Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on June 16, 2021, 07:07:33 AM
-
(https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/vigano_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
Excerpts from this latest interview (included in entirety below):
I hope the reader will keep in mind that +Vigano is making the following comments to his interviewer who, as a member of the GREC, represents one of the very persons who has promoted the compromise strategy of the Ecclesia Dei communities which +Vigano here criticizes/condemns. +Vigano is more or less rejecting Barthe's entire position to his face:
1) "Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was one of the collaborators in the drafting of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus promulgated during the pontificate of Pius XII. The serious deformations of the new Missal are in nuce [essentially] contained in the rite of Holy Week, demonstrating that the demolition plan had already begun."
2) "Lastly, I would like to point out that this awareness of the doctrinal incompatibility of the ancient rite with the ideology of Vatican II is claimed by self-styled theologians and progressive intellectuals, for whom the “Extraordinary Form” of the rite can be tolerated as long as the entire theological framework that it implies is not adopted. This is why the liturgy of the Summorum Pontificuм communities is tolerated, provided that in preaching and catechesis one is careful not to criticize Vatican II or the new Mass."
3) Here it is: "The next Pope will have to restore all the liturgical books previous to the conciliar reform and banish from Catholic churches its unseemly parody, in whose realization notorious modernists and heretics collaborated."
4) "I do not believe that Bergoglio has any interest in the liturgy tout court, and a fortiori in the Tridentine liturgy, which is as alien to him and disliked as anything remotely reminiscent of Catholicism. His approach is political: he tolerates the Ecclesia Dei communities because they keep the conservatives out of the parishes, and at the same time he maintains control over them, forcing them to limit their dissent solely to the liturgical level, while ensuring their fidelity to the conciliar ideology.
With regard to the Society of St. Pius X, we are witnessing a more subtle maneuver: Bergoglio maintains “good neighborly” relations, and while recognizing certain prerogatives of its Superiors — thus demonstrating that he considers them living members of the Church — on the other hand he may want to barter their complete canonical regularization for an acceptance of the “conciliar magisterium.” It is clear that this is an insidious trap: once an agreement is signed with the Holy See, the independence which the Society enjoys in virtue of its position of not being completely regular would be lost, and with it, its economic independence."
5) "The canonical position of the Ecclesia Dei communities has always been at risk. Their survival is linked to their at least implicit acceptance of the conciliar doctrine and liturgical reform. Those who do not conform, by criticizing Vatican II or refusing to celebrate or attend the reformed rite, ipso facto put themselves in a position of being expelled. The superiors of these societies of apostolic life themselves end up being the overseers of their clerics, who are strongly advised to refrain from criticism and to give tangible signs of alignment from time to time, for example, by taking part in celebrations in the “Ordinary Form.” Paradoxically, a diocesan parish priest has greater freedom of speech in doctrinal matters than a member of one of these institutes."
Full interview with Archbishop Viganò
Father Claude Barthe: Your Excellency, you have sometimes spoken of “ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary actions” in connection with the creation of the new liturgy after the Second Vatican Council. Could you clarify your thoughts on this matter?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: First of all, we must be very clear that the Second Vatican Council was conceived as a ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary event. Obviously, I am not referring to the good intentions of those who collaborated in the drafting of the preparatory schemas. I am talking instead about the innovators who rejected those schemas together with the condemnation of ƈσmmυɳιsm that the Council should have pronounced, as a large part of the world’s episcopate desired. Now, if Vatican II was a ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary act, both in the way it was conducted and in the docuмents it promulgated, it is logical and legitimate to think that its liturgy is also affected by this ideological approach, especially if we bear in mind that it is the chief means by which the faithful and clergy are catechized. It is no coincidence that Luther and the other Protestant and Anglican heretics used the liturgy as their main method to spread their errors among the faithful.
Having said that, our legitimate suspicion is also confirmed when we consider who the architects of that liturgy were: prelates often suspected of belonging to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ who were notoriously progressive and who, with the Liturgical Movement of the 1920s and 1930s, had already begun to suggest more than questionable ideas and spread practices that were influenced by archaeologism, which was later condemned by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei. The versus populum altar was not an invention of Vatican II but of the liturgists who made it practically obligatory at the Council, after having introduced it decades earlier as an exception under the pretext of a supposed return to antiquity. The same can be said for the so-called “Gothic chasuble” in the forms that preceded the Council, especially in France. It became a sort of poncho that was passed off after the Council as a recovery of the original form but was, in fact, a historical and liturgical forgery. By these examples, I wish to highlight that well before Vatican II there were ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary forces infiltrating the Church that were ready to make definitive those innovations that were introduced ad experimentum and had become the practice, especially in countries historically less inclined to adapt to romanitas.
