Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on November 06, 2023, 12:11:50 PM
-
We are celebrating the feast of Saint Charles Borromeo, the Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, a Confessor of the Faith, the Patron Saint of the City of Milan and of the Ambrosian Diocese. A Saint who, like all the Saints proclaimed by the Church before the conciliar revolution, today would be pointed out as divisive, intolerant and fundamentalist by the tenant of Santa Marta, who is considered to be the Successor of those Popes who wanted this great Prelate to come to Rome, first as a member of the Holy Office and Secretary of State – under his uncle Pius IV – and then as a consultant to the Council of Trent and an executor of the reform that it implemented at the end of the sixteenth century, under the reign of Saint Pius V. He was president of the commission of theologians appointed by the Pope to draw up the Catechismus Romanus together with some of the great figures of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, such as Saint Peter Canisius, Saint Turibius of Mogrovejo and Saint Robert Bellarmine. He worked on the revision of the Missal, the Breviary and the sacred liturgical music; he was involved in the foundation of the Seminaries – an eminently Tridentine institution – and in the defense of Holy Orders, priestly celibacy, and marriage. He was a very zealous Pastor, generous towards the poor and the sick, an implacable opponent of the Reformed and Protestant heretics, and was charitable and welcoming towards the English Catholics who took refuge in Italy to escape the persecutions of Queen Elizabeth I.
In short, Saint Charles was in his own right a true “conciliar” bishop, who tirelessly promoted the spirit of the “post-conciliar period” both in the universal Church and in the Ambrosian Church. I imagine that, formulated like this, this statement might cause some astonishment; but if we pay attention to it, the role of this Holy Bishop with respect to the Council of Trent was similar to that which, four hundred years later, other Bishops and Prelates played in the Council called by John XXIII. Similar, but diametrically opposite in its goal and purpose. And it is in this that we can understand the difference that exists between being good Shepherds faithful to Christ and being mercenaries in the pay of the enemy. In this we can see the difference between the good and faithful servant who makes fruitful use of the talents received from his Lord and the evil servant who buries them (Lk 19:22).
What therefore constitutes the difference between Saint Charles Borromeo – and along with him all the Holy Confessors of the Faith – and the current Episcopate? The difference is Charity, that is, the love of God above all things and the love of one’s neighbor for love of Him. It was in fact the fire of Charity, illuminated by Faith, that animated Saint Charles with apostolic zeal throughout his life. Without Charity, he would have left the heretics in heresy and would not have fought their errors. Without Charity he would not have helped the poor, the sick, and the plague-stricken. Without Charity he would not have provided for the training of clerics, the discipline of priests and religious, the reform of the customs of parish priests, the decorum of the Sacred Liturgy. Without Charity he would have asked English Catholics, in the name of inclusiveness, to dialogue with their heretical queen who was the ferocious enemy of the “papists.” Without Charity, which makes us love God in His sublime Truth and detest everything that clouds His teaching, Saint Charles would not have participated in the Council of Trent to define more forcefully the points of Catholic doctrine contested by the Lutherans and Calvinists, but indeed he would have tried to smooth over any theological divergence so as not to make them feel excluded and judged. He would have marginalized good priests and faithful laity, accusing them of being rigid and mocking them in his writings or in his homilies. He would not have bothered to monitor the morality of the Clergy, instead promoting the unworthy to ensure their subservience. That is, he would have acted like the Bishops of Vatican II or like the courtiers of Santa Marta, abandoning souls to the danger of eternal damnation and neglecting his duties as Pastor and Successor of the Apostles. He would have demonstrated that he did not love God, because those who do not recognize Him as He revealed Himself cannot love Him in His divine perfections, and whoever lets even a single soul wander far from the Lord without trying to convert him does not love his neighbor, because he does not desire his good but rather his approval, or worse, his complicity. If Borromeo had behaved in this way he would have loved himself and the ideological projection of a church that was “his” church, nullifying the talents he received, and today we would not celebrate him among the glory of the Saints, but we would instead remember him among the heresiarchs. If Borromeo had behaved according to the “everyone, everyone is welcome, everyone is inside” mantra of the tenant of Santa Marta, the souls placed by Providence along his path to be saved would have been lost.
If we want to have further proof of the abyss that separates the Holy Shepherds – and Saint Charles among them – from the mercenaries who today infest the Church of Christ, it is sufficient for us to imagine how he would judge the participants in the Synod on Synodality, and what he would say about Bergoglio’s condemnation of those who “limit themselves to abstractly re-proposing formulas and patterns of the past,” of Bergoglio’s invitation to an “evolution of the interpretation” of the Holy Scriptures, of the cult of the Pachamama, of his standing rather than kneeling coram Sanctissimo, of the Abu Dhabi Declaration, of the alleged role of women in the government of the Church, of the desire to abolish Sacred Celibacy, of the admission of concubinage partners and divorced people to Holy Communion, of the blessing of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions and the promotion of the LGBTQ+ ideology, of having promoted a harmful and deadly vaccine, of having become a zealous supporter of the Agenda 2030. And we do not think that the reaction of Saint Charles would be an exception: there is not a single one of the Saints, Doctors of the Church, or Popes, up to and including Pius XII, who would approve anything of what is currently happening in the Vatican. On the contrary, every one of them without distinction would recognize in the action of government and pseudo-magisterium of the past few decades – and of the present “pontificate” in particular – the work of the Enemy infiltrating the sacred precinct, and would not hesitate to condemn it without appeal, along with its creators, just as every one of them condemned the errors of their own times and multiplied their efforts to protect the flock entrusted to them and confirm it in the Truth.
Church and anti-church are set against one another, in this epochal moment, so that that the mysterium iniquitatis which until now we have seen emerge only episodically in the course of History – and which has always been energetically opposed by holy Pastors – now appears in all its crude reality.
On one side is the Church of Christ is an acies ordinata, moved by Charity in Faith for the glory of God and the sanctification of souls, in the gratuitousness of Grace. She is semper eadem, in the immutability that comes from her Head, who is the most perfect God and whose Word is unchanging throughout the centuries. On the other side is the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, the ancient conciliar and synodal church, whose corrupt ministers are driven by personal interest, by the thirst for power and pleasure, blinded by the pride that makes them put themselves before the Majesty of God and the salvation of souls: a sect of traitors and renegades who do not recognize any immutable principle but who feed on temporariness, contradictions, misunderstandings, deceptions, lies and foul blackmail. This antichurch can only be intrinsically revolutionary, because its subversion of the divine order does not accept anything eternal a priori, and indeed abhors it precisely because it is immutable, because it cannot tamper with it, since there is nothing to add to its perfection or to modify. The permanent revolution, a hallmark of the current ecclesiastical structure, has seduced many faithful laity and clergy with the lure of the liberal mentality and Hegelian thought, making many moderates believe that their momentary quiet existence is sufficient to guarantee an impossible coexistence between Tradition and Revolution, due to the sole fact that they are allowed to celebrate the ancient Mass in exchange for accepting the compromise and not questioning Vatican II, just as the Jews compromised with the priests of Baal at the time of the prophet Elijah.
The Catholic adage nihil est innovandum – nothing is to be changed – is not a sterile entrenchment in preconceived positions for fear of facing what is new, as the false shepherds who have infiltrated the Church would have us believe. On the contrary, it expresses the serene awareness that the Truth of Christ – which is Christ himself, the Λόγος, the eternal Word of the Father, the Alpha and Omega – does not know the corruption of time, because it belongs to the perfection of God: veritas Domini manet in æternum (Ps. 116:2). For this reason there is not, nor can there be, a substantial change in the teaching of the Church: because her Magisterium is and must be that of her Divine Founder. And if there is anything that the good of souls requires to be highlighted in greater light, this must always and in any case consist in our own personal reform, that is, in bringing our response to the immutable teaching of Our Lord back to the fidelity of the original form. Because it is not the eternal perfection of God that must adapt to our miserable mutability, but rather our own unfaithfulness must seek being conformed to God’s will as the model and goal: sicut in cœlo et in terra.
For the first time in History, in this battle between the Church and the anti-church, the former is not only marginalized and persecuted, but also finds herself defrauded of the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, which has been usurped and used to demolish its own authority from the very foundations, in order to make official a transition that began sixty years ago. She sails without a helmsman in a great storm (Dante, Inferno, VI, 77). If we did not have the promise of Christ with the Non prævalebunt, one would believe that the gates of hell are now triumphant. But we know that the apparent victory of the Enemy is all the closer to the end the greater the arrogance of those who dare to challenge Our Lord, and that our tribulations are the blessed earthly punishment with which He purifies us, putting before us the horror of the apostasy of a pope and also many bishops along with him. Let us therefore thank the Divine Majesty for having made so many masks fall off, behind which lost souls were hiding. Masks that dropped off especially during the farce of the Synod on Sinodality, and which allow us to understand how true and timely the words Our Lord’s words are: No one can serve two masters (Lk 16:13).
