Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: 2Vermont on June 26, 2020, 09:11:42 PM

Title: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: 2Vermont on June 26, 2020, 09:11:42 PM
Not sure if this was posted already.  There is no specific date on this:

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=12379


Sorry. I'd copy and paste text but I can't figure out how to do this on my phone.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: donkath on June 26, 2020, 09:31:23 PM
Interview with Phil Lawler


by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò  (https://www.catholicculture.org/search/resultslist.cfm?requesttype=docbrowseauth&resourcetype=1&catlabel=author&catid=2358)
DESCRIPTION
In June 2020, Phil Lawler, the editor of Catholic World News, contacted Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the former apostolic nuncio to the United States, to question him about his outspoken views on the authority of Vatican II. The following is the text of the interview.
LARGER WORK
Original
PUBLISHER & DATE
Trinity Communications, 2020


Lawler: First, what are you saying about Vatican II? That things have gone downhill fast since then is certainly true. But if the whole Council is a problem, how did that happen? How do we reconcile that with what we believe about the inerrancy of the magisterium? How were all the Council fathers deceived? Even if only some parts of the Council (e.g. Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae) are problematical, we still face the same questions. Many of us have been saying for years that the “spirit of Vatican II” is in error. Are you now saying that this phony liberal “spirit” does accurately reflect the work of the Council?

Archbishop Vigano: I do not think that it is necessary to demonstrate that the Council represents a problem: the simple fact that we are raising this question about Vatican II and not about Trent or Vatican I seems to me to confirm a fact that is obvious and recognized by everyone. In reality, even those who defend the Council with swords drawn find themselves doing so apart from all the other previous ecumenical councils, of which not even one was ever said to be a pastoral council. And note that they call it “the Council” par excellence, as if it was the one and only council in the entire history of the Church, or at least considering it as an unicum whether because of the formulation of its doctrine or for the authority of its magisterium. It is a council that, differently from all those that preceded it, called itself a pastoral council, declaring that it did not want to propose any new doctrine, but which in fact created a distinction between before and after, between a dogmatic council and a pastoral council, between unequivocal canons and empty talk, between anathema sit and winking at the world.

In this sense, I believe that the problem of the infallibility of the Magisterium (the inerrancy you mention is properly a quality of Sacred Scripture) does not even arise, because the Legislator, that is, the Roman Pontiff around whom the Council was convened, solemnly and clearly affirmed that he did not want to use the doctrinal authority which he could have exercised if he wanted. I would like to make the observation that nothing is more pastoral than what is proposed as dogmatic, because the exercise of the munus docendi in its highest form coincides with the order that the Lord gave to Peter to feed his sheep and lambs. And yet this opposition between dogmatic and pastoral was made precisely by the one who, in his discourse opening the Council, sought to give a severe meaning to dogma and a softer, more conciliatory meaning to pastoral care. We also find the same setting in the interventions of Bergoglio, where he identifies “pastoralism [pastoralità]” as a soft version of rigidCatholic teaching in matters of Faith and Morals, in the name of discernment. It is painful to recognize that the practice of having recourse to an equivocal lexicon, using Catholic terms understood in an improper way, invaded the Church starting with Vatican II, which is the first and most emblematic example of the so-called “circiterism,” the equivocating and intentionally imprecise use of the language. This happened because the Aggiornamento, a term in itself ideologically promoted by the Council as an absolute, held dialogue with the world to be its priority above all else.

There is another equivocation that must be clarified. If on the one hand John XXIII and Paul VI declared that they did not want to commit the Council to the definition of new doctrines and wanted it to limit itself to being only pastoral, on the other hand it is true that externally—mediatically or in the media, we would say today—the emphasis given to its acts was enormous. This emphasis served to convey the idea of a presumed doctrinal authority, of an implicit magisterial infallibility, even though these were clearly excluded right from the beginning. If this emphasis occurred, it was in order to allow the more or less heterodox instances to be perceived as authoritative and thus to be accepted by the clergy and the faithful. But this would be enough to discredit those authors of a similar deception, who still cry out today if anyone touches Nostra Aetate, while they are silent even if someone denies the divinity of Our Lord or the perpetual virginity of Mary Most Holy. Let us recall that Catholics do not worship a Council, neither Vatican II nor Trent, but rather the Most Holy Trinity, the One True God; they do not venerate a conciliar declaration or a post-synodal exhortation, but rather the Truth that these acts of the Magisterium convey.

You ask me: “How were all the Council fathers deceived?” I reply by drawing on my experience of those years and the words of my brothers with whom I engaged in discussion at that time. No one could have imagined that right in the heart of the ecclesial body there were hostile forces so powerful and organized that they could succeed in rejecting the perfectly orthodox preparatory schemas that had been prepared by Cardinals and Prelates with a reliable fidelity to the Church, replacing them with a bundle of cleverly disguised errors behind long-winded and deliberately equivocal speeches. No one could have believed that, right under the vaults of the Vatican Basilica, the estates-general could be convoked that would decree the abdication of the Catholic Church and the inauguration of the Revolution. (As I have already mentioned in a previous article, Cardinal Suenens called Vatican II “the 1789 of the Church”). The Council Fathers were the object of a sensational deception, of a fraud that was cleverly perpetrated by having recourse to the most subtle means: they found themselves in the minority in the linguistic groups, excluded from meetings convened at the last moment, pressured into giving their placet by making them believe that the Holy Father wanted it. And what the innovators did not succeed in obtaining in the Conciliar Aula, they achieved in the Commissions and Committees, thanks also to the activism of theologians and periti who were accredited and acclaimed by a powerful media machine. There is a vast array of studies and documents that testify to this systematic malicious mens of some of the Council Fathers on the one hand, and the naïve optimism or carelessness of other well-intentioned Council Fathers on the other. The activity of the Coetus Internationalis Patrum [opposing the innovators] could do little or nothing, when the violations of the rules by the progressives were ratified at the Sacred Table itself [by the Pope].

