Categories
Election 2020 News

Archbishop Viganò responds to Dominican sister who accused Trump of discriminatory and violent policies

Archbishop Viganò responds to Dominican sister who accused Trump of discriminatory and violent policies

On June 17, Sister Antonietta Potente, a Dominican sister and theologian, had published on the website Terra e Missione an open letter (read full letter below) to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, telling him that she is “deeply indignant” about a letter that “that you, a christian and a bishop, have written in support of President Trump, the proponent of a policy that, in recent months, has shown itself to be increasingly discriminatory and violent, both with regard to the health emergency and these latest events of racism.”

Archbishop Viganò responds to Dominican sister who accused Trump of discriminatory and violent policies

Sister Potente, speaking on behalf of other sisters as well, also rebuked Viganò for employing a “dualistic and discriminatory language” and using “Scriptures to support a policy that goes against every evangelical principle.” Potente claims that Trump had supported “actions” by the police that were “racist” and thus against the Gospels.

“It seems like a true and proper blasphemy to use the biblical term ‘children of light’ to declare that Trump and also you and your entire entourage are victims of particular ecclesial and socio-political conspiracies,” Potente wrote. She also accused “President Trump, whom you support” of a “homophobic and thus discriminatory mentality.” Finally, the Dominican sister wrote that she and her fellow religious sisters will always be on the side of the “weakest and oppressed.”

Potente’s letter is responding to a now-famous open letter published by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on June 6, in which he supported President Donald Trump and warned him that the current crises over the coronavirus pandemic and the Black Lives Matter riots are a part of the eternal spiritual struggle between the forces of good and evil. Viganò then also encouraged the President to continue the fight on behalf of the “children of light.”

In responding to this sister, Archbishop Viganò (see full text below) denies that President Trump is responsible for the recent events in the U.S., saying that “in truth I do not see how one can make him [President Trump] responsible for the events of racism, which have arisen in a context in which the police and the local governments are in the hands of the Democratic Party, and which have been proven by evidence that little by little is emerging to have been orchestrated by the false flag financed by the globalist elites precisely in order to oppose the Republican party and the President currently in office.” Viganò adds that internationally, “Trump’s term of office is the only one for a long time in which the United States has not started any military conflicts, and in many cases peace treaties have been established and foreign military deployments have been withdrawn.” He also points to the high employment rates for workers under the Trump Presidency. Archbishop Viganò responds to Dominican sister who accused Trump of discriminatory and violent policies.

Most importantly, the Italian prelate compares Trump’s policy with those working for the killing of the unborn: “I do not believe” Viganò states, “that the President is ‘violent in words and also in actions,’ certainly no more than those who in their own political program favor and support the killing of millions of children right up until the moment before birth and even after birth: this violence, much more hateful since it rages the most against those who are the most defenseless, does not appear to me to quite be in accord with your commitment as a religious sister.”

The archbishop also says that one needs to be discriminatory in life, just as God Himself is discriminatory with those who finally reject Him and His Commandments. “Saint Paul discriminated, just as Christ discriminated, and so too in Eden the Eternal Father discriminated, driving out our first parents who had disobeyed Him,” he writes.

Finally, Archbishop Viganò defends the use of law and order when he says, “if then you maintain that establishing public order and demanding respect for the law is a discriminatory action, I fear that I have to remind you that civil authority has a moral duty to impose respect for the laws, and in order to do this it is permitted to use proportionate force.”

***

Please see here the full exchange of letters between the sister and the archbishop:

Open letter of Sister Antonietta Potente to Monsignor Carlo Maria Viganò

We are deeply indignant at the words that you, a christian and a bishop, have written in support of president Trump, the proponent of a policy that, in recent months, has shown itself to be increasingly discriminatory and violent, both with regard to the health emergency and these latest events of racism. It seems to us that using Scripture to justify the political violence of president Trump is like giving “pearls to swine” according to the evangelical words: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot (cf. Mt 7:6). The language that you use in your message to the president of the United States (Letter of June 7, 2020) stuns us as women, christians, and dominican religious, but at the same time it provokes us to distance ourselves from and denounce the ambiguity of your thought and your position, which moreover employs a dualistic and discriminatory language.

We cannot accept that a member of the Magisterium of the catholic church could use the Scriptures to support a policy that goes against every evangelical principle. We had already deplored your call for the resignation of pope Francis, but now it seems like a true and proper blasphemy to use the biblical term “children of light” to declare that Trump and also you and your entire entourage are victims of particular ecclesial and socio-political conspiracies. To deny the evidence of these recent racist actions taken by members of the police, which have been supported and defended by president Trump himself, is something that we consider to be contrary to the gospel. The children of light, whom you speak about so much, are those who walk in the light, see clearly, and denounce what they see with boldness [parrhesia].

Neither Jesus of Nazareth nor his first male and female disciples [discepoli e discepole] ever said, “Blessed are the strong, the arrogant, the oppressors,” but rather “Blessed are the humble, the meek, the lovers of justice and peace,” even in the precariousness of our human and historical condition. We cannot understand how you could forget this message and extrapolate the Johannine message of light and darkness in order to support a government as violent as the present government of the United States. Violent in words (it is enough to see the messages of President Trump in recent days) and also in actions, not only within the United States but also in its foreign policy, its international relations, even to the point of wanting to appropriate a vaccine that, like every method of treatment, ought to be the patrimony of all humanity. We are truly appalled, but at the same time we are confident that these regurgitations of racism, which you attribute – making a huge and confusing error – to the children of darkness, find no place in the human soul and above all in the soul of those women and men who are suffering. We, women religious [donne religiose], feel that we are truly “daughters of Eve,” but not according to the metaphor you have used. Rather, we think that certain attitudes, such as the language that you use, are not nourished by the children of Eve as you say, but rather by a homophobic and thus discriminatory mentality, such as president Trump, whom you support, displays. Know that we too pray for Trump and his country, but not with the same intention that you hope for. We pray as women of faith, with the same words that the true biblical tradition has taught us: we ask to work together so that the humble, not the rich, may be exalted; we ask that the powerful and bullies who humiliate and destroy the hope of peoples may exist no longer. Thus we also pray for Trump and also for you who say that you support him. It should be clear, however, that we are on the side of the weakest and oppressed, certain that it is only to them that the wisdom that the rulers of this world did not know has been revealed (cf. 1 Cor 2:8).

Sister Antonietta Potente

Theologian of the Union of Dominican Sisters of Saint Thomas Aquinas and community

(for further information: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonietta_Potente)

Source: Terra e Missione

Former nuncio Vigano now says sanctions against McCarrick were 'private' - The Dialog

Archbishop Viganò responds to Dominican sister who accused Trump of discriminatory and violent policies

Noli aemulari in malignantibus, neque zelaveris facientes iniquitatem.

[Do not be provoked by evildoers; do not envy those who do wrong. Ps 36:1]

Reverend Mother, 

I have read the open letter that you sent to me last June 17, also on behalf of your community, a letter that you wrote following the letter that I sent to the President of the United States. Since you address yourself personally to me, I ask you to give me space on your site to respond to you. 

I remain bewildered by several expressions in your letter: not only those regarding me personally, but also the showy misrepresentation of reality in accusing President Trump of being “the proponent of a policy that, in recent months, has shown itself to be increasingly discriminatory and violent, both with regard to the health emergency and these latest events of racism.” In truth I do not see how one can make him responsible for the events of racism, which have arisen in a context in which the police and the local governments are in the hands of the Democratic Party, and which have been proven by evidence that little by little is emerging to have been orchestrated by the false flag financed by the globalist elites precisely in order to oppose the Republican party and the President currently in office. At the international level, Trump’s term of office is the only one for a long time in which the United States has not started any military conflicts, and in many cases peace treaties have been established and foreign military deployments have been withdrawn. The economy was in strong growth (until the Covid emergency), and thus also the protection of the rights of workers. 

If then you maintain that establishing public order and demanding respect for the law is a discriminatory action, I fear that I have to remind you that civil authority has a moral duty to impose respect for the laws, and in order to do this it is permitted to use proportionate force: this doctrine is taught and wonderfully explained by Saint Thomas Aquinas, the patron of the Institute to which you belong. I do not believe that the President is “violent in words and also in actions,” certainly no more than those who in their own political program favor and support the killing of millions of children right up until the moment before birth and even after birth: this violence, much more hateful since it rages the most against those who are the most defenseless, does not appear to me to quite be in accord with your commitment as a religious sister.

You reprove me for using a “dualistic and discriminating language” – in fact, it is precisely that, and I think that it cannot be otherwise, when what it is in question is the eternal battle between good and evil. The Truth is always discriminatory when error places it into question. Light is also discriminatory, for it does not tolerate darkness or those who hide in it. Just as Our Lord, the stumbling stone, is discriminatory and divisive, who will gather the just to His right hand and drive out the wicked to His left. You are my friends, if you do what I command you, says the Lord (Jn 15:4). The condition for friendship with God is obedience to His Commandments and His Law, in the bond of Charity. This too is discriminatory, because those who abuse their own freedom and do not conform themselves to the will of God will not be able to rejoice in the beatific vision, nor participate in His eternal glory. In the same way, the Sixth Commandment, which condemns sodomy as a sin that cries out for vengeance before the face of God, was given in a “homophobic and thus discriminatory mentality.” Saint Paul discriminated, just as Christ discriminated, and so too in Eden the Eternal Father discriminated, driving out our first parents who had disobeyed Him.  