Along with Charity there is always holy Humility, which nurses this theological virtue. Saint Charles was a truly humble man and pastor. Not in stripping himself of his cardinalatial or episcopal dignity; not in behaving or speaking in a rough way by affecting simplicity; Not in showing off a fake poverty followed by photographers, or in kissing the hand of the great usurers of the ѕуηαgσgυє, or in simulating compassion for the poor used as an ideological flag. Saint Charles was humble and poor in secret, far from the eyes of the masses, where only the Lord sees the purity of our intentions and the sincerity of our heart.
In the face of the crisis that troubles the Holy Church and the apostasy of the hierarchy, we must take an example from what Saint Charles did, and at the same time avoid what Saint Charles avoided: a golden rule that will allow us to discern how to behave in these terrible times. This certainly applies to the faithful, but even more so to the ministers of God to religious, who in the great archbishop of Milan can find a model of life and holiness. A model that remains valid precisely because it has as its only purpose the love of God and of one’s neighbor, and does not chase after the spirit of the times or try to please the prince of this world. This is what invites us to make our own the prayer of the Mass for his feast day: O God, who have adorned your Church with the healthy reforms made by Saint Charles, your confessor and high priest, graciously grant us to feel his heavenly protection, and to imitate his example while here on earth. And so may it be.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
November 4, 2023
S.cti Caroli Borromæi,
Episcopi Mediolanensis et Confessoris
-
A condemnation of BXVI, the indult, and SSPX:
“The permanent revolution, a hallmark of the current ecclesiastical structure, has seduced many faithful laity and clergy with the lure of the liberal mentality and Hegelian thought, making many moderates believe that their momentary quiet existence is sufficient to guarantee an impossible coexistence between Tradition and Revolution, due to the sole fact that they are allowed to celebrate the ancient Mass in exchange for accepting the compromise and not questioning Vatican II, just as the Jews compromised with the priests of Baal at the time of the prophet Elijah.”
-
For the first time in History, in this battle between the Church and the anti-church, the former is not only marginalized and persecuted, but also finds herself defrauded of the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, which has been usurped and used to demolish its own authority from the very foundations, in order to make official a transition that began sixty years ago.
So this situation with Francis is the first time in history that there has been a battle between the Church and anti-church? Really? Of course +Vigano, in the sentence above, is also saying that the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff has been usurped, and maybe that's true, but it's not necessarily the same thing as the Church 'battling' with the anti-church. And we already know that all of the popes since Vatican ll have been compromised. Perhaps Francis is worse than the rest, but the other popes, after Vll, have been Modernists also.
IMO, the true Catholic Church began to be persecuted long ago, even before Vatican ll, but the persecution became publicly active after Vatican ll. So how can +Vigano make it sound as if this is something relatively new, which only came along with Francis?
-
A condemnation of BXVI, the indult, and SSPX:
“The permanent revolution, a hallmark of the current ecclesiastical structure, has seduced many faithful laity and clergy with the lure of the liberal mentality and Hegelian thought, making many moderates believe that their momentary quiet existence is sufficient to guarantee an impossible coexistence between Tradition and Revolution, due to the sole fact that they are allowed to celebrate the ancient Mass in exchange for accepting the compromise and not questioning Vatican II, just as the Jews compromised with the priests of Baal at the time of the prophet Elijah.”
Amazing.
He's becoming more and more Traditional with each passing day. This letter above is a masterpiece. He's also going back and beginning to imply that that John XXIII might also be guilty of the same "defect of consent", when he says that V2's goal was contrary to the goal of Catholic Councils, "diametrically opposite in its goal and purpose" to Trent.
He's widening the rift here between himself and Matt, the Motarians, and neo-SSPX.
Several times he refers to the Conciliar Church as the Anti-Church.
I wonder what nefarious agenda he has for writing all this to further the goals of Opus Dei, the Masons, and the sun-worshipping pagan Luciferian Satanists to whom he's beholden. He must be gate-keeping against something ... though I can't figure out what that might be.
-
So this situation with Francis is the first time in history that there has been a battle between the Church and anti-church? Really? Of course +Vigano, in the sentence above, is also saying that the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff has been usurped, and maybe that's true, but it's not necessarily the same thing as the Church 'battling' with the anti-church. And we already know that all of the popes since Vatican ll have been compromised. Perhaps Francis is worse than the rest, but the other popes, after Vll, have been Modernists also.
What are you babbling about? Did you even read it? He clearly says that the transition from Church to Anti-Church began "60 years ago" with Vatican II and John XXIII? He's saying that it's reached its fulness in Jorge, with the latter outlawing the Tridentine Mass, openly stating that it's incompatible with Tradition, etc. Previous V2 papal claimants at least paid lip service to Tradition, and pretended to be in conformity with it. Bergoglio was the first one to openly reject pre-Vatican II as incompatible with post-Vatican II, i.e. formalized the opposition between Church and Anti-Church.
-
Bergoglio was the first one to openly reject pre-Vatican II as incompatible with post-Vatican II, i.e. formalized the opposition between Church and Anti-Church.
And this is why (at least partly) John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI were valid popes.
-
And this is why (at least partly) John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI were valid popes.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Father Kramer called Bergoglio a heretic long before Jorge formalized the rupture, which he did initially with Traditionis Custodes, based on his manifest heresy that the Old Covenant had not been abrogated. I have produced citations where it was Wojtyla who first taught that and then Ratzinger said the same thing. So if Bergoglio is a manifest heretic on those grounds, then so were Wojtyla and Ratzinger. You tried to counter by claiming that Wojtyla and Ratzinger didn't really "mean" it, whereas Jorge did. So now manifest heresy, contrary to the explicit teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine, entails having to read and interpret sincerity (generally something discernible only in the internal forum)?
-
What are you babbling about? Did you even read it? He clearly says that the transition from Church to Anti-Church began "60 years ago" with Vatican II and John XXIII? He's saying that it's reached its fulness in Jorge, with the latter outlawing the Tridentine Mass, openly stating that it's incompatible with Tradition, etc. Previous V2 papal claimants at least paid lip service to Tradition, and pretended to be in conformity with it. Bergoglio was the first one to openly reject pre-Vatican II as incompatible with post-Vatican II, i.e. formalized the opposition between Church and Anti-Church.
This is what I'm babbling about: +Vigano wrote that...."For the first time in history, in this battle between the Church and anti-church, the former is not only marginalized and persecuted, but also....."
I take the above quote as meaning that for the first time in history, the persecution and marginalization began with Francis (Bergolio). That is what the quote lends itself to, IMO, even though he says the persecution began 60 years ago. I suppose it's easy to forget what happened at Vatican ll, and the introduction of the new mass, the open persecution of the Old Mass and true doctrine which began not with Francis (Bergolio), but with Pope John XXIII. How easy it is to forget that the persecution was terrible in the days in which +ABL was defending the True Mass and doctrine, and that he was suspended and then excommunicated because he refused to close down Econe and go away, as Rome insisted that he had to do. What does +Vigano risk? Nothing at all.
-
https://youtu.be/xtlMPcPiMKc?feature=shared
Isn't Fr. Vigano retired?
-
How easy it is to forget that the persecution was terrible in the days in which +ABL was defending the True Mass and doctrine, and that he was suspended and then excommunicated because he refused to close down Econe and go away, as Rome insisted that he had to do. What does +Vigano risk? Nothing at all.
While moral accomplishment may be diminished with "nothing to lose," having "nothing to lose" can be liberating, and favorable to finding truth.
-
While moral accomplishment may be diminished with "nothing to lose," having "nothing to lose" can be liberating, and favorable to finding truth.
Okay, but +Vigano hasn't even been censored by Rome, that I know of. Why would the Modernists leave him alone? They certainly didn't leave +ABL alone.
-
Okay, but +Vigano hasn't even been censored by Rome, that I know of. Why would the Modernists leave him alone? They certainly didn't leave +ABL alone.
Unlike Msgr. Lefebvre, Msgr. Vigano is not running a seminary and ordaining men--and doing so explicitly against the wishes of Rome and whilst the ordinands lack dimissorial letters. Rome, of course, does not recognise an ecclesiastical crisis, especially since Rome is the responsible agent for the crisis. Therefore, from Rome's perspective, Msgr. Lefebvre's actions were serious delicts. Msgr. Vigano has done nothing similar...yet.
-
Unlike Msgr. Lefebvre, Msgr. Vigano is not running a seminary and ordaining men--and doing so explicitly against the wishes of Rome and whilst the ordinands lack dimissorial letters. Rome, of course, does not recognise an ecclesiastical crisis, especially since Rome is the responsible agent for the crisis. Therefore, from Rome's perspective, Msgr. Lefebvre's actions were serious delicts. Msgr. Vigano has done nothing similar...yet.
Well, yes, the fact that +ABL had a seminary and was ordaining men was very concerning to them. But...the reason that was given to +ABL for why they wanted to shut down his seminary was because of his 1974 declaration. Of course that was partly just a pretext for shutting down Econe. They couldn't actually find anything wrong with the seminary when they held their 'visitation,' so they went after his words. In +ABL's Declaration, he talks about the problem of Modernism, and gives a history of what has happened with this new reformation in the Church. +Vigano, on the other hand, speaks in the present sense, as if the Crisis just began recently. Here's ABL's Declaration:
1974 Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre - District of the USA (sspx.org) (https://sspx.org/en/1974-declaration-of-archbishop-lefebvre)
-
+Vigano, on the other hand, speaks in the present sense, as if the Crisis just began recently.
Mme.-
You are an hostile one. Even the thread title refutes you (and it was bolded in the OP):
<On the contrary, every one of them without distinction would recognize in the action of government and pseudo-magisterium of the past few decades – and of the present “pontificate” in particular – the work of the Enemy infiltrating the sacred precinct...>
What is your agenda?
-
This is what I'm babbling about: +Vigano wrote that...."For the first time in history, in this battle between the Church and anti-church, the former is not only marginalized and persecuted, but also....."
I take the above quote as meaning that for the first time in history, the persecution and marginalization began with Francis (Bergolio). That is what the quote lends itself to, IMO, even though he says the persecution began 60 years ago. I suppose it's easy to forget what happened at Vatican ll, and the introduction of the new mass, the open persecution of the Old Mass and true doctrine which began not with Francis (Bergolio), but with Pope John XXIII. How easy it is to forget that the persecution was terrible in the days in which +ABL was defending the True Mass and doctrine, and that he was suspended and then excommunicated because he refused to close down Econe and go away, as Rome insisted that he had to do. What does +Vigano risk? Nothing at all.
Meg, you misunderstand Archbishop Vigano, no "IMO" about it! And you should know also that Archbishop Vigano is a great admirer of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Archbishop Vigano does not say, nor imply, that the persecution and marginalisation began with Pope Francis, nor does he say that this historical battle between Church and antichurch began with Pope Francis. He says the opposite.
What he says very clearly is that for the first time in this battle, the Church is NOT ONLY persecuted and marginalised BUT ALSO is having Her authority usurped and used to destroy that very authority from its foundations.
Read it again - for the first time in this battle, the authority of the Church is being usurped and used to destroy that authority - hence the allusion to Dante's ship with no helmsman.
He is referring to the Synod which is turning the Church on its head, attempting to change Church authority from a papal monarchy into a democracy. Fr Pagliarani's conference is useful to understand what is going on: https://fsspx.org/en/publications/letters/interview-superior-general-priestly-society-saint-pius-x-82423
-
It's unclear to me why Fr. Vigano is putting himself out as a spokesman against the "deep church" and "deep state". What is his solution? What is he trying to accomplish? He's only publishing what's already known.
-
It's unclear to me why Fr. Vigano is putting himself out as a spokesman against the "deep church" and "deep state". What is his solution? What is he trying to accomplish? He's only publishing what's already known.
Mme. Michelle-
His solution is Resistance.
What he wants to accomplish is the restoration of Tradition.
And if he's only publishing what's already known, then why are you feigning ignorance?
Do you hope Msgr. Vigano fails?
-
Mme. Michelle-
His solution is Resistance.
What he wants to accomplish is the restoration of Tradition.
And if he's only publishing what's already known, then why are you feigning ignorance?
Do you hope Msgr. Vigano fails?
Feigning ignorance about what?
Do I hope he fails? Fail at what? He's preaching to the choir. These letters he puts out are directed at the resistance and traditionalists who have been persevering in the faith since Vat ll.
-
Mme. Michelle-
His solution is Resistance.
What he wants to accomplish is the restoration of Tradition.
And if he's only publishing what's already known, then why are you feigning ignorance?
Do you hope Msgr. Vigano fails?
So last week he was telling a crowd of Zionists they are the
"people of god"
and this week he wants to restore Tradition?
(https://i.imgur.com/kB66uit.png)
And if anyone questions it, they are evil. :trollface::trollface::trollface::trollface::trollface:
Cue Lad's emotional tirade directed at me or anyone else who dares to ask questions.
-
It's unclear to me why Fr. Vigano is putting himself out as a spokesman against the "deep church" and "deep state". What is his solution? What is he trying to accomplish? He's only publishing what's already known.
You are at pains to let us know your opinion of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration. We have heard you. The Resistance does not share your certainty on this matter. There is doubt, certainly. Here is not the place for that discussion.
Archbishop Vigano is fulfilling the first duty of a successor of the Apostles: preaching the gospel and defending the flock of Christ from the marauding wolves.
Read the epistle and gospel from the common Mass of a Doctor.
He is almost peerless in his defense of the Faith and condemnation of errors. Such a moving testimony has scarcely been heard since the days of Archbishop Lefebvre.
He is possibly unmatched by any of his traditional confreres in the episcopacy in terms of his authority and sphere of influence on account of the positions he has filled in the Church.
He is certainly not just preaching to the choir.
He is opening the eyes of many who have laboured under the same illusion that he did for so long.
To those of us who have been many years in Tradition, he is giving us consolation in this lonely battle, and courage to continue the good fight for the Faith of Our Fathers.
In this late stage of the battle, when older warriors have lost their way and their voices are no longer heard, what a consolation and guide he is! May God bless him and keep him ad multos annos!
Any Catholic who is not encouraged and grateful to God for such an extraordinary conversion and wonderful defense of the Faith does not have the spirit of Our Lord Jesus Christ and has little love for the Church and for souls.
-
You are at pains to let us know your opinion of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration. We have heard you. The Resistance does not share your certainty on this matter. There is doubt, certainly. Here is not the place for that discussion.
Archbishop Vigano is fulfilling the first duty of a successor of the Apostles: preaching the gospel and defending the flock of Christ from the marauding wolves.
Read the epistle and gospel from the common Mass of a Doctor.
He is almost peerless in his defense of the Faith and condemnation of errors. Such a moving testimony has scarcely been heard since the days of Archbishop Lefebvre.
He is possibly unmatched by any of his traditional confreres in the episcopacy in terms of his authority and sphere of influence on account of the positions he has filled in the Church.
He is certainly not just preaching to the choir.
He is opening the eyes of many who have laboured under the same illusion that he did for so long.
To those of us who have been many years in Tradition, he is giving us consolation in this lonely battle, and courage to continue the good fight for the Faith of Our Fathers.
In this late stage of the battle, when older warriors have lost their way and their voices are no longer heard, what a consolation and guide he is! May God bless him and keep him ad multos annos!
Any Catholic who is not encouraged and grateful to God for such an extraordinary conversion and wonderful defense of the Faith does not have the spirit of Our Lord Jesus Christ and has little love for the Church and for souls.
Except when he takes part in political/religious rallies.
How so? Vigano doesn't have ordinary jurisdiction.
Ah, so those of us who question Vigano or don't believe he's all that he's cracked up to be have little love for the Church or souls nor the spirit of Christ. Nice.
-
I wonder what nefarious agenda he has for writing all this to further the goals of Opus Dei, the Masons, and the sun-worshipping pagan Luciferian Satanists to whom he's beholden. He must be gate-keeping against something ... though I can't figure out what that might be.
:laugh1:
-
Okay, but +Vigano hasn't even been censored by Rome, that I know of. Why would the Modernists leave him alone? They certainly didn't leave +ABL alone.
+Vigano is retired and, at present, his actions amount to writing letters, e-sermons, and virtual conference videos. He doesn't hold any public office so kinda hard to censor him. Plus, I doubt he would listen anyway. He's on new-rome's blacklist for trying to expose Francis' pedo network. He has nothing to lose at this point.
+ABL was running a seminary. He had to play politics with new-rome to not get it shut down.
-
It's unclear to me why Fr. Vigano is putting himself out as a spokesman against the "deep church" and "deep state". What is his solution? What is he trying to accomplish? He's only publishing what's already known.
+Vigano is in a unique position of having the indult crowd (i.e. those of goodwill, not the likes of Michael Matt) listen to him, because he was part of new-rome for so many years. He understands what these people are going through and also the issues/questions they have about V2 and the new mass. So, his apostolate at this point is to wake up those people and push them more towards traditionalism and pre-V2 orthodoxy.
When you say he's saying "what's already known", you are speaking from a Trad standpoint. But that's not +Vigano's main audience, who have, for decades viewed Traditionalism as "fringe" and "extreme". +Vigano is trying to tell them, "Hey, Traditionalism was right all along, and here's why."
-
+Vigano is retired and, at present, his actions amount to writing letters, e-sermons, and virtual conference videos. He doesn't hold any public office so kinda hard to censor him. Plus, I doubt he would listen anyway. He's on new-rome's blacklist for trying to expose Francis' pedo network. He has nothing to lose at this point.
+ABL was running a seminary. He had to play politics with new-rome to not get it shut down.
Fair enough, but what is the purpose of his speeches to ecuмenical gatherings such as the Jericho March and the Re-awaken America movement? Also his all embracing letters to America and Trump? Those activities go contrary to Catholic teaching and the faithful just can't brush it off as nothing. We can't say we don't care what the Church teaches. Charity is to God first.
-
So last week he was telling a crowd of Zionists they are the
"people of god"
and this week he wants to restore Tradition?
(https://i.imgur.com/kB66uit.png)
And if anyone questions it, they are evil. :trollface::trollface::trollface::trollface::trollface:
Cue Lad's emotional tirade directed at me or anyone else who dares to ask questions.
Sure. Every time I debunk one of your slanders, it's an "emotional tirade" ... making it so you don't have to refute or retract any of your slanders. Nice try attempting to slither out of it. I'm still waiting for you to retract the grave slanders regarding the "So mote it be" and the "pagan sun-god worshipping Satanist" accusations against +Vigano. After having been given several opportunities to retract those grave calumnies and having refused to do so, I would have banned you for grave public calumny and slander.
Nearly all of your accusations has been refuted with substance and actual argument, which you won't and cannot refute, so you think you can slither out of it by claiming these arguments and this substance amounts to little more than "emotional tirade". Pathetic really.
-
Fair enough, but what is the purpose of his speeches to ecuмenical gatherings such as the Jericho March and the Re-awaken America movement? Also his all embracing letters to America and Trump? Those activities go contrary to Catholic teaching and the faithful just can't brush it off as nothing.
No they don't. It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that the contexts of those gatherings were political. They were not ecuмenical gatherings. So more slander against +Vigano, attempting to characterize him as having engaged in communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics, when it was nothing more than communication in secular matters, which is not forbidden. It is not forbidden for Catholics to participate, for instance, in various Pro Life activities. Numerous Traditional clergy sponsor trips to the "March for Life" every year. Despite the fact that the participants of such events are not all Catholics, it's not forbidden for Catholics to participate because it's clearly understood that there are people of different religious there and simply attending does not associate you with any particular religion. Now, it would be forbidden for you to attend something called "Lutherans for Life" or something along those lines, but not a "March for Life" or any of the ones +Vigano made appearances at.
-
+Vigano is retired and, at present, his actions amount to writing letters, e-sermons, and virtual conference videos. He doesn't hold any public office so kinda hard to censor him. Plus, I doubt he would listen anyway. He's on new-rome's blacklist for trying to expose Francis' pedo network. He has nothing to lose at this point.
+ABL was running a seminary. He had to play politics with new-rome to not get it shut down.
It's interesting how the history of the SSPX isn't really known anymore. Rome withdrew canonical approval for Econe and its accompanying institutions in 1975. Rome expected that Econe would then be shut down, but +ABL ignored Rome and kept Econe going. +ABL then began a series of appeals to Rome, which were all rejected.
+ABL was then suspended in 1976.
Pope Paul Vl wrote to +ABL in June, 1975. Here's the letter:
"Dear Brother,
It is with sorrow that we write to you today. With sorrow because We appreciate the interior anguish of a man who sees the annihilation of his hopes, the ruin of the initiative he believes he has taken for the good of the Church. With sorrow because we think of the confusion of the young people who have followed you, full of ardor, and now they find themselves in a blind alley. But opur grief is even greater to note that the decision of the competent authority--although formulated very clearly, and fully justified, it may be said, by your refusal to modify your public and persistent opposition to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed--that this decision should still lend itself to the discussion even to the extent of leading you to seek some juridicial possibility of invalidating it."
We can see from the above how the modernists then hated tradition, and strove to stamp it out, but +ABL kept going. He didn't just use words as +Vigano does. He did something concrete.
I find it odd that +Vigano, who is fairly new to Tradition and never defended it before his rise to trad stardom 6 or so years ago, is now the spokesman for so many trads. I find his communications rather droll in comparison to the communications of +ABL, but if some here find him to be an amazing defender of Tradition, that's their choice.
-
Unlike Msgr. Lefebvre, Msgr. Vigano is not running a seminary and ordaining men--and doing so explicitly against the wishes of Rome and whilst the ordinands lack dimissorial letters. Rome, of course, does not recognise an ecclesiastical crisis, especially since Rome is the responsible agent for the crisis. Therefore, from Rome's perspective, Msgr. Lefebvre's actions were serious delicts. Msgr. Vigano has done nothing similar...yet.
Not only that, but the less publicity they give him, the better it is for Modernist Rome. If they were to publicly censure or excommunicate him, it would simply draw more attention to his allegations of apostasy on the part of the current Vatican. Not only that, but this would be seen as a vindictive act on the part of Bergoglio, since +Vigano initially broke from the Conciliar Church over Jorge's coverup of McCarrick and other predators, and it would be seen as a continuation of Bergoglio's attempts to coverup for the coverup. Due to that history alone, there's no way that Bergoglio is going to draw more attention to it. In the mainstream media, the theological dispute between +Vigano and Bergoglio would be lost, and the focus would be almost exclusively on +Vigano's exposure of Bergoglio's coverup of child predation.
-
It's interesting how the history of the SSPX isn't really known anymore. Rome withdrew canonical approval for Econe and its accompanying institutions in 1975. Rome expected that Econe would then be shut down, but +ABL ignored Rome and kept Econe going. +ABL then began a series of appeals to Rome, which were all rejected.
+ABL was then suspended in 1975.
Pope Paul Vl wrote to +ABL in June, 1976. Here's the letter:
"Dear Brother,
It is with sorrow that we write to you today. With sorrow because We appreciate the interior anguish of a man who sees the annihilation of his hopes, the ruin of the initiative he believes he has taken for the good of the Church. With sorrow because we think of the confusion of the young people who have followed you, full of ardor, and now they find themselves in a blind alley. But opur grief is even greater to note that the decision of the competent authority--although formulated very clearly, and fully justified, it may be said, by your refusal to modify your public and persistent opposition to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed--that this decision should still lend itself to the discussion even to the extent of leading you to seek some juridicial possibility of invalidating it."
We can see from the above how the modernists then hated tradition, and strove to stamp it out, but +ABL kept going. He didn't just use words as +Vigano does. He did something concrete.
I find it odd that +Vigano, who is fairly new to Tradition and never defended it before his rise to trad stardom 6 or so years ago, is now the spokesman for so many trads. I find his communications rather droll in comparison to the communications of +ABL, but if some here find him to be an amazing defender of Tradition, that's their choice.
I agree. There are .any who have labored in the heat of the day but every man shall receive a penny.
-
I find it odd that +Vigano, who is fairly new to Tradition and never defended it before his rise to trad stardom 6 or so years ago, is now the spokesman for so many trads. I find his communications rather droll in comparison to the communications of +ABL, but if some here find him to be an amazing defender of Tradition, that's their choice.
You'll find some of the keys I've pointed out to explain the hostility toward +Vigano in this post, the resentment of his "trad stardom 6 or so year ago". There's the old petty resentment along the lines of Our Lord's parable of those who were toiling in the field being jealous of the one who joined late and got the same pay ... as if the fact that those of us who have been Traditional Catholics for many years were not thus solely due to the same undeserved Mercy of God that converted +Vigano to Tradition.
As for your characterizing his communications as "rather droll," that is utter nonsense to anyone who has any objectivity whatsoever. +Vigano's June 9, 2020 denunciation of Vatican II is the single most articulate theological rejection of Vatican II that's ever been put into print ... leaving no room for +Fellay's "95% Catholic" nonsense that Archbishop Lefebvre's own statements left open for him to take. This latest letter from +Vigano is a masterpiece.
Of course, you personally resent +Vigano because he's become a dreaded "sedevacantist" ... so you also have ulterior motives.
-
I agree. There are .any who have labored in the heat of the day but every man shall receive a penny.
+ABL, and many others, saw the Crisis and acted accordingly. They saw it for what it was. How many decades did +Vigano remain silent while the modernists did their best to destroy the Church? And now we aren't supposed to criticize him, because he now "speaks the truth."
-
Mme.-
You are an hostile one. Even the thread title refutes you (and it was bolded in the OP):
<On the contrary, every one of them without distinction would recognize in the action of government and pseudo-magisterium of the past few decades – and of the present “pontificate” in particular – the work of the Enemy infiltrating the sacred precinct...>
What is your agenda?
Her agenda is that she despises +Vigano for having publicly stated that Bergoglio is not the pope. She has years of history here expressing hatred of anything that might even savor of sedevacantism.
Miser's agenda comes from +Vigano's having said some positive words about Trump, whom she despises ... to the point that she goes from one slander and calumny to the next against +Vigano ... being unable to read with +Vigano was actually saying.
Others resent the fact that +Vigano is new to Tradition and hold his years in the Conciliar Church against him.
Not a single one of the slanderers has come close to explaining what harm +Vigano is doing to Traditional Catholicism, despite that any conspiracy theory requires at the very least a credible cui bono.
-
Her agenda is that she despises +Vigano for having publicly stated that Bergoglio is not the pope. She has years of history here expressing hatred of anything that might even savor of sedevacantism.
The bolded has certainly been true, but I do recall Meg having issues/concerns with Vigano well before his stating Bergoglio is not the pope.
-
We can see from the above how the modernists then hated tradition, and strove to stamp it out, but +ABL kept going. He didn't just use words as +Vigano does. He did something concrete.
If +Vigano started a seminary tomorrow, people like you would complain he's "competition" for the sspx, resistance, etc. :facepalm: Complain, complain, complain.
I'll repeat it again, +Vigano's main ministry (it seems) is to draw those good-willed in the novus ordo/indult towards Tradition. He knows Francis is going to crack down on the latin mass more and more, so he's preparing these people to stick with Tradition, AND to reject V2/new mass, so that they can have their "+ABL moment" and become independent of new-rome.
I find it odd that +Vigano, who is fairly new to Tradition and never defended it before his rise to trad stardom 6 or so years ago, is now the spokesman for so many trads. I find his communications rather droll in comparison to the communications of +ABL, but if some here find him to be an amazing defender of Tradition, that's their choice.
Spokesman? What does this even mean?
Most of us are just happy to rejoice in the fact that a well-known, public figure has accepted God's grace and (seemingly) converted to the Truth, while rejecting V2/new mass. We also rejoice in his charity towards others, and his works to convert those still part of new-rome. "Charity rejoices in the Truth", as Scripture tells us.
The question is - why can't you rejoice?
-
Most of us are just happy to rejoice in the fact that a well-known, public figure has accepted God's grace and (seemingly) converted to the Truth, while rejecting V2/new mass. We also rejoice in his charity towards others, and his works to convert those still part of new-rome. "Charity rejoices in the Truth", as Scripture tells us.
THIS^^^. I'm still waiting for an answer to what threat +Vigano poses to Tradition ... when he's gone far to the right of the SSPX. He's forcefully rejected the jab (while many Trad clergy condoned it), denounced Vatican II as essentially non-Catholic and unsalvageable (vs. "95%" +Fellay), rejected the New Mass, characterized the Conciliar Church as an anti-Church, and even recently came out with his opinion that Bergoglio is not the pope. What more do people want? I think that for some of his SV detractors, even if he came out tomorrow and said that the last legitimate Pope was Pius XII, they'd still find reasons to denounce him.
-
THIS^^^. I'm still waiting for an answer to what threat +Vigano poses to Tradition ... when he's gone far to the right of the SSPX. He's forcefully rejected the jab (while many Trad clergy condoned it), denounced Vatican II as essentially non-Catholic and unsalvageable (vs. "95%" +Fellay), rejected the New Mass, characterized the Conciliar Church as an anti-Church, and even recently came out with his opinion that Bergoglio is not the pope. What more do people want? I think that for some of his SV detractors, even if he came out tomorrow and said that the last legitimate Pope was Pius XII, they'd still find reasons to denounce him.
The hesitancy is the thought that he would become the controlled opposition. If he were granted most favorite authority status with hidden motives it could be game over financially for the remnant flocks.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I watch what people do not what they say.
-
You'll find some of the keys I've pointed out to explain the hostility toward +Vigano in this post, the resentment of his "trad stardom 6 or so year ago". There's the old petty resentment along the lines of Our Lord's parable of those who were toiling in the field being jealous of the one who joined late and got the same pay ... as if the fact that those of us who have been Traditional Catholics for many years were not thus solely due to the same undeserved Mercy of God that converted +Vigano to Tradition.
As for your characterizing his communications as "rather droll," that is utter nonsense to anyone who has any objectivity whatsoever. +Vigano's June 9, 2020 denunciation of Vatican II is the single most articulate theological rejection of Vatican II that's ever been put into print ... leaving no room for +Fellay's "95% Catholic" nonsense that Archbishop Lefebvre's own statements left open for him to take. This latest letter from +Vigano is a masterpiece.
Of course, you personally resent +Vigano because he's become a dreaded "sedevacantist" ... so you also have ulterior motives.
Actually, +Vigano's benevacantism is the least of my worries. What evidence do you have that I am worried at all about benevacantism? Though it's true that the
Apocalyptic Benevacantists are a bit scary and troubling, but +Vigano isn't one of them....at least not yet.
I'm not at all jealous of +Vigano's success in the world of Tradition. I was, at first, a fan of his, but when he began to sign his communications with a Masonic signature, and referred to Our Lord as Sol Invictus, that raised a red flag. Traditional Catholic priests and bishops simply do not do those things. Of course, you believe that we should not be allowed to point out any flaws in +Vigano's communications, or raise any serious concerns about him.
-
I was, at first, a fan of his, but when he began to sign his communications with a Masonic signature, and referred to Our Lord as Sol Invictus, that raised a red flag. Traditional Catholic priests and bishops simply do not do those things.
This is a very strange comment, n'est pas?!
You have been shown many times that "so may it be" is an English translation of an Italian translation of the word "Amen."
In France, EVERY Catholic ends the sign of the Cross with "ainsi soit-il" (i.e., "so be it"). Is every French Catholic a Mason?
Ignorant Americans like you use the word "Amen" without knowing what it means. Msgr. Vigano is simply writing in Italian, and translating the word "Amen" for your benefit ("so may it be").
As regards Sol Invictus, you have been shown the Catholicity of this description of Christ from multiple liturgical sources and the writings of the saints, but your response is once again to display incorrigible ignorance and self-imposed stupidity by declaring in the face of contradictory demonstration that such description raises a red flag??
So I ask again, what is your agenda?
-
A high profile Protestant Pastor mounts the pulpit in his big church one day, the congregation wondering what words of wisdom await them. To the astonishment of all, he begins his discourse by repudiating Protestantism and its founders and then proceeds to expound the Catholic Faith with an eloquence befitting the successor of Peter, encouraging all to follow him in his new-found faith.
How would anyone with a Catholic heart and an ounce of good will judge such a scenario? It is painfully obvious, is it not, that he would rejoice in such an extraordinary conversion and give thanks to God? A Catholic with some apostolic zeal would present him as an example and use his discourse to convert his Protestant acquaintances, and even to encourage his Catholic friends in the Faith.
What would you say of some Catholic who only criticises this former pastor and focuses on one or two remnants of Protestantism that came through in his sermon? Blind? Bitter and twisted?
Is it any wonder if, in the practical order, Archbishop Vigano has given evidence, once or twice, of his ecuмenical past? No, that is not the wonder. The wonder is his extraordinary conversion and his unparalleled confession of the Faith and condemnation of the errors which are undermining Church and world. There is hardly a voice to be heard anywhere performing such a service to the Church and to mankind, so clearly delineating the battle between God and Satan, and so clearly demonstrating the path of salvation. And yet there are those who stand by and criticise? It beggars belief!
-
Except when he takes part in political/religious rallies.
How so? Vigano doesn't have ordinary jurisdiction.
Ah, so those of us who question Vigano or don't believe he's all that he's cracked up to be have little love for the Church or souls nor the spirit of Christ. Nice.
Ordinary jurisdiction is not required to preach the truth for anyone, let alone a priest or a bishop.
The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. There will be no excuse on Judgement Day "But Lord, I didn't have Ordinary Jurisdiction to save them".
-
So I ask again, what is your agenda?
She's just a stubborn, closet-feminist who won't accept 'man-splaining' no matter how many times she hears the truth.
-
Ordinary jurisdiction is not required to preach the truth for anyone, let alone a priest or a bishop.
The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. There will be no excuse on Judgement Day "But Lord, I didn't have Ordinary Jurisdiction to save them".
My point was that, according to most Trads, he has no more authority than the Trad bishops ....in response to your comment:
He is possibly unmatched by any of his traditional confreres in the episcopacy in terms of his authority.
And I'm purposefully avoiding the issue of his invalid episcopal consecration. At least most Trad bishops are certainly valid bishops.
-
My point was that, according to most Trads, he has no more authority than the Trad bishops ....in response to your comment:
He is possibly unmatched by any of his traditional confreres in the episcopacy in terms of his authority.
And I'm purposefully avoiding the issue of his invalid episcopal consecration. At least most Trad bishops are certainly valid bishops.
Very good, 2V, you do well. Even if he is no bishop, he renders an immense service to the Church.
I was referring to his moral authority, and you will see that I qualified my statement by saying "on account of the positions that he has filled in the Church and his sphere of influence" or some such words.
-
A high profile Protestant Pastor mounts the pulpit in his big church one day, the congregation wondering what words of wisdom await them. To the astonishment of all, he begins his discourse by repudiating Protestantism and its founders and then proceeds to expound the Catholic Faith with an eloquence befitting the successor of Peter, encouraging all to follow him in his new-found faith.
How would anyone with a Catholic heart and an ounce of good will judge such a scenario? It is painfully obvious, is it not, that he would rejoice in such an extraordinary conversion and give thanks to God? A Catholic with some apostolic zeal would present him as an example and use his discourse to convert his Protestant acquaintances, and even to encourage his Catholic friends in the Faith.
What would you say of some Catholic who only criticises this former pastor and focuses on one or two remnants of Protestantism that came through in his sermon? Blind? Bitter and twisted?
Is it any wonder if, in the practical order, Archbishop Vigano has given evidence, once or twice, of his ecuмenical past? No, that is not the wonder. The wonder is his extraordinary conversion and his unparalleled confession of the Faith and condemnation of the errors which are undermining Church and world. There is hardly a voice to be heard anywhere performing such a service to the Church and to mankind, so clearly delineating the battle between God and Satan, and so clearly demonstrating the path of salvation. And yet there are those who stand by and criticise? It beggars belief!
By his "ecuмenical past" do you mean two weeks ago?
"while We the People, with all our weaknesses, are aligned with the Almighty God."
Oct 14, 2023 Address to the Zionist Awaken America Tour
Which god do the people in this crowd align with?
