Abp Viganò: Recognizing problems of Vatican II essential to fighting today’s crises

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hank89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Then we have to agree to disagree. I like them because they cover stories that other outlets are afraid to touch.

Turning in now - it’s way past my bedtime.
 
Last edited:
Margaret_Ann said:
Then we have to agree to disagree. I like them because they cover stories that other outlets are afraid to touch.
Click to expand...
I’m with you here. Yes, LSN can be shrill, it can be obnoxious, but they cover stories that need to be covered. @adamhovey1988, I respect what you do on this site, and I always enjoy your posts, but I have to differ with you here.

But for the life of me, when I first glanced at this subject line, I thought it said Abe Vigoda…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

… who, after years of unfounded rumors, finally did pass away. Requiescat in pace.
 
Dude! I’m not the first person to confuse Abe Vigoda with Vigano! Thank you!
 
My thoughts:
  1. Why is a news source publishing a living archbishop’s personal letter to a cloistered nun? When I write someone a letter I’m not expecting it to show up in the paper. Unless perhaps it becomes evidence in a felony trial or something, which is not the case here.
  2. As for Vigano harping on the same tired old theme, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, I guess.
 
Last edited:
It’s just more conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo from the usual suspects.
In it, he said there is “reason to believe, on the basis of official data on the incidence of the epidemic as related to the number of deaths, that there are powers interested in creating panic among the world’s population with the sole aim of permanently imposing unacceptable forms of restriction on freedoms, of controlling people and of tracking their movements.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the 4661, mostly elderly but a few young people, who died in my province simply because we were too slow to recognize the danger and implement restrictions sooner.

And as the threat has now started to diminish, the restrictions are being lifted by « the new world order ».

I’m turning into a cranky old man too as I get older… so on that level I empathize with the archbishop.
 
“The former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States says recognizing Vatican II’s role is essential to fighting the Church’s enemies today.”
Click to expand...
He got this right. There are those who do not recognize Vatican II as an ecumenical council that has influenced the direction of the Church. They are the Church’s enemies that we must fight. Isn’t that obvious?

For some reason, the abp chooses to be against the Council. If another person said these things, we probably would denounce him as anti-Catholic. I do not see why we should not denounce this abp? He calls on us to fight people like him!
 
Well fifty plus years on from Vatican II and the Church is not in too good a shape. I know the liberals and ‘spirit’ of V II crowd will block any attempt to do so but I think the Archbishop is correct and it might be a good idea to look at the council again.

Pope Benedict XVI was not afraid to look at the Novus Ordo and realize that there were problems and so we have Summorum Pontificum.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like an uncompromisingly unintelligent perspective on today’s problems in this world. All of our problems are traceable to Vat II? As if today’s world even cared about and followed the Church anyway? The truth is that the world went its own way, disregarding the Church, and many Church leaders and members followed the world, whether or not they exploited the council in any way as a pretense to do so. And the scandals that some clergy participated in and others overlooked all began well before Vat II took place.
 
Last edited:
adamhovey1988 said:
Lifesitenews is not a trustworthy site.
Click to expand...
I have seen you respond like this numerous times to articles by Life Site News. I don’t like LSN myself, but that’s a genetic fallacy. You can’t dismiss information just because you don’t like the source.

Why don’t you tell us WHY you don’t trust this article?
 
I found the article and letter be another sad effort by a disgruntled clergyman. Yet another diatribe aimed at the VII boogeyman with no actual specificity or recommendations. Just negativity pointed at the Council as a catch all for everything that is wrong and false assertion that the Church was perfect for 2000 years and is now, all of sudden, disastrously off track.

Not to mention how disrespectfully he treats Pope Francis…

It is sad to see this cleric fall so far…

Lifesite ‘news’ has proven once again that they simply aren’t interested in doing anything constructive, but instead they seek to divide, cast aspersions and generally spread negativity.
 
Last edited:
yankeesouth said:
Pope Benedict XVII was not afraid to look at the Novus Ordo and realize that there were problems and so we have Summorum Pontificum.
Click to expand...
This statement is not true. Summorum Pontificum was not a response to problems with the Ordinary Form. SP was a great act of mercy from Benedict to those Catholics attached to the Extraordinary Form.

Pope Benedict said this about SP - “This Motu Proprio is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy”
 
I don’t understand why some people get angry when members of the clergy propose studying and assessing the results of VII after half a century.
 
Vatican II caused the coronavirus pandemic? Did it also cause global warming?
 
Aulef said:
I don’t understand why some people get angry when members of the clergy propose studying and assessing the results of VII after half a century.
Click to expand...
I do not understand this either. I know lots of people who study Vatican II and look for better ways to implement it. I do not know anyone who suggests this study in the apocalyptic terms offered by the abp. If studying and assessing the results of Vatican II means a war between he forces of Good and the forces of Evil, let us get on with it. The abp seems to side against the Pope and the Council, which I, as a Catholic, support.
“What leaves one truly scandalized is seeing how the top levels of the Hierarchy are openly placing themselves at the service of the Prince of this world“
Click to expand...
If he is scandalized, the option is to leave the Church. (if he does not leave, he is not scandalized) If anyone from the top levels of the Hierarchy is behaving scandalously, it is Vigano. I do not understand why people are not angry at him for bringing such disrepute on the causes he cares about.
 
Aulef said:
I don’t understand why some people get angry when members of the clergy propose studying and assessing the results of VII after half a century.
Click to expand...
Hear hear! Agreed wholeheartedly.

Just for the heck of it, I wonder if it would be a problem for anyone, if a Catholic historian were to take the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, and criticize, dissect, or point out flaws in that council. Were all of those anathemas really the way to go? Would such a book get good reviews in, say, the NCReporter, America, or Commonweal?

Just putting that out there.
 
Dovekin said:
I do not understand why people are not angry at him for bringing such disrepute on the causes he cares about.
Click to expand...
I stopped listening to him a while ago. It seems he’s just using his new found fame to address any topic that interests him, no matter how valid his views are.

Side note: hermeneutic of continuity FTW!
 
godisgood77 said:
Just negativity pointed at the Council as a catch all for everything that is wrong and false assertion that the Church was perfect for 2000 years and is now, all of sudden, disastrously off track.
Click to expand...
Indeed. As I read the Church Fathers every day at the Liturgy of the Hours, and St. Paul’s Epistles too, it’s obvious that things were never completely hunky-dory in the Church. The Church has been combating heresy, leaders who were scoundrels, indifference from the laity, and whatnot, since the very beginning.

It’s like when my friends and I get together and complain “they just don’t make cars like they used to”. When in reality the cars we were nostalgic for belched pollutants and were almost sure to kill their occupants in a collision…

Reverse the changes of Vatican II you may make some traditionalists happy, but I’d be willing to bet a beer that attendance would go way down.
 
Maybe the first thing the Antichrist does is to spread mistrust of the Church? I would say that many groups are helping with that including LSN, Vigano, CM, and TM. They say, “Look, the Messiah is here, or Look, He is there!”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top