A summary of ‘Abp.’ Carlo Maria Viganò’s powerful indictment of Vatican II and the strange new church it created. More here: https://t.co/PFTyJxHucw #vigano #CatholicTwitter #CatholicChurch #fssp #sspx #fsspx #fatima #popefrancis pic.twitter.com/F1gT4I9B0c— Novus Ordo Watch (@NovusOrdoWatch) June 15, 2020
LSN: Abp Viganò on the ‘roots of deviation’ of Vatican II and how Francis was chosen to revolutionize the Church
In a historic text, Archbishop Viganò agrees with Bishop Athanasius Schneider in his criticism of the Second Vatican Council.
In his new statement, Archbishop Vigano clearly distances himself from the controversial Abu Dhabi statement. He says: “we know well that the purpose of these ecumenical and interreligious initiatives is not to convert those who are far from the one Church to Christ, but to divert and corrupt those who still hold the Catholic Faith, leading them to believe that it is desirable to have a great universal religion that brings together the three great Abrahamic religions ‘in a single house’: this is the triumph of the Masonic plan in preparation for the kingdom of the Antichrist!”
Now it is possible that the pope may not be promoting some sort of indifferentist humanism but rather, this is just a logical consequence of Can. 747 §2 and the desire to foster good "interfaith relations" in the name of Christ as a part of exercising that "duty" under Can. 747 §2. Would the archbishop be critical of the canon and the Latin ecclesiology that supports it?
From the letter:
Some may remember that the first ecumenical gatherings were held with the schismatics of the East, and very prudently with other Protestant sects. Apart from Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, in the beginning the countries of Catholic tradition did not welcome mixed celebrations with Protestant pastors and Catholic priests together. I recall that at the time there was talk of removing the penultimate doxology from the Veni Creator so as not to offend the Orthodox, who do not accept the Filioque.
Here he speaks more like a Latin traditionalist, though I've never read anything that would confirm him as such (an overt preference of the EF to the OF), and he may lose the sympathy of non-Latin Catholics who would read this. Maybe he and non-Latins could come to an agreement on ecclesiology that would allow for a critique of the council though I don't see anything to show that he does not consider Vatican II to be a valid ecumenical council.