Nothing reprehensible to suggest we should forget Vat II - + Virgano


Abp. Viganò to Sandro Magister: “I Do Not Find Anything Reprehensible
in Suggesting We Should Forget Vatican II”

Matt Gaspers Matt Gaspers

July 6, 2020

As discussed towards the end of the latest CFN “Weekly News Roundup” (July 3, 2020), Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former apostolic nuncio turned Traditionalist, has recently come under fire for his bold public critiques of the Second Vatican Council. Over the past 10 days or so, counter-critiques of Archbishop Viganò’s position – namely, that Vatican II should simply be “dropped” as a whole and “forgotten” – have been published by Professor John Paul Meenan via LifeSiteNews, Sandro Magister via L’Espresso, and JD Flynn via Catholic News Agency (NB: the latter’s article was presented as impartial “analysis” but includes thinly veiled critiques of Viganò and his supporters, e.g., “accepting the legitimacy and authority of the Second Vatican Council is a necessary component of maintaining communion with the Church herself,” and, “the archbishop is being supported by a Catholic faction with a clear objective”).

The most vehement critic of Archbishop Viganò’s position on the Council to date is certainly Sandro Magister, a veteran Italian Vaticanista, who accuses Viganò of having “blamed” Benedict XVI “for having ‘deceived’ the whole Church in that he [Benedict] would have it be believed that the Second Vatican Council was immune to heresies and moreover should be interpreted in perfect continuity with true perennial doctrine.”

In simpler terms, Magister appears quite upset that Archbishop Viganò (like Bishop Athanasius Schneider in Christus Vincit and elsewhere) has abandoned Benedict XVI’s famous “hermeneutic of continuity” – the notion that the entire Council can be interpreted in a manner consistent with Tradition – in favor of a more realistic assessment of the facts (see here for commentary). As His Excellency wrote in his June 9 missive, “despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.”

Magister, for his part, firmly defends the “hermeneutic of continuity” in his June 29 critique of Viganò, going so far as to claim that the retired Italian prelate is “on the brink of schism” for his rejection of what Magister calls “the keystone of the interpretation that Benedict XVI gave of Vatican Council II”.

Today, Magister published the full Italian text of Archbishop Viganò’s response to him (dated July 3, 2020), which another Italian journalist, Marco Tosatti, has made available in English on his website. CFN is pleased to reprint the English translation in full with permission (see below).
In his reply, Archbishop Viganò respectfully counters Magister’s accusations by clarifying, “I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church,” and further, “I do not hesitate to say that that assembly [Vatican II] should be forgotten ‘as such and en bloc,’ and I claim the right to say it without thereby making myself guilty of the delict of schism for having attacked the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church is inseparably in Charity and in Truth, and where error reigns or even only worms its way in, there cannot be Charity.”

Regarding the contested “hermeneutic of continuity”, His Excellency states, “The fairytale of the hermeneutic – even though an authoritative one because of its Author – nevertheless remains an attempt to want to give the dignity of a Council to a true and proper ambush against the Church, so as not to discredit along with it the Popes who wanted, imposed, and reproposed that Council. So much so that those same Popes, one after the other, rise to the honors of the altar for having been ‘popes of the Council.'”

“I continue to hope,” writes Archbishop Viganò to Magister, “that the tone of your article was not dictated by the simple fact that I have dared to reopen the debate about that Council that many – too many – in the ecclesial structure, consider as an unicum in the history of the Church, almost an untouchable idol.”
Here follows the full English translation of His Excellency’s letter of response to Sandro Magister, reprinted with permission:

3 July 2020

Saint Irenaeus, Bishop and Martyr

Dear Mr. Magister,

Permit me to reply to your article “Archbishop Viganò on the Brink of Schism,” published at Settimo Cielo on June 29 (here).

I am aware that having dared to express an opinion strongly critical of the Council is sufficient to awaken the inquisitorial spirit that in other cases is the object of execration by right-thinking people. Nonetheless, in a respectful dispute between ecclesiastics and competent laity, it does not seem to me to be inappropriate to raise problems that remain unresolved to date, the foremost of which is the crisis that has afflicted the Church since Vatican II and has now reached the point of devastation.