Once we understand that the liturgy is the expression of a specific doctrinal approach — which with the Novus Ordo also became ideological — and that the liturgists who conceived it were imbued with this approach, we must analyze the conciliar corpus liturgicuм to find confirmation of its ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary nature. Beyond the texts and ceremonial rubrics, what makes the reformed rite unequivocally ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary is that it was made malleable to the celebrant and the community, on the basis of an adaptability completely unknown to the Roman mens liturgica. The arbitrariness of the innovations is an integral part of the reformed liturgy, whose liturgical books — beginning with Paul VI’s Missale Romanum — are thought of as a rough draft, a canvas at the mercy of more or less talented actors seeking public acclaim. The applause of the faithful, introduced albeit abusively with the Novus Ordo, is the expression of a consensus that is an essential part of a rite that has become a spectacle. On the other hand, in ancient societies theater has always had a liturgical connotation, and it is significant that the conciliar church wanted to exhume this pagan vision by inverting it, that is, by giving a theatrical connotation to the liturgical rite.
Anyone who thinks that the Editio typica in Latin corresponds to the rite that should have been celebrated after the Council sins in naivety as well as in ignorance: nothing in that liturgical book was really intended for daily use by priests, beginning with the pitiful graphic layout, which was clearly neglected precisely because of the awareness that practically no one would ever celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin. The same papal ceremonies in which the Missale Romanum of Paul VI was used derogated from the rubrics by introducing readings in the vernacular, ceremonies not foreseen, and roles reserved to clerics carried out by laymen and even women. This, in my view, confirms the ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary soul of the Council and of the rite inspired by it.
Father Claude Barthe: The liturgical reform, which began in 1964 and produced a new missal in 1969, may seem more radical than its programmatic docuмent, the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. Do you think that Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium betrayed Vatican II, as some say, or that it developed it, as others suggest?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was one of the collaborators in the drafting of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus promulgated during the pontificate of Pius XII. The serious deformations of the new Missal are in nuce [essentially] contained in the rite of Holy Week, demonstrating that the demolition plan had already begun. There is therefore no betrayal of the Council, so much so that none of its architects ever considered the liturgical reform inconsistent with the mens of Sacrosanctum Concilium. A careful study of the genesis of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus allows us to understand that the innovators’ demands were only partially accepted but were re-proposed with Montini’s Novus Ordo.
However, it must be clearly said that, unlike all the other Ecuмenical Councils, this Council deliberately used its authority to sanction a systematic betrayal of faith and morals, pursued through pastoral, disciplinary and liturgical means. The transitional Missals between the 1962 rubrics and the 1970 Editio typica, and the one that immediately followed — the Editio typica altera of 1975 — show how the process was carried out in small steps, accustoming clergy and faithful to the provisional nature of the rite, to continuous innovation, and to the progressive loss of many elements that initially made the Novus Ordo closer to the last Missale Romanum of John XXIII. I am thinking, for example, of the recitation submissa voce of the Roman Canon in Latin, with its sacrificial Offertory and the Veni Sanctificator, which in the course of adaptation led to the recitation of the Roman Canon aloud, with its тαℓмυdic Offertory and the suppression of the invocation of the Holy Spirit.
Those who prepared the conciliar docuмents to have them approved by the Council Fathers acted with the same malice that the drafters of the liturgical reform adopted, knowing that they would interpret ambiguous texts in a Catholic way, while those who were to disseminate and utilize them would interpret them in every sense except that.
In fact, this concept is confirmed in everyday practice. Have you ever seen a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo with the altar facing East, entirely in Latin, wearing the fiddleback (Roman) chasuble and distributing Communion at the Communion rail, without this arousing the ire of his Ordinary and confreres, even though, strictly speaking, this way of celebrating would be perfectly legitimate? Those who have tried — certainly in good faith — have been treated worse than those who habitually celebrate the Tridentine Mass. This demonstrates that the continuity hoped for in the Council’s hermeneutic does not exist, and that the break with the pre-conciliar Church is the norm to which one must conform, to the satisfaction of conservatives.
Lastly, I would like to point out that this awareness of the doctrinal incompatibility of the ancient rite with the ideology of Vatican II is claimed by self-styled theologians and progressive intellectuals, for whom the “Extraordinary Form” of the rite can be tolerated as long as the entire theological framework that it implies is not adopted. This is why the liturgy of the Summorum Pontificuм communities is tolerated, provided that in preaching and catechesis one is careful not to criticize Vatican II or the new Mass.
Father Claude Barthe: Among the criticisms often made of the new Ordo Missæ, which do you consider to be the most important?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: The most well-founded criticism lies in having wanted to invent a liturgy for one’s own use and consumption, abandoning the bi-millennial rite that began with the Apostles and harmoniously developed through the centuries. The reformed liturgy — as any competent scholar knows — is the result of an ideological compromise between the Catholic lex orandi and the heretical demands of Protestants and Lutherans. Since the Church’s faith is expressed in public worship, it was essential that the liturgy adapt to the new way of believing, weakening or denying those truths that were considered “uncomfortable” for the pursuit of ecuмenical dialogue.
