Sunday, June 30, 2024

Cardinal Zuppi can defend his liberalism with Vatican Council II irrational. This is not contested in this article by Archbishop Vigano . Vatican Council II , rational is not cited.

 

Archbishop Viganò: I accuse Bergoglio of heresy and schism


Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò argues that he is not in schism with the Catholic Church and accuses ‘Jorge Maria Bergoglio of heresy and schism,’ requesting that he be ‘removed from the throne which he has unworthily occupied for over 11 years.’


Editor’s note: The following essay is the full English translation of a statement from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in response to the charge of schism from the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, published in Italian on June 28, 2024.

‘But even if we or an angel from heaven

 

Should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you,

let that one be accursed.

As we have said before, and now I say again,

if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received,

let him be anathema.’ — Gal 1:8-9

(LifeSiteNews) — “When I think that we are in the palace of the Holy Office, which is the exceptional witness of the Tradition and of the defense of the Catholic Faith, I cannot stop myself from thinking that I am at home, and that it is me, whom you call ‘the traditionalist,’ who should judge you.” So spoke Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1979, when he was summoned to the former Holy Office, in the presence of the prefect, Cardinal Franjo Šeper, and two other prelates.

Lionel : Yes but the liberals cite Vatican Council II ( irrational) which supports liberalism and makes Tradition obsolete. This has to be pointed out. The issue of Vatican Council II ( rational ) has to be discussed.

______________________

As I stated in my communiqué of June 20, I do not recognize the authority of the tribunal that claims to judge me, nor of its prefect, nor of the one who appointed him. This decision of mine, which is certainly painful, is not the result of haste or a spirit of rebellion; but rather is dictated by the moral necessity which, as bishop and successor of the apostles, obliges me in conscience to bear witness to the truth, that is, to God Himself, to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Lionel: True but the tribunal is called because of Vatican Council II ( irrational), which support liberalism and rejects Tradition. So this point needs to be debated in public.There is a Vatican Council II ( rational) which makes the liberalism of the tribunal obsolete. The liberals are then outside the Catholic Church.

_____________________________

I face this trial with the determination that comes from knowing that I have no reason to consider myself separate from communion with the Holy Church and with the papacy, which I have always served with filial devotion and fidelity. I could not conceive of a single moment of my life outside this one Ark of Salvation, which providence has constituted as the Mystical Body of Christ, in submission to its Divine Head and to His vicar on earth.

Lionel: True but with Vatican Council II ( irrational) you are outside the Church. The Council interpreted only irrationally is a rejection of Tradition. The deception has not been dealt with in this article.

________________________________

The enemies of the Catholic Church fear the power of grace which works through the sacraments, and above all the power of the Holy Mass, a terrible katechon which frustrates many of their efforts and wins to God so many souls who would otherwise be damned. And it is precisely this awareness of the power of the supernatural action of the Catholic priesthood in society that lies at the origin of their fierce hostility to tradition.

Lionel : They can oppose Tradition only because the issue of Vatican Council II rational and irrational is not discussed.

___________________________________

Satan and his minions know full well what a threat the one true Church poses to their antichristic plan. These subversives – whom the Roman pontiffs have courageously denounced as enemies of God, the Church, and humanity – are identifiable in the inimica vis, Freemasonry. It has infiltrated the hierarchy and succeeded in making it lay down the spiritual weapons at its disposal, opening the doors of the citadel to the enemy in the name of dialogue and universal brotherhood, concepts that are intrinsically Masonic. But the Church, following the example of her Divine Founder, does not dialogue with Satan: She fights him.

Lionel: Archbishop Vigano interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. The Masons do the same.

The causes of the present crisis

As Romano Amerio pointed out in his seminal essay Iota Unum, this cowardly and culpable surrender began with the convocation of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and with the underground and highly organized action of clergymen and laity linked to the Masonic sects, aimed at slowly but surely subverting the structure of government and magisterium of the Church in order to demolish Her from within.

Lionel: Romano Amerio interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally like the DDF and Pope Francis. No one told him him that the Council could be interpreted rationally and so in harmony with Tradition.

_____________

It is useless to look for other reasons: the documents of the secret sects demonstrate the existence of an infiltration plan conceived in the 19th century and carried out a century later, exactly in the terms in which it was conceived. Similar processes of dissolution had previously taken place in the civil sphere, and it is no coincidence that the popes were able to grasp in the uprisings and wars that bloodied the European nations the disintegrating work of international Freemasonry.

