Author Topic: most vocal traditional bishop speaking with unmistakable clarity (Read 1349 times)

holacristero · « **on:** March 08, 2026, 01:52:15 AM »

At present, Archbishop Viganò appears to be the most vocal traditional bishop speaking with unmistakable clarity on the crisis in the Church. His recent declaration is provided below.
It should also be noted that Bishop Stobnicki has recently given a clear statement regarding the NSSPX. However, I have not been able to locate any comparable public clarification from the other bishops consecrated by Bishop Williamson on this particular matter.
If such statements exist, I would be grateful if they could be provided.

https://exsurgedomine.it/260301-opposition-eng/

His Majesty's opposition
The Response of Catholic Conservatives
to the Episcopal Consecrations of the SSPX

Müller’s Statement
On February 21, at Kath.Net, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller 1[] commented on the decision of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X to proceed with episcopal Consecrations without a Pontifical Mandate, after the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith reiterated to the Superior General, Father Davide Pagliarani, the Holy See’s veto on granting the Mandate and its lack of openness to any revision of the texts of the Second Vatican Council, which the Society rightly considers heterodox. In his article, Die Piusbruderschaft und ihre Einheit mit der Kirche [2], the German Cardinal states that proceeding without a Pontifical Mandate constitutes an “objective wound to the visible unity of the Church”: not merely administrative disobedience, but an act that undermines papal authority at its very foundations. He emphasizes that “no bishop can consecrate against [the will of] the successor of Peter.” Müller insists on the recognition of papal authority not only in theory, but also in practice, without conditions, affirming that the SSPX must submit to the Magisterium of the Church in order to exert a positive influence on ecclesial history.
The former Prefect of the former Holy Office wrote:
The only solution possible in conscience before God is for the Society of Saint Pius X, with its bishops, priests, and laity, to recognize not only in theory but also in practice our Holy Father Pope Leo XIV as the legitimate Pope and to submit without preconditions to his doctrinal authority and primacy of jurisdiction. Then a just solution can also be found for their canonical status, for example by endowing their Prelate with Ordinary jurisdiction for the Society, directly subordinate to the Pope (perhaps without the mediation of a Curia office).
Sarah’s Statement
The following day, February 22, in an article in Le Journal du Dimanche [3], Cardinal Robert Sarah [4] reiterated his call for unity within the Church, expressing deep concern about the potential schism that risks fracturing the Church’s unity. He emphasized that true ecclesial communion must be rooted in obedience to the Pope and adherence to the Magisterium. His words leave no room for misunderstanding:
I therefore wish to express my deep concern and profound sadness at learning of the announcement by the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, that it will proceed with episcopal ordinations without a Pontifical Mandate. We are told that this decision to disobey the law of the Church is motivated by the supreme law of the salvation of souls: suprema lex, salus animarum. But salvation is Christ, and is given only in the Church. How can we pretend to lead souls to salvation by ways other than those He Himself has indicated to us? Does desiring the salvation of souls mean tearing apart the Mystical Body of Christ in a perhaps irreversible way? How many souls may be at risk of being lost because of this new laceration? […] Is it not a betrayal of Tradition to take refuge in human means to maintain our works, however good they may be?
Burke’s Statement
In addition, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke [5], who does not seem to want to take any public position on the announced Consecrations, stated in 2017 that, in his opinion, the Society of Saint Pius X has been in a state of schism since 1988 [6]:
[D] the various arguments surrounding the question, the fact of the matter is that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff. And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X. Having said that . . . part of the kind of general confusion in the Church has also entered into this question because the Holy Father has given the priests of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X faculties to celebrate validly marriages, licitly and validly. But there is no canonical explanation for it, and it is simply an anomaly.
A Controlled Opposition
The statements of Cardinals Müller, Sarah and Burke can be considered a paradigmatic example of “His Majesty’s Opposition” within the Catholic ecclesiastical context, borrowing the concept from the British parliamentary system, where the opposition criticizes the policies of the government in power while maintaining absolute loyalty to the Crown and its institutions [7]. This opposition demonstrated its utter futility with the Dubia presented regarding the errors of Amoris Lætitia, which were completely ignored by Bergoglio, who did not fail to mock and humiliate the signatory Cardinals.
