Why Question Only Vatican II And Not Trent Or Vatican I? Archbishop Viganò…

Below, extracts from a June 2020 interview about Vatican II with Archbishop Vigano – From Catholic Culture

Archbishop Vigano: I do not think that it is necessary to demonstrate that the Council represents a problem: the simple fact that we are raising this question about Vatican II and not about Trent or Vatican I seems to me to confirm a fact that is obvious and recognized by everyone. In reality, even those who defend the Council with swords drawn find themselves doing so apart from all the other previous ecumenical councils, of which not even one was ever said to be a pastoral council. And note that they call it “the Council” par excellence, as if it was the one and only council in the entire history of the Church, or at least considering it as an unicum whether because of the formulation of its doctrine or for the authority of its magisterium. It is a council that, differently from all those that preceded it, called itself a pastoral council, declaring that it did not want to propose any new doctrine, but which in fact created a distinction between before and after, between a dogmatic council and a pastoral council, between unequivocal canons and empty talk, between anathema sit and winking at the world…

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

You ask me: “How were all the Council fathers deceived?” I reply by drawing on my experience of those years and the words of my brothers with whom I engaged in discussion at that time. No one could have imagined that right in the heart of the ecclesial body there were hostile forces so powerful and organized that they could succeed in rejecting the perfectly orthodox preparatory schemas that had been prepared by Cardinals and Prelates with a reliable fidelity to the Church, replacing them with a bundle of cleverly disguised errors behind long-winded and deliberately equivocal speeches.

No one could have believed that, right under the vaults of the Vatican Basilica, the estates-general could be convoked that would decree the abdication of the Catholic Church and the inauguration of the Revolution…

The Council Fathers were the object of a sensational deception, of a fraud that was cleverly perpetrated by having recourse to the most subtle means: they found themselves in the minority in the linguistic groups, excluded from meetings convened at the last moment, pressured into giving their placet by making them believe that the Holy Father wanted it. And what the innovators did not succeed in obtaining in the Conciliar Aula, they achieved in the Commissions and Committees, thanks also to the activism of theologians and periti who were accredited and acclaimed by a powerful media machine. There is a vast array of studies and documents that testify to this systematic malicious mens [mentality] of some of the Council Fathers on the one hand, and the naïve optimism or carelessness of other well-intentioned Council Fathers on the other. The activity of the Coetus Internationalis Patrum [opposing the innovators] could do little or nothing, when the violations of the rules by the progressives were ratified at the Sacred Table itself [by the Pope].  Click here to read entire interview

Comments invited…   

34 responses

  1. I found the short video really helpful. It’s a great summary of the Council.

    Archbishop Vigano’s comments breathtaking. It’s incredible to realise, as he tells us, that “the Council Fathers were the object of a sensational deception.” That’s just too amazing to think.

    His earlier comments, also used in the headline are very revealing; how come nobody’s talking about any other Council, only Vatican II? That, in itself, tells us there’s a serious problem with Vatican II yet everyone talks about it as if it was the best thing since sliced bread.

    Between that, and the way people are going along with the lockdown / closure of churches etc makes me wonder how people can be so blind or stupid, I’m never sure which.

    • Lily,

      I keep asking the same thing about how people seems to be either so blind or so stupid – both about the Council and the lockdown. So far I haven’t come up with an answer, at least not one that’s printable LOL!

    • Lily,

      Yes, it’s incredible that the Cardinals were so readily deceived at Vatican II.

      By the way, one of the books recommended in the video – Iota Unum, I can personally recommend. It’s really excellent.

  2. There is really nothing new here about Vatican II (at least, for those who have educated themselves with the numerous resources, SSPX and otherwise, available to those who have smelled a rat and want more information). What is new, however, and even miraculous, is the seemingly complete awakening and conversion of Abp. Vigano to the truth of what that evil Council was, and the disastrous and destructive results of the devious skulduggery hidden in its documents (skulduggery which was openly admitted by the liberal “Nouvelle theologie” Dominican Schillebeeckx).

    Years ago, I was told by a priest on my mailing list that most of the Bishops didn’t even understand clearly why they were at the Council, and just wanted to get it over with and go home. The results certainly bear out his comment.

    Not only is Abp. Vigano’s conversion miraculous, but so is his courage is standing virtually alone in denouncing the sacred cow of Vatican II. May it please Our Lord to elevate him to the Papacy upon the death of the present disgrace. If he and Donald Trump were both in high office at the same time, that would be like having Twin Towers of truth to oppose the powerful zombies and ghouls of the father of lies.

  3. I think it would be more than appropriate to post the link to the original draft schema which were discarded, in blatant violation of Council rules, by the conspirators.

    This is probably at least a month’s worth of reading, but maybe at some point we could have a succession of threads about them.


    (Please bite your tongues at the mention of “Pope St. John XXIII”)

    There is also a link to “brief outlines” at the last bullet point.

  4. I found this short video about Vatican II but it is saying that the Mass came from the Council – that’s not my understanding. I thought the new Mass came after the Council. This really surprised me because I had read something years ago which showed that Michael Davies had challenged a bishop’s plans to re-order churches, saying that this was not mandated by the Council, because the new Mass wasn’t mandated by the Council. I’m now wondering if I’ve mis-remembered it. Does anyone know?

    • Lily,

      The Council did not call for a new Rite of Mass. That was the work of Bugnini’s Commission, using the principle set forth by Schillebeeckx (use vague language in the Council documents that sounds harmless enough to pass over, but which can be interpreted by the revolutionaries later according to their plan. Michael Davies called these “time bombs.”)

      • RCA Victor,

        You confirm what I really thought myself – thanks for that. It’s so long since this subject of the Mass has been raised and my memory is so poor that I just couldn’t be sure of my facts, so grateful for that from you.

    • Lily,

      I know that none of the nonsense that goes on at the new Mass was authorized by the Council, and I think it was just that the laity were to become more actively involved in the Mass, there was no mention of a new Mass, to the best of my recollection. It was all sprung on us later, around 1969 (the Council finished in 65)

    • Lily,

      That’s one of several videos which I rejected when searching for a short explanation of Vatican II – it’s very peppy, bouncy, punchy, you-name-it – and very wrong on just about every count. For example, it’s a falsehood to say that Catholics were not encouraged or allowed to read Scripture before Vatican II – indulgences were available to those who did. That video is misleading in a number of ways, so I may come back to it (if others don’t) but for now, I’ll leave it at that.

  5. Below is the document called “Brief Outlines.” Cardinal Ottaviani wrote a letter to the members of the Preparatory Theological Commission, explaining the background of the Outlines:

    “For almost all the bishops in one way or another want the nature and character of the Church to be treated, along with various related problems. Second, it is suggested, indeed considered necessary, that Sacred Scripture and Tradition cannot be passed over in silence because of the recent controversies and errors, which are also seriously troubling many bishops. Third, with regard to dogmatic errors, from information reported to the Holy See from everyone everywhere, we learn especially that quite fundamental truths are being called into question and that errors are being spread everywhere with serious danger to the purity of the faith. Finally, more than a few bishops lament false ideologies in the moral field, both individual and social, and therefore it is hoped that the chief errors of today will be rejected and that a concise exposition of Catholic teaching on social matters will be presented.”

    You’d never know it from the Pollyannish opening speech of John XXIII, but according to this statement of Cdl. Ottaviani, there was already quite a bit of theological turmoil in the Church even before the Council. The outlines were published in September 1960.

    Click to access holy-office-plan-for-vatican-ii1.pdf

  6. As if the revolutionaries’ subversive documents weren’t bad enough, there was also, according to Malachi Martin in Windswept House, a satanic enthronement ceremony that took place among prelates in Charleston, South Carolina and by phone with a group of prelates somewhere in the Vatican. This occurred on June 29, 1963: the Feast of SS. Peter & Paul!

