VIGANÒ: A SNEAKY AND COWARDLY BETRAYAL OF THE CHURCH IS TAKING PLACE

By Marco Tosatti:

Dear Stilumcuriali, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has sent us this answer to an essay by Father Thomas Weinandy, which seems to us extremely interesting to evaluate the current situation of the Church, the roots of the crisis and the reality that emerged from Vatican Council II. Enjoy reading it.

Reverend Father Thomas,

I read attentively your essay Vatican II and the Work of the Spirit which was published at Inside the Vatican on July 27, 2020 (here). It seems to me that your thoughts may be summarized in these two sentences:

I sympathize with many of the concerns expressed and acknowledge some of the stated problematic theological and doctrinal issues enumerated. I am, however, uncomfortable with the conclusion that Vatican II is, in some way, the direct source and cause of the present disheartening state of the Church.

Permit me, Reverend Father, to respond to you by using as an auctoritas one of your interesting writings, Pope Francis and Schism, published at The Catholic Thing on October 8, 2019 (here). Your observations allow me to highlight an analogy that I hope may contribute to clarifying my thought and demonstrate to our readers that certain apparent differences may find resolution thanks to a profitable disputatio that has as its primary purpose the glory of God, the honor of the Church, and the salvation of souls.

In your essay Pope Francis and Schism, you observe, very appropriately and with the acumen that distinguishes your interventions, that there is a sort of dissociation between the persona Papae and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a dichotomy in which the Vicar of Christ is silent and lets things drop, while the exuberant Argentine man who today lives at Santa Marta speaks and acts. Referring to the very grave situation of the Church in Germany, you write:

First, many within the German hierarchy know that by becoming schismatic they would lose their Catholic voice and identity. This they cannot afford.  They need to be in fellowship with Pope Francis, for he is the very one who has fostered a notion of synodality that they are now attempting to implement. He, therefore, is their ultimate protector.

Second, while Pope Francis may stop them from doing something egregiously contrary to the Church’s teaching, he will allow them to do things that are ambiguously contrary, for such ambiguous teaching and pastoral practice would be in accord with Francis’ own.  It is in this that the Church finds herself in a situation that she never expected.

You continue:

It’s important to bear in mind that the German situation must be viewed within a broader context: the theological ambiguity within Amoris Laetitia; the not so subtle advancing of the homosexual agenda; the “re-foundation” of the (Roman) John Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family, i.e., the undermining of the Church’s consistent teaching on moral and sacramental absolutes, especially with regard to the indissolubility of marriage, homosexuality, contraception, and abortion.

Similarly, there is the Abu Dhabi statement, which directly contradicts the will of the Father and so undermines the primacy of Jesus Christ his Son as the definitive Lord and universal Savior.

Moreover, the present Amazon Synod is teeming with participants sympathetic to and supportive of all of the above.  One must likewise take into account the many theologically dubious cardinals, bishops, priests, and theologians whom Francis supports and promotes to high ecclesial positions.

And you conclude:

With all of this in mind, we perceive a situation, ever-growing in intensity, in which on the one hand, a majority of the world’s faithful – clergy and laity alike – are loyal and faithful to the pope, for he is their pontiff, while critical of his pontificate, and, on the other hand, a large contingent of the world’s faithful – clergy and laity alike – enthusiastically support Francis precisely because he allows and fosters their ambiguous teaching and ecclesial practice.

What the Church will end up with, then, is a pope who is the pope of the Catholic Church and, simultaneously, the de facto leader, for all practical purposes, of a schismatic church.  Because he is the head of both, the appearance of one church remains, while in fact there are two.

Let’s try to replace the Pope with the Council, and Bergoglio with Vatican II: I think that you will find the almost literal parallel that results quite interesting. In fact, Catholics nourish veneration and respect for both the papacy and for an ecumenical council that the Church asks of them: on the one hand towards the Vicar of Christ, and on the other hand towards an act of the Magisterium in which the voice of Our Lord speaks through the Roman Pontiff and the bishops united to him. If we think of Saint Pius V and the Council of Trent, or of Pius IX and Vatican I, it will not be difficult to see the perfect correspondence between those popes and the papacy, and between those councils and the infallible Magisterium of the Church. Indeed, even thinking of a possible dichotomy would rightly fall under canonical sanctions and offend the pious ears of the faithful.

And yet, as you yourself point out, with Jorge Mario Bergoglio wearing the surreal garments of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, “The only phrase that I can find to describe this situation is “internal papal schism,” for the pope, even as pope, will effectively be the leader of a segment of the Church that through its doctrine, moral teaching, and ecclesial structure, is for all practical purposes schismatic.

