Another Front in the Conciliar Civil War, part one

Although I have been in the process of writing a follow-up to Empty Words from Empty Men, work was interrupted repeatedly this past week by unexpected developments. Upon awakening yesterday morning, Sunday, August 26, 2018, the Fourteenth Century after Pentecost and the Commemoration of Pope Saint Zephrinus, I discovered my inability to complete the article was quite providential as yet another front has opened up in the fratricide taking place within the counterfeit of conciliarism. The new participant is, as most of those reading this commentary know by now, the former “papal” nuncio to the United States of America, “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano, who is a true priest, ordained on March 24, 1968, but not a validly consecrated bishop.

There are various news and commentary stories (see, for example, Vatican "Archbishop" Accuses Francis of Protecting McCarrick, which has a listing of various news links) about “Archbishop” Vigano’s revealing eleven-page statement chronicling the fact that, all denials to the contrary notwithstanding, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has been masquerading as “Pope Francis” since Wednesday, March 13, 2013, knew all about the sodomite behavior of “Archbishop” Theodore Edgar McCarrick (Make That 224 Red Hats--and Two White Cassocks--To Go, Please) and relied upon his advice—as well as that provided by the lavender-friendly Donald “Cardinal” Wuerl and the venal Oscar Andres “Cardinal” Maradiaga Rodriguez (see Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part oneCommissar of Antichrist Speaks, part twoCommissar of Antichrist Speaks, part three and Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part four; Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part one, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part twoJorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part threeJorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part fourJorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part fiveJorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part six and Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part seven) to appoint the likes of Blase Cupich and Joseph Tobin to their current posts. Although some who have commented on Vigano’s statement have concluded that it is, if you will,”Waterloo for Francis,” I am going to continue to be the proverbial “ant at the picnic” by pointing out a few facts to put this latest internecine warfare within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in perspective.

Although “Archbishop” Carlos Maria Vigano’s statement is clearly meant to discharge his conscience in light of the “shock” and “remorse” that “Pope Francis” has expressed in recent weeks in the wake of the removal of Theodore Edgar McCarrick’s conciliar red hat and the Pennsylvania grand jury report about decades of clerical abuse that was covered-up by the “bishops” of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, aided and abetted by other “bishops” in the United States of America, defenders of the Argentine Apostate are already attempting to poke holes in Vigano’s allegations to ask why he did come forward with the information sooner. The comment of one such “papal” defender, Andrea Tornielli of Vatican Insider, will suffice:

The third fact. When this year there was news of a concrete denunciation of abuse of a minor by McCarrick - a fact dating back to when he was a priest in New York - Pope Francis forced him to live withdrawn and took away his cardinal status. The very first real and radical sanction against the former archbishop, which has no precedent in the more recent history of the Church. Until 2018, the date of the formal opening of the canonical investigation against McCarrick, the allegations concerned homosexual relations with adults. Then the question remains as to why Monsignor Viganò has not published this information until today if he was so convinced that it was something of the utmost importance for the Church. And why as apostolic nuncio to the United States he did not put them down in writing, inviting the new Pope to take action against McCarrick, to ensure that Benedict’s secret sanctions were finally applied, something that had evidently not happened before.  (Vatican Insider.)

One can expect that a similar line of defense will come from other “papal” defenders, although Signore Andrea Tornielli is being more than a little cheeky in his own belief, stated in the text of the article linked just above, that Angelo “Cardinal” Sodano, who was the conciliar Vatican’s Secretary of State from 1991-2006, must have kept information about “Uncle Teddy” McCarrick from Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II. Sure, right. “Saint John Paul II” personally indemnified the corrupt and venal founder of the Legionaries of Christ, the late Father Marciel Macial Degollado even after incontrovertible evidence of his moral turpitude and financial corruption had been presented to him.

