A Response to Archbishop Viganò’s Letter about Vatican II

The archbishop consistently overstates the ambiguity contained within Vatican II, and equally consistently overlooks the clarity contained in Vatican II.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then apostolic nuncio to the United States, speaks Nov. 16 during the opening of the 2015 fall general assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Baltimore. (CNS photo/Bob Roller)

I very much appreciate Archbishop Viganò taking the time to respond to my article that appeared in Inside the Vatican on July 27, 2020. However, I found his response, posted on August 10th at Inside the Vatican, disappointing, for he was evasive, and did not address the points I made, but rather made a further case for his own position. He hardly mentioned what I termed the Spirit’s “severe grace,” that followed upon Vatican II, and he entirely passed over what I termed the Spirit’s “beneficent grace” that was the direct result of Vatican II. In this light, I will now make my response to his letter.

First, instead of addressing my Inside the Vatican article, the archbishop brings to the fore a piece I wrote for The Catholic Thing (October 8, 2019). He does so because he thinks he can turn my own argument there against me, that is, to falsify what I wrote in Inside the Vatican, and so use it to promote his own highly ideological agenda. This is a very clever tactic, but one that does not work.

In my Catholic Thing article, I argued that Pope Francis, although the Pontiff of the Catholic Church, has become, for all practical purposes, the leader of those elements within the Church that are verging on schism, such as the bishops of Germany. Archbishop Viganò attempts to interpret my description of this double role as my dividing Pope Francis (the Pontiff) from Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the “exuberant” Argentinian. The archbishop then argues, in his letter to me, that the same can be said of the Second Vatican Council, that is, that the Council, while an authentic ecumenical council, ended up promoting an agenda that was schismatic and even heretical—the culprits being Pope John XXIII and those bishops and cardinals in league with him. Thus, as Pope Francis is both the Pope of the Church, and yet the leader of a potentially schismatic church, so the Council is both an authentic Council, and yet one that has, through its documents, provoked a schismatic church, one that, in its teaching on faith and morals, is contrary to previous Councils and magisterial teaching. In so doing, Vatican II has lost its magisterial legitimacy.

There is a twofold error within the archbishop’s very ingenious but problematic analysis. First, my analysis of Pope Francis as embodying two roles, that of Pontiff and that of being the practical leader of schismatic elements in the Church, is not the dividing of him into two different personae – that of Pontiff and that of the exuberant Argentinian. Rather, the problem I was calling attention to is not that they are two in some schizoid manner, but that they are one – Pope Francis as the authentic pontiff is the same person, the same pope, who is encouraging and allowing schismatic elements to take root within the Church. This “oneness” is precisely what makes the situation so dangerous and worrisome.

Second, in attempting to use, in a misleading and erroneous manner, my analysis of Pope Francis in relation to a possible schism, the archbishop passionately attempts to provide an analysis of what took place at Vatican II, but this strategy also fails. Vatican II is not one entity as an authentic Ecumenical Council, and another entity that fosters schism and heresy. There may have been all sorts of scheming and skullduggery going on before, during, and after the Council, but that does not nullify Vatican II’s authenticity.

Vatican II is not, to use the archbishop’s term, a “container-council” into which false doctrine was poured. What counts is what the Council taught, though one has to take into account, as the Council itself did, of the magisterial authority of each of it documents. As Dogmatic Constitutions, Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum have much greater magisterial authority than those documents that are titled Decrees and Declarations. Even worse, because the archbishop sees Vatican II as a “container-council” into which heretical elements were smuggled, he designates it “a devil council.” If such was and still is the case, then we would have to admit that Ecumenical Councils do not necessarily teach reliably the faith handed down from the apostles, even where a council, including Vatican II, intends to state definitive doctrine.

Such a position smacks of being the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit. One has essentially placed one’s own judgement over that of the Council. Yes, there may be some ambiguities, but such ambiguity is not unique to Councils. There has always been some give-and-take when it comes to language, but whatever noetic content is contained in such language, it must be interpreted within the overarching previous magisterial and conciliar teaching. That being said, the archbishop consistently overstates the ambiguity contained within Vatican II, and equally consistently overlooks the clarity contained in Vatican II – often in opposition to the very issues that the archbishop is so concerned about, such as Modernism.

Furthermore, the archbishop, as noted above, accuses Pope John XXIII of being the instigator and leader of the charade that became the “devil’s council.” Such an unproven accusation borders on calumny. Pope John, to his credit, perceived what many did not see, the dire need for the Church to renew itself. It was the Holy Spirit and not the devil who inspired him to call the Council. Moreover, although Pope John did not live to see the aftermath of the Council, specifically what I term the Spirit’s “severe grace,” I am confident he would not have been pleased, but he would have recognized that these aberrations clearly manifested why the Church was in need of radical reform and renewal.

The archbishop also accuses Pope Paul VI of not simply allowing the evils that followed Vatican II to continue, but that, in his silence, he was actually sanctioning them. Again, this is a false reading of history. My judgement is that Pope Paul VI was somewhat weak in character, and, having been traumatized by the massive backlash against Humanae Vitae, and believing that the majority of the world’s bishops would not support him, as they had failed to do with regard to Humanae Vitae, he concluded that he was helpless in rectifying the situation. He lost hope. However, in the midst of the chaos, we must remember that Pope Paul did publish his encyclical letter, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, on priestly celibacy (1967), and his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi, on evangelization, neither of which promote the devil’s agenda. Surely, the devil was and still is quite perturbed by them. Paul VI’s Evangelii Nuntiandi was, is and will continue to be the foundational document for the new evangelization, an evangelization that Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI so strenuously promoted. Above all, perhaps, Paul VI authored The “Credo” of the People of God, which beautifully, clearly, and robustly professes the true faith of the apostolic Church. Thus, Paul VI should not be maligned as the archbishop does. Interestingly, while he is critical of John XXIII and Paul VI, the archbishop is silent about John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The reason for such silence, it seems to me, is that they do not fit the archbishop’s demonization of Vatican II. In accord with their Petrine ministry, they defended and promoted a proper interpretation of Vatican II, and so fostered an authentic renewal within the Church. Pope Francis, to my mind, seems to further some of the erroneous tendencies that the archbishop finds in Vatican II. As is well known, I am not a great admirer of Pope Francis, but I do not see him as a Vatican II pontiff. I see him rather as one whose heart does not beat in unison with the conciliar fathers.

I want now to address what I consider to be a very important component of Vatican II’s reception – the sensus fidelium – the sense of the faithful. After the Council, many lay Catholic men and women were, and are still, scandalized and angry by what took place, especially within their local Eucharistic celebrations. Yet, in the midst of all the bedlam, most of them never doubted that Vatican II was a true Ecumenical Council, an authoritative hierarchical assembly of the Church to which they belong. Moreover, most of the laity did not condemn the Council as such for what was taking place within their parishes. Rather, they recognized that the aberrations they were experiencing were the products of their sincere but misguided, and often wacky, pastors. Their very sense of the faith confirmed, and continues to assert, the Spirit-filled authenticity of Vatican II.

Archbishop Viganò sees the Second Vatican Council as schismatic, and even more than this, as heretical. My concern is that, in his radical reading of the Council, the archbishop is spawning his own schism. Through the all-pervasive social media, he, and those who voice opinions similar to his own, are leading God’s people, particularly the young, not into the Church but out of the Church. This leading out of the Church is also a leading into a church, a church they falsely believe is the true Church. There is a gnostic elitism within the archbishop’s ideological agenda – he and his followers are truly in “the know.” They “know” the falsity that resides in Vatican II and, in so knowing that falsity, they have commandeered the true faith to themselves. If it appears that the ultra-progressive liberal agenda is the work of the devil, so the ultra-conservative agenda is also the work of the devil. And, in the midst of these warring factions, the devil rejoices. Archbishop Viganò, I fear, has played into the hand of the devil – the very devil he fears the most. In so doing, his “liberal” opponents rejoice, for they know that the archbishop has lost all ecclesial credibility.

Upon reading the archbishop’s letter to me, the question came to me, and it has come to others a well: Did he actually write the letter? Yes, he signed the letter, and the letter may express his thought, but was he the one who composed on his computer the main arguments contained in the letter? I suspect not. The archbishop customarily writes in a hasty, meandering, stream-of-consciousness manner. Because of this manner of composing, he often does not express himself in a clear and logical manner, and thus, often he has to offer later corrections or clarifications. In his present letter to me, the style is much different. The arguments are clearly and logically put forward, though they are, while clever, counterfeit. Nonetheless, the stylistic marks of this letter manifest a hand that is not the archbishop’s. This does not undermine the letter’s authenticity, but it does mean that the archbishop is influenced by someone who shares the same false ideology as himself, and maybe in a manner that exceeds his own.

I would like to close by adding one personal note. Although I am willing to engage in the battle that is now being fought with ever greater intensity within Christ’s body, I can never arrogantly think that I am at the forefront of this battle. I know that there are bishops in the United States who are also very concerned about the present ecclesial situation. I hope and pray that they find a way in which they could properly join, as leaders, in the fray, for they possess an apostolic mandate, and so their voices carry magisterial authority, an authority that I, and others like me, do not possess. They are apostolic preachers of the Gospel, apostolic interpreters of Vatican II, and the apostolic shepherds who guide their flocks into the way of truth.

(Note: The opinions expressed here are the author’s alone, and do not necessarily represent the opinion or position of other CWR contributors or of Ignatius Press.)

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM., Cap. 5 Articles
Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM., Cap. (Capuchin College, Washington DC) is a Member of the International Theological Commission. The author of several books and numerous articles for both academic and popular publications, he is the current President of the Academy of Catholic Theology, and a member of the Catholic Theological Society of America, the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, the Catholic Theological Society of Great Britain, the North American Patristics Society, and the Association Internationale D’Etudes Patristiques.


  1. Vigano seemed like such a good guy at first. But slowly, he started talking like he was hiding out in a dried up well, taking crazy pills and downing whole bottles of vodka. Somebody, please stage an intervention with this guy. Apparently if you take that “red pill” it turns you into an SSPX anti Vatican buffoon.

      • Lots of good stuff. Twice as many Catholics in the world as before Vatican II. Change from a mostly European religion to a true world religion, growing exponentially in Africa and Asia. A renewed focus on the Eucharist (Vatican II stressed the importance of the Eucharist, over and over. However, it was not implemented very well) So the old fake chant saying that the fruits of Vatican II are negligible means you really are not paying close attention, you are looking for slogans and nothing more. Lots of stuff is wrong with the church, but none of it is because of Vatican II. If you want to draw away our attention from all the problems of the church by trying to divert our attention to Vatican II, then you are helping the bad guys get away

        • “February 13, 2013
          The Global Catholic Population

          “Over the past century, the number of Catholics around the globe has more than tripled, from an estimated 291 million in 1910 to nearly 1.1 billion as of 2010, according to a comprehensive demographic study by the Pew Research Center.

          But over the same period, the world’s overall population also has risen rapidly. As a result, Catholics have made up a remarkably stable share of all people on Earth. In 1910, Catholics comprised about half (48%) of all Christians and 17% of the world’s total population, according to historical estimates from the World Christian Database. A century later, the Pew Research study found, Catholics still comprise about half (50%) of Christians worldwide and 16% of the total global population.” https://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/

          The article goes on to say, “What has changed substantially over the past century is the geographic distribution of the world’s Catholics. In 1910, Europe was home to about two-thirds of all Catholics, and nearly nine-in-ten lived either in Europe (65%) or Latin America (24%). By 2010, by contrast, only about a quarter of all Catholics (24%) were in Europe. The largest share (39%) were in Latin America and the Caribbean.”

          However, “Latin America was the most heavily Catholic region in both years, but the share of the region’s population that is Catholic decreased from about 90% in 1910 to 72% in 2010. Meanwhile, Europe’s population went from 44% Catholic to 35% Catholic.”

          Absolute numbers don’t mean much.

          And of those, how many of them are actually practicing Catholics? How many attend Mass regularly? How many believe in the Real Presence – or have even heard about the Real Presence?

          “Vatican II stressed the importance of the Eucharist, over and over. However, it was not implemented very well”

          You are quite right about that. CCD classes in the late 1960’s and the 1970’s were abysmally awful and useless – fluffy, puffy, happy-clappy sugary and practically no actual teaching.

          “So the old fake chant saying that the fruits of Vatican II are negligible means you really are not paying close attention, you are looking for slogans and nothing more.”

          Ignoring the appalling collapse in the number of priests and religious, the percentage of practicing Catholics, the belief in the Real Presence by dismissing people who notice it as making a “fake chant” is rather spiteful. Yes, it’s good that the Church is growing in, for example, Sub-Saharan Africa; but that doesn’t mean that the terrible losses in Europe and the United States don’t matter.

          “Lots of stuff is wrong with the church, but none of it is because of Vatican II.”

          Can you prove that because the “good stuff” that you described happened after Vatican II it is in fact *because* of Vatican II?

          Here is a chapter from a book by Michael Davies: http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/statistics.htm

          • Michael Davies is one of those SSPX clowns. And thanks for proving I am exactly right as to the population of Catholic in the world growing by leaps and bounds. But wait….you SSPX people are always saying that everything is collapsing, and by your own admission, it is just not true, not true at all and your stats show it. So thank you for admitting your constant pessimism is way, way overdone. And of course you did not address the real question. Nothing you have shown indicates that Vatican II is the cause of the decline in America and Europe. You just like to assume it is, and exaggerate, because the SSPX is a breakaway sect that refuses to obey the Catholic church and is schismatic. I showed you that Africa is growing, and they are totally Novus Ordo and have embraced Vatican II. Same for Asia. So your whole story simply does not hold up under examination. Please. Quit your schismatic nonsense, Stop pretending that Vatican II is the cause of all the problems, because it is not the cause. Return to the one holy Catholic and apostolic church. Stop uselessly bashing the church just because you belong to some breakaway sect. It doesn’t help anything, and it keeps us from addressing the real problems of the church.

          • For someone who writes sneeringly of “internet popes,” though I’ve no idea to whom you’re referring, you seem to arrogate to yourself quite a bit of authority, and claim to be able to decide who is and who is not schismatic.

            “Michael Davies is one of those SSPX clowns.”

            In fact, he was not. He was the president of Una Voce. As far as I know he was not a member of the Society of St. Pius X. As to his being schismatic, here is what then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to the Latin Mass Society in 2004, upon Mr. Davies’ death: “”I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter.” http://www.fiuv.org/p/michael-treharne-davies-appreciation.html Doesn’t sound like a schismatic to me, but then perhaps you know better than Cardinal Ratzinger.

            “And thanks for proving I am exactly right as to the population of Catholic in the world growing by leaps and bounds.”

            As far as absolute numbers go, but I pointed out that the growth is only because of the growth in population in general. That’s like rejoicing, “Wow, there are 72.4 million American Catholics now, and in 1970 there were only 54.1 million!” while ignoring that while in 1970 Catholics were 26.7% of the population, by now it’s down to 22%; and the number who attend Mass weekly has dropped from 54.9% (which was bad enough) to 21.1%.

            “But wait….you SSPX people”

            I am not a member of the Society of St. Pius X.

            “are always saying that everything is collapsing, and by your own admission, it is just not true, not true at all and your stats show it.”

            No, actually, statistics do not show that things are not collapsing. They are – percentage of the US population that’s Catholic, percentage that attend Mass regularly, percentage that believe in the Real Presence, number of priests and religious relative to the population…

            “So thank you for admitting your constant pessimism is way, way overdone. “

            I am not suffering from “constant pessimism;” I am simply acknowledging facts, and pointing out that your grasp of math seems to be a bit weak.

            “And of course you did not address the real question. Nothing you have shown indicates that Vatican II is the cause of the decline in America and Europe.”

            Nor have you proved that the increase in the number of Catholics in, for example, Sub-Saharan Africa has anything to do with Vatican II.

            “You just like to assume it is, and exaggerate, because the SSPX is a breakaway sect that refuses to obey the Catholic church and is schismatic.”

            As I pointed out, I am not a member of the Society of St. Pius X, and would appreciate it if you would refrain from calumniating me.

            “I showed you that Africa is growing, and they are totally Novus Ordo and have embraced Vatican II.”

            Have they embraced “the spirit of Vatican II?” That is the issue.

            “Same for Asia.”

            Somehow, an increase in the number of Catholics in one part of the world is small comfort when one notices the terrible collapse in areas that were once the heart of the Faith.

            “So your whole story simply does not hold up under examination.”

            It is not a “story,” it is statistics, and they hold up quite well.

            “Please. Quit your schismatic nonsense”

            Stop telling lies about me.

            “Stop pretending that Vatican II is the cause of all the problems, because it is not the cause.”

            I have not said that Vatican II is the cause of all the problems. I have pointed out that the things done “in the spirit of Vatican II” were often forced on people with the pretense that the Council required them, which was a lie.

            And I suggest that you might quit pretending that you have any proof that the growth in Africa and Asia are a direct result of Vatican II.

            “Return to the one holy Catholic and apostolic church. Stop uselessly bashing the church just because you belong to some breakaway sect.”

            Stop libeling me. I haven’t left the Church.

            “It doesn’t help anything, and it keeps us from addressing the real problems of the church.”

            Your hysterical shrieking of insults and lies when someone points out some of the real problems of the Church is no help.

          • Leslie: I do not know whether the late Michael Davies could be properly said to have been a “member” of SSPX, because I’m not sure what that term means in regard to the society. But I do know that I attended (as a reporter) a news conference in Kansas in the late 1970’s in which Mr. Davies acted as MC and, I believe, translator for Archbishop Lefebvre, who was the special guest and who answered media questions. I would describe Davies as loquacious, elfin, winsome and charming. Speaking in what I took to be an English Cockney accent, he proved himself quite erudite and eloquent. My point is, though, that he was definitely a close associate and energetic promoter of the archbishop’s viewpoint, and was an “apologist” for Lefebvre and SSPX in the most literal sense because he was handing out copies of his book “Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre” to the assembled media. If not an actual “member” of SSPX, perhaps because of his lay status, he was certainly about as close to being a member as a non-member could be.

          • Larry – Archbishop Lefebvre was not excommunicated until he consecrated four bishops in 1988, and it was for that alone, and not for anything he said about the Mass or Vatican II. Mr. Davies was not excommunicated; he did nothing for which the punishment was excommunication; Cardinal Ratzinger (as he was then) spoke highly of him as a man of the Church.

        • Your sounding like a modernist of the bygone ages of the 1960’s and 70’s. I’m okay, your okay, everything is just fine and dandy. You might want to toss it out and come into the reality that things are not fine. We have turned Christ’s Church into the devils playground. We have got to fix it! The Modernists before the Council, during the Council and after the Council are still an infestation in Our Lords Church.

          • The late Michael Davies was a man of great intelligence, and God gifted him with insight into the matters of the Church. Michael Davies was a prophet in his own time. He recognized that Archbishop Marcel Lefevre was correct in his assessment of the Church during and after V2, and Lefevbre was wrongfully punished for being correct. The proof is, that today, right now! Bishops, Theologians, Religious and the Laity are publicly decrying what happened during and after the Council, in exactly the same way as Lefebvre done. The SSPX was defended by Michael Davies. God Has Abundantly Blessed the Society of St. Pius X. 200 priests in 1988 and 639 priests today. God has NOT blessed Modernism, as He only Blesses what is good and not evil.

          • sono alla ricerca di una verita’ e quindi ricomimncerei da
            io sono il signore Dio tuo non avrai altro Dio fuori di me
            non nominare il nome di Dio invano
            ricordati di santificare la festa
            le 3 teologali e le quattro cardinali
            i nodi si sciolgono allargando e trovando la cima

        • So your saying that the Church in the west that bought into Vatican II is crashing and the Church in developing countries that held onto traditional morality and traditional Catholic teaching are growing.

          • Actually, the church in Africa and Asia is totally Novus Ordo, totally Vatican II, and they are growing like wildfire. So the cause is not Vatican II, and it is not the Novus Ordo.

          • The Church in the west is simply not crashing, it crashed! As for Traditional Catholicism, it is growing fast, it is they who are a new springtime in the Church. There are those who wish to crush this springtime, but God the Holy Ghost created it and He will not allow for it be destroyed. When St. John Paul the Great gave the first Indult for the TLM in 1984, to his surprise and pleasure mainly young people were asking for the TLM. He was pleased that the young wanted tradition restored. Pope Benedict XVl praised that it was the young who desired tradition. Pope Benedict pleaded with the SSPX to return in order that they help in fostering this new springtime. He called on the SSPX to return so that their theologians could help with the task of the reinterpretation of the texts of Vatican ll. Pope Benedict had a lot to say about the changes that were made and together with his thoughts and words on the creation of the Novus Ordo were negative.

        • The numbers tell a different story. Since Vatican II, in the USA, belief in Transubstantiation is down to 31%. Catholicism has experienced a greater net loss due to religious switching than has any other religious tradition in the U.S. Overall, 13% of all U.S. adults are former Catholics. Cohabitation, use of artificial birth control and abortion are now at levels near that of atheists. Homosexuality is accepted by Catholics at the same lever as non-Catholics. The church has been shaken by non-stop sexual scandals. No, Vatican has not been a Springtime, but rather a severe drought.

          • No, Allan, the rejection and rebellion and disobedience to the Holy Spirit in Vatican has been a severe and satanic drought, but not the Holy Spirit and His Council. Blessings, Padre.

          • Yes, and of course nothing you say shows that Vatican II is the cause. You do realize that just because something comes after something does not mean it caused it, right? Please, at least try to think these things through. You are not helping the church by blaming things on Vatican II when the cause lies elsewhere.

      • Indeed, having lived through the Council, after it to the present day I see the Church ‘establishment’ beginning with the Popes, including Benedict, make preposterously false statements about the ‘fruits of the Council’ as the Church was falling apart, now at an accelerated pace under Francis, the first Pope actually formed by the Council. I was taught in my Catholic education in the 50’s that the faithful are not required to be stupid in order to be Catholic.

        • I have no problem with Vat. 11. I have the documents at home and have read and reread the key ones a number of times. They are, In my opinion, spirit-filled and inspiring. Yes, the Church has endured many problems since the Council, mainly because of false and misleading interpretations of it cunningly used to justify so-called “reforms”.
          I was also a great admirer of Archbishop Vigano until his attacks on Vat.11. Those attacks were unwise, dangerous, perhaps even schismatic. I no longer see him as the man to lead the Church out of the maze.

        • Actually Pope Benedict never said anything preposterous. Are you listening to the nonsense that Taylor Marshall put up yesterday, in which he misconstrued a quote from Benedict and started bashing him? Because quite simply Pope Benedict has never said anything preposterous. So you are going to have to be more clear when you slander a pope like that. Tell us exactly what he said that you found preposterous.

          • And just in response to Leslie, above, I have to say that she seems to be using the standard SSPX techniques of misleading. Of course, I did not say that she or Michael Davies was “a member of the SSPX”. SSPX is a priestly society, so only priests can be members. But she and Michael Davies seem to be very strong supporters of the SSPX, or at least super sympathetic, because they are all trotting out the same SSPX talking points. Davies is a super well known advocate for Lefebvre and the SSPX. He is not in any sense neutral. He is an SSPX “hero”
            Davies later supported the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), writing a three-volume series titled Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre in which he defended Lefebvre against accusations of disobedience and schism for refusing to celebrate the Mass of Paul VI.[9] Although Davies opposed Lefebvre’s canonically-illicit consecration of four SSPX bishops in 1988 against the wishes of Pope John Paul II, he continued to publicly support Lefebvre’s defence of the Tridentine Mass and traditional Church teachings.

            So Davies continued to support a man who had to be excommunicated, and his bishops, who were excommunicated as well.

            So don’t pretend Davies was just some head of some neutral Catholic organization. And please, don’t take advantage of Pope Benedicts obvious kind and generous nature, (even to those who staunchly opposed him) to present Davies as being some sort of neutral Catholic observer. Especially a note written on someone’s death. Of course Benedict would not take that occasion to point out Davies many errors.

            As I noted, her statistics prove my point, not hers. Membership in the Catholic church is growing, both here and around the world. This, despite the constant misinformation from “Everything is lost” pessimism of the extremist traditionalists. In addition, with the rise of people listening to people like Taylor Marshall, they don’t even realize that Taylor Marshall has been exclusively spoon feeding them the conspiracy theories of Lefebvre. Marshall knows to reveal the source of all his theology and information as Lefebvre and the SSPX would cause a big problem, so he seems to have decided to hide it as best he can. So currently we have a lot of people running around spouting useless SSPX talking points, and they often do not even realize they are old, discredited SSPX talking points. They think they are part of a new exciting “traditionalist Catholic” crowd. But in fact they are just people being fooled by the string of old SSPX arguments. Hence my reference to the SSPX. I find that many extremist traditionalist simply do not know, they have been tricked into following the SSPX party line.
            Next: Your comment was in support of a previous implication that there were no fruits of Vatican II. My attempt to show there were many fruits of Vatican II seemed to trigger your comment.
            Again, all you do is show that the practice of the faith in many respects declined after Vatican II. You do not show at all they declined because of Vatican II. Vatican II specifically encouraged a new missionary effort. And it encouraged several things having to do with reaching out to the entire world. When this works in Africa, you then say, oh there is no proof that this happened because of Vatican II. Buth the collapse in America? Oh, you say, that happened because of Vatican II.
            Amazing. But I am glad you let me expose the kind of misinformation that is typically used by supporters of the SSPX. I find this sort of thing so very typical of them and their supporters. It is very sad.

          • “As I noted, her statistics prove my point, not hers. Membership in the Catholic church is growing, both here and around the world.”

            Your mathematical abilities and reasoning skills appear to be sub-par. Membership in the Church has not grown as a percentage of the population of the world as a whole, and it has crashed in the US, Europe, and other countries where it was once much higher. You may be perfectly content to see that happen and say, “Oh, well, no worries, there are people in Asia and Africa who are now Catholic so the souls in the old and new worlds who are lost matter not in the slightest.” I am not. And of those who still call themselves Catholic in the US and Europe, the actual practice of the Faith and belief in the teachings of the Church have fallen to crisis levels. That may not bother you, but it bothers me.

            “Again, all you do is show that the practice of the faith in many respects declined after Vatican II. You do not show at all they declined because of Vatican II.”

            You don’t show that the new converts from other parts of the world are because of Vatican II.

            ” Vatican II specifically encouraged a new missionary effort. And it encouraged several things having to do with reaching out to the entire world.”

            A “new missionary effort” that abandoned the countries where the Church was already established, it seems. Sort of like adopting and feeding the neighbors and allowing the children you already have to starve to death.

            “But she and Michael Davies seem to be very strong supporters of the SSPX, or at least super sympathetic, because they are all trotting out the same SSPX talking points.

            I wouldn’t know; I’ve read some of Michael Davies’ works but I have no idea what the “SSPX talking points” are because I haven’t read anything written by them. And Michael Davies was a faithful Catholic, as then-Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out.

            “Although Davies opposed Lefebvre’s canonically-illicit consecration of four SSPX bishops in 1988 against the wishes of Pope John Paul II, he continued to publicly support Lefebvre’s defence of the Tridentine Mass and traditional Church teachings.”

            In other words, Mr. Davies opposed the Archbishop in the only thing for which he was excommunicated. There is nothing wrong with defending the Tridentine Mass and traditional Church teachings. Of course, you probably think both are evil.

            “Of course Benedict would not take that occasion to point out Davies many errors.”

            I see – so then-Cardinal Ratzinger was a liar, was he? There is a difference between refraining from pointing out errors and actively praising someone. If the Cardinal had thought Mr. Davies was such a terrible person who had left the Church, he had only to decline to write anything.

            “But I am glad you let me expose the kind of misinformation that is typically used by supporters of the SSPX. I find this sort of thing so very typical of them and their supporters.”

            I find what you have said very typical of the blindly enthusiastic and not too intelligent cheerleaders for the “spirit of Vatican II,” which contradicts what the Council actually said and so manifestly is not the Holy Spirit.

      • Both great good and great bad, Robert. Those faithful to the Holy Spirit have seen wondrous fruits of the Holy Spirit; those faithful to themselves have seen demonic fruits of the dark spirits and false self-love…. Be faithful to the Holy Spirit in Vatican II, as Saint John in the Holy Spirit, or better, the Holy Spirit it Saint John Paul, counseled, even calling an Extraordinary synod in 1985 to see its correct implementation which would bring even more and greater good fruits.

        Also, a great witness here: http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2000/jan-mar/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000227_vatican-council-ii.html

        The Blessings of Mary the Glorious Immaculate Conception Assumption….

    • And evidently if you “drink the koolaid”
      You can make the Catholic faith say whatever
      You want it to say
      I would rather take the red pill than drink the koolaid anyway – At least there is truth not reletivism and a thousand shades of grey

    • If God does not guide and inspire the content of an Ecumenical Council, then there is no reason to believe God guides anything in his Church. If Vigano questions the validity of an Ecumenical Council, he is a heretic. Vigano clearly puts his ultra-conservative ideology before the teachings of the Church.

    • Where’s that well again? Sounds like a great weekend getaway, and much safer than McCarrick’s beach house, speaking of US bishops jumping into the fray…

    • by crazy pills….you mean seeing something you do not ?….Objectivity has gone down the drain fruitful, opinionated discussion. One simply needs to engage in deductive reasoning to see how events unfold and the effects thereof. In debate-the first objective is to attempt to prove your opponent’s argument. Try and apply this for any conviction you may have…If you find nothing but deductive outcomes, then you have done your job….but to condemn deductive reasoning as “opinion or crazy”, you must deductively refute the findings….or your just babbling an emotional state-which has NOTHING to do with the facts.

  2. Because of this manner of composing, he often does not express himself in a clear and logical manner, and thus, often he has to offer later corrections or clarifications. In his present letter to me, the style is much different. The arguments are clearly and logically put forward, though they are, while clever, counterfeit. Nonetheless, the stylistic marks of this letter manifest a hand that is not the archbishop’s. This does not undermine the letter’s authenticity, but it does mean that the archbishop is influenced by someone who shares the same false ideology as himself, and maybe in a manner that exceeds his own.

    If I were to guess, I would guess Schneider helped him write it. He uses that same, “almost logic” that is used in so many SSPX attempts to defend itself. It’s the sign of someone wanting to sound like he is using Thomistic logic, but he does not quite have the hang of it. And Schneider’s arguments are flimsy and see through, in the same manner.

  3. When our leaders, both Church and civil, at all levels seem to have gone off the rails, staying on the rails is a real challenge. Unfortunately, I fear Archbishop Viganò is starting to go off the rails himself. Tortuous logic has been one of the major problems I have found whenever I have analyzed the sedevacantist arguments, which usually end in a sort of religion that pays lip service to unity and the papacy but in practice doesn’t really believe in papal primacy. I can sympathize with the archbishop deeply, but I can’t go along with the idea that Vatican II needs to be scrapped altogether.

  4. I think extremist views in the Church arise when those who have legitimate but different views from those in authority and the latter react to those differences by marginalizing, alienating and ostracizing them. Rather, I would prefer that Francis practice some of the “accompaniment” he’s so famous for with people like Vigano, Schneider, Burke and the other dubia cardinals (two of whom have since met their demise). Unfortunately, too often in the Church we find bitterness and vengefulness on the part of our leaders toward those who disagree. One has to wonder whether this is Christ’s way of dealing with the brethren.

    • Nicely stated. Pope Benedict XVI was adept at addressing differences by explaining the truth, clarifying matters, rather than humiliating a person or group of persons. Graced with respect for each person with whom he came in contact he was able to instruct with humility and enable others to grow in wisdom and grace. Pope Benedict XVI also corrected his own errors as soon as he became aware of them. Surely one can take a lesson from him. Rooted in the ground of humility, charity can grow and flourish. St. Pio is another example of recognizing that each one is made in the image of God.

    • You bring up a very interesting point. Pope Francis endlessly speaks of dialogue, but never once has he organized any sort of chin-wag between those who hold opposing views in the Church. Indeed, he won’t even answer the now nearly-forgotten Dubia.

    • You have hit the nail on the head! Thank you. I would add that Abp. Vigano and Fr. Weinandy are in remarkable agreement. The Church is in crisis. We need all hands on deck. This is a time for recognizing those who will fight for Our Lord’s Bride and supporting each other!

      • All I know about Vatican II is that it coincided with the beginning of a rapid decline of the Catholic church on every measurable statistic and bought about the wanton destruction of our high altars and communion rails and a general obfuscation of the supreme law of our faith the salvation of souls. Pope John XXIII should have released the third secret of Fatima in 1960 as requested by Our Lady .

        • “rapid decline of the Catholic church on every measurable statistic”. I really have to challenge you on your statement. I remember back at the time of Vatican II I was an altar boy. I was studying hard to learn how to handle serving a Latin Mass. I had to learn all the responses in Latin and I had absolutely no idea what I was actually saying. I eventually learned what the various responses of the Mass meant, but I had NO IDEA what the day to day prayers during the Mass meant. When Vatican II arrived and I switched over to the English Mass, I was amazed that I could actually understand (to some degree) what I was saying. Although I don’t like everything in Vatican II, the most fundamental thing that inspired me was that the Council gave me a basis to allow me to implement my religious beliefs in my day to day secular life, whereas before Vatican II religion was all about creating a separate little religious world from the secular world.
          It is also important to recognize that if you consider an Ecumenical Council to be essentially wrong then, you are effectively stating that you cannot trust that the fundamental teachings of the Church are inspired by God.

          • “When Vatican II arrived and I switched over to the English Mass,”

            “36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” Sacrosanctum Concilium.

            Changing the Mass to English was one of the slimy, sneaky things that were done “in the spirit of Vatican II.”

          • Tend to agree with what you have said, David, and would like to add a comment of my own. One thing that has been bothering me is the attempt by some to drive a wedge between those who receive Communion in the hand and those who receive on the tongue. There is enough division between RC’s without adding another to the mix. Perhaps, this is a straw man, and will dissipate once Covid has been resolved somewhat and, what seems to be unfair rules, are amended

          • ” the Council gave me a basis to allow me to implement my religious beliefs in my day to day secular life, whereas before Vatican II religion was all about creating a separate little religious world from the secular world.”

            Could you give me a concrete example of this, please? I am not able to figure out quite what you mean.

          • Prospero, you wrote: “Perhaps, this is a straw man, and will dissipate once Covid has been resolved somewhat and, what seems to be unfair rules, are amended”

            To what “unfair rules” do you refer?

  5. I’m so confused..I dont know enough to judge correctly,so I’ll just back off and pray that the fractions in the church come back together as a whole,One holy catholic apostolate church….This is all driving me crazy…One over here ,one over there…You dont know who to follow…So I will back off until they all come to there senses…God help and save us….

    • I too feel that pull; that sense of being a little lost. It is frustrating and confusing but this article is very helpful and I find comfort in Jesus’s own proclamation to Peter: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”.
      If we are to believe that Jesus is guiding the church in spite of the communist seminarians that were planted decades ago and perhaps continued to be planted for quite some time, then overall, the gates of hell will never prevail against it.
      Stay strong and pray.

  6. I have no doubt in the superior intellectual and theological level of this Catholic scholar who engaged in a polemic with Archbishop Vigano. I read his dissertation and I have to say I don’t buy this priest’s comments on Archbishop Vigano. By contrary, reading this article it strengthens my conviction on the existence of the ‘deep church’ within the Catholic Church like in the social political landscape. How comes we make a negative consideration on what this hierarch said o wrote, but they don’t see what in fact the Vatican II have done to the Universal Church and also what this Pope (Lord have mercy upon him) is doing to the Body of Christ. I stop here lamenting on what our Universal Church has become in the past decades. We need popes like Saint Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI. So this article did not impress me at all.

  7. Thank you Father for your clear response to Archbishop Viganò. I fear he will lead many astray. He seemed so believable at first.

  8. I find the comments to Vigano’s letter to the world very interesting since many report the Pope is under house arrest and many other state he has been executed. Others state that 650 airplanes emptied the Vatican of gold, gold coins and all documents. How does the Church think they will escape their fate? How will the Church recover from this Satanic scandal?

  9. Fr. Weinandy, at least to this layman, seems to be saying “Yes, things are just as horrible in the Church as the archbishop alleges, but horrible in a different way.” Their argument goes back and forth much as once theologians reputedly differed over the number of angels residing on a pinhead. In other words, the more these educated men argue, the less clear the whole matter becomes for all of us.

    There are, nevertheless, several things that remain very clear to all. First, no one needed Archbishop Vigano’s thoughts or letters to drive people out of the Church; she has been hemorrhaging laymen, clerics, and religious ever since the council under discussion. Second, the lunatic changes after Vatican II weren’t merely the notions of bad pastors in individual churches. These ‘bad pastors’ always referenced the council to ‘explain’ the innovations they were initiating. Third, despite Fr. Weinandy’s opinion to the contrary, there are preciously few good ‘fruits’ we can lay to the door of Vatican II unless we number among them many rotten fruits.

    I really don’t see that Archbishop Vigano or any of the other critics of the last council are leading Catholics into schism or heresy. I see that they are simply putting on paper what many of us feel in our hearts, viz. that the council was an unmitigated disaster. I’ll leave the arguments attempting to explain why this is so to those better schooled in canon law and theology than I.

    • Yes, precisely. The positions being discussed now are simply those that have existed for many years and I dare say must exist among many priests and prelates who even yet remain silent. That these topics can now be discussed openly is the most important and valuable development. I have appreciated some of Father Weinandy’s commentary in the past. His concern for the obfuscation of the 4 Marks of the church is particularly incisive. In this instance, I find Father Weinandy’s argument unconvincing. But at least for me, the details at this point are of lesser importance though I hope and pray for a time of clarity and decision in the nearest of futures.

      The current division in the Church cannot be ignored and praise God it is not now being ignored. The Church-in-division has been variously described as “bi-partite Church” by Pope Benedict, a “Schismatic Church” by Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Müller, a “dual Church” by Archbishop Vigano and of course a “Conciliar Church” by Archbishop Lefebvre, all of whom recognize the incompatibility of doctrines and practices that are now said to be…”Catholic”. Indeed, the Catholic Church now reflects in function the Anglican Communion, with various and opposing doctrines all being declared as “Catholic”, all being accepted as opinions, none condemned, no clarity provided. This radical new modus operandi founded on the “medicine of mercy”/”no condemnation” paragraph from Pope John XXIII’s Gaudet Mater Ecclesiae lives on. Hopefully, not for too much longer. {CCC 1697}

    • Oh, Vigano is most definitely leading people into schism. He has basically adopted the stance of the SSPX. The trio of Vigano, Schnieder, and Taylor Marshall are all big admirers of the SSPX and seem to have drunk their kool aid. Now, these people proclaim that Vatican II proclaims “errors”. Interesting. If so, why has no one been able to point out these errors. How did these errors get past the army of 2300 bishops who voted on them? How did they get past the army of theologians who examined them carefully at and during the Council? How did these errors not get noticed by the thousands of theologians who have examined them in the 50 years since the council? No. We have to admit that Schneider, Vigano etc are crackpots who seem to have gone off the rails. Vigano is now saying that Covid is a plot to institute one world government, and there is a freemasonic plot to take over the church etc. Oh really? How come nobody noticed this but you, and your few SSPX inclined buddies? How come all this was only noticed after Pope Francis came around. No. They disagree with the many strange things Pope Francis has done, therefore they conclude it must all be a conspiracy leading back to Vatican II. This is nonsense.
      Yes, the innovations that were NOT called for by Vatican II were the work of individuals in parishes. sometimes aided by their bishops. Yes, they used the excuse of “Vatican II is making us do this” but that was a lie. So is the fault in Vatican II? No, the fault is in the people who misled the laity and told us false things about Vatican II.

    • Jack, your whole response contradicts your very last sentence, or vice versa – Fr. W is one of those who is better schooled in canon law and theology and who explained it very well and clearly. I am sorry you missed this clarity and logic of explanation as it was, and remains, as plain as the nose of one’s face or the paint on the barn. This is not dismissive, it is simply presentation of bewilderment that you claim to leave to others what you are equivalent not to task, after they did just what you said they should being doing. Fr W did so simply and plainly and quite well. Blessings Jack, of Our Lord and Our Lady, Padre

  10. As anyone who has learned the fallacies from a course on logic, one stands out: “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.” Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X. So, in the debate between Fr. Weinandy and Archbishop Vigano, we saw this is happening over 50 years among theologians. Because of the Vatican Council, great graces have been given to the Church, and great ecclesial catastrophes as well (some bad liturgy, dissent from moral norms, univocal understanding of canon law and theology). Did the Council cause the great graces? Did it cause the seeming chaos? Was the teaching of the documents both guilty and innocent of error and truth? Was the down side afterwards a massive failure of theologians to read its footnotes? Was it the failure of St. Paul VI to fight against false interpretations of some seeming ambiguous sentences here and there in Conciliar documents? Did the dissent of several episcopal conferences of Humanae Vitae and the failure to correct them by the papal magisterium flow from the Council that was touted to be pastoral and not to condemn any false teaching? As an after thought, why did the bishops at the Council fail to mention indulgences and the virtue of penance?

    What kind of cause do we find from the Council producing only new fruits of grace and yet to say it had no bad effects indirectly or only bad results? Rubbish! Perhaps, we will only know the kinds of causal connections between the Council and the good and the bad effects which emerged over the decades. If it was not directly the cause of the historical outcomes, both uplifting and disastrous, did the bad effects have come about indirectly? Then again, the host of problems may have emerged from seeming great weakness of the papal magisterium, as well as the episcopal magisterium too afraid to discipline bully bishops and theologians. Finally, could the decades a certain dearth of the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, predicted by some theologians at the end of the Council while idolizing Carl Rahner’s ambiguities added more confusion to understanding and interpreting the Council’s documents?

    Therefore, I would opine that from different points of view both Weinandy and Vigano are on to something true but not the whole truth that needs a higher synthesis beyond the pales of letter writing.

    • Fr. Basil Cole, OP, I remember you as a great theologian who back in the 80’s conducted parish Missions in our Parish. You blew away the errors prevailing in our Parish and there were many who did not like what you said. It was the “spirit of Vatican ll” days. Your way of perfectly reasoning out matters, I’ll never forget. You should be a leader in the debates on Vatican ll. You wrote your comment in a manner that best describes where we are in the Church today. A new battle for the Church has begun and I believe God requires that you not keep silent. Thank you and God Bless you and May Our Holy Mother protect you.

    • Most balanced and logical comment here. 100 upticks. Jesus said that unless “these days” [of doctrinal confusing and discord] were shortened, –even the faithful would be misled. We must all pray and keep the faith. If you don’t know who to trust, but know something is terribly wrong everywhere you look, just keep praying and God will act [probably in a cataclysmic way] to end the confusion, –even if it means knocking the world back to 19th century technology.
      Keep the faith, continue to attend Mass, say the rosary, wear the brown scapular & miraculous medal and you will be safe, physically as well as spiritually. Trust God and his Blessed Mother; you will be fine.

    • Fr. Basil, thank you for putting my reaction into words in a far more crisp fashion than I ever could have!

      I happened across the documents of Vatican II while I was a very young man. To this day, I believe they saved my faith.

      Now, I absolutely sympathize with those who decry all of the novelties and absurdities that have appeared in the Church since the 1960s. But I do not believe that those changes necessarily stemmed from the Council.

      We need to remember that the broader culture in which the church exists has been blown apart by a sea change in attitudes and values.

      We must not lose hope in the Holy Spirit. We know that God can bring order out of chaos, joy out of misery, salvation out of sin.

    • To Fr Basil’s observation, let me say Amen Brother! However, one point that is not noted by Fr. Basil, nor found in Fr Weinandy’s article, nor in the many thoughtful comments (which I have been reading for nearly one hour) is the role of the secular media during and after V2. Mainstream news media is notorious for spreading mis-information about Church teaching–they are no friend of our Lord. Media misinform the laity, as well as priests and bishops, and most especially it frightens bishops into silence. Any balanced understanding of V2 and its aftermath must account for the role of the secular media in the propagation of misinformation, as well as attempting to intimidate bishops.

  11. One can’t be an orthodox Catholic and believe that the promise of Christ that the guidance of the Holy Spirit would remain with the Church forever was broken at Vatican II.

    If one doesn’t believe Jesus keeps His promises one doesn’t really believe in Jesus.

    As scandalous as the actions and inaction of Bergoglio and so many prelates have been — and they have been outrageous and evil — the current situation still isn’t as bad as was a vast majority of Catholic bishops embracing the Arian heresy, which denied the divinity of Christ.

    God got the Church through the Arian heresy. He will get it through its current afflictions, as grievous as they are.

    There will be white and red martyrdom along the way, though. Get used to that fact. Accept it. Get ready for it.

    • Also remember that after the council of Nicea, the church was embroiled in controversy after controversy for decades and decades, and the Council caused much confusion and distubance in the church. After Trent, was Protestantism destroyed? No, far from it. So by that standard, Trent was a big failure. The Council that denounced Arianism was a big flop. Arianism still flourished, so much so that 80 years later, another council had to condemn it again. Even then, it flourished in parts of Europe until the year 500 or so. So this insistence by some that after a Council, everything must be perfect immediately is false.

      • On Nicea. I think the analogy would be if Nicea caused Arianism instead of being a response to it.

        And that is how we can view Vatican II. The faith was sound. After it, all sorts of errors flourished. There was no heresy to battle. But now heresies abound and are being proclaimed in at your local parish.

      • Samton909, My final reply. So every Council was a failure with the exception of Vatican ll. St. John Paul ll stated that Vatican ll was not a super Council, it was but one of the 21 Councils of the Church. You say among other things that Trent was a failure because Protestantism was not ended. The Church lost 8 million Catholics to Protestantism, But at the time of the Protestant revolt, in Mexico Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared to St. Juan Diego and 9 million were added to the Church. Then millions upon millions more, as Our Lady’s apparitions converted not only Mexico but all of Central and South America. What Our Lady said in Mexico was a severe blow to Protestant errors. Just as in Fatima, in La Salette, and at Akita, these apparitions have been a direct hit against the Modernist false religion. Our Lady forewarned that a false religion would be taught in the Church and it would start from the very top. Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich was given visions by God in the 1820’s. Visions that would come true to the letter in the 2020’s. It is believed that one of her visions was Vatican ll. She saw a long procession of Bishops entering into a large Church. The the majority were either evil or weak in their Faith. She saw only a few of the Bishops were holy and had holy intentions. The approved apparitions have shown us V2 and the Modernist infestation. The Modernist heresy began its heyday in the 1930’s,40’s and 50’s. In the 60’s during and after the Council Modernism became the official religion in Christs Holy Catholic Church, thus wounding the Sacred Heart of Jesus and that of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

  12. If a Roman pontiff legitimately calls for an ecumenical council, whether it is primarily pastoral [Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum are dogmatic] it by institution by Christ of his office as pontiff cannot be in error, or even misguided by the pontiff. That includes the bishops regarding error when acting in union with him within the council. Certainly it can contain deficiencies requiring improvement. Fr Weinandy OFM Cap is correct regarding assured guidance of the Holy Spirit for the Council. Unfortunately, Fr Weinandy is correct in the exaggerated position now taken by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, a man who has had the immense moral courage to call the Pontiff on a matter of integrity regarding the McCarrick scandal. A justified challenge for a necessary submission of the truth. And certainly elsewhere regarding the Pontiff’s dangerous moral distancing form Apostolic Tradition by means of suggestion, and especially the Pontiff’s misrepresentation of St Thomas Aquinas in ST 1a2ae 94, 4 [see E Christian Brugger NCR 2016] cited in Amoris Laetitia. Impressing the reader with the fallacy that all moral superlatives denoting intrinsic evils such as adultery, homosexuality, cohabitation, in every instance have exceptions. Effectively teaching the false doctrine that no inherently evil act is in practice evil – since mitigation neutralizes. Placing the onus on the priest to give the benefit of the doubt to the adulterer, homosexual, cohabitator [see Rules and Discernment 304 Amoris Laetitia]. These errors were addressed also by Fr Weinandy in correspondence to the Pope. Weinandy was then summarily dismissed from his position with the USCCB. His integrity remains unvarnished. Both men are highly esteemed by many including myself. Both men need to be reconciled in regards to our mission as defenders of the one true faith. Schismatic contention now spreading within the Body of Christ is not an option. Resistance and courageous defense of the faith is our mission.

    • Well, Vigano now has to become reconciled to the Catholic church, which he appears to condemn, at least implicitly, by alleging that her Council contains errors. He seemed to be courageous when he complained against the problems with Francis. But then he appears to have wholeheartedly adopted the position of the excommunicated Lefebvre in all respects. Will it go so far as to cause the excommunication of Vigano as well?

      6. Are Catholics free to ignore, disparage, or reject Vatican II?

      No. In light of questions 1–5, this is not a valid option for Catholics. To ignore, disparage, or reject Vatican II is to call into question the living teaching authority of the Church itself, which was given by Christ (CCC 874) and is accomplished in the Holy Spirit (CCC 78). It is to place oneself in a dangerous spiritual attitude with respect to “the fullness of the means of salvation” (CCC 824)—the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church—by setting oneself above its Magisterium as judge.

      Pope St. Pius X warned against this attitude in 1909:

      “Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her . . . but judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments . . . then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.”

    • The flawed Rules of Discernment in Amoris laetitia (2015)–that concrete factors (e.g., compulsiveness, infantilism, etc.) can not only mitigate personal freedom of will, or full knowledge, and therefore subjective culpability; BUT CAN ALSO pull the plug on the Natural Law/moral law itself (the reality of intrinsic good and evil)—(these rules) were signaled earlier in Evangelium Gaudium (2013)–in the four leavening AND/OR ambivalent “principles”, of which, these four corresponding questions:

      Turned loose on an un-grounded an devious world:

      When is “time is greater than space” at risk of flattening into Historicism?
      When is “unity prevails over conflict” at risk of flattening into Managerialism–e.g., clericalist fatwas (!) constructing a parallel and neutral option of no-fault sexual immorality?
      When is “realities are more important than ideas [concepts?]” at risk of flattening into Nominalism (as well as Historicism)?
      When is “the whole is greater than the part” at risk of dissipating into the calculus of global consequences, converting moral theology into the Babel of Proportionalism and Consequentialism, and of discarding or subjectivizing the personal/sacramental/interior life?

      Nothing new under the sun…

      • Excellent responses to the Pontiff’s four conceptual principles. Time may proceed through space, however the permanence of a singular unchangeable event transcends transient time because the Incarnation of the Word determines all history. Abstract empty ideas are produced in a mind empty of faith. A gift that is revealed as compared to the mind’s manufactured beliefs.

  13. The plan is working. You progressives are losing your minds.

    Well, your century long movement is in exponentially disintegrating anyway. Every smart person on earth knew it was coming.


  14. “There has always been some give-and-take when it comes to language, but whatever noetic content is contained in such language, it must be interpreted within the overarching previous magisterial and conciliar teaching.”

    Excellent observation, which uncovers the source of the problems that occurred in conjunction with Vatican II. I believe there were progressives waiting in hiding for an opportunity to hi-jack the true meaning of the council. Thus, they interpreted the language of the council in ways that would fit their progressive agenda. They often used the term ‘the spirit of Vatican II’ to justify their interpretations. A prime example is some of the changes made in the liturgy, such as moving the tabernacle out of the center of the church and turning the celebrant around to face the congregation. Many new churches were built with the congregation surrounding the altar. Although this was not indicated in the council document on the liturgy it was done in ‘the spirit’ of more participation by the faithful. Thus, the progressives were reading changes into the documents that were not the intentions of the council. These runaway changes are well documented in Michael Rose’s book “The Renovation Manipulation”.

    • The problem with your analysis is that they do this with every document they don’t like. I remember when Humanae Vitae came out, they pretended it could be ignored if Catholics wanted, or that Catholics could use contraception, just not during the short period of time a woman was fertile, etc etc etc. When Benedict said “No homosexuals in the seminaries” they all said that “Oh, this does not mean no homosexuals in the seminaries” They always find a way to ignore what the pope says, no matter what the document is. So the problem is not Vatican II, it is a generalized attitude of resistance by some bishops and priests who are progressive and simply refuse to obey Rome.

      • “So the problem is not Vatican II …”

        I didn’t say the problem was Vatican II. I said the problem was the intentional mis-interpretation of Vatican II.

    • I haven’t read “The Renovation Manipulation,” but I’ve read the author’s “Ugly as Sin.” Do you know whether they’re different enough that I should read both, or do they cover the same territory?

      • Leslie, I tried to respond to your question in an earlier post asking about my reference to “unfair rules” (just realized tonight that you had commented on my comment) although I could not find a red reply icon to hit so am answering here instead. In my parish Mass attendees can receive on the tongue or hand, although, I understand reception on the tongue has been denied in many diocese. This denial seems pretty questionable and I hope there is not a hidden agenda to deny Communion on the tongue once the Covid has flattened. Not sure if this clarifies my statement.

    • Actually Weinandy’s response is very well done. Vigano’s probable ghost writer is Schneider. They collaborate and reinforce each other. Those two are bent on causing trouble in the church, and I am afraid they will be getting themselves in lots of hot water. I saw recently that some are suggesting that Vigano and his friends are in violation of Canons 750 etc. Stay tuned.

  15. Father Weinandy “would like to end on a personal note”? The whole thing is nothing but a personal note. Remembering Father Weinandy’s courageous critique of Amoris laetitia fairly early on, I for one was expecting something substantive here, and not more Bishop Barronesque self-centeredness about how one has been misunderstood and slighted by those who are, ipso facto, unbalanced–or worse. So the lay people have “received” the Second Vatican Council, thereby legitimizing it, have we? What choice have we been given? Have we been taught the truth? Have we been permitted to so much as whisper one unwelcome question? No, we have not. Decade after decade we watch our friends, our family members crash and burn while we ourselves, if we so much as raise a single concern, are told not by the apostates but by our own pastors and bishops to pipe down and go away. I say this as a daily Novus Ordo Massgoer for all of my adult life. I read this article waiting, hoping for Father Weinandy to offer something convincing, but no. So Archbishop Vigano is an ideologue, now is he? “Same old, same old,” Father, could at this stage in the game be said to constitute a problematic and limited worldview in and of itself.

    • “Helen
      AUGUST 14, 2020 AT 9:47 AM”

      To be sure, a heartfelt and accurate assessment of the experience and views of many who wait diligently for orthodox clarity {and all that stems from it} from leadership in the Church.

    • Well said. Any Catholic who was conscious at the time had raised eyebrows at what was transpiring during the Council, and even before it commenced. We were all well schooled in not challenging clerical authority under any circumstance and would not dare to unbutton our lip. Even the unschooled but the most humble recognized a bunch of resentful clerics and religious spoiled in their exposure to the secular academy and tugging on their leash. My barely literate Irish grandfather, no churchgoer, said “They want to be protestants.” The grossly apparent truth of his insight was lost on no one. We now know that “ecumenism” was merely a stepping stone to secular materialist atheism with the mask of cultural katholicism.
      Archbishop Viganò has let the cat out of the bag in a way that was impossible at another moment in the post-conciliar period. His blistering accurate critique of the mid-century council and the current pontificate is nothing less than prophetic. No amount of wishful well intentioned regurgitated rationalization even by the likes of Father Weinandy will serve the purpose of saving the conciliar catastrophe from its just judgement. Unfortunately in all likelihood most of us will only see it flushed from the perspective of eternity.
      Jesus Christ, true God and true man, will triumph over the machinations of protracted adolescents. May He preserve and reward Archbishop Viganò.

    • Boy did you misunderstand what Weinandy said. The fact that you refer dismissively to “Barronesque self centeredness” is all we need to know. You have been propagandized by those same youtube popes that have declared Vatican II in error. Its a shame that you have bought into the Vigano worship, just as many bought into the Lefebvre worship.
      Yes, people have “received” Vatican II.
      Yes, you were allowed to question Vatican II all you wanted. Ridiculous to assert otherwise.
      If your families crashed and burned, it was not because of Vatican II. If I understand you correctly, this is a world wide phenomenon, not just a Catholic one. So how could it be due to Vatican II?
      That said, your emotional response to a scholarly treatment of Vigano and his many errors is sad to watch.

      • People have been allowed to question Vatican II all along as much as they are allowed to question Bishop Barron at the moment. I “worship” Archbishop Vigano, but you do not worship him?

      • No, you were not effectively allowed to question the implementation of the mid-century council. Of course you could raise your voice but that once done you were consigned to the margins at least. You were diminished and only received an ear while you were enjoying a smirk. If you do not know that you weren’t there — and it appears you are not entirely cognizant of what is transpiring presently.
        I’m afraid I was there, and fortunately or unfortunately I have occupied a number of perspectives in the post-conciliar period. I’ve explored many ways of being a Roman Catholic experientially as well as with prayer and study. We can be grateful that perseverance and the grace of God can and does disabuse us of grave disorientation and erroneous rationalizations.
        Archbishop Viganò has a far richer store of knowledge and experience than most of us. The courage and fortitude he exhibits and contributes to us living in this ecclesiastical quagmire of our own construction is heroic. His is an invaluable voice. It is not an easy thing to buck the clerical sandbox. The dog-collars got teeth.
        We would be very wise to listen very well.

        • Yes, you were allowed to question the council. Don’t say that you were not. The problem is that you were not very persuasive in your condemnation of the council back then, and you are not persuasive today, because the old SSPX condemnations of the Council make no sense. You were dismissed back then. Now, if you had changed your objections from the Council, which was unobjectionable, to the real problems within the church, then maybe someone would have listened to you. But no, you guys had to grind your axe about the Council, and all your complaints about the Council were bogus, entirely bogus.
          And I am entirely aware of the current problems in the church. But my question to you is – why do you ignore the child abuse, why do you ignore the homosexuals in the priesthood, why do you ignore the bishops who are stealing money and doing all sorts of evil – why do you ignore all that , so you can argue endlessly about the Council? You seem to want to divert attention away from the real problems in the church. You seem to want to help the bad guys by keeping the good guys occupied with nonsensical objections to the Council.
          As for Vigano, the man has apparently lost his mind. He now believes in every goofy conspiracy theory under the sun. He buys the whole SSPX ball of nonsense, all freemasons infiltrating, Vatican II is the problem blah blah blah. I fear for his sanity. Claiming that the pope is trying to set up a one world religion and that Covid is a plot to take over the world are not the actions of a sane man. He needs help.

          • You appear consistently to be grossly uninformed and to work out of a basket of your own confections serving to justify any number of erroneous dispositions. You whip up verbiage having no persuasion but to support your notions and justify yourself. Inadequate, inaccurate and deliberately fallacious post-conciliar catechesis has had dire consequences for all of us one way or the other.
            Our measure is to be the Gospel — the Gospel as articulated in Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the PERENNIAL Magisterium for the salvation of our souls, our own and others. Roman Catholicism is about living out the Paschal Mystery and that is essentially embracing the Cross — not establishing a fortified safe space for self-gratification and self-justification. It is essentially surrender to the person of Jesus Christ, not argumentative polemics.

          • As for Vigano, the man has apparently lost his mind. That uncharitable ad hominem thrust dismisses all your arguments as so much fanatical claptrap, as far as I am concerned. But then I am stating the obvious.

  16. For me Vigano’s strength was that he knew players & things about the McCarrick affair. Then unfortunately he started to go down weird paths which undermines his overall credibility. Sadly I fear that in a year or two’s time I might have to consider him a wacko with the likes of Emmanuel Milingo…

    • ” Sadly I fear that in a year or two’s time I might have to consider him [Archbishop Vigano] a wacko…”

      Why wait? That’s obviously all you have so what’s the point of delay? But if you read this article, you’d know that Father Weinandy believes that Archbishop Vigano didn’t even write the letter to which Father Weinandy offers his grossly ineffective attempt at rebuttal.

      So your accusations of “wacko” should be properly directed not to Archbishop Vigano, but instead to his ghost writer, whomever that might be.

      To give you credit at least you, unlike Father Weinandy, kept your ineffective “rebuttal” brief.

  17. Vatican II took what could be called an evangelical risk in more greatly opening up the Church to the world. But since “the whole world is in the power of the Evil One” that does entail risking that “diabolical disorientation” also enter more deeply the Church. Here is what Pope Saint John Paul wrote in his encyclical Dominum et vivificantem, 26:
    «…[the]work being done by the Church for the testing and bringing together of the salvific fruits of the Spirit bestowed in the Council is something indispensable. For this purpose one must learn how to “discern” them carefully from everything that may instead come originally from the “prince of this world.” This discernment in implementing the Council’s work is especially necessary in view of the fact that the Council opened itself widely to the contemporary world,»

  18. Reading Fr. Weinandy’s block makes me believe that he too, is taken by the devil. If he doesn’t see anything wrong in modernism, in what’s currently going on in the church today, what abominations that came out of Vatican II, such as receiving Jesus on the hand, and less reverence, then he is the one that is taken by the devil. He seems to be defending Pope Francis and modernism. The reason the young are living the church is because the tradition has not been passed down, they see their parents and a lot of people with little faith, or they didn’t receive the right teachings or kindergarten teachings of the faith. Fr. Weinandy also failed to defend the faith from modernists and those wanting to destroy the church. Pope Francis declared that he is not the Vicar, and he also confuses the faithful. I wonder why he never or doesn’t say abortion is evil.

    • Your comment is misguided. Weinandy never said there was nothing wrong with Modernism. Of course there is. You appear to assume that everyone who adheres to the Catholic church and its Council is a “modernist”. But that is false.
      Your false youtube popes are the ones being guided by the devil. For they have convinced you to reject the Catholic church, and even to hate it. They have exaggerated and told you that such things as communion in the hand is an ENORMOUS sacrilege. But it is not. I prefer communion on the tongue. But is communion in the hand a sacrilege? Not at all. I have watched the youtube popes and their videos trying to get you to hate the Catholic church and alleging that communion in the hand is an enormous sacrilege, and basically, they lie and exaggerate. They tell you that every church is littered with pieces of the eucharist, all over the floor, and no one cares. This is nonsense. This is exaggeration. They always exaggerate to make everything they don’t like some sacrilige. Weinandy actively has taken Pope Francis to task many times, and has lost his job because of it. So no, he is not defending Pope Francis, and he is not defending Modernism. The reason the young are leaving the church has nothing to do with Vatican II. They leave for many reasons. Sound Catholic teaching is lacking in many cases. But Vatican II did not demand that teaching the faith be abandoned.

      • Thank you for you comment confirming that receiving Communion in the hand is not sacrilegious. If you prefer Communion on the tongue go for it but please, people, don’t portray yourself as being a better Catholic than those who receive in the hand. The term “Holier than Thou” comes to mind.

        • 21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones? (Catechetical Lecture 23 Saint Cyril of Jerusalem Father of the Church).

      • They don’t reject the Church. Just the corrupt and heretical hierarchy. And as you well know, the heirarchy is not the Church.

  19. It is fascinating how Fr. Weinandy passes judgement on Archbishop Viganò’s character – while accusing the Bishop of calumny and divisiveness.
    Father’s response Is written in a petty and petulant style. If the concern is the Facts of Vatican II – why discuss his ‘feelings’ for Pope Francis and ‘opinion’ of the Bishop and his writing style? He plays to both sides – flipping from ‘conservative’ to ‘liberal’ and never expounding on actual Truth. For my part, I found Father Weinandy’s response to be hypocritical – his tepid arguments are lost amongst his opinions and personal judgements. I was looking for a Yes to be a Yes – and Truth – not a personal article of persuasion.
    We see that even men of the clothe are fallen humans. I’ll keep searching and praying.

    • This is the usual comment of those under the spell of youtube popes. Whereas Weinandy was perfectly civil, they always accuse anyone taking one their fake youtube heroes as being unkind to them and personal. Even when the person is manifestly not that way at all. This is the kind of attack dog tactic that these SSPX like people use all the time. Weinandy makes a valid point about his writing style and suggests that someone is helping Vigano. And this is probably Schneider, who sits behind the scenes and seems to try to get Taylor Marshall and Vigano to do things. But that is just me guessing.

  20. I’m with the Archbishop. Tired of all this liberal stuff. Look at the church nowadays.
    Terrible. The new mass is a shell of the Latin Mass.

    • No, Susan, that is not so. I always attempt to let Christ Offer His Mass each and every time, He is never a shell, His Sacrifice is never a shell, His Faithful Loving Obedience to the Rubrics is never a shell…. If the priest is truly the Priest, and not him’self’, then it is not a shell….I have Offered both expressions of the One and Same Mass, Sacrifice and Sacrament, it is not a shell, nor AM I as He and I, in persona Christi, make present His Priestly Offering and Mysteries…May the Eucharistic Sacred Heart of Jesus and His Kingdom, reign blessedly, Father.

  21. When pagan rituals are taking place in the Vatican debating about what council may or may not have gotten us here seems to be a waste of time.

    It would seem more prudent to amputate the infected body parts, removing them completely from continuing to spread their disease, and then debate over where the disease came from can start (once the infection is no longer spreading).

    For the average layperson, I would imagine, we face much more pressing concerns like Jesus being DENIED to us from our priests, from our bishops, and from our cardinals, and from our pope.

    Get us the Eucharist and take care of your sheep and then you can argue over what council did what.

    If Jesus asked of you what he asked of St. Peter, “Do you love me?”. How many shepherds could honestly answer yes when the abuse of his sheep multiplies daily.

  22. Fr Wienandy is on he firing line accused of what substantially? “In my Catholic Thing article, I argued that Pope Francis, although the Pontiff of the Catholic Church, has become, for all practical purposes, the leader of those elements within the Church that are verging on schism, such as the bishops of Germany” (Weinandy). Is that not true? It’s a clear indictment of Francis in league with the German bishops, something I’ve previously alluded to. Germany is the prototype church for a universal polygon Church long envisioned by our Vatican purveyors of the New Paradigm. “Archbishop Viganò attempts to interpret my description of this double role as my dividing Pope Francis (the Pontiff) from Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the ‘exuberant’ Argentinian” (Weinandy). By what logic does Archbishop Viganò perceive a fallacious comparison of “the leader” of schism Pope Francis, widely known for double messaging orthodoxy and heterodoxy by comparing this to Francis the Pope and Jorge the ‘exuberant’ Argentinian? Unless there’s something I’ve missed it’s a quintessential non sequitur.

  23. Archbishop Vigano and Father Weinandy are two great men and sons of the Church whom I greatly respect, and seeing them at odds like this fills me with great sadness.

    • Yet one is right, and one is wrong. Let’s examine who actively objects to a Holy Spirit guided Council of the Church, and who does not. Once you have done that it is easy to see who is off the rails.

    • Johann I agree. So many good persons suffering from the effects of Apostasy among clergy believe Vat II the cause of our present travail, that return to pre Vat II will set all aright. The evil that appeared during and since the Council didn’t occur spontaneously. Deviants, heretical apostates were already within. Our existential challenge to the faith, and the divisive cause of infighting and despair is the Pontiff. Whether he conscientiously believes he’s in the right is not my issue nor should it be anyone’s. That judgment belongs to God. It’s the distortion of truth intermixed with pious exclamation that is evident. If truth is made somewhat coexistent with evil, mercy sans repentance fallen human nature will gravitate toward that more facile mercy option. That is the immense deceptive temptation offered to the faithful during this pontificate. If we’re aware we must address it. Archbishop Viganò and Fr Weinandy both exemplary are caught up in an internecine sort of devil’s brew that weakens their witness. Pray for us Johann.

      • Dear Father the problem with V2 is it legitimised the error of the previous decades. Once you legitimise error you draw God’s attention. It is in the legitimising that you draw the wrath.

      • Thank you Father for your comment, which is spot on as always. I will continue to pray for all for all members of the Church in this dark time, to the point of wearing out my beads.

  24. “My ways are not your ways” We have lived V2 and it has been all about trying to ram a square peg in a round hole. Forcing mans will on God. Best described as the cult of man. Just look in your Church and see where Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament resides. Tabernacle in the focal point or a man’s chair? One soul lost because the clericalist imposed their will and not God’s is reason to be irate. Deo Gratias AB Vigano. Deo Gratias and gratitude to you Archbishop Viganò, keep speaking!

    Dear Excellency
    Quoting from the Gospel of St John chapter 10.

    We the little people of the Church are so grateful to Our Lord that He has given us a Shepherd prepared to guard the sheep door. 2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. See more DG +AB Vigano we stand with you “PETITION”

    • Of course, there’s the little matter of the documents of VII, notably SC, never eliminating Latin, or moving the tabernacle, or jettisoning ad orientum, etc., etc. A great deal has been in done in the name of Vatican that was never stated by the documents or even stated directly otherwise in the documents. Hence the so-called “spirit of Vatican II”, which goes to great lengths to avoid what the conciliar fathers said. All of this is old hat, but here we are again.

      • 116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services (Sacrosanctum Concilium). One of the greater neglects and left to disappear was Gregorian Chant. It instilled spiritual beauty. Our seminary musicologist lecturer had said music in general is inspired by Man, Gregorian Chant by God.

        • The complete discard of sacred music from Mass is an utter travesty. It pains me personally and I sense a day of reckoning coming because of it. I just hope I live long enough to see/hear it restored.

      • The “Spirit of Vatican II” is what is so frustrating and infuriating. Things were done in that “spirit” and anybody who argued agaisnt them was informed “Well, that’s what Vatican II said” by people who were, knowingly or not, lying. And nobody stopped them, and we’re stuck with the results.

        [And it seems to me to be an insult to the Holy Spirit, Who should be the only Spirit of Vatican II).

        • Leslie right on about lies by laity and most especially, and most damaging by clergy, and the timidity of orthodox clergy to oppose them. For example on TCT years past [during their enlightened com box era] I questioned why Paul VI knowing the issues regarding doctrine and liturgical practice didn’t act. Anthony Esolen responded, alleging that Hans Kung had an intimidating influence on the more passive pontiff. I was in Rome at the time and it was chaos. Apostates had the upper hand. I fault hierarchy, and the priest in the trenches for not calling them out. Evil took sway over interpretation of Vat II. True interpretation, implementation would have made the Council a great success [Latin for example was intended for retention and the vernacular used more sparingly. The opposite occured]. Cardinal Avery Dulles was swept into the deluge of Modernism and later admitted his errors. It seemed the Church was in true schismatic crisis mode. When Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae the outcry by most clergy was overwhelming. Archbishop O’Boyle attempted to impose canonical penalty on rebellious priests, Pope Paul backed off asking O’Boyle not to apparently fearing schism. It wasn’t until Ratzinger acting as prefect under John Paul and later as Benedict XVI did the Magisterium assume control. Now under Pope Francis that nefarious Vat II Spirit is resurrected. There is no continuity between this Pontiff and his predecessors. The claim there is, is a blatant lie.

        • I think the “Spirit of Vatican II” was a catchall phrase to initiate every bad thing that happened following Vat.II. Most laypeople didn’t know enough to question it.

        • Depends on what you mean by Catholic. If only on paper it means nominal. Many are. Many are Apostate following a pattern of selectivity of doctrine refusing teaching necessary for salvation. Many are faithful to Apostolic Tradition adhering to a sacramental life of charity. My comment referenced a period of chaos followed by greater spiritual integrity during the two previous pontificates. Today during this pontificate the pattern submission to the New Paradigm of Mercy without Repentance, or refusal of that Paradigm and continued adherence to Apostolic Tradition. Many are betwixt, confused. My ministry as a priest is to strengthen the faithful, convert the Apostate and confused to the truth of Christ’s revelation. Wherever you are at is unknown except that you seek to impugn to justify yourself.

    • Tim, you fail to distinguish between the actual Council and the implementation, or really the absence of the implementation of the Holy Spirit’s Council. The problem is the latter, not the former, the Holy Spirit and His Council. Blessings, Padre.

      • But the problem is that nobody protected us against the implementation, and anybody who complained about the faulty implementation got slapped down for “not obeying Vatican II.”

  25. While AB Vigano seems to be looking for press time (by responding to Fr. W’s letter and attacking the person, not the issues), Fr. W. should have let it be instead of giving the AB more ‘air time’, so to speak. Do they know how many children are dying of hunger while they engage in fruitless discussion?

    • ” Do they know how many children are dying of hunger while they engage in fruitless discussion?”

      And also while you are commenting, right?

    • An extraordinary work, absolutely essential reading for those who were not alive during the mid-century council. At the time “The New Yorker” in articles penned by Xavier Rynne (Francis X. Murphy CSsR) provided what we thought was the “inside story” and they always painted the counter-Magisterium in the very best light, portraying faithful bishops as neanderthals. De Mattei provides the whole story. Illuminating.

    • Thanks. I just ordered this book. But if anyone can’t afford it, look for an account by an insider In fictionalised form second-hand on the internet.
      I draw attention to the late Fr Malachi Martin’s forgotten but gripping novel “Vatican” (he gives real characters names close to their own; there are places on the internet where this romain-a-clef has the names and the fictional names in a list). He said this was the most nearly autobiographical novel he wrote; and he wanted to let people know the sculduggery going on leading up to Vat II. I highly recommend it. (BTW, long after his death, it was verified that he was secretly ordained a Bishop to ordain priests in iron curtain countries.) Yes, he was viciously slandered by a mental case; the Jesuits were furious that he wrote his exposé on them in “The Jesuits” , every fact of which can be verified from the public record. He is careful to say when he makes a “composite” character, so that you will know the others are thinly fictionalised real prelates. The ending is of course a wishful thinking “happily ever after” for the papacy; in an interview Fr Malachi Martin said that it was blatantly “What I would do if I were Pope” and a hint to the readership of what was needed.
      Even then his book paid a lot of attention to corruption in Vatican finances and how successive popes were unable to comprehend, much less reform them. As apropos now as when it was written.

      • ” (BTW, long after his death, it was verified that he was secretly ordained a Bishop to ordain priests in iron curtain countries.)”

        Verified by whom?

    • Roberto De Mattei is your typical SSPX breakaway sect Catholic. Or should I say schismatic? At any rate, he is not worth the paper he is printed on.

  26. Fr Weinandy complements Archbishop Vigano on being ingenious using Fr. Weinandy’s own words but Weinandy is having none of it. So he backs away from taking a position of standing shoulder to shoulder with Archb Vigano. Surely he will acknowledge that these times within the Church are unprecedented and dwarf the Arian Crisis for the fact, the Church is being assaulted on numerous fronts and not just one foundational dogma. I am sure Vigano would not criticise Weinandy for this. Vigano is following the call of God to this moment and we are grateful for him. God bless Archb Vigano.

  27. I refuse to get into the squabble about the legitimacy of Vatican Council II. It teaches with the mind of the Church animated by the Holy Spirit.

    But in the past 55 years what has it wrought? Toward this end, I encourage everyone here to conduct a little experiment. This Sunday, ask three people who you know are regular Mass attenders (and not theologians or teachers of the Faith) to explain to you just one teaching of Vatican Council II. It might prove instructive and tell you something about the sensus fidelium.

    • Deacon, sorry I miss your points as the answers to the rhetorical questions (asked or instructed to be asked) are to variant. Further, the question, “But in the past 55 years what has it {Vat II} wrought” is a squabbler :-)! Blessings of JMJ, Padre

    • Why not ask them to tell you one teaching of Trent? Because for the average Catholic, who has not studied the Councils, the answer will always be “I don’t know any” Normal people who attend mass do not study councils. Tell me, if you had attended mass in 1950, and asked about the teachings of Trent, you would have gotten a blank stare. If you had asked them to describe any of the parts of the mass or the prayers the priest says, you would have gotten a blank stare. So I think you are misguided in your attempt to ask questions.

      • Ask me about Trent. It was within the whole Church and remains so. The TLM codified by St. Pis V with the Papal Bulla “Quo Primum”. With Anathemas. The Catechism of Trent was the point of reference for all great Catechisms. Just ask what is Trent and you get the answer, the protection of all sacred teaching from Christ, the Apostles and Tradition. Samton909. Did you know that? The results of Vatican ll has been the rupture in the Church for more than 50 years. Those who misinterpreted the Council to their own delight is what created the proper response, Traditional Catholicism!!! Christs Church remains as it is. I have asked you, what is Vatican ll? And you can’t answer because you don’t know. Why do you preach what you know nothing about?

      • Well for all the fact that he’s supposed to be the Pope, you can’t get more Protestant that Francis. Though that’s probably unfair to some Protestants who are really faithful to Christ.

      • samton909, Your comment reminded me of the bygone days of the 60’s and 70’s. COERCION!!! Trying to make us think that if we don’t follow the modernism of the spirit of Vatican ll, then we offend God and are outside of the Church. Sorry but it doesn’t work anymore. The Holy Ghost is moving within traditional Catholicism. Let me remind you, St. Pius X condemned Modernism as the “Heresy of all Heresies”. What happened during and after the Council is called the heresy of Modernism in full action. Any Catholic who accepts and embraces Modernism is excommunicated Latae Sententiae. If you are a Modernist, you are no longer a Catholic. You are excommunicated by your own doing called Latae Sentenciae.

  28. The days of speaking out against Vatican ll, causing in us fear, confusion and trembling are now over. Modernism has lost the war against God. We didn’t speak out against the Council, because the modernists programmed us to see the Council as a super dogmatic infallible Council. With a sort of Anathemas if anyone dare speak against their Council. They never even quoted from the Council, all they had to say is, my idea is “according to the spirit of Vatican ll” and that was it they were speaking with infallibility. I for one would like to hear what the Council actually said that made it so great. I look at the fact that St. Padre Pio was totally against the Council. Also a Cardinal who said that after the first session of the Council, St. Pope John XXlll called all his Cardinal collaborators together and asked them to think of a graceful way to end the Council as he saw trouble ahead. Then what is said that the last recorded words of St. John XXlll were, “End the Council. End the Council”. Do I sound confused? I certainly am!! And this is a direct cause of what Vatican ll did to me. God give speed to Archbishop Vigano.

    • Sorry, you are repeating falsehoods. You see, the anti Vatican people make up a lot of stories, and many of them are totally untrue. Padre Pio never spoke against the Council. The story about John XXIII trying to end the council is a fake made up story. The story about John XXIII on his deathbed is also a fake made up story. Now the question you have to ask yourself is, why are these people making up fake stories to tell me all the time. You can see they are immersed in evil. Vigano has joined the crowd making up false stories. It is very sad.

  29. I have found the Liturgy of the Maronite Catholic Church to be a great relief to the troubles of the Roman Church. The Liturgy is very reverent as were the prayers in the Latin Mass- the worshippers in the pews are very much involved in the praying – I was an altar boy for 8 years – rattling off Latin prayers – the celebrant did the same – a few people with missals would try to follow along – people drowsed their way to communion and then split – Yes the Latin Mass did need to be revised to include the faithful more but a simple adaptation to vernacular of the prayers while keeping the Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Pater Noster, Confiteor and a few other prayers in Latin would have preserved our Mystic ties with the centuries of worship and worshippers that preceded us. The commentor above who noted his Irish grandad’s remark that they just want to be Protestants has nailed it IMHO. If we will heed the simple admonition from the Beloved One “By their fruits you will know them” then PFs promotion of the LBGQXYZ ad infinitum of filth in our suffering Church is certainly alarming enough to cause any faithful Catholics to ‘discern’ that there is something diabolically amiss in the Church. I offer Fr James Martin as evidence prima facie as well as the endless stream of pro-gay appointments to bishoprics. Let us not even get into the inanity of global warming and etc Progressive POLITICAL issues that enflame this Pontiff. That Biden is bragging about his friendship with PF is a horrid example of those who drink babies’ blood from the Chalice of Satan infecting our suffering Church. We are in chastisement. The errors of Russia have spread throughout the world – especially abortion, divorce and totalitarianism. If you are a concerned Catholic – try to find a Maronite Church and give your tortured soul a refreshment.

    • The Ordinariate is another serene and reverent haven of beautiful liturgy and holy priests. I do not know how I could stay sane without my Ordinariate Parish. (Disclaimer: Cradle Catholic here; have a degree in theology; spent 4 years trying my vocation in a monastery when I was young, it was great formation for the rest of my life as a married layperson. )

  30. Father Wienandy has my respect, but one thing is lost in these complicated arguments is the fact that Vatican II is not a dogmatic council but a pastoral council. This means its decrees may be questioned without the risk of incurring schism, particularly in those areas where it may latently contain the”ticking” time bombs. In questioning the Council, Vigano is not promoting schism any more than those who defend the Council, in light of the Church’s teachings, are necessarily promoting heresy

    • John, perhaps this part of the reason for this statement by Fr W??: Archbishop Viganò sees the Second Vatican Council as schismatic, and even more than this, as heretical. My concern is that, in his radical reading of the Council, the archbishop is spawning his own schism.

      I take it you find AB V missing the point as well that VII is pastoral and not doctrinal, and should also not find VII schismatic or heretical??

      Just because the council is pastoral does not mean that it is absent of dogma or doctrine, so yes, schism may be at play.


      The quotation generally used is from a general audience given by Paul VI on January 12, 1966. At that time, Paul spoke as follows:

      There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an EXTRAORDINARY manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.

      Now, to finally put our leading quotation from the general audience of January 12, 1966 in perspective, we need first to note the very next sentence: “But it [the Council] has invested its teachings with the authority of the SUPREME ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM, which ordinary magisterium is so obviously authentic that it must be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council as expressed in the nature and aims of the individual documents.” Taken as a whole, Paul’s comments here summarize the repeated Conciliar declaration which the Pope alluded to in our leading quotation (and which I covered in my 2010 series on the documents of Vatican II, specifically in my Introduction to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church).

      Second, we need to consider all of the other statements Pope Paul VI made on this same topic. Two of these are actually magisterial, included in the acts of the Council itself. Each document ends with this statement:

      Each and every one of the things set forth in this [here the type of document is named] has won the consent of the fathers. We too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable Fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in Synod be published to God’s glory…I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.

      Moreover, the entire body of the Council’s work was promulgated by Paul VI as follows on December 8, 1965:

      We decide moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… we have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect…

      Taken together, these two statements are what make the Second Vatican Council ecumenical, that is, approved and promulgated by the successor of Peter, and therefore a universal magisterial exercise of the highest importance.


      Blessings, Padre

      • And three years later, in 1968, Paul VI expressed his disappointment with the Council’s results: “The Church is now confronted with uncertainty, self-criticism, one might almost say self-destruction. As if the Church were doing violence to Herself.”

        In 1969 Pope Paul VI said: “In many areas the Council has not yet put us at peace; it has rather stirred up trouble and difficulties which are useless for reinforcing the Kingdom of God in the Church and in souls.”

        On July 29, 1972, Paul VI complained: “The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God through some crack: doubt, incertitude, dissension, worry, discontent, and conflict are plain to see.”

    • THANK YOU.
      I have repeated this to my fellow Catholics until I am blue in the face. The Holy Spirit guided Pope Paul VI to proclaim this just at the close of Vat II; he was appalled at the direction it had taken and this was his remedy to neutralise the ill effects its ambiguity would foster and seemingly justify.

      • For over 40 years the Council has been a subject I have thought about. In trying to reconcile the Church before and after the Council, its like trying to mix oil with water. There has been a rupture. I’ve read many times that St. Paul Vl said things like, “Because of the Council the Church is now in auto-demolition”. Before St. Paul Vl died he said, “My crown of thorns has been the way priests are acting today”. After he abolished the Latin for the vernacular he attempted in 1974 to restore some Latin, he wrote a Document titled Jubilate Deo in the hopes of restoring Latin. But it failed, Latin and the Novus Ordo just didn’t work together. There are many things St. Paul Vl tried to do to restore order. The biggest lie coming from the evil one is that we are somehow headed in the right direction because of Vatican ll. There are those still entertaining in their minds that we have no problems in the Church today. Let them fantasize away while we try to fix the problems caused by a group of Modernists in the Second Vatican Council.

      • samton909 You please tell us the truth about the Council. You just repeatedly yell out “false news, we are misled etc… Tell us about the great things that came out of Vatican ll. The Council Documents were written deliberately in an ambiguous language according to Cardinal Kaspar. Bishop Schneider said that anyone can read the Council Documents and make them mean whatever they want. The whole Council needs to be clarified. I have asked before and now I ask again. What are the good fruits of the Council? What is better after the Council compared to before the Council. St. John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict XVl both used their Pontificates to try to fix the damage done during and after the Council. So where is your great Council?

    • Like the USCCB fired Fr. Weinandy? And if we follow the logic of father’s last paragraph (appealing to the authority of bishops over himself), shouldn’t we give Archbishop Vigano the benefit of the doubt in their debate? I love and respect Fr. Weinandy, but his reply here has some lapses in logic like this, and unfortunately also some lapses in charity towards the sincere archbishop.

  31. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2016/12/19/cardinal-burke-no-i-am-not-saying-that-pope-francis-is-in-heresy/

    Pope Francis detractors never provide evidence that he is a heretic or a schismatic etc etc etc. But, they craftily attempt to persuade their audience to come to that conclusion. This is causing confusion and division within the Church. And now these prelates have begun attacking each other. Wow! Watching the sharks circle each other is quite entertaining!

    • Pope Francis certainly has “Detractors” but not “Calumniators”. Those 2 words have different meanings. That Francis has those who accuse him of heresy and schism is a detraction. A detraction because by his own words and deeds he has revealed that he himself is a heretic and schismatic. As long as Francis does not answer the Dubia and other calls for clarification, then Catholics who love Holy Mother the Church shall continue attacking him in order to protect the teachings of Christ and His Church. Francis needs only to act like the Vicar of Christ and defend all that Christ, the Apostles and Tradition teaches us.

    • Oh, really, no evidence? After Pope Francis signed the joint declaration on the “diversity of religions” with the leading Muslim cleric in Egypt, I asked two of my theologian colleagues – two names whom EVERY informed Catholic would recognize – to explain to me just how this declaration was not a FORMAL act of heresy. One did not answer me. (I didn’t expect him to. There is too much art stake for him.) The other said he cannot explain the statement as anything but heresy.

      • Oh, come now. If you really were a Catholic professor, you would know that the Abu Dhabi contained a statement that could be considered wrong. But the pope was asked about this statement, and he indicated to the questioner that by this statement he intended to mean God’s permissive will. So once again, Pope Francis said something confusing and troubling. And once again he managed to stay just inside the lines of orthodoxy. So this goes into the category of “Yet another strange, sloppy statement by the Pope” rather than “heretical acts of the pope. Come on now.

    • Really? Prelates acting like sharks is entertaining?

      It bears reminding that the setting for the shark circling is the Body of Christ, and the battle is being fought by powers and principalities.

      My response differs. I see a tragedy of cosmic consequence. Hell is no vaudeville show.

  32. I was a kid when Vatican II happened, but all I know is that if it were not for Vatican II, with the priest facing the people to celebrate together, and even more importantly, speaking in English, I would most certainly not be Catholic now. I am grateful for Vatican II, despite the horrible music and the strange twists that have occasionally occured.

    • I too was a kid when V2 happened. 3 yrs old when it started. At age 17 I heard for the first time the words “Vatican ll”. I read some of the Council documents. One of the things that perplexes me is, that the Council Documents state that Latin is and will remain the official language of the Church. The Documents of the Council also state that SOME vernacular could possibly be allowed in the Mass. But that it would be up to the Episcopal Conferences to decide just how much of the vernacular would benefit the faithful. Latin remains the rule, some vernacular is only an exception. There is what is called a Latin-English Missal, it has the vernacular, so there are to be no excuses.

      And yet Latin was eliminated by St. Paul Vl. Latin became synonymous with mortal sin. I remember those days very clearly. Latin was completely forbidden. “All according to Vatican ll”.

      Now how does this fare with the actual words of Vatican ll? How by the Councils clear statements on Latin, Latin was abolished “according to Vatican ll”? This was a betrayal of Vatican ll by the very Council Fathers who signed the Documents. And still those who oppose the abolishing of Latin are called “Pre-Vatican ll Catholics” in a derogatory sense.

    • “with the priest facing the people to celebrate together”

      Because we certainly wouldn’t want both priest and people facing God together, rather than staring at each other.

      “strange twists that have occasionally occured.”

      “Occasionally?” Yeah, right.

  33. “Yet, in the midst of all the bedlam, most of them never doubted…”

    Actually, “most” of “the faithful” stopped going to church altogether. So regardless of your main arguments, this support seems misguided if not pure conjecture.