    I’m speculating that this was Satan’s insurance policy, in case the revolutionary changes were resisted. It cast a cloud of disorientation over most of the clergy and most of the laity – sort of the Church’s equivalent of “Beatlemania.” But instead of screaming young ladies throwing their undergarments on stage at the Beatles, we had clergy throwing their vestments, and their Catholic dignity, in the trash.

    Coincidentally, and speaking of Satan, John Lennon was repeatedly rumored to have sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for the success of his band. Well, success they got, as never seen before, and judging by Lennon’s satanist hand symbol displayed in several photos and even in Yellow Submarine cartoons, I’d say the rumors were spot on.

    Apparently, a small cabal of prelates did the same as Lennon, in exchange for unknown rewards following the destruction of “the new Springtime.” Money? Power? Sexual favors? All of the above?

    • RCA Victor,

      I read an interview with Malachi Martin in which he had explained that 90+% (most of) his story was factual, a small percentage fiction. Asked specifically about that enthronement, he said that was factual. He hadn’t made it up. Chilling.

      I didn’t know that John Lennon had sold his soul to the devil – terrifying given his premature death and the manner thereof.

      Satan’s influence within the Vatican could not be clearer. End of…

      • I still remember the news headlines back in the 1980s that two bishops close to Pope John Paul II had been exposed as KGB agents. It was a global story at the time and yet I cannot find a single reference to it now, just as if it never happened.

        This is truth of the matter that ties in with th eThird Secret of Fatima and the revelations of Bella Dodd, that there were infiltrators in the Church, high up and close to the Popes, who, due to the failure of the Popes to consecrate Russia as Our Lady requested, were successful in using Vatican II as a vehicle to destroy the Church from within. These infiltrators are still in high places and still doing the workof their master, Satan. Nothing short of the Consecration of Russia in accordance with Our Lady’s instructions will expose these enemies. When that act is formally accomplished, the names will be revealed.

        • Athanasius,

          That is what I find most chilling – that fact that these infiltrators are still in high office even to this day.

          The General Judgement, I often think, would be riveting, really interesting, except for the fact that I’ll be cowering in a corner hoping nobody can see me 😀

          • Editor

            These people don’t concern themselves with the general judgement because they’re atheists, they don’t belive in an afterlife. Anyway, safe some space in that corner for me!

            • Athanasius,

              My point was/is that it is the fact that these people don’t concern themselves with God and the General Judgment is precisely what will make it interesting! My theology may be dodgy here, because not sure if those who are headed for the other place will be present – I must try to check that out (in about 12 years when I find a minute!) – but that was my point: seeing the shock on their faces would be fun, except for the dread of my own expose !

              • Editor

                Right, I’ve got the point now. You know that I can be a bit slow on the uptake!

          • RCAVictor

            The only problem with the article you linked is that it suggests that attempts by the KGB to infiltrate the Church and Council were largely unsuccessful. Well, we know differently!

            By the very fact that they persuaded Popes John XXIII and Paul VI to end hostility towards Communism tells us just how infiltrated the Church was at the highest level during Vatican II. Yes, they were in the Church in sufficient numbers and in positions of real influence. They still are.

            • Athanasius,

              Yes, that’s what I meant by questionable conventional wisdom. Sort of a variety of the old Modernist trick of openly violating the law of non-contradiction.

              Anyway, that was the closest I could find to the two KGB bishops you referred to. And I didn’t even use Google or Bing!

  7. Problem is Not trent. Problem lies with the infamous spirit of vat. 2 and how far afield our papacy and novis ordo Bishops have strayed from Rudimentary Christian and or Catholic faith and morals sexual and otherwise

    • Editor

      More and more voices are beginning to speak up and speak out. I think it’s “the Francis effect”.