The members of the “conservative triad” share several elements that demonstrate their absolute inconsistency with the principles they claim to be defending. All three accept the acts of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium sine glossa. All three celebrate the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo indifferently, considering both legitimate and relegating liturgical questions as mere matters of personal sensibility. All three, despite criticizing it, adhere to the “synodal path” out of obedience to the Pope, and Müller took an active part in the meetings of the Synod on Synodality in both 2023 and 2024, as a voting member directly appointed by Bergoglio. All three recognize episcopal collegiality, ecuмenism, religious freedom, the Abu Dhabi Declaration, and in general all acts—even the most controversial—issued by the Roman Dicasteries. All three criticized Fiducia Supplicans but did not demand its revocation. All three expressed disappointment after Traditionis Custodes, without, however, committing themselves to preventing its implementation. All three did not offer a single word of support for me, either before or after the farce of the canonical proceedings that led to my “excommunication” for schism. All three, in short, are convinced Ratzingerians and supporters of that ecclesial variant of the Hegelian dialectical process, according to which it is supposedly possible to reconcile the thesis of Catholic orthodoxy and the antithesis of modernist heresy within the conciliar synthesis. Finally, all three recognize Víctor Manuel Fernández as the legitimate Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, despite his “literary” activity as a pornographer and heretic; nor are they known to have ever requested his resignation after the scandal of Besame con tu boca and La pasión mística.
The Contradictions of the Three Cardinals
In short, it does not appear that the Cardinals of the “conservative triad”—Müller, Sarah, and Burke—can aspire to the role of defenders of Catholic orthodoxy, since they are themselves staunch supporters of Vatican II, its deviations, and its liturgy favens hæresim. If they have ever reformed their views, it is not clear that they have publicly recanted their errors, but it seems rather that they are simply attempting to reconcile opposing and irreconcilable theses for the sake of a quiet life or in the name of a pseudo-unity of the Church that disregards the uninterrupted profession of the same Faith, concealing the obvious divergences so as not to have to draw the necessary conclusions from their evidence. Their claim that there is no rupture between the pre- and post-conciliar periods merely begs the question, is devoid of any foundation, and contradicts the reality of a devastating crisis, but nevertheless proves consistent with Benedict XVI’s hermeneutic of continuity, influenced by the Hegelian education of the German theologian.
It should also be noted that these Cardinals forget—or rather pretend to forget—that if today Their Eminences can solemnly pontificate in the ancient rite, it is only thanks to the work of Venerated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, whom they nevertheless consider a “rebel” and to whom they attribute responsibility for the “schism” of 1988. Yet, without the Consecrations of Ecône, John Paul II would never have issued the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, which intended to bring back into the conciliar fold the clerics of the Society of Saint Pius X, some of whom joined societies of apostolic life recognized by the Holy See, including the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, of which the American Cardinal is patron and protector. Nor would Benedict XVI have ever promulgated the 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм, which liberalized the celebration of the Tridentine Liturgy and which, never having been fully applied, was then substantially annulled in 2021 with Traditionis Custodes.
Müller, Sarah, and Burke effectively constitute a controlled opposition. Their role is to contain the hemorrhage of Catholics caused by the conciliar revolution, deluding the faithful into thinking that it is possible for two opposing entities to coexist within the same institution and under the same Hierarchy: the Catholic Church and the conciliar-synodal Church. Burke himself has acknowledged this:
I know it was the case both in Lacrosse and in St. Louis where there were apostolates of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest for those desiring the rites of the Church according to the ancient usage, many, many people who had been going to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X were reconciled and returned to the Church. And I say that if instead we simply go freely to those Masses [of the FSSPX] and so forth that are celebrated, what encouragement does that give to them to be reconciled with the Church? [8]
The main concern of “His Majesty’s Opposition” seems to be to offer a product similar to that requested by customers, with the sole purpose of eliminating competition from the SSPX and forcing buyers to accept the poison hidden within that counterfeit product. Let us not forget that the former Ecclesia Dei communities reconcile Tridentine celebrations with preaching that ignores any criticism not only of the Council and the liturgical reform, but also of the “pontificates” of Bergoglio and Prevost. The clerics of these institutes are required to participate in the functions of the local Ordinary—for example, concelebrating at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday—and the same is required of their faithful, as is the case for the conferral of Confirmations, administered according to the new Montinian rite. For example, not a single criticism has been heard from either the three Cardinals or the priests who refer to them, regarding the scandalous Doctrinal Note Mater Populi Fidelis, which declares the use of the Marian titles of Mediatrix and Co-redemptrix “always inappropriate.” It is therefore difficult to believe that such “opposition” could even hypothesize about taking the place of the far more precious role of the Society of Saint Pius X, which is not limited to the choreographic aspects of the Liturgy.
I reiterate here too, as I have done previously, that this attitude ends up de-dogmatizing the Liturgy and de-liturgizing doctrine, undermining the foundation that inextricably unites the lex orandi to the lex credendi.
The Fundamental Error
The calls for unity made by Müller, Sarah and Burke suffer from a fundamental error, which undermines every appeal in radice. They probably recognize the current crisis, the doctrinal, moral, and liturgical deviations of the synodal Church, but they refuse to see them as a logical and necessary effect of Vatican II, which they persist in judging, against all evidence, as entirely orthodox and consistent with the perennial Catholic Magisterium. The reason for this error is that they cannot renounce either themselves or their mentors—Ratzinger first and foremost—as protagonists or supporters of Vatican II. For this reason, they must necessarily find a compromise that does not benefit the unity of the Church, but rather numbs all dissent in the name of a false obedience that has nothing Catholic about it. Obedience to the Hierarchy becomes misleading when it deviates from the Truth of Dogma and Tradition. Unity is not primarily institutional but doctrinal, rooted in the immutable Deposit of Faith. It is the discipline of the Church that is ordered to the preservation and transmission of the Depositum Fidei, and not vice-versa.
The pathetic efforts of these Cardinals represent moderate conservatism’s attempt to bridge divisions—which they acknowledge, but deny the causes—through an impossible dialogue. And Father Davide Pagliarani was right to point out that the meetings of past years have led nowhere, precisely because of the irreconcilable divergence on doctrinal issues that cannot be the object of any negotiation or bargaining—the “minimum requirements” demanded by Tucho Fernández, which compromise the integrity of the Profession of the Catholic Faith.
It should be added that what the Holy See asks of the Society of Saint Pius X regarding Vatican II and the Novus Ordo does not apply to true heretics, schismatics, and non-Catholics, to whom Leo addressed extremely conciliatory words in a recent speech: “We are one! We already are! Let us recognize it, let us experience it, let us manifest it!” [9] We learn, therefore, that the conciliar and synodal Church considers itself in communion with Orthodox, Protestants, and Anglicans of all denominations, but not with those who reject Vatican II. Ecuмenism and dialogue are once again shown to be instrumental in the demolition of the Catholic Church, and this does not appear to be a problem for exponents of moderate conservatism.
Conclusion
The interventions of the three Cardinals, while presented as calls for unity, reveal profound shortcomings and internal contradictions, which cannot be ignored by those who care about the integral preservation of the Depositum Fidei. It seems to me now more than evident that this pseudo-opposition not only has no chance of achieving anything, but is actually instrumental in the completion of the conciliar revolution through the final, ill-fated step of the “synodal path.” As one observer has commented: “Prevost is nothing but Bergoglio with a better tailor.” If His Majesty’s Opposition refuses to acknowledge this, then at least the faithful and priests ought to, seeking to form a common front with the Society of Saint Pius X and other truly traditional communities. It is true that the Society continues to recognize Prevost’s legitimacy while disobeying his illegitimate orders. But it is equally true that the fragmentation of Catholics faithful to Tradition only weakens any form of resistance. It would therefore be appropriate to put aside internal divisions—which can be clarified in due course—for the sake of the very survival of the Catholic Church in the face of imminent persecution.
As Bishop and Successor of the Apostles, I urge my Brothers in the Episcopate – beginning with Cardinals Müller, Sarah, and Burke – priests, religious, and faithful to give a clear signal of unity, supporting the battle of the Society of Saint Pius X with concrete signs—for example, by participating in the ceremony of the Consecrations this coming July — so that the usurpers occupying Rome may realize that their threats and excommunications no longer frighten anyone. If battle must take place, may it find us arrayed under the banner of Christ the King. And may Our Lady, Queen of Victories and Mediatrix of all Graces—from whom the heretics of the synodal church seek to wrest the titles that adorn Her crown of glory like precious gems—grant us to put aside all secondary disputes, in the name of the Glory of God, the honor of Holy Mother Church, and the salvation of souls redeemed by the Blood of Christ.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

1 March 2026
Dominica II Quadragesimæ

NOTES
1 – The first discordant note in Cardinal Müller’s CV dates back to the 1970s, when he had as a teacher and friend the heretical Dominican Gustavo Gutiérrez, the “father” of Liberation Theology. This bond materialized in a close editorial collaboration, for example, when Müller and Gutiérrez co-authored the essay Dalla parte dei poveri. Teologia della liberazione, teologia della Chiesa (published in Italy by EMI-Messaggero in 2013; in English On the Side of the Poor: The Theology of Liberation, Orbis Books, 2015). As the spiritual heir of two ultra-modernist heretics such as Karl Rahner and Karl Lehmann, in 2002 Müller repeatedly denied the dogma of Transubstantiation according to criteria of phenomenological reinterpretation of the notion of substance (cf. Mit der Kirche denken, p. 47; cf. Katholische Dogmatik, p. 710.). He has also denied the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Most Holy Mary, that is, of Her physical integrity before, during, and after the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Katholische Dogmatik, p. 491). In an essay published in May 2020 (cf. https://www.vaticannews.va/de/vatikan/news/2020-05/dokument-abu-dhabi-interreligioes-papst-kardinal-mueller-islam.html), Müller expressed appreciation for the Abu Dhabi Docuмent signed by Bergoglio with Ahmed al-Tayyeb, the Grand Imam of al-Azhar University in Cairo. The Cardinal stated that the docuмent—which theorizes that the “diversity of religions” is willed by God—does not express merely “a simple private opinion of the Pope”; on the contrary, it demands “an assent from the faithful of both religions that binds them in conscience.” In 2021, commenting on Traditionis Custodes, Müller criticized restrictions on the Tridentine Mass but defended the Novus Ordo as consistent with Tradition, aligning himself with Sacrosanctum Concilium, which permits concelebration and the use of the vernacular. His defense of the Novus Ordo and of episcopal collegiality theorized by Lumen Gentium is in clear rupture with the traditional Magisterium, which privileges absolute papal primacy and the Tridentine liturgy. How can Müller invoke unity when, in his writings such as Catholic Dogmatics (2025), he accepts conciliar elements that I denounced in my article Synodality and watchful waiting. Vatican II “safe & effective” (cf. https://exsurgedomine.it/260118-synodality-eng/), or rather a strategy to adulterate the faith? This position is not loyal opposition, but complicity with the conciliar revolution, whose subversive nature and devastating consequences for the ecclesial body the Cardinal conceals. In 2017 it was Müller, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who—in the context of discussions between the Holy See and the SSPX—anticipated Tucho Fernández in unilaterally formulating “minimum requirements” for ecclesial communion, which include accepting “the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar period” as proposed in the so-called Professio Fidei of 1988 (cf. https://fsspx.org/en/news/letter-cardinal-muller-bishop-fellay-6-june-2017-57314). And now the Cardinal repeats the same pattern, accusing the SSPX of schism while ignoring the real schism caused by the modernist heresies he tolerated and promoted before, during, and after his tenure at the former Holy Office. In his 2023 book True and False Reform: What It Means to be Catholic, and in statements such as the one in the last few days about the SSPX, the German Cardinal has reiterated that Vatican II is in continuity with the Council of Trent and Vatican I. He has likewise supported the episcopal collegiality of Lumen Gentium and the ecuмenism of Unitatis Redintegratio, in total contradiction with the traditional Magisterium which emphasizes papal primacy and condemns ecuмenism. On a personal note, it is worth recalling that towards the end of my term as Apostolic Nuncio in Washington, Cardinal Müller granted me an audience in which I submitted to him the results of an investigation I had conducted regarding the absolute moral unsuitability of a candidate for the episcopate. Müller nevertheless proceeded with his promotion and presided over the episcopal ordination ceremony himself.
2 – Cf. https://kath.net/news/89675, translated into Italian by Il Timone with the title La Fraternità San Pio X e la sua unità con la Chiesa, cf. https://www.iltimone.org/news/news/201495/la-fraternita-san-pio-x-e-la-sua-unita-con-la-chiesa.html
3 – Le Journal du Dimanche, 22 February 2026, p. 35, Avant qu’il ne soit trop tard !Appel à l’unité du cardinal Robert Sarah. Cf. https://www.lejdd.fr/Societe/avant-quil-ne-soit-trop-tard-lappel-a-lunite-du-cardinal-robert-sarah-167095
