Bitter is the day of the Lord! Even a valiant man cries it out. A day of wrath that day, a day of distress and affliction, a day of ruin and extermination, a day of darkness and gloom, and a day of cloud and caligin, a day of the sounding of horns and the shouting of war on the fortified cities and on the lofty towers. Thus the Prophet Zephaniah.

Absolve Domine. Forgive, O Lord. Let us sing these words in the section of the Mass for the departed, whether popes or simple clerics, rich or poor, wise or simple. Et gratia tua illis succurente, mereantur evadere judicium ultionis, et lucis æternæ beatitudine perfrui. May they overcome the final judgment with the help of your grace, and enjoy the bliss of eternal light.

We address this same prayer to the divine Majesty as we celebrate the Holy Mass of suffrage for the soul of Joseph Ratzinger, Roman Pontiff until Feb. 28, 2013. And as mercy toward the departed asks, we entrust it to the mercy of God, who knows everything and peers into the secret of hearts. Of what he did and said during his long life, and particularly after he ascended the Throne of Peter, we wish to recall that providential gesture of truth and justice by which he recognized full legitimacy to the Apostolic Liturgy, promulgating the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм. The good that the liberalization of the ancient rite has done to the Church will weigh in the balance of souls that we see in many depictions of the Archangel St. Michael. Thanks to it a multitude of faithful and priests - among whom we can include ourselves - have been able to know the priceless treasure of doctrine and spirituality that wicked choices had made inaccessible for fifty years; thanks to it a flooding river of Graces, which no one will be able to stop, has poured - and is still pouring today - over the Church and the world.

In contemplating the rubble that survives the conciliar devastation, I dare not think what the situation of the Church might be without the Mass of St. Pius V. Yet, in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм itself, one cannot help but notice the precarious framework adopted by the exalted theologian Ratzinger: The thesis of Catholic orthodoxy (and the traditional Mass), the antithesis of modernist heresy (and the Montinian Mass), and the synthesis of Vatican II (and the co-presence of two forms of the same rite). The delicta juventutis [sins of his youth] were unfortunately never formally disavowed, although the horrors of the past decade have almost overshadowed them.

We can only pray fervently that in the near future that integral restitutio of the ancient rite may be accomplished that would put an end to decades of abuses, manipulations, adulterations and persecutions made more ferocious in the Bergoglian era.

Si iniquitates observaveris Domine, Domine, quis sustinebit? Who can withstand God's judgment, if we only consider our faults? No one. Yet the Mercy of God, who is our Father and who loves us even to the point of giving his own Only Begotten Son for our salvation, deigns to look at the good done with greater attention than he places on our faults. It is as if, in knowing us to be weak and sinful, He seeks all ways to snatch us from eternal damnation, giving us a thousand opportunities to redeem ourselves. This applies to the least of the faithful and to the one who sits on the highest Throne. The consideration of our sin should not lead us to consider ourselves destined to give in, and exempt from punishment, but spur us to put all our trust in the One who gives us strength (Phil. 4:13). And this is true even for those whom Providence has chosen to govern the Church.

Animated by this trust, Pope Benedict XVI sought in some way to repair that terrible vulnus that one of his Predecessors had caused to the ecclesial body; a wound that was going to heal, but which the maneuvers of the Enemy and his acolytes seek to keep open, thwarting Summorum Pontificuм even before the undeniable spiritual goods it brings to souls; indeed, precisely because of these infinite Graces, for they represent the most bitter defeat of the secularized and worldly spirit of the conciliar ideology.

And if the reformed rite has erased from the Requiem Mass the Dies iræ and imposed the Alleluias, we in the ancient Mass find the reasons for hope and composed suffrage for the soul of a man whom the Lord willed as His Vicar. In this rite we hear the voice of the Bride imploring mercy, pardon, indulgence, absolution, remission; the voice of the Bride who in acknowledging the sins of her children presents them before the Eternal Father, whom the divine Son redeems by His own Sacrifice. May therefore the soul of Pope Benedict find the place of refreshment, light and peace that we invoke for him in the Memento of the Canon.

In the blessed glory of Heaven, or in the purifying flames of Purgatory, Pope Benedict XVI will be able to pray for us and for the whole Church, knowing at last facie ad faciem that divine Truth which earthly exile only obscurely reveals. His prayers join with ours and with those of the holy souls and of the heavenly Court, to implore the divine Majesty for an end to the present tribulations, and in particular for the defeat and expulsion of the sect of heretics and corrupt that afflicts and eclipses the Holy Church of God.

Amen.

January 5, MMXXIII
Vigil of the Epiphany of the Lord

It appears Vigano is 100% sure Ratzinger is not in Hell.

I wrinkled my brow at that one myself, but naturally, I hope he is right.

It also looks like any hope the Bennyv's had of him endorsing their position are dead.

Archbishop Vigano's "sermon" for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is what one would expect from an Opus Dei operative.

He validates and endorses the newChurch narrative on Benedict's fake conservative papacy.

Benedict XVI had Jєωιѕн lineage, according to Chiesa Viva and it was the Jєω Gilad Ben Aaron, who converted to Catholicism, who has identified several rabbis in Ratzinger's family line. 

Benedict was just another papal Marrano working for the newChurch schism under the Opus Dei management team.

And if you'd like a post reviewing Benedict's ʝʊdɛօ-masonic papacy, we can surely provide one for the doubters.

It's quite disappointing. I never heard that before about Ratzinger having Jєωιѕн blood but I'm not surprised by anything these days. 
We all have a blind spot in some areas. Vigano was near the top of the conciliar church's hierarchy and you don't 
get there without having played the game for decades. Along the way you can't help but absorb some of its stink. 
How many times must he have turned a blind eye to the corruption to advance up the ladder? 
I turned on EWTN this evening and there were a few guests talking about Ratzinger's wisdom and being a defender of traditionalism LOL.

Some notes:

1) He does call him Pope Benedict XVI (disappointing)

2) He praises the good he did with the Motu.  (Did he intend good, or, as per Ganswein, was it meant to draw Trads back into the Conciliar Church?)  Of course, the motives are speculative and the good done by this may redound to reducing his punishment for other things.

3) Some have read the last paragraph as assuming Ratzinger was saved, but it's more of a Latin-esque type of construct, where he says that, if Ratzinger made it, he can pray for us.  I do find this a bit weak, but in the spirit of kindness toward the departed, he's not going to go the Dimond route of "Ratzinger enters hell" (I think their headline when he first was announced as gravely ill was, "Ratzinger about to enter hell." -- so the opposite extreme).  IMO, in between these two extremes where on says that we hoped that he repented of his heresies and saved his soul would have been more appropriate.  To say othewise is to minimize the gravity of the heresies taught by Ratzinger as "Pope" Benedict XVI.

4) Suggests that the heresies of Ratzinger were "sins of [his] youth" but admits that they have never been retracted.  He probably minimizes here a bit the gravity of Ratzinger's "heresies of [his] youth".

5) Clearly indicates that Ratzinger was a Hegelian, trying to create a synthesis between Tradition and the NOM, but stops short of saying that this was part of his deliberate plan to destroy (which of course would be speculative).

So he tries to find a balance between kindness and not giving him a complete pass or whitewash of his errors.

Overall, I feel that he's too "soft" regarding Ratzinger's errors, which were in fact grave heresies, and too hopefull that Ratzinger is in Heaven or Purgatory ... which one cannot do if one continues to cling to pertinacious heresy.  I would have reworded this as holding out HOPE that in his last decade of solitude he may have had a chance to repent of his heresies.  Perhaps he takes more of a light hand because he says that the horrors of the past 10 years (Bergoglio) make Ratzinger's papacy pale in comparison.  To me that's a rather superficial view of the situation, as they both taught the same errors, just that Bergoglio has been more brazen about it.  But the biggest fault I find with this that he suggests that Ratzinger's heresies were only in his youth.  If one studies the actual "teaching" of Ratzinger while claiming to be pope, he continued to teach heresy thoroughout his putative papacy.  By implying that these were in the rear view mirror of his youth, he's implicitly saying that Ratzinger was mostly orthodox when he was "Pope" when nothing could be farther from the truth.

So I am disappointed with this statement, although I understand that he's trying to be gentle or kind in the wake of Ratzinger's demise, but could the same types of things have been said of Martin Luther after he died?  I think that +Vigano missed the mark.  His attempt at "balance" errs way too much toward softness.

BXVI and Francis had the same goal: Eliminate any contradiction to V2.

BXVI’s method was to negotiate (give and receive concessions from the SSPX) and thereby bring them into the conciliar church where, as Fr. Cottier said after his conquest of Campos -for which he was made a Cardinal- “Reconciliation carries within itself its own dynamic (ie., self-censorship)…what is important is that there no longer be rejection in their heart…we must be patient…gradually there must be additional steps, like concelebration.” 

You can see plenty of this in the SSPX today, which contrary to the conservative narrative, shows just how effective Ratzinger’s war against tradition has been.

Francis sees no need for such games: Pound them out of existence, and move along.

Of the two methods, it is actually Ratzinger’s which is the more brutal, because despite the brazen anti -traditionalist measures of Francis, the effect is to ensure an independent traditional movement survives outside the conciliar apparatus, in wait for more propitious times, whereas Ratzinger would welcome all the flies into the web, and assimilate all the trads into conciliar Borg (thereby destroying traditionalism in toto).

Francis’s impatience BXVI’s long game is a tactical error.

"The delicta juventutis [sins of his youth] were unfortunately never formally disavowed, although the horrors of the past decade have almost overshadowed them."

This is the same story everywhere.  Benedict was a lib in his youth and a trad when he "matured".

Vigano seems like a reading man.

Surely he would have read Benedict's book he wrote while the active pope stating that Jєωs don't need Jesus to go to Heaven.

Surely he would know that Benedict, as the Vicar of Christ, spent Good Friday in a ѕуηαgσgυє praying for the coming of the Moshiach (Antichrist).

Those things and more are not "sins of his youth". 

Bergolio is bad but he didn't pray for the ushering of the Antichrist!  In a ѕуηαgσgυє!  On Good Friday!

This fraudulent good pope/bad pope story needs to die.

Yes, it does. And after this "sermon" (btw, exactly how is it a sermon?), it's clear Vigano isn't the one who is going to help make that happen.  Bergoglio seems to be the only one the conservative Novus Ordites care about.  This sermon for a life-long modernist who made no public repudiation ....was pathetic. Vigano was 100% sure he was on his way to Heaven (or even ALREADY THERE!) 

This fraudulent good pope/bad pope story needs to die.

You're falsely attributing this notion to +Vigano out of your unbridled and insatiable contempt for him, and you're incapable of reading nuances.  If +Vigano didn't spend 4 paragraphs frothing at the mouth about the heresies of Ratzinger, you interpret that to mean that he considered Ratzinger a "good pope".  He's repeatedly criticized him and does so here as well, albeit gently, IMO TOO gently.  But to suggest that he characterized him as a "good pope" is more of your slander campaing against +Vigano.  You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, and you need to stop posting.  But nothing is going to stop you.  You need to pray that God is more gentle with you at your judgment than you are with +Vigano, in whom you apparently see nothing but evil.

Bergolio is bad but he didn't pray for the ushering of the Antichrist!  In a ѕуηαgσgυє!  On Good Friday!

It was't on Good Friday.  Perhaps you need to get your facts straight to start.  It was on a Friday, and at noon, but not on Good Friday, and the Dimonds point out that Friday at 12:00 was the time and day of the week that Our Lord was crucified, and that's bad enough, but the visit took place on August 19, 2005.  You must have misinterpreted their comment into thinking it was Good Friday.