There are those who speak of the misrepresentation of the Council; others who speak of the need to return to reading it in continuity with the Tradition; others of the opportunity to correct any errors contained in it, or to interpret the equivocal points in a Catholic sense. On the opposing side, there is no lack of those who consider Vatican II as a blueprint from which to proceed in the revolution: the changing and transformation of the Church into an entirely new and modern entity, in step with the times. This is part of the normal dynamics of a “dialogue” that is all too often invoked but rarely practiced: those who thus far have expressed dissent about what I have said have never entered into the merit of the argument, limiting themselves to saddling me with epithets that have already been merited by my far more illustrious and venerable brothers in the episcopate. It is curious that, both in the doctrinal as well as the political arena, the progressives claim for themselves a primacy, a state of election, that apodictically places the adversary in a position of ontological inferiority, unworthy of attention or response and simplistically liquidatable as Lefebvrian on the ecclesial front or fascist on the socio-political front. But their lack of arguments does not legitimize them to dictate the rules, nor to decide who has the right to speak, especially when reason, even prior to faith, has demonstrated where the deception is, who the author is, and what the purpose is.

At first it appeared to me that the content of your article was to be considered more an understandable tribute to the Prince, who can be found in the frescoed salons of the Third Loggia or in the stylish offices of the Editor; and yet in reading what you attribute to me I discovered an inaccuracy – let’s call it that – that I hope is the result of a misunderstanding. I therefore ask you to grant me space to reply at Settimo Cielo.

You state that I have supposedly blamed Benedict XVI “for having ‘deceived’ the whole Church in that he would have it be believed that the Second Vatican Council was immune to heresies and moreover should be interpreted in perfect continuity with true perennial doctrine.” I do not think that I have ever written such a thing about the Holy Father; on the contrary: I said, and I reaffirm, that we were all – or almost all – deceived by those who used the Council as a “container” equipped with its own implicit authority and the authoritativeness of the Fathers who took part in it, while distorting its purpose. And those who fell into this deception did so because, loving the Church and the Papacy, they could not imagine that in the heart of Vatican II a minority of very organized conspirators could use a Council to demolish the Church from within; and that in doing so they could count on the silence and inaction of Authority, if not on its complicity. These are historical facts, of which I permit myself to give a personal interpretation, but one which I think others may share.

I permit myself also to remind you, as if there was any need, that the positions of moderate critical re-reading of the Council in a traditional sense by Benedict XVI are part of a laudable recent past, while in the formidable Seventies the position of then-theologian Joseph Ratzinger was quite different. Authoritative studies stand alongside the same admissions of the Professor of Tubingen confirming the partial repentances of the Emeritus. Nor do I see a “reckless indictment launched by Viganò against Benedict XVI for his ‘failed attempts to correct conciliar excesses by invoking the hermeneutic of continuity,’” since this is an opinion widely shared not only in conservative circles but also and above all among progressives. And it should be said that what the innovators succeeded in obtaining by means of deception, cunning, and blackmail was the result of a vision that we have found later applied in the maximum degree in the Bergoglian “magisterium” of Amoris Laetitia. The malicious intention is admitted by Ratzinger himself: “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” (cf. J. Ratzinger, Milestones, translation from the German by Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1997, p. 132). But even more so by the words of the Dominican Edward Schillebeecks: “We express it diplomatically [now], but after the Council we will draw the implicit conclusions” (De Bazuin, n.16, 1965).
We have confirmed that the intentional ambiguity in the texts had the purpose of keeping opposing and irreconcilable visions together, in the name of an evaluation of utility and to the detriment of revealed Truth. A Truth that, when it is integrally proclaimed, cannot fail to be divisive, just as Our Lord is divisive: “Do you think that I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division” (Lk 12:51).

I do not find anything reprehensible in suggesting that we should forget Vatican II: its proponents knew how to confidently exercise this damnatio memoriae not just with a Council but with everything, even to the point of affirming that their council was the first of the new church, and that beginning with their council the old religion and the old Mass was finished. You will say to me that these are the positions of extremists, and that virtue stands in the middle, that is, among those who consider that Vatican II is only the latest of an uninterrupted series of events in which the Holy Spirit speaks through the mouth of the one and only infallible Magisterium. If so, it should be explained why the conciliar church was given a new liturgy and a new calendar, and consequently a new doctrine – nova lex orandi, nova lex credendi – distancing itself from its own past with disdain.

