The Third Secret of Fatima and Corruption in the Church.

When Communism Returns

As Mark Mallett and Prof. Daniel O’Connor continue to explain the Timeline of events that are now unfolding (see the Videos section below), it is imperative that readers understand what is behind this Great Storm: it is a Global Revolution. This is precisely what Our Lady of Fatima warned would come—unless the bishops of the world consecrated Russia to her Immaculate Heart. She said:

I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace. If not, [Russia] will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. —Message of Fatima, www.vatican.va

But the Consecration was delayed, and some argue, never happened at all. One of the seers, Servant of God Sr. Lúcia de Jesus Rosa dos Santos, flatly stated:

Since we did not heed this appeal of the Message, we see that it has been fulfilled, Russia has invaded the world with her errors. And if we have not yet seen the complete fulfillment of the final part of this prophecy, we are going towards it little by little with great strides.—Fatima seer, Sr. Lucia, Message of Fatima, www.vatican.va

The key is to understand what is meant by the “errors of Russia.” They were, in a word, Marxism, atheism, rationalism, relativism, evolutionism, etc. These are the errors, born in the Enlightenment period, that have fomented the revolutions ever since. The popes were quick to discern the spirit behind them, the…

…spirit of revolutionary change which has long been disturbing the nations of the world… there are not a few who are imbued with evil principles and eager for revolutionary change, whose main purpose is to stir up disorder and incite their fellows to acts of violence. —POPE LEO XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum, n. 1, 38; vatican.va

The warning at Fatima was clear: the errors of Russia would go global causing the annihilation of many nations and the persecution of the Church. In a word, the culture of death versus the culture of life is the Great Storm that has spread across the world, manifesting in the death of freedom, death of religion, and the death of man himself.

This struggle parallels the apocalyptic combat described in [Rev 11:19-12:1-6, 10 on the battle between” the woman clothed with the sun” and the “dragon”]. Death battles against Life: a “culture of death” seeks to impose itself on our desire to live, and live to the full… Vast sectors of society are confused about what is right and what is wrong, and are at the mercy of those with the power to “create” opinion and impose it on others. —POPE JOHN PAUL II, Cherry Creek State Park Homily, Denver, Colorado, 1993

Thus, it is no surprise that many seers since Fatima have warned that Communism was going to return. Indeed, as this Global Revolution spreads, we are hearing the young, the gullible, and the naive take up this call to embrace “Marxism”, “Socialism” or “Communism”—evil triplets of the same errors—without realizing what they are asking for.

The Message of Fatima is now nearing its fulfillment. Read the powerful warning of When Communism Returns by Mark Mallett at The Now Word… for it is now here.

https://www.countdowntothekingdom.com/when-communism-returns/

 

Peter Kwasniewski is pretty spot-on often enough on many topics. With him, it’s no holds barred ever. He is not sedevacantist.

 

He sure sounds like it to me. He threw the post Conciliar popes under the bus by what he didn’t say in defense of any of them. It sounded to me as though he was wringing his hands. No further explanation from him left the thought:
Vacant.
just my two cents
We can agree to disagree.
Edit: if he is not a sedevacantist, what is he?

 

He is someone deserving of great respect. The article posted might not be complete, which, if so, can create a false impression.

There are obviously differences of opinion among traditional Catholics regarding the status of Vatican II, encompassing a spectrum from total condemnation to enthusiastic support (while rejecting the 'Spirit of Vatican II'). I don't think any of us, no matter our position on this spectrum, should fall out with others on a different position of it. I wouldn't agree with 'throwing the bishops under the bus' (although there is a strong temptation regarding some contemporary ones!), but to do so is not necessarily to become sedevacantist. One can be highly critical of popes, while simultaneously accepting their authority. It is commonplace on this site to criticise Pope Francis, but most of us strongly reject the idea that he is not a valid pope. Saint Gregory Naziensen was highly critical of the Council of Constantinople, so it is not necessarily unsaintly to criticise a council, if one does so for the right reasons.

 

Strong supporter of all things Traditional. Oftentimes, he’s written to defend what always was in the Church and which was morphed and then believed to have never been.

