Archbishop Vigano calls DC Archbishop a "false shepherd"

[TheLittleLady]

If I want to open a Catholic Goods shop, I must have the permission of the Bishop to use the name “Catholic”. I can call it Little Lady’s Liturgy and Lessons without the approval of the Bishop, selling the same Catholic articles, or I could move to another Diocese and see if that Bishop will allow me to use the name “Catholic” in my store name.

If I want to start a TV show called “Living Catholic” I must have the permission of the Bishop. I may choose to relocate to another Diocese if I cannot get the permission, and the other Diocese may permit it.

Should I decide to become a Catholic speaker, or if I have been a Catholic speaker for decades, I need the approval of my Bishop. If I have had that approval for 50 years, and I want to come speak in your Diocese, I have to obtain permission from your Bishop.

Thing about CM is it used to be called something like “Real Catholic TV”. The Bishop reviewed their content and told them they could not use the name Catholic. That does not mean the man who is CM is not a Catholic, he simply cannot lead people to belive he speaks in any offical capacity.

 

[annem]

Archbishop Gregory’s biased political statement certainly was not about unity and understanding. Perhaps I’m wrong but I don’t believe we heard from the Archbishop praising President Trump’s Pro Life and Religious Liberty policies.

I appreciate Catholic media like LifeSite News and Church Militant. Our Lady said the final battle will be the attack on marriage and family and they are on the front lines.

I agree that Archbishop Gregory’s comments seemed biased and incorrect Thank God there are those who will point this out to him.

 

[LilyM]

whatistrue:

phil19034:

But the Gov said NYC has over 30,000 police offiers & that all 30,000 should have been working

Which is obviously unsustainable. Does the NYPD even have enough vehicles and other infrastructure to accommodate 100% turnout for even a fraction of a single shift? Political talking point and setting up the blame game IMHO.

Agreed. I don’t think all 30,000 should have been working because that’s unsustainable, like you said. My point was simpy that Trump meant to “dominate the streets” NOT “dominate protestors.”

While his choice of words might have been dumb, what he meant was something similar to Gov Cuomo.

When Trump said “dominate the streets” it is highly unlikely that he was referring to inanimate strips of tarmac. It is highly likely he was referring to the people who are on said streets. Peaceful protestors and violent rioters alike and without distinction.

 

[EXdrinker]

Why do you consider them a gargage source?

 

[Dolphin]

Because they intentionally use headlines that have nothing to do with the article or are exaggerations simply so people click on the articles

 

[poche]

I think it is inappropriate for him to speak this way in public about the new archbishop.

 

[Dovekin]

if you want to say that the St. John’s fiasco was a political error, I’ll agree. However, I think what really happened was that someone in the Executive Branch (either the White House or the National Parks Police) dropped the ball on by accident or on purpose.

In his speech, Trump said

As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults, and the wanton destruction of property.

As he spoke those words, “heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers” used tear gas and rubber bullets against peaceful protesters in front of the White House.

If you believe that was an unplanned coincidence, you probably should start considering whether some higher power is working against Trump.

 

[Dovekin]

Dovekin:

…

In my opinion, what I posted did not give a false impression, however if it did, it was not intended. I did include the link so that it could be read, which the posted quote should have created interest in doing.

I did not mean to say you were intentionally misquoted. You quote a lot of different things that I find very helpful and insightful. But sometimes we all quote not quite enough to convey the original author’s intent. I know I have done it.

I did not mean to have the other note as a response to you. Sorry about that. It was a clumsy mistake by my thumbs…

 

[Dolphin]

DC ArchBishop said mass at the Pro-Life Mass at the March For Life this year. I was there. He is a wonderful priest. Fact is, he’s standing for the truth.

JPII stood for human dignity and love. How can someone go to that shrine after gassing innocent people for a photo-op. It was using the Bible as a political prop and is hypocritical. Glad we have one bishop standing for the truth.

Trump is not our savior. He is not our messiah. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The devil always does evil through the appearance of good.

If you have a problem with this bishop, then you need to check your own political views because they do not align with the Gospel. The bishop is not being political. He is defending the Gospel from being manipulated into a political prop.

 

[OraLabora]

I think it is inappropriate for him to speak this way in public about the new archbishop.

I think it’s becoming more clear that Abp. Vigano himself is having, umm, issues, as he declines into conspiracy theories… I think for the good of the unity of the Church, but especially to preserve Abp. Vigano’s personal dignity, CAF should consider a moratorium on Vigano topics.

