Vigano excommunicted

[Doom]

I suspect this could start a flame war, so I'll just go ahead and put this here, so it doesn't have to be moved.

This isn't the 14th century, Popes rarely excommunicate anyone, not even people, like Hans Kung, who have committed so many heresies that if you look up the word "heresiarch" in the dictionary it shows his picture. Excommunication is serious business, and it is generally not done unless someone is so obstinate and irrational that the Pope simply has no other choice. I'm pretty sure the last time a bishop was excommunicated was Lefebvre in 1988 which is so long ago probably half the people on this board weren't even born then.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

More accurately, Vigano was found guilty of schism, which carries with it a so-called "automatic" excommunication.

[anawim]

Perhaps he should have adopted the approach of St. Paul in dealing with Alexander the coppersmith: "Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to this deeds." ~ 2 Tim. 4:14

The Pope is becoming Trump in spades.

[Stella]

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/

[Doom]

More accurately, Vigano was found guilty of schism, which carries with it a so-called "automatic" excommunication.

That was the same thing that happened with Lefebvre in 1988 after he committed a schismatic act by ordaining four bishops without papal approval.

[Doom]

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/

Since Vatican II taught no dogmas denying it cannot be heresy.

[Stella]

The then Cardinal Ratzinger in 1985 gives the Council the same weight as Trent and Vatican I.

"It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points . . .

Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . . It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism,’ also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.

To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the ‘right’ and ‘left’ alike) to view Vatican II as a ‘break’ and an abandonment of the tradition. There is, instead, a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them . . .

I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established convictions? (The Ratzinger Report, San Francisco: Ignatius, 1985, 28-29, 31)"

[peregrinator]

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.

I hold no brief for Viganò but none of these things is heretical.

[Stella]

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.

I hold no brief for Viganò but none of these things is heretical.

What would be the appropriate classification of a Catholic who rejects the validity of Vatican II even though it's tenets have been taught universally by successive Popes and therefore become required belief? There are still many ordinary Catholics who reject many of the teachings of the Council.

[peregrinator]

Which tenets do you think Viganò rejects, that we are obliged to believe?

[Stella]

Which tenets do you think Viganò rejects, that we are obliged to believe?

He rejects outright the validity of Vatican II but as one example he rejects the principle of religious freedom outlined by the document Dignitatis humanae, citing the "error has no rights" motif.

St JPII teaches on this tenet https://www.vatican.va/content/john-pau ... peace.html.. "In the first place, religious freedom, an essential requirement of the dignity of every person, is a cornerstone of the structure of human rights, and for this reason an irreplaceable factor in the good of individuals and of the whole of society, as well as of the personal fulfilment of each individual. It follows that the freedom of individuals and of communities to profess and practise their religion is an essential element for peaceful human coexistence".

Vigano when responding to AB Schneider's essay There is no divine positive will or natural right to the diversity of religions says "His Excellency’s study summarizes, with the clarity that distinguishes the words of those who speak according to Christ, the objections against the presumed legitimacy of the exercise of religious freedom that the Second Vatican Council theorized, contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both."


https://onepeterfive.com/vigano-vatican ... el-church/

Being essential to human dignity we are obliged to accept the tenet of religious freedom.

[peregrinator]

He rejects outright the validity of Vatican II

Well sure but the validity of an ecumenical council is a dogmatic fact, not dogma, so to deny it isn't heresy.

Being essential to human dignity we are obliged to accept the tenet of religious freedom.

But what is religious freedom as the Church has always understood it?

[Stella]

He rejects outright the validity of Vatican II

Well sure but the validity of an ecumenical council is a dogmatic fact, not dogma, so to deny it isn't heresy.

Being essential to human dignity we are obliged to accept the tenet of religious freedom.

But what is religious freedom as the Church has always understood it?

From what I can tell the seeds were there from the beginning. Tertullian early in the 3rd century writes...

It is only just and a privilege inherent in human nature that every person should be able to worship according to his own convictions; the religious practice of one person neither harms nor helps another. It is not part of religion to coerce religious practice, for it is by choice not coercion that we should be led to religion.

and

Let one man worship God, another Jupiter; let one lift suppliant hands to the heavens, another to the altar of Fides; let one—if you choose to take this view of it—count in prayer the clouds, and another the ceiling panels; let one consecrate his own life to his God, and another that of a goat. For see that you do not give a further ground for the charge of irreligion, by taking away religious liberty, and forbidding free choice of deity, so that I may no longer worship according to my inclination, but am compelled to worship against it. Not even a human being would care to have unwilling homage rendered him.

It is a doctrine developed through the centuries to being ratified by Vatican II.

[peregrinator]

I agree that people should not be coerced in matters of religious belief (although religious practice might be another matter, where this conflicts with the common good - for example, public displays of Satanism should not be permitted). Does Viganò reject this principle? Does he think religious belief can be coerced?

[Stella]

I agree that people should not be coerced in matters of religious belief (although religious practice might be another matter, where this conflicts with the common good - for example, public displays of Satanism should not be permitted). Does Viganò reject this principle? Does he think religious belief can be coerced?

On page 9 of the Vatican document citing Vigano's words it quotes him... "I repudiate the neomodernist errors inherent in the Second Vatican Council and in the so-called “post-conciliar magisterium,” in particular in matters of collegiality, ecumenism, religious freedom, the secularity of the State, and the liturgy."

That accords with the goal of Integralism which the far right traditionalists are striving for ie. a Catholic State reminiscent of the bygone days.

[peregrinator]

OK, but that's not heresy. As Dignitatis Humanae states in its introductory section [my emphasis],

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

[Stella]

OK, but that's not heresy. As Dignitatis Humanae states in its introductory section [my emphasis],

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

My question is though, if Vigano's position on freedom of religion and rejection of Vatican II overall, don't constitute heresy, how do we explain that a faithful Catholic cannot hold those positions?

[peregrinator]

There are lots of things that are wrong but which nevertheless don't rise to the level of heresy (which is a very high bar, actually).

[anawim]

My question is though, if Vigano's position on freedom of religion and rejection of Vatican II overall, don't constitute heresy, how do we explain that a faithful Catholic cannot hold those positions?

If you have to explain that 2 + 2 = 4, then just shake the dust from your feet.

[jessica01]

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.