In my view, this sounds like part of the show, I think Vigano is probably in on. Just like Lefebvre and SSPX. They set up “conservatives” they can ban as “schismatic”. Our position is rather the Vatican is in schism and Francis is neither a Catholic nor a pope. The Vatican’s legitimacy must be undermined and tradition promoted instead, so that a traditional Catholic pope is elected who rejects Vatican 2 and believes and practices the Catholic faith.
(Also why it seemed like a waste of time for me to try to do anything under the Vatican only to be “excommunicated”. Catholicism is “excommunicated” under the Vatican… meaning that the Vatican itself is not Catholic, and itself excommunicated, rather instead.)
Well, I have actually thought that the interplay between conservative and liberal focuses on trying to resolve the chasm between the two as much as possible, while I think… Vigano was once really just a good mascot of the conservative wing.
It seems he must have gone completely in the wrong direciton.
The charges are quite general.
According to the summons by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and made public by Viganò, the prelate is accused of “public accusations, which result in a denial of the necessary elements to maintain communion with the Catholic Church,” most notably in denying “the legitimacy of Pope Francis,” “breaking communion with him,” and “rejecting the Second Vatican Council.”
Fallen from grace, Archbishop Viganò founded the Exsurge Domine association in July 2023. Coming to the aid of schismatic communities he deems persecuted by the church, he has recently shown the ambition to create a seminary in Viterbo, Italy, similar to what Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did in Ecône (Switzerland), the seminary of the Society of Saint Pius X.
The Italian prelate compared his ordeal to that of Lefebvre: “The scheme is repeated even after half a century has demonstrated Archbishop Lefebvre’s prophetic choice,” he said in his statement.
This stuff is kind of wild to me because it certainly does sound schismatic.
But I am Orthodox so I do not really know the ins & outs of this.
Our view is basically Vatican 2 was a modernist heretical attack on Catholicism; Lefebvre was the “fake traditionalist” setting up a controlled reaction to this attack, so that the enemy controls both the main attack (Vatican institution) and the “traditional resistance” to it. Vigano strikes me as merely continuing this project for a modern audience, distracting from a logical solution that works.
Lefebvre did commit a “schismatic act” by consecrating bishops without papal permission, in the 80s. Catholics are to obey the pope, and the Vatican’s “popes” are anti-traditional, so he requested permission to consecrate such bishops, and was denied permission. Thus, the situation looked like the false dilemma with the two options of: either you accept a Vatican that was going to destroy the organization he set up to be traditional (so the Vatican is anti-Catholic), or you in some sense recognize the Vatican’s claims to authority while resisting them (arguably not a traditional Catholic view) which is the route Lefebvre went in by both saying he recognizes a certain man as pope (who he is supposed to obey) and disobeys him by consecrating without papal permission (an act of schism in Canon Law I believe, all else equal).
We have argued in contrast Lefebvre’s view is logically contradictory, but that if the Vatican cannot be obeyed, this is an implication it is not Catholic; hence we do not recognize the Vatican as having Catholic legitimacy (like Lefebvre or Vigano do) and also disobey it like they do (but this is because we do not believe them to have any Catholic authority, so they are not to be obeyed).
So while we like Lefebvre’s and Vigano’s traditional-leaning views, they still are not consistent. They seemingly promote rebellion against authority and this creates more confusion and problems. Also, Lefebvre’s SSPX was in many ways only “half traditional”, as they accepted some of the modern reforms that have been made while rejecting others (such as using the 1962 missal, and not requiring the traditional Lenten fast of 40 days which was reduced to 2 days)
Sounds about right to me.
Just another step in the long process of fulfilling the promise of Vatican 2. I’m glad to see the reformists have strengthened their position this completely.
I thought they weren’t supposed to judge.
