+Viganò's declaration in response to Vatican charges of schism – plus subsequent announcement
Archbishop Viganò summoned to Rome to answer charge of schism – releases powerful statement calling it an "honour," associating himself with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
For the record and interest:
The below is Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s response to the summons to Rome which he has received, for the charge of schism.
In this declaration, Viganò…
Forcefully condemns the conciliar/synodal Church, and the religious revolution of Vatican II – which he says found its “necessary metastasis” in Francis himself
Appears to assert that Francis did not accept the election to the papacy – an argument commonly (although not exclusively) associated with the Cassiciacum Thesis of Bishop Guérard des Lauriers1
Associates himself with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and in considering this charge as an “honour,” he echoes the words and sentiments expressed by both Lefebvre and the SSPX district superiors following 1988, in considering these charges an honour.
We initially published an unofficial translation and have been asked to replace it with the official. (original here).
We have also appended Mgr Vigano’s subsequent announcement.
Some line breaks added for ease of reading.
See related:
Without further ado, here is Viganò’s statement:
BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS
Announcement regarding the commencement of the extrajudicial penal process for the crime of schism (Art. 2 SST; can. 1364 CIC)
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has informed me, with a simple email, of the initiation of an extrajudicial penal trial against me, with the accusation of having committed the crime of schism and charging me of having denied the legitimacy of “Pope Francis” of having broken communion “with Him” and of having rejected the Second Vatican Council. I have been summoned to the Palace of the Holy Office on June 20, in person or represented by a canon lawyer. I assume that the sentence has already been prepared, given that it is an extrajudicial process.
I regard the accusations against me as an honor. I believe that the very wording of the charges confirms the theses that I have repeatedly defended in my various addresses. It is no coincidence that the accusation against me concerns the questioning of the legitimacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the rejection of Vatican II: the Council represents the ideological, theological, moral, and liturgical cancer of which the Bergoglian “synodal church” is the necessary metastasis.
It is necessary for the Episcopate, the Clergy and the People of God to seriously ask themselves whether it is consistent with the profession of the Catholic Faith to passively witness the systematic destruction of the Church by its leaders, just as other subversives are destroying civil society.
Globalism calls for ethnic substitution: Bergoglio promotes uncontrolled immigration and calls for the integration of cultures and religions.
Globalism supports LGBTQ+ ideology: Bergoglio authorizes the blessing of same-sex couples and imposes on the faithful the acceptance of homosexualism, while covering up the scandals of his protégés and promoting them to the highest positions of responsibility.
Globalism imposes the green agenda: Bergoglio worships the idol of the Pachamama, writes delirious encyclicals about the environment, supports the Agenda 2030, and attacks those who question the theory of man-made global warming. He goes beyond his role in matters that strictly pertain to science, but always and only in one direction: a direction that is diametrically opposed to what the Church has always taught. He has mandated the use of experimental gene serums, which caused very serious damage, death and sterility, calling them “an act of love,” in exchange for funding from pharmaceutical companies and philanthropic foundations.
His total alignment with the Davos religion is scandalous. Wherever governments at the service of the World Economic Forum have introduced or extended abortion, promoted vice, legitimized homosexual unions or gender transition, encouraged euthanasia, and tolerated the persecution of Catholics, not a word has been spent in defense of the Faith or Morals that are threatened, or in support of the civil battles of so many Catholics who have been abandoned by the Vatican and the Bishops.
Not a word for the persecuted Catholics in China, with the complicity of the Holy See, which considers Beijing’s billions more important than the lives and freedom of thousands of Chinese who are faithful to the Roman Church. In the “synodal church” presided over by Bergoglio, no schism is recognized among the German Episcopate, or among the government-appointed Bishops who have been consecrated in China without the mandate of Rome. Because their action is consistent with the destruction of the Church, and therefore must be concealed, minimized, tolerated, and finally encouraged.
In these eleven years of “pontificate” the Catholic Church has been humiliated and discredited above all because of the scandals and corruption of the leaders of the Hierarchy, which have been totally ignored even as the most ruthless Vatican authoritarianism raged against faithful priests and religious, small communities of traditional nuns, and communities tied to the Latin Mass.
This one-sided zeal is reminiscent of Cromwell’s fanaticism, typical of those who defy Providence in the presumption of knowing that they are finally at the top of the hierarchical pyramid, free to do and undo as they please without anyone objecting to anything. And this work of destruction, this willingness to renounce the salvation of souls in the name of a human peace that denies God is not an invention of Bergoglio, but the main (and unmentionable) purpose of those who used a Council to contradict the Catholic Magisterium and to begin to demolish the Church from within, in small steps, but always in a single direction, always with the indulgent tolerance or culpable inaction – if not the explicit approval – of the Roman authorities.
The Catholic Church has been slowly but surely taken over, and Bergoglio has been given the task of making it a philanthropic agency, the “church of humanity, of inclusion, of the environment” at the service of the New World Order. But this is not the Catholic Church: it is her counterfeit.
