Ap. Viganò: Christ the King has been ‘dethroned’ not only ‘from society but also from the Church’

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

yankeesouth

Guest
www.lifesitenews.com

Abp. Viganò: Christ the King has been 'dethroned' not only 'from society but also from the Church' - LifeSite

Full text of comments Archbishop Viganò delivered to the LifeSiteNews team at our annual meeting
www.lifesitenews.com www.lifesitenews.com
But also in the Church, he added, the papal monarchy and with it the Kingship of Christ have been undermined since the Second Vatican Council.
Click to expand...
The consequence of this abandonment of the social Kingship of Christ is, according to Viganò, tyranny: “Also in this case, the sweet yoke of Christ is replaced by the hateful tyranny of the Innovators, who with an authoritarianism not dissimilar to that of their secular counterparts impose a new doctrine, a new morality, and a new liturgy in which the only mention of the Kingship of Our Lord is considered as an awkward legacy from another religion, another Church.”
Click to expand...
This new church can be characterized by “clergy who give scandal to the faithful by their reprehensible moral conduct, spreading heresy from the pulpits, favoring idolatry by celebrating the pachamama and the worship of Mother Earth in the name of an eccologism of a clearly Masonic matrix,” he added.
Click to expand...
 
Whether you agree with him or not, if he truly believes what he is saying, his conscience would require him to speak out.

I’m sure that he would much rather ‘relax in his golden years’ and say, “Oh well, there’s always problems but God will sort this out, no need for me or anybody else to speak up, it’ll just confuse things, as long as we just try to be good peeps and follow our conscience and not make people uncomfortable, it’ll all sugar out”. . .

But priests have even a higher calling than we lay people do to obey our consciences. It’s one thing for you and for me to ‘speak up’ if we see things that we feel are affecting the Church negatively, or affecting people negatively —if we see something ‘wrong’. It’s even more important for a priest to speak up. People can sneer at us, “Well by what authority do YOU say something”. It’s a little harder to say that a priest, a BISHOP, doesn’t have the authority to speak on issues in the Church. He not only has authority, he has responsibility.
 
Catholics reacting like this Archbishop is a symptom of the real problems in the Church. Maybe he is going overboard, and others have gone overboard more in the course of history during times of worldliness even embracing heresy and schism, and the Church acknowledges even in those cases “often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” (CCC 817). The same is true today. There’s a reason these kinds of disputes are happening now.
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271 (CCC 817)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
Whether you agree with him or not, if he truly believes what he is saying, his conscience would require him to speak out.
Click to expand...
Why?

My mom believed my dad was coming home from Russia soon since he was there for medical treatments.

Sadly, my dad was dead 18 years at that point, and never had been to Russia.

Required to speak? There have been lots of incidents of those convinced the church was wrong.
The signers of the Winnipeg statement, for example. Were they required to speak?

Or did that cause confusion in the flock?
 
IanM said:
¡Hagan lío! anyone?
Click to expand...
I suspect Pope Francis has weighed the consequences of his words and actions. Considering his background in Argentina during the Dirty War it would be naive to think otherwise. He knows - in a way that few do - that taking a stand for the poor, the marginalized, the immigrant, those on the outside is unpopular and dangerous.

But, you are right of course.
 
With respect, this article seems tragic to me — but not for the reason the author claims.
Any attempt I made to clarify or correct this narrative was immediately shut down.

At a certain point, I realized that I would never persuade her, and I tried to avoid the subject rather than create more division. When she became sick, I raised the subject a few more times, but it was clear that her views had become entrenched. She even had a coffee mug with the word “Viganò” written on it in capital letters. And every conversation we had about religion drifted into an argument about Pope Francis. Being unable to talk about God with the person who gave me my faith as she lay dying was agonizing.
Click to expand...
So, the ‘agony’ this author reports was because the author couldn’t let go of his inability to talk about faith with his mother unless she allowed him to “clarify and correct” her opinions about it.

Pretty shameful conduct at a dying parent’s bedside, in my view.