The mere idea of setting the Council aside causes scandal even in those, like you, who recognize the crisis of recent years, but who persist in not wanting to recognize the causal link between Vatican II and its logical and inevitable effects. You write: “Attention: not the Council interpreted badly, but the Council as such and en bloc.” I ask you then: what would be the correct interpretation of the Council? The one you give or the one given – while they wrote the decrees and declarations – by its very industrious architects? Or perhaps that of the German episcopate? Or that of the theologians who teach in the Pontifical Universities and that we see published in the most popular Catholic periodicals in the world? Or that of Joseph Ratzinger? Or that of Bishop Schneider? Or that of Bergoglio? This would be enough to understand how much damage has been caused by the deliberate adoption of a language that was so murky that it legitimized opposing and contrary interpretations, on the basis of which the famous conciliar springtime then occurred. This is why I do not hesitate to say that that assembly should be forgotten “as such and en bloc,” and I claim the right to say it without thereby making myself guilty of the delict of schism for having attacked the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church is inseparably in Charity and in Truth, and where error reigns or even only worms its way in, there cannot be Charity.

The fairytale of the hermeneutic – even though an authoritative one because of its Author – nevertheless remains an attempt to want to give the dignity of a Council to a true and proper ambush against the Church, so as not to discredit along with it the Popes who wanted, imposed and reproposed that Council. So much so that those same Popes, one after the other, rise to the honors of the altar for having been “popes of the Council.”

Allow me to quote from the article that Doctor Maria Guarini published on June 29 at Chiesa e postconcilio in reaction to your piece at Settimo Cielo, entitled: “Archbishop Viganò is not on the brink of schism: many sins are coming to a head.” She writes: “And it is precisely from here that is born and for this reason risks continuing – without results (thus far, except for the debate triggered by Archbishop Viganò) – the dialogue between deaf people, because the interlocutors use different reality grids: Vatican II, changing the language, has also changed the parameters of approach to reality. And so it happens that we talk about the same thing which, however, is given entirely different meanings. Among other things, the principal characteristic of the present hierarchy is the use of incontestable affirmations, without ever bothering to demonstrate them or with flawed and sophistic demonstrations. But they do not even have need of demonstrations, because the new approach and the new language have subverted everything from the beginning. And the unproven nature of the anomalous ‘pastorality’ without any defined theological principles is precisely what takes away the raw material of the dispute. It is the advance of a shapeless, ever-changing, dissolving fluid in place of the clear, unequivocal, definitive truthful construct: the incandescent perennial firmness of dogma against the sewage and shifting sands of the transient neo-magisterium” (here).

I continue to hope that the tone of your article was not dictated by the simple fact that I have dared to reopen the debate about that Council that many – too many – in the ecclesial structure, consider as an unicum in the history of the Church, almost an untouchable idol.

You may be certain that, unlike many bishops, such as those of the German Synodal Path, who have already gone far beyond the brink of schism – promoting and brazenly attempting to impose aberrant ideologies and practices on the universal Church – I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church, for the exaltation of which I daily renew the offering of my life.
Deus refugium nostrum et virtus,
populum ad Te clamantem propitius respice;
Et intercedente Gloriosa et Immaculata Virgine Dei Genitrice Maria,
cum Beato Ioseph, ejus Sponso,
ac Beatis Apostolis Tuis, Petro et Paulo, et omnibus Sanctis,
quas pro conversione peccatorum,
pro libertate et exaltatione Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae,
preces effundimus, misericors et benignus exaudi.
Receive, dear Sandro, my blessing and greeting, with best wishes for every good thing, in Christ Jesus.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò

First published at Marco Tosatti’s blog.

Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020






O ter beata civitas
cui rite Christus imperat,
quae jussa pergit exsequi
edicta mundo caelitus!

Thrice happy city, basking fair
beneath His royal sway,
where at the mandates from His throne
all hearts with joy obey!

Jesus took Peter, James, and his brother John and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them; his face shine like the sun and his clothes became white as light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him. Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud cast a shadow over them, then from the cloud came a voice that said: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to him.” When the disciples heard this, they felt prostrate and were very much afraid. But Jesus came and touched them, saying: “Rise, and do not be afraid.” And when the disciples raised their eyes, they saw no one else but Jesus alone. As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus charged them, “Do not tell the vision to anyone until the Son of man has been raised from the dead” (Mt 17: 1-9).
Permit me, dear friends, to share with you some reflections on the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, manifested in the Transfiguration that we celebrate today, after other significant episodes of the earthly life of the Lord: from the Angels over the Cave of Bethlehem to the Adoration of the Magi to His Baptism in the Jordan River.

