Dethroning Christ? The Error at the Root of the Viganò Controversy (Part 2)

We must not confuse the Church’s doctrine of the lordship of Christ with the LeFebvrist doctrine of Social Kingship to which Viganò gives allegiance.

Genealogy of Jesus Christ and the Christ Pantocrator (

The doctrine behind the Jihad

The Viganò controversy that we dissected in Part I requires a further explanation, a deeper level of explanation. The archbishop himself has pointed to it, by appealing in self-defense to the so-called “Social Kingship doctrine” in which both Schneider’s provocation and his own intervention are grounded. This appeal took the form of a retreat address to the LifeSite staff on the Feast of the Transfiguration. It was published on their site under its own title, Te Adoret Orbis Subditus, which is drawn from the Vexilla Christus inclita composed by Fr. Vittorio Genovesi and used at Lauds in the extraordinary form on the Solemnity of Christ the King. The stanza in question is rendered here in English, with the requisite poetic liberty, by Fr. Joseph Husslein:

Optata nobis splendeat
Lux ista, Rex dulcissime:
Te, pace adepta candida,
Adoret orbis subditus.

Then may Thy reign in splendor come,
O King, most true and sweet!
Till all the earth by love subdued,
Shall worship at Thy feet.

The stanza with which Viganò begins his address, however, is another:

O ter beata civitas
cui rite Christus imperat,
quae jussa pergit exsequi
edicta mundo caelitus!

Thrice happy city, basking fair
beneath His royal sway,
where at the mandates from His throne
all hearts with joy obey!

This “basking fair” is just what he sees lacking in the Church itself, as it is lacking in society at large. What Viganò is looking for, then, is a reaffirmation of the authority of King Jesus, manifested in a restored papal monarchy, until ultimately appears that longed-for “triumph of the Divine King in society and in nations.” It is the denial, and hence the delay, of this triumph that he fixes on as lying at the heart of the battle he believes himself to be fighting. I will now quote him at length, that his view of things may be made clear in his own words (or those of his collaborator, if Fr. Weinandy’s suspicions are not unfounded).

“The fury of the Enemy,” he writes, “who hates the human race, is unleashed primarily against the doctrine of the Kingship of Christ.” The nineteenth-century “denial of the royal rights of the Redeemer” has been extended “not only to civil society but also to the Body of the Church,” where the heavenly King has been dethroned in a sneak attack by his duplicitous servants.

This attack was consummated with the renunciation by the Papacy of the very concept of this vicarious Kingship of the Roman Pontiff, thereby bringing into the very heart of the Church the demands for democracy and parliamentarianism which had already been used to undermine nations and the authority of rulers. The Second Vatican Council greatly weakened the papal monarchy as a consequence of the implicit denial of the Divine Kingship of the Eternal High Priest, and by doing so inflicted a masterful blow against the institution which until then had stood as a wall of defense against the secularization of Christian society. The sovereignty of the Vicar was diminished, and this was progressively followed by the denial of the sovereign rights of Christ over His Mystical Body. And when Paul VI deposed the triple royal diadem with an ostentatious gesture, as if he was renouncing the sacred vicarious Monarchy, he also removed the Crown from Our Lord, confining His Kingship to a merely eschatological sphere.

“The proof of this,” adds Viganò, as if competing with Dan Brown or Daniel Silva, “is the significant changes made to the Liturgy of the Feast of Christ the King and its transfer to the end of the liturgical year… With the liturgical reform approved by Paul VI in 1969, the Feast of Christ the King was moved to the last Sunday of the Liturgical Year, erasing the social dimension of the Kingship of Christ and relegating him to the merely spiritual and eschatological dimension.” Then comes the question, and its unequivocal but fatal answer:

Did all these Council Fathers, who voted for Dignitatis Humanae and proclaimed religious freedom with Paul VI, realize that they in fact ousted Our Lord Jesus Christ, stripping him of the Crown of his social Kingship? Did they understand that they had very concretely dethroned Our Lord Jesus Christ from the throne of his divine Kingship over us and over the whole world? Did they understand that, making themselves the spokesmen of apostate nations, they made these execrable blasphemies ascend towards His Throne: “We do not want this man to be our king” (Lk 19:14); “We have no king but Caesar” (Jn 19:15)? But He, faced with that confused rumor of senseless men, withdrew his Spirit from them.

A prosecutorial recapitulation follows: “Having dethroned Christ not only from society but also from the Church was the greatest crime with which the Hierarchy could have been stained, failing in its role as the custodian of the Savior’s teaching. As an inevitable consequence of this betrayal, the Authority conferred by Our Lord on the Prince of the Apostles has substantially disappeared.”

There is no accounting for Viganò’s schismatic view of Vatican II without this. But what exactly are we to make of it?

Social Kingship as worldly glory

Now, some will know that I am among those who have lamented the marginalization of the doctrine of the kingship of Christ and that, through attention to his ascension and parousia, I have sought to help bring that doctrine back into focus. In this very connection, I have also attacked the secularist myth of neutrality and reaffirmed the relevance of Christian teaching to the just conduct of our common life. So I am in principle sympathetic to the archbishop’s concerns. But one must not conflate “the eschatological dimension” (which requires reckoning both with the absence of Jesus and with the sacramental nature of his presence) with “mere spirituality,” as if attending to the former meant confining the rule of Christ to the inner man. And one must not confuse the Church’s doctrine of the lordship of Christ with the LeFebvrist doctrine of Social Kingship to which Viganò gives allegiance.

I have explained in several places (most concisely in the fifth chapter of Desiring a Better Country) that the complaint made by those of his allegiance about an under-realized or futurist eschatology must be met with a critique of their own over-realized eschatology. Do their opponents fail to reckon with the full authority that, even now, has been delivered over to our ascended Lord? Perhaps so. But they themselves misrepresent that authority when they insist that it be realized here and now in the political sphere. They misconstrue the eucharistic situation of the Church and the politics proper to the Eucharist, which take place in the world without being of the world. They fail to grasp the essentials of Christian eschatology, supposing that God’s purpose for the age includes establishing on earth, under papal direction, the kingdom our Lord prayed would come. They conflate John’s vision of the new creation in the final chapters of the Apocalypse with the new heaven on earth they mean to erect. So let us attend more closely to this feature of the controversy, and to the Social Kingship movement.

We may begin by agreeing that the criticism directed at their modernist or progressivist opponent is basically sound. For the latter still fails to understand, as Pius X put it in Notre Charge Apostolique, that “there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion.” The modernist is indeed engaged in “a vast and quite hopeless neo-Pelagian project,” as the Lake Garda Statement has it, to achieve (under auspices other than those of the Church) the kind of universal brotherhood of man that is not directed “upward toward Heaven for the salvation of souls, but forward in history toward a godless, hopeless, and painfully trite City of Man falsely lauded as a ‘civilization of love’ or a ‘renewal of humanity.’” Against all that, the Social Kingship enthusiasts of the Roman Forum (from which the statement emerged) affirm what Pius affirms in his dispute with the Sillon:

The City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be set up unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. OMNIA INSTAURARE IN CHRISTO.

