domingo, 5 de julio de 2020


(Official translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino)

Marco Tosatti

Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, the recent speech by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on the subject of Vatican Council II created discussion and controversy. John Henry Westen, director of LifeSiteNews, asked the archbishop some questions. Here are questions and answers. 


Dear Archbishop Viganò,

I am hoping to get a clarification from you about your latest texts regarding the second Vatican council.

In your June 9 text you said that “it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.”

In your subsequent interview with Phil Lawler he asked: “What is the solution? Bishop Schneider proposes that a future Pontiff must repudiate errors; Archbishop Viganò finds that inadequate. But then how can the errors be corrected, in a way that maintains the authority of the teaching magisterium?”

You replied: “It will be for one of his Successors, the Vicar of Christ, in the fullness of his apostolic power, to rejoin the thread of Tradition there where it was cut off. This will not be a defeat but an act of truth, humility, and courage. The authority and infallibility of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles will emerge intact and reconfirmed.”

From this it is unclear whether you believe Vatican II to be an invalid council and thus to be complete repudiated or if you believe that while a valid council it contained many errors and the faithful would be better served by having it forgotten about and could rather draw on Vatican I and other councils for their sustenance.

I believe this clarification would be helpful.

In Christ and His beloved Mother,



1 July 2020

In festo Pretiosissimi Sanguinis

Domini Nostri Iesu Christi

Dear John-Henry,

I thank you for your letter, with which you give me the opportunity to clarify what I have already expressed about Vatican II. This delicate argument is involving prominent persons of the ecclesiastical world and not a few erudite laity: I trust that my modest contribution can help to lifting off the blanket of equivocations that weighs on the Council, thus leading to a shared solution.

You begin with my initial observation: “It is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ,” and then quote my words about the solution to the impasse in which we find ourselves today: “It will be for one of his Successors, the Vicar of Christ, in the fullness of his apostolic power, to rejoin the thread of Tradition there where it was cut off. This will not be a defeat but an act of truth, humility, and courage. The authority and infallibility of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles will emerge intact and reconfirmed.”

You then state that my position is not clear – “whether you believe Vatican II to be an invalid council and thus to be complete repudiated, or if you believe that while a valid council it contained many errors and the faithful would be better served by having it forgotten about.” I have never thought and even less have I affirmed that Vatican II was an invalid Ecumenical Council: in fact it was convoked by the supreme authority, by the Supreme Pontiff, and all of the Bishops of the world took part in it. Vatican II is a valid Council, supported by the same authority as Vatican I and Trent. However, as I have already written, from its origin it was made the object of a grave manipulation by a fifth column that penetrated into the very heart of the Church that perverted its purposes, as confirmed by the disastrous results that are before everyone’s eyes. Let us remember that in the French Revolution, the fact that the Estates-Generalwere legitimately convoked on May 5, 1789, by Louis XVI did not prevent things from escalating into the Revolution and the Terror (the comparison is not out of place, since Cardinal Suenens called the conciliar event “the 1789 of the Church”).

In his recent intervention, His Eminence Cardinal Walter Brandmüller maintains that the Council places itself in continuity with the Tradition, and as proof of this he remarks:

It is sufficient to glance at the notes of the text. It can thus be seen that ten previous councils are quoted by the document. Among these, Vatican I is referred to 12 times, and Trent 16 times. From this it is already clear that, for example, any idea of “distancing from Trent” is absolutely excluded. The relationship with Tradition appears even closer if we think of how, among the popes, Pius XII is cited 55 times, Leo XIII on 17 occasions, and Pius XI in 12 passages. To these are added Benedict XIV, Benedict XV, Pius IX, Pius X, Innocent I and Gelasius. The most impressive aspect, however, is the presence of the Fathers in the texts of Lumen Gentium. The council refers to the teaching of the Fathers a full 44 times, including Augustine, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian, John Chrysostom and Irenaeus. Furthermore, the great theologians and doctors of the Church are cited: Thomas Aquinas in 12 passages, along with seven other heavyweights.

As I pointed out in the analogous case of the Synod of Pistoia, the presence of orthodox content does not exclude the presence of other heretical propositions nor does it mitigate their gravity, nor can the truth be used to hide even only one single error. On the contrary, the numerous citations of other Councils, of magisterial acts or of the Fathers of the Church can precisely serve to conceal, with a malicious intent, the controversial points. In this regard, it is useful to recall the words of the Tractatus de Fide orthodoxa contra Arianos, cited by Leo XIII in his encyclical Satis Cognitum:

There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic Tradition.