Yes, there are genuine stresses and disputes and I imagine most of us have some opinion on at least some of them.

But if any of us allow our political/theological disagreements with family members to chase us away from getting down to the roots of faith and tolerating our loved one’s different opinion on a matter not necessary to salvation while they lay dying, then shame on us.

Pope Francis’ critics didn’t cause division at this parent’s deathbed. The adult child did. (And then tried to use their own self-imposed suffering at their mother’s deathbed, as a political bludgeon for the Church politics they personally prefer. Not impressive to me. Not impressive at all.)
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
Catholics reacting like this Archbishop is a symptom of the real problems in the Church. Maybe he is going overboard, and others have gone overboard more in the course of history during times of worldliness even embracing heresy and schism, and the Church acknowledges even in those cases “often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” (CCC 817). The same is true today. There’s a reason these kinds of disputes are happening now.
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271 (CCC 817)
Click to expand...
Vigano is highlighting a problem in the church. His detractors are dismissing him for doing so, without looking at the underlying issues. Does he have the right to say the things he does? Does anyone have that right?
Is the church, and by this I mean Catholicism, and not just the Vatican hierarchy, worse off because of Vigano?
God gave us a mind to use and reason with. Are we supposed to turn it off and pretend that things are just dandy? Is this what Jesus would ask of you?
Click to expand...
 
Your mom is not a bishop. Your mom has a responsibility to her family and to God.
A bishop has a responsibility to his family and to God. But his family includes not only his own flock, but his brother bishops’ flocks as well.

If your brother were, for example, to flout your father’s specific instructions on how to handle some specific duty your father gave your brother—something which your brother solemnly swore to do exactly as required, but which he then did not do—are you supposed to sit mumchance and tell Dad, “That was between you and bro; so it turned out that he didn’t do what you told him to and hey, maybe some people were hurt, maybe some even died, but it wasn’t MY responsibility to say something! If I had said something it would have hurt my brother’s feelings. He might even have tried to punish ME by accusing me of doing the wrong things. And besides, what if I’d been wrong and he really was doing the right thing? I’d have looked foolish. I might have had to apologize or something. No, rather than speak up for others or me putting my dignity on the line, it was far better to just ignore the whole thing. Better for ME, that is. This way I can cover MY butt and put all the blame on ‘other people’ while patting myself on the back for looking all tolerant and nonjudgmental. I’m not my brother’s keeper!!! RIght? That old story was just a legend that has nothing to do with people living today!!!
 
I go back and forth about Vigano. I think he makes excellent points but I don’t agree with everything he says.
 
This is a dilemma indeed. There are the intentions of our actions and the often unintended consequences.

Is Vigano undermining the papacy he claims to be defending, or will his criticism lead to a more robust, more faithful church?

It should be clear that the current pope is trying to remake the church in his own image. He believes that his vision is the correct one. But is it? His actions also have consequences and the appearance of people like Vigano is one of those consequences.
 
Last edited:
I agree, it’s getting to be a bit much.

At this point the only reason to pay attention is to see just how far he’s going to go this time.
 
The original problem that the Jewish scribes had with Jesus as the prophesied Messiah was that He wasn’t ‘kingly’ or having a temporal throne with all the trappings. Jesus acted like a servant rather than an earthly king hence the sarcastic 'King of the Jews" that marked His crucifixion.

Pope John Paul recognised the hypocrisy that had befallen the Church and lived as simply as possible in the Vatican. Pope Francis has had the opportunity to further reject worldiness and riches as Pope. Our Jesus, our real Jesus, had Kingship in His service to sinners, the poor, the homeless, widows, orphans, strangers in need of refuge and so on.

I think maybe AB Vigano might have got his wires crossed and thinks Kingship is about temporal wealth and dominance?
 
Oh really. . .this is rather innuendo and confusion on your part, isn’t it?

Tell me, if you will, just how much of Pope Benedict’s ‘wealth’ he will be willing to his family. How many papal tiaras? How many paintings? How much gold, silver, etc. that he got ‘by being Pope’?