4 – Cardinal Sarah has made himself a promoter of the so-called “Reform of the Reform,” according to which a “mutual enrichment” of the Vetus Ordo and Novus Ordo would be possible. I am thinking, for example, of the conference held in London in the summer of 2016 entitled Towards an authentic implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium (cf. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/ view.cfm?recnum=11311), in which the Cardinal demonstrates his desire to apply the same liturgical engineering criteria adopted by the Consilium ad exsequendam, but in the opposite direction, for example, celebrating the reformed rite coram Deo and no longer coram populo. These clumsy attempts to disguise the Montinian Mass as the Tridentine Mass foundered miserably after Bergoglio’s disapproval, ultimately resulting in an embarrassing statement from Father Federico Lombardi (cf. https://www.libertaepersona.org/wordpress/2016/07/robert-sarah-ancora-un-cardinale-umiliato/; see also https://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351385.html and https://lanuovabq.it/it/liturgia-con-sarah-il-vaticano-corregge-ratzinger). Also in 2016, the former Prefect of Congregation of the Divine Worship ratified, by adding his signature, the decree with which Bergoglio allowed women to participate in the rite of the Washing of the Feet on Holy Thursday (cf. https://it.aleteia.org/2016/03/16/card-sarah-i-sacerdoti-non-sono-tenuti-a-lavare-i-piedi-alle-donne-il-giovedi-santo/), only to later state that the new provisions were not binding. In a 2017 article entitled True liturgy is a reflection of heaven (cf. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/03/31/true-liturgy-is-a-reflection-of-heaven-cardinal-sarah-says/), Sarah criticized arbitrary innovations in the liturgical field, but praised the vision of renewal of Vatican II, aligning himself with the conciliar deviation of a more “accessible” and “participatory” liturgy, in contrast to the pre-conciliar “rigidity.” In his writings, such as the book Catechism of the Spiritual Life (2025), Sarah not only recognizes Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, but also supports ecuмenism and collegiality, which deviate from the Catholic Magisterium focused on exclusive unity in the Catholic Church. In 2019, Sarah as Prefect of the Congregation of the Divine Worship extended the Memorial of the Translation of the Holy House of Loreto to the universal Church, but changed its name to the Blessed Virgin of Loreto, thus suppressing any mention of the miracle that modernists deny even against scientific evidence (cf. https://www.marcotosatti.com/2019/11/09/casa-di-loreto-una-lettera-aperta-al-card-robert-sarah/). That same year, the Cardinal took part in the enthronement ceremony of the infernal idol of Pachamama in St. Peter’s Basilica, making himself complicit in an act of idolatry and the desecration of the Vatican Basilica.
5 – Cardinal Burke has explicitly embraced the teaching of Lumen Gentium, which emphasizes the role of the laity and a more collegial vision of the Church, consistent with the conciliar idea of the Church as the “people of God,” in contrast to the hierarchical perspective of the pre-conciliar Magisterium, which favors a clear distinction between clergy and laity. In his address to the Knights of Columbus States Dinner in Denver on August 2, 2011, entitled Religion ‘purifies’ politics, Burke argued that religion must purify politics without exclusion or fundamentalism, contrary to the Social Kingship of Our Lord and in alignment with the conciliar decree Dignitatis Humanæ, which promotes religious freedom as a human right, in opposition to the traditional Magisterium—that of Pius IX in Quanta Cura or Pius XI in Mortalium Animos. In various interviews and presentations, such as the one given in Nairobi in August 2012 on the post-conciliar Code of Canon Law, (cf. https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15426), Burke has criticized the loss of discipline after the Council but defended Vatican II as not constituting any rupture, supporting reforms such as ecuмenism and collegiality. The contradiction between Cardinal Burke’s claimed fidelity to the immutable Magisterium of the Catholic Church and his simultaneous adherence to the contrary doctrines expressed in the conciliar texts that he publicly defends is evident—a contradiction further confirmed by the celebration of the reformed rite alongside the traditional rite, even though we know the two rites are antithetical and irreconcilable.
6 – Cf. https://akacatholic.com/breaking-cardinal-burke-slams-fsspx/
7 – In order to understand this analogy, it is useful to recall the original meaning of the term coined by John Cam Hobhouse in 1826. “His Majesty’s Opposition” describes an opposition loyal to the British Crown that exercises a role of formal oversight and correction without threatening the stability of the constitutional system. Transposed to the ecclesiastical level, it evokes authoritative figures who, while expressing reservations about certain doctrinal, pastoral, or disciplinary orientations of the current papal magisterium, remain firmly anchored to the post-conciliar establishment even in the face of the grave institutional crisis directly involving the highest levels of the Hierarchy.
8 – Cf. https://akacatholic.com/breaking-cardinal-burke-slams-fsspx/
9 – Celebration of the Second Vespers on the LIX Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, 25 January 2026. Cf. https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/it/homilies/2026/docuмents/20260125-vespri-unita-cristiani.html

Incredulous · « **Reply #1 on:** March 08, 2026, 11:41:53 AM »

Thoughts:

1. So, you're implying that the crypto-conditionally consecrated Archbishop Vigano is now the de facto "thought leader"
for the SSPX Resistance?

2. I wonder who helped the Italian Archbishop write the Brit theme of "His Majesties Opposition"?

3. Burke is Opus Dei, so anything he would say publicly is contrived.

4. If the good Archbishop ever wants to be a credible "trad truther" and get to the root of who is running pope Bob's
Vatican... he would speak about Opus Dei.

It's a masonic organization inside newChurch that he is very familiar with.

holacristero · « **Reply #2 on:** March 08, 2026, 12:04:54 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on March 08, 2026, 11:41:53 AM

Thoughts:

1. So, you're implying that the crypto-conditionally consecrated Archbishop Vigano is now the de facto "thought leader"
for the SSPX Resistance?

2. I wonder who helped the Italian Archbishop write the Brit theme of "His Majesties Opposition"?

3. Burke is Opus Dei, so anything he would say publicly is contrived.

4. If the good Archbishop ever wants to be a credible "trad truther" and get to the root of who is running pope Bob's
Vatican... he would speak about Opus Dei.

It's a masonic organization inside newChurch that he is very familiar with.

I would say that the Opus Dei are also members of the "Conservative Movement."

