Archbishop Viganò defends Virgin Mary in response to new remarks by Pope |000

[Joe_5859]

That’s how I knew it was going to be an article from LSN even before clicking on the thread. “Wait, someone is crafting a headline to imply that Mary needs defending from an ‘attack’ on her by Pope Francis? Must be LifeSiteNews.”

And I was right. Go figure.

 

[whatistrue]

It’s not dogma, but it is doctrine.

I don’t believe that is true.

 

[commenter]

I have the same mixed feelings about LSN and ++Vigano.

LSN deserves credit for its past work covering prolife, at a time many Catholic media offered superficial news. Sadly, they now choose to compete as a standard, suspect-the-hierarchy entity, duplicating the Trad sites. This means their prolife coverage will now hold little credibility.

++Archbishop Vigano did raise valid points, based on his own unique, direct experience. It is appalling that the Vatican has failed to adequately respond.

Unfortunately, now that he is a “name”, he is finding fault with everything Pope Francis says, on areas he (Vigano) has no special qualifications at all. This makes it easier for the Vatican to ignore his very qualified observations based on his former position.

We still need their credibility, and they mostly squandered it.

 

[Rau]

That’s how I knew it was going to be an article from LSN even before clicking on the thread. “Wait, someone is crafting a headline to imply that Mary needs defending from an ‘attack’ on her by Pope Francis? Must be LifeSiteNews.”

Isn’t the “story” really that an Archbishop would so attack the Pope, rather than about the accuracy of a headline?

 

[CTBcin]

It’s not dogma, but it is doctrine. It’s more than just a pious opinion.

The title of Mary as Co-Redemptrix was a hotly debated subject, especially in the Middle Ages. But the Church has never given a specific statement that I’m aware of that specifically endorses it. Catholics are free to either believe or reject this theological concept.

 

[Edmundus1581]

A garbage story, even by LifeSite standards.

Thanks for the reminder of the source. Until now I’ve still read LifeSite for the fragments of useful information I can extract from it, but I’ll take this as a warning that I’m playing with fire.

 

[Rau]

Thanks for the reminder of the source. Until now I’ve still read LifeSite for the fragments of useful information I can extract from it, but I’ll take this as a warning that I’m playing with fire.

Why so much attention on the messenger, and so little focus on the message…An Archbishop attacking the Pope.

 

[IanM]

We still need their credibility, and they mostly squandered it.

Not at all. If their stories were being refuted, we would not see the knee jerk “Shoot the messenger” posts but more refutations.

 

[Nicene]

t’s not dogma, but it is doctrine. It’s more than just a pious opinion.

Actually it isn’t a doctrine either. You won’t find it in the catechism, the unofficial lists of doctrines or the list of dogmas. It is being spread by those who think it should be such that it is already such by mingling it with the typus of Eve and the mediatrix doctrines.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

If their stories were being refuted, we would not see the knee jerk “Shoot the messenger” posts but more refutations.

That’s probably because Lifesite ruined their repuatation.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Edmundus1581:

Thanks for the reminder of the source. Until now I’ve still read LifeSite for the fragments of useful information I can extract from it, but I’ll take this as a warning that I’m playing with fire.

Why so much attention on the messenger, and so little focus on the message…An Archbishop attacking the Pope.

The messenger proves itself deceitful from the beginning.

, in response to the pope’s controversial homily on the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe in which he called the doctrine of Mary as co-redemptrix “nonsense.”

That is a very strong statement he is asserted to have made, and is presented here as “news”, but he didn’t say it. The relevant section of his sermon is presented in more detail in the other thread currently running on this.

Pope Francis has been deliberately misquoted to give a sympathetic basis for Abp Vigano’s remarks which followed.

Because of this deliberate misquote, one would be sensible to disregard the whole article.

 

[Rau]

Because of this deliberate misquote, one would be sensible to disregard the whole article.

Well, perhaps we should even conclude the Abp is supportive of the Pope! That at least would not be newsworthy (you’d hope),

 

[Edmundus1581]

Edmundus1581:

Because of this deliberate misquote, one would be sensible to disregard the whole article.

Well, perhaps we should even conclude the Abp is supportive of the Pope! That at least would not be newsworthy (you’d hope),

The whole thing sounds very strange, and maybe the Abp is being supportive of the pope! If his remarks are correctly quoted, even then, while it may be newsworthy, I wouldn’t be making a comment. For a start, I’d get myself confused just trying to check them against what the Pope has actually said.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I’m not saying that LSN never gets anything wrong… but, I don’t trust many of the other networks to warn and inform people of the true crisis that is occurring within the church.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Its has proven to be a fruitless service.

 

[IanM]

Indeed. The disinfectant properties of sunlight can be witnessed daily.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

Thank you God for Your gift of Archbishop Vigano to us in this vale of tears and these days of confusion. May he help bring clarity to us and help us to better know the Lord our God.

 

[Finn]

LifeSiteSpews.

This is your contribution to a conversation? This is what you’d like your offering to be?

 

[OraLabora]

It is the most that LifeSite merits.

I support the Holy Father 100%.

 

[commenter]

It is the most that LifeSite merits.

I support the Holy Father 100%.

I also support the Holy Father in terms of the ordinary magisterium. His teaching ministry on Mary is well within his expertise, far more reliable than that of LSN.

That said, LSN has quite appropriately pointed out imprudence of some of the Pope’s appointments, policies, and statements. He seems to present as ambiguous and inadequate in response to the Culture of Death, overly attached to trends and priorities of the secular media. LSN, and I, would argue that the Vatican public or social policy is far inferior to that of St JP2.

LSN isn’t perfect, but has some good experience in the prolife area. The fact that they foolishly make statements outside their expertise does not invalidate what they do in their expertise.