Archbishop Vigano’s take on the Floodgates of VII and more
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,546
    Excerpt

    Radio Spada: As we know, going beyond the moral theme, it is impossible not to identify in the doctrinal collapse the very hinge of the present crisis in the Church. In regard to this, on a number of occasions, you have expressed sharp criticism of Vatican II. On this point, we would ask you for a further specification. Speaking with [veteran Italian Vaticanist] Sandro Magister, you said: “The beautiful fable of hermeneutics – albeit authoritative for its Author – nevertheless remains an attempt to give the dignity of a Council to a real ambush against the Church.” May we, therefore, clarify that the problem is not identifiable only since Vatican II but in Vatican II? In other words: did the revolutionary process have a turning point in the “Council” and not only after the “Council”? So to place under accusation not simply with the postconciliar “Spirit of Vatican II,” but also the letter of the Council documents themselves?

    Archbishop Viganò: I don’t see how one can maintain that there is a presumed orthodox Vatican II that no one has talked about for years, betrayed by a spirit of the Council that everyone also praised. The spirit of the Council is what animates it, what determines its nature, particularity, characteristics. And if the spirit is heterodox while the conciliar texts do not seem to be doctrinally heretical, this is to be attributed to a shrewd move by the conspirators, to the naiveté of the Council Fathers, and to the complicity of those who preferred to look elsewhere, from the beginning, rather than take a stand with a clear condemnation of doctrinal, moral and liturgical deviations.

    The first to be perfectly well aware of the importance of putting their hand to the conciliar texts in order to be able to use them for their own purposes were progressive cardinals and bishops, particularly the Germans and the Dutch, with their experts [periti]. It was no coincidence that they managed to reject the Preparatory Schemas prepared by the Holy Office and ignored the desiderata [the requests] of the world’s bishops, including the condemnation of modern errors, especially of atheistic communism; they also succeeded in preventing the proclamation of a Marian dogma, seeing in it an “obstacle” to ecumenical dialogue. The new leadership of Vatican II was possible thanks to a real coup d’état, the pre-eminent role of the Jesuit (Augustin) Bea [1881-1968], and the support of Roncalli [Pope John XXIII, Pope from 1959 to 1963]. If the Schemas had been kept [as the basis for the Council’s documents; but they were put aside just after the Council began, in the fall of 1962, and not kept] nothing that came out of the Commissions [which were set up in the fall of 1962 to draft the Council’s documents, once the Council decided to set aside the prepared Schemas] would have been possible, because the Schemas were constructed on an Aristotelian-Thomistic model that did not permit equivocal formulations.

    The letter itself of the Council [i.e., the text of the Council documents] must therefore be placed under accusation [the Italian is “messo sotto accusa”], because it is from this that the revolution started. On the other hand: could you give me a case in the history of the Church in which an Ecumenical Council was deliberately formulated in an equivocal way to ensure that what it taught in its official acts was then subverted and contradicted in practice? Look: this alone [i.e., the fact that ambiguity and equivocation were deliberately woven into certain passages in the conciliar texts] is enough to catalogue Vatican II as a unique case, an hapax [hapax is a Greek word meaning once, one time, a unique case] on which scholars can try their hand, but which will have to find a solution through the Supreme Authority of the Church.


    Full article

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/vigano-pope-benedict-surrounded-himself-with-inadequate-unreliable-or-even-corrupt-collaborators?utm_source=top_news&utm_campaign=standard
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,546
    (Looks like people aren’t going to touch this with a ten foot felt vernacular banner pole... )
  • Elmar
    Posts: 370
    in order to be able to use them for their own purposes were progressive cardinals and bishops, particularly the Germans and the Dutch, with their experts [periti]
    ...including a young brilliant professor named Joseph Ratzinger...
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins francis
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,546
    yes... Ratzinger is (was) not the bastion of conservatism many think he is. The whole notion of a hermeneutic of continuity had a bad smell for me right from the start. The two 'rites' do not enrich each other... it is a one way street with the good blood being given to the bad.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 370
    So should he in your opinion have made the 'EF' a separate rite - like the Eastern rites within the Catholic Church - with a separate access for priests to be allowed to celebrate it? Maybe even for 'their' minor orders + subdiaconate?
    Would it be a good idea if the TLM-community had an own hierarchy within the Catholic Church with its own jurisdiction - maybe even an own CIC?

    This might be the logical consequence if one agrees with Ratzinger's colleague (and friend at the time) Hans Küng and with archbishop Levebvre on the 'hermeneutic of rupture'.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,546
    Elmar...One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic

    The rite handed down to us is the TLM... so is the NO an aberration? What exactly is it? How does one categorize it?

    Indeed a prominent Consilium expert, Joseph Gelineau, S.J., has had the honesty to declare: “Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed.”3 His conclusion is based on the liturgy being a symbolic action enacted with meaningful forms, to change any of which is to change the rite. In this respect, he reasons like the German scholar Msgr. Klaus Gamber who states: “Each rite constitutes a homogenous unity. So the modification of some of its essential components means the destruction of the entire rite.”4 However, the whole outlook of Gelineau is diametrically opposed to that of Gamber. The former applauds and the latter deplores the destruction of the Roman Rite.


    Here’s the entire treatise from which this is taken

    https://unavocecanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Assault-on-the-Roman-Rite.pdf

    Gelineau was one of the top experts of the consilium. He was being honest in his ominous declaration... a pivot point marking the destruction of the rite.
  • I'm finishing up a book on the question of the degree and kind of rupture between the TLM and the NOM. The conclusion is that they are two rites, not two forms: the Roman rite and the modern papal rite, as Gamber said (but without sufficient argumentation).

    Also, Angelico Press is about to publish a nice collection of all of Vigano's writings from August 2018 to January 2021.

    And I understand that another publisher will be bringing out a volume of Vigano's work on Vatican II plus commentaries by a variety of other authors. It's gonna be good.
    Thanked by 2francis JonathanKK
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,546
    It is a sad day when Catholics need to defend their own tradition from within the walls of the very Church which created them... thank you for all of your effort and devotion @ProfKwasniewski in defense of the Faith.

    Sincerely in Christ,

    Francis Koerber