But if this discrimination made us through our own fault deserving of divine punishment, it also merited for us ever since the fall of our first parents the promise of a Redeemer born of the Virgin, of a new Adam and a new Eve. It was this “dualist” vision that led our fathers toward the Promised Land, in the abandonment of idolatry and the adoration of the One True God. The Martyrs too discriminated when they preferred to face torment and torture rather than burn incense to idols. The Doctors of the Church, including the Angelic Doctor discriminated when they fought against heresies and preached true doctrine. Saint Dominic discriminated when he preached the Cross. You too, Reverend Mother, discriminate when you take positions against my words, against Trump, and against discrimination. You discriminate when you speak of “we women religious [donne religiose]” placing an accent on “women” that seems to want to claim a role that is not based on adhesion to the order willed by God nor to the admonition of the Apostle of the Gentiles. 

You state: “We ask to work together so that the humble and not the rich may be exalted; we ask that the powerful and bullies who humiliate and destroy the hope of peoples may exist no longer.” You recall, Reverend Mother, that the humble of whom the Gospel speaks are not necessarily those whom today’s world exploits for cynical projects of social engineering, nor the many who are torn from their Homeland in order to pander to the plans for destabilization that always enrich the usual people. And the rich are not always and necessarily evil: if Providence has granted them material goods, He asks them to become His cooperators in remembering the poor and needy. Nor are the powerful to be blamed, if their power is placed in service of the Good: it is those who abuse their power and the authority given to them who merit blame from the citizens and divine punishment.

I fear that your words find too much space for the thinking of the world, rather than a supernatural vision supported by sound doctrine and fed by solid piety. In substance, the absence of an exterior and visible sign of your religious Vows appears to me to reveal implicitly your desire to hide your religious identity (perhaps in order not to offend others’ sensibilities?), with the risk however of leaving yourself in an interior void that no ideology of this world will be able to fill. And yet it is precisely this that we ought to expect from a daughter of Saint Dominic and Saint Thomas: to ensure that the legitimate aspirations of the least ones find their own most authentic roots in Revelation, in the Christian social order, in the faithful application of the social doctrine of the Church. Because there is no Charity where there is no Truth: You teach me that they are both essential attributes of God, and it is not possible to love God if one does not also unconditionally welcome the integral Truth that He has transmitted to us in the Holy Church, the one Ark of Salvation. 

You write: “It should be clear, however, that we are on the side of the weakest and oppressed, certain that it is only to them that the wisdom that the rulers of this world did not know has been revealed (cf. 1 Cor 2:8).” I imagine that in that group of the weakest and oppressed you include the fathers and mothers of families who want to give a Christian education to their children; the many who are daily persecuted simply because they profess the Catholic faith; the millions of innocents that the modern Moloch sacrifices each day on the impure altar of abortion; the elderly whom economic interests and speculations condemn to abandonment or death because they are considered useless; the children ensnared in their most tender years by the infernal ideology of gender; the young people corrupted in their morality by LGBT thought; the elderly faithful of St. Louis who were assaulted a few days ago by a group of people who praise Black Lives Matter. 

In conclusion, your open letter confirms what I have written many times: the alignments are being more clearly defined day by day, and this is certainly a tribute to the truth that permits many to understand what is really happening and which side each person intends to align with. 

To you, Reverend Mother, and to Your Community I send my heartfelt blessing, entrusting myself to Your prayers.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Archbishop Viganò responds to Dominican sister who accused Trump of discriminatory and violent policies

Categories
News

50 priests scholars journalists thank Viganò and Schneider for raising Vatican II questions 

50 priests scholars journalists thank Viganò and Schneider for raising Vatican II questions

50 priests scholars journalists thank Viganò and Schneider for raising Vatican II questions  Today, more than 50 priests, scholars, journalists, and other persons of prominence published an Open Letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, thanking these two prelates for their recent statements in which they discuss some problems of the Second Vatican Council’s documents that might need a further evaluation and correction.

The signatories of this letter regard this discourse about the Council and its aftermath to be of crucial importance for the good of the Church.

Among them are prominently the Italian church historian Professor Roberto de Mattei, the U.S. Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst and professor of law, Andrew P. Napolitano, as well as his fellow law professors Brian McCall and Paolo Pasqualucci, well-known Catholic book authors such as Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, Jose Antonio Ureta, Henry Sire, and Dr. Taylor Marshall, the retired Oxford Research Fellow Father John Hunwicke, numerous other priests, as well as journalists such as Marco Tosatti, Aldo Maria Valli, Jeanne Smits, and John-Henry Westen.

50 priests scholars journalists thank Viganò and Schneider for raising Vatican II questions

The letter (see full text below) is being published simultaneously in English, ItalianSpanishPortugueseDutch, and French.

The undersigned express their gratitude to Archbishop Viganò and Bishop Schneider for calling for an “open and honest debate about the truth of what happened at Vatican II and whether the Council and its implementation contain errors or aspects that favor errors or harm the Faith.” They notice that these two prelates also have their own disagreements about aspects of this discourse, saying that “Archbishop Viganò has argued it would be better to altogether ‘forget’ the Council, while Bishop Schneider, disagreeing with him on this specific point, proposes officially to correct only those parts of the Council documents that contain errors or that are ambiguous.” But these disagreements are presented in a charitable and kindly manner.

50 priests scholars journalists thank Viganò and Schneider for raising Vatican II questions

The signatories state:

Your courteous and respectful exchange of opinions should serve as a model for the more robust debate that you and we desire. Too often these past fifty years disagreements about Vatican II have been challenged by mere ad hominem attacks rather than calm argumentation. We urge all who will join this debate to follow your example.

The Open Letter thanks these two prelates for “identifying” some of the crucial aspects of the Second Vatican Council that deserve an examination, adding that such a discourse could provide “a model for frank, yet courteous, debate that can involve disagreement.” The signatories point out that they themselves might not agree with each and every point raised by Archbishop Viganò and Bishop Schneider.

The Open Letter then lists the key points of criticism as raised by these two prelates in the recent weeks with regard to the Council under the following headlines: Religious Liberty for All Religions as a Natural Right Willed by God; the Identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and the New Ecumenism; Papal Primacy and the New Collegiality; and The Council and Its Texts are the Cause of Many Current Scandals and Errors.

In these sections, quotations from the two prelates are presented, thus summing up their arguments and objections. For example, in the last section, both prelates are drawing parallels between some statements of the Council and documents issued by Pope Francis, thus pointing to the Council and its novel teachings as the root cause of our current crisis in the Church.

Archbishop Vigano recently wrote:

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.

And in a similar vein, Bishop Schneider stated:

For anyone who is intellectually honest, and is not seeking to square the circle, it is clear that the assertion made in Dignitatis Humanae, according to which every man has the right based on his own nature (and therefore positively willed by God) to practice and spread a religion according to his own conscience, does not differ substantially from the statement in the Abu Dhabi Declaration, which says: ‘The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.’

Let us recapitulate here the short history of this new discourse on the Council and its aftermath.

It started with two texts published by Bishop Schneider, in which he responded to a lengthy interpretative essay by Cardinal Gerhard Müller trying to read the controversial February 4, 2019 Abu Dhabi document in an orthodox light, and thereby also positively referring back to some Council documents.

Schneider stated on June 1 that the Abu Dhabi document is wrong in declaring that the “diversity of religions” is “willed by God.” In his second article, the Kazakh prelate of German origin also disagreed with the claim that Catholics and Muslims believe in the same God, a claim which is an underlying assumption of the Abu Dhabi document.

Archbishop Viganò gratefully and approvingly responded to this debate about Vatican II in a June 9 intervention, adding a June 15 statement about some of the problematic propositions that can be found in Vatican II documents. In this document, he also stated that it would be better if this Council were to be “forgotten.” He then answered interview questions from the Catholic commentator and book author Phil Lawler concerning the history and background of the turbulent Second Vatican Council and the signs that it had been manipulated by a small group of modernists, on June 26.

In a response to LifeSite’s editor-in-chief, John-Henry Westen, Archbishop Viganò clarified his earlier words that he thinks this Council should better be forgotten, by saying that he considers this Council to be valid, but manipulated.

Finally, on July 6, this Italian prelate responded to a critique by the Italian journalist Sandro Magister who claimed that he was on the “brink of schism.” “I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church,” Viganò then wrote.

The signatories of this Open Letter to Archbishop Viganò and Bishop Schneider welcome this reflection and discourse concerning the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath. One may trust that when people of good will together consider these matters of great importance for the life of the Church – even if they disagree at times – the truth surely will be promoted, in charity.

***

50 priests scholars journalists thank Viganò and Schneider for raising Vatican II questions

Please see here the Open Letter, signed by over 50 priests, scholars, journalists, and other persons of prominence:

Open Letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider

July 9, 2020

Your Excellencies:

We the undersigned wish to express our sincere gratitude for your fortitude and care for souls during the ongoing crisis of Faith in the Catholic Church. Your public statements calling for an honest and open discussion of the Second Vatican Council and the dramatic changes in Catholic belief and practice that followed it have been a source of hope and consolation to many faithful Catholics. The event of the Second Vatican Council appears now more than fifty years after its completion to be unique in the history of the Church. Never before our time has an ecumenical council been followed by such a prolonged period of confusion, corruption, loss of faith, and humiliation for the Church of Christ. 

Catholicism has distinguished itself from some false religions by its insistence that Man is a rational creature and that religious belief encourages rather than suppresses critical reflection by Catholics. Many, including the current Holy Father, appear to place the Second Vatican Council—and its texts, acts, and implementation—beyond the reach of critical analysis and debate. To concerns and objections raised by Catholics of good will, the Council has been held up by some as a “super-council,” (1) the invocation of which ends rather than fosters debate. Your call to trace the current crisis in the Church to its roots and to call for action to correct any turn taken at Vatican II that is now seen to have been a mistake exemplify the fulfillment of the episcopal office to hand on the Faith as the Church has received it.

We are grateful for your calls for an open and honest debate about the truth of what happened at Vatican II and whether the Council and its implementation contain errors or aspects that favor errors or harm the Faith. Such a debate cannot start from a conclusion that the Second Vatican Council as a whole and in its parts is per se in continuity with Tradition. Such a pre-condition to a debate prevents critical analysis and argument and only permits the presentation of evidence that supports the conclusion already announced. Whether or not Vatican II can be reconciled with Tradition is the question to be debated, not a posited premise blindly to be followed even if it turns out to be contrary to reason. The continuity of Vatican II with Tradition is a hypothesis to be tested and debated, not an incontrovertible fact. For too many decades the Church has seen too few shepherds permit, let alone encourage, such a debate.

Eleven years ago, Msgr. Brunero Gherardini had already made a filial request to Pope Benedict XVI: “The idea (which I dare now to submit to Your Holiness) has been in my mind for a long time. It is that a grandiose and if possible final clarification of the last council be given concerning each of its aspects and contents. Indeed, it would seem logical, and it seems urgent to me, that these aspects and contents be studied in themselves and in the context of all the others, with a close examination of all the sources, and from the specific viewpoint of continuity with the preceding Church’s Magisterium, both solemn and ordinary. On the basis of a scientific and critical work—as vast and irreproachable as possible—in comparison with the traditional Magisterium of the Church, it will then be possible to draw matter for a sure and objective evaluation of Vatican II.” (2)

We also are grateful for your initiative in identifying some of the most important doctrinal topics that must be addressed in such a critical examination and for providing a model for frank, yet courteous, debate that can involve disagreement. We have collected from your recent interventions some examples of the topics you have indicated must be addressed and, if found lacking, corrected. This collection we hope will serve as a basis for further detailed discussion and debate. We do not claim this list to be exclusive, perfect, or complete. We also do not all necessarily agree with the precise nature of each of the critiques quoted below nor on the answer to the questions you raise, yet we are united in the belief that your questions deserve honest answers and not mere dismissals with ad hominem claims of disobedience or breaking with communion. If what each of you claims is untrue, let interlocutors prove it; if not, the hierarchy should give credence to your claims. 

Religious Liberty for All Religions as a Natural Right Willed by God

  • Bishop Schneider: “Examples include certain expressions of the Council on the topic of religious freedom (understood as a natural right, and therefore positively willed by God, to practice and spread a false religion, which may also include idolatry or even worse)….” (3)
  • Bishop Schneider: “Unfortunately, just a few sentences later, the Council [in Dignitatis Humanae] undermines this truth by setting 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’ (ut in re religiosa neque impediatur, quominus iuxta suam conscientiam agat privatim et publice, vel solus vel aliis consociatus, intra debitos limites, n. 2). According to this statement, 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.’ Indeed, in some countries, the ‘church of Satan’ is recognized with the same legal value as all other religions.” (4)

The Identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and the New Ecumenism

  • Bishop Schneider: “[I]ts [the Council’s] distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church (the problem of “subsistit in” gives the impression that two realities exist: the one side, the Church of Christ, and on the other, the Catholic Church); and its stance towards non-Christian religions and the contemporary world.” (5)
  • Bishop Schneider: “To state that Muslims adore together with us the one God (“nobiscum Deum adorant”), as the II Vatican Council did in Lumen Gentium n. 16, is theologically a highly ambiguous affirmation. That we Catholics adore with the Muslims the one God is not true. We do not adore with them. In the act of adoration, we always adore the Holy Trinity, we do not simply adore “the one God” but, rather, the Holy Trinity consciously—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Islam rejects the Holy Trinity. When the Muslims adore, they do not adore on the supernatural level of faith. Even our act of adoration is radically different. It is essentially different. Precisely because we turn to God and adore Him as children who are constituted within the ineffable dignity of divine filial adoption, and we do this with supernatural faith. However, the Muslims do not have supernatural faith.” (6)
  • Archbishop Viganò: “We know well that, invoking the saying in Scripture Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat [The letter brings death, but the spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6)]the progressives and modernists astutely knew how to hide equivocal expressions in the conciliar texts, which at the time appeared harmless to most but that today are revealed in their subversive value. It is the method employed in the use of the phrase subsistit in: saying a half-truth not so much as not to offend the interlocutor (assuming that it is licit to silence the truth of God out of respect for His creature), but with the intention of being able to use the half-error that would be instantly dispelled if the entire truth were proclaimed. Thus“Ecclesia Christi subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica” does not specify the identity of the two, but the subsistence of one in the other and, for consistency, also in other churches: here is the opening to interconfessional celebrations, ecumenical prayers, and the inevitable end of any need for the Church in the order of salvation, in her unicity, and in her missionary nature.” (7)

Papal Primacy and the New Collegiality

  • Bishop Schneider: “For example, the very fact that a ‘nota explicativa praevia’ to the document Lumen Gentium was needed shows that the text of Lumen Gentium, in n. 22, is ambiguous with regard to the topic of the relationship between papal primacy and episcopal collegiality. Documents clarifying the Magisterium in post-conciliar times, such as the encyclicals Mysterium FideiHumanae Vitae, and Pope Paul VI’s Creed of the People of God, were of great value and help, but they did not clarify the aforementioned ambiguous statements of the Second Vatican Council.” (8)

The Council and Its Texts are the Cause of Many Current Scandals and Errors

  • Archbishop Viganò: “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.” (9)
  • Archbishop Viganò: “But if at the time it could be difficult to think that a religious liberty condemned by Pius XI (Mortalium Animos) could be affirmed by Dignitatis Humanae, or that the Roman Pontiff could see his authority usurped by a phantom episcopal college, today we understand that what was cleverly concealed in Vatican II is today affirmed ore rotundo in papal documents precisely in the name of the coherent application of the Council.” (10)
  • Archbishop Viganò: “We can thus affirm that the spirit of the Council is the Council itself, that the errors of the post-conciliar period were contained in nuce in the Conciliar Acts, just as it is rightly said that the Novus Ordo is the Mass of the Council, even if in the presence of the Council Fathers the Mass was celebrated that the progressives significantly call pre-conciliar.” (11)
  • Bishop Schneider: “For anyone who is intellectually honest, and is not seeking to square the circle, it is clear that the assertion made in Dignitatis Humanae, according to which every man has the right based on his own nature (and therefore positively willed by God) to practice and spread a religion according to his own conscience, does not differ substantially from the statement in the Abu Dhabi Declaration, which says: ‘The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.’” (12)

We have taken note of the differences you have highlighted between the solutions each of you has proposed for responding to the crisis precipitated at and following the Second Vatican Council. For example, Archbishop Viganò has argued it would be better to altogether “forget” the Council, while Bishop Schneider, disagreeing with him on this specific point, proposes officially to correct only those parts of the Council documents that contain errors or that are ambiguous. Your courteous and respectful exchange of opinions should serve as a model for the more robust debate that you and we desire. Too often these past fifty years disagreements about Vatican II have been challenged by mere ad hominem attacks rather than calm argumentation. We urge all who will join this debate to follow your example.

We pray that Our Blessed Mother, St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles, St. Athanasius, and St. Thomas Aquinas protect and preserve your Excellencies. May they reward you for your faithfulness to the Church and confirm you in your defense of the Faith and of the Church.

In Christo Rege,  (signed)

  • Donna F. Bethell, J.D. 

  • Prof. Dr Brian McCall

  • Paul A. Byrne, M.D.

  • Edgardo J. Cruz-Ramos, President Una Voce Puerto Rico

  • Dr Massimo de Leonardis, Professor (ret.) of History of International Relations 

  • Prof. Roberto de Mattei, President of the Lepanto Foundation

  • Fr Jerome W. Fasano 

  • Mauro Faverzani, journalist 

  • Timothy S. Flanders, author and founder of a lay apostolate

  • Matt Gaspers, Managing Editor, Catholic Family News

  • Corrado Gnerre, leader of the Italian movement “Il Cammino dei Tre Sentieri”

  • M. Virginia O. de Gristelli, Director of C. F. S.Bernardo de Claraval, Argentina

  • Jorge Esteban Gristelli, editor, Argentina

  • Dr Maria Guarini STB, editor of the website Chiesa e postconcilio

  • Kennedy Hall, book author

  • Prof. Dr em. Robert D. Hickson

  • Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Dr.rer.pol. Rudolf Hilfer, Stuttgart, Germany

  • Rev. John Hunwicke, Senior Research Fellow Emeritus, Pusey House, Oxford 

  • Prof. Dr Peter Kwasniewski

  • Leila M. Lawler, writer

  • Pedro L. Llera Vázquez, school headmaster and author at InfoCatólica

  • James P. Lucier PhD 

  • Massimo Magliaro, journalist, Editor of “Nova Historica” 

  • Antonio Marcantonio, MA 

  • Dr Taylor Marshall, author of Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within

  • The Reverend Deacon, Eugene G. McGuirk 

  • Fr Michael McMahon Prior St. Dennis Calgary 

  • Fr Cor Mennen

  • Fr Michael Menner

  • Dr Stéphane Mercier, Ph.D., S.T.B. 

