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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11

Author Topic: Archbishop Viganò: 'Heretical Propositions in Vatican II should be Condemned'  (Read 5925 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SperaInDeo

  • Supporter
Re: Archbishop Viganò: 'Heretical Propositions in Vatican II should be Condemned'
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2020, 01:07:42 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on June 18, 2020, 11:11:37 AM
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:

I'm not competent to deal with the question you have proposed, but I could never get very far reading the Vatican II docuмents because I detected the forked-tongue speech of the devil in nearly every sentence. This is a quality that I have never witnessed in other (Pre VII) docuмents. And it certainly doesn't seem like the language of the Holy Ghost.
Logged

Online Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Archbishop Viganò: 'Heretical Propositions in Vatican II should be Condemned
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2020, 01:11:12 PM »
Quote
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). 
.
.
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...From a legal point of view, the most suitable solution may perhaps be found;
.
Comment -- It's clear that he says it would be possible "from a legal point of view" (i.e. in theory) to only condemn the heretical propositions (the word "proposition" means "suggestion", not a teaching.  Ergo, not required, and not a doctrine). 
.
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.
.
Comment -- But he agrees with all of Tradition (except for the wolves of +Fellay and friends) that in practice, for the good of the faithful and to minimize ANY chance of confusion, that V2 should be wholly rejected.
.
And if it is true, as Professor Pasqualucci affirms, that the error is not doctrine, it is equally true that a condemnation of heterodox (i.e. unorthodox) 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,
.
Comment -- He's saying he's not sure if V2's errors are doctrinal or not, but some believe they are not doctrinal.  If they are doctrinal, then then question of the papacy comes up.  If they aren't doctrinal, the question of Paul VI's papacy is still in question, just for other reasons.  Regardless, even if V2's errors aren't doctrinal, he rightly concludes that the whole council is prejudiced.
.
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.
.
Comment -- Bravo, +Vigano!  Get rid of the "spirit of the council"!  Get rid of this abominable "event"!  Clean house, cleanse history of this horrid 60+ years, and let's get back to Truth!
.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Archbishop Viganò: 'Heretical Propositions in Vatican II should be Condemned
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2020, 01:23:23 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 18, 2020, 01:11:12 PM
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. 

That's doctrinal, and it's heresy. 

He's backed into a corner . . . let him be consistent. I think he will be. He's writing letters to a lot of different people in different contexts. . 
Logged

Online Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Archbishop Viganò: 'Heretical Propositions in Vatican II should be Condemned
« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2020, 02:20:33 PM »
Quote
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.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Archbishop Viganò: 'Heretical Propositions in Vatican II should be Condemned'
« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2020, 02:38:24 PM »
He seems undecided about whether the Vatican II errors are outright heretical or merely heterodox, but he does say that V2 should be abolished and declared a "devil's council".  How exactly can one reconcile an Ecuмenical Council with papal approbation being a "devil's council"?  That is what he has to come to terms with.  He talks about a parallel with the Synod of Pistoia, claiming that a Pope can abolish a Council.  But that doesn't pass the smell test.  Yes, a Pope rejected a council/synod but with Vatican II we already have a pope and a series of popes who gave it their full unreserved approval.

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.

Keep thinking and praying.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11
« previous next »