Viganò: For Francis “All Are Brothers" - Except the Catholics
Archbishop Viganò finds himself in the "grotesque situation" that the Vatican II Church allows denying the Trinity, Christ's divinity, the Suffrages for the dead Transubstantiation, and Our Lady's …More
Archbishop Viganò finds himself in the "grotesque situation" that the Vatican II Church allows denying the Trinity, Christ's divinity, the Suffrages for the dead Transubstantiation, and Our Lady's Virginity without incurring any canonical sanction, but if you don't follow Vatican II you are not with the Church.”
Accordingly, he concludes in a February 3 statement (CatholicFamilyNews.com) that the name of Francis' encyclical Fratelli Tutti ("All Are Brothers") should be changed into: “All are Brothers, with the exception of Catholics.”
It is extraordinary for Viganò that Francis condemns any criticism of Vatican II while he welcomes everybody else “regardless of their faith”.
Viganò's conclusion, "Ecumenical openness, the Synodal Path, and Pachamama do not prevent the showing of intolerance towards Catholics whose only fault is that that they do not want to apostatise from the Faith.”
After Francis demanded “no concession” to Catholics critical of Vatican II, Viganò reminds him of his …More
Accordingly, he concludes in a February 3 statement (CatholicFamilyNews.com) that the name of Francis' encyclical Fratelli Tutti ("All Are Brothers") should be changed into: “All are Brothers, with the exception of Catholics.”
It is extraordinary for Viganò that Francis condemns any criticism of Vatican II while he welcomes everybody else “regardless of their faith”.
Viganò's conclusion, "Ecumenical openness, the Synodal Path, and Pachamama do not prevent the showing of intolerance towards Catholics whose only fault is that that they do not want to apostatise from the Faith.”
After Francis demanded “no concession” to Catholics critical of Vatican II, Viganò reminds him of his …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Ah.... would someone please cite where, exactly, "Vatican II... allows denying the Trinity" ...Is that in the official VCII documents?
The above paraphrase does not state that "Vatican II allows denying the Trinity." It says that "the Vatican II Church" allows that to be done "without incurring any canonical sanction."
I don't know to whom it would apply with reference to denying the Holy Trinity. That seems to be hyperbole.
"Without incurring any canonical sanction" would probably more properly be stated as "without incurring …More
The above paraphrase does not state that "Vatican II allows denying the Trinity." It says that "the Vatican II Church" allows that to be done "without incurring any canonical sanction."
I don't know to whom it would apply with reference to denying the Holy Trinity. That seems to be hyperbole.
"Without incurring any canonical sanction" would probably more properly be stated as "without incurring proper canonical sanction." In my opinion, Hans Kung SJ would serve as an example.
In any event, Archbishop Vigano's statement is the following:
"We therefore find ourselves in the grotesque situation of hearing the denial of the Most Holy Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of Suffrages for the dead, the purposes of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Transubstantiation, and the perpetual Virginity of Mary Most Holy without incurring any canonical sanction (if this were not the case, almost all the consultors of Vatican II and the present Roman Curia would already have been excommunicated); but 'if you do not follow the Council or you interpret it in your own way, as you wish, you are not with the Church.' Bergoglio’s gloss on this demanding condemnation of any criticism of the Council leaves us truly incredulous...," et cetera.
I don't know to whom it would apply with reference to denying the Holy Trinity. That seems to be hyperbole.
"Without incurring any canonical sanction" would probably more properly be stated as "without incurring proper canonical sanction." In my opinion, Hans Kung SJ would serve as an example.
In any event, Archbishop Vigano's statement is the following:
"We therefore find ourselves in the grotesque situation of hearing the denial of the Most Holy Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of Suffrages for the dead, the purposes of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Transubstantiation, and the perpetual Virginity of Mary Most Holy without incurring any canonical sanction (if this were not the case, almost all the consultors of Vatican II and the present Roman Curia would already have been excommunicated); but 'if you do not follow the Council or you interpret it in your own way, as you wish, you are not with the Church.' Bergoglio’s gloss on this demanding condemnation of any criticism of the Council leaves us truly incredulous...," et cetera.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I was making life easy for guys like you. But noooo... you insist on making your task all but impossible. The so-called "Vatican II Church" is the Catholic Church today. It is not the "FrancisChurch" that dude Canon212 is jabbers on about. Nor is it the "Vatican II Church" mentioned in the article.There is only one true "Church..." The Catholic Church.
With that in mind, I'm going to ask again... …More
I was making life easy for guys like you. But noooo... you insist on making your task all but impossible. The so-called "Vatican II Church" is the Catholic Church today. It is not the "FrancisChurch" that dude Canon212 is jabbers on about. Nor is it the "Vatican II Church" mentioned in the article.There is only one true "Church..." The Catholic Church.
With that in mind, I'm going to ask again... where, exactly, does the Catholic Church, either in a pre- or post- Vatican II document, "allow denying the Trinity"? Good luck finding a citation for that, brah. :D
"Without incurring any canonical sanction" would probably more properly be stated as..."
There's some irony in getting corrected for a paraphrase by someone who then goes on to promptly make one himself. :D
As usual, Abp Vigano does a splendid grammatical tap-dance to avoid schism.
The good Archbishop is quite effusive in listing the various heresies and blasphemies he's heard yet... he never once mentions who exactly uttering them.
