He's an overzealous neophyte.
He says what he says, it's very good; it goes very far!
They (Msgr. Schneider and Msgr. Vigano) speak loud and clear, they lament, they are sometimes harder than we are. But what do they do?
What has disturbed Rome? When did Rome launch anathemas on Archbishop Lefebvre?
It was not when he criticized religious freedom, or during the Lille Mass. It was when he made priests and consecrated bishops.
Archbishop Lefebvre left something behind. Not words, not wind.
I am very happy to hear Mgr Schneider and Mgr Vigano, but I say to myself "what are they going to do?".
Excerpt of a June 19 conference transcribed on the French Resistance forum by "Joseph:""He (Bishop Vigano) takes note of what is in the Church, but for us it is not new. [For some of the younger priests and many of the faithful that were born into the SSPX, this is new]
....
Thanks for posting this Sean. I saw it also on the Non Possumus blog, and was going to post a link, but glad that you beat me to it.
Fr. Gleize says that +ABL only received anathemas from Rome after he consecrated the four bishops. But actually, +ABL was suspended long before that because he wouldn't close down his Econe seminary. And why was Econe a problem? Because +ABL strongly spoke out against the Vll council. But those were just words, right, Fr. Gleize?
The truth must be spoken even by those who do not have seminaries and priests, such as the SSPX has. Why does Fr. Gleize think that only they are entitled to speak the Truth? Actually, the SSPX rarely speaks out against Vatican ll anymore. I think it is they who are jealous of all of the attention that +Vigano is getting. Yet the SSPX doesn't have the guts to do the same.
Fr. Gleize says that +ABL only received anathemas from Rome after he consecrated the four bishops. But actually, +ABL was suspended long before that because he wouldn't close down his Econe seminary. And why was Econe a problem? Because +ABL strongly spoke out against the Vll council. But those were just words, right, Fr. Gleize?.
Well, technically, Lefebvre was suspended after the 1976 priestly ordinations (which he was warned no to do), so in this respect Fr. Gleize is consistent and accurate as regards his words vs actions distinction between Lefebvre and Vigano..
...we refuse...and have always refused to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies...- A statement condemning those who adhere to the Old Mass made by the French episcopate on 14 November 1974 was certainly aimed against Ecône, for at the same time the bishops let it be known that they would not accept any priests from Ecône in their dioceses.
No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries.
What has disturbed Rome? When did Rome launch anathemas on Archbishop Lefebvre?.
It was not when he criticized religious freedom, or during the Lille Mass. It was when he made priests and consecrated bishops.
It’s a little early to be making those kind of analyses, don’t you think? Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t do anything for 5 years after the council. So maybe give Vigano another couple of years before criticizing his lack of organization..
I don't get this criticism. He calls him an "overzealous" neophyte, but then criticizes him for not doing anything..
I think, despite +Vigano's "neophyte" status, he's hit the nail on the head with regard to the theological nature of the Crisis. I don't believe the connotations of "neophyte" are appropriate. He's certainly a "newcomer" but his thinking is quite mature.
As for being overzealous, I don't get that when the criticism is that he's done nothing.
Indeed, +Vigano should figure out what he can DO to help the Crisis, but does that make him "overzealous"?
.I am just accepting Fr Gleize’s definition. If Vigano is doing nothing in his estimation then by the same measure Archbishop Lefebvre did nothing until he started taking students. But if you want to say that writing and speaking against V2 is doing something then you can hardly accuse Vigano of doing nothing. Vigano should be given more time before accusing him of being all talk.
I would hardly describe it as "didn't do anything" during those 5 years. If people would take the time to read his biography, they would know he did plenty. Even if all he did was his work on the Ottaviani Intervention (https://sspx.org/en/ottaviani-intervention), I wouldn't call it "doing nothing".
.Indeed, and because ++Vigano is making SSPX look moribund.
I think Meg may be right about the jealousy factor.
I am just accepting Fr Gleize’s definition. If Vigano is doing nothing in his estimation then by the same measure Archbishop Lefebvre did nothing until he started taking students. But if you want to say that writing and speaking against V2 is doing something then you can hardly accuse Vigano of doing nothing. Vigano should be given more time before accusing him of being all talk.
But what do they do?...He cries wolf! That is what Archbishop Vigano does! One of the duties of the good shepherd.
That's very good, but I'm afraid it's sterile."...
"These are voices that are welcome in the Church, but they are only words of people who are on the sidelines. That's very good, but I'm afraid it's sterile." so says Fr. Gleize.It's good and all, but I still wish he'd put his words to action on Francis. Or at least clearly state what his position is(he seems to think V2 may be illegitimate, but hasn't explained how to determine if an EC is illegitimate; he encourages people to go to the Tridentine Mass, but hasn't condemned the NO Mass; he's said nothing about his own holy orders, etc.).
Yet who is the one that just wrote to President Trump, warning him about the NWO agenda to control the world, who is the one alerting all who would listen about the dangers of the "Great Reset"? It ain't the SSPX!! it should be clear by now that it is the SSXP that has become sterile.
It's good and all, but I still wish he'd put his words to action on Francis. Or at least clearly state what his position is(he seems to think V2 may be illegitimate, but hasn't explained how to determine if an EC is illegitimate; he encourages people to go to the Tridentine Mass, but hasn't condemned the NO Mass; he's said nothing about his own holy orders, etc.).I used to think the same thing. Bishop Williamson was crucified (with a lot of help from me I am sad to say) for advising if it was the only way a Catholic can keep her faith then he could not advise her to leave. The NO is a doubtfully valid rite, but apparently licit. I can see that perhaps Cardinal Vigano is trying to bring such as the above woman out gradually - and not put out the flickering flame. Priests have experienced new-generation Catholics of goodwill abanding the faith altogether. They have to be gradually and gently led out.
It's good and all, but I still wish he'd put his words to action on Francis. Or at least clearly state what his position is(he seems to think V2 may be illegitimate, but hasn't explained how to determine if an EC is illegitimate; he encourages people to go to the Tridentine Mass, but hasn't condemned the NO Mass; he's said nothing about his own holy orders, etc.).
Now, consider the good Bishop is a "Catholic pundit" in hiding.Actually, as we have discussed months ago, he has written a rabbi where he chooses to omit faith in Jesus Christ:
In this context why can he not mention the word "Jews"?
Its it not in his vocabulary. Is it politically incorrect?
Would it offend president Trump's son-in-law, the Israeli rabbi who works in the Oval Office?
Let's get real Bishop Vigano. You're talking about the life & death of nations, billions of souls at stake and yet the word "jew" will not cross your keyboard?
Actually, as we have discussed months ago, he has written a rabbi where he chooses to omit faith in Jesus Christ:
https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/05/27/vigano-a-rabbi-ahrens-pericoli-reali-non-complottismo/