Hatred for the Mass of all time and the Question of Obedience

 

Foreword by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

This great and powerful article by Professor Massimo Viglione constitutes one of the most lucid and profound comments on the ominous Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes. In sharing this important intervention, I intend to offer it to the reading and reflection of all the faithful, Catholics and also non-Catholics, so that each one can draw from it prophetic clarity and apostolic courage in the very hard war that we are all called to face, a war whose inevitable outcome will be the triumph of the Bride of Christ over the unleashing of the infernal powers. 

This article by prof. Viglione deserves wide visibility also for showing the overall vision on the simultaneous and coherent strategy and action of the deep state and the deep church. At a time when discrimination against the unvaccinated is also adopted by the Bergoglian church, it is our duty and responsibility to resist with the utmost determination, raise our voices, denouncing what is happening and revealing what is being prepared. 

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop 

_________________

 Hatred for the Mass of all time and the Question of Obedience 

“They will throw you out of the synagogues” (Jn 16:2)  The hermeneutic of Cain’s envy against Abel 

by Massimo Viglione 

There have been many comments, one after the other, in these days following the official declaration of war – made by Francis himself – of the ecclesiastical hierarchy against the Holy Mass of all time. And more than one comment has revealed the not-at-all concealed contempt and the simultaneous absolute clarity of content and form that marks the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes, written in a style and formality that is political more than theological or spiritual. It is in effect a declaration of war. It is noteworthy that there is a formal difference and also a difference in tone found in the various documents with which Paul VI, beginning in 1964, announced, planned, and implemented his liturgical reform, which was finally made official with the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum issued on 3 April 1969, by which the ancient Roman Rite was de facto replaced (this is the most appropriate term both from the point of view of intentions as well as facts) with the new vulgar Rite. In the Montinian documents we find, on several occasions, hypocritical but evident pain, regret, and remorse, and paradoxically the beauty and sacredness of the ancient Rite are celebrated. 

In contrast, in the Bergoglian document, sarcasm and hatred for the ancient Rite shine through. 

In short, it is as if Montini had said: “Dear Rite of all time, I am sending you away, but you were so beautiful!” In contrast, in the Bergoglian document, as many have noted, sarcasm and hatred for the ancient Rite shine through. A hatred such that it cannot be contained. 

Naturally, Francis is not the initiator of this war, which was begun by the modernist liturgical movement (or, if you like, with Protestantism), but rather, on the official and operative level, it was Paul VI himself. Bergoglio has only – to use the strong and popular metaphor – “shot madly” in an effort to kill once and for all a mortally wounded thing that in the course of the post-conciliar decades not only did not die but returned to life, dragging along with it, with an exponential crescendo in the last 14 years, an incalculable number of faithful all over the world. 

And this is the crux of the whole matter. The progressive and more convinced modernist clergy had to suffer Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio, dragged by the neck, but at the same time they constantly worked against the Mass of all time through hostile resistance by the majority of the world episcopate, which has always openly disobeyed what Summorum Pontificum established, beginning right in the years of the Ratzingerian pontificate, and then all the more so after the resignation up until today. 

Now, those bishops who have been constantly and undauntedly disobedient to the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church and one of his Motu Proprios, will be able not only to continue but even to intensify their censorship. 

The hostility of the bishops meant that in the end the task of putting the Motu Proprio into action very often fell to the courage of a few priests celebrating it anyway, even without the permission of the bishop (which was specifically not necessary according to the provisions of Summorum Pontificum). Now, those bishops who have been constantly and undauntedly disobedient to the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church and one of his Motu Proprios, in the name of obedience to the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church and one of his Motu Proprios, will be able not only to continue but even to intensify their censorship, the war that is no longer hidden but is now blatant, as is in fact already happening. 

But Francis has not limited himself to “shooting” the immortal victim. He wanted to take a further step, that of a fast and furious – to say nothing of monstruous – “burying alive” of the ancient rite, affirming that the new rite is the Lex Orandi of the Catholic Church. From which it should be deduced that the Mass of all time is no longer the Lex Orandi. 

It is well known that Our Friend [Bergoglio] doesn’t have a clue about theology (which is a bit like saying that a doctor doesn’t have a clue about medicine, or that a blacksmith doesn’t know how to use fire and iron). The Lex Orandi of the Church, in fact, is not a “precept” of positive law voted on by a parliament or prescribed by a sovereign, which can always be retracted, changed, replaced, improved, or worsened. The Lex Orandi of the Church, furthermore, is not a specific and determined “thing” in time and space, as much as it is the collective whole of theological and spiritual norms and liturgical and pastoral practices of the entire history of the Church, from evangelical times – and specifically from Pentecost – up to today. Although it obviously lives in the present, it is however rooted in the entire past of the Church. Therefore, we are not talking here about something human – exclusively human – that the latest boss can change at his pleasure. The Lex Orandi comprises all twenty centuries of the history of the Church, and there is no man or group of men in the world who can change this twenty-century-old deposit. There is no pope, council, or episcopate that can change the Gospel, the Depositum Fidei, or the universal Magisterium of the Church. Nor can the Liturgy of all time be changed. And if it is true that the ancient Rite had an essential apostolic core that then harmonically grew over the course of the centuries, with progressive mutations (even up to Pius XII and John XXIII), it is also true that these mutations – at times more appropriate and other times less so, and sometimes perhaps not appropriate at all – have always been however harmonically structured in a continuum of Faith, Sacredness, Tradition, and Beauty. 

The “new Mass” has lost in the face of history and the evidence of the facts. 

The Montinian reform broke all this apart, improvisedly inventing a new rite adapted to the needs of the modern world and transforming the sacred Catholic Liturgy from being theocentric to being anthropocentric. From the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross repeated in an unbloody manner through the action of the sacerdos, we transitioned to the assembly of the faithful led by its “presider.” From a salvific and even exorcistic instrument, we passed to a horizontal populist gathering, susceptible to continual autocephalous and relativistic changes and adaptations that are more or less “festive” and whose supposed “value” is based on winning mass consensus, as if it were a political instrument aimed at the audience, an audience however that is progressively completely disappearing. 

It is useless to continue on this path: the very results of this liturgical subversion speak to minds and hearts and cannot lie. What it is important to clarify however is the reason for this transition from Montinian hypocrisy to Bergoglian sincerity. 

What has changed? The general climate has changed. It has literally turned upside down. Montini believed that in a few years no one would remember the Mass of all time. Already John Paul II, faced with the evidence that the enemy did not die at all, was constrained – he too dragged by the neck – to grant an “indult” (as if the Sacred Catholic Liturgy of all time needed to be forgiven for something in order to continue to exist) which (no one ever says this) was even more restrictive than this latest Bergoglian document, although devoid of the hatred that characterizes the latter. But above all it was the uncontainable success among the people – and in particular among young people – that the Mass of all time found after Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio that was the triggering factor for this hatred. 

The Mass of all time, on the other hand, is the exact antithesis of all this... It is both divine and human together, like its Founder on the day of the Last Supper. 

The “new Mass” has lost in the face of history and the evidence of the facts. The churches are empty, ever more empty; the religious orders – even, and perhaps above all, the most ancient and glorious ones – are disappearing; monasteries and convents are deserted, inhabited only by religious who are now very advanced in years, and upon whose death the doors will be shuttered; vocations are reduced to nothing; even the “otto per mille” [Italian church tax] has been cut in half, despite the obsessive cloying and pathetic third-worldesque publicity it receives; priestly vocations are scarce – everywhere we see pastors with three, four, or at times even five parishes to run. The mathematics of the Council and the “new Mass” is the most merciless thing that can exist. 

But the failure is above all qualitative, from the theological, spiritual and moral point of view. Even the clergy that exists and resists is in large part openly heretical or in any case tolerant of heresy and error in the exact measure that it is intolerant towards the Tradition, no longer recognizing any objective value in the Magisterium of the Church (except for what pleases it), living instead on theological and dogmatic improvisation, and liturgical and pastoral improvisation as well, all based on doctrinal and moral relativism, accompanied by an immense flood of chatter and empty and inane slogans; nor have we even mentioned the devastating – when it is not monstruous – moral situation of a good part of this clergy. 

It’s true, there are the so-called “movements” that save the situation a little. But they save it at the cost, once again, of doctrinal relativism, liturgical relativism (guitars, tambourines, entertainment, “participation”), and moral relativism (the only sin is to go against the dictates of this society: today against the vaccine; everything else is more or less permitted). Are these movements still Catholic? And in what measure and quality? If we were to analyze their fidelity with theological and doctrinal precision, how many would pass the examination? 

It is the worldwide and multi-generational consensus against the enemy who must die, in the face of the failure of that which was supposed to bring new life and instead is withered and dying. 

“Lex orandi, lex credenda,” the Church teaches. And in fact, the Lex Orandi of the nineteen centuries prior to Vatican II and the Montinian liturgical reform have produced one type of faith, and the fifty years following it have produced another type of faith – and another type of Catholic. “You will know them by their fruits” (Mt 7:16), the Founder of the Church taught. Exactly. The fruits of the total failure of modernism (or, if you like – for the most attentive and intelligent – the triumph of the true purposes of modernism), the fruits of the Second Vatican Council, the fruits of the post-council. Where did the hermeneutic of continuity shipwreck? It shipwrecked, along with “Mercy,” in the Hermeneutic of Hatred. 

The Mass of all time, on the other hand, is the exact antithesis of all this. It is disruptive in its propagation, despite all of the constant hostility and episcopal censorship; it is sanctifying in its perfection; it is engaging precisely because it is the expression of the Eternal and Unchanging, of the Church of all time, of the theology and spirituality of all time, of the liturgy of all time, of the morality of all time. It is loved because it is divine, sacred, and hierarchically ordered, not human, “democratic” or liberal-egalitarian. It is both divine and human together, like its Founder on the day of the Last Supper. 

It is loved above all by young people, both the laity who frequent it as well as among those who are approaching the priesthood: while the seminaries of the new rite (the Lex Orandi of Bergoglio) are dens of heresy and apostasy (and it is better to be silent about what else…), the seminaries and novitiates of the world of Tradition overflow with vocations, both male and female, in an unstoppable stream. The explanation of this incontrovertible fact is found in the one Lex Orandi of the Catholic Church, which is the one willed by God Himself and from which no rebel may escape. 

It is hatred of kneeling girls wearing white veils, hatred of ladies with many children wearing black veils; hatred of men kneeling in prayer and recollection, perhaps with the rosary between their hands... 

Here is the root of the hatred. It is the worldwide and multi-generational consensus against the enemy who must die, in the face of the failure of that which was supposed to bring new life and instead is withered and dying, because the lifeblood of Grace is missing. 

It is hatred of kneeling girls wearing white veils, hatred of ladies with many children wearing black veils; hatred of men kneeling in prayer and recollection, perhaps with the rosary between their hands; hatred of priests in cassocks who are faithful to the doctrine and spirituality of all time; hatred of families that are large and peaceful despite the difficulties of this society; hatred of fidelity, of seriousness, of the thirst for the sacred. 

It is hatred of an entire world, ever more numerous, that has not fallen – or no longer falls – into the humanistic and globalist trap of the “New Pentecost.” 

At its root, that mad shooting is nothing other than a new murder of Abel by an envious Cain. And in fact, in the new Rite what is offered to God is “the fruit of the earth and the work of human hands (Cain), while in the Rite of all time what is offered is “hanc immaculatam Ostiam” (the firstborn Lamb of Abel: Gen 4:2-4). 

Will all the bishops obey? It seems not. 

Cain always wins momentarily through violence, but then without fail he suffers the punishment of his hatred and his envy. Abel dies momentarily, but then he lives forever in the sequela Christi. 

What will happen now? 

This is a more interesting and inevitable question than anyone can believe, and at many levels. Since we cannot know the future, let’s ask ourselves some fundamental questions in the meantime. 

Will all the bishops obey? 

It seems not. Apart from the great majority of them, who will fall in line quite willingly either because they share their boss’s hatred (almost all of them) or because they are afraid for their personal future, we think that there will be not a few of them who could also oppose the Bergoglian “machine gun,” as already appears to be happening in various cases in the USA and in France (we have little hope for the Italians, who are the most fearful and flattened as always), either because they are not hostile in principle [to the ancient rite] or else out of friendship with the various orders tied to the Mass of all time, or else perhaps – is this a vain hope? – out of a jolt of just pride in response to the humiliation, which could even be called grotesque, that they have received at the hands of this document, wherein first it says that the decision regarding the granting of permission falls to them, but then not only does it restrict every liberty of action, placing conditions on any minimal possibility of choice, but it also falls into the most blatant contradiction, affirming that in every case they must receive the permission of the Holy See! 

Will everyone really obey blindly, or will some cracks start to make the system of hatred shake? 

The true goal of this multi-decade war against the Sacred Catholic Liturgy, is the dissolution of the Catholic Liturgy in itself, of every form of the Holy Sacrifice, of doctrine itself, of the Church herself in the great globalist current of the universal religion of the New World Order. 

And what will happen in the so-called “traditionalist” world? 

“We will see some good ones,” to use a popular expression. Without excluding historical twists. There are those who will fall, who will survive, who perhaps will benefit from it (but beware of the poisoned meatballs of the servants of the Father of Lies!). Instead, let us trust in divine Grace, so that the faithful not only remain faithful but also grow. 

All this will be confirmed above all by an aspect that up until now no one has highlighted: the true goal of this multi-decade war against the Sacred Catholic Liturgy, which then is the true goal of the creation of the New Rite ex nihilo (better to say improvisedly [a tavolino], in some cave), is the dissolution of the Catholic Liturgy in itself, of every form of the Holy Sacrifice, of doctrine itself, of the Church herself in the great globalist current of the universal religion of the New World Order. Concepts like the Most Holy Trinity, the Cross, original sin, Good and Evil understood in the Christian and traditional sense, the Incarnation, the Resurrection and thus the Redemption, the Marian privileges and the very figure of the Mother of God who is the Immaculate Conception, the Eucharist and the Sacraments, Christian morality with its Ten Commandments and the Doctrine of the Universal Magisterium (defense of life, of the family, of rightly ordered sexuality in all its forms, with all the consequent condemnations of today’s follies) – all of this must disappear into the universal and monist cult of the future. 

The Mass of all time is the first element that must disappear, since it is the absolute bulwark of all that they want to make disappear. 

And, in this perspective, the Mass of all time is the first element that must disappear, since it is the absolute bulwark of all that they want to make disappear: it is the first obstacle to every form of ecumenism. Over time, this will inevitably involve a progressive movement closer to the Sacred Liturgy of all time by the body of the faithful who still linger in attendance at the new Rite, perhaps trying to go to those priests who celebrate it with dignity. Because in the end, sooner or later, even those priests will find themselves at the crossroads of having to choose between obedience to evil or disobedience in order to remain faithful to the Good. The comb of the Revolution, in society as in the Church, does not leave any knots: sooner or later they all fall out, if not here then there. And this will involve the search by the good ones, who are still confused, for Truth and Grace – that is, for the Mass of all time.  

Those who still linger today [at the new rite], so as not to have to deal with these “questions,” following these bishops and parish priests, know that, if they want to remain truly Catholic and truly avail themselves of the Body and Blood of the Redeemer…their days are numbered. Soon, they will have to choose. 

We have now touched on the central problem of this entire situation: how to behave in the face of a hierarchy that hates the True, the Good, the Beautiful, the Tradition, which fights against the one true Lex Orandi in order to impose another one that is pleasing not to God but to the prince of this world and his “controller” servants (in a certain sense, his “bishops”)? 

Whoever obeys men while being aware of facilitating evil and obstructing the Good, whoever they may be, in reality becomes an accomplice of evil, of lies, and of error. 

It is the key problem of obedience, over which even in the world of Tradition a dirty game is often played, often incited not by a sincere search for what is best and for the truth but by personal wars, which have today become more acute in the face of the rift caused by health totalitarianism and vaccination. 

Obedience – and this is an error that finds its deepest roots even in the pre-conciliar Church, it must be said – is not an end. It is a means of sanctification. Therefore, it is not an absolute value, but rather an instrumental one. It is a positive value, very positive, if it is ordered towards God. But if one obeys Satan, or his servants, or error, or apostasy, then obedience is no longer a good, but rather a deliberate participation in evil. 

Exactly like peace. Peace – the divinity of today’s subversion – is not an end, but rather an instrument of the Good and the Just, if it is aimed at creating a good and just society. If it is ordered towards creating or favoring a society that is Satanic, malignant, erroneous, and subversive, then “peace” becomes the instrument of hell. 

We must be “pleasing not to men, but to God, who tests our hearts” (1 Thess 2:4). Exactly! Therefore, whoever obeys men while being aware of facilitating evil and obstructing the Good, whoever they may be – including the ecclesiastical hierarchy, including the pope – in reality becomes an accomplice of evil, of lies, and of error. 

We are in the most decisive days of human history and also of the history of the Church. 

Whoever obeys in these conditions disobeys God. “Because no slave is greater than his master” (Mt 10:24). Even Judas was part of the apostolic college. Or else he falls into hypocrisy. As if – just to give an example from academia – a Catholic traditionalist, self-erected as the dispenser and judge of the seriousness of others, would openly criticize the present pontiff for Amoris Laetitiae or this latest document, but then, as regards the submission – even obligatory submission! –  to vaccinism in itself and the acceptance of the use of human cell lines obtained from fetuses that are the victims of voluntary abortion, he would declare, in order to defend himself in the face of just and obvious general indignation, that he is obedient to what the “Sovereign Pontiff” says on this matter. 

The conditio sine qua non of all seriousness lies not so much in the “tones” used (also, this is an important aspect but absolutely not primary and above all it remains subjective) but first and foremost in the doctrinal, ideal, and intellectual coherence of the Good and the Truth in their integrity, in every aspect and circumstance. In other words, we must understand whether the one who guides the Church today wishes to be a faithful servant of God or a faithful servant of the prince of this world. In the first hypothesis, obedience is due to him and obedience is the instrument of sanctification. In the second, the consequences have to be drawn out. Clearly, in respect for the norms codified by the Church and as children of the Church and also with the proper education and serenity of tone. But one must always draw out the consequences: the first concern ought to be to always follow and defend the Truth, not the cloying, obsequious, and scrupulous grovelling which is the spoiled fruit of a misunderstood Tridentinism. Neither pope nor hierarchy can be used as a referent of truth in fits and starts according to one’s personal ends. 

We are in the most decisive days of human history and also of the history of the Church. All of the authors who have commented in these days invite their readers to prayer and hope. We will obviously do this too, in the full conviction that everything that is happening in these days and, more generally, since February 2020, is the unequivocal sign that the times are drawing near in which God will intervene to save His Mystical Body and humanity, as well as the order that He Himself has given to creation and to human coexistence, in the measure He wishes to give it, in the way and time of His choosing. 

Let us pray; let us hope; let us keep vigil, and let us choose to be on the right side. The enemy helps us in the choice: in fact, he is always the same everywhere.

Originally published at: L’odio contro la Messa di sempre e la questione dell’obbedienza – Aldo Maria Valli

On the rumours of an attack on Summorum Pontificum and the battle cry from Archbishop Viganò

With all of the unconstitutional acts of Doug Ford and his toady, Thomas Cardinal Collins, there has been no attention paid by this writer to the matter of the substantial rumours that Bergoglio is about to take an action of some sort against Summorum Pontificum. I see many losing their minds over this, I too am disturbed by the prospect of another fight. If that fight comes, you can be assured that this writer will confront it here and in Toronto itself. 

In the meantime, I issue this warning to any priest or bishop who attempts to restrict our rights. This is not 1965, nor is it 1970 and we are not our parents nor our grandparents.

In the meantime, there is this:

Considerations

on the feared modification of the motu proprio

Summorum Pontificum

On the occasion of the Philosophy Symposium dedicated to the memory of Msgr. Antonio Livi which was held in Venice on May 30 (here), I tried to identify the elements that constantly recur throughout history in the work of deception of the Evil One. In my examination (here), I focused on the fraud of the pandemic, showing how the reasons given to justify illegitimate coercive measures and no less illegitimate limitations of natural freedoms were in reality prophasis, that is, pretexts: ostensible reasons that are actually intended to conceal a malicious intent and a criminal design. The publication of Anthony Fauci’s emails (here) and the impossibility of censoring the ever more numerous voices of dissent with respect to the mainstream narrative have confirmed my analysis and allow us to hope for a blatant defeat of the supporters of the Great Reset. 

In that address, you may recall, I dwelt on that fact that the Second Vatican Council was also in a certain way a Great Reset for the ecclesial body, like other historical events planned and designed in order to revolutionize the social body. Also in this case, the excuses given to legitimize liturgical reform, ecumenism, and the parliamentarization of the authority of the Sacred Pastors were not founded on good faith but on deceit and lies, in such a way so as to make us believe that we were renouncing things that were unquestionably good – the Apostolic Mass, the uniqueness of the Church as the means of salvation, the immutability of the Magisterium and the Authority of the Hierarchy – for the sake of a higher good. But as we know, not only did this higher good not come about (nor could it have), but in fact the true intent of the Council manifested itself in all its disruptive subversive value: churches were emptied, seminaries deserted, convents abandoned, authority discredited and perverted into tyranny for the sake of the wicked Pastors or rendered ineffective for the good ones. And we also know that the purpose of this reset, this devastating revolution, was from the very beginning iniquitous and malicious, despite being clothed in noble intentions in order to convince the faithful and the clergy to obey. 

In 2007 Benedict XVI restored full citizenship to the venerable Tridentine liturgy, giving back to it the legitimacy that had been abusively denied it for fifty years. In his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum he declared: 

It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy. […]  For such a celebration with either Missal, the priest needs no permission from the Apostolic See or from his own Ordinary (here). 

In reality the letter of the Motu Proprio and the implementing documents associated with it was never completely applied, and the cœtus fidelium who today celebrate in the Apostolic Rite continue to have to go to their Bishop to ask permission, essentially still abiding by the dictate of the Indult of the preceding Motu Proprio of John Paul II Ecclesia Dei. The just honor in which the traditional liturgy ought to be held was tempered by its being placed on an equal level with the liturgy of the post-conciliar reform, with the former being defined as the “extraordinary form” and the latter as the “ordinary form,” as if the Bride of the Lamb could have two voices – one fully Catholic and another equivocally ecumenical – with which to speak at one moment to the Divine Majesty and at the next to the assembly of the faithful. But there is also no doubt that the liberalization of the Tridentine Mass has done much good, nourishing the spirituality of millions of people and bringing many souls closer to the Faith who, in the sterility of the reformed rite, have not found any incentive either for conversion or even less for spiritual growth. 

Last year, displaying the typical behavior of the Innovators, the Holy See sent a questionnaire to the dioceses of the world in which they were asked to provide information about the implementation of Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio (here). The way in which the questions were written betrayed, once again, a second purpose, and the responses that were sent to Rome were supposed to create a basis of apparent legitimacy for imposing limitations on the Motu Proprio, if not its total abrogation. Certainly, if the author of Summorum Pontificum were still seated on the Throne, this questionnaire would have allowed the Pontiff to remind the Bishops that no priest needs to ask for permission to celebrate Mass in the ancient rite, nor may a priest be removed from ministry for doing so. But the real intention of those who wanted to consult the Ordinaries does not seem to reside in the salus animarum so much as in theological hatred against a rite that expresses with adamantine clarity the immutable Faith of the Holy Church, and which for this reason is alien to the conciliar ecclesiology, to its liturgy, and to the doctrine it presupposes and conveys. There is nothing more opposed to the so-called magisterium of Vatican II than the Tridentine liturgy: every prayer, every pericope – as liturgists would say – constitutes an affront to the delicate ears of the Innovators, every ceremony is an offense to their eyes. 

Simply tolerating that there are Catholics who want to drink from the sacred sources of that rite sounds like a defeat for them, one that is bearable only if it is limited to little groups of nostalgic elderly people or eccentric aesthetes. But if the “extraordinary form” – which is such in the ordinary sense of the word – becomes the norm for thousands of families, young people, and ordinary people who consciously choose it, then it becomes a stone of scandal and must be relentlessly opposed, limited, and abolished, since there must be no counter to the reformed liturgy, no alternative to the squalor of the conciliar rites – just as there can be no voice of dissent or argued refutation against the mainstream narrative, and just as effective treatments cannot be adopted in the face of the side effects of an experimental vaccine because they would demonstrate the latter’s uselessness. 

Nor can we be surprised: those who do not come from God are intolerant of everything that even remotely recalls an era in which the Catholic Church was governed by Catholic pastors and not by unfaithful pastors who abuse their authority; an era in which the Faith was preached in its integrity to the nations and not adulterated in order to please the world; an era in which those who hungered and thirsted for Truth were nourished and refreshed by a liturgy that was earthly in form but divine in substance. And if all that until yesterday was holy and good is now condemned and made an object of scorn, then allowing any trace of it to remain is inadmissible and constitutes an intolerable affront. Because the Tridentine Mass touches chords of the soul that the Montinian rite does not even begin to approach. 

Obviously, those who maneuver behind the scenes in the Vatican to eliminate the Catholic Mass see decades of work compromised in the Motu Proprio, they see a threat against the possession of so many souls whom today they keep subjugated and their tyrannical hold over the ecclesial body weakened. The same priests and bishops who, like me, have rediscovered that inestimable treasure of faith and spirituality – or which by the grace of God they have never abandoned, despite the ferocious persecution of the post-council – are not disposed to renounce it, having found in it the soul of their Priesthood and the nourishment of their supernatural life. And it is disturbing, as well as scandalous, that in the face of the good that the Tridentine Mass brings to the Church, there are those who want to ban it or limit its celebration on the basis of specious reasons. 

Yet, if we place ourselves in the shoes of the Innovators, we understand how perfectly consistent this is with their distorted vision of the Church, which for them is not a perfect society instituted by God for the salvation of souls but a human society in which an authority that is corrupt and subservient to the elite it favors steers the needs of the masses for vague spirituality, denying the purpose for which Our Lord willed it, and in which the good Pastors are constrained to inaction by bureaucratic shackles which they alone obey. This impasse, this juridical dead end, means that the abuse of authority can be imposed on subjects precisely in virtue of the fact that they recognize the voice of Christ in it, even in the face of evidence of the intrinsic wickedness of the orders that are given, the motivations that determine them, and the individuals who exercise it. On the other hand, even in the civil sphere, during the pandemic, many people obeyed absurd and harmful rules because they were imposed on them by doctors, virologists, and politicians who should have had the health and well-being of citizens at heart; and many did not want to believe, not even in the face of evidence of the criminal design, that they could directly intend the death or illness of millions of people. It is what social psychologists call cognitive dissonance, which induces individuals to take refuge in a comfortable niche of irrationality rather than recognize that they are victims of a colossal fraud and therefore having to react manfully. 

So let us not ask ourselves why – in the face of the multiplication of communities tied to the ancient liturgy, the flowering of vocations almost exclusively in the context of the Motu Proprio, and the increase in the frequent reception of the Sacraments and consistency of Christian life among those who follow it – there is a desire to wickedly trample an inalienable right and hinder the Apostolic Mass: the question is wrong and the answer would be misleading. 

Let us ask ourselves, rather, why notorious heretics and fornicators without morals would tolerate their errors and their deplorable way of life being placed into question by a minority of the faithful and clergy without protectors when they have the power to prevent it. At this point we understand well that this aversion cannot fail to be made explicit precisely by putting an end to the Motu Proprio, abusing a usurped and perverted authority. Even at the time of the Protestant pseudo-Reformation, tolerance towards certain liturgical customs rooted in the people was short-lived, because those devotions to the Virgin Mary, those hymns in Latin, those bells rung at the Elevation – which no longer existed – necessarily had to disappear, since they expressed a Faith that Luther’s followers had denied. And it would be absurd to hope that there could be a peaceful coexistence between the Novus and Vetus Ordo, as well as between the Catholic Mass and the Lutheran Lord’s Supper, given the ontological incompatibility between them. On closer inspection, at least the defeat of the Vetus hoped for by the supporters of the Novus is consistent with their principles, just as the defeat of the Novus by the Vetus should likewise be hoped for. They are mistaken therefore who believe that it is possible to hold together two opposing forms of Catholic worship in the name of a plurality of liturgical expression that is the daughter of the conciliar mentality no more and no less than it is the daughter of the hermeneutic of continuity. 

The modus operandi of the Innovators emerges once again in this operation against the Motu Proprio: first some of the most fanatical opponents of the traditional liturgy call for the abrogation of Summorum Pontificum as a provocation, calling the ancient Mass “divisive.” Then the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asks the Ordinaries to respond to a questionnaire (here), the answers to which are practically pre-packaged (the Bishop’s career depends on the way he goes along with what he reports to the Holy See, because the content of his responses to the questionnaire will also be made known to the Congregation of Bishops). Then, with a nonchalant air, during a closed-door meeting with the members of the Italian Episcopate, Bergoglio says that he is concerned about seminarians “who seem good, but are rigid” (here) and the spread of the traditional liturgy, always reiterating that the conciliar liturgical reform is irreversible. Furthermore, he appoints a bitter enemy of the Vetus Ordo as Prefect of Divine Worship who will be an ally in the application of any future restrictions. Finally, we learn that Cardinals Parolin and Ouellet are among the first to desire this downsizing of the Motu Proprio (here). This obviously leads “conservative” Prelates to come scurrying in defense of the present system of the co-existence of the two forms, ordinary and extraordinary, giving Francis the opportunity to show that he is the prudent moderator of two opposing currents by moving towards “only” a limitation of Summorum Pontificum rather than its total abrogation: which – as we know – was exactly what he was aiming for from the start of his operation. 

Regardless of the final outcome, the deus ex machina of this predictable play is, as always, Bergoglio, who is even ready to take credit for a gesture of clement indulgence towards conservatives as well as unloading the responsibilities for a restrictive application onto the new Prefect, Archbishop Arthur Roche, and his followers. Thus, in the event of a choral protest of the faithful and an unhinged reaction by the Prefect or other Prelates, once again Bergoglio will enjoy the clash between progressives and traditionalists, since he will then have excellent arguments to affirm that the coexistence of the two forms of the Roman Rite causes divisions in the Church and that it is thus more prudent to return to the pax montiniana, that is, the total proscription of the Mass of all time. 

I exhort my Brothers in the Episcopate, Priests, and laity to strenuously defend their right to the Catholic liturgy solemnly sanctioned by the Saint Pius V’s Bull Quo Primum, and by means of it to defend the Holy Church and the Papacy, which have both been exposed to discredit and ridicule by the Pastors themselves. The question of the Motu Proprio is not in the least negotiable, because it reaffirms the legitimacy of a rite that has never been abrogated nor is able to be abrogated. Furthermore, in addition to the certain damage that airing these novelties will cause to souls and to the certain advantage that will come from them to the Devil and his servants, there is also added the indecorous rudeness displayed to Benedict XVI, who is still living, by Bergoglio, who ought to know that the authority the Roman Pontiff exercises over the Church is vicarious and that the power which he holds comes to him from Our Lord Jesus Christ, the One Head of the Mystical Body. Abusing the Apostolic authority and the power of the Holy Keys for a purpose opposed to that for which they were instituted by the Lord represents an unheard-of offense against the Majesty of God, a dishonor for the Church, and a sin for which he will have to answer for to the One whose Vicar he is. And whoever refuses the title of Vicar of Christ knows that by doing so the legitimacy of his authority also fails. 

It is not acceptable for the supreme authority of the Church to allow itself to cancel, in a disturbing operation of cancel culture in a religious key, the inheritance it has received from its Fathers; nor is it permissible to consider as being outside of the Church those who are not prepared to accept the privation of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated in the form that has molded almost two thousand years of Saints. The Church is not an agency in which the marketing office decides to cancel old products from the catalog and propose new ones in their stead according to customer requests. Imposing the liturgical revolution with force on priests and the faithful in the name of obedience to the Council, stripping away from them the very soul of the Christian life and replacing it with a rite that the Freemason Bugnini copied from Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer, was already painful. That abuse, partially healed by Benedict XVI with the Motu Proprio, cannot be repeated in any way now in the presence of elements that are all largely in favor of the liberalization of the ancient liturgy. If one really wanted to help the people of God in this crisis, the reformed liturgy should have been abolished, which in fifty years has caused more damage than Calvinism has done. 

We do not know if the feared restrictions that the Holy See intends to make to the Motu Proprio will affect diocesan priests, or if they will also affect the Institutes whose members celebrate the ancient rite exclusively. I fear, however, as I have already had the occasion to say in the past, that it will be precisely on the latter that the demolishing action of the Innovators will be unleashed, who can perhaps tolerate the ceremonial aspects of the Tridentine liturgy but absolutely do not accept adherence to the doctrinal and ecclesiological structure that they imply, which contrasts sharply with the conciliar deviations that the Innovators want to impose without exception. This is why it is to be feared that these Institutes will be asked to make some form of submission to the conciliar liturgy, for example by making the celebration of the Novus Ordo mandatory at least occasionally, as diocesan priests must already do. In this way, whoever makes use of the Motu Proprio will be constrained not only to an implicit acceptance of the reformed liturgy but also to a public acceptance of the new rite and its doctrinal mens. And whoever celebrates the two forms of the rite will find himself ipso facto discredited above all in his consistency, passing off his liturgical choices as a merely aesthetic – I would say almost choreographic – in fact, depriving him of any sort of critical judgment towards the Montinian Mass and the mens that gives it form: because he will find himself forced to celebrate that Mass. This is a malicious and cunning operation, in which an authority that abuses its power delegitimizes those who oppose it, on the one hand by granting the ancient rite, but on the other hand making it a merely aesthetic question and obligating an insidious bi-ritualism and an even more insidious adherence to two opposing and contrasting doctrinal approaches. But how can a priest be asked to celebrate a venerable and holy rite in which he finds perfect coherence between doctrine, ceremony, and life at one moment, and at the next a falsified rite that winks at heretics and contemptibly keeps silent about what the other proudly proclaims? 

Let us pray, therefore: let us pray that the Divine Majesty, to which we render perfect worship celebrating the venerable ancient rite, will deign to enlighten the Sacred Pastors so that they desist from their purpose and indeed promote the Tridentine Mass for the good of Holy Church and for the glory of the Most Holy Trinity. Let us invoke the Holy Patrons of the Mass – Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Pius V, and Saint Pius X in primis, and all the Saints who over the course of the centuries have celebrated the Holy Sacrifice in the form that has been handed down to us, so that we may faithfully preserve it. May their intercession before the throne of God beg for the preservation of the Mass of all time, thanks to which we are sanctified, strengthened in virtue, and able to resist the attacks of the Evil One. And if ever the sins of the men of the Church should merit for us a punishment so severe as that prophesied by Daniel, let us prepare to descend into the catacombs, offering this trial for the conversion of the Shepherds. 

