June 10, 2020 (
LifeSiteNews) – The prominent Catholic prelate and speaker of truth, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, is casting off many of the false teachings that have crept into the Church during and since the Second Vatican Council. With this act of liberation, he sets the Church on a new path, cleared of falsehood and with the full Catholic truth in sight.
In his new statement, Archbishop Vigano clearly distances himself from the controversial Abu Dhabi statement. He says: “we know well that the purpose of these ecumenical and interreligious initiatives is not to convert those who are far from the one Church to Christ, but to divert and corrupt those who still hold the Catholic Faith, leading them to believe that it is desirable to have a great universal religion that brings together the three great Abrahamic religions ‘in a single house’: this is the triumph of the Masonic plan in preparation for the kingdom of the Antichrist!”
Archbishop Viganò deals with the Abu Dhabi Declaration as rooted in “deviations” of the Second Vatican Council. He describes how the same people who supported the revolutionary changes of Vatican II helped to get Jorge Bergoglio elected as Pope Francis. At the same time, he describes our situation as “the most serious apostasy to which the highest levels of the Hierarchy are exposed, while the Christian people and the clergy feel hopelessly abandoned and that they are regarded by the bishops almost with annoyance.” Only when facing the errors that started with the Second Vatican Council, the archbishop explains, can we face our current crisis.
Being mindful of the agony of the faithful in this crisis, the prelate states: “If we do not recognize that the roots of these deviations are found in the principles laid down by the Council, it will be impossible to find a cure: if our diagnosis persists, against all the evidence, in excluding the initial pathology, we cannot prescribe a suitable therapy.”
In this new statement written for the Italian blog
Chiesa e post concilio (full text below), Archbishop Viganò – the former papal nuncio to the U.S. who lives in hiding due to his revelations concerning the McCarrick case – comments on a recent
analysis written by Bishop Athanasius Schneider and published by LifeSiteNews on June 1.
Schneider showed in his article, “There is no divine positive will or natural right to the diversity of religions.” The February 4, 2019
Abu Dhabi Statement signed by Pope Francis claims that the “diversity of religions” is “willed by God,” which Schneider explained goes back to the Second Vatican Council and its erroneous teaching on religious freedom.
The German prelate – who lives and works in Kazakhstan – pointed to the conciliar document Dignitatis Humanae which “unfortunately” set forth “a theory never before taught by the constant Magisterium of the Church, i.e., that man has the right founded in his own nature, ‘not to be prevented from acting in religious matters according to his own conscience, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.’”
“According to this statement,” Schneider commented, “man would have the right, based on nature itself (and therefore positively willed by God) not to be prevented from choosing, practicing and spreading, also collectively, the worship of an idol, and even the worship of Satan, since there are religions that worship Satan, for instance, the ‘church of Satan.’”
In light of this inner erroneous teaching of the Second Vatican Council – which Pope Francis explicitly quotes with regard to his Abu Dhabi statement – Bishop Schneider proposes that it might very well be corrected in the future.
“One may rightly hope and believe that a future Pope or Ecumenical Council will correct the erroneous statement made,” Schneider writes, adding: “There have been statements made by other Ecumenical Councils that have become obsolete and been forgotten or have even been corrected by the later Magisterium.”
Archbishop Viganò, in his new June 9 statement, agrees with Bishop Schneider in his criticism of the Second Vatican Council and explains: “His Excellency’s study summarizes, with the clarity that distinguishes the words of those who speak according to Christ, the objections against the presumed legitimacy of the exercise of religious freedom that the Second Vatican Council theorized, contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both.”
Speaking of this Council, the archbishop describes its program of change as a “monstrum generated in modernist circles,” a monstrum which came into being at Vatican II and has a “logical consequent effect in the doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary deviations” that have come into being since them. For this Italian prelate, the “hermeneutic of continuity” is not a sufficient instrument to counter it. He also politely disagrees with Bishop Schneider, who presented teachings of councils in the past that were later abandoned by the Church when stating that none of these abandoned teachings were in themselves “heretical.” Viganò warns against the idea “that there may be Magisterial acts that, due to a changed sensitivity, are susceptible to abrogation, modification, or different interpretation with the passage of time.”
Archbishop Viganò insists that, “just as the Truth comes from God, so error is fed by and feeds on the Adversary, who hates the Church of Christ and her heart: the Holy Mass and the Most Holy Eucharist,” and he now invites us to face these errors.
In a self-critical way, he speaks of many of our false assumptions concerning the Council. For example, he states: “Together with numerous Council Fathers, we thought of ecumenism as a process, an invitation that calls dissidents to the one Church of Christ, idolaters and pagans to the one True God, and the Jewish people to the promised Messiah. But from the moment it was theorized in the conciliar commissions, ecumenism was configured in a way that was in direct opposition to the doctrine previously expressed by the Magisterium.”
In a freeing gesture, the prelate also points to erroneous events surrounding Pope John Paul II, which many at the time seemed to justify. “We have thought that certain excesses were only an exaggeration of those who allowed themselves to be swept up in enthusiasm for novelty; we sincerely believed that seeing John Paul II surrounded by charmers-healers, buddhist monks, imams, rabbis, protestant pastors and other heretics gave proof of the Church’s ability to summon people together in order to ask God for peace,” he goes on to say.
This has led to a “point” in the Church “of seeing Bishops carrying the unclean idol of the pachamama on their shoulders, sacrilegiously concealed under the pretext of being a representation of sacred motherhood.”
