By David Martin
Catholic Family News (CFN) recently reported that His Grace Carlo Maria Viganò sent a letter to CFN in reply to weighty questions that their contributor Stephen Kokx respectfully posed in his article, “Questions for Viganò: His Excellency is Right about Vatican II, But What Does He Think Catholics Should Do Now?”
In his reply, Archbishop Viganò made it clear that Catholics must separate themselves from the conciliar revolution of Vatican II. "No admixture is possible with those who propose adulterated doctrines of the conciliar ideological manifesto," he said, adding that "being living members of the Church of Christ does not imply adherence to the conciliar team."
Viganò demonstrates true pastoral care in saying this since opposing Vatican II enhances our ecclesial union while dignifying the Council diminishes it. According to Viganò, traditional Catholics must remain in the Church while modernists must leave.
“It is not the traditional faithful – that is, true Catholics, in the words of Saint Pius X – that must abandon the Church in which they have the full right to remain and from which it would be unfortunate to separate; but rather the Modernists who usurp the Catholic name.”
On that note, Viganò warns against using the modernist infestation of the Church as an excuse to leave the Church. “Let us not give in to the temptation to abandon – albeit with justified indignation – the Catholic Church, on the pretext that it has been invaded by heretics and fornicators: it is they who must be expelled from the sacred enclosure, in a work of purification and penance."
While Vigano’s warning comes as a rebuke to Sedevacantists who leave the Church under the pretext of orthodoxy, it also serves as a mild admonition for loyal traditionalists who abandon their parishes because of the present-day crisis in the Church. It behooves tradition-minded Catholics to hone-in on this point because leaving the parish-church framework over the modern changes is what has strengthened the modernist plan to take over the Church. We indeed must not judge the Church because it’s been “invaded by heretics” but must expel the wrong doers “from the sacred enclosure.”
Stay and Fight
However, this will never be done if we leave our parish churches and attend Mass at independent "side chapels." To win the battle we must remain in the arena. Hopping the ropes is not allowed nor does it edify the church. (1 Thess. 5:11) We must ‘let our light shine before men.’ (Mt. 5:16)
The problem with many traditionalists is not their orthodoxy but the unorthodox way they advance it through independent “side-chapel” worship, since this undermines their own aspirations for the restoration of the Church. If our duty as Catholics is to restore the Traditional Mass and confront the clergy about their efforts to secularize the Church, how shall this be done if we flee?
This only abets the Masonic plan to drive the good Catholics from the Church. Like Christ, we must go in there and expel the wrong-doers and work to restore tradition from within, the reason being it is God's House. The Novus Ordo Mass is valid, despite its many defects, and Viganò would be the first to tell us that.
The argument that we must avoid the occasion of sin. i.e. our parish church, holds no water since the Church also teaches that we may never avoid "the necessary occasion of sin." Christ today is being profaned in His Own House by His Own priests so we do Him no service by leaving him hanging there.
The argument that we 'contribute to the sacrilege' by staying in our parishes likewise holds no water since we are not there to join the jeering crowd but to defend Christ. Who in their right mind would say that St. John and the Blessed Virgin ‘contributed to the sacrilege’ by remaining at the foot of the cross? Their example sets the stage for all latter-day disciples. St. Athanasius and all the great defenders of the Faith have followed this example.
Viganò Praises the SSPX
The foregoing is said in compliment to traditionalists, especially those of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), since their faith and example of tradition are needed in the Church. Viganò in his letter praised the SSPX, saying they “deserve recognition for not having allowed the flame of Tradition to be extinguished," and said he considers Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society, to be “an exemplary confessor of the Faith.”
The argument that the SSPX does not have “full communion” with Rome is unfounded. If one is baptized Catholic, holds to sacred tradition, and acknowledges the validity of the Papacy and Church in 2020 – which SSPX members do – then they have full communion with Rome, regardless of what Curial bureaucrats might say. It is Francis and his errant “Council of Nine” that need to ‘get back to Rome.’
While tradition-minded Catholics are often accused of disobedience to ‘legitimate Church authority,’ it is today’s modernist clergy that are disobedient to God. Archbishop Viganò reminds us that “obedience cannot be perverted into stolid servility,” adding that “if it is the duty of the laity to obey their Pastors, it is even a more grave duty of the Pastors to obey God, usque ad effusionem sanguinis.”