A reform that simply wanted to prune certain rites that modern sensibilities could no longer understand could easily have avoided the slavish repetition of what Luther did at the time of the pseudo-reformation and Cranmer did after the Anglican schism: the mere fact of having adopted the innovations with which the heretics rejected certain points of Catholic dogma is an unquestionable demonstration of the Pastors’ subordination to the consensus of those outside the Church, to the detriment of the flock the Lord entrusted to them. Imagine what one of the martyrs of Calvinism, or of the fury of King James, would have thought in seeing popes, cardinals and bishops using a table in place of the altar that cost them their lives; and what respect a heretic might have for the hated Roman Babylon, which is all caught up in awkwardly mimicking what the “reformers” had done four centuries earlier, although perhaps in a more dignified manner. Let us not forget that Luther’s liturgical heresies were conveyed by Bach chorales, while the celebrations of the conciliar Church are accompanied by compositions of unprecedented ugliness. The liturgical breakdown has revealed a doctrinal breakdown, humiliating the Holy Church out of a mere eagerness to please the mentality of the world.
Father Claude Barthe: How can we explain the failure of Benedict XVI, Cardinal Sarah, and others who have advocated a gradual “liturgical revival” by (e.g.) celebrating the Mass towards the Lord, reintroducing the Offertory prayers, and distributing Holy Communion on the tongue?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: If a Vatican official were to give orders to decorate the Sala Nervi in the Paul VI Audience Hall with stucco and frescoes, replacing the hideous sculpture of the Resurrection with a baroque perspective, he would be considered an eccentric, especially when St Peter’s Basilica is just a stone’s throw away. The same thing applies, in my opinion, to attempts to make the reformed liturgy presentable by means of objectively useless window-dressing: what is the point of celebrating the Novus Ordo towards the East, changing the Offertory and distributing Communion on the tongue, when the Tridentine Mass has always provided for this?
This “liturgical revival” starts from the same erroneous presuppositions that animated the conciliar reform: modifying the liturgy at will, now distorting the venerable ancient rite to modernize it, now dressing up the reformed rite to make it look like what it is not and does not want to be. In the first case, we would be forcing a queen to wear clogs and dress in rags, in the second we would have the commoner wearing a royal tiara over ruffled hair or sitting on a throne in a straw hat.
I believe that behind these attempts, which seem to be motivated by pious intentions, lies a fact that none of these prelates dare confess: the failure of the Council and even more so of its liturgy. Returning to the ancient rite and definitively archiving the squalor of the Novus Ordo would require great humility, because those who would like to save it from shipwreck today were yesterday among the most enthusiastic supporters of the liturgical reform, and of Vatican II with it.
I ask myself: if Paul VI had no problem recklessly abolishing the Tridentine liturgy between one day and the next, replacing it with cobbled-together excerpts from the Book of Common Prayer, and imposing this new rite despite the protests of clergy and laity, why exactly should we today use any more consideration in restoring the ancient Roman Rite to its place of honor, by prohibiting the celebration of the Novus Ordo? Why such delicacy of mind today, and such ruthless iconoclastic fury yesterday? And why this cosmetic surgery, if not to hold together the last conciliatory frill by giving it the appearance of what it did not intend to be?
The next Pope will have to restore all the liturgical books previous to the conciliar reform and banish from Catholic churches its unseemly parody, in whose realization notorious modernists and heretics collaborated.
Father Claude Barthe: In a 2013 interview with the Jesuit magazines, Pope Francis cited the liturgical reform as an exemplary fruit of the Council (“Vatican II was a reinterpretation of the Gospel in the light of contemporary culture”), and yet Bergoglio does favors for the Society of St Pius X. Is he interested in the liturgical question?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: I do not believe that Bergoglio has any interest in the liturgy tout court, and a fortiori in the Tridentine liturgy, which is as alien to him and disliked as anything remotely reminiscent of Catholicism. His approach is political: he tolerates the Ecclesia Dei communities because they keep the conservatives out of the parishes, and at the same time he maintains control over them, forcing them to limit their dissent solely to the liturgical level, while ensuring their fidelity to the conciliar ideology.
With regard to the Society of St. Pius X, we are witnessing a more subtle maneuver: Bergoglio maintains “good neighborly” relations, and while recognizing certain prerogatives of its Superiors — thus demonstrating that he considers them living members of the Church — on the other hand he may want to barter their complete canonical regularization for an acceptance of the “conciliar magisterium.” It is clear that this is an insidious trap: once an agreement is signed with the Holy See, the independence which the Society enjoys in virtue of its position of not being completely regular would be lost, and with it, its economic independence. Let us not forget that the Society has assets and resources that guarantee sustenance and security for its members. At a time when the Vatican is experiencing a serious financial crisis, those assets are certainly enticing to many, as we have seen in other cases, starting with the Franciscans of the Immaculate, and the persecution of Father Mannelli.
Father Claude Barthe: Do you think that the protective status (dependence on the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and not on the Congregation for Religious) desired by Joseph Ratzinger before and after his accession to the papacy for societies of apostolic life which practice the traditional Mass is in danger today?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: The canonical position of the Ecclesia Dei communities has always been at risk. Their survival is linked to their at least implicit acceptance of the conciliar doctrine and liturgical reform. Those who do not conform, by criticizing Vatican II or refusing to celebrate or attend the reformed rite, ipso facto put themselves in a position of being expelled. The superiors of these societies of apostolic life themselves end up being the overseers of their clerics, who are strongly advised to refrain from criticism and to give tangible signs of alignment from time to time, for example, by taking part in celebrations in the “Ordinary Form.” Paradoxically, a diocesan parish priest has greater freedom of speech in doctrinal matters than a member of one of these institutes.