 

QUOTE="DeGaulle, post: 294906, member: 4362"]He is someone deserving of great respect. The article posted might not be complete, which, if so, can create a false impression.

There are obviously differences of opinion among traditional Catholics regarding the status of Vatican II, encompassing a spectrum from total condemnation to enthusiastic support (while rejecting the 'Spirit of Vatican II'). I don't think any of us, no matter our position on this spectrum, should fall out with others on a different position of it. I wouldn't agree with 'throwing the bishops under the bus' (although there is a strong temptation regarding some contemporary ones!), but to do so is not necessarily to become sedevacantist. One can be highly critical of popes, while simultaneously accepting their authority. It is commonplace on this site to criticise Pope Francis, but most of us strongly reject the idea that he is not a valid pope. Saint Gregory Naziensen was highly critical of the Council of Constantinople, so it is not necessarily unsaintly to criticise a council, if one does so for the right reasons.[/QUOTE]
I said he threw the Popes under the bus by what he didn’t say, not the bishops. That sounded sede. You folks can like him. I surely don’t
Too much talking
I’m way over my limit for articles about VII
because the only ones who can do anything
are not doing it.
edit
You say he is deserving of respect. I don’t think I disrespected him. I just voiced my concerns over what he wrote.
Edit again. I still have a nagging feeling over what he didn't say. I will leave it at that since I am apparently the only one who thinks this
I'll skip over him next time.

 

I said he threw the Popes under the bus by what he didn’t say, not the bishops. That sounded sede. You folks can like him. I surely don’t
Too much talking
I’m way over my limit for articles about VII
because the only ones who can do anything
are not doing it.
edit
You say he is deserving of respect. I don’t think I disrespected him. I just voiced my concerns over what he wrote.
Edit again. I still have a nagging feeling over what he didn't say. I will leave it at that since I am apparently the only one who thinks this
I'll skip over him next time.[/QUOTE]

I apologise, I mistook the bishops for your statement on the popes. However, one can be hard on the popes without being a sedevacantist, which is something I have never heard a whiff of concerning Kwasnievski. It's certain that the popes of the council and post-conciliar period can't be exempt from responsibility for the mess created. I've said here before that while I accept the Church's decision to canonise Paul VI, I'll find other saints to pray to. I don't think you're over your limit with respect to anything. Your contributions here are always highly valuable and we do one another a great service by continuously questioning things if we are in doubt. We can't be too careful.

 

Earthtoangels, I know you are only quoting the countdown website but...
This statement is misleading at best.

To quote Sr Lucia FROM 1982 to give credence to the idea that the consecration was not done at all without clarifying that the consecration, according to Sr Lucia, was later done in 1984 (all be it late) makes me distrustful of the website.
It is an unsigned post, but Countdown choose to post it anyway.
Additionally Sr Lucia herself in 1989 confirmed the the consecration had been done in 1984...

https://www.ewtn.com/fatima/secret-of-fatima.asp
"Sister Lucia personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration corresponded to what Our Lady wished ("Sim, està feita, tal como Nossa Senhora a pediu, desde o dia 25 de Março de 1984": "Yes it has been done just as Our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984": Letter of 8 November 1989). Hence any further discussion or request is without basis."

The consecration (according to Sr Lucia) has taken place. The second condition to avoid the consequences has not... The five first Saturdays.

At Fatima Our Lady revealed that she would come to ask for the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart and for the Communion of Reparation of the Five First Saturdays.

How many Catholic Churches promote this devotion?

How few Catholics have ever fulfilled her request?

It is easy to blame the Pope, have we done our share?
Our Lady herself put forward 2 conditions.



https://www.americaneedsfatima.org/Our-Blessed-Mother/the-five-first-saturdays-devotion.html
"Modifications to the Five First Saturdays Devotion to facilitate its observation

The original request of Our Lady asks one to confess and receive Communion on five consecutive first Saturdays; to say five decades of the Rosary; to meditate during 15 minutes on the mysteries of the Rosary for the purpose of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in reparation for the sins of men.

