by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
I am continually amazed how some people can wade through hundreds of pages of text to attack a person, but refuse to read 1 word to his defense, all the while claiming to be honest and devout Catholics.
The latest egregious case of this is the position take by Archbishop Viganò and the Italian Vaticanista Magister, condoned after the fact by Marco Tosatti with his publication of his anonymous editorial signed by Msgr. X.
And, yes lately, it does seem that Tosatti’s website has become a newspaper devoted to promoting the Archbishop, as many have noticed. In fact, Viganò and Tosatti are in direct communication and Tosatti publishes everything Viganò wants to publish as part of his own personal publicity campaign which appears more and more, each week, to be a campaign to be the next pope, since it pronounces itself on a variety of key issues in the life of the Church, through the publication of sometimes even personal letters with others. All this, even though Archbishop Viganò holds no munus in the Church to do anything of the kind.
But on to the matter at hand.
Viganò in recent days had Tosatti publish a long letter of criticism of Vatican II (see here). But why criticize Vatican II now? It is not like the current man in control of the Vatican is a shining exemplar and paragon of every virtue who does not know what Vatican II is about. We have 7 years of scandal that could be talked about — and Viganò has talked about that in part — but Viganò no longer names Bergoglio, and his demand that Bergoglio resign has been left in the air, with no action.
But here in Italy, the question of Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation has become the hot issue. And one of the chief hermeneutical arguments for the invalidity of the Renunciation is the magisterial teaching of Pope Benedict XVI, on February 14, 2013, during his meeting with the clergy of Rome. In that meeting he did not speak to the clergy as a man who was resigning the Papacy, he spoke instead about how the Council was misinterpreted by the press and misrepresented to the world, and that the clergy of Rome need to return to the texts and read the Council for itself, without the presuppositions of what the press wanted you to think it meant.
I wrote about this speech by Pope Benedict XVI, showing how it conclusively affirms the way he wants his Declaratio interpreted. The Holy Father is, in substance, saying nothing strange or novel, he is merely saying in his own way, that Canon 17 should be observed, namely, that the Declaratio should be read in accord with the norm of Canon Law which requires that words in the Code be understood in their proper meaning, and when there is a doubt, read according to their sense in parallel passages of the Code of Canon Law.
This speech by Pope Benedict XVI was discussed by Don Alessandro Minutella and myself in a hour long program recently (here specifically, and if you want to know about the Mafia of St. Gallen, see part II here). In that program, we laid down a challenge to the Sacred Hierarchy and clergy of Italy to respond to the evidence. Viganò’s letter on Vatican II is clearly that response. Those who deny that Pope Benedict XVI is the pope, and all now insist that the Declaratio does not mean what the rules of Latin grammar says it must mean, have to attack the truth of that. And if not a direct attack on that truth, an indirect attack on the rules by which you are lead back to it.
So the speech of Pope Benedict XVI had to be attacked.
At the same time, Sandro Magister, who makes efforts to defend Bergoglio whenever he can, rose to the challenge of Viganò, who had attacked the god of Vatican II, using as he did the clever trick of blaming Viganò openly for being unfaithful to Pope Benedict XVI in his discourse on Vatican II. Magister’s article can be read here. Massimo Borghesi commented on it here. Magister accuses Viganò of being on the rim of schism. A good narrative trick to trigger all Viganò fans and those deluded by putting hope in a man who affirms Bergoglio, an archheretic and schismatic, is the pope. And Magister is clever enough to cite a speech from 2005, lest he draw attention to the speech of 2013.
Finally, Marco Tosatti publishes an anonymous essay which attacks Pope Benedict XVI while arguing against Magister’s charge of schism, with the outrageous accusation that Pope Benedict XVI resigned validly to prepare the way intentionally for Bergoglio. The title of the article leaves no room for doubt about that against which it was launched: BXVI’s never clarified Renunciation gives Viganò reason.
The title alone is a subterfuge. Only those who refuse to read the Declaration in the Latin cannot find the clarity in it they seek.
But the villainy of such an accusation is not exceeded by the villainy that would publish it. It is clearly a direct attack on the person of the Holy Father to discredit him in the eyes of Catholics who uphold the laws of the Church. And this during the time he is mourning the sickness and death of his brother, having been deprived of the opportunity to remain with him until the end and celebrate his funeral personally.
