New Church

VIGANO COMMENTARY

VIGANO COMMENTARY on July 20, 2024

Tell not of so much gloom – I cannot cope!

The end of lalaland is one great hope.

Last week these “Comments” (July 13, # 887) gave a summary of Archbishop Vigano’s June 28 long justification of his decision not to respond to a Newchurch summons to appear before one of its courts to defend himself against a charge of schism. The summary took the form of 44 lines, one line for each of the 44 paragraphs of the original text, which gave to readers at least an overview of the entire content of the Archbishop’s text, but it hardly made any comment on what he wrote, except for the final couplet –

With some of the arguments one may not agree,

But here is a Catholic spirit, faithful and free.

In this week’s “Comments,” let us elaborate on last week’s rhyming verdict.

The first thing to notice about the original text is its wealth of arguments, not marshalled in any clearly recognisable sequence, but all bearing on the Archbishop’s central and most valuable message – the so-called “renewal” of Vatican II (1962–1965) wrought such a sea-change in the Catholic Church, that while appearances of the pre-conciliar Church could be maintained to deceive Catholics who were not on their guard, nevertheless the substance of the Catholic Church was so altered that it was no longer the true Church but a clever false church, so radically false that it had to be given a new name for Catholics to be no longer deceived. The Archbishop himself does not call it the Newchurch, but that is what these “Comments” will call it, for brevity and clarity.

Then the Archbishop’s main reason for refusing the summons of Rome is easy to express: between the Newchurch and the true Church there is such a contradiction (13) that while the true Church has such a divine Authority that it can demand from souls obedience on pain of eternal damnation (Mk. XVI, 16), on the contrary the Newchurch has no such authority because by all its false doctrines it has given up that Catholic Truth, the defence and protection of which is the very purpose of divine Catholic Authority. From the moment that Adam and Eve fell, mankind lived in a fallen world where God’s Truth no longer needed only to be presented in order to be accepted.

But by the time that the Word became flesh some 4000 years later, mankind had become so corrupt that to save any significant number of souls, Our Lord had to institute a hierarchy to impose the saving Truth: a Pope (Peter), bishops (Apostles), and disciples (priests). Men might still choose to disobey God’s own hierarchy and Truth, but His hierarchy would still, broadly, uphold it – until Luther let the corruption loose again, culminating in Vatican II, where Our Lord’s own hierarchy, broadly, abandoned God’s Truth. That split between God’s Truth and God’s Authority caused, sure enough, an unprecedented crisis in all Church history, beyond all human repair, where God alone will be able to restore His Papacy. But He will do that, to make possible one final triumph of the Catholic Church before the descent to the Antichrist.

Here is the basic reality of our situation in Church and world today. Archbishop Lefebvre recognised it, and by not underestimating the problem he did what was still possible for men to alleviate it. Archbishop Vigano mentions his example (2), and does what he can to follow it, by refusing, for example, to appear at the summons of apostate Rome, with a wealth of arguments to justify his refusal. One may disagree with some of his arguments, for instance on the vacant See in Rome. But those are details which pale in comparison with his grasp of the overall gravity of the crisis, nullifying the hierarchs’ authority. Here is the true faith of the Church’s martyrs down all the ages. May Archbishop Vigano’s courage and teaching open many more eyes for as long as God gives him life.

Kyrie eleison.

VIGANO COUNTER-ATTACKS

VIGANO COUNTER-ATTACKS on July 13, 2024

With some of the arguments one may not agree,

But here is a Catholic spirit, faithful and free.

Summoned by Rome to appear before a Newchurch court on June 28 to answer accusations of “schism,” the heroic defender of the Faith, Archbishop Vigano, chose to reply on the same day by making public an explanation of why he refused the Newchurch summons. A one-sentence-per-paragraph summary of that explanation cannot possibly do justice to the original, but it provides readers with an overview –