"...The members of the “conservative triad” share several elements that demonstrate their absolute inconsistency with the principles they claim to be defending. All three accept the acts of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium sine glossa. All three celebrate the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo indifferently, considering both legitimate and relegating liturgical questions as mere matters of personal sensibility. All three, despite criticizing it, adhere to the “synodal path” out of obedience to the Pope, and Müller took an active part in the meetings of the Synod on Synodality in both 2023 and 2024, as a voting member directly appointed by Bergoglio. All three recognize episcopal collegiality, ecuмenism, religious freedom, the Abu Dhabi Declaration, and in general all acts—even the most controversial—issued by the Roman Dicasteries. All three criticized Fiducia Supplicans but did not demand its revocation. All three expressed disappointment after Traditionis Custodes, without, however, committing themselves to preventing its implementation. All three did not offer a single word of support for me, either before or after the farce of the canonical proceedings that led to my “excommunication” for schism. All three, in short, are convinced Ratzingerians and supporters of that ecclesial variant of the Hegelian dialectical process, according to which it is supposedly possible to reconcile the thesis of Catholic orthodoxy and the antithesis of modernist heresy within the conciliar synthesis. Finally, all three recognize Víctor Manuel Fernández as the legitimate Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, despite his “literary” activity as a pornographer and heretic; nor are they known to have ever requested his resignation after the scandal of Besame con tu boca and La pasión mística."

Incredulous · « **Reply #3 on:** March 08, 2026, 12:30:10 PM »

Quote from: holacristero on March 08, 2026, 12:04:54 PM

I would say that the Opus Dei are also members of the "Conservative Movement."

"...The members of the “conservative triad” share several elements that demonstrate their absolute inconsistency with the principles they claim to be defending. All three accept the acts of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium sine glossa. All three celebrate the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo indifferently, considering both legitimate and relegating liturgical questions as mere matters of personal sensibility. All three, despite criticizing it, adhere to the “synodal path” out of obedience to the Pope, and Müller took an active part in the meetings of the Synod on Synodality in both 2023 and 2024, as a voting member directly appointed by Bergoglio. All three recognize episcopal collegiality, ecuмenism, religious freedom, the Abu Dhabi Declaration, and in general all acts—even the most controversial—issued by the Roman Dicasteries. All three criticized Fiducia Supplicans but did not demand its revocation. All three expressed disappointment after Traditionis Custodes, without, however, committing themselves to preventing its implementation. All three did not offer a single word of support for me, either before or after the farce of the canonical proceedings that led to my “excommunication” for schism. All three, in short, are convinced Ratzingerians and supporters of that ecclesial variant of the Hegelian dialectical process, according to which it is supposedly possible to reconcile the thesis of Catholic orthodoxy and the antithesis of modernist heresy within the conciliar synthesis. Finally, all three recognize Víctor Manuel Fernández as the legitimate Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, despite his “literary” activity as a pornographer and heretic; nor are they known to have ever requested his resignation after the scandal of Besame con tu boca and La pasión mística."

Yes, but the Archbishop even in his broken English needs to utter the two words... "O P U S D E I".

Simeon · « **Reply #4 on:** March 08, 2026, 01:32:53 PM »

Quote from: holacristero on March 08, 2026, 01:52:15 AM

At present, Archbishop Viganò appears to be the most vocal traditional bishop speaking with unmistakable clarity on the crisis in the Church.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bishop Pierre Roy is the most vocal traditional bishop speaking with unmistakable clarity on the crisis in the Church.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: most vocal traditional bishop speaking with unmistakable clarity (Read 1349 times)

holacristero

most vocal traditional bishop speaking with unmistakable clarity

Incredulous

Re: most vocal traditional bishop speaking with unmistakable clarity

holacristero

Re: most vocal traditional bishop speaking with unmistakable clarity

Incredulous

Re: most vocal traditional bishop speaking with unmistakable clarity

Simeon

Re: most vocal traditional bishop speaking with unmistakable clarity