Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
What’s So Bad About Abp. Viganò? (Traditionalists Ask)

What’s So Bad About Abp. Viganò? (Traditionalists Ask)

Last updated on: July 15, 2020 at 10:38 pm by Dave Armstrong

What’s So Bad About Abp. Viganò? (Traditionalists Ask) 2020-07-15T22:38:04-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Many traditionalists (and the more radical reactionary Catholics) seem to think that Abp. Viganò is just a good old-fashioned orthodox Catholic who is making some desperately needed (and of course well-intentioned) criticisms of Pope Francis. I think my post of yesterday, Abp. Viganò: Fanaticism, Extremism, and Conspiratorialism (Summary from August 2019 Until July 2020: Alarming, Increasingly Quasi-Schismatic Spirit), demonstrates that the situation is far, far beyond that.

Yet no doubt there are many traditionalists and reactionaries who don’t see at all that Abp. Viganò is on the brink of possible schism, or has even already crossed over the line in some fashion or in spirit (see the Sermon on the Mount), as my friend, Dr. Robert Fastiggi effectively argued in a recent article. They’ll argue, for example, that he hasn’t denied the validity of the pontificate of Pope Francis or of Vatican II.

But reactionaries (by my carefully developed definition) never do either thing, as I’ve noted for many years. The pope is pope, but he is criticized a billion times (death by a thousand cuts). Likewise, the Second Vatican Council is valid but it’s worth cow manure, or should be ignored or forgotten (death by a thousand cuts again). One might say that this is a distinction without a [practical] difference. This is the game that reactionaries (and also too many legitimate traditionalists) habitually play. I wrote about this characteristic on 4-15-20:

Radical Catholic reactionaries love to habitually go up to the “line” but not quite go over it. The ordinary form Mass is still valid, yet it is trashed all the time and regarded as “objectively inferior.” And Catholics who attend it are despised and looked down upon, as second-class Catholics. Vatican II is a valid ecumenical council, yet it is trashed all the time and regarded as fundamentally less authoritative than Vatican I and (especially) Trent: even though Pope Benedict XVI (the bitterly disappointing former darling: because he resigned), writing in 1985, made it clear that Vatican II and Trent have precisely the same authority. The pope is a valid pope, but only worthy to be bashed and lied about week in and week out. No particular deference is due to him (think “Protestant”). You get the picture. See the pattern there?

And again on 2-26-14:

I would emphasize again that the radical Catholic reactionary position is characterized precisely for bashing the Novus Ordo constantly, while not denying its validity; the same is done with Vatican II and popes (JPII and Francis, but not, of course, Benedict, who is their hero and darling, even though he expressly disagrees with them on this point, as I have been showing). . . . It’s all about going right up to the line that ought not be crossed, and playing with it: almost like jumping over it and back.

And on 12-3-12:

I define “radical Catholic reactionaries” as a rigorist, divisive group completely separate from mainstream “traditionalism” that continually, vociferously, and vitriolically (as a marked characteristic or defining trait) bashes and trashes popes, Vatican II, the New Mass, and ecumenism (the “big four”): going as far as they can go without technically crossing over the canonical line of schism.

Just for the record, I have never said that Abp. Viganò was in schism, but rather, that his views are “quasi-schismatic” (which could mean possibly on the brink of schism). But he exhibits all four hallmarks of the radical Catholic reactionary: several of whom will eventually move into the SSPX or sedevacantism (if the past is any guide at all). More often, though, they stay in the Church and wreak havoc (which the devil loves even more, and is likely in Viganò’s case for that reason).

Or it’s said that Abp. Viganò hasn’t denied any Catholic dogma. But he has virtually repudiated the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church, as I repeatedly demonstrated in my lengthy paper yesterday (see the first section after the introduction). He has also rejected the sublime magisterial authority of an ecumenical council, to which we are obliged as Catholics to give assent and certainly not publicly disagree with.

Abp. Viganò shows many signs of a continuing sad descent into more and more extreme reactionaryism, leading to a POSSIBLE Döllinger / Lefebvre-like schism. My job as an apologist is to see the signs and show the wrongness of the rhetoric and to warn people about such divisive, harmful figures. These are the Pharisees of our times: always “learning” but never arriving “at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim 3:7).

One thing leads to another. To not be concerned about these sorts of extremist excesses would be like saying, “lust is no big deal, unless it actually leads to literal adultery.” Jesus thought differently, by saying that “he who lusts has already committed adultery in his heart” and “what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.” (Matthew 15:18-19, RSV).

