A Brief Comment On Abp. Viganò’s Christmas 2021 Message

Plus, A Brief Comment Regarding Bergoglio's War On The Mass

A week or two ago I had occasion to bring up the topic of the Four Cardinal Virtues. The topic comes to mind once again in the context of Abp. Viganò’s Christmas 2021 Message to the American people, in which he renewed his call—at “a crucial moment for the future of the United States of America and of the whole of humanity”—to engage in a battle against the Globalist “Great Reset.” Benjamin Franklin famously stated:

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

You can find a discussion of what it means to be a virtuous people here: Only a Virtuous People are Capable of Freedom. The bottom line in that discussion is the willingness of individuals to sacrifice private interest for the common good. You’ll find that view resurrected in the current movement for a “common good” conservatism. Nevertheless, the implementation of such a scheme requires the cultivation of specific virtues—not just a general inclination toward a vague “common good.” Indeed, if a virtuous people is inclined toward the common good, then the common good should be defined by the virtues of that people.

I suggest that we can do no better in our search for the virtues to be cultivated than to return to the Four Cardinal Virtues of Greco-Roman antiquity and of Christian Tradition. Further, these are precisely those virtues that must inform the spiritual struggle that Viganò calls us to. In point of fact, a rereading (if necessary) of Viganò’s Christmas Message in the the light of these virtues will also suggest that that is precisely what he had in mind.

This morning at American Thinker, in an article that takes the American Catholic bishops to task, we find an eloquent Gut Check with the Cardinal Virtues. Here is a list of the four cardinal virtues, taken from that article—for reflection and reference. There is a tendency in popular thought to interpret these four virtues in a somewhat mealy-mouthed way. That is not their classical significance, however:

Prudence is exercising good judgment — knowing when to act and when to refrain. …

Prudence, it should be clear, thus requires a firm grasp of the first principles of morality. Without a grasp of first principles, sound judgment is not possible. The virtue of prudence is then produced by the lived experience of applying those principles in life, and observing the exercise of judgment in public life.

… fortitude (strength while facing adversity).

Justice is acting such that others receive what is due to them, good or bad. …

It should be clear that failure to do justice is itself an act of injustice.

Temperance is the concept of appropriately restraining our natural tendencies. We usually think of it as limiting our actions — for example, biting our tongue when dealing with a rude person. However, what about when our tendency is to do nothing in a difficult situation — such as not to confront a bully? In that situation, "doing nothing" is the exact opposite of restraint and temperance.

---

Of course I’ve been aware of George Bergoglio’s and the “Deep Church’s” renewed and intensified war on the Mass—the traditional liturgy of the Roman Church as widely practiced over most of two millennia in the West. It has seemed fairly pointless to comment on this scandalous situation. Abp. Viganò sees this as part and parcel of the Great Reset. I agree. However, for those who wish to read about this, you could try Chris Ferrara’s article: A Schismatic Pope? Here’s a brief excerpt which cuts to the heart of the matter:

While Bergoglio holds the office of the papacy, he is not a Pope, but a destroyer.  Anyone with any sense can surely see that now.  … long before publication of TC [Traditionis Custodes], it had already become obvious to many observers of good will outside traditionalist circles.  Consider, for example, the witness of Dr. Douglas Farrow, a theology professor at McGill University, writing for Catholic World Report in 2018 concerning what he calls “the troubling Bergoglio pontificate”:

The critics are right that the revolution is wrong. This is not reform; it is not even conversion. It is conquest. If it is not stopped, the gates of Hades will prevail against the Church, which will die out everywhere just as it is dying out in the lands of the revolutionaries themselves. We must appeal to Heaven to stop it and be prepared to help stop it, confident in our Lord’s promise that those gates shall not prevail and that his Church will not fail.

That was more than three years ago.  Today, there can be no denying that Bergoglio is the leader of an apocalyptic ecclesial coup d’état, an attempted conquest of the Church indeed.  Its aim is nothing less than the formal creation of a new religion within the Church’s visible structure that would universally institutionalize, if it were possible, all the tendencies toward ecclesial dissolution and apostasy unleashed by that breach in the Church’s immune system known as the Second Vatican Council.

Recall the teaching of Saint Robert Bellarmine regarding resistance to a hypothetical Pope who, like this one, attacks the Church:

[N]o authority is required to resist an invader and defend oneself, nor is it necessary that the one who is invaded should be a judge and superior of the one who invades; rather, authority is required to judge and punish. Therefore, just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so is it lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more if he should endeavor to destroy the Church. I say, it is lawful to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and by blocking him, lest he should carry out his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior. See Cajetan on this matter, and John de Turrecremata.[1]

Recall as well the famous observation of the great Thomist Francisco Suarez (d. 1617), who cited earlier authors such as Cajetan (d. 1534) for the proposition, noted by Gamber,[2] that “a Pope would be schismatic if, as is his duty, he would not be in full communion with the body of the Church as, for example, if he were to excommunicate the entire Church, or if he were to change all the liturgical rites of the Church that have been upheld by apostolic tradition.”[3]

Minor correction, in the context of this excerpt: Suarez was certainly no Thomist.

Interestingly, the FSSP issued a terse statement today that at least suggests that it will resist attempts by the occupants of the Vatican to wage war on FSSP’s practice of the “liturgical and disciplinary traditions” of the Church, or to enforce conformity with practices not in keeping with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (1988):

Statement on the Dec. 18th Document from the CDW

The recent document from the Congregation for Divine Worship released on December 18th does not directly address the former Ecclesia Dei communities such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter who possess their own proper law.

The members of the Fraternity of St. Peter promised to be faithful to our Constitutions at the time of our admittance into the Fraternity, and we remain committed to exactly that: fidelity to the Successor of Peter and the faithful observance of the “liturgical and disciplinary traditions” of the Church in accordance with the provisions of the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of July 2, 1988, which is at the origin of our foundation. The superiors of the Priestly Fraternity will be studying the document more closely while maintaining our ministry to the faithful entrusted to our care.