Just because all those "cօռspιʀαcιҽs" are absolutely true, doesn't mean that you can't come up with actual crackpot, tinfoil hat, CRAZY, kookie, "conspiracy theories" -- and I mean "conspiracy theories" the way the secular world uses that term (to refer to ridiculous, baseless, proof-less nonsense contrary to reason and evidence).
Right, and the powers that be revel in the kooky conspiracy theories, because they can then say "see, we told you these conspiracy theories were nuts."
I don't dismiss any conspiracy theory out of hand without at least examining its claims, but I do demand some POSITIVE evidence. It's akin to the difference between positive and negative doubt. At the very least I need to see a credible
cui bono, who benefits, or what is the benefit? Until I see some evidence about what harm +Vigano might be doing to Traditional Catholicism, it's a non-starter for me. I could entertain the notion that Bishop Athanasius Schneider or Bishop Huonder might be up to no good, since you could see the harm they might do to Traditional Catholicism, the former promoting the notion that there's nothing radically wrong with V2 (just needs a couple minor corrections) and that Bergoglio cannot be deposed no matter what, the latter (with the blessing of Bergoglio, who otherwise despises Traditional Catholicism) "consecrating" oils and churches, possibly acclimating the faithful to perhaps also "ordain" priests in the not too distant future.
There's solid evidence of the Plandemic conspiracy (too much to go into here), but then you had people like this Dr. Carrie Madej making absurd claims such as how she could sense that the "creatures" she saw under the microscope were somehow sentient and were "looking at [her]". Madej became the poster child for the MSM deriding the overall Plandemic conspiracy theories (which were right) and making them seem absurd by association.
Here on CathInfo we've literally seen some accuse +Vigano of being a Satanic/Luciferian Masonic sun-worshipper (those terms were actually all strung together by one poster). "Look, Bishop Williamson has a rose and cross in his coat of arms, and he knew Malcolm Muggeridge, whose sons were Masons." Yeah, lots of people knew Muggeridge (he was a pretty famous guy), and St. Therese is commonly depicted with a crucifix within a bundle or roses "Look, +Vigano had friends who were Opus Dei." OK, so did pretty much every relatively-high-ranking prelate in the Conciliar Church, as OD had its tentacles everywhere; he'd have to have hidden in a cave to avoid them.
+Vigano was accused of being a Mason because the English translation of his letters often concluded with the expression "So may it be.", which was construed as similar enough to "So mote it be." that this was proof for his being a Mason. But a CI member posted pictures of a pre Vatican II Tridentine Italian Missal that translated "Amen" as "So may it be" and indicated that his Traditional Italian priest concluded his sermons with that expression.
+Vigano was accused of being some Satanic/Luciferian sun-worshipper because he made a passing reference to Our Lord as
Sol Invictus around Chrismtas time. CI members discovered that not only did some Church Fathers refer to Our Lord with that imagery (St. Clement of Alexandria for one) and that Christian art beneath St. Peter's depicted Him as such, but the Church's Liturgy was replete with such imagery and language.
+Vigano said some positive things about Trump, and so he became a promoter of the Noahide Laws and also a promoter of the jab (because of Trump's "Operation Warp Speed"), despite the fact that he was one of the most vocal and ardent critics of the jab and of the Plandemic in general, while Trad priests who were soft on the jab are not called out with every other post for their position. Many Traditional Catholics were fooled by Trump, at least enough to vote for him (I include myself here in 2016, though not 2020). But +Vigano's language was very carefully worded, and he used the expression that he "dared hope" that Trump was on the side of good (was well intentioned), yet not asserting this as some kind of certainty. +Vigano, a trained diplomat, also knew Trump's personality very well, knowing that he could be easily manipulated by flattery, so he called out and praised the good things Trump has done (and he has done some). But posters expected him to excoriate Trump publicly every chance he got. In fact, +Vigano was criticized for not attacking Trump in a latter that has absolutely nothing to do with the US or politics, but was about an unrelated theological matter. So he's writing about the Conciliar Church and is required by these detractors to add a completely off-topic paragraph in every letter attacking Trump? +Vigano knew that this served no purpose and has the effect, with Trump's yuge but very fragile ego, of having him double down against what he was criticized for. So the trained diplomat, who knew how to read people, understood how to affect Trump for the better. And it worked, as Trump retweeted his letter to him, and the name of +Vigano became widely known even among non-Catholics.
One could attempt to impute sinister motivations to +Vigano, but charity requires that we put the best possible construction on these, since it's ultimately in the internal forum that we cannot read. I had the same reaction against those who made the same claims about Shia LaBeouf, that his conversion was "fake" ... without any evidence. Slander/calumny is never permitted. Detraction is permitted only when the public good requires it. Until either Shia or +Vigano DO something that's contrary to the faith or harmful to Traditional Catholicism or to others, we must presume that they're speaking and acting in good faith ... even if we disagree with them.
Topic: It's Official! Archbishop Vigano conditionally consecrated !!!!! (Read 10214 times)