Skip to main content

Hero of the Week Vigano: @rtf_media Catherine Austin Fitts, of @solari_the , weighs in — calling His Excellency, @CarloMVigano , a Hero.


ℜ𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔬𝔯𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔉𝔞𝔦𝔱𝔥 (RTC) 🍄
@rtf_media
Catherine Austin Fitts, of
@solari_the
, weighs in — calling His Excellency,
@CarloMVigano
, a Hero. Fitts accurately described the massive wealth fraud in the 2020 riots, and has been on the leading edge against CBDC’s. home.solari.com/hero-of-the-we
Image
1,429
Views

Comments

Renato said…
This archbishop should never be considered a hero, much less among Catholics who seek a safe path, without ideologies or false mysticism, but only in Christ's trust in the Church.

The fact says that Bishop Williamson conditionally reconsecrated Archbishop Viganò, a committed cooperation between them, as well as being a deeper cooperation and under the leadership of Dugin, whose goal is the "Third Rome".

This act alone shows that there is a denial, subjection to the legitimately elected Roman Pontiffs or the communion of members subject to them.

But the reason goes deeper that led Williamson and Viganò to reject everything at the last Church Council.

There is another belief in the schism between the Easterners and the Westers, which is believed to have apostatized Rome and was no longer the center of Christianity, so it was moved to Constantinople. But this Rome lost power to the Turks in 1453 and was later transferred to Moscow. And when this Rome was definitively established in Moscow, this belief was born as the "Third Rome", whose empire became a Katechon in eschatological times against the Antichrist.

This heresy belongs to Philotheus of Pskov in a letter written to Tsar Basil III in 1510. The latter, the Eastern monk believed to be the sole emperor of the Christians. He mentioned to the emperor that the two Romes apostatized, but the third will remain in the faith always, i.e., the "Third Rome."

And Aleksandr Dugin appears in this East as the great spiritual mentor of this new Rome that aims to destroy Catholicism from within today, which certainly supports this decadent anti-papal movement compromised between Williamson and Viganò. A traditionalism that does not come from God and that defends a dualism between a Catholicism and an occultism, at the same time among its participants. Dugin cites an example of the philosophical so-called Thelema by Alistair Crowley, who believed in love over the law. This logically flouts any legitimate ecclesiastical norm in Catholicism.

That is why two prelates do not believe that Catholicism is a guarantee against the New World Order, because it is in a stage of transition to that same order.

This is the cause of Archbishop Vigano seeking an unconditional reconsecration of the episcopal and other sacraments with Bishop Williamson.

And that is the reason why the archbishop did not want to go to this "apostate Rome" to defend himself against the accusation of schism.

It doesn't matter to him whether today Bergoglio is a legitimate pope or not, just as he didn't care that he received the episcopate from a legitimate Vicar of Christ who was John Paul II.

Father Chazal says, in a lecture believed to be about a reconsecration of the archbishop, that he had a "sudden" conversion and left this "conciliar sect" that he was part of later, although the cause was a scandalous cardinal very similar in Crowley's mindset.

And Father Chazal repeats Dugin's myth about Carthage (in the video link below, 4:18) about its destruction, whose empire was great and power had no limit; but Rome set a limit to that empire. This new Rome will destroy apostate Rome, for the Russian Rome is now the real Rome.

Today Dugin is the main mastermind in this myth of the "Third Rome", which is inside the two prelates, Patriarch Kirilll, a former KGB agent, and none other than President Putin himself, also a former KGB, all committed to this eschatological role of the Russian Empire.

---

https://www.memri.org/reports/russian-anti-liberal-philosopher-dugin-third-rome-moscow-putting-limit-new-carthage-west

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDIblj4UQVc&t=268s

https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/is-archbishop-vigano-looking-east

https://www.gnosticwarrior.com/aleksandr-dugin-the-gnostic.html

https://www.marcotosatti.com/2023/04/24/monsenor-vigano-sobre-rusia-comentario-de-monsenor-richard-williamson/

https://ecclesia.com.br/biblioteca/igreja_ortodoxa/a_igreja_ortodoxa_historia15.html

7:04 AM
Renato said…
Bishop Wilianson also had a "sudden conversion." He was from an Anglican family. Wilianson was very close to a British Intelligence and KGB double agent who influenced him to enter the seminary of the Society of St. Pius X.

https://web.archive.org/web/20231219014834/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Williamson_%28bishop%29&diff=prev&oldid=221253995#Early_life_and_ministry

7:26 AM
Renato said…
All Catholics should believe in a hermeneutic in continuity, as Pope Benedict XVI advocated about before and after the last Council, in order not to fall into deception. All the popes after the Council were legitimate, but even Ratzinger. The Universi Dominici Gregis proved by Benedict XVi continued with the Munus, according to the norm required of the office, until his death. And that should be enough. Divine providence will continue in this selective purification in the Church until a legitimate future conclave takes place.
8:29 AM
Fred Martinez said…
Might you be Opus Dei and/or anti-Traditionalist in line with the likes of Francis pundit Michael Lofton who believes that Vatican II is a super dogma that destroys all previous infallible dogma like no Communion for adulterers, etc...?
9:22 AM
Fred Martinez said…

Kennedy Hall
@kennedyhall
FYI the Hermeneutic of Continuity is not a dogma… it is a theological opinion about how to interpret Vatican II, but it is not a dogmatic interpretation of the Council itself.
5:36 AM · Jul 2, 2024
·
3,275
Views
9:27 AM
Anonymous said…
No pope can promote formal heresy, so if Benedict was the pope and he promoted Vatican II, it taught no heresy. If the the post conciliar popes before Bergoglio were nopes, then explain how dogma was not contradicted, given that lawful apostolic succession is a mark of the Church and intimately connected to indefectibility? If they were nopes none of their bishops were lawfully appointed and all the bishops appointed before John XIII are dead.

At this point a deep trad will say that there are apostolic successors because their bishops are validly consecrated, but indefectibility claims there will be LAWFUL successors till the end of time. What year did time end? I missed the memo.
10:55 AM
Renato said…
Fred, the Council is only pastoral, there is nothing dogmatic about it. But one must not break into a hermeneutical continuity(not so long ago an anonymous commentator demonstrated this here. For the Church has not really defected). The Council is a historical fact and is embedded in the magisterium. The Church grows in a logic that two plus two equals four in the teachings according to events in the world. The problem is the ambiguities in the texts, but you can't claim that the texts are heretical. So a future pope must make it clearer one day. But I try to focus on that through the archbishop's mistake or whatever. We must follow only the truth.
11:23 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more