Right to Reply: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò recently made a number of criticisms of ‘sedevacantism’ – but do they stand up to scrutiny?
(WM Round-Up) – Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò recently spoke about “sedevacantism” in an interview with LifeSiteNews. LifeSiteNews has, in turn, published my response to his comments.
Here is what the Archbishop said:
“I answer that sedevacantism and papolatry are two mirror-image errors, born from the same premise: that the person and the office coincide. The papolatrist says: since this man is pope, everything he does is good. The sedevacantist says: since what he does is not good, this man is not pope.
“Both begin from the identification that I contest, and for this reason both find themselves disarmed before reality. I say instead the only thing that the facts permit: that the office belongs to Christ, that the one who occupies it today truly occupies it, but that he exercises it against the end for which it exists.
“That a pontiff may fail in his mandate is not my thesis: the question of the papa hæreticus was debated for centuries by the most authoritative theologians, and the Church never resolved it with a definition.
“Saint Robert Bellarmine enumerated the opinions without closing the question, and gave the faithful the practical rule that is sufficient for me: sicut licet resistere Pontifici invadenti corpus, ita licet resistere invadenti animas – “just as it is lawful to resist the Pontiff who assaults the body, so it is lawful to resist him when he assaults souls.” To resist: not to depose.
“Because this is precisely the point. To depose a pope, or to declare the See vacant, is an act of jurisdiction, and no private individual – whether bishop or layman – possesses the jurisdiction to perform it.
“Whoever arrogates such power to himself commits, in reversed form, the same abuse that he reproaches Rome for: he makes himself the measure of that of which he is only the guardian. And he suffers the consequence: a Church without a visible See, without the possibility of a future pope through the ordinary means, without any other criterion than the private judgment of those who have declared it vacant. It is a path that ends in a dead end, and I have seen it close in on too many sincere souls.
“There is then a more humble reason, and for me a decisive one. I do not know what the ultimate solution to this mystery is, and I do not presume to know it: a pope or a council will resolve it, or Our Lord Himself when He wills. But I know what my duty is in the meantime, and it requires no juridical sentence. It is not my place to depose a pope: nor is it my place to follow him into error, and as a pastor I have the duty to warn the Lord’s flock.”
Here is a preview of my response:
“Following the release of his recent essay The Capital Schism, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò gave an exclusive three-part interview to LifeSiteNews.
“The interview covered a range of topics about the state of the Church. In the third part, he made a number of critical comments about “sedevacantism” and explained why he is not a “sedevacantist.”
“However, a number of these criticisms were “wide of the mark.” Whether one holds to the “sedevacantist” conclusion or not, it is necessary that such criticisms address what “sedevacantists” actually believe and argue.
“This is a response to his criticisms and certain misconceptions behind them, and will be made in the same dispassionate and respectful way that Viganò himself addressed the question.”
Head over to LifeSiteNews and read the reply in full – and leave a comment over there if you’re so inclined.
It’s a long piece (nearly 8,000 words), but a priest who is a friend of The WM Review described it in the following terms:
“One of the most efficient, comprehensive articles you’ve ever written.”
Enjoy!
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Read Next:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Twitter (The WM Review)
Excellent reply. Thoroughly well argued. Love the discussion of equivocation regarding "declare" and how its common use is simply the expression of a cognitive judgment, something we all must do regularly in order to avoid brain death.
It is counter-intuitive, but I too have found that the discovery and acceptance of the (presently) vacant See is followed by a great deal of peace and joy. No more impossible mental gymnastics.
Great article. There are more objections in the LSN comments that need addressing. I cannot post there because they're not accepting new registrations, nor comments from my previous account for some reason.