Archbishop Viganò contradicted on AldoMariaValli.it (July 4) Cardinal Brandmüller’s claim that Vatican II was in continuity with Catholic Tradition and that “hermeneutics of suspicion” should be avoided.
He accuses Brandmüller of a “legalistic attitude” which – as a matter of principle – considers it as inconceivable that a Council could go wrong.
Viganò argues that the revolutionaries at Vatican II used the label “council” to impose their heresies “with malicious intent and subversive purposes.”
He quotes Father Edward Schillebeecks (+2009), one of the most active theologians during Vatican II, who said about the Council’s documents, “Now we say it in a diplomatic way, but after the Council, we'll draw the implicit conclusions.”
From this Viganò concludes that the term “hermeneutics of suspicion” is used to denigrated those who “denounce the conciliar fraud,” although “the label ‘council’ on the package does not reflect its contents.”
He sees Vatican II as “a cunning work of deception by people notoriously infected with modernism and not infrequently misled even in their moral conduct.”
Viganò observes that the tree is known by its fruits, “It's not enough to speak of a Council spring to hide the harsh winter that grips the Church.”
Picking up the neo-conservative argument that “the Council has changed nothing of our Faith” Viganò concludes that, if this is true, the neo-conservatives can as well go back to the Catechism of Pius X and the Missal of Pius V.