The Third Secret of Fatima and Corruption in the Church.

Discussion in 'Church Critique' started by padraig, Sep 15, 2018.

  1. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    It would be so nice if we could just hit rewind as he suggests, no problem.
    I wonder, though, if it would be as easy to do as he suggests. This might be one of those ideas that sounds great on paper, but.......
    but I am very glad he is denying that he wants schism
    AED and Jo M like this.
  2. Joan J

    Joan J HolySpiritCome!

    Sam likes this.
  3. AED

    AED Powers

    The truth can do that.:)(y)
    Tanker, Julia, Booklady and 2 others like this.
  4. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    50 priests, scholars, journalists thank Viganò, Schneider for raising Vatican II questions
    The bishop and archbishop were praised for their 'honest and open discussion of the Second Vatican Council'

    Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò | Bishop Athanasius Schneider

    July 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Today, more than 50 priests, scholars, journalists, and other persons of prominence published an Open Letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, thanking these two prelates for their recent statements in which they discuss some problems of the Second Vatican Council's documents that might need a further evaluation and correction.

    The signatories of this letter regard this discourse about the Council and its aftermath to be of crucial importance for the good of the Church.

    Among them are prominently the Italian church historian Professor Roberto de Mattei, the U.S. Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst and professor of law, Andrew P. Napolitano, as well as his fellow law professors Brian McCall and Paolo Pasqualucci, well-known Catholic book authors such as Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, Jose Antonio Ureta, Henry Sire, and Dr. Taylor Marshall, the retired Oxford Research Fellow Father John Hunwicke, numerous other priests, as well as journalists such as Marco Tosatti, Aldo Maria Valli, Jeanne Smits, and John-Henry Westen.

    The letter (see full text below) is being published simultaneously in English, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and French.

    The undersigned express their gratitude to Archbishop Viganò and Bishop Schneider for calling for an “open and honest debate about the truth of what happened at Vatican II and whether the Council and its implementation contain errors or aspects that favor errors or harm the Faith.” They notice that these two prelates also have their own disagreements about aspects of this discourse, saying that “Archbishop Viganò has argued it would be better to altogether 'forget' the Council, while Bishop Schneider, disagreeing with him on this specific point, proposes officially to correct only those parts of the Council documents that contain errors or that are ambiguous.” But these disagreements are presented in a charitable and kindly manner.

    The signatories state:

    Your courteous and respectful exchange of opinions should serve as a model for the more robust debate that you and we desire. Too often these past fifty years disagreements about Vatican II have been challenged by mere ad hominem attacks rather than calm argumentation. We urge all who will join this debate to follow your example.

    The Open Letter thanks these two prelates for “identifying” some of the crucial aspects of the Second Vatican Council that deserve an examination, adding that such a discourse could provide “a model for frank, yet courteous, debate that can involve disagreement.” The signatories point out that they themselves might not agree with each and every point raised by Archbishop Viganò and Bishop Schneider.

    The Open Letter then lists the key points of criticism as raised by these two prelates in the recent weeks with regard to the Council under the following headlines: Religious Liberty for All Religions as a Natural Right Willed by God; the Identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and the New Ecumenism; Papal Primacy and the New Collegiality; and The Council and Its Texts are the Cause of Many Current Scandals and Errors.

    In these sections, quotations from the two prelates are presented, thus summing up their arguments and objections. For example, in the last section, both prelates are drawing parallels between some statements of the Council and documents issued by Pope Francis, thus pointing to the Council and its novel teachings as the root cause of our current crisis in the Church.

    Archbishop Vigano recently wrote:

    If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae. If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms. If the Abu Dhabi Declaration was signed, we owe it to Nostra Aetate. If we have come to the point of delegating decisions to the Bishops’ Conferences – even in grave violation of the Concordat, as happened in Italy – we owe it to collegiality, and to its updated version, synodality. Thanks to synodality, we found ourselves with Amoris Laetitia having to look for a way to prevent what was obvious to everyone from appearing: that this document, prepared by an impressive organizational machine, intended to legitimize Communion for the divorced and cohabiting, just as Querida Amazonia will be used to legitimize women priests (as in the recent case of an ‘episcopal vicaress’ in Freiburg) and the abolition of Sacred Celibacy.

    And in a similar vein, Bishop Schneider stated:

    For anyone who is intellectually honest, and is not seeking to square the circle, it is clear that the assertion made in Dignitatis Humanae, according to which every man has the right based on his own nature (and therefore positively willed by God) to practice and spread a religion according to his own conscience, does not differ substantially from the statement in the Abu Dhabi Declaration, which says: ‘The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.’


    Booklady and AED like this.
  5. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Let us recapitulate here the short history of this new discourse on the Council and its aftermath.

    It started with two texts published by Bishop Schneider, in which he responded to a lengthy interpretative essay by Cardinal Gerhard Müller trying to read the controversial February 4, 2019 Abu Dhabi document in an orthodox light, and thereby also positively referring back to some Council documents.

    Schneider stated on June 1 that the Abu Dhabi document is wrong in declaring that the “diversity of religions” is “willed by God.” In his second article, the Kazakh prelate of German origin also disagreed with the claim that Catholics and Muslims believe in the same God, a claim which is an underlying assumption of the Abu Dhabi document.

    Archbishop Viganò gratefully and approvingly responded to this debate about Vatican II in a June 9 intervention, adding a June 15 statement about some of the problematic propositions that can be found in Vatican II documents. In this document, he also stated that it would be better if this Council were to be “forgotten.” He then answered interview questions from the Catholic commentator and book author Phil Lawler concerning the history and background of the turbulent Second Vatican Council and the signs that it had been manipulated by a small group of modernists, on June 26.

    In a response to LifeSite's editor-in-chief, John-Henry Westen, 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, on July 6, this Italian prelate responded to a critique by the Italian journalist Sandro Magister who claimed that he was on the “brink of schism.” “I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church,” Viganò then wrote.

    The signatories of this Open Letter to Archbishop Viganò and Bishop Schneider welcome this reflection and discourse concerning the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath. One may trust that when people of good will together consider these matters of great importance for the life of the Church – even if they disagree at times – the truth surely will be promoted, in charity.


    To read the Open Letter, go to:

    AED likes this.
  6. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Our Lady of Mount Carmel, pray for us and the Church on this your feast day and every day, amen.
    Booklady, John R, SgCatholic and 4 others like this.
  7. AED

    AED Powers

    Booklady and HeavenlyHosts like this.
  8. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Could Vatican II be repudiated? It wouldn’t be the first time in Church history
    Why exclude that a day will come when the Second Vatican Council may be repudiated, in part or en bloc, as happened with the Council of Constance and its decrees?
    By Roberto de Mattei
    Thu Jul 16, 2020 - 9:14 pm EST
    Resul Muslu /
    July 16, 2020 (Rorate Caeli) — On his blog Settimo Cielo of July 13, the Vatican reporter Sandro Magister was highly critical of Bishops Carlo Maria Viganò and Athanasius Schneider, hurling an accusation at them for spreading “fake news”. *

    The term “fake news” was used also in reference to Monsignor Schneider’s theses, whereby the Church, in Her history, has corrected doctrinal errors committed by precedent ecumenical councils, without, in this manner, “undermining the foundations of the Catholic faith.” Magister accuses Schneider of historical incompetence, citing, as evidence, a brief intervention by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller on the Council of Constance, which in reality refutes nothing of what was affirmed by Monsignor Schneider.

    The facts are these. On April 6, 1415, the Council of Constance issued a decree known as Haec Sancta 1, wherein it was stated solemnly that the Council, assisted by the Holy Spirit, received its power directly from God: hence every Christian, including the Pope, was required to obey it. Haec Sancta is a revolutionary document which raised many questions as it was first interpreted in continuity with Tradition and, subsequently, reprobated by the Pontifical Magisterium. It had its coherent application in the decree Frequens, of October 9, 1417, which called for a Council five years later, after seven years another one and then one every ten years, de facto attributing to the Council the function of a permanent collegial body, alongside the Pope and de facto superior to him.

    Cardinal Brandmüller notes that: “the assize which issued those decrees was in no way an ecumenical council authorized to define the doctrine of the faith. It was, instead, merely an assembly of the followers of John XXIII (Baldassarre Cossa), one of the three “popes” contending at that time for the leadership of the Church. That assembly had no authority. The schism lasted until the council of Constance unified with the other two parties, i.e. the followers of Gregory XII (Angelo Correr) and the ‘natio hispanica’ of Benedict XIII (Pedro Martinez de Luna), an event that occurred in the autumn of 1417. Only then did the ‘council’ of Constance become a true ecumenical council, even if still without a pope, who eventually was then elected.”

    All true, but Martin V, elected ‘the true’ Pope in Constance on November 11, 1417, in the Bull Inter cunctas of February 22, 1418, acknowledged the ecumenical nature of the Council of Constance and all that it had decided in the previous years, albeit with a generically restrictive formula: «in favorem fidei et salutem animarum». 2 He therefore did not repudiate Haec Sancta and applied the decree Frequens with rigour, fixing the date of a new general Council, which was held in Pavia-Siena (1423–1424) and the city of Basil he designated as the seat of the subsequent assembly.

    The Council was opened in Basil on July 23, 1431. Martin V’s successor, Eugene IV, with the Bull Duduum Sacrum of December 15 1433, ratified the documents that the assembly had issued hitherto, among which was the Haec Sancta the “conciliar” Fathers of Basil had proclaimed as their magna carta.

    Eugene IV, in the Decree of the Council of Florence, which on September 4, 1439, condemned the Fathers of Basil, “to save” the Council of Constance, resorted to that, which, in modern terms might be defined a “hermeneutic of continuity” today used with regard to the Second Vatican Council. He, in fact, sustained that the proposition of the superiority of the Councils over the Pope, affirmed by the Fathers of Basil on the basis of Haec Sancta, was “a bad interpretation (pravum intellectum), made by the Basilians, which de facto reveals itself to be contrary to the authentic sense of Holy Scripture, of the Holy Fathers and of the Council of Constance itself.”3 The Fathers of Basil, according to the Pope “interpreted the declaration of the Council of Constance in a wicked and reprehensible sense, totally alien to sound doctrine.4 Today we would say: an abusive interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, distorting the documents.

    Subsequently, in the letter Etsi dubitemus of April 21 1441, Eugene IV condemned the “diabolical founders” of the conciliarism doctrine: Marsilius of Padova, John of Jandun and William of Ockham 5 , but regarding Haec Sanctahe took a hesitant stance, along the lines of the “hermeneutic of continuity”. The same Eugene IV ratified the Council of Constance in its entirety, and its decrees, «absque tamen praejudicio juris, dignitatis et praeminentiae Sedis apostolicae» as he writes on July 22, 1336 to his legate: a formula that clarified the sense of Martin V’s restriction, condemning implicitly, in the name of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, all those who referred to the Council of Constance in affirming the superiority of the council over the Pope.

    Consequently the thesis of “continuity” between Haec Sancta and the Tradition of the Church was abandoned by theologians and historians, and among them Cardinal Brandmüller, who rightly expunges Haec Sancta and the decree Frequens from the Tradition of the Church. Even at the time of the Counter-Reform, Father Melchor Cano states that Haec Sancta should be rejected as it did not have the dogmatic form of a “decree obliging the faithful to believe or condemn the contrary”6 . Similarly, Cardinal Baudrillart, in the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, retains that the Council of Constance, in issuing Haec Sancta did not have the intention of promulgating a dogmatic definition, and it is also for this the document was subsequently repudiated by the Church.7 The Church historian August Franzen affirms the same.8 Thereby, in raising the question of the ecumenical nature of the Council of Constance, Father Joseph Gill, one of its foremost experts, writes that: «les historiens s’accordent à le considérer comme oecuménique, mais dans des proportions variables». 9

    Why exclude then that a day will come when even the Second Vatican Council may be repudiated, in part, or en bloc, as happened with the Council of Constance and its decrees?

    (for the full article, go to the link given above)
    Don_D likes this.
  9. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Man Cannot Live on Vatican II Alone
    Dan MilletteJuly 21, 2020

    It’s a Friday. A boy and his father head out in their boat to fish. The plan is to catch supper.

    “Dad, we’ve been out for two hours and haven’t caught anything,” remarks the boy sullenly.

    “The water is too dirty right now,” notices his father. “Let’s try something different.”

    “I was thinking we could change our lures. These crankbaits would get more attention,” offers the young lad.

    “No, son, listen to me,” begins the older man. “You notice that our boat is relatively clean, yet the water is awfully dirty. We need to open the plug on our boat to cleanse the waters.”

    As the son pauses nervously to decide whether or not his dad is joking or has lost his mind, the dad reaches below the motor and pulls the boat’s plug. Instantly, filthy river water comes rushing in.

    “Dad! What are you doing? Water is rushing in! Quick! Put the plug back!” shouts the boy.

    “I think we need to wait and let the water get cleaned up,” the father replies calmly, as water rises past his feet.

    The son grabs an old bucket and desperately starts bailing water out of the boat. Seeing that the process is hopeless, he begs, “Dad, please!”

    His father, touched by the peaceful sound of flowing water, closes his eyes and croons harmoniously, “Peace is flowing like a river…flowing out of you and me…”

    “Put the plug back in, or we’re finished!”

    “Son, I think the water is rising maybe a bit too much,” the father finally announces as water reaches his waist. “We need to somehow return to when I first pulled the plug on our boat. If only we could try this all over again, I bet it would work out.”

    The fishing trip more or less concludes. Water now begins pouring in over the side of the boat. As the father is swept away, he calls one last time, “Remember son, this was a good idea! Just…trust me…everything will be fine…”

    * * *

    Yes, I allude to Vatican II. We all know the story. Pope John XXIII wished to open the windows of the Church to let in the fresh air of the modern world. The ever complicated, ever vague Second Vatican Council was the solution. The Spirit of Vatican II was the aftermath. The devastation of Catholicism was the end result. Still, calls to rediscover this council remain. If we but read the documents in Latin, and apply the council properly, all will be restored. “Noble simplicity” merely meant not to trip over countless statues in a church. “Active participation” is just actual participation, never mind that the rites of all seven sacraments were altered afterward, watering down the priest’s role. Gaudium et Spes is just beautiful optimism. Dignitatis Humanae is totally in line with past teachings. It was just the darn media that made the council difficult to interpret.

    I’m not sure what will eventually happen with Vatican II. I have an opinion on what should happen, but I’m not the one wearing a white zucchetto. However, I do submit this critique: I’m weary of the unfettered, unhealthy, and unbelievable obsession with Vatican II that continues to sweep the Catholic Church away into a stupor. And I do not speak solely about modernists in the Church.

    I immediately think of my time studying the liberal arts at two Newman-recommended Catholic post-secondary institutions. I am eternally thankful to have studied logic and Latin, Aristotle and Aquinas. But there was also an emphasis on Vatican II that was dizzying to comprehend, especially when one considers that Vatican II was simply a pastoral council — like a small, quite unremarkable stone placed in a large mosaic that is Church teaching.

    Indeed, I read through the documents numerous times — one of them, Sacrosanctum Concilium, over three dozen times. Adding to this was the incessant reading of books and commentaries on Vatican II — one would think the world could not contain all the books written on this council. As for my own writing, just as a student I wrote well over three hundred pages of essays and reflections on various Vatican II documents. I am not bragging, but rather confessing.

    The academic fixation on Vatican II is one thing — I do not hold anything against the many wonderful professors I have learned from; they just do what is expected of them — but to see the actual praxis of Vatican II applied in the ecclesial world is quite another.

    What shall we say of how Vatican II is trumpeted in modern ecclesial speech? The recent musing by Bishop Robert Barron, declaring that it is the laity’s job to protect Catholic statues because Vatican II says so, is but one of countless examples. For better or for worse, Vatican II is the go-to for promoting any Church policy or “pastoral” whim. Do you wish to have women busy in the sanctuary at Mass? Say Vatican II said so. Or pray alongside Buddhists? Vatican II. How about wanting “Pastor” Sheila from the nearby Lutheran church to preach at a Sunday Mass? Let’s just say that the answer is not to cite the Council of Trent. To misrepresent Mark Twain, Vatican II is used as a drunkard uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination.

    Even the good points of Vatican II are often implied as coming exclusively from the Council. That there is a universal call to holiness is a necessary teaching. “Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect,” says Jesus (Mt. 5:48). It would seem that Our Lord was simply prefiguring Vatican II with these words. Indeed, preach the Council everywhere, and, if necessary, use the Gospel. But it will not be necessary, for all is Vatican II.

    The obsession with Vatican II is tragic in that it distracts from what teachings we should be profiting from. I refer back to my ridiculous opening narrative of a boy and his father drowning in filthy water. The father is so locked into his inane idea that he is utterly unable to reason. But a lost point in their escapade is that they went to catch supper but instead will go hungry (if they survive). It is hard to catch fish when you are bailing water frantically. It is hard to be steeped in the Catholic faith when you are always trying to bail out Vatican II. The end result is to famish. May as well cancel the fish Friday — which is exactly what happened following the Council.

    Oh, the things we could be concentrating on instead! The Catechism of the Council of Trent comes immediately to mind. Likewise, diving into the wisdom of the Church Fathers. Older encyclicals, particularly from popes such as Leo XIII, would set the mind straight. As for St. Thomas Aquinas, his writings simply cannot be studied enough. Herein lies another problem: would that Vatican II’s intent had been to apply Thomism to the modern world — to study Aquinas’s lucid and profound writings one day, and then analyze the likes of Gaudium et Spes the next, is akin to perpetual whiplash for the mind. This morning, we shallbe amazed by Aquinas’s systematic explanation of natural law and how it relates to sin today. This afternoon, we will stumble through sentences from Gaudium et Spes on how great mankind is. Sound good? Clearly there is a superior option here. Choose the better part.

    How shall this conclude? I assume for now that it will be more of the same: “Remember, Vatican II was a good idea. Just…trust me… Everything will be fine…” Everything will not be fine. The filth of modernism is drowning the Church. Only a return to sanity, truth, and clarity shall revive the wearied world. For this, man cannot live on Vatican II alone. Perhaps not at all.

  10. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    There's a very wise post from Father Hunwicke concerning the Vatican II issue, dated from the 24th.

    He reckons the best thing that can be done with it is to forget all about it. Let it recede into history. It is out of date and irrelevant. He makes an interesting comparison with the Council of Vienne. I'd recommend a read of it.
    Jo M, Booklady, AED and 1 other person like this.
  11. Booklady

    Booklady Powers

    Thanks DeGaulle, I accidentally called you Dolours, but removed the post. Thanks to a friend who let me know who Father Hunwicke was, I found the post you are referring above:

    Thank you for introducing me to such a wonderful writer! That is why I love coming here, there is always someone with something wonderful to share.
    Tanker, Sam, HeavenlyHosts and 2 others like this.
  12. AED

    AED Powers

    It is a truly wonderful post.
    Booklady, HeavenlyHosts and DeGaulle like this.
  13. AED

    AED Powers

    Thanks very much for the link.
    Booklady, HeavenlyHosts and DeGaulle like this.
  14. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    Last edited: Jul 26, 2020
    Jo M, Sam, HeavenlyHosts and 2 others like this.
  15. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

  16. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    I like these 2 comments below the blogpost:

    coradcorloquitur24 July, 2020
    What seems to escape those in this engaging discussion about putting Vatican II out of memory, as if it had been the bad dream it really was, is the dark fact that with Stalinist determination most pastors of the Church have managed to hammer into the modern Catholic (as opposed to "Modernist," where it would be a foregone conclusion) consciousness that the Church really came into existence in 1965---absurd and heretical though that notion is. Many, if not most, of today's Catholics who have a sensum fidelium in any measure simply take it for granted that Vatican II, the Super Council, superseded all that preceded it in the Church: the rites of Mass, the Church's immemorial moral teaching, the repeated condemnations of freemasonry, the de fide doctrine of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" (properly understood), the heritage of priceless ecclesiastical music, the orientation and quality of church furnishings and sanctuary arrangements, the expected decorum in God's House, the penitential practices, etc. ad nauseam. Dear St. John Henry Newman and the English Martyrs--- among innumerable saints, doctors, confessors, and laity---would not recognize "their" Church were they to return to this vale of tears today. A cleansing of the historical memory has taken place, a rabid historical revisionism has been ruthlessly enforced by our shepherds (of varying hierarchy) themselves with such cruelty and tyranny that any Stalinist master would be both proud and astounded at the unbelievable development of just half a century. I fear it is too late and any efforts useless, short of Divine intervention, for most Catholics today have been brainwashed into a kind of historical tabula raza about their own past and heritage before Vatican Council II. In such a climate "forgetting" the Council is a moot point, as the historical memory of being a Catholic in communion with our own glorious past has itself been obliterated for countless faithful. The Gramscian march through this institution is fait accompli, so remembering or forgetting the Council is beside the point. Tragic and, in my conviction, all too true. We must begin again, as in apostolic times, with small but truly and traditional Catholic congregations led by true Catholics, accepting the melancholy fact that many who bear our hollowed name are no more in communion with us, or with the historical Catholic Church, than were the Waldensians of the 16th century or the devotees of the Pachamama today.

    Frank Rega25 July, 2020

    Why I love Viganò's concept of a parallel church.
    In his controversial essay of June 9, 2020, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò wrote:

    “. . . it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by Our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was first theorized by Masonry.”

    Julia, AED, DeGaulle and 1 other person like this.
  17. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    “Therefore the indefectibilty of the Ronan Catholic Church is not denied.”
    That’s from your link.
    The image used is that the Catholic Church continues to exist regardless of anything said or done by Vatican II.
    That actually supports what Father Hunwicke
    The first commenter really got worked up into Bemoaning Mode. This is God’s Church. I’m sure He is capable of sustaining it. Truly we don’t honestly know what the future will be. But your commenter seems to know it all.
    I pray this post under the Blood of Jesus.

    edited: the Church is undergoing trials on Her way to Calvary to undergo the Crucifixion. That’s where we are.
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2020
    Sam, DeGaulle and Booklady like this.
  18. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Dolours posted an interview by Taylor Marshall with Bishop Schneider. In it, the Bishop discusses what we as members of the Bride of Christ need to do to bring about holiness and do reparation in Christ’s Church. Very long video. I watched it which is unusual for me. The last 10 minutes are his summary.
    The thread is: a message from Bishop Schneider.
  19. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    Something 'superimposed' is likely to be superficial.
    AED and HeavenlyHosts like this.
  20. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Could roots of Vatican II council result in a church that leaves God behind?
    German priest and theology professor Hubert Windisch comments on recent ‘justified criticism’ of Vatican II
    Mon Jul 27, 2020 - 3:09 pm EST

    Closing shot of Pope Francis' January 2016 prayer video showing baby Jesus, Buddha, a menorah, and Muslim prayer beads (misbaha). The Vatican / Youtube screen grab
    [​IMG]By Maike Hickson

    July 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Professor Hubert Windisch, a German priest and retired professor of pastoral theology (he taught at the University of Freiburg), has written a commentary for LifeSite on the current discussion of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and its aftermath.

    Referencing Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider with their own commentaries on the problem of the Second Vatican Council, Windisch explains that “doctrinal and practical bad fruits in the Church of more than five decades of this history of impact give cause to fear that in the texts of the Second Vatican Council there are not only good roots.”

    After referring to some earlier warning voices such as the ones of Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand and Professor Roberto de Mattei, the German professor concludes that “there seem to be quite some breaks with the tradition of the teaching authority in the Second Vatican Council, which cannot be covered up by the effort of a so-called hermeneutics of continuity (similar to the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia).”

    Professor Windisch also mentions the McCarrick scandal and with it the scandalous phenomenon of clerical sexual abuse which highlights also the signs of moral weakness in the Catholic Church. He states: “Against the background of the shocking Viganò Report of August 2018 Hedwig von Beverfoerde [A German pro-family activist] (see Die Tagespost of 28 August, 2018 “The Smoke of Satan”) writes disillusioned and deeply disappointed of the Church: 'The facade of the post-conciliar Church has collapsed.'”

    On July 15, a group of scholars, priests, and other Catholics of public standing had published an Open Letter to Archbishop Viganò and Bishop Schneider, thanking them for their critical remarks of some of the statements of the Second Vatican Council – such as regarding religious liberty, ecumenism, and the nature of the Church – and welcoming such a discourse, for the sake of the liberation of the Catholic Church from teachings that might weaken her magisterial and missionary voice. While there were initially 50 signatories of this letter – among them Professor Roberto de Mattei, Professor Andrew Napolitano, and Dr. Taylor Marshall – this number has now increased to more than 110, with Dr. Janet Smith, Sir Raymond J de Souza, Father Richard Heilman, Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli, as well as numerous priests adding their name.

    For the full statement by Professor Hubert Windisch, Germany, go to:

    (emphasis in red is mine - SgC)
    DeGaulle and AED like this.

Share This Page