Rechercher dans ce blog

Follow by Email

jeudi 2 juillet 2020

VIDEO "FIGHTING BACK: The Catholic Vote"


Etats-Unis : le Planning Familial fait disséquer des bébés et y prélever des organes

Why Viganò’s Critique of the Council Must Be Taken Seriously

Is the recent "attack" on Vatican II a "crisis moment" for traditionalists? Are we turning on a legitimate and laudable Council instead of rightly directing our ire at the inept leadership that has followed it and betrayed it?

That has been the line of conservatives for a long time: a "hermeneutic of continuity" combined with strong criticism of episcopal and clerical brigandage. The implausibility of this approach is demonstrated by, among other signs, the infinitesimal success that conservatives have had in reversing the disastrous "reforms," trends, habits, and institutions established in the wake of and in the name of the last council, with papal approbation or toleration. One is reminded of a secular parallel: the barren wasteland of American political "conservatism," in which any remaining conformity of human laws and court decisions to the natural law is evaporating before our eyes.

What Archbishop Viganò has recently been saying with a forthrightness unusual in today's prelates (see herehere, and here) is but a new installment of a longstanding critique offered by traditional Catholics, from Michael Davies's Pope John's Council and Romano Amerio's Iota Unum to Roberto de Mattei's The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story and Henry Sire's Phoenix from the Ashes. We have watched bishops, episcopal conferences, cardinals, and popes construct a "new paradigm," piece by piece, for more than half a century — a "new" Catholic faith that at best only partially overlaps and at worst downright contradicts the traditional Catholic faith as we find it expressed in the Church Fathers and Doctors, the earlier councils, and hundreds of traditional catechisms, not to mention the old Latin liturgical rites that were suppressed and replaced with radically different ones.

So enormous a chasm gapes between old and new that we cannot refrain from asking about the role played by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in the unfolding of a modernist story that has its beginning in the late 19th century and its denouement in the present. The line from LoisyTyrrell, and Hügel to KüngTeilhard, and (young) Ratzinger to KasperBergoglio, and Tagle is pretty straight when one starts connecting the dots. This is not to say there are not interesting and important differences among these men, but only that they share principles that would have been branded as dubious, dangerous, or heretical by any of the great confessors and theologians, from Augustine and Chrysostom to Aquinas and Bellarmine.

We have to abandon once and for all the naïveté of thinking that the only thing that matters about Vatican II are its promulgated texts. No. In this case, the progressives and the traditionalists rightly concur that the event matters as much as the texts (on this point, see the incomparable book by Roberto de Mattei). The vagueness of purpose for which the Council was convened; the manipulative way it was conducted; the consistently liberal way in which it was implemented, with barely a whimper from the world's episcopacy — none of this is irrelevant to interpreting the meaning and significance of the Council texts, which themselves exhibit novel genres and dangerous ambiguities, not to mention passages that have all the traits of flat-out error, like the teaching on Muslims and Christians worshiping the same God, of which Bishop Athanasius Schneider gave a devastating critique in Christus Vincit [i].

It's surprising that, at this late stage, there would still be defenders of the Council documents, when it is clear that they lent themselves exquisitely to the goal of a total modernization and secularization of the Church. Even if their content were unobjectionable, their verbosity, complexity, and mingling of obvious truths with head-scratching ideas furnished the perfect pretext for the revolution. This revolution is now melted into these texts, fused with them like metal pieces passed through a superheated oven.

Thus, the very act of quoting Vatican II has become a signal that one wishes to align with all that has been done by the popes — yes, by the popes! — in its name. At the forefront is the liturgical destruction, but examples could be multiplied ad nauseam: consider such dismal moments as the Assisi interreligious gatherings, the logic of which John Paul II defended exclusively in terms of a string of quotations from Vatican II. The pontificate of Francis has merely stepped on the accelerator.

Always it is Vatican II that is trotted out to explain or justify every deviation and departure from the historic dogmatic Faith. Is all this purely coincidental — a series of remarkably unfortunate interpretations and wayward judgments that an honest reading of the texts could dispel, like the sun blazing through the rainclouds?

Aren't there good things in the documents?

I have studied and taught the documents of the Council, some of them numerous times. I know them very well. Since I am a "Great Books" devotee and have always taught for Great Books schools, my theology courses would typically begin with Scripture and the Fathers, then go into the scholastics (especially St. Thomas) and finish up with magisterial texts: papal encyclicals and conciliar documents.

I often felt a sinking of the heart when the course reached a Vatican II document, such as Lumen GentiumSacrosanctum ConciliumDignitatis HumanaeUnitatis RedintegratioNostra Aetate, or Gaudium et Spes.

Of course — of course! — they have much that is beautiful and orthodox in them. They would never have gotten the requisite number of votes had they been flagrantly opposed to Catholic teaching.

However, they are also sprawling, unwieldy, inconsistent committee products, which needlessly complicate many subjects and lack the crystalline clarity that a council is supposed to work hard to achieve. All you have to do is look at the documents of Trent or the first seven ecumenical councils to see brilliant examples of this tightly constructed style, which cut off heresy at every possible point, to the extent the council fathers were capable of at that particular juncture [ii]. And then there are the sentences in Vatican II — not a few of them — at which ones stops and says: "Really? Am I really seeing these words on the page in front of me? What a [messy; problematic; proximate-to-error; erroneous] thing to say" [iii].

I used to hold, with conservatives, that we should "take what's good in the Council and leave behind the rest." The problem with this approach is captured by Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum:

The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, certainly did not reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Anon., Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

In other words: 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 [iv].

Weren't there always problems after Church Councils?

Yes, without a doubt: Church councils have been followed by a greater or lesser degree of controversy. But these difficulties were usually in spite of, not because of the nature and content of the documents. St. Athanasius could appeal again and again to Nicaea, as to a battle ensign, because its teaching was succinct and rock-solid. The popes after the Council of Trent could appeal again and again to its canons and decrees because the teaching was succinct and rock-solid. While Trent produced a large number of documents over the course of the years in which the sessions took place (1545–1563), each document is a marvel of clarity, with not a wasted word.

At very least, the Vatican II documents failed miserably in the Council's purpose as explained by Pope John XXIII. He said in 1962 that he wanted a more accessible presentation of the Faith for Modern Man.™ By 1965, it had become painfully obvious that the sixteen documents would never be something you would just gather into a book and hand out to every layman or inquirer. One might say the Council fell between two stools: it produced neither an accessible point of entry for the modern world nor a succinct "plan of engagement" for pastors and theologians to rely upon. What did it accomplish? A huge amount of paperwork, a lot of windy prose, and a winky nudge: "Adapt to the modern world, boys!" (Or, if you don't, get in trouble with — to borrow a phrase from Hobbes — "the irresistible power of the mortal god" in Rome, as Archbishop Lefebvre quickly discovered.)

This is why the last council is absolutely irrecoverable. If the project of modernization has resulted in a massive loss of Catholic identity, even of 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. As Martin Mosebach says, true "reform" always means a return to form — that is, a return to stricter discipline, clearer doctrine, fuller worship. It does not and cannot mean the opposite.

Is there anything of the substance of the Faith, or anything of indisputable benefit, that we would lose were we to bid the last council goodbye and never hear its name mentioned again? The Catholic Tradition already has within itself immense (and, especially today, largely untapped) resources for dealing with every vexing question we face in today's world. Now, almost a quarter of the way into a different century, we are at a very different place, and the tools we need are not those of the 1960s.

