Showing posts with label Archbishop Viganò. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Archbishop Viganò. Show all posts

Thursday, July 4, 2024

The Latest Developments in the Viganò Case -- What to Make of them?

Edit: amazing! Roberto de Mattei disavows Rorate. They usually translate his pieces, and I was wondering why they didn’t translate this. Veddy iiiiinteresting!

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is on trial in Rome, not for his criticism of Pope Francis, but for his refusal to recognize him as Pope, warns historian Roberto de Mattei.

By Roberto de Mattei

In recent weeks, certain facts and "non-facts" have been the focus of attention on Catholic social media. The facts actually happened, the "non-facts" are hypothetical and exist more in the imagination of blogs than in reality.

A first non-fact is the existence of a document that would prohibit or restrict the traditional Mass. This document, first mentioned by Rorate Caeli and then thoroughly investigated by Messainlatino, seems to have been lying in a drawer of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, perhaps for over a year, without Pope Francis ever having expressed any intention of signing it. It would perhaps be better at this point to discuss it only when the document is taken out of the drawer.

Another non-fact is the possibility of episcopal ordinations without papal mandate by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X. This hypothesis was expressed by the superior of the French district of the Fraternity, but the Superior General of the Institute, Father Davide Pagliarani, explained at the meeting of the Mouvement de la Jeunesse Catholique de France held in Chateauroux on 29 and 30 June that this initiative, although it cannot be ruled out a priori, is not currently on the agenda. So here too it is better to speak about it in due course.

The fact that deserves the most attention, however, is the initiation of an extrajudicial procedure against Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. The main accusation is that he has broken communion with the Church of Rome and has committed the crime of schism. The news was announced by the Archbishop himself on June 20 on his X‑account and the following day in a statement in which the former Nuncio to the United States declared that he would not take part in the trial against him. On June 28, in a harsh document against Pope Francis entitled "J'accuse", Monsignor Viganò declared , among other things: "Before my brothers in the episcopate and the entire body of the Church, I accuse Jorge Mario Bergoglio of heresy and schism, and as a heretic and schismatic, I request that he be condemned and removed from the throne which he has unworthily occupied for over eleven years. This in no way contradicts the saying Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur, for it is clear that a heretic, unless he is in a position to assume the office of Pope, is not above the prelates who judge him."

Since last year, Monsignor Viganò had publicly stated that, in his opinion, the See of Peter was occupied by a usurper, but with his J'accuse his position becomes clear and official. For this reason, he declares: "I do not recognize the authority of the Tribunal that claims to judge me, nor that of its Prefect or those who appointed him." His decision not to appear in court confirms the accusations made against him, of which he is proud, declaring: "I consider the accusations made against me an honor" (statement of 20 June).

Some people point out that the severe measures announced against Bishop Viganò do not represent the same severity as those who are notorious spreaders of heresy, such as some German bishops. But the German bishops, who are adopting the strategy of modernism, which requires fighting against Rome by remaining within Rome's walls, are careful not to deny the Pope's authority publicly. They certainly deserve to be condemned, but how can one demand their condemnation if Rome fails to condemn those who reject its authority not only in fact but in principle?

Some compare the case of Msgr. Viganò with that of the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The difference between the two cases is, however, obvious. Msgr. Lefebvre never denied the authority of Rome. After the first condemnation of Ecône's work by the Bishop of Fribourg in May 1975, it was Msgr. Lefebvre himself who, faced with this abuse of power, asked that his case be judged by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. On January 28, 1978, Cardinal Šeper, Prefect of the Holy Office at the time, sent Ecône a large document and asked Msgr. Lefebvre to respond. The French Archbishop maintained a voluminous correspondence with the Holy See and the results of the investigation were published in May 1979 by the journal Itinéraires and then appeared in German translation under the title "Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Holy Office" ( Mediatrix Verlag, Vienna 1981). Reading these documents is extremely revealing, not least in order to understand the position of the French Archbishop who, in his last letter to Cardinal Šeper on 29 January 1979 , entrusted, to who by then was already John Paul II. Archbishop Lefebvre then accepted the visit of Cardinal Gagnon, whom the Pope sent as the seminary of Ecône in 1987.  A friend and confidant of Cardinal Gagnon, the priest Charles Theodore Murr, testifies that the Canadian cardinal's report praises the SSPX and in particular the curricula of Ecône (Preface to Kennedy Hall: The Defence , Augustinus Press, 2023). On the eve of the episcopal ordinations in Ecône on June 30, 1988, there were intense negotiations between Msgr. Lefebvre and the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

Many of Msgr. Viganò's admirers, who reacted to the news of the trial by approving of the Archbishop because he "speaks as clearly as Msgr. Lefebvre,"  unlike other shepherds who today remain silent in the face of the deep crisis in the Church, are missing the point. The issue is not Monsignor Viganò's criticism of Pope Francis, which is justified in some points, but his declared desire to break off any form of communion with him and the Roman See.

Furthermore, one cannot limit oneself to such a serious and radical act by simply announcing it in a communiqué, without giving it a valid doctrinal basis. The reference to the Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of 15 February 1559, in which Paul IV states that a heretic, even if elected, is not entitled to authority, is extremely weak. That Bull only teaches that a Pope can be admonished unless it is proven that he was already a heretic at the time of his election. Was Cardinal Bergoglio one? That must be proven. Does the "vitium consensus" of which Msgr Viganò speaks correspond to the "Cassiciacum thesis" of Msgr Guérard de Lauriers, who belongs to the Institute Mater Boni Consilii ? Whether or not this is the position of Msgr. Viganò, it would have to be supported by thorough theological, canonical and ecclesiastical historical studies, which are not available to date.

But there is another aspect, even more decisive. In the current turmoil of the religious crisis, it is not possible to survive spiritually without the special help of grace that comes through the sacraments, especially the most common in daily life, such as Communion and Confession. Who are the priests to whom one should turn, according to Monsignor Viganò, to receive the necessary spiritual nourishment? It seems that not only the institutes related to the former Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei are excluded from his horizon, but also the Society of St. Pius X, which usually prays Pro Pontifice nostro Francisco.

And here we come to the final question: where is the Catholic Church for Monsignor Viganò? Not the virtual Church to which many zealous readers of traditionalist blogs adhere, but the real Church, visible in its unchanging doctrine, in its uninterrupted apostolic succession and in the life imparted by its sacraments. Without this visible Church, which is the mystical body of Christ, the soul suffocates.

Shakespeare said, "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players" ( As You Like It, Act II, 7). There is a profound truth in these words, but the world's stage is not a blog, for the fate of the people who play on it is a drama. At stake is their eternal life.

* Roberto de Mattei, historian, father of five children, professor of modern history and history of Christianity at the European University of Rome, chairman of the Lepanto Foundation, author of numerous books, most recently in German translation: Defense of Tradition: The Invincible Truth of Christ, with a foreword by Martin Mosebach, Altötting 2017, and The Second Vatican Council. A History Unwritten Until Now, 2nd expanded edition, Bobingen 2011.

You can purchase books by Prof. Roberto de Mattei on

Translation/Footnote: Giuseppe Nardi 
Image : Corrispondenza Romana/Wikicommons
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.clom


Tuesday, July 21, 2020

The Second Vatican Council Was Manipulated Through Obvious Acts of Sabotage

The Second Vatican Council must be discussed, says the Vaticanist Americo Mascarucci.

(Rome) Much attention is being paid to the debate on a revision of the Second Vatican Council, which was started by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano. It moves Catholics who take their faith seriously and live and suffer with their Church. The journalist and Vaticanist Americo Mascarucci, author of two books on the pontificate of Pope Francis, also speaks. In 2018, "The Revolution of Pope Francis was published. How the Church transforms from Don Milani to Luther"[1] and in 2019 a book on the changes in the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI) "The Church in Politics. How the CEI has changed from Ruini to Pope Francis"[2] Marco Tosatti has published the statement of his colleague on the proposal of Archbishop Vigano.

After a short introduction, "I am not a theologian", but "a simple journalist who is passionate about  Vatican affairs," Mascarucci comes straight to the point.

"The historian Roberto De Mattei refuted in his book "The Second Vatican Council: A Hitherto Untold History" the thesis of the hermeneutics of continuity, which both Wojtyla and Ratzinger were so concerned with, and proved that it is impossible to separate the Council from the errors that followed it. (...) Today, De Mattei's thesis seems to be taking shape in the face of certain behaviours typical of the current pontificate, precisely where the Council becomes the cover for certain, at least questionable, positions to be reclaimed."

Pope Francis was "perhaps the best example of how the Second Vaticanum, far from renewing itself in the sign of continuity, was rather the event that put an end to the Catholic Church as the only Church of Christ in apostolic continuity, the one and only Church in which salvation lies."

According to Mascarucci, the theologian and philosopher Karl Rahner's thesis, "a great supporter of the Council as a break with tradition," according to which it is not belonging to the Church that guarantees salvation, but that the just conscience, which is oriented towards good, brings people closer to God, even if they do not believe in him (the theory of the 'anonymous Christian'), "seems to be the guiding star today, on which the current Pope orients himself."

"It is no coincidence that he is applauded and praised more by atheists than by practicing Catholics, and that he has never made a secret of having a greater affinity for certain infidels like Eugenio Scalfari than with the so-called traditionalist Catholics."

Thus, if it is not possible to separate the errors from the Council, "then it is not possible to believe that the schism of Isolotto, which developed in "Catho-Communist Florence," which gathered around the ideas of Giorgio La Pira, was the result of a false interpretation of the Counciliar spirit".

This entreaty requires a little excursion.

The schism of Isolotto

The schism of isolotto from 1968 refers to the one between the pastor of the Florentine district of Isolotto, Don Enzo Mazzi, and his archbishop. Don Mazzi, a "worker priest" who seemed to have more in common with Communists and Socialists than with the Christian Democrats, followed his own course. He justified this with the aim of "overcoming the dividing lines between believers and unbelievers, between good and bad, between priests and laymen, between the sacramental and the profane, between the parties." He made changes to the liturgy by introducing the vernacular and celebrating Mass facing the people. He was supported by Giorgio La Pira, then the mayor of Florence on the left.

Don Mazzi demonstrated against the Americans in Vietnam, showed solidarity with blacks in the United States, and supported a group of students from the Catholic University of Milan, which occupied Parma cathedral in September 1968 as part of the student protests. While Pope Paul VI condemned the action, Don Mazzi showed solidarity with the students. When Don Mazzi held a "basic democratic" meeting of his parish, even though his archbishop had forbidden it, he deposed him as a pastor.

Don Mazzi did not, however, depart, but founded a "base community" in the District of Isolotto as a substitute for the deprived parish, which became the model of the base communities in Europe. That was the schism. In 1974 he was suspended a divinis and was no longer allowed to exercise his priesthood. Shortly thereafter, he was transferred back to the layman. Although the basic community was not recognized by the Church, it was visited by like-minded priests from all over the world who celebrated there.

Mazzi himself became a permanent columnist for the left-leaning daily La Repubblica by Eugenio Scalfari and the Communist daily Il Manifesto. His last book, "The Value of Heresy"[3], was published there in 2010. Mazzi died in 2011 at the age of 84. According to his final request, his body was burned.

So we return to Mascarucci's remarks.

Therefore, the commitment of many Catholics to the side of the Communist Party or the support of divorce in the referendum by well-known priests and theologians was not the result of a "false interpretation" of the Council. Nor was it  due to a "misinterpretation" that Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro, Archbishop of Bologna from 1952 to 1968 and one of the four Council moderators, "in the middle of the Cold War, delivered his famous sermon against the Vietnam War and American imperialism, while the Communists drowned the uprisings in the countries of Eastern Europe in blood and tortured priests and religious."

The Second Vaticanum was manipulated by outright sabotage

Archbishop Vigano had rightly pointed it out:

"The Second Vatican Council was in fact manipulated by veritable acts of sabotage, which, inside and outside, saw proper centers of conspiracy at work. Among these, an organization called Opus Angeli deserves attention, whose main initiators were the ultra-progressive Belgian Cardinal Léon-Joseph Suenens and the Brazilian Bishop Helder Camara, one of the most important representatives of the liberation theologyoften praised by Francis."

They tried "with the support of powerful media they attempted to influence the work of the Council and, above all, its final result.

"Although they failed, that the Council should approve their civil rights agenda, the abolition of priestly celibacy, the opening up to the priesthood of women and the change in sexual morality by allowing the laity to use artificial contraceptives for birth control by colusion with the state, they were very adept at clouding the clear water, confusing the contents and contaminating the texts, so that a free and ambiguous interpretation of the council documents and the doctrine of faith was opened to a modernist key, which became the basis for the errors following the Council.'
Pope John Paul II recognized many of the wrong developments and made an active, sometimes courageous, effort to put the Council on the right path in its perception and effect. He was tirelessly supported by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, his Prefect of Doctrine and the Faith.

"But he too was misled on some issues that abounded, perhaps because he was the first foreign pope in the midst of a Vatican curia still wholly controlled by Italians, the heirs of the Montini era, who themselves were often associated with the Council period and its errors."
In other words, Mascarucci says, the hard line taken against Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the great critic of the Council, and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, which he founded, cannot be explained. A line vigorously defended by Cardinal Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli (1914–1998) and his spiritual son Achille Cardinal Silvestrini (1923–2019), even after the death of Paul VI, as well as both influential defenders of the Eastern Policy and its rapprochement of the Church with the Soviet Union and the Communist Eastern Bloc.
"Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated in 1988, as demanded by the most left-wing sectors of the Roman Curia, although Cardinal Ratzinger had spoken out against it."
However, according to the above-mentioned sectors, the French archbishop had to be punished precisely because "he denounced with the greatest determination the lack of continuity of the Second Vatican Council".

John Paul II could not completely contain the "Spirit of Assisi" and other excesses, "as even his friend and great admirer Vittorio Messori repeatedly lamented."

"Messori noted the unacceptable episode of the World Day of Peace,which took place on 27 May. On October 1, 1986, in Assisi, in the presence of representatives of all world religions, pagan rites took place in the Basilica of St. Francis, chickens were slaughtered on the altar of the Basilica of St. Clare, esoteric dances and other, denounced excesses that had themselves escaped the attention of Cardinal Ratzinger, who had intervened vigorously in the days before to prevent other questionable and sacrilegious initiatives."

The German influence on the Church

Mascarucci concludes from the development:
"All this has laid the foundation for this ecumenism, which, far from promoting a relationship of mutual respect between the different faiths in the spirit of dialogue, has led to the legitimisation of the idea of a universal church, the one and the same God for all, for a person who is almost entirely free to choose the Church that best suits his preferences, because it is sufficient to believe in the true God in order to find salvation independently of baptism.
An idea that, in the years since the end of the Ratzinger era, which was marked by Benedict XVI's attempt to counter the projects of the German episcopate, based on ideas of the theologian Hans Küng to accelerate the break with tradition, by affirming the hermeneutics of continuity, especially in the ethical questions and independence of the national Episcopal Conferences from Rome. Under Bergoglio, these projects fall on fertile ground thanks to the influence exerted on the current Pope by the German Cardinal Walter Kasper, the keynote speaker for the Family Synod and the openings to remarried divorcees, dissolute marriages and homosexuals. Kasper also has the promotion of ever closer relations with that of the Lutheran and Protestant worlds as a whole." 
Cardinal Walter Kasper and his influence on the pontificate of Pope Francis

The Amazon Synod was the logical consequence of a policy "aimed at affirming the triumph of syncretism in the name of the only God of a world unity religion." As such, this could be "recognized and revered under every form, symbol and deity, whether Christian or pagan."
The result is a Catholic Church "which, despite assertions to the contrary, is reduced to a mere agency for the promotion of good, a kind of NGO empowered solely for support, solidarity and hospitality without any conversion purpose, and rather interested in subjecting faith to the project of planetary globalism. Only in this way can the Koran recited in the Church be declared a sign of respect for Muslim migrants who are welcomed in the name of universal Soros goodness."
Archbishop Vigano is therefore right, says Mascarucci:

"The time has come to discuss the Second Vatican Council and the fruits it produced, in the hope that the future Pope will submit the request for a profound revision in the sign of the only true faith, the only true Gospel, the only true Magisterium and the only true Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the God incarnated for the salvation of mankind, as its own."

Text: Giuseppe Nardi Picture: MiL/ (Screenshot)

[1] Americo Mascarucci: La rivoluzione di Papa Francesco. Come cambia la Chiesa da don Milani a Lutero, Historica Edizioni, Cesena 2018.

[2] Americo Mascarucci: La Chiesa nella politica. Come cambiata la CEI da Ruini a papa Francesco, Historica Edizioni, Cesena 2019.

[3] Enzo Mazzi: Il valore dell'eresia, ManifestoLibri, Rome 2010.

Trans: Tancred