1 Quotation of Galatians I, verses 8–9; Let any innovated Gospel be anathema, i.e. absolutely rejected.

2 In 1975 Archbishop Lefebvre told his Roman accusers that he should be judging them, not vice versa.

3 I do not recognise the authority of this Roman court accusing me, because it lacks the Truth.

4 Not for one moment in my life have I been outside the one Ark of Salvation – the Catholic Church.

5 The Church’s enemies, led by Freemasonry, hate the power of Catholic Tradition.

6 It is clear that behind the revolution of Vatican II in the Church has been Freemasonry.

7 Freemasons have approved of their own 1789 (French Revolution) having taken over the true Church.

8 How many of the ringleaders of the “Up-dating” of Vatican II were condemned before the Council!

9 Today’s head of the Italian bishops is saying a Mass for a notorious modernist from the past.

10 A Professor just said that the “necessary renewal” was being blocked for fear of Protestantism.

11 An abyss separates the true Church of dogmas from the Newchurch (not Vigano’s term) of apostasy.

12 Truth has been relativised. If the modernist Sanhedrin accuses me, it is accusing all Catholic Popes.

13 Church and Newchurch contradict one another. It is the Newchurch that is accusing me of “schism.”

14 The Newchurch’s “necessary renewal” means, for the true Church, the heretical evolution of dogma.

15 The Newchurch’s brand-new “faith” is in rupture with the Faith of the true Church of 2,000 years.

16 But Lefebvre never called in question the Conciliar Popes’ legitimacy? That was 40 years ago!

17 Today’s Newchurch is professing, unanimously, a multitude of condemned errors.

18 By thus consigning millions of souls to perdition, the Newchurch has lost its Catholic Authority.

19 The Newchurch’s “authority” to put me on trial is null and void. I do not accept it.

20 I myself was one of many high churchmen who did not see what was really going on.

21 It was as Nuncio in the USA, confronting Cardinal McCarrick, that I at last understood – we have

22 a concerted global attack, both religious and political, being made on traditional Christian society.

23 The corruption I was observing is an integral part of this advance of the New World Order.

24 As Our Lady of La Salette said, “Rome will lose the Faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist.”

25 I cannot be silent in the face of the Church’s demolition, with the damnation of so many souls.

26 In Canon Law there is no crime of schism when a Pope’s Conclave and election are cast in doubt.

27 Paul IV decreed that to any “Pope” who was a heretic prior to his election, no obedience is due.

28 So Bergoglio, by prior heresy and invalid intention at his “election,” has never been Pope.

29 However, for me to attack Bergoglio in this way by no means proves that I want to be in schism. And

30 is not his own preference to be known merely as “Bishop of Rome” a real attack on the Papacy?

31 Cannot all Conciliar Popes dropping the Tiara for ecumenical reasons be called in doubt as Popes?

32 If Conciliar ecumenism is nonsense, how can the ecumenical Bergoglio not be a nonsense Pope?

33 Many bishops and priests cannot bear what he imposes on them by force, blackmail and threats.

34 We pastors must wake up and react! We will answer before God for all that we go along with.

35 I denounce my accusers, their “Council” and their “Pope.” Saints Peter and Paul, save the Church!

36 As a bishop consecrated to guard the Faith and preach the Word, I am defending the Church, not me.

37 I cannot be accused of cutting with (=schism) Bergoglio’s Newchurch because I never belonged to it.

38 A Pope cannot be accused by anybody beneath him? Yes he can, if he never was Pope.

39 Bergoglio also misused his papal authority to help promote the deadly covid “Vaccines,” a real crime.

40 He also cut a criminal deal with the Chinese government, betraying the truly faithful Catholics.

41 As for my being accused of rejecting the errors and deviations of Vatican II, I consider that an honour.

42 And if Vatican II excuses certain schismatics (see L.G. #13) how can they accuse me of schism?

43 I condemn also all the multiple heresies of the post-conciliar “Magisterium” and “Synodal Church.”

44 Dear Catholics, pray, do penance and make sacrifices for Mother Church’s freedom and triumph.

Kyrie eleison.

HONOURING APOSTATES

HONOURING APOSTATES on March 2, 2024

The Newsociety does not compromise? 

To venerate apostates is not wise!

If these “Comments” sometimes shock good souls by how they can present either the Newchurch (since 1965) or the Newsociety of St Pius X (since 2012) in a good light, let them know that it is for pastoral reasons, because many Catholics are hanging on to their Catholic Faith through either the Newchurch or the Newsociety by their fingernails, and without the Newchurch or the Newsociety they could easily let go. In many such cases surely the proverb applies, “Better half a loaf than no bread.” On the other hand for doctrinal reasons this way of keeping the Faith has its serious dangers because both Newchurch and Newsociety have made compromises in doctrine which are dangerous for keeping the Catholic Faith. Here is that valuable lesson, from the following article written by a Benedictine monk of the Monastery of Santa Cruz, near Rio de Janeiro. “Arsenius” (his pen-name) has our warm thanks. 

Ever since the heresy of humanism (man before God) was made officially “Catholic” by the Council Fathers of Vatican II (1962–1965), the Popes and their advisers have done nothing but continue on their way leading straight to the abyss, falling typically faster and faster as their fall proceeds. Such a picture in no way inspires within us any hope for the least glimmer of a wish on the part of any of these officials to look after Catholic Tradition (meaning quite simply the true Church) in any way whatsoever. However, there are those who not only entertained some such hope but even felt a strange certainty that things were getting better for Tradition in Rome. By “Tradition” here they can only have meant the Newsociety with its desire to enter into a blameworthy “unity in diversity” with Rome. Hence the split, puzzling for many, between the Newsociety of St Pius X and the so-called “Resistance.” 

The turning-point for the Society of St Pius X was the year 2012, when the Resolution of the previous General Chapter of 2006, that there would be no practical agreement with Rome as long as the Catholic Truth had not yet triumphed, was replaced by the Newsociety’s official desire for a practical agreement, even if the Pope and his advisers had not yet come back to the Catholic Truth. Bishop Williamson was excluded from the General Chapter that made this change, and then from the Newsociety altogether. 

The years that followed showed more and more clear signs of Rome and the Newsociety growing closer together. One by one, Rome gave official approval to the marriages, priestly ordinations and confessions dispensed by the Newsociety. Was this the famous phrase being put into practice, namely “Rome gives everything and asks for nothing in return”? In which case the phrase was a reality and not just an illusion? One might well reply that it was just a way of acting to ensure that from now on the Newsociety would be acting more and more only with modernist Rome’s approval, basing its activity no longer on the general and grave emergency within the Church, because with Tradition now being “officialised,” the emergency was supposedly over. Meanwhile Rome would be waiting for the day when it could “pull the rug” from under the Newsociety’s feet, driving it into the blind alley into which it had driven itself. 

But may the recent announcement that the Newsociety is going to consecrate one or more bishops without Rome’s permission not be a sign that the old Society prior to 2012 is coming back? Alas, that seems virtually impossible. A return to the fighting spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre against the enemies of the Church in Rome seems to us a heritage of his in large part now lost within the Newsociety. The future looks dark to us, although God is still at work in numerous souls, thanks to the apostolate of members of the Newsociety. But that does not stop us from recognising that the Newsociety should be correcting a number of its post-Lefebvre guiding principles. In any case, the more scandals stain the pontificate of Francis, and the more the illusions of a reconciliation with Rome should be fading out. May Our Lady make us understand and love deeply the Church of all time, not to be identified with its caricature fabricated at Vatican II, and put into practice in the pontificates following. 

Kyrie eleison

EMERGENCY ADVICE – II

EMERGENCY ADVICE – II on February 24, 2024

The greater the horror of World War Three,

The greater God’s glory – for eyes that see!

No reader of these “Comments” has sent in theoretical questions comparable to the series of practical questions on today’s unprecedented Church crisis sent in last week (see EC 866 of February 17), but it is worth inventing such a series, and offering answers to the theoretical questions, in case just a handful of readers can get a better handle on the confusion let loose by Vatican II, as slippery as it is dangerous.

1 Then what is at the heart of that confusion? Is it what they call “modernism”? What is modernism?

Answer: modernism is the great error of modern times, by which even educated churchmen can come to believe that the Church of the past need no longer lift mankind to spiritual heights which mankind is no longer capable of reaching. Rather, mankind is so different in modern times that in order to reach it in its materialism, the Church must up-date its doctrine, morals, liturgy, everything. If men can no longer rise to the spiritual level of the Church, the Church must come down to the material level of men. Or so they say.

2 But is it not the function of the Church to reach out to men, wherever they are to be found?

Yes, but not on whatever conditions! All firemen want to put out fires, but not any liquid will do. What fireman ever used gasoline instead of water? Water and gasoline each have their unchanging nature, which is independent of the will of men. Water puts out fire (surprise, surprise!), while gasoline makes it blaze (well, whaddaya know?). In a similar way, Gregorian chant and Rock music each have their unchanging and opposed natures, with opposed and unchanging effects. Chant will draw souls to Church, Rock to the dance-hall, but Rock will not draw to Church. Some modernists mean well, but they are foolish if they think music functions differently today from how it functioned yesterday. To be drawn at any rate to God, souls need a music which is calm, not agitating.