They affirm this because they know what Pius knows, namely, that if “the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ.” They know that “this union is attainable only by Catholic charity,” which “alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.” They know (to shift from his words to theirs) that “the Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is the renewal of humanity, a renewal made possible only by the translation of fallen men into the state of sanctifying grace and the consequent elevation of human society to heights it could never attain by any purely human effort.” On this foundation, they demand that Church leaders today reverse course – that they stop trying to contribute their meagre and largely unwelcome bit to the world, which is marching only towards the tyranny of the godless, and instead announce to the world its obligation “to contribute to the work of the Church,” which brings genuine justice and indeed salvation.

I admire and applaud their courage, as well as agreeing with much of what they say. Yet I am skeptical of what they make of Pius, who indulges a certain romanticism when he claims (against the laicizing and secularizing Sillon) that “the Church and the State, at all times and in happy concert, have raised up fruitful organizations” to the end of improving the human condition, and “that the Church, which has never betrayed the happiness of the people by consenting to dubious alliances, does not have to free herself from the past; that all that is needed is to take up again, with the help of the true workers for a social restoration, the organisms which the Revolution shattered, and to adapt them, in the same Christian spirit that inspired them, to the new environment arising from the material development of today’s society.” This Church that has never – or rather only in the most recent times, Vatican II times – “betrayed the happiness of the people by consenting to dubious alliances” is not a Church I have heard of from any other reliable source. This Church that has no need to disavow any of its past actions or correct its own political course is not a Church I know.

Pius and his predecessors, let it be said with all frankness, left openings here that had better been closed, openings our “integralist” and Social Kingship friends have enthusiastically entered while fleeing the council. They are quite right to seek the unity of the human and the divine, the temporal and the eternal; for that unity is no mere ideal, but a reality already established in and through the incarnation. They need to be reminded, however, that the incarnate one has gone where we cannot yet go; that he has departed from us to his Father; that we cannot behold him as he is until he comes again in glory; that his kingdom does not appear in this world, in politically concrete fashion, before he comes in glory.

In a limited sense, yes, the kingdom of God and his Christ appears in the Church, which knows an apostolic – that is, a provisional – unity between messianic auctoritas and potestas. But the integralists, as Michael Hanby persuasively argues, seem like their secularist counterparts to have lost sight even of the distinction between authority and power, with the consequence that they covet a quite mundane, unregenerate political power in and for the Church. They do not attain to the authentic integralism, the eucharistic integralism, “that reveals a truly Catholic order, and thus reveals man to himself, not by imposing its truth forcibly upon the world, but by suffering even unto death its apparent absence.”

I fear it is worldly glory they seek for Christ, a glory belonging as much to the present saeculum or world-order as to that of the age to come. They pine for a glory that is manifested, not only in the rites of the Church – hence their disgust for the less than luminous Novus Ordo – but also in the rites of the nations. They pine for the reappearance of Christendom, as the Muslim pines for Al-Andalus, and for roughly the same reasons. Without it Christianity, as they understand it, lacks evidence and must in the end lack conviction.

While I am not, where Dignitatis is concerned, of the John Courtney Murray persuasion – Desiring a Better Country makes that clear – I worry that they, more than he, have badly misunderstood the nature of the saeculum and the mission of the Church in the saeculum. And that this, as much as the advance of their modernist or progressivist opponents, the successors of the Sillon if you please, has made it difficult for them to receive what the Holy Spirit has to say through the Second Vatican Council.

Difficult to receive? The longer they have ruminated on it, the greater their resentment has grown. And it is grown now to the point where many of them are ready to break with the council altogether, and so with the Church.

The cues and miscues of Pius X

If you ask me what I mean by “what they make of Pius,” I will answer by saying that they misread Pius as he reads Paul, or (if they insist) that they misread Paul with Pius. The latter’s motto, Omnia instaurare in Christo, is drawn from Ephesians 1:10. In English we say: “a plan for the fulness of time, to sum up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” Paul’s own word for “sum up” is ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι, of which Irenaeus made so much with his doctrine of recapitulation. The Vulgate’s instaurare is capable of capturing the twin ideas of restoration or renewal, and unifying or perfecting, that Paul has in mind. But Sarto, who deliberately took up the mantle of Pius IX when he called himself Pius X, seems to have had in view “restoration” above all.

The Social Kingship people, who take their cue from both Piuses, like to read instaurare both in that backward-looking sense and in the forward-looking sense of which that Latin word, building on its literal meaning, is especially able: to erect, ordain, establish. That indeed suits their philosophy of history quite nicely, since it also, like that of their opponents’, is gradualist or progressivist. It is not utopian, or altogether triumphalist, but there is more of that in it than they care to admit. They look for the emergence of a Catholic City, for the society that “cannot be set up unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work,” and they are not happy that Dignitatis, at least for the time being, looks for something less.

Pius X, I dare say, would have done better to answer the Sillon with a proper lesson in Augustine, if not in Paul, rather than providing such openings for theocratic convoys to rumble through. Yes, it belongs to the Church’s witness to Christ to tell the city of man that it can, if it is willing, join the city of God in benefiting from Christ and pointing to Christ and waiting for Christ. But it does not belong to the Church to tell the city of man that it really must do so; only that it should do so. In the end, we know from our Lord’s own teaching, which Paul and Augustine both elaborate, that it will not do so.

Pius, however, can sound very like those worthies, and indeed very like Dignitatis. It is the libertas ecclesiae with which he is most concerned. ”Certainly,” he says in the same document, “it is not the Church that has gone into the political arena: they have dragged her there to mutilate and to despoil her.” That being the case, it is “the duty of every Catholic … to use the political weapons which he holds” in order to defend her. But this means, first of all, “a duty to confine politics to its own domain and to leave the Church alone except in order to give her that which is her due.” Moreover, our Lord “did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross.”

Just so! And quite true that “these are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism.” But the Social Kingship advocates wish to go further. In doing so they resemble those with whom Pius is remonstrating: those who sow division among Catholics and “in an attempt to justify their social dreams … put forward the Gospel, but interpreted in their own way,” calling to witness “a diminished and distorted Christ.” For their Christ is diminished, or so Viganò thinks, when the sovereignty of his Vicar is diminished, or even when a feast (a new feast at that) is moved from one spot in the calendar to another.

On such grounds they would have us believe that the challenge now faced by the Church is essentially this: to deal decisively with those miscreants and dreamers who have steered Christian civilization off course; which entails dealing first with those who have steered the Church off course by denying Christ’s social kingship. Everything thus hinges on the struggle for the papacy, and on repudiation of what Viganò calls “the demythologization of the Papacy, pursued by Bergoglio as a theme of his pontificate.” According to Lake Garda:

The ecclesial crisis and the intimately related civilizational crisis will end only when the Church’s offer of social metanoia is renewed once again. But only the Vicar of Christ can effectively extend that offer to the world. Only he can end what amounts to an unprecedented de facto suspension of the Church’s true mission in the name of a Council whose restless “spirit,” moving far beyond even the problematical conciliar texts, has produced what Benedict XVI, speaking just days before his mysterious abdication of the papacy, described as “so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering” in the Church.

For Viganò himself, it hinges on undoing the work of that council through a pontiff who will both declare Christ’s social kingship and behave as if he believed it.

What shall we say in reply? They have understood well enough what is happening to our civilization, and what Bergoglio is doing with his pontificate. But they have mistaken the real challenge. For erecting a Christian civilization is not the Church’s proper goal and papal monarchy (whether political or, as in Dante, spiritual) is not the means to its goal. Some demythologization of all that would be quite helpful. The integralists should go back to reading Paul, and Augustine for that matter, if they want to sort out what has gone wrong and effect an instauratio in their own thinking, which has brought them to the brink of schism!

The doctrine that never was

No one, I trust, will suppose that I am denying the intimate relation between the ecclesial crisis and the civilizational crisis, or the possibility of approximating in the present age a Catholic city shaped by civilizational principles brought to light by the gospel; still less the fact that both individuals and societies owe fealty to Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, both in this life and (should they in consequence have part in it) the life of the world to come. I wholeheartedly affirm what the Catechism says at §2105, to which the Lake Garda Statement appeals:

The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is “the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ.” By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them “to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live.” The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church. Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.

I make two observations, however. First, the concluding sentence of that paragraph makes clear that the kingship of Christ is something the Church manifests or shows forth simply by being the Church. How does it do that? It invites individuals and societies in all the world, beginning in Jerusalem, to lift up their gates to the King of Glory. It announces his coming; that is, it evangelizes in advance of his coming. It provides evidence that it is possible to live under his lordship even before he arrives, and proposes to others that they realize that possibility themselves. It fulfills its Great Commission, which extends to every place and time. It does not acknowledge that there are by right any closed or putatively neutral spheres. But it only proposes, as John Paul II said; it does not impose. The gospel is an invitation to “him who desires,” to “whosoever wills.”

Meanwhile, “let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.” When the King does come, his authority will be imposed, backed by all the hosts of heaven. But that is for then, not for now. It is for him, not for us. We may take authority in his name over demons, for demons are not being invited to anything; it is otherwise with men and their societies. That the King has come the first time, that he is already in session at the right hand of God, does not change the fact that, until his second coming, God has deliberately withheld the manifestation of his power and glory until the minds of men are made up. It is for the making up of minds that the present age exists, as I have argued in the “The Secret of the Saeculum” and in my commentary on Thessalonians. In this light, the present location of the feast of Christ the King – at the conclusion of the liturgical year, in anticipation of Advent – is entirely fitting.

My second observation is this: The Catechism nowhere mentions what the Lake Garda Statement calls “the Church’s venerable teaching on the Social Kingship of Christ” or “the Church’s traditional teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King,” which the signatories of that Statement seek to recover. When they say it was never repealed, they are right, because there never was such a doctrine in the first place. What do they mean by “social reign”? If they mean no more than what §2105 says, well and good, but what then needs to be recovered? Boniface VIII’s notion of the plenitudo potestatis? Now there is a doctrine (not a dogma) that was, and is not. When it appears again it will appear in support, not of Christ, but of antichrist, as I intimated in “The Church’s One Foundation”.

What then? Pius XI’s much more refined, indeed quite different, teaching in Quas primas? Christ, most certainly, is the savior of societies as of their citizens, for he saves them through their citizens, than which they are never any better. He is the savior also, by extension, of states. It is always timely – at present it is urgent – to remind rulers that neglect of “the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ” does not conduce to the prospering of peoples or of nations but rather to their destruction, as does active resistance to the announcement of the true King from whom all human authority ultimately derives and without whom its legitimacy necessarily erodes and finally collapses, having “no longer a secure and solid foundation.” Again, if this is all that is meant by social kingship (this and what is said in §2105) there is nothing to quarrel about. But if this is all that is meant, must we not admit that it was said at Vatican II – said in the beginning, in the middle, at the end, in the Catechism that followed, and consistently in the pontificates that followed, with the exception of the present one?

Archbishop Viganò says Christ has been dethroned, first in the world, then in the Church. This is for him the problem at the root of all our problems. No doubt, in some sense, it is; for the children of disobedience have again risen to prominence in both and the dire vision of Ezekiel 9 begins to creep back into mind, darkening the optimism of the council. But the root problem in the Viganò controversy itself is something else. It is a distorted Social Kingship doctrine that has skewed his view of Vatican II, darkening his own counsel, because it has first skewed his vision of the Church and its mission. That doctrine is what has led to the Viganò solution – to talk of a conciliabolo and hence of a sedevacantism that begins with Roncalli, with the false comfort that there remains no hierarchy to which obedience or disobedience can be rendered.

The Viganò solution, thankfully, is not yet the solution of all Social Kingship adherents. Moreover, we may hope that Viganò himself, being a man of admirable courage, will repent, together with those who are following him into schism. (I speak of those who “sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed” in the city of God and the house of God, not of those who are party to those abominations or to the sins of anti-Semitism that have plagued Social Kingship circles.) Repentance will not deprive them of their concerns about the direction of the present pontificate or about its manifestation at Abu Dhabi. It will, however, deprive them of their cherished romanticism, of their longing for the revival of Christendom and of Boniface’s vainglorious fancies about the secular dominium of the papacy. It will require them to dispense with the doctrine that never was and to adhere to the doctrine that always was: the doctrine that no one can hold “except by the Holy Spirit,” the doctrine proper to the Church rather than to the world, though its echoes (whether more or less distorted) may sometimes be heard in the world. For it is not the world and not the state, but rather the Spirit and the Bride, who say “Come,” and who testify that Jesus, the Coming One, is Lord. To the world and the state it falls only to be blessed by receiving that testimony, or to be cursed by refusing it.

If the Second Vatican Council failed to make this clear, it was not by underestimating but by overestimating the Pius factor. May we not applaud, however, the balance for which it strives in the opening section of Ad Gentes?

Divinely sent to the nations of the world to be unto them “a universal sacrament of salvation,” the Church, driven by the inner necessity of her own catholicity, and obeying the mandate of her Founder (cf. Mark 16:16), strives ever to proclaim the Gospel to all men. The Apostles themselves, on whom the Church was founded, following in the footsteps of Christ, “preached the word of truth and begot churches.” It is the duty of their successors to make this task endure “so that the word of God may run and be glorified” (2 Thess. 3:1) and the kingdom of God be proclaimed and established throughout the world.

In the present state of affairs, out of which there is arising a new situation for mankind, the Church, being the salt of the earth and the light of the world (cf. Matt. 5:13-14), is more urgently called upon to save and renew every creature, that all things may be restored in Christ and all men may constitute one family in Him and one people of God.

Therefore, this sacred synod, while rendering thanks to God for the excellent results that have been achieved through the whole Church’s great-hearted endeavor, desires to sketch the principles of missionary activity and to rally the forces of all the faithful in order that the people of God, marching along the narrow way of the Cross, may spread everywhere the reign of Christ, Lord and overseer of the ages (cf. Ecc. 36:19), and may prepare the way for his coming.

In other words, the mission of the Church is precisely to pronounce and to live the “whosoever will,” in anticipation of the kingdom that will come when our Lord comes. For it is the narrow way of the cross that leads directly to the broad and beautiful avenues of the kingdom, which is not of this world though it is already in it.

Memorial of St Pius X, 2020

(Part 1 of this two-part essay can be read here.)

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 Dr. Douglas Farrow 26 Articles
Douglas Farrow is Professor of Theology and Ethics at McGill University, and the author of several books including Theological Negotiations: Proposals in Soteriology and Anthropology (Baker Academic, 2018) and a new commentary on Thessalonians (Brazos, 2020).


  1. The Holy Spirit had nothing to say through the council. The Holy Spirit wasn’t there. The proof is in the pudding, and all this tedious legal hair-splitting and theological folderol doesn’t change the reality on the ground. The Church is a shipwreck. Vatican 2 is the reason it’s a shipwreck. Everyone with two eyes in his head and half a brain knows this.

    • I take it you do not pretend to be Catholic. For Councils are protected by the Holy Spirit. You, as a mere layman, do not decid which Councils are under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

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

      No. …sthis 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.”

      • Your reply, Sampson 999, has the words o fire website. Bp Robert Barron is associated w this website in more than a contributor capacity, as I understand. Bp Barron is one of the foremost defenders VC2 on the internet.

        Have you plagiarized Bp Barron’s thinking Sampson?

        • “Bp Robert Barron is associated w this website in more than a contributor capacity, as I understand.”

          Do tell. I’d like to know more. What I do know is that CWR runs many of Bp. Barron’s columns. He is not on staff. He is not a board member. He is not in charge of CWR. So…

      • The Pius X quote doesn’t seem to entirely square with the record of the Bible. Prophets are often sent to correct corrupt religious practices and leaders. They are the voice of conscience. Think 1 Samuel and the House of Eli. Then you have Hosea and Jeremiah. St. John the Baptist blasted the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Christ recognized the teaching authority of the Scribes and the Pharisees, while excoriating their conduct. Just look at the woes that Christ leveled in Luke 11:37-52, and Matthew 23. St. Stephen was martyred while delivering a stinging rebuke. You also have to consider the time that Peter and John appeared before the Council. They were ordered not to speak. In Acts 4 they answered:
        19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; 20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”
        Christianity is currently living as a divided kingdom. To me the Protestant Revolt was the Church’s King Solomon moment. A chastisement of an unfaithful corrupt Church. Is the Church now having another King Solomon moment? It is usually the modernist dissidents that are the past masters of legalistic hair splitting when it comes to Church teaching. Using elaborate arguments to talk their way around historic Church teaching. In the spirit of “Did God really say?”
        While it is private revelation, The Diary of St. Faustina has a very interesting passage, 445, where she sees priests, religious men and women, and high dignitaries of the Church scourging Christ, venting their malice. Can anyone look at the state of the Church and not see the accuracy of this vision? I have read her Diary. She talks more about justice than many of her followers get around to mentioning.
        I understand that all private revelation needs careful evaluation. But is the rejection of it based on the content, or is it based on the rejection of the supernatural dimension of the Church? The debate about the death of God can include the supernatural state of the Church. There are a lot of people with contrary views throwing around the name of the Holy Spirit. There is a Commandment against taking God’s name in vain. What role does the office of prophetic correction play in the modern Church? Accountability is the difference between righteousness and self-righteousness.

      • Samton909 “Pope St. Pius X warned about this attitude in 1909” What St. Pius X warned against is what Trads are using as a defense in the battle for Christs Church, not our own personal Church, but the one established by Jesus Christ himself for the salvation of man. We are in reality talking about 2 different V2’s. The real Council of St. Pope John XXlll that was trashed. Would the Holy Ghost, the third person of the Most Holy Trinity, have a whole super Council prepared and then trashed? I think not! God the Holy Ghost cannot err. Cardinal Bea and friends got enough votes to trash the real Council and develop their own Council. They call it Vatican ll which is a misnomer, it should be called the Council of the Modernists. Look at the real issue at stake. Did Cardinal Bea and friends have the authority to trash a Popes Council and make up their own??? This is where the debate on Vatican ll needs to begin! Its no small matter by any means!

      • “For Councils are protected by the Holy Spirit.”

        You just made that up!

        You, as a mere layman, do not decid which Councils are under the protection of the Holy Spirit.”

        So you’ve changed your mind! Now you’re implying that as long as one is not a “mere layman”, it can be decided which councils are under the protection of the Holy Spirit!

        And you, a mere layman. Tsk, tsk.

    • G. Poulin, I agree with you in all you say. This thread has an article “Lessons from the Mystics”, Kathryn Jean Lopez is the author. They are daily meditations from the Saints, I was the only one to comment. Why? Because it goes to show that the hijacking of the Council by the Modernists and their dethroning of Christ has caused incalculable damage. Jesus Christ in the hearts of the faithful is desolate. I have asked Catholics about their spiritual lives and they don’t know what I’m talking about. The Council has everything to do with this tragedy, they’re causing the loss of souls. There were about 450 Traditionalist Council Fathers and the Holy Ghost was with them as they battled for the Church. I’d like to think that the battle that began at the hijacked Council, God has chosen us Traditionalists to pick up where the Traditionalist Council Fathers left off. I’m wondering if the Modernists are not stifling this debate on V2. It seems to be dying out. But I trust God that this debate will not end until Christ has won the victory. Lets pray that we continue the battle through the power of St. Michael the Archangel who defeated satan. St. Joseph Patron of Christs Church. And pray for the assistance of Mary, the Woman, the perfect creation of God, Our Mother who has already crushed the head of the serpent.

  2. My Kingdom is not of this world. With the collapse of the Papal States, Catholicism’s first step from worldly kingship to the more spiritual Mystical Body in the world. “The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially” (Farrow quoting CC 2105). Although as the Mystical Body we no longer make political decisions, which belong to the modern State we must proactively pursue justice as alluded to in my summation “the Church [must] express its rightful independence from the State, its religious prerogatives, as well as its contributive value to State and society”. “It is possible to live under his lordship even before he arrives, and proposes to others that they realize that possibility themselves” (Farrow). Also in a true sense admittedly by Dr Farrow the Archbishop is correct, Christ has to an extent been dethroned. Remarkably I would add within the secularist New Paradigm [if schism is an issue for Archbishop Viganò it also appears relevant to a New Paradigm church]. Whether as Farrow asks the Church should compel, or invite the City of Man to ally is another argument altogether. If it’s a secular government it must obviously be by invitation. Although by example and right reason we may convince. On the prerequisite of faith in all this, Dr Farrow quotes John Paul II that faith is willed, something I’ve long held. Faith, a desire inspired by the gift of grace willed and freely assumed. In short Dr Farrow rightly holds to the eschatological premise, that Christ will establish his universal Kingship only when he returns as Judge and Ruler.

    • The Social Kingship of Christ is taught by Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas and jhas been expounded on at length by Fr. Thomas Crean and Dr Alan Fimister in their book Integralism.

      It is of obligation that nations and governments formally recognise Jesus Christ as King, though this obligation is not coercible. However, that governments conform to His law is in principle coercible, because a public authority lawfully does only that which a just law enables it to do – and no law in opposition to God can be just.

      • Michael excerpted from my comment in Part I: “Catholicism prior to Vat II was thought central to the development of culture, even State”. Excerpted from my quote of Dr Thomas Pink’s commentary: “Gregory XVI’s Mirari vos, Pius IX’s Quanta cura, and Leo XIII’s Immortale dei do all make claims about the state and its religious duties. Some of these duties are to profess the true religion, which is the Catholic faith. Thus Immortale dei says: ‘So, too, it is a crime for the state to act as if there were no God, or not to have a care for religion, as something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of the many forms of religion to adopt whatever one it likes; for states are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which he has shown to be his will'” (Dr Thomas Pink King’s College in Rorate Caeli). Certainly it was never coercive in fact since the Church didn’t possess that power, except within the Papal States. Coercive in principle is what I refer to here. This, as indicated required, coercive function of Catholic doctrine was omitted from Dignitatis Humanae regarding both State, and baptized Catholics and is as Dr Pink argues a break in hermeneutic continuity. A break in hermeneutic continuity is my point. Not forcible coercion.

      • No, I am so sorry. Is the doctrine of Pius X called “The Civil Kingship of Christ”? As in, Catholics must seize control of all governments?
        No, it is the “SOCIAL Kingship of Christ”s. You need to read the encyclical carefully again. Farrow is right.

  3. Archbishop Lefebvre did not listen to the advice of St Padre Pio that obedience is everything. His father was in the resistance and now he resisted the council and the church and instead of abiding in the church in the Latin rite he left the church in schism. This movement started in disobedience and to this day they blame VII and condemn all popes that followed including the whole church. It is evident that the Council was hijacked and misinterpreted. Christ cannot be dethroned; he is seated at the right hand of the Holy Power. and abides in the hearts of all that believe in Him. So in confusing and troubling times it is every man (and woman) for himself. We did not sign a membership card but are crafted into the Christ by the water and the spirit. It is every man for himself to follow Christ, imitate Christ, love and serve Him. In todays reading Sant Paul in Romans 12:1-2: “I urge you brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.” Glory and praise to Christ, the King of our redeemed hearts.

    • Dear Edith, you’re faith in Christ’s presence within us is real and most efficacious. He reigns in the hearts of the faithful who embrace his once and for all time revelation as conveyed to us by the Apostles. Contrary to those who offer a New Paradigm, a revised revelation to which Cardinal Gerhard Muller responded, “We cannot correct Christ!”. As Mexican priest martyr Fr Pro exclaimed our battle cry, “Viva Cristo Rey”. We live and die in witness to him alone, that we might rise and live with him forever.

      • thank you Father Morello, your comments are always full of wisdom and truth. I learnt so much from you. God bless you always

  4. If the current ecclesial crossroads is not a zero-sum choice between (a) the wedge/parliamentary/ relativistic “synodal path” in Germania or (b) an integralist papacy under Vigano’s “Kingship of Christ,” then where does that leave the universal and eucharistic Church in actual practice?

    A POLYGON Church? But instead of this (half-way house?) geometry, Pope Benedict XVI proposed a dynamic ELLIPSE—a duality (not a dualism) of two focal points, the primacy and the episcopacy (God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition and Office, Ignatius 2008). Reduced to neither an integralist/political monarchy nor a collage of democratic national assemblies; instead, a “hierarchical communion” as jointly articulated by the “suspended” (not adjourned) Vatican I—with its 150th anniversary this year—and the completing Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, Chapter 3 on “collegiality,” and especially the clarifying Explanatory/Prefatory Note inserted by Pope Paul VI).

    So, the pope by himself (very circumscribed “papal infallibility”), or the pope with his hierarchy; but not a dichotomy of the pope versus the college of bishop/successor-apostles which, instead, acts “together with its head, and never without the head” (Lumen Gentium, n. 22).

    So, not a “dethroned” Christ (or the papacy), but not musical chairs either, and especially not an Alinsky/Marxist dichotomy. Nor like sectarian/multiply-schismatic (!) Islam’s schizoid self-understanding both as a loose “congregational theocracy” and as a unitary mosque/state submissive to “executors” of a divinely-“dictated” Qur’an and integralist Shari’a Law.

    • In actual practice, it leaves us here:
      Supposing we grant the continuing normativity of the Catholic confessional state, as I think we should, what does that mean for us today? The vast majority of Catholics don’t live in Catholic states, and many live in liberal regimes in which church and state are officially separated. In most of the latter, there is no Catholic supermajority, and even where there is such a supermajority, most don’t practice their faith. No pope has ever taught that in these kinds of situations Catholics should rise up and establish a confessional state by force. Catholic and liberal teaching agree that it’s never a good idea to impose a political order on a large group of people who have no desire for it.

      The principal point of a Catholic state, I take it, is for the Gospel to inform deeply not only the culture but the legislation too. However, we always need to work on the culture first. Of course, that doesn’t mean abandoning the political sphere. The idea is simply that without a receptive cultural base, the political superstructure will be of little value. A Catholic political order will emerge organically and freely only from a Catholic culture. Such a culture is what Catholics should focus on building today.

      So there is no alternative but to go forth and evangelize the world. This is quite ironic, because Vigano seems to agree with the Lefebvrists that we should hole up in our bunker and wait for the end of the world. It is Vatican II that called for a massive effort to evanglelize the entire world. So odd that they reject the very thing most likely to lead to a real Kingship of Christ.

  5. I am in no way qualified to opine on validity of Vatican II, although I am inclined towards Dr. Farrow’s view. What is most regrettable, is that Archbishop Vigano’s foray into this arena has shifted the focus away from the many legitimate charges in his original testimony of August, 2018. The crimes, colossal mistakes and dereliction of duty of virtually the entire hierarchy of the Church over the past sixty years have gone almost completely unacknowledged by the powers – that – be. Furthermore, in many cases, the extent of the corruption, treachery and stupidity has not even fully been revealed (e.g. the rise of Theodore McCarrick to one of the highest positions). My prayer is that the estimable Vigano and others, so rightly disgusted and infuriated by state of the Church, redirect their efforts to these matters, where they are needed and could actually accomplish something.

    • Indeed, Pope Francis and his allies and henchmen must be delighted that Vigano has turned into this direction. Right now, every orthodox Catholic should be concerned solely with combatting the assaults on Church teaching and basic morality and the relentless leftist political agitation coming from the current regime.

      It is nearly September and we still do not have the McCarrick report. Assuming it eventually will be produced, it is likely to be incomplete and misleading. They obviously are waiting for the old pervert to die. Francis’ rehabilitation of him for the express purpose of using his talent for political intrigue to betray the Church in China is just one example of where our efforts should be concentrated.

    • I can well imagine that Pope Francis, and McCarrick and every corrupt bishop jumps for joy each time Vigano diverts attention away from their misdeeds and tries this anti Vatican II stuff. It’s almost like Francis is paying Vigano to do this.

  6. I wanted to add to my above comment. The Antichrist could reign in Rome and they would still blame Vat II. Why can we not move on and unite, one church, one mystical body of Christ. Pope Francis is doing enough damage to the church. He signed a pact of global brother fraternity in Abu Dhabi, defying the Mystical Body of Christ, the way the truth and the life eternal. Catholics need to stop fighting each other. e