Those who have maintained that the “spirit of the Council” represented a heterodox or erroneous interpretation of Vatican II engaged in an unnecessary and harmful operation, even if they were driven to do so in good faith. It is understandable that a Cardinal or Bishop would want to defend the honor of the Church and desire that she would not be discredited before the faithful and the world, and so it was thought that what the progressives attributed to the Council was in reality an undue misrepresentation, an arbitrary forcing. But if at the time it could be difficult to think that a religious liberty condemned by Pius XI (Mortalium Animos) could be affirmed by Dignitatis Humanae, or that the Roman Pontiff could see his authority usurped by a phantom episcopal college, today we understand that what was cleverly concealed in Vatican II is today affirmed ore rotundo in papal documents precisely in the name of the coherent application of the Council.

On the other hand, when we commonly speak of the spirit of an event, we mean precisely that it constitutes the soul, the essence of that event. We can thus affirm that the spirit of the Council is the Council itself, that the errors of the post-conciliar period were contained in nuce in the Conciliar Acts, just as it is rightly said that the Novus Ordo is the Mass of the Council, even if in the presence of the Council Fathers the Mass was celebrated that the progressives significantly call pre-conciliar. And again: if Vatican II truly did not represent a point of rupture, what is the reason for speaking of a pre-conciliar Church and a post-conciliar church, as if these were two different entities, defined in their essence by the Council itself? And if the Council was truly in line with the uninterrupted infallible Magisterium of the Church, why is it the only Council that poses grave and serious problems of interpretation, demonstrating its ontological heterogeneity with respect to other Councils?

Lawler: Second, what is the solution? Bishop Schneider proposes that a future Pontiff must repudiate errors; Archbishop Viganò finds that inadequate. But then how can the errors be corrected, in a way that maintains the authority of the teaching magisterium?

Archbishop Vigano: The solution, in my opinion, lies above all in an act of humility that all of us, beginning with the Hierarchy and the Pope, must carry out: recognizing the infiltration of the enemy into the heart of the Church, the systematic occupation of key posts in the Roman Curia, seminaries, and ecclesiastical schools, the conspiracy of a group of rebels—including, in the front line, the deviated Society of Jesus—which has succeeded in giving the appearance of legitimacy and legality to a subversive and revolutionary act. We should also recognize the inadequacy of the response of the good, the naivety of many, the fearfulness of others, and the interests of those who have benefited thanks to that conspiracy. After his triple denial of Christ in the courtyard of the high priest, Peter “flevit amare,” he wept bitterly. Tradition tells us that the Prince of the Apostles had two furrows on his cheeks for the rest of his days, as a result of the tears which he copiously shed, repenting of his betrayal. It will be for one of his Successors, the Vicar of Christ, in the fullness of his apostolic power, to rejoin the thread of Tradition there where it was cut off. This will not be a defeat but an act of truth, humility, and courage. The authority and infallibility of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles will emerge intact and reconfirmed. In fact, they were not deliberately called into question at Vatican II, but ironically they would be on a future day in which a Pontiff would correct the errors that that Council permitted, playing jests with the equivocation of an authority it officially denied having but that the faithful were surreptitiously allowed to understand that it did have by the entire Hierarchy, beginning right with the Popes of the Council.

I wish to recall that for some people what is expressed above may sound excessive, because it would seem to call into question the authority of the Church and of the Roman Pontiffs. And yet, no scruple impeded the violation of Saint Pius V’s Bull Quo primum tempore, abolishing the entire Roman Liturgy from one day to the next, the venerable millenary treasure of the doctrine and spirituality of the traditional Mass, the immense patrimony of Gregorian chant and sacred music, the beauty of the rites and sacred vestments, disfiguring architectural harmony even in the most distinguished basilicas, removing balustrades, monumental altars, and tabernacles: everything was sacrificed on the conciliar renewal’s altar of coram populo, with the aggravating circumstance of having done it only because that Liturgy was admirably Catholic and irreconcilable with the spirit of Vatican II.

The Church is a divine institution, and everything in her ought to start with God and return to Him. What is at stake is not the prestige of a ruling class, nor the image of a company or a party: what we are dealing with here is the glory of the Majesty of God, of not nullifying the Passion of Our Lord on the Cross, of the sufferings of His Most Holy Mother, of the blood of the Martyrs, of the testimony of the Saints, of the eternal salvation of souls. If out of pride or unfortunate obstinacy we do not know how to recognize the error and deception into which we have fallen, we will have to give an account to God, who is as merciful with his people when they repent as he is implacable in justice when they follow Lucifer in his non serviam.

Dearest Doctor Lawler, to you and to your readers, I cordially send my greetings and the blessing of Our Lord, through the intercession of His and our Most Holy Mother.
[Official translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino]


This item 12379 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: DecemRationis on June 27, 2020, 08:16:04 AM

Interview with Phil Lawler


by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò  (https://www.catholicculture.org/search/resultslist.cfm?requesttype=docbrowseauth&resourcetype=1&catlabel=author&catid=2358)
DESCRIPTION
In June 2020, Phil Lawler, the editor of Catholic World News, contacted Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the former apostolic nuncio to the United States, to question him about his outspoken views on the authority of Vatican II. The following is the text of the interview.
LARGER WORK
Original
PUBLISHER & DATE
Trinity Communications, 2020


Lawler: First, what are you saying about Vatican II? That things have gone downhill fast since then is certainly true. But if the whole Council is a problem, how did that happen? How do we reconcile that with what we believe about the inerrancy of the magisterium? How were all the Council fathers deceived? Even if only some parts of the Council (e.g. Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae) are problematical, we still face the same questions. Many of us have been saying for years that the “spirit of Vatican II” is in error. Are you now saying that this phony liberal “spirit” does accurately reflect the work of the Council?

Archbishop Vigano: I do not think that it is necessary to demonstrate that the Council represents a problem: the simple fact that we are raising this question about Vatican II and not about Trent or Vatican I seems to me to confirm a fact that is obvious and recognized by everyone. In reality, even those who defend the Council with swords drawn find themselves doing so apart from all the other previous ecumenical councils, of which not even one was ever said to be a pastoral council. And note that they call it “the Council” par excellence, as if it was the one and only council in the entire history of the Church, or at least considering it as an unicum whether because of the formulation of its doctrine or for the authority of its magisterium. It is a council that, differently from all those that preceded it, called itself a pastoral council, declaring that it did not want to propose any new doctrine, but which in fact created a distinction between before and after, between a dogmatic council and a pastoral council, between unequivocal canons and empty talk, between anathema sit and winking at the world.

In this sense, I believe that the problem of the infallibility of the Magisterium (the inerrancy you mention is properly a quality of Sacred Scripture) does not even arise, because the Legislator, that is, the Roman Pontiff around whom the Council was convened, solemnly and clearly affirmed that he did not want to use the doctrinal authority which he could have exercised if he wanted. I would like to make the observation that nothing is more pastoral than what is proposed as dogmatic, because the exercise of the munus docendi in its highest form coincides with the order that the Lord gave to Peter to feed his sheep and lambs. And yet this opposition between dogmatic and pastoral was made precisely by the one who, in his discourse opening the Council, sought to give a severe meaning to dogma and a softer, more conciliatory meaning to pastoral care. We also find the same setting in the interventions of Bergoglio, where he identifies “pastoralism [pastoralità]” as a soft version of rigidCatholic teaching in matters of Faith and Morals, in the name of discernment. It is painful to recognize that the practice of having recourse to an equivocal lexicon, using Catholic terms understood in an improper way, invaded the Church starting with Vatican II, which is the first and most emblematic example of the so-called “circiterism,” the equivocating and intentionally imprecise use of the language. This happened because the Aggiornamento, a term in itself ideologically promoted by the Council as an absolute, held dialogue with the world to be its priority above all else.

There is another equivocation that must be clarified. If on the one hand John XXIII and Paul VI declared that they did not want to commit the Council to the definition of new doctrines and wanted it to limit itself to being only pastoral, on the other hand it is true that externally—mediatically or in the media, we would say today—the emphasis given to its acts was enormous. This emphasis served to convey the idea of a presumed doctrinal authority, of an implicit magisterial infallibility, even though these were clearly excluded right from the beginning. If this emphasis occurred, it was in order to allow the more or less heterodox instances to be perceived as authoritative and thus to be accepted by the clergy and the faithful. But this would be enough to discredit those authors of a similar deception, who still cry out today if anyone touches Nostra Aetate, while they are silent even if someone denies the divinity of Our Lord or the perpetual virginity of Mary Most Holy. Let us recall that Catholics do not worship a Council, neither Vatican II nor Trent, but rather the Most Holy Trinity, the One True God; they do not venerate a conciliar declaration or a post-synodal exhortation, but rather the Truth that these acts of the Magisterium convey.

You ask me: “How were all the Council fathers deceived?” I reply by drawing on my experience of those years and the words of my brothers with whom I engaged in discussion at that time. No one could have imagined that right in the heart of the ecclesial body there were hostile forces so powerful and organized that they could succeed in rejecting the perfectly orthodox preparatory schemas that had been prepared by Cardinals and Prelates with a reliable fidelity to the Church, replacing them with a bundle of cleverly disguised errors behind long-winded and deliberately equivocal speeches. No one could have believed that, right under the vaults of the Vatican Basilica, the estates-general could be convoked that would decree the abdication of the Catholic Church and the inauguration of the Revolution. (As I have already mentioned in a previous article, Cardinal Suenens called Vatican II “the 1789 of the Church”). The Council Fathers were the object of a sensational deception, of a fraud that was cleverly perpetrated by having recourse to the most subtle means: they found themselves in the minority in the linguistic groups, excluded from meetings convened at the last moment, pressured into giving their placet by making them believe that the Holy Father wanted it. And what the innovators did not succeed in obtaining in the Conciliar Aula, they achieved in the Commissions and Committees, thanks also to the activism of theologians and periti who were accredited and acclaimed by a powerful media machine. There is a vast array of studies and documents that testify to this systematic malicious mens of some of the Council Fathers on the one hand, and the naïve optimism or carelessness of other well-intentioned Council Fathers on the other. The activity of the Coetus Internationalis Patrum [opposing the innovators] could do little or nothing, when the violations of the rules by the progressives were ratified at the Sacred Table itself [by the Pope].