Leo XIII then comments:

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.

On the pages of L’Osservatore Romano, in an article on April 14, 2013, Cardinal Kasper admitted that “in many places [the Council Fathers] had to find formulas of compromise, in which often the positions of the majority (conservatives) are found alongside those of the minority (progressives), designed to delimit them. Therefore, the conciliar texts themselves have an enormous potential for conflict, opening the door to selective reception in both directions.” This is the origin of the relevant ambiguities, patent contradictions, and serious doctrinal and pastoral errors.

It could be objected that taking into consideration the presumption of malice in a magisterial act ought to be rejected with disdain, since the Magisterium ought to be aimed at confirming the faithful in the Faith; but perhaps it is precisely the intentional fraud that makes an act prove to be non-magisterial and authorizes its condemnation or decrees its nullity. 

His Eminence Cardinal Brandmüller concluded his comment with these words: “It would be appropriate to avoid the ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ that accuses the interlocutor from the beginning of heretical conceptions.” 

While I surely share this sentiment in the abstract and in general, I think it appropriate to formulate a distinction to better frame this concrete case. In order to do this, it is necessary to abandon the approach, that is a bit too legalistic, that considers all doctrinal questions inherent in the Church as reducible and resolvable principally on the basis of a normative reference: let us not forget that the law is at the service of the Truth, and not vice-versa. And the same holds for the Authority that is the minister of that law and custodian of that Truth. On the other hand, when Our Lord faced his Passion, the Synagogue had deserted its proper function as guide of the Chosen People in fidelity to the Covenant, just as part of the Hierarchy has done for sixty years.

This legalistic attitude is at the foundation of the deception of the Innovators, those who devised a very simple way to actuate the Revolution: imposing it by virtue of authority with an act that the Ecclesia docens adopted in order to define truths of the Faith with a binding force for the Ecclesia discens, restating that teaching in other equally binding documents, albeit in a different degree. In short, it was decided to affix the label “Council” to an event conceived by some with the aim of demolishing the Church, and in order to do this the conspirators acted with malicious intent and subversive purposes. Father Edward Schillebeecks op candidly said: «We express it diplomatically, but after the Council we will draw the implicit conclusions» (De Bazuin, n.16, 1965).

It is not therefore a question of a “hermeneutic of suspicion,” but on the contrary something much more grave than a suspicion, corroborated by a calm evaluation of the facts, as well as by the admission of the protagonists themselves. In this regard, who among them is more authoritative than the 
Cardinal Ratzinger?

The impression grew steadily that nothing was now stable in the Church, that everything was open to revision. More and more the Council appeared to be like a great Church parliament, that could change everything and reshape everything according to its own desires. Very clearly resentment was growing against Rome and against the Curia, which appeared to be the real enemy of everything that was new and progressive. The disputes at the Council were more and more portrayed according to the party model of modern parliamentarism. When information was presented in this way, the person receiving it saw himself compelled to take sides with one of the parties. […] If the bishops in Rome could change the Church, and even the faith itself (as it appeared they could), why only the bishops? In any event, the faith could be changed – or so it now appeared, in contrast to everything we previously thought. The faith no longer seemed exempt from human decision making but rather was now apparently determined by it. And we knew that the bishops had learned from theologians the new things they were now proposing. For believers, it was a remarkable phenomenon that their bishops seemed to show a different face in Rome from the one they wore at home. [J. Ratzinger, Milestones, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 132-133].

At this point it is right to draw attention to a recurring paradox in world affairs: the mainstream calls people “conspiracy theorists” if they reveal and denounce the conspiracy that the mainstream itself has devised, in order to divert attention from the conspiracy and delegitimize those who denounce it. 

Similarly, it seems to me that there is the risk of defining as “hermeneutic of suspicion” anyone who reveals and denounces the conciliar fraud, as if they were people who unjustifiably accuse “the interlocutor from the beginning of heretical conceptions.” Instead, it is necessary to understand if the action of the protagonists of the Council can justify the suspicion towards them, if not actually prove such suspicion correct; and if whether the result they obtained legitimizes a negative evaluation of the entire Council, of some of its parts, or of none of it. If we persist in thinking that those who conceived Vatican II as a subversive event rivaled Saint Alphonsus in piety and Saint Thomas in doctrine, we demonstrate a naivety that cannot be reconciled with the evangelical precept, and indeed borders on, if not connivance, then certainly carelessness. 

Obviously, I am not referring to the majority of Council Fathers, who were certainly animated by pious and holy intentions; I speak instead of the protagonists of the Council-event, of the so-called theologians who up until Vatican II were restricted by canonical censures and forbidden from teaching, and who for this very reason were chosen and promoted and helped, so that their credentials of heterodoxy became a cause of merit for them, while the undisputed orthodoxy of Cardinal Ottaviani and his collaborators in the Holy Office were sufficient reason to consign the preparatory schemae of the Council to the flames, with the consent of John XXIII.

I doubt that with regard to Msgr. Bugnini – to cite only one name – an attitude of prudent suspicion is either censurable or lacking in Charity. On the contrary: the dishonesty of the author of the Novus Ordo in pursuing his purposes, his adherence to Masonry and his own admissions in his diaries given to the Press show that the measures taken by Paul VI toward him were all too lenient and ineffective, since everything he did in the Conciliar Commissions and at the Congregation of Rites remained intact and, despite this, became an integral part of the Acta Concilii and the related reforms. Thus the hermeneutic of suspicion is quite welcome if it serves to demonstrate that there are valid reasons for the suspicion and that these suspicions often materialize in the certainty of intentional fraud.

Let us now return to Vatican II, to demonstrate the trap into which the good Pastors fell, misled into error along with their flock by a most astute work of deception by people notoriously infected by Modernism and not rarely also misled in their own moral conduct. As I wrote above, the fraud lies in having recourse to a Council as a container for a subversive maneuver, and in the utilization of the authority of the Church to impose the doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and spiritual revolution that is ontologically contrary to the purpose for which the Council was called and its magisterial authority was exercised. I repeat: the label “Council” affixed to the packaging does not reflect its content.

We have witnessed a new and different way of understanding the same words of the Catholic lexicon: the expression “ecumenical council” given to the Council of Trent does not coincide with the meaning given by the proponents of Vatican II, for whom the term “council” alludes to “conciliation” and the term “ecumenical” to inter-religious dialogue. The “spirit of the council” is the “spirit of conciliation, of compromise,” just as the assembly was a solemn and public attestation of conciliatory dialogue with the world, for the first time in the history of the Church.

Bugnini wrote: “We must take out of our Catholic prayers and the Catholic liturgy everything which could be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, the Protestants” [cf. L’Osservatore Romano, 19 March 1965]. From these words we understand that the intent of the reform that was the fruit of the conciliar mens was to reduce the proclamation of Catholic Truth in order not to offend the heretics: and this is exactly what was done, not only in the Holy Mass – horribly disfigured in the name of ecumenism – but also in the exposition of dogma in the documents of doctrinal content; the use of subsistit in is a very clear example.

Perhaps it will be possible to debate the motives that may have led to this unique event, so fraught with consequences for the Church; but we can no longer deny the evidence and pretend that Vatican II was not something qualitatively different from Vatican I, despite the numerous heroic and documented efforts, even by the highest authority, to interpret it by force as a normal Ecumenical Council. Anyone with common sense can see that it is an absurdity to want to interpret a Council, since it is and ought to be a clear and unequivocal norm of Faith and Morals. Secondarily, if a magisterial act raises serious and reasoned arguments that it may be lacking in doctrinal coherence with magisterial acts that have preceded it, it is evident that the condemnation of a single heterodox point in any case discredits the entire document. If we add to this the fact that the errors formulated or left obliquely to be understood between the lines are not limited to one or two cases, and that the errors affirmed correspond conversely to an enormous mass of truths that are not confirmed, 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; nor to invent married priests and deaconesses in order to remedy the collapse of vocations; nor to adapt the Gospel to the modern mentality in order to gain more consensus. The Christian life is a militia, not a nice outing in the country, and this is all the more true for priestly life.

I conclude with a request to those who are profitably intervening in the debate about the Council: 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: anathema sit or damnatio memoriae, it changes little. 

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.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Arzobispo Viganò responde las objeciones del cardenal Brandmüller

El arzobispo Carlo Maria Viganò contradijo el 4 de julio en el sitio web la afirmación del cardenal Brandmüller, según la cual el Vaticano II estuvo en continuidad con la Tradición católica y se debería evitar la “hermenéutica de la sospecha”.

Él acusa a Brandmüller de mostrar una “actitud legalista” que – como cuestión de principio – considera que es inconcebible que un Concilio pueda equivocarse.

Viganò argumenta que los revolucionarios en el Vaticano II utilizaron la etiqueta “concilio” para imponer sus herejías “con intención dolosa y finalidades subversivas”.

Él cita al padre Edward Schillebeecks (+2009), uno de los teólogos más activos durante el Vaticano II, quien dijo sobre los documentos del Concilio: “Ahora lo decimos en forma diplomática, pero después del Concilio extraeremos las conclusiones implícitas”.

De esto Viganò concluye que la expresión “hermenéutica de la sospecha” es utilizada para denigrar a los que “denuncian el fraude conciliar”, aunque “la etiqueta ‘concilio’ sobre el paquete no refleja sus contenidos”.

Él ve al Vaticano II como “una obra muy astuta de engaño por personas notoriamente infectadas de modernismo y no pocas veces extraviadas también en su conducta moral”.

Viganò observa que el árbol es conocido por sus frutos: “No es suficiente hablar de una primavera conciliar para ocultar el frío invierno que atenaza a la Iglesia”.

Retomando el argumento neoconservador de que “el Concilio no ha cambiado nada de nuestra fe”, Viganò concluye que si esto es cierto, los neoconservadores también pueden volver al Catecismo de Pío X y al Misal de Pío V.

El P. Santiago Martín y el cisma “inevitable” (Luis Fernando Pérez Bustamante)

Para ver y escuchar el video pinchar aquí

Aprecio mucho la labor del P. Santiago Martín, sacerdote que desde hace años está haciendo un esfuerzo considerable por defender la doctrina católica sin arremeter a su vez contra Francisco, a quien siempre evita criticar abiertamente.

En este vídeo hace un análisis de lo ocurrido en los últimos meses en torno al CVII. Se refiere sobre todo a la postura de Mons. Viganò, pero se puede decir lo mismo de la de Mons. Athanasius Schneider y los obispos -todos ya retirados- que están apoyando sus tesis sobre el último concilio.

En los primeros minutos del vídeo, el P. Martín incurre en todos los típicos tópicos sobre el CVII mantenidos por el sector conservador de la iglesia post-conciliar. No se deja ni uno. Pero no es eso lo que me interesa. Sí me interesa su tesis de que solo un milagro puede evitar un cisma dentro del sector conservador.

Primero establece lo que para él son los sectores en los que se “dividió” la Iglesia tras el CVII:

– Los que rechazaron el concilio, con Lefebvre como figura destacada. Acaba en cisma, dice, pero no añade que la razón del mismo no fue técnicamente doctrinal, sino “jurisdiccional”. Es decir, se ordenaron obispos contra la voluntad expresa del Papa lo que provocó la excomunión de los ordenantes y los ordenados. Esas excomuniones fueron levantadas por BXVI.

– Los que sí aceptaban el concilio. Que a su vez se dividían en dos:

1) Los que lo aceptaban -y aceptan- si se interpretaba en continuidad con la Tradición.

2) Los que decían -y dicen- que se debía interpretar conforme al “espíritu del concilio”.

Bien, precisamente esa división establecida por el P. Santiago Martín tiene la virtud de poner en el mismo bando a los que aceptan el CVII -conservadores o revolucionarios-, en oposición a los que sostienen que es una ruptura con la Tradición. Señores, ese es el verdadero “cisma”.

El P. Martín comete luego el error de hablar de una división dentro del bando conservador que va a llevar a una ruptura -cisma- que solo puede evitar un milagro.

No, mire, no es una división ENTRE conservadores, sino entre tradicionalistas y conservadores. Lo único que hoy ocurre es que algunos que eran conservadores -no pocos y cada vez más, pero todavía muy minoritarios- se han pasado al tradicionalismo, que por otra parte no está ocupado solo por el lefebvrismo.

Viganó, Schneider y los cinco obispos que se sitúan en su postura (todavía no sé sus nombres) no pueden ser considerados conservadores. No lo son. Son tradicionalistas. No cismáticos -no han ordenado obispos contra la voluntad del Papa-, pero doctrinalmente sostienen exactamente lo mismo que sostenía la Iglesia antes del CVII, rechazando las novedades conciliares que los propios papas post-conciliares han reconocido. Y es aquí donde les vuelvo a recordar a ustedes que ha sido Benedicto XVI, -no solo Lefebvre, no solo Viganò, no solo Schneider-, quien ha reconocido que el CVII asume el concepto de libertad religiosa y de los derechos humanos de la Ilustración -o sea, de la masonería- y el estado moderno.