I have chosen this theme because I believe that in a certain way the focal point of our and your commitment as Catholics may be summarized in it; not only in private and family life but also and above all in social and political life.

First of all, let us revive our faith in the Universal Kingship of Our Divine Savior.

He is truly the Universal King, that is, he possesses absolute Sovereignty over all creation, over the human race, over all people, even over those who are outside his fold, the Holy Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church.

Each person is truly a creature of God. Every person owes his entire being to Him, both in his nature as a whole and in each of the individual parts that compose it: body, soul, faculties, intelligence, will, and senses. The actions of these faculties, as well as the actions of all the organs of the body, are gifts of God, whose dominion extends to all of his goods as fruits of His ineffable liberality. The simple consideration of the fact that no one chooses or can choose the family to which he belongs on earth is sufficient to convince us of this fundamental truth of our existence.
From this it follows that Our Lord God is the Sovereign of all men, both considered individually and also united in social groups, since the fact that they form various communities does not mean that they lose their condition as creatures. In fact, the very existence of civil society obeys the designs of God, who made human nature to be social. Thus all people, all nations, from the most primitive to the most civilized, from the very smallest to the superpowers, are all subjected to the Divine Sovereignty and, in and of themselves, have the obligation to recognize this sweet celestial Dominion.

As the Sacred Scriptures frequently attest, God has conferred this Sovereignty on his Only-Begotten Son.

Saint Paul affirms, in a general way, that God made his Son “heir of all things” (Heb 1:2). Saint John, for his part, confirms the thought of the Apostle of the Gentiles in many passages of his Gospel: for example, when he recalls that “the Father does not judge anyone, but He has given all judgment to His Son” (Jn 5:22). The prerogative of administering justice belongs, in fact, to the king, and whoever possesses it does so because he is invested with sovereign power.

This Universal Kingship that the Son has inherited from his Father should not be understood only as the eternal inheritance through which, in his Divine Nature, He has received all of the attributes that make him equal and consubstantial to the First Person of the Most Holy Trinity, in the unity of the Divine Essence.

This Kingship is also attributed in a special way to Jesus Christ inasmuch as he is truly man, the Mediator between heaven and earth. In fact, the mission of the Word Incarnate is precisely the establishment on earth of the Kingdom of God. We observe that the expressions of Sacred Scripture relative to the Kingship of Jesus Christ refer, without a shadow of a doubt, to his condition as man.

He is presented to the world as the Son of King David, for whom he comes to inherit the Throne of his Father, extended to the ends of the earth and made eternal, without a count of years. Thus it was that the Archangel Gabriel announced the dignity of the Son of Mary: “You shall bear a Son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of David, his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever and his kingdom shall have no end” (Lk 1:31-33). And, furthermore, the Magi who came from the East to adore him seek him as a King: “Where is the newborn King of the Jews?” they ask Herod, on their arrival in Jerusalem (Mt 2:2). The mission that the Eternal Father entrusts to the Son in the mystery of the Incarnation is to establish a Kingdom on earth, the Kingdom of Heaven. Through the establishment of this Kingdom, the ineffable Charity with which God has loved men from all eternity, mercifully drawing them to Himself, becomes concrete: “Dilexi te, ideo attraxite, miserans”. “I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with loving kindness have I drawn thee.” (Jer 31:3)

Jesus consecrates his public life to the proclamation and establishment of his Kingdom, at times referred to as the Kingdom of God and at others as the Kingdom of Heaven. Following the Eastern practice, Our Lord makes use of fascinating parables in order to inculcate the idea and the nature of this Kingdom that he has come to establish. His miracles aim to convince the people that his Kingdom has already come; it is found in the midst of the people. “Si in digito Dei eiicio daemonia, profecto pérvenit in vos regnum Dei” – “If it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God is upon you” (Lk 11:20).

The constitution of his Kingdom so absorbed his mission that the apostasy of his enemies took advantage of this idea to justify the accusation raised against him before Pilate’s tribunal: “Si hunc dimittis, non es amicus Caesaris” – “If you release him, you are not a friend of Caesar.” They cried out to Pontius Pilate: “Everyone who makes himself king opposes Caesar” (Jn 19:12). Validating the opinion of his enemies, Jesus Christ confirms to the Roman governor that He is truly a King: “You say: I am a king” (Jn 18:37).