I've got some bad news for the man... if he finds himself in that "grotesque situation" just now, he's waaaay behind the times. Atheists and heretics have been uttering such foolishness for centuries.
Mealy-mouth like "almost all the consultors of Vatican II and the present Roman Curia would already have been excommunicated" leaves him the back-door of accusing making a group-accusation while being able to deny any specific name if he's ever challenged.
Typical Vigano grammatical games.
With that in mind, I'm going to ask again... where, exactly, does the Catholic Church, either in a pre- or post- Vatican II document, "allow denying the Trinity"? Good luck finding a citation for that, brah. :D
"Without incurring any canonical sanction" would probably more properly be stated as..."
There's some irony in getting corrected for a paraphrase by someone who then goes on to promptly make one himself. :D
As usual, Abp Vigano does a splendid grammatical tap-dance to avoid schism.
The good Archbishop is quite effusive in listing the various heresies and blasphemies he's heard yet... he never once mentions who exactly uttering them.
I've got some bad news for the man... if he finds himself in that "grotesque situation" just now, he's waaaay behind the times. Atheists and heretics have been uttering such foolishness for centuries.
Mealy-mouth like "almost all the consultors of Vatican II and the present Roman Curia would already have been excommunicated" leaves him the back-door of accusing making a group-accusation while being able to deny any specific name if he's ever challenged.
Typical Vigano grammatical games.
I was merely correcting the misimpression your question implies: that the above quote was insinuating that Vatican II allows denying the Trinity. The quote does not imply that, so the question is not germane to what was stated.
It is clear, to a person using common sense, that the person who wrote the above is a) speaking about the Catholic Church and b) referring to the fact that it is the current …More
I was merely correcting the misimpression your question implies: that the above quote was insinuating that Vatican II allows denying the Trinity. The quote does not imply that, so the question is not germane to what was stated.
It is clear, to a person using common sense, that the person who wrote the above is a) speaking about the Catholic Church and b) referring to the fact that it is the current men who occupy positions in the hierarchy who are allowing people to deny the Trinity without canonical sanction, allegedly.
That's what the person was obviously stating, and that's easy to discern, using common sense.
The statement above is the same as saying, back when Father Robert Drinan SJ was in Congress, that "the Catholic Church allows pro abortion Jesuits to serve in the US Congress and vote in favor of abortion."
Obviously, "the Catholic Church" does not allow such a thing, but Father Drinan served in Congress for years, and everyone in the Church knew it. It's merely a shorthand way of making a point, and the point being that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is derelict in its duty.
A person with common sense understands the point being made.
It is clear, to a person using common sense, that the person who wrote the above is a) speaking about the Catholic Church and b) referring to the fact that it is the current men who occupy positions in the hierarchy who are allowing people to deny the Trinity without canonical sanction, allegedly.
That's what the person was obviously stating, and that's easy to discern, using common sense.
The statement above is the same as saying, back when Father Robert Drinan SJ was in Congress, that "the Catholic Church allows pro abortion Jesuits to serve in the US Congress and vote in favor of abortion."
Obviously, "the Catholic Church" does not allow such a thing, but Father Drinan served in Congress for years, and everyone in the Church knew it. It's merely a shorthand way of making a point, and the point being that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is derelict in its duty.
A person with common sense understands the point being made.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
No, my question doesn't "imply" such a "misimpression" any more than "the above quote was insinuating that Vatican II allows denying the Trinity."
Ironically enough, you've got it backwards.
When I challenge the reader to show support for such a claim, that means I disagree with it.
. Namely, I don't believe the Church ever allows denying the Trinity, either before or after Vatican II.
I …More
No, my question doesn't "imply" such a "misimpression" any more than "the above quote was insinuating that Vatican II allows denying the Trinity."
Ironically enough, you've got it backwards.
When I challenge the reader to show support for such a claim, that means I disagree with it.
. Namely, I don't believe the Church ever allows denying the Trinity, either before or after Vatican II.
I would not demand a quote from a Church document if I believed the statement was true. Me, being me, I'd HAVE the quote and link it.
Your fallacy is... (part one)
Ironically enough, you've got it backwards.
When I challenge the reader to show support for such a claim, that means I disagree with it.
. Namely, I don't believe the Church ever allows denying the Trinity, either before or after Vatican II.
I would not demand a quote from a Church document if I believed the statement was true. Me, being me, I'd HAVE the quote and link it.
Your fallacy is... (part one)
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"It is clear, to a person using common sense, that..."
...and THIS from someone who argued I was implying the opposite of what I was. :D
"A person with common sense understands the point being made."
Oh, the irony of that statement from you :D Also... Looks like you poured yourself a double-shot and, unfortunately, it wasn't bottled in Scotland.More
"It is clear, to a person using common sense, that..."
...and THIS from someone who argued I was implying the opposite of what I was. :D
"A person with common sense understands the point being made."
Oh, the irony of that statement from you :D Also... Looks like you poured yourself a double-shot and, unfortunately, it wasn't bottled in Scotland.
...and THIS from someone who argued I was implying the opposite of what I was. :D
"A person with common sense understands the point being made."
Oh, the irony of that statement from you :D Also... Looks like you poured yourself a double-shot and, unfortunately, it wasn't bottled in Scotland.