    Vatican II’s documents have beautiful passages and profound insights. They also contain regrettable ambiguities and questionable compromises. Dei Verbum’s “for the sake of salvation” comes especially to mind, given the influence of Raymond Brown and now James Martin. The idea of Biblical inerrancy in Catholicism has been all but lost outside the influence of Scott Hahn.

    So while I will will never say V2 was all wrong, there is no way to honor tradition and say it was all right. It’s a problematic council like Francis is a problematic pope. The documents are part of the problem.

  34. I am still waiting for ONE concrete and coherent example of how Vatican II improved things – anything – in the Church. Lay the blame for our unprecedented apostasy wherever you wish, and make all those desperate pleas that “were it not for Vatican II, things would be even worse.” I don’t care a fig for such discussions. But please just go back to the encyclopedia called the “documents of Vatican II” and explain to me how all that logorrhea improved anything in the Church, in Catholic life, in society, in Catholic education, in religious orders, in priestly vocations, in liturgy, in Catholic art…

    • One “benefit”: It has kept hundreds of theologians, teachers, and writers in academia (and their publishers) actively employed for the last 55 years trying to explain the documents that were crafted by overly academic theologians.

      Can we say that the documents of Vatican II are to the documents of great ecumenical councils as James Joyce’s Ulysses is to great English-language novels…without insulting the Holy Spirit? Heck, many academics would take that comparison as a great compliment!

  35. There are some aspects in this article of Fr. Weinandy that need a close look, without going into the debate between him and Archbishop Viganò.

    Calling Pagan Pope Francis the exuberant Argentinian with schizoid manners is a good start to ascertain the causes behind the poor state of the Catholic Church today.

    About the authenticity of Vatican II: if wheat and tares are so mixed up in the documents of Vatican II and in documents of Vatican of that time, it takes a very poor and permissive Catholic Church to use both referred products as elements to make the spiritual bread; not so good bread makes a not so good Spirituality, as we have been watching since Vatican II with Catholic churches empty and Catholics becoming vulgar in Ethics/Morals/Politics. The bread is not authentic, but maybe Masons, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Modernists infiltrated in the Catholic Church like it. But this does not make it authentic.

    The language used in documents of Vatican II and in documents of that time contains concepts coined by Atheist/Agnostic Masons and Atheist Marxists. Those concepts were mixed with the Doctrine of Our Lord Jesus Christ: this is sheer heresy.

    If the devil infiltrated one of the Disciples of Our Lord Jesus Christ, why couldn’t he infiltrate Vatican II and the Vatican/the Papacy today ?

    If in the words of Fr. Weinandy John XXIII saw “the dire need for the Church to renew itself”, becoming what this poor and permissive Catholic Church is today, how can I and so many Catholics praise John XXIII for bringing the Catholic Church into such chaotic situation ? The only radical reform and renewal needed in his time was throwing out of the Catholic Church Masons and Marxists, but he allowed just the opposite.

    What I say of John XXIII I say also about Paul VI: they are fruit from the same lot.

    If Fr. Weinandy is not a great admirer of Pope Francis, is he then just an admirer of him ?

    The Doctrine of Our Lord Jesus Christ is not about compromise. The Vatican can only follow the path of Christ The King, a difficult one to follow, do not build highways from Vatican to Communist China, to the Jews, to Muslims, to Masons, to Philosophical Modernisms, to the Princes of this World, etc: one Word, one way, people like it and walk it, or people don’t like it and it’s their sole responsibility on that decision. Our Lord Jesus Christ never pretended to please all: He only wanted to please the Father that sent Him.

    To be able to understand Vatican the II documents, being only a Theology expert is not enough: political and philosophical concepts in those documents need more study and investigation from the political and philosophical areas.

    It is impossible to make a bridge between Faith and Reason. The only bridge we can walk on is the one built for us by Our Lord Jesus Christ to approach Him and His Holy Doctrine. Full commitment is needed, no compromise ! No inventors, no inventions needed: the Word of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Truth, and the Truth is enough ! Read the Gospels with attention and faith: this is very important, Jesus Christ is very clear on all subjects !

    • Your rather long comment is based on the same fundamental mistake that you people keep making. You are corrected, over and over again, yet you refuse to accept the correction. You provide no truth that the problems afflicting the church can be traced to Vatican II. Yet you keep saying that. Why? Why do you not admit that there are many causes for those problems, and none of them can be traced to any document of Vatican II. You have no evidence. You appear to be fixated and incapable of free thought and reason. Why is that? Its almost as if you belonged to a cult or something. You just keep repeating false things in the hope that someday they will magically change from being false to being true. Sorry, that does not happen.

      • It seems that people don’t know the documents of Vatican II, allowing errors to grow and infect the Catholic Church. Despite Pagan Pope Francis saying the contrary, it is mandatory to convert Gentiles/Pagans and Heretics. This is for those who don’t know.

        John XXIII wanted to change the Catholic Church into a Modern and permissive one. He wanted to forget Council Vatican I that happened 70 years before and was against Rationalism, Anarchism, Communism, Socialism, Modernism, Liberalism, Materialism. He didn’t waste time. Three months after his election, Pope John XXIII announced his intention to convene a council, saying it was time to “open the windows” of the Church “and let in some fresh air.” Curiously John XXIII chose the name of Antipope John XXIII, who opposed Pope Gregory XII, this one considered by the Catholic Church the rightful successor of Saint Peter. Chosing the name of an Antipope tells about John XXIII weird intentions.

        The Opening Declaration of the Vatican II Council, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, by John XXIII, 1962, concentrated on ideologies of the new times and not on the tradition of the Catholic Church. Next is an excerpt from the Italian version: “ the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a leap forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciences in more perfect conformity with fidelity to authentic doctrine, with this doctrine being studied and presented through the forms of inquiry and literary formulation of modern thought”.

        Now follows an excerpt from Encyclical Pacem in Terris, by Pope John XXIII, 1963, appealing to Reason in a Modernist philosophical stance:”Again it is perfectly legitimate to make a clear distinction between a false philosophy of the nature, origin and purpose of men and the world, and economic, social, cultural, and political undertakings, even when such undertakings draw their origin and inspiration from that philosophy. True, the philosophic formula does not change once it has been set down in precise terms, but the undertakings clearly cannot avoid being influenced to a certain extent by the changing conditions in which they have to operate. Besides, who can deny the possible existence of good and commendable elements in these undertakings, elements which do indeed conform to the dictates of right reason, and are an expression of man’s lawful aspirations ?”
        Now an excerpt from the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1964, on the possibility of Salvation outside the Catholic Church: “The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter”. This passage is about the Protestants and indeed the Catholic Church has been since very much influenced by Protestantism: now the state of the Catholic Church is similar to many Protestant sects: empty churches, lack of faith, Moral permissivism.

        Our Lord Jesus Christ said that no one goes to the Father unless through Him (John 14:6), but Lumen Gentium states otherwise: “…those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved”. This is sheer permissivism: who imagines Our Lord Jesus Christ promising Salvation to Pharisees and Sadducees out of the blue, just like this document is doing to Muslims and other sects, to people not professing the Doctrine of Our Lord Jesus Christ ? This is heretical !

        Now an excerpt from Gaudium et Spes,1965, by Paul VI, on the need of Modern Philosophy and Modern Theology in the Catholic Church. Modernism and new non-Christian ideologies condemned by previous popes, because they were contrary to the principles and the tradition of the Catholic Church, are here welcomed and the destruction of the Catholic Church followed fast: “ Although the Church has contributed much to the development of culture, experience shows that, for circumstantial reasons, it is sometimes difficult to harmonize culture with Christian teaching. These difficulties do not necessarily harm the life of faith, rather they can stimulate the mind to a deeper and more accurate understanding of the faith. The recent studies and findings of science, history and philosophy raise new questions which effect life and which demand new theological investigations. Furthermore, theologians, within the requirements and methods proper to theology, are invited to seek continually for more suitable ways of communicating doctrine to the men of their times; for the deposit of Faith or the truths are one thing and the manner in which they are enunciated, in the same meaning and understanding, is another. In pastoral care, sufficient use must be made not only of theological principles, but also of the findings of the secular sciences, especially of psychology and sociology, so that the faithful may be brought to a more adequate and mature life of faith.”

        Now follows an excerpt of the Declaration Nostra Aetate, by Paul VI, 1965, welcoming and opening to Buddhism, welcoming and opening to the Muslim sects and stating that Jews are no more responsible for the death of Christ than Christians. All this is contrary to the Doctrine of Our Lord Jesus Christ already referred in John 14:6: No one goes to the Father except through Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is black and white. There are no nuances here.

        See the referred Nostra Aetate: “Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions”.

        Still Nostra Aetate: “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”

        Continuing with Nostra Aetate: “True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.”
        What is written here is a lie. Jewish authorities decided the death of Our Lord Jesus Christ and here only says that they “pressed” for the death of Jesus. This is pure whitewashing.

        The Abu Dhabi Declaration signed by Pope Francis is a consequence of Vatican II documents Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate: Catholics must not convert Muslims. This is shameless and anti-Christian.

        If anyone wants to answer me, please take your time and go through Vatican II documents. I don’t want the Catholic Church mixed with Protestant, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist sects. The Word of Our Lord Jesus Christ must be respected and not made vulgar by weirdos infiltrated in the Catholic Church. According to the Doctrine of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels all are welcomed if they listen to His Word. And do accordingly ! And if they repent their sins ! Otherwise salvation is not possible. The Gospels are very clear. But who reads the Gospels with attention ?

        • How I would like to answer the points you have made. I will give you a response when it comes to St. Pope John XXlll. The grave misinterpretations of who he was is one of the problems with those of the “spirit of Vatican ll” and with Utra-Traditionalists. He has been demonized by many in error. Rorate Coeli put out an article about Pope John XXlll, they said Pope John XXlll was a Traditionalist and we must reclaim him as our Pope. St. Pope John XXlll a few months before the Council began, issued a document calling on the clergy to have a greater understanding and ability to speak fluently in Latin. In his personal Diary he has an entry in which he describes with horror that he went to a certain European Country and found that priests were saying Mass facing the people, he speaks of his horror and states that he went to their superiors and was confident that this “Grave abuse of the Liturgy” would end immediately. Also when Teilhard de Chardin started spreading a heresy, it was Cardinal Roncalli who went straight to Ven. Pius Xll and told him about Chardin and the new heresy Chardin was spreading. Ven. Pius Xll immediately in a document condemned the heresy and named Chardin by name. The Council of St. John XXlll never materialized, as a certain Cardinal Bea got enough votes to trash it and replace it with their own Council. St. Pope John XXlll called his closest Cardinal collaborators together and called on them to think of a way to gracefully end the Council, as he saw trouble ahead. 5 of his 9 schemas have been translated into English and they can be found on the Internet. When I read them I would say it was certainly in line with the Council of Trent, a solidifying of the Council of Trent. We have heard the modernists praise him but they completely misunderstand him. St. Pope John XXlll is and was a Traditionalist. St. Pope John’s Council was to crush all modernist errors. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wrote a letter to Cardinal Ottaviani in 1966 telling him that what they feared would happen after the Council was materializing. Lefebvre said that if the Council would have gone as planned we would have had a great Council. Lefebvre was one of the experts who drew up the 9 schemas. Be careful when condemning St. Pope John XXlll as Jesus is watching.

          • I suggest you read several biographies of John XXIII and Paul VI. Don’t be afraid to find the truth.

        • With regard to John XXIII using the title of an antipope: this surely indicates that Pope John was thereby denying the legitimacy of the earlier false pope – which should be exactly as you desire.

        • With regard to your fourth paragraph: it seems true to say that that some good elements can be found even in systems developed on the basis of false philosophies.

  36. Your rather long comment is based on the same fundamental mistake that you people keep making. You are corrected, over and over again, yet you refuse to accept the correction. You provide no truth that the problems afflicting the church can be traced to Vatican II. Yet you keep saying that. Why? Why do you not admit that there are many causes for those problems, and none of them can be traced to any document of Vatican II. You have no evidence. You appear to be fixated and incapable of free thought and reason. Why is that? Its almost as if you belonged to a cult or something. You just keep repeating false things in the hope that someday they will magically change from being false to being true. Sorry, that does not happen.

    • Your idea of us traditionalist is one of the problems in the Church today. Have you ever sat down with a traditionalist to talk about the matters you refer to as fake? Tell us where we are wrong in our concerns for Holy Mother the Church;
      Immediately after V2 ended there was a mass exodus of priests.
      Convents emptied out.
      Mass attendance in the US dropped from 75% to 17%.
      Few vocations.
      Religious orders that have died out or are dying a slow death.
      Pope Francis destroyed the Franciscans of the Immaculate, 800 priests and brothers and 400 Nuns, a flourishing Traditional Order. Its founder is still under house arrest. Francis has yet to give a reason for his act of mercy towards these Franciscans.
      Francis chooses only evil men for high ranks in the Church. Good and holy men he has destroyed and silenced. All done according to Vatican ll.
      Nauseating bad Catechesis.
      Worldwide loss of belief in the Real Presence.
      Churches plundered, transformed from beautiful to ugly.
      A total defiance of St. John Paul the Great and of Pope Benedict XVl.
      Heresy in abundance, example; “God does not punish us”, that’s a lie, He most certainly does. That’s why the Church obligates us to do penance.
      God removed from His Church.
      The problems in the Church are too many to number, they are now innumerable. But just pickup a good traditional Catechism, and all it teaches, the opposite is done in the Church today.
      Samton909, Of the few points I mentioned, Which of it is false news. Is it true or is it our imagination. Or is it time for your kind to recognize that traditionalists are being guided by God the Holy Ghost? I couldn’t remain silent after reading your comment, because you are misled. Jesus Christ will be Victorious!

    • samton909
      AUGUST 17, 2020 AT 8:10 PM
      “You provide no truth that the problems afflicting the church can be traced to Vatican II. Yet you keep saying that. ”

      You mean post hoc ergo propter hoc?

      But did you not claim that the increase in Africa is due to Vatican 2 without any proof.

      How do you know that this increase would not have happened anyway (and even more) were there no Vatican 2?

  37. Archbishop Vigano’s point (among others) is that, just as it is possible for a pope (Pope Francis) to be “the pope of the Catholic Church” and simultaneously the “de facto leader, for all practical purposes, of a schismatic church” (as per Fr Weinandy’s own admission, article 8th October 2019), so also is it logically possible for a Council (Vatican II) to be the same. A valid point.

    • Vatican II is, in fact, both (1) a Council of the Church, and (2) the cause of a parallel, schismatic Church, as Vigano has affirmed. Whitewashing the Council only helps to perpetuate the problem.

  38. There are many in the post-Conciliar period who mistakenly believed that, in order to be faithful to the Church, one must necessarily defend the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II). This is the fundamental illusion, still persisting today in wide circles, from which we need to be delivered.

    This is why God sent Archbishop Vigano. He has a wealth of knowledge and experience in the Church. His penetrating analysis, his deep insights into the state of the Church and of the Council ought to be enough to awaken anyone who will listen with an open mind.