I ask then: if you admit, dear Father Thomas –  as a painful trial to which Providence is subjecting the Church in order to punish her for the faults of her most unworthy members and especially of her leaders – that the Pope himself is in a state of schism with the Church, to the point of being able to speak of an “internal papal schism”, why can you not accept that the same has happened for a solemn act like a Council, and that Vatican II was a case of “internal Magisterial schism”? If it is possible for this Pope to be “for all practical purposes schismatic” – and I would say also heretical – why could not that  Council also have been so, despite the fact that both one and the other were instituted by Our Lord to confirm the brethren in Faith and Morals? I ask you, what prevents the Acts of Vatican II from deviating from the path of Tradition, when the Supreme Pastor himself can deny the teaching of his Predecessors? And if the persona Papae is in schism with the papacy, why could a council that wanted to be pastoral and abstained from promulgating dogmas not be able to contradict the other canonical councils, entering into a de facto schism with the Catholic Magisterium?

It’s true that this situation is a hapax, a case that in itself has never been seen in the history of the Church; but if this applies to the papacy – in a crescendo from Roncalli to Bergoglio – I do not see why it could not apply for Vatican II, which precisely thanks to the recent popes has set itself as an event in itself, and as such has been used by its proponents?

To use your words, “What the Church will end up with” is a Council that is a Council of the Catholic Church and, simultaneously, the de facto first council, for all practical purposes, of a schismatic church, or the “conciliar church” that considers itself to have been born at Vatican II. Since Vatican II is both an ecumenical council and a “devil council” [conciliabolo], it retains the appearance of being a single Council, when in reality there are two. And I would add: one council was legitimate and orthodox and was aborted from birth with the subversion of the preparatory schemes, and one council was illegitimate and heretical (or at least favens haeresim) and is the one to which all of the Innovators refer, including Bergoglio, in order to legitimize their doctrinal, moral and liturgical deviations. Exactly as “many theologically dubious cardinals, bishops, priests, and theologians whom Francis supports and promotes to high ecclesial positions” maintain that the authority of the Vicar of Christ should be recognized in the acts of governance and magisterium performed by Jorge Mario, right at the moment in which with those acts he demonstrates himself “for all practical purposes schismatic.”

And if on the one hand it is very true that “while Pope Francis may stop them from doing something egregiously contrary to the Church’s teaching, he will allow them to do things that are ambiguously contrary, for such ambiguous teaching and pastoral practice would be in accord with Francis’ own,” it is equally true – paraphrasing your words – that “while John XXIII and Paul VI may have stopped the modernists from doing things egregiously contrary to the Church’s teaching, they allowed them to do things that were ambiguously contrary, for such ambiguous teaching and pastoral practice were in accord with that of Roncalli and Montini.”

            So it seems to me, Reverend Father, that you may find confirmation of what I affirmed in my essay at the origin of the disputatio on the Council, namely that the “container-council” was used to give apparent authority to a deliberately subversive event, exactly as today, right before our eyes, the Vicar of Christ is used to give apparent authoritativeness to a deliberately subversive operation. In both cases, the innate sense of respect towards the Church of Christ on the part of the faithful and the clergy is being used as an infernal stratagem – a Trojan horse introduced into the Sacred Citadel – in order to dissuade every form of dutiful dissent, every criticism, every legitimate denunciation.

It is painful to observe that this observation, far from rehabilitating Vatican II, confirms a profound crisis of the entire ecclesiastical institution, effected by the work of renegades who have abused their own authority against the Authority itself, of papal power against the papacy itself, and of the authority of the Conciliar Fathers against the Church herself. A devious and cowardly betrayal operated from within the Church herself, as Saint Pius X had already predicted and condemned in the Pascendi encyclical, indicating the modernists as the most harmful enemies of the Church.

Let’s not forget that Dante places the fraudulent in the Ninth Circle of Hell.

Receive, Reverend and dear Father Thomas, my blessing.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Official translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to VIGANÒ: A SNEAKY AND COWARDLY BETRAYAL OF THE CHURCH IS TAKING PLACE

  1. JabbaPapa says:

    by using as an auctoritas one of your interesting writings, Pope Francis and Schism, published at The Catholic Thing on October 8, 2019

    This is extraordinarily abusive, in effect elevating a private text written by a simple clergyman above the doctrines of the Church.

    there is a sort of dissociation between the persona Papae and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a dichotomy in which the Vicar of Christ is silent and lets things drop, while the exuberant Argentine man who today lives at Santa Marta speaks and acts

    This OTOH is worthless postmodernist claptrap.

    if the persona Papae is in schism with the papacy

    Ditto.

    This text suffers from atrociously bad writing.

    Vatican II is … a “devil council”

    This is straightforwardly heretical.

    Like

  2. Heretical Pope and interpretations. Francis has been and is too involved with global politics and the UN, which is seething with corruptions! I believe this is all work of Satan and meant to align contingents to usher in the antichrist in short order.
    Who am I, nobody just a man and sinner who got to see how evil people have become since I was a boy; and learned some lessons the hard way in order to experience and see the corruption in the hearts of men is running rampant; now that the final state is being set.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Crow says:

    How is a person who upholds the teachings of the Church ‘heretical’? To disagree with the Pope is not ‘heretical ‘ – a blind obedience when the powers in the Vatican impose doctrine or practice or forms of worship that do not conform to Christ’s teachings is not conformity to the Catholic Church, the Church founded by Christ. We conform ourselves to Christ. It is obvious that the German Church is heretical. It is obvious that Pope Francis surrounds himself and promotes to positions of power, extremely bad people. This serves his purposes. Archbishop Vigano is simply calling it out.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. JabbaPapa says:

    How is a person who upholds the teachings of the Church ‘heretical’?