  7. Jesus Christ is King…not tomorrow…not at the end of the age…but now. He is now the King of kings and Lord of lords. God the Father has already made our Lord Jesus Christ to “sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is names, not only in this age but also in that which is to come, and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all” (Eph 1:15-23). For God the Father “has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:8-11). The reality of the kingdom of God and His Christ, and the supreme rule of our Lord Jesus Christ, is not “mystical,” as though it was something to be understood as symbolic or only limited to the spiritual realm of existence, or only something to be realized at the end of the age. If so, then there is no need to proclaim the Lordship of Christ to the world, no need to make disciples of all nations, no need for the physical expression of the Church, the body of the Supreme Ruler – the King of kings and Lord of lords – in this world, in this age. True that the kingdom of our Lord is a heavenly kingdom, not of this world – and therefore we are to not be of this world – this doesn’t mean we become passive in this world instead of active participants in the kingdom of God and spreading the influence of that heavenly kingdom into the world, into this age. True, if the kingdom of our Lord was a worldly kingdom like that of physical kingdoms of man, His followers would take up sword and fight to establish the Lord as king. But that is not how Christ’s kingdom is established in this world; it is established through prayer – Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN. Why would we pray this prayer if it wasn’t the intention of God for His will to be done on earth as in heaven? This prayer of our Lord reveals the intention of God to establish His kingdom on earth as it is in heaven, for where the will of God is done, there His kingdom is realized. But this kingdom, this realm of God’s rule and reign, begins in the hearts of humanity, for if the rule and reign of Christ has not transformed the heart and lives of humanity, the kingdom of Christ cannot be fully realized. Nonetheless, when the hearts of humanity are truly surrendered to the rule and reign of Christ in this world, then the kingdom of Christ becomes manifested in all the cultures and institutions of the world. This kingdom of our God is not established from the outside in; it is established and brought into manifestation (thy kingdom come) from the inside out. The problem is that the Church today has failed miserably in its mission to make disciples of all nations, to boldly proclaim the rule and reign of Jesus Christ and its culmination at the end of the age with His coming, which all humanity should dread, for it is that final day when God’s wrath will come upon humanity for its rejection of the rule and reign of Jesus Christ. The role of the Church is evangelism – the mission of all who claim to be members of this Church, the body of the King and the Lord, is to declare boldly its King as THE King, as THE Lord, to proclaim the whole gospel of Christ without hesitation or compromise, to live every moment of every day in complete surrender and obedience to THE King and THE Lord so that their lives reveal the fruits of the kingdom – “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law” (Gal 5:22-24). Think about it: If we were fulfilling our mission to introduce the freedom of the kingdom of Christ to a world enslaved by the evil ruler of this age, and witnessing the change of hearts and lives that result, would this world not then see a manifestation of the kingdom of God (thy kingdom come) in all its elements, whether culture, business, school, science, law, government, etc.?

    This is the message of the kingdom of God that transforms society. This is the mission of the Church.

    • A powerful argument, yours, about “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN.” But what about this…what if it is “with Him, in Him and through Him” that honor and glory is given to the Father? Which is to say, what if “Thy kingdom come” is first about a Eucharistic gathering with/in/through Christ, sacramentally, rather than a now a global “immanentizing of the eschaton” (Eric Voeghlin)?

      And, as long as we’re at it (the Lord’s Prayer), here’s a thought about any re-translation of the Lord’s Prayer. Because the early Hebrew language had no punctuation (nor vowels, nor upper and lower case letters, nor chapter and verse numbering!), perhaps the best rendering of the sometimes disputed wording would be simply to re-punctuate (!)in our oral recitation, rather than to mis-translate. As in “LEAD us…NOT into temptation but deliver us from evil.” Just asking…

      • Your suggested rendering of the line from the line in the Lord’s Prayer seems eminently suitable – grammatically and theologically, PDB.

    • May God bless you for spelling out the mandate in layman’s language. Kiss.
      End of story. Now let us go forth to work and pray that this directive be done sooner than later.

  8. It is worth considering the possibility that Pope Pius XI intended “the Reign of Christ the King” to counter the obsession of the adherents of “the new things” (socialism, modernism, and the New Age) to establish “the Kingdom of God on Earth” and create a Heaven on Earth — which (as Fulton Sheen reminded us) inevitably creates a hell. The work of Dr. Julian Strube of Heidelberg University has demonstrated that from the advent of “the Democratic Religion” (as socialism was originally known), the one constant theme of socialists and modernists has been to create the perfect life in this world, completely ignoring Jesus’s response to Pilate that His kingdom in no way competed with the civil order.

    • This is why we have to be very, very careful when we examine old papal encyclicals and writings. We have to understand exactly what they meant by the words they use, because the meaning of words sometimes changes over time. Pius XII, for example, in his Christmas message of 1944, writes about the problems with “Democracy”. But included in “Democracy”, for him at that time, was Communist states. There is no way we would call a communist state a democracy today. But then, he was evaluating every method that pretended to put “the people” in charge, and communism pretended to do just that. He concludes that there are good democracies (like the U.S) and bad democracies (like the Soviet union)

  9. I join with Professor Farrow, and the related answer to Archbishop Viganò by the very faithful and courageous shepherd Fr. Weinandy, and the observations made here by Fr. Morello, Peter Beaulieu, Tony W and Edith W.

    Peter Beaulieu began with a point I also strongly agree with: a truly Catholic assessment about “Vatican II” CANNOT be reduced to “zero-sum contest” between two impoverished camps who both in their divergent ways desire a worldly pedestal for a disfigured and distorted political Church, both descending into idolatry of the Church institution itself, both dethroning Christ, one side wanting the golden calf of “social kingship” and the other the golden calf of “social justice.”

    Both of those positions are in great error.

    The Body of Christ has Christ as its head, as St. Paul taught, and Professor Farrow has reiterated. The Pope, whether faithful or abysmal, is only a shepherd and steward…he is NOT our King. Jesus is our King.

    I commend Professor Farrow for doing Archbishop Viganò Justice, and giving him credit for his courage in confronting the corruption of the Pontiff Francis and the Church hierarchy, while correcting the Archbishop for his errors.

    We are Catholic men and women and children free in Christ our King. We are not cattle in some misled, impoverished counterfeit “theocracy” or “social justice personality cult.”

  10. My credentials are for engineering not theology. I am a convert so cannot speak to pre Vatican II. Why can’t anyone speak to the current situation in some concise and direct manner without reading in to other people’s stories. The Church today is beyond confused and stressed by the actions of the hierarchy and priests or maybe inactions. The Church exists to first and foremost lead souls to Heaven. The blessing of the whole world during the early days of the pandemic by the Holy Father was a perfect example of what the Church needs to be doing. The immoral sucking up to the Chinese Communist Party is the perfect example of what has to end. We can’t go back to pre VII duh. But if we do not change the current path of the small c church then we are leading many souls not to Heaven. If it takes this long to address the vileness of McCarrick then there is a moral failing of the highest form in the hierarchy. Abp. Vigano and Bp. Schneider are not perfect, who is but at least they want to bring the Church back to the Truth and not continue to wallow in then secular world. They at least are willing to confront evil albeit with the normal human weaknesses. These articles are just another in a series of mental gymnastics to try and justify nothing of import. If all the clergy who really don’t believe anymore would leave or at least stop being clergy and get on their knees looking for forgiveness we would have a chance. We need far fewer explanations of all the “isms” and debate about pre VII and a few more men and women confronting evil right now and saying “no”.

    • Steve –

      While I share all of your overall concerns, I think that this series of articles are very important, and not just mental gymnastics. The point of Professor Farrow, Fr. Weinandy, Fr. Morello and others is to help us oppose the McCarrick corrupt syndrome and the whole mess from a strong footing, and to warn that the most recent statements made by Archbishop Viganò are not on a strong foundation (while I at the same time join Farrow and I most heartily agree he is to be commended and appreciated for his courage in confronting the corruption of the Church).

      If we get the reasoning wrong at the start, we will end up WAY off course.

    • No, you have it wrong. As is pointed out in the article, Vigano and Schneider are actually trying to revive the schismatic tendencies. They propose that the Catholic church has had a false council that committed error, and its popes have committed grave error repeatedly. You must separate the unrest about Francis from everything else. Vigano and Schneider now attack the fundamental basis of the Catholic church. They attack our Councils, which are guided by the holy spirit. As the article points out, their criticisms are fundamentally wrong. This is the same old crap the SSPX has been arguing in their attempt at schism.

      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.”
      You are correct that Francis has done some very strange stuff. But all this baloney from Vigano and Schneider attempting to overthrow the church to save it, is nonsense and garbage and is diverting attention away from the real problems of the church.

      • Much of what you say is true except, the Holy Spirit was in only about 450 Council Fathers, the Traditionalists. The others tossed out the real Council and created their own counsel, they are called usurpers. Such a Counsel is null and void. St Pius X would have condemned what happened at Vatican ll.

      • “They attack our Councils, which are guided by the holy spirit.”

        Really? You know that hikers can ignore their guide?

        And by ‘guided ‘ you imply protected, and protected from error, and protected from _all_ error. Really?

    • Steve M, what you say is well said and I sense it is truly spoken from your heart, a heart with love of Jesus and neighbor.

  11. A “state” or “nation” are language classes, which cannot be saved because they are only abstract categories. Only souls can be saved, one at a time. Forays into plural human identities and processes leads away from the true work, saving (and renewing) souls. Schism uses uninspected confusions to assist the enemy’s work of disunity. Paul told us not to enter into conflict and division, because that is not the Kingdom. Correcting a shepherd is one thing, launching into massive micro analysis of group behavior is quite an unnecessary other.

  12. FAITHFUL CATHOLICS – NOW HEAR THIS: Per Vatican II your Mass of the Ages will be actively suppressed and controlled via an indult requirement and said Mass will be replaced by one made up by committee. Protestants will be conferred and their input incorporated into said new and improved mass. Your Mozart Mass in C minor will be replaced by Kumbaya. Statuary and high art are out to be replaced by felt banners. Altar rails and Communion on the tongue while on the knees is strictly verboten. The traditional reverence of the Blessed Sacrament is not necessary in this new age. That cutting sound of the altar rail being removed from the marble floor is the sound of progress. Your Faith will be so profoundly changed at the practical worship level as to be unrecognizable. To make this all go down a little easier however, you will be given the latitude to depart from Church Doctrine (yet still call yourself Catholic) if said doctrine is not in agreement with your own opinion, desire and above all your sacred conscience no matter how ill-formed it may be. It’s the new “Jesus on your terms!”

    FAITHFUL CATHOLICS, most importantly understand this: you WILL salute smartly and embrace these changes and if you do not then know that YOU are being schismatic.


    Archbishop Vigano is not guilty of fomenting schism no matter how much Dr. Farrow attempts to splatter him with that brush. If Archbishop Vigano is causing controversy by speaking truth then so be it.

    I agree with G. Poulin’s comment except for one point. I submit that even a blind man can see what Vatican II has done to the Church.

    • As is the case with SSPX like attempts to respond, you comment is filled with inaccuracies. First of all, Vatican II did not suppress the mass. That was not done as part of Vatican II at all. Nothing in Vatican II required that.
      The New Mass is not “Protestantized”. In fact, it is distincly Catholic because the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ. No Protestant would ever go for that.
      All of the other stuff you mention was not done because of Vatican II. You should know that – it is basic Catholicism 101. Vatican II said nothing about felt banners, Kumbaya, as a matter of fact, it did say that Latin and Gregorian chant were to be given priority. It’s a shame that you schismatic types don’t have a grasp on fundamental facts. But I often find that extremists always tell themselves lies so they can justify their rebellions.
      Basically, nothing you said was true.

      • Samtom 909
        I never used the word “Protestantized.” Please do not put words in my mouth, with quotation marks no less if that is what you were attempting to do. You used that word, not I.

        By the sound of the altar rail being removed you will know them. I presented a number of innovations, some fruit of Vatican II evidenced in practical worship to this day. All of my observations are true sir, from the removal of statuary to its replacement with felt banners. That Vatican II did not mention such innovation by name is incidental. You are far too intelligent to use that silly argument. Vatican II set the stage for much innovation, deconstruction and destruction that followed. The Novus Ordo mass was a product of Vatican II which you know to be true and if you have ever heard of the subsequent indult you know that to be true also. You are quite correct that Latin and Gregorian chant were to be given priority. But saying it clearly did not render it so.

        Basically nothing that I said was true, huh?

        Sweeping, dismissive invalidation is a sophomoric argument at best. You might want to sign up for Debate 101.

        • Sophomore yes, argument no. Rather there is an attack dog with a sensitive nose for any opponent who thinks something is amiss in the Church. Everything is just fine. Just listen to him. If you missed the first post, there will be another, longer, more angry, accusatory, and rude.

          • “Everything is just fine. Just listen to him.”

            If that’s what you’re getting from this, then you’re not really reading.

    • Joseph Meynier, Your comment of August 31 was absolutely excellent. You sum up the changes after Vatican ll exactly as the Council Fathers, after the Council did to the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ. All will have to answer to the Creator when we go before the Justice of God to be judged. BTW I think that isn’t taught anymore, its too rigid.

  13. Yes, you see all that is happening here is that Vigano is now a Lefebvrist. He and Schneider, (his presumed ghostwriter) are merely vying to become the new Lefebvre. Along with their media man Taylor Marshall, and Lifesite, this tiny group now tries to become the new Martin Luthers and overturn the Catholic church. Much like Luther, they presume they know best, that the Holy Spirit goofed tremendously at Vatican II, and that the pope has no powers to order them around.
    Most of their flummoxed ranting comes about because of Pope Francis and his oddities. But do they talk about that? No, we are back to the same old SSPX baloney about Vatican II being the cause of all problems. Its a big waste of everyone’s time. Vigano thinks he is pope now, and his adoring, fawning fans have effectively elevated him and Schneider into that position. It is all very funny, and all very sad. I suppose if this keeps going on, they will have to be excommunicated.
    For those who are struggling to see through all their BS, there is a good book that addresses every single claim made by this renegade group. It is called “The Pope, the Mass, and the Council”

    At first I was extremely annoyed by this nonsense. Now I realize that Taylor Marshall, Vigano and Schneider are the worst thing ever to happen to the SSPX and their conspiracy theories. Because once out in the sunshine, they cannot survive. The truth crushes them very quickly.

  14. The primacy of Christ as the revelation and self-giving of God is a reality affirmed in faith. It is the mission of the Church to proclaim what has been received through Christ and the Apostolic tradition, and, as far as possible, to give an account of it in word and and action. At God’s bidding, the believer sows, God gives the increase – which includes others’ recognition that Christ is King of Kings and Lord of lords. We are servants of the Word.

