Vatican II “Not From God”- New Mass/Attacks on Our Lady = Proof…editor
May 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – In a new interview, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò [left] has once more returned to the topic of the Second Vatican Council, the loss of Marian devotion followed by that Council, as well as the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo Mass.
Speaking with the Italian website Radio Spada – this is the second instalment of two parts of an interview (here part one) – the Italian prelate sees a satanic involvement in the decline of devotions to Our Lady after the Council and explains that “the gift of my ‘conversion’ – of my becoming aware of the conciliar deception and the present apostasy – became possible thanks to my constant devotion towards the Blessed Mother, which I have never ceased to have.” Describing how Our Lady has been undermined – even denied in her role as Co-Redemptrix – Archbishop Viganò points out that “what unites heretics of all times is their intolerance of the cult reserved for the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Marian doctrine it presupposes and of which it is the liturgical expression.”
For him, there is no doubt that the Holy Trinity “is pleased to share the work of Redemption with Our Lady,” to whom so many special gifts had been granted, including her immaculate conception and her perpetual virginity.
The prelate, moreover, discusses the problem of the Second Vatican Council and the fact that “the conciliar Church was embracing the liturgical and doctrinal positions of Protestantism.” Part of that Protestantization of the Church after Vatican II can be seen in the diminishment of the Marian devotions. States the archbishop:
The decline of Marian devotion after the Council is only the latest expression, and I would say the most aberrant and scandalous, of the aversion of Satan towards the Queen of Heaven. It is one of the signs that that assembly did not come from God, just as those who dare even to question the titles and merits of the Most Holy Virgin do not come from God. On the other hand, what son would allow his own mother to be put down in order to please his father’s enemies? And how much more serious is this abject complicity with heretics and pagans when the honor of the Mother of God and our Mother is at stake?
As can be seen here, Archbishop Viganò goes so far as to conclude that a council that led to the undermining of the Blessed Mother could surely not “come from God.”
He also makes another strong statement: in his eyes, the Novus Ordo Mass should one day be abolished. He first discusses the problem of having two forms of the Latin Rite – the “ordinary” and the “extraordinary” form – and says that it is at least difficult to maintain that the Mystical Body can raise up liturgical prayer – which is an official, solemn, and public action – to Her Head with a double voice: this two-fold nature can signify duplicity and is repugnant to the simplicity and linearity of Catholic Truth, just as it is repugnant to God, whose Word is Eternal and is the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.
In his view, “Christ cannot address the Father with a perfect voice – which the Innovators call the ‘Extraordinary Form’ – and at the same time with an imperfect voice, winking at the enemies of God, in an ‘Ordinary Form.’”
In light of these strong criticisms of the Novus Ordo Mass, Archbishop Viganò explains that at this point, he believes that the current situation has to be accepted for a certain time, “as a transitory phase,” in which the traditional Liturgy can continue to spread, thereby “doing much good to souls, in view of a necessary return to the One Catholic Rite and to the indispensable abolition of its conciliar version.” That is to say, Viganò thinks that the Novus Ordo Mass needs to be abolished at some point in history. He states:
Let us not forget that in the Liturgy the Church addresses herself to the Majesty of God, not to men; the baptized, living members of the Church, unite together in liturgical prayer by means of the Sacred Ministers, who are “pontiffs” between them and the Most Holy Trinity. To make the liturgy into a sort of anthropocentric event is most alien to the Catholic spirit. Source
My first reaction on reading the above was “hear hear – bring back the ‘old normal’ to the Church, as well as to our secular society, and the sooner the better. And I don’t recall much of a transition phase when they thrust the new Mass upon us, so let that ‘transitory phase’ be short and not-too-sweet.” That was my reaction – what was yours?