(https://i.imgur.com/2rF5vge.png)
-
I was, at first, a fan of his, but when he began to sign his communications with a Masonic signature, and referred to Our Lord as Sol Invictus, that raised a red flag. Traditional Catholic priests and bishops simply do not do those things.
Unbelievable. I can't attribute these comments to anything other than sheer malice. Both of these have been thoroughly debunked. Have you just ignored everything you don't want to hear?
What part of the picture someone posted from a pre-Vatican II Tridentine Italian Missal that translates Amen into Italian as "So may it be." and a poster attesting to the fact that his Traditional Catholic Italian priest concludes his sermons with the expression ... did you miss?
What part of the dozen or so quotations from the Church Fathers, from Traditional Catholic Liturgies, etc. posted by trad123 referring to Our Lord as Sol Invictus did you miss?
You and your cohort Miser just ignore these basic facts and keep reposting those calumnies and slanders ... to the point that you cannot be excused of grave sin for continuing to perpetuate them.
-
This is a very strange comment, n'est pas?!
You have been shown many times that "so may it be" is an English translation of an Italian translation of the word "Amen."
In France, EVERY Catholic ends the sign of the Cross with "ainsi soit-il" (i.e., "so be it"). Is every French Catholic a Mason?
Ignorant Americans like you use the word "Amen" without knowing what it means. Msgr. Vigano is simply writing in Italian, and translating the word "Amen" for your benefit ("so may it be").
As regards Sol Invictus, you have been shown the Catholicity of this description of Christ from multiple liturgical sources and the writings of the saints, but your response is once again to display incorrigible ignorance and self-imposed stupidity by declaring in the face of contradictory demonstration that such description raises a red flag??
So I ask again, what is your agenda?
Sorry ... I responded to her before I saw your very similar response.
-
Unbelievable. I can't attribute these comments to anything other than sheer malice. Both of these have been thoroughly debunked. Have you just ignored everything you don't want to hear?
What part of the picture someone posted from a pre-Vatican II Tridentine Italian Missal that translates Amen into Italian as "So may it be." and a poster attesting to the fact that his Traditional Catholic Italian priest concludes his sermons with the expression ... did you miss?
What part of the dozen or so quotations from the Church Fathers, from Traditional Catholic Liturgies, etc. posted by trad123 referring to Our Lord as Sol Invictus did you miss?
You and your cohort Miser just ignore these basic facts and keep reposting those calumnies and slanders ... to the point that you cannot be excused of grave sin for continuing to perpetuate them.
You know full well that I intend no malice. You, being extremely dishonest, just want to prove a point, and you will stop at nothing to do so. It's the same with a couple of the other men here, who have no Catholic sense at all.
Go ahead and put all of your hope and faith into your idol Vigano, who will keep telling you what you want to hear.
Now of course this post will be deleted, due to its offensiveness to the forum clowns.
-
You know full well that I intend no malice. You, being extremely dishonest ...
Tell us then that you simply didn't see the myriad posts refuting the slanderous nonsense you keep repeating, and I'll retract my allegation of malice and will apologize. At that point, you can retract your allegations regarding his use of Masonic formula and the inappropriateness of Sol Invictus (with the insinuation that it's pagan).
-
Has +Vigano reached out to any Traditional priest or Bishop that we know of?
-
Has +Vigano reached out to any Traditional priest or Bishop that we know of?
+Williamson, +Faure, Avrille Dominicans, SAJM. I’m sure there are others.
-
Has +Vigano reached out to any Traditional priest or Bishop that we know of?
I believe that he's been in contact with some of them, yes.
EDIT: Oops, sorry, just saw Sean's response.
-
+Williamson, +Faure, Avrille Dominicans, SAJM. I’m sure there are others.
In 2022 and 2023 Mgr Vigano appeared in a live video link up at the Civitas UDT annual conferences. Both times he thanked Father Joseph, priest with Capucins of Morgan order, who used to be the FSSPX district superior when he still had the name Father Regis de Cacqueray. Mgr Vigano made reference to their discussions, so one can draw the assumption that they know each quite well and of the crisis in the SSPX.
-
As regards Sol Invictus, you have been shown the Catholicity of this description of Christ from multiple liturgical sources and the writings of the saints....
I just want to point out that there were multiple Catholic references to titles with "Sol" in them, but only one liturgical reference to "Sol Invictus". I accept the one, but let's not make it seem like a ton of references were posted in that thread. To be fair, you're not the only one who has suggested this.
-
I just want to point out that there were multiple Catholic references to titles with "Sol" in them, but only one liturgical reference to "Sol Invictus". I accept the one, but let's not make it seem like a ton of references were posted in that thread. To be fair, you're not the only one who has suggested this.
Thanks Vermont for pointing this out. Yes, it was a *single* reference and we accepted it, end of story.
-
but only one liturgical reference to "Sol Invictus".
So what? The Church has to approve it multiple times for you to accept? It was in a LITURGICAL book. Besides, it's not as if there is ONLY ONE reference in existence; simply, only one reference was posted.
You guys are just ridiculous. :facepalm:
-
I agree with Meg. Vigano's solution is "himself" and of course $$ goes with it when you say what itchy ears want to hear.
-
I agree with Meg. Vigano's solution is "himself" and of course $$ goes with it when you say what itchy ears want to hear.
Please post evidence that he's making $. Or else this is just slander.
-
I agree with Meg. Vigano's solution is "himself" and of course $$ goes with it when you say what itchy ears want to hear.
Yikes.
Perhaps you did not know that +Vigano is quite wealthy, and has no need of stumping for trad-dollars?
That someone would up-thumb such a post is concerning.
-
You know full well that I intend no malice. You, being extremely dishonest, just want to prove a point, and you will stop at nothing to do so.
"You know I am not malicious, but please ignore my blatant malice as I act maliciously..."
How is it possible to be so deaf, dumb and blind?
I am no Vigano fan-boy, to be sure, and some of his most ardent apologists have asked shockingly-silly questions in this thread. Those will be dealt with later. Cheers.
-
Perhaps you did not know that +Vigano is quite wealthy, and has no need of stumping for trad-dollars?
Being wealthy is hardly a decent argument against seeking to fleece generous, passionate, desperate people. I don't know or care if he does or does not, but his wealth or lack thereof means and proves absolutely nothing. Joel O'Steen is loaded, yes? Does that stop him from seeking more wealth by nefarious means? Additionally, one might be excused for not trusting a wealthy cleric, in 2023 more than ever. Not exactly in harmony with the Gospel, eh?
-
Being wealthy is hardly a decent argument against seeking to fleece generous, passionate, desperate people. I don't know or care if he does or does not, but his wealth or lack thereof means and proves absolutely nothing. Joel O'Steen is loaded, yes? Does that stop him from seeking more wealth by nefarious means? Additionally, one might be excused for not trusting a wealthy cleric, in 2023 more than ever. Not exactly in harmony with the Gospel, eh?
GV-
Why is it impossible that Vigano is simply a Novus Ordo convert with pure intentions, and accomplishing good when few others are?
-
Thanks Vermont for pointing this out. Yes, it was a *single* reference and we accepted it, end of story.
Shhh...dont tell Pax. :laugh1:
-
GV-
Why is it impossible that Vigano is simply a Novus Ordo convert with pure intentions, and accomplishing good when few others are?
I never said or implied it was impossible. Acting as if I did so helps no one. I said being rich isn't an argument against seeking more money. Fact.
He may be more than I see or know, which would hardly be a shock. I am a mere man, and a modern man at that, so my vision and perception cannot be trusted. I readily admit that I don't follow him or anything ecclesial as closely as I used to follow such. It bores and discourages me at this point. I would love to see him rise up and rock the world. We desperately need a hero and I will happily accept anyone who is the genuine article.
-
I would love to see him rise up and rock the world. We desperately need a hero and I will happily accept anyone who is the genuine article.
No one is Trad-dom is a hero as you describe. Why are people expecting +Vigano to be the second coming of St John the Baptist? If you aren’t, others are. And when he’s just a normal bishop, who has woken up to V2 and is trying to do *some* good in his realm of experience (ie politics), he gets criticized (by many) for not being a walking saint. It’s so childish.
-
I agree with Meg. Vigano's solution is "himself" and of course $$ goes with it when you say what itchy ears want to hear.
Thank you, Songbird. His solution, as you say, is indeed himself.
IMO, he says what people want to hear, but is our Catholic Faith to be based on those who tell us what we want to hear? It seems to me that we should seek out the authority of those who tell us the hard truths of the Catholic Faith, since the Catholic Faith is difficult to live up to in practice. But no, that's not what's important to some here. Does desperation really allow us to see reality clearly?
I should mention that I have no hatred or malice toward Vigano, but I cannot, despite the over-the-top emotional reactions of some of the men here, accept him as a good example of true Traditional Catholicism. There are just too many red flags for that.
I now expect to be attacked by the emotional ones here. That's fine.
-
IMO, he says what people want to hear, but is our Catholic Faith to be based on those who tell us what we want to hear? It seems to me that we should seek out the authority of those who tell us the hard truths of the Catholic Faith, since the Catholic Faith is difficult to live up to in practice. But no, that's not what's important to some here. Does desperation really allow us to see reality clearly?
