Viganò: ‘Bury’ Vatican II

the following program was made possible by the generosity of those who have determined to hold fast to the true roman catholic religion as expounded by the roman catholic church before the disasters of vatican ii and the so-called new mass [Music] hello and welcome to what catholics believe i'm your host thomas nagley with me tonight is father william jenkins he is a traditional catholic priest and member of the society of saint pius v he's also the pastor of immaculate conception church right here in norwood ohio hello father how are you very fun john thank you how are you doing doing great father great to be here great to be with you again um father before we get started i just um wanted to to let our viewers know we've had a bit of a problem we just recently discovered with our email inbox where for for one reason or another we um we recently discovered that we haven't been receiving new emails from from our viewers for for some time now certain emails have have filtered through but it seems that anyone just uh filling out the uh the form and trying to send in an email is not being sent to us for some reason um so we just recently discovered this i'm not entirely sure how long this has been going on so uh for anyone who who has an email kind of in in limbo right now we uh believe that we can recover those and and do do plan two but uh just wanted to give everyone a heads up in regards to that um so father we have a couple things you wanted to get into tonight um but i guess first we wanted to to clarify something uh concerning malachi martin yeah so i did mention this too and i did want to bring it up here a couple of programs ago i mentioned uh what i've been told by i think that i consider to be a reliable source that malachi martin was at a uh well at the time i said a consecration but i meant an ordination it was a priestly ordination ceremony actually it was supposed to be anyway by one of the took one of the took line and uh that malachi martin had i tried to witness the problem that came up there was a question about whether it would have been done validly and uh so malakai martin said that uh he had been secretly consecrating the bishop and that he could rectify the ordination right then and there well it wasn't uh episcopal consecration being done by i took bishop it was a priest the ordination that was being done so i just want to make that clear and be honest in the interest of you know making sure that accurate what i say corresponds to uh the information i received so definitely all right then uh father we have a couple questions regarding the sspx we've talked about them the last last program or two now but one of our viewers asks if uh father if you've considered that rather than desiring to make an agreement with francis's modernism the sspx desires francis to make a traditional catholic agreement with them she says it that uh that is an entirely different viewpoint and having heard what bishop filet has said regarding this very thing i think one should give the society the benefit of the doubt and not assume that they are leaning towards modernism how did you respond to that well i appreciate the comment um and obviously this uh person is trying to you know look for the the good right and uh trying to see the good but i i think um there might be a bit of a misunderstanding i mean one can say okay well the vatican is coming at it from the standpoint of modernism and pius the tenth is looking at the sspx is looking at it from the standpoint of tradition and um so maybe the although we accept the vatican wanting to we accept the fact that the vatican wants to bring modernism into the the equation here or into the mix uh but the pious tenth uh group wants to bring tradition into the in the base province it's a mix though and you really can't mix the two you know and uh so the result of any such negotiations uh will be inevitably trying to mix modernism and traditional catholicism and the two don't mix when i say well you know maybe it's just a difference of looking at it as a the glass is half full or the glass is half empty well that's not the case really it doesn't come down to that because if the glass is half full of modernism and you're trying to fill it up with traditional catholicism what you wind up with is not traditional catholicism you wind up with something well the modernism is poison the modernism is deadly to the traditional catholicism so you still wind up with poison in trying to mix the two of them and as i mentioned you can't mix modernism and traditional catholicism neither its faith or its practice that is its religion you can't mix that without inevitable blasphemy or sacrilege entering into it because modernism uh actually redefines even what faith is that's how fundamentally it is opposed to the true traditional catholic faith it really defines faith in such a way that it has an utterly different concept of even what faith is than the traditional godly faith so um it's just not possible to mix them and it's it's uh it's very dangerous to try and what comes out of it is a deadly uh concoction really but um she goes if she's talking about their intentions yeah well that's something else again i'm saying that uh in fact in practice it's it's very bad well she kind of asked you know in uh just tactical terms what if they're not just trying to keep your you know there's a saying keep your friends close but your enemies closer what if they're not just trying to keep their enemies closer and she she mentions some of the novus ordo clerics she says they are in serious sympathy with a traditional church and so keeping the sspx around kind of gives them the opportunity to you know kind of check out the the sspx in the traditional catholic