In his
controversial essay of June 9, 2020, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
wrote:
“.
. . it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel
church was
built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church
of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine
institution founded by Our Lord in order to replace it with a
spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal
religion that
was first theorized by Masonry.”
Curiously
in his essay [here] he only actually mentions the words “parallel
church” twice in his entire statement, yet these two words have set
off a firestorm of debate.
The
first reason I love this concept is because of its simple logic. If
there is a parallel church, then it must be parallel to something,
and that something is the real church, or as Viganò states, “the
true Church of Jesus Christ.” Therefore the indefectibility of the
Roman Catholic Church is not denied. It continues to exist
regardless of anything said or done by Vatican II. By peeling off
the characteristics of the parallelism such as false ecumenism,
ambiguous documents, neglect of the sacred, and an exaggerated
humanism, then the true Church founded by Jesus shines forth minus
the crust, rust and mold.
The
second reason I like the concept is because it is such a convenient
way to pigeonhole those who openly and publicly defy the teaching of
the Catholic Church, such as Joeseph R. Biden, Nancy P. Pelosi,
and Andrew M. Cuomo.
If
there is a parallel church are there parallel Catholics? Certainly,
and among the most visible are the boastful pro-abortion politicians
who call themselves Catholic, but who can actually be described as
prominent members of the parallel church. What an appropriate way to
categorize these glorified pro-choicers, who have not been officially
excommunicated in order to keep open the door to “dialog.” No
matter how they label themselves, the are not of the true Church of
Christ – their brand of Catholicism only exists in the parallel
church.
Now
for a third reason why I love his concept: In a follow-up interview
[here] which expanded on his essay, the way forward for Viganò seems
to be to act as if Vatican II and the parallel church do not exist,
even if the Council never changed anything of the Faith. “If
the Council truly did not change anything of our Faith, then let us
pick up the Catechism of Saint Pius X, return to the Missal of Saint
Pius V, remain before the Tabernacle, not desert the Confessional,
and practice penance and mortification with a spirit of reparation.
This is whence the eternal youthfulness of the Spirit springs. And
above all: let us do so in such a way that our works give solid and
coherent witness to what we preach.”
Here we have a rejection
of the Novus Ordo vernacular mass, and even a rejection of the new
Catechism birthed by the Council. He is essentially advocating a
return to personal piety, spiritual mortification and penance, and
that spiritual recollection nourished by the Traditional Mass. These
were intentionally de-emphasized by the Conciliar church because they
were too Catholic and thereby an obstacle to ecumenism – the dialog
with false religions and Protestantism.
Viganò
holds out the possibility that the Vatican II Council might be
consigned to the dustbin of false councils: “. . . we can ask
ourselves whether it may be right to expunge the last assembly from
the catalog of canonical Councils. The
sentence will be issued by history and by the sensus
fidei of
the Christian people even before it is given by an official
document. The
tree is judged by its fruits, and it is not enough to speak of
a conciliar
springtime to
hide the harsh winter that grips the Church . . .”
If
that occurs, then it is not Viganò who is in schism, as some of his
critics suggest. It is the parallel church. In the meantime, I am
doing my best to remain in the bosom of the true Church. That is why
I am currently following in a safe path – engrossed in the writings
and spirituality of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church and
founder of the Redemptorist Order. He authored over 100 books,
including The
Glories of Mary.
I highly recommend his works for those who are looking for, or are
trying to regain and retain, the spirit of traditional Catholicism,
or are simply looking to save their souls and become saints.
As
Viganò states, concern about Vatican II should be secondary. “I
would like us first and foremost to seek to proclaim salvific Truth
to all men, because their and our eternal salvation depends on it;
and that we only secondarily concern ourselves with the canonical and
juridical implications raised by Vatican II.”
View
my non-parallel Catholic books and websites Here.
Your position makes you a schismatic. You can't hide in one saint's writings. Why doesn't Vignano call it a false church instead of a parallel church? If he states Vatican II is part of a false church, he is labelling himself a heretic and could be condemned as one.
ReplyDeleteSaint Pope John Paul II's Last Testimony, i.e., his will that was published after his death, absolutely confirms and affirms Vatican II as a solid Council of the Church. The Vatican II Council allows us to grasp, love, and live the Divine Will. The Latin Mass is very beautiful, but its beauty does not negate the NO Mass, which can be just as beautiful when done properly. I believe that those who think it is proper to negate and reject the Novus Ordo Mass are being driven by fear and not love. Saint Pope John Paul II continually exhorted us, and tells us now from Eternity "Be Not Afraid". Fear and living the Divine Will just do not go together. The Divine Will embraces the Divine Love of our Thrice-Holy-God, and offers that same Love back to Him with one's whole heart. Fear and Love cannot co-exist with each other. One will surely drive out the other.
ReplyDelete