The Third Secret of Fatima and Corruption in the Church.

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

  1. Advocata Nostra

    Advocata Nostra Archangels

    I just posted this today in a new thread about Fatima and conversion of loved ones, but it didn’t get any likes. I’ve got to learn how to “popularize” a new thread! (Tags were included. Oh, well.:whistle:)
    Beth B, Suzanne, Julia and 3 others like this.
  2. Julia

    Julia Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

    Don't worry about the likes. Sometimes I forget to click the like button, and expect others are the same. Sometimes if I read or watch without signing in, there is no like option available. :)
    Joan J, Beth B, Sam and 4 others like this.
  3. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    No mention has been made of the response that Fr. Weinandy wrote to Archbishop Vigano:

    Vatican II is not, to use the archbishop’s term, a “container-council” into which false doctrine was poured. What counts is what the Council taught, though one has to take into account, as the Council itself did, of the magisterial authority of each of it documents. As Dogmatic Constitutions, Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum have much greater magisterial authority than those documents that are titled Decrees and Declarations. Even worse, because the archbishop sees Vatican II as a “container-council” into which heretical elements were smuggled, he designates it “a devil council.” If such was and still is the case, then we would have to admit that Ecumenical Councils do not necessarily teach reliably the faith handed down from the apostles, even where a council, including Vatican II, intends to state definitive doctrine.

    Such a position smacks of being the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit. One has essentially placed one’s own judgement over that of the Council. Yes, there may be some ambiguities, but such ambiguity is not unique to Councils. There has always been some give-and-take when it comes to language, but whatever noetic content is contained in such language, it must be interpreted within the overarching previous magisterial and conciliar teaching. That being said, the archbishop consistently overstates the ambiguity contained within Vatican II, and equally consistently overlooks the clarity contained in Vatican II – often in opposition to the very issues that the archbishop is so concerned about, such as Modernism.
    Don_D likes this.
  4. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Furthermore, the archbishop, as noted above, accuses Pope John XXIII of being the instigator and leader of the charade that became the “devil’s council.” Such an unproven accusation borders on calumny. Pope John, to his credit, perceived what many did not see, the dire need for the Church to renew itself. It was the Holy Spirit and not the devil who inspired him to call the Council. Moreover, although Pope John did not live to see the aftermath of the Council, specifically what I term the Spirit’s “severe grace,” I am confident he would not have been pleased, but he would have recognized that these aberrations clearly manifested why the Church was in need of radical reform and renewal.

    The archbishop also accuses Pope Paul VI of not simply allowing the evils that followed Vatican II to continue, but that, in his silence, he was actually sanctioning them. Again, this is a false reading of history. My judgement is that Pope Paul VI was somewhat weak in character, and, having been traumatized by the massive backlash against Humanae Vitae, and believing that the majority of the world’s bishops would not support him, as they had failed to do with regard to Humanae Vitae, he concluded that he was helpless in rectifying the situation. He lost hope. However, in the midst of the chaos, we must remember that Pope Paul did publish his encyclical letter, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, on priestly celibacy (1967), and his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi, on evangelization, neither of which promote the devil’s agenda. Surely, the devil was and still is quite perturbed by them. Paul VI’s Evangelii Nuntiandi was, is and will continue to be the foundational document for the new evangelization, an evangelization that Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI so strenuously promoted. Above all, perhaps, Paul VI authored The “Credo” of the People of God, which beautifully, clearly, and robustly professes the true faith of the apostolic Church. Thus, Paul VI should not be maligned as the archbishop does. Interestingly, while he is critical of John XXIII and Paul VI, the archbishop is silent about John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The reason for such silence, it seems to me, is that they do not fit the archbishop’s demonization of Vatican II. In accord with their Petrine ministry, they defended and promoted a proper interpretation of Vatican II, and so fostered an authentic renewal within the Church.

    more at the link

    Archbishop Viganò sees the Second Vatican Council as schismatic, and even more than this, as heretical. My concern is that, in his radical reading of the Council, the archbishop is spawning his own schism. Through the all-pervasive social media, he, and those who voice opinions similar to his own, are leading God’s people, particularly the young, not into the Church but out of the Church. This leading out of the Church is also a leading into a church, a church they falsely believe is the true Church. There is a gnostic elitism within the archbishop’s ideological agenda – he and his followers are truly in “the know.” They “know” the falsity that resides in Vatican II and, in so knowing that falsity, they have commandeered the true faith to themselves. If it appears that the ultra-progressive liberal agenda is the work of the devil, so the ultra-conservative agenda is also the work of the devil. And, in the midst of these warring factions, the devil rejoices. Archbishop Viganò, I fear, has played into the hand of the devil – the very devil he fears the most. In so doing, his “liberal” opponents rejoice, for they know that the archbishop has lost all ecclesial credibility."
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2020
  5. garabandal

    garabandal Powers

    The documents of the council are fine and can be read in light of tradition.

    What has happened is open season on interpretation of some of the documents - too many false teachers has lead to meltdown.
    Wes, Sam, Don_D and 2 others like this.
  6. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

  7. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    BREAKING: Archbishop Viganò Responds to Questions Posed by CFN
    September 1, 2020

    24 min read

    Catholic Family News is happy to report that His Grace, Carlo Maria Viganò, has sent us a letter today replying to the important questions which CFN contributor Stephen Kokx respectfully posed in his recent article, “Questions for Viganò: His Excellency is Right about Vatican II, But What Does He Think Catholics Should Do Now?” In his detailed reply, Archbishop Viganò demonstrates that he is a true shepherd who cares for the confused and abandoned sheep of our time. He provides clear and practical answers for the increasing number of Catholics whose eyes are being opened to the Conciliar Revolution. In his prior interventions, Archbishop Viganò has accurately diagnosed the cause of the current crisis and identified the ultimate cure for it — the casting aside of the Conciliar texts. In today’s letter, His Excellency advises what practical treatment members of the Church Militant can utilize to inoculate themselves against the deadly errors of the Conciliar and post-Conciliar period so that their faith can survive until that ultimate cure is administered by a future holy pope.

    Refuting Sedevacantists
    The archbishop begins by clearly refuting those who have mischaracterized his prior interventions as advocating that Catholics break with the Church or refuse to acknowledge the occupants of hierarchical offices (as do the Sedevacantists). He delineates the need both to refuse any admixture with the Modernist errors and to remain firmly within the Church: “While it is clear that no admixture is possible with those who propose adulterated doctrines of the conciliar ideological manifesto, it should be noted that the simple fact of being baptized and of being living members of the Church of Christ does not imply adherence to the conciliar team; this is true above all for the simple faithful and also for secular and regular clerics who, for various reasons, sincerely consider themselves Catholics and recognize the Hierarchy. “

    His Excellency turns the question back on the Modernists of today, who try to claim that the defenders of Tradition, such as His Grace, have broken “full” communion with the Church. With respect to churchmen who “embrace the heterodox doctrines that have spread over these decades, with the awareness that these represent a rupture with the preceding Magisterium,” he reassures the faithful that it is “licit to doubt their real adherence to the Catholic Church, in which however they hold official roles that confer authority on them. It is an illicitly exercised authority, if its purpose is to force the faithful to accept the revolution imposed since the Council.” In a clear refutation of Sedevacantist claims, he urges the faithful: “[L]et us not give in to the temptation to abandon – albeit with justified indignation – the Catholic Church, on the pretext that it has been invaded by heretics and fornicators: it is they who must be expelled from the sacred enclosure, in a work of purification and penance….”

    In explaining how he understands that members of what he calls the “conciliar sect” can remain in hierarchical offices, His Excellency explains that he accepts the theory of Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais that there are two entities coexisting in the Church. The Church of Christ coexists together with the “strange extravagant Church … like wheat with the tare, in the Roman Curia, in dioceses, in parishes.” We must acknowledge this sad state but we “cannot judge our pastors for their intentions, nor suppose that all of them are corrupt in faith and morals….”

    He urges the same path as the one which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre pointed out many decades ago, the path that is mockingly labeled by Sedevacantists as “Recognize and Resist”. Just as we must avoid the perverted “obeisance of the court” and blindly adhere to novelties, we must also avoid the rejection of authority advocated by the Sedevacantists. He explains: “We must not rebel, but oppose; we must not be pleased with the errors of our pastors, but pray for them and admonish them respectfully; we must not question their authority but the way in which they use it.”


    AED likes this.
  8. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Right and Duty to Avoid New Mass Parishes: It’s About More Than the Latin Mass
    Yet, do Catholics have the right to separate themselves from their geographical parish if it does not offer the sacraments according to the traditional rites and sound Catholic education? He unambiguously affirms that “faithful laity have the right and the duty to find priests, communities and institutes that are faithful to the perennial Magisterium. And may they know how to accompany the laudable celebration of the liturgy in the Ancient Rite with adherence to sound doctrine and morals, without any subsidence on the front of the Council.” It is important that Archbishop Viganò declares this avoidance of New Mass parishes not only a right but also a duty. That means it is not just permissible to do so if one prefers a Latin Mass, but for those who understand what is at stake it constitutes an obligation, a duty. He also makes clear that what the faithful need to find is not simply a place in which they can attend the Traditional Mass. Their duty is to find a place that offers the Ancient Rite together with sound doctrine that does not sink into (“subsidence”) the Council.

    His Grace underscores this inherent connection that must exist between the Mass and doctrine by the term he uses several times to refer to the Traditional Mass. He calls it simply the “Catholic Rite”. He eschews the ambiguous and inaccurate term “extraordinary form of the Roman Rite”. He makes clear that priests should offer the Catholic Rite not merely “to preserve the extraordinary form of the rite, but to testify to adherence to the depositum fidei that finds perfect correspondence only in the Ancient Rite.” The adverb “only” is extremely significant. The Old Mass is not merely an optional choice among two equal forms (new and old). It is the “only” one that perfectly corresponds to the Deposit of Faith (depositum fidei).

    What Are Clerics To Do?
    His Grace acknowledges the more complex situation of clerics. On one hand, clerics have less agility than the laity in seeking a place in the Church to remain Catholic because they must be subject to ecclesiastical superiors. Yet, they have greater freedom as they can at any time legitimately “celebrate the Mass and administer the Sacraments in the Tridentine Rite and … preach in conformity with sound doctrine.” (Again, note the connection between liturgy and doctrine.) His Grace makes clear that clerics must avoid both the mistake of abandoning the visible Church to set up their own church as well as the opposite error of simply conforming to the New Mass and novel doctrine to avoid persecution. Clerics must remain in the Church and remain faithful to the Catholic Rite and the true doctrine, even at the cost of persecution, which he acknowledges they will suffer as did the few faithful clerics in the time of the Arian heresy.

    He makes clear that priests must celebrate only “the Tridentine Mass and preach sound doctrine,” but explains that truth cannot be preached if a priest never mentions the Council. He acknowledges that fulfilling these three duties (offering only the Catholic Rite, preaching the truth, and calling out the errors of the Council) may result in the priest being thrown out of his parish. But he reminds such persecuted priests: “No one can ever prevent you from renewing the Holy Sacrifice, even if it is on a makeshift altar in a cellar or an attic….” Priests must be willing to suffer such persecution for the Church. He urges faithful priests not to fear being called false names: “Let’s stop fearing that the fault of the schism lies with those who denounce it, and not, instead, with those who carry it out: the ones who are schismatics and heretics are those who wound and crucify the Mystical Body of Christ, not those who defend it by denouncing the executioners!”


    AED likes this.
  9. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    What Are the Laity To Do?
    As noted earlier, His Grace makes clear that the laity have a right and duty to receive the traditional sacraments and true doctrine. They must seek out ministers who will provide them and avoid ministers “contaminated by present errors.” Yet, he makes clear that the laity must do more than avail themselves of such good priests for their own spiritual benefit. They also have a “sacred task”. They must “comfort good priests and good bishops” and “[g]ive them hospitality, help them, console them in their trials.” Just as he put his finger so accurately on the Conciliar errors, His Grace also diagnoses a danger in Traditionalist communities that must be avoided, namely, the sowing of division. He calls on the laity to build communities “in which murmuring and division do not predominate, but rather fraternal charity in the bond of Faith.”

