Roberto de Mattei
In recent weeks some facts and
“non-facts” have been at the centre of attention on Catholic social media. The
facts are those that have really happened; the “non-facts” are the hypothetical
ones, present in the imagination of bloggers more than in reality…
The real fact that instead
deserves the greatest attention is the initiation of an extra-judicial trial
against Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the
Faith.
Lionel : Another real fact is the trial was
based upon Vatican Council II interpreted with LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22
etc referring to objective and not subjective cases, explicit and not implicit
cases, visible and not invisible cases. This is how Roberto dei Mattei and
Archbishop Vigano interpret the Council. So their conclusion is not the same as
mine. For me LG 8 etc refer to implicit, invisible, subjective and unknown
cases in 2024. So they are not objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the
Athanasius Creed and the past exclusivist ecclesiology for me.
This is the big difference between them and me.
_________________________
The main accusation is that of having broken
off communion with the Church of Rome and of having fallen into the offence of
schism.
Lionel. It is Pope Francis and the Dicastery for
the Doctrine of the Faith who interpret Vatican Council II irrationally,
confusing what is hypothetical as being objective in the present times. In this
way they break communion with the Magisterial before 1949 on the Creeds,
Councils and Catechisms. This is heresy and schism. It is not Magisterial and
it is official and public.
This is not a condemnation since the cardinals
and bishops and the rest of the Church make the same mistake. I call it
Cushingism as opposed to Feeneyism.
_____________________________
The news came from the
archbishop himself on 20 June, on his X account, and the following day in a
statement in which the former nuncio to the United States declared that he
would not take part in the judicial proceedings against him. On 28 June, in a
strongly worded document against Pope Francis, entitled “J’sccuse,” Archbishop Viganò declared among other
things: “Before my Brothers in the Episcopate and the entire ecclesial body, I
accuse Jorge Mario Bergoglio of heresy and schism, and I ask that he be judged
as a heretic and schismatic and removed from the Throne which he has unworthily
occupied for over eleven years. This in no way contradicts the adage Prima Sedes a nemine judicatur, because it is evident that,
since a heretic is unable to assume the Papacy, he is not above the Prelates
who judge him.”
Lionel. As mentioned above the same heresy and
schism which comes from the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II is
there not only among the popes, cardinals and bishops but also in the writings
of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano and Roberto dei Mattei. There is no denial
from them. For them Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an explicit case, a literal case
in the present times for them and so it is an objective exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest
of Tradition. For me LG 16 is an implicit and hypothetical case.
_______________________
Since last year Archbishio
Viganò had publicly stated that the See of Peter was occupied, in his opinion,
by a usurper, but with his J’accuse his position becomes clear and
official. For this reason he states: “I do not recognize the authority of the
tribunal that claims to judge me, nor of its Prefect, nor of the one who
appointed him.” His decision not to appear confirms the accusations made against
him and of which he has boasted, declaring: “I regard the accusations against
me as an honor” (post of 20 June).
There are those who emphasise
that the severe measures announced against Archbishop Viganò are not matched
with like severity towards notorious propagators of heresies, such as some
German bishops. But the German bishops, applying the strategy of modernism,
according to which one must fight against Rome while remaining within the walls
of Rome, are careful not to publicly deny the authority of the pope. They
undoubtedly deserve to be condemned, but how could one demand their
condemnation if Rome were to abstain from condemning one who who rejects its
authority not in fact, but in principle?
Lionel. The German bishops like Archbishop
Vigano and Roberto dei Mattei get their common heresy and schism from
Cushingism; from the irrational interpretation of the Council and other texts.
They choose a false premise (invisible people are visible) to interpret all the
Catechism. For me invisible people are invisible on earth. So I return to the
old theology and traditional doctrines. No liberalism is possible when the
Council is interpreted rationally.
_________________________
There are also those who
compare the case of Archbishop Viganò with that of the French archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre. But the difference between the two cases is evident. Archbishop
Lefebvre never disavowed the authority of Rome. After the first condemnation,
in May 1975, of the endeavour established in Ecône by the bishop of Fribourg,
it was Archbishop Lefebvre himself who ask that, faced with such an abuse of
power, his case be judged by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. On
28 January 1978, Cardinal Seper, prefect of the former Holy Office, sent
substantial documentation to Ecône, to which Archbishop Lefebvre was asked to
respond. The French archbishop maintained extensive correspondence with the
Holy See, and the proceedings of the investigation were published by the
magazine Itinéraires in May 1979, appearing thereafter in Italian translation with the
title Mons. Lefebvre e il
Sant’Uffizio (Giovanni Volpe Editore,
1980). Reading these documents is highly instructive, also for understanding
the position of the French archbishop who, in his last letter to Card. Seper of
29 January 1979, entrusted “everything to the judgment of the Holy Father,” who
was now John Paul II. Archbishop Lefebvre then accepted the visitation of Card.