But it appears rather that what we are seeing is a very cleverly designed narrative control, to both anoint an Archbishop who holds no munus in the Church, while attacking the one who holds still the Petrine Munus. It allows the forces which hate Pope Benedict XVI to have Viganò play the good cop, and Magister and Msgr. X play the bad cop. But the result is the same as what Bergoglio has always sustained: Benedict resigned so that I can be the Pope, accept that and shut up!
As regards the speech of Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, and to discuss it on its merits: it is clear that the Holy Father explained a very sound forensic and catholic principle of textual interpretation, which Vatican II merits to have applied to it, regardless of all other considerations. Having read some of the conciliar texts in the Latin, I know that they are much more Catholic than the vernacular translations make them appear, and did enact a reform which was never put into action. What we got instead was the Aggiornamento of Paul VI. But, neither was free of errors, and the Council clearly never intended to give us texts which were infallible.
But forensic techniques are the nemeses of all Mafia. And that is why they are being ignored by the Sacred Hierarchy today, and many a layman who hangs on their tail coats.
+ + +
If you would like to support FromRome.Info, click the banner below.
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
I’m sad to read this, and my head is reeling with all the strategies employed by the various actors. I wondered at the time of the first Archbishop Vigano letter in 2018 about whether or not the timing was deliberate – to draw the attention of the faithful away from the publication a few weeks earlier of facial recognition expert reports that pointed to a Sister Lucy of Fatima imposter taking the stage in the 1960s. But perhaps I am turning a coincidence into a conspiracy? All roads lead to Fatima …
Caro Fra Alexis, molti di noi speravano in Viganò come rimedio agli orrori di Bergoglio a cui assistiamo da 7 anni e alla rinascita della Chiesa. Invece siamo costretti a vedere come il Santo Padre Benedetto XVI venga sistematicamente ignorato quando non calunniato. Sono tempi difficili in cui regnano confusione, eresie e cattiveria. Personalmente tengo sempre a mente Matteo 24.
Vigano is correct. Vatican II is the real problem. Bergoglio is merely Vatican II in full. Vatican II has been a catastrophe for the Church and must be abrogated in its entirety.
The essay by Msgr. X says “The resignation is a means to an end.” I took this to be in agreement with your thesis, Br. Alexis.
Tosatti also published Cardinal Brandmuller’s long essay last week defending Benedict XVI’s position of the hermeneutic of continuity. I suspect that Brandmuller considers Benedict to be be the true pope, along with other members of the Sacred College.
The post-conciliar magisterium of both JP2 and BXVI is majestic, and those who attack the Council have not yet given an adequate explanation of what to do with it.
Vatican II has been an obvious catastrophe for the Catholic Church and must be abrogated in its entirety. All of the Vatican II popes were lacking in that they mostly contributed to the demise of the Church either directly in Paul VI or by ineffective management by John Paul II. Benedict XVI was the best of them but he too was unable to do much to stop the devastation.
Too much of the counsel and wisdom of God has been increasingly ignored for a century in the Church and exchanged for the wisdom of man. If the Church is ever to recover, and it certainly will, and to a more glorious state than has ever before existed, all that is of mere human wisdom will have to collapse and be removed. “Except the LORD build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” Oh how much in the present Church is of worthless human effort and Oh, how much evil has that allowed to enter and overwhelm the Church!
Brother Bugnolo, if what you write is true about Vigano- I have to ask what exactly is he up to? Playing both sides against the middle?
I hope not.
We’re in for one hell of a ride if Vigano is playing games.
I feel that I cannot trust any of these prelates or clergy.
I see that here, Brother Bugnolo, is wrong about Vigano attack to Benedict.
I think that Vigano was clear enough , and did not attack Benedict.
Sandro Magister attacked Vigano “using Benedict as a victim “, he was
false.
Nevertheless Vigano has just written another letter to Magister in order to defend himself from the real attack of Sandro Magister.
Sandro Magister published the letter.
He was honest doing this.
It is an amazing letter, in which, by the way , continuously refers to Benedict as His Holiness, as “Benedict” , and only mentions “Francis” as “Bergoglio” a number of times and never refers him as the Pope.
I pray that I am wrong…And welcome your criticism.
There is no such thing as separation of “deep church” and “deep state”. They’re all comrades in the dark. Vigano and Tossatti are deep church in that they’ve been a part of the Vatican schemes for decades, covering up the truths of what is really going on, but now they pretend to resist without actually resisting. Every single prelate who does not recognize Pope Benedict XVI as the True Pope, is compromised to the dark church.
Reblogged this on PASSAPAROLADESSO.
First of all, forgive the length of this. Take it or leave it. I found the following discussion extremely edifying to me, and so I share it here.
I believe the crux of the conflict and resulting disintegration of the Church is an improper and unhealthy understanding of OBEDIENCE. “Satan’s masterstroke is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all Tradition through obedience, (Arbp Marcel LeFebvre).
In regards to *Obedience* in the time of a false Pope and faithless Bishops who lead us away from Sacred Tradition and Our Lord who is it’s source and Our Lady who is full of Grace – there is an interesting discussion by SSPX Priests on true and false obedience. The SSPX put out a wonderful little pamphlet on *true obedience* that leads to heaven, compared to *false obedience* that leads to hell. What follows is a summary of its best points.
*Obedience CAN BE A SIN*.
“Error by defect” (disobedience): The sin of our first parents and the origin of all sin was a sin of disobedience. “The Pope has no authority”; “Superiors are due no respect”; “I will not attend a Catholic Mass”
“Error by excess” (false obedience): “The Church Hierarchy can never be wrong”; The Pope is infallible in all he says and does”; “I will obey Pope, Bishop, Priest even when they disobey God be forsaking Tradition”; “I will attend even a Protestantized Mass if my Superior tells me to”.
“True obedience is the balance between the twin errors of Defect and Excess; Excess is the common error among Catholics today” (St. Thomas Aquinas paraphrased).
GOD must ALWAYS be obeyed, no matter what he may ask of us. Such was the obedience of Patriarch Abraham (viz his son Issac). Example: I MUST attend Catholic Mass.
Human SUPERIOR need NOT be obeyed if their orders violate the Faith. Such was the martyr’s obedience. Example: I need NOT attend the New Mass because it destroys the Catholic Faith.
“There is no reason why those who obey God rather than men should be accused of refusing obedience, for if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, these rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice, *nor can their authority be calid*, which, when there is no justice, is null”. (Leo XIII, 1893).
“Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff that attacks the body, it is also licit to resist one who attacks the soul, the civil order, or above all one who intends to *destroy the Church*” (St. Robert Bellarmine De Romano Pontifice).
All obedience to a Bishop presupposes the pure teaching of the Holy Church. Obedience to the Bishop is grounded in complete faith in the teaching of the Holy Church. As soon as the ecclesiastical authority yields to pluralism in questions of Faith, it has lost the right to claim obedience to its disciplinary ordinances. (Hildebrand – The Devestated Vineyard).
In reference to the ordination of Bishops by Arbp LeFebvre, forbidden by Pope John Paul II where *one side* claims the act was disobedient and *the other side* claims it was “martyr’s obedience”; to obey would be the error of false obedience
Objection: But by defending this disobedience to modern Church officials , are you not encouraging anarchy and disorder in the Church?
Reply: By no means! It is the modernists who are causing anarchy and confusion by disobeying Sacred Tradition.
Now, the truths of our faith were received even by Jesus himself as a Tradition, or handing down from His Father: “Jesus answered them, ‘My Doctrine is not mine but His that sent me” (John 7:16); “Jesus said to them ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, the Son cannot do anything of himself, but what he Seth the Father doing: for what things soever He doeth, the Son also doeth in like manner” (John 5:19).
Obedience means obeying Canon 332.2. It is a great shame the SSPX thinks they do not have to obey Canon Law.
Because the SSPX has certainly proved to be lawless and disobedient to Canon Law over time, no? Regular pirates and rogues.
Without a doubt. You cannot ordain priests without the mandate from someone with munus in the Church. To do otherwise habitually is to propose a notion of Church completely foreign to all Canonical tradition and teaching, foreign to the entire deposit of the Faith, and foreign to the will of Jesus Christ.
Archbishop Vigano is the poster boy of Trad inc and Opus Judei.
On the other hand, Magister is falsely attacking Vigano, accusing him of being schismatic.
And De Mattei is attacking Benedict blaming him for the “resignation “.
I see that de Mattei is a prisoner of his ideas and schemes and and do not want to see the evidence.
He is showing so extreme lack of intelligence , that I cannot believe it.