En otras palabras, según BXVI el CVII asume algo que la Iglesia había condenado de forma unánime y continua desde 1789 hasta el propio concilio. Pretender que puede haber una continuidad entre la condena de una doctrina y su asunción es cargarse el principio de no contradicción. Y, en mi opinión, es una falta de honestidad que encima abre las ventanas a la apostasía generalizada -el famoso humo de Satanás- ya que si eso lo hacen con una doctrina que afecta al dogma sobre el Reinado Social de Cristo, lo pueden hacer con cualquier doctrina que afecte a cualquier dogma de la Iglesia. Que es exactamente lo que está ocurriendo hoy, con Roma al frente de la Revolución.

Así que, efectivamente, la ruptura parece inevitable. Pero no entre liberal conservadores (BXVI) y liberal revolucionarios (Francisco), sino entre los que defienden la fe católica tal y como era antes del CVII y aquello en que la han querido convertir después.

Luis Fernando Pérez Bustamante

Viganò el cismático (Luis Fernando Pérez Bustamante)


Sandro Magister ha escrito un artículo en el que acusa abiertamente a Mons. Carlo Maria Viganò, arzobispo y Nuncio emérito de EE.UU, de estar al borde del cisma.

Don Sandro sostiene que:

– Viganò se acerca al cisma por mantener que el CVII supone una ruptura con el Magisterio anterior.

– Viganò se acerca al cisma al acusar a Benedicto XVI por sus “intentos fracasados de corrección de los excesos conciliares invocando la hermenéutica de la continuidad“

¿Qué se le ocurre a Magister para rebatir a Viganò? Darle la palabra a Benedicto XVI. ¿Cómo? Recordando “su memorable discurso a la curia vaticana en la vigilia de Navidad de 2005“. Y ya les adelanto que se trata de un discurso en el que junto con el que pronunció al año siguiente, Benedicto XVI sostiene sobre el CVII exactamente lo mismo que Mons. Lefebvre. Uno, el Papa alemán, para reafirmar los cambios. Otro, el arzobispo francés, para condenarlos.

Y, OJO AL DATO, el propio Magister reconoce lo siguiente:

“Efectivamente, es innegable que sobre la libertad religiosa el Concilio Vaticano II marcó una clara discontinuidad, por no decir una ruptura, con la enseñanza ordinaria de la Iglesia del siglo XIX y principios del XX, claramente antiliberal”.

Es decir, Magister reconoce que Viganó tiene razón. Sin reconocerlo, a la vez, le da la razón a Lefebvre al calificar de ruptura el CVII respecto al Magisterio anterior. Y reconoce que Benedicto XVI admite tal hecho pero a la vez pretende que donde hay discontinuidad y ruptura en realidad hay a la vez continuidad.

Vamos al discurso del papa alemán. Cito:

El concilio Vaticano II, reconociendo y haciendo suyo, con el decreto sobre la libertad religiosa, un principio esencial del Estado moderno, recogió de nuevo el patrimonio más profundo de la Iglesia. Esta puede ser consciente de que con ello se encuentra en plena sintonía con la enseñanza de Jesús mismo (cf. Mt 22, 21), así como con la Iglesia de los mártires, con los mártires de todos los tiempos.

Benedicto XVI reconoce, pues, que el CVII asume el principio del estado moderno a la hora de definir la libertad religiosa. Poco después, ratifica que eso supone una novedad que corrige la enseñanza anterior de la Iglesia. Y no contento con ello, afirma que esa aparente (sic) discontinuidad es cosa maravillosa:

El concilio Vaticano II, con la nueva definición de la relación entre la fe de la Iglesia y ciertos elementos esenciales del pensamiento moderno, revisó o incluso corrigió algunas decisiones históricas, pero en esta aparente discontinuidad mantuvo y profundizó su íntima naturaleza y su verdadera identidad.

Por si la cosa no había quedado clara en las Navidades del 2005, al año siguiente el papa Benedicto XVI volvió a explicar en qué consistió el Concilio Vaticano II. Y lo hizo de forma aún más contundente:

En el diálogo con el islam, que es preciso intensificar, debemos tener presente que el mundo musulmán se encuentra hoy con gran urgencia ante una tarea muy semejante a la que se impuso a los cristianos desde los tiempos de la Ilustración y que el concilio Vaticano II, como fruto de una larga y ardua búsqueda, llevó a soluciones concretas para la Iglesia católica.

Se trata de la actitud que la comunidad de los fieles debe adoptar ante las convicciones y las exigencias que se afirmaron en la Ilustración. Por una parte, hay que oponerse a una dictadura de la razón positivista que excluye a Dios de la vida de la comunidad y de los ordenamientos públicos, privando así al hombre de sus criterios específicos de medida. Por otra, es necesario aceptar las verdaderas conquistas de la Ilustración, los derechos del hombre, y especialmente la libertad de la fe y de su ejercicio, reconociendo en ellos elementos esenciales también para la autenticidad de la religión.

Como ven ustedes, Benedicto XVI admite que el Concilio Vaticano II asume el principio de libertad religiosa de la Ilustración y del estado moderno. Y no contento con ello, afirma que ello supone para la Iglesia asumir de nuevo -antes no lo hacía- la enseñanza de Jesús, recoger el testigo de la Iglesia de los mártires y sostener la autenticidad de la religión.

Llegados a este punto, y antes de seguir, es necesario plantear algunas preguntas y dar las respuestas:

– ¿Es cierto que desde la Ilustración hasta el Concilio Vaticano II los Papas habían condenado expresamente la libertad religiosa?

Sí. Creo innecesario llenar este artículo de citas pontificias.

– ¿Es cierto que esa condena unánime era de carácter magisterial?

Sí. tanto por la naturaleza de los textos de los Papas como, sobre todo, porque se basaba en un principio elemental de la fe católica: el error no tiene derechos. Puede llegar a ser tolerado, ciertamente, pero derechos… ninguno. Lean ustedes Libertas Praestantissimum de León XIII.

– ¿Ese magisterio pontifico preconciliar versaba sobre una doctrina fundamental para la fe católica?

Sí, porque entra de lleno en la cuestión del Reinado Social de Cristo. Y si alguien sostiene que la doctrina sobre la soberanía de Cristo sobre lo espiritual, lo temporal y los individuos y la sociedad (véase Quas Primas de Pío XI) es un tema menor y desechable, ya puede ir dejando de celebrar la Solemnidad de Cristo Rey, lo cual es lo mismo que dejar de confesar a Cristo. Eso, señores, es apostasía.

Nadie puede negar que el camino indicado por Pío XI..:

Y si ahora mandamos que Cristo Rey sea honrado por todos los católicos del mundo, con ello proveeremos también a las necesidades de los tiempos presentes, y pondremos un remedio eficacísimo a la peste que hoy inficiona a la humana sociedad. Juzgamos peste de nuestros tiempos al llamado laicismo con sus errores y abominables intentos; y vosotros sabéis, venerables hermanos, que tal impiedad no maduró en un solo día, sino que se incubaba desde mucho antes en las entrañas de la sociedad. Se comenzó por negar el imperio de Cristo sobre todas las gentes; se negó a la Iglesia el derecho, fundado en el derecho del mismo Cristo, de enseñar al género humano, esto es, de dar leyes y de dirigir los pueblos para conducirlos a la eterna felicidad. Después, poco a poco, la religión cristiana fue igualada con las demás religiones falsas y rebajada indecorosamente al nivel de éstas. Se la sometió luego al poder civil y a la arbitraria permisión de los gobernantes y magistrados. Y se avanzó más: hubo algunos de éstos que imaginaron sustituir la religión de Cristo con cierta religión natural, con ciertos sentimientos puramente humanos. No faltaron Estados que creyeron poder pasarse sin Dios, y pusieron su religión en la impiedad y en el desprecio de Dios.

… no es otro que el camino de apostasía iniciado en la Reforma protestante y, sobre todo, a partir de la Ilustración. Esa que Benedicto XVI alaba diciendo que obtuvo grandes logros. Esa cuya doctrina en materia de libertad religiosa asumió el Concilio Vaticano II.

No es de extrañar que Mons. Athanasius Schneider (¿otro cismático?) relacione el CVII con el sincretismo de Asís y el sincretista documento de Abu Dhabi, en el que se afirma que Dios quiere la pluralidad de las religiones. Pluralidad que vimos actuar a pecho descubierto durante la celebración pagana en honor a la Pachamama en los jardines del Vaticano en octubre del año pasado, en pleno Sínodo para la Amazonia.

¿Quién es el cismático, señores míos? ¿Qué creen que le habría pasado a un obispo anterior al CVII si hubiera dicho que era necesario reconocer y asumir que la Ilustración había reconquistado la verdadera doctrina sobre los derechos del hombre y la libertad religiosa?

Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas

¡¡Viva Cristo Rey!!

Luis Fernando Pérez Bustamante