*****Letter of His ExcellencyArchbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
First published at Chiesa e post concilio (https://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2020/06/lettera-di-mons-vigano-in-seguito-alle.html)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/
Surprise this letter hasn't gotten more commentary here.I mean, Paul VI. Reversed the numbers.
He says, "the heretical propositions or those which favor heresy should be condemned," and then he say V2 is like the Synod of Pistoia, which was condemned outright completely.
It appears to me that he continues on the trajectory to declare sede vacante, not only with regard to Francis, but his predecessors, especially Paul IV who confirmed this robber council. Looks like he thinks its either going to be a future, truly Catholic pope who will throw out V2 and the whole Conciliar revolution, or the end is nigh, which his other recent letter seems to indicate, and as Struthio noted, see reply #201 et seq.:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/incredible-statement-from-archbishop-vigano/195/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/incredible-statement-from-archbishop-vigano/195/)
Of course, the LOGICAL conclusion of his previous reasoning, when laid out in a syllogism, is that Vatican II was not a legitimate Council but, rather a Robber Council.
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".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.
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.
vatican II is the counter church and new religion.
It should all be condemned.
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:
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".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). Now, I wouldn't be surprised if he questioned "Francis' papacy" but that would be for reasons apart from V2. The questions concerning Paul VI's legitimacy (i.e. V2 approval + possible freemason + general heresy) are different from Francis (i.e. Amoris Laeticia, Amazon Synod + heretical statements/acts).
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).Well, Vigano already said in another recent letter that the teaching of DH on religious liberty contradicts Scripture and the Magisterium.
Well, Vigano already said in another recent letter that the teaching of DH on religious liberty contradicts Scripture and the Magisterium.
You read what you wanted to see, not what was written. He never used the word "teaching" or "heresy" in reference to V2, in his letter. Instead, he used words like "theorized", "doctrinal errors" (i.e. which is not heresy), "doctrinal deviations". I think he chose his words carefully, because even though he's an archbishop, he still doesn't have the authority (neither do you or I) to declare that V2 "taught" heresy. And really, it doesn't matter if it did or not. He says that V2 should be discarded into the historical trash can of anti-Catholic errors. That's good enough for now. Paul VI's status as pope is tarnished already; if the future church declares him an anti-pope, that will not fix our present crisis. A condemnation of V2 is what is important now - to bring as many LIVING people to the Truth. Paul VI is water under the bridge when speaking of the hear and now.He said:
I read with great interest the essay of His Excellency Athanasius Schneider published on LifeSiteNews on June 1, subsequently translated into Italian by Chiesa e post concilio, entitled There is no divine positive will or natural right to the diversity of religions. His Excellency’s study summarizes, with the clarity that distinguishes the words of those who speak according to Christ, the objections against the presumed legitimacy of the exercise of religious freedom that the Second Vatican Council theorized, contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both.
No, Archbishop Vigano, to remove the blight form the Church, it is not enough to "blot out" the Council, but it is necessary to blot out these putative Popes as well.
Something which "contradicts the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium" is a major problem in an ecuмenical council approved by a pope, as I, Lad and others here have noted.
Of course, I agree the error in V2 is a major problem. You keep pointing to the fact that +Vigano admits that V2 contradicted Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. So what? All of us have known this for 60 years. Many new-rome officials have already admitted this.
It's always possible that +Vigano will say something against the popes (since Vll?), but it seems unlikely. I suspect he believes that B16 is still Pope. After all, he's not said much against B16 or JP2 that I can recall.
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".
Ok. I will wait for the day he grapples with the problem of a papally approved ecuмenical council stating heresy in an officially promulgated, Magisterial docuмent.
There's no grappling needed, since the proposition is heretical.
Well, he did denounce Assisi (JP2) but other than that he doesn't mention the others much. So you consider him to be in the R&R camp if he considers B16 to be Pope? That position has the same theological problems that R&R most commonly attack sedevacantism for (i.e. the problem with Universal Acceptance). But I doubt he's a Benedict person. As pointed out, he traces the problems DIRECTLY to Vatican II, and JP2 and B16 were both proponents of Vatican II. That is why what he wrote is so ground-breaking. Most of the conservative Novus Ordites single out Francis and never impugn Vatican II.
My conversations with Resistance priests and bishops in the last week or so reveals a like-mindedness regarding the amazing "conversion-in-progress" of Vigano:
1) You have to go all the way back to Bishop Lazo to find a similar rejection of Vatican II by a conciliar prelate;
2) His conversion is inspiring, but not yet complete;
3) We should hope and pray he continues along the path he has started;
4) The enemies of Christ fear to have a new high ranking (albeit retired) churchman reject Vatican II: Lefebvre 2.0.
Ladislaus subject to his self-declared anathema: :jester:
There's no grappling needed, since the proposition is heretical.
:fryingpan: :fryingpan: :fryingpan:
No they haven't, Pax. Name another new-Rome official who has admitted that the "error in V2 is a major problem." Even the most conservative of them simply tried to claim that there was a workable hermeneutic of continuity. Some have, of course, said that the Council CAUSED problems, but wrote it off towards the liberals who exploited various ambiguities and set up a "spirit" of the Council that is contrary to the Council's "true intent".+Vigano has gone the furthest in condemning V2, but as was just pointed out, +Lazo also condemned it. Then you have +Castro Meyer, who converted from V2-ism. I wrongly used the word "many" but there's more than a few. But my point was, +Vigano isn't the first one to challenge V2. He's the first one to say scrap it, for sure.
+Vigano has gone the furthest in condemning V2, but as was just pointed out, +Lazo also condemned it. Then you have +Castro Meyer, who converted from V2-ism. I wrongly used the word "many" but there's more than a few. But my point was, +Vigano isn't the first one to challenge V2. He's the first one to say scrap it, for sure.
.
.
But back to +Vigano, here's another letter he wrote on May 8, getting over 40,000 signatures at the time, condemning the use of the pandemic as a march towards a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr:
https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/05/14/viganos-appeal-to-church-and-world-has-40-000-signatories/ (https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/05/14/viganos-appeal-to-church-and-world-has-40-000-signatories/)
.
I think this guy finally understands the "end game"...the anti-Christ...the "final solution"... and he now sees how V2 fits into the bigger picture. He's "Trad woke"! haha. (Well, at least most non-sspx Trads are woke).
Some of us are waiting for improvements in your own reading comprehension, in particular that Remnant interview...
My conversations with Resistance priests and bishops in the last week or so reveals a like-mindedness regarding the amazing "conversion-in-progress" of Vigano:
1) You have to go all the way back to Bishop Lazo to find a similar rejection of Vatican II by a conciliar prelate;
2) His conversion is inspiring, but not yet complete;
3) We should hope and pray he continues along the path he has started;
4) The enemies of Christ fear to have a new high ranking (albeit retired) churchman reject Vatican II: Lefebvre 2.0.
However, the enemies of Christ in the conciliar church may not fear Vigano unless Vigano's many communications result in other conciliar church hierarchy members also refuting Vll and the conciliar revolution. I've not seen that that's happened yet.
Just because Vigano speaks up, doesn't mean anything will come of it.
I picture Vigano as just talking to talk. To give us the impression that he is going to do something about 50 years or more of perverts who are clergy?!
To give us the impression that we can put him up on a pedestal?! Like there are a few good clergy in the vipers nest?!
Nonsense.
Have you read that Randy Engel piece on Louis Verrecchio's site from 2018 about Vigano? It was linked two or so days ago in the other Vigano thread by andy.
This whole pile of Vigano letters may be an Opus Dei political media stunt. Novus Ordo political b*tch war.
Interesting that AndyS put up a link to an article that is critical (I assume) of Vigano.
AndyS holds the same position as you do regarding Vigano, is that correct?
Why would Opus Dei write Vigano's letters as a political media stunt?
Not AndyS but andy: andy's post (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/incredible-statement-from-archbishop-vigano/msg704251/#msg704251)
I don't hold any position regarding Viganò. So far I've been speculating. I am not aware of a position of AndyS.
See that Randy Engel piece.
Have you read that Randy Engel piece on Louis Verrecchio's site from 2018 about Vigano? It was linked two or so days ago in the other Vigano thread by andy.
This whole pile of Vigano letters may be an Opus Dei political media stunt. Novus Ordo political b*tch war.
(https://books.google.com/books/content?id=9p0_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA196&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3rcoH-PhyztUw-iZP8cxpic6Ce_g)`
Seeing as there is no real basis or evidence to support the Opus Dei/Vigano connection, I thought I woud copy/paste this blurb on "negative doubt" (i.e., harboring doubts without any well-founded reason). "A negative doubt is to be despised."
`Agreed (especially because if Vigano WAS some Opus Dei subversive, he would certainly conceal the identity of his -alleged- Opus Dei associations and collaborators).
Yes, he's basically sending his letters to be published/translated to some guy who likes Opus Dei. That's rock solid. It couldn't just be because he had some relationship with the man where he trusted him not to reveal his whereabouts.
My apologies for getting the wrong Andy. Thanks for the correction.
I read most of the Randy Engel piece that was linked to. The info, if correct is disturbing. I don't trust Randy Engel to actually assess any situation objectively, since in the past she has asserted many things that can't be proven. She speculates a lot. However, if her research is correct, then Vigano may indeed have an Opus Dei connection himself, but she hasn't found a direct personal connection of Vigano to Opus Dei.
She says that Aldo Maria Valli was the first to publish Vigano's testimony, and that Valli is a member of Opus Dei. She also says that Marco Tosatti has connections to Opus Dei in that he has been supportive of Opus Dei members and causes, and that Valli himself says that he has been influenced by Esciva's writings. (So probably not member of opus Dei, but a fan).
Engel also says that Opus Dei has established or taken over EWTN, National Catholic Register and Lifesite News.
She says, regarding Vigano's top two ghostwriters:
"Thus far, this writer has concretely docuмented that Vigano's top two ghostwriters have serious connections to Opus Dei, as has the official translator of Viganos works."
Engel also writes about Vigano's interference with the diocesan investigation into Nienstadt. She contends that if Vigano really cares about the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ problems in the Church, then he should correct his former stance reagarding Nienstadt (or words to that effect).
So all in all, Engel's article brings up some really good questions.
You have some big schismatic stick up your posterior about +Vigano.
Why do you always get upset? Fact is, Viganò is said to have been in hiding for quite some time. One might even ask, whether all these blog-posts really are his (or of his ghostwriters in his interest), or whether he is alive at all.
Ladislaus, whether Viganò or ViganQ, he has expressed his concern that this Covid Hoax is against Trump and corresponding forces in other countries. Trump needed and needs Catholics to be (re)elected, and Viganò has declared himself to be a campaign worker. You can read that even on modernist diocesan websites, like e.g. domradio.de ("Archdiocese" of Cologne). Not much of a "Conspiracy Theory".
Modernists do not believe anything but that it is a good idea to lead and use simple folks for their purpose. Just like all sorts of Communists. Ratzinger was too much of a peacock, he thought that "his" Vat II Parteitag is the Gold standard for the church-of-man of the new pentecost. "C'mon, let's do as if God existed" had been his sermon for decades. Bergoglio laughs about such a "Weihnachtsmann" and the rest of modernist Rome does so too. Viganò said that Ratzinger's stroke of genius hemeneutic of continuity is drivel.
Why not dump V2? It's served it's purpose in the 1960s and has been outdated for decades. In 2020, dumping V2 does what Ratzinger really wanted and wants. That's the message of Viganò.
As you can see everywhere including trad.inc, all Catholics/"Catholics" who aren't liberals/communists approve Viganò. That's what Trump needs.
I think it's ludicrous to imagine that Viganò is the saviour of the sedeplenist/sedevacantist remnant. I can't imagine Viganò joining with Tomás de Aquino Ferreira da Costa or Cekada or ... Trump recommends him. He's much too much important. The whole of trad-land probably is too much a joke in his eyes, to even think about whether they all might be vagantes or not.
Meg has mentioned a good criterion: He would have to comment on de Castro Mayer, Lefebvre, Thục, etc. to make clear what game he's playing.
I still support the work of +Vigano. It's just may be a good idea to keep an eye on the Opus Dei cult affiliations. But it's not a huge deal at this point, for me anyway.
Sure, it's not a huge deal for you, but it's causing massive waves through the conservative Novus Ordo camp. One of these people on the fence (I forgot his name) said that Vigano now gives him "permission" to start thinking the same way. There are so many people there held back by this notion that we must be loyal and faithful (as Dr. Marhall admitted he was too) ... so they apply the violent contortions of the hermeneutic of continuity gymnastics out of a sense of loyalty. Dr. Marshall agreed wtih Vigano that this is an exercise in futility, that one should have to contort every limb of one's body to force-fit this Modernist crap into Tradition. He was criticized for using the term "permission", but what is meant by this is simply that Vigano is saying that, hey, it's OK not to be loyal to these people.
I think that we Traditional Catholics live in a kind of bubble, and these words are, in a sense, just preaching to the choir for us. But it also helps confirm weak Traditional Catholics with the thought that, "see, I'm not insane, here's a man who independently came to the same conclusions that Traditional Catholics have agreed with for so long now." It's like the encouragement and morale boost one receives when, say, a high-ranking member of the Soviet Communist Party defects to the West and tells everyone, "yeah, you were right; it's every bit as bad as you thought."