Can you please list a few of the "hard truths" Vigano is avoiding telling us about?
-
Why does Vigano mingle with Reawakening America. Freemason, CLAY Clark and Roseanne Barr, Jew. This group has a list of the so-called churches they have had talks. Note these churches bear no names: Not Lutheran, or Baptist, or presbyterian, or methodist. or Unitarian. Strange names like River Church for example.
What is the group up to, their aims? Oh, yes and not so-called catholic church. What I read is sympathy for the jew?. Just remember what Our Lady said, in The Mystical City of God, after her son's death. The demons will bring evil into the world via the jews. Jews will work to the top. The church set up inquisitions just for that purpose. What I question about the talks of Reawakening America, is the possibility of Noahide laws with the combining of different so-called religions/cults.
Vigano reminds me of a cat, sitting on a fence, who leans both ways. If the inquisition was up and going, he would be at the inquisition, being questioned of his actions.
-
Why does Vigano mingle with Reawakening America. Freemason, CLAY Clark and Roseanne Barr, Jew. This group has a list of the so-called churches they have had talks. Note these churches bear no names: Not Lutheran, or Baptist, or presbyterian, or methodist. or Unitarian. Strange names like River Church for example.
What is the group up to, their aims? Oh, yes and not so-called catholic church. What I read is sympathy for the jew?. Just remember what Our Lady said, in The Mystical City of God, after her son's death. The demons will bring evil into the world via the jews. Jews will work to the top. The church set up inquisitions just for that purpose. What I question about the talks of Reawakening America, is the possibility of Noahide laws with the combining of different so-called religions/cults.
Vigano reminds me of a cat, sitting on a fence, who leans both ways. If the inquisition was up and going, he would be at the inquisition, being questioned of his actions.
According to this rationale, +Lefebvre was a "fence sitter" for having supported Action Francaise (i.e., a political organization dedicated to the restoration of the French monarchy, condemned by the Church and headed by atheists, but supported by practically all conservative Catholics at the time).
You are logically obligated to condemn +Lefebvre for having supported it.
A bit about Action Francaise: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/action-francaise
-
According to this rationale, +Lefebvre was a "fence sitter" for having supported Action Francaise (i.e., a political organization dedicated to the restoration of the French monarchy, condemned by the Church and headed by atheists, but supported by practically all conservative Catholics at the time).
You are logically obligated to condemn +Lefebvre for having supported it.
A bit about Action Francaise: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/action-francaise
What proof do you have that +ABL supported Action Francaise? Because I can provide proof to the contrary.
-
According to this rationale, +Lefebvre was a "fence sitter" for having supported Action Francaise (i.e., a political organization dedicated to the restoration of the French monarchy, condemned by the Church and headed by atheists, but supported by practically all conservative Catholics at the time).
You are logically obligated to condemn +Lefebvre for having supported it.
A bit about Action Francaise: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/action-francaise
According to this interview with Michael Davies in November, 1976, ABL denies any connection with this movement:
....
Michael Davies: The Catholic Information Office (of England and Wales) has initiated a publicity campaign intended to link you with Action francaise. Have you ever been associated with this movement?
Mgr. Lefebvre: Never.
....
Footnote to this Interview
As regards Action francaise, in a lengthy press conference given at Econe on 15 September 1976, Mgr. Lefebvre stated that he had not known the late Charles Maurras (founder of the movement); he had not even read his books; he is not linked with Action francaise in any way; he does not read its journal Aspects de la France; he does not know those who edit it; he regretted the fact that it was being sold outside the hall in which his Mass at Lille was celebrated.
The End of a Momentous Year (sspxasia.com) (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Chapter_16.htm#ft3)
-
According to this interview with Michael Davies in November, 1976, ABL denies any connection with this movement:
....
Michael Davies: The Catholic Information Office (of England and Wales) has initiated a publicity campaign intended to link you with Action francaise. Have you ever been associated with this movement?
Mgr. Lefebvre: Never.
....
Footnote to this Interview
As regards Action francaise, in a lengthy press conference given at Econe on 15 September 1976, Mgr. Lefebvre stated that he had not known the late Charles Maurras (founder of the movement); he had not even read his books; he is not linked with Action francaise in any way; he does not read its journal Aspects de la France; he does not know those who edit it; he regretted the fact that it was being sold outside the hall in which his Mass at Lille was celebrated.
The End of a Momentous Year (sspxasia.com) (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Chapter_16.htm#ft3)
+de Mallerais says otherwise.
In the Biography, he cites Lefebvre (p. 49):
(https://i.imgur.com/NPqqGw5.jpg)
Pope St. Pius X was also very much in support of Action Francaise, and refused to condemn it.
-
+de Mallerais says otherwise.
In the Biography, he cites Lefebvre (p. 49):
(https://i.imgur.com/NPqqGw5.jpg)
Pope St. Pius X was also very much in support of Action Francaise, and refused to condemn it.
You said previously that +ABL supported Action Francaise. In what way, exactly, did he support it? By not condemning it, this means that he supported it?
-
You said previously that +ABL supported Action Francaise. In what way, exactly, did he support it?
In exactly the way he explains it to you in his own words cited above?
Did that just fly right over your head?
-
In exactly the way he explains it to you in his own words cited above?
Did that just fly right over your head?
+ABL does not say that he supports Action Francaise. You said that. So where does he show that he supports Action Francaise?
Oh, and where does he say that he speaks at Action Francaise conferences, or that he refers to the adherents of such conferences as the "People of God," as Vigano does? And where does he implore the adherents of Action Francaise to start an [ecuмenical] anti-globalist alliance, as Vigano does? +ABL says a few kind things about Action Francaise, but he had absolutely nothing to do with them.
-
+ABL does not say that he supports Action Francaise. You said that. So where does he show that he supports Action Francaise?
Oh, and where does he say that he speaks at Action Francaise conferences, or that he refers to the adherents of such conferences as the "People of God," as Vigano does? And where does he implore the adherents of Action Francaise to start an [ecuмenical] anti-globalist alliance, as Vigano does? +ABL says a few kind things about Action Francaise, but he had absolutely nothing to do with them.
How anyone can be so dense as to read Lefebvre’s words regarding his sadness at the condemnation of Action Francaise, and conclude he did not support it, can only be the result of protective stupidity.
While you’re in denial on Lefebvre’s support for it, you’ll also have to explain away St. Pius X’s support of it, Cardinal Billot’s support, Fr. LeFloch, Fr. Roger Thomas Calmel, and practically every other conservative French cleric of note.
And yet, we’re to accept in the face of it all, your made-up narrative that Catholics cannot participate in non-Catholic political movements?
Shaking off the dust until your next blunder.
-
+ABL does not say that he supports Action Francaise. You said that. So where does he show that he supports Action Francaise?
Assuming that the soldier-seminarian in the cited passage is +Lefebvre ... can you not read English?
-
According to this interview with Michael Davies in November, 1976, ABL denies any connection with this movement:
....
Michael Davies: The Catholic Information Office (of England and Wales) has initiated a publicity campaign intended to link you with Action francaise. Have you ever been associated with this movement?
Mgr. Lefebvre: Never.
....
Footnote to this Interview
As regards Action francaise, in a lengthy press conference given at Econe on 15 September 1976, Mgr. Lefebvre stated that he had not known the late Charles Maurras (founder of the movement); he had not even read his books; he is not linked with Action francaise in any way; he does not read its journal Aspects de la France; he does not know those who edit it; he regretted the fact that it was being sold outside the hall in which his Mass at Lille was celebrated.
The End of a Momentous Year (sspxasia.com) (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Chapter_16.htm#ft3)
Thank you, 2vermont for posting the above. I'll cite another instance where +ABL shows that he is not affiliated with Action Francaise:
From +ABL's address given at Econe, on Nov. 29, 1975:
"They reproached me for having spoken of Pere le Floch at my consecration. It seemed to me that I could not do otherwise than to thank those who had formed me and who were, in fact, indirectly the cause of my nomination and my selection as a bishop.
"But I was openly reproached with that simply because Pere le Floch was a traditionalist. I was not supposed to speak of this man, who had even been discussed by the French Parliament, because he wanted to form his seminarians in complete conformity to Tradition and truth. He too was accused of being an "integrist." He was accused of involving himself in politics. He was accused of being involved in Action Francaise, whereas never, in any of his spiritual conferences, had Pere le Floch ever spoken to us of action Francaise. He spoke to us only of the encyclicals of the Popes; he put us on our guard against modernism; he explained to us all the encyclicals of the Popes, and especially those of St. Pius X; and thus he formed us firmly in doctrine."
-
Assuming that the soldier-seminarian in the cited passage is +Lefebvre ... can you not read English?
Yes, Lefebvre was performing his military service (which interrupted his seminary formation) in 1926-1927, which is when Action Francaise was condemned.
I should have posted more of the page, but the image file was too bit to copy/paste on CI.
As an aside, there are two practical measures which more than any others are responsible for Vatican II:
1) The resumption of Leo XIII’s ralliement policy of coming to terms with secular society (suppressed by St. Pius X), represented by the condemnation of Action Francaise
2) The suppression of the Sodalitium Pianum after the death of St. Pius X
-
Thank you, 2vermont for posting the above. I'll cite another instance where +ABL shows that he is not affiliated with Action Francaise:
From +ABL's address given at Econe, on Nov. 29, 1975:
"They reproached me for having spoken of Pere le Floch at my consecration. It seemed to me that I could not do otherwise than to thank those who had formed me and who were, in fact, indirectly the cause of my nomination and my selection as a bishop.
"But I was openly reproached with that simply because Pere le Floch was a traditionalist. I was not supposed to speak of this man, who had even been discussed by the French Parliament, because he wanted to form his seminarians in complete conformity to Tradition and truth. He too was accused of being an "integrist." He was accused of involving himself in politics. He was accused of being involved in Action Francaise, whereas never, in any of his spiritual conferences, had Pere le Floch ever spoken to us of action Francaise. He spoke to us only of the encyclicals of the Popes; he put us on our guard against modernism; he explained to us all the encyclicals of the Popes, and especially those of St. Pius X; and thus he formed us firmly in doctrine."
Note the feminine deception in the first paragraph, where Meg replaces my term (“support”) with her own (“affiliated”) in order to continue yammering in.
Wouldn’t it be more honest to simply say, “Huh, good point, Sean. Thanks.”
-
Assuming that the soldier-seminarian in the cited passage is +Lefebvre ... can you not read English?
When did +ABL speak at Action francaise conferences?
-
Note the feminine deception in the first paragraph, where Meg replaces my term (“support”) with her own (“affiliated”) in order to continue yammering in.
Wouldn’t it be more honest to simply say, “Huh, good point, Sean. Thanks.”
When did +ABL speak at Action Francaise conferences?
-
When did +ABL speak at Action Francaise conferences?
Are you trying to say Lefebvre didn’t support AF unless he spoke at their conferences (as many other prelates did)???
-
The reknowned Cardinal Billot resigned as a Cardinal upon the condemnation of Action Francaise:
“Billot's support for the deeply conservative (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism)movement Action Française (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Française) eventually created tension between him and the Holy See (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See). Pope Pius XI (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XI) believed that the movement used Catholicism for its own political ends and placed the movement's newspaper on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum), which meant that it was banned from all Catholic homes. Billot expressed strong disagreement with the decision, saying that the political activities of monarchist (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchism)Catholics ought not to be censured by Rome.[7] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Billot#cite_note-7)
On 13 September 1927, in a meeting with Pope Pius XI, Billot submitted a letter asking to be allowed to resign as cardinal. The Pope had a docuмent drafted for his signature and accepted the resignation eight days later on 21 September. The Pope announced Billot's change in status to the College of Cardinals (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_Cardinals) at the consistory on 19 December, saying: "The autograph letter with which he tendered his resignation adduced such high spiritual motives, and in such grave circuмstances, that after much thought and prayer we decided to accept them."[8] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Billot#cite_note-8) Billot had asked to be allowed to resign several times before.[4] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Billot#cite_note-nytobit-4)
Action Française suggested that the papal action against the newspaper had provoked Billot's action.[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Billot#cite_note-purple-3) The Holy See said his meeting with the Pope was amicable and attributed his resignation to his age (he was 81).[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Billot#cite_note-9) It said he had only an academic interest in Action Française.[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Billot#cite_note-purple-3)
He was the only cardinal to resign that rank during the twentieth century,[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Billot#cite_note-walsh-1) though others relinquished the rights and privileges of the office while retaining the title.[a] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Billot#cite_note-11)”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Billot
-
Are you trying to say Lefebvre didn’t support AF unless he spoke at their conferences (as many other prelates did)???
I'm asking you about +ABL's participation in the conferences of Action Francaise.
Vigano participated in the ecuмenical conferences [organized by prots] and he gave a video addresses to them, and once referred to them as the people of God. When did +ABL do this?
-
I'm asking you about +ABL's participation in the conferences of Action Francaise.
Vigano participated in the ecuмenical conferences [organized by prots] and he gave a video addresses to them, and once referred to them as the people of God. When did +ABL do this?
Can you quote me saying Lefebvre participated in AF conferences?
No?
You can quote me saying Lefebvre was supportive of AF, and that had he wanted to participate in any of their activities, he certainly would have been at liberty to do so (just as many other clergy did).
But your narrative is that such non-Catholic associations are prohibited to Catholics, which I have shown to be nonsense.
-
Vigano participated in the ecuмenical conferences [organized by prots] and he gave a video addresses to them, and once referred to them as the people of God. When did +ABL do this?
You mean like so many clergy did n relation to Action Francaise?
Why weren’t they condemned, as you imagine their participation was prohibited?
-
Meg-
Do you believe Vigano is prohibited from addressing non-Catholic pro-life marches (filled with a mix of natural law atheists, Protestants, Catholics, Buddhists, or whatever else)?
-
The Condemnation of Action Française and the Birth of Vatican II
Feb 27, 2016 at 6:55 am
Nearly a year ago we posted Prof. de Mattei’s reflections on the ralliement of Pope Leo XIII (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-ralliement-of-leo-xiii-pastoral.html), a dangerous ecclesiastical policy that was reversed by St. Pius X. Today we are happy to post a guest-post by Anthony Sistrum on Pope Pius XI’s condemnation of a political party supported by many French Catholic royalists. This was a revival of the ralliement, and it paved the way for the rise of a new theology that would be of great influence at Vatican II.***The Condemnation of Action Française and the Birth of the Nouvelle TheologieAnthony SistromThe Condemnation of Action Française signaled the end of Thomist dominance in French seminary studies and the arrival of the nouvelle theologie. As a result three leading Thomists were fired from their jobs: Fr. Henri LeFloch, cssp, rector of the French seminary in Rome, Cardinal Louis Billot, SJ who taught at the Greg and Fr. Thomas Pegues, OP regent of studies at St. Maximin in Provence.On the eve of the Condemnation, Fr. Marie Vincent Bernadot, OP and Fr. Etienne Lajeunie, OP met with Pius XI. They found common goals. Pius XI wanted to normalize relations with the French government and an opening for his beloved Catholic Action. Frs. Bernadot and Lajeunie wanted the removal of Fr. Pegues from his post at St. Maximin and a ban on Action Française as the bastion of Thomism.In the wake of the condemnation Fr. Bernadot would launch his journal, La Vie Intellectuelle and a publishing house, Editions du Cerf that would publish Catholicism by Fr. Henri de Lubac, SJ. The conventional account of this affair is newly told by Fr. Peter Bernardi, SJ "Action Française Catholicism and Opposition to Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae" in the festschrift A Realist Church: Essays in honor of Fr. Joseph Komonchak (https://books.google.at/books?id=JdFDCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT42&ots=BOgnqu9Wgg&dq=Joseph Komonchak). Fr. Bernardi tries to convict Cardinal Billot of antiliberalism, failing to convict Pius XI for a monumental error which Pius XII would reverse in his first act as pope. Vide Philippe Prevost, "Condamnation de l'Action française : preferer la verite historique a route papolatrie (http://www.actionfrancaise.net/craf/?Condamnation-de-l-Action-francaise)." But the last word belongs to a saint. Fr. Roger Thomas Calmel, OP writes at the end of his life (1974):
Between the two modernisms there was the savage condemnation of Action Francaise; in that lamentable affair a pope very authoritarian unable to understand that his repressive operations carried out according to his desire, had no. other outcome than disaster; first the crushing of Catholics attached to the Syllabus, then the rise of an episcopacy not opposed to modern errors; regarding the famous Catholic Action, it would not find any advantage other than politicizing itself and bending in the direction of socialism.
https://catholicnewslive.com/story/566667
-
You mean like so many clergy did n relation to Action Francaise?
Why weren’t they condemned, as you imagine their participation was prohibited?
Sean, you know that +ABL did not attend any Action Francaise conferences, or anything do with Action Francaise. He had no affiliation with them at all. Unlike your hero Vigano, who speaks at prot ecuмenical conferences, calls them the people of God, and encourages them to form an [ecuмenical] anti-globalist organization.
+ABL was nothing like +Vigano. Oh, and +ABL was formed by a solidly traditional priest. Can you say the same for Vigano?
-
Sean, you know that +ABL did not attend any Action Francaise conferences, or anything do with Action Francaise. He had no affiliation with them at all. Unlike your hero Vigano, who speaks at prot ecuмenical conferences, calls them the people of God, and encourages them to form an [ecuмenical] anti-globalist organization.
+ABL was nothing like +Vigano. Oh, and +ABL was formed by a solidly traditional priest. Can you say the same for Vigano?
Meg-
Why do you insist that +Lefebvre was Chinese? You know better than that!
-
Meg-
Do you believe Vigano is prohibited from addressing non-Catholic pro-life marches (filled with a mix of natural law atheists, Protestants, Catholics, Buddhists, or whatever else)?
He is prohibited from misleading them into thinking they are "the children of light battling the children of darkness" and people aligned with God. These are religious statements not political.
Our Lord commanded His bishops to "go forth to all nations, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded."