Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler  (Read 6616 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Meg

Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
« Reply #20 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:

Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
« Reply #21 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?!


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
« Reply #22 on: June 29, 2020, 02:35:12 PM »
Same old silliness on your part.
:laugh1:

:laugh1:

Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
« Reply #23 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.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler
« Reply #24 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