In subsequent private visions and apparitions however, Sister Lucia presented to Our Lord the difficulties that devotees encountered in fulfilling some conditions. With loving condescension and solicitude, Our Lord deigned to relax the rules to make this devotion easy to observe:

• Confession may be done on other days other than the First Saturdays so long as one receives Our Lord worthily and has the intention of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
• Even if one forgets to make the intention, it may be done on the next confession, taking advantage of the first occasion to go to confession.
• Sister Lucia also clarified that it is not necessary to meditate on ALL mysteries of the Rosary on each First Saturdays. One or several suffice.

With much latitude granted by Our Lord Himself, there is no reason for the faithful to hesitate or delay this pious practice in the spirit of reparation which the Immaculate Heart of Mary urgently asks."



“You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world”

 

I apologise, I mistook the bishops for your statement on the popes. However, one can be hard on the popes without being a sedevacantist, which is something I have never heard a whiff of concerning Kwasnievski. It's certain that the popes of the council and post-conciliar period can't be exempt from responsibility for the mess created. I've said here before that while I accept the Church's decision to canonise Paul VI, I'll find other saints to pray to. I don't think you're over your limit with respect to anything. Your contributions here are always highly valuable and we do one another a great service by continuously questioning things if we are in doubt. We can't be too careful.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for these words, DeGaulle. I think I have reached the point where reading any more articles about Vatican II will just be Groundhog Day.

 

Thank you for these words, DeGaulle. I think I have reached the point where reading any more articles about Vatican II will just be Groundhog Day.[/QUOTE]

The reaction to the Council is as debilitating as the Council itself. You're right, we shouldn't be giving this amount of attention to what, I think it was, Pope Emeritus Benedict said was a minor council. Most of its biggest advocates are nearing the end of their passage through this world and it won't receive the same support from those who have no direct attachment to it. One way or another, it's going to fade away into oblivion. The Church is going to consist of pagans merely identifying as Catholic, and who will probably control it, and people who will remain faithful and will develop their own devout practices, whether they be TLM or NO. The latter with the Roman Canon, the priest ad orientem, the Nicene Creed, Communion on the tongue (preferably at altar rails), without signs of peace, guitars or other nonsense, would be very acceptable and easily achievable.

One extra point. I said that St. Gregory criticised the Council of Constantinople. I have nowhere read that he rejected or condemned it.

 

HH and DeGaulle,
Thank you both for your comments here. Your “ debate” is both respectful and worthy for us all to discern. These issues are important to many of us to help form our own conclusions. This forum is a good source to explore so much of the information out there and enlighten those of us who are trying to filter the volume of it already published.
Thank you both.

 

Archbishop Viganò: I do not think Vatican II was invalid, but it was gravely manipulated
'I have never thought and even less have I affirmed that Vatican II was an invalid Ecumenical Council... it was made the object of a grave manipulation'
By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Fri Jul 3, 2020 - 3:30 pm EST

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...ii-was-invalid-but-it-was-gravely-manipulated


Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò at the Rome Life Forum on May 18, 2018. Steve Jalsevac / LifeSiteNews

(Editor’s note: The following exchange with former USA nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is offered in the hopes of clarifying his position on this important matter of consideration in the Church.)

Dear Archbishop Viganò,

I am hoping to get a clarification from you about your latest texts regarding the second Vatican council.

In your June 9 text you said that “it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.”

In your subsequent interview with Phil Lawler he asked: “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?”

You replied: “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 (bold mine).”

From this it is unclear whether you believe Vatican II to be an invalid council and thus to be complete repudiated or if you believe that while a valid council it contained many errors and the faithful would be better served by having it forgotten about and could rather draw on Vatican I and other councils for their sustenance.
I believe this clarification would be helpful.

In Christ and His beloved Mother,

JH

1 July 2020

In festo Pretiosissimi Sanguinis

Domini Nostri Iesu Christi

Dear John-Henry,

I thank you for your letter, with which you give me the opportunity to clarify what I have already expressed about Vatican II. This delicate argument is involving prominent persons of the ecclesiastical world and not a few erudite laity: I trust that my modest contribution can help to lifting off the blanket of equivocations that weighs on the Council, thus leading to a shared solution.

You begin with my initial observation: “It is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ,” and then quote my words about the solution to the impasse in which we find ourselves today: “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.”

You then state that my position is not clear – “whether you believe Vatican II to be an invalid council and thus to be complete repudiated, or if you believe that while a valid council it contained many errors and the faithful would be better served by having it forgotten about.” I have never thought and even less have I affirmed that Vatican II was an invalid Ecumenical Council: in fact it was convoked by the supreme authority, by the Supreme Pontiff, and all of the Bishops of the world took part in it. Vatican II is a valid Council, supported by the same authority as Vatican I and Trent. However, as I have already written, from its origin it was made the object of a grave manipulation by a fifth column that penetrated into the very heart of the Church that perverted its purposes, as confirmed by the disastrous results that are before everyone’s eyes. Let us remember that in the French Revolution, the fact that the Estates-General were legitimately convoked on May 5, 1789, by Louis XVI did not prevent things from escalating into the Revolution and the Terror (the comparison is not out of place, since Cardinal Suenens called the conciliar event “the 1789 of the Church”).

In his recent intervention, His Eminence Cardinal Walter Brandmüller maintains that the Council places itself in continuity with the Tradition, and as proof of this he remarks:

It is sufficient to glance at the notes of the text. It can thus be seen that ten previous councils are quoted by the document. Among these, Vatican I is referred to 12 times, and Trent 16 times. From this it is already clear that, for example, any idea of “distancing from Trent” is absolutely excluded. The relationship with Tradition appears even closer if we think of how, among the popes, Pius XII is cited 55 times, Leo XIII on 17 occasions, and Pius XI in 12 passages. To these are added Benedict XIV, Benedict XV, Pius IX, Pius X, Innocent I and Gelasius. The most impressive aspect, however, is the presence of the Fathers in the texts of Lumen Gentium. The council refers to the teaching of the Fathers a full 44 times, including Augustine, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian, John Chrysostom and Irenaeus. Furthermore, the great theologians and doctors of the Church are cited: Thomas Aquinas in 12 passages, along with seven other heavyweights.

As I pointed out in the analogous case of the Synod of Pistoia, the presence of orthodox content does not exclude the presence of other heretical propositions nor does it mitigate their gravity, nor can the truth be used to hide even only one single error. On the contrary, the numerous citations of other Councils, of magisterial acts or of the Fathers of the Church can precisely serve to conceal, with a malicious intent, the controversial points. In this regard, it is useful to recall the words of the Tractatus de Fide orthodoxa contra Arianos, cited by Leo XIII in his encyclical Satis Cognitum:

There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic Tradition.

Leo XIII then comments:

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.

(cont'd)

+

 

On the pages of L’Osservatore Romano, in an article on April 14, 2013, Cardinal Kasper admitted that “in many places [the Council Fathers] had to find formulas of compromise, in which often the positions of the majority (conservatives) are found alongside those of the minority (progressives), designed to delimit them. Therefore, the conciliar texts themselves have an enormous potential for conflict, opening the door to selective reception in both directions.” This is the origin of the relevant ambiguities, patent contradictions, and serious doctrinal and pastoral errors.

It could be objected that taking into consideration the presumption of malice in a magisterial act ought to be rejected with disdain, since the Magisterium ought to be aimed at confirming the faithful in the Faith; but perhaps it is precisely the intentional fraud that makes an act prove to be non-magisterial and authorizes its condemnation or decrees its nullity. His Eminence Cardinal Brandmüller concluded his comment with these words: “It would be appropriate to avoid the ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ that accuses the interlocutor from the beginning of heretical conceptions.” While I surely share this sentiment in the abstract and in general, I think it appropriate to formulate a distinction to better frame this concrete case. In order to do this, it is necessary to abandon the approach, that is a bit too legalistic, that considers all doctrinal questions inherent in the Church as reducible and resolvable principally on the basis of a normative reference: let us not forget that the law is at the service of the Truth, and not vice-versa. And the same holds for the Authority that is the minister of that law and custodian of that Truth. On the other hand, when Our Lord faced his Passion, the Synagogue had deserted its proper function as guide of the Chosen People in fidelity to the Covenant, just as part of the Hierarchy has done for sixty years.

This legalistic attitude is at the foundation of the deception of the Innovators, those who devised a very simple way to actuate the Revolution: imposing it by virtue of authority with an act that the Ecclesia docens adopted in order to define truths of the Faith with a binding force for the Ecclesia discens, restating that teaching in other equally binding documents, albeit in a different degree. In short, it was decided to affix the label “Council” to an event conceived by some with the aim of demolishing the Church, and in order to do this the conspirators acted with malicious intent and subversive purposes. Father Edward Schillebeecks op candidly said: «We express it diplomatically, but after the Council we will draw the implicit conclusions» (De Bazuin, n.16, 1965).

It is not therefore a question of a “hermeneutic of suspicion,” but on the contrary something much more grave than a suspicion, corroborated by a calm evaluation of the facts, as well as by the admission of the protagonists themselves. In this regard, who among them is more authoritative than then-Cardinal Ratzinger?

The impression grew steadily that nothing was now stable in the Church, that everything was open to revision. More and more the Council appeared to be like a great Church parliament, that could change everything and reshape everything according to its own desires. Very clearly resentment was growing against Rome and against the Curia, which appeared to be the real enemy of everything that was new and progressive. The disputes at the Council were more and more portrayed according to the party model of modern parliamentarism. When information was presented in this way, the person receiving it saw himself compelled to take sides with one of the parties. [...] If the bishops in Rome could change the Church, and even the faith itself (as it appeared they could), why only the bishops? In any event, the faith could be changed – or so it now appeared, in contrast to everything we previously thought. The faith no longer seemed exempt from human decision making but rather was now apparently determined by it. And we knew that the bishops had learned from theologians the new things they were now proposing. For believers, it was a remarkable phenomenon that their bishops seemed to show a different face in Rome from the one they wore at home. [J. Ratzinger, Milestones, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 132-133].

At this point it is right to draw attention to a recurring paradox in world affairs: the mainstream calls people “conspiracy theorists” if they reveal and denounce the conspiracy that the mainstream itself has devised, in order to divert attention from the conspiracy and delegitimize those who denounce it. Similarly, it seems to me that there is the risk of defining as “hermeneutic of suspicion” anyone who reveals and denounces the conciliar fraud, as if they were people who unjustifiably accuse “the interlocutor from the beginning of heretical conceptions.” Instead, it is necessary to understand if the action of the protagonists of the Council can justify the suspicion towards them, if not actually prove such suspicion correct; and if whether the result they obtained legitimizes a negative evaluation of the entire Council, of some of its parts, or of none of it. If we persist in thinking that those who conceived Vatican II as a subversive event rivaled Saint Alphonsus in piety and Saint Thomas in doctrine, we demonstrate a naivety that cannot be reconciled with the evangelical precept, and indeed borders on, if not connivance, then certainly carelessness. Obviously, I am not referring to the majority of Council Fathers, who were certainly animated by pious and holy intentions; I speak instead of the protagonists of the Council-event, of the so-called theologians who up until Vatican II were restricted by canonical censures and forbidden from teaching, and who for this very reason were chosen and promoted and helped, so that their credentials of heterodoxy became a cause of merit for them, while the undisputed orthodoxy of Cardinal Ottaviani and his collaborators in the Holy Office were sufficient reason to consign the preparatory schemae of the Council to the flames, with the consent of John XXIII.

I doubt that with regard to Msgr. Bugnini – to cite only one name – an attitude of prudent suspicion is either censurable or lacking in Charity. On the contrary: the dishonesty of the author of the Novus Ordo in pursuing his purposes, his adherence to Masonry and his own admissions in his diaries given to the Press show that the measures taken by Paul VI toward him were all too lenient and ineffective, since everything he did in the Conciliar Commissions and at the Congregation of Rites remained intact and, despite this, became an integral part of the Acta Concilii and the related reforms. Thus the hermeneutic of suspicion is quite welcome if it serves to demonstrate that there are valid reasons for the suspicion and that these suspicions often materialize in the certainty of intentional fraud.

(cont'd)

+

 

Let us now return to Vatican II, to demonstrate the trap into which the good Pastors fell, misled into error along with their flock by a most astute work of deception by people notoriously infected by Modernism and not rarely also misled in their own moral conduct. As I wrote above, the fraud lies in having recourse to a Council as a container for a subversive maneuver, and in the utilization of the authority of the Church to impose the doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and spiritual revolution that is ontologically contrary to the purpose for which the Council was called and its magisterial authority was exercised. I repeat: the label “Council” affixed to the packaging does not reflect its content.

We have witnessed a new and different way of understanding the same words of the Catholic lexicon: the expression “ecumenical council” given to the Council of Trent does not coincide with the meaning given by the proponents of Vatican II, for whom the term “council” alludes to “conciliation” and the term “ecumenical” to inter-religious dialogue. The “spirit of the council” is the “spirit of conciliation, of compromise,” just as the assembly was a solemn and public attestation of conciliatory dialogue with the world, for the first time in the history of the Church.

Bugnini wrote: “We must take out of our Catholic prayers and the Catholic liturgy everything which could be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, the Protestants” [cf. L’Osservatore Romano, 19 March 1965]. From these words we understand that the intent of the reform that was the fruit of the conciliar mens was to reduce the proclamation of Catholic Truth in order not to offend the heretics: and this is exactly what was done, not only in the Holy Mass – horribly disfigured in the name of ecumenism – but also in the exposition of dogma in the documents of doctrinal content; the use of subsistit inis a very clear example.

Perhaps it will be possible to debate the motives that may have led to this unique event, so fraught with consequences for the Church; but we can no longer deny the evidence and pretend that Vatican II was not something qualitatively different from Vatican I, despite the numerous heroic and documented efforts, even by the highest authority, to interpret it by force as a normal Ecumenical Council. Anyone with common sense can see that it is an absurdity to want to interpret a Council, since it is and ought to be a clear and unequivocal norm of Faith and Morals. Secondarily, if a magisterial act raises serious and reasoned arguments that it may be lacking in doctrinal coherence with magisterial acts that have preceded it, it is evident that the condemnation of a single heterodox point in any case discredits the entire document. If we add to this the fact that the errors formulated or left obliquely to be understood between the lines are not limited to one or two cases, and that the errors affirmed correspond conversely to an enormous mass of truths that are not confirmed, we can ask ourselves whether it may be right to expunge the last assembly from the catalog of canonical Councils. The sentence will be issued by history and by the sensus fidei of the Christian people even before it is given by an official document. The tree is judged by its fruits, and it is not enough to speak of a conciliar springtime to hide the harsh winter that grips the Church; nor to invent married priests and deaconesses in order to remedy the collapse of vocations; nor to adapt the Gospel to the modern mentality in order to gain more consensus. The Christian life is a militia, not a nice outing in the country, and this is all the more true for priestly life.

I conclude with a request to those who are profitably intervening in the debate about the Council: I would like us first and foremost to seek to proclaim salvific Truth to all men, because their and our eternal salvation depends on it; and that we only secondarily concern ourselves with the canonical and juridical implications raised by Vatican II: anathema sit or damnatio memoriae, it changes little. If the Council truly did not change anything of our Faith, then let us pick up the Catechism of Saint Pius X, return to the Missal of Saint Pius V, remain before the Tabernacle, not desert the Confessional, and practice penance and mortification with a spirit of reparation. This is whence the eternal youthfulness of the Spirit springs. And above all: let us do so in such a way that our works give solid and coherent witness to what we preach.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Official translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

+

 

The conclusion of Abp Vigano's clarification/response is worth highlighting:

"If the Council truly did not change anything of our Faith, then let us pick up the Catechism of Saint Pius X, return to the Missal of Saint Pius V, remain before the Tabernacle, not desert the Confessional, and practice penance and mortification with a spirit of reparation. This is whence the eternal youthfulness of the Spirit springs. And above all: let us do so in such a way that our works give solid and coherent witness to what we preach."

+

 

www.gloria.tv

+

 

Abp Viganò defends his union with Church: ‘I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church’
Archbishop Viganò rejects claim of Italian journalist that he is 'on the brink of schism'
By Maike Hickson

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
July 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – “I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church, for the exaltation of which I daily renew the offering of my life,” stated Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò regarding accusations that he was “on the brink of schism” over his comments regarding the Catholic Church in relation to the 1962-65 Vatican II council.

In a new post today that was first published by Sandro Magister in Italian and Marco Tosatti in English (read full letter below), Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò responded to an article by Sandro Magister, in which the Italian journalist accused him of demeaning Pope Benedict XVI and for being “on the brink of schism.”

Magister had written, on June 29, a strong rebuke of Archbishop Viganòs recent interventions, in which he strongly criticized some elements of the Second Vatican Council that are ambiguous and that have been the basis of the creation of a “parallel church” that has little in common with the Catholic Church's Tradition. In his post, Magister claimed that Archbishop Viganò blames Pope Benedict XVI for “having 'deceived' the whole Church in that he would have it be believed that the Second Vatican Council was immune to heresies and moreover should be interpreted in perfect continuity with true perennial doctrine.” However, the link provided by Magister leads to a June 9 post by Viganò (here in English) that does not claim that Pope Benedict had “deceived” the whole Church.

Viganò had spoken in his earlier June 9 post about the fact that “attempts to correct the conciliar excesses – invoking the hermeneutic of continuity – have proven unsuccessful,” and then added that “despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.”

Viganò only used the word “deception” when he admitted that, just as he “honestly and serenely obeyed questionable orders sixty years ago, believing that they represented the loving voice of the Church,” he now recognizes “that I have been deceived.”

Next to this claim about Viganò's purportedly accusing Pope Benedict XVI, Sandro Magister also claimed in his June 29 article that this Italian prelate is “on the brink of schism.” Further using harsh language, Magister also spoke of “a relentless barrage of denunciations of Church heresies over the last few decades” that Archbishop Viganò purportedly has published in recent weeks.

In his new response to Magister, the Italian prelate wrote that he was aware that someone critical of the Council easily “awakens” the “inquisitorial spirit,” but that nevertheless he considers it appropriate to “raise problems that remain unresolved to date, the foremost of which is the crisis that has afflicted the Church since Vatican II.”

He furthermore rejects Magister's claim that he himself was on the “brink” of schism, saying: “I claim the right to say it without thereby making myself guilty of the delict of schism for having attacked the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church is inseparably in Charity and in Truth, and where error reigns or even only worms its way in, there cannot be Charity.”

Archbishop Viganò then assured Magister that, “unlike many bishops, such as those of the German Synodal Path, who have already gone far beyond the brink of schism (...) I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church, for the exaltation of which I daily renew the offering of my life.”

He goes on to explain that he never accused Pope Benedict of having “deceived” the Church:

“I do not think that I have ever written such a thing about the Holy Father; on the contrary: I said, and I reaffirm, that we were all – or almost all – deceived by those who used the Council as a “container” equipped with its own implicit authority and the authoritativeness of the Fathers who took part in it, while distorting its purpose. And those who fell into this deception did so because, loving the Church and the Papacy, they could not imagine that in the heart of Vatican II a minority of very organized conspirators could use a Council to demolish the Church from within; and that in doing so they could count on the silence and inaction of Authority, if not on its complicity.”

Archbishop Viganò has started to open up this debate about Vatican II at the beginning of June, in response to a June 1 statement by Bishop Athanasius Schneider. The Italian prelate first published a June 9 intervention, adding a June 15 statement about some of the problematic propositions that can be found in Vatican II documents. He then responded to questions by Phil Lawler concerning the history and background of the turbulent Second Vatican Council and the signs that it had indeed been manipulated by a small group of modernists, on June 26.

In a response to LifeSite's editor-in-chief, Archbishop Viganò clarified his earlier words that he thinks this Council should better be forgotten, by saying that he considers this Council to be valid, but manipulated.

Finally, this new response to Sandro Magister is so far the last statement explaining his own position and critique. Viganò herewith is trying to open up a debate without immediately being silenced as being a “Lefebvrist,” as he wrote to Sandro Magister.

***

For the rest of the blog post with Archbishop Viganò's full response to Sandro Magister, go to:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...-desire-to-separate-myself-from-mother-church

+

 

Of course they try to silence him. God bless and protect Archbishop Vigano.

 

AB Vigano is giving some people fits.