Moreover, Signore Tornielli’s attempt to defend “Pope Francis’s” alleged ignorance of the McCarrick scandal is undermined by the fact that knowledge of this man’s “nephews” and his legendary grooming and entrapping seminarians was known widely throughout the world and by the fact that his “pope” himself did not deny anything that “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano claimed in his statement by deflecting all comment with a sanctimonious refusal to “dignify” the allegations:

In a news conference on the papal plane back to Rome late Sunday evening, Francis was asked whether there was any truth to the claim that Archbishop Viganò had personally informed him in 2013 of Mr. McCarrick’s history of abuse. He was also asked whether Benedict had sanctioned the American cardinal, as the letter also claimed.

The pope did not deny it, but sidestepped the questions by insisting he would not dignify them with a response.

“I will not say a single word about this,” he said. “I believe the statement speaks for itself. And you have the sufficient journalistic ability to make your conclusions. It’s an act of trust.” (Jorge the Marathon Talking Head Won't "Dignify" Vigano's Statement.)

Trust Jorge?

That’s a catchy campaign slogan, isn’t it?

Bergoglio being Bergoglio, of course, one can imagine that the short-tempered antipapal heretic is seething with anger and is plotting some means of revenge, knowing full well that Vigano, an ally of Antipope Emeritus Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, might have consulted with the nonagenarian Hegelian who lives a short distance from him inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River. Jorge has to be fuming, and he will venting his anger all week long in his daily screeds at the Casa Santa Marta and when he holds his next Wednesday general audience.

No, I do not believe that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is “finished.” This arch-Modernist has devised an elaborate defense mechanism for himself by which he deflects all criticism of him as coming from “Pharisees” or “ideologues.” He will also let others, probably including the aforementioned Blase Cupich and Donald Wuerl, seek to discredit “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano as a disgruntled Vatican diplomat.

Remember, Vigano lost his position the “papal nuncio” shortly after he arranged for “Pope Francis” to meet with Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis on Wednesday, September 23, 2015, the Feast of Pope Saint Linus and the Commemoration of Saint Thecla in the Vatican Embassy in Washington, District of Columbia, ostensibly because Vigano had reached the mandatory retirement age of seventy-five that Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI established to rid himself of traditionalists and “conservatives” within his hierarchy.

Let me take you down “memory lane” once again to reprise what I wrote thirty-four months ago when “Father” Federico Lombardi, S.J., the “pope’s spokesflack, threw “Archbishop” Vigano under the bus following the outrage among sodomites and their supports about the meeting with Kim Davis:

Earlier on Friday, the Vatican said that Archbishop Viganò had arranged the pope’s meetings in Washington, including the one with Ms. Davis.

The news of the meeting with Ms. Davis was disclosed late Tuesday night by Ms. Davis’s lawyer, Mathew D. Staver, at the same time it was reported on the website of Inside the Vatican, a conservative publication edited by an American who has covered the Vatican for years.

For nearly eight hours, Vatican officials refused to confirm or deny that the meeting had occurred, before finally confirming it on Wednesday afternoon.

For Francis, the timing of the Davis controversy is not ideal. Beginning Sunday the Vatican is staging a critical three-week meeting of bishops and laypeople to discuss whether to recommend changing their approach to contemporary issues related to the family, like gay couples, single parents or whether divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained annulments should be allowed to receive communion.

That meeting, known as a synod, could become a showdown between liberals and conservatives. Francis has spent nearly two years trying to gradually build consensus and has repeatedly stated his desire for a more welcoming, merciful outreach — even as he has not signaled any willingness to change church doctrine.

News of his meeting with Ms. Davis buoyed Christian conservatives, who had been dismayed that the pope, in his emphasis on the poor, barely mentioned issues like abortion and homosexuality during his visit to Washington, New York and Philadelphia. It also puzzled and angered more liberal observers.

It also led observers of the Vatican to speculate about whether the encounter with Ms. Davis was a signal of support for her cause. Francis has emphasized that he strongly believes in conscientious objection as a human right, a position he reaffirmed on his plane ride home.

