Fiducia Supplicans: Coup de Main of a Sect of Corrupt Heretics. Carlo Maria Viganò.
7 Gennaio 2024Lascia il tuo commento
Dear friends and foes of Stilum Curiae, we offer for your attention this interview of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò with Life Site News. Enjoy reading and sharing.
Michael Haynes interviews
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
About the Press Release on the Reception of
January 5, 2024
Cardinal Fernández writes that “there is no room to distance ourselves doctrinally from this Declaration or to consider it heretical, contrary to the Tradition of the Church or blasphemous.” How would you respond to such a remark?
It is not surprising that the author of a document which is in itself heretical tries to defend it, against all the evidence. Instead, he is surprised by the impudence of those who contradict that synodality which, according to the Bergoglians, is supposed to leave autonomy to the “particular churches”. But this is what happens when a lobby that claims to have “democratic” legitimacy discovers that the people – who are sovereign only in words – do not support its subversive plans. Popular consensus then becomes “populist drift” (just like when the Democrats do not honestly win an election) and the same thing occurs in the Bergoglian church.
However, I would like to draw attention to another element that should absolutely not be underestimated: the deliberate provocation on the part of Bergoglio and his henchman. If Tucho were really in good faith, he would never, ever have promulgated the Declaration Fiducia Supplicans, because it was widely foreseeable that this coup would have aroused very strong protests. From the way this scandalous affair unfolded – even to the point of not convening the plenary session of the Dicastery to discuss the content of the document – we can understand what I have already announced for some time, namely that Bergoglio wants to cause a schism in the Church and push Pastors and faithful to leave, or in any case to find themselves in a situation of voluntary or imposed ostracization in which their resistance is effectively canceled or ignored. This is what constitutes the mark of the “pontificate” of the Argentine Jesuit, and he himself stated it in 2016: “I could go down in history as the one who divided the Church.” This divisive action, typical of the Evil One, who is a spirit of division and sower of discord, is incontestable and finds further demonstration in the provocation of Fiducia Supplicans, which is defended by its author, in a grotesque conflict of interests, even deciding motu propriothat it cannot be considered heretical or blasphemous, without arguing and indeed knowing full well that the Magisterium of the Church has always condemned sodomy and therefore considered it unthinkable to bless or even indirectly approve those who live in a state of public concubinage or as sodomites.
In any case, any document bearing Tucho’s signature can be considered devoid of any value, due to the manifest heresy of Tucho himself and his complicity with Bergoglio in discrediting the Holy Church by usurping its authority to demolish it from within.
Cardinal Fernández also says that opposition to Fiducia Supplicans “cannot be interpreted as doctrinal opposition, because the document is clear and definitive about marriage and sexuality.” Yet it seems that all opposition to FS is based not on its lines about marriage being between man and woman, but rather on its allowing blessings for same-sex couples.
This document is a monument of Pharisaic hypocrisy. First of all, he pretends to ignore that the Byzantine distinction between liturgical and extra-liturgical blessings is clearly contradicted by the value attributed to them by those who impart them and those who ask for them, as well as of course by those who have deemed it appropriate to comment on the matter right now. A good parish priest knows very well that for the average faithful lay person, simply blessing a union means approving it. Furthermore, blessing a couple who are public sinners, even just in the sacristy, with relatives and friends is considered a necessary prerequisite for then arriving, in a relatively short time, at marriage tout-court. On the other hand, more or less the same was done when, in the civil sphere, civil unions were created to accompany marriage between a man and a woman, thanks to the support of the conservative parties who had been made to believe that these civil unions did not intend to question traditional marriage. And in fact, today there are civil marriages between people of the same sex, and no one even remembers what civil unions were.
In order to deceive, Tucho wants attention to be placed on an irrelevant aspect – namely that the blessing does not call into question that the Sacrament of Marriage is only possible between a man and a woman – in order to avoid taking sodomy into consideration, that sin against nature that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, which in fact Fiducia Supplicans declassifies and legitimizes. In this way, the consequences that Fiducia Supplicans will actually have – consequences that we can already see consistently applied by Bergoglian priests and bishops – are ignored. The first among these is inducing among the faithful the idea that a homosexual or otherwise illegitimate union can have a sort of second-class legitimization, opening that Overton window which will necessarily lead not only to the legitimization of homosexual marriages, but also to those among multiple spouses (in the name of inclusiveness towards those who practice polyamory) or with minors (when pedophilia, according to the auspices of the UN, will be recognized as normal) or with animals. I remember, en passant, that among the concerns of the Synod on Synodality managed by Bergoglio, there was also pastoral attention not only for illegitimate couples who live in a state of public concubinage or sodomites, but also for polygamists. Rereading those desires, we understand today what the will of Bergoglio and his accomplices was from the beginning.
On the other hand, for sixty years exceptions to the ordinary norms have been used as a pretext to introduce otherwise unacceptable innovations, from the practice of administering Communion in the hand to the institution of “ministers of the Eucharist” and altar girls, from the introduction of vernacular languages in place of Latin to the replacement of Gregorian chant with profane songs.
I also add another element: the fact that the “couples” who ask for this blessing are already civilly “married” or intend to do so and do not consider their union sinful. It is that sinful union that is being asked to be blessed; it is the two components of that sinful union that ask to be blessed.
Tucho knew very well that he could not issue this Declaration with the approval of the members of the Dicastery and the Episcopate, as it was contrary to Faith and Morals. For this reason, he had to resort to a coup, keeping the drafting of the document well hidden to prevent it from being blocked even before being published. To think that he did it without considering the reactions that it would arouse is therefore naive, because Tucho’s aim was precisely to create division in the Church. His angry reaction confirms that synodality – like all Bergoglian pastoral fiction – is only the hypocritical screen behind which hides the tyrannical authoritarianism of a sect of corrupt heretics who make the anti-human demands of the globalist elite their own, trampling on the teaching of Christ.
Cardinal Fernández says that FS’s passages on blessings are “perennial doctrine” yet also admits that FS’s “real novelty” is its teaching on blessings, which is “a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church.” What are we to make of this?
If we wanted to give an example of what is meant by “Jesuitism,” I believe that these words by Tucho could summarize the concept perfectly. Basically, what Tucho tries to make us believe is that yes, Blessings as a sacramental are a perennial doctrine, but that in order to bless an irregular couple it was necessary to introduce that “true novelty” that distorts them, making this specific application ipso facto extraneous to the perennial doctrine due to the change introduced. This has already happened in the doctrinal sphere with the arbitrary and absurd condemnation of the death penalty, introduced by Bergoglio with the same rhetorical device that hides the deception: the death penalty has been considered legitimate and this is a perennial doctrine; however today we introduce the “true novelty” of its anti-evangelical nature and therefore we condemn it. It is predictable that with the same pharisaical hypocrisy Tucho and his master will invent a form of “unordained ministry” for women, on the one hand reiterating that the Priesthood is limited to males only, and this is a perennial doctrine, but adding the “true novelty” of an “unordained ministry”, that is, of a priesthood-non-priesthood, of a diaconate-non-diaconate. You all understand that this is pure madness, dictated by a heretical mind and driven by an evil will.
We must understand once and for all that they are usurping the sacred authority of the Pastors of the Church of Christ in order to destroy Her, damn souls, offend the Divine Majesty, and obey their masters; exactly as in the civil sphere, the rulers of Western nations are subservient – out of interest or blackmail – to the globalist and antichristic elite. Both use their power to do evil, contrary to the purpose for which that power was established. If we continue to obey a corrupt authority, without throwing it out and putting it on trial as it deserves, we will never get out of this impasse.
Aiutate Stilum Curiae
Condividi i miei articoli: