Author Topic: Incredible Statement from Archbishop Vigano (Read 13308 times)

Geremia · « **Reply #225 on:** July 03, 2020, 10:30:10 PM »

In a letter answering John Henry's question whether he believes "Vatican II to be an invalid council", Viganò writes:

Quote

I have never thought and even less have I affirmed that Vatican II was an invalid Ecuмenical Council: in fact it was convoked by the supreme authority, by the Supreme Pontiff, and all of the Bishops of the world took part in it. Vatican II is a valid Council, supported by the same authority as Vatican I and Trent.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #226 on:** July 04, 2020, 03:06:07 AM »

Quote from: Geremia on July 03, 2020, 10:30:10 PM

In a letter answering John Henry's question whether he believes "Vatican II to be an invalid council", Viganò writes:

I still think there may be hope for him, but with this statement it’s looking very slim.

St.Patrick · « **Reply #227 on:** July 04, 2020, 03:32:00 AM »

Valid pastoral council?

2Vermont · « **Reply #228 on:** July 04, 2020, 06:11:24 AM »

Quote from: Geremia on July 03, 2020, 10:30:10 PM

In a letter answering John Henry's question whether he believes "Vatican II to be an invalid council", Viganò writes:

Thank you. At least I'm not the only one who got the impression that he's backtracked on his Vatican II stance.

Struthio · « **Reply #229 on:** July 04, 2020, 06:43:27 AM »

Quote from: 1960s Robber Council, Dignitatis Humanae

Haec omnia et singula quae in hac Declaratione edicta sunt, placuerunt Sacrosancti Concilii Patribus. Et Nos, Apostolica a Christo Nobis tradita potestate, illa, una cuм Venerabilibus Patribus, in Spiritu Sancto approbamus, decernimus ac statuimus et quae ita synodaliter statuta sunt ad Dei gloriam promulgari iubemus.

Romae, apud S. Petrum die VII mensis decembris anno MCMLXV.

Ego PAULUS Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus

Sequuntur Patrum subsignationes

Quote from: 1960s Robber Council, Dignitatis Humanae

Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Declaration have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God.

Rome, at St. Peter’s, December 7, 1965

I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church

There follow the signatures of the Fathers.

This or a similar statement can be found below each of the 1960s Robber Council's docuмents. In his letter to Dr. Guarini, Viganò has said that these docuмents contain heretical propositions.

The ca. 2440 fathers of the Robber Council have proposed a false Gospel in the name of the Holy Spirit to the whole Church, and consequently condemned themselves.

Quote from: Galatians 1

[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

All the talk about fallible or infallible, ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium is vain. Heretics don't need an office or the charism of infallibility to condemn themselves.

Dismissing the Council's docuмents for heresy implies the declaration that those adhering to the docuмents, were/are heretics.

stjosef.at

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #230 on:** July 04, 2020, 06:45:51 AM »

Quote from: St.Patrick on July 04, 2020, 03:32:00 AM

Valid pastoral council?

A council of the Church that is approved by a pope is still infallible no matter what nuanced title you give it. VII Contains error, thus.......

DecemRationis · « **Reply #231 on:** July 04, 2020, 06:47:16 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on July 04, 2020, 06:11:24 AM

Thank you. At least I'm not the only one who got the impression that he's backtracked on his Vatican II stance.

I agree he's backtracked, but only in the sense that the inevitable conclusion of what he had been saying was that V2 was not a valid ecuмenical council, and the necessary corollary that Paul VI could not be a valid pope.

But he never asserted that "necessary" conclusion - many of us just assumed he would because of the logical necessity of the position he took in light of traditional Catholic teaching on ecuмenical councils, the pope and the Church's indefectibility.

Sadly, it seems he's not squarely addressing those logical consequences. He says:

Quote

I have never thought and even less have I affirmed that Vatican II was an invalid Ecuмenical Council: in fact it was convoked by the supreme authority, by the Supreme Pontiff, and all of the Bishops of the world took part in it. Vatican II is a valid Council, supported by the same authority as Vatican I and Trent. However, as I have already written, from its origin it was made the object of a grave manipulation by a fifth column that penetrated into the very heart of the Church that perverted its purposes, as confirmed by the disastrous results that are before everyone’s eyes.

Remember, as to this "grave manipulation," it resulted in (as he said previously) an ecuмenical council, ratified by a successor of Peter as pope, taught to the Church and world in Dignitatis Humanae a form of religious liberty that "contradict[ed] the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both." Whereas, Catholic doctrine says that can't happen.

If we are to "hold to tradition," we need a better answer than the council was "grave[ly] manipulated." Uh . . . we know that.

And we ask, "how can that happen"? The lack of a credible response damages the faith.

2Vermont · « **Reply #232 on:** July 04, 2020, 06:47:59 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on July 04, 2020, 06:45:51 AM

A council of the Church that is approved by a pope is still infallible no matter what nuanced title you give it. VII Contains error, thus.......

And as I posted in the other thread, it *is* an ecuмenical council:

Ecuмenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecuмenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecuмenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #233 on:** July 04, 2020, 06:51:48 AM »

Quote from: Struthio on July 04, 2020, 06:43:27 AM

This or a similar statement can be found below each of the 1960s Robber Council's docuмents. In his letter to Dr. Guarini, Viganò has said that these docuмents contain heretical propositions.

The ca. 2440 fathers of the Robber Council have proposed a false Gospel in the name of the Holy Spirit to the whole Church, and consequently condemned themselves.

All the talk about fallibe or infallible, ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium is vain. Heretics don't need an office or the charism of infallibility to condemn themselves.

Dismissing the Council's docuмents for heresy implies the declaration that those adhering to the docuмents, were/are heretics.

stjosef.at

Exactly so. The presumption from manifest heresy in the external forum, and the logical conclusion. Those men had to know what they contradicted (Vigano's own words) - Quanta Cura, etc.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #234 on:** July 04, 2020, 07:02:46 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on July 04, 2020, 06:47:59 AM

And as I posted in the other thread, it *is* an ecuмenical council:

Ecuмenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecuмenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecuмenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.

Of course, but sometimes (and unfortunately) people hate to face reality.

2Vermont · « **Reply #235 on:** July 04, 2020, 07:07:31 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on July 04, 2020, 07:02:46 AM

Of course, but sometimes (and unfortunately) people hate to face reality.

All I hear coming from his latest communique is, excuses, excuses.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #236 on:** July 04, 2020, 10:25:34 AM »

Quote from: Struthio on July 04, 2020, 06:43:27 AM

stjosef.at

Great link. Thanks.

Author Topic: Incredible Statement from Archbishop Vigano (Read 13308 times)

Geremia

Viganò seemingly backtracks on Vatican II stance.

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Viganò seemingly backtracks on Vatican II stance.

St.Patrick

Viganò seemingly backtracks on Vatican II stance.

2Vermont

Re: Viganò seemingly backtracks on Vatican II stance.

Struthio

Re: Incredible Statement from Archbishop Vigano

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Viganò seemingly backtracks on Vatican II stance.

DecemRationis

Re: Viganò seemingly backtracks on Vatican II stance.

2Vermont

Re: Viganò seemingly backtracks on Vatican II stance.

DecemRationis

Re: Incredible Statement from Archbishop Vigano

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Viganò seemingly backtracks on Vatican II stance.

2Vermont

Re: Viganò seemingly backtracks on Vatican II stance.

DecemRationis

Re: Incredible Statement from Archbishop Vigano