Author Topic: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx (Read 5447 times)

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #45 on:** September 04, 2020, 11:41:53 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 04, 2020, 11:19:54 PM

This has to be one of the most disingenuous posts in the history of CI.

To be clear, my question was sincere and I want to as much as possible distinguish it in tone and spirit from the one you quoted.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #46 on:** September 05, 2020, 02:47:11 PM »

Here was the shill's post before he was deleted for the 47th (under the 47th name):

"A few observations:

The world of tradition has been arguing over what is the “Conciliar Church” for decades and the suggestion that any “divergence of opinion [is] not because the issue is difficult” really shows a disrespect for all those, including the Archbishop, who have made a sincere effort to make sense of this crisis.

If we take two lay-men, who I think most would agree are fairly clued up on the crisis, Louie Verrecchio and John Lane - who can hardly be called Society ‘yes men’ - they say respectively:
“… we live in such extraordinarily trying times that even the most saintly defenders of tradition are at a loss to fully explain it.”
“The situation is indeed mysteriously complex. The one thing which can be said with the greatest confidence is that in the face of an objectively complex problem, any purported solution which is truly simple, must be erroneous.”

If it’s not difficult, why does Sedevacantism even exist? Clearly, it is difficult and what we find is that there is no single position that completely answers the problem.

It is kind of funny that for some in order to ‘prove’ their thesis they must have it approved by Archbishop Lefebvre. Bp Tissier de Malarais does this by taking the archbishop’s words “I consider that a spirit of modernist and protestant tendency shows itself in the conception of the new Mass and in all the liturgical reform.” and then claims he didn’t mean it, that is, it was a “strategic backing off by the prelate of Econe is perfectly justified by the circuмstances: the Holy office was entering into a process which could lead to his condemnation.” Fine, but if that’s true two responses can be made:

1. If some statement can be minimised for some perceive advantage or benefit, then what about Bp. Fellay’s diplomatic discourse with Rome? If Bp. Fellay by backing off reasoned he could get some benefit, why not? There can be no complaints, what is good for the goose is good for the gander;

2. If there’s a time for backing off there must also be a time for coming forward. What about a comparison with St. Thomas More? When asked to give an oath he remained resolutely silent and during his trial he quoted a legal maxim "he that holds his peace, gives consent.” But, when found guilty (and interrupting the Lord Chancellor to remind him it was customary to allow defendants to speak before the imposition of sentence) he let go with both barrels. So, when was this double barrel moment for the Society? Surely it must have been just after the Episcopal Consecrations and Rome declaring the six bishops ipso facto excommunicated. But what do we read in the open letter to Card. Gantin from the Superior General and District Superiors just days after, “We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church…”

Bp.TdM may be right or wrong in his thesis but he certainly cannot claim the archbishop did not truly believe what he said in his examination by the CDF. The position of the SG in 1976 is identical to that of the SG in 1988 as the SG – and I might add the SG from 1994-2018.

That Abp. Vigano concurs with Bp. TDM is neither here nor there but it seems that he agrees because it more aptly fits with the vision of Anne Catherine Emmerich. He doesn’t delve into the thesis as the questioner asked, “It would be beneficial if Archbishop Viganò addressed the argument Bishop Tissier presents and explain if he agrees with it or what objections he would raise to it.”, so the reader is left to ponder, unless of course the vision is reason why, which would only confirm he agrees with the conclusion not the theology behind it.

The claim that The Resistance is united on this point is false. To quote Bp. Zendejas:
“… the modern ecclesiastical orientation, which started with the spirit of the council (Aggiornamento). This Modernist spirit has been continued nowadays by the New Evangelization’s fever, and is being promoted by the attitude of the “Hermeneutic of Continuity” in traditionalist groups.” (Blue Paper #300)."

Response:

Until the official reorientation of the SSPX in 2012, there was hardly any confusion or debate within Tradition regarding the nature of the "conciliar church." But by then, the SSPX had begun rehabilitating some of its former positions, and one of these "rehabilitations" was its conception of the "conciliar church." As an introduction to Bishop Tissier de Mallerais's article "Is there a Conciliar Church?" by the Avrille Dominicans notes:

"Ever since the authorities of the Society of Saint Pius X have been getting closer to conciliar Rome in the hopes of obtaining a canonical recognition, their language has changed. A new thesis contrived by a theology professor at Écône named Fr. Gleize, maintains that there is no conciliar church in the sense of an organized society; the current crisis is rather an “illness” affecting the men of the Church, and the Church presently at Rome is the Catholic Church. This is what Bishop Fellay says, for example in his ordination sermon at the seminary of La Reja (Buenos Aires, Argentina) on December 20th, 2014:

'The problem of jurisdiction shows the importance of being recognized canonically. […] The official church is the visible Church; it is the Catholic Church, period.'

To affirm that the official church is the Catholic Church, – something which Archbishop Lefebvre never did – leads one to look for an official recognition, because one cannot remain outside of the Catholic Church. With his new manner of speaking, this is exactly what Bishop Fellay is trying to persuade the priests and faithful to do, and that puts Tradition in grave danger."
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/

The rehabilitation process plays out like this:

From clarity and unanimity, to the introduction of a new conception, to competing conceptions and confusion, to a new contradictory position (which Menzingen hoped would yield a new unanimity in said contradiction).

The process is intended to destabilize, for the sake of creating tolerance (i.e., as if to suggest that, since the matter is a debated one, therefore one ought to be tolerant of competing understandings), which is itself a step toward eventual acceptance.

But that Fr. Gleize’s conception of the conciliar church is a novelty, unendorsed in SSPX circles prior to the ralliement, becomes evident upon review of a short chronology of eminent traditionalist clergy and authors (including Archbishop Lefebvre), who clearly perceived the conciliar church as a counterfeit entity superimposed on top of the Catholic Church.

The following is from an appendix to an article, once again by the Avrille Dominicans, which was banned in the United Stated by then US District Superior, Fr. Arnaud Rostand:

“In a letter dated June 25, 1976, addressed to Archbishop Lefebvre on behalf of Pope Paul VI, Mgr. Giovanni Benelli (substitute for the secretary of State) was the first to use the expression: 'The Conciliar Church':

“[If the seminarians of Ecône] are of good will and seriously prepared for a priestly ministry in true fidelity to the conciliar Church, we will then take care of finding the best solution for them.”
Archbishop Lefebvre had noted this expression. Sanctioned by a suspens a divinis for having ordained candidates on June 29 of the same year 1976, he wrote on July 29:

“What can be more clear! In the future, one must obey and be faithful to the conciliar Church and no longer to the Catholic Church. This is precisely our problem; we are suspens a divinis by the conciliar Church and for the conciliar Church, of which we do not want to be a part. This conciliar Church is schismatic because she breaks away from the Catholic Church of all time with new dogmas, a new priesthood, new institutions, and a new form of worship already condemned by the Church in many official and definitive docuмents.”

