Author Topic: +Vigano on V2: Different from the Rest (Read 478 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** June 12, 2021, 04:01:56 PM »

Archbishop Vigano has said that he accepts Vatican II as a legitimate ecuмenical council of the Church, "but different." It is a bit confusing, therefore, to read him in the quotes below suggesting that V2 only used the form and/or appearance of a council, but bereft of the substance of an ecuмenical council, and moreover, that an ecuмenical council can be tossed into the dustbin altogether. Perhaps the seeming equivocation is a subjective misunderstanding on my own part. Nevertheless, I wanted to provide these quotes, as I believe they provide a way out of the conciliar quagmire, and provide a pathway for a future pope to anathematize Vatican II altogether, namely by declaring:

1) Although V2 used the form of an ecuмenical council, it was actually a "conciliabolo" (i.e., devlish council; false council), like Pistoia, but on a worldwide scale;
2) But it lacked the substance of a proper ecuмenical council (i.e., the assistance of th eHoly Ghost to protect it from error, and no dogmatic definitions);
3) Nothing in its pronouncements is therefore properly magisterial (as though false doctrines contradicting the magisterium could be magisterial);
4) Consequently, by our supreme apostolic authority, we declare Vatican II anathema, and likewise anathematize all pseudo-magisterial works (e.g., rites, encyclicals, 1983 CIC; etc.) derived from hat "conciliabolo."

Pertinent quotes from Archbishop Vigano:

"I believe that there is no lack of eminent personalities who have expressed, better than me, critical viewpoints of the Council. There are those who believe that it would be less complicated and certainly wiser to follow the practice of the Church and the Popes as it applied to the Synod of Pistoia [a diocesan Synod in Pistoia, Italy in 1786, later condemned on 85 points by Pope Pius VI in Rome on August 28, 1794]: there was something good in this Synod as well, but the errors it affirmed were considered sufficient to let it fall into oblivion."

-Interview with Dies Irae, 4/22/20: https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-8-vigano-on-the-unrevealed-third-secret-of-fatima/

"On closer inspection, never in the history of the Church has a Council presented itself as such a historic event that it was different from any other council: there was never talk of a “spirit of the Council of Nicea” or the “spirit of the Council of Ferrara-Florence,” even less the “spirit of the Council of Trent,” just as we never had a “post-conciliar” era after Lateran IV or Vatican I."

-Regarding the Position of +Schneider on Vatican II, 6/9/20:https://www.catholicity.com/vigano/2020-06-09.html

"Among other things, this Council has proven to be the only one that has caused so many interpretative problems and so many contradictions with respect to the preceding Magisterium, while there is not one other council – from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican I – that does not harmonize perfectly with the entire Magisterium or that needs so much interpretation."

-Ibid.

"The mere fact that Vatican II is susceptible to correction ought to be sufficient to declare its oblivion as soon as its most obvious errors are seen with clarity. Not by chance does Professor Pasqualucci call it a “conciliabolo [devilish council],” like the Synod of Pistoia, which merited the condemnation of the entire synod beyond the mere condemnation of the individual errors which it taught. I make my own his statement: “After having clearly highlighted the procedural subterfuges and the errors against the Faith scattered throughout the docuмents, a Pope could very well finally quash the entire Council, ‘thereby confirming his brethren in the Faith.’ This would fall perfectly within his summa potestas iurisdictionis over the entire Church, iure divino. The Council is not superior to the Pope. If the Council has deviated from the Faith, the Pope has the power to invalidate it. Indeed, it is his duty.”

-Letter of Vatican II, 6/14/20: https://www.catholicity.com/vigano/2020-06-14.html

"I do not think that it is necessary to demonstrate that the Council represents a problem: the simple fact that we are raising this question about Vatican II and not about Trent or Vatican I seems to me to confirm a fact that is obvious and recognized by everyone. In reality, even those who defend the Council with swords drawn find themselves doing so apart from all the other previous ecuмenical councils, of which not even one was ever said to be a pastoral council. And note that they call it “the Council” par excellence, as if it was the one and only council in the entire history of the Church, or at least considering it as an unicuм whether because of the formulation of its doctrine or for the authority of its magisterium. It is a council that, differently from all those that preceded it, called itself a pastoral council, declaring that it did not want to propose any new doctrine, but which in fact created a distinction between before and after, between a dogmatic council and a pastoral council..."
.......

"In this sense, I believe that the problem of the infallibility of the Magisterium (the inerrancy you mention is properly a quality of Sacred Scripture) does not even arise, because the Legislator, that is, the Roman Pontiff around whom the Council was convened, solemnly and clearly affirmed that he did not want to use the doctrinal authority which he could have exercised if he wanted."
.......

"There is another equivocation that must be clarified. If on the one hand John XXIII and Paul VI declared that they did not want to commit the Council to the definition of new doctrines and wanted it to limit itself to being only pastoral, on the other hand it is true that externally—mediatically or in the media, we would say today—the emphasis given to its acts was enormous. This emphasis served to convey the idea of a presumed doctrinal authority, of an implicit magisterial infallibility, even though these were clearly excluded right from the beginning."

-Interview with Phil Lawler, 6/26/20: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=12379

"For the Innovators maliciously managed to put the label “Sacrosanct Ecuмenical Council” on their ideological manifesto, just as, at a local level, the Jansenists who maneuvered the Synod of Pistoia had managed to cloak with authority their heretical theses, which were later condemned by Pius VI.

On the one hand, Catholics look at the form of the Council and consider its acts to be an expression of the Magisterium. Consequently, they seek to read its substance, which is clearly ambiguous or even erroneous, in keeping with the analogy of faith, out of that love and veneration that all Catholics have towards Holy Mother Church. They cannot comprehend that the Pastors have been so naïve as to impose on them an adulteration of the Faith, but at the same time they understand the rupture with Tradition and try to explain this contradiction.

The modernist, on the other hand, looks at the substance of the ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary message he means to convey, and in order to endow it with an authoritativeness that it does not and should not have, he “magisterializes” it through the form of the Council, by having it published in the form of official acts. He knows well that he is forcing it, but he uses the authority of the Church – which under normal conditions he despises and rejects – to make it practically impossible to condemn those errors, which have been ratified by no less than the majority of the Synod Fathers. The instrumental use of authority for purposes opposed to those that legitimize it is a cunning ploy: on the one hand, it guarantees a sort of immunity, a “canonical shield” for doctrines that are heterodox or close to heresy; on the other hand, it allows sanctions to be imposed on those who denounce these deviations, by virtue of a formal respect for canonical norms."

-Reflection on Kwasniewski's Essay, 9/21/20: https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-25-monday-september-21-2020-the-debate-continues/

.......

"The central vice therefore lies in having fɾαυdulently led the Council Fathers to approve ambiguous texts – which they considered Catholic enough to deserve the placet – and then using that same ambiguity to get them to say exactly what the Innovators wanted. Those texts cannot today be changed in their substance to make them orthodox or clearer: they must simply be rejected – according to the forms that the supreme Authority of the Church shall judge appropriate in due course – since they are vitiated by a malicious intention. And it will also have to be determined whether an anomalous and disastrous event such as Vatican II can still merit the title of Ecuмenical Council, once its heterogeneity compared to previous councils is universally recognized— a heterogeneity so evident that it requires the use of a hermeneutic, something that no other Council has ever needed."

-Ibid

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** June 12, 2021, 04:13:31 PM »

Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Ecuмenical Councils:" https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

This subject will be treated under the following heads:

Definition
Classification
Historical Sketch
The Pope and General Councils
Composition of General Councils
Right of participation
Requisite number of members
Papal headship the formal element of Councils
Factors in the Pope's Co-operation with the Council
Convocation
Direction
Confirmation
Business Methods
The facts
The theory
Infallibility of General Councils;
Correlation of Papal and Conciliary Infallibility
Infallibility Restricted to Unanimous Findings
Promulgation
Is a Council above the Pope?
Has a General Council Power to Depose a Pope?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** June 12, 2021, 11:49:06 PM »

That which follows is an analysis of Dostoevsky's "Tale of the Grand Inquisitor," from his book "The Brothers Karamozov." It is not a non-sequitur to the OP, but I want to let you think about the relation for a day or two before explaining my reason for posting it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Inquisitor

"The Grand Inquisitor" is a poem (a story within a story) inside Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov (1879–1880). It is recited by Ivan Karamazov, who questions the possibility of a personal and benevolent God, to his brother Alexei (Alyosha), a novice monk. "The Grand Inquisitor" is an important part of the novel and one of the best-known passages in modern literature because of its ideas about human nature and freedom, and its fundamental ambiguity. In a long soliloquy, the Grand Inquisitor defends the following ideas: only the principles of the devil can lead to mankind's universal unification: give man bread, control his conscience, and rule the world; Jesus limited himself to a small group of chosen ones, while the Catholic Church improved on his work and addresses all people; the church rules the world in the name of God, but with the devil's principles; Jesus was mistaken in holding man in high esteem.
Scholars cite Friedrich Schiller's play Don Carlos (1787) as a major inspiration for Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, while also noting that "The sources of the legend are extraordinarily varied and complex."^[1]

The tale is told by Ivan with brief interruptive questions by Alyosha. In the tale, Christ comes back to Earth in Seville at the time of the Inquisition. He performs a number of miracles (echoing miracles from the Gospels). The people recognize him and adore him at the Seville Cathedral, but he is αrrєѕтed by Inquisition leaders and sentenced to be burnt to death the next day. The Grand Inquisitor visits him in his cell to tell him that the Church no longer needs him. The main portion of the text is devoted to the Inquisitor explaining to Jesus why his return would interfere with the mission of the Church.

The Inquisitor founds his denunciation of Jesus on the three questions that Satan asked Jesus during the temptation of Christ in the desert. These three are the temptation to turn stones into bread, the temptation to cast Himself from the Temple and be saved by the angels, and the temptation to rule over all the kingdoms of the world. The Inquisitor states that Jesus rejected these three temptations in favor of freedom, but the Inquisitor thinks that Jesus has misjudged human nature. He does not believe that the vast majority of humanity can handle the freedom that Jesus has given to them. The Inquisitor thus implies that Jesus, in giving humans freedom to choose, has excluded the majority of humanity from redemption and doomed it to suffer.

Despite declaring the Inquisitor to be a nonbeliever, Ivan also has the Inquisitor saying that the Catholic Church follows "the wise spirit, the dread spirit of death and destruction." He says: "We are not with Thee, but with him, and that is our secret! For centuries have we abandoned Thee to follow him." For he, through compulsion, provided the tools to end all human suffering and for humanity to unite under the banner of the Church. The multitude then is guided through the Church by the few who are strong enough to take on the burden of freedom. The Inquisitor says that under him, all mankind will live and die happily in ignorance. Though he leads them only to "death and destruction", they will be happy along the way. The Inquisitor will be a self-martyr, spending his life to keep choice from humanity. He states that "anyone who can appease a man's conscience can take his freedom away from him".

The Inquisitor advances this argument by explaining why Christ was wrong to reject each temptation by Satan. Christ should have turned stones into bread, as men will always follow those who will feed their bellies---but the author's point is also that people follow him whom they see is capable of producing miracles. The Inquisitor recalls how Christ rejected this, saying "man cannot live on bread alone", and explains to Christ: "Feed men, and then ask of them virtue! That's what they'll write on the banner they'll raise against Thee and with which they will destroy Thy temple. Where Thy temple stood will rise a new building; the terrible tower of Babel will be built again, and though, like the one of old, it will not be finished". Casting himself down from the temple to be caught by angels would cement his godhood in the minds of people, who would follow him forever. Ruling over all the kingdoms of the Earth would ensure their salvation, the Grand Inquisitor claims.

The segment ends when Christ, who has been silent throughout, kisses the Inquisitor on his "bloodless, aged lips" instead of answering him. On this, the Inquisitor releases Christ but tells him never to return. Christ, still silent, leaves into "the dark alleys of the city". Not only is the kiss ambiguous, but its effect on the Inquisitor is as well. Ivan concludes: "The kiss burns in his heart, but the old man adheres to his idea".

Christ's kiss may also mirror an event that occurs earlier in the novel when the elder Zosima bows before Dmitri Karamazov. No one seems to understand why Zosima does this, and Fyodor Karamazov exclaims: "Was it symbolic of something, or what?".

Not only does the parable function as a philosophical and religious work in its own right, but it also furthers the character development of the larger novel. The parable reveals Ivan's contempt for organized religion. After relating the tale, Ivan asks Alyosha if he "renounces" Ivan for his views. Alyosha responds by giving Ivan a soft kiss on the lips, to which the delighted Ivan replies: "That's plagiarism... Thank you, though". The brothers part soon afterward.

andy · « **Reply #3 on:** June 13, 2021, 06:58:40 PM »

I am not sure if anyone posted it here, but +Vigano seems to be way more direct on V2 now then ever https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/abp-viganos-considerations-on-the-feared-modification-of-summorum-pontificuм

Author Topic: +Vigano on V2: Different from the Rest (Read 478 times)

SeanJohnson

+Vigano on V2: Different from the Rest

SeanJohnson

Re: +Vigano on V2: Different from the Rest

SeanJohnson

Re: +Vigano on V2: Different from the Rest

andy

Re: +Vigano on V2: Different from the Rest