On Friday, the Vatican appeared to be distancing itself from Ms. Davis’s camp. Father Lombardi’s statement said that the brief meeting “has continued to provoke comments and discussion,” and that he was providing clarification “in order to contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired.”

The Vatican’s statement prompted reactions on both sides of the Atlantic.

In a phone interview on Friday, Mr. Staver said the meeting had been called by the Vatican.

“This was a private meeting initiated by the Vatican,” Mr. Staver said. “My contacts were Vatican officials in the United States. And I was informed the request came directly from the pontiff.”

Mr. Staver said the request had come on Sept. 14, the day Ms. Davis returned to work after her release from jail. Ms. Davis and her husband were picked up at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in a tan van by private security guards who spoke Italian, he said. She had been instructed to change her hairstyle so she would not be identified.

Mr. Staver said Ms. Davis was not among a large group of people meeting the pope. She saw no one else waiting to see the pope and no one else saw her. “Just think about it. If she was in a line, there is no way this could have been kept secret for five days,” he said.

“This was a private meeting initiated by the Vatican,” Mr. Staver said. “My contacts were Vatican officials in the United States. And I was informed the request came directly from the pontiff.”

Mr. Staver said the request had come on Sept. 14, the day Ms. Davis returned to work after her release from jail. Ms. Davis and her husband were picked up at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in a tan van by private security guards who spoke Italian, he said. She had been instructed to change her hairstyle so she would not be identified.

Mr. Staver said Ms. Davis was not among a large group of people meeting the pope. She saw no one else waiting to see the pope and no one else saw her. “Just think about it. If she was in a line, there is no way this could have been kept secret for five days,” he said.

But at the Vatican on Friday, a spokesman, the Rev. Thomas Rosica, said the invitation had been extended by the nuncio’s office — not from Rome.

“Who brought her in? The nuncio,” said Father Rosica, who is working with the Vatican’s media office in advance of a major meeting of bishops that begins this weekend. “The Nunciature was able to bring in donors, benefactors.”

Father Rosica said of the controversy: “I would simply say: Her case is a very complex case. It’s got all kinds of intricacies. Was there an opportunity to brief the pope on this beforehand? I don’t think so. A list is given — these are the people you are going to meet.”

Mr. Staver, for his part, said he had been briefly introduced to Archbishop Viganò in April, when he spoke at a large rally in Washington againstsame-sex marriage, before the Supreme Court ruled on the issue.

The Rev. James Martin, editor at large of the Jesuit magazine America, had cautioned in an article this week that the pope meets many well-wishers on his trips, and that news of the meeting with Ms. Davis had been manipulated.

“I was very disappointed to see the pope having been used that way, and that his willingness to be friendly to someone was turned against him,” Father Martin said in an interview on Friday. “What may originally have prevented them from issuing a statement was the desire not to give this story too much air. But what they eventually came to realize was that they needed to correct.

Asked on Friday if the Vatican press office had been unaware that Ms. Davis had met the pope, Father Rosica said: “No, but I think we may not have been aware of the full impact of the meeting. It is very difficult sometimes when you are looking at things in America from here.”

A receptionist who answered the phone at the Vatican Embassy in Washington on Friday said, “The nuncio does not deny that the meeting took place, but would not make any further comment.”

She said the embassy did not have its own spokesman, and that no other officials there would comment.

Archbishop Viganò is turning 75 in January, the age at which bishops must submit a formal request to the Vatican asking for permission to resign. These requests are not automatically accepted, and bishops often stay in their appointments well past age 75. But if Archbishop Viganò is held responsible for what is seen as a grave misstep on an important papal trip, he is likely to be removed at the first respectable opportunity, according to several church analysts.

“Nobody in the Catholic Church wants another Regensburg,” said Massimo Faggioli, an associate professor of theology and director of the Institute for Catholicism and Citizenship at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul. He was referring to the backlash after Pope Benedict XVI, Francis’ predecessor, gave a speech in Regensburg, Germany, that appeared to denigrate Islam.

“This was not as serious as Regensburg, when Benedict read his own speech,” Dr. Faggioli said about the meeting attended by Ms. Davis. “But the pope has to be able to rely on his own system, and in this case the system failed him. The question is, was it a mistake, or was it done with full knowledge of how toxic she was?”

The meeting with Ms. Davis was clearly a misstep, Dr. Faggioli said, “because the whole trip to the United States he very carefully didn’t want to give the impression that he was being politicized by any side.”

He added, “And this thing is the most politicized thing that you can imagine.” (Before Clerk, an Antipapal Hug for a Gay Friend.)

I quoted this entire story to give readers a full appreciation of how far from the sensus Catholicus Bergoglio and his fellow travelers in the false religious sect of conciliarism are in the practical course of daily events. These apostates are so bereft of the Catholic Faith that their very first instinct is to indemnify wanton sinners and leftist ideologues while vilifying those who dare to criticize or make life “uncomfortable” for such people.

Furthermore, the contention made by Dr. Massimo Faggioli that Jorge’s meeting with Kim Davis was not as bad as “Regensburg” was a remarkable concession that it was as “unacceptable” and “incendiary” for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to state even an attenuated version of the truth of Mohammedanism as being an irrational religion prone to violence in an address he gave Regensburg, Germany, on September 12, 2006, the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary, as it was for “Pope Francis” to have been put in the “untenable” position of meeting with the “toxic” Kim Davis. Any kind of opposition to the gaystapo agenda is considered to be an act of “violence” against a supposedly “legitimate” classification of human beings even though human identity is not based on one’s proclivity to commit any particular sin, less yet those that are unnatural and cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

The conciliar Vatican went to extraordinary lengths to throw Carlo Maria Vigano, Kim Davis and Matthew Staver under the bus while celebrating the fact that Bergoglio (a) invited his former student, Yayo Grassi, and his “partner” in unnatural vice, Iwan Bagus, and (b) the video shows the false “pontiff” hugging both men and kissing them on their cheeks!

The “backstory” of “Archbishop” Carlo Mario Vigano’s justified and courageous criticism of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is important to understand as he, Vigano, had revealed himself to Bergoglio as being a “tool” of the political “right” and as an “exclusionary” Pharisee by agreeing to have Kim Davis com to the Vatican Embassy (I refuse to call it the Papal Nunciature) at 3339 Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, District of Columbia, nearly three years ago. This is why Vigano had to be tossed three months after had turned seventy-five years of age on January 16, 2016, even though many other conciliar officials get waivers after that age to continue in office for a year or more.

This having been noted, however, I find it interesting that the former “papal” nuncio mentioned Pope Francis’s criteria for the appointment of “bishops” in United States of America when the two met on June 21, 2013, the Feast of Saint Aloysius Gonzaga as it reveals yet again that the Argentine Apostate considers a faithful adherence to Catholic doctrine to be “ideological.” Here is the relevant passage from “Archbishop” Vigano’s statement:

I began the conversation, asking the Pope what he intended to say to me with the words he had addressed to me when I greeted him the previous Friday. And the Pope, in a very different, friendly, almost affectionate tone, said to me: “Yes, the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing like the Archbishop of Philadelphia, (the Pope did not give me the name of the Archbishop) they must be shepherds; and they must not be left-wing — and he added, raising both arms — and when I say left-wing I mean homosexual.” Of course, the logic of the correlation between being left-wing and being homosexual escaped me, but I added nothing else.

Immediately after, the Pope asked me in a deceitful way: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” I answered him with complete frankness and, if you want, with great naiveté: “Holy Father, I don’t know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.” The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject. But then, what was the Pope’s purpose in asking me that question: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” He clearly wanted to find out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not.

Back in Washington everything became very clear to me, thanks also to a new event that occurred only a few days after my meeting with Pope Francis. When the new Bishop Mark Seitz took possession of the Diocese of El Paso on July 9, 2013, I sent the first Counsellor, Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, while I went to Dallas that same day for an international meeting on Bioethics. When he got back, Monsignor Lantheaume told me that in El Paso he had met Cardinal McCarrick who, taking him aside, told him almost the same words that the Pope had said to me in Rome: “the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing, they must be shepherds….” I was astounded! It was therefore clear that the words of reproach that Pope Francis had addressed to me on June 21, 2013 had been put into his mouth the day before by Cardinal McCarrick. Also the Pope’s mention “not like the Archbishop of Philadelphia” could be traced to McCarrick, because there had been a strong disagreement between the two of them about the admission to Communion of pro-abortion politicians. In his communication to the bishops, McCarrick had manipulated a letter of then-Cardinal Ratzinger who prohibited giving them Communion. Indeed, I also knew how certain Cardinals such as Mahony, Levada and Wuerl, were closely linked to McCarrick; they had opposed the most recent appointments made by Pope Benedict, for important posts such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Denver and San Francisco.

Not happy with the trap he had set for me on June 23, 2013, when he asked me about McCarrick, only a few months later, in the audience he granted me on October 10, 2013, Pope Francis set a second one for me, this time concerning a second of his protégés, Cardinal Donald Wuerl. He asked me: “What is Cardinal Wuerl like, is he good or bad?” I replied, “Holy Father, I will not tell you if he is good or bad, but I will tell you two facts.” They are the ones I have already mentioned above, which concern Wuerl’s pastoral carelessness regarding the aberrant deviations at Georgetown University and the invitation by the Archdiocese of Washington to young aspirants to the priesthood to a meeting with McCarrick! Once again the Pope did not show any reaction. (Explosive: Former Nuncio to the United States of America Berates Jorge.)

As noted before in this commentary—and so many other times on this site in the past sixty-five months, fourteen days, “ideology” for Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a code for faithful adherence to the immutability of all that is contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano was right to call out the “pope” and Theodore Edgar McCarrick on this as there are no “right wing” or “left wing” Catholics. There are only faithful Catholics and apostates. It’s that simple.

All well and good.

Ah, but there is the little matter that, while taking nothing away from “Archbishop” Vigano’ courageous testimony, he carried water for Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “pastors, not ideology” message when he delivered an address before the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Fall General Assembly on November 13, 2013, in Baltimore, Maryland:

Certainly, my brothers, no one can dispute the clear fact that our present Holy Father himself, as the Supreme Teacher. is giving us by, his own witness, an example of how to live a life attuned to the values of the Gospel. While each of us must take into consideration our adaptability to the many different circumstances and cultures in which we live and the people whom we serve, there has to be a noticeable life style characterized by simplicity and holiness of life. This is a sure way to bring our people to an awareness of the truth of our message. The model for bishops, St. Charles Borromeo, my patron, when he addressed the members of the last synod he attended for his Church of Milan, said: "Be sure that you first preach by the way you live. If you do not, people will notice that you say one thing, but live otherwise..." 

The Holy Father wants bishops in tune with their people. When this past June I met with him in his simple apartment at the Casa Santa Marta for a fruitful discussion, he made a special point of saying that he wants 'pastoral' bishops, not bishops who profess or follow a particular ideology

In concluding, I urge you, my brothers, to preserve a spirit of real unity among yourselves and, of course, with the successor of Peter, trusting in the way he sees best to live out his mission to mankind. Unity expressed in a real, prayer-filled communion of mind and heart is the only way we will remain strong and be able to face whatever the future may hold for us

While, from various perspectives, American culture is characterized by diversity, this is true also of the Church. As Pope Francis, in his visit to Brazil a few months ago, said to the Bishops: "The Church is never uniformity, but diversities harmonized in unity, and this is true for every ecclesial reality" (July 27. 2013). But, we must take care that, for us as a Church, this diversity does not grow into division through misinterpretation or misunderstanding, and that division does not deteriorate into fragmentation.  (Vigano Address to American Apostates, November 13, 2013.)

Perhaps hindsight is, as they say, twenty-twenty and Father Carlo Maria Vigano has had a road to Damascus experience about what Jorge Mario Bergoglio meant when he referred to “ideological” “bishops” on June 21, 2013, when they met. It could also be the case that one who has spent most of his priestly life in the diplomatic service of the Holy See in its conciliar captivity wanted his “pope” to understand that he, Vigano, had heard what he said on June 21, 2013, and was dutifully imploring the American “bishops” to do the same.

Nonetheless, however, it is difficult for me to square Vigano’s alleged horror after he had heard that the then Theodore Edgar “Cardinal” McCarrick had said the same thing to his first counselor, Jean-François Lantheaume, in El Paso, Texas, on July 9, 2013. How can one be “astounded” upon hearing in July of 2013 that McCarrick was influencing the mind, such as it is, of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and then parrot that same message a little over four months later?

Indeed, this is what I wrote at the time that “Archbishop” Vigano addressed the American “bishops” on November 13, 2013, as the American “bishops” expressed their qualified support for ObamaDeathCare:

The conciliar "bishop" of Spokane, Washington, Blase Cupich, made it pretty clear the "fight," such as it pretended to be, against ObamaCare is over as he spoke after the election of Joseph Kurtz and Daniel "Cardinal" DiNardo, the conciliar "archbishop" of Galveston-Houston, yesterday, Tuesday, November 12, 2013, the Feast of Pope Saint Martin I:

Archbishop Blase J. Cupich of Spokane, Wash., said in an interview after the vote on Tuesday: “The nuncio said the Holy Father wants bishops to have a keen pastoral sensitivity, shepherds who know the smell of the sheep. That’s a nice metaphor to use.

“Pope Francis doesn’t want cultural warriors, he doesn’t want ideologues,” he said. “That’s the new paradigm for us, and it’s making many of us think.” (Bishops Select Two Leaders Who Reflect New Tone Set by Argentine Apostate.)

Yes, Carlo Vigano says that Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants the "bishops" to be "in tune with the people," which the conciliar "bishops" of the United States of America have interpreted correctly as meaning that they are not to confront the civil authorities at a time when ObamaCare itself en toto is under public siege.

As is the case with every revolutionary, Bergoglio's invocation of "the people" to justify his false beliefs and actions is just a slogan designed to flatter those he knows have been waiting for a "leader" just like him to reaffirm them in their "life's choices."

Guess what such " people" want to do?

Well, most of them want to keep on singing, and Bergoglio has no problem with this as long as they serve the "poor" and are felt as "included" in his false church.

Bergoglio has gone out of his way at the Casa Santa Marta to use various code words (see Francis The Slayer of Straw Men) to denounce those who hold to the immutable truths of the Catholic Faith as he has conducted his daily sessions of the Ding Dong School Of Apostasy for the past eight months now (it is eight months ago today that this apostate emerged on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter). At the same time, of course, Bergoglio has gone out of his way to express his great concern for those share his own contempt for the truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith, especially for those who are engaged in perverse sins against nature. (Professional Courtesy.)

Thus it is, good readers, that a word or two of caution is necessary concerning “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano’s recently-released statement that keep Jorge Mario Bergoglio up nights pacing the halls of the Casa Santa Marta.

Once again, the statement itself is courageous and represents a clear understanding of the nature of a bishop’s duties.

Unfortunately, though, that the statement itself was issued at all is a testament to the whole un-Catholic nature of the conciliar enterprise that has resulted in the triumph of the democratic spirit amongst the clergy and laity to such an extent that a man who is said to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter is said to be a ready target for protests and petitions as though he was not the very Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth and thus owed respect and obedience. Conciliarism has destroyed a proper understanding of Catholic teaching on the nature of the papacy.

In this regard, therefore, I should hasten to add that there is no precedent for what “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano has done because there is no precedent in the Catholic Church to a period of nearly sixty years of apostasy, heresy, liturgical sacrilege and pastoral “innovations” that have either been condemned directly or are so egregious that they not even our true popes would have thought any heretic capable of proposing, no less implementing, to the dishonor of God and the detriment of souls.