church so could there not be some good coming from this kind of relationship that they have well uh that's enough that's a good question uh you know i don't mean to in any way you know demean the question okay these are these are good questions but i think there are also some good answers first of all the idea keeping your friends close and your enemies closer well these are enemies of the faith uh then this is not the traditional catholic practice of keeping the enemies closer i guess that means that pope leo the tents should have made martin luther a cardinal to get him close you know if they're enemies of the faith you can't pretend that they're not enemies of the faith and just pretend that everything is okay and that we're co-religionists and we can mix the two um it's simply not not right to do that and number two on the other on the other point that you made well yes having the pious attempt to group around and the fact that they're more are somewhat accepted but not entirely the fact that they're somewhat acceptable but not entirely acceptable to them to the novus sort of authorities might open some doors for the noble sort of clergy but i think the message that is being sent is a very bad message and that is well we can sort of uh you can be somewhat traditional be as traditional as you feel like today as you identify identify as traditional today and uh you know still keep your uh one foot in the novus ordo and you know doubt you know dip your toes into the water or traditionalism and i'm afraid that all too often i'm not saying it all the time but all too often i think that's the way it's interpreted and that you can be traditional by degrees and you can still very much function within the modernism of the novus ordo and still have as much tradition as your taste calls for uh it's sort of like season to taste you know and that's that is not what traditional catholicism is all about again i mean modernism is an anti-catholic faith popeye's the tenth said it is the complexity of all heresies brought together it is the anti-catholic faith it's not just another catholic faith it is the anti-catholic faith that's right and uh pius the tenth makes it very clear [Music] and you cannot have in the same church two different mutually opposed uh faiths it's impossible though they can't be the faith established by our lord jesus christ that's for sure it can't be the church established by jesus christ that has two mutually exclusive faiths which are mutually um destructive of each other and practicing them you know the practice of the nova soto the practice of modernism is the nova sort of religion okay and again that is as one would expect as the practice of a non-catholic or even anti-catholic religion the practice of the novus ordo is opposed through the traditional catholic faith practice that is the traditional catholic religion and um again to mix them is not only a shimmer but it's a it's an impossibility it's uh like mixing matter and anti-matter you know they're just mutually destructive of each other so uh i'm afraid this is the message that is being sent i mean look at it this way uh tom when you when you have somebody tries to practice the traditional catholic faith within the novusaro they're trying to say well that the the church that is brought in the novice order and the practice is the novicerno uh is actually the catholic church so we have to practice whatever faith we have within the aegis and within the the realm of that with the approval of that and only with the approval of that um basically what you're saying is that you have the traditional catholic faith which must be and can only be practiced legitimately with the approval of the modernists and within their church you're actually admitting the fundamental principle of modern modernism that you can have in one church multiple faiths and multiple religions this is the very essence of ecumenism i've said this before and they say it again but you cannot have legitimately certainly not in the church established by our lord jesus christ 2 or 20 or 200 or 2 thousand you cannot have two different faiths and two different religions especially these two which are as i say uh diametrically opposed to each other you have any doubt about it reed pashendi saint pius the tense encyclical of 1907 and you see very clearly he states it without any hesitation that these two are mutually opposed um and that modernism is the destruction of all true religion so um how anyone has the idea that he can practice the traditional catholic faith uh under the under the aegis and with through with the uh blessing of modernism modernists and modernism i don't know and how they think that can be one church that actually contains both so um i think i think if you asked the priests of the studies in pious attempt i think you asked the the bishops of the saudis in pasadena is modernism catholicism is modernism a faith or not is it a faith system is it the traditional catholic faith i think they would say immediately no it's not and if you would ask them is modernism like the anti-faith it is the it is is it the antithesis of the traditional catholic religion according to saint pious the tenth is it destructive of the traditional catholic religion i think they would have to say yes it is i expect that they would if they don't say that that would really worry me but then i would ask them well is it possible that both of these faiths modernism and true traditional catholicism uh can co-exist in the same church yeah legitimately right rightly i think i would like to think they could say well it's impossible that they could coexist in the church of christ so the question is okay if they could not legitimately coexist in the church of christ which one of them