    It’s time to take the red pill. There is no reason why we ought to remain obstinately attached to the idea that the Second Vatican Council, which made no attempt at any infallible pronouncements, ought to be defended at any and every cost.

    Vatican II made no claim to dogmatic pronouncements yet managed to change so many of our Catholic beliefs. Vatican II threw out the original schemata prepared by orthodox theologians and caved in to modernist opinions and to the carefully crafted “theological timebombs” which later caused so much damage. Vatican II was hijacked in the first session by a small group of liberal bishops while the majority of bishops were unsuspecting, unprepared, and too easily hoodwinked by the modernists. Vatican II represents a radical juncture in the life of the Church. It is in all likelihood the “diabolical disorientation” of which Sister Lucia warned.

    We have seen its rotten fruit for more than half a century now. Even Pope Paul VI and later Cardinal Ratzinger complained of the disastrous effects on the Church in the wake of Vatican II.

    Fr Weinandy, with his excellent understanding of theology and his immense love of Christ, could be of even greater service to the Church if he listens with an open mind to Vigano. Vatican II is not and never has been your friend.

  39. Archbishop Vigano’s analysis of Vatican II has been very clear and, therefore, clarifying. Because this “pastoral” council deliberately chose ambiguous formulations (i.e. phraseology well regarded as “time bombs”), it was only a matter of time . . . for these detonative-laden language to manifest in destructive post-conciLIAR reforms praxis (from Communion-in-hand to Assisi to Abu Dhabi . . .). Deo Gratias for Archbishop Viganò! For sharing his insights into the event of Vatican II, which professed “pastorality” while it subverted doctrinal clarity. What the Archbishop is doing is not gnostic, it’s clarifying; he is setting truth in relief. He who has eyes to see, let him see; and if we don’t/can’t – oremus: “Domine, videam!”

  40. When truth-telling is calumnied, then Satan wins. Fr. Weinandy needs to look in the mirror. Look at the fruits of the Council. Who wins when fruits look like this? Truth wins. He’s told us so. Or does Fr. Weinandy no longer believe in God’s promise?

    • “Look at the fruits of the Council”. Please enlighten us and give us a list of the fruits of the Council. I believe God is calling His people to embrace traditional Catholicism in order to usher in the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The definition of traditional Catholicism means to embrace all that Holy Mother the Church has taught for 2000 years. Modernism is the opposite, to reject what the Church officially teaches in exchange for the strange teachings of their own. This latter part is perhaps the fruits of Vatican ll. Or perhaps the fruits of the Modernist Council Fathers. Whichever, sadly they come straight from the Council.

  41. Vatican II or not Vatican II, that is the question…

    Some might be reminded of differential Calculus where the problem is to locate exactly where a curve inflects from still an upward direction to the beginning of a downward direction. EXACTLY–as at a point too small to measure.

    A reading of the Vatican II documents–with both their deviously inserted flaws and their countervailing language both fully considered, inclined (deliberate choice of words!) Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI (and this non-expert reader) to find that Vatican II was not apostate in itself, and that the damage was done in the bungled and corrupted implementation immediately thereafter and ever since.

    Which leads one to wonder–as with the sexual abuse crisis, as well–how many priests-and-then-bishops are actually schooled in what the military calls “situation awareness” which is something more street-smart than simply “discernment.” And, in the art of strategic management as distinguished from wordy tomes (however meritorious) which many of the bishops themselves probably (?) do not read in their final form, after adjournment from the chandeliers.

    Policies more than papers, and actions more than policies.

    • Vatican II contains many good texts. That is the danger.

      Because the “good texts” of Vatican II lend credibility to the “bad portions” and these, in turn, distort the Faith, dilute the Faith, and relativise the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, thus inducing the “diabolical disorientation” which Sister Lucia warned about.

      The devastating influence of Vatican II comes down to a principle of tactical warfare: mix the good in with the bad, and say that it is all of one essence.

      The sting of deception lies in the half-truths that it contains.

      It is not only that Vatican II contains equivocations, ambiguities, and theological time bombs; it is that these problematic texts came to be received by the many as authoritative because they were “clothed” with much that is authentic teaching.

      • LG Sleiman, You have stated what is probably the most important part on the debate concerning Vatican Council ll. I was invited to a dinner where the guests of honor were a Priest and a Seminarian from the SSPX. The priest explained to us that much of what is contained in the texts of the Council is good. But there are some bad parts that are errors in the Faith, that is the same that you have said. The mixing of good with the bad is considered a trick of the devil. The Holy Ghost was certainly at the Council, in the hearts and souls of some 450 Traditionalist Council Fathers, who did all they could to save the Church from destruction. The atmosphere of the Council as I understand was not peaceful, it was a raging battle. What actually happened at the Council must be revisited, was it a Council from God or was it just a meeting between men? St. Pope John XXlll’s 9 schemas that were to make up the Council were thrown out by wolves and these wolves would go on to create their own Council. Something that I read from the Biography of Sister Lucia Dos Santos is of great interest. She was asked about Vatican Council ll, the Biography says that she remained silent and pensive. Then answered, “I’m not allowed to speak on that”, Its a mystery as to why she answered the way she did. If only she would have been able to answer, it would have revealed the truth about the Council from someone who spoke to heaven on a regular basis.

        • Thank you, Andrew. Indeed, Vatican II was a violent clash between modernists and traditionalists. Paul VI seemed to be of a mind to try to please everyone, and compromised on many things. (See Roberto de Mattei’s “The Second Vatican Council” for an excellent treatment)

          As Archbishop Vigano wrote in his response to Philip Lawler (24 June 2020):

          “No one could have imagined that right in the heart of the ecclesial body there were hostile forces so powerful and organized that they could succeed in rejecting the perfectly orthodox preparatory schemas that had been prepared by Cardinals and Prelates with a reliable fidelity to the Church, replacing them with a bundle of cleverly disguised errors behind long-winded and deliberately equivocal speeches.”

          As for Sister Lucia, not only did she remain silent on the subject of Vatican II; she also remained silent on the subject of the 3rd secret of Fatima (except that she revealed it privately to the pope). Could there be, therefore, a connection between Vatican II and the 3rd secret of Fatima?

          For one thing, we know that our Lady said–in the last part of the 2nd secret of Fatima: “In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will be preserved…”.

          • Thanks for the quote from Archbishop Vigano. I’m glad that attention is now being given to the original schemata for the Second Vatican Council. I consider this to be a most important issue that must be addressed. It cannot easily be dismissed!

            As for Sister Lucia and the Third Secret, since the Third secret was revealed I immediately thought of the Council. Where a Pope is walking through a city half in ruins. This sounds like the Council to me, a city half in ruins, this is what Modernists have done to the Church through Vatican ll. They have left the Church half in ruins. According to Archbishop Marcel Lefevre who was one of the authors of the 9 Schemata, he said that if the Council would have gone as planned “We would have had a great Council”. 5 of the 9 Schemata have been translated into English and can be found on the internet. It blasted me away when I read a part of it. I wish they would put it in book form. It sounds like something from the Council of Trent.

  42. Now that Vigano has expanded his manifesto to include attacking Vatican II, was his intention all along to undermine Holy Mother Church? And, an attack on the Supreme Pontiff is a de facto attack on the Church. “Where there is Peter, there is the Church” – (St. Ambrose of Milan). Why is Vigano in hiding? Is this a ploy to avoid answering uncomfortable pertinent questions?



    • The modernists in the Church today include the those following Vigano, Taylor Marshall, the teachings of Lefebvre, et al. They are false prophets, carefully hiding behind the truths of the faith while simultaneously perverting those truths.

      The Church is indefectible. Christ promised to be with His Church until the end of time. It is also a VISIBLE Church, with a VISIBLE hierarchy. We do not need to go chasing after the “real Church” by following some random Bishop who thinks he is somehow gifted with some esoteric knowledge. We aren’t required to interpret any documents. That’s what the Church does, otherwise we’d be Protestants. We do not save the Church; it is the Church that saves us. The Church is where it’s supposed to be, where it’s been all along: gathered around Peter. Read the Catechism!

      • The means of the Church saving us is through the 2000 year teaching of Scripture and Tradition. When this is rejected, we cannot deny there are problems in the Church. The problems caused by Bergolio (Who is questioned whether he is a true Pope or an Anti-Pope) are magnanimous, they didn’t begin with him, it started during the Council when the modernists voted out the original 9 schemata of the Council of St. John XXlll. What gave these evil Council Fathers the right to throw out the Council of St. John XXlll, and then create their own Council??? This is what must be given an answer to. “Read the Catechism!”? Read also the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the new Catechism was formulated using the method of Trent. St. John Paul ll said about the New Catechism, that it did not void the Catechism of Trent as that Catechism remains a useful tool. Let us obey St. John Paul ll and Pope Benedict XVl, or let us go back and read the Catechism AGAIN!

  43. It’s unfortunate that Fr Tom descends into sinful arrogance and character assassination of Fr Vigano instead of sticking to his analysis. It was a distracting digression to make unsubstantiated claims about who is actually authoring Vigano’s correspondence.

  44. The ambiguities of Vatican II cannot be over-stated. And the few clarities of Vatican II were simply quotations of previous Councils.

    • “The ambiguities of Vatican II cannot be over-stated.”

      On the contrary, they are continually overstated. But rarely actually stated.

  45. I don’t believe that this article is “Putting your best foot forward.”

    It is generally insulting to the intelligence of the reader when you make assumptions for them without putting out any supporting evidence.

    For instance saying things such as: “Vigaro’s faulty assumption that…ect.”
    Please don’t make up my mind for me. You need to provide material that will SHOW me Vigaro is “faulty” SHOW me don’t TELL me.

    Furthermore, the assumptions as to the mood and motive of the laity seems like a calculated attempt to alienate. “The laity thought this…The laity felt that…But the laity did this because of that…”

    COME ON! How would you like to be told how you felt and why you did things and what you really believed about a matter? That’s why this almost comes off as an attempt to make people mad.

    And the bizarre leaps of reason come off as dishonest, which I’m sure was not the writer’s intent, but when you say things like: “The laity were shocked and scandalized….(Paraphrase) By what was happening concerning the Eucharist….(Quote)….The BEDLAM surrounding them…..(Quote) Their WACKY pastors. But amidst it all they never doubted Vatican 2 was a Genuine Ecumenical conference.”

    You have described a Church in CRISIS, your own words have condemned the state the Laity found themselves in…….Why?…..As the Titanic is going down, would anyone CARE about an Ecumenical conference? Correct me if I’m wrong, but what that refers to is an “Inter-religious” dialogue, correct? OK, so if we are in a state of “BEDLAM” (A word that traces back, I believe, to something like “Letting Demons run amok.”) in a state of being “Scandalized” and having to deal with “Wacky Pastors.” Would “Dialoguing” with A TOTALLY DIFFERENT RELIGION be of ANY interest to ANYONE?

    Are you suggesting that when our own house is on fire we should be asking ourselves: “I wonder if the Jews are happy? They are? GREAT! Well…Just let it keep burning then, as long as they are OK everything’s fine.”

    That is a bizarre thing to say. And I can’t imagine why it was written.

    Also, critiquing Vigano’s writing, then saying “I think someone else wrote the latest letters because they far more well written.” Comes off like teenage gossip. Once again, if you are going to try and speak ill of someone, SHOW THE PROOF. Don’t tell people what to think. That whole thing came off like you were trying to smear him.

    I don’t believe the intentions of the writer were bad, but someone….an editor, someone trained in rhetoric, an attorney….needs to proof read this stuff before you release it.

    Whatever the intent of this article was, the net result is that the writer made himself look BAD by doing several things YOU JUST DON’T DO in a “response” statement.

    This isn’t rocket science. But you need to bring your “A” game.

    This article is completely unacceptable. It shows a total lack of rhetorical…not only firepower, but UNDERSTANDING.

    And I won’t apologize for telling you the truth.

  46. Heretics and Schismatics on the Catholic “left” or “liberal side” have taken advantage of Pope Francis’ ambiguity to push their agenda. Well heretics and schismatics on the Catholic “right” are no better. The SSPX, Sedes, Feeneyites and that crazy lot are using Francis the same way. Orthodox Catholics are caught in the middle.

    But here is the thing. If you can offer criticism of Pope Francis you cannot act as if Vigano is absolutely sacrosanct.

    I am not having it.

    • We know how much clout the Trads wield in the Church and society today. If they would just disappear or knuckle under, what a wonderful world it would be. Meanwhile, we conservative Catholics get to endure the daily Marxist diatribes from the Vatican and bishops’ conferences on every imaginable political issue while waiting to find out if they decide to suspend celebration of the Sacraments again.

      Whatever the merits of each and every particular claim he has made in his analysis of the Vatican II Church, Archbishop Vigano deserves enormous credit for helping to blow the lid of the corruption of the Francis papacy and rallying what support he can muster for President Trump’s reelection. These two services alone put him leagues ahead of 95% of the hierarchy.

      • Except he shot his credibility in the head by jumping on the anti-V2 train, Now Liberals can point to his apparent heterodox view of V2 and say “Oh so you don’t like his teaching on the death penalty or Communion for people in second marriages? Well he rejects Vatican II? Since when can you reject Eccumenical councils? So some doctrine can be changed blah blah blah blah”. Yeh Vigano you had one job old man! Just one! Expose corruption at the Vatican and you ruined it”. He is useless.

    • Jim the Scott, you pointed out exactly what I did on this site in another comment section. There are those who attack the Church from the left as well as from the right, and both use the same incorrect modernist phrase: “The Church doesn’t teach that anymore.” The left is joyful about this, the right mourns and wrings its hands. Both reactions are errors.

      Have faith in Christ. He will be with His Church until the end of time, in a visible way, and it will not become obscure. We don’t have to run after some random Bishop somewhere who claims he is the only candle in the wind.

10 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. A Response to Archbishop Viganò’s Letter about Vatican II - Catholic Mass Search
  2. SATVRDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
  3. Cardinal: Archbishop Lefebvre Will One Day Be Recognized as a Doctor of the Church; Was “Prophetic” - Catholic Family News
  4. Dethroning Christ? The error at the root of the Viganò controversy (Part One) – Catholic World Report
  5. Dethroning Christ? The error at the root of the Viganò controversy (Part I) - Catholic Daily
  6. Dethroning Christ? The error at the root of the Viganò controversy (Part I) - Catholic Mass Search
  7. Is Archbishop Viganò’s rejection of the Second Vatican Council promoting schism? - Salvation & Prosperity
  8. Abp. Viganò to Critics: Instead of “Assuming Schisms” Where There Are None, Better to Fight Long-lasting Errors - Catholic Family News
  9. Viganò: Hay un superdogma del Concilio que se considera intocable | Adelante la Fe
  10. Vaticano II: Monseñor Viganó responde al Padre de Souza (y al padre Weinandy)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.