It is not possible to question the regal character of the work of Jesus Christ. He is King.

Our faith, however, requires that we understand well the scope and meaning of the Royalty of the Divine Redeemer. Pius XI immediately excludes the metaphorical sense by which we call “king” and “kingly” whatever is excellent in a human way of being or acting. No: Jesus Christ is not king in this metaphorical sense. He is King in the proper sense of the word. In Sacred Scripture, Jesus appears exercising royal prerogatives of sovereign government, dictating laws and ordering punishments against transgressors. In the famous Sermon on the Mount, we may say that the Savior promulgated the Law of his Kingdom. As a true Sovereign, He requires obedience to His laws under pain of nothing less than eternal condemnation. And also in the scene of the Judgment, which announces the end of the world, when the Son of God will come to administer His judgment to the living and the dead: “The Son of Man will come in his glory [...] and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats [...]. Then the King will say to those on his right: “Come, you who are blessed by my Father [...]. Then He will say to those on his left: “Depart from me, you accursed, into the everlasting fire [...]. And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life” (Mt 25:31 ff.). A sentence that is both sweet and terrible. Sweet for the good, because of the unparalleled excellence of the prize that awaits them; terrible and frightening for the wicked, because of the terrifying judgment to which they are condemned for eternity.
A consideration of this sort is sufficient in order to realize how it is of the highest importance for people to identify rightly where the Kingdom of Jesus Christ is here on earth, because belonging or not belonging to it decides our eternal destiny. We have said “here on earth” since man merits the reward or punishment for the afterlife in this world. On earth, therefore, men ought to enter and become part of this ineffable Kingdom of God, which is both temporal and eternal, because it is formed in this world and flowers forth fully in heaven.

The fury of the Enemy, who hates the human race, is unleashed primarily against the doctrine of the Kingship of Christ, because that Kingship is united in the Person of Our Lord, True God and True Man. The secularism of the nineteenth century, fueled by Freemasonry, has succeeded in reorganizing itself into an even more perverse ideology, since it has extended the denial of the royal rights of the Redeemer not only to civil society but also to the Body of the Church.

This attack was consummated with the renunciation by the Papacy of the very concept of this vicarious Kingship of the Roman Pontiff, thereby bringing into the very heart of the Church the demands for democracy and parliamentarianism which had already been used to undermine nations and the authority of rulers. The Second Vatican Council greatly weakened the papal monarchy as a consequence of the implicit denial of the Divine Kingship of the Eternal High Priest, and by doing so inflicted a masterful blow against the institution which until then had stood as a wall of defense against the secularization of Christian society. The sovereignty of the Vicar was diminished, and this was progressively followed by the denial of the sovereign rights of Christ over His Mystical Body. And when Paul VI deposed the triple royal diadem with an ostentatious gesture, as if he was renouncing the sacred vicarious Monarchy, he also removed the Crown from Our Lord, confining His Kingship to a merely eschatological sphere. The proof of this is the significant changes made to the Liturgy of the Feast of Christ the King and its transfer to the end of the liturgical year.