Further addressing the multiple errors that are now festering in the Church, Archbishop Viganò stresses that the Church at large has abandoned the teaching on the uniqueness of the salvific role of the Catholic Church: “Numerous practicing Catholics, and perhaps also a majority of Catholic clergy, are today convinced that the Catholic Faith is no longer necessary for eternal salvation; they believe that the One and Triune God revealed to our fathers is the same as the god of Mohammed.”
The prelate also describes how the Second Vatican Council has made a change of the Church's teaching by using the Latin expression “subsistit in,” which means that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, instead of saying that it is the Catholic Church, thus furthering ambiguity of teaching.
Regretting these ambiguities, Viganò describes how the Second Vatican Council led to the “obscuring and connoting with a sense of contempt the doctrine that the Church had always authoritatively taught, and prohibiting the perennial liturgy that for millennia had nourished the faith of an uninterrupted line of faithful, martyrs, and saints.” The doctrine, discipline, and liturgy – simply the entire life of the Church has been since altered, without too much resistance from the Church's clergy.
Here, the prelate admits his own deficiency with regard to the Council.
“I confess it with serenity and without controversy: I was one of the many people,” Viganò goes on to say, “who, despite many perplexities and fears which today have proven to be absolutely legitimate, trusted the authority of the Hierarchy with unconditional obedience. In reality, I think that many people, including myself, did not initially consider the possibility that there could be a conflict between obedience to an order of the Hierarchy and fidelity to the Church herself.” He speaks here of a “perverse, separation between the Hierarchy and the Church, between obedience and fidelity,” something that came to a peak under the current pontificate.
The Modernists who endorse these changes since the Council also endorse Pope Francis and even got him elected pope, according to the Italian prelate. Speaking of the “newly elected” pope, Viganò states: “on March 13, 2013, the mask fell from the conspirators, who were finally free of the inconvenient presence of Benedict XVI and brazenly proud of having finally succeeded in promoting a Cardinal who embodied their ideals, their way of revolutionizing the Church, of making doctrine malleable, morals adaptable, liturgy adulterable, and discipline disposable.”
Summing up the deviations in Catholic doctrine in the last decades, the Italian archbishop writes:
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.
He calls the Second Vatican Council a “coup d'état” and a “revolution.”
“And if up until Benedict XVI,” he continues, “we could still imagine that the coup d’état of Vatican II (which Cardinal Suenens called ‘the 1789 of the Church’) had experienced a slowdown, in these last few years even the most [ingenious] among us have understood that silence for fear of causing a schism, the effort to repair papal documents in a Catholic sense in order to remedy their intended ambiguity, the appeals and dubia made to Francis that remained eloquently unanswered, are all a confirmation of the situation of the most serious apostasy to which the highest levels of the Hierarchy are exposed, while the Christian people and the clergy feel hopelessly abandoned and that they are regarded by the bishops almost with annoyance.”
Let us conclude this introduction with the words with which Archbishop Viganò concludes his own statement: “Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith; For unless a person shall have kept this faith whole and inviolate, without doubt he shall eternally perish.”
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/abp-vigano-on-the-roots-of-deviation-of-vatican-ii-and-how-francis-was-chosen-to-revolutionize-the-churchCDF is in public schism created with a false premise : announcement needed to end the scandal
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) does not proclaim the Faith on exclusive salvation in the Church instead it is deceptively changing the teaching by using a false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion.For political reasons the traditionalists, conservative and liberal Catholics are going along with the public error.This is a scandal.
With the use of the false premise- to reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the CDF changes the meaning of the Creeds ( Athanasius, Apostles, Nicene), the Catechisms and Vatican Council II. So heresy is the norm in the Church. There is division with the popes over the centuries before the 1930's, who did not need to use the false premise to change doctrine and dogma.This is official schism.
A 'new revelation' is brought into the Church which the secular media calls 'the revolution of Vatican Council II'. 
They do not mention that without the false premise, Vatican Council II supports exclusive salvation in the Church with Ad Gentes 7 - while there are no exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 mentioned in Vatican Council II( unless one is using the false premise to interpret LG 8, LG 16 etc).
The CDF cardinal and archbishops remain in office with the convenient lie which they uphold in public.
There is no revolution with Vatican Council II without the false premise.
There is no new revelation with Vatican Council II without the false premise. They need the false premise to create a new and special revelation in the Catholic Church.
There is no rupture with the past in Vatican Council II without the false premise.
There is no more CDF schism without the false premise.
It was Pope Benedict who interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and created schism with the pre-Vatican Council II popes. Then he wanted the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) to do the same for canonical recognition.He said the issue is doctrine! Meanwhile the secular media accused the SSPX of being in schism and Pope Benedict supported the charge with his silence.
He did not tell the SSPX, that they could interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and there would be no schism and they would be recognised canonically. Instead he supported the Masonic agenda as the Prefect of the CDF.
There will no more be a CDF schism in the Church without the false premise. A clarificatioin is needed from the Vatican choosing no more to use the false premise to interpret Magisterial documents.
Religious communities must not be forced to support the deception for canonical recognition. Neither must vocations be accepted only from candidates who agree to interpret Vatican Council II with the irrationality.
Archbishop Guido Pozzo and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia must comment on this artificial 'hermeneutic of rupture'. The would say that Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. So let them now confirm it with a public announcement, with reference to what I have written.Is there is a continuity with the traditional teaching on exlucive salvation in the Catholic Church? Will they not use the false premise any more ?'-Lionel Andrades
_____________________________https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/06/vigano-and-schneider-interpret-vatican.html
Posts