It should be said that, according to the mindset of those in power in the Vatican today, the liturgical eccentricities of some communities, far from encouraging the rediscovery of the traditional rite, give it an elitist aspect and confine it to the “small ancient world” to which the proponents of the Bergoglian church have every interest in relegating it. Making the celebration of the Catholic Mass “normal”—according to the dictates of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм — without “liturgical reservations” and dedicated spaces, would give the impression that it is really possible for any faithful to attend Mass without any other title of belonging than being a Catholic. On the contrary, this Kafkaesque bureaucratic castle forces all conservatives into an enclosure, obliging them to follow the rules of confinement and to demand nothing more than what the sovereign grace deigns to grant them, almost always with the ill-concealed opposition of the diocesan bishop.
Bergoglio’s actions are now clearly exposed: his latest encyclical theorizes about heterodox doctrines and a scandalous subservience to the dominant ideology, which is profoundly anti-Catholic and anti-human. From this perspective, questions about the liturgical sensitivity of this or that institute seem to me frankly negligible: not because the liturgy is not important, but because once one is willing to remain silent on the doctrinal front, the complex ceremonies of the Pontifical end up being reduced to a manifestation of aestheticism that poses no real danger to the magic circle of Santa Marta.
Father Claude Barthe: Do the ban on individual Masses in St. Peter’s, the three-day inspection of the Congregation for Divine Worship by Archbishop Maniago, and the fact that the Constitution on the reform of the Curia, Prædicate Evangelium, is said to strengthen the powers of oversight for the Congregation for Divine Worship, give rise to fears of a new virulence of the reform? Or does Francis have little interest in this liturgical problem?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: The ban on celebrating private Masses in St. Peter’s, despite the choral protest of many faithful and some prelates against a real abuse by the Secretariat of State, continues in force and is as an unprecedented scandal. It is a trial balloon to test the ground and study the reactions of prelates, clergy and laity who, for the moment, are limited to the mere, very composed and in some cases embarrassing verbal lamentation. As I have already had occasion to state (https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2021/03/31/carlo-maria-vigano-lo-scandalo-delle-sante-messe-vietate-nella-basilica-di-san-pietro-e-il-silenzio-pavido-e-complice-dei), I believe that this ban is nothing more than an attempt to give legal semblance to a practice that is now consolidated and universal, which also confirms the doctrinal error that underlies it; namely, the primacy of the community dimension of the “Eucharist” understood as a convivial banquet, to the detriment of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated privately. But here we are touching on Vatican II, which none of the Cardinals who spoke out on the ban on Masses in St. Peter’s dares to question in the slightest, even though it is clearly at the origin of the Secretariat of State’s illegitimate prohibition.
As far as the supervisory powers of the Congregation for Divine Worship are concerned, in themselves they could also be considered in a positive sense, since liturgical matters are strictly within the competence of the Holy See. However, we would be sinning in naivety and lack of foresight if we did not take into account the fact that any norm promulgated by the innovators will be used by them to obtain unconfessed aims, often opposite to those stated.
-
Looks like there’s another Resistance bishop ... pending conditional consecration. As I said before, he’s gone to the right of +Fellay and the neo-SSPX.
-
He will be “excommunicated” soon.
-
Here Archbishop Vigano states the Resistance position:
"With regard to the Society of St. Pius X, we are witnessing a more subtle maneuver: Bergoglio maintains “good neighborly” relations, and while recognizing certain prerogatives of its Superiors — thus demonstrating that he considers them living members of the Church — on the other hand he may want to barter their complete canonical regularization for an acceptance of the “conciliar magisterium.” It is clear that this is an insidious trap: once an agreement is signed with the Holy See, the independence which the Society enjoys in virtue of its position of not being completely regular would be lost, and with it, its economic independence."
-
He will be “excommunicated” soon.
I hope so. That might set in motion your fantasy ... with +Vigano as the protagonist instead of Burke.
-
I hope so. That might set in motion your fantasy ... with +Vigano as the protagonist instead of Burke.
Hmm...good point!!
-
Here Archbishop Vigano states the Resistance position:
"With regard to the Society of St. Pius X, we are witnessing a more subtle maneuver: Bergoglio maintains “good neighborly” relations, and while recognizing certain prerogatives of its Superiors — thus demonstrating that he considers them living members of the Church — on the other hand he may want to barter their complete canonical regularization for an acceptance of the “conciliar magisterium.” It is clear that this is an insidious trap: once an agreement is signed with the Holy See, the independence which the Society enjoys in virtue of its position of not being completely regular would be lost, and with it, its economic independence."
And there’s more to my characterization of him as Resistance. He also rejects the notion that Vatican II is 95% Catholic but holds that it’s radically defective and must be tossed out.
I also like how he calls out the Bugnini Holy Week rites but that’s actually going a bit to the right of the Resistance.
I pray that he puts it all together and declares Bergoglio a non-Catholic heretic. He’s a hair’s breadth away. He has never once referred to Bergoglio as the pope, the Holy Father, or EVEN Francis ... but always refers to him as just Bergoglio, a pejorative term heretofore used exclusively by the sedevacantists.
