“…..to defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is also our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the ‘right’ and ‘left’ alike) to view Vatican II as a ‘break’ and an abandonment of the tradition. There is, instead, a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.”
My friends, Cardinal Ratzinger was a man of the Second Vatican Council. As Pope Benedict XVI, he also defended the Council. He went to his death without condemning it for what it was, the doctrinal foundation of a new church, the conciliar church. Very sad. Deo gratias for Archbishop Lefebvre who stood up to him during the days he was cardinal.
Unfortunately, Don Minutella, in the video below, has taken a similar position like that of Dr. Andrea Cionci regarding His Excellency Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano and his association with His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson. He basically states that Bishop Williamson is in schism and that Archbishop Vigano is heading towards schism for taking a similar position to that of Bishop Williamson (and the Lefebvrists), that is, the Church has been in a crisis since the Second Vatican Council, and that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were culprits in this crisis because of their Modernist tendencies. Don Minutella doesn’t want the conciliar popes to be touched. He really only has a bone to pick with antipope Jorge Bergoglio.
It is sad to hear that Don Minutella holds that Bishop Williamson is in schism. I praised Don Minutella in a previous post (see here) for honouring Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and even saying that the Archbishop will one day be canonized. Therefore, I am now perplexed in hearing that he holds Bishop Williamson to be in schism because that means, a fortiori, Archbishop Lefebvre was in schism as it was Archbishop Lefebvre who consecrated Bishop Williamson and three other bishops. Furthermore, it was Archbishop Lefebvre who forcefully condemned the Second Vatican Council, called the post-Vatican II church the “Conciliar Church” (see here), forcefully condemned the Novus Ordo Missae, called Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger an “artful dodger” (see here), and was close to calling John Paul II a public heretic shortly before he convened Assisi I (see here). But for Don Minutella, there was no Conciliar Church; rather, the false church started with Jorge Bergoglio. Unfortunately, Don Minutella et al (e.g., Dr. Andrea Cionci) have deluded themselves into thinking that the false church started with Jorge Bergoglio. No! It started with the Second Vatican Council, which was the doctrinal foundation of a new religion, that is, that of the Conciliar Church! And it was the likes of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI who sustained that Conciliar Church! They were the heads of the Catholic Church and Conciliar Church at one and the same time (see here). That Conciliar Church continues today under Jorge Bergoglio with the difference that he is morphing it from a heretical sect to an apostate sect. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church is currently undergoing a period of sede vacante.
Don Minutella also holds to the impeded see thesis (see here). He, like Dr. Andrea Cionci, see this thesis as the ONLY way to get rid of Jorge Bergoglio. Unfortunately, some of those who hold to this thesis treat it almost like it is a dogma and become rabid when those who do not hold it criticize it or even question it. They make Benedict XVI to be a superhero and yet do not acknowledge that if Benedict XVI was indeed in an impeded see situation, he was a victim of the mess that he himself helped create in the Church by his promotion and defence of the Second Vatican Council, which, again, was the doctrinal foundation of the Conciliar Church. Benedict XVI went to his death never publicly renouncing that wretched Council.
My friends, the gloves are now off. To those who hold Jorge Bergoglio an antipope, who do you stand with: the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre, who rejected the Second Vatican Council, and the likes of Archbishop Vigano who are following in his path, or Don Minutella, Dr. Andrea Cionci, and the like that hold that the Second Vatican Council can and must be interpreted with a hermeneutic of continuity (the motto of Benedict XVI’s pontificate) with what came before it? I stand where I have stood for many years now, with Archbishop Lefebvre!
Fr. Paul Kramer does an excellent job in the following video in explaining the error of Pope Benedict XVI’s understanding of his own renunciation. Start at the 30 minutes and 35 seconds mark.
Today marks one year since the death of Pope Benedict XVI. Let us pray that Our Lady will soon put an end to this period of sede vacante. Pray for the election of a holy pope!
How sad that so many in the so-called Resistance say that if you admit Jorge Bergoglio is a public manifest formal heretic, then you must admit the same of Joseph Ratzinger. This is false. The indicia of heresy between the two are substantially different. Joseph Ratzinger was not pertinacious; Jorge Bergoglio is.
Dear Friends, today marks the fourth anniversary of me going public with the position that Benedict XVI was the true pope. You may find that original post here.
We are currently in a period of sede vacante. I am glad to see that more and more people have opened their eyes to this truth. Let us pray, however, that Our Lord through the intercession of Our Lady will soon grant us a holy pope.