What, then, can be done in the future?

Ever since Archbishop Viganò's June 9 letter and his subsequent writing on the subject, people have been discussing what it might mean to "annul" the Second Vatican Council.

I see three theoretical possibilities for a future pope.

  1. He could publish a new Syllabus of Errors (as Bishop Schneider proposed all the way back in 2010) that identifies and condemns common errors associated with Vatican II while not attributing them explicitly to Vatican II: "If anyone says XYZ, let him be anathema." This would leave open the degree to which the Council documents actually contain the errors; it would, however, close the door to many popular "readings" of the Council.
  2. He could declare that, in looking back over the past half-century, we can see that the Council documents, on account of their ambiguities and difficulties, have caused more harm than good in the life of the Church and should, in the future, no longer be referenced as authoritative in theological discussion. The Council should be treated as a historic event whose relevance has passed. Again, this stance would not need to assert that the documents are in error; it would be an acknowledgement that the Council has shown itself to be "more trouble than it's worth."
  3. He could specifically "disown" or set aside certain documents or parts of documents, even as parts of the Council of Constance were never recognized or were repudiated.

The second and third possibilities stem from a recognition that the Council took the form, unique among all ecumencial councils in the history of the Church, of being "pastoral" in purpose and nature, according to both John XXIII and Paul VI; this would make its setting aside relatively easy. To the objection that it still, perforce, concerns matters of faith and morals, I would reply that the bishops never defined anything and never anathematized anything. Even the "dogmatic constitutions" establish no dogma. It is a curiously expository and catechetical council, which settles almost nothing and unsettles a great deal.

Whenever and however a future pope or council deals with this thoroughly entrenched mess, our task as Catholics remains what it has always been: to hold fast to the Faith of our fathers in its normative, trustworthy expressions, namely, the lex orandi of the traditional liturgical rites of East and West, the lex credendi of the approved Creeds and the consistent witness of the universal ordinary Magisterium, and the lex vivendi shown to us by the saints canonized over the centuries, before the era of confusion set in. This is enough, and more than enough.


[i] See synopsis here.

[ii] It is noteworthy that John XXIII had appointed preparatory commissions that produced short, tight, clear documents for the upcoming council to work with — and then allowed the liberal or "Rhine" faction of council fathers to chuck out these drafts and replace them with new ones. The only exception was Sacrosanctum Concilium, Bugnini's project, which sailed through without much trouble.

[iii] It's not just a matter of poor translations; the very first translations were generally good, and then later translations dumbed the texts down.

[iv] As Cardinal Walter Kasper admitted in an article published in L'Osservatore Romano on April 12, 2013: "In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, opening the door to a selective reception in either direction." 


Lettre de Mgr Luigi Negri

Très chère Excellence,

Au fur et à mesure que les circonstances de la vie tendent à révéler un nombre croissant d'éléments de dégradation tant dans la vie de l'Eglise que dans la vie sociale, je voudrais vous faire part de mon adhésion à votre message qui me semble avoir recueilli le cœur même de notre expérience ecclésiale. Ce cœur vivant de notre expérience ecclésiale est de plus en plus marqué par la conscience quotidienne de ce que le temps qui nous est donné fuit, et que notre existence reste fortement conditionnée par la temporalité des événements et des faits.


Il me semble que l'Eglise, par moments, selon un rythme souvent ponctuel, reprend conscience de sa propre identité et de la tâche missionnaire qui caractérise sa vie et son histoire.


Nous ressentons chaque jour plus fortement la pression des événements qui demandent à être jugés selon la clarté de la Parole du Seigneur et vécus comme une obéissance à sa volonté. De tout cela, nous sommes heureux : nous sommes heureux parce que nous nous abandonnons chaque jour au Seigneur avec la conscience profonde que sa présence nous soutient à tout moment et qu'il n'y a aucune possibilité que notre existence soit arrachée à la compagnie de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. Vraiment, c'est l'abandon de notre vie à sa volonté, qui est notre force ; elle est surtout le désir que notre vie puisse vibrer du grand élan de la mission et que notre vie considère l'avenir comme une réalité à remplir à chaque instant de la prise de conscience de la présence du Christ, en demandant que cette présence du Christ fasse vivre chaque jour l'aventure de la mission. En cela et par cela notre vie commence chaque matin avec le grand désir de soutenir la vie chrétienne en nous-mêmes et en nos semblables ; elle s'achève chaque soir avec la conscience que nous avons contribué, pauvrement mais toujours sincèrement, à la maturation de la conscience chrétienne dans le monde.


Nous nous attachons à vous, Excellence, et nous aimerions pouvoir vous accompagner, en tant que derniers disciples, vos pas très sûrs sur le chemin du vrai, du beau et du bien. Que le Seigneur fasse de votre présence dans l'Église et parmi les hommes une présence pleine de vérité, de capacité de sacrifice et de bienveillance envers tous les hommes ; ainsi nous aurons l'impression de correspondre de façon pauvre mais réelle à la grande invitation de la liturgie de à chaque instant : celle de ne pas perdre le temps mais de le rendre chaque jour avec une pleine volonté et avec une grande ouverture au cœur même de Dieu, parce que dans notre vie quotidienne nous sommes précisément appelés à faire l'expérience de la grandeur de Dieu et du désir de contribuer quelque peu, mais de façon bien réelle cependant, à l'établissement du Royaume de Dieu dans le monde.

Que le Seigneur nous bénisse et nous réconforte sur le chemin de nos jours.

+Luigi Negri – Archevêque émérite de Ferrara – Comacchio

Milan, le 16 juin 2020



Monseigneur Carlo Maria Viganò répond à Monseigneur Luigi Negri


J'ai lu avec beaucoup d'émotion vos paroles, qui m'ont beaucoup touché. C'est une consolation de voir que Votre Excellence a saisi, avec la perspicacité et la lucidité qui ont toujours caractérisé votre jugement, le cœur du problème.


Le temps présent, surtout pour ceux qui ont un regard surnaturel, nous ramène aux choses fondamentales de la vie, à la simplicité du Bien et à l'horreur du Mal, à la nécessité de choisir le camp dans lequel mener nos petites et grandes batailles quotidiennes. Certains y voient une dévalorisation, comme si la clarté de l'Evangile était désormais incapable de donner des réponses satisfaisantes à une humanité complexe et structurée ; pourtant, alors que certains de nos frères évêques sont presque obsédés par l'inclusion et la green theology, appelant de leurs vœux un Nouvel Ordre Mondial et une Maison commune pour les religions abrahamiques, parmi le peuple et les prêtres le constat  l'idée que les Pasteurs eux-mêmes – heureusement, pas tous – s'éloignent au moment même d'une confrontation historique, gagne du terrain.


C'est vrai : le temps nous échappe, Excellence, et avec lui s'effritent les châteaux de sable de la rhétorique presque initiatique de ceux qui ont voulu construire leur propre succès dans le temps si fugace et dans la fragilité des choses qui passent. Il y a quelque chose d'inexorable dans ce qui arrive aujourd'hui : les mirages éphémères qui étaient censés remplacer les vérités éternelles nous apparaissent, à la lumière crue de la réalité, dans leur misérable et artificielle imposture, dans leur fausseté ontologique et inexorable. Nous nous découvrons tels des enfants, selon les paroles de Notre Seigneur ; nous reconnaissons presque instinctivement le bien et le mal, la récompense et le châtiment, le mérite et la culpabilité. Mais la sérénité de l'enfant reposant sur le sein de sa mère, la fière confiance de l'enfant accroché à la main de son père, peuvent-elles être considérées comme insignifiantes ?


Combien de paroles futiles ont été dites, combien de palliatifs inutiles nous ont été servis, en pensant que la Parole éternelle du Père ne convenait plus, qu'il fallait la mettre au goût du jour pour la rendre plus séduisante aux oreilles sourdes du monde ! Et pourtant, il aurait suffi de la faire nôtre, cette Parole, pour n'avoir besoin de rien d'autre. Si jusqu'à présent nous nous sommes laissés troubler par la confusion du siècle, désormais nous pouvons nous abandonner avec une confiance filiale et nous laisser guider, car nous reconnaissons la voix du divin Pasteur et nous le suivons là où il veut nous conduire. Même lorsque les autres, qui devraient parler, restent silencieux.


Notre pauvreté n'est pas un obstacle, mais plutôt une aide en ces temps : plus nous sommes humbles, plus resplendit la maîtrise de l'Artiste qui nous tient comme un instrument entre ses mains habiles, comme la plume avec laquelle l'Ecrivain compose sagement la page.


Je demande à Votre Excellence de prier afin que nous tous, que le Seigneur, dans la plénitude du sacerdoce appelle non pas serviteurs mais des amis, puissions devenir des instruments dociles de Sa Grâce, en redécouvrant la divine simplicité de la Foi qu'Il nous a commandé de prêcher à tous les peuples. Tout ce que nous y ajouterions par orgueil n'est qu'une pathétique parure dont nous devons apprendre à nous débarrasser dès maintenant, si nous ne voulons pas que les flammes du Purgatoire s'en chargent, là où nos quelques paillettes d'or seront purifiées des scories, pour nous rendre dignes de la vision béatifique. Ne perdons pas les jours précieux où la maladie et la vieillesse nous donnent l'occasion d'expier nos fautes et celles des autres : ce sont des jours bénis que nous pouvons offrir à la Majesté de Dieu pour l'Église et ses ministres.


Recevez, très chère Excellence, l'expression de ma profonde gratitude pour vos paroles inspirées, avec l'assurance de mon souvenir dans le Saint Sacrifice de l'Autel. Et priez pour moi.

Nunc dimittis servum Tuum,

Domine, secundum verbum Tuum in pace…

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archevêque

17 juin 2020

Questo articolo è stato scritto da Marco Tosatti 

mercredi 1 juillet 2020

VIDEO "Qu'est ce qu'un conflit d'intérêt ?"


VIDEO "Marxist Immunity"

VIDEO "Antonio Caponnetto - El deber Cristiano de la lucha - 27.06.2020"

Activistas LGBT queman bandera argentina y amenazan de muerte a patriotas

Italian prelate to Viganò: We would like to ‘accompany your sure steps along the path of truth’

June 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Today, Italian Archbishop Luigi Negri published on his website and on the website of Italian journalist Marco Tosatti a public letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, in which he gives him his full support for his "message which seems to me to have aptly expressed the living heart of our ecclesial experience." Speaking about "elements of degradation both in the life of the Church as well as in civil society," this recently retired Archbishop of Ferrara-Comacchio now endorses Archbishop Viganò's work and says he would like to "accompany" his "path of truth."

Archbishop Negri clarified that his praise referred to Viganò's early May interventions, not his June interventions on Vatican II.

Archbishop Viganò has made in recent months several statements that caught international attention. First, at the end of April, he opposed Pope Francis' call to obey Italy's continued coronavirus restrictions that continued a ban on Mass. The archbishop called this not only "undue, but is also a violation of conscience and harmful to the health of souls."

On May 7, Archbishop Viganò issued, together with Cardinals Gerhard Müller, Joseph Zen, and Janis Pujats, as well as many scholars and journalists, an appeal concerning the dangers of the corona crisis being used to restrict our freedoms and those of the Catholic Church.

Then, on June 6, Archbishop Viganò published an open letter to President Donald Trump, in which he describes the recent corona crisis and the ongoing political crisis in the U.S. as a battle between the children of light and the children of darkness. That letter was subsequently endorsed by President Trump himself.

Please see here the letter written by Archbishop Luigi Negri, with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò's own response, reprinted here with kind permission.

Archbishop Luigi Negri writes to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

Most Dear Excellency,

As the present circumstances are continually revealing to us elements of degradation both in the life of the Church as well as in civil society, I would like [to] send you a message relating my adhesion to your message, which seems to me to have aptly expressed the living heart of our ecclesial experience. This living heart of ecclesial experience carries with it the daily awareness that the time that has been given to us is fleeting and that our existence remains strongly conditioned by the temporary nature of events and facts. 

It seems to me that the Church, bit by bit, often by fits and starts, is recovering awareness of her own identity and the missionary task that characterizes her life and her history.

Each day we feel ever more keenly the pressure of events that demand to be judged according to the clarity of the Word of the Lord and lived out as obedience to His Will. In the midst of all this we are happy; we are happy because we abandon ourselves each day to the Lord, with the profound awareness that His presence sustains us at every moment, and that it is impossible for our existence to ever be separated from the companionship of the Lord Jesus Christ. Our strength is truly found in abandoning our lives to His will and above all in the desire that our life be alive with the great vibrancy of mission. Our life looks to the future as a reality in which to invest every moment, aware of the presence of Christ, asking that this presence of Christ run with us each day in the adventure of mission. Each morning our life opens in this and for this, with a great desire to sustain our own Christian life and that of our fellow men; each evening it closes with the awareness of having contributed poorly, but always sincerely, to the maturation of the Christian conscience in the world.

We embrace you, Your Excellency, and as disciples we would like to be able to accompany your sure steps along the path of truth, beauty, and goodness. May the Lord make his presence in the Church and among men a presence full of truth, the capacity for sacrifice and good will towards all men; thus may we be seen to correspond in a poor but real way to the great invitation of the liturgy at every moment: not to waste time but to give it back each day with our whole will and with great openness to the very heart of God, because in everyday life each of us is called to experience the greatness of God and the desire to contribute in some real way to bringing about the Kingdom of God in the world. 

May the Lord bless us and comfort us on our daily path.

+Luigi Negri – Archbishop Emeritus of Ferrara – Comacchio
Milan, 16 June 2020 

Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò replies to Abp. Luigi Negri

Most Reverend Excellency,

I read your words with great emotion; they were truly touching for me. It is a consolation to see that Your Excellency has grasped the heart of the problem with that acumen and lucidity that have always distinguished your judgment. 

The present time, especially for those who have a supernatural perspective, brings us back to the most basic things of life: to the simplicity of the Good and the horror of Evil, to the necessity of choosing which side we are on as we fight our daily battles, both small and large. There are those who see this as a banalization, as if the clarity of the Gospel was no longer capable of giving satisfying answers to a complex and articulate humanity. And yet, while some of our brother bishops are concerned almost obsessively with inclusiveness and green theology, hoping for the New World Order and a "Common Home" for the Abrahamic religions, the people and priests have an ever greater sense of being distant from their Pastors – fortunately, not all of them – right at the moment of epochal confrontation.