Those who have maintained that the “spirit of the Council” represented a heterodox or erroneous interpretation of Vatican II engaged in an unnecessary and harmful operation, even if they were driven to do so in good faith. It is understandable that a Cardinal or Bishop would want to defend the honor of the Church and desire that she would not be discredited before the faithful and the world, and so it was thought that what the progressives attributed to the Council was in reality an undue misrepresentation, an arbitrary forcing. But if at the time it could be difficult to think that a religious liberty condemned by Pius XI (Mortalium Animos) could be affirmed by Dignitatis Humanae, or that the Roman Pontiff could see his authority usurped by a phantom episcopal college, today we understand that what was cleverly concealed in Vatican II is today affirmed ore rotundo in papal documents precisely in the name of the coherent application of the Council.

On the other hand, when we commonly speak of the spirit of an event, we mean precisely that it constitutes the soul, the essence of that event. We can thus affirm that the spirit of the Council is the Council itself, that the errors of the post-conciliar period were contained in nuce in the Conciliar Acts, just as it is rightly said that the Novus Ordo is the Mass of the Council, even if in the presence of the Council Fathers the Mass was celebrated that the progressives significantly call pre-conciliar. And again: if Vatican II truly did not represent a point of rupture, what is the reason for speaking of a pre-conciliar Church and a post-conciliar church, as if these were two different entities, defined in their essence by the Council itself? And if the Council was truly in line with the uninterrupted infallible Magisterium of the Church, why is it the only Council that poses grave and serious problems of interpretation, demonstrating its ontological heterogeneity with respect to other Councils?

Lawler: Second, what is the solution? Bishop Schneider proposes that a future Pontiff must repudiate errors; Archbishop Viganò finds that inadequate. But then how can the errors be corrected, in a way that maintains the authority of the teaching magisterium?

Archbishop Vigano: The solution, in my opinion, lies above all in an act of humility that all of us, beginning with the Hierarchy and the Pope, must carry out: recognizing the infiltration of the enemy into the heart of the Church, the systematic occupation of key posts in the Roman Curia, seminaries, and ecclesiastical schools, the conspiracy of a group of rebels—including, in the front line, the deviated Society of Jesus—which has succeeded in giving the appearance of legitimacy and legality to a subversive and revolutionary act. We should also recognize the inadequacy of the response of the good, the naivety of many, the fearfulness of others, and the interests of those who have benefited thanks to that conspiracy. After his triple denial of Christ in the courtyard of the high priest, Peter “flevit amare,” he wept bitterly. Tradition tells us that the Prince of the Apostles had two furrows on his cheeks for the rest of his days, as a result of the tears which he copiously shed, repenting of his betrayal. It will be for one of his Successors, the Vicar of Christ, in the fullness of his apostolic power, to rejoin the thread of Tradition there where it was cut off. This will not be a defeat but an act of truth, humility, and courage. The authority and infallibility of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles will emerge intact and reconfirmed. In fact, they were not deliberately called into question at Vatican II, but ironically they would be on a future day in which a Pontiff would correct the errors that that Council permitted, playing jests with the equivocation of an authority it officially denied having but that the faithful were surreptitiously allowed to understand that it did have by the entire Hierarchy, beginning right with the Popes of the Council.

I wish to recall that for some people what is expressed above may sound excessive, because it would seem to call into question the authority of the Church and of the Roman Pontiffs. And yet, no scruple impeded the violation of Saint Pius V’s Bull Quo primum tempore, abolishing the entire Roman Liturgy from one day to the next, the venerable millenary treasure of the doctrine and spirituality of the traditional Mass, the immense patrimony of Gregorian chant and sacred music, the beauty of the rites and sacred vestments, disfiguring architectural harmony even in the most distinguished basilicas, removing balustrades, monumental altars, and tabernacles: everything was sacrificed on the conciliar renewal’s altar of coram populo, with the aggravating circumstance of having done it only because that Liturgy was admirably Catholic and irreconcilable with the spirit of Vatican II.

The Church is a divine institution, and everything in her ought to start with God and return to Him. What is at stake is not the prestige of a ruling class, nor the image of a company or a party: what we are dealing with here is the glory of the Majesty of God, of not nullifying the Passion of Our Lord on the Cross, of the sufferings of His Most Holy Mother, of the blood of the Martyrs, of the testimony of the Saints, of the eternal salvation of souls. If out of pride or unfortunate obstinacy we do not know how to recognize the error and deception into which we have fallen, we will have to give an account to God, who is as merciful with his people when they repent as he is implacable in justice when they follow Lucifer in his non serviam.

Dearest Doctor Lawler, to you and to your readers, I cordially send my greetings and the blessing of Our Lord, through the intercession of His and our Most Holy Mother.
[Official translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino]


This item 12379 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org

Interesting, to say the least. Looks like I'll be the first one to comment, and I'm looking forward to everyone's thoughts.

Mr. Lawler first series of questions contain this key question: "How do we reconcile that [i.e., Vigano's criticisms of V2 - he said, among other things, that it "theorized" contradictions with Scripture and the Magisterium with regard to the religious liberty teaching of Dignitatis Humanae] with what we believe about the inerrancy of the magisterium?"

Vigano's begins his answer to this part of the question by directly saying:


Quote
In this sense, I believe that the problem of the infallibility of the Magisterium (the inerrancy you mention is properly a quality of Sacred Scripture) does not even arise, because the Legislator, that is, the Roman Pontiff around whom the Council was convened, solemnly and clearly affirmed that he did not want to use the doctrinal authority which he could have exercised if he wanted.