Is it permissible and rational to say, “if John keeps lusting after Betsy, he may act upon it and commit physical adultery [or fornication, as the case may be]”? Of course it is, according to Catholic moral theology. One thing [often] leads to another, in other words. Thus a priest (in the confessional or out of it) can properly and helpfully advise someone, “if you keep lusting after this woman, you may engage in sex with her; so stop now“. This is straight from the sermon on the mount; also to do with avoiding the occasion of sin, or deeper sin.

Likewise, we say, “if Abp. Viganò keeps falsely accusing the pope and lying about him, and doing the same with Vatican II and the New Mass, he may reject all three and go into schism or near-schism” (whatever SSPX is deemed to be: “irregular” I think).

The nonsense that Abp. Viganò is spewing doesn’t necessarily prove that he will go into schism, but the same sentiments are almost always indicated by those who did do so. Therefore, it is proper to warn of possible schism, based on the analogy of actual schismatics. Dr. Fastiggi argued (and I totally agree) that in effect, Viganò has renounced Pope Francis, since he thinks he is an inveterate liar and deceiver and proponent of a religion other than orthodox Catholicism (pantheism / gnosticism / relativistic one world religion, etc. ad nauseam). It’s pretty tough to believe all that rotgut and still follow a pope as one’s leader and guide, ain’t it?

He and others who follow him may possibly descend into schism, and so need to be warned not to do so. Some already have made the journey. They might go Orthodox or Protestant or SSPX or sedevacantism (denial of the reality of a sitting pope). One sin leads to another. Luther and Calvin believed lies about the Catholic Church and that led them to both heresy and schism. Luther basically started with rejection of the infallibility and authority of ecumenical councils, just as Viganò has.

That’s — incidentally — how sola Scriptura began (at the Leipzig Debate in 1519): upon which the entire authority structure and rule of faith in Protestantism is based. Luther was forced into a corner by his rhetoric about ecumenical councils erring and supposedly contradicting one another, and so he opted for a “Bible Alone [as an infallible authority]” position on the rule of faith, which was entirely novel.

So — as always — Catholic reactionaries pick and choose and reason like both Catholic liberals and Protestants. It’s always the case. No exceptions. Furthermore, all reactionaries and many traditionalists can see in all this is canonical legalism, and miss the entire spirit of the thing; miss the forest for the trees. What Abp. Viganò has actually done (and written) is already outrageous and unconscionable. Schism isn’t the only possible sin or spirit; calumny and gossip and lying, regarding the pope and ecumenical council, is a mortal sin as well. He has done that already. Here is one example of many from my paper yesterday:

The tragic story of this failed pontificate advances with a pressing succession of twists and turns. Not a day passes: from the most exalted throne the Supreme Pontiff proceeds to dismantle the See of Peter, using and abusing its supreme authority, not to confess but to deny; not to confirm but to mislead; not to unite but to divide; not to build but to demolish. Material heresies, formal heresies, idolatry, superficiality of every kind . . . “demythologizing” the papacy . . . With Pope Bergoglio — as with all modernists . . . he . . . demolishes the most sacred dogmas, . . . (12-20-19)

Some pope, huh? I could get more correct Catholic dogma from a bear in the woods . . . Contrast Abp. Viganò’s lying, pathetic attitude towards the Holy Father with St. Paul, even concerning the Jewish high priest:

Acts 23:1-5 (RSV) And Paul, looking intently at the council, said, “Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day.” [2] And the high priest Anani’as commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. [3] Then Paul said to him, “God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” [4] Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” [5] And Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, `You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

Or look at how David was always extremely deferential to wicked King Saul: not wishing to harm “the Lord’s anointed” in any way, shape, or form (even when Saul was seeking to kill him).

***

Photo credit: Saul’s anger at David, by Antoni Brodowski (1784-1832) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries

anti-Francis mentality

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano

Catholic conspiracy theories

ecumenical councils

indefectibility

indefectibility of the Catholic Church

Pope Francis

quasi-schism

Radical Catholic Reactionaries

schism

Vatican II

Vigano

Viganò & conspiracy theories

Viganò & Vatican II

Previous Post

July 13, 2020

Sacred Apostolic Catholic Tradition: Nutshell Explanation

Next Post

July 14, 2020 Ongoing Slaughter in Chicago: Dialogue on its Causes

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz