Archbishop Vigano is inconsistent: implements the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on ecumenism and religious freedom
For the first time, the United States has in you a President who courageously defends the right to life, who is not ashamed to denounce the persecution of Christians throughout the world, who speaks of Jesus Christ and the right of citizens to freedom of worship (www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-viga…).
Archbishop Vigano very strongly insulted the modern Catholic Church (www.diesirae.pt/…/sois-um-povo-co…), and at the same time (truthfully) calls John Paul II a Saint (www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-viga…). This is illogical and inconsistent.
Moreover, Archbishop Vigano states:
Bishop Schneider cites several canons of the Ecumenical Councils that propose, in his opinion, doctrines that today are difficult to accept, such as for example the obligation to distinguish Jews by their clothing, or the ban on Christians serving Muslim or Jewish masters. Among these examples there is also the requirement of the traditio instrumentorum declared by the Council of Florence, which was later corrected by Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis. Bishop Athanasius comments: “One may rightly hope and believe that a future Pope or Ecumenical Council will correct the erroneous statement made” by Vatican II. This appears to me to be an argument that, although made with the best of intentions, undermines the Catholic edifice from its foundation (onepeterfive.com/vigano-vatican-…).
Does Archbishop Vigano really not know that not every sentence pronounced in dogmatic councils is infallible? Doesn't Archbishop Vigano know that the doctrine of the Church has developed continuously over the centuries? After all, in our day no one in his right mind approves of slavery, even though Saint Paul commanded slaves to obey (Eph 6: 5), and the Church for centuries has tolerated the shameful slavery of men. Does the archbishop know that the nazis ordered Jews to wear a badge on their clothes?
Bishop Schneider is right, because in fact dogmatic councils were wrong on some points (not strictly dogmatic ones, because they could not be wrong on these). These are the facts and no one can deny it, e.g. the statements of the Council of Florence on the matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders, corrected by Pius XII (www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bishop-schneide…).
Not everything that dogmatic councils teach has the rank of infallibility and immutability:
When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. (Donum veritatis 24).
The solemn definitions of dogmatic councils are infallible, not the whole content of the council's teaching:
"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council (Catechism of the Catholic Church 891).
Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 892).
The act of definitive and infallible teaching:
In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration (Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 6-6 July 1439).
An example of teaching that is not final and infallible:
The sixth is the sacrament of orders. Its matter is the object by whose handing over the order is conferred. So the priesthood is bestowed by the handing over of a chalice with wine and a paten with bread; the diaconate by the giving of the book of the gospels; the subdiaconate by the handing over of an empty chalice with an empty paten on it; and similarly for the other orders by allotting things connected with their ministry (Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 8-22 November 1439).
Pope Pius XII corrected this error:
Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands. (Sacramentum Ordinis 4).
Moreover, Archbishop Viganò does not know or forgot that Pius XI taught:
72. But in this battle joined by the powers of darkness against the very idea of Divinity, it is Our fond hope that, besides the host which glories in the name of Christ, all those - and they comprise the overwhelming majority of mankind, - who still believe in God and pay Him homage may take a decisive part (Encyclical "Divini Redemtoris" 72; www.vatican.va/…/hf_p-xi_enc_193…).
Talmudists and Mohammedans did not make up the majority of humanity. So who was Pius XI writing about? About those who, decades later, gathered for an interreligious meeting in Assisi.
Archbishop Viganò forgot (or does not know) that Pius X issued a catechism that teaches:
Infidels are those who have not been baptised and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like (CATECHISM OF SAINT PIUS X: The Ninth Article of the Creed, Those Outside the Communion of Saints, 12 Q. Who are infidels?; sensusfidelium.us/…/the-ninth-artic…).
Pius XII taught likewise:
Nor can We pass over in silence the profound impression of heartfelt gratitude made on Us by the good wishes of those who, though not belonging to the visible body of the Catholic Church, have given noble and sincere expression to their appreciation of all that unites them to Us in love for the Person of Christ or in belief in God. We wish to express Our gratitude to them all. We entrust them one and all to the protection and to the guidance of the Lord and We assure them solemnly that one thought only fills Our mind: to imitate the example of the Good Shepherd in order to bring true happiness to all men: "that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly" (Saint John x. 10)(Encykclical "Summi Pontificatus" 16; www.vatican.va/…/hf_p-xii_enc_20…).
One more thing: why is Archbishop Vigano hiding? Is he afraid of losing his health or life? Because of this, he loses his authority. No bishop can hide from the Church.
___________
Graphics: dorzeczy.pl/…/arcybiskup-viga…