is illegitimate and why are you trying to make peace with it or to come some kind of terms or agreement with it is this not um compromise is it not treason actually you know so um anyway um but i i understand where this writer is coming from i mean as i say they're trying to find a way to uh intellectually reasonably understand how this detent is is going but i mean i look upon this as sort of like on the on on the religious level what was going on on the secular level of dayton with communism between the east and the west and that whole process of ditant was extremely destructive and and uh very deadly for the west you know the west being the vestiges of christian civilization really well father i thought it was interesting we had another email that's kind of the the exact uh opposite viewpoint um this viewer kind of makes the point that um you know we say all of these things about the sspx but then you know there's no official document no official agreement as far as we know so uh she asked you know just because there's no document does that mean that there are no consequences shouldn't there be some kind of consequences for um you know those who are attending the the sspx should not um she asks if it would be possible for a society saint pius the fifth priest to refuse holy communion to someone who would attend an sspx uh chapel so just are there not any kind of consequences for someone to kind of play these these games that we've been talking about well i think there are consequences to the individual souls involved that's what concerns me the souls of the lady the souls of the priests and the souls of the bishops too um if they're trying to you know come up with some kind of uh something that the catholic faith forbids them to do you know that is somehow find a living arrangement with modernism you know and so that they belong in the same church and amount to the same faith in the same religion or at least coexistence but anyway i think that there are consequences yes you know as far as the society of saint pius the fifth position though um i mean we see the problems there but we don't see the problems with them at to this extent at least we haven't so far come to this agreement among ourselves that the problems are so grave that we'd have to basically you know tell tell people go to the priests at the society pious attempt that they can't come to the saudis in pisces there are many really very good catholic people who are going there i think they're mistaken and uh i i would just urge them if they go there to make their their position known very clearly that they do not accept these uh these overtures to modernism uh they did not accept the the program that the society of symphonies attempt this out my land for them just try to seek some kind of a living arrangement with modernism it would be it would be an adulterous relationship as it was for the jews of the old testament that's what the prophets condemned the prophets condemned the leaders of israel the judges of israel and so on for trying to communicate a spiritual adultery with the pagan nations around them i mean solomon was a prime example of that right uh having a harem here's here's the the king who built the great temple in jerusalem right at the same time he has a harem of pagan women he's signed a kind of pleas in putting up altars so they can go and worship their pagan gods and goddesses there in in judea and now that is like the extreme of a communism but what we're trying to do today or what they're trying to do today the modernists and unfortunately senpai's the tenth is playing right into this uh pretending that well i mean basically implying at least that you can have two different religions and two different faiths in the same church um that is every bit as monstrous as what solomon did so i would say to the people who go to the saudis empires fifth i'm sorry the size they place at ten for mass uh if they can't come to the the the masses of the priests of the saudis and pius v who will not compromise with modernism and they feel that they have to go to the society we've seen pies at 10th masses that they should make their position cl very very clear so that that giving scandal by the appearance of going along with these things that really are not are not really a genetic traditional catholic positions to hold okay uh well father we uh had something else we wanted to get into and that's uh this this latest letter from archbishop vegano it's been causing quite a stir it's been on you know on on lifesite news and one peter 5 as well as multiple other websites it's kind of been making the rounds but the link we have here is titled uh archbishop vegano is vatican to quote untouchable this is from the one peter 5 website and there's a lot of a lot of really interesting things in here that that archbishop vegano says and i guess he's replying to a commentary from peter klosniewski talking about some of the points that he's made but i mean there's a lot of um really weighty things that that he says in here father he seems to at one point to imply at least that francis's church is operating as a dictatorship he talks a lot about vatican ii and uh that essentially uh the only the only thing that can be done is to to reject the ambiguous text of vatican ii and uh just a lot of um very traditional catholic sounding things coming from archbishop vegano so what's your take on this fight well in this letter archbishop vegano actually surpasses artificial effect in his judgment of vatican ii really yeah he actually goes beyond the the rejection of monsieur defend because uh monster left's official position was that vatican ii must be interpreted in the light of tradition and uh archbishop of big no here actually well if i understand it rightfully even rejects that and says no no even that is is something that isn't should not be acceptable to catholics so i know archbishop vigano clearly has an admiration for monsoon as i do as i believe you do and rightly so but uh archbishop vigano's analysis of vatican ii i think is spot on here i think he really really sees it for what it is now does he see it in all of its implications i don't think so does he see the nature of this so-called council i think he's really appreciating it more and more if i may just cite some some uh statements that he makes here by the way this uh did appear on the one peter 5 website the letter is is signed carlo maria v nick legano archbishop dated september 21st so just yesterday the feast of saint matthew the apostle evangelist and it says it's an official translation from the italian by diane montana who is known as a correspondent i believe for lifesite news so i would expect that lifesitenews has something to say about this but archbishop vegano begins this this letter here by referring to dr kwazniewski's peter kwazniewski's recent commentary and dr kosniewski's commentary was entitled why vegano's critique of the council must be taken seriously and archbishop vigono said it impressed him greatly he points out a statement made by uh peter gwozniewski in his in his commentary which archbishop vigano appreciated very much he said what i am particularly pleased about is that quote ever since archbishop begano's june 9th letter and his subsequent writing on the subject people have been discussing what it might mean to annul the second vatican council that's pretty interesting use the word anul to nullify the second vatican council yeah he says i find it interesting though this is archbishop veganos saying this i find it interesting that we are beginning to question a taboo that for almost 60 years has prevented any theological sociological and historical criticism of the council now archbishop vegano has already said in previous writings that it took him 60 years of trying to work with and under this council to realize what a travesty it really is and come to the conclusion it has to be buried it has to be it has to be annulled and so when he says 60 years has been it's been 60 years since this council took place and you know he's saying it's taken that long now to finally begin to question what he calls a taboo to really evaluate this council and he goes in the course of the letter now to examine what that taboo has been and why it has been taboo in other words why it has been something forbidden absolutely anyone should question this council and he he talks about the problem of uh the council the problem the council presents because he said during the course of the last 60 years so many things of the church have been called into question by the modernists who upcode vatican ii he said at the same time they're calling into question the canons of the council of the trent the syllabus of errors uh pashendi and so on umalevite and paul vi while they're calling all of that in the quest question the one thing they say you cannot question you must never question or even question about questioning is vatican to me that's the one thing that remains absolutely sacrosanct and this is what he condemns he says this is wrong he says i already expressed my opinion on the hermeneutic of continuity theorized by benedict the 16th and constantly taken up by the defenders of vatican ii now this is very interesting here i think because archbishop vegano is actually criticizing this whole idea presented by benedict xvi who has held up to be the apotheosis of orthodoxy since vatican ii right and uh but big enough says architecture reagano says his heaven there to give continuity not only does it make sense it actually is an argument against vatican ii because if you keep reading you come to the idea what he's saying is your vatican ii needs a hermeneutic to explain it it tells you there's something already gravely wrong with it that's true that's never been needed before yeah it's never been needed before for any other council because the hermeneutic is to explain it is to explain it and he says the whole point of the council was to explain and clarify the clarify the faith and if the council needs a hermitage to explain what it really meant he says already already you have something that is altogether unique and utterly um well reprehensible in terms of catholic teaching um so he says if the if the council needs a hermeneutic to explain it try to explain it in a catholic sense it's already defective there's something gravely wrong with it and what does that say not only about benedict xvi's idea of this hermeneutic of continuity that you have to explain the council you know as a continuation of what the church has always taught before and won't singular feminists explaining or interpreting the council in the light of catholic tradition because they seemed to be the same idea but that's why bishop vegano has has actually taken a step beyond that and said if we need that hermeneutic aemonitic of continuity if we need to interpret the council in the light of vatican in the light of catholic tradition then we already have a serious problem with this he said which should call the whole thing into question and um he have talks about the analogy analogy the uh the analogy of faith you know as the idea that we're going to use the analogy of faith as as our our fundamental basis for conducting this hermeneutic of explaining of explaining what the council really meant but he points out in here later on that the analogy of faith can only apply to truth the truth of the faith it can't apply to error you can't use the analogy of faith to try to justify or somehow clarify error