  15. If we are to correctly understand the Kingship of Christ, we need to study Christ’s Own behavior in the New Testament. At the start of Christ’s public ministry He underwent the Temptations in the Wilderness. All of them in some way touch on the wielding of or access to power. Satan kept on defining godhood in terms of power. I heard a rabbi say that the Hebrew word, elohim, that is translated as the little g gods in the Catholic First Commandment can also be translated as the words judges or powers. Christ refused to turn stones into bread, to throw Himself off the pinnacle of the Temple, and turned down Satan’s offer of all the kingdoms of the world. During the first temptation Christ said that man does not live by bread alone. This has significance during Christ’s multiplication of the loaves and fishes. When Christ had performed the miracle of the loaves and the fishes the crowd was ready to take Him by force and make Him king. He withdrew. He later told the crowds that they only sought Him out because they had eaten their fill. He told them that they should not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life. This was very much in the spirit of Christ’s rebuke of Satan during the first temptation.
    Christ told Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world. Christ turned down temporal kingdoms that were of this world because He was sent into the world to inaugurate a far more important kingdom. As the Savior He was about to assume His Kingship as the King of Salvation on the throne of the Cross, having had a regal coronation with the Crown of Thorns. Only a spotless Lamb could occupy this throne.
    During the Fall of Man it wasn’t until Adam and Eve both ate of the forbidden fruit that their eyes were opened and they saw their nakedness. This makes me suspect that before the Fall that they were soulmates. Two hearts beating as one. That they had an intimate spiritual union through their then intact relationship with God. Original Sin disrupted this harmony and their intact relationship with God and each other. They were no longer clothed in righteousness, thus they saw their nakedness. That is why Jesus and Mary were Immaculately Conceived free of Original Sin. Any sin would have made the Incarnation and the Hypostatic Union a lie. Love requires free will. The Incarnation and the Hypostatic Union would have required that that love be able to freely accept the supernatural exchange that went between the Holy Spirit and Mary that brought them about. The special relationship between the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary exists because Original Innocence gives them an intact relationship with God. This is why the unifying principal of Christ’s Eternal Kingdom will be the intact relationship of the Beatific Vision, which the world and worldly power cannot give.
    We are all, everyone of us, born with the stain of Original Sin. Baptism only remits the penalty of Original Sin. Concupiscence remains. This includes members of the clergy and the pope. It is said that sex, money, and power are the major reasons for the downfall of religious figures. The Evangelical Counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience are the antidotes to these worldly temptations. To me it would appear that the institutional Church may currently have more temporal power than she is capable of responsibly administering. The Church needs to be purified of worldliness and worldly attachments. To me this was the lesson behind the story of Cain and Abel. Abel the shepherd was in the world, but not of the world. As a shepherd he was able to go wherever there was good pasture and was free of worldly attachments. You could see this in his worship. Cain was a farmer and was weighed down by worldly attachments to the land. When God severed Cain’s attachment to the land the first words out of his mouth were that his punishment was more than he could bear, such was the control that his worldly attachments exerted on his life and worship. A worldly Church is the Church of Cain. The Church is Mystical because our destination is a supernatural union with God. That is what we humans were created for. Union with God is supposed to be part of our image and likeness, to model the union of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Church is badly in need of a supernatural restoration.

  16. Reading Taylor Marshall’s”Infiltration”, it all seemed mostly okay. But with the all-knowing writer here regularly throwing stones at Dr Marshall, I’m still waiting for a fair review of his work from the usual places. Also since to that writer, even the social drinking tastes of his bishops are not off limits, maybe that writer could list his favorite brand of vodka, so we can then send the good Bishop a bottle for his enjoyment.

  17. In reviewing the comments on these two articles I see the same Small group of individuals repeatedly posting comment after comment that tediously allow them to ride their favorite hobby horses to exhaustion and contribute little to the articles themselves. Perhaps the moderator could impose a one comment per article limit of no more that 250-300 words (equivalent to one typed page of print).

    • Agreed. The repetitive false accusations, the lengthy allusions not backed by fact, and similar declamations are not worth the space they occupy in the cloud of their uncharity.

    • Those not interested in the conversation need not participate. On the other hand, yours is a good point and I, for one, will try to take it to heart. At 267 words, the Gettysburg address fits inside your brackets.

      I think things will moderate once folks like me are no longer confined to our homes with more than enough time to read and respond to the best Catholic website available. As for the “favorite hobby horses” insult, why am I reminded that in this imperfect world there are more horses asses than there are horses? (95 words!)

        • Here, an unconditional apology to you, and if warranted to our esteemed CWR conversation partners, for my part in any ad hominem allusions. Offered straight from the horse’s mouth–somebody’s demeaning “favorite hobby horse.”

    • Paul, Perhaps you may be right in some points but this is a discussion, remember that. Out of fear of offending the Creator for over 40 years I kept all my opinions on Vatican ll to myself. Believe me it is no “hobby horse”. This has everything to do with the Creator of all that exists, He created both heaven and hell, so souls are at stake here. I lived the Church since a boy and now I’m at liberty to say what I truly believe. You will not understand the discussion if your not part of those who lived the truly painful, Vatican ll world. Please don’t knock it.

  18. Dr. Farrow, you seem clear on what was wrong with the Council and what would need to change. You also believe that Archbishop Vigano has presented a solution that you find problematic and erroneous. However, please consider this: If it were not for what he has said, neither you nor others would currently be addressing this problem. If there are those who know there is a problem, why have they not insisted upon correcting it. Others within the Counci,l and after the Council, were the ones Dethroning Christ. Even Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out that Christ has not been the center and this is what has caused so much damage.

    So, I invite you to challenge those who are responsible for this error and damage and stop blaming the person who is crying out about it. We need a faithful and courageous Pope (clearly not Francis) to take hold of the Council documents and do whatever is necessary to make it clear that all must be within the hermeneutic of continuity. He will need to restate some things so there is no confusion. If this happens, we will have to acknowledge that the catalyst was Vigano.

    • “If it were not for what he has said, neither you nor others would currently be addressing this problem.”

      Yet another person apparently unaware of the amount of ink spilled on this “problem” over the past few decades.

      “Even Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out that Christ has not been the center and this is what has caused so much damage.”

      So someone was addressing the “problem”?

      Which is it?

  19. Many critiques of “integralism” seem to take it for granted that the concept means monarchism and/or theocracy. Vatican II (DH) says that it leaves intact traditional Catholic teaching on the duty of the state towards the true religion, but unfortunately doesn’t outline what that traditional teaching is. One reason so much ink has needed to be spilt.

  20. A king is a fairy tale. Not real anymore, except as a figurehead in the places that have a monarchy. Jesus is God. He is real. Why use titles that give fodder to atheists and encourage children to dismiss Him as a myth?

    • Maybe because God is described as King in the OT and Jesus is described as King in the NT? “On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords.” (Rev 19:16). The universe and all of creation remains a monarchy. And, really, who wants to hear the Incarnate Word described as “President of presidents” or “CEO of CEOs”?

    • Christ is called the Son of David. The genealogies of Christ in the Gospels are there to establish Christ’s Davidic lineage. To show that Christ is the true inheritor of the throne of King David. This way Christ is the King, Mary is the Queen Mother, and Peter, the first pope, is the prime minister of the kingdom. The prime minister is the holder of the keys, which Christ gave to Peter. All features of Davidic Kings. In 2 Samuel 7:16 God says this about the house of David:
      16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.’”
      Christ as King is the fulfillment of this promise. Catholicism has Jewish roots. People who want to learn more should look into the video presentations of Dr. Brant Pitre. He has many videos covering the Jewish roots of Catholicism. Some videos of his are available on YouTube. There is a video excerpt on YouTube titled “The Kingdom of God and Mary” where he goes into Christ as King and Mary as Queen Mother.

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Dethroning Christ? The Error at the Root of the Viganò Controversy (Part 2) - Catholic Mass Search
  2. Dethroning Christ? The error at the root of the Viganò controversy (Part I) – Catholic World Report

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.