I know if I suffered a decline in my faculties, I would not want it displayed to the world.

 

[stpurl]

If you condemn an action of a Pope, you are condemning the action, not the man. Or the office.

Suppose Pope Francis does something wrong. We all make errors, don’t we? Perhaps the error was unintentional, or made without knowing all the facts. So we point out the error (and remember, we are a prelate, not a lay person, with who knows what private and other correspondence as well, which again might have been kept from the Pope by others—who knows?—leading to the only way of being sure the Pope knew becoming ‘public correspondence’). Again, nothing here saying, “I condemn Pope Francis’ action on X’ equating to, “The man himself is to be condemned’.

 

[OraLabora]

Baloney. Vigano has gone beyond criticizing this or that action of the Pope. It is taking on the aura of a personal vendetta.

The more air time he gets, the more disservice he does to the Church.

 

[stpurl]

In your opinion.

 

[Organist78]

Archbishop Christophe Pierre is the current nuncio to the United States.

The nuncio is not the boss of the bishops. He does, however, have an influence on episcopal appointments. Just go the USCCB website and read it for yourself. They explain the process–and the nuncio is part of it. You mean to tell me–that you think a bishop would be appointed–over the objections of the nuncio? He might very well be. The point I was making–is not that the nuncio is absolute. But he does have an influence. I wonder why Vigano did not use his influence when he was nuncio to stop the corruption he claims to have seen.

No one at the likes of church militant seems able or willing to ask the tough questions Vigano should be asked.

 

[stpurl]

I think if you had read more of the Archbishop’s letters including the one that kind of started everything, you would have known what he tried to do.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

whatistrue:

phil19034:

But the Gov said NYC has over 30,000 police offiers & that all 30,000 should have been working

Which is obviously unsustainable. Does the NYPD even have enough vehicles and other infrastructure to accommodate 100% turnout for even a fraction of a single shift? Political talking point and setting up the blame game IMHO.

Agreed. I don’t think all 30,000 should have been working because that’s unsustainable, like you said. My point was simpy that Trump meant to “dominate the streets” NOT “dominate protestors.”

While his choice of words might have been dumb, what he meant was something similar to Gov Cuomo.

When Trump said “dominate the streets” it is highly unlikely that he was referring to inanimate strips of tarmac. It is highly likely he was referring to the people who are on said streets. Peaceful protestors and violent rioters alike and without distinction.

No. If you listen to full recordings, it is obvious that he meant something very similar to Gov Cuomo.

He meant have a dominating presence in order to deter looting and rioting.

 

[phil19034]

In his speech, Trump said

As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults, and the wanton destruction of property.

Again. The order to clear the park was issued in the morning and was supposed to be done hours previously. Trump is one of those speakers who you can’t take literally, as he uses exaggeration often.

YES - when I was watching it live, I too thought that Trump actually ordered the clearing (real time) so he could walk to the Church. But the following morning, the US Parks Police and White House clarified what happened.

If you disbelieve what they stated, that’s up to you. As for me, I think it is VERY probable that someone dropped the ball on purpose (to make Trump look bad) or by accident.

 

[DaveBj]

There was an article posted on Facebook from a source that apparently is anathema here, to the effect that Archbishop Gregory had ordered priests to come “in uniform” and demonstrate tomorrow. I can’t find anything like that on any source I can trust; if anyone can confirm or deny, I’d appreciate it. I prefer “in the mouths of two or three witnesses,” not “in the mouth of one witness, and a questionable one at that.”

D

 

[Weserthy]

Yeah, I saw that on CM as well. I am skeptical that it is an actual requirement and not just a notice about the protest, but if this is true it’s a bad look for the Archdiocese participating in what is likely to be a partisan protest (it ends at the White House). I haven’t seen anything else about it.

 

[Pitcairn17]

There was an article posted on Facebook from a source that apparently is anathema here, to the effect that Archbishop Gregory had ordered priests to come “in uniform” and demonstrate tomorrow. I can’t find anything like that on any source I can trust; if anyone can confirm or deny, I’d appreciate it. I prefer “in the mouths of two or three witnesses,” not “in the mouth of one witness, and a questionable one at that.”

D

Is “in uniform” a likely phrase for an archbishop to have used, as opposed to “in clerical attire?” I am unaware of a “uniform” for priests.