I’ll answer you: NOTHING. He doesn’t get those robes he wore, or the ‘palace’ and furnishings he used, or any goods or materials that he didn’t own himself. You know, things like the sheet music he may have bought back when he was a young man or the family bible his brother gave him. . .THOSE are his.

Did you ever stop to think that Kings DO have wealth, because the wealth benefits the subjects???

That when King David, for example, had plenty of food and clothing and building projects and armies etc., that his PEOPLE were the ones rejoicing for the WEALTH because it meant their own security? That the people going into the temple of Solomon, whose families had contributed from the wealth they earned under the rule of David whose wealth contributed to their own we’re GLAD to ‘give back to the Lord’s house”? That the people in generations to come were not kept ‘away’ from the Temple, just as we are not (well prior to COVID) kept ‘away’ from churches where we can stand and worship in spaces whose beauty is offered to the Lord and to us His people as well?

The Sistine Chapel is a magnificent work of art. It doesn’t belong ‘to the Pope’, it belongs to US as Catholics. It’s part of our heritage. What are we supposed to do, find Bezos or Soros and say, “oh please buy this, if you do we might have 50 cents to give to each person on the planet to relieve poverty!”
 
stpurl said:
Oh really. . .this is rather innuendo and confusion on your part, isn’t it?

Tell me, if you will, just how much of Pope Benedict’s ‘wealth’ he will be willing to his family. How many papal tiaras? How many paintings? How much gold, silver, etc. that he got ‘by being Pope’?

I’ll answer you: NOTHING. He doesn’t get those robes he wore, or the ‘palace’ and furnishings he used, or any goods or materials that he didn’t own himself. You know, things like the sheet music he may have bought back when he was a young man or the family bible his brother gave him. . .THOSE are his.
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict XVI Emeritus also made the ‘gesture of humility’ by removing the tiara from his papal coat of arms being the first Pope in a thousand years to do so.
stpurl said:
Did you ever stop to think that Kings DO have wealth, because the wealth benefits the subjects???
Click to expand...
The riches spoken of in Scripture are of the spiritual kind. Pope Benedict on the day of his election introduced his papacy as that of a laborer in the vineyard. Matt 20

You may remember that when I addressed the crowd in St Peter’s Square on the day of my election it came naturally to me to introduce myself as a labourer in the vineyard of the Lord. Well, in today’s Gospel (cf. Mt 20: 1-16), Jesus recounted the very same parable of the owner of the vineyard who at different hours of the day hires labourers to work in it. And in the evening he gives them all the same wages, one denarius, provoking protests from those who began work early. That denarius clearly represents eternal life, a gift that God reserves for all. Indeed those who are considered the “last”, if they accept, become the “first”, whereas the “first” can risk becoming the “last”. The first message of this parable is inherent in the very fact that the landowner does not tolerate, as it were, unemployment: he wants everyone to be employed in his vineyard. Actually, being called is already the first reward: to be able to work in the Lord’s vineyard, to put oneself at his service, to collaborate in his work, is in itself a priceless recompense that repays every effort. Yet only those who love the Lord and his Kingdom understand this: those who instead work only for the pay will never realize the value of this inestimable treasure. Angelus 9/21/08

The Church has been paring back on the over emphasis on temporal wealth and temporal beauty to focus on the spiritual wealth and beauty of the gospel.
 
No one’s considering that with the likes of Viganó it’s a self fulfilling prophecy made to undermine the Holy Father?
 
stpurl said:
That when King David, for example, had plenty of food and clothing and building projects and armies etc., that his PEOPLE were the ones rejoicing for the WEALTH because it meant their own security? That the people going into the temple of Solomon, whose families had contributed from the wealth they earned under the rule of David
Click to expand...
The same Solomon who taxed his people exorbitantly and built palaces to himself? Who’s actions eventually caused schism in God’s people Israel? Also, do we really want another Jeroboam because it didn’t play out too well for God’s people?
 
Care to elaborate on the Church’s so-called ‘emphasis on temporal wealth”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top