No doubt his offering the Tridentine Mass is opening his eyes. Having been now immersed in it he’s seeing the doctrine inherent in the True Mass.
-
Recall how I was waiting for him to back Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. Here he’s done one better, suggesting that the SSPX should not come to an agreement with the Vatican. That implicitly endorses the entire Traditional Catholic movement.
-
I love his reference to “the Bergoglian church”.
-
Recall how I was waiting for him to back Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. Here he’s done one better, suggesting that the SSPX should not come to an agreement with the Vatican. That implicitly endorses the entire Traditional Catholic movement.
Agreed.
-
His last two interviews have also sprinkled references to Canbalistic and тαℓмυdic “reforms,” which suggests to me that he is aware of, and opposed to, the Kudaizing elements of the conciliar debacle.
-
This sounds like it's heading in a positive direction, but he never seems to address Ratzinger. Does he think he's the pope? Will he not make a move until he finally dies? And if he thinks "Bergoglio" is a heretic, why not all of his post-Vatican II predecessors?
-
This sounds like it's heading in a positive direction, but he never seems to address Ratzinger. Does he think he's the pope? Will he not make a move until he finally dies? And if he thinks "Bergoglio" is a heretic, why not all of his post-Vatican II predecessors?
One step at a time, I think. At one point, he did write extensively about Ratzinger, and his sentiments were mixed. He's totally against the idea in the Motu that the NO could live side by side as the "Ordinary Form". He feels that the NOM must be cancelled. He's certainly not a fan of Montini as he's referred to the NOM as the Montinian Rite.
-
+Vigano Arrives at Integral Traditionalism
He has been going in a good direction, and I was awaiting to see where he was going. Now by his own words it looks like he has arrived, hopefully he will not soften up like Fellay. We must keep up our prayers. It only took 10 men to save sơdơm and Gomorrah.
-
This sounds like it's heading in a positive direction, but he never seems to address Ratzinger. Does he think he's the pope? Will he not make a move until he finally dies? And if he thinks "Bergoglio" is a heretic, why not all of his post-Vatican II predecessors?
Indeed, what about B16?
-
Indeed, what about B16?
He accepts Francis as pope. He explained in an interview a couple months ago that, because Francis himself does not act like the Vicar of Christ, and seems averse to being called the Vicar of Christ, and acts as though he does not really believe he is the Vicar of Christ, therefore Vigano does not address him with his papal name.
-
He accepts Francis as pope. He explained in an interview a couple months ago that, because Francis himself does not act like the Vicar of Christ, and seems averse to being called the Vicar of Christ, and acts as though he does not really believe he is the Vicar of Christ, therefore Vigano does not address him with his papal name.
Thanks for the information. I must have missed this. By the way, I am looking for like a repository of all +Vigano letters and interviews ...
-
This is something to celebrate, at least for a few days on CI, yet it disappeared from the top read within the same day.
I am curious to see what the conservatives that celebrate every word Cdl Vigano writes (things that any real trad Catholic would say) will say now that he is saying something really advanced.
-
This is something to celebrate, at least for a few days on CI, yet it disappeared from the top read within the same day.
I am curious to see what the conservatives that celebrate every word Cdl Vigano writes (things that any real trad Catholic would say) will say now that he is saying something really advanced.
I too am interested in seeing what the conservatives think of +Vigano's recent view on the SSPX and reconciliation with Rome. It may fly under the radar for many.
-
He accepts Francis as pope. He explained in an interview a couple months ago that, because Francis himself does not act like the Vicar of Christ, and seems averse to being called the Vicar of Christ, and acts as though he does not really believe he is the Vicar of Christ, therefore Vigano does not address him with his papal name.
Well, when asked about the Bennyvacantist theory, he seemed to imply that it was possible but must ultimately be determined by the Church ... similar to +Lefebvre's attitude toward sedevacantism.
-
Excerpts from this latest interview :
I hope the reader will keep in mind that +Vigano is making the following comments to his interviewer who, as a member of the GREC, represents one of the very persons who has promoted the compromise strategy of the Ecclesia Dei communities which +Vigano here criticizes/condemns. +Vigano is more or less rejecting Barthe's entire position to his face:
1) "Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was one of the collaborators in the drafting of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus promulgated during the pontificate of Pius XII. The serious deformations of the new Missal are in nuce [essentially] contained in the rite of Holy Week, demonstrating that the demolition plan had already begun."
2) "Lastly, I would like to point out that this awareness of the doctrinal incompatibility of the ancient rite with the ideology of Vatican II is claimed by self-styled theologians and progressive intellectuals, for whom the “Extraordinary Form” of the rite can be tolerated as long as the entire theological framework that it implies is not adopted. This is why the liturgy of the Summorum Pontificuм communities is tolerated, provided that in preaching and catechesis one is careful not to criticize Vatican II or the new Mass."
3) Here it is: "The next Pope will have to restore all the liturgical books previous to the conciliar reform and banish from Catholic churches its unseemly parody, in whose realization notorious modernists and heretics collaborated."
4) "I do not believe that Bergoglio has any interest in the liturgy tout court, and a fortiori in the Tridentine liturgy, which is as alien to him and disliked as anything remotely reminiscent of Catholicism. His approach is political: he tolerates the Ecclesia Dei communities because they keep the conservatives out of the parishes, and at the same time he maintains control over them, forcing them to limit their dissent solely to the liturgical level, while ensuring their fidelity to the conciliar ideology.
With regard to the Society of St. Pius X, we are witnessing a more subtle maneuver: Bergoglio maintains “good neighborly” relations, and while recognizing certain prerogatives of its Superiors — thus demonstrating that he considers them living members of the Church — on the other hand he may want to barter their complete canonical regularization for an acceptance of the “conciliar magisterium.” It is clear that this is an insidious trap: once an agreement is signed with the Holy See, the independence which the Society enjoys in virtue of its position of not being completely regular would be lost, and with it, its economic independence."
5) "The canonical position of the Ecclesia Dei communities has always been at risk. Their survival is linked to their at least implicit acceptance of the conciliar doctrine and liturgical reform. Those who do not conform, by criticizing Vatican II or refusing to celebrate or attend the reformed rite, ipso facto put themselves in a position of being expelled. The superiors of these societies of apostolic life themselves end up being the overseers of their clerics, who are strongly advised to refrain from criticism and to give tangible signs of alignment from time to time, for example, by taking part in celebrations in the “Ordinary Form.” Paradoxically, a diocesan parish priest has greater freedom of speech in doctrinal matters than a member of one of these institutes."
Excellent recap of article, thanks Sean
-
We should be careful. It really isn't worth celebrating until he actually comes over like Bishop Lazo did. Bishop Lazo, RIP, had the humility to start co-operating with the traditional Bishops and publicly associating with them. So far we have not seen that from Bishop Vigano.
It is always telling when Ecclesia Dei people get all worked up about something compared to when they go quiet. The former is an indication that there is something to be suspicious of.
-
We should be careful. It really isn't worth celebrating until he actually comes over like Bishop Lazo did. Bishop Lazo, RIP, had the humility to start co-operating with the traditional Bishops and publicly associating with them. So far we have not seen that from Bishop Vigano.
It is always telling when Ecclesia Dei people get all worked up about something compared to when they go quiet. The former is an indication that there is something to be suspicious of.
I disagree. Ideas matter. Doctrine matters. Even if he hasn't yet DONE anything, practically speaking, doctrine is everything in terms of combatting these errors. He's emboldening even those in the Conciliar Church to reject the errors of Vatican II and the NOM. They can think, "look, even a high-ranking prelate rejects V2 and NOM; maybe it IS OK to have serious questions abou them." You underestimate the value his doctrine has had. So what if he doesn't go around conferring Sacraments to Traditional Catholics. There are plenty of groups out there who already do that. Of course, there's the thorny issue of his consecration in the New Rite.
So, there's plenty to "celebrate" here.
-
FWIW, I have an email from +Williamson in which he says he has been in contact with +Viganò.
-
I disagree. Ideas matter. Doctrine matters. Even if he hasn't yet DONE anything, practically speaking, doctrine is everything in terms of combatting these errors. He's emboldening even those in the Conciliar Church to reject the errors of Vatican II and the NOM. They can think, "look, even a high-ranking prelate rejects V2 and NOM; maybe it IS OK to have serious questions abou them." You underestimate the value his doctrine has had. So what if he doesn't go around conferring Sacraments to Traditional Catholics. There are plenty of groups out there who already do that. Of course, there's the thorny issue of his consecration in the New Rite.
So, there's plenty to "celebrate" here.
I think if/when he gets consecrated in the Old Rite, this would constitute the beginning of "doing" something.
-
I think if/when he gets consecrated in the Old Rite, this would constitute the beginning of "doing" something.
Agreed. I don't know how much thought he's given the the validity of the new Sacraments. I'd love to see him getting conditionally consecrated after having been consecrated originally by Wojtyla. I knew a priest, Fr. Cassavantes (now with FSSP), who was conditionally ordained by Bishop Williamson despite having been ordained by Wojtyla. I was always amused by that.
-
FWIW, I have an email from +Williamson in which he says he has been in contact with +Viganò.
(https://i.imgflip.com/3mol6q.jpg)
-
One of the most astonishing good fruits of +Viganò’s entrance into unmitigated, integral traditionalism has been his surprising draw of the indult crowd.
I thought that when he started saying things like the whole V2 council needs to be dumped, that it would be too much for them, and they would abandon him as de Mattei has. And yet, he has brought them along with him into a more substantial, doctrinal traditionalism. Witness the -to me surprising- defenses of Matt, Moynihan, McCall, Marshall, et al, all defending Vigano in what are essentially Resistance and even sedevacantist positions which the neoSSPX has gone quiet on.
I have a theory on why/how these surprising allies became receptive to Vigano, while they would not be converted by substantially the same arguments from Resistance sources, but that is another matter...
Even the sedevacantists seem not to disagree with ANYTHING he is saying. I see Fr. Jenkins frequently expressing admiration and astonishment for his writings. And even ordinary lay sedevacantists are generally in agreement with him. Yes, his episcopal consecration will be an issue for them, but they are watching his steady progress with amazement, and his doctrine is stellar.
He is the good shepherd, and he knows his sheep, and his sheep know him. They know the voice of truth when they hear it. His voice is the voice of truth, and truth is the principle of unity which is the cause of all parties of goodwill rallying to his banner.
He alone had and has the power given to him from above to “unite the clans” without tradcuмenism: He brings conservatives and indulters to the right by the mere force of his arguments.
His adversaries have now also realized this, and they realize the threat he represents therefore to the entire Luciferian edifice (as Lefebvre did before him).
They have begun their counterattacks.
But I see the fruits, and I say this man is a gift from God for the beleaguered Remnant in these latter days: To strengthen and unite us into one final Legion of Catholic warriors who will be capable of looking the devil’s minions in the eye at gunpoint, and with our last breath, yell:
“Viva Cristo Rey!”
-
One of the most astonishing good fruits of +Viganò’s entrance into unmitigated, integral traditionalism has been his surprising draw of the indult crowd.
I thought that when he started saying things like the whole V2 council needs to be dumped, that it would be too much for them, and they would abandon him as de Mattei has. And yet, he has brought them along with him into a more substantial, doctrinal traditionalism. Witness the -to me surprising- defenses of Matt, Moynihan, McCall, Marshall, et al, all defending Vigano in what are essentially Resistance and even sedevacantist positions which the neoSSPX has gone quiet on.
I have a theory on why/how these surprising allies became receptive to Vigano, while they would not be converted by substantially the same arguments from Resistance sources, but that is another matter...
Even the sedevacantists seem not to disagree with ANYTHING he is saying. I see Fr. Jenkins frequently expressing admiration and astonishment for his writings. And even ordinary lay sedevacantists are generally in agreement with him. Yes, his episcopal consecration will be an issue for them, but they are watching his steady progress with amazement, and his doctrine is stellar.
He is the good shepherd, and he knows his sheep, and his sheep know him. They know the voice of truth when they hear it. His voice is the voice of truth, and truth is the principle of unity which is the cause of all parties of goodwill rallying to his banner.
He alone had and has the power given to him from above to “unite the clans” without tradcuмenism: He brings conservatives and indulters to the right by the mere force of his arguments.
His adversaries have now also realized this, and they realize the threat he represents therefore to the entire Luciferian edifice (as Lefebvre did before him).
They have begun their counterattacks.
But I see the fruits, and I say this man is a gift from God for the beleaguered Remnant in these latter days: To strengthen and unite us into one final Legion of Catholic warriors who will be capable of looking the devil’s minions in the eye at gunpoint, and with our last breath, yell:
“Viva Cristo Rey!”
I agree completely, and I said the same thing briefly above. He's emboldening Indult types to more openly question V2 and the Conciliar popes where they might have been very reluctant to do so. And he appeals to the Resistance and to sedevacantists as well. It seems that it's only the neo-SSPX (among Traditional groups) who aren't getting behind +Vigano. These ideas and doctrines MATTER (one of Bishop Williamson's great emphases) and are having great effect. I believe they will bear much fruit going forward.
For a while, I had "+Vigano for pope" in my signature line, and I still hold that senitiment. His writings are doctrinally brilliant, eloquent, and pastoral (encouraging and persuasive). They read like Encyclicals. I think that the entire remaining Catholic world could get behind a Pope +Vigano (with some details that need to be resolved, such as his consecration) ... well, except the SSPX, who would hold out in support of Bergoglio.
-
I agree completely, and I said the same thing briefly above. He's emboldening Indult types to more openly question V2 and the Conciliar popes where they might have been very reluctant to do so. And he appeals to the Resistance and to sedevacantists as well. It seems that it's only the neo-SSPX (among Traditional groups) who aren't getting behind +Vigano. These ideas and doctrines MATTER (one of Bishop Williamson's great emphases) and are having great effect. I believe they will bear much fruit going forward.
For a while, I had "+Vigano for pope" in my signature line, and I still hold that senitiment. His writings are doctrinally brilliant, eloquent, and pastoral (encouraging and persuasive). They read like Encyclicals. I think that the entire remaining Catholic world could get behind a Pope +Vigano (with some details that need to be resolved, such as his consecration) ... well, except the SSPX, who would hold out in support of Bergoglio.
Why do you believe the SSPX would be so much more likely to continue to accept Francis than all the others?
-
Why do you believe the SSPX would be so much more likely to continue to accept Francis than all the others?
Because only Francis can give them a deal, while backing Vigano imperils that hope.
-
Why do you believe the SSPX would be so much more likely to continue to accept Francis than all the others?
As Sean noted, we have Resistance, Indult types, and even sedevacantists ... pretty much every flavor of Traditional Catholic ... with the exception of the SSPX. I believe that the SSPX holds most closely the position of +Schneider, that Vatican II just needs a handful of corrections. +Fellay said it was 95% good. So to get behind +Vigano would be to repudiate that entirely and basically admit that the Resistance is right, something that they'll never do.
-
Because only Francis can give them a deal, while backing Vigano imperils that hope.
That too.
