Tuesday, July 7, 2020

The New Viganò Letter

Edit: it's live now as of 0728 PST.  The stream has ended.  You can read up on this at Catholic Family News.

It just gets better.


Anonymous said...

He will trigger the end of Pope Francis and the Vatican II Church. There is a tidal wave of support for him among younger Catholics and priests who like Vigano,know the truth about Vatican II and its manipulations, deviations, experimentations, etc. It may take awhile, but it is the beginning of the end for Vatican II......and a swifter end for Francis and company.

Damian M. Malliapalli

As in all cases, the guilty always try to silence/discredit/slander those who speak the truth (Vigano speaks the truth).

Anonymous said...

Sedevacantists have been avoiding Vatican 2 since the early 70's.

Anonymous said...

Rightly so.

I would never tell my parents, but I went to Catholic school, (b.1988), and came out in 2009 knowing that I did not receive a Catholic education. I knew nothing about the Catholic Church or it's teachings. All we got was a bunch of 1970's crap recycled for the 1990's-2000's. The nuns who taught me were radical feminists in their late 60's. The Jesuits and Augustinians in HS were lunatic radicals (and quite a few were gay I am sure). Two Augustinians were found guilty of pedophilia after I was gone....but I remembered them. I stopped going to Mass years ago, except to the TLM, becuse I couldn't stand priests struggling to make up the words of the Mass. I remember one "hippy" Augustinian saying Mass on campus and said these words at the Consecration, rather than the correct words from the approved texr. "When I see this bread, loving this wine......" That's a legit consecration? HAHAHAHAHA!
I taught public HS for 2 years, leaving 2 years back because i wasn't going to teach ot tell 13-15 year old kinds that LGBTQ agenda and orientaiton was great. I fell back on my old job....I was and am (even there's practically no work due to the COVID-19), a model, and had tons of jobs each year till 2020. I do executive admin/HR and recruiting work for the agency from home now, until things recover. But this report is true. There is no more Catholic education. Everything is gone, except in SSPX, FSSP, and ICRSP(ICKSP) institutions.

Damina M. Malliapalli

( add to the list of Catholic educational giants gone all the great convent boarding schools across Europe, especially in France and Italy. The Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, which had close to 6,000 sisters before VAtican II were famous for a vast network of fantastic boarding schools across France. Not only are the scolls all gone....but so nearly is the Order.....rad femminists and down to about 1,100 members with a median age of clsoe to 80.

Vatican II is a poison which will soon run its course. Hopefully in our lifetime.

Anonymous said...

I went to so called
"Catholic school" and wasn't taught jack squat about Catholicism.
Sounds like we had the same experience Damian.
I wouldn't learn anything about the faith until learning about the sedevacantist opinion in 2011.

Catholic Mission said...

Vatican Council II was not just a pastoral Council. It was dogmatic.

Catholic Mission said...

The Catholic Family News(CFN) observes the death anniversary of John Vennari, without mentioning that the CFN was wrong on Vatican Council II.
There is no clarification coming also from the website Whisperers of Restoration and Peter Kwasniewski.
These traditionalists used a false premise which could have been avoided.The Council is Feeneyite. It supports traditional EENS.
But the CFN, Lepanto Foundation, Una Voce International, Latin Mass Socities are not issuing a correctiion or apology.
The Lefbvrists misled so many people. Now they are posting reports on Vigano and suggesting that the liberals are in a false and parallel Church and that they are in the original one.
I am writing this not to condemn the Lefbvrists. I appreciate what they have done for the Faith. I want them to admit that they made an error.Then the present concept of traditionalist and progressivist, based on the false premise, ends in the Church.
Vatican Council II cannot be used by the CDF and the Left to create division within the Church.
There will no more be an artificial and official schism in the Church.The popes of the past will not be rejected.The present popes will not contradict the past Magisterium, by using the false premise.

Catholic Mission said...


Franciscans of the Immaculate at Boccea, Rome affirm the obvious
All the priests and seminarians of the Franciscans of the Immaculate(F.I) seminary Casalotti, Boccea, Rome agree with me. I was living with them during the three- month lockdown. For them, and me, there are no physically visible non Catholics in 2020, saved outside the Church. There were about 30 students of theology at the Collegio Terra Santa, three priests and two deacons.They all accept the obvious.They cannot meet or see in real life, someone saved without faith and baptism.Father Rosario Sammarco F.I, is the Italian Rector of the seminary. He is also the Superior. He offers Holy Mass in the parish Santa Maria di Nazareth, only in Italian.
The seminary is approved by Pope Francis and is in the diocese of Porta Santa Rufina. The bishop is Gino Reali.I have been living under their old unused church, which recently was converted into a Eucharistic Adoration chapel for the Friars.None of the Friars know of any one saved outside the Church, without faith and baptism. Obviously. This can only be known to God.But such an obvious thing is not known to the other F.I community also known as the 'Latin group' or the 'crypto Lefebvrists'.

Fr. Stefano Manelli and Fr. Gabriel Pellettieri could agree with the community at Boccea. There are no physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church in 2020.So in Vatican Council II LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22  must  only refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases . Speculation.There are no objective exceptions in Vatican Council II to 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).There are no exceptions to the Athanasius Creed which states all need the Catholic faith for salvation. All.There are no exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which states all need faith and baptism for salvation. All.So in Vatican Council II there are no exceptions to Tradition( Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, Catechism of Pius X etc).Can Fr. Paulo Siano F.I issue a statement on this ?When Fr. Settimo Manelli F.I was the Rector of the seminary and the Parish Priest at Boccea,the community would interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition.So they rejected the Council.They believed LG 8, LG 16 etc are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and so they implied that LG 8, LG 16 etc are personally visible non Catholics saved outside the Church. Only if they are visible they could be exceptions. But how can invisible cases (LG 8, LG 16 etc) be visible examples of salvation outside the Church?Every one at Boccea agrees now that there are no such visible cases.The Lefebvrists in general and the liberals Cardinal Braz de Avez and Fr. Sabino Ardito SDB , the Apostolic Commissioner ,still use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II.They expect all religious communities to irrationally make the same error, for canonical recognition .-Lionel Andrades


Catholic Mission said...

Brother Andre Marie MICM was interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise like Fr. Leonard Feeney and Brother Francis Maluf MICM, the founders of the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire, USA.
Brother Andre Marie MICM was interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise like Fr. Leonard Feeney and Brother Francis Maluf MICM, the founders of the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire, USA.There will be no answer from the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Was not LG 8 etc in Vatican Council II an exception to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) for them ? Yes or no ?
There will be no answer.-Lionel Andrades

Catholic Mission said...


Now they know.

But they are not making the change. Their website was based upon the false interpretation of Vatican Council II.
For so many years, since they have been informed, they cannot or do not want to interpret Vatican Council II, without the false premise.
They criticize the ' Vatican Council II sect ', the mainline Catholic Church of the popes since Paul VI but do not mention that they too, the MHFM, interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so there is a rupture with Tradition (Syllabus of Errors etc).
I have written to them so many times.
Someone could ask them if LG 8, LG 14( baptism of desire), LG 16( invincible ignorance), UR 3, GS 22 etc refer to visible or invisible cases in 2020.If they are visible then they cannot be exceptions to the MHFM strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). If the MHFM considered LG 8 etc as exceptions to EENS and the rest of Tradition then they imply that there are physically visible cases, for them, in the present times, for there to be exceptions.But this would be a false premise. It is irrational.
But if they did not use the false premise then Vatican Council II would not contradict their understanding of EENS.
Yet becaue of this false premise Vatican Council II emerges, for them, as a rupture with Tradition.

When the popes and saints mentioned the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance was there a rupture with EENS ( Cantate Domino, Council if Florence 1441) ? Of course not. Not for me.The popes and saints over the centuries were referring to hypothetical cases only. They could not be objective people, non Catholics saved outside the Church. Since only God can know if somoene was saved outside the Church, without faith and baptism. So the BOD and I.I were never exceptions to EENS. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) made a mistake and so did some of the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II.The same mistake is made by Michael and Peter Dimond.
If think what I write here is quite simple and easy to understand.
Would they admit that they interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise like the 'Vatican Council II sect'?-Lionel Andrades

JULY 14, 2020
MHFM uses the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II

Catholic Mission said...


Scott Hahn and Ralph Martin's New Evangelisation is 'new' because like the Vatican they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II.So there are artificial exceptions created to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old concept of Mission.

The New Evangelisation of Cardinal Tagle is new since he is obligated to use the false premise( visible cases of LG 8, LG 16 etc).In this way there is an approved rupture with traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, with no known exceptions.
Traditional evangelisation or mission was not a rupture with Tradition since the false premise was not used over the centuries.
Now LG 8, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II, are intepreted with the false premise and so this creates a break with traditional- mission concepts.
In the past all needed to be Catholic for salvation and not only those who knew about Jesus and the Church.However in Vatican Council II(LG 14), invincible ignorance ( Letter of the Holy Office 1949) is an exception to Feeneyite EENS.So it is said that only those who know about Jesus and the Church need to enter the Church to avoid Hell.
For the Jesuits in the 16th century all needed to enter the Church for salvation and not only those who know about Jesus and the Church.Jesus did not mention any exceptions to John 3:5 and Mark 16:16. Jesus did not mention any exceptions to the Great Commission.
The theologians have created these exceptions by confusing what is invisible as being visible and then projecting this illusion as an exception to Tradition.Cardinal Ratzinger approved this error.
LG 14 is a mistake in Vatican Council II but the Council can still be interpreted in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS.Since we do not know of any exception in real life.We cannot see or meet someone who will be saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance.
Similarly it was an error of the Council Fathers to mention a invincible ignorance (AG 7) with reference to all needing faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7).They could have assumed that invincible ignorance was an exception to EENS. This was the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.-Lionel Andrades

JBQ said...

In 1958, I was thirteen going on fourteen. I remember watching the news of the conclave for the new pope. I remember explicitly there being white smoke for some five to ten minutes and the presumption that a new pontiff was elected.---Suddenly, the scenario slowed to a walk. No one came out on the balcony. It was then relayed that there had been a mistake in the mixing of the straw. The election went on and Roncalli was elected.---Malachi Martin was a participant in the conclave as the aide to Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea. He wrote many years later on the true line of events that occurred.----Giuseppe Cardinal Siri had been elected. He then abdicated. There are any number of stories about just why he did so. It was stated that he picked the name Gregory XVII. Martin states that he received a handwritten note telling him that he would be killed and his family murdered. He then withdrew.----Roncalli had written a number of relatives prior to the conclave trumpeting that his election was "in the bag". It sure looks like "the fix was in" There are valid accusations that Roncalli was a Mason.---Without a doubt, he was part of a conspiracy to hijack the Church. He only lasted for five years and then Paul VI entered the arena. He served from 1963 to 1978---1978 was the year of the three popes. The middle of the three was Alberto Luciani who lasted for but thirty-three days. There was plenty of controversy in his own right.---There appears very little doubt of a giant conspiracy to influence the role of the pope leading to Vatican II. Malachi Martin states unequivocally that Luciani was murdered. He also said the same about Pius XI and Mussolini