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.

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." 

You might have an aversion to the word "duck," but if you describe a duck avoiding the word you're still talking about a duck. 

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. 

I simply say it's a duck; you can call it what you will. 

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.  The question is, does V2's level of authority/teaching constitute binding, infallible doctrine?  No, it doesn't.
.
V2 was the ultimate sleight-of-hand magic trick, performed by the soldiers of satan, who is the ultimate magician, because all he does is fake and only appears real.  It appeared to "teach" doctrine, but it only "proposed" doctrinal deviations; it appeared to be binding in nature, but now we know that it was only offering "pastoral" theories, which still to this day require continued interpretations and explanations.
.
That which is not binding with a "certainty of faith" cannot be doctrine.
That which is not doctrine, cannot be infallible.
That which is not infallible, can err.
That which can err, is not indefectible.
A council, even with papal approval, is only infallible and indefectible, when it proposes with "certainty" some doctrine/teaching, and binds the faithful.
.
Paul VI's approval was legal only.  How can one theologically approve of ambiguous, contradictory, doctrinally theoretical docuмents, which deviate from orthodoxy, and require continued interpretations?   How can such incoherency be binding on the faithful, for how can one "accept" both A and not-A at the same time?  The essence of V2 is contradictions, both of Tradition and of itself.  Just as the new mass was only legally approved in creation, but is not binding on anyone to attend, so V2 was legally approved as an official ecuмenical meeting/council, but it did not write anything reasonable enough to even make sense, much less "assent to".  Appearances can be deceiving, and the false, V2 parallel church is all appearance and no reality.

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.

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.

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".

Ladislaus subject to his self-declared anathema:  

Quote from: DecemRationis on June 11, 2020, 03:42:36 PM

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.

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:  


There's no grappling needed, since the proposition is heretical.

You embarrass yourself with every post.  Not only do you struggle with logic, but you need help with reading comprehension.  My point was precisely said with the hope that +Vigano would come to terms with the PROBLEMS with that particular statement.  VIGANO is the one who needs to grapple with the problem, as I clearly indicated.

+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/
.
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).

Yes, I like the term "Trad woke".  He's definitely that.  Now the question is what he plans on doing about it.

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.

Well said. 

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. 

It's good that Vigano has allies in the Italian media who publish his communications. It's likely that more than a few Catholics will wake up to the reality of the conciliar revolution through Viganos' testimony. It may slow down the full-on push by Francis and his evil collaborators, but Vigano can't really stop them unless there are more bishops like him. 

If the SSPX were to convert back to the stance of +ABL and publish solid refutations of the Modernist agenda in the conciliar church today (as Vigano does), there might be a chance of the Modernist revolution slowing down even further, but that's not going to happen. The Neo-SSPX leadership is wimpy, and they are happy to remain as such.