Archbishop Viganò Addresses the Catholic Identity Conference 2020 (Francis & the New World Order)


The Text of the Address:


Catholic Identity Conference

October 24th, 2020

SCAPEGOATING FRANCIS:

How the Revolution of Vatican II serves the New World Order

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Apostolic Nuncio

“Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.” Mt 8:22

1. WE LIVE IN EXTRAORDINARY TIMES

As each of us has probably understood, we find ourselves in an historical moment in time; events of the past, which once seemed disconnected, prove now to be unequivocally connected, both in the principles that inspire them and in the goals they seek to achieve. A fair and objective look at the current situation cannot help but grasp the perfect coherence between the evolution of the global political framework and the role that the Catholic Church has assumed in the establishment of the New World Order. To be more precise, one should speak about the role of that apparent majority in the Church, which is actually small in number but extremely powerful, and which, for brevity’s sake, I will summarize as the deep church.

Obviously, there are not two Churches, something that would be impossible, blasphemous, and heretical. Nor has the one true Church of Christ today failed in her mission, perverting herself into a sect. The Church of Christ has nothing to do with those who, for the past sixty years, have executed a plan to occupy her. The overlap between the Catholic Hierarchy and the members of the deep church is not a theological fact, but rather a historical reality that defies the usual categories and, as such, must be analyzed.

We know that the New World Order project consists in the establishment of tyranny by Freemasonry: a project that dates back to the French Revolution, the Age of Enlightenment, the end of the Catholic Monarchies, and the declaration of war on the Church. We can say that the New World Order is the antithesis of Christian society, it would be the realization of the diabolical Civitas Diaboli City of the Devil – opposed to the Civitas Dei – City of God – in the eternal struggle between Light and Darkness, Good and Evil, God and Satan.

In this struggle, Providence has placed the Church of Christ, and in particular the Supreme Pontiff, as kathèkon – that is, the one who opposes the manifestation of the mystery of iniquity (2 Thess 2:6-7). And Sacred Scripture warns us that at the manifestation of the Antichrist, this obstacle – the kathèkon – will have ceased to exist. It seems quite evident to me that the end times are now approaching before our eyes, since the mystery of iniquity has spread throughout the world with the disappearance of the courageous opposition of the kathèkon.

[With regard to the incompatibility between the City of God and the City of Satan, the Jesuit advisor to Francis, Antonio Spadaro, sets aside Sacred Scripture and Tradition, making the Bergoglian embrassons-nous his own. According to the Director of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Encyclical Fratelli Tutti

also remains a message with a strong political value, because – we could say – it overturns the logic of the apocalypse that prevails today. It is the fundamentalist logic that fights against the world, because it believes that it is the opposite of God, that is, an idol, and therefore to be destroyed as soon as possible in order to accelerate the end of time. The abyss of the apocalypse, in fact, before which there are no more brothers: only apostates or martyrs running “against” time. [...] We are not militants or apostates, but all brothers.”[1]

This strategy of discrediting the interlocutor with the slur of “integralist” is evidently aimed at facilitating the action of the enemy within the Church, seeking to disarm the opposition and discourage dissent. We also find it in the civil sphere, where the democrats and the deep state arrogate to themselves the right to decide whom to grant political legitimacy and whom to condemn without appeal to media ostracism. The method is always the same, because the one inspiring is the same. Just as the falsification of History and of the sources, is always the same: if the past disavows the revolutionary narrative, the followers of the Revolution censor the past and replace historical fact with a myth. Even St. Francis is a victim of this adulteration that would have him be the standard-bearer of poverty and pacifism, that are as alien to the spirit of Catholic orthodoxy as they are instrumental to the dominant ideology. Proof of this is the last, fraudulent recourse to the Poverello of Assisi in Fratelli Tutti to justify dialogue, ecumenism, and the universal brotherhood of the Bergoglian anti-church.]