Not sure I understand this fully. If the SSPX is outside the parish. And if archbishop Vigano says to stay in your parish. Does it mean that one should attend the parish services and not the SSPX?
You can support the SSPX and still participate in a “normal” parish like day, Michael Matt does.
It is useless to stay and support your parish when your bishop puts a heretic or corrupt man in charge. It is useless to stay and support your diocese when the Pope puts a heretic or pedo protector in Charge. And these principles apply equally to any other group. If the clergy of Rome like Vigano wants to keep writings letters, it is in vain he tells us to act, when he himself does not call a synod to depose the heretics and corrupt trash in the Vatican or Diocese of Rome.
I did twenty-odd years of staying and fighting. Things just got exponentially worse, and NOBODY CARES what you or I think. Short of violence there is nothing we can do but go to an SSPX and give them our money.
Sounds like you’re lost someplace between acedia and despair.
Perhaps your hysterical personality doesn’t permit you to be taken seriously?
Fortunately, parish life will go on without you.
Re: Constantine - Concerning Vigano's exhortation to "stay and fight" in the parishes, this was not directed to SSPX members but to tradition-minded Catholics in general. Somehow the SSPX should try to make their influence felt more in the main Church.
Only someone who doesn’t have children, friends and family in his parish would say something like this.
What are you going to do, Alex, issue a Fatwa against Catholics who continue to support their diocesan parishes?
I'm praying Bp.Vigano receives
conditional Consecration from a
Thuc,Lefevbre,or pre-June 1968 Bishop using the traditional Rite of
He was ordained in March of 1968 so his ordination is pre-Pauline Rite.
Please understand this is not an insult laced with negative undertones.
If this were to happen it would be a blessing.
Why should you give a hoot in hell, you unctious sedevacatistst prick.
Tancred, the truth of my argument is proven by this, that you had no reponse but an ad hominem, because, as Aristotle says, when your opponent has run out of reasons, he begins with insults.
As all Catholic moral theolgians teach, you are not obliged to go to Mass at a Church if being physically present there puts you in grave danger of injury (physical, moral etc.).
The Church has never made Sunday Obligation something superior to this natural law principle.
Those of you who have lost your common sense or who have never studied moral theology, can easily go astray on this. I am telling you, because I have dedicated myself to studying the teaching of the Church, so that those who want to know the truth can know it.
Tancred, your insult is noteworthy, it is totally masonic, as it presupposes that being dedicated to God makes one morally incapable of judgements about lesser things. Such a comment is quite unworthy of you.
Your emotional ad hominem outburts betray an effeminate nature.
Stop it you are a Man not a Woman.
Please, Anonymous, refrain from insulting women in your attempt to call a halt to baseless, ad hominem attacks.
Labeling women--strong and able to engage emotion when emotion is called for--along with someone demonstrating poor form is poor form.
***Our Lord God created emotions and wept over Jerusalem. Similarly, he drove the money changers out of the Temple.
your argument ignores the fact that every human person has a gender by nature.
Being femine is a virtue and strength among women, but a weakness and failure for a man. Used of women it is used as a proper term, used of men it is used analogously or improperly, and not in the same sense. Every dictionary explains this well....
I'm not insulting women.
Look up what the word effeminate actually means.
Effeminate -(of a man) having or showing characteristics regarded as typical of a woman;unmanly.
Hopefully this clears up your misguided conceptions.
Re: Alex Bugnolo - Please forgive, but you seem to advocate surrender, not fervor. To say it is useless to stay and defend the Church is to say it is not worth defending. If the bishop places "a heretic or corrupt man in charge" it is all the more reason to stay and fight. Without this, many others could be led into error, whereas your good example will lead others the right way.
What do you do if your home has been infested with rodents? Do you run out into the street and staunchly declare, "I'll never go into that cursed house again?" God forbid! You'll go back and sweep your house out, just as we must make every effort to clean house in the Church.
Tradition-minded Catholics often insist on believing that the Mass is longer valid so they can escape the battle and worship in a more cozy setting, but Catholic warriors don't think that way. A key part of tradition is staying and fighting. There is nothing traditional about fleeing the cross.