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Bergoglio and his Vatican rats are not your friends!

Seriously?  Chelsea Clinton - a Satanist? Deepak Chopra - a pagan? 

For eight years we have endured this Bishop of Rome, this pustulating boil on the Seat of Peter, disgrace the Office and the Church. 

Look at the "gay" rainbow! The catechism is next. 

Francis is not your friend. Have you understood yet? He is demonic, an evil monster.

Fifth International Vatican Conference Home - Vatican Conference 2021

Conference Collaborators - Vatican Conference 2021

Speakers - Vatican Conference 2021

Archbishop Vigano responds below.

Declaration

of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

with regard to the

“Fifth International Vatican Conference”

April 20, 2021

     From May 6-8, 2021, the fifth International Vatican Conference will take place, entitled Exploring the Mind, Body & Soul. Unite to Prevent & Unite to Cure. A Global Health Care Initiative: How Innovation and Novel Delivery Systems Improve Human Health. The event is being hosted by the Pontifical Council for Culture, the Cura Foundation, the Science and Faith Foundation, and the Stem for Life Foundation [link].

    Michael Haynes of LifeSiteNews has reported (here) on the topics to be addressed and the participants, including the infamous Anthony Fauci, whose scandalous conflicts of interest did not prevent him from taking over the management of the pandemic in the United States; Chelsea Clinton, a follower of the Church of Satan and a staunch abortion advocate; the New Age guru Deepak Chopra; Dame Jane Goodall, environmentalist and chimpanzee expert; the CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna; representatives of Big Tech; and a whole slew of abortionists, Malthusians, and globalists known to the general public.

    The conference has recruited five prominent journalists to be moderators, who are exclusively from left-wing media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, CBS and Forbes.

    This Conference — along with the Council for Inclusive Capitalism of Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the Global Compact on Education, and the inter-religious Pantheon to be held in June in Astana, Kazakhstan — is the umpteenth scandalous confirmation of a disturbing departure of the current Hierarchy, and in particular its highest Roman members, from Catholic orthodoxy.

    The Holy See has deliberately renounced the supernatural mission of the Church, making itself the servant of the New World Order and Masonic globalism in an antichristic counter-magisterium.

    The same Roman Dicasteries, occupied by people ideologically aligned with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and protected and promoted by him, now continue unrestrained in their implacable work of demolishing Faith, Morals, ecclesiastical discipline, and monastic and religious life, in an effort as vain as it is unprecedented to transform the Bride of Christ into a philanthropic association enslaved to the Strong Powers.

    The result is the super-imposition over the true Church of a sect of heretical and depraved Modernists who are intent on legitimizing adultery, sodomy, abortion, euthanasia, idolatry, and any perversion of the intellect and will.

    The true Church is now eclipsed, denied and discredited by her very Pastors, betrayed even by the one who occupies the highest Throne.

    The fact that the deep Church has managed to elect its own member so as to carry out this infernal plan in agreement with the deep state is no longer a mere suspicion, but a phenomenon which it is now essential to ask questions about and shed light on.

    The submission of the Cathedra veritatis ["See (or Throne) of Truth] to the interests of the Masonic elite is manifesting itself in all its evidence, in the deafening silence of the Sacred Pastors and in the bewilderment of the People of God, who have been abandoned to themselves.

     Further demonstration of this degenerate libido serviendi ["desire for serving"] of the Vatican towards the globalist ideology is the choice of speakers to give testimonials and lectures: supporters of abortion, of the use of fetal material in research, of demographic decline, of the pan-sexual LGBT agenda, and last but not least, of the narrative of Covid and the so-called vaccines.

    Cardinal Ravasi, the President of the Pontifical Council for Culture, is certainly one of the leading representatives of the deep Church and Modernist progressivism, as well as an advocate of dialogue with the infamous Masonic sect and a promoter of the famous Courtyard of the Gentiles. It is therefore not surprising that included among the organizers of the event is the Stem for Life Foundation [link], which proudly defines itself as “a nonsectarian, nonpartisan, tax-exempt organization focused on creating a movement to accelerate development of cell therapies.”

     On closer inspection, the sectarianism and partisanship of the Vatican Conference are made evident by the topic it addresses, the conclusions it seeks to draw, its participants, and its sponsors.

    Even the image chosen to promote the Conference is extremely eloquent: a close-up of Michelangelo’s fresco of Creation on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, in which the hand of God the Father reaches out towards the hand of Adam, but with both hands covered by disposable surgical gloves, recalling the regulations of the new “health liturgy” and implying that even the Lord Himself might spread the virus.

    In this sacrilegious representation, the order of Creation is subverted into therapeutic anti-creation, in which man saves himself and becomes the mad author of his own health “redemption.”

    Instead of the purifying laver of Baptism, the Covid religion proposes the vaccine, the bearer of disabilities and death, as the only means of salvation. Instead of Faith in the Revelation of God, we find superstition and the irrational assent to precepts that have nothing scientific about them, with rites and liturgies that mimic true Religion in a sacrilegious parody.

    This choice of imagery has an aberrant and blasphemous ring to it, because it uses a well-known and evocative image to insinuate and promote a false and tendentious narrative that says that in the presence of a seasonal flu, whose virus has still not been isolated according to Koch’s postulates (here) and that can be effectively cured using existing treatments, it is necessary to administer vaccines that are admitted to be ineffective and that are still in the experimentation phase, with unknown side-effects, and whose producers have obtained a criminal shield of immunity for their distribution.

    The victims immolated on the altar of the health Moloch, from children dismembered in the third month of pregnancy in order to produce the gene serum to the thousands of people who have been killed or maimed, do not stop the infernal machine of Big Pharma, and it is to be feared that there will be a resurgence of the phenomenon over the next few months.

    One wonders if Bergoglio’s zeal for the dissemination of the gene serum is not also motivated by base economic reasons, as compensation for the losses suffered by the Vatican and the Dioceses following the lockdown and the collapse of attendance by the faithful at Mass and the Sacraments.

    On the other hand, if Rome’s silence about the violation of human and religious rights in China has been paid for by the Beijing dictatorship with substantial prebends, nothing prevents the replication of this scheme on a large scale in exchange for the Vatican’s promotion of the vaccines.

    The Conference will obviously take great care not to mention even indirectly the perennial teaching of the Magisterium on moral and doctrinal questions of the greatest importance.

    Conversely, the sycophantic praise of the worldly mentality and the prevailing ideology will be the only voice, along with the amorphous ecumenical repertoire inspired by the New Age.

     I note that in 2003 the same Pontifical Council for Culture condemned yoga meditation and, more generally, New Age thought as being incompatible with the Catholic faith.

    According to the Vatican document, New Age thought “shares with a number of internationally influential groups the goal of superseding or transcending particular religions in order to create space for a universal religion which could unite humanity. Closely related to this is a very concerted effort on the part of many institutions to invent a Global Ethic, an ethical framework which would reflect the global nature of contemporary culture, economics and politics. Further, the politicization of ecological questions certainly colors the whole question of the Gaia hypothesis or worship of mother earth” (2.5).

    It goes without saying that the pagan ceremonies with which Saint Peter’s Basilica was profaned in honor of the pachamama idol fit perfectly into that “politicization of ecological questions” denounced by the 2003 Vatican document, and which today is instead promoted sine glossa ["without gloss," that is, without any statement taking any distance from the agenda] by the so-called Bergoglian magisterium, beginning with Laudato Sì and Fratelli Tutti.

    At La Salette, Our Lady warned us: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”

    It will not be the Holy Church, indefectible by the promises of Christ, that will lose the Faith: it will be the sect that occupies the See of Most Blessed Peter and which today we see propagating the anti-gospel of the New World Order.

    It is no longer possible to remain silent, because today our silence would make us accomplices of the enemies of God and of the human race.

    Millions of faithful are disgusted by the countless scandals of the Pastors, by the betrayal of their mission, by the desertion of those who by Holy Orders are called to bear witness to the Holy Gospel and not to support the establishment of the kingdom of the Antichrist.

    I beg my Brothers in the Episcopate, priests, religious, and in a particular way the faithful laity who see themselves being betrayed by the Hierarchy, to raise their voices so as to express with a spirit of true obedience to Our Lord, Head of the Mystical Body, a firm and courageous denunciation of this apostasy and its authors.

    I invite everyone to pray that the Divine Majesty may be moved to compassion and intervene in our aid.