    What About the Society of Saint Pius X?
    Perhaps as a more concrete answer to the question about where are we to turn, Archbishop Viganò reveals for the first time his thoughts regarding the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) and its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He believes the SSPX “deserves recognition for not having allowed the flame of Tradition to be extinguished….” He reveals that he considers them to be “a healthy thorn in the side” of the Modernist hierarchy and credits them for shining a light on “the contradictions and errors of the conciliar sect.” He appears to condone the consecration of bishops without a written papal mandate in 1988 when he observes that these consecrations made it possible for the Society “to protect herself from the furious attack of the Innovators.” His Grace refers to the punishments inflicted upon the Archbishop and his Society (the alleged claim of his excommunication, for example) not as acts of justice but rather those of “persecution.” He believes that Archbishop Lefebvre’s critique of the Council is “more relevant than ever.” Rather than considering Lefebvre a “schismatic” or “excommunicate,” Archbishop Viganò calls him “an exemplary confessor of the Faith.”

    Looking Forward with Hope to the Resurrection of the Church
    Like Archbishop Lefebvre before him, Archbishop Viganò combines his clear-sighted diagnosis of the Conciliar disease with a true Catholic peace of soul that trusts firmly in God. After taking note that clerics and laity alike are beginning to see the Conciliar nightmare for what it is, he looks forward to a necessary “awakening” that is “almost a resurrection“. Just as “no son tolerates his mother being outraged by the servants, or his father being tyrannized by the administrators of his goods,” so to the Lord “offers us, in these painful situations, the possibility of being His allies in fighting this holy battle under His banner.” Rather than becoming discouraged by unjust persecution, His Grace reminds us of the consolation that “the King Who is victorious over error and death” will “permits us to share the honor of triumphal victory and the eternal reward that derives from it, after having endured and suffered with Him.” He exhorts us to practice the virtue of fortitude. We must not lose hope. His texts concludes with great confidence that God will rescue us from this crisis: “I am certain, with a certainty that comes to me from Faith, that the Lord will not fail to reward our fidelity … granting us holy priests, holy bishops, holy cardinals, and above all a holy Pope.”

    Here follows the complete text of Archbishop Vigano’s letter which can also be downloaded as a PDF here.
    AED likes this.
  10. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Wow. He’s getting really bossy. I am losing respect for him. He’s overblown, imho. I mean, yes, he’s an archbishop, but of what? These are my gut feelings and I don’t mean to be offensive. This sounds somewhat like a cult leader.
    I cover this post in the Precious Blood of Jesus.
    Edit: this post may offend. But I am expressing my gut feelings. Pope Francis is the Pope. Whether you think he is doing a good job or not, it’s his place to make these kinds of pronouncements and movements. It’s not up to Archbishop Vigano to preempt this kind of authority . Imho
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
    Don_D likes this.
  11. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Abp. Viganò to Critics: Instead of “Assuming Schisms” Where There Are None, Better to Fight Long-lasting Errors

    September 3, 2020 22 min read
    Dr. Maike Hickson

    Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, in a new response to two of his critics – Fr. Raymond de Souza and Fr. Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M. Cap. – shows himself indignant at the fact that these priests seem more willing to find fault among those who defend orthodoxy, rather than with those who have been spreading heterodoxy for decades. He proposes that, instead of “assuming schisms and heresies where there are none, it would be appropriate and more useful to fight error and division where they have nested and spread for decades.”

    He also notices that, while it is now seemingly allowed to disregard and dismiss previous Councils and the perennial Magisterium of 2,000 years, it is not allowed to do the same with the Second Vatican Council, thus establishing a two-fold standard – one in defense of heterodoxy, and another for the weakening of orthodoxy.

    Additionally, the retired Italian prelate also notices that both of his critics did not enter into the substance of the debate, but, instead, ostracize the one of the opposite opinion. He states that “in defense of the conciliar totem the only response is the delegitimization of the interlocutor, his ostracization, and the generic accusation of wanting to attack the unity of the Church.”

    However, for Viganò, this method does not have any effect anymore. “I think,” he explains, “that the answer [for why he is being called a schismatic and heretic] is obvious by now: a taboo has been broken, and a discussion about Vatican II, that up until now had remained confined to very restricted areas of the ecclesial body, has now begun on a large scale. And what most disturbs the supporters of the Council is the observation that this dispute is not about if the Council is open to criticism, but about what to do to remedy the errors and equivocal passages found in it.”

    That is to say: the discourse about the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath has already moved forward, in spite of these intellectually poor attempts at delegitimizing this debate by calling out “schismatic!”

    Archbishop Viganò himself has only recently, in a September 1 statement, made it clear that he intends to remain in the Catholic Church and to fight those within her hierarchy who are undermining the Catholic Faith from within.