Meant to say "her" misguided
Sedevacantist and veteran knuckle-cracker Andy is hardwired for misogyny and other things. Recently he asserted that, "Men were created to lead Nations, not Women,"
The comic book educated Andy clearly knows nothing about: Cleopatra, Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Mary McAleese, Julia Gillard, Jacinta Ardern among others.....
Thank you for the kosher approved reading list.
Maybe 1 day I can write and obsess like a hormone imbalanced scorned ex-Wife.
Godspeed our our fearless Rebbe.
What is your advice for Catholics who treat doubtful
sacraments invalid for the
safer course like our Catechism teaches?
Are we supposed to ignore the reality of new Sacramental Rites which have brought nothing but desolation despair and confusion for the past 50 + yrs?
Are we not allowed to know our
Priests Bishops & Sacraments are 100% valid and Catholic?
SSPX,Thuc line,SSPV,and to a lesser extent Duarte-Costa lines of clerics all operate in the same manner.
They keep the true Faith alive during this emergency.
This is asked in all due respect,no disrespect or sarcasm intended.
Why should you care about anything like this since you are a self-identified sedevacantist? That means you are outside the Church, just like Lefebvre, Thuc, Qak, Phan Dang, Fiffy La Fanfare etc. Andy old boy. You know what that means, don't you?
Outside the Church of 4 individual Assisi idolatrous abominations,
Nostrae Aetate and Lumen Gentium,
a "Mass" and new
"sacramental rites" that transgress Council of Trent which anathematized anyone who attempts to change liturgy,sacraments,etc,
"Popes" who declare that man is God (JP2's first encyclical which also failed to mention the Catholic Church ONCE)
Seminaries Convents Churches and schools closing by the thousands,
James Martin and don't forget
Im fine being outside that monstrosity called the
novus ordo church.
J.Bergoglio is 1 of the only Novus Ordo prelates who has the
decency to be honest and bold in his proclamations and statements.
He makes no bones about hating and trying to destroy the tiny remnant of Catholicism left within the novus ordo.
I smell the flesh of a formal reprobate burning.......
I have given you the teaching of the Saints. But I think your problem in understanding it is that you confuse the brick and mortar pieces of property with the Church. When they fall into the hands of heretics or schismatics they as property are no longer under the control of the Church and to continue to go there is to put oneself in mortal danger. But I never said you should not organize a militia and take them back by force, or sue to get them back. I am only responding to the question about where to take your family for Sunday worship. So your argument is badly employed because it argues against something I never said, exaggerating my position and applying it to a different concept of what the Church means.
Your argument that women have led nations, therefore it is false to say that men were created to lead nations, lacks a middle term. Perhaps you can try again to give us a rational counter argument.
As Saint Paul teaches infallible, the man is the head of the woman, from which on can logically derive that he is the head of nation, if one simply supposes that some men or one man is fit to rule other men.
Andrew asserted that "Men are created to rule Nations, not Women." That is an opinion for which he offers no support or justification. My response was to provide an impressive but not exhaustive list of eminent women who have and still do lead nations.
As for appealing to St Paul as an authority in this matter, he was not writing infallibly at all. He was simply referring to the literal account of creation in Gen 1 within a very complex refutation of the fundamentalist protestant 'headship' nonsense in which you take refuge.
Paul's clearest, most powerful and unambiguous statement about the constitution of the Church is in Galatians 3:27-28: absolute equality of everyone in the Church through their baptism into Christ regardless of their ethnicity, social standing or gender.
In denying that Saint Paul was writing infallibly you have uttered formal heresy.
You are asserting that Paul was writing infallibly. Where is this stated in those terms either in Scripture or in Church doctrine?
Providentissimus Deus, n. 20 by Pope Leo XIII
Here you need to recognize that whereas Saint Paul wrote infallibly, his doctrine as written is inerrant. And that to say that which is contrary to the faith of the Church is heretical. -- I state these principles in advance, because it appears you are a modernist.
Read Pius XII's 1943 Divino afflantu Spirito and Vatican II's Dei Verbum. They will enlighten you about what is inspired, what is not, and the care that one must take in separating the core truth of a piece of Scripture from the linguistic and literary forms in which it is couched.
You just ignored what Leo XIII taught magisterially. So you are a heretic. The teaching on literary forms does not deny that there is no error in Scripture. Nor that St Paul wrote all he wrote under divine inspiration and thus without error.
Pius XII and Verbum Dei kept what was useful of Leo XIII and set aside what was not important. Only a very few things in Scripture are inspired and there are thousands of mistakes and contractions.
How many Apostles were there and what were their names? They are not the same across the board. How many commandments are there in the Ten Commandments? Depends on how you count them.
Why did John not have the Eucharistic words of Institution in his Last Supper account? At what hour of the day did Jesus die? Depends on what Gospel you read.
Getting the drift? And these are the little ones.
Thank you for letting the puss of your heresy out into the open!
The teaching on literary forms explains that things can be said under different senses. Take the word apostles, which can be used in a proper sense or in a generic sense. Under one sense there are 12, and under another there are 14 or more...
There is no error in Scripture and the magisterial teaching of Leo XIII has never been taken back by the Church.
I'm still waiting for your answer to the entire raft of question Alexis. When you have finised those, I'll have some more for you.
According to the rules of debate, he who loses on the principle and first point, cannot claim not to have won or that the debate has not finished, if he introduces praeter rem arguments to defend his indefensible position.
So THANK YOU for admitting St. Paul teaches that man was created to rule the nations, not women, and that you are a heretic against the teaching of the Church on scriptural inerrancy and the divine inspiration of every book, author, chapter, verse and literary form in Sacred Scripture.
Getting the huff, clutching the pearls and storming off are we, Alexis? The real problem for you is that you are completely out of your depth in this engagement, you don't have a clue what you are talking about, you can't find your way out of your own defective syllogism and confect distortions of my points so as more easily to dismiss them. It's called burning the 'pantomime horse.'
You need to get some help with these I suggest.
I'm still waiting for replies to the several conundra I posed for you.
That’s one of Gaybrielle’s trans sockpuppets.
Alex, you just got into a long argument with a mentally ill, suspended laicized priest on benefits who was too gay even for Cardinal Hume.
My point is that I don’t think a homeless man who dresses in brown robes, even if he attempts to translate important Thomistic philosophy texts, has a lot of credibility, even if he is leading an imaginary Crusader Army to retake the Sudan, to recommend that Catholic normies abandon their parishes.
You don’t have any investment in anything but fantasies, and even Don Quixote embraced the code of chivalry which is real enough.
Btw, the real Pico would have burned the state subsidized Gaybrielle at the stake for being a s
Because of the election year Scamdemic Novus Ordo bishops around the world have locked up churches in obedience to the globalists vaccine fanatics how then are Catholics supposed to stay and fight if nobody is allowed in?
I can still get in mine. Haven’t been to church in a while, I bet. Somehow, it doesn’t seem to matter as much when you don’t have a stake in your community and parish, does it?
Whoa! Tancred come on, NY law restricts church attendance to 25 percent of capacity and CA restricts mass to 10 people outside even in the rain! Novus Ordo bishops are restricting church attendance during the Fauci Scamdemic. Weddings and funerals are all but verboten Catholics are being locked out of church. Julian the Apostate would be happy with American catholic bishops in 2020.
SSPX has you covered in New York
2 other trad groups in the
Ave Maria Chapel
Westbury-Long Island NY +
SSPV Long Island + Round Top NY.
It Is a pity that Viganó calls for "internal" Resistance. He has not the experience of the fight that Arch Lefebvre had. 20 traditional groups fall into modernism precesily for commiting the high imprudence of going into Rome (modern parishes) to fight as an internal Resistance. Experience has shown again and again that that Is not the way in order to fight this fight. And the same Archbishop gives de reason: "Because are not the inferiors those who change the superiors. On the contrary, superiors are them who do CHANGE inferiors.
The call Is for External Resistance without falling into Sedevacantist.
How did Athasius organize his internal resistance against the Arrians?
Sedevacantism simply keeps the
Traditional Roman Rite alive during this emergency which started in the early 1950's.
We believe hold practice + obey the Holy Catholic Faith.
"We are what you were yesterday.
If we were wrong then you are wrong now.
If we were right then you are
God bless -Andrew
Post a Comment