    May the Most Holy Virgin, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata (the Song of Songs (6:3, 6:10) [“terrible as an army in battle array”], intercede before the Throne of God, compensating with Her merits for the unworthiness of Her children who invoke Her with the glorious title of Auxilium Christianorum ["Help of Christians."]

    + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

     20 April 2021

    Feria Tertia infra Hebdomadam II post Octavam Paschae

Raymond Arroyo interviews Carlo Maria Viganò

 

https://www.ewtn.com/tv/shows/world-over

Raymond Arroyo: Here to respond to the report, we’re pleased to be joined by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who joins us via phone. Your Excellency, thank you for being here. The report claims you did not come forward. That’s the quote to present evidence for this Vatican inquiry. Were you asked to provide information for this McCarrick report? Did anyone reach out to you? 

Archbishop Viganò: I am surprised to discover that a report in which I am mentioned 306 times accuses me of not having presented myself to testify in this Vatican inquiry of Theodore McCarrick. But according to the norm of the canon law, the calling of witnesses is the responsibility of the one who is in charge of the process. 

Raymond Arroyo: So, Archbishop, they never reached out to you then to ask you to contribute to the report, to interview you? 

Archbishop Viganò: Yes, it is completely incomprehensible and anomalous that it was not considered opportune to call upon me to testify, but even more disturbing that this deliberate omission was then used against me. Let it not be said to me that I have made myself untouchable, because the secretary of state has my personal email address, which is still alive and never has been changed. 

Furthermore, it is also significant to me that James Grein — the only victim of McCarrick’s sexual molestation who had the courage to denounce him publicly — does not appear in the report and that there is no trace of his testimony, in which he would also have reported the trip he made with McCarrick to St. Gallen at the end of the 1950s. 

Raymond Arroyo: Hmm, interesting. 

Archbishop Viganò: From public statements of James Grein, it is clear that the beginning of McCarrick’s climb — he was then a young, newly ordained priest — coincided with that visit to Switzerland, to a monastery that was later the site of the meeting of the conspirator of the so-called “Saint Gallen Mafia.” And according to the declaration deceased Cardinal Godfried Danneels, that group of prelates decided to support the election of Bergoglio, both after the death of John Paul II as well as during the conclave that followed the controversial resignation of Benedict XVI. 

Then Cardinal McCarrick admitted to having supported the election of Cardinal Bergoglio at the beginning of the general congregations prior to the conclave that had been held a few months earlier. 

I wonder what sort of reliability a judicial body can have that had such an obvious conflict of interest due to its past relationship with the accused. 

How can [Pope] Bergoglio, and the Secretariat of State that depends on him, pretend to appear impartial when McCarrick went to the Vatican with an abnormal frequency? When, in June 2013, he was tasked with making that diplomatic trip to China? And how can one not think that their repeated attempts to cover up and denial of their responsibility, are the cause of the systematic effort to discredit me as a witness in order not to bring to light their complicity in circumstances that exist between them and the guys themselves?

Raymond Arroyo: Your Excellency, the Pope, according to the report, maintains that you did not inform him of McCarrick's activities or restrictions on McCarrick in June of 2013. The Pope was certain that you as nuncio “never told him that McCarrick had committed crimes against any person, whether adult or minor, or described McCarrick as a serial predator.” Your response? 

Archbishop Viganò: This statement is absolutely false. First of all, it was Bergoglio himself, on June 23, 2013, who explicitly asked me my opinion of McCarrick. As I testify in my 2018 memoir, I answer him with complete frankness: “Holy Father, I don't know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops, there is a dossier this thick about him. The corrupt generation of seminarians and priest and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.” 

The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time and he immediately change the subject. But then, what was the purpose in asking me that question: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” He clearly wanted to find out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not, of course. It should be noted that I had learned from McCarrick himself that Bergoglio had received him four days before my audience on the 23rd of June and that Bergoglio had authorized him to go to China. 

What was then the point of asking me for an opinion when Bergoglio already had McCarrick in the highest esteem? And in May 2014, I learned from The Washington Times of a tweet made by McCarrick to the Central African Republic on behalf of the Department of State. 

Beginning in 2008, Benedict XVI had ordered the American cardinal to retire to a private life, not to celebrate or attend public events. For this reason, I asked, I wrote to Cardinal Parolin, if the sanction against McCarrick was still to be considered valid? That I had received no response whatsoever.

Raymond Arroyo: And Your Excellency, you saw the report says there’s no documentation of this. They don’t have documentation, so therefore they dispute it. You would say what to that? 

Archbishop Viganò: Yes, I didn’t… I was not able to go all along the 400 pages in all the documents, but, you know, it’s interesting that they didn’t produce, in order to cover up also Cardinal Parolin, who didn’t answer to me. And from the report, I learned that McCarrick’s continued assignment and travels abroad were considered — this is stated in the report — they were considered by Archbishop Wuerl (Cardinal Wuerl) and even by Nuncio Sambi “as a sufficient form of removal” between quotation. That amazes me. 

So the report continues, and I quote: “the indications were not ‘sanctions;’ they were not imposed by Pope Benedict XVI; McCarrick was never forbidden to celebrate Mass in public; McCarrick was not prohibited from giving lectures; Cardinal Re did not impose on McCarrick ‘the obligation’ of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance; and McCarrick remained free to conduct activities, including travel, with the permission of the Holy See, including the Nuncio,” as they stated. So, it means that despite the cardinal’s reprehensible conduct the Holy See did not consider it appropriate to take disciplinary measure against McCarrick, which confirms my demonstration of the corruption of the Curia. 

Raymond Arroyo: Your Excellency, the report goes to great pains to paint you as somehow lax in investigating the claims of Priest 3 in 2012. Now the Vatican says you brought the concerns of this priest, who claimed he was abused by McCarrick, you brought those concerns to the Holy See, to Cardinal Ouellette, who instructed you to investigate them, but then he claims he never heard back from you. Did you avoid placing yourself, as the report says, “in a position to ascertain the credibility of Priest 3?” They said you never contacted the priest, the vicar general of Metuchen or the bishop as instructed. Your reaction?

Archbishop Viganò: It is obvious what my role was in bringing McCarrick’s scandal to light. And that I have always taken steps to report any information that came into my possession to the Holy See. I recall that we are talking about 2012, when I had just been appointed nuncio to the United States. 

In the report I am accused, as you’ve said, of not having followed up on the request for information regarding the accusation made by Priest 3 — do not mention his name. This is absolutely false. It is the writers of the report themselves who provide the evidence of the deception they had concocted in order to strike and discredit me. In fact, in another place of the same report, it says that on June 13, 2013, I wrote to Cardinal Ouellette, sending him both the letter that Bishop Bootkoski had written to me as well as the letters he sent to Priest 3. I informed him that the civil case of Priest 3 had been dismissed without the possibility of appeal. And Bishop Bootkoski, of Metuchen, characterized the accusations of Priest 3 as false and slanderous. 

I would like to emphasize one aspect in particular: Those who accuse me of not having sent a written communication to Bishop Bootkoski, the ordinary of the Priest 3 and bishop of Metuchen, know very well that this depends on the precise direction of the Secretariat of State. 

They know equally well, as the report confirms, that there was a telephone communication between Bishop Bootkoski and me, about which I in turn informed Cardinal Wuerl. 

It should not be forgotten that in those years there were lawyers who were not content to bring dioceses to judgment for crimes committed by priests, but who wanted to demonstrate that the Holy See itself — like the headquarters of a multinational company — held the ultimate responsibility for giving compensation to victims of molestation. The lawyer, Jeffrey Lena, who probably has worked very hard for this report.

Raymond Arroyo: This is fascinating and we’ll have to… I wish we had more time to explore this, but I do recall reading that reference that you make to the communication with Cardinal Wuerl, but I didn’t connect the two, and I imagine most people reading the report wouldn’t either. But that makes sense. There is a footnote, Your Excellency, that repeats your testimony, where you maintain in 2006 and 2008 you asked your superiors “to intervene as soon as possible by removing the cardinal's hat and reducing McCarrick to the lay state” in the full memorandum that they published. They claim you added, “if the allegations are true and proven.” Now, the report attempts to use this to undermine your testimony as some are maintaining. Your response to that? Does this in any way undermine your testimony that you qualified the penalty by saying, “if the accusations are proven true?” 

Archbishop Viganò: Well, the accusation that were brought to my attention, and previously to my predecessors, they proved that there was a number of seminarians that were well known that had denounced the abuses of Cardinal McCarrick. So for that, when I wrote in my report for 2006 and 2008 to my superior, the secretary of state, I have no doubt, no doubt that there was the case to proceed immediately after, of course, a due procedure, that was a corresponding to the authority of the Pope himself to take very strong, exemplary measures against Cardinal McCarrick. In fact, what I suggested in 2006 and 2008 has been accomplished. Ten years later, or more, 11 years later. So that was proof that my judgment was absolutely correct on the situation.