He says there's no problem with "inerrancy" in the Magisterium - the word Lawlor used - by indicating first that "inerrancy" is "properly" an attribute of Scripture, thus suggesting that there may be "inerrancy" in the Magisterium. Keep in mind that we are talking about an ecumenical council whose teachings to the universal church have been ratified and endorsed by a pope (at least a man sitting in the seat after a lawful election). He takes pains to inject "infallibility" - not mentioned by Lawlor in his question - into the response, distinguishing "inerrancy" from it. Very Interesting.

He then talks about the pastoral/dogmatic distinction made by the pontiffs of V2 and its subsequent "spin." This follows the distinction he made between infallibility and inerrancy, as if it is germane to that prior distinction. But he basically shoots that down by saying - punning a bit - that "pastoral" implicates that the shepherd, Peter, is exercising his charism even when he is just pastoring the sheep, so to say it's "pastoral" doesn't really mean much when it comes to the integrity of the teaching of the Church. This "pastoral" is V2 speak and an abuse of theological terminology.

So to go back to his inerrancy/infallibility distinction. When I was a rabid Feeneyite, the distinction between solemn and extraordinary (infallible) teaching and ordinary (which I allowed could be full of error and even contradiction to the infallible/extraordinary teaching) was critical, and explained away apparent contradictions regarding the non-infallible, ordinary teachings. By suggesting that the Magisterium could err when not exercising its charism to speak infallibly, it seems to me that Vigano is using a similar type of reasoning here, and that while dismissing the "pastoral" terminology, he is apparently agreeing that the Magisterium's status as the organ of Revelation is not troubled when it speaks error non-infallibly.

Just some quick tentative thoughts on an aspect of this debate (the "indefectibility" of the Church - even though Vigano (and Lawlor) do not invoke that aspect of it directly here) that fascinates me. I look forward to the members' thoughts on this and other aspects. The letter is deep and, as with Vigano's other letters, well written. He is very astute and his epistolary style and expression is very deep and a joy to read.

As a side note: I am currently reading Iota Unum, written originally in Italian I believe by an Italian professor - don't have the work in front of me. Vigano, also Italian, seems to be very influenced by it. The understanding and brilliance of the author - a philosopher I think- is notable. Archbishop Lefebvre highly recommended it. It analyzes V2 and the Conciliar "revolution" from a philosophical height that is very enlightening. Almost every page has something profound to say. If you haven't read it, it is a book to cogitate over and a definite one to read.

Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: DecemRationis on June 27, 2020, 09:59:30 AM


He says there's no problem with "inerrancy" in the Magisterium - the word Lawlor used - by indicating first that "inerrancy" is "properly" an attribute of Scripture, thus suggesting that there may be "inerrancy" in the Magisterium. 
I meant to say, "suggesting that there may be errancy in the Magisterium." 
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 27, 2020, 10:02:12 AM
An clear endorsement of the R&R position:

The question of the pope does not arise when the council taught error, because it was a pastoral council in which the popes deliberately withheld infallibility.

This has been the R&R position from the beginning which one will find laid out in the early works of Michael Davies and Lefebvre all the way until the present in the works of +Williamson.

Sedes won’t/don’t like that, of course, and will now begin opposing today the Bishop they had hopes for and praised yesterday.

But maybe they can make the same act of humility Vigano is calling on the conciliarists to make, and acknowledge their errors, and in this way fall into line to strengthen the traditional counterrevolution.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Pax Vobis on June 27, 2020, 10:13:36 AM

Quote
An clear endorsement of the R&R position:

The question of the pope does not arise when the council taught error, because it was a pastoral council in which the popes deliberately withheld infallibility.
It’s an R&R perspective JUST for the specific question of V2.  That doesn’t mean that J23, Paul VI, etc were necessarily popes, except materially speaking (ie they were elected).  I wish the sede-privationist position could unify the R&R vs Sede camps.  I think they’re both right, in a sense.   
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Ladislaus on June 27, 2020, 11:12:11 AM
It’s an R&R perspective JUST for the specific question of V2.  That doesn’t mean that J23, Paul VI, etc were necessarily popes, except materially speaking (ie they were elected).  I wish the sede-privationist position could unify the R&R vs Sede camps.  I think they’re both right, in a sense.  

Same.  But it's not going to happen.  90% of them are just far too stubborn and proud to be able to work it out.  Father Chazal's position should be entirely palatable to any but the most dogmatic sedevacantists, and yet they're still launching attacks on one another and repudiating the other camp.  This polarization is ridiculous and childish.

Many R&R like Meg or SeanJohnson immediately begin foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of any SV or SP principles and are incapable of entering into a meaningful discussion of the issue.  Dogmatics sedevacantists like +Sanborn or the Dimonds assert that their positions is de fide[/] and cannot be questioned.  With this dynamic at the extreme poles rending things apart, it's never going to happen.  Moderate SVs (like the SSPV) and a thinking R&R/SP proponent like Father Chazal should be able to find some common ground.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Ladislaus on June 27, 2020, 11:17:47 AM
An clear endorsement of the R&R position:

The question of the pope does not arise when the council taught error, because it was a pastoral council in which the popes deliberately withheld infallibility.

While yes, he does, disappointingly, seem to be gravitating toward the barely-Catholic (if at all) R&R position, the second sentence here is incorrect.  That's not what Vigano was saying.

Classical R&R is non-Catholic garbage.  Father Chazal's position, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable ... and also quite probably true.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Ladislaus on June 27, 2020, 11:22:57 AM
Of course we also have different nuances of the R&R position.

1) +Schneider is clearly in the R&R camp, but he remains within the Conciliar Church materially.
2) +Vigano has a stronger version of R&R.
3) neo-SSPX is also R&R and are not currently fully in the Conciliar Church materially but are moving in that direction.
4) Resistance R&R feel that they must stay outside the Conciliar Church materially.
5) Father Chazal's R&R justfies material separation from the Conciliar Church due to their loss of formal authority.

So I ask the R&Rers, are all the above R&R?
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Ladislaus on June 27, 2020, 11:26:01 AM
Archbishop Vigano: The solution, in my opinion, lies above all in an act of humility that all of us, beginning with the Hierarchy and the Pope, must carry out: recognizing the infiltration of the enemy into the heart of the Church, the systematic occupation of key posts in the Roman Curia, seminaries, and ecclesiastical schools, the conspiracy of a group of rebels—including, in the front line, the deviated Society of Jesus—which has succeeded in giving the appearance of legitimacy and legality to a subversive and revolutionary act.

And yet +Vigano fails to consider whether or not the "infiltration of the enemy into the heart of the Church, the systematic occupation of key posts" might not also entail an infiltration of the Papacy itself.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 27, 2020, 11:36:03 AM
Many R&R like Meg or SeanJohnson immediately begin foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of any SV or SP principles
...and yet it is you who just fired off 4 posts in 10 minutes.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 27, 2020, 11:38:15 AM
Of course we also have different nuances of the R&R position.

1) +Schneider is clearly in the R&R camp, but he remains within the Conciliar Church materially.
2) +Vigano has a stronger version of R&R.
3) neo-SSPX is also R&R and are not currently fully in the Conciliar Church materially but are moving in that direction.
4) Resistance R&R feel that they must stay outside the Conciliar Church materially.
5) Father Chazal's R&R justfies material separation from the Conciliar Church due to their loss of formal authority.

So I ask the R&Rers, are all the above R&R?

1 is conciliar, not R&R;

2, 4, and 5 are identical (and despite your subversive attempt to portray R&R as a splintered group a la sedevcantism/protestantism, it is to no avail);

3 is semi-conciliar.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 27, 2020, 11:39:23 AM
It’s an R&R perspective JUST for the specific question of V2.  That doesn’t mean that J23, Paul VI, etc were necessarily popes, except materially speaking (ie they were elected).  I wish the sede-privationist position could unify the R&R vs Sede camps.  I think they’re both right, in a sense.  

They are irreconcilable.

SP is SV with makeup.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 27, 2020, 11:42:41 AM
While yes, he does, disappointingly, seem to be gravitating toward the barely-Catholic (if at all) R&R position, the second sentence here is incorrect.  That's not what Vigano was saying.

Classical R&R is non-Catholic garbage.  Father Chazal's position, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable ... and also quite probably true.

Chazal is classical R&R, despite your lying efforts to turn him into some kind of sede-something.

He is on record as denying that which you continuously impute to him.

Hey, maybe you could invent yet another new position to give him:

You can call it "sede-R&Rism!"

That way, you can simultaneously pretend he is a sede-?something?, while remaining honest that he is PURE R&R.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Meg on June 27, 2020, 12:15:18 PM
They are irreconcilable.

SP is SV with makeup.

Very true! Though the SP's will never admit it. They are so obsessively focused on the Pope question, that they can't think of much else. 
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Marys Anawim on June 27, 2020, 01:54:09 PM
I stand with Vigano, but this is too deep for me...pregnancy brain strikes again LOL
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Ladislaus on June 27, 2020, 07:21:39 PM
They are irreconcilable.

SP is SV with makeup.


You're wrong, Sean.  Father Chazal is closer to SP than SV is.  SP says that these men lack formal authority on account of heresy, despite the fact that they have been elected to the office.  That's almost identical to Father Chazal's position.  Like Father Chazal (following John of St. Thomas et al.), SP admits that it would be necessary for the Church to materially depose such popes and that private individuals lack the authority to do so.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Ladislaus on June 27, 2020, 07:25:24 PM
Chazal is classical R&R, despite your lying efforts to turn him into some kind of sede-something.

Pure and utter garbage, Sean.  You're desperate and pathetic.  And your saying so doesn't make it true.  You keep claiming this but can't and won't refute the distinction between Chazal and Classic R&R.

Classic R&R:  V2 popes have authority and Catholics are obliged to obey them when they teach the truth but must disobey when they teach or command error.

Chazal:  V2 popes, being manifest heretics, categorically lack all authority and can and must be completely ignored.  Yet they remain in office until the Church removes them.

Classic R&R hems and haws about whether the V2 popes are in fact heretics and to what degree, whereas Chazal admits that he concedes to the sedevacantists that these men are manifest heretics.  He simply opts for the Catjetan/John of St. Thomas position rather than Bellarmine's, that these men are deponendi but not ipso facto depositus.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Ladislaus on June 27, 2020, 07:29:26 PM
And top it with the stupid sede-something (akin to Meg's sede-whateverism).  If you believe that the See is occupied, then you're a sede-whateverist also, a sedeplenist.

For the record, neither +Lefebvre, nor +Castro de Mayer, nor +Williamson, nor +Tissier are sedeplenists.  They have all publicly doubted the legitimacy of the V2 popes, which you cannot do if you consider their legitimacy to be dogmatic fact ... as sedeplenism requires.  This is the position I have termed sede-doubtism.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Ladislaus on June 27, 2020, 07:33:25 PM
Very true! Though the SP's will never admit it. They are so obsessively focused on the Pope question, that they can't think of much else.

vs. Archbishop Lefebvre
Quote
“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

and
Quote
 “…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)


It's the papacy and the Magisterium which separates Catholicism from Protestantism.

R&R, however, is barely distinguishable from Protestantism or Old Catholicism.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Meg on June 28, 2020, 05:29:13 AM
R&R, however, is barely distinguishable from Protestantism or Old Catholicism.

Same old silliness on your part. 
:laugh1:
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: songbird on June 29, 2020, 02:25:16 PM
What is the solution?!  Well, at another post on this forum, someone thinks Viagano has the 3rd Secret.  Well, if or not, he never mentioned Our Lady and Her Rosary  as a solution.  No mention that the Mass will come to an end.  A solution that just maybe the Most Precious Blood, might just be mentioned.

I still say he is all talk and at this point in his life, where does he think his soul is going with all this talk.  We know things have been rotten for how may decades?!
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Ladislaus on June 29, 2020, 02:35:12 PM
Same old silliness on your part.
:laugh1:

:laugh1:
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: 2Vermont on June 29, 2020, 03:46:59 PM
While yes, he does, disappointingly, seem to be gravitating toward the barely-Catholic (if at all) R&R position, the second sentence here is incorrect.  That's not what Vigano was saying.

Classical R&R is non-Catholic garbage.  Father Chazal's position, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable ... and also quite probably true.
Does he gravitate towards R&R here? It seems to me that, although he says Paul VI called it a pastoral council, he seems to question whether that is really the case, no?  I'll admit that I am having a hard time understanding what he's saying.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: DecemRationis on June 29, 2020, 04:22:09 PM

Does he gravitate towards R&R here? It seems to me that, although he says Paul VI called it a pastoral council, he seems to question whether that is really the case, no?  I'll admit that I am having a hard time understanding what he's saying.

I think there is enough range here that he will have to, or at least will, clarify in the future.
.

I agree with Bishop Sanborn's comments:


Quote
A big surprise. I could hardly believe my eyes as I read this statement of Archbishop Viganò. In the fifty-five years since Vatican II, I have never seen such a succinct presentation of the errors of Vatican II, and an intelligent criticism of the two “cures” of the Council, the hermeneutic of continuity and the Correction Theory. It is also obvious that the Archbishop is deeply familiar with Catholic doctrine.           

I do not know where the Archbishop will go from here, but he is going someplace. His compass, from all that he has said, is pointing straight toward sedevacantism. For he has utterly trashed the Second Vatican Council, masterfully identifying it as the source of the Church’s problems, and loaded with serious errors. He has trashed, as well, the entire post-conciliar era, calling it a parallel church in opposition to the true Church. And since he rejects the Correction Theory, what is there left to do but to annul the Council as an illegitimate meeting? But to say this necessarily implicates John XXIII and Paul VI. It is impossible to assert that the Council is the mother of a false and parallel Church, but that it was promulgated to us by a true pope. To hold that such a deviation comes from the authority of Christ vested in the pope undermines the Catholic edifice from its foundation, to use Archbishop Viganò’s own words.  

https://inveritateblog.com/2020/06/29/on-the-recent-statements-of-bishop-schneider-and-archbishop-vigano/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: DecemRationis on June 29, 2020, 04:54:59 PM
Bishop Sanborn:


Quote
It is impossible to assert that the Council is the mother of a false and parallel Church, but that it was promulgated to us by a true pope. To hold that such a deviation comes from the authority of Christ vested in the pope undermines the Catholic edifice from its foundation, to use Archbishop Viganò’s own words.


Bingo.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Pax Vobis on June 29, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
4th to last paragraph.  You must’ve missed this part:
.
Quote
The authority and infallibility of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles will emerge intact and reconfirmed. In fact, they were not deliberately called into question at Vatican II, but ironically they would be on a future day in which a Pontiff would correct the errors that that Council permitted, playing jests with the equivocation of an authority it officially denied having but that the faithful were surreptitiously allowed to understand that it did have by the entire Hierarchy, beginning right with the Popes of the Council.
He’s saying the “popes of the council” allowed the false idea that V2 was doctrinal to spread in the media, even though they admitted it wasn’t doctrinal.  They are guilty of all the heresies of V2 by being accessory to the lie and remaining silent for decades.  
.
J23 and P6 still may be judged anti-pope’s in the future but not because V2 was a doctrinal council that proclaimed heresy.  Just for many other 100s of reasons. 
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Ladislaus on June 29, 2020, 07:10:48 PM
Bishop Sanborn:



Bingo.

Right.  I've made this same point repeatedly.  One can quibble about the precise extent of infallibility, but this is a question of the Church's indefectibility.  To say that an Ecumenical Council of the Church can lead to the creation of a parallel anti-Church is contrary to the overall indefectibility of the Magisterium and of the Church as a whole.  To say that the Church can promulgate and use a Rite of Mass that displeases God (a Protestantized/paganized Mass as Vigano calls it) and cannot be attended by Catholics in good conscience is contrary to the Church's disciplinary infallibility.

R&R who keep pushing the narrow view of infallibility are missing the forest for the trees.  Sedevacantists often overreact to this error by promoting an extreme view of infallibility that goes too far, when the battle needs to be waged on the level of indefectibility.

I immediately noticed that the logical trajectory of +Vigano's June 9th letter is toward sedevacantism.  Thus far he has held back, instead using the same infallibility argument used by R&R.

Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Pax Vobis on June 29, 2020, 07:54:13 PM
Lets not argue about what Vigano SHOULD'VE said, let’s just stick to what he did say.  +Sanborn’s conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from Vigano’s interview.  That’s the point.  I’m not being anti-Sanborn, nor anti-sede, just anti-editorial commenting. 
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: 2Vermont on June 29, 2020, 08:13:55 PM
Lets not argue about what Vigano SHOULD'VE said, let’s just stick to what he did say.  +Sanborn’s conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from Vigano’s interview.  That’s the point.  I’m not being anti-Sanborn, nor anti-sede, just anti-editorial commenting.
That's because I think Bishop Sanborn is responding to the original letter of June 9, not this latest interview.  He may not even know about these comments.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: DecemRationis on June 29, 2020, 08:42:07 PM
That's because I think Bishop Sanborn is responding to the original letter of June 9, not this latest interview.  He may not even know about these comments.
Right. He's reviewing the June 09 letter. 
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Pax Vobis on June 29, 2020, 10:24:39 PM

Quote
Right. He's reviewing the June 09 letter. 
Then why did you post his comments on this thread?  Makes no sense.  
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: DecemRationis on June 30, 2020, 07:31:02 AM

Right.  I've made this same point repeatedly.  One can quibble about the precise extent of infallibility, but this is a question of the Church's indefectibility.  To say that an Ecumenical Council of the Church can lead to the creation of a parallel anti-Church is contrary to the overall indefectibility of the Magisterium and of the Church as a whole.  To say that the Church can promulgate and use a Rite of Mass that displeases God (a Protestantized/paganized Mass as Vigano calls it) and cannot be attended by Catholics in good conscience is contrary to the Church's disciplinary infallibility.

R&R who keep pushing the narrow view of infallibility are missing the forest for the trees.  Sedevacantists often overreact to this error by promoting an extreme view of infallibility that goes too far, when the battle needs to be waged on the level of indefectibility.

I immediately noticed that the logical trajectory of +Vigano's June 9th letter is toward sedevacantism.  Thus far he has held back, instead using the same infallibility argument used by R&R.

All good points.

That "an Ecumenical Council of the Church can lead to the creation of a parallel anti-Church," and "the Church can promulgate and use a Rite of Mass that displeases God (a Protestantized/paganized Mass as Vigano calls it) and cannot be attended by Catholics in good conscience," are signs, unprecedented in history, that instruct Christ's sheep to "exite de illa" (Apoc. 18:4), or "come out of her" my people.

Men have been proclaiming Christ's imminent return since Christ left us on various bases, and of course they were wrong. But the "signs" they saw were unlike the signs mentioned above, which point to a defect in what purports to be the Catholic Church, which, as you say, cannot be without violating an inviolable principle, indefectibility.


Quote
Matthew 16:1-3

And there came to him the Pharisees and Sadducees tempting: and they asked him to shew them a sign from heaven.
Et accesserunt ad eum pharisaei et sadducaei tentantes : et rogaverunt eum ut signum de caelo ostenderet eis.
[2] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=47&ch=16&l=2-#x) But he answered and said to them: When it is evening, you say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.
At ille respondens, ait illis : Facto vespere dicitis : Serenum erit, rubicundum est enim caelum.
[3] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=47&ch=16&l=3-#x) And in the morning: Today there will be a storm, for the sky is red and lowering. You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times?
Et mane : Hodie tempestas, rutilat enim triste caelum.
http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/47016.htm (http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/47016.htm)
(http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/47016.htm)

Quote
Matthew 24:14-16
And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come.
Et praedicabitur hoc Evangelium regni in universo orbe, in testimonium omnibus gentibus : et tunc veniet consummatio.
[15] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=47&ch=24&l=15-#x) When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.
Cum ergo videritis abominationem desolationis, quae dicta est a Daniele propheta, stantem in loco sancto, qui legit, intelligat :
[16] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=47&ch=24&l=16-#x) Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains:
tunc qui in Judaea sunt, fugiant ad montes :

http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/47024.htm (http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/47024.htm)

Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: 2Vermont on June 30, 2020, 08:39:03 AM
Right.  I've made this same point repeatedly.  One can quibble about the precise extent of infallibility, but this is a question of the Church's indefectibility.  To say that an Ecumenical Council of the Church can lead to the creation of a parallel anti-Church is contrary to the overall indefectibility of the Magisterium and of the Church as a whole.  To say that the Church can promulgate and use a Rite of Mass that displeases God (a Protestantized/paganized Mass as Vigano calls it) and cannot be attended by Catholics in good conscience is contrary to the Church's disciplinary infallibility.

R&R who keep pushing the narrow view of infallibility are missing the forest for the trees.  Sedevacantists often overreact to this error by promoting an extreme view of infallibility that goes too far, when the battle needs to be waged on the level of indefectibility.

I immediately noticed that the logical trajectory of +Vigano's June 9th letter is toward sedevacantism.  Thus far he has held back, instead using the same infallibility argument used by R&R.
I think this is because he was responding to Phil Lawler.  Vigano's writings continue to change depending upon his audience.  I would like to see what he writes a sedevacantist.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: Meg on June 30, 2020, 01:26:11 PM
I think this is because he was responding to Phil Lawler.  Vigano's writings continue to change depending upon his audience.  I would like to see what he writes a sedevacantist.

I very much doubt that sedeism is on Vigano's radar. He has too much sense for that.
Title: Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
Post by: 2Vermont on June 30, 2020, 02:36:57 PM
I very much doubt that sedeism is on Vigano's radar. He has too much sense for that.
Just quoting this for future reference.