Since the council, the Church has thus become the bearer of the revolutionary principles of 1789, as some of the proponents of Vatican II have admitted, and as is confirmed by the appreciation on the part of the Lodges for all the popes of the council and of the post-conciliar period, precisely because of the implementation of changes that the Freemasons had long called for.

Lionel: This can be changed when Archbishop Vigano accepts Vatican Council II rationally. He then needs to ask  the DDF to do the same.

______________________________

Change – or better still, aggiornamento – has been so much at the center of the conciliar narrative that it has been the hallmark of Vatican II and has posited this assembly as the terminus post quem that sanctions the end of the ancien régime – the regime of the “old religion,” of the “old Mass,” of the “pre-council” – and the beginning of the “conciliar church,” with its “new mass” and the substantial relativization of all dogma.

Lionel: Irrespective of what was said or done at Vatican Council II, when the Council is interpreted rationally the Council becomes traditional. This is an important point.

_____________________________

Among the proponents of this revolution appear the names of those who, until the pontificate of John XXIII, had been condemned and removed from teaching because of their heterodoxy. The list is long and also includes Ernesto Buonaiuti, the excommunicated vitandus, a friend of Roncalli, who died unrepentant in heresy, and whom just a few days ago the president of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, commemorated with a Mass in the cathedral of Bologna, as reported with ill-concealed emphasis by Il Faro di Roma:

Almost eighty years later, a cardinal who is completely in line with the Pope is starting again with a liturgical gesture that has in all respects the flavor of rehabilitation. Or at least a first step in that direction.

Lionel. This  liberalism is possible because of Vatican Council II, irrational.

__________________

The Church and the antichurch

I am therefore summoned before the tribunal that has taken the place of the Holy Office to be tried for schism, while the head of the Italian bishops – identified as being among the papabili and “completely in line with the Pope” – is illicitly celebrating a Mass of suffrage for one of the worst and most obstinate exponents of Modernism, against whom the Church – the one from which according to them I am separated – had pronounced the most severe sentence of condemnation.

Lionel. Cardinal Zuppi can defend his liberalism with Vatican Council II irrational. This is not contested in this article. Vatican Council II , rational is not cited.

-Lionel Andrades


https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-vigano-i-accuse-bergoglio-of-heresy-and-schism/?utm_source=featured-news&utm_campaign=usa

A former Protestant in Medjugorje

If Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally the Council emerges orthodox. So the pope is forced to be traditional. Then the Church is traditional once again.So the sedevacantist no more has a reason to reject the pope.

 

Archbishop Carlo Vigano is a sedevacantist and you support him?

I am pointing out that if Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally the Council emerges orthodox. So the pope is forced to be traditional. Then the Church is traditional once again.So the sedevacantist no more has a reason to reject the pope. He no more remains in sedevacantism because of Vatican Council II (irrational). with Vatican Council II ( rational) the pope becomes traditional like Archbishop Vigano. 

It would be the same for the sedevacantists Bishops Mark Pivarunas and Donald Sanborn. Bishop Williamson and the bishops he ordained would also have to review their position on Vatican Council II and Pope Francis.

 

Archbishop Vigano says he does not recognize the DDF and Pope Francis?

I recognize them.

However it must be pointed out that Pope Francis and the DDF not only interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally but also the Creeds. This is first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II (Ad Tuendum Fidem).

There are many reports on the Internet over the years on this issue but the CDF/DDF has ignored them.

Those who change the interpretation of the Creeds are automatically excommunicated. They are not in communion with Jesus and His Mystical Body the Catholic Church.   - Lionel Andrades

Healing Prayer from Medugorje - 29/6/2024

Healing Prayer from Medugorje - 29/6/2024

 https://video.marytv.tv/watch/mme9qwsgbJp?ctx=yDj3O1j6sO8%2CmP9bEiEsi5K

So when Pope Francis interprets Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Catechisms, and Councils) rationally he has to become traditional and conservative.Now he is heretical and schismatic.

 

I appreciate what Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano wrote on the eve of the feast of St.Peter and St Paul. He said that Pope Francis and the DDF are in heresy and schism. I agree with him. But he needs to change his approach. Since now we have new information on Vatican Council II. All traditionalists and conservatives must present their view differently.They must present the facts which are now available unlike in 1965.

The discovery over some 15 years back is this :-

1. LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to hypothetical cases only. They refer to invisible cases in 1965-2024.

2. For the popes from Paul VI to Francis they were visible cases. Visible people! Only in this way they could avoid being Feeneyite on extra ecclesiam nullas salus (EENS).So the popes and the CDF were  irrational to avoid affirming Feeneyite EENS as it was done by the Magisterium over the centuries.