Gagnon, whom the pope sent to the seminary of Ecône in 1987. A friend and
confidant of Card. Gagnon, Fr Charles Theodore Murr, testified that the
Canadian cardinal’s report was laudatory of the FSSPX, and in particular of the
study programmes in Ecône (preface to Kennedy Hall, The Defence, Augustinus Press 2023). An
intense negotiation between Archbishop Lefebvre and the then prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Josef Ratzinger, took place,
moreover, until the eve of the episcopal consecrations in Ecône on 30 June
1988.
Lionel: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, like Pope
Paul VI and Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani was interpreting Vatican Council II with
the common false premise, which came from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office
(CDF) to the Archbishop of Boston.The same irrational interpretation of Vatican
Council II was supported by Cardinal Ratzinger. The confusion over what is
literal and what is not was not corrected by the popes from Pius XII to
Francis.
_______________________
Many admirers of Archbishop
Viganò therefore do not get the point, reacting to the news of the trial by
agreeing with the archbishop, because “he speaks clearly, like Archbishop
Lefebvre,” unlike other pastors who today are silent in the face of the
profound crisis of the Church. The issue is not that of Archbishop Viganò’s
criticisms of Pope Francis, correct on some points, but of his declared
intention to break off any form of communion with him and with the Roman See.
Lionel: Is he obliged to support a pope who
interprets Magisterial Documents irrationally? No condemnations can be made
since the whole Church is Cushingite, at present. It is like the Arian heresy
of past times. It is like an epidemic in the Catholic Church.
_____________________
Moreover, one cannot limit
oneself to carrying out such a grave and radical action by simply announcing it
in a statement, without giving it a valid doctrinal foundation.
Lionel: Roberto dei Mattei is also interpreting
Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents irrationally. There is no
denial. This is not the doctrinal foundation of the Catholic Church.
_______________________
The reference to the
bull Cum ex apostolatus
officio of 15 February 1559, in which Paul IV states
that a heretic is not eligible to receive authority even if elected, is
extremely weak. This bull teaches only that a pope can be corrected, unless it
can be shown that he was already a heretic at the time of his election. Was
Cardinal Bergoglio such? It must be demonstrated. Does the “defect of consent”
of which Archbishop Viganò speaks correspond to the “Cassiciacum Thesis” of
Bishop Guérard de Lauriers, to which the Mater Boni Consilii institute now refers (see https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/larcivescovo-vigano-verso-lanarco-vacantismo-2-parte/)? Whether Archbishop Viganò’s position is this one or another, it
should be supported by in-depth studies of theology, of canon law, of Church
history, which as of today have not been produced.
Lionel: Even Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict
XVI were interpreting Magisterial Documents irrationally. The proof is there in
public. This is not just an opinion of mine.
__________________________
But there is another even more
decisive aspect. In the current confusion of the religious crisis it is not
possible to survive spiritually without the special help of grace, which comes
through the sacraments, especially those most frequent in everyday life, such
as communion and confession. Who are the priests to whom, according to
Archbishop Viganò, one should turn to obtain the necessary spiritual
nourishment? It seems that not only are the institutes that hark back to the
ex-Ecclesia Dei excluded from his horizon, but so is the Society of Saint Pius
X, which routinely prays Pro
Pontifice nostro Francisco.
And this brings up the final
question: where is, for Archbishop Viganò, the Catholic Church? Not the virtual
church to which many assiduous visitors of the traditionalist blogs adhere, but
the real Church, which is visible in its immutable doctrine, in its
uninterrupted apostolic succession and in the life infused by its sacraments.
Without this visible church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, the soul
dies of asphyxiation.
Lionel. The visible Church exists in spite of
the confusion in theology among the liberals and traditionalists.
______________________
Shakespeare said that “all the
world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players” (As You Like It, Act II, 7). There is a
profound truth in these words, but the stage of the world is not a blog,
because the fate of the men who perform on this stage is a dramatic reality. What is at stake is their eternal
life.
Lionel: Eternal life is at stake?
Prof. Roberto dei Mattei,
author, historian, a Catholic whom I respect, is unable to state:-
‘Lionel, I affirm the
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions (Council
of Florence 1442).
I accept the Athanasius Creed
with no exceptions.
I accept Vatican Council II
with Lumen Gentium 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being hypothetical
cases. They refer to invisible people in 2024.
‘For me the Catechism of the
Catholic Church (847-848- invincible ignorance etc) does not contradict CCC 845-846(outside
the Church there is no salvation).’- Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/09/roberto-dei-mattei-interprets-vatican.html
https://www.robertodemattei.it/en/the-latest-developments-in-the-vigano-case-what-to-make-of-them/