The resignation of Benedict XVI and the appointment by the St. Gallen Mafia of a successor in line with the diktats of the Agenda 2030 was intended to allow – and has succeeded in allowing – the global coup to take place with the complicity and authoritative support of the Church of Rome. Bergoglio is to the Church what other world leaders are to their nations: traitors, subversives, and final liquidators of traditional society who are certain of impunity.
Bergoglio’s defect of consent (vitium consensus) in accepting his election is based precisely on the evident alienity of his action of government and magisterium with respect to what any Catholic of any age expects from the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles. Everything that Bergoglio does constitutes an offense and a provocation to the entire Catholic Church, to her Saints of all times, to the Martyrs who were killed in odium Fidei, and to the Popes of all times until the Second Vatican Council.
This is also and principally an offense against the Divine Head of the Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Whose sacred authority Bergoglio claims to exercise for the detriment of the Mystical Body, with an action that is too systematic and coherent to appear to be the fruit of mere incapacity. In the work of Bergoglio and his circle, the Lord’s warning is put into practice: Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the guise of lambs, but who are ravenous wolves at heart (Mt 7:15). I am honored not to have – and indeed I do not want – any ecclesial communion with them: theirs is a lobby, which conceals its complicity with the masters of the world in order to deceive many souls and prevent any resistance against the establishment of the Kingdom of the Antichrist.
In the face of the Dicastery’s accusations, I claim, as Successor of the Apostles, to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, with the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs, and with the uninterrupted doctrinal, moral, and liturgical Tradition which they have faithfully preserved.
I repudiate the neomodernist errors inherent in the Second Vatican Council and in the so-called “post-conciliar magisterium,” in particular in matters of collegiality, ecumenism, religious freedom, the secularity of the State, and the liturgy.
I repudiate, reject, and condemn the scandals, errors, and heresies of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who manifests an absolutely tyrannical management of power, exercised against the purpose that legitimizes Authority in the Church: an authority that is vicarious of that of Christ, and as such must obey Him alone. This separation of the Papacy from its legitimizing principle, which is Christ the High Priest, transforms the ministerium into a self-referential tyranny.
No Catholic worthy of the name can be in communion with this “Bergoglian church,” because it acts in clear discontinuity and rupture with all the Popes of history and with the Church of Christ.
Fifty years ago, in that same Palace of the Holy Office, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was summoned and accused of schism for rejecting Vatican II.
The WM Review: Sorry to interrupt. You can read about this meeting and conflict here:
His defense is mine; his words are mine; and his arguments are mine – arguments before which the Roman authorities could not condemn him for heresy, having to wait instead for him to consecrate bishops so as to have the pretext of declaring him schismatic and then revoking his excommunication when he was already dead. The scheme is repeated even after half a century has demonstrated Archbishop Lefebvre’s prophetic choice.
In these times of apostasy, Catholics will find in Pastors faithful to the mandate received from Our Lord an example and an encouragement to abide in the Truth of Christ.
Depositum custodi, according to the Apostle’s exhortation: as the time approaches when I will have to give an account to the Son of God of all my actions, I intend to persevere in the bonum certamen and not to fail in the witness of faith which is required of each one who, as Bishop, has been endowed with the fullness of the priesthood and constituted Successor of the Apostles.
I invite all Catholics to pray that the Lord will come to the aid of His Church and give courage to those who are persecuted for their Faith.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
June 20, 2024
St Silverii Papæ et Martyris
Bl. Dermitii O’Hurley, Episcopi et Martyris
Announcement – 21 June 2024
The reports spread by certain media outlets, stating that I presented myself yesterday, Thursday, June 20, at the Palace of the Holy Office, as intimated to me by the Decree of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, is devoid of any foundation. These reports are completely false.
The Jesuit magazine America, the media arm of the Society of Jesus in the United States and the megaphone of the “church of mercy” of the Jesuit Bergoglio, has rushed ahead, while Vatican News (here) was still totally unaware of the Decree sent to me on June 11, only by a simple email, without respecting those formalities necessary for the validity of the communication of a Decree, and which I myself published on X two hours before the meeting scheduled at the Dicastery. Although all the elements were clearly stated in my communiqué, inferences and speculations took precedence, in typical Jesuit style.
Haste is a bad counselor. Therefore, Gerard O’Connell’s article Archbishop Viganò charged with schism by the Vatican that appeared yesterday at America (here) seems to have been written even before I made the Vatican document public. This reveals the close contiguity between the Vatican apparatus and America magazine and confirms a very precise strategy, aimed at liquidating my trial with a condemnation that has already been decided by Bergoglio and his zealous collaborator Tucho Fernández, author of the scandalous pornographic pamphlet La Pasion mistica. Espiritualidad y Sensualidad, as well as Saname con tu boca. El arte de besar.