3. Since LG 8 etc refer to invisible cases, Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition. With Ad Gentes 7( all need faith and baptism for salvation), there is a hermeneutic of continuity with the Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc. Meanwhile LG 8 etc are not exceptions for Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma EENS.

So Ad Gentes 7 supports the three Church Councils which defined the dogma EENS. It supports the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be Catholic for salvation.

4.Vatican Council II can  now no more be cited as a break with Tradition. The claim cannot be made that if Vatican Council II is a revolution in the Church, faith and morals and everything else can be changed.The Council is traditional. 

So Archbishop Vigano must put these facts on the table and ask the DDF to clarify their position.

The DDF will have to choose the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II or reject the Council altogether.

With the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II, the DDF automatically returns to Tradition. The DDF and Archbishop Vigano would now be on the same side. The liberals who interpret Vatican Council II irrationally will be in schism and heresy. They will be outside the Church, doctrinally and according to the old theology.

We now have concrete facts.

a.The DDF/CDF/Holy Office made an error in the 1949 LOHO. 

b.They repeated it at Vatican Council II (1965).

c.They repeated it in a Letter to Brother Andre Marie micm, at the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire,USA. Archbishop Augustine di Noia, Secretary of the CDF interpreted CCC 847-848 (invincible ignorance etc) irrationally and then projected it as a practical exception for EENS, as held by the St. Benedict Centers.

So when Pope Francis interprets Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Catechisms, and Councils) rationally he has to become traditional and conservative.Now he is heretical and schismatic. - Lionel Andrades

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano must ask the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), Vatican if LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only. The DDF must be asked to announce that LG 8 etc refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2024.

 

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano must ask the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), Vatican if LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only. The DDF must be asked to announce that LG 8 etc refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2024.This is now an issue for Canon Law and secular law. Many people are affected.

Will the DDF tell the truth or continue to lie?

Will Pope Francis say Vatican Council II is to be interpreted as he chooses – and this is the Magisterium- or will he apologize and say that the Church made a mistake? Since LG 8 etc refer to invisible cases in 2024, they could not be objective examples of salvation outside the Church. They could not be practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed. Will he admit this?

In the past he refused. He told the National Cathechetical Center, Italy that Vatican Council II is to be interpreted as he chooses. He meant with the fake premise and inference to produce a non traditional conclusion.

If the pope continues to refer to LG 9 etc as visible cases in the present times, then this is a moral issue and Canon Lawyers must be employed by Archbishop Vigano.

This is also a secular issue since the pope is unethical and is forcing Archbishop Vigano, to accept a lie or be expelled from the Catholic Church.

This is a painful subject but we have to go through it if the Catholic Church must return to Tradition; to the Catholic Faith and -  so that injustices will not be done to conservative Catholics, in the name of Vatican Council II (irrational).

Once the DDF formally announces that LG 8 etc refer to hypothetical cases, invisible people in 2024, it means the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake. The baptism of desire (LG 14) was never an objective exception for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). It means there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS, as it was defined by the three Church Councils, which did not mention any exceptions.

So Vatican Council II is saying that all need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7) and LG 8,14,15,16 etc are not exceptions.

The Catholic Church returns to its past ecclesiology. It is the end of the New Theology based upon the mistake of the 1949 LOHO. This would be the end of Vatican Council II (irrational).

It would mean that the DDF and Pope Francis now support what the political Left disparaging calls ‘triumphalism’. Politically they both may not want this but morally they have no other choice. Since Vatican Council II can only be interpreted rationally i.e. LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to invisible cases in 2024.

Even the judges of the Signatura, Vatican would be forced to be rational on this issue.

Then at the secular level-aside from the judiciary, even a school boy would admit that LG 8 etc, refer to invisible cases in 2024.We cannot meet or see someone saved outside the Catholic Church and who is in Heaven . This can only be known to God.

It was painful for many, when Pope Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally, and many religious gave up their vocation, it will be painful for many today when Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II rationally, and takes the Church back to Tradition. -Lionel Andrades

EWTN, National Catholic Reporter, Crux, The Tablet, CNA, AP and Reuters need to clarify that for them LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only. So they are interpreting Vatican Council II rationally.

 


EWTN, National Catholic Reporter, Crux, The Tablet, CNA, AP and Reuters need to clarify that for them LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only. So they are interpreting Vatican Council II rationally. There is no deception. 

It would mean Archbishop Carlo Vigano could accept Vatican Council II interpreted rationally and Pope Francis could do the same. So the both of them would be orthodox on doctrine and theology. There would no more be the need for sedevacantism. - Lionel Andrades