  • Hon. Andrew P. Napolitano, Senior Judicial Analyst, Fox News; Visiting Professor of Law, Hofstra University

  • Fr Dave Nix, Diocesan Hermit 

  • Prof. Paolo Pasqualucci

  • Fr Dean Perri

  • Dr Carlo Regazzoni, Philosopher of Culture, Therwill, Switzerland 

  • Fr Luis Eduardo Rodríguez Rodríguez 

  • Don Tullio Rotondo

  • John F. Salza, Esq., Catholic Attorney and Apologist

  • Wolfram Schrems, Wien, Mag. theol., Mag. Phil., catechist

  • Henry Sire, historian and book author

  • Robert Siscoe, author

  • Jeanne Smits, journalist 

  • Dr. sc. Zlatko Šram, Croatian Center for Applied Social Research 

  • Fr Glen Tattersall, Parish Priest, Parish of St John Henry Newman (Melbourne, Australia)

  • Marco Tosatti, journalist

  • Giovanni Turco, Adjunct Professor of Philosophy of Public Law at the University of Udine (Italy)

  • Jose Antonio Ureta

  • Aldo Maria Valli, journalist

  • Dr Thomas Ward, President of the National Association of Catholic Families 

  • John-Henry Westen, co-founder and editor-in-chief LifeSiteNews.com

  • Willy Wimmer, Secretary of State, Ministry of Defense (ret.)

Names added July 15

  • Father Jay Finelli
  • Renacito Refuerzo Ramos, MD, DFM, Catholic physician
  • 50 priests scholars journalists thank Viganò and Schneider for raising Vatican II questions
50 priests scholars journalists thank Viganò and Schneider for raising Vatican II questions

Other priests and scholars interested in signing this Open Letter may contact Openlettercouncil@gmail.com. Other people interested in supporting this Open Letter can sign a petition here.

Noted theologian agrees with Archbishop Viganò over problems with Vatican II but suggests reset is not possible 

President Trump tweets Catholic authors warning that there is a war against Christianity

 

Categories
News

Noted theologian agrees with Archbishop Viganò over problems with Vatican II but suggests reset is not possible 

Noted theologian agrees with Archbishop Viganò over problems with Vatican II but suggests reset is not possible

Noted theologian agrees with Archbishop Viganò over problems with Vatican II but suggests reset is not possible  In the recent weeks, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and the Italian theologian Father Alfredo Morselli have been conducting a friendly exchange of thoughts in the wake of the Italian archbishop‘s interventions concerning the Second Vatican Council (full correspondence see below). And today, though without mention any names, Father Morselli is adding further thoughts to the debate, in a statement sent to LifeSite.

In his initial letter, Father Morselli, while supportive and respectful toward Archbishop Viganò,  disagrees with him on some points. In this first exchanges of letters that have already been published in Italian, Morselli described the Second Vatican Council as a sort of “detonator” –  and thus a destructive event – but he holds that there must have been a corruption prior to the Council that made these developments possible.

Noted theologian agrees with Archbishop Viganò over problems with Vatican II but suggests reset is not possible

Describing the situation of the Church “prior to the Council,” this priest and theologian wrote: “The thermometer of a good part of the clergy and Catholic intelligentsia indicated moral corruption, tepidity, fear, pride, careerism, a desire to break away from the Cross and come to terms with the world. The pot uncovered by Viganò had been boiling for a long time.”

Speaking in commercial terms, Father Morselli added that “if the market was not ready, the product would not have been launched.”

Father Morselli went on to describe the growing corruption in the Catholic Church after the death of Saint Pope Pius X who tried to fight Modernists within the Church: “After the death of Saint Pius X men continued to sin, the battle against Modernism was quickly forgotten, Modernism grew back to such an extent that Pius XII, Garrigou Lagrange and Mariano Cordovani did not succeed in even scratching the surface of the Nouvelle Theologie that occupied all the university chairs. Masonry placed the most impure blackmailable people in key positions, and the good (who in reality were not truly good) were just so many Don Abbondios.”

(Don Abbondio is a protagonist in the famous Italian novel The Betrothed by Alessandro Manzoni who is a coward and does not resist an evil local overlord.)

In his June 24 response to Father Morselli, Archbishop Viganò said that he is “in agreement” with him “on the fact that the Second Vatican Council cannot be considered as a sort of subject in itself, endowed with its own will.” “Authoritative studies have demonstrated,” he continued, “that the preparatory schemae prepared by the Holy Office were meant to confirm the image of a rock-solid Church that in reality, especially far from Rome, was showing signs of a dangerous breakdown.”

Therefore, Viganò agrees that the Catholic Faith was already weakened in different aspects before the Second Vatican Council. Further commenting on the initial schemae of the Council, he wrote: “If it was so simple to replace them with new schemae that had been prepared in the cliques of German, French, Swiss, and Dutch innovators, evidently many members of the episcopate (with their court of self-styled theologians, the majority of whom were already the object of canonical censures) were corrupt in both intellect and will.”

Archbishop Viganò pointed to the manipulative character of some of the changes at the Council and added that the “Council was in fact a dishonest operation, a scam carried out against the faithful and the clergy.” He sees a continuation to today’s situation under Pope Francis. Comments the archbishop:

“Proceeding along this slippery, unfortunate and destructive path, we have finally arrived at the bankruptcy of the company at the hands of its Argentinian liquidator, ready to deliver the Church of Mercy Co. into the hands of the New World Order. Bergoglio is probably confident that, in this new structure, he will be given some sort of managerial role, if only out of recognition for the work he has accomplished.”

In a new statement that Father Morselli kindly sent to LifeSite (see full text below), the theologian further expounds on this topic of the Second Vatican Council. Here, he does not address particularly a person, but points to substantive matters that are related to the general discussion on the Second Vatican Council.
It is clear that Father Morselli wishes to contribute to a friendly, polite, and charitable discourse among well-meaning friends and experts where disagreements will naturally arise.

In his set of points made in this new statement, Father Morselli presents arguments that should each be further expounded upon and could be an additional invitation to further discourse and debate in Catholic ecclesial and intellectual circles, for the sake of a clarification of the roots of our current crisis and its best resolution.

For example, Morselli states that in his view, most of the problems that have been caused by ambiguous formulations in the conciliar documents have subsequently been clarified by the Magisterium. He says: “Almost all the problems of the conciliar texts have been solved – unfortunately only theoretically – by the following documents: in particular the CCC [Catechism of the Catholic Church], Veritatis splendorDominus JesusFides et RatioEcclesia de EucharistiaRedemptoris Missio, the CDF’s response on the ‘subsistit’ issue.” He also insists that it is up to the Magisterium to make authoritative clarifications, and that it is not correct to present the Council as the sole cause of the current evil in the Church.

Finally, Father Morselli states that there is no simple turning back to the 1960s: “The prospect that he hypothesized as a way out: “we will reset the last 60 years and start again from Pius XII”, is not Catholic and is a pious illusion.”

As can be seen in these few points made by Father Morselli, what lies ahead is a longer discourse, and sometimes a painful one. But we can trust that God would surely help those great Catholics minds to come to good and helpful conclusions that at some point in the future might serve the Catholic Magisterium to make needed decisions and clarifications.

***
Please see here first the correspondence between Viganò and Morselli, and second, a new statement by Morselli published on LifeSite today.

Exchange of letters between Don Alfredo Maria Morselli and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on Vatican II

Don Alfredo Morselli wrote in the form of a letter (text below) the considerations that were subsequently published on the blog messainlatino.it.

Ave Maria! I would like to better explain why I do not place all of the blame for the present crisis at the feet of Vatican II, while not denying its function as a detonator (which cannot do anything in itself without explosives). Marketing strategies are divided into push and pull strategies; that is, a company that is trying to sell a product can seek to create a need for it and push something for which there is no real need. Or else it can, after investigating the market, understand that there is an ample pool of potential clients who feel the need for a certain product. The two strategies often work together.

What is the “commercial” analysis of the situation prior to the Council? The thermometer of a good part of the clergy and Catholic intelligentsia indicated moral corruption, tepidity, fear, pride, careerism, a desire to break away from the Cross and come to terms with the world. The pot uncovered by Viganò had been boiling for a long time.

Saint Paul said that times would come in which men would be surrounded by teachers according to their own desires, teachers who would have support and make possible calling good evil and vice-versa (Cf. 2 Tim 4:3).

The teachers according to the desires of the world have understood that the moment has come to present themselves to the world and sell their product in a good market. What I am saying is that if the market was not ready, the product would not have been launched.

After the death of Saint Pius X men continued to sin, the battle against Modernism was quickly forgotten, Modernism grew back to such an extent that Pius XII, Garrigou Lagrange and Mariano Cordovani did not succeed in even scratching the surface of the Nouvelle Theologie that occupied all the university chairs. Masonry placed the most impure blackmailable people in key positions, and the good (who in reality were not truly good) were just so many Don Abbondios.

The tumor spread metastases everywhere, and the most recent popes Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI, could only administer palliatives. Some also criticize the aforementioned popes, but perhaps it was the best our Eternal Father could do. Or else he mysteriously allowed a providential “evil of punishment” to form. And in the meantime the “test tube” with an ad hoc in vitro pontiff was kept in the laboratories of the Modernists.

Now the patient is in hospice, hanging on the double thread of the “non praevalebunt” and the promises of Fatima. And also on the great quantity of Blood in the third part of the secret.

In Corde Matris,

Father Alfredo M. Morselli

***

Response of Archbishop Viganò

Nativity of Saint John the Baptist

24 June 2020

Dear and Reverend Father Morselli,

I thank you for your email, in which I see confirmed your supernatural vision of the events that afflict Holy Mother Church.

I am in agreement with you on the fact that the Second Vatican Council cannot be considered as a sort of subject in itself, endowed with its own will. Authoritative studies have demonstrated that the preparatory schemae prepared by the Holy Office were meant to confirm the image of a rock-solid Church that in reality, especially far from Rome, was showing signs of a dangerous breakdown. And if it was so simple to replace them with new schemae that had been prepared in the cliques of German, French, Swiss, and Dutch innovators, evidently many members of the episcopate (with their court of self-styled theologians, the majority of whom were already the object of canonical censures) were corrupt in both intellect and will.

What you identify with the most common marketing strategies and that you rightly see as having been realized in the Council was in fact a dishonest operation, a scam carried out against the faithful and the clergy: in order to increase business, the product and the corporate image were changed, promoting it with publicity campaigns and discounts. The “warehouse leftovers” were liquidated or sent to the pulping mill. But the Church of Christ is not a corporation, it has no commercial purposes, and its ministers are not managers. This sensational error, or rather this true and proper fraud, was conceived by people who with this human and mercantile vision of spiritual things demonstrated not only their own inadequacy but also their unworthiness for the role they held. And yet it was precisely that mentality that officially marked the rupture with Tradition: transforming the Church into a corporation meant placing it into an absurd competition with competing sects and false religions, imposing an adaptation of the “product” to meet the alleged needs of the customers, and at the same time also imposing the need to arouse in potential buyers the need for new, alternative “goods and services” which they did not even feel a need for. And thus we were given the communitarian emphasis of the Liturgy, the “do-it-yourself” approach to Scripture, the “throw it all out” approach to Doctrine and Morals, the new staff uniforms, etc….

I believe that, if we want to continue with the comparison that you have suggested, it cannot be denied that precisely in order to eliminate the presence of a product that does not have many competitors, it was necessary not only to make it less exclusive but sooner or later to reach the point of absorbing the company that produces it by a more powerful and widespread one: initially the best product is kept as the “first line” for a more demanding clientele, then it is removed from production and finally even the brand itself disappears. Proceeding along this slippery, unfortunate and destructive path, we have finally arrived at the bankruptcy of the company at the hands of its Argentinian liquidator, ready to deliver the Church of Mercy Co. into the hands of the New World Order. Bergoglio is probably confident that, in this new structure, he will be given some sort of managerial role, if only out of recognition for the work he has accomplished.

There is no one who cannot see that this commercial vision has nothing Catholic about it, above all since the Church belongs to Christ, who delegates her government to His vicars. Transforming the Church into what it is not and never can be takes shape as a very grave sin and an unheard of crime, both against God and against the flock that He has ordered to graze in very well-defined pastures, not to be dispersed in crevasses and brambles. And if the ones responsible for this enormous ruin are the unfaithful administrators who falsified the statutes and balance sheets and defrauded the customers, they will have to be asked for an account: redde rationem villicationis tuae [give an account of your management] (Lk 16:2).

Cum benedictione

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Official translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

***

New intervention by Father Morselli – published on LifeSite July 14

The recent externations of Vatican II by some Pastors, which I also consider Masters, and whose teaching I shared everything up to now, I do not entirely agree. I would like, with great respect towards them, to intervene in the debate and clarify some concepts that I consider essential.

I also specify that I do not intend to attribute directly to anyone in particular the errors that I denounce below, but I would just like to highlight the dangers that we could be run, in the due common holy opposition to the neo-modernist crisis.

Thesis on the Council

1) The current crisis is of unprecedented proportions and is substantially neo-modernist, and far more serious in quality than the modernist crisis of the early 1900s.

2) There is no simple cause-effect relationship between the Council and the current crisis.

2.1) Preparation for the crisis began long before 1960.

2.2) Without a suitable terrain (a large corruption of customs with consequent obscuration of the intellect, even among Pastors and theologians) neo-modernism would not have taken root.  [A sort of parable of the sower on the contrary: the seed of error germinates only on bad soil]

2.3) The current pontificate was theorized and prepared well before the work of the so-called “Mafia of St. Gallen”.

3) A distinction must be made between the conciliar documents and what happened next.

3.1) The fact that many deviations from the truth have been made in the name of the Council, does not imply that the direct causal relationship is true, moreover invoked by those who perpetrated the aforementioned unfortunate innovations

3.2) It is not Catholic to deny the assistance of the Holy Spirit even during the last Council, as if there was nothing good in it.

4) The Council texts themselves contain some phrases formulated in an ambiguous way, which provide the neo-modernists with a foothold to interpret them in the worst way.

5) Almost all the problems of the conciliar texts have been solved – unfortunately only theoretically – by the following documents: in particular the CCC [Catechism of the Catholic Church], Veritatis splendor, Dominus Jesus, Fides et Ratio, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Redemptoris Missio, the CDF’s response on the “subsistit” issue.

6) The troubles are derived, rather than from the single badly formulated sentences, from the choice to express themselves in a non-definitive way, unfortunate way when the crisis situation would have required the most explicit and firm clarity.

7) Nor should we forget the tragic omission of the explicit and formal condemnation of communism.

8) The fact that the Council has been called “pastoral” does not imply that consent should not be given to individual statements, of widely diversified quality, each interpreted and accepted in different degrees, according to the objective rules of hermeneutics of the magisterium.

9) The opposition to part of the conciliar text can only be made by remaining in the wake of the Catholic theology proper to the “De fide” treaty:

9.1) Faith includes “Credere Deo”, that is, it has as its object a truth proposed and accepted, and not chosen.

9.2) The Magisterium remains the proximate norm of faith, and adherence to it is the “primum”, in order of execution, of the act of faith.

9.3) Like the Holy Scripture, the Magisterium is not subject to “private interpretation”, but only the Magisterium can interpret itself in an authentic and authoritative way.

9.4) It follows that the errors that a single document (of a certain quality of the required assent) may contain, can be opposed with the “Dubia” method, that is, exemplifying, saying: “Madam Master, I do not understand how there is no contradiction between what has been proposed to believe so far and the latter statement. ”

The “pietas” in the formulation of the “dubia” does not imply the absence of fortitude and decision.

 Conclusions

The prospect that looks at Vatican II “simpliciter” as the cause of all evils is a historically incorrect simplification.

The prospect that he hypothesized as a way out: “we will reset the last 60 years and start again from Pius XII”, is not Catholic and is a pious illusion.

Noted theologian agrees with Archbishop Viganò over problems with Vatican II but suggests reset is not possible

50 priests scholars journalists thank Viganò and Schneider for raising Vatican II questions 

 

Categories
#therayfield

Prayer for the United States of America by Archbishop Vigano

Prayer for the United States of America by Archbishop Vigano

Archbishop Viganò responds to criticisms of handling of 2014 Nienstedt investigation (Updated ...

Prayer for The United States of America
Composed by His Excellency
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano

 

Almighty and Eternal God, King of Kings and Lord of Lords: graciously turn your gaze to us who invoke You with confidence.

Bless us, citizens of the United States of America; grant peace and prosperity to our Nation; illuminate those who govern us so that they may commit themselves to the common good, in respect for Your holy Law.

Protect those who, defending the inviolable principles of the Natural Law and Your Commandments, must face the repeated assaults of the Enemy of the human race.

Keep in the hearts of Your children courage for the truth, love for virtue and perseverance in the midst of trials.

Make our families grow in the example that Our Lord has given us, together with His Most Holy Mother and Saint Joseph in the home of Nazareth; give to our fathers and mothers the gift of Strength, to educate wisely the children with which you have blessed them.

Give courage to those who, in spiritual combat, fight the good fight as soldiers of Christ against the furious forces of the children of darkness.

Keep each one of us, O Lord, in your Most Sacred Heart, and above all He whom Your Providence has placed at the head of our Nation.

Bless the President of the United States of America, so that aware of his responsibility and his duties, he may be a knight of justice, a defender of the oppressed, a firm bulwark against Your enemies, and a proud supporter of the children of light.

Place the United States of America and the whole world under the mantle of the Queen of Victories, our Unconquered Leader in battle, the Immaculate Conception. It is thanks to her, and through your Mercy, that the hymn of praise rises to you, O Lord, from the children whom you have redeemed in the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

https://taylormarshall.com/vigano

Prayer for the United States of America by Archbishop Vigano

This is amazing. thank you Archbishop Vigano

AMAZING! Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano Sends President Trump Encouragement During this Dark Hour in US History in Battle Between Good and Evil

Carlo Maria Viganò The truth will set you free

 

Categories
News

Archbishop Viganos full response to Sandro Magister

Archbishop Viganos full response to Sandro Magister

July 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – “I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church, for the exaltation of which I daily renew the offering of my life,” stated Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò regarding accusations that he was “on the brink of schism” over his comments regarding the Catholic Church in relation to the 1962-65 Vatican II council.

In a new post today that was first published by Sandro Magister in Italian and Marco Tosatti in English (read full letter below), Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò responded to an article by Sandro Magister, in which the Italian journalist accused him of demeaning Pope Benedict XVI and for being “on the brink of schism.”

Magister had written, on June 29, a strong rebuke of Archbishop Viganòs recent interventions, in which he strongly criticized some elements of the Second Vatican Council that are ambiguous and that have been the basis of the creation of a “parallel church” that has little in common with the Catholic Church’s Tradition. In his post, Magister claimed that Archbishop Viganò blames Pope Benedict XVI for “having ‘deceived’ the whole Church in that he would have it be believed that the Second Vatican Council was immune to heresies and moreover should be interpreted in perfect continuity with true perennial doctrine.” However, the link provided by Magister leads to a June 9 post by Viganò (here in English) that does not claim that Pope Benedict had “deceived” the whole Church.

Viganò had spoken in his earlier June 9 post about the fact that “attempts to correct the conciliar excesses – invoking the hermeneutic of continuity – have proven unsuccessful,” and then added that “despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.”

Viganò only used the word “deception” when he admitted that, just as he “honestly and serenely obeyed questionable orders sixty years ago, believing that they represented the loving voice of the Church,” he now recognizes “that I have been deceived.”

Next to this claim about Viganò’s purportedly accusing Pope Benedict XVI, Sandro Magister also claimed in his June 29 article that this Italian prelate is “on the brink of schism.” Further using harsh language, Magister also spoke of “a relentless barrage of denunciations of Church heresies over the last few decades” that Archbishop Viganò purportedly has published in recent weeks.

In his new response to Magister, the Italian prelate wrote that he was aware that someone critical of the Council easily “awakens” the “inquisitorial spirit,” but that nevertheless he considers it appropriate to “raise problems that remain unresolved to date, the foremost of which is the crisis that has afflicted the Church since Vatican II.”

He furthermore rejects Magister’s claim that he himself was on the “brink” of schism, saying: “I claim the right to say it without thereby making myself guilty of the delict of schism for having attacked the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church is inseparably in Charity and in Truth, and where error reigns or even only worms its way in, there cannot be Charity.”

Archbishop Viganò then assured Magister that, “unlike many bishops, such as those of the German Synodal Path, who have already gone far beyond the brink of schism (…) I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church, for the exaltation of which I daily renew the offering of my life.”

He goes on to explain that he never accused Pope Benedict of having “deceived” the Church:

“I do not think that I have ever written such a thing about the Holy Father; on the contrary: I said, and I reaffirm, that we were all – or almost all – deceived by those who used the Council as a “container” equipped with its own implicit authority and the authoritativeness of the Fathers who took part in it, while distorting its purpose. And those who fell into this deception did so because, loving the Church and the Papacy, they could not imagine that in the heart of Vatican II a minority of very organized conspirators could use a Council to demolish the Church from within; and that in doing so they could count on the silence and inaction of Authority, if not on its complicity.”

Archbishop Viganò has started to open up this debate about Vatican II at the beginning of June, in response to a June 1 statement by Bishop Athanasius Schneider. The Italian prelate first published a June 9 intervention, adding a June 15 statement about some of the problematic propositions that can be found in Vatican II documents. He then responded to questions by Phil Lawler concerning the history and background of the turbulent Second Vatican Council and the signs that it had indeed been manipulated by a small group of modernists, on June 26.

In a response to LifeSite’s editor-in-chief, Archbishop Viganò clarified his earlier words that he thinks this Council should better be forgotten, by saying that he considers this Council to be valid, but manipulated.

Finally, this new response to Sandro Magister is so far the last statement explaining his own position and critique. Viganò herewith is trying to open up a debate without immediately being silenced as being a “Lefebvrist,” as he wrote to Sandro Magister.

***

Archbishop Viganò’s full response to Sandro Magister:

3 July 2020

Saint Irenaeus, Bishop and Martyr

Dear Mr. Magister,

Permit me to reply to your article “Archbishop Viganò on the Brink of Schism,” published at Settimo Cielo on June 29 (here).

I am aware that having dared to express an opinion strongly critical of the Council is sufficient to awaken the inquisitorial spirit that in other cases is the object of execration by right-thinking people. Nonetheless, in a respectful dispute between ecclesiastics and competent laity, it does not seem to me to be inappropriate to raise problems that remain unresolved to date, the foremost of which is the crisis that has afflicted the Church since Vatican II and has now reached the point of devastation.

There are those who speak of the misrepresentation of the Council; others who speak of the need to return to reading it in continuity with the Tradition; others of the opportunity to correct any errors contained in it, or to interpret the equivocal points in a Catholic sense. On the opposing side, there is no lack of those who consider Vatican II as a blueprint from which to proceed in the revolution: the changing and transformation of the Church into an entirely new and modern entity, in step with the times. This is part of the normal dynamics of a “dialogue” that is all too often invoked but rarely practiced: those who thus far have expressed dissent about what I have said have never entered into the merit of the argument, limiting themselves to saddling me with epithets that have already been merited by my far more illustrious and venerable brothers in the episcopate. It is curious that, both in the doctrinal as well as the political arena, the progressives claim for themselves a primacy, a state of election, that apodictically places the adversary in a position of ontological inferiority, unworthy of attention or response and simplistically liquidatable as Lefebvrian on the ecclesial front or fascist on the socio-political front. But their lack of arguments does not legitimize them to dictate the rules, nor to decide who has the right to speak, especially when reason, even prior to faith, has demonstrated where the deception is, who the author is, and what the purpose is.

At first it appeared to me that the content of your article was to be considered more an understandable tribute to the Prince, who can be found in the frescoed salons of the Third Loggia or in the stylish offices of the Editor; and yet in reading what you attribute to me I discovered an inaccuracy – let’s call it that – that I hope is the  result of a misunderstanding. I therefore ask you to grant me space to reply at Settimo Cielo.

You state that I have supposedly blamed Benedict XVI “for having ‘deceived’ the whole Church in that he would have it be believed that the Second Vatican Council was immune to heresies and moreover should be interpreted in perfect continuity with true perennial doctrine.” I do not think that I have ever written such a thing about the Holy Father; on the contrary: I said, and I reaffirm, that we were all – or almost all – deceived by those who used the Council as a “container” equipped with its own implicit authority and the authoritativeness of the Fathers who took part in it, while distorting its purpose. And those who fell into this deception did so because, loving the Church and the Papacy, they could not imagine that in the heart of Vatican II a minority of very organized conspirators could use a Council to demolish the Church from within; and that in doing so they could count on the silence and inaction of Authority, if not on its complicity. These are historical facts, of which I permit myself to give a personal interpretation, but one which I think others may share.

I permit myself also to remind you, as if there was any need, that the positions of moderate critical re-reading of the Council in a traditional sense by Benedict XVI are part of a laudable recent past, while in the formidable Seventies the position of then-theologian Joseph Ratzinger was quite different. Authoritative studies stand alongside the same admissions of the Professor of Tubingen confirming the partial repentances of the Emeritus. Nor do I see a “reckless indictment launched by Viganò against Benedict XVI for his ‘failed attempts to correct conciliar excesses by invoking the hermeneutic of continuity,’” since this is an opinion widely shared not only in conservative circles but also and above all among progressives. And it should be said that what the innovators succeeded in obtaining by means of deception, cunning and blackmail was the result of a vision that we have found later applied in the maximum degree in the Bergoglian “magisterium” of Amoris Laetitia. The malicious intention is admitted by Ratzinger himself: “The impression grew steadily that nothing was now stable in the Church, that everything was open to revision. More and more the Council appeared to be like a great Church parliament that could change everything and reshape everything according to its own desires” (cf. J. Ratzinger, Milestones, translation from the German by Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1997, p. 132). But even more so by the words of the Dominican Edward Schillebeecks: “We express it diplomatically [now], but after the Council we will draw the implicit conclusions” (De Bazuin, n.16, 1965).

We have confirmed that the intentional ambiguity in the texts had the purpose of keeping opposing and irreconcilable visions together, in the name of an evaluation of utility and to the detriment of revealed Truth. A Truth that, when it is integrally proclaimed, cannot fail to be divisive, just as Our Lord is divisive: “Do you think that I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division” (Lk 12:51).

I do not find anything reprehensible in suggesting that we should forget Vatican II: its proponents knew how to confidently exercise this damnatio memoriae not just with a Council but with everything, even to the point of affirming that their council was the first of the new church, and that beginning with their council the old religion and the old Mass was finished. You will say to me that these are the positions of extremists, and that virtue stands in the middle, that is, among those who consider that Vatican II is only the latest of an uninterrupted series of events in which the Holy Spirit speaks through the mouth of the one and only infallible Magisterium. If so, it should be explained why the conciliar church was given a new liturgy and a new calendar, and consequently a new doctrine – nova lex orandi, nova lex credendi – distancing itself from its own past with disdain.

The mere idea of setting the Council aside causes scandal even in those, like you, who recognize the crisis of recent years, but who persist in not wanting to recognize the causal link between Vatican II and its logical and inevitable effects. You write: “Attention: not the Council interpreted badly, but the Council as such and en bloc.” I ask you then: what would be the correct interpretation of the Council? The one you give or the one given – while they wrote the decrees and declarations – by its very industrious architects? Or perhaps that of the German episcopate? Or that of the theologians who teach in the Pontifical Universities and that we see published in the most popular Catholic periodicals in the world? Or that of Joseph Ratzinger? Or that of Bishop Schneider? Or that of Bergoglio? This would be enough to understand how much damage has been caused by the deliberate adoption of a language that was so murky that it legitimized opposing and contrary interpretations, on the basis of which the famous conciliar springtime then occurred. This is why I do not hesitate to say that that assembly should be forgotten “as such and en bloc,” and I claim the right to say it without thereby making myself guilty of the delict of schism for having attacked the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church is inseparably in Charity and in Truth, and where error reigns or even only worms its way in, there cannot be Charity.

The fairytale of the hermeneutic – even though an authoritative one because of its Author – nevertheless remains an attempt to want to give the dignity of a Council to a true and proper ambush against the Church, so as not to discredit along with it the Popes who wanted, imposed and reproposed that Council. So much so that those same Popes, one after the other, rise to the honors of the altar for having been “popes of the Council.”

Allow me to quote from the article that Doctor Maria Guarini published on June 29 at Chiesa e postconcilio in reaction to your piece at Settimo Cielo, entitled: “Archbishop Viganò is not on the brink of schism: many sins are coming to a head.” She writes: “And it is precisely from here that is born and for this reason risks continuing – without results (thus far, except for the debate triggered by Archbishop Viganò) – the dialogue between deaf people, because the interlocutors use different reality grids: Vatican II, changing the language, has also changed the parameters of approach to reality. And so it happens that we talk about the same thing which, however, is given entirely different meanings. Among other things, the principal characteristic of the present hierarchy is the use of incontestable affirmations, without ever bothering to demonstrate them or with flawed and sophistic demonstrations. But they do not even have need of demonstrations, because the new approach and the new language have subverted everything from the beginning. And the unproven nature of the anomalous ‘pastorality’ without any defined theological principles is precisely what takes away the raw material of the dispute. It is the advance of a shapeless, ever-changing, dissolving fluid in place of the clear, unequivocal, definitive truthful construct: the incandescent perennial firmness of dogma against the sewage and shifting sands of the transient neo-magisterium” (here).

I continue to hope that the tone of your article was not dictated by the simple fact that I have dared to reopen the debate about that Council that many – too many – in the ecclesial structure, consider as an unicum in the history of the Church, almost an untouchable idol.

You may be certain that, unlike many bishops, such as those of the German Synodal Path, who have already gone far beyond the brink of schism – promoting and brazenly attempting to impose aberrant ideologies and practices on the universal Church – I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church, for the exaltation of which I daily renew the offering of my life.

Deus refugium nostrum et virtus,

populum ad Te clamantem propitius respice;

Et intercedente Gloriosa et Immaculata Virgine Dei Genitrice Maria,

cum Beato Ioseph, ejus Sponso,

ac Beatis Apostolis Tuis, Petro et Paulo, et omnibus Sanctis,

quas pro conversione peccatorum,

pro libertate et exaltatione Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae,

preces effundimus, misericors et benignus exaudi.

Receive, dear Sandro, my blessing and greeting, with best wishes for every good thing, in Christ Jesus.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò

Categories
#therayfield

Carlo Maria Viganò The truth will set you free

Carlo Maria Vigano The truth will set you free

ROME (ChurchMilitant.com) – Writing under the theme of “The truth will set you free” (John 8:32), Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò has issued an open letter calling for people of goodwill to guard against tyranny and ensure that rights are protected as fallout from the Wuhan virus continues to unfold.

Titled “Appeal for the Church and the World — to Catholics and to those of goodwill,” the May 3 letter has been signed by a host of leading Catholic prelates, journalists, writers, immunologists, virologists, researchers, attorneys and other professionals.

Signatories include: Cdl. Gerhard Müller, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Cdl. Joseph Zen, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong; Bp. Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary of Astana, Kazakhstan; Bp. Robert Mutsaerts, auxiliary bishop emeritus of Den Bosch, Netherlands; Bp. Joseph Strickland of the diocese of Tyler, Texas; Bp. René Henry Gracida, bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi Texas; Steven Mosher, founder of Population Research Institute; Jim Graham of Texas Right to Life; Molly Smith of Cleveland Right to Life; and journalists Dr. Aldo Maria Valli and Dr. Marco Tosatti, among many others.

Image
Public Mass has been banned across nations under lockdown
(Bryan Lawless/PA)
Carlo Maria Viganò The truth will set you free

Carlo Maria Vigano The truth will set you free

Viganò’s letter begins: “The facts have shown that, under the pretext of the COVID-19 epidemic, the inalienable rights of citizens have in many cases been violated and their fundamental freedoms, including the exercise of freedom of worship, expression and movement, have been disproportionately and unjustifiably restricted.”

The world has seen shutdowns of all that is deemed non-essential in the midst of the Wuhan crisis. Many of the faithful in the United States have angrily denounced that religious worship has been deemed nonessential while murdering preborn children in clinics and hospitals continues as “essential” in most states.

“Public health must not and cannot become an alibi for infringing on the rights of millions of people around the world, let alone for depriving the civil authority of its duty to act wisely for the common good,” Viganò continues.

“This is particularly true as growing doubts emerge from several quarters about the actual contagiousness, danger and resistance of the virus,” he adds. “Many authoritative voices in the world of science and medicine confirm that the alarmism about COVID-19 by the media appears to be absolutely unjustified.”

Public health must not and cannot become an alibi for infringing on the rights of millions of people around the world, let alone for depriving the civil authority of its duty to act wisely for the common good.Tweet

This “alarmism” Viganò speaks of has been ubiquitous across the media from the time the virus was characterized a pandemic by the World Health Organization March 11. Dissenters to the conclusions of the common media narrative have been scorned and shamed.

As his letter continues, Viganò’s skepticism becomes clear:

We have reason to believe, on the basis of official data on the incidence of the epidemic as related to the number of deaths, that there are powers interested in creating panic among the world’s population with the sole aim of permanently imposing unacceptable forms of restriction on freedoms, of controlling people and of tracking their movements. The imposition of these illiberal measures is a disturbing prelude to the realization of a world government beyond all control.

As a precursor to this “world government” Viganò fears, many places around the world are now stifling freedom of assimilation, conscience and religion.

“The criminalization of personal and social relationships must likewise be judged as an unacceptable part of the plan of those who advocate isolating individuals in order to better manipulate and control them,” he says.

 

 

 

Viganò maintains a healthy skepticism of the motivations of those in power behind the scenes, both in government and in business, who are willing to take advantage of the vulnerable in a crisis.

While he appeals to the scientific community “to be vigilant, so that cures for COVID-19 are offered in honesty for the common good,” he also warns against uncharitable greed.

 

“Every effort must be made to ensure that shady business interests do not influence the choices made by government leaders and international bodies,” he says. “It is unreasonable to penalize those remedies that have proved to be effective … [but do not] guarantee pharmaceutical companies far greater profits, and exacerbate public health expenditures.”

Every effort must be made to ensure that shady business interests do not influence the choices made by government leaders and international bodies.Tweet

Unlike the subtle ambiguities found in the 2005 Vatican response to the question of vaccines made from aborted fetal cell lines — a letter that has been seen by many as the last word on the subject — Viganò states unequivocally, “Let us also remember, as pastors, that for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses.”

Viganò believes vigilance is called for in these times. He warns: “The fight against COVID-19, however serious, must not be the pretext for supporting the hidden intentions of supranational bodies that have very strong commercial and political interests in this plan.”

Image
Americans protesting forced lockdowns

Carlo Maria Vigano The truth will set you free

He adds there must be no penalties imposed on those who refuse vaccines or contact tracing, and mentions the folly of so-called experts that have proscribed measures to control populations as well as the tyranny of governments that enforce them.

The archbishop chastises the media for penalizing dissent by forms of censorship, “as is happening widely on social media, in the press and on television” today.

“A democratic and honest debate is the best antidote to the risk of imposing subtle forms of dictatorship,” he warns, days after YouTube deleted a popular video of two doctors whose opinions conflicted with the views expressed by mainstream media.

Viganò says that the pastor’s primary responsibility is to his flock, and that the Church must be independent from the state in exercising her rights.

“We firmly assert the right to decide autonomously on the celebration of Mass and the sacraments,” he asserts, “just as we claim absolute autonomy in matters falling within our immediate jurisdiction. … The state has no right to interfere for any reason whatsoever in the sovereignty of the Church.”

We firmly assert the right to decide autonomously on the celebration of Mass and the sacraments. The state has no right to interfere for any reason whatsoever in the sovereignty of the Church.Tweet

“We are fighting against an invisible enemy that seeks to divide,” he warns. “Let us not allow centuries of Christian civilization to be erased under the pretext of a virus and an odious technological tyranny to be established … .”

In closing, Viganò reminds Catholics that Jesus Christ is King; that He promised “the gates of Hell shall not prevail” (Matthew 16:18); and that Mary is queen and will ultimately “crush the head of the ancient Serpent and defeat the plans of the children of darkness” (Genesis 3:15).



Categories
News

President Trump tweets Catholic authors warning that there is a war against Christianity

July 3, 2020 – On July 2, only hours after Dr. Taylor Marshall had given an interview to the U.S. cable network One America News (OAN) about the current crisis in America, President Donald Trump sent out a tweet highlighting the Catholic author’s warning. “Dr. Taylor Marshall, author. ‘There Is A War On Christianity’. @OANN,” Trump tweeted. Marshall had pointed out that the current attacks on symbols and statues are finally not only about a presidential candidate, but about attacking our Christian civilization.

With his tweet, the President of the United States appears to endorse Dr. Marshall’s viewpoint that what is finally at stake in our current tulmults is a full undermining of the roots of American society, Christianity.

Yesterday, Marshall told Jack Posobiec of OAN that, “with these riots and these hate groups” it is not just about George Washington and other political figures, but “they are now attacking Christian symbols, signs, crosses, statues.” “We are really in a war over the heart of civilization,” the Thomist scholar and author of multiple books continued, and that civilization emerged “from Christianity.”

“The goodness that we have experienced,” Marshall went on to say, “in our nation emerged from a Christian culture. And these atheists, these socialists, these Marxists, they know that and they are attacking it.”

Here, we might remember, that it was the founder of Marxism, Karl Marx himself, who had once stated that “religion is the opium of the people,” and Communist countries have always suppressed Christianity.

Dr. Marshall described to Posobiec how only in recent days, there have been Catholic statues decapitated, the St. Louis statue in St. Louis assaulted, and two statues of St. Junipero Serra removed. Serra, however, “was a great champion for the rights of the Indigenous,” explained the book author. And at the time of St. Louis, in the 13th century, “there were no inter-continental slave trades.”

“They are taking the debates and controversies of our time and they are imputing them into these men who come before us so that they can erase Christian memory, erase Christian civilization,” the author added in the interview that now has been endorsed by President Trump. “They are actually going after what we believe in our hearts,” Marshall added.

This Catholic author, who runs his own Youtube channel, also endorsed President Trump for re-election when he told Posobiec that even though Trump is trailing in the polls, “I think people are realizing that ‘I don’t want to live in an America that is chaotic. I want the rule of law.’” Marshall holds that the U.S. can cherish what is good in its country and history, while purging evils, such as abortion, as it has done in the past in cases such as with slavery. “As a nation,” he explained, “we have been able to – often through blood –  repent and to change our ways.”

