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

Author Topic: Bishop Athanasius Schneider: 'Vatican II is Salvageable'  (Read 5234 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Bishop Athanasius Schneider: 'Vatican II is Salvageable'
« Reply #45 on: June 26, 2020, 09:19:08 AM »
On 14th of June, Viganò has written another short letter, published on Blog: Chiesa e post concilio. Viganò repeats the idea that it's better to ditch the whole robber council instead of removing single heretical propositions (proposizioni eretiche o che favoriscono l’eresia).

Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli, a disciple of Romano Amerio, has commented on that letter (blog-post Comment of 15 giugno 2020 19:14). He calls Viganò "the first of all bishops to take the right position" and "more useful than Lefebvre".


Quote from: Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli
Ho letto le pregevolissime parole di Monsignor Viganò in risposta al Prof. Pasqualucci, parole più che pregevoli, perché la sua è la vera posizione da prendere. Monsignor Viganò è il primo, tra tutti i Vescovi cattolici, a prendere la posizione giusta sulla questione ed è anche più utile alla Chiesa di quanto sia stato Mons. Lefebvre, che non arrivò mai a dire tanto e malgrado ciò riuscì a farsi scomunicare, mettendo in difficoltà tutti gli altri Vescovi che magari avrebbero preso la stessa posizione ma senza arrivare alla disobbedienza alla Santa Sede con la storia delle Ordinαzιoni Vescovili.

E intanto un Vescovo dalla nostra ora c’è: abbiamo un nuovo Atanasio, non ne avevo alcun dubbio. Mons. Livi, prima di morire, mi urlò due volte, a distanza di una settimana una dall’altra:

“Vaticano I sì! Vaticano II no, no, no! Vaticano II via via via! Vaticano I sì: dogma, dogma dogma!”

Mi felicito con Monsignor Viganò per la nettezza della scelta, uguale a quella di Mons. Livi: il Vaticano II va censurato tutto in generale come conciliabolo equivoco e subdolo con grave e colpevole dolo dei suoi Maggiorenti che lo vollero “pastorale” e non dogmatico come era loro preciso, divino e indifferibile dovere, e va censurato in particolare in quei sette capisaldi ereticali che ne contraddistinguono esplicitamente la peccaminosa ereticalità: 1), regalità di Cristo e derivante diritto pubblico della Chiesa; 2), sui diritti dell’unica verità eguagliati a quelli delle mille falsità (dialogo e non insegnamento); 3), sull’ecuмenismo spurio, ipocrita e origine di tutti gli altri errori; 4), sulla libertà religiosa; 5), sulla ecclesiologia; 6), sulla morale matrimoniale e genericamente sessuale; 7), sulla manchevole nozione di Messa e sugli atroci atti derivanti, in primis l’Institutio dell’annientante e super atroce Novus Ordo Missae (v. il mio All’attacco! Cristo vince, pp. 17 e 121).  
Pregare, pregare, pregare! Xto vince!

Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli

Quote from: deepl-translation
I read the very valuable words of Monsignor Viganò in response to Prof. Pasqualucci, words more than valuable, because his is the true position to take. Monsignor Viganò is the first, among all the Catholic Bishops, to take the right position on the issue and he is also more useful to the Church than Bishop Lefebvre, who never went so far as to say so much and despite this managed to have himself excommunicated, putting in trouble all the other Bishops who might have taken the same position but without arriving at disobedience to the Holy See with the history of the Episcopal ordinations.

And in the meantime there is a Bishop from our time: we have a new Athanasius, I had no doubt. Bishop Livi, before dying, shouted at me twice, one week apart:

"Vatican I yes! Vatican II no, no, no! Vatican II, go, go, go, go, go! Vatican I yes: dogma, dogma, dogma!"

I congratulate Monsignor Viganò for the clarity of the choice, the same as that of Monsignor Livi: Vatican II should be censored in general as an equivocal and devious conciliabulum with serious and guilty intent of his Maggiorenti who wanted it "pastoral" and not dogmatic as it was their precise, divine and unavoidable duty, and should be censored in particular in those seven heretical cornerstones that explicitly distinguish its sinful hereticality: 1), the kingship of Christ and deriving public law of the Church; 2), on the rights of the one truth equal to those of a thousand falsehoods (dialogue and non-teaching); 3), on spurious, hypocritical ecuмenism and the origin of all other errors; 4), on religious freedom; 5), on ecclesiology; 6), on matrimonial and generically sɛҳuąƖ morality; 7), on the lack of the notion of Mass and on the atrocious acts deriving, first of all, from the Institutio of the annihilating and super atrocious Novus Ordo Missae (v. My Attack! Christ Wins, pp. 17 and 121).  
Pray, pray, pray! Xto wins!

Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli

Antonio Livi died in April this year.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Bishop Athanasius Schneider: 'Vatican II is Salvageable'
« Reply #46 on: June 26, 2020, 09:20:36 AM »
Xavier,

Is a teaching which is contrary to the teachings of Scripture and the Magisterium heretical? Archbishop Vigano says the teaching of religious liberty by the Second Vatican Council in DH is that, i.e. contrary to Scripture and the Church's Magisterium.

Yet you say this is something it "cannot have."

A reasonable man whom you respect and laud, Archbishop Vigano, says it has what you say it "cannot have."

Is he a heretic who has the Church defecting? Does he too deny the indefectibility of the Church?

Xavier,

I checked again for the exact quote of Vigano about the teaching in DH in the June 9 letter:


Quote
. . . 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.


There it is. 


Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Bishop Athanasius Schneider: 'Vatican II is Salvageable'
« Reply #47 on: June 26, 2020, 09:22:57 AM »
On 14th of June, Viganò has written another short letter, published on Blog: Chiesa e post concilio. Viganò repeats the idea that it's better to ditch the whole robber council instead of removing single heretical propositions (proposizioni eretiche o che favoriscono l’eresia).

Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli, a disciple of Romano Amerio, has commented on that letter (blog-post Comment of 15 giugno 2020 19:14). He calls Viganò "the first of all bishops to take the right position" and "more useful than Lefebvre".
Good stuff. 

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Bishop Athanasius Schneider: 'Vatican II is Salvageable'
« Reply #48 on: June 26, 2020, 11:40:52 AM »
Good stuff.

Right.  It seems that +Vigano is even stronger than +Lefebvre on this.  Archbishop Lefebvre never called for a straight elimination of V2.  At times, he said that he could accept V2 when interpreted according to Tradition.  Now that was an equivocal expression. JP2 took it as meaning a hermeneutic of continuity, whereas +Lefebvre meant rejecting the bad propositions ... so it was a bit of political-speak there.  I believe that +Lefebvre was more akin to +Schneider's position.  Vigano, on the other hand, calls V2 a devilish council (going a step beyond robber council).  We'll have to see where he goes next with it.  Hopefully this isn't the last we've heard from him.

Of course, he's only the first bishop to get it right if you ignore the various sedevacantist bishops out there.

Re: Bishop Athanasius Schneider: 'Vatican II is Salvageable'
« Reply #49 on: June 26, 2020, 08:24:53 PM »
Either that or he doesn't want to call any more attention to the Vigano June 9th letter than he has to.  Hard to say why he didn't mention him.  Could also just be because he intended to write the article in broader terms and did not want it necessarily to be viewed as a point-by-point rebuttal of +Vigano.  It really wasn't.  It was really just a re-statement of his original position to which +Vigano was responding.  So, for example, +Vigano disagreed with his example of the traditio instrumentorum as precedent for reforming a Council.  Here +Schneider merely re-states that without refuting +Vigano's objection to it.


Viganò starts his June 9th letter with "I read with great interest the essay of His Excellency Athanasius Schneider ..." and he compliments "His Excellency’s study summarizes, with the clarity that distinguishes the words of those who speak according to Christ ... " and Viganò praises Schneider "The merit of His Excellency’s essay ... ".

Let's assume that Scheider is 100% sure that the letter is indeed of Viganò and not of some ViganQ-phantom. Why doesn't he mention the name of Viganò? Why does Schneider not answer to "we inevitably fall under the condemnation of the Decree Lamentabili"? Why does Schneider simply repeat his stance without touching the objection of Viganò? What is Schneider's letter good for, if he acts as if Viganò hadn't said anything? Schneider is acting as if Viganò didn't exist at all.

It's clear: The proposal of Viganò is beyond any allowed position. It can't even be mentioned or responded to. Guys like Skojec are thick enough to reveal that they agree, but Schneider cannot. Schneider knows that admitting a "parallel church" and admitting "we all knew that the Council would be more or less a revolution" (Viganò) would reveal that he's been a revolutionary all the time, too. The only thing uncomprehensible is, how Viganò can on the one hand admit to having served the Antichrist for 50 years, and on the other hand not figure that that implies that he lost all credibility and should retire in hiding.

Assuming that it is Viganò.