The purpose of the Feast, namely the celebration of the social Kingship of Christ, also illuminates its place in the calendar. In the Traditional Liturgy it was assigned to the last Sunday of October, so that the Feast of All Saints, who reign by participation, would be preceded by the Feast of Christ, who reigns by his own right. With the liturgical reform approved by Paul VI in 1969, the Feast of Christ the King was moved to the last Sunday of the Liturgical Year, erasing the social dimension of the Kingship of Christ and relegating him to the merely spiritual and eschatological dimension.
Did all these Council Fathers, who voted for Dignitatis Humanaeand proclaimed religious freedom with Paul VI, realize that they in fact ousted Our Lord Jesus Christ, stripping him of the Crown of his social Kingship? Did they understand that they had very concretely dethroned Our Lord Jesus Christ from the throne of his divine Kingship over us and over the whole world? Did they understand that, making themselves the spokesmen of apostate nations, they made these execrable blasphemies ascend towards His Throne: “We do not want this man to be our king” (Lk 19:14); “We have no king but Caesar” (Jn 19:15)? But He, faced with that confused rumor of senseless men, withdrew his Spirit from them.
For those who are not blinded by bias, it is impossible not to see the perverse intention to downsize the Feast instituted by Pius XI and the doctrine expressed by it. Having dethroned Christ not only from society but also from the Church was the greatest crime with which the Hierarchy could have been stained, failing in its role as the custodian of the Savior’s teaching. As an inevitable consequence of this betrayal, the Authority conferred by Our Lord on the Prince of the Apostles has substantially disappeared. We have had confirmation of this ever since the edict of Vatican II, when the infallible authority of the Roman Pontiff was deliberately excluded in favor of a pastorality that created the conditions for equivocal formulations that are strongly suspected of heresy if not bluntly heretical. We therefore find ourselves not only besieged in the civil sphere, in which for centuries dark forces have refused the gentle yoke of Christ and imposed the hateful tyranny of apostasy and sin on the nations; but also in the religious sphere, in which the Authority demolishes itself and denies that the Divine King should also reign over the Church, her Pastors and her faithful. Also in this case, the sweet yoke of Christ is replaced by the hateful tyranny of the Innovators, who with an authoritarianism not dissimilar to that of their secular counterparts impose a new doctrine, a new morality, and a new liturgy in which the only mention of the Kingship of Our Lord is considered as an awkward legacy from another religion, another Church. As Saint Paul said: “God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie” (2 Thess 2:11).

It is therefore not surprising to see that, just as in the secular world judges subvert justice by condemning the innocent and acquitting the guilty, rulers abuse their power and tyrannize citizens, doctors violate the Hippocratic oath by making themselves accomplices of those who want to spread disease and transform the sick into chronic patients, and teachers do not teach love of knowledge but cultivate ignorance in and ideological manipulation of their students, so also in the heart of the Bride of Christ there are Cardinals, Bishops, and clergy who give scandal to the faithful by their reprehensible moral conduct, spreading heresy from the pulpits, favoring idolatry by celebrating the pachamama and the worship of Mother Earth in the name of an ecologism of a clearly Masonic matrix that is perfectly in accord with the plan of dissolution intended by globalism. “This is your hour, the hour of darkness” (Lk 22:53). The kathèkon wouldseem to have disappeared, if we did not have the certainty of the promises of Our Savior, Lord of the world, of history, and of the Church herself.

And yet, while they destroy, we have the joy and honor of rebuilding. And there is a still greater happiness: a new generation of laity and priests are participating with zeal in this work of reconstruction of the Church for the salvation of souls, and they do so well aware of their own weaknesses and miseries, but also allowing themselves to be used by God as docile instruments in his hands: helpful hands, strong hands, the hands of the Almighty. Our fragility highlights the fact that this is the Lord’s work even more, especially where this human fragility is accompanied by humility.
This humility ought to lead us to instaurare omnia in Christo, beginning from the heart of the Faith, which is the official prayer of the Church. Let us return to the Liturgy in which Our Lord is recognized in his absolute Primacy, to the worship that the Innovators adulterated precisely out of hatred for the Divine Majesty in order to proudly exalt the creature by humiliating the Creator, claiming the right to rebel against the King in a delusion of omnipotence, uttering their own non serviam against the adoration that is owed to the Lord.

Our life is a war: Sacred Scripture reminds us of this. But it is a war in which “sub Christi Regis vexillis militare gloriamur,” (Postcommunio Missae Christi Regis) and in which we have at our disposal very powerful spiritual weapons, a deployment of angelic forces before which no earthly or infernal stronghold has any power.

If Our Lord is King by hereditary right (since he is of royal lineage), by divine right (in virtue of the hypostatic union), and by right of conquest (having redeemed us by his Sacrifice on the Cross), we must not forget that, in the plans of Divine Providence, this Divine Sovereign has at his side as Our Lady and Queen, His own August Mother, Mary Most Holy. There can be no Kingship of Christ without the sweet and maternal Queenship of Mary, whom Saint Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort reminds us is our Mediatrix before her Son’s Majestic Throne, where she stands as a Queen interceding before the King.

The premise of the triumph of the Divine King in society and in nations is that He already reigns in our hearts, our souls, and our families. May Christ also reign in us, and His Most Holy Mother along with him. Adveniat regnum tuum: adveniat per Mariam.
Marana Tha, Veni Domine Iesu ! Oh come Lord Jesus!

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
Translated from Italian by Giuseppe Pellegrino