Raymond Arroyo: Your Excellency, before I let you go, I’d like your reflections on the report placing the lion’s share of the blame for McCarrick’s rise in the Church at the feet of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. And when you read the report, as I did, it’s clear that there was a network of bishops here that remain unnamed who protected McCarrick, either through patronage or personal contacts — or perhaps they were fellow travelers, but this network seems to be firmly in place. 

Archbishop Viganò: Yes, I mean, the intentions of the ones who drafted the report are clear: to pass off responsibility for the promotion of McCarrick to his predecessors. One of whom is deceased and canonized (John Paul II) and the other is so old and weak (Benedict XVI). The former cannot defend himself from the grave. 

The disturbing thing is that, within the report itself, obviously put together by many hands, there are numerous contradictions. Enough to make the argument the report has little credibility. I wonder then who convinced John Paul II and then Benedict XVI not to take into account the serious accusations against McCarrick? Who had an interest in getting McCarrick promoted so that they could gain an advantage in terms of power and money? Someone probably made John Paul II believe that the accusations against McCarrick were fabricated following the model of the skeleton operation that communist Poland had already carried out against good bishops and priests who oppose the regime. 

In the case of John Paul II, the main party interested in the promotion of McCarrick was definitely Cardinal Sodano. He was secretary of state until September 2006. All information came to him. In November 2000, he already had received information from Nuncio Montalvo for this report of the accusation of grave abuse committed by McCarrick. Let us not forget that in this period, the scandal of Father Maciel broke out, which Sodano sought to cover up by falsifying a statement of Benedict XVI. 

I was present to that in which it was said that the pope considered the case closed. Benedict XVI called a plenary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal Arinze, who was a member of that congregation at that time, succeeded in having Maciel condemned despite the opposition of the secretary of state. And after that, the name of Cardinal Sodano also appears in connection to a scandalous real estate speculation in the United States. 

With regard to Benedict XVI, they want to have very direct access to the Pope where the secretary of state, Bertone, and the substitute Sandri were able to control and filter information about McCarrick and exert pressure on the Holy Father. 

Regarding the situation of Pope Benedict, the report speaks for itself. The one — and it is stated in the report — the one who presented the question directly, of McCarrick, directly to Pope Benedict XVI, was Cardinal Bertone. Who, contrary to what I have repeatedly proposed — namely, that the very grave and detailed accusations against McCarrick required an exemplary canonical process leading to his removal from the cardinal college and his reduction to the lay state — led Pope Benedict to decide that no canonical process should be undertaken, nor should any canonical sanctions be proscribed, but that instead, and I quote, “a simple appeal to McCarrick’s conscience and ecclesial spirit” would be made. 

And here yet another flagrant contradiction appears evident. How is it possible to reconcile a simple appeal to conscience with a form of instruction that was given both to the Nuncio Sambi and to me, according to which McCarrick could not reside in the seminary where he was living, could not participate in public activities, could not travel and had to lead a retired life of prayer and penance? 

Raymond Arroyo: Mm-hmm. 

Archbishop Viganò: The corruption at the highest level of the Vatican is so evident that it may want to consider the report as an unworthy attempt to make Bergoglio appear absolutely alien to the manipulation of the Curia — indeed, as a sort of implacable persecutor of the corrupt, while the evidence of the facts demonstrated the opposite. 

Yes, I would like to also to note that the fact of blaming John Paul II for the appointment of McCarrick, despite the negative opinion of the Congregation for Bishops and its Prefect Cardinal Re, could be applied also to Jorge Bergoglio himself. About whom the Superior General of the Jesuits expressed strong reservatiosn. If Wojtyla made a mistake with McCarrick, and for this reason is considered implicitly responsible for the scandals that occurred, what happened? What prevented this judgment from also being extended to the promotion of Bergoglio as Bishop of Buenos Aires and then as a cardinal?

Let us remember that in the consistory of 2001 — and this is something really very suspicious — in addition to McCarrick and Bergoglio, other leading members of the Saint Gallen Mafia received the red hat. 

Raymond Arroyo: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, we thank you for being here tonight and for your insights into this report, which are quite unique, and you had a front row seat to so much of what we’re seeing unfold. I thank you for being here. I hope you’ll come back again. 

Archbishop Viganò: Thank you very much, Raymond. I’m very pleased to be part of your program. Thank you.

Bergoglio and his scum blame Viganò? May God in heaven send his wrath and judgement upon these evil men!

The long delayed report on the sodomite pervert, rapist and criminal Theodore McCarrick has been released. Dr. Taylor Marshall questions the timing of the release - when America is so preoccupied with the issue of a fraudulent election and a literal globalist coup, the demonic Bergoglio and his minions release the report which they trust will be ignored due to overwhelming information. Dr. Marshall's job, the job of those at LifeSiteNews, my job, your job, is to ensure that this does not happen.

I have not and will not read the report. We have trusted people such as Dr. Robert Moynihan, Dr. Marshall and Dorothy Cummings McLean and others have and will provide erudite commentary and disclosure.

What we do know is this. It is an exercise in obfuscation and cover-up and blame. Bergoglio is the hero when in fact, he is a fraud and guilty of cover-up. They blame John Paul II for not acting. I do too. He refused to believe that Maciel was the monster he was and the excuse of these matters tainting his view due to his familiarity with communist tactics does not fly with me. He knew, he did not act. The same people that declared him a Saint did the same to Giovanni Montini and Angelo Roncalli. 

Saints? Bullcrackers! 

Never forget this picture of these bosom buddies. 

Bergoglio and his rats have tried to turn the tables to blame Archbishop Viganò, the man who is in hiding, the man who has clearly made amends for any sin of omission, a man who has shone light on this Vatican filth.

Here is his response. Expect more from him. He knows much and as with President Donald John Trump, these men are heroes who have not yet finished their work. Get your popcorn, the outing of the Deep State and the Deep Church is going to be biblical, literally!

 

Today the official Report of the Holy See regarding the McCarrick case has been made public. Before I express myself on its merit, I will take time to analyze its content. 

However, I cannot fail to note the surreal operation of mystification regarding who are the ones responsible for covering up the scandals of the deposed American cardinal, and at the same time, I cannot help expressing my indignation in seeing the same accusations of cover-up being made against me, when in fact I repeatedly denounced the inaction of the Holy See in the face of the gravity of the accusations concerning McCarrick’s conduct. 

An unprejudiced commentator would note the more than suspicious timing of the report’s publication, as well as the attempt to throw discredit upon me, accused of disobedience and negligence by those who have every interest in delegitimizing the one who brought to light an unparalleled network of corruption and immorality. The effrontery and fraudulent character shown on this occasion would seem to require, at this point, that we call this suggestive reconstruction of the facts “The Viganò Report,” sparing the reader the unpleasant surprise of seeing reality adulterated once again. But this would have required intellectual honesty, even before love for justice and the truth. 

Unlike many characters involved in this story, I do not have any reason to fear that the truth will contradict my denunciations, nor am I in any way blackmailable. Anyone who launches unfounded accusations with the sole purpose of distracting the attention of public opinion will have the bitter surprise of finding that the operation conducted against me will not have any effect, other than giving further proof of the corruption and bad faith of those who for too long have been silent, made denials and turned their gaze elsewhere, who today must be held accountable. The Vatican fiction continues. 

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop                                                                                                                 November 10, 2020

VIGANÒ addresses USA: Trump, Vote Fraud and Rosary!

Carlo Maria Viganò to President Trump and the American People!

My dear American people,

Please understand that what you do on Tuesday affects the rest of the world. 

There was a time that that there were two things standing in the way of globalist Marxist hegemony. The Catholic Church and the United States of America.

Under the Marxist Jorge Mario Bergoglio, there is now only one thing.

Do your duty to your history and for the rest of us.

Vox

 

Read all of it here.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/images/pdfs/Open_Letter_to_POTUS.pdf

VIGANÒ: THE POPE AND THE GAY LOBBY IN THE VATICAN, INTENTIONAL AMBIGUITY

THE POPE AND THE GAY LOBBY IN THE VATICAN, INTENTIONAL AMBIGUITY

By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

    (Written on October 22, 2020, published October 23)

    Yesterday, on the occasion of the Rome Film Festival, the director Evgeny Afineevsky presented a documentary called Francesco, which proposes several interviews done with Jorge Mario Bergoglio over the course of the last few years of his pontificate. Among other disconcerting statements, there are several about the legitimization of homosexual civil unions: “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they [homosexuals] are legally covered. I stood up for that.”

    I think that both the simple faithful as well as bishops and priests feel betrayed by what Bergoglio has affirmed.

    It is not necessary to be theologians to understand that the approval of civil unions is in clear contradiction of the Magisterial documents of the Church, including recent ones. Such approval also constitutes a very grave “assist” to the LGBTQ ideology which today is being imposed on the global level.

    In the coming days the Italian Parliament will be discussing the approval of the so-called Zan law [against so-called “homophobia”] proposed by the Democratic Party (PD). In the name of protecting homosexuals and trans-sexuals, it will be considered a crime to affirm that the natural family is the building block of human society, and those who affirm that sodomy is a sin that cries out to God for vengeance will be punished. Bergoglio’s words have already been received by the gay lobby worldwide as an authoritative support for their claims.

    Carefully reading Bergoglio’s statements, someone has already observed that it does not include an approval of homosexual marriage, but only a gesture of welcome – perhaps poorly formulated – towards those who ask the secular state for juridical protection. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already unequivocally clarified that in no case may a Catholic approve of civil unions, because they constitute a legitimization of public concubinage and are only a step towards the legal recognition of so-called homosexual marriages. So much so that in Italy today it is even possible for people of the same sex to “marry” each other, after having been assured for years – even by self-styled Catholic politicians – that [civil unions] would in no way question marriage as it is defined in the Italian Constitution.

    After all, experience teaches us that when Bergoglio says something, he does it with a very precise purpose: to make others interpret his words in the broadest possible sense. The front pages of newspapers all over the world are announcing today: “The Pope Approves Gay Marriage” – even if technically this is not what he said. But this was exactly the result that he and the Vatican gay lobby wanted. Then the Vatican Press Office will perhaps say that what Bergoglio said was misunderstood, that this was an old interview, and that the Church reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality as intrinsically disordered. But the damage has been done, and even any steps backwards from the scandal that has been stirred up will ultimately be a step forward in the direction of mainstream thought and what is politically correct. Let us not forget the nefarious results of his famous utterance in 2013 – “Who am I to judge?” – which earned him a place on the cover of The Advocate along with the title “Man of the Year.”

    Bergoglio has declared: “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.”

    All the baptized are children of God: this is what the Gospel teaches. But these children may be either good or evil, and if they break God’s Commandments, the fact that they are His children will not prevent them from being punished, just as an Italian who steals does not avoid going to prison solely because of the fact that he is a citizen of the nation where he commits the crime. The Mercy of God does not prescind from Justice, and if we think of how in order to redeem us the Lord shed His Blood on the Cross, we cannot but strive for holiness, conforming our behavior to His will. Our Lord has said: “You are my friends, if you do what I command you” (Jn 15:14).

    If familial or social exclusion results from provocative behaviors or from ideological claims that cannot be shared – I am thinking of Gay Pride – this is only the result of an attitude of challenge, and thus such exclusion has its origin in those who use that attitude to hurt their neighbor. If instead that discrimination results only from being a person who behaves like everyone else with respect for others and without any imposition of one’s own lifestyle, it should be rightly condemned.

    We know very well that what the homosexualist lobby wants to obtain is not the integration of normal and honest people but rather the imposition of seriously sinful, socially destabilizing models of life that have always been exploited to demolish the family and society. It is no coincidence that the promotion of the homosexual agenda is part of the globalist project, in conjunction with the destruction of the natural family.

    One of the most ardent supporters of the LGBTQ agenda and of the indiscriminate welcoming of homosexuals in the Church, the Jesuit James Martin, has been made a Consultor in the Dicastery for Communication of the Holy See. As soon as the news came out about Bergoglio’s statements, Martin stormed social media with tweets, expressing his uncontainable satisfaction with this action which, in contrast, scandalized the majority of the faithful.

    Along with father Martin, there are cardinals, bishops, monsignors, priests, and other clerics who belong to the so-called “lavender mafia.” Some of these have been investigated and condemned for very grave crimes, almost always linked to homosexual environments. How can we think that a clique of homosexuals in the command post does not have every interest in pushing Bergoglio to defend a vice that they share and practice?

    In fact, I would say that it is part of Bergoglio’s intended behavior that he plays with equivocation and provocation – such as when he said, “God is not Catholic,” or when he leaves it to others to finish a discourse which he initiates. We have seen this with Amoris Laetitia: although he did not clearly contradict Catholic doctrine on the impossibility of the divorced and remarried accessing the Sacraments, he allowed other bishops to do so, later approving their statements and stubbornly remaining silent in response to the Dubia ["doubts"] of the four Cardinals.

    It may be asked: why would the Pope act in this way, especially when his predecessors were always very clear on moral matters?

    I do not know what Bergoglio has in mind: I limit myself to making sense of his actions and words.

    And I think I can affirm that what emerges is an attitude that is deliberately two-faced and Jesuitical.

    Behind all of his utterances there is the effort to arouse the reaction of the healthy part of the Church, provoking it with heretical statements, with disconcerting gestures, with documents that contradict the Magisterium. And at the same time, his statements please his supporters, above all non-Catholics and those who are Catholic in name only.

    By dint of provoking, he hopes that some bishop will grow tired of daily feeling afflicted by his doctrine and morals; he hopes that a group of cardinals will formally accuse him of heresy and call for his deposition. And by doing so, Bergoglio would have the pretext of accusing these prelates of being “enemies of the Pope,” of placing themselves outside the Church, of wanting a schism. Obviously, it is not those who want to remain faithful to the Magisterium who separate themselves from the Church: this would be absurd.

    In a certain way, Bergoglio’s behavior is of the same matrix as that of the Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte: both of them, in hindsight, were desired in their roles by the same élite, who are numerically a minority but are powerful and organized, with the purpose of demolishing the institution that they represent; both of them abuse their own power against the law; both of them accuse those who denounce their abuses of being the enemy of the institution, when in reality the denouncers are defending the institution from their destructive intent. Finally, both of them are distinguished by a bleak mediocrity.

    If canonically it is unthinkable to excommunicate a Catholic for the mere fact that he wishes to remain so, politically and strategically this abuse would allow Bergoglio to expel his adversaries from the Church, consolidating his own power. And I repeat: we are not talking about a legitimate operation, but of an abuse that, despite being an abuse, no one would be able to prevent, since “the First See is judged by none” – prima Sedes a nemine judicatur.

    And since the deposition of a heretical Pope is a canonically unresolved question on which there is no unanimous consent of canonists, anyone who would accuse Bergoglio of heresy would be going down a dead end and would obtain a result only with great difficulty.

    And it is exactly this, in my opinion, that Bergoglio’s “magic circle” wants to achieve: to reach the paradoxical situation in which the one who is recognized as Pope is at the same time in a state of schism with the Church he governs, while those who are declared by him to be schismatic for disobedience will find themselves expelled from the Church because of the fact that they are Catholic.

    Bergoglio’s action is above all directed outside the Church.

    The encyclical Fratelli Tutti is an ideological manifesto in which there is nothing Catholic and nothing for Catholics – it is the umpteenth embrassons-nous [“let’s embrace”] of the Masonic matrix, in which universal brotherhood is obtained not, as the Gospel teaches, in recognizing the common fatherhood of God through belonging to the one Church, but rather by the flattening of all religions into a lowest common denominator that is expressed in solidarity, respect for the environment, and pacifism.

    With this way of acting, Bergoglio is a candidate for “pontiff” of a new religion, with new commandments, new morals, and new liturgies.

    He distances himself from the Catholic religion and from Christ, and consequently from the Hierarchy and the faithful, disavowing them and leaving them at the mercy of the globalist dictatorship. Those who do not adapt to this new code will therefore be ostracized by society and by this new “church” as a foreign body.

    On October 20 in Rome, Pope Francis prayed for peace along with representatives of the world religions: the motto of that ecumenical ceremony was “No one is saved alone.”

    But that prayer was addressed indiscriminately to both the True God as well as to the false gods of the pagans, making it clear that the ecumenism propagated by Bergoglio has as its goal the exclusion of Our Lord from human society, because Jesus Christ is considered “divisive,” “a stumbling stone.”

    This modern man thinks that he can obtain peace by leaving aside the One who said of Himself: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through Me” (Jn 14:6). It is painful to note that this apostasy of formerly Christian nations is accompanied by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who ought to be the Vicar of Christ, not his enemy.

    Three days ago, the press announced that the Pope will not celebrate Midnight Mass on Christmas.

    I will limit myself to one observation: a few days ago, in the midst of the full-fledged “Covid emergency,” it was possible to celebrate an ecumenical rite in the presence of the faithful and the civil authorities, all wearing masks. And yet, on the contrary, someone has decided that it would be imprudent to celebrate the Birth of the Savior on the Holy Night of Christmas in the far vaster space of the Vatican Basilica.

    If this decision is confirmed, we will know that Jorge Mario Bergoglio prefers to celebrate himself by supporting the mainstream thought and syncretistic ideology of the New World Order, rather than kneeling at the foot of the manger where the King of Kings is placed.

    + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

    22 October 2020

    Official translation