3 But all modern life is agitating, compared with life yesterday. So how will any soul today reach God?

You said it! After 6000 years of world history one would think that men had learned by now what things have what natures, effects and consequences, but no. Our own times are, as it were, based on the principle that man can will for natures to have what effects he likes. Everything has become so denatured and so destabilised that life turns into one continual agitation, and the youngsters cannot stand any music that is too calm. But that does not mean that natures have so changed that Rock will bring them back to Church. It will not. It is not in its nature to do so. It was designed by the Devil to create ever more agitation.

4 But if that is true, how will any modern youngster – or modern soul – ever get to Heaven?

Good question! In modern times many a Saint has asked himself that question, but he has never despaired of the answer because he has known that the grace of God is always there for the asking. “Where there’s a will, there’s a way,” is a human way of saying it. “To whoever does what lies in him, God does not refuse His grace” is a more divine way that the Church has of saying it. In any case, when a soul, through no major fault of its own, finds itself in a situation where the odds against its salvation are to all appearances overwhelming, God can always intervene – for example in Genesis 19, the case of Lot.

5 But if God is all-powerful, why does he not eliminate all evil from the Creation which He controls?

Because His purpose in creating was to give the greatest bliss possible to souls freely accepting. Now a bliss in no way deserved by the recipient cannot possibly be as blissful as a bliss at least partly deserved by the soul itself despite all the evil by which it was surrounded in its brief life in this “valley of tears.” It would follow that the more generous God wishes to be with His gift of bliss, the more evil He will allow, but only up to the point where the evil risks swamping the good being freely chosen. That point once came to the whole world in the time of Noah. It is coming again today. God will intervene again soon. If we have the Catholic faith, let us do our part by praying His Mother’s Rosary for the salvation of souls.

Kyrie eleison

EMERGENCY ADVICE – I

EMERGENCY ADVICE – I on February 17, 2024

God asks us not the impossible to do,

But to leave for others the freedom you want for you.

A reader much confused by what is going on inside the Catholic Church sends in a number of practical questions which many Catholic souls must be asking themselves today in connection with the serious duty for any Catholic of attending Mass to fulfil his Sunday obligation. Normally the answers are more or less clear, but circumstances since the 1960s’ revolution of Vatican II inside the Church are no longer normal, and so the answers are no longer so clear. Let us list this reader’s questions in order, going from the general to the particular, to reply with answers offered by these “Comments,” but not imposed.

1 To what extent is the Newchurch of Vatican II Catholic, and to what extent is it counterfeit?

Answer, God alone knows, because He alone knows the secrets of men’s hearts, and the borderline between the true and the false Church often runs through men’s hearts, for instance whether or not they have the Catholic Faith. Since He alone can know for sure, then He does not expect us to know. However, He does give us sufficient means to know what we do need to know, and that is to judge by the fruits (cf. Mt. VII, 15–20). These will infallibly tell the difference, for instance, between true and false shepherds. Real joy and charity will reveal where the true Church still exists, even inside the Newchurch structures.

2 Do we have a Pope?

Answer, if we judge Pope Francis by his fruits, they are disastrous for the true Church, to the point that many serious Catholics argue that he is an anti-pope. God does not require of me to know for sure, one way or the other. Good Catholic theologians can disagree. The wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre for his priests was that they could have their own opinion in private, but in public they should behave as though the apparent Vatican II popes are true Popes, unless and until the evidence is clear that they are not Popes. Even Pope Francis is still serving the Catholic function of providing the structural Church with a visible head, enabling the Church structures to continue functioning until God cleans out the Augean stables. In His own good time God will put the Pope back on his feet. Meanwhile, I may despair of this or that pope, but I must not despair of the Papacy, or of any other institution from the Tradition of Our Lord Himself.

3 What about the Newchurch sacraments?

Answer, like the Newchurch as a whole of which they are product and part, they are still partly good but essentially rotting, like the rotten apples to which they may be compared, because the Newchurch was cleverly designed from the beginning to rot over tens of years until there would be nothing of the true Church left. This was because by the 1960’s when Vatican II happened, many churchmen at the top of the Church had been thoroughly infected by the thinking of Freemasonry, the secret society created in 1717 in London to infiltrate the Catholic Church until it could be destroyed from within, thus enabling the known enemies of God and man to take over the world. Our Lord’s own Church is the great obstacle in their way.

4 What about the “Eucharistic miracles,” supposedly taking place at Novus Ordo “Masses”?

Answer, down all near 2000 years of Church history so far, God has always by such miracles helped Christians to believe in the stupendous miracle of His Presence beneath mere appearances of bread and wine, and these miracles continue today, because the Sacred Heart will not abandon sheep misled by their shepherds. The difference is that today modern science is available to provide truly scientific evidence to prove that the miracles, if they are genuine, are genuine. See for instance the book “A Cardiologist examines Jesus” by Dr. Franco Serafini, with explanations and photographic illustrations from several recent miracles. It is published by Sophia Institute Press, available from SophiaInstitute.com God bless Traditionalists for clinging to the Traditional Latin Mass, but not for refusing scientific evidence provided by the Sacred Heart for the salvation of souls.

5 And what about receiving hosts supposedly consecrated at Novus Ordo Masses?

Answer, perhaps best avoid them, because they can be invalid, and with time may be more and more so. However, in case of need you can receive such hosts, because they may also be valid.

Kyrie eleison.

Vigano Answers

Vigano Answers on November 21, 2020

In the month of August a journalist with Life Site News wrote to Archbishop Viganò in hiding in Italy an article concerning daily life in today’s world for Catholics wishing to keep the Faith. The title was Questions for Viganò: His Excellency is right about Vatican II. But what does he think Catholics should do now? The Archbishop began his reply of September 1st by assuring Stephen Kokx that he was happy to answer the questions, because they addressed “matters that are very important for the faithful.” The Archbishop’s reply is summarised here below, while at the end of it these “Comments” will highlight one point in particular.

Kokx asked the Archbishop, “Who belongs to the Catholic Church and who is separated from it?” The Archbishop replied, anybody who proposes any of the adulterated doctrines of the Council cannot possibly be Catholic. Nor can anybody be Catholic who accepts any of those doctrines knowing them to be in rupture with unchanging Catholic doctrine. On the other hand if a person is baptised, considers themselves to be a Catholic and recognises the Catholic Hierarchy, that does not necessarily mean that they accept the Conciliar doctrine, or adhere to the Conciliar team, knowing them to be in rupture with Catholic Tradition. Nor then are they necessarily outside the Church. But even office-holders who have authority inside the Church are doubtfully Catholic if they accept Conciliar doctrine knowing it to be contrary to Catholic Tradition. They have Authority in the Church, but they cannot exercise it. Only their Authority entitles Conciliarists to claim that they are Catholics, and not just members of a sect.

Therefore Traditional Catholics belong in the Church, and Modernists do not. Moreover laity faithful to Tradition often may and must seek out priests, communities and institutes that are likewise faithful to Tradition, especially in the celebration of Mass. In this respect the clergy are less free that the laity because they belong to a hierarchy which normally requires obedience, but they have the same right and duty to practise their Faith, that Faith which justifies and requires their use of the old rite of Mass. And if the Church is to rise again from the various horrors of the Newchurch, note that the fidelity of true believers under persecution is needed inside the Church, to defeat Modernism.

It was by staying inside the Church that Archbishop Lefebvre was a model of faithfulness under persecution. His Society of St Pius X was a standing reproach to Modernists, and it was enabled to survive by the episcopal Consecrations of 1988, so that eventually the true Mass could be set free again, and Vatican II could be shown up. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is right that for the time being there are both the true Church and a false “church” under one roof, but that roof is Catholic, so that it belongs to the true Church while the false Conciliar Church is nothing but an intruder. We must hope and pray that a number of now sleeping shepherds will wake up to see how they have been deceived.

In this necessary fight for Our Lord and His Mother it is a privilege to take part, and by so doing to help to revive honour, fidelity and heroism. By the sacrament of Confirmation, we are soldiers of Christ, and Christians have had to take part in one great battle after another to defend the True, the Good and the Beautiful. Let us resist Modernists with Truth and charity. Those who practise Modernism are at fault, not we who denounce it! Let the laity by all means attend Masses which do not shock, but nourish their Faith. True pastors will be given back to us by God, untrue pastors will die off. Let the laity look after good priests, recreate charity, avoid division and rebellion, offer advice respectfully, calling in question not Church authority but how it is misused. God will not fail to reward our fidelity and to restore His Church, drawing vocations from families which will have kept the Faith. All serious problems are human problems. All human problems have a Catholic solution.

And the point to highlight? Notice how the Archbishop measures everything by Truth and Faith.

Kyrie eleison.