Additionally, lest one get carried away with lionizing “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano, it must be remembered that he is a conciliar revolutionary who supports the “Second” Vatican Council, the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, false ecumenism and the conciliar church’s revolutionary inversion of the ends proper to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

This latter point is especially important to remember as “Archbishop” Vigano has attempted to use Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, to refute the “pope’s” own decision to insert the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia made by the “bishops” of Buenos Aires into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis as the only correct one (see Two Italian "Bihops" Join Kazakh "Bishops" in "Professio of Truths About Holy Matrimony), which means that Vigano defects from Catholic teaching about the principal end of marriage being the procreation and education of children and accepts the use of natural means to frustrate that end according to the circumstances of a married couple. (For a detailed analysis of what the Catholic Church teaches, please see ee Forty-Three Years After Humanae VitaeAlways Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary ChangeJorge Puts On His "Catholic Hat"? Don't You Believe It and "Rabbits" to Jorge, God's Blessings to Pope Pius XII.

What do I mean?

Well, look at the differences between the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law and the 1983 code of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that was issued by “Saint John Paul II”:

856. The primary object of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring; the secondary purpose is mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence. (This can be found on page 205 of the following link, which is the 1917 Code of Canon Law in English:  1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.)

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. (Canon 1055.1 1983 Conciliar Code of Canon Law.)

The entire fabric of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s teaching on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is built on the fabric of the inversion of the ends of marriage that was condemned personally by Pope Pius XII on March 29, 1944, a condemnation that he cited and reiterated in the strongest terms possible in his aforementioned Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession:

Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

In these works, different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.

In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.

This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Eminent and Very Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of faith and morals, in a plenary session on Wednesday, the 29th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them: “Whether the opinion of certain writers can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation of children and raising offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative. (As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma–referred to as “Denziger,” by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, No. 2295, pp. 624-625.)

Praise should be given to “Archbishop” Carlo Mario Vigano’s statement as there is no question, of course, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has done everything imaginable to legitimize and thus to mainstream the sodomite agenda as a de jure characteristic of life in the counterfeit church of conciliarism after decades of its de facto promotion in various dioceses and parishes around the world. This is why he sent the nefarious “Father” James Martin, S.J., to the World Meeting of Families in Ireland four days ago.

However, one should remember that the “archbishop” is simply a Girondist/Menshevik conciliar revolutionary. The problem, however, is not only with Bergoglio's indemnification of abusive "bishops." The whole conciliar enterprise is a corruption of Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals. "Archbishop" Vigano's unquestionably courageous letter identifies symptoms of problems without getting to their ultimate root cause. 

If this is Waterloo for Jorge Mario Bergoglio, which I doubt will be the case, out will go the Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionary, in will come a Girondist/Menshevik revolutionary. Whether "moderate" or "progressive," though, conciliar revolutionaries are in rebellion against the very nature of dogmatic truth, which is an attack on the very immutability of God Himself. 

In any event, "Archbishop" Vigano is to be commended as he had direct information and has called out the Argentine Apostate's sanctimoniousness that many of us have been commenting about since he walked out on the Balcony of Saint Peter on March 13, 2013, and said to said to "Bishop" Guido Marini, "Carnival time is over" as he refused to wear normal papa regalia. The whole thing has been a farce, but the farce began on October 28, 1958, when the Rosicrucian Mason named Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli started the current line of antipopes. 

May Our Lady continue to intercede for us in these times of apostasy and betrayal so that we will not be deceived by the “good revolutionaries” to think that they are the “solution” to the “bad revolutionaries, and may she continue to intercede for us that we may live long enough so that we can make reparation for our own revolutions against her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by means of our sins. Every Rosary we pray helps to build up the Kingship of Our Lord in our souls and to plant the seeds for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

To quote the words of Pope Saint Pius X, “Pray for the Restoration to come!”

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Beloved, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.  

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saint Joseph Calasanctius, pray for us.