by Marco Tosatti
Translated from the Italian original.
Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, Archbishop Caro Maria Viganò has granted an interview to the Portuguese media-outlet Dies Irae, which we find it interesting to share with you. The theme of the Third Secret of Fatima, and its dissemination, is widely covered. We take the liberty of remembering, in this regard, that the present writer has dedicated a book to this theme, illustrating all the perplexities and contradictions linked to the tormented history of this message, – or messages – … Enjoy the reading.
§ § §
INTERVIEW WITH ARCHBISHOP CARLO MARIA VIGANÒ
* * *
Your Excellency, thank you so much for giving us this interview. We are dealing with the COVID-19 epidemic which, in recent months, has affected the lives of millions of people and even caused the death of many of them. In light of this situation, the Church, through the Episcopal Conferences, has decided to close practically all churches and deprive the faithful of access to the Sacraments. On March 27th, in front of an empty St. Peter’s Square, Pope Francis, acting in a manifestly mediatic way, presided over a hypothetical prayer for humanity. There were many reactions to the way the Pope conducted that moment, one of which tried to associate the solitary presence of Francis with the Message of Fatima, i.e. the third secret. Do you agree?
Allow me first of all to tell you that I am pleased to give this interview for the faithful of Portugal, which the Blessed Virgin has promised to preserve in the Faith even in these times of great trial. You are a people with a great responsibility, because you may soon find yourself having to guard the sacred fire of Religion while other nations refuse to recognize Christ as their King and Mary Most Holy as their Queen.
The third part of the message that Our Lady entrusted to the shepherd children of Fatima to deliver to the Holy Father remains secret to this day. Our Lady asked to reveal it in 1960, but John XXIII had a communiqué published on February 8th of that year in which he stated that the Church “does not wish to take responsibility to guarantee the truthfulness of the words that the three shepherd children say the Virgin Mary would address to them”. With this distance from the message of the Queen of Heaven, a cover-up operation was started, evidently because the content of the message would have revealed the terrible conspiracy against the Church of Christ by its enemies. Until a few decades ago it would have seemed incredible that even Our Lady could be gagged, but in recent years we have also witnessed attempts to censor the Gospel itself, which is the Word of Her divine Son.
In the year 2000, during the Pontificate of John Paul II, the Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano, presented as the Third Secret a version of the Gospel that from some elements appeared clearly incomplete. It is not surprising that the new Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, tried to divert attention to an event of the past, in order to let the people of God believe that the words of the Virgin had nothing to do with the crisis of the Church and the combination of modernists and Freemasonry contracted behind the scenes of Vatican II. Antonio Socci, who carefully investigated the Third Secret, unmasked this malicious behavior on the part of Cardinal Bertone. On the other hand, it was Bertone himself who heavily discredited and censured the Madonnina delle Lacrime of Civitavecchia, whose message perfectly agrees with what she said at Fatima.
Let us not forget Our Lady’s unheeded appeal for the Pope and all the Bishops to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, as a condition for defeating Communism and atheistic materialism: consecrate not “the world”, not “that nation which You want us to consecrate to You”, but “Russia”. Did it cost so much to do that? Evidently so, for those who do not have a supernatural gaze. One preferred to walk the path of détente with the Soviet regime, inaugurated precisely by Roncalli, without understanding that without God no peace is possible. Today, with a President of the Russian Confederation who is certainly a Christian, the Virgin’s request could be granted, averting further misfortune for the Church and the world.
Benedict XVI himself confirmed the relevance of the Virgin’s message, even though – according to the interpretation spread by the Vatican – it should be considered complete. Those who have read the Third Secret have made it clear that its content concerns the apostasy of the Church, which began at the beginning of the 1960s and today has reached such an evident stage that it is even recognized by lay observers. This almost obsessive insistence on themes that the Church has always condemned, such as relativism and religious indifferentism, false ecumenism, Malthusian ecologism, homoheresis and immigrationism, has found in the Abu Dhabi Declaration the fulfillment of a plan conceived by the secret sects for more than two centuries.
In the middle of Holy Week and after the Panamazzonic Synod, Bergoglio decided to establish a commission to discuss and study the female diaconate in the Catholic Church. Do you believe that this aims to pave the way for the clericalisation of women or, in other words, for the attempt to tamper with the Priesthood established by Our Lord Jesus Christ on Holy Thursday?
The Sacred Order cannot and can never be modified in its essence. The attack on the Priesthood has always been at the centre of heretics’ action and their inspirer, and it is understandable that this is the case: hitting the Priesthood means destroying the Holy Mass and the Holy Eucharist and the entire sacramental building. Among the sworn enemies of the Sacred Order there was not even a lack of modernists, of course, who since the nineteenth century theorized a church without priests, or with priests and priestesses. These delusions, anticipated by some exponents of Modernism in France, subtly re-emerged at the Council, in an attempt to insinuate some equivalence between the ministerial priesthood deriving from Holy Orders and the common priesthood of the faithful deriving from Baptism. It is significant that, precisely by playing on this intentional misunderstanding, the reformed liturgy also suffered from the doctrinal error of Lumen Gentium and ended up reducing the ordained Minister to the simple president of an assembly of priests. On the other hand, the priest is alter Christus not by popular designation, but by ontological configuration to the High Priest, Jesus Christ, whom he must imitate in holiness of life and in the absolute dedication represented also by Celibacy.
The next step had to be taken, if not by annulling the Priesthood itself, at least by making it ineffective by extending it to women, who cannot be ordained: exactly what happened in the Protestant and Anglican sects, which today also experience the embarrassing situation of having lesbian bishops in the so-called Church of England. But it is clear that the ecumenical “pretext” – that is, approaching dissident communities by acquiring even the most recent errors – is based on Satan’s hatred for the Priesthood and would inevitably lead the Church of Christ to ruin. On the other hand, ecclesiastical Celibacy is also the object of the same attack, because it is distinctive of the Catholic Church and constitutes a precious defence of the Priesthood that Tradition has jealously guarded through the centuries.
The attempt to introduce a form of ordained female ministry within the Church is not recent, despite the repeated declarations of the Magisterium. John Paul II also unequivocally defined, and with all the canonical requirements of an infallible former Cathedra declaration, that it is absolutely impossible to question the doctrine on this subject. But just as the Catechism could be used to declare the death penalty “not in conformity with the Gospel” – something unheard of and heretical – so today an attempt is being made to create ex novo some form of female diaconate, evidently preparatory to a future introduction of the female priesthood. The first commission created by Bergoglio years ago gave a negative opinion, confirming what should not even have been the subject of discussion; but if that commission could not obey the wishes of Francis, this does not mean that another commission, whose members, chosen by him, are more “docile” and relaxed in demolishing another pillar of the Catholic Faith, cannot do so. I do not doubt that Bergoglio has persuasive methods and that he can exert pressure on the theological commission; but I am equally certain that in the unfortunate event that this consultative body were to give a favorable opinion, one would not necessarily have to come to an official declaration by the (anti-)Pope to see himself multiplying deaconesses in the dioceses of Germany or Holland, in the silence of Rome. The method is well known, and on the one hand it makes it possible to strike at the priesthood and on the other hand it gives a convenient alibi to those within the ecclesiastical structure who can always appeal to the fact that “the Pope has not allowed anything new”. They did likewise by authorizing the Episcopal Conferences to legislate autonomously about Communion in the hand, which, imposed by abuse, has now become universal practice.
It should be said that this will to promote women in the hierarchy betrays the urge to follow the modern mentality that has taken away the woman’s role of mother and wife to unhinge the natural family.
Let’s keep in mind that this approach to the Church’s dogmas confirms an undeniable fact: Bergoglio has adopted the so-called theology of the situation, whose theological places are accidental facts or subjects: the world, nature, the female figure, young people… This theology does not have as its founding centre the immutable and eternal truth of God, but, on the contrary, it starts from the observation of the binding impellence of phenomena in order to give answers consistent with the expectations of the contemporary world.
Excellence, according to historians of recognized merit, the Second Vatican Council represented a rupture of the Church with Tradition; hence the appearance of currents of thought that want to transform it into a simple humanitarian association that embraces the world and its globalist utopia. How do you see this serious problem?
A church that poses itself as new with respect to the Church of Christ is simply not the Church of Christ! The Mosaic Religion, that is, the “church of the ancient law” willed by God to lead His people until the coming of the Messiah, had its fulfillment in the New Covenant, and was definitively revoked on Calvary by the Sacrifice of Christ: from His side was born the Church of the New and Eternal Covenant, which replaces the Synagogue. It seems that even the post-conciliar church, modernist and Masonic, aspires to transform, to overcome the Church of Christ, replacing it with a “neo-church”, deformed and monstrous creature that does not come from God.
The purpose of this neo-church is not to bring the chosen people to recognize the Messiah, as for the Synagogue; it is not to convert and save all people before the second coming of Christ, as for the Catholic Church, but to establish itself as the spiritual arm of the New World Order and advocate of Universal Religion. In this sense, the Council’s revolution first had to demolish the Church’s heritage, its millenary Tradition, from which it drew its vitality and authority as the Mystical Body of Christ, then get rid of the exponents of the old Hierarchy, and only recently has it begun to offer itself without pretence for what it intends to be.
What you call utopia is actually a dystopia, because it represents the concretization of Freemasonry’s plan and the preparation for the advent of the Antichrist.
I am also convinced that the majority of my brethren, and even more so almost all the priests and faithful, are absolutely unaware of this hellish plan and that recent events have opened many people’s eyes. Their faith will allow Our Lord to gather the pusillus grex around the true Shepherd before the final confrontation.
To restore the ancient splendour of the Church, it will be necessary to question many doctrinal aspects of the Council. What points of Vatican II would you question?
I believe that there is no lack of eminent personalities who have expressed the critical points of the Council better than I have. There are those who believe that it would be less complicated and certainly wiser to follow the practice of the Church and the Popes as it was applied with the Synod of Pistoia: there was something good in it too, but the errors it affirmed were considered sufficient to let it fall into oblivion.
Does the present Regime represent the culmination of a process that opens with the Second Vatican Council, desired in the so-called “Pact of the Catacombs”, or is it still in an intermediate phase?
As is the case with every revolution, the heroes of the first hour often end up falling victim to their own system, as Robespierre did. Who yesterday was judged to be the standard-bearer of the Conciliar spirit, today appears almost a conservative: the examples are before everyone’s eyes. And there are already those who, in the intellectual circles of progressivism (such as the one frequented by a certain Massimo Faggioli, haughty in his first name and ungrammatical in his surname), start spreading here and there some doubts about Bergoglio’s real ability to make “courageous choices” – for example, to abolish Celibacy, to admit women to the Priesthood or to legitimize communicatio in sacris with heretics – almost hoping that he would step aside to elect an even more obedient Pope to those elites who had in the Catacomb Pact and the St. Gallen Mafia their most unscrupulous and determined followers.
Your Excellency, we Catholics today often feel isolated from the Church and almost abandoned by our Pastors. What can Your Excellency say to the hierarchs and the faithful who, despite the confusion and error that are spreading in the Church, try to persevere in this hard battle to maintain the integrity of our Faith?
My words would certainly be inadequate. All I do is to repeat the words of Our Lord, the eternal Word of the Father: Behold, I am with you every day until the consummation of the ages. We feel isolated, of course: but didn’t the Apostles and all Christians feel so too? Did not Our Lord even feel abandoned in Gethsemane? These are the times of trial, perhaps of the final trial: we must drink the bitter chalice, and even if it is human to implore the Lord to take it away from us, we must repeat confidently: Not as I wish, but as you wish, remembering His comforting words: In the world you will have tribulations, but have courage: I have conquered the world! After the trial, no matter how hard and painful, the eternal prize is prepared for us, which no one can take away from us. The Church will shine again with the glory of her Lord after this terrible and prolonged Easter Triduum. But if prayer is certainly indispensable, we must not fail to fight the good fight, making us all witnesses of a courageous militancy under the banner of the Cross of Christ. Let us not find ourselves being pointed out as the handmaiden did with Saint Peter in the high priest’s courtyard: “You too were one of his followers”, only to then deny Christ. Let us not be intimidated! Let us not allow the gag of tolerance to those who want to proclaim the Truth! Let us ask the Blessed Virgin Mary that our language may proclaim with courage the Kingdom of God and His Justice. Let the miracle of Lapa be renewed when Mary Most Holy gave the word to little Joana, born mute. May She also give voice to us, Her children, who for too long have been mute.
Our Lady of Fatima, Queen of Victories, Ora pro nobis.
§ § §