he says so right away you can't use the the analogy of faith as the theologians the true catholic theologians have done in the past to produce some kind of harmonic hermeneutic of continuity to try to make the council fit within the realm of catholic catholic teaching so again he's really getting down into the the fundamental questions regarding vatican ii he says they managed to put the label sacrosanct ecumenical council on what is really the modernist ideological manifesto he calls it their ideological manifesto of modernism interesting right even as the jansenist tried to do the same thing with the senate of historia but it was condemned by pius vi he said this is what the modernists have tried to do with vatican ii and then he goes on in his letter he talks about how catholics look at it this way that it had the form of a council but the substance is not as different so they're trying to somehow find a way to make the substance of the council match the promise of the former of a council of the church whereas he says the modernists actually look at it differently they used the form of the council to give legitimacy to non-catholic substance is what he's saying here which is very interesting because essentially what i understand to say is the modernist tried to legitimize by the giving the form of a council to what was actually illegitimate substance to illegitimate substance that is not that catholic curious that he would actually make a statement about that but you know he goes on to even say this you talked about dictation he says tyrannies and dictators do this he says they try to give legitimate form to commands propositions that are actually illegitimate to give them the veneer of authority so that people will accept what they know if not by faith by reason they know this is not true this is not right but because they have a stamp of authority on it or the appearance of authority to it people accept it he said this is typical of what is done when there's a coup d'etat and he refers to that he says if this has also happened within the church it is because the accomplices of this coup d'etat have no supernatural sense they fear neither god nor eternal damnation and considers themselves consider themselves partisans of progress invested with a prophetic role that legitimizes them in all their wickedness just as communism's mass exterminations are carried out by party officials convinced of promoting the cause of the proletariat the reason why i found that that ex statement so extraordinary so powerful is if you go back to beschendi it's exactly what saint pious the 10th was saying about the modernists they consider themselves having this prophetic role this they have the superior wisdom which legitimizes everything they do and so no matter how destructive what the result of what they're doing it is all in for a good cause and for an important reason that they have to remake the church and if it's a process of tearing it down first then so be it does that sound like the revolutionaries of today here in america yeah burn it to the ground burn it to the ground to destroy the old system well the modernists all progressives of all stripes all go back to the same what he says a hatred they neither fear god nor damnation and consider themselves partisans of progress invested with a prophetic role which legitimizes all that they do that is that is so true i i have to congratulate archbishop vegano in not only seeing that uh but in expressing it so so powerfully you know not many people could express it so well but it's hard to read it and not be impressed by it and father isn't that like the very definition of marxism isn't that this is the whole idea of karl marx yeah tear it down right violence destruction that's that's his method that that is the practice of the faith marxism his religion is destruction modernist modernism is spiritual modernism is basically spiritual marxism well tom i made that point before actually because in what year was bashandi written 1907. and what year did our lady appear to found about 19 17 19 10 years later pius the 10th is warning about the revolution of the church and our lady was warning about the errors of russia spreading spreading throughout the world right marxism yeah right the two are absolutely related they're bad fellows sad to say and he goes on in the very next paragraph he says in the first case the analysts of the council documents in the light of tradition i'm sorry let me repeat that in the first case the analysis of the council documents in the light of tradition clashes with the observation that they have been formulated in such a way as to make clear the subversive intent of their drafters this is something that he's making clear here those who drafted these documents were subversive of the faith he says so when we talk about and analyzing the council documents in the light tradition he says that that ignores the fact that the documents themselves were formulated to be subversive of the faith and that's why he's rejecting this whole idea of even trying to interpret the council documents in the light of catholic tradition because he believes they are intrinsically subversive of the faith that that was their intent and of course they are father because i mean how many how many protestants and other non-catholics were involved in the council i mean they all recognized and yet you have millions of novus ordo catholics out there who just can't seem to get that point right maybe the fact that he's saying this now will open their eyes at least some of them we hope anyway right his eyes clearly have been opened to that fact and i mean what you're saying tom is so true it should be it should be obvious after all these 60 years i mean people have been saying this for 60 years now yeah what is remarkable here is that you have an archbishop who was so embedded in this and now by the grace of god he sees so clearly and i think this speaks to his humility that he that he would actually say no i i see this now and uh you know i think it i don't know it just gives me a very high very great estimation of the the person the character but and i thank god for the grace that's being given him and i thank him for cooperating with that grace a little bit further there are certain i would say telling moments in his letter that are very very clarifying uh of the situation today he says at one point an unclear passage from sacred scripture or from the holy fathers can be the object of a hermeneutic but certainly not an act of the magisterium whose task it is precisely to dispel any lack of clarity so you see why he says we can't apply this idea of hermeneutic to magisterial statements and he says yet both conservatives and progressives find themselves unwittingly in agreement in recognizing a kind of dichotomy between what a council is and what that council that is vatican ii is between the doctrine of all previous councils and the doctrine set forth or implied in that council now what he said he says here i think is extremely important to understand and i'm not sure that everybody will understand because when he talks about how we can take a a writing from this passage from second scripture or a passage from the writings of the fathers of the church and we can apply the hermeneutic of tradition by saying okay we understand the meaning of this in the context of catholic tradition but he says when it comes to a magisterial decree the whole purpose of the magisterium is to supply that hermeneutic and to make clear what the fathers have said and what the what the uh the sacred scripture is saying if you have to apply a hermeneutic to a disc to make clear what the magisterium is saying about making clear what the fathers are saying that completely goes against the point of the magisterium and i i it's so important that he's he's saying that by the conservatives in the novus ordo going along with this idea now of trying to explain the council and the light of catholic tradition they're actually agreeing with the progressives they're agreeing with the leftists they're actually agreeing with the modernists they're finding that some kind of a dichotomy saying well there are all the other councils which explain the place both perfectly clearly we don't need an hermeneutic about them but for vatican 2 we need a hermeneutic there because it's something unto itself it's like a different species of council and he says here we have the conservatives and the leftists the modernists coming together in agreement he's pointing out part of the problem we're talking about here with those emails be addressed here exactly the conservatives and the progressives coming together on certain agreement about certain things on modernist principles that's i find this to be very very telling that he's saying this in the past on this program i pointed out that the conservative new order catholics are actually redefining the papacy according to francis and what he's doing like francis is redefining the papacy for them even uh dr peter kwazniewski kind of implied this that well we've learned things about the papacy as we've gone through history and we've discovered that popes can do things that we didn't think popes could do before and now as if to say now that we know with francis because certainly he's the pope you can't question that now we've learned that popes can say things and do things like this that in the past catholics would never have said the popes could do so he was actually acknowledging we're redefining our understanding of the papacy by francis and his understanding of the papacy but you see what archbishop vigano is saying here he's actually going to be one better he's saying that the the conservative catholics have actually for 60 years now been redefining their whole concept of a council he's saying what i hadn't even thought of yet the novice order catholics are redefining the papacy according to francis but the considerate catholics have been redefining the whole idea of a council for the last 60 years ever this is vatican too that's that's exactly what he's saying here and i have to hint to him he's exactly right he's exactly right so if i may uh expansion just a little bit more i'm sorry from another place the conversation here but i really want to give archbishop vigono his do in this uh because he's making things clearer to me in fact we've been talking i've been talking about this for the last 40 plus years i was ordained 42 something years ago and so his in very rapid time here he's come to see things very very clearly so much so that i'm reading his letter and light bulbs are going on in my mind too he says it isn't possible to change reality to make it correspond to an ideal shama if the evidence shows that some propositions contained in the council documents and similarly in the acts of bergoglio's magisterium are heterodox and if doctrine teaches us that the acts of the magisterium do not contain error the conclusion is not that these propositions are not erroneous but that they cannot be part of the magisterium et voila right they're erroneous and so we can't say that nearly that they're erroneous erroneous rather we have to conclude they are not errors taught by the magisterium rather they are not teaching of the magisterium at all because the magisterium of the catholic church cannot teach error this is period he actually says the word period at the end of that as if to emphasize the fact that this is the way it is these cannot be the work of the magisterium do you realize what he's saying here tom he's saying that vatican too and what bergoglio is saying at least much of it is even at that are not statements of the magisterium of the catholic church very very interesting statement very i should say forceful statement this is like a battering ram against vatican ii it's documents and here he's even talking about them merely on the level of heterodoxy so this is a very very hard-hitting statement and he goes on hermeneutics again he's trying to make this point perfectly clear so he can understand everything else he's saying at his conclusions hermeneutics serve to clarify the meaning of a phrase that is obscure or that appears to contradict doctrine hermeneutics are not used to correct error and that's why he says you cannot use that to substantially correct an error after it has been spoken you cannot use this method to try to fix vatican ii and his whole point here is you can't fix vatican ii so again you know we have the cancel culture today right and so what he appears to be saying here and i you know i don't know that he'll ever watch the program or even know of its existence but i would like to ask him if he's saying in in another way in terms of our canceled culture today you know we have to cancel it right if it doesn't fit with the modern narrative is he saying that because vatican ii sought to cancel catholic tradition we must cancel vatican ii that's the only thing we can do with it we simply have to cancel it he goes on later to say the aim of vatican ii's public defenders has turned out to be the struggle of sisyphus sisyphus you know the greek tragic hero he was punished trying to bring fire to earth or for having brought fire to earth you know how he's punished right as this enormous boulder and for all eternity he has to struggle to push this gigantic boulder uphill and just as he reaches the crest of the hill he loses control and it rolls back down to the bottom he has to go back down and roll it back up the hill again and for eons and eons and eons he will always be engaged in that one exercise but he will never succeed and archbishop begino says this is what the defenders of vatican ii are doing essentially and trying to defend it he says the aim of vatican ii's public defenders has turned out to be the struggle of sisyphus as soon as they succeed by a thousand efforts in a thousand distinctions in formulating a seemingly reasonable solution that doesn't directly touch their little idol immediately their words are repudiated by opposing statements from a progressive theologian a german prelate or francis himself and so the conciliar boulder rolls back down the hill again where gravity attracts it to its natural resting place that's where it belongs in his mind that's where it belongs don't try rolling it up the hill it's an exercise in futility is what it comes down to and he goes on again to say well i don't want to go on odd infinitum here one can read his letter but you see as we're getting toward the end of his letter he does talks about talk about those uh who tried to deal with the problem he says that it continues to persist after 60 years and he says this reveals a perfect consistency with the deliberate will of the innovators who prepared its documents and influenced its proponents he says if this process this this this this exercise of sisyphus to roll that boulder up to the top of the hill has been going on for 60 years now and they still haven't succeeded in bringing it into line with catholic tradition he says does not this make us realize that there is an obets an obstacle an obstacle which is what he calls it an insurmountable obstacle that forces us to consider what is catholic is really not catholic he says against all the use of reason against all reasonableness are we trying they're trying to force us to acknowledge as catholic what is really in itself not catholic that's the insurmountable obstacle of vatican ii he says he said one needs to keep clearly in mind that the analogy of applies precisely to the truths of faith and not to error okay again this is why he says you can't use this to try to find a way to bring vatican to in harmony with with the traditional catholic faith because it was it was contrived by those who did not have the faith and their their purpose was revolutionary from the beginning so actually the reason why i'm going through this not quite paragraph by paragraph but i think salient point by salient point is because i'd like our our watchers to actually go and find this document and i'd like them to actually kind of read through it with me because i fear if they do they might not they might miss some very important points that he makes not understand the significance of it so not that archbishop vega no needs a hermit hermeneutic done by father jenkins i understand that but his readers might not be familiar with some of the terms he's using here like the analogy or hermeneutic of continuity or whatever so i thought it would be important to have a certain commentary to enable you know people who are reading this to really grasp the significance of what he's saying here assuming that i understand it correctly and i think i do he says the central vice therefore lies in having fraudulently led the council fathers to approve ambiguous texts which they considered catholic enough to reserve the plot plotchet means their approval and then using the same ambiguity to get them to say exactly what the innovators wanted them to say so notice he says the central vice involved in all of this process of vatican ii and its 60 years of effort to catholicize it is in having brought in these documents so ambiguous that council fathers would approve them and then the modernists using the ambiguity to drive home the heterodox point now we've been saying this for years and knowledge you know this is not news to you and news to many of our listeners here but our but archbishop bigeno sees that very clearly now and he expresses it very very well um so you know when when uh for example um dietrich von hildebrand writes the trojan horse the city of god and he talks about vatican ii being this trojan horse that has been put together for the destruction of the city i mean he's already been saying he's already said decades ago he's already made this point but the the point needs to be remade and remade and remade it needs to for every generation for every everyone that comes up we have to constantly try to drive the point home of the reality of what's happening here what the revolution is doing in fact that entire paragraph i think is important enough to read it it's not that long the central vice therefore lies in having fraudulently led the council fathers to approve ambiguous texts which they considered catholic enough to deserve their plotchet and then using that same ambiguity to get them to say exactly what the innovators wanted those texts cannot today be changed in their substance to make them orthodox or clearer they must simply be rejected according to the forms that the supreme authority of the church shall judge appropriate in due course since they are vitiated by a malicious intention you see what he's saying here they are corrupt already in the egg right from the start right from conception by the malicious intention of the modernists and it will have to be determined whether an anomalous and disastrous event such as vatican ii can still merit the title of ecumenical council if we can even call it that is we've been raising the question once its heterogeneity compared to previous councils is universally recognized a heterogeneity is so evident that it requires the use of a hermeneutic something that no other council has ever needed so he's saying that this council is like unlike any other council does it even deserve the name can it even be called legitimately in ecumenical council he's even raising that question here thank goodness and he goes on to say that it is equally true that the abu dhabi declaration you know that declaration with the imam where francis says that god wills the multiplicity of diversity of religions right clearly heretical statement uh archbishop vigano says it is equally true that the abu dhabi declaration would not have been conceivable without the premise of lumen gentian one of the great so-called dogmatic declarations of vatican ii paved the way for this heresy of francis today essentially what he's saying my last great citation from this letter is is this rightly dr peter kwasniewski writes states and this is a quote he gives a lengthy quote here it is the mixture the jumble of great good indifferent bad generic ambiguous problematic erroneous all of it at enormous length that makes vatican ii uniquely deserving of repudiation end of quote and then archbishop vegano says the voice of the church which is the voice of christ is instead crystal clear and unambiguous and cannot mislead those who rely on its authority and he quotes again this is why the last council is absolutely irrecoverable if the project of modernization has resulted in a massive loss of catholic identity even a basic doctrinal competence and morals the way forward is to pay one's last respects to the great symbol of that project and see it buried okay well to pay one's last respects to it i would not pay any respects to this it's simply something something that has to be buried you have to cut off the heads of the hydra cauterize them and bury it with what you have to do here so i think they're on the right track i don't think they've arrived quite at the destination yet but i do think they're at the right track so i'd recommend to our listeners to uh find the text of this letter of archbishop vegano and to read it read it carefully and if you want to read it through with the explanation i gave here fine if you just soon read it on your own well that's fine like too but if you have any questions about it i'm sure you could probably uh well you could certainly address them to be here if we get our email fixed yeah we plan to but uh you might even be able to contact lifesite news and to direct the questions through them to archbishop viguetto himself i don't know sure perhaps so so in any case i thought this was kind of like a shot heard around the world in a sense you know because i'm it gives me hope that uh actually come and see the big picture definitely well father thanks for uh thanks for going through all of this uh with us tonight and uh thanks for your help with the other questions as well and so thanks for everything you do thanks to our viewers and uh i ask you to please pray for some special intentions i just got word before the program that a very very dear dear soul passed away some we've known catholic friend you know their family part of their family and it's get pretty hard but i can't even mention the name because even the family is not entirely informed yet but i do ask you to pray for uh for a dear soul who just passed away earlier today absolutely thank you for that yep thank you father thanks to all of our viewers as well for watching this episode of what catholics believe until next time we ask that you all remember the words of our lady at fatima to consecrate yourselves and your families to the immaculate heart of mary and to create independence thank you and god bless you you

Channel: What Catholics Believe

Views: 12,539

Rating: 4.9141631 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: uneXvClzW0g

Length: 56min 6sec (3366 seconds)

Published: Sat Sep 26 2020