Let us not make the mistake of presenting the current events as “normal,” judging what happens with the legal, canonical, and sociological parameters that such normality would presuppose. In extraordinary times – and the present crisis in the Church is indeed extraordinary – events go beyond the ordinary known to our fathers. In extraordinary times, we can hear a Pope deceive the faithful; see Princes of the Church accused of crimes that in other times would have aroused horror and been met with severe punishment; witness in our churches liturgical rites that seem to have been invented by Cranmer’s perverse mind; see Prelates process the unclean idol of the pachamama into St. Peter’s Basilica; and hear the Vicar of Christ apologize to the worshippers of that simulacrum if a Catholic dares to throw it into the Tiber. In these extraordinary times, we hear a conspirator – Cardinal Godfried Danneels – tell us that, since the death of John Paul II, the Mafia of St. Gallen had been plotting to elect one of their own to Peter’s Chair, which later turned out to be Jorge Mario Bergoglio. In the face of this disconcerting revelation, we might well be astonished that neither Cardinals nor Bishops expressed their indignation nor asked that the truth be brought to light.

[The coexistence of good and evil, of saints and the damned, in the ecclesial body, has always accompanied the earthly events of the Church, beginning with the betrayal of the Judas Iscariot. And it is indeed significant that the anti-church tries to rehabilitate Judas – and with him the worst heresiarchs – as exemplary models, “anti-saints” and “anti-martyrs,” and thereby legitimizing themselves in their own heresies, immorality and vices. The coexistence – I was saying – of the good and the wicked, of which the Gospel speaks in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, seems to have morphed into the prevalence of the latter over the former. The difference is that vice and deviations once despised are today not only practiced and tolerated more, but even encouraged and praised, while virtue and fidelity to the teaching of Christ are despised, mocked and even condemned.]


2. THE ECLIPSE OF THE TRUE CHURCH

For sixty years, we have witnessed the eclipse of the true Church by an anti-church that has progressively appropriated her name, occupied the Roman Curia and her Dicasteries, Dioceses and Parishes, Seminaries and Universities, Convents and Monasteries. The anti-church has usurped her authority, and its ministers wear her sacred garments; it uses her prestige and power to appropriate her treasures, assets, and finances.

Just as happens in nature, this eclipse does not take place all at once; it passes from light to darkness when a celestial body inserts itself between the sun and us. This is a relatively slow but inexorable process, in which the moon of the anti-church follows its orbit until it overlaps the sun, generating a cone of shadow that projects over the earth. We now find ourselves in this doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary cone of shadow. It is not yet the total eclipse that we will see at the end of time, under the reign of the Antichrist. But it is a partial eclipse, which lets us see the luminous crown of the sun encircling the black disk of the moon.

The process that led to today’s eclipse of the Church began with Modernism, without a doubt. The anti-church followed its orbit despite the solemn condemnations of the Magisterium, which in that phase shone with the splendor of Truth. But with the Second Vatican Council, the darkness of this spurious entity came over the Church. Initially it obscured only a small part, but the darkness gradually increased. Whoever then pointed to the sun, deducing that the moon would certainly obscure it, was accused of being a “prophet of doom,” with those forms of fanaticism and intemperance that arise from ignorance and prejudice. The case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and a few other Prelates confirms, on the one hand, the far-sightedness of these shepherds and, on the other hand, the disjointed reaction of their adversaries; who, out of fear of losing power, used all their authority to deny the evidence and kept hidden their own true intentions.

To continue the analogy: we can say that, in the sky of the Faith, an eclipse is a rare and extraordinary phenomenon. But to deny that, during the eclipse, darkness spreads – just because this does not happen under ordinary conditions – is not a sign of faith in the indefectibility of the Church, but rather an obstinate denial of the evidence, or bad faith. The Holy Church, according to Christ’s promises, will never be overwhelmed by the gates of hell, but that does not mean that she will not be – or is not already – overshadowed by her infernal forgery, that moon which, not by chance, we see under the feet of the Woman of the Revelation: “A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev 12:1).

The moon lies under the feet of the Woman who is above all mutability, above all earthly corruption, above the law of fate and the kingdom of the spirit of this world. And this is because that Woman, who is at once the image of Mary Most Holy and of the Church, is amicta sole, clothed with the Sun of Righteousness that is Christ, “exempted from all demonic power as she takes part in the mystery of the immutability of Christ” (Saint Ambrose). She remains unbruised if not in her militant kingdom, certainly in the suffering one in Purgatory and in the triumphant one in Paradise. St. Jerome, commenting on the words of Scripture, reminds us that “the gates of hell are sins and vices, especially the teachings of heretics.” We know therefore that even the “synthesis of all heresies” represented by Modernism and its updated conciliar version, can never definitively obscure the splendor of the Bride of Christ, but only for the brief period of the eclipse that Providence, in its infinite wisdom, has allowed, to draw from it a greater good.