    You fail to understand the difference between making a heretical claim and being a condemned Heretic.

    To make a heretical statement is certainly blameworthy, especially when it is deliberately stated and willfully upheld.

    But that is not enough to be therefrom condemned as “a Heretic”, given that this would require not only a positive judgment from competent Authority, but also willful persistence after correction in the heretical claim in question.

    —-

    Bottom line, to point out that a claim describing an Ecumenical Council of Holy Church as being a “devil council” is a quite overtly, directly, and blatantly heretical statement denying the constant teaching of the Church regarding her teaching Authority does not have the effects in discipline that you falsely suppose.

    —-

    a blind obedience when the powers in the Vatican impose doctrine or practice or forms of worship that do not conform to Christ’s teachings

    That is the thinking of a Protestant.

    Like

  5. JabbaPapa says:

    Those who condemn an Ecumenical Council of Holy Church as a “devil council” do NOT “uphold the teachings of the Church“.

    Like

  6. Crow says:

    It is universally recognised that the Mass which resulted from Vatican II was a protestantised version of the Mass, whether made so by way of the rationale of building bridges with our Protestant brethren or some of the other many reasons. Those parts of the Mass deemed too ‘Catholic’ and thereby an obstacle were excised. To then state that the act of criticising the Council is ‘protestant’ is dissembling – those who practise a ‘protestant’ version of Catholicism are precisely those who advocate the Council. Vigano is applying the Catholic faith and to call the act of voicing disagreement with the legacy of the Council ‘protestant ‘ is a complete distortion – It is a religious version of the secular technique of shutting down debate. The Pope is not immune from criticism if he acts in a manner that deserves criticism. Vatican II was a pastoral council which was used to implement an agenda that was never honestly articulated in the Council and which had disastrous consequences. The fruits of Vatican II are there in the German Church – are we heretics if we do not adhere to their version of Catholicism? Their version is ‘moving with the times’. Are we heretics if we do not admire the pope for promoting sex abusers and not prosecuting those of whom complaints have been made?
    With respect, to claim that egregious abuse of Christ’s Church is immune from criticism is only ‘clericalism ‘ and, I understand that this is deemed very serious in the hierarchy of faults by Pope Francis.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. JabbaPapa says:

    Try and look at the 1965 Missal (a version can be found online), which was the *actual* Mass of the Council — it’s basically a slightly modified TLM, though it allowed certain parts of the Rite to be given in the vernacular.

    The Paul VI Novus Ordo Mass went far beyond what the Council Fathers wanted.

    To then state that the act of criticising the Council is ‘protestant’ is dissembling

    Except that I said no such thing.

    those who practise a ‘protestant’ version of Catholicism are precisely those who advocate the Council

    Well that’s nonsense ; some of them maybe, but to claim that everyone who “advocates the Council” is “protestant” is ludicrous, extremely exaggerated, and the statement is clearly at least in Error.

    Have you read the Council documents in the Latin ?

    to call the act of voicing disagreement with the legacy of the Council ‘protestant’

    Again, I said no such thing — I said that it is protestant thinking to accuse “the Vatican” of not being in conformity with Christ’s teachings.

    The Pope is not immune from criticism if he acts in a manner that deserves criticism

    Of course not, but did I say that he was ? No.

    Again, you’re trying to argue with me as if I had said some things that I did not say.

    Vatican II was a pastoral council

    It was a mostly pastoral council, but it did nevertheless establish a few things dogmatically, and in Lumen Gentium collected several doctrines that had been established after Trent and Vatican I in order to provide a single doctrinal document where they can be more easily found.

    an agenda that was never honestly articulated in the Council and which had disastrous consequences

    Pope Benedict XVI pointed out that the agenda was foreign to that Council, so it could hardly be “articulated” by it. You are blaming “the Council” for abuses a

    Like

  8. JabbaPapa says:

    You are blaming “the Council” for abuses and Errors that were devised and invented and made in the following 50+ years.

    The fruits of Vatican II are there in the German Church

    The German church is seeking to violate several teachings of the Council, in the name od some “spirit of the council” which is really the anti-Council.

    are we heretics if we do not adhere to their version of Catholicism?

    Of course not !! But then did I suggest anything of the sort ?

    No.

    Again, try and answer to what I have said, instead of things that I have not said and would never say.

    to claim that egregious abuse of Christ’s Church is immune from criticism

    Again, I said no such thing.

    You cannot expect “debate” by the means of not discussing what people have said, but instead coming up with the most extreme distortions thereof and then attributing it to those people, whilst congratulating yourself for rejecting those distortions.

    In fact, I’d say you’re making no real attempt to any sort of honest debate at all, albeit that you have accused me of trying to shut down all debate !!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s