*****

Letter of His Excellency

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

First published at Chiesa e post concilio

14 June 2020
Sunday in the Octave of Corpus Domini

Dear Doctor Guarini,

I have received the observations of Professor Pasqualucci, which you kindly sent to me, and to which I will attempt to respond, as much as possible, in a concise way.

Regarding the possibility of making a correction to the acts of the Second Vatican Council, I think that we can agree: the heretical propositions or those which favor heresy should be condemned, and we can only hope that this will happen as soon as possible.

My objection to Bishop Schneider stems rather from my concern about the possibility that there will be preserved among the official acts of the Church a hapax that, beyond ambiguous formulations of discontinuity, was intended and conceived for its subversive value, and which as such has caused many evils. From a legal point of view, the most suitable solution may perhaps be found; but from the pastoral point of view – that is, as regards the Council’s usefulness for the edification of the faithful – it is preferable to let the whole thing drop and be forgotten. And if it is true, as Professor Pasqualucci affirms, that the error is not doctrine, it is equally true that a condemnation of heterodox propositions would not remove the shadows that surround the whole undertaking of the Council as a complex whole, and which prejudice the entire corpus of its docuмents, nor would it remove the consequences that have derived from the Council. It should also be remembered that the event of the Council far surpasses the docuмents which it produced.

The mere fact that Vatican II is susceptible to correction ought to be sufficient to declare its oblivion as soon as its most obvious errors are seen with clarity. Not by chance does Professor Pasqualucci call it a “conciliabolo [devilish council],” like the Synod of Pistoia, which merited the condemnation of the entire synod beyond the mere condemnation of the individual errors which it taught. I make my own his statement: “After having clearly highlighted the procedural subterfuges and the errors against the Faith scattered throughout the docuмents, a Pope could very well finally quash the entire Council, ‘thereby confirming his brethren in the Faith.’ This would fall perfectly within his summa potestas iurisdictionis over the entire Church, iure divino. The Council is not superior to the Pope. If the Council has deviated from the Faith, the Pope has the power to invalidate it. Indeed, it is his duty.”

Allow me to add that, faced with the disastrous situation in which the Church finds herself and the many evils that afflict her, long discourses among “specialists” appear inadequate and inconclusive. There is an urgent need to restore the Bride of Christ to her two-thousand-year Tradition and to recover the treasures that have been plundered and scattered, thus permitting the disoriented flock to be fully nourished by them.

Every discussion, amidst legitimate differences of opinion, must not have as its goal any compromise with the distortions of the Truth, but rather that the Truth will fully triumph. Virtue is the right mean between two vices, like a peak between two valleys: this ought to be our goal.

It seems to me that from this fruitful exchange with my brother, Bishop Athanasius, what emerges is how much both of us have solely at heart the re-establishment of the Catholic Faith as the essential foundation for union in Charity. There is no conflict, no opposition: our zeal springs from and grows in the Eucharistic Heart of Our Lord and returns to it so as to be consumed in love for Him.

Allow me, dear Doctor Guarini, to invite your readers to pray assiduously for their Pastors, and in particular for those who are living through the present crisis with travail and suffering and who are striving to fulfill the mandate they have received from their divine Master. In a moment in which we are all under attack, besieged on every side, it is necessary more than ever to come together with faith and humility underneath the mantle of she who commands us: love for the Queen of Victories who unites her children is the most evident proof that there cannot be and must not be divisions between us, which are the distinctive mark of the Enemy.

My blessing goes to you and to your readers,

+ Carlo Maria Viganò

*****

https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2020/06/17/archbishop-vigano-on-vatican-ii-it-is-preferable-to-let-the-whole-thing-drop-and-be-forgotten/

Not only did he, as I suggested, have to take the next step of rejecting V2 entirely as a Robber Council (I predicted this as the logical consequence of his previous letter), but he goes further and agrees with it being characterized as a "devilish council".

Now we hope that he'll start grappling with the question of how a Council approved by a legitimate pope could be a "devilish council".

Here's my previous post:

Bingo.  His comments about invalidating a previous Council sounds more like a Council that was NOT approved and promulgated by a (true) pope; not promulgated in union with the pope.  

Vatican II can not be equated with the Synod of Pistoia and its eventual condemnation because it was not originally approved and promulgated by the pope.

Not only did he, as I suggested, have to take the next step of rejecting V2 entirely as a Robber Council (I predicted this as the logical consequence of his previous letter), but he goes further and agrees with it being characterized as a "devilish council".

Now we hope that he'll start grappling with the question of how a Council approved by a legitimate pope could be a "devilish council".

Here's my previous post:

Based on +Vigano's statement below, I don't think he views the errors of V2 as doctrinal errors, so he wouldn't think that (V2 + legitimate pope = contradiction).