3. THE ABANDONMENT OF THE SUPERNATURAL DIMENSION

In this talk, I wish especially to deal with the relationship between the revolution of Vatican II and the establishment of the New World Order. The focal element of this analysis consists in highlighting the abandonment on the part of the ecclesiastical Hierarchy, even at the top, of the supernatural dimension of the Church and its eschatological role. With the Council, the Innovators erased the divine origin of the Church from their theological horizon, creating an entity of human origin similar to a philanthropic organization. The first consequence of this ontological subversion was the necessary denial of the fact that the Bride of Christ is not, and cannot be, subject to change by those who exercise vicarious authority in the name of the Lord. She is neither the property of the Pope nor of the Bishops or theologians, and, as such, any attempt at “Aggiornamento” lowers her to the level of a company that, in order to garner profit, renews its own commercial offer, sells its leftovers stock, and follows the fashion of the moment. The Church, on the other hand, is a supernatural and divine reality: she adapts the way she preaches the Gospel to the nations, but she can never change the content of a single iota (Mt 5:18), nor deny her transcendent momentum by lowering herself to mere social service. On the opposite side, the anti-church proudly lays claims to the right to perform a paradigm shift not only by changing the way doctrine is expounded, but the doctrine itself. [This is confirmed by the words of Massimo Fagggioli comment on the new Encyclical Fratelli Tutti:

Pope Francis’ pontificate is like a standard lifted up before Catholic integralists and those who equate material continuity and tradition: Catholic doctrine does not just develop. Sometimes it really changes: for example on [the] death penalty, [and] war.”[2]]

Insisting on what the Magisterium teaches is useless. The Innovators’ brazen claim to have the right to change the Faith stubbornly follows the modernist approach.

The Council’s first error consists mainly in the lack of a transcendent perspective – the result of a spiritual crisis that was already latent – and in the attempt to establish paradise on earth, with a sterile human horizon. In line with this approach, Fratelli tutti sees the fulfillment of an earthly utopia and social redemption in human brotherhood, pax œcumenica between religions and welcoming migrants.


4. THE SENSE OF INFERIORITY AND INADEQUACY

As I have written on other occasions, the revolutionary demands of the Nouvelle Théologie found fertile ground in the Council Fathers because of a serious inferiority complex vis-à-vis the world. There was a time, in the postwar period, when the revolution led by Freemasonry in the civil, political and cultural spheres, breached the Catholic élite, persuading it of its inadequacy in the face of an epochal challenge that is now inescapable. Instead of questioning themselves and their faith, this élite – bishops, theologians, intellectuals – recklessly attributed responsibility for the imminent failure of the Church to her rock-solid hierarchical structure, and to her monolithic doctrinal and moral teaching. Looking at the defeat of the European civilization that the Church had helped to form, the élite thought that the lack of agreement with the world was caused by the intransigence of the Papacy and the moral rigidity of priests not wanting to come to terms with the Zeitgeist, and “open up.” This ideological approach stems from the false assumption that, between the Church and the contemporary world, there can be an alliance, a consonance of intent, a friendship. Nothing could be further from the truth, since there can be no respite in the struggle between God and Satan, between Light and Darkness. “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15). This is an enmity willed by God Himself, which places Mary Most Holy – and the Church – as eternal enemies of the ancient serpent. The world has its own prince (Jn 12:31), who is the “enemy” (Mt 13:28), a “murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44) and a “liar” (Jn 8:44). Courting a pact of non-belligerence with the world means coming to terms with Satan. This overturns and perverts the very essence of the Church, whose mission is to convert as many souls to Christ for the greater glory of God, without ever laying down arms against those who want to attract them to themselves and to damnation.

[The Church’s sense of inferiority and failure before the world created the “perfect storm” for the revolution to take root in the Council Fathers and by extension in the Christian people, in whom obedience to the Hierarchy had been cultivated perhaps more than fidelity to the depositum fidei. Let me it be clear: obedience to the Sacred Pastors is certainly praiseworthy if the commands are legitimate. But obedience ceases to be a virtue and, in fact, becomes servility if it is an end in itself and if it contradicts the purpose to which it is ordained, namely Faith and Morals. We should add, that this sense of inferiority was introduced into the ecclesial body with displays of great theater, such as the removal of the tiara by Paul VI, the return of the Ottoman flagship banners conquered at Lepanto, the flaunted ecumenical embraces with the schismatic Athenagoras, the requests for forgiveness for the Crusades, the abolition of the Index, the Clergy’s focus on the poor in place to the alleged triumphalism of Pius XII. The coup de grâce of this attitude was codified in the Reformed Liturgy, which manifests its embarrassment of Catholic dogma by silencing it – and thus denying it indirectly. The ritual change engendered a doctrinal change, which led the faithful to believe that the Mass is a simple fraternal banquet and that the Most Holy Eucharist is merely a symbol of Christ’s presence among us.]


