Vigano is a Russian gaslighter. If you simply accept that then you won't be bogged down in his gaslighting. We honestly don't need celebrity prelates when we have our catechism. They are adding to the confusion.
I know this is a popular view. But whether one thinks it or not, it has been a good opportunity to state some truths and clear away some misconceptions.
Vigano's stance on the matter in practical terms is really no different than sedevacantism except for s couple of very important issues associated with his stance and the R&R position in general
. 1. It promotes the idea in the minds of catholics that the church actually is defectible
. 2. It prolongs the agony for those trapped within this defective church thinking they are just have to grin and bear it and hope for better leaders to come along sometime in the future.
3. Even if they got the hoped for saintly catholoc pope, how could they ever place trust in his infallible leadership with the knowledge of legitimate heredical popes already accepted as a possibility.
4. Even if Vigano's position is the correct one it still offers no practical solution above that of the sedevacantist and IMHO will eventually lead to despair or the acceptance of the One World Religion ad predicted by Pope St Pius X.
There are probably many more problems with his position but those above immediately come to mind. The sedevacante position avoids them all by keeping Catholic faith Catholic.
The fact that that the answer to the heretical pope issue is staring then right in the face makes ine wonder how they fail to see it. If they dont believe that St Robert Belermine closed the door on the matter you'd think they would at least take the incontestable word of St Paul abd cast them out. He even followed up with the words, "Even if it be one of us" which would include St Peter as 'one of the ' one ofl us '
You gave the best response that's possible and the ball is back in his court. I just hope he does you the courtesy of reading it. Even so,, it will benefit many others.
The best answer to the heretical pope gambit is for the next Catholic Pope to burn the documents of Vatican 2 in St. Peter’s Square upon his election and acceptance of the office. You want to dispel doubt? That’s how.
I'll look forward to reading it here. I am surprised they gave you a forum! They are like gumbo. A lot of disinformation and a sprinkling of truth here and there. I hope some one will benefit by your work and I look forward to sharing it in the future. God bless you!
Archbishop Viganò's words don't match his actions.
Does he believe that the Church can give you defective sacramental rites? If not, then why did he seek conditional consecration from Bishop Williamson ? The fact that he won't publicly 'fess up to the fact is troubling.
"In broad, colloquial terms, a cognitive judgment is simply drawing a conclusion. One concludes that something is true or false; good or bad; verified or unverified; long or short; and so on. [17] Such judgments are an essential operation of the mind, and without them, reasoning is impossible... a declaration in the broad sense merely makes known a cognitive judgment, without any pretense to impose it on others. "
You have very simply and elegantly offered the reply to everyone who has ever said to me "The Lord says judge not, that you may not be judged (Matthew 7:1)."
My typical rejoinder is "I judge things all day long, I have no place to condemn because The Lord also told me you will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16) which requires some judgement."
In the context of your broader article, this quote from you offered here is edifying.
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.
Has anyone checked out the comments section on this article over at LSN? Boy, howdy! is it clear that the S-word dare not speak its name over there!
Of the 20 or so comments and responses I read over there, few of them attacked the substance of your response to +Vigano, preferring instead to throw the same kind of shade on sedevacantism that you refute in your article. (Sigh...)
One commenter managed to address your arguments in some (snarky) detail, concluding at long last that he had hoist you with your own argumentative petard. My reading was that the comment had the argumentative force of saying of "neener! neener!" on the playground. But hey, I'm just one guy...
One soul lamented that your detailed and well-reasoned response to a simple letter was a bit churlish of you, bordering, in fact, on disrespect of +Vigano, and opining that you should have gone easier on the old boy out of simple Christian charity, which you so obviously seem to be lacking. De gustibus non disputandum est, I suppose.
And then there was this one poor fellow going on about how B'nai Brith had captured the Vatican by killing Pius XII, forcing Cardinal Siri (allegedly Gregory XVII) to resign the papacy, and later killing him, and so on, so none of this sede business really matters because... reasons. I couldn't follow it. I suspect the commenter couldn't follow it, either.