O’Connell writes:
The decree says that it considered “superfluous” the prior investigation in accordance with Canon 1717 that states:
“Whenever an ordinary has knowledge, which at least seems true, of a delict, he is carefully to inquire personally or through another suitable person about the facts, circumstances, and imputability, unless such an inquiry seems entirely superfluous.”
This means that the evidence against him had already been collected by the dicastery and did not require fuller investigation. Much of it was already in the public domain.
As can be seen, “evidence” is considered superfluous, and the procedure is deliberately simplified in order to reach a conviction as soon as possible:
America has learned that the decision to proceed with the extrajudicial penal trial would have been approved by the pope, since the accused is a bishop.
And that’s not all: the Jesuits of America are already giving indications about my procedural destiny:
The extrajudicial penal trial is in accordance with Canon 1364 of the Code of Canon Law, which states:
“An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latæ sententiæ excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194” and that “he or she may also be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4.”
This means, among other things, that the excommunication would be declared publicly, and it would remain in force until the convicted person repents. That same Canon 1364 also states:
“If a long-standing contempt or the gravity of scandal calls for it, other penalties may be added, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.”
The juridical competence of America magazine, however, seems to have no place in the Vatican, where it has now become common to use extrajudicial trials and the direct interventions of the Argentine both to cover up the real culprits and to hastily condemn the innocent. Beyond the media hype, the former Cardinal McCarrick – who in a serious trial would have been made to compensate the victims of his crimes after the examination of testimonies that could have clarified many connivances – continued to work for Bergoglio in the United States and China, where the secret Sino-Vatican Agreement saw him directly involved. Marko Rupnik, S.J., thanks to the intervention of his protector, had his excommunication lifted. He was not even dismissed from the clerical state; on the contrary, he was welcomed and incardinated in a diocese in Slovenia. Evidently, criticizing the Council is considered a far more serious crime than those of McCarrick and Rupnik.
I therefore wish to make it clear that I did not go to the Vatican yesterday [June 20], and that I have no intention of going to the Holy Office on June 28, and that I have not delivered any statement or document in my defense to the Dicastery, whose authority I do not recognize, nor do I recognize the authority of its Prefect, nor do I recognize the authority of the one who appointed him.
I have no intention of submitting myself to a show trial in which those who are supposed to judge me impartially in order to defend Catholic orthodoxy are at the same time those whom I accuse of heresy, treason, and abuse of power. And among them are precisely the Jesuits, the first proponents of all the moral and doctrinal deviations of the last sixty years, starting with James Martin, S.J., the LGBTQ+ activist who is a regular visitor at Santa Marta.
America says:
A canon lawyer (who wished to remain anonymous) who has read the archbishop’s defense statement, told America:
“This is the major argument for the prosecution. His defense is a declaration of schism. It is the most egregious act of schism.”
He explained that the extrajudicial procedure envisaged usually does not take much time. If the archbishop is convicted, the pope would then have to confirm the penalties.
This anonymous “canon lawyer” considers my statement as a proof of my schismatic will: but the whole question concerns which is the “church” to which Bergoglio belongs and the de facto schism from the true Church that he has already accomplished over and over again with his declarations, with his acts of government, and with his most eloquent behavior of open hostility to all that is Catholic. Bergoglio’s “church” is not the Catholic Church, but rather that “conciliar church” born from Vatican Council II and recently rebranded with the no less heretical name of “synodal church.” If it is from this “church” that I am declared to be separated by schism, it will be for me a cause for honor and pride.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
June 21, 2024
S. Aloisii Gonzagæ Confessoris
Further reading on relevant issues:
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone. If you have benefitted from our content please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material!
Thank you!
Cf. the following from Mr James Larrabee, making this same argument without thereby accepting the Cassiciacum Thesis:
Along the same lines, the papacy must be accepted by the elected candidate, even if validly elected. Yet it can be argued that the new “popes” from John Paul I onwards did NOT accept the Roman Pontificate, but a new, conciliarist, “updated” papacy, a consitutional monarchy or figurehead office of some sort, or as De Nantes would put it, the headship of MASDU.
Thus, they in no way accepted the papacy, nor have they actually exercised it. This was clearly manifested in their mere “installation” rather than in the traditional coronation, and undoubtedly other ways.
As for Paul VI, it could easily be said that, if his heresy was not already manifest, he clearly manifested his rejection of the papacy by very publicly and formally removing (permanently) his tiara in the presence, I believe, of the whole council. Given the importance attached to ceremony and external signs and symbols both by reason itself and by the Church in her whole external life, one could hardly imagine a more certain way of resigning the papacy AS TRADITIONALLY UNDERSTOOD than this act.
Certainly from that time, the papal authority as instituted by Christ and exercised by 260 pontiffs has no longer been exercised by these “popes.” It is precisely this de facto (at least) vacation of papal authority which has laid the Church open to the revolution of the Modernists. (Thus it is clearly the outcome of the Freemasonic plan exposed over 150 years ago, by the Popes themselves.)