Three days ago, on Saturday, November 30, the Feast of St. Andrew (the brother of St. Peter, and called “St. Andrew-the-First-Called, because he was called by Jesus to follow him even before his brother, Simon who became Peter) Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 83, issued an open letter which dealt with the interesting debate over the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI in 2013.

He calls this “the heart of the matter,” writing in his letter:

We must first understand that the antithetical vision of a “santo subito” [immediate saint] Ratzinger and an “ugly and bad” Bergoglio is convenient for many. This simplistic, artificial, and false approach avoids addressing the heart of the problem, that is, the perfect coherence of action of the “conciliar popes” from John XXIII and Paul VI to the self-styled Francis, including John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

This means that, for Viganò, if we are to overcome the present division in the Church — which led the present Vatican to excommunicate Archbishop Viganò on July 4, 2024 (five months ago) — we must study and come to agreement on this entire period since the 1960s, a period which more or less corresponds to the entire lifetime of someone like myself, and to the entire lifetime of many of you who are readers of these Letters. A long, and complicated, study, indeed.

The effort must be made to explain and come to agreement on what has happened to the Roman Catholic Church since the middle of the 20th century, doctrinally, liturgically, sociologically, institutionally, so that we may return to that unity which is imbedded in our central credal formulas, which we proclaim together when we pray, holding them to be our common belief: that we are the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.”

Of this Viganò writes below: “A sequence of reforms, norms, and pastoral practices for over sixty years have systematically demolished what until before Vatican II was considered intangible and unreformable.”

If we Catholics are divided on these matters, on our understanding of these 60 years — in fact, essentially, our entire lifetimes — and if we excommunicate some of our members who attempt to question the goodness or “opportuness” or orthodoxy of some of the choices made, then clearly we must find a way to return to union — a way that would involve much study — years of study — and a way which would include some apologies and some requests for forgiveness, and a way that would then lead…

The interesting element in this letter is the revelation that Pope Benedict XVI, a year after he resigned, answered a letter written to him by Msgr. Nicola Bux, and (evidently, since the letter has still not been made public) explained to Msgr. Bux that he had truly resigned the papacy, and not resigned just the “ministry” (“ministerium“) while keeping the “office” (“munus“).

(This theory of a kind of “half-resignation” has been proposed by many in the past few years, as people have tried in various ways to explain the confusion of having a “Pope Emeritus” — the first “Pope Emeritus” in history — and a reigning Pope (Francis) whom many believe has allowed the teaching of the papal office — the “magisterium” — to become unclear and so confusing, when it ought to be crystal clear, if set forth as the teaching of the Pope, the Successor of Peter, and of the Holy See, the central authority of the Church.)

The second interesting point in this letter is that Archbishop Viganò makes “crystal clear” that his argument is no longer — if it ever was — with Pope Francis only, but with all of the Popes since the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.

— in Rome, on the one hand, to an acknowledgment that certain choices had been made without sufficient preparation, or sufficient reason, and so led to doctrinal and pastoral problems, problems that need to be reconsidered, and resolved, and

— throughout the world, on the other hand, to the return to a trust and therefore an obedience to a Rome that will have clarified to some degree why everything happened the way in happened in these 60 years, and this way would lead, in the end, even to the lifting of the excommunication of men like Archbishop Viganò, whose voices have pointed out the insufficient preparation, or reason, for the changes that have burned through the Church like a raging fire for six decades and more.

Viganò also says that “it so happens that I am aware of both this exchange of letters as well as their content,” but he does not make clear whether he knows the content in general terms (as, for example, through a phone conversation with Msgr. Bux, who for many years was his friend) or actually has seen, or received, a complete copy of the letter.

Of course, among Catholics, there are many who would like to see the text of this letter written by Emeritus Pope Benedict, so I would appeal to both Msgr. Bux and Archbishop Viganò, in the interest of truth, and of the unity of the Church, at this time of considerable confusion in the Church, to publish the text of this letter. —RM

Here is the letter written by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on November 30, 2024 (link):

THE ‘DISASSEMBLED’ PAPACY

Emeritus. munus, ministerium

The never-ending saga of the Resignation of Benedict XVI continues to fuel an increasingly bold and surreal narrative of the events we have witnessed in the last decade.

Inconsistent theories not supported by any evidence have taken hold of many of the faithful and even some priests, increasing confusion and disorientation.

But if this has been possible, it is also largely due to those who, knowing the truth, nonetheless are afraid to speak about it because of the consequences that the truth, once revealed, could have.

In fact, there are those who believe it is preferable to shore up a castle of lies and deceit, rather than having to face questions about a past of connivance, silence, and complicity.

The exchange of letters

During a meeting at the Renaissance Mediterraneo Hotel in Naples with Catholics from the local Cœtus Fidelium held this past November 22 [2024], Msgr. Nicola Bux mentioned an exchange of letters with “Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI,” dating back to the summer of 2014, which supposedly constitute the definitive denial of the various theories that are out there about the invalidity of Benedict’s Renunciation.

The content of these letters – the first, written by Msgr. Bux on July 19, 2014 (three pages), and the second, by Benedict XVI, on August 21, 2014 (two pages) – was not released ten years ago, as would have been more than desirable.

Instead, only today has their existence been barely mentioned.

It so happens that I am aware of both this exchange of letters as well as their content.

Why did Msgr. Bux decide not to promptly disclose Benedict XVI’s response when Benedict was still alive and able to confirm and corroborate it, and instead to reveal only its existence, without disclosing its content, almost two years after his death?

Why would he hide this authoritative and very important declaration from the Church and the world?

The permanent revolution

To answer these legitimate questions, we must put aside the fiction given us by the media.

We must first understand that the antithetical vision of a “santo subito” [immediate saint] Ratzinger and an “ugly and bad” Bergoglio is convenient for many.

This simplistic, artificial, and false approach avoids addressing the heart of the problem, that is, the perfect coherence of action of the “conciliar popes” from John XXIII and Paul VI to the self-styled Francis, including John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

The goals are the same, even if pursued with different methods and language.

The image of an elderly, elegant, and refined theologian, in a Roman chasuble and red shoes, who granted citizenship to the Tridentine Rite, contrasted with an intemperate globalist heresiarch who does not celebrate Mass and has nullified Summorum Pontificum, while promulgating the Mayan liturgy with thurifying females, is part of that operation of forced polarization that we have also seen adopted in the civil sphere, where a similar subversive project has been carried out by favoring ultra-progressive forces on the one hand and keeping the voices of dissent quiet on the other.

In reality, Ratzinger and Bergoglio – and this is precisely what conservatives do not want to recognize – constitute two moments of a revolutionary process that contemplates alternating phases that are only apparently opposed to one another, following the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

A process that did not begin with Ratzinger and will not end with Bergoglio, but rather that goes back to Roncalli and seems destined to continue as long as the deep church continues to replace the Catholic Hierarchy by usurping its authority.

In the Ratzingerian vision, the thesis of the Vetus Ordo and the antithesis of the Novus Ordo are combined in the synthesis of Summorum Pontificum [the July 7, 2007 document of Benedict permitting the celebration of the old liturgy in every parish of the world] thanks to the subterfuge of “a single rite in two forms.”

But this “peaceful coexistence” is the product of German idealism; and it is false because it is based on the denial of the incompatibility between two ways of conceiving the Church, one corresponding to two thousand years of Catholicism, the other imposed by the Second Vatican Council thanks to the work of heretics who until then had been condemned by the Roman Pontiffs.

Continue reading here: https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-67-2024-mon-dec-3-vigano/