I think the Vatican II / Novus Ordo experiment will ultimately die of its own accord. The seeds of death are sown within it. Look at novus ordo Mass attendance – in my own area, a local chapel run by a religious order used to have a full chapel even for weekday Mass – that was back in the 1980’s. Now I’ve been reliably informed they’re lucky to get a few elderly people for a Sunday Mass – and they will be dead before much longer. Local churches are threatened with closure because of the crisis in secular priestly vocations (or they’re being ‘clustered’ – i.e. several parishes under one priest) but some parishes are being back-filled by local religious – but that won’t last for long, because the novus ordo religious are all ageing and are not getting new vocations either. The religious order I referred to before had its last vocation in this country back in the 1980’s. Nothing since then, although a few have left the order for the secular priesthood, or left the priesthood totally, or died. Some novus ordo parishes seem to be doing better but the figures are artificially inflated because they have large Polish communities – who are not necessarily here to stay for good (and if they send their children to English Catholic schools, the children will inevitably lapse like the 90+ percent that already do). Also – and I know this from my own novus ordo parish (which I never attend) – a large proportion of the Sunday ‘Mass-goers’ are parents who want their children to go to the highly sought-after local Catholic school, and are just pitching up at church for that reason. They aren’t interested in the Faith aspect – the school almost certainly doesn’t teach the true Faith, they’re doing it because it has a very high academic standard. The whole thing is dying a death. The sooner, the better. Then the phoenix can rise from the ashes. We must concentrate on building up Sacred Tradition – not just in liturgy but in doctrine, catechesis, faith, morals – all aspects.
That comment of yours should be published on a flyer and handed out at every church in the UK! Bravo! I agree with everything you say. The stats could be replicated everywhere (especially here in Scotland) and the lack of teaching in the so-called Catholic schools has been exposed on here tons of times. Thank you for that honest assessment.
I agree with Laura – your comment should be published on a flyer and handed out at every church in the UK. If Athanasius’s comment below (answering Thiago) could be put on the reverse side, that would also be great. There would be a big increase in sales of smelling salts across the land, LOL!
Nicky and Laura,
Thank you for your kind comments, but my work brings me into contact with novus ordo priests and laity on occasions – although they know my views and that I only attend the TLM. I’ve given them plenty of web-links and articles over the years – they just don’t respond, and once I was even accused of flirting with schism! I’ve realised that there is a deep, deep spiritual blindness there. It doesn’t matter what empirical evidence you show them as to the failure of the VII / Novus Ordo experiment, including the empty churches and the lack of vocations, compared to the burgeoning of the Traditional movement in terms of vocations and TLM Mass attendance. One of the priests spends thousands advertising ‘vocation retreats’ which nobody comes to. They just can’t see it. I think many of them just don’t want to see it. It’s the ‘diabolical disorientation’ that Sr Lucia spoke of and because the blindness is diabolic in origin it is very, very difficult to shift. Remember what Sr Lucia of Fatima said to Fr Fuentes in 1957:-
““Father, the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Blessed Virgin. And the devil knows what it is that offends God the most, and which in a short space of time will gain for him the greatest number of souls. Thus the devil does everything to overcome souls consecrated to God, because in this way the devil will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them.”
“That which afflicts the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Heart of Jesus is the fall of religious and priestly souls. The devil knows that religious and priests who fall away from their beautiful vocation drag numerous souls to hell. … The devil wishes to take possession of consecrated souls. He tries to corrupt them in order to lull to sleep the souls of laypeople and thereby lead them to final impenitence. He employs all tricks, even going so far as to suggest the delay of entrance into religious life. Resulting from this is the sterility of the interior life, and among the laypeople, coldness (lack of enthusiasm) regarding the subject of renouncing pleasures and the total dedication of themselves to God.”
That was said in 1957 – we see it being played out before our eyes today.
Talk about hitting the nail on the head. Phew!
Sorry for dampening your Spirits W.F. but you do know that your a Nutcase. The reason i say so is when i spoke to a certain ( not very intellectual ) Priest once about going to the TLMass he said and i quote ” They are all Nutcases ” as in Catholics who believe also in 2000+Years of Tradition. I actually should go back and tell Him that I Am Officially Now One of Those Nutcases. The difference between the TLMass and the so called New Mass which as we know was also made up to suit Protestants is as I now know Night and Day. So i am now officially a Religious Nutcase. One of the things that really gets to me is Catholics within my own Parish who lets just say dont like the TLMass a bit like the Acting Pope or Pope Acting. I say to them ” No one is forcing you or even asking You to go to the Catholic Mass “. Still one especially whom i speak to actually believes Francis is a Good Pope, so that just shows what were up against .
The loonies have taken over the asylum and are now calling the sane Catholics “nutcases”. Well thank God I’m a nutcase, a raving nutcase.
It reminds me of the old adage: “I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal labotamy”!
Nice one Athanasius. What gets me is the ones who follow this Man in Rome and hang on his every word, and they think hes Infallible on everything .At least they only think Hes infallible on everything, whereas Francis Knows He is Infallible on everything. Going back to the Protestant -Catholics who lets say dislike the TLMass, its actually Condemnation without Investigation. A bit like all of those so called Catholics who voted for Joke Biden.
“The seeds of death are sown within it.”
How appropriate, since the entire Vatican II demolition project was planned and executed by the Freemason/Luciferian death cult.
You are so right – the novus ordo is going nowhere but the dustbin of history.
The Scottish Bishops in the recent past updated the statistics page on their website, showing another massive drop in the number of Catholics registered in parishes over the last decade. Meanwhile they sit back in silence, concerned only with the next meaningless ecumenical photo shoot.
The modern Church is a useless structure which does nothing but consume resources. Everything it does is just an exercise in “going through the motions” for appearances sake.
Most especially, the batches of schoolkids put through the sacraments production line style.
Kids, most of whom never see the inside of a Church unless they are dragged along by their non-Catholic teachers at school, experiencing sloppy catechesis and inauthentic worship and practices.
No wonder the Church is tanking. One wonders what it would take to rouse the Bishops to action, short of the point of a gun!?
He says some interesting things, but others derive from his personal taste that he wants to make the rule. The help role in the Redemption that Our Lady had does not necessarily need to be expressed in a title that causes confusion and it is up to the legitimate authority to evaluate this, that is, to affirm that the rejection of the title is a rejection of Mary is a mistaken. Then, in fact, the Novus Ordo should be phased out little by little, but not because it makes “more one voice” in the Church’s official prayer, as this was never a problem, since the extrinsic variety is just an expression of intrinsic unity (the presence of Sacrifice).
How can the title Co-Redemtrix lead to confusion? If so, I don’t think popes would have used it as often as they did. I copied the following from two different sources:
“The term Co-Redemptress was used by Pope Leo XIII in 1894. “For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our co-Redemptress comes to us…”
Co-Redemptrix was used three times by Roman Congregrations under Pope St. Pius X:
“The first usages of the Co-redemptrix title in the official pronouncements of the Roman Congregations also take place under the Magisterium of St. Pius X.
Co-redemptrix is used three times by the Holy See in the initiatives of three Congregations of the Curia, and is thus contained in the publication of their official acts, Acta Sanctae Sedis (later to become Acta Apostolicae Sedis).””
“Pope John Paul II publicly used the title “co-redemptrix” at least six times. Moreover, in a homily in Guayaquil, Ecuador, on Jan. 31, 1985, John Paul II spoke of the “co-redemptive role of Mary” ( el papel corredentor de María ), which can be translated as “the role of Mary as co-redemptrix.”
Also, your comment about the Mass amazes me. The whole problem with the new Mass is that it does not express the “sacrifice” as it should. The people who created it said they were going out of their way to remove anything which the Protestants didn’t like and the Mass as the re-presented Sacrifice of Calvary, they definitely did not like! It has to go – and as soon as possible!
It may not express the sacrifice in the best way, but it is a sacrifice, or it would not be Mass. The intrinsic value of any valid rite is the same.
Secondly, the fact that the popes used this title in no way implies that it does not create confusion, so much so that explanations about its real meaning have always been necessary.
Viganò is moving from critic to criticism…
We have to explain things all the time, especially doctrines like the Real Presence. That’s no argument against this wonderful title of Our Lady. Without her “fiat” we would not have been redeemed. That is easy to explain because it underscores the importance God attaches to our free will. I don’t think there’s a protestant or a muslim anywhere who wouldn’t understand that. Maybe modernists in the Church are different, of course, LOL!
You are absolutely wrong on both points.
The New Mass, not the title “Co-Redemptrix” relating to Our Lady’s many prerogatives, is what has led to great confusion in the Church, not to mention apostasy on a scale never before witnessed in history.
The title “Co-Redemptrix” doesn’t mean, as the ill-informed assume, that Our Lady is Co-Redeemer with Our Lord, it means that she co-operated perfectly in the Redemption wrought by her Divine Son and is therefore rightly called “Co-Redemptrix”. Most Catholics accept this title without question, understanding its true meaning – I have never once come across a Catholic who is confused by it. It is indeed a very strange claim you make in this matter since every saint, Pope and theological expert down through many centuries, in some cases all the way back to early Christendom, are of one mind in the matter. I would very much like you to prove your claim by citing sources where this apparent confusion reigns.
As for the New Mass, it may be a valid sacrifice depending on the priest but it is a destructive rite that was deliberately constructed to suppress the sacrifical nature of the Mass and the truth of Transubstantiation in order to please Protestants for the furtherance of ecumenism, which is a condemned heresy.
If you study well the form of the New Mass you will find it identical in structure to that of the apostate Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, who, during the Reformation in England in the 16th century, changed the Latin Mass into a vernacular meal service to suit the new Protestant beliefs. Studying both is an incredible revelation, for they arise from exactly the same blueprint. The late Michael Davies did an excellent study on this in his book “Cranmer’s Godly Order”.
Now, the chief architect of the New Mass was one Fr. (later Archbishop) Annibale Bugnini. In 1965 Fr. Bugnini made an incredible public statement in the Vatican’s main newspaper “L’Osservatore Romano”, declaring that “we must remove from our Catholic Mass and prayers all that can be the least stumbling block to our separated brethren, that is, to the Protestants”
In 1973 Fr. Bugnini made another very public statement, rejoicing thus: “The New Mass represents a conquest of the Catholic Church”. Not long after this Pope Paul VI lamented abuses in the New Mass and spoke of the “smoke of Satan” in the Church.
Since that time thousands of seminaries, religious houses and churches have closed down all around the world for want of vocations and the greatest apostasy of faithful from the Church ever recorded in history. In addition to this, the priests left in place are largely given up to liturgical and sacramental indifference; allowing altar girls, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, Communion in the hand while standing, etc., run rampant against every Church law.
When was the last time you heard a priest speak of the Mass as the Sacrifice of Calvary, of devotion to Our Lady, of the need for frequent Confession and Holy Communion, of devotion to the saints, of the four last things, of the errors of false religions, etc? Or when was the last time you heard a priest condemn sexual immorality and perversion, abortion, sacrileges against the Blessed Sacrament or speak of mortal sin and hell? You’ll note these Catholic things have all disappeared in conjunction with the New Mass, which, incidentally, is not a simple translation of the old Latin rite into the vernacular but a wholly different liturgical construction which is designed to undermine Catholic doctrine and the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice. It may still have the words of consecration at its centre, now correctly worded in accordance with the words Our Lord actually spoke, thanks to Pope Benedict XVI, but the fact remains that everything else surrounding those words, both prayers and actions, reeks of Protestantism.
This is precisely why, in 1967, the bishops gathered in Rome for the Rome Synod overwhelmingly rejected the New Mass as unCatholic, having been treated to a special introductory celebration of it prior to its extension to the universal Church.
It is also what many senior prelates of the time, headed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote the famour “Ottaviani Intervention” to Pope Paul VI in which they laid out in the greatest detail the many deficiencies and errors in this new rite, summing the New Mass up as follows: “It represents in whole and in part a grave departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as codified in Session XXII of the Council of Trent”. In other words, it is a poisonous rite that destroys the faith of priests and faithful by degrees, and undermines the integrity of Sacrifice of the Mass, whether validly celebrated or not.
I think you really need to do some research into these matters before accusing an eminent Archbshop and theologian like Archbishop Vigano of being the critic in error. I’m afraid it is you who are in error and very gravely so.
That’s an excellent summary from you of the calamitous outcome of Vatican II. Thank you for it.
Trying to tell family and friends even the half of it, though, just brings looks of amazement – I feel like asking them if they need smelling salts, LOL!
Thank you. Re-reading that comment myself I realise that I really have to slow down on the keyboard and do a grammar/punctuation check before posting. I’m actually beginning to think I’m dyslexic!
The new Mass has to be gotten rid of because it is causing God offence. That has been explain on here millions of times. It’s emptying the churches anyway, so even if you don’t believe that the watering down of doctrine in the new Mass is offensive to God, you must be able to see that the pews are emptying fast and furious since it was introduced.
The Vast confusion in the Catholic Church today my Friend is caused by the undisputed Fact of anyone, who is remotely of The Catholic Faith ,is that We have a man in White in Rome who is NOT a Catholic.Yet who professes to try and put Tooty Fruity ideas of His own into Catholicism. He is first and foremost our greatest Problem. I would say more about the Non Catholic Pope but most of it He says for himself.
“Archbishop Viganò goes so far as to conclude that a council that led to the undermining of the Blessed Mother could surely not ‘come from God.'”
I need some help with that statement, since I have been reading a book called “Holy Abandonment” by Rt. Rev, Dom Vitalis Lehodey, in which the reader is assured, time and time again, that everything – consolations, trials, tribulations, sickness, health, etc. – comes from the hand of God, and that the path to sanctity and peace is the recognition of that fact and acceptance of it.
Which brings me to the distinction between God’s permissive Will and His Sovereign Will – which, as I understand it, was typically abused by Pope Francis until he was caught out by Bishop Schneider. Looking for an explanation of this distinction, I found this:
The distinction between the sovereign will of God and the permissive will of God is fraught with peril and tends to generate untold confusion. In ordinary language, the term permission suggests some sort of positive sanction. To say that God “allows” or “permits” evil does not mean that He sanctions it in the sense that He approves of it. It is easy to discern that God never permits sin in the sense that He sanctions it in His creatures. What is usually meant by divine permission is that God simply lets it happen. That is, He does not directly intervene to prevent its happening. Here is where grave dangers lurk. Some theologians view this drama as if God were impotent to do anything about human sin.
From the standpoint of my limited understanding, would it have been clearer if Abp. Vigano had said something like “The withdrawal of grace from the Church [precipitated by John 23’s failure to obey Our Lady’s requests?] led to the calamity of Vatican II”?
I was about to sign out and head for pastures new when this came in, so this will, of necessity, be typed at thousands of words per minute. If it doesn’t make sense, let me know and I’ll try again later… at hundreds of words per minute…
If you recall that Our Lady appeared at Fatima to forewarn us of the forthcoming “diabolical disorientation” in the Church and the world and that it is highly unlikely that she simply decided one day to take off for a visit to chat with the little shepherds at Fatima but that, in fact, God sent her to us to forewarn us of what it so to come. If you recall that, and then…
If you further recall that certain Fatima scholars have determined that in the withheld part of the Third Secret – that is, the third part of the Fatima Message which has not been published – we are warned in some specific way of the modernist attack on the Church, then it should be reasonably obvious that God did not want that Second Vatican Council. That He did not give it His blessing, is surely crystal clear.
Thus it seems clear that by not consecrating Russia, as requested at Fatima and by not accepting the truth of the Third Secret (John XXIII apparently dismissed t as “not being for this time” or similar) then that certainly did lead to the withdrawal of grace that we are now seeing. I don’t think we can blame Archbishop Vigano for not saying that explicitly – it’s crystal clear even to someone who knows nothing abut Fatima, that Vatican II marks the very public decline of the Church.
God does not, of course, abandon us – ever. WE however, may (and do) abandon God.
That is what happened at Vatican II. The “Fathers” decided that Tradition could use a rest and we could all do with a new “springtime” in the Church by re-creating the Church in the image of the world. THEY abandoned God.
We know that God sent us a lifeboat which is far from perfect, but He used that lifeboat to preserve Catholic Tradition (albeit imperfectly) and from that lifeboat other means of preserving the Faith have sprung up. God has not abandoned us, but neither will He force us to obey Him. We do that of our own free will – or we suffer the consequences.
Enter the consequences…
I don’t think Archbishop Vigano was wrong in his statement but rather that you are perhaps not understinding it in its true context.
I think if we understand the permissive will of God in the context of God allowing us to exercise free will, either for the good or the bad, then all becomes clear.
There are certainly a few instances in human history when a particular sin has been so offensive to God that He has directly intervened to punish it, but in general He allows us to make our own decisions in this life (His permissive will). Whether or not these decisions accord with His Sovereign will, known to all by grace, is another matter and will be judged by God when we stand before Him in eternity.
You should stop going out to pasture more often, you have just confirmed what I was getting at. But, as usual, you said it better! God tried to warn us, we ignored Him, His grace was withdrawn and we went out own way (“All we like sheep, have gone astray…”) and decided to “improve” the Church.
Thanks for that reply!
You are MUCH too kind – not to say “humble”. How annoying is that, for an about-town gal like moi, who is OBVIOUSLY cut out for humility… 😀
Editor & RCAVictor
Truth be told, we don’t even need to have a theological debate about the Council and its New Mass, all we need do is apply Our Lord’s own admonition to it: “By their fruits ye shall know them”.
So, what are the fruits of Vatican II? Did the “New Pentecost”, as they touted it, materialise, or did we witness instead a return of the Church to the catacombs?
The answer for any informed Catholic is clearly the latter. Tens of thousands of priests and religious all over the world abandoned their vocations while others were laicised for moral reasons. Thousands of seminaries, religious houses and churches have shut down for want of priests and/or faithful. The abuse of Communion in the hand was made mandatory against Church law and even contrary to the ruling of Paul VI, resulting in countless thousands of sacrileges against the Blessed Sacrament and a general indifference to the Real Presence of Our Lord. On this point, just think of the millions of sacred particles that have fallen from the hands of standing communicants since this appalling Protestant practice was illegally introduced into the Church by Cardinal Suenens, every single one of those particles representing the full body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, trampled underfoot!
Furthermore, devotion to Our Lady, at its height throughout the world in the 1950s, including the travels of the pilgrim Virgin statue around the globe with associated miracles so numerous that Pius XII exclaimed “Our eyes cannot believe what they are seeing”, suddenly stopped after the Council, giving way instead to ridicule of Catholics who faithfully recited their daily rosary. There are numerous testimonies as to the form this ridicule took and it coincided with the conciliar mindset, by which even the priests of God stopped speaking of Our Lady for fear of insulting Protestants and derailing ecumenism.
In terms of the Mass, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans and all manner of other representatives of heresy, have publicly expressed their satisfaction with it, declaring that it no longer represents for them an obstacle to ecumenical dialogue given its dumbing down of the Catholic belief in Sacrifice and Transubstantiation. In this testimony alone we know that the New Mass is not of God.
Then there are all those Protestant things like the priest facing the people over a table rather than standing at the head of the people facing God at the high latar, altar girls, lay readers, lay ministers giving Holy Communion, presentation of “gifts” at the Offertory, standing with outstretched hands instead of kneeling to receive Holy Communion.
It is so very evident that all these things are contrary to Catholic teaching and practice through the centuries right up to 1962. And now we see the really bitter fruits in bishops and priests depriving the faithful of Mass and the Sacraments, locking churches down for fear of a mere respiratory virus and/or introducing the most ridiculous and offensive practices like masks, hand sanitising, reduced numbers, etc., all of which things point to clergy with no supernatural faith. Indeed, Pope Francis has dedicated his entire Pontificate to the spread of naturalism and the New World Order, hardly ever giving even the least sign that he believes in anything supernatural. His entire mindset seems to be that of the Communist and Freemasonic enemies of Christ.
When we look at all of this we know that the Holy Spirit did not inspire the Conciliar reform, it was insprired rather by the spirit of the “Prince of this world” and it shows in a universal apostasy never before witnessed.
Truth be told, we don’t even need to have a theological debate about the Council and its New Mass, all we need do is apply Our Lord’s own admonition to it: “By their fruits ye shall know them”.
Breaking News… Technically, that IS a “theological debate”! Your entire post is A First Class Theological Argument Against Vatican II … And all very well said, indeed! 😀
I suppose you’re right about the debate thing – if we apply Our Lord’s own admonition to the fruits of the Council and the New Mass then we have to demonstrate how bitter they actually are. And of course the Modernists will naturally try to blame the world, the times, the weather or whatever else might help them to hang on to their vision of a man-made “New Pentecost”. So yes, that would definitely lead to debate.
Exactly right. And there’s a very simple answer to the most common excuse given for the decline in church attendance, religious practice etc. which is the influences in our increasingly secular society. The answer is, of course, that Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and every other religious group live in the same secular society yet they still adhere to their religions faithfully, to the point where we can pick them out in a crowd simply by their dress. The few priests and religious we have left, on the other hand, have all too often ditched their religious garb, while the non-Christians are very proud to weir their identifying clothing.
How very sad.
I absolutely agree with that – as the Catholic religion declines the false religions increase. Very tragic indeed, especially since the clergy seem to welcome this return to pre-Christian pantheism in society.
A & E,
It’s not only the false religions that are on the ascendant due to the decline of the Church: it is the occult.
Athanasius your spot on. I have also never heard of so many false prophets especially those who -Play at Wake the Dead – IE Spiritual Mediums. Its a long a very long story of mine in which i fell away from the Faith. If truth be told i actually fell away from practically everything ,but always knew that the One True Catholic Faith was the only way back to reasonable sanity.
I forgot to highlight something extremely important to this discussion, which is that Archbishop Vigano puts his awakening to the Modernist crisis down to his devotion to Our Lady, rightfully admitting that it is thanks to the Blessed Mother that he has been granted the wisdom to see the disaster that Vatican II represents and the grace to oppose that destructive influence.
This is really crucial because I have noticed that other priests who have had their eyes open to Vatican II likewise have great devotion to Our Lady. I am thinking particularly of two very excellent priests in Glasgow who are doing their best in difficult circumstances to counter Modernism. There are other such priests and bishops in the world, all of them devoted to Our Lady, who protects them from error and obtains for them the grace to be bold in the truth and the true Catholic religion.
I read your post open-mouthed because just a day or two ago I was told a story about an amazing conversion brought about by Our Lady. I am prohibited from recounting that story in any public forum, unfortunately, but it is truly an astonishing account.
It prompts me to encourage bloggers and readers to pray to Our Lady for great graces for those in your own circle who have lapsed or are atheists (the above sudden conversion happened to a lifelong atheist). Also, for priests – Our Lady has a special love for priests, so please pray to her for the papal nuncio in London, who is a deciding figure in who will be our next Archbishop of Glasgow (we’ll publish that news when it comes) and for priests in general – especially those with weak vocations or who are wavering in doubt about the “springtime” of Vatican II.
I absolutely agree – devotion to Our Lady is key to sanctifying our souls in these Luciferian times. Those who have little or no devotion to Our Lady and her rosary are sadly unlikely to be saved.
I think it’s also important to point out that Abp. Vigano experienced the “gift of conversion.” That’s a very interesting use of the word, as it clearly implies that there are two different religions being practiced between Tradition and Conciliarism/Novus Ordo-ism, and that there must be a recognition of that fact before any progress is made.
Actually, I have to wonder whether the Conciliar Church, with it’s improvised, casual, constantly changing “theology” and its hodge-podge liturgy actually fits the definition of “religion.”
Yes, it’s a good observation. I think a number of prelates who formerly thought that Vatican II could be interpreted and applied in a “conservative” way, the “hermeneutic of continiuity”, so to speak, have realised with Francis the end game of the so-called “conciliar reform”. It is in essence a new religion and Pope Francis has demonstrated that in a very public way. The only great sadness is that Archbishop Vigano is among only a few to acknowledge his conversion in public. For me this demonstrates an absence of Marian devotion in most of the hierarchy. Surely they must now see in Pope Francis how much the teaching has drifted away from the true faith, yet most of them remain silent and go along with it.
It’s great that Archbishop Vigano speaks out as he does, but it’s too easy for critics to write him off because he’s now retired. Where are the serving bishops, why are they not speaking out, surely there must be some who agree with him?
I love the way +Vigano describes the two forms of mass and the contrast between them:
Christ cannot address the Father with a perfect voice – which the Innovators call the ‘Extraordinary Form’ – and at the same time with an imperfect voice, winking at the enemies of God, in an ‘Ordinary Form
In particular his description of the ‘ordinary form’ perfectly captures the double speak which characterises the novus ordo Church and how it says one thing, but does another while “winking at the enemies of God”!
Such a fine description!
Yes – a very fine description!
I can’t stand the term “Extraordinary Form” and yet the most surprising people use it.
I agree with you regarding the “extraordinary form” terminology. If a label was really necessary, there were much better options (e.g. “traditional”).
Although I dislike it, the terminology does (probably accidentally) capture something of the qualitative difference between the two version of mass!
Comments are closed.