+
JMJ
So it is interesting to see how 'Where Peter Is' appears so desperate to discredit anyone who doesn't agree with them. Just because +Strickland doesn't explicitly state that he believes Pope Francis to be pope - the author jumped off the cliff and believed that the good bishop was on the same branch as Archbishop Vigano.
That in and of itself made it worthy of the Chronicle.
++Vigano's excommunication is also worthy of the Chronicle not because of his sedevacantism, but because of the rationale for his having ipso facto excommunicated himself by the crime / sin of schism
The communiqué continues, “His public statements manifesting his refusal to recognize and submit to the Supreme Pontiff [1], his rejection of communion with the members of the Church subject to him [2], and of the legitimacy and magisterial authority of the Second Vatican Council [3]are well known.
“At the conclusion of the penal process, the Most Reverend Carlo Maria Viganò was found guilty of the reserved delict of schism."Viganò excommunicated for schism
Rationale
- Refusal to submit ... so he is disobedient and this is ... once again ... a schismatic act? I think someone should call a bovine excrement on that one.
- Rejection of Communion ... I've often wondered what that looks like in practice. I mean the words are definitely aligned with the traditional wording of schism - but in this day and age - how would we know.
- Rejection of the legitimacy and magisterial authority of V2 ... well this a little better than the catch all 'accept the council' mantra, but not much. The council was 'legitimate' in that it was a council of the Catholic Church and as such does have a 'magisterial authority'. Only, the Vatican is usually a little loose with what the council actually declared. I've even used the works of the council to defend the Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
I just don't see how this is a schismatic act when acts of heresy are rampant in the hierarchy.
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment