Resistance

by

Disappointment With Viganò

Here and here, I spoke about the statements of Novus Ordo Archbishop Viganò. These were cerebral and succinct condemnations of the Second Vatican Council and of the effluent from that dreadful meeting.

In a recent statement to the Remnant, however, which is a recognize-and resist publication, the Archbishop took the position of what I would call recognize and ignore. He says, essentially, that Vatican II can just be ignored. Its false teachings do not matter since there were no definitions of dogma, and therefore are fallible statements.

Continue reading →
by

Viganò on Vatican II

In a second letter dated June 14, 2020, that is, merely five days after his “bombshell” letter about Vatican II and its reforms, the Novus Ordo Archbishop made a startling statement regarding the Council. As he put it, “it is preferable to let the whole thing drop and be forgotten.” He also pointed out that Vatican II is to be blamed as an event that caused enormous problems in the Church. This is one of the reasons why he thinks it should be “forgotten.”

He quotes favorably a Professor Pasqualucci who considers Vatican II to be a conciliabulum, the classic term for a fake council: “If the Council has deviated from the Faith, the Pope has the power to invalidate it. Indeed, it is his duty.”

The Archbishop also says: “There is an urgent need to restore the Bride of Christ to her two-thousand-year Tradition and to recover the treasures that have been plundered and scattered, thus permitting the disoriented flock to be fully nourished by them.”

While the idea of annulling Vatican II is, of course, a wonderful idea, I am surprised that Abp. Viganò does not see the obvious problem: Unlike the other fake councils in the Church’s history, this one was promulgated in full by the “authority” of Paul VI. In short, you cannot annul Vatican II without also annulling the authority of him who promulgated it. Otherwise you end up with a Church which is capable of leading souls to hell. Indeed, has that not been the effect of this Council, if we contemplate the devastating loss of faith on the part of billions of souls? Is it not right and true to say: “An enemy hath done this?”

Archbishop Viganò’s recent comments are, of course, encouraging, but nothing will come of his intervention unless the problem of Paul VI and the Vatican II “popes” is addressed. Indeed, we must also include John XXIII in this group, since Vatican II represented not only a council which pronounced heresies, but, what is worse, created a mentality of revolution in the Church that has brought it to its ruin. It unleashed a spirit of heresy, a lust for rupture with the past, a maniacal detestation of pre-Vatican II Catholicism. The Antifa hordes in our streets are to our country what John XXIII and Paul VI sparked in the Church. Since John XXIII was the originator of this revolution, he too, as I see it, must be included in the enemy which has done this.

by

A Breath of Fresh Air

Bishop Schneider’s statement. On the feast of Pentecost Bishop Schneider issued a lengthy statement in which he rightly criticized Vatican II for having errors, concentrating particularly on Dignitatis Humanæ, which proclaims the moral right to embrace false religions. In this he was correct, of course. However, his solution was very seriously erroneous, namely that the Church’s councils can err, and are in need of correction occasionally. He then went on to point out “errors” in past councils.

Continue reading →
by

Indefectibility and Una Cum

A response to Father Ludger Grün. In my last newsletter [blog post version here], I reviewed the motives and reasons why we must avoid the una cum Mass. In most cases this applies to the traditional Masses offered by the SSPX, both mainstream and “resistance.” A Father Grün of the SSPX made a response to my newsletter, and consequently here I would like to make more clear just what our position is.

Continue reading →
by

The ‘Una Cum’ Mass

[Taken from the January issue of the MHT Seminary Newsletter]

I am sure that most are familiar with our strict stance on attendance at the una cum Mass. We, the clergy of the Roman Catholic Institute, hold that it is objectively sacrilegious to actively participate in a Mass in which Bergoglio (or the local N.O. bishop) is mentioned in the canon.

Continue reading →
by

Destroying the Papacy in Order to Save Bergoglio

[Taken from the September issue of the MHT Seminary Newsletter]

In a recent speech, reported by the website wherepeteris, Cardinal Burke proposed yet another episode of his curious manner of dealing with the heresies of Bergoglio.

Continue reading →
by

Fatal flaw?

On the Fatima Center website, Mr. Ferrara attacked the sedevacantists for what he calls self-contradiction, a “fatal flaw” in their thinking. He first accurately sums up the sedevacantist position:

So, according to sedevacantist thinking, one cannot legitimately recognize yet resist a true Pope because while not every papal magisterial act is infallible, every papal magisterial act is (1) authoritative, (2) binding on consciences, (3) safe to follow, and (4) free from pernicious error. [emphasis added]

He then proceeds to attack this position as containing a contradiction.

What the sedevacantists are really saying, then, is that a Pope who errs in his teaching on a matter of faith and morals, even once, ceases to be Pope (or never was Pope) because every exercise of the papal magisterium must be free from error.

Notice that the word pernicious has disappeared. In leaving this word out, Mr. Ferrara has manifested that he does not understand the whole point of the sedevacantist argument.

Continue reading →
by

Bishop Fellay’s interview

Bishop Bernard Fellay

Bishop Fellay, who has been, until recently, the head of the Society of Saint Pius X for the past twenty-four years, gave an interview to Tagespost in which he said a few things which deserve attention. Continue reading →