5. “IDEM SENTIRE” OF REVOLUTION AND COUNCIL

The Council Fathers’ sense of inadequacy was only increased by the work of the Innovators, whose heretical ideas coincided with the demands of the world. A comparative analysis of modern thought confirms the idem sentire [same feeling or same mind] of the conspirators with every element of the revolutionary ideology:

[- the acceptance of the democratic principle as the legitimizing source of power, in place of the divine right of the Catholic Monarchy (including the Papacy);

- the creation and accumulation of organs of power, in place of personal responsibility and institutional hierarchy;

- the erasure of the historical past, evaluated with today’s parameters, which fail to defend tradition and cultural heritage;

- the emphasis on the freedom of individuals and the weakening of the concept of responsibility and duty;

- the continuous evolution of morality and ethics, thus deprived of their immutable nature and of any transcendent reference;

- the presumed secular nature of the State, in place of the rightful submission of civil order to the Kingship of Jesus Christ and the ontological superiority of the Church’s mission over that of the temporal sphere;

- the equality of religions not only before the State, but even as a general concept to which the Church must conform, against the objective and necessary defense of the Truth and the condemnation of error;

- the false and blasphemous concept of the dignity of man as connatural to him, based on the denial of original sin and of the need for Redemption as a premise for pleasing God, meriting His Grace and attaining eternal beatitude;

- the undermining of the role of women, the contempt and a contempt for the privilege of motherhood;

- the primacy of matter over spirit;

- the fideistic relationship with science[3], in the face of a ruthless criticism of religion on false scientific grounds.

All these principles, propagated by Freemasonry ideologues and New World Order supporters, coincide with the revolutionary ideas of the Council:

- the democratization of the Church began with Lumen Gentium and today it is realized in the Bergoglian synodal path;

- the creation and accumulation of organs of power has been achieved by delegating decision-making roles to Episcopal Conferences, Synods of Bishops, Commissions, Pastoral Councils, etc.;

- the Church’s past and glorious traditions are judged according to the modern mentality and condemned in order to curry favor with the modern world;

- the “freedom of the children of God” theorized by Vatican II has been established regardless of the moral duties of individuals who, according to the conciliar fairytales, are all saved regardless of their inner dispositions and the state of their soul;

- the obfuscating of perennial moral references has led to the revised doctrine on capital punishment; and, with Amoris Laetitia, the admission of public adulterers to the Sacraments, cracking the sacramental edifice;

- the adoption of the concept of secularism has led to the abolition of a State Religion in Catholic nations. Encouraged by the Holy See and the Episcopate, this has led to a loss of religious identity and the recognition of rights of sects, as well as the approval of norms that violate natural and divine law;

- the religious freedom theorized in Dignitatis Humanae is today brought to its logical and extreme consequences with the Declaration of Abu Dhabi and the latest Encyclical Fratelli Tutti, rendering the saving mission of the Church and the Incarnation itself obsolete;

- theories on human dignity in the Catholic sphere have led to confusion about the role of the laity with respect to the ministerial role of the Clergy and a weakening of the hierarchical structure of the Church. While the embrace of feminist ideology is a prelude to the admission of women to the Holy Orders;

- an inordinate preoccupation with the temporal needs of the poor, so typical of the left, has transformed the Church into a sort of welfare association, limiting her activity to the mere material sphere, almost to the point of abandoning the spiritual;

- subservience to modern science and technological progress has led the Church to disavow the “Queen of the Science” [Faith], to “demythologize” miracles, to deny the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, to look at the most sacred Mysteries of our Holy Religion as “myths” or “metaphors,” sacrilegiously suggesting that Transubstantiation and the Resurrection itself are “magic” (not to be taken literally but rather symbolically), and to describe the sublime Marian dogmas are “tonterias” [nonsense].]

