Beautiful.  Of course, perhaps this was ghost-written for him.

...by the Jews.

Still struggling to find a cui bono for what +Vigano is setting out to accomplish with all his obviously nefarious activity.

I haven't heard an answer yet.  Seems to me like he's out there just wrecking the Traditional movement.

Sorry, but I won't look twice at a conspiracy theory that doesn't have a compelling cui bono.

Any thoughts there, Miser?

I'm not on board that he's a mason or part of a conspiracy, but I do have to wonder whether Vigano's eulogy for Ratzinger helped move Novus Ordites/indult Conciliars towards Catholic Truth or remain in the Conciliar sect. Given the attacks I've already seen (elsewhere) from those NO's/indulterers who are pro-Benedict and Vigano, I've got to think it more likely the latter.

Its rather like when we say someone "acted out of character."

Yes, he did it, but it represents a departure from his normal way of acting (or in this case, from his normal good and traditional doctrinal acuмen). 

Every writer has that happen at some point (even here on Cathinfo, a stalwart traddy goes off and says soemthing sentimental or even liberal).  It doesn't mean that person has gone to the left, or revealed secret liberal tendencies.  It could be explained by 1000 different causes (laziness, fatigue, strong emotion, etc.). 

None of that would suffice to recharacterize the positions attributed to such an one, because the exception does not disprove the rule, and a man is said to believe that which he most frequently teaches, not what appears as an anomaly to contradict what has been said before (and especially after) such anomalies.

...by the Jєωs.

Because this is the sort of thing Jews always say:

It is surprising, somehow, that it is wise men from the East who pay homage to the Child God, while the representatives of the imperial authority are absent, just as neither the king of Israel nor the High Priests appear; who also played a decisive role in trying and condemning the Lord to death. Present at the moment of death, but absent at the moment of life. Why do we not see the Roman Procurator, Herod, Annas and Caiaphas, the officials of the Sanhedrin and the scribes of the people around the manger, as we contemplate Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar kneeling before the Child intent on offering their gifts?

The answer is evident in all its simplicity. The shepherds adored Christ with the trusting abandonment of the simple, who has nothing to offer but himself and the poor things of daily life and his humble work. The Magi adored Christ thanks to His miraculous manifestation in the course of the stars, and their human wisdom, their ability to peer into the cosmos, led them to the timeless Sun, because they too, with humility, knew how to recognize the birth of God in the world. Both were illuminated by Grace, the former through the announcement of the Angel, the latter through the signs of heaven. Instead, Herod and the High Priests, who should have known very well the Messianic prophecies preserved by Israel, could neither see nor believe, because their first concern was power. On the one hand, the temporal power, exercised under the domination of pagan Rome and forgetting that the Jєωιѕн Sovereigns were vicars of the only King of Israel, the Lord God of hosts; on the other, spiritual power, exercised in what today we would call “self-referentiality,” that is, concerned to preserve itself and keep the people in ignorance. This is confirmed by the harsh rebukes and severe warnings of the prophets, by the mouth of which the Lord reminded His priests of their duties, while they were busy lengthening the prongs of the forks with which they held part of the sacrificial flesh for themselves, or while profiting from the trades of the money changers and merchants brought into the Temple. Deaf to Grace! Deaf is Herod, who should have seen in the little Jesus the ratifying of his own authority; deaf are the High Priests, who should have recognized in Him the promised Messiah, the Desired One of all peoples. Both, significantly, had preferred to submit to the invader, rather than bow to the One who holds in His hand the fate of the world and time. Non habemus regem nisi Cæsarem.

The present situation is not very different in this regard from that time. Even today the civil and ecclesiastical authorities refuse to worship Jesus Christ, or do so only in words plotting for His killing, for fear of losing their power. Even today we see the simple and the leaders of distant nations recognizing the Saviour, and conforming their private and public lives to Him, while world leaders prefer to gather in Davos for their globalist agenda, and the prelates of the Bergoglian sect think only of hiding their scandals, propagating synodality and encouraging the most unmentionable vices. Both support each other and recognize each other's legitimacy. Both see Jesus Christ as an uncomfortable obstacle to the pursuit of their plans for power and domination. Yet, as we sing in the hymn of the Epiphany, non eripit mortalia qui regna dat cœlestia.

I'm not on board that he's a mason or part of a conspiracy, but I do have to wonder whether Vigano's eulogy for Ratzinger helped move Novus Ordites/indult Conciliars towards Catholic Truth or remain in the Conciliar sect. Given the attacks I've already seen (elsewhere) from those NO's/indulterers who are pro-Benedict and Vigano, I've got to think it more likely the latter.

I don't think it had any effect either way.  Those who are not kindly disposed toward Ratzinger saw his criticism there, and I imagine that most people simply read the entire thing as his trying to say something kind about a deceased individual.  This was not a particularly theological piece.

gαy.

Indeed.  And so may it be could also be a traslation of the famous "Deus vult" and is the equivalent of Amen.  In Masonic Ritual it's used as a response to Amen, where someone says some kind of invocation, followed by Amen, and response to the original Amen is "So mote it be."  It's like when a Baptism minister says Amen, and then the congregation responds with "Amen.  Amen".  +Vigano is either concluding with a "Deus vult." or an Amen, or some smilar phrase in Italian, and there is nothing inherently Masonic about the phrase, unless you believe that Our Lord was a Mason also.  Of course, Our Lord was the only one who ever ... or Who has the authority ... to BEGIN His teaching with "Amen".

My guess is that +Vigano simply had "Amen" and someover-zealous translator decided to render it as "So be it."

The Greek Old Testament usually translates amen as “so be it”; in the English Bible it has frequently been rendered as “verily,” or “truly.”

In its earliest use in the Bible, the amen occurred initially and referred back to the words of another speaker with whom there was agreement. It usually introduced an affirmative statement. For emphasis, as in solemn oaths, the amen was sometimes repeated. The use of the initial amen, single or double in form, to introduce solemn statements of Jesus in the Gospels (52 times in the Synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—and 25 times in the Gospel According to John) had no parallel in Jєωιѕн practice. Such amens expressed the certainty and truthfulness of the statement that followed.