Saturday, June 27, 2020

Archbishop Viganò Calls Out The Deception of Vatican II -- Calls for the Hierarchy to Do Penance For the Outrages Committed in Its Name

Edit: Phil Lawler has been almost irrelevant for decades because he's been hostile to traditionalism, but here he is humbly taking in everything Archbishop Viganò is saying. He's been changing ever slowly over the years. What do his donors think of this? It's interesting at this point that so far, Viganò hasn't addressed Jewish connivance and interference at the Council, or that the Church has lost every major cultural battle since.

Lawler: Second, what is the solution? Bishop Schneider proposes that a future Pontiff must repudiate errors; Archbishop Viganò finds that inadequate. But then how can the errors be corrected, in a way that maintains the authority of the teaching magisterium?
Archbishop Vigano: The solution, in my opinion, lies above all in an act of humility that all of us, beginning with the Hierarchy and the Pope, must carry out: recognizing the infiltration of the enemy into the heart of the Church, the systematic occupation of key posts in the Roman Curia, seminaries, and ecclesiastical schools, the conspiracy of a group of rebels—including, in the front line, the deviated Society of Jesus—which has succeeded in giving the appearance of legitimacy and legality to a subversive and revolutionary act. We should also recognize the inadequacy of the response of the good, the naivety of many, the fearfulness of others, and the interests of those who have benefited thanks to that conspiracy. After his triple denial of Christ in the courtyard of the high priest, Peter “flevit amare,” he wept bitterly. Tradition tells us that the Prince of the Apostles had two furrows on his cheeks for the rest of his days, as a result of the tears which he copiously shed, repenting of his betrayal. It will be for one of his Successors, the Vicar of Christ, in the fullness of his apostolic power, to rejoin the thread of Tradition there where it was cut off. This will not be a defeat but an act of truth, humility, and courage. The authority and infallibility of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles will emerge intact and reconfirmed. In fact, they were not deliberately called into question at Vatican II, but ironically they would be on a future day in which a Pontiff would correct the errors that that Council permitted, playing jests with the equivocation of an authority it officially denied having but that the faithful were surreptitiously allowed to understand that it did have by the entire Hierarchy, beginning right with the Popes of the Council.
I wish to recall that for some people what is expressed above may sound excessive, because it would seem to call into question the authority of the Church and of the Roman Pontiffs. And yet, no scruple impeded the violation of Saint Pius V’s Bull Quo primum tempore, abolishing the entire Roman Liturgy from one day to the next, the venerable millenary treasure of the doctrine and spirituality of the traditional Mass, the immense patrimony of Gregorian chant and sacred music, the beauty of the rites and sacred vestments, disfiguring architectural harmony even in the most distinguished basilicas, removing balustrades, monumental altars, and tabernacles: everything was sacrificed on the conciliar renewal’s altar of coram populo, with the aggravating circumstance of having done it only because that Liturgy was admirably Catholic and irreconcilable with the spirit of Vatican II.
The Church is a divine institution, and everything in her ought to start with God and return to Him. What is at stake is not the prestige of a ruling class, nor the image of a company or a party: what we are dealing with here is the glory of the Majesty of God, of not nullifying the Passion of Our Lord on the Cross, of the sufferings of His Most Holy Mother, of the blood of the Martyrs, of the testimony of the Saints, of the eternal salvation of souls. If out of pride or unfortunate obstinacy we do not know how to recognize the error and deception into which we have fallen, we will have to give an account to God, who is as merciful with his people when they repent as he is implacable in justice when they follow Lucifer in his non serviam.
AMDG

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Pray for the Soul of
Bishop Bernardino Pinera Carvallo.
God bless
-Andrew

Constantine said...

When it comes from "the Jews" they are not one religion or church but many sects, all having in common that Christ was not the Son of God or Messiah. Other than that some are in varying degrees sympathetic and others hostile to Christianity. The worst kind are the leftist Jews, and Masonic Jews, whose Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative Branches, accept gay unions or marriages and abortion.

James said...

I agree with your assessment, Constantine.
I would add that it seems like most Jews in the U.S. are completely secularized and only pull out the "Religious Jew" card when it is used to induce guilt in Gentiles.
It has worked marvelously in this country and in Western Europe.
Not that I am surprised. They will be up to their tricks until the end.

Tancred said...

Oy veh, and yet who is it that is at the point of the spear of every agenda hostile to the Church and mankind? It’s always the same people and they’re happy to brag about it in Haeretz too, but wait, goy, we’ve got gatekeepers for you like Paul Gottfried and Peter Hitchens who are on your side! They’re at least sympathetic to you (even though they’re not really).

Anonymous said...

They ()uden) also are EXTREMELY hostile to White Europeans and Trad-Catholics.
-Andrew

Constantine said...

Yes, its true. Most "Jews" are atheist or mild ie lukewarm in their faith and are more involved in the secular life in universities, businesses, government. Please keep in mind, that the more hostile are the ones less caring about their faith. Because the more closer they are to their faith, the less interest they have in dealing with nonJews. The ones with less faith or no faith feel insecure about their ability to remain culturally as"Jews" so they go to extremes, not to please the God they do not believe, but to show others about how they support Israel and carry out external signs and attack what leaves them insecure.

Tancred said...

How many religious Jews do you know?

Hostility to Christianity is what defines Jews whether religious or secular, and religious and conservative Jews alike laugh maniacally on Hebrew platforms at gullible Christians who give them money to support the Zionist cause. They think it’s great fun.

Let me know how many times people who criticize Jewish dishonesty get points for saying “not all Jews”.

The fact of the matter is that they are predatory toward their host cultures, but especially towards Christians and non-Jews, it’s a national characteristic.

Steve said...

If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do the builders labour.

Constantine said...

I grew up in Brooklyn, where there is a great many "Jews". I know that many are "hostile and predatory in general to their host countries". When I go other parts of the US and world, where they are not prevalent, they have no idea about how bad they can be. However, I have met politically conservative Jews. Some are outright politically reactionary. Some are openly hostile to Israel. Some are hostile to any religion but their own (which is something we also believe about Catholicism), and are complete isolationists.
Some follow the Talmud and live in their own political enclaves. They do not interact with the outside world. I don't have a problem with them. They have no problem with us, unless you try converting them, or bother them. Then it's natural to want to protect themselves and their way of life. This is where many start realizing that the government wants them vaccinated, educated with creationism, feminism, sex education, education of men and women on a university level, gay and transgenderism, etc. Then you tick them off, and they see Christians as political allies. No ecumenism. Just as allies. They even begin to understand Vatican II, and see that as a threat to their allies. But they are less than 10 percent of "Jews" worldwide. But that 90%+ of other "Jews" are not recognized as real "Jews" by these 10% of "Orthodox" Jews. The 90 percent are seen by the religious "Jews" as Godless heretics, and apostates; "Jews in name only". In these times, "In Nostrae Aetate" it many be prudent to consider certain alliances with these kinds of "Jews".

Dave said...

Don’t be duped into thinking it is only the Reformed Joos that are the problem. That would be like associating
Unitarianism with Christiandom. Without Orthodoxy the revolution would have no anchor. Deluded into thinking
the Orthodox Joos are pro-Life? Read Larry Wemhoff’s : Abortion is from the Jews

Tancred said...

Some Jz Constantine, but they all have at least a nascent hostility to Christianity. Those who abandon that hostility sometimes become Christians, and others become Christians out of sheer hostility to Christianity: Rebecca Weiss-Bratten, Mary Pezzulo, etc...

It might be interesting to identify and name all of the vocal Conversos in the blogosphere and highlight their takes on things.

Tancred said...

Also there is a divide in Judaism as it has always been between the observant elites and the Jews who are subject and less observant. The big JS vs. the little ones, which is very interesting in itself..

Anonymous said...

The most loving thing you can do for a Jew is to break him from the rule of the rabbis

Anonymous said...

I've been around )ews in some manner off + on for 22 yrs.
I'm not an expert but have experience dealing with them.
The one big noticeable difference between them + us so called Trad-Catholics is the )ews stick together no matter what,especially during cycles crisis like the past 4 yrs.
year + they raise their boys to be educated successful self sufficient and masculine.
We could learn from their playbook especially sticking together.
-Andrew

Anonymous said...

*during cycles of crisis like the past 4 Years.
-A

Anonymous said...

How about a nice and proper Consecration to the Immaculate Heart?

Tancred said...

Are you saying this is the most loving thing you can do for a Jew?

Catholic Mission said...

JUNE 29, 2020
Archbishop Carlo Vigano and Phil Lawler must stop talking in vague and general terms about Vatican Council II being a rupture with Tradition and instead they should specify how the false premise creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
...
Archbishop Carlo Vigano and Phil Lawler must stop talking in vague and general terms about Vatican Council II being a rupture with Tradition and instead they should specify how the false premise creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.We now know the precise cause of the break with Tradition.So they can affirm Vatican Council Ii without the common false premise and inference which creates a non traditional conclusion.
When Archbishop Vigano and Phil Lawler interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being exceptions to all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation(Athanasius Creed) then their conclusion will be non traditional and different from mine.
For me LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, etc are not exceptions to the past ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
So there is a precise reason for the difference between our conclusions on Vatican Council II.
If they interpret the Council, like me, and not like Pope Paul VI , then Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity with the traditional teaching on the Church having a separation and exclusiveness in salvation.There is no rupture with EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
Archbishop Vigano is free to make an announcement on this issue and correct the interpretation of EENS and Vatican Council II, by the present archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Sean O'Malley.Cardinal Malley could apologise for the error of the former archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing, in the excommunication of the priest and his dismissal from the Jesuit community.-Lionel Andrades
Blog Eucharist and Mission

Catholic Mission said...

JUNE 29, 2020
Catholic religious and laity need to formally challenge the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Doctrinal Committee on its bad decisions with reference to Vatican Council II.
Bishop Lopes' Excommunication of Fr. Vaughn Treco is Deceptive ... Fundraiser for Vaughn Treco by Jonathan Wabba Schwartzbauer ...
Bishop Stephen Brady, a member of the USCCB Doctrinal Committee intepreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and inference.He then excommunicated Fr. Vaughn Treco, since he rejected Vatican Council II with the error.
Bishop Kevin Rhoades, the present Chairman of the USCCB Doctrinal Committee interpreted Vatican Council II with the irrationality and did not affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.He then supported a 'hit website' along with Jim Likoudis of Catholics United for the Faith, Steubenville, that maligned Robert Sungenis.The issue was theology.
Bishop Michael F. Olson, Bishop of Fort Worth, did not interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with magisterial documents, which support the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.Instead he placed restrictions on the Fischer More College, allowing it to collapse.There were many Catholic studens enrolled there.He wanted them all to accept Vatican Council II confusing what is invisible as being visible and so creating a false break with Tradition.
The public issue was Vatican Council II. An injustice was done by the bishop and the CDF, to the faculty and students of the college.
Bishop Michael Olson on Twitter: "Happy to welcome my old friend ... Fr. Nicholas Gruner's funeral - District of the USA
According to reports there was opposition to Fr. Nicholas Gruner offering Holy Mass at the college since he rejected Vatican Council II( interpreted with the false premise).While the FSSP priests like the bishops accepted Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise.So they supported a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.The bishop wanted the traditionalists to interpret Vatican Council II with the irrationality and only then they could offer Holy Mass in his diocese.
Bishop Robert McManus, bishop of Worcester, could be asked to interpret Vatican Council II rationally and affirm EENS like the St. Benedict Center, Still River, MA. He could also appeal for the restrictions on the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, N.H in the Diocese of Manchester, where Bishop Peter Libasci is the bishop, be removed.The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Manchester would be willing to affim Vatican Council II without the false premise, since it would not be in conflict with Feeneyite EENS.
Vatican Council II supports the strict interpretation of EENS according to the St. Benedict Centers of Fr. Leonard Feeney,Sr.Catherine Clark Goddard MICM and Brother Francis Malus MICM and the Catholic professors wrongly dismissed by Boston College for their Catholic beliefs.The Jesuits at Boston College must admit that the Catholic professors there was discrimination against the dismissed Catholic professors.
Also the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) and Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity (SOLT) priests and LCWR religious sisters, in Boston and New England, must be asked to affirm Vatican Council II(rational version) before they offer/attend Holy Mass in Latin or English.-Lionel Andrades

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...