He rightly fears for his life. Those in control of the Vatican play hard ball. In windswept house they took out Fr Carnessecca for knowing too much. And that book was as much fact as fiction. I don't think we should underestimate his courage in speaking up.
Wow. This antisemite trad stuff is troubling. I was unaware of an actual movement. I do know that "trads" can be sometimes rigid and hard around the edges and doctrinaire--some that I knew anyway.
today when reading the news that the Pope cannot participate in New Year's Mass because of the pain in his legs and spine, I ended up remembering the vision of the Bishop dressed in white in the third secret with a trembling and hesitant walk in the middle of a destroyed city.
They called the Register "far right". I suppose that anything right of Vladimir Lenin would be far right to them, the Reporter, America and the Tablet.
I'm no fan of Pope Francis and believe that if he doesn't receive the same condemnation as Pope Honorius 1, the Church owes Honorius an apology. I also think that Don is being unfair to Archbishop Vigano although I do think that the Archbishop is in danger of letting himself be used by people who are no friends of the Church. The Lifesite article, however, is not at all convincing. It comes across as a nasty hit piece. Much though I won't be sorry to see the back of Pope Francis, I don't believe for a minute that he is the False Prophet or a servant of Satan. Sure, the article doesn't claim that he is but there's enough innuendo there to give that impression. These are very grave insinuations to make against anyone let alone a Pope. Using bits of private revelation to bolster the impression is particularly nasty. The suggested link between the Emmerich vision and the current situation in the Church was debunked in a OnePeterFive article a year or two ago. The St. Francis prophecy is also questionable although it has more provenance than the oft-quoted "preach the Gospel and if necessary use words" saying people like to attribute to the Saint. That saying fits the category of "things a person never said". The earliest documented record of the prophecy about the Pope not canonically elected is only a few centuries old and may or may not have come from an earlier source but I'm pretty sure that there are no surviving documents actually written by St. Francis. Aside from the matter of whether it is a genuine St. Francis prophecy, there were claims that it was fulfilled. I can't remember the details but it was a period in Church history when there were problems in some monastic communities and more than one claimant to the papacy. The La Salette prophecy is also questionable. Melanie's later versions differ from her original account. There are suggestions that she had a difficult time with Church authorities, and the embellished version of the prophecy came after she was befriended by some non-Catholics. Pope Francis has given us plenty of reasons to be vexed with him. There really was a St. Gallen Mafia and then-Cardinal Bergoglio was their choice for the papacy. There was something very peculiar about what was happening with the Knights of Malta: Archbishop Vigano didn't bring McCarrick out of retirement. He didn't replace faithful Bishops in China with men chosen by the Communist government. Pope Francis ousted Cardinal Burke from his position in the Knights of Malta and sent Cardinal Becciu in to work with them. Pope Francis sided with Cardinal Becciu when Becciu over-rode Cardinal Pell's decision to have PWC investigate the Vatican's finances. The most recent financial scandals have seen him have to remove Becciu. None of that is Archbishop Vigano's doing. Everyone makes a big deal about Archbishop Vigano saying that the Pope should resign but they tend to omit what led up to that statement. The Pope had said that people enabling or covering up for abusers would have to go, and the Archbishop said something along the lines that the Pope should lead by example because he had brought McCarrick back into service despite the information Vigano had given him. I don't know how that is so terrible, especially compared with the Pope's hero, Cardinal Martini (of St. Gallen notoriety) having told Benedict he should resign if he couldn't sort out the Curia. Archbishop Vigano has good reason to dislike Pope Francis, not least the disgraceful way Pope Francis, to deflect negative attention from himself, set the media dogs on Archbishop Vigano over a family matter. I thought that was particularly vicious. Archbishop Vigano may well believe that Pope Francis is a type of False Prophet and that he is setting up a false church. If so, it's his duty to warn the world. He might be right and he might be mistaken, his judgement having been impaired by the way Pope Francis treated him after he had given a lifetime of loyal service to the Church. I don't believe that he is a prophet. I do think that there are bad actors on both sides of the current divide in the Church so all our faithful Bishops need to be extra careful of where they place their trust.
A Pope is supposed to uphold the Magisterium of the Church, not change it. I do agree with Don that there was a time a few months ago when Ab Vigano was out of bounds for suggesting that we do away with Vatican II. I agree that was not his place. I hesitate to think about the ramifications of such a suggestion. I’m not sure that can even be done. But I get his point for sure.
Fr Gabriel Amorth said this: "The devil resides in the Vatican." And several years after Vatican II, Pope Paul VI said that from some crack, the smoke of Satan had entered the Church. Abp Vigano is brave enough to speak the Truth. +
I am no fan of the Holy Father. But on the other hand I am cautious ,as so may are doing of placing Archbishop Vigano on some kind of pedestal. In the first place because he broke a very solemn and sacred oath as a Vatican Diplomat in releasing secret information. He did break this oath, there's no way around it. So..... It's a basic tenet of Moral Theology that you don't do something evil in order to achieve something good. Archbishop Vigano broke his solemn oath. I'm sorry but he did. That does not mean I think Pope Francis is the best thing since sliced bread, but still. I wouldn't be gone crazy on Vigano. This is a cause of the very gravest concern for me. The very gravest concern I would be cautious. Personally, if someone asked me simply to keep my word to keep something private I would never divulge it. But Vigano took a most solemn oath...he broke it...he did... he broke it... this is no light matter
Yes this of Church Oath is way,way up there. I would say it is right up there with breaking the Seal of Confession. Catholic commentators like, say Dr Taylor Marshall or Michael Voris or even EWTN seem to treat this very,very lightly. I don't. This is a very,very, very grave matter indeed.
I guess I hadn't thought about this. It is troubling. We are surrounded on all sides by deceit and perfidy. "Clowns to the right of me jokers to the left of me and here I am stuck in the middle with you." A thought: did BXVI release him from his oath?
Don't Cardinals take a similar oath before every Conclave? Conclaves leak like a sieve. That doesn't make it OK for Archbishop Vigano to break an oath but it suggests that he is no worse than his accusers. At least Vigano did it openly rather than whispering to some journalist who makes a living off broken oaths from "reliable Vatican sources". I'm curious as to the wording of the oath taken by Vatican diplomats. Hard to believe that it would bind them to enabling evil. Confession is a different matter because the secrecy is integral to the Sacrament. Jesuits take a vow to never seek high office. They can be released from the vow if their superior and presumably the Pope deem it to be for the good of the Church. There is a difference between a Jesuit having high office thrust upon him and a Jesuit seeking high office. Just as well that God knows our hearts because human beings can only speculate based on what they see and hear.
Two wrongs don't make a right. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/what-is-the-pontifical-secret-78234 The oath itself is contained in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acta_Apostolicae_Sedis (p 89-92)
Another thing that troubles me about Archbishop Vigano is the story of the Pied Piper of Hamelin. If you recall the Piper was called to the town of Hamelin to remove all the rats. When the town would not pay up, he removed all the kids. Vigano reminds me of that piper in many ways. Which I find disturbing. A guy with an ax to grind and an especially tailored tune.
FYI: Several years ago, I watched an interview of bishop Athanasius Schneider. He was asked about the second Vatican Council‘s documents. Anyone can do research to discover his thoughts on that, but the real reason I am bringing this up is that I recall he said the only way that the documents could be corrected and ambiguities removed would be through a Syllabus of Errors and that could only be done by a future Pope.~AN
As per the first quote, it only made me take pause and consider the research that was presented. It convinced me of nothing either way despite its timing with current circumstances. And as per the second, that’s a total party line on LaSalette and its seers to which I do not adhere. And after physically being there and experiencing what we were simply told to walk away with, I have dug my heels in further.