While he admits that “Trump is not perfect,” he adds that “none of us is perfect,” nor previous Presidents or even Catholic saints, and explains that “we can work together, not to burn everything that’s America to the ground. We can simply fix what is wrong and cherish what has been good and wholesome in our history.”

In a comment to LifeSite on the president’s tweet, Marshall said that “people are realizing that we have shifted from a political battle to a spiritual battle.” He also explicitly drew a link to the recent presidential endorsement of an open letter by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò to President Trump:

“It’s no longer merely ‘Left Vs Right’ but people are realizing that it’s become ‘Christ vs Satan’ as foretold in Genesis 3:15. I did an interview with Jack Posobiec of OANN on this topic and I was pleased and honored that President Trump not only watched the interview but tweeted and quoted me on this matter. It shows that the spiritual struggle that Archbishop Viganò warned the President about is now becoming mainstream.”

Dr. Marshall, in his comments, also referred back to a book that he had written last year on the very same topic: “One year ago I wrote Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within [see here a chapter and book review as published by LifeSite] and I was called a conspiracy theorist back then. But now people realize that our society (Church and State) are truly infiltrated from within. This is not a conspiracy. It’s become our daily reality. We have seen the masks fall off both in the American demonstrations but also at the Amazon Synod and within the Vatican itself. President Trump is right to note ‘There is a war against Christianity’. We must pray, do penance and seek Christ to win this war.”

On June 6, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the Italian prelate and former papal nuncio to the United States, had published an open letter to President Trump, in which he commented on the current crisis in the U.S. but also in the world: “In recent months we have been witnessing the formation of two opposing sides that I would call Biblical: the children of light and the children of darkness. The children of light constitute the most conspicuous part of humanity, while the children of darkness represent an absolute minority,” the prelate told President Trump. He identifies those dark forces as being part of the “deep state which you wisely oppose and which is fiercely waging war against you in these days – have decided to show their cards, so to speak, by now revealing their plans.”

Archbishop Viganò also added that “the riots in these days were provoked by those who, seeing that the virus is inevitably fading and that the social alarm of the pandemic is waning, necessarily have had to provoke civil disturbances.” He sees that the goal behind these disturbances is to avoid President Trump’s re-election.

But the Italian prelate – similar to what Dr. Marshall is saying – also pointed to a Masonic background of much of today’s disturbances when he wrote that “we learn once again that hidden behind these acts of vandalism and violence there are those who hope to profit from the dissolution of the social order so as to build a world without freedom: Solve et Coagula, as the Masonic adage teaches.”

The archbishop praised the President’s acts in defense of the life of unborn babies and drew a parallel to the situation in the Catholic Church, in which he also sees a sort of a “deep state” among the leadership. Archbishop Viganò concluded his open letter with his assurance of his prayers: “Mr. President, my prayer is constantly turned to the beloved American nation, where I had the privilege and honor of being sent by Pope Benedict XVI as Apostolic Nuncio.”

Only a few days later, President Trump retweeted this very open letter and said that he was “honored” by this “incredible letter,” inviting “everyone, religious or not,” to read it.

Thus, Trump’s endorsement of Dr. Marshall’s interview is the second time in the recent past that the President is aligning himself with those voices among Catholics that, though in a minority, are determined to fight for the authentic and true Catholic Faith within the Church and for a Christian civilization at large, against the globalist and Marxist social engineers who are out to wage a “war against Christianity,” in the words of Dr. Marshall

With his tweet, the President appears to endorse the view that our current tumults come from an undermining of the Christian roots of American society.

 

Categories
News

Q Drop #4542

[2]
For the first time, the United States has in you a President who courageously defends the right to life, who is not ashamed to denounce the persecution of Christians throughout the world, who speaks of Jesus Christ and the right of citizens to freedom of worship. Your participation in the March for Life, and more recently your proclamation of the month of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month, are actions that confirm which side you wish to fight on. And I dare to believe that both of us are on the same side in this battle, albeit with different weapons.
For this reason, I believe that the attack to which you were subjected after your visit to the National Shrine of Saint John Paul II is part of the orchestrated media narrative which seeks not to fight racism and bring social order, but to aggravate dispositions; not to bring justice, but to legitimize violence and crime; not to serve the truth, but to favor one political faction. And it is disconcerting that there are Bishops – such as those whom I recently denounced – who, by their words, prove that they are aligned on the opposing side. They are subservient to the deep state, to globalism, to aligned thought, to the New World Order which they invoke ever more frequently in the name of a universal brotherhood which has nothing Christian about it, but which evokes the Masonic ideals of those who want to dominate the world by driving God out of the courts, out of schools, out of families, and perhaps even out of churches.
The American people are mature and have now understood how much the mainstream media does not want to spread the truth but seeks to silence and distort it, spreading the lie that is useful for the purposes of their masters. However, it is important that the good – who are the majority – wake up from their sluggishness and do not accept being deceived by a minority of dishonest people with unavowable purposes. It is necessary that the good, the children of light, come together and make their voices heard. What more effective way is there to do this, Mr. President, than by prayer, asking the Lord to protect you, the United States, and all of humanity from this enormous attack of the Enemy? Before the power of prayer, the deceptions of the children of darkness will collapse, their plots will be revealed, their betrayal will be shown, their frightening power will end in nothing, brought to light and exposed for what it is: an infernal deception.
Mr. President, my prayer is constantly turned to the beloved American nation, where I had the privilege and honor of being sent by Pope Benedict XVI as Apostolic Nuncio. In this dramatic and decisive hour for all of humanity, I am praying for you and also for all those who are at your side in the government of the United States. I trust that the American people are united with me and you in prayer to Almighty God.
United against the Invisible Enemy of all humanity, I bless you and the First Lady, the beloved American nation, and all men and women of good will.
+ Carlo Maria Vigano
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America

Categories
News Video

CLIP Archbishops Letter to the President (Church 6/7/20)

Clip from Church with Jesse Lee Peterson, June 7, 2020: Jesse has his Sunday Service producer James Hake read an open letter to President Trump, available on LifeSiteNews. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò wrote about the battle between the children of light and the children of darkness. The eternal struggle between good and evil is illustrated in the government and media response to the Covid pandemic and the race riots around the country. Just as there is a deep state, so there is a deep church — false preachers who serve the Devil.

READ OPEN LETTER HERE: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-viganos-powerful-letter-to-president-trump-eternal-struggle-between-good-and-evil-playing-out-right-now

FULL VIDEO (NOTE: We had audio cut out with the live video feed during this letter reading.) https://youtu.be/zIDjTfikB2Y

BLOG POST: https://rebuildingtheman.com/what-is-systemic-racism-church-6-7-20/

SILENT PRAYER: http://silentprayer.video | AUDIO https://soundcloud.com/rebuildingtheman/silent-prayer
CHURCH Sunday 11am PT (1pm CT / 2pm ET) http://rebuildingtheman.com/church
PLAYLIST: Church with Jesse Lee Peterson (FULL VIDEO, Sunday Service) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVqjzIOc_QoP6przIhg6O1Iti9hzK9n1Q

BOOKS http://www.bondinfostore.org
DONATE http://rebuildingtheman.com/donate
PATREON https://www.patreon.com/rebuildingtheman
PAYPAL https://www.paypal.com/donate/?token=CAdAqhNiNHK6IgfD81HMcGhHq4npQVJJ67BSn5d7-7CCoQp7Nc89_mpDEPOhmEQuLoSZ6W&country.x=US&locale.x=US

T-SHIRTS
BOND https://teespring.com/stores/rebuildingtheman
JLP https://teespring.com/stores/jesseleepeterson
TFS https://teespring.com/stores/shopthefallenstate

SOCIAL MEDIA
https://facebook.com/rebuildingtheman
https://instagram.com/rebuildingtheman

ALT. MEDIA
https://bitchute.com/rebuildingtheman

DISCORD (new link) https://discord.gg/6d3ahn3%5Bvideo src=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32-asxlkjcQ”]

Categories
News Video

What Is ‘Systemic Racism’? (Church 6/7/20)

Church with Jesse Lee Peterson, Sunday, June 7, 2020: What is systemic racism? Racism doesn’t exist. Open letter to President Trump from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, on LifeSiteNews: Eternal struggle between good and evil. Biblical Question: Do you see yourself as an important person? Also, the new Biblical Question: If I’m born in America, and I’m not white, am I a minority? Some great conversations on anger, forgiveness, and serving God or the Devil.

Join us for Church with Jesse Lee Peterson (an open forum service) Sunday 11am Pacific Time (live from BOND in Los Angeles) http://rebuildingtheman.com/church
#SundayService

Call BOND for counseling (by phone or in-person), books, or more info about our programs 800-411-BOND (800-411-2663) M-F 9am-4pm PT (Los Angeles time) 11am-6pm CT / 12-7pm ET.

Catch us live on YouTube, Periscope, DLive.tv, Mixer, Facebook (we’re back for BOND only), and perhaps soon Twitch.tv again.
https://www.periscope.tv/jlptalk
https://dlive.tv/jesseleepeterson
https://mixer.com/jlptalk
https://www.facebook.com/Rebuildingtheman
https://www.twitch.tv/jlptalk

Multistreaming with https://restream.io/?ref=w20oR

SILENT PRAYER http://silentprayer.video AUDIO https://www.soundcloud.com/rebuildingtheman/silent-prayer

T-SHIRTS https://www.teespring.com/stores/rebuildingtheman
BOOKS http://bondinfostore.org

SUPPORT:

Donate


https://www.subscribestar.com/jesseleepeterson
https://www.patreon.com/rebuildingtheman
https://www.paypal.me/rebuildingtheman
https://streamlabs.com/bondrebuildingtheman/v2

%d bloggers like this: