of (i) unity, (ii) sanctity, (iii) catholicity, and (iv) apostolicity.
These marks must always be clearly visible. As the
First Vatican Council taught:
[T]o enable us to fulfil the obligation to embrace the
true faith and to persistently persevere in it, God has instituted the Church
through his only-begotten Son, and has bestowed on it manifest marks of that
institution, that it may be recognized by all men as the guardian and teacher
of the revealed Word.[15]
The first of these marks, that of unity, manifests
itself as (i) unity of faith, (ii) unity of worship, and (iii) unity of
government. The Church is always visibly united in faith, such that that unity
is obvious to any honest observer. This unity of faith is brought about by the
submission of all the members of the Church to the rule of faith proposed by
the magisterium of the Church.
Monsignor Van Noort explains:
The unity of faith which Christ decreed without
qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office. In fact, our Lord requires nothing other than the acceptance by all of the
preaching of the apostolic college, a body which is to continue forever; or,
what amounts to the same thing, of the pronouncements of the Church’s teaching
office, which He Himself set up as the rule of faith. And the essential unity
of faith definitely requires that everyone hold each and every doctrine clearly
and distinctly presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office; and that
everyone hold these truths explicitly or at least implicitly, i.e., by acknowledging
the authority of the Church which teaches them.[16]
The visible principle of this unity is the pope, who
is the supreme teacher of the faith. By being submissive to the teaching of the
pope, the Church is united in that remarkable unity of faith which is one of
her visible marks. The word principle here means origin. The
Church is visibly united because every member submits to the
teaching of the pope.
But it is quite clear that Francis is not the cause of
the visible unity of the Catholic faithful. In fact, rejection of the heresies
taught by Francis is something that is common to all faithful Catholics.
Indeed, if a person were to submit to the whole body of doctrine proposed by
Francis they would, as a result of that submission, depart from the visible
unity of the faith.
As Francis is not the visible principle of unity of
the Catholic Church, he cannot be the pope.
(iv) Argument from the disciplinary infallibility of
the Church
This argument is based on the infallibility of the
Church’s universal laws.
The pope can never make universal laws or establish
disciplines which are intrinsically evil.
Pope Pius IV in the 1578 papal bull Auctorem
Fidei, condemned the following proposition:
‘…the Church, which is ruled by the Spirit of God,
could establish a discipline not merely useless and insupportable for the
Christian spirit, but even dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition
and to materialism.’
Dom Prosper Gueranger summarized the
standard teaching of theologians:
It is an article of Catholic doctrine that the Church
is infallible in the laws in which her general discipline consists – so that it
is not permissible to maintain, without breaking with orthodoxy, that a
regulation emanating from the sovereign power in the Church with the intention
of obliging all the faithful, or at least a whole class of the faithful, could
contain or favor error in faith or in morals.
It follows from this that, apart from the duty of
submission in conduct, imposed by general discipline on all those whom it
governs, we must recognize a ‘doctrinal value’ in ecclesiastical regulations
like this.[17]
Cardinal Louis Billot sums up this doctrine as
follows:
[T]he Church is assisted by God so that she can never
institute a discipline which would be in any way opposed to the rule of faith
or to evangelical holiness.[18]
The Church is a sound guide. The faithful can always
submit to her laws and disciplines, assured that they will assist souls to
heaven. However, Francis’s norms lead souls into error and sin. For example,
in Amoris Laetitia he has given permission for those living in
public adultery to receive Holy Communion and in Fiducia Supplicans he
has permitted the blessing of same-sex “couples.”
In establishing dangerous norms for the whole Church,
Francis would seem to be doing that which a true Roman Pontiff could never
do.
These are just four of a number of a different theological
approaches that could be taken to demonstrate that Francis is not the Roman
Pontiff. Each one will be expounded with greater depth and rigour in articles
to follow.
These are arguments based on sound theological
principles and they render the claims of Francis to the papacy to be, at the
very least, doubtful.
Other Catholics have raised doubts about the conclave
which elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio. In particular, they have pointed to
machinations by the “Saint Gallen group,” a self-confessed “mafia” of cardinals
and bishops who admitted to plotting to secure the “election” of Bergolio. More
can be read about the “Saint Gallen Mafia” here.
Some have argued that this plotting may have
invalidated the papal election, because they hold the election to have been
governed by norms established by Dominici Gregis of John Paul
II, No. 78, of which states: “Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors,
I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope’s lifetime
and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his
successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private
gatherings.”
No. 76 of the same document states: “Should the
election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present
Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the
election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a
declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one
elected.” Other Catholics have raised doubts about the resignation of Benedict
XVI and its impact on the validity of the 2013 conclave.
While the present author considers the theological
arguments to be the more compelling and more fruitful approach to the question,
there is no question that doubts about the conclave have been a cause for some
to doubt the validity of the papacy of Francis.
Is Viganò a schismatic?
In this article we have seen that refusal to submit to
the Supreme Pontiff is schismatic.
However, we have also seen that refusal to submit to a
doubtful pontiff is an act of prudence, not of schism.
The strong theological arguments that can be made
against Francis’s claim to hold the Roman Pontificate make him, at best, a
doubtful pontiff.
Therefore, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò must be
regarded as “not guilty” of the grave crime of schism.
S.D. Wright also contributed to this article.
References
|
References |
|
|
Rev. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB, p432-33. |
|
|
St. Thomas Aquinas, ST II.II q.39 a.1. |
|
|
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, No. 22. |
|
|
Mgr G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ’s
Church, (6th edition, 1957, trans. Castelot & Murphy), p243. |
|
|
Rev. Sylvester Joseph Hunter S.J., Outlines of Dogmatic
Theology, (London, 1896), No. 216. |
|
|
Wernz, P. F-X, and Vidal, P. Petri,. Ius Canonicum ad Codicis Normam
Exactum, Universitatis Gregorianae Universitas Gregoriana, Rome, 1938. |
|
|
Wernz, Vidal, Ius Canonicum, Vol vii, 1937, n. 398. |
|
|
Cajetan, Commentarium, 1540, II-II, 39, 1. |
|
|
Juan de Lugo: Disp., De Virtute
Fidei Divinae, pp 646-7, Disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8, in Disputationes
scholasticae et morales de virtute fidei diuinae, 1696. |
|
|
Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, The Communication of Catholics with
Schismatics, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington DC, 1948,
p2. |
|
|
Van Noort, Christ’s Church, p241. |
|
|
Van Noort, Christ’s Church, p241. |
|
|
Rev Sylvester Berry, Church of Christ: An
Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, (Mount St Mary’s Seminary, 1955), p227-28. |
|
|
Cited in Can a Pope be a Heretic? by Arnaldo Xavier da
Silveira. |
|
|
First Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith”, 24
April 1870. |
|
|
Van Noort, Christ’s Church, pp 127-28. |
|
|
Dom Prosper Guéranger, “Troisième lettre à Mgr l’évêque d’Orléans”, in
Institutions liturgiques, second edition, Palmé, 1885, vol. 4, pp. 458-459. |
|
|
Card. Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, Rome, 1927, volume I, p. 477 https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/is-archbishop-vigano-really-in-schism/ |
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