There is an almost grotesque aspect of this leveling and dumbing down of the Hierarchy to comply with mainstream thought. The hierarchy’s desire to please its persecutors and serve its enemies always comes too late and is out of sync, giving the impression that the Bishops are irremediably outdated, indeed not in step with the times. They lead those who see them so enthusiastically conniving with their own extinction to believe that this demonstration of courtesan submission to politically correct comes not so much from a true ideological persuasion, but rather from the fear of being swept away, of losing power, and no longer having that prestige that the world still pays them, nonetheless. They do not realize – or do not want to admit – that the prestige and authority whose custodians they are, comes from the authority and prestige of the Church of Christ, and not from the miserable, pitiful counterfeit of her which they have fashioned.

When this anti-church is fully established in the total eclipse of the Catholic Church, the authority of its leaders will depend on the degree of subjugation to the New World Order, which will not tolerate any divergence from its own creed and will ruthlessly apply that dogmatism, t fanaticism and fundamentalism that many Prelates and self-styled intellectuals criticize in those who remain faithful to the Magisterium today. In this way, the deep church may continue to bear the trademark “Catholic Church,” but it will be the slave of the New Order thinking, reminiscent of the Jews who, after denying the Kingship of Christ before Pilate, were enslaved to the civil authority of their time: “We have no other king but Caesar” (Jn 19:15). Today’s Caesar commands us to close the churches, wear a mask, and suspend the celebrations under the pretext of a pseudo-pandemic. The communist regime persecutes the Chinese Catholics, and the world hears nothing but silence from Rome. Tomorrow a new Titus will sack the Council temple, transporting its remains to some museum, and divine vengeance at the hands of the pagans will have been achieved once again.


6. THE INSTRUMENTAL ROLE OF THE MODERATE CATHOLICS IN THE REVOLUTION

Some might say that the Council Fathers and Popes who presided over that assembly, did not realize the implications that their approval of the Vatican II documents would have for the future of the Church. If this were the case – i.e., if there had been any subsequent regrets in their hasty approval of heretical texts or texts close to heresy – it is difficult to understand why they were unable to put an immediate stop to abuses, correct errors, clarify misunderstandings and omissions. And above all, it is incomprehensible why the ecclesiastical Authority has been so ruthless against those who defended the Catholic Truth, and, at the same time, were so terribly accommodating to rebels and heretics. In any case, the responsibility for the conciliar crisis must be laid at the feet of the Authority which, even amid a thousand appeals to collegiality and pastoralism, has jealously guarded its prerogatives, exercising them only in one direction, that is, against the pusillus grex [little flock] and never against the enemies of God and of the Church. The very rare exceptions, when a heretic theologian or revolutionary religious has been censored by the Holy Office, only offer tragic confirmation of a rule that has been enforced for decades; not to mention that many of them, in recent times, have been rehabilitated without any abjuration of their errors and even promoted to institutional positions in the Roman Curia or Pontifical Athenaeums.

This is the reality, as it emerges from my analysis. However, we know that, in addition to the progressive wing of the Council and the traditional Catholic wing, there is a part of the Episcopate, the clergy, and the people that attempts to keep equal distance from what it considers two extremes. I am talking about the so-called “conservatives,” that is, a centrist part of the ecclesial body that ends up “carrying water” for the Revolutionaries because, while rejecting their excesses, it shares the same principles. The error of the “conservatives” lies in giving a negative connotation to traditionalism and in placing it on the opposite side of progressivism. Their aurea mediocritas [via media] consists in arbitrarily placing themselves not between two vices, but between virtue and vice. They are the ones who criticize the excesses of the pachamama or of the most extreme of Bergoglio’s statements, but who do not tolerate the Council’s being questioned, let alone the intrinsic link between the conciliar cancer and the current metastasis. The correlation between political conservatism and religious conservatism consists in adopting the “center,” a synthesis between the “right” thesis and the “left” antithesis, according to the Hegelian approach so cherished by moderate supporters of the Council.

[In the civil sphere, the deep state has managed political and social dissent by using organizations and movements that are only apparently opposition, but which are actually instrumental to maintaining power. Similarly, in the ecclesial sphere, the deep church uses the moderate “conservatives” to give an appearance of offering freedom to the faithful. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum itself, for example, while granting the celebration in the extraordinary form, demands saltem impliciter [at least implicitly