It's true: time is slipping through our hands, Your Excellency, and as it does, the sandcastles of almost initiatory rhetoric are crumbling, sandcastles built by those who have wanted to base their own success on the fleetingness of time and the fragility of the contingent. There is something inexorable at work in what is happening today: the ephemeral mirages that were supposedly going to replace eternal truths are now revealing, in the harsh light of reality, their artificial and false squalor, their ontological and inexorable falsity. We discover that we are children, according to the words of Our Lord; we recognize almost instinctively those who are good and those who are evil, reward and punishment, merit and fault. But can we consider the serenity of the child resting on its mother's breast, the strong trust of the child who grips his father's hand, to be banal?

How many fatuous words have been spoken to us, how many useless sedatives have been delivered to us, thinking that the Eternal Word of the Father was inadequate, that it was necessary to update it in order to make it more seductive to the deaf ears of the world! Yet it would have been enough to simply make that Word our own, and we would have needed nothing else. If up until now we have allowed ourselves to be confused by the din of this present age, we can now abandon ourselves with filial trust and allow ourselves to be led, because we recognize the voice of the Divine Shepherd, and we follow Him where He wishes to lead us – even when others, who should speak, are silent. 

Our poverty is not an obstacle, but rather a help in these situations: the more humble we are, the more the skill of the Artist shines through us, holding us as an instrument in His skilled hands, like the pen with which the Scribe wisely writes the story. 

I ask Your Excellency to pray that all of us, who in the fullness of the Priesthood are called by the Lord not servants but friends, may succeed in making ourselves docile instruments of His Grace, rediscovering the divine simplicity of the Faith that He has commanded us to preach to all the nations. Everything else of our own that we would add through pride is a pathetic tinsel, which we must now learn to get rid of if we do not wish it to be done by the flames of Purgatory, in which our few gold flakes will be purified of their slag in order to make us worthy of the beatific vision. May we not waste the precious days in which illness and old age give us the opportunity to expiate our faults and the faults of others: they are blessed days which we can offer to the Majesty of God for the Church and her Ministers. 

Most Dear Excellency, receive this expression of my profound gratitude for your inspired words, with the assurance that I remember you in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. And pray for me.

Nunc dimittis servum Tuum,
Domine, secundum verbum Tuum in pace…

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
17 June 2020

Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020 

mardi 30 juin 2020

The Covid-BLM Diversion; "Shock Therapy" behind a smokescreen of hysteria and racial incitement, by Mike Whitney

The imposition of the nationwide lockdowns required elite consensus. There's no way that a project of that magnitude could have been carried out absent the nearly universal support of establishment elites and their lackeys in the political class. There must have also been a fairly-detailed media strategy that excluded the voices of lockdown opponents while– at the same time– promoting an extremely dubious theory of universal quarantine that had no basis in science, no historical precedent, and no chance of preventing the long-term spread of the infection. All of this suggests that the lockdowns were not a spontaneous overreaction to a fairly-mild virus that kills roughly 1 in 500 mainly-older and infirm victims, but a comprehensive and thoroughly-vetted plan to impose "shock therapy" on the US economy in order to achieve the long-term strategic ambitions of ruling class elites. As one sardonic official opined, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

It was clear from the beginning, that the lockdowns were going to have a catastrophic effect on the economy, and so they have. As of today, 30 million people have lost their jobs, tens of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses have been shuttered, second quarter GDP has plunged to an eye watering -45.5 percent (Atlanta Fed), and the economy has experienced its greatest shock in history. Even so, pundits in the mainstream media, remain steadfast in their opposition to lifting the lockdowns or modifying the medical martial law edicts that have been arbitrarily imposed by mainly-liberal governors across the country. Why? Why would the so-called "experts throw their weight behind such a sketchy policy when they knew how much suffering it was going to cause for ordinary working people? And why has the media continued to attack countries like Sweden who merely settled on a more conventional approach instead of imposing a full-blown lockdown? Swedish leaders and epidemiologists were unaware that adopting their own policy would be seen as a sign of defiance by their global overlords, but it was. Elites have decided that there can be no challenge to their idiotic lockdown model which is why Sweden had to be punished, ridiculed, and dragged through the mud. The treatment of Sweden further underscores the fact that the lockdown policy (and the destruction of the US economy) was not a random and impulsive act, but one part of a broader plan to restructure the economy to better serve the interests of elites. That's what's really going on. The lockdowns are being used to "reset" the economy and impose a new social order.

But why would corporate mandarins agree to a plan that would shrink their earnings and eviscerate short-term profitability?

Why? Because of the the stock market, that's why. The recycling of earnings into financial assets has replaced product sales as the primary driver of profits. As you may have noticed, both the Fed and the US Treasury have taken unprecedented steps to ensure that stock prices will only go higher. To date, the Fed and Treasury have committed $8 trillion dollars to backstopping the weaker areas of the market in an effort to flood the market with liquidity. "Backstopping" is an innocuous-sounding term that analysts use to conceal what is really going on, which is, the Fed is "price fixing", buying up trillions of dollars of corporate debt, ETF's, MBS, and US Treasuries to keep prices artificially high in order to reward the investor class it secretly serves. This is why the corporations and Tech giants are not concerned about the vast devastation that has been inflicted on the economy. They'll still be raking hefty profits via the stock market while the real economy slips deeper into a long-term coma. Besides, when the lockdowns are finally lifted, these same corporations will see a surge of consolidation brought on by the destruction of so many Mom and Pop industries that couldn't survive the downturn. No doubt, the expansion of America's tenacious monopolies factored heavily into the calculation to blow up the economy. Meanwhile, the deepening slump will undoubtedly create a permanent underclass that will eagerly work for a pittance of what they earned before the crash. So, there you have it: Profitability, consolidation and cheap labor. Why wouldn't corporate bosses love the idea of crashing the economy? It's a win-win situation for them.

We should have seen this coming. It's been clear since the Russiagate fiasco that elites had settled on a more aggressive form of social control via nonstop disinformation presented as headline news based on spurious accusations from anonymous sources, none of who were were ever identified, and none of whose claims could ever be verified. The media continued this "breathless" saturation campaign without pause and without the slightest hesitation even after its central claims were exposed as lies. If you are a liberal who watches the liberal cable channels or reads the New York Times, you might still be unaware that the central claim that the emails were stolen from the DNC by Russia (or anyone else for that matter) has not only been disproved, but also, that Mueller, Comey, Clapper etc knew the story was false way back in 2017. Let that sink in for a minute. They all knew it was a lie after the cyber security team (Crowdstrike) that inspected the DNC computers testified that there was no evidence that the emails had been "exfiltrated". In other words, there was no proof the emails were stolen. There was no justification for the Mueller investigation because there was no evidence that the DNC emails had been hacked, downloaded or pilfered. The whole thing was a hoax from the get go.

There's no way to overstate the importance these recent findings, in fact, our understanding of Russiagate must be applied to the lockdowns, the Black Lives Matter protests and other psychological operations still in the making. What's critical to grasp is not simply that the allegations were based on false claims, (which they were) but that a large number of senior-level officials in law enforcement (FBI), intel agencies, media and the White House knew with absolute certainty that the claims were false (from 2017 and on) but continued to propagate fake stories, spy on members of the new administration and use whatever tools they had at their disposal to overthrow an elected president. The guilty parties in this ruse have never admitted their guilt nor have they changed their fictitious storyline which still routinely appears in the media to this day. What we can glean from this incident, is that there is a vast secret state operating within the government, media and the DNC, that does not accept our system of government, does not accept the results of elections and will lie, cheat and steal to achieve their nefarious objectives. . That's the lesson of Russiagate that has to be applied to both the lockdowns and the Black Lives Matter protests. They are just the next phase of the ongoing war on the American people.

The lockdowns are an Americanized version of the "Shock Doctrine", that is, the country has been thrust into a severe crisis that will result in the implementing of neoliberal economic policies such as privatization, deregulation and cuts to social services. Already many of the liberal governors have driven their states into bankruptcy ensuring that budgets will have to be slashed, more jobs will be lost, funding for education and vital infrastructure will shrink, and assistance to the poor and needy will be sharply reduced. Shutting down the US economy, will create a catastrophe unlike anything we have ever seen in the United States. US Treasuries will likely loose their risk-free status while the dollar's as days as the "world's reserve currency" are probably numbered. That "exorbitant privilege" is based on confidence, and confidence in US leadership is at its lowest point in history.

It's not surprising that the Black Lives Matter protests took place at the same time as the lockdowns. The looting, rioting and desecration of statues provided the perfect one-two punch for those who see some tactical advantage in intensifying public anxiety by exacerbating racial tensions and splitting the country into two warring camps. Divide and conquer remains the modus operandi of imperialists everywhere. That same rule applies here. Here's more background from an article at the Off-Guardian:

"It is no coincidence that another Soros funded activism group Black Lives Matter has diverted the spotlight away from the lockdown's broader impact on the fundamental human rights of billions of people, using the reliable methods of divide and rule, to highlight the plight of specific strata's of society, and not all.

It's worth pointing out that BLM's activity spikes every four years. Always prior to the elections in the US, as African Americans make up an important social segment of Democrat votes. The same Democrats who play both sides like any smart gambler would. The Clintons, for example, are investors into BLM"s partner, the anti-fascist ANTIFA. While Hilary Clinton's mentor (and best friend) was former KKK leader Robert Byrd.

BLM is a massively hyped, TV-made, politicized event, that panders to the populist and escapist appetite of the people. Blinding them from their true call to arms in defense of the universal rights of everyone. Cashing in on the youths pent-up aggression …. And weaponising the tiger locked in a rattled cage for 3-months, and unleashed by puppet masters as the mob…

As a general rule of thumb, it is safe to assume that if a social movement has the backing of big industry, big philanthropy or big politics, then its ideals run contrary to citizen empowerment." ("The Co-opting of Activism by the State", Off-Guardian)

Black Lives Matter protests provide another significant diversion from the massive destruction of the US economy. This basic plan has been used effectively many times in the past, most notably in the year following the invasion of Iraq. Some readers will remember how Iraqis militants fought US occupation forces following the invasion in 2003. The escalating violence and rising death-toll created a public relations nightmare for the Bush team that finally settled on a plan for crushing the resistance by arming and training Shia death squads. But the Bushies wanted to confuse the public about what they were really up to, so they concocted a narrative about a "sectarian war" that was intended to divert attention from the attacks on American soldiers.

In order to make the narrative more believable, US intel agents devised a plan to blow up the Shia's most sacred religious site, the Golden Dome Mosque of Samarra, and blame it on Sunni extremists. The incident was then used to convince the American people that what was taking place in Iraq was not a war over foreign occupation, but a bitter sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shia in which the US was just an impartial referee. The killing of George Floyd has been used in much the same way as the implosion of the mosque. It creates a credible narrative for a massive and coordinated protests that have less to do with racial injustice than they do with diverting attention from the destruction of the economy and sowing division among the American people. This is a classic example of how elites use myth and media to conceal their trouble-making and escape any accountability for their actions.

Check out this excerpt from a paper by Carlo Caduff, an academic at King's College London, in a journal called Medical Anthropology Quarterly. It's entitled "What Went Wrong: Corona and the World After the Full Stop":

"Across the world, the pandemic unleashed authoritarian longings in democratic societies allowing governments to seize the opportunity, create states of exception and push political agendas. Commentators have presented the pandemic as a chance for the West to learn authoritarianism from the East. This pandemic risks teaching people to love power and call for its meticulous application. As a result of the unforeseeable social, political and economic consequences of today's sweeping measures, governments across the world have launched record "stimulus" bills costing trillions of dollars, pounds, pesos, rand and rupees…. The trillions that governments are spending now as "stimulus" packages surpass even those of the 2008 financial crisis and will need to be paid for somehow. ... If austerity policies of the past are at the root of the current crisis with overwhelmed healthcare systems in some countries, the rapidly rising public debt is creating the perfect conditions for more austerity in the future. The pandemic response will have major implications for the public funding of education, welfare, social security, environment and health in the future." (

This is precisely right. The country has been deliberately plunged into another Great Depression with the clear intention of imposing harsh austerity measures that will eviscerate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and any other social safteynet programs that benefit ordinary working people, retirees, or anyone else for that matter. None of it is random, spontaneous or spur-of-the-moment policymaking. It's all drawn from a centuries-old Imperial Playbook that's being used by scheming elites to implement their final plan for America: Tear down the statues, destroy the icons and symbols, rewrite the history, crush the populist resistance, create a permanent underclass that will work for pennies on the dollar, pit one group against the other by inciting racial hatred, political polarization and fratricidal warfare, promote the vandals who burn and loot our cities, attack anyone who speaks the truth, and offer unlimited support to the party that has aligned itself with the corrupt Intel agencies, the traitorous media, the sinister deep state, and the tyrannical elites who are determined to control the all the levers of state power and crush anyone who gets in their way. 

VIDEO "Cómo sobrevivir al nuevo orden mundial"

VIDEO "Les vérités du Professeur RAOULT - Curé Enragé #61"

VIDEO "L'indéfectibilité de l'Eglise - Abbé J-P. BOUBEE"

lundi 29 juin 2020

Le modernisme et le COVID-19

Memoirs of Cardinal Bacci released in English: "With Latin in the Service of the Popes"

Cardinal Antonio Bacci is a name familiar to all Catholics who love the Roman Tradition -- his name figures prominently with that of Cardinal Ottaviani in the famous 1969 "Intervention" in favor of the Traditional Latin Mass and against the hideous liturgical novelty introduced in that year.
But that is just one tiny aspect of his great life of love for the Holy Roman Church.
His memoirs, "WITH LATIN IN THE SERVICE OF THE POPES", have now been released in English by Arouca Press -- and we highly recommend the book. You can find it here.
Below, Bishop Athanasius Schneider's words on the book:
Antonio Bacci was rector of the archdiocesan seminary of Florence when his exceptional knowledge of Latin caused him to be summoned to Rome in 1922 to join the office of the Secretary of State as an assistant, first to Aurelio Galli and then to Nicola Sebastiani, the chief Latinists of the Holy See. Bacci succeeded Sebastiani as Secretary of Briefs to Princes upon the latter's death in 1931. In the first half of the memoirs here translated, Bacci discusses his relationship with Popes Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI during the period 1931‒1964. After these reminiscences, the Cardinal explains, in the second half of the book, the reasons why the Catholic Church must maintain the Latin language as its official language, addressing all the while the objections that were being raised at that time, when the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council was in full swing. He poses and answers the question whether it is at all possible that even the Church should now repudiate or abandon Latin, which, together with Greek, is the natural womb of our civilization and of our literatures and is still the sole linguistic bond among cultured people amidst such a variety of tongues.
[I]t pleases me greatly that America has not forgotten and does not want to forget him who enriched the Catholic Church with a Latin patrimony that cannot be renounced! … and I was astonished when I read through the first installment of your English translation of my uncle's book.

For your style is so easy to read, natural and fluid that one would think that one was reading the original work and not merely a translation. – Letter from Marsilio Bacci to Dr. Anthony LoBello
In his Memoirs Cardinal Antonio Bacci, one of the greatest Latinists of the recent past, outlines convincingly the importance of the use of the Latin language for the maintenance and the flourishing of a true culture in a time when humanity is sinking into the chaos of arbitrary subjectivism and inhuman technocracy. Cardinal Bacci warned clear-sightedly especially against the dangers of the loss of the use of Latin in the sacred Liturgy and in sacred doctrine, as then the Catholic faithful and clergy and the theologians from all nations of the world will be deprived of a sure and proven instrument and expression of Catholic unity in prayer and in faith. Cardinal Bacci, however, will go down in history as a courageous defender of the integrity of the rite of the Holy Mass, when he in 1969 together with Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani presented to Pope Paul VI concerns about the doctrinal and ritual defects of the new order of Mass and asked for the preservation of the millennial old Latin Rite of the Mass, the rite of our ancestors and of the Saints of all ages, to effectively counter the divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the Church. The warnings of Cardinal Bacci proved to be true. May the witness of his life and work bear fruits for the true renewal of the Church.
✠ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana 

La razón inhibida

Después de más de cien días de pandemia, cuarentena y un sinfín de hipótesis, teorías y personajes que nacen y mueren como la hierba de verano (¿quién se acuerda hoy de la Dra. Chinda Brandolino?), aquí va otra retahíla de reflexiones.

1. Lo que más exaspera de la situación no es tanto el encierro, que en el interior del país es relativo, sino el menosprecio de la inteligencia. Los políticos y las elites científicas con la complicidad del periodismo, se burlan abiertamente de la capacidad racional de las personas, y éstas aceptan mansamente esa burla y ni siquiera se anotician de ella. Decía Aristóteles que las pasiones oscurecen, dificultan y a veces incluso impiden el ejercicio de la razón. El miedo es una pasión, y estamos viendo cómo ha sido capaz de inhibir el uso de la razón en la enorme mayoría de los habitantes del país y del mundo, que se revelan incapaces de concluir ante los datos de la realidad, que son fácilmente accesibles, y creen a pie juntillas el discurso oficial. Y aquellos que sí se dan cuenta, se callan porque es políticamente incorrecto cuestionar la pandemia, no sea que lo confundan a uno con Trump, Bolsonaro o algún otro impresentable.

2. El periodismo juega un papel fundamental en la generación del pánico social. Una vez que pase la pandemia, seguramente se harán varios estudios sobre los titulares permanentes que estamos obligados a leer. Lo curioso es que a pesar de que gran parte de ellos son evidentemente ridículos, la gente los sigue comprando y aterrándose. El fin de semana escribía un medio de prensa este alarmante título: "Rusia se acerca a los 9000 muertos por coronavirus". Rusia tiene 150 millones de habitantes. ¿Alguien puede realmente creer que se trata de una situación desesperada? Sí, la mayoría de los lectores se espantan de lo que está sucediendo en Rusia.

3. Muchos periodistas mienten y amparan la mentira de los demás. Hace algunos días nos anunciaban la víctima más joven de Covid en Argentina: una beba de un año que había sido contagiada. Hacia el final de la nota deslizaban que, además, tenía antecedentes de enfermedad neurológica y pulmonar, con dependencia de oxígeno. ¿De qué murió esta pobre niñita? Es claro que no murió de coronavirus sino con coronavirus. Esto me hace pensar en la veracidad de las cifras de muertos y preguntarme si no estarán infladas por difuntos que murieron de las patologías de las que habitualmente se mueren las personas pero, por las dudas, los anotan como muertos por Covid. Y no es una suposición peregrina. Curiosamente, los datos oficiales de Italia indican que durante los dos meses que duró lo más álgido de la pandemia, no murió ningún italiano por enfermedades cardiovasculares. ¿No será que a todos a los que le dio un infarto los pasaron al casillero del Covid?

4. Se ha escuchado hablar mucho en los últimos tiempos del ingeniero español radicado en Silicon Valley —lo cual es ya un pasaporte de genialidad— Tomás Pueyo quien, apenas conocido el avance de la pandemia elaboró en pocos días una estrategia que llamó del "martillo y la danza", y publicó, como el mismo dice, "en un blog para amigos"."Más de 40 millones de personas lo leyeron en los días siguientes, fue traducido en 40 idiomas y su difusión fue decisiva para que muchos gobiernos impusieran cuarentenas estrictas en todo el mundo", se afirma. La pregunta que me surge es cómo fue posible que los gobiernos mundiales tomaran decisiones tan trascendentes para sus poblaciones a partir del artículo de un ignoto personaje aparecido en un blog. Es como si yo publicara en mi blog del Wanderer un artículo en el que hago elucubraciones sobre los beneficios que tendría para la religión el retorno de la misa tradicional, y en cuestión de una semana todos los episcopados mundiales adoptaran la liturgia preconciliar e impusieran, con medidas draconianas, a sus sacerdotes y fieles tal celebración. ¿Alguien creería posible tal situación? La tacharíamos de demencial y absurda. Pues bien, eso mismo, de modo análogo, ocurrió con el artículo del ingeniero español.

5. Pueyo afirmaba, entre otras cosas, que Estados Unidos tendría 10 millones de muertos por coronavirus. Hoy hay en aquel país 150.000 muertos, es decir, el 1,5% de lo predicho por el geniecillo de Silicon Valley. Y a pesar de la evidencia abrumadora de su error, Pueyo sigue siendo asesor de muchos gobiernos, incluido Argentina. 

Algo similar afirmó por esos días de marzo el prestigioso Imperial College de Londres: la pandemia dejaría 20 millones de muertos en el mundo. Hoy hay 500.000, el 2,5 % de lo anunciado. 

Frente a errores tan brutales, nadie reacciona. Y lo curioso es que la institución mundial que debería haberse involucrado en la cuestión, y me refiero a OMS, apoyó abiertamente estas predicciones. No sólo eso, hace pocos días el director adjunto de esa organización, Ranieri Guerra, afirmó que la pandemia, que se encuentra en franco retroceso en Europa, puede volver en el otoño y provocar cincuenta millones de muertos como ocurrió con la Gripe Española. Pareciera que esta gente no tiene vergüenza, y tampoco la tienen los países que siguen considerando a la OMS como la autoridad mundial en salud. Las únicas reacciones conocidas han sido la de Trump, que retiró a Estados Unidos de la OMS, cinco diputados italianos que denunciaron penalmente a Guerra por terrorismo mediático y Javier Milei.

6. Estamos viendo en las últimas semanas el castigo que está imponiendo el mundo a los países que no obedecieron los diktate de la nomenklatura, como es el caso de Suecia. Los medios anunciabanque ese país se había convertido en el paria de Europa, y la OMS falsificó datos para perjudicarlo. Suecia tiene 5300 muertos por coronavirus. ¿Es, acaso, un número tan aterrador para infligirle tamaño castigo? ¿No es completamente irracional?

7. En este breve video se enseña una sencilla técnica de manipulación. La semana pasada, diez reconocidos científicos italianos de diversas especialidades firmaron una declaraciónen la que aseguran que el Covid ha perdido su agresividad inicial y se está apagando. Han sido duramente atacados y cuestionados, entre otros, por la misma OMS. Me pregunto si no será el caso de que, quien dice que la carpeta es verde en contra de la mayoría que afirma que es roja, es censurado. 

8. Espanta el cinismo de los políticos. En el discurso del viernes pasado, el presidente Fernández afirmó: "De lo que estamos enamorados es de la vida y por eso la cuidamos tanto y nos pesa tanto ese número de 1000 personas que dejaron de estar entre nosotros". Esto lo dice una semana después de asegurar que en septiembre enviará al Congreso el proyecto de ley del aborto. Curioso enamoramiento de la vida; en todo caso debería aclarar que se trata de un enamoramiento selectivo. Y añade su lamento y pesar por los mil muertos que el coronavirus ha dejado en Argentina a lo largo de tres meses. Una vez más, me pregunto por qué su pesar por estos muertos y no por los que murieron de un infarto o de cáncer, que son muchos más de mil. ¿O es que los muertos por coronavirus tienen coronita y son más importantes que otros?

9. Según afirma Fernández, el único remedio para el coronavirus es el confinamiento, por lo tanto, tendrá encerrado a los argentinos todo el tiempo que haga falta para cuidarnos de la muerte. No entiendo por qué no aplica esa misma lógica a otros casos. En Argentina mueren 600 personas por mes debido a accidentes de tránsito, y el único remedio efectivo que se conoce es que no haya circulación de automóviles. ¿Por qué, entonces, no los prohibe? Mueren también 6100 personas por mes debido a problemas cardiovasculares. ¿Por qué no prohibe entonces la sal, las carnes grasas y el tabaco?

10. Para finalizar, el viernes nos enterábamos que investigadores de la Universidad de Barcelona han descubiertoen muestras congeladas de aguas servidas de marzo de 2019, la presencia del Covid19. Si este dato se confirma, tendremos que el famoso bichito estaba circulando por Europa un año antes de que los europeos se dieran cuenta. Estimo que el año pasado era un virus domesticado y se le ocurrió volver a las salvajes costumbres de sus ancestros en 2020, justamente el año de las elecciones de Estados Unidos, donde no se decidirá solamente quién ocupará la Casa Blanca sino, en muchos sentidos, el destino del mundo.  Pura coincidencia. 

Mons Viganò: “Los Padres Conciliares fueron víctimas de un tremendo engaño, de una estafa”

Entrevista del Dr. Phil Lawler a monseñor Viganò

Phil Lawler: En primer lugar, ¿qué opinión le merece el Concilio Vaticano II? Es indudable que desde entonces todo ha ido de mal en peor. Ahora bien, si el conjunto del Concilio es problemático, ¿a qué se debe? ¿Cómo se puede conciliar esta postura con lo que creemos sobre la inerrancia del Magisterio? ¿Cómo es posible que todos los Padres Conciliares se llamaran a engaño? Aunque sólo algunas partes del Concilio (Nostra aetate, Dignitatis humanae) son problemáticas, seguimos planteándonos las mismas interrogantes: desde hace años, muchos venimos afirmando que el espíritu del Concilio es erróneo. ¿Lo que dice ahora Vuestra Excelencia es que ese falso espíritu liberal es un reflejo del propio Concilio?

Monseñor Viganó: No creo que sea necesario demostrar que el Concilio supone un problema: el mero hecho de que nos planteemos eso con respecto al Concilio Vaticano II y no con el de Trento ni con el Vaticano I confirma, a mi juicio, una realidad evidente y reconocida por todos. Lo cierto es que los que lo defienden a capa y espada lo hacen prescindiendo de todos los demás concilios ecuménicos, ninguno de los cuales ha sido definido como concilio pastoral. Y fíjese bien: lo llaman el Concilio, por antonomasia, como si hubiera sido el único en toda la historia de la Iglesia, o por lo menos lo consideran unúnicum, ya sea por la formulación de su doctrina o por la autoridad de su magisterio. A diferencia de todos los que lo precedieron, este concilio se autocalifica precisamente de pastoral y declara que no desea proponer ninguna nueva doctrina, pero de hecho supone un antes y un después, establece una distinción entre concilio dogmático y concilio pastoral, entre cánones inequívocos y palabrerías, entre anathema sit y guiños al mundo.

En ese sentido, creo que el problema de la infalibilidad del Magisterio -la inerrancia a la que usted alude es propia de las Sagradas Escrituras- ni siquiera se plantea, porque el Legislador –o sea, el Romano Pontífice– en torno al cual se ha convocado el Concilio ha declarado de forma clara y solemne que no desea ejercer la autoridad doctrinal que podría ejercer de haberlo querido. Me gustaría señalar que no hay nada más pastoral que lo que se propone como dogmático, porque el ejercicio del munus docendi en su forma más elevada coincide con el mandato que dio el Señor a San Pedro de apacentar sus ovejas y corderos. Y sin embargo esa oposición entre dogmático y pastoral la han creado ni más ni menos los mismos que en el discurso de apertura del Concilio quisieron dar un sentido más estricto al dogma y otro más suave y conciliador a la pastoral. Encontramos el mismo estilo en las intervenciones de Bergoglio, en las que entiende por pastoralidad una versión suave de las rígidas enseñanzas católicas en materia de fe y costumbres, todo en nombre del discernimiento. Duele reconocer que recurrir a un lenguaje equívoco, o a términos católicos entendidos en un sentido impropio, ha invadido la Iglesia desde Concilio Vaticano II, cuyo circiterismo -es decir, la ambigüedad, el empleo adrede de un lenguaje impreciso- es el ejemplo principal y más emblemático. Ello obedece a que el aggiornamento, término igualmente equívoco e ideológicamente procurado  por el Concilio como un absoluto, tenía como máxima prioridad el diálogo con el mundo.

Hay otro equívoco que debe ser aclarado: si por un lado Juan XXIII y Pablo VI declararon que no querían comprometer el Concilio en la definición de nuevas doctrinas y querían que fuera meramente pastoral, por otro es cierto que exteriormente -hoy en día se diría mediáticamente- la importancia que se concedió a sus actos fue enorme y sirvió para transmitir la idea de una presunta autoridad doctrinal, de una infalibilidad magisterial implícita a pesar de que desde el principio ésta había quedado excluida. Esto se hizo para que sus propuestas más o menos heterodoxas se entendiesen como autorizadas y fueran por tanto acogidas por el clero y los fieles. Esto sería suficiente para desacreditar a los autores de semejante engaño, que siguen poniendo el grito en el cielo cuando se toca Nostra Aetate mientras callan ante quienes niegan la divinidad de Nuestro Señor o la perpetua virginidad de la Santísima Virgen. Recordemos que el católico no adora un concilio, sea el Vaticano II o el Tridentino, sino la Santísima Trinidad, único Dios verdadero; que no venera una declaración conciliar o una exhortación postsinodal, sino la verdad que transmiten esos actos del Magisterio.

Me pregunta cómo fue posible que todos los padres conciliares se llamaran a engaño. Le respondo a partir de mi experiencia personal de aquellos años y las palabras de los hermanos en el episcopado a los que me he enfrentado. Ninguno podía imaginar que dentro del cuerpo de la Iglesia hubiera fuerzas hostiles tan poderosas y organizadas como para conseguir que se rechazaran esquemas preparatorios de perfecta ortodoxia elaborados por cardenales y prelados de indudable fidelidad a la Iglesia para sustituirlos por un revoltijo de errores astutamente disimulados bajo una capa de largos discursos y equívocos introducidos a propósito. Nadie podía imaginar que bajo la cúpula de la Basílica Vaticana se pudieran convocar los estados generales que decretarían la abdicación de la Iglesia Católica para instaurar la Revolución (¡como recordé en un escrito anterior, el cardenal Suenens calificó al Concilio Vaticano II como el 1789 de la Iglesia!). Los Padres Conciliares fueron víctimas de un tremendo engaño, de una estafa astutamente perpetrada recurriendo a los medios más sutiles: se encontraron en minoría en los grupos lingüísticos, fueron excluidos de reuniones convocadas a última hora, obligados a dar su plácet haciéndoseles creer que era la voluntad del Santo Padre. Y lo que los novatores no consiguieron en el Aula Conciliar, lo consiguieron en las comisiones y consejos gracias al activismo de teólogos y peritos acreditados y aclamados por una poderosa maquinaria mediática. Hay una montaña de estudios y documentos que por un lado dan testimonio de esta sistemática mens dolosa y por otro del ingenuo optimismo e ingenuidad por parte de los Padres del Concilio. Poco o nada pudo hacer la intervención del Coetus Internationalis Patrum cuando las violaciones de los progresistas quedaban ratificadas por el Pontífice.

Quienes han afirmado que el espíritu del Concilio supone una interpretación heterodoxa del mismo han llevado a cabo una operación inútil y perjudicial aunque obrasen de buena fe. Es comprensible que un cardenal o un obispo quiera defender el honor de la Iglesia y procure no desacreditarla ante los fieles y el mundo. Así, se ha creído que lo que atribuían los progresistas al Concilio no era sino malentendidos, una interpretación arbitraria. Pero si en aquella época era difícil pensar que la libertad religiosa condenada por Pío XI en Mortalium animos podía ser afirmada por Dignitatis humanae, o que el Romano Pontífice pudiera ver usurpada su propia autoridad por un fantasmagórico colegio episcopal, hoy comprendemos que lo que en el Concilio Vaticano II se disimulaba con astucia en la actualidad se afirma abiertamente en documentos pontificios, incluso en nombre de la aplicación coherente del Concilio.

Por otra parte, cuando se habla habitualmente del espíritu de algo, se entiende ni más ni menos lo que constituye precisamente el alma, la esencia de ello. Podemos, por tanto, afirmar que el espíritu del Concilio es el Concilio mismo, que los errores del postconcilio se contienen in nuce en las actas del Concilio, del mismo modo que se dice con toda razón que el Novus Ordo es la Misa del Concilio, aunque en presencia de los Padres se celebrara la Misa que los progresistas califican significativamente de preconciliar. Es más: si realmente el Concilio Vaticano II no supusiera una ruptura, ¿por qué motivo se habla de Iglesia preconciliar e Iglesia postconciliar, como si se tratase de dos realidades distintas, definidas por la propia esencia del Concilio? Y si realmente el Concilio se ajusta al Magisterio ininterrumpido e infalible de la Iglesia, ¿cómo es el único que plantea gravísimos problemas de interpretación, demostrando con ello su heterogeneidad ontológica con respecto a los otros concilios?

Phil Lawler: En segundo lugar, ¿cuál es la solución? Monseñor Schneider propone que un futuro pontífice deberá repudiar los errores. Vuestra Excelencia considera inadecuada esta propuesta. Entonces, ¿cómo se pueden corregir los errores para mantener la autoridad del Magisterio en la enseñanza?

Monseñor Viganó: A mí me parece que la solución está primero que nada en un acto de humildad que debemos realizar todos, empezando por la Jerarquía y por el Papa: reconocer que el enemigo se ha infiltrado en la Iglesia; la ocupación sistemática de que han sido objeto puestos clave de la Curia Romana, seminarios y ateneos; la conjura de un grupo de rebeldes –entre los cuales se encuentra en primera línea la desviada Compañía de Jesús– que han conseguido dar visos de legitimidad y legalidad a un acto subversivo y revolucionario. También debemos reconocer lo inadecuado de la respuesta de los buenos, la ingenuidad de muchos, la cobardía de otros y los intereses de cuantos han sacado provecho de dicha ventaja.

Tras la triple negación de Cristo en el patio de la casa del Sumo Sacerdote, San Pedro flevit amare, lloró amargamente. Cuenta la tradición que el Príncipe de los Apóstoles tenía dos surcos en las mejillas por las lágrimas que derramó copiosamente a lo largo de su vida arrepentido de aquella traición. A uno de sus sucesores, a un Vicario de Cristo, le tocará ejercer plenamente su autoridad apostólica para  retomar el hilo  la Tradición allá donde fue cortado. No será una derrota, sino un acto de veracidad, humildad y valor. La autoridad e infalibilidad del Sucesor del Príncipe de los Apóstoles quedarán intactas y corroboradas. Éstas no se pusieron en tela de juicio deliberadamente a causa del Concilio Vaticano II, pero lo serán el día en que un pontífice corrija los errores que permitió el Concilio jugando con los equívocos de una autoridad oficialmente negada pero dada subrepticiamente a entender a los fieles por toda la Jerarquía empezando por los propios papas del Concilio.

Me gustaría recordar que a algunos puede parecerles excesivo todo lo arriba dicho, porque pondría en tela de juicio la autoridad de la Iglesia y de los romanos pontífices. Pero ningún escrúpulo ha impedido que se vulnere la bula Quo primum tempore de San Pío V derogando de la noche a la mañana toda la liturgia romana, el venerable tesoro milenario de doctrina y espiritualidad de la Misa Tradicional, el inmenso patrimonio del canto gregoriano y de la música sacra, la belleza de los ritos y de las vestiduras sagradas; así como desfigurando la armonía arquitectónica, incluso de destacadas basílicas, al eliminar balaustradas, altares monumentales y sagrarios. Todo se sacrificó en aras del coram populo de la renovación conciliar, con la agravante de hacerlo sólo porque se trataba de una liturgia admirablemente católica que resultaba irreconciliable con el espíritu del Concilio.

La Iglesia es una institución divina, y en ella todo debe partir de Dios y volver a Él. Lo que está en juego no es el prestigio de una clase dirigente, ni la imagen de una empresa o un partido. De lo que se trata es de la gloria de la majestad de Dios, de no banalizar la Pasión de Nuestro Señor en la Cruz, los dolores y padecimientos de su Santísima Madre, la sangre de los mártires, el testimonio de los santos y la salvación eterna de las almas. Si por orgullo o por una desgraciada obstinación no somos capaces de reconocer el error y el engaño en los que hemos caído, habremos de rendir cuentas a Dios, que es tan misericordioso con su pueblo cuando se arrepiente como implacable en la justicia cuando se imita el non serviam de Lucifer.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò

(Traducido por Bruno de la Inmaculada. Artículo original)