Several defenders of Catholic Tradition commented on this expression. Among others let us quote Jean Madiran (from the special issue of Itinéraires April 1977: La condamnation sauvage de Mgr Lefebvre, p. 113-115):

“That there be at the present time two Churches with the one and the same Paul VI at the head of both, we can do nothing about it, we are not inventing anything, we remark that such is the case.”

Gustavo Corçao in the periodical Itinéraires November 1974 and then Father Bruckberger in L’Aurore March 18, 1976 publicly pointed out:

“The religious crisis no longer consists, as in the 16th century, in having simultaneously two or three Popes for one Church. The crisis today is to have one Pope for two Churches, the Catholic Church and the post-conciliar Church.”

Among the different studies that have come out on this topic let us note:

* An article on “Compared Ecclesiology” published in Le Sel de la Terre 1, summer 1992. The author follows up on some of Archbishop Lefebvre’s reflections concerning the four marks of the Church and the new ecclesiology (the new doctrine on the Church) which was exposed by Pope John Paul II at the time of the promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law. The author shows that the Conciliar Church is a reality distinct from the Catholic Church, having four characteristic marks: she is ecuмenical, humanist, believing, and conciliar (instead of being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic).

* The editorial of Le Sel de la Terre 59 (winter 2006-2007), “One hierarchy for two Churches”, in explaining the four causes of a society, defined the new conciliar Church in this way:
“It is the society of those who are baptized and who submit themselves to the directives of the present Pope and Bishops in their desire to promote conciliar ecuмenism, and who thus admit the teachings of Vatican II, the new liturgy, and the new Canon Law.”

Afterwards, the editorial answered the objection: “It is not possible that the same hierarchy direct two Churches”, because if one is in charge of a Church other than the Catholic Church, one apostatizes. If the Pope is in charge of another Church, he is no longer Pope; one falls into sedevacantism.

“The objection’s error is to imagine the conciliar Church as a society that formally imposes schism or heresy as the Orthodox or Protestants do. For example, if I adhere to the Anglican Church, I am formally a schismatic, and even a heretic, and therefore I am no longer a member of the Catholic Church.

Yet I can be conciliar – that is to say ecuмenical – and still keep the Catholic Faith. Without a doubt I put my faith, and that of others, in danger, but I do not immediately abjure it.

Hence the members of the hierarchy, provided that they do not push their errors to the point of denying the Catholic Faith, remain members of the Catholic hierarchy even though they are conciliar.”
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/

Obviously, there is continuity and consensus within Tradition regarding the nature of the conciliar church, which is, according to the definitions above, an “institution” distinct (if not entirely separated) from the Catholic Church. And this continuity and consensus in Tradition at large was also present in the writings and interviews of Archbishop Lefebvre from 1976 until his death, as these quotes show:

“What could be clearer? We must [according to Rome] henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)

Now, rudimentary logic ought to suggest that, if the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, it is something else. And that “something else” is something with “its own priesthood, its own institutions, its new worship” In other words, it is no mere spirit, but a tangible, concrete reality built and distinct from the Catholic Church.

Twelve years later, the superiors of the SSPX wrote to Cardinal Gantin after the so-called “excommunication of Lefebvre following upon the 1988 episcopal consecrations, and declared to him that:

“On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecuмenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society.”
http://archbishoplefebvrecom.weebly.com/blog/archbishop-lefebvres-greatest-quotes

So, according to Lefebvre, the conciliar church was something to which one needs to “belong” and is a “system.” Once again, this quote demonstrates that the conciliar church is something more than a mere liberal spirit: It is an institution.

Interestingly, the shill quotes the same passage in defense of Fr. Gleize (which later speaks of an “adulterous spirit”), and in another part of his post, quotes +Zendejas speaking og the conciliar “spirit,” as though the mere mention of the word spirit would reduce the concept of conciliar church to that single aspect. What he misses (or more aptly, what he desires that YOU miss), is that the conciliar spirit is but a small component of the conciliar church; the spirit subsists within the conciliar church, in the same way that the Catholic spirit subsists within the Catholic Church. Consequently, were he to quote 100 instances of trads referring to a conciliar spirit, it gets him nowhere:

Every organization has a spirit, and the presence of the spirit rather implies the presence of the organization, rather than excluding it, as the shill would have you believe.

Finally, consider that Archbishop Lefebvre declared at the end of his life (in Spiritual Journey), that it was a strict obligation to remain separate from the conciliar church. Consequently, if we are to understand the nature of the conciliar church merely according to Fr. Gleize’s liberal spirit, then all Archbishop Lefebvre was really saying in this passage was more or less, “You must not adopt a liberal way of thinking.”

But nobody in the SSPX has ever interpreted this passage in such a way, much less Fr. Gleize.

All know it to reference an injunction and command to preclude the possibility of coming to a practical accord with modernist Rome. In other words, there is a concrete, brock and mortar entity called the conciliar church, with which Archbishop Lefebvre refused to reconcile:

It was an institution Archbishop Lefebvre wanted to remain separate from, not a spirit.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #47 on:** September 07, 2020, 01:33:00 PM »

From "Joseph" of the French Resistance Forum:
https://resistance.vraiforum.com/t1251-Mgr-VIGANO-et-Mgr-FELLAY.htm

"For several months now, Bishop Viganò has been speaking publicly on Catholic current events: The questioning of the Second Vatican Council, the perversion of the modernist clergy, the excesses of Pope Francis, the COVID19 tyranny, family issues, etc ... and to this courageous step, the Society of Saint Pius X has so far given practically no response. The seriousness of the subjects treated, and the pertinence of the argumentation, are however without doubt.

So why this silence that weighs on Bishop Viganò?

The confession comes to us today from the site of the Latin Door: https://laportelatine.org/actualites/actualites-eglise/mgr-vigano-parle-de-...

Quote:

"Archbishop Viganò, former Apostolic Nuncio in Washington, courageously denounces these same errors, without mentioning the long struggle undertaken by Tradition. What does he think of this? The ambiguity up to now remained. Finally, the Prelate gives us his view on this subject.

"The ambiguity remained," it writes, and it resided in the fact that Bishop Viganò had not mentioned the Society, nor Bishop Lefebvre!

The formula smells of wounded self-esteem...

It should be noted, moreover, that the development deemed useful by the Society in this delicate matter has been entrusted to the site La Porte Latine, an organ of the District of France. However, it would have been normal, it seems, for the FSSPX-News site - under the responsibility of the General House - to intervene in the front line on such a subject.

But the substance of the affair is elsewhere: those in charge of the General Council know full well that Bishop Viganò does not share the new "accordist" line of the Fraternity, inaugurated in 2012, implemented by Bishop Fellay, and continued without significant correction by his successor Father Pagliarani (and Bishop de Galarreta) since 2018.

Indeed, Archbishop Viganò now does not encourage the clergy or congregations with which he comes into contact to submit themselves juridically to conciliar authority. This is what he wrote to a friend of ours who thought he could find a canonical solution with Rome or some diocese:

Quote:

"I should remind you, if it were not superfluous, that these trials are a sign of God's blessing and of the fact that you are on the right path: If you meet with the approval and encouragement of heretical or vicious prelates, you should put your vocation and your moral conduct under discussion again; and it is indeed from the fierce persecution of these that you must draw great consolation: virtus in infirmitate perficitur ["virtue is perfected in infirmity"]. The infirmities which afflict your religious community confirm the inevitable incompatibility between the sons of light and the sons of darkness, just as the struggle between God and Satan is implacable. Even if some battles are lost, the victory of the war is already assured, because our King is invincible and the leader who guides us is terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata ["terrible as an army in battle array"]. (Letter from Bishop Viganò - July 2020)"

These words of Bishop Viganò constitute a condemnation, implicit but perfectly clear, of the decisions of the 2012 chapter of the FSSPX, of the canonical "faculties" accepted on the sacraments (especially confessions and marriages), and of the diplomatic game of Father Pagliarani aimed at satisfying everyone. Bishop Viganò goes so far as to write that such a concession "should put your vocation and your moral conduct into question at the same time"! Terrible words for the 675 priests of the Fraternity, if you think about it!

That is why Bishop Fellay recently wrote to a nun about Bishop Viganò :

Quote:

"Dear X ..,
Thank you very much for your letter and that of Bishop Viganò.
I don't know what to say, except that I would be very careful in all this matter, ... that I pray ...
for XX..., and I bless you.

Bishop Bernard Fellay | FSSPX

Priorat Mariä Verkündigung
Schwandegg
CH - 6313 Menzingen (ZG)
T + 41 41 757 10 50
F + 41 41 757 10 55
www.fsspx.org"

One can guess the embarrassment of the General House, and one understands that "prudence" (not that of the Gospel!) is called for with regard to a prelate who does not come from the seraglio of Tradition, and whose behavior seems to call into question the policy of canonical rapprochement of the FSSPX with present-day Rome, and in the same logic - why not? - the lodging of the modernist bishop Huonder in an establishment of the Fraternity in Switzerland.

Having perceived the danger, those in charge in Menzingen are thus faced with a dilemma: On the one hand, fearing Rome, they do not want to renounce a canonical arrangement with "conciliar" legality; on the other hand, fearing turmoil within the Fraternity, they do not want either to distance themselves publicly from an eminent prelate... who comes close to the position of rupture adopted in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre in the face of the conciliar apostasy.

So why was the FSSPX forced to publish Archbishop Viganò's letter of September 1, 2020?

For the primary reason that, in this letter in response to the journalist of the Catholic Family News [Stephen Kokx], Bishop Viganò speaks well of the FSSPX. It is therefore impossible to ignore such correspondence. The second reason is a corollary of the first: It is never permitted to criticize the leaders of the FSSPX; according to this rule, a man is good if he speaks (or writes) well of the Society, of its leaders, and of its acts (whatever they may be), and he is to be proscribed or ignored in all other cases. It does not matter what the truth is,
or the error, of its purpose. As Bishop Williamson points out, we are in the midst of subjectivism.

Believing itself to be skillful, the Latin Gate publishes the passage in question in Bishop Viganò's correspondence, but it does not note that the Archbishop speaks of the Fraternity in the past tense. In the same way, the site is careful not to recall that Bishop Tissier's study on the distinction "Catholic Church / Conciliar Church" (approved by Archbishop Viganò) had been the subject of an official refutation under the signature of Father Gleize, which was widely distributed on the FSSPX websites.

We hope that the reader will perceive the deplorable tactics employed by the Society. Since the criterion of judgment is no longer truth, but opportunism and appearances, we find ourselves in the presence of an approach now closer to political maneuvering than to the defense of Catholic orthodoxy. Under these conditions, can we claim the heritage of Archbishop Lefebvre and claim the honors due to his memory?

The height of hypocrisy: In a few days, the tomb of the Founder will be moved from the present vault of Ecône to the crypt of the seminary church.

Guess who will preside over the ceremony?

Bishop Fellay ... the same one who betrayed his Father in the fight for the Faith."

richard · « **Reply #48 on:** September 07, 2020, 02:39:23 PM »

The SSPX has built themselves a gilded cage and Francis holds the key.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #49 on:** September 18, 2020, 08:53:12 PM »

There are a lot of problems with this interview. I'm hopeful and thankful for +Vigano's chastisement of V2 and Modernism, but he still uses modernist language and is too pro-sspx, which I fear is a back-door vanity project aimed at luring in the new-sspx to "make a deal". I'll explain:
.
First of all, Mr McCall seeks to say that the following passage applies to Sedevacantists, when it actually applies to conciliar catholics, whom +Vigano is urging to stay "under rome", because, he argues, just due to the fact that Modernists occupy the hierarchy doesn't mean you agree with them.
.
Refuting Sedevacantists
The Archbishop begins by clearly refuting those who have mischaracterized his prior interventions as advocating that Catholics break with the Church or refuse to acknowledge the occupants of hierarchical offices (as do the Sedevacantists). He delineates the need both to refuse any admixture with the Modernist errors and to remain firmly within the Church: “While it is clear that no admixture is possible with those who propose adulterated doctrines of the conciliar ideological manifesto, it should be noted that the simple fact of being baptized and of being living members of the Church of Christ does not imply adherence to the conciliar team; this is true above all for the simple faithful and also for secular and regular clerics who, for various reasons, sincerely consider themselves Catholics and recognize the Hierarchy. “
.
+Vigano has yet to address sedevacantism and he really doesn't need to. When he advises true catholics to avoid diocesan blasphemous masses and attend "traditional communities", this necessarily includes Sedevacantist chapels.
.
Here's where I have problems with +Vigano, and why I suggest that he may be (though I hope not) a plant to get the new-sspx to "make a deal".
.
The following are quotes from +Vigano's interview...
.

1. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм reaffirmed that faithful and priests have the inalienable right – which cannot be denied – to avail themselves of the liturgy that more perfectly expresses their Catholic Faith. But this right must be used today not only and not so much to preserve the extraordinary form of the rite, but to testify to adherence to the depositum fidei that finds perfect correspondence only in the Ancient Rite.
.
a. He uses the phrase "more perfectly expresses their catholic faith" in relation to the new mass. This is wrong and heretical. I give him a pass because he's just waking up, but if he truly believes that the new mass can be "good" then his whole analysis of V2's problems are worthless. The new mass is the FRUIT of V2. You cannot condemn V2 (theory) without condemning it's mass (action).
.
b. He also irritatingly uses the term "extraordinary form" when referring to the Tridentine rite. Another sign he has not purges himself entirely of the V2 kool-aid.
.
2. His not-so-subtle and oftentimes ridiculous lauding of the new-sspx as the "savior" of Tradition.
.
a. Let us all be wary of such a tactic, whereby satan can tempt us to pride.
b. Certainly the sspx has offered the Church a great service the last 40 yrs but they aren't the only ones who suffered and persevered. It seems that +Vigano is only speaking to the new-sspx, as if the rest of Traditionalists don't exist. Makes me wonder what is his goal?
.
b. Nobody heard of +Vigano before a few years ago. Now he comes out and speaks "nicely" (to use +Williamson's words) to Tradition, and we're supposed to swallow this hook, line and sinker?
.
3. And if (the sspx's) fidelity made disobedience to the pope inevitable with the episcopal consecrations, thanks to them the Society was able to protect herself from the furious attack of the Innovators and by its very existence it allowed the possibility of the liberalization of the Ancient Rite, which until then was prohibited.
.
a. This point offers a major contradiction. In point #1 above, +Vigano rightly says that the True Mass is an "inalienable right" which "cannot be denied". But here in point #3, he goes back to the Modernist/V2 position that the Tridentine right was "prohibited" (i.e. after V2) until +Benedict "liberated" it, by way of the Motu Proprio in 2007.
.
This is a major issue. +Vigano seeks to attack/destroy V2, but still refers to everything using the V2 language and legal structure. This shows that he has a lot to learn about the Modernist lies....or it shows he's a Modernist-in-hiding. Either way, he is still infected with Modernist thinking, that can't be doubted. Let us all beware.
.
4. +Vigano still does not make clear whether he thinks "traditionalist groups" should stay "as they are" or if they have an obligation to "make a deal". Up until now, he has played the "good cop" and has stroked the ego of Traditionalism while still using Modernist language. In other words, he's attacking V2 (up until now, this has been the "sticking point" between the new-sspx and rome...i.e. the reason why the "doctrinal agreement" can't be signed.) But +Vigano toes the line on the Modernist understanding of Quo Primum vs V2 vs the 2007 Motu Proprio.
.
The issue of the new mass/new rites is FAR greater in importance than the debate over V2. The new mass/new rites formally brainwash the laity into heresy through actions, done on a weekly basis (at least), while V2 is just a theoretical encyclopedia of heresies which most laity don't bother with.
.
I'm all for +Vigano fighting against V2 and getting rid of this abomination of errors. But if he continues to uphold the new mass and the "extraordinary form" label of the True Mass/Rites, this shows he's missing the forest for the trees, and doesn't understand the true battle for the Faith.
.
Let us all continue to pray for +Vigano, but also continue to be wary of new-rome, whose conversion has not yet taken place.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #50 on:** September 18, 2020, 08:56:51 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 18, 2020, 08:53:12 PM

There are a lot of problems with this interview. I'm hopeful and thankful for +Vigano's chastisement of V2 and Modernism, but he still uses modernist language and is too pro-sspx, which I fear is a back-door vanity project aimed at luring in the new-sspx to "make a deal". I'll explain:
.
First of all, Mr McCall seeks to say that the following passage applies to Sedevacantists, when it actually applies to conciliar catholics, whom +Vigano is urging to stay "under rome", because, he argues, just due to the fact that Modernists occupy the hierarchy doesn't mean you agree with them.
.
Refuting Sedevacantists
The Archbishop begins by clearly refuting those who have mischaracterized his prior interventions as advocating that Catholics break with the Church or refuse to acknowledge the occupants of hierarchical offices (as do the Sedevacantists). He delineates the need both to refuse any admixture with the Modernist errors and to remain firmly within the Church: “While it is clear that no admixture is possible with those who propose adulterated doctrines of the conciliar ideological manifesto, it should be noted that the simple fact of being baptized and of being living members of the Church of Christ does not imply adherence to the conciliar team; this is true above all for the simple faithful and also for secular and regular clerics who, for various reasons, sincerely consider themselves Catholics and recognize the Hierarchy. “
.
+Vigano has yet to address sedevacantism and he really doesn't need to. When he advises true catholics to avoid diocesan blasphemous masses and attend "traditional communities", this necessarily includes Sedevacantist chapels.
.
Here's where I have problems with +Vigano, and why I suggest that he may be (though I hope not) a plant to get the new-sspx to "make a deal".
.
The following are quotes from +Vigano's interview...
.

1. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм reaffirmed that faithful and priests have the inalienable right – which cannot be denied – to avail themselves of the liturgy that more perfectly expresses their Catholic Faith. But this right must be used today not only and not so much to preserve the extraordinary form of the rite, but to testify to adherence to the depositum fidei that finds perfect correspondence only in the Ancient Rite.
.
a. He uses the phrase "more perfectly expresses their catholic faith" in relation to the new mass. This is wrong and heretical. I give him a pass because he's just waking up, but if he truly believes that the new mass can be "good" then his whole analysis of V2's problems are worthless. The new mass is the FRUIT of V2. You cannot condemn V2 (theory) without condemning it's mass (action).
.
b. He also irritatingly uses the term "extraordinary form" when referring to the Tridentine rite. Another sign he has not purges himself entirely of the V2 kool-aid.
.
2. His not-so-subtle and oftentimes ridiculous lauding of the new-sspx as the "savior" of Tradition.
.
a. Let us all be wary of such a tactic, whereby satan can tempt us to pride.
b. Certainly the sspx has offered the Church a great service the last 40 yrs but they aren't the only ones who suffered and persevered. It seems that +Vigano is only speaking to the new-sspx, as if the rest of Traditionalists don't exist. Makes me wonder what is his goal?
.
b. Nobody heard of +Vigano before a few years ago. Now he comes out and speaks "nicely" (to use +Williamson's words) to Tradition, and we're supposed to swallow this hook, line and sinker?
.
3. And if (the sspx's) fidelity made disobedience to the pope inevitable with the episcopal consecrations, thanks to them the Society was able to protect herself from the furious attack of the Innovators and by its very existence it allowed the possibility of the liberalization of the Ancient Rite, which until then was prohibited.
.
a. This point offers a major contradiction. In point #1 above, +Vigano rightly says that the True Mass is an "inalienable right" which "cannot be denied". But here in point #3, he goes back to the Modernist/V2 position that the Tridentine right was "prohibited" (i.e. after V2) until +Benedict "liberated" it, by way of the Motu Proprio in 2007.
.
This is a major issue. +Vigano seeks to attack/destroy V2, but still refers to everything using the V2 language and legal structure. This shows that he has a lot to learn about the Modernist lies....or it shows he's a Modernist-in-hiding. Either way, he is still infected with Modernist thinking, that can't be doubted. Let us all beware.
.
4. +Vigano still does not make clear whether he thinks "traditionalist groups" should stay "as they are" or if they have an obligation to "make a deal". Up until now, he has played the "good cop" and has stroked the ego of Traditionalism while still using Modernist language. In other words, he's attacking V2 (up until now, this has been the "sticking point" between the new-sspx and rome...i.e. the reason why the "doctrinal agreement" can't be signed.) But +Vigano toes the line on the Modernist understanding of Quo Primum vs V2 vs the 2007 Motu Proprio.
.
The issue of the new mass/new rites is FAR greater in importance than the debate over V2. The new mass/new rites formally brainwash the laity into heresy through actions, done on a weekly basis (at least), while V2 is just a theoretical encyclopedia of heresies which most laity don't bother with.
.
I'm all for +Vigano fighting against V2 and getting rid of this abomination of errors. But if he continues to uphold the new mass and the "extraordinary form" label of the True Mass/Rites, this shows he's missing the forest for the trees, and doesn't understand the true battle for the Faith.
.
Let us all continue to pray for +Vigano, but also continue to be wary of new-rome, whose conversion has not yet taken place.

Translation:

Waah-wahh, Vigano doesn't gree with me, and I feel threatened that his commonsense and alignment with Lefebvre will hurt my cause!

Pax, why are you now championing Vatican II??

You are so confusing and contradictory, I must suspect you are a Opus Dei Jew subverting CI from within!

I'm just so confused!

There's just so many problems!

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #51 on:** September 18, 2020, 09:09:11 PM »

Quote

Waah-wahh, Vigano doesn't gree with me, and I feel threatened that his commonsense and alignment with Lefebvre will hurt my cause!

Proof #12,401 that Sean only argues with emotion and not facts. Sean, I'll wait til someone of a higher intellectual caliber responds to my post.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #52 on:** September 18, 2020, 10:03:33 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 18, 2020, 09:09:11 PM

Proof #12,401 that Sean only argues with emotion and not facts. Sean, I'll wait til someone of a higher intellectual caliber responds to my post.

This statement is so problematic; so contradictory! Why doesn’t Pax come out and say what he means?? Obviously, these Jєωιѕн tactics are designed to enslave us to conciliarism. That much is clear. But we need explanations to all the other strange statements, and until we get them, I don’t trust Pax.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #53 on:** September 18, 2020, 10:07:15 PM »

Honestly Sedevacantism, R and R, and Archbishop Vigano are all just Jєωιѕн masonic plots to bring us back to Vatican II... somehow. Really what we need to do in order to avoid being sucked into the conciliarist paradigm is to embrace Vatican II in order to avoid Vatican II.

(obviously a troll)

Stubborn · « **Reply #54 on:** September 19, 2020, 04:45:44 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 18, 2020, 08:53:12 PM

There are a lot of problems with this interview. I'm hopeful and thankful for +Vigano's chastisement of V2 and Modernism, but he still uses modernist language and is too pro-sspx, which I fear is a back-door vanity project aimed at luring in the new-sspx to "make a deal". I'll explain:
.
First of all, Mr McCall seeks to say that the following passage applies to Sedevacantists, when it actually applies to conciliar catholics, whom +Vigano is urging to stay "under rome", because, he argues, just due to the fact that Modernists occupy the hierarchy doesn't mean you agree with them.
.
Refuting Sedevacantists
The Archbishop begins by clearly refuting those who have mischaracterized his prior interventions as advocating that Catholics break with the Church or refuse to acknowledge the occupants of hierarchical offices (as do the Sedevacantists). He delineates the need both to refuse any admixture with the Modernist errors and to remain firmly within the Church: “While it is clear that no admixture is possible with those who propose adulterated doctrines of the conciliar ideological manifesto, it should be noted that the simple fact of being baptized and of being living members of the Church of Christ does not imply adherence to the conciliar team; this is true above all for the simple faithful and also for secular and regular clerics who, for various reasons, sincerely consider themselves Catholics and recognize the Hierarchy. “
.
+Vigano has yet to address sedevacantism and he really doesn't need to. When he advises true catholics to avoid diocesan blasphemous masses and attend "traditional communities", this necessarily includes Sedevacantist chapels.
.
Here's where I have problems with +Vigano, and why I suggest that he may be (though I hope not) a plant to get the new-sspx to "make a deal".
.
The following are quotes from +Vigano's interview...
.

1. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм reaffirmed that faithful and priests have the inalienable right – which cannot be denied – to avail themselves of the liturgy that more perfectly expresses their Catholic Faith. But this right must be used today not only and not so much to preserve the extraordinary form of the rite, but to testify to adherence to the depositum fidei that finds perfect correspondence only in the Ancient Rite.
.
a. He uses the phrase "more perfectly expresses their catholic faith" in relation to the new mass. This is wrong and heretical. I give him a pass because he's just waking up, but if he truly believes that the new mass can be "good" then his whole analysis of V2's problems are worthless. The new mass is the FRUIT of V2. You cannot condemn V2 (theory) without condemning it's mass (action).
.
b. He also irritatingly uses the term "extraordinary form" when referring to the Tridentine rite. Another sign he has not purges himself entirely of the V2 kool-aid.
.
2. His not-so-subtle and oftentimes ridiculous lauding of the new-sspx as the "savior" of Tradition.
.
a. Let us all be wary of such a tactic, whereby satan can tempt us to pride.
b. Certainly the sspx has offered the Church a great service the last 40 yrs but they aren't the only ones who suffered and persevered. It seems that +Vigano is only speaking to the new-sspx, as if the rest of Traditionalists don't exist. Makes me wonder what is his goal?
.
b. Nobody heard of +Vigano before a few years ago. Now he comes out and speaks "nicely" (to use +Williamson's words) to Tradition, and we're supposed to swallow this hook, line and sinker?
.
3. And if (the sspx's) fidelity made disobedience to the pope inevitable with the episcopal consecrations, thanks to them the Society was able to protect herself from the furious attack of the Innovators and by its very existence it allowed the possibility of the liberalization of the Ancient Rite, which until then was prohibited.
.
a. This point offers a major contradiction. In point #1 above, +Vigano rightly says that the True Mass is an "inalienable right" which "cannot be denied". But here in point #3, he goes back to the Modernist/V2 position that the Tridentine right was "prohibited" (i.e. after V2) until +Benedict "liberated" it, by way of the Motu Proprio in 2007.
.
This is a major issue. +Vigano seeks to attack/destroy V2, but still refers to everything using the V2 language and legal structure. This shows that he has a lot to learn about the Modernist lies....or it shows he's a Modernist-in-hiding. Either way, he is still infected with Modernist thinking, that can't be doubted. Let us all beware.
.
4. +Vigano still does not make clear whether he thinks "traditionalist groups" should stay "as they are" or if they have an obligation to "make a deal". Up until now, he has played the "good cop" and has stroked the ego of Traditionalism while still using Modernist language. In other words, he's attacking V2 (up until now, this has been the "sticking point" between the new-sspx and rome...i.e. the reason why the "doctrinal agreement" can't be signed.) But +Vigano toes the line on the Modernist understanding of Quo Primum vs V2 vs the 2007 Motu Proprio.
.
The issue of the new mass/new rites is FAR greater in importance than the debate over V2. The new mass/new rites formally brainwash the laity into heresy through actions, done on a weekly basis (at least), while V2 is just a theoretical encyclopedia of heresies which most laity don't bother with.
.
I'm all for +Vigano fighting against V2 and getting rid of this abomination of errors. But if he continues to uphold the new mass and the "extraordinary form" label of the True Mass/Rites, this shows he's missing the forest for the trees, and doesn't understand the true battle for the Faith.
.
Let us all continue to pray for +Vigano, but also continue to be wary of new-rome, whose conversion has not yet taken place.

Well said, excellent break down Pax!

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #55 on:** September 19, 2020, 07:54:28 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 18, 2020, 08:53:12 PM

There are a lot of problems with this interview. I'm hopeful and thankful for +Vigano's chastisement of V2 and Modernism, but he still uses modernist language and is too pro-sspx, which I fear is a back-door vanity project aimed at luring in the new-sspx to "make a deal". I'll explain:
.
First of all, Mr McCall seeks to say that the following passage applies to Sedevacantists, when it actually applies to conciliar catholics, whom +Vigano is urging to stay "under rome", because, he argues, just due to the fact that Modernists occupy the hierarchy doesn't mean you agree with them.
.
Refuting Sedevacantists
The Archbishop begins by clearly refuting those who have mischaracterized his prior interventions as advocating that Catholics break with the Church or refuse to acknowledge the occupants of hierarchical offices (as do the Sedevacantists). He delineates the need both to refuse any admixture with the Modernist errors and to remain firmly within the Church: “While it is clear that no admixture is possible with those who propose adulterated doctrines of the conciliar ideological manifesto, it should be noted that the simple fact of being baptized and of being living members of the Church of Christ does not imply adherence to the conciliar team; this is true above all for the simple faithful and also for secular and regular clerics who, for various reasons, sincerely consider themselves Catholics and recognize the Hierarchy. “
.
+Vigano has yet to address sedevacantism and he really doesn't need to. When he advises true catholics to avoid diocesan blasphemous masses and attend "traditional communities", this necessarily includes Sedevacantist chapels.
.
Here's where I have problems with +Vigano, and why I suggest that he may be (though I hope not) a plant to get the new-sspx to "make a deal".
.
The following are quotes from +Vigano's interview...
.

1. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм reaffirmed that faithful and priests have the inalienable right – which cannot be denied – to avail themselves of the liturgy that more perfectly expresses their Catholic Faith. But this right must be used today not only and not so much to preserve the extraordinary form of the rite, but to testify to adherence to the depositum fidei that finds perfect correspondence only in the Ancient Rite.
.
a. He uses the phrase "more perfectly expresses their catholic faith" in relation to the new mass. This is wrong and heretical. I give him a pass because he's just waking up, but if he truly believes that the new mass can be "good" then his whole analysis of V2's problems are worthless. The new mass is the FRUIT of V2. You cannot condemn V2 (theory) without condemning it's mass (action).
.
b. He also irritatingly uses the term "extraordinary form" when referring to the Tridentine rite. Another sign he has not purges himself entirely of the V2 kool-aid.
.
2. His not-so-subtle and oftentimes ridiculous lauding of the new-sspx as the "savior" of Tradition.
.
a. Let us all be wary of such a tactic, whereby satan can tempt us to pride.
b. Certainly the sspx has offered the Church a great service the last 40 yrs but they aren't the only ones who suffered and persevered. It seems that +Vigano is only speaking to the new-sspx, as if the rest of Traditionalists don't exist. Makes me wonder what is his goal?
.
b. Nobody heard of +Vigano before a few years ago. Now he comes out and speaks "nicely" (to use +Williamson's words) to Tradition, and we're supposed to swallow this hook, line and sinker?
.
3. And if (the sspx's) fidelity made disobedience to the pope inevitable with the episcopal consecrations, thanks to them the Society was able to protect herself from the furious attack of the Innovators and by its very existence it allowed the possibility of the liberalization of the Ancient Rite, which until then was prohibited.
.
a. This point offers a major contradiction. In point #1 above, +Vigano rightly says that the True Mass is an "inalienable right" which "cannot be denied". But here in point #3, he goes back to the Modernist/V2 position that the Tridentine right was "prohibited" (i.e. after V2) until +Benedict "liberated" it, by way of the Motu Proprio in 2007.
.
This is a major issue. +Vigano seeks to attack/destroy V2, but still refers to everything using the V2 language and legal structure. This shows that he has a lot to learn about the Modernist lies....or it shows he's a Modernist-in-hiding. Either way, he is still infected with Modernist thinking, that can't be doubted. Let us all beware.
.
4. +Vigano still does not make clear whether he thinks "traditionalist groups" should stay "as they are" or if they have an obligation to "make a deal". Up until now, he has played the "good cop" and has stroked the ego of Traditionalism while still using Modernist language. In other words, he's attacking V2 (up until now, this has been the "sticking point" between the new-sspx and rome...i.e. the reason why the "doctrinal agreement" can't be signed.) But +Vigano toes the line on the Modernist understanding of Quo Primum vs V2 vs the 2007 Motu Proprio.
.
The issue of the new mass/new rites is FAR greater in importance than the debate over V2. The new mass/new rites formally brainwash the laity into heresy through actions, done on a weekly basis (at least), while V2 is just a theoretical encyclopedia of heresies which most laity don't bother with.
.
I'm all for +Vigano fighting against V2 and getting rid of this abomination of errors. But if he continues to uphold the new mass and the "extraordinary form" label of the True Mass/Rites, this shows he's missing the forest for the trees, and doesn't understand the true battle for the Faith.
.
Let us all continue to pray for +Vigano, but also continue to be wary of new-rome, whose conversion has not yet taken place.

Response:

1a) You are arguing that the TLM does NOT more effectively express the Catholic Faith than the NOM. You declare such a statement heretical. Noted. Pax is a militant advocate of the NOM.

1b) He uses the term extraordinary rite because he is discussing Summorum Pontificuм, which uses that term. Elsewhere (eg., June 9 letter), he distinguished between the Catholic rite and the Mass of Paul VI.

2a) Vigano gives credit where credit is due: It HAS been the SSPX which has played the biggest part in preserving traditional Catholicism. But your warning about Vigano being afflicted with pride follows as an impertinent non sequitur: Vigano is not a member of the SSPX, so how can his recognition of Lefebvre or the SSPX evince pride in him?

2b) Completely gratuitous: There is no evidence at all that Vigano is speaking with the SSPX: He is speaking ABOUT the SSPX.

Your claim that he is ONLY speaking to the SSPX is equally stupid. Not only is there no evidence he has EVER spoken with the SSPX, but he himself has acknowledged being in contact with the Resistance (Fr. Salenave in France, Dom Nitoglia in Italy, and through the latter probably Bishop Williamson).

What’s he supposed to do, make a public address to Feeneyite’s?

2bb) This comment seems to betray a superiority complex: You know tradition better than Vigano, and he must pass muster with you before he may be admitted as legitimate.

Yet have we not all along noted that Viganò’s is a conversion in progress, and that we are watching to see how he develops?

It seems he has already done (almost) everything any reasonable person could ask in order to be considered traditional:

Encouraged all to leave the NOM, recognized the existence of a conciliar church, while encouraging fidelity to the Catholic Church, openly resisted and publicly condemned Francis’ aberrations, and made public rebuttals to his critics.

Perhaps you will find that if you could keep your mouth shut another 6 months, you will discover him to have said whatever you feel he should already have said?

3) There is no contradiction. You simply have a dull intellect: You do not distinguish between de facto and de jure suppression.

It is an historical fact that the TLM was suppressed de facto until (and even after) SP, but this latter woeful docuмent had tge saving grace of admitting it had never been abrogated de jure (ie., legally).

Vigano is merely recalling that fact.

And if he is using their language, it is because he is addressing their docuмent! It was noted above that elsewhere in his writings, when he is speaking of the Mass generally, he speaks of it simply as tge Catholic (or ancient) rite, which he distinguished from the Mass of Paul VI.

4) This comment is a hallucination. Vigano has clearly endorsed the abandonment of the conciliar church. Only a water head would garner confusion and conclude he was advocating a return to conciliarism.

Confusion could be generated one way: If Pax, like Bishop Fellay, does not want to distinguish between the conciliar church and Catholic Church.

Pax’s “confusion” seems to indicate that he likewise does not make that distinction.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #56 on:** September 19, 2020, 01:05:05 PM »

Quote

1a) You are arguing that the TLM does NOT more effectively express the Catholic Faith than the NOM. You declare such a statement heretical. Noted. Pax is a militant advocate of the NOM.

No you miss the point. By saying that the TLM is a "more perfect mass", that logically means the novus ordo is "less perfect"...but it's still catholic and "ok". Very pro-Benedict XVI thinking.
.
The correct theological position is that the TLM is the ONLY perfect mass. The novus ordo is not perfect, in any way, it may be valid, but it's not 100% catholic in theology, therefore it should be done away with, pronto.
.

Quote

1b) He uses the term extraordinary rite because he is discussing Summorum Pontificuм, which uses that term. Elsewhere (eg., June 9 letter), he distinguished between the Catholic rite and the Mass of Paul VI.

At first, he was talking about Quo Primum, then he skips to the Motu. These 2 laws are contradictory, so therefore the labels of the TLM are contradictory. "Tridentine Rite" vs "Extraordinary Form". Again, using the term "extraordinary form" gives credence to the novus ordo, by logically implying that it is "ordinary" and acceptable. More pro-Benedict XVI thinking.
.

Quote

2a) Vigano gives credit where credit is due: It HAS been the SSPX which has played the biggest part in preserving traditional Catholicism. But your warning about Vigano being afflicted with pride follows as an impertinent non sequitur: Vigano is not a member of the SSPX, so how can his recognition of Lefebvre or the SSPX evince pride in him?

I'm saying that +Vigano is (maybe) manipulating the new-sspx by stroking their ego. He's playing to THEIR pride. He's saying wonderful things about +ABL and their society and talking about how all those "conservatives" who are "under rome" are not Modernists but are fighting for the Church. He's making an argument for why "the deal" is good.

Quote

2b) Completely gratuitous: There is no evidence at all that Vigano is speaking with the SSPX: He is speaking ABOUT the SSPX.

I said he's speaking "to Tradition". If you don't think his letters/interviews are love letters to Trads, then who is he speaking to? The FSSP faithful? Conservative novus ordo-ites? No way! They wouldn't leave new-rome in a million years. They've already swallowed the "fight inside the church" lie. He's sweet talking Trads. I hope he's sincere, but I don't know.
.

Quote

Your claim that he is ONLY speaking to the SSPX is equally stupid. Not only is there no evidence he has EVER spoken with the SSPX, but he himself has acknowledged being in contact with the Resistance (Fr. Salenave in France, Dom Nitoglia in Italy, and through the latter probably Bishop Williamson).

This interview in particular is pro-sspx. How do you not get this? Nowhere does he speak to Traditionalism in general, but he calls out +ABL and the sspx for doing great work, in particular.
.

Quote

What’s he supposed to do, make a public address to Feeneyite’s?

My point is that there are thousands and thousands of Trads who are not part of the sspx. Yet he goes out of his way to appeal/congratulate just them. And they are the only Trad group who is thinking of/negotiating with new-rome. Coincidence?
.

Quote

2bb) This comment seems to betray a superiority complex: You know tradition better than Vigano, and he must pass muster with you before he may be admitted as legitimate. Yet have we not all along noted that Viganò’s is a conversion in progress, and that we are watching to see how he develops?

It seems he has already done (almost) everything any reasonable person could ask in order to be considered traditional:

Encouraged all to leave the NOM, recognized the existence of a conciliar church, while encouraging fidelity to the Catholic Church, openly resisted and publicly condemned Francis’ aberrations, and made public rebuttals to his critics.

1. "Encouraged all to leave the NOM"
I question his position on the new mass, as i've explained above. In his first few interviews/letters, he spoke of the liturgical revolution and the abuses. He said people should go to mass at "Trad communities" if...(paraphrasing) "their local diocese is a danger to their faith". Ok, that sounds good...I guess. My question - what diocese in the whole world isn't pro-V2 and isn't a danger to one's faith? I'm talking diocese, not simply an isolated FSSP/TLM chapel.
.
But now in this article, he backtracks (theologically) by using Benedict XVI "motu" language which suggests that he still thinks a new mass can be "good" even though it's not the "most perfect" mass.
.
Seems he's supporting the Benedict XVI argument that the new mass/TLM can co-exist, if only the new mass' "abuses" could be stopped. He never says that any/all catholics should avoid the new mass 100%. He never says that the TLM is the ONLY mass to attend. Again, while it's great that he condemns V2 outright, he needs to also condemn the new mass outright as well. The new mass is the fruit of the V2 poisoned tree. You cannot have one without the other.
.

Quote

Perhaps you will find that if you could keep your mouth shut another 6 months, you will discover him to have said whatever you feel he should already have said?

Whatever you say, Karen.
.

Quote

3) There is no contradiction. You simply have a dull intellect: You do not distinguish between de facto and de jure suppression.

It is an historical fact that the TLM was suppressed de facto until (and even after) SP, but this latter woeful docuмent had tge saving grace of admitting it had never been abrogated de jure (ie., legally).

I don't buy it. He uses pro-Benedict XVI language, and "go team go" pro-sspx language. He says the TLM was "prohibited", which is a legal term. And he appeals to the sspx's ego by saying that their "fidelity (to Tradition)...and their very existence...allowed the possibility of the liberalization of the Ancient Rite..." He finishes it up with more pro-Benedict sentiments: he "liberalized the Ancient Rite".
.
The TLM needed no liberalization. It still doesn't, legally. Now, you make a good point on the "de facto" situation, but still, the TLM isn't liberalized everywhere in the world. There are still limitations on it, depending on the diocese and Bishop.
.

Quote

4) This comment is a hallucination. Vigano has clearly endorsed the abandonment of the conciliar church.

Yes, but you can define 'conciliar church' in different ways. Vigano seems to define it as (1) Vatican 2 errors and (2) new masses with "abuses".
.
The foundation of Traditionalism is to define the conciliar church as (1) and (2) above, but also...(2b) all new masses, in general. (3) all new rites of sacraments. (4) all post-V2 ideals, programs, canon law, etc, etc.
.
Vigano has found the rabbit-hole to Tradition and has taken some large and important steps. But he's got a long hike to go before getting out of the Wonderland of V2 Modernism.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #57 on:** September 19, 2020, 01:31:39 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 19, 2020, 01:05:05 PM

No you miss the point. By saying that the TLM is a "more perfect mass", that logically means the novus ordo is "less perfect"...but it's still catholic and "ok". Very pro-Benedict XVI thinking.
.
The correct theological position is that the TLM is the ONLY perfect mass. The novus ordo is not perfect, in any way, it may be valid, but it's not 100% catholic in theology, therefore it should be done away with, pronto.
.
At first, he was talking about Quo Primum, then he skips to the Motu. These 2 laws are contradictory, so therefore the labels of the TLM are contradictory. "Tridentine Rite" vs "Extraordinary Form". Again, using the term "extraordinary form" gives credence to the novus ordo, by logically implying that it is "ordinary" and acceptable. More pro-Benedict XVI thinking.
.
I'm saying that +Vigano is (maybe) manipulating the new-sspx by stroking their ego. He's playing to THEIR pride. He's saying wonderful things about +ABL and their society and talking about how all those "conservatives" who are "under rome" are not Modernists but are fighting for the Church. He's making an argument for why "the deal" is good.

I said he's speaking "to Tradition". If you don't think his letters/interviews are love letters to Trads, then who is he speaking to? The FSSP faithful? Conservative novus ordo-ites? No way! They wouldn't leave new-rome in a million years. They've already swallowed the "fight inside the church" lie. He's sweet talking Trads. I hope he's sincere, but I don't know.
.
This interview in particular is pro-sspx. How do you not get this? Nowhere does he speak to Traditionalism in general, but he calls out +ABL and the sspx for doing great work, in particular.
.
My point is that there are thousands and thousands of Trads who are not part of the sspx. Yet he goes out of his way to appeal/congratulate just them. And they are the only Trad group who is thinking of/negotiating with new-rome. Coincidence?
.
1. "Encouraged all to leave the NOM"
I question his position on the new mass, as i've explained above. In his first few interviews/letters, he spoke of the liturgical revolution and the abuses. He said people should go to mass at "Trad communities" if...(paraphrasing) "their local diocese is a danger to their faith". Ok, that sounds good...I guess. My question - what diocese in the whole world isn't pro-V2 and isn't a danger to one's faith? I'm talking diocese, not simply an isolated FSSP/TLM chapel.
.
But now in this article, he backtracks (theologically) by using Benedict XVI "motu" language which suggests that he still thinks a new mass can be "good" even though it's not the "most perfect" mass.
.
Seems he's supporting the Benedict XVI argument that the new mass/TLM can co-exist, if only the new mass' "abuses" could be stopped. He never says that any/all catholics should avoid the new mass 100%. He never says that the TLM is the ONLY mass to attend. Again, while it's great that he condemns V2 outright, he needs to also condemn the new mass outright as well. The new mass is the fruit of the V2 poisoned tree. You cannot have one without the other.
.
Whatever you say, Karen.
.
I don't buy it. He uses pro-Benedict XVI language, and "go team go" pro-sspx language. He says the TLM was "prohibited", which is a legal term. And he appeals to the sspx's ego by saying that their "fidelity (to Tradition)...and their very existence...allowed the possibility of the liberalization of the Ancient Rite..." He finishes it up with more pro-Benedict sentiments: he "liberalized the Ancient Rite".
.
The TLM needed no liberalization. It still doesn't, legally. Now, you make a good point on the "de facto" situation, but still, the TLM isn't liberalized everywhere in the world. There are still limitations on it, depending on the diocese and Bishop.
.
Yes, but you can define 'conciliar church' in different ways. Vigano seems to define it as (1) Vatican 2 errors and (2) new masses with "abuses".
.
The foundation of Traditionalism is to define the conciliar church as (1) and (2) above, but also...(2b) all new masses, in general. (3) all new rites of sacraments. (4) all post-V2 ideals, programs, canon law, etc, etc.
.
Vigano has found the rabbit-hole to Tradition and has taken some large and important steps. But he's got a long hike to go before getting out of the Wonderland of V2 Modernism.

1) Except that he already said Catholics must stick with the TLM, and seek out priests who have remained faithful to tradition.

2) You add to your idiocy by hallucinating he wants a deal for the SSPX. Really? When he is telling everyone to flee the conciliar church, your delirium contrives this is a strategy to get them in???

You are getting dumber by the hour!

3) He who wastes words with fools is a fool.

I am content to let you continue to mesmerize yourself.

Idiots.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #58 on:** September 19, 2020, 03:01:52 PM »

What a well-thought out and rational response, Sean. Your intellectual prowess continues to amaze.
.

Quote

1) Except that he already said Catholics must stick with the TLM, and seek out priests who have remained faithful to tradition.

"Faithful to Tradition" according to him, would include the FSSP, ICK, any and all Trad/diocesan priests who say the TLM...(and maybe if they say a "reverent" new mass). So, he defines Tradition using the minimalist approach - what kind of mass do you attend? This is problematic. If the FSSP is considered Traditional, then why can't the SSPX join new-rome and be traditional too?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #59 on:** September 19, 2020, 03:35:39 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 19, 2020, 03:01:52 PM

What a well-thought out and rational response, Sean. Your intellectual prowess continues to amaze.
.

"Faithful to Tradition" according to him, would include the FSSP, ICK, any and all Trad/diocesan priests who say the TLM...(and maybe if they say a "reverent" new mass). So, he defines Tradition using the minimalist approach - what kind of mass do you attend? This is problematic. If the FSSP is considered Traditional, then why can't the SSPX join new-rome and be traditional too?

If he says we must separate from the conciliar church, then by definition, the groups you mentioned are not among those “faithful to tradition,” since they have not separated from it.

Author Topic: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx (Read 5447 times)

ByzCat3000

Re: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx

SeanJohnson

Re: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx

SeanJohnson

Re: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx

richard

Re: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx

Pax Vobis

Re: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx

SeanJohnson

Re: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx

Pax Vobis

Re: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx

SeanJohnson

Re: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx

ByzCat3000

Re: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx

Stubborn

Re: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx

SeanJohnson

Re: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx

Pax Vobis

Re: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx

SeanJohnson

Re: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx

Pax Vobis

Re: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx

SeanJohnson

Re: ++Vigano Responds to Stephen Kokx