    Both Weinandy and de Souza have each written an article denouncing the former apostolic nuncio for his criticism of the Council. In his August 13 piece, Weinandy stated: “Archbishop Viganò sees the Second Vatican Council as schismatic, and even more than this, as heretical. My concern is that, in his radical reading of the Council, the archbishop is spawning his own schism,” thereby accusing the archbishop of his own schismatic attitude. And de Souza, following in Weinandy’s footsteps, does the same. But while Weinandy wonders whether the archbishop committed the “unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit,” de Souza says in his August 28 piece: “Some people, even former admirers, think he may have become a bit unstable, yet rendering an accurate assessment has been near impossible, given that he has been in hiding since 2018. His writings are all we have. And now, even Father Weinandy questions whether they are truly authentic. Priest, curialist, diplomat, nuncio, administrator, reformer, whistleblower. Is it possible that, at the end of it all, heretic and schismatic would be added to that list?”

    As an observer of this debate told Catholic Family News: this name-calling, using the words “schismatics” and “heretics” with regard to the Vatican II debate, reminds one of the political atmosphere, where dissenters are being silenced with the help of the words “racist.” “It shuts down debate,” the source said.

    Yet we have passed this stage. We are not allowing this debate – which is so crucial for the purification of the Church – to be silenced. The truth must come out and will come out, the questions still need to be answered: How did the Church get to this disastrous situation where every aspect of her teachings – from the divinity of Christ to the indissolubility of marriage – is being questioned? And how do we free us from these false teachings and come again to the beauty of the Catholic Faith in its doctrine, its liturgy, and its discipline.

    For this debate, we need the voice of Archbishop Viganò, who does not claim to know all the answers but who is willing to give his name and reputation – at the cost of being labeled a “schismatic” and “heretic” – in order to encourage others, especially other prelates, to come and join him.

    For the full text of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s new statement, go to this link:

    AED likes this.
  12. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    In the August 13 published response of Fr Weinandy to Abp Vigano's letter (,
    Fr Weinandy wrote this:

    "Upon reading the archbishop’s letter to me, the question came to me, and it has come to others a well: Did he actually write the letter? Yes, he signed the letter, and the letter may express his thought, but was he the one who composed on his computer the main arguments contained in the letter? I suspect not. The archbishop customarily writes in a hasty, meandering, stream-of-consciousness manner. Because of this manner of composing, he often does not express himself in a clear and logical manner, and thus, often he has to offer later corrections or clarifications. In his present letter to me, the style is much different. The arguments are clearly and logically put forward, though they are, while clever, counterfeit. Nonetheless, the stylistic marks of this letter manifest a hand that is not the archbishop’s. This does not undermine the letter’s authenticity, but it does mean that the archbishop is influenced by someone who shares the same false ideology as himself, and maybe in a manner that exceeds his own."

    What immediately struck me was that it was actually Fr Weinandy who did not write this response, (but had it written by someone else), because that response was so rude and an ad hominem attack on Abp Vigano, if ever there was one.

    Last edited: Sep 13, 2020
  13. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Archbishop Viganò: Is Vatican II "Untouchable"?

    September 21, 2020

    By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

    Peter Kwasniewski’s recent commentary, titled “Why Viganò’s critique of the Council must be taken seriously”, impressed me greatly. It appeared (here) on OnePeterFive, on June 29, and is one of the articles on which I have been meaning to comment: I do so now, with gratitude to the author and publisher for the opportunity they have given me.

    First, it seems to me that I can agree with practically all of what Kwasniewski has written: his analysis of the facts is extremely clear and polished and reflects my thoughts exactly. What I am particularly pleased about is that “ever since Archbishop Viganò’s June 9 letter and his subsequent writing on the subject, people have been discussing what it might mean to ‘annul’ the Second Vatican Council”.

    I find it interesting that we are beginning to question a taboo that, for almost sixty years, has prevented any theological, sociological and historical criticism of the Council. This is particularly interesting given that Vatican II is regarded as untouchable, but this does not apply – according to its supporters – to any other magisterial document or to Sacred Scripture. We have read endless addresses in which the defenders of the Council have written off the Canons of Trent, the Syllabus of Errors of Blessed Pius IX, the encyclical Pascendi of St. Pius X, and Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of Paul VI as “outdated.” The change to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, whereby the doctrine on the legitimacy of the death penalty was modified in the name of a “changed understanding” of the Gospel, shows that for the Innovators there is no dogma, no immutable principle that can be immune from revision or cancellation: the only exception is Vatican II, which by its nature – ex se, theologians would say – enjoys that charism of infallibility and inerrancy that is denied to the entire depositum fidei.

    I have already expressed my opinion on the hermeneutic of continuity theorized by Benedict XVI, and constantly taken up by the defenders of Vatican II, who – certainly in good faith – seek to offer a reading of the Council that is harmonious with Tradition. It seems to me that the arguments in favor of the hermeneutical criterion, proposed for the first time in 2005[1], are limited to a merely theoretical analysis of the problem, obstinately leaving aside the reality of what has been happening before our eyes for decades. This analysis starts from a valid and acceptable postulate, but in this concrete case it presupposes a premise that is not necessarily true.

    The postulate is that all the acts of the Magisterium are to be read and interpreted in the light of the entire magisterial corpus, because of the analogia fidei[2] [analogy of faith], which is somehow also expressed in the hermeneutic of continuity. Yet this postulate assumes that the text we are going to analyze is a specific act of the Magisterium, with its degree of authority clearly expressed in the canonical forms envisaged. And this is precisely where the deception lies, this is where the trap is set. For the Innovators maliciously managed to put the label “Sacrosanct Ecumenical Council” on their ideological manifesto, just as, at a local level, the Jansenists who maneuvered the Synod of Pistoia had managed to cloak with authority their heretical theses, which were later condemned by Pius VI.[3]

    On the one hand, Catholics look at the form of the Council and consider its acts to be an expression of the Magisterium. Consequently, they seek to read its substance, which is clearly ambiguous or even erroneous, in keeping with the analogy of faith, out of that love and veneration that all Catholics have towards Holy Mother Church. They cannot comprehend that the Pastors have been so naïve as to impose on them an adulteration of the Faith, but at the same time they understand the rupture with Tradition and try to explain this contradiction.

    The modernist, on the other hand, looks at the substance of the revolutionary message he means to convey, and in order to endow it with an authoritativeness that it does not and should not have, he “magisterializes” it through the form of the Council, by having it published in the form of official acts. He knows well that he is forcing it, but he uses the authority of the Church – which under normal conditions he despises and rejects – to make it practically impossible to condemn those errors, which have been ratified by no less than the majority of the Synod Fathers. The instrumental use of authority for purposes opposed to those that legitimize it is a cunning ploy: on the one hand, it guarantees a sort of immunity, a “canonical shield” for doctrines that are heterodox or close to heresy; on the other hand, it allows sanctions to be imposed on those who denounce these deviations, by virtue of a formal respect for canonical norms. In the civil sphere, this way of proceeding is typical of dictatorships. If this has also happened within the Church, it is because the accomplices of this coup d’état have no supernatural sense, they fear neither God nor eternal damnation, and consider themselves partisans of progress invested with a prophetic role that legitimizes them in all their wickedness, just as Communism’s mass exterminations are carried out by party officials convinced of promoting the cause of the proletariat.

    (read the rest of Abp Vigano's commentary at:

    (emphasis in red is mine - SgC)

    AED likes this.
  14. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Here is CFN's summary of what Abp Vigano's commentary is about:

    Viganò Speaks Again on What is to Be Done with Vatican II

    September 21, 2020

    Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò continues to demonstrate that he wishes to engage in a thoughtful debate about how the Church should respond to the disaster of the Second Vatican Council. His Grace has shown himself willing to respond to allies and critics alike and to further clarify his arguments. Most recently, His Grace replied to an article written by CFN contributor Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, which was published by OnePeterFive. Clearly, Archbishop Viganò is studying with interest the debate he called for in his June interventions and responding to keep the discussion moving.

    This intervention returns to Benedict XVI’s hermeneutic of continuity, about which the Archbishop has spoken previously. He further explains why this attempt of Benedict XVI to save the Council cannot succeed. He explains that hermenuetics of interpretation can assist theologians when interpreting obscure passages of Scripture or writings of the Fathers but not to correct acts of the Magisterium. He explains: “Hermeneutics serve to clarify the meaning of a phrase that is obscure or that appears to contradict doctrine, not to correct itsubstantially ex post.”

    His Grace uses this principle to respond to a defender of Benedict’s hermenuetic of continuity, Archbishop Guido Pozzo, who has claimed that we can accept the Council texts by reading them in light of the whole Tradition. Yet Viganò demonstrates that Pozzo does not prove that the condition on which his conclusion rests has been satisfied. Council texts can be so interpreted, according to Pozzo, “if it remains in the furrow of Tradition.“ According to Viganò, that is precisely the factual premise which has not been proven. Archbishop Viganò uses Lumen Gentium no. 16 to illustrate his argument. Its statement about false religions cannot be interpreted consistently with Tradition but only corrected by Tradition. With a firm grasp of the first principle of the speculative intellect, the principle of non-contradiction, His Grace thus concludes:

    It isn’t possible to change reality to make it correspond to an ideal schema. If the evidence shows that some propositions contained in the Council documents (and similarly, in the acts of Bergoglio’s magisterium) are heterodox, and if doctrine teaches us that the acts of the Magisterium do not contain error, the conclusion is not that those propositions are not erroneous, but that they cannot be part of the Magisterium. Period.

    His Grace uses an analogy to describe the situation we face sixty years after the Council that is similar to an analogy employed by Christopher Ferrara in his book The Great Façade, namely, viruses infecting the Body of Christ. His Grace explains that denying the reality with which the Council presents us “does not resolve the problem in the slightest but rather exacerbates it, by refusing to acknowledge the existence of cancer even when it has very clearly reached its metastasis.”

    After applying his argument to another flashpoint in the debate about Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae, the Archbishop explains how the means employed by the innovators at the Council have been perfected by Pope Francis in his attempts to further undermine the Faith in documents such as Amoris Laetitia and the Abu Dhabi Declaration. His Grace confirms what we have said at CFN for some time, namely, that Pope Francis is in perfect continuity with Vatican II.

    Finally, His Grace provides a powerful elaboration of what he means when he calls for Vatican II to be annulled by a future pope:

    The central vice therefore lies in having fraudulently led the Council Fathers to approve ambiguous texts – which they considered Catholic enough to deserve the placet – and then using that same ambiguity to get them to say exactly what the Innovators wanted. Those texts cannot today be changed in their substance to make them orthodox or clearer: they must simply be rejected – according to the forms that the supreme Authority of the Church shall judge appropriate in due course – since they are vitiated by a malicious intention. And it will also have to be determined whether an anomalous and disastrous event such as Vatican II can still merit the title of Ecumenical Council, once its heterogeneity compared to previous councils is universally recognized. A heterogeneity so evident that it requires the use of a hermeneutic, something that no other Council has ever needed.

    CFN is grateful to Archbishop Viganò for sending us the text of his response to Dr. Kwasniewski and for giving us permission to reprint it below. The original first appeared at OnePeterFive here.

    AED and Don_D like this.
  15. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    AED likes this.
  16. AED

    AED Powers

    Sadly he is right. And many who continued have taken the cafeteria approach. " i will have some of that please--but none of that"
    Now here where I live even more have fallen by the wayside with covid shutdowns. They don't feel the need to return. God's winnowing fan is in his hand. I am praying hard to be wheat.
    Julia, Suzanne, SgCatholic and 2 others like this.
  17. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Bishop Schneider: Pachamama worship in Rome was ‘prepared by Assisi meetings’
    These words are helpful in light of the new papal encyclical on ‘fraternity.’
    By Dr. Maike Hickson
    Tue Oct 6, 2020

    October 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In a recent interview, Bishop Athanasius Schneider discussed the link between the inter-religious meetings that have taken place since 1986 with the active participation of Popes in Assisi and the worship of the Pachamama statues in the Vatican Gardens in the presence of Pope Francis. While the latter is worse – since the idolatry took place in the presence of a Pope – the prelate explained, the multiple inter-religious gatherings in Assisi were in a certain way a “preparation.” These words by Schneider might be also helpful in light of the new papal encyclical Fratelli Tutti.

    Speaking on September 20 with's Eva Doppelbauer, Bishop Schneider explored in depth the question of the October 2019 Pachamama veneration in the Vatican in light of the previous inter-religious gatherings in Assisi that started in 1986.

    For this Kazakh bishop of German origin, in Assisi, there took place a sort of “ingratiation,” but not in the “gross form,” as it then later took place in 2019 in the Vatican Gardens with the Pachamama worship, “in the presence of the Pope.” With the help of the Assisi meetings – the first of them taking place in 1986, followed by the same events in 1993, 2002, and 2011 – Catholics got used to the notion “that all religions are on the same level,” Bishop Schneider explained. But this is an “erroneous teaching against the First Commandment, against the entire Gospel,” he added.

    All these other religions that come together with Catholics at these prayer meetings are “false and not willed by God,” Schneider expounded. God allows them to exist, however, just as He allows us to commit sins. But it “it is not His Will that there exists Islam and Buddhism.”

    “The Catholic Faith is the only way,” the prelate stated.

    The Assisi meetings, where different religions came together in order to pray for world peace – at least on the visual level – showed that “the Pope is with the other religions on the same level,” and this was the “cause of a great confusion,” Bishop Schneider explained. It was Pope John Paul II who initiated this Day of Prayer in Assisi. Subsequently, Catholics got “habituated” to this impression of equality.

    One can only invite other religions to pray together, if one “prays to Christ,” the prelate insisted. “There is no other way.” “All the other prayers are not willed by God.” One could, of course, Bishop Schneider continued, have access to a natural religion, in the sense that one can recognize the existence of God the Creator, without any further information, “only on the natural level, but that is not sufficient”; one needs to reach the “supernatural level” of adoring God as the Holy Trinity.

    Exactly here lies the problem with the Assisi meetings, according to Bishop Schneider. The Pope at the time invited the different religions “in their own ways” for peace. “When the Pope invites Hindus to pray, they can only pray to an idol.”

    “I cannot invite anyone to perform idolatry,” the German bishop insisted, even if one has a good intention. “These prayers are repugnant to God,” he added. As the Catholic Church, “we cannot do that, [because] it would seem that we indirectly recognize their cults,” and “that is against the entire Gospel, against the entire proclamation of the Church of 2,000 years.”

    Therefore, with such practices, Bishop Schneider explained, “one prepared already the ground, be it in Assisi or at other gatherings, for the terrible, awful event with the Pachamama worship in the Vatican.” This was the “logical consequence” of Assisi, when one says: “you may worship the idols in Assisi, for the sake of peace.” Even though, at the time, one did not “pray together,” he continued, one did not invite these religions either “to return to the absolute loyalty to the First Commandment and to the Gospel.”

    With respectful tones, we should remind others that “all are called to believe in Christ.”

    “Very clearly, we have to become missionary again,” Bishop Schneider said.

    These words of Bishop Schneider seem to stand in stark contrast to many of the words written by Pope Francis in his new encyclical Fratelli Tutti. The Pope explicitly states in it that he had been “encouraged” to write this document “by the Grand Imam Ahmad Al[-]Tayyeb, with whom I met in Abu Dhabi, where we declared that ‘God has created all human beings equal in rights, duties and dignity, and has called them to live together as brothers and sisters.’”

    That controversial document of Abu Dhabi also contains the statement that the “diversity of religions” is “willed by God,” a statement that had provoked Bishop Athanasius Schneider to issue a public critique of it, asking Pope Francis to correct it publicly.

    Furthermore, Pope Francis, in this document, does not once mention the urgent need to promote the salvation of souls. The word salvation is not once used in its supernatural meaning, and the Seven Sacraments as the Church's means of salvation are not mentioned once. The papal document has a tone of religious indifferentism, for example when the Pope says: “From our faith experience and from the wisdom accumulated over centuries,” he writes, “but also from lessons learned from our many weaknesses and failures, we, the believers of the different religions, know that our witness to God benefits our societies.”

    AED and HeavenlyHosts like this.
  18. thomas21

    thomas21 New Member

    Sedevacantism is impossible because, if true, the Church defected from the faith and popes no longer have perpetual successors. We still don't know if there might be a Vatican III soon and ecumenical mass.
  19. AED

    AED Powers

    Honestly we don't know "nuthin'"
    Only God knows. But sedevacantism is I believe a dangerous heresy that preys upon the most devout and faithful Catholics. I've lost 3 friends to this.
    Mary's child and HeavenlyHosts like this.
  20. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Stay in the Barque of Peter. It is the Church that Jesus founded. Let Him sort it out.
    Mary's child and AED like this.

Share This Page