-
As Sean noted, we have Resistance, Indult types, and even sedevacantists ... pretty much every flavor of Traditional Catholic ... with the exception of the SSPX. I believe that the SSPX holds most closely the position of +Schneider, that Vatican II just needs a handful of corrections. +Fellay said it was 95% good. So to get behind +Vigano would be to repudiate that entirely and basically admit that the Resistance is right, something that they'll never do.
But wouldn't the Indult also hold this by definition? The same position as Schneider?
TBH I might be the odd man out here, but I support both Schneider and Vigano personally. I try not to be a perfectionist about these things when it comes to the few bishops who are actually trying, even if they may be wrong. I also won't pretend to know with 100% certainty who exactly is right on the nuanced and detailed theological questions.
What I do know though, with absolute certainty, is that that which is being sold by Francis and the vast majority of the hierarchy is not right
-
But wouldn't the Indult also hold this by definition? The same position as Schneider?
TBH I might be the odd man out here, but I support both Schneider and Vigano personally. I try not to be a perfectionist about these things when it comes to the few bishops who are actually trying, even if they may be wrong. I also won't pretend to know with 100% certainty who exactly is right on the nuanced and detailed theological questions.
What I do know though, with absolute certainty, is that that which is being sold by Francis and the vast majority of the hierarchy is not right
Schneider says V2 needs to be tweaked and therefore it can be saved.
Vigano says it is incompatible with the preconciliar magisterium, and needs to be jettisoned in toto.
So to back both on V2 would be schizophrenic, since they hold mutually exclusive and contradictory positions.
As regards the indult position, therefore, in such measure as the likes of Matt, Moynihan, Marshall, McCall, et al back Vigano, they necessarily oppose the position of Schneider.
Which is another way of saying that which has already been said:
Vigano is like a tugboat dragging the indult world into a more substantial and doctrinal traditionalism (while waiving to the SSPX ship as it passes, heading in the other direction).
-
Why has this board heretofore typically equated the SSPX with the indults (or soon-to-be a Novus Ordo indult)? is the board now saying that the indult is the new SSPX?
-
Schneider says V2 needs to be tweaked and therefore it can be saved.
Vigano says it is incompatible with the preconciliar magisterium, and needs to be jettisoned in toto.
So to back both on V2 would be schizophrenic, since they hold mutually exclusive and contradictory positions.
As regards the indult position, therefore, in such measure as the likes of Matt, Moynihan, Marshall, McCall, et al back Vigano, they necessarily oppose the position of Schneider.
Which is another way of saying that which has already been said:
Vigano is like a tugboat dragging the indult world into a more substantial and doctrinal traditionalism (while waiving to the SSPX ship as it passes, heading in the other direction).
If the Indult world is following +Vigano, they quickly leapfrog the SSPX into a Resistance position, whereas the SSPX (based on +Fellay's latest statements) is in the +Schneider camp.
-
Why do you believe the SSPX would be so much more likely to continue to accept Francis than all the others?
What do you mean by "accept Francis"?
The SSPX have always accepted that the Pope is the Pope. Archbishop Lefebvre always accepted the reigning pope as the pope.
-
If the Indult world is following +Vigano, they quickly leapfrog the SSPX into a Resistance position, whereas the SSPX (based on +Fellay's latest statements) is in the +Schneider camp.
Yup. Rather amazing, but that is the current state of things.
-
What do you mean by "accept Francis"?
The SSPX have always accepted that the Pope is the Pope. Archbishop Lefebvre always accepted the reigning pope as the pope.
Yes, but the hypothetical scenario was that every group *except* SSPX elects Vigano as Pope, while *only* the SSPX continues to recognize Francis. That seems really unlikely.
I think if all the reasonably solid bishops (and I mean everything from Burke or Sarah on the "left" to the Resistance on the "right") were to determine that Francis was a formal heretic, not really the Pope, and held an emergency conclave of some sort to elect Vigano, I don't think the SSPX would stand alone and be like "no, Francis is still Pope." I find that unlikely TBH.
-
Yup. Rather amazing, but that is the current state of things.
Yes, as we watch the ongoing drama unfold in the moribund Conciliar Church, we have to keep everything else in mind as well -- nothing happens in a vacuum.
The recent move in the USA towards communism, the most obvious stolen election ever, the Covid scamdemic, epic progress on the Great Reset scheme, etc.
Also: the collapse of the SSPX into Indult-hood over the past 9 years.
This is ALL happening at the same time.
-
Yes, but the hypothetical scenario was that every group *except* SSPX elects Vigano as Pope, while *only* the SSPX continues to recognize Francis. That seems really unlikely.
I think if all the reasonably solid bishops (and I mean everything from Burke or Sarah on the "left" to the Resistance on the "right") were to determine that Francis was a formal heretic, not really the Pope, and held an emergency conclave of some sort to elect Vigano, I don't think the SSPX would stand alone and be like "no, Francis is still Pope." I find that unlikely TBH.
I understood what you meant. Yes, if everyone else is electing Vigano as pope rather than recognize Francis, then by doing so they are stating that Bergoglio is not pope (ie. they all become sedevacantist). It would be good to get some clarity on this since I would be very surprised if they are saying that Bergoglio is not pope.