If I may be so impertinent as to add to your defense, your response to +Vigano was worthy of the best of men who debate in good faith in search of the truth (as is, quite frankly, the WM Review). Every logical branch and sequel of probative value in +Vigano's original comments about sedevacantists and sedevacantism was considered fairly and effectively rubutted or corrected. Your response was a theological tour de force, presented without rancor, and showcasing how reason may be profitably applied to the resolution of theological issues. <\end soapbox>
Nobody asked me, but IMO +Vigano's best response is no response. Frankly, I don't think he thought anyone would call him out on his BS (Bad Syllogisms), and any attempt to respond to so obviously facile an opponent might run the risk of further embarrassment.
But hey, like I said: I'm just one guy. I could be wrong.
Having read your careful (and respectful!) reply to Abp. Vigano on Lifesite, I'll comment here. For those of us who have concluded that the See is now vacant of a true Pope, it feels more and more like being an "outlaw" set adrift on a small boat in the Icelandic sagas. Reading your calm and careful reasoning is a tonic and balm to the weary traveler. You are quite right that we are not all to be found in chapels but wherever Catholics are to be found, including traditional communities and even novus ordo parishes, depending on our circumstances.
You have amply shown the contradictions inherent in "recognize and resist." What I find most uncomfortable lately is the growing body of those who are no longer resisting. Whether they are truly deceived or just going along, only the Lord knows. Fortunately for us all, Abp. Vigano is not one of these, and he still forcefully points out both errors and deceptions from Rome with the courage he has shown from the first.
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.
I'm not going there, it wouldn't be professional in my view for me to do that on LSN's combox, and also most of the objections are daft. Would be too time consuming with not enough benefit.
Yes, I had the same problem. I was going to try to address ClemD's somewhat incoherent objections but got a notice that LSN is not accepting new commenter registrations at this time.
Thank you for your article refuting Msgr. Vigano's recent interview and the objections that he raised against Sedism; very well done; the whole article is well argued and should convince a well disposed reader of the solidity of the Sede position. I particularly appreciate your dealing with the "private judgement" and "dead end" objections. On the other hand I am disappointed in the general tenor of the comments that followed the article and I would hope that there are others that had read it and had a more favorable impression, but that did not bother to comment.
Thanks Michael! The comments on the LSN article itself were disappointing, but that is often the way – negative commenters are more likely to write than those who appreciate things. Indeed, commenting on the LSN article is what I meant in the post, although I think some took it to mean commenting here. No matter, comments are always good wherever they are, as they make the thing more visible!
Hopefully the contra Vigano article will be widely read.
The “the cognitive judgment” that the See is Vacant is simply that Christ is not a liar; and when He promised Peter that ‘upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ – that is a universal absolute. No ‘private judgement’ needed. Recognise and resist is a private judgement minefield; they will have Christ ‘err’ through ‘Peter’ in a universal manner – it is objectively blasphemy.
I’d considered addressing Viganò’s slide back into R&R a couple weeks ago, but from the psychological perspective (ie., movements and disturbances of the soul), as I suspect the doctrinal arguments he has adduced against a papal vacancy are merely cover for the true cause.
Can you please be so kind and explain, again, the difference between +Vigano's position and the Thesis? Honestly, it sounds the same to me, but you are saying otherwise.
Hey Michael. It may have been the same in the past although his recent interventions seem to treat Leo and Francis (and Benedict) as true Popes, not popes materialiter.
Thank you!!!! Sadly Ab Vigano is now promoting the thesis and Galicanism.
No, he is not promoting the Thesis.
“Sadly”
Ugh.
I thought Archbishop Viagno was a sedevacantist?
I think you weren't the only one.
I've got a headache. I need some type of slow person's guide to Archbishop Vigano's theological views.
Vigano is a Russian gaslighter. If you simply accept that then you won't be bogged down in his gaslighting. We honestly don't need celebrity prelates when we have our catechism. They are adding to the confusion.
He was then he wasn't. He is gaslighting Catholics.
Thank you S.D. Wright!
I think he is controlled opposition.
I know this is a popular view. But whether one thinks it or not, it has been a good opportunity to state some truths and clear away some misconceptions.
I agree.
Vigano's stance on the matter in practical terms is really no different than sedevacantism except for s couple of very important issues associated with his stance and the R&R position in general
. 1. It promotes the idea in the minds of catholics that the church actually is defectible
. 2. It prolongs the agony for those trapped within this defective church thinking they are just have to grin and bear it and hope for better leaders to come along sometime in the future.
3. Even if they got the hoped for saintly catholoc pope, how could they ever place trust in his infallible leadership with the knowledge of legitimate heredical popes already accepted as a possibility.
4. Even if Vigano's position is the correct one it still offers no practical solution above that of the sedevacantist and IMHO will eventually lead to despair or the acceptance of the One World Religion ad predicted by Pope St Pius X.
There are probably many more problems with his position but those above immediately come to mind. The sedevacante position avoids them all by keeping Catholic faith Catholic.
3 is especially important, given the accusation that the only way we will know it's over is private judgement.
The fact that that the answer to the heretical pope issue is staring then right in the face makes ine wonder how they fail to see it. If they dont believe that St Robert Belermine closed the door on the matter you'd think they would at least take the incontestable word of St Paul abd cast them out. He even followed up with the words, "Even if it be one of us" which would include St Peter as 'one of the ' one ofl us '
You gave the best response that's possible and the ball is back in his court. I just hope he does you the courtesy of reading it. Even so,, it will benefit many others.
I think he will. A reply would be most interesting.
The best answer to the heretical pope gambit is for the next Catholic Pope to burn the documents of Vatican 2 in St. Peter’s Square upon his election and acceptance of the office. You want to dispel doubt? That’s how.
I wish you would post your reply here also.
I will in due course but it was written for LSN and it's normal to let them have the exclusive place for it for the initial period.
I'll look forward to reading it here. I am surprised they gave you a forum! They are like gumbo. A lot of disinformation and a sprinkling of truth here and there. I hope some one will benefit by your work and I look forward to sharing it in the future. God bless you!
Thank you!
Archbishop Viganò's words don't match his actions.
Does he believe that the Church can give you defective sacramental rites? If not, then why did he seek conditional consecration from Bishop Williamson ? The fact that he won't publicly 'fess up to the fact is troubling.
Ultimately, he was formed in the Novus Ordo. That stink is very hard to wash off, even with expensive soap.
From your article at Lifesite, this absolute gem:
"In broad, colloquial terms, a cognitive judgment is simply drawing a conclusion. One concludes that something is true or false; good or bad; verified or unverified; long or short; and so on. [17] Such judgments are an essential operation of the mind, and without them, reasoning is impossible... a declaration in the broad sense merely makes known a cognitive judgment, without any pretense to impose it on others. "
You have very simply and elegantly offered the reply to everyone who has ever said to me "The Lord says judge not, that you may not be judged (Matthew 7:1)."
My typical rejoinder is "I judge things all day long, I have no place to condemn because The Lord also told me you will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16) which requires some judgement."
In the context of your broader article, this quote from you offered here is edifying.
Thanks Depalo! It's very difficult to understand why people don't get this, isn't it?
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.
It's such a blessing, isn't it? Thanks for your comment!
Has anyone checked out the comments section on this article over at LSN? Boy, howdy! is it clear that the S-word dare not speak its name over there!
Of the 20 or so comments and responses I read over there, few of them attacked the substance of your response to +Vigano, preferring instead to throw the same kind of shade on sedevacantism that you refute in your article. (Sigh...)
One commenter managed to address your arguments in some (snarky) detail, concluding at long last that he had hoist you with your own argumentative petard. My reading was that the comment had the argumentative force of saying of "neener! neener!" on the playground. But hey, I'm just one guy...
One soul lamented that your detailed and well-reasoned response to a simple letter was a bit churlish of you, bordering, in fact, on disrespect of +Vigano, and opining that you should have gone easier on the old boy out of simple Christian charity, which you so obviously seem to be lacking. De gustibus non disputandum est, I suppose.
And then there was this one poor fellow going on about how B'nai Brith had captured the Vatican by killing Pius XII, forcing Cardinal Siri (allegedly Gregory XVII) to resign the papacy, and later killing him, and so on, so none of this sede business really matters because... reasons. I couldn't follow it. I suspect the commenter couldn't follow it, either.
If I may be so impertinent as to add to your defense, your response to +Vigano was worthy of the best of men who debate in good faith in search of the truth (as is, quite frankly, the WM Review). Every logical branch and sequel of probative value in +Vigano's original comments about sedevacantists and sedevacantism was considered fairly and effectively rubutted or corrected. Your response was a theological tour de force, presented without rancor, and showcasing how reason may be profitably applied to the resolution of theological issues. <\end soapbox>
Nobody asked me, but IMO +Vigano's best response is no response. Frankly, I don't think he thought anyone would call him out on his BS (Bad Syllogisms), and any attempt to respond to so obviously facile an opponent might run the risk of further embarrassment.
But hey, like I said: I'm just one guy. I could be wrong.
Indeed, some of those comments completely missed the point. Personal animus against Viganò? Really?
To some people, to disagree is to disrespect.
"To some people, to disagree is to disrespect." Spot on.
Having read your careful (and respectful!) reply to Abp. Vigano on Lifesite, I'll comment here. For those of us who have concluded that the See is now vacant of a true Pope, it feels more and more like being an "outlaw" set adrift on a small boat in the Icelandic sagas. Reading your calm and careful reasoning is a tonic and balm to the weary traveler. You are quite right that we are not all to be found in chapels but wherever Catholics are to be found, including traditional communities and even novus ordo parishes, depending on our circumstances.
You have amply shown the contradictions inherent in "recognize and resist." What I find most uncomfortable lately is the growing body of those who are no longer resisting. Whether they are truly deceived or just going along, only the Lord knows. Fortunately for us all, Abp. Vigano is not one of these, and he still forcefully points out both errors and deceptions from Rome with the courage he has shown from the first.
Indeed, it's now "recognise and complain" it seems for some! Thanks for your comment.
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.
I'm not going there, it wouldn't be professional in my view for me to do that on LSN's combox, and also most of the objections are daft. Would be too time consuming with not enough benefit.
The one about sacramental validity isn't daft and deserves a response.
Yes, I had the same problem. I was going to try to address ClemD's somewhat incoherent objections but got a notice that LSN is not accepting new commenter registrations at this time.
Probably wise!
Dear S.D.
Thank you for your article refuting Msgr. Vigano's recent interview and the objections that he raised against Sedism; very well done; the whole article is well argued and should convince a well disposed reader of the solidity of the Sede position. I particularly appreciate your dealing with the "private judgement" and "dead end" objections. On the other hand I am disappointed in the general tenor of the comments that followed the article and I would hope that there are others that had read it and had a more favorable impression, but that did not bother to comment.
Thanks Michael! The comments on the LSN article itself were disappointing, but that is often the way – negative commenters are more likely to write than those who appreciate things. Indeed, commenting on the LSN article is what I meant in the post, although I think some took it to mean commenting here. No matter, comments are always good wherever they are, as they make the thing more visible!
Hopefully the contra Vigano article will be widely read.
The “the cognitive judgment” that the See is Vacant is simply that Christ is not a liar; and when He promised Peter that ‘upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ – that is a universal absolute. No ‘private judgement’ needed. Recognise and resist is a private judgement minefield; they will have Christ ‘err’ through ‘Peter’ in a universal manner – it is objectively blasphemy.
I’d considered addressing Viganò’s slide back into R&R a couple weeks ago, but from the psychological perspective (ie., movements and disturbances of the soul), as I suspect the doctrinal arguments he has adduced against a papal vacancy are merely cover for the true cause.
Hello SD,
Can you please be so kind and explain, again, the difference between +Vigano's position and the Thesis? Honestly, it sounds the same to me, but you are saying otherwise.
Hey Michael. It may have been the same in the past although his recent interventions seem to treat Leo and Francis (and Benedict) as true Popes, not popes materialiter.
Do you think he may consider a material pope to be a true pope?
If he does, he isn't holding the Thesis.
Yes, that is true. I guess it is safe to say that most here agree that +Vigano is a reed in the wind at this point.