Here is my quick response to my last post, my translation of Excommunicated Archbishop Viganò's indictment of traditional Catholics.
The excommunicated Archbishop is ironically suffering from his excessive Ultramontanism. Because he neglects to distinguish the Office of Peter from the historical holder of the Office, and, because he neglects to distinguish Papal Primacy/Supremacy from Papal Magisterial Infallibility (with all of the attendant distinctions and conditions thereof).
To accept and uphold and revel under Papal Jurisdiction is essential to Catholic identity. That is a juridical fact. All those who are officially excommunicated from the Catholic Church are not Catholic. On the other hand, all those who are baptized in the Catholic Church and are not excommunicated are Catholic. Poor Viganò, himself purportedly excommunicated, claims that all Catholics are unfaithful and excommunicated by the way they are treated and because of the errors of their leaders. There are so many errors in logic here that they are too many to enumerate. But let me try.
1. The first error is that mistreatment = de facto excommunication. False.
2. Second error is that silence = formal consent. False. The response to this error is that silence is often the normal way when a superior falls into error. An inferior does not have an inherent right to correct a superior. It is not typically the place of an inferior to correct his inferior. In rare instances an inferior might rightly correct a superior, but only when necessary, and then, only with the utmost deference. Each man should typically stay in his lane!
3. To obey an erring superior is to share in his error and therefore in the culpability of the error. False. Because of point 2 above, this is also false.
4. The faithful must disobey and reject leaders who are in error. False. They must obey in everything except sin. Witness Christ Himself. Christ obeyed sinners, religious and civil, to death, death on a Cross, and He never sinned. There are many instances of this throughout our history of Saints: e.g. Saint Pio of Pietrelcina.
5. Because of his doctrinal zeal (in his erroneous ultramontanism) Viganò sets himself as the judge of the Papal Authority. His doctrinal stance makes him confuse his obligation to obedience. He rejects the Pope's rightful jurisdiction because he disagrees with the Papal doctrinal teachings. That does not follow. The Pope is still the Supreme, Immediate, Universal authority on the earth, even when he is wrong. His jurisdiction is not infallible, but it remains Supreme and Universal, and must be obeyed, (not without just and sometimes necessary criticism) in all things but sin.
6. The fundamental problem with the Viganò position is that it condemns the entire Catholic Church. The excommunicate declares all Catholics excommunicated! Making himself the Supreme Judge in the Church, he logically dissolves the Church. He makes himself Pope, and condemns the whole world. This traditionalist error is the typical Protestant error, of not accepting the priestly/episcopal/papal, God-given hierarchical authority in the Church. The fundamental problem is that of authority and obedience.
As G.K. Chesterton said, the problem with the Protestant is not that he has no Pope, the problem is that everyman thereby makes himself Pope. If the Pope is not the Supreme earthly authority, who is? Viganò? SSPX? The Sedevacantes? The Orthodox? The Lutherans? The Anglicans? The Calvanists? The Evangelicals? The Mormons? The Jehovah's Witnesses? The Christian Scientists? The Jews? The Muslims? The secular humanists? The atheists?
Cf. Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk.
P.S. There is an appeal process for excommunication, and as long as that process proceeds, the excommunication is without effect. Dear excommunicated Archbishop Viganò, you should try to work out of your excommunication. Obedience is the solution! Never consent to error, but, by all means, obey rightful authority, without sinning yourself, to death, even death on the cross!
