Rome Newsroom, Jul 5, 2024 / 09:35 am (CNA).
The Vatican has officially excommunicated Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith announced Friday.
Viganò was found guilty of the canonical crime, or delict, of schism, or the refusal to submit to the pope or the communion of the Church, at the conclusion of the Vatican’s extrajudicial penal process on July 4.
The Vatican’s doctrine office announced the “latae sententiae” excommunication (automatic excommunication) on July 5, citing Viganò’s “public statements manifesting his refusal to recognize and submit to the Supreme Pontiff, his rejection of communion with the members of the Church subject to him, and of the legitimacy and magisterial authority of the Second Vatican Council.”
The former papal nuncio to the United States is now excommunicated, the most serious penalty a baptized person can incur, which consists of being placed outside the communion of the faithful of the Catholic Church and denied access to the sacraments.
The ruling comes after Viganò defied a Vatican summons to appear before the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith to face charges of schism last week.
The former Vatican diplomat — who garnered headlines in 2018 for alleging that senior Church officials covered up abuses committed by former cardinal Theodore McCarrick — has repeatedly rejected the authority of Pope Francis since then and has called on him to resign.
In a lengthy statement shared on social media June 28, Viganò accused Pope Francis of “heresy and schism” over his promotion of COVID-19 vaccines and his overseeing of the 2018 Vatican-China deal on the appointment of bishops.
He also said he has “no reason to consider myself separate from communion with the holy Church and with the papacy, which I have always served with filial devotion and fidelity.”
“I maintain that the errors and heresies to which [Francis] adhered before, during, and after his election, along with the intention he held in his apparent acceptance of the papacy, render his elevation to the throne null and void,” Viganò wrote.
Viganò, who has been in hiding for years, announced on social media June 20 that he had been summoned to Rome to answer formal charges of schism.
The specific charges outlined against Viganò, according to a document he himself posted, involved making public statements that allegedly deny the fundamental elements necessary to maintain communion with the Catholic Church. This included denying the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the rightful pontiff and the outright rejection of the Second Vatican Council.
In response to the charges, Viganò said in a June 21 statement that he had not sent any materials in his defense to the Vatican, noting that he did not recognize the authority of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith “nor that of its prefect, nor that of the person who appointed him.”
Viganò’s excommunication can only be lifted by the Apostolic See.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Voilà!
Bergoglio and his Dark Vatican confirm everything Archbishop Vigano has said about them.
Vigano was a coward for refusing to go to the DDF where he could have, in person, shown Tucho and the Pope where they were wrong!
Instead, he continued to hide himself and ultimately declared he does not recognize the dicastery, neither Tucho nor the Pope who appointed him.
Vigano schism-ized himself. He expected this excommunication and it was given him.
You don’t know any of that, of how the deck might have been stacked, of how he would even have had a voice or if he would have had to endure a Marxist show trial that Francis so admires. We don’t know, and it’s not exactly brave to presume from afar what we do not know.
We may not know all that, but if Vigano had the courage of his convictions, he would have gone. Padre Pio went. Don Dolindo Ruotolo went. But Vigano continued to hide.
There are a few Cardinals and Bishops and laypeople who criticize the pope, but they don’t denounce him. But Vigano did and effectively severed himself from the Church. I think denouncing the pope is ground enough for excommunication. Vigano asked for it, so he was given it.
Denouncing Francis, a man unabmbuously guilty of crimes against humanity, is not grounds for excommunication.
A refusal ro recognize his crimes, aids and abets his crimes.
Margarita, come to your senses. Do you think for a minute that his going to Rome would have been anything more than a show trial? You underestimate the evil that is going on with this pontificate.
Show trial?
What about his physical security?
Indeed Margarita, it is like a badge of honor for him.
Lefebvre 2.0.
Am sorry that Archbishop Vigano refused to carry his cross of obedience and chose schism. Am praying that he will publicly repent (assuming he is even alive). There is no Pope Vigano.
“For those who defend authority against rebellion must not themselves rebel.” Tolkien, The Silmarillion
When will renegade German bishops be excommunicated?
Not anytime soon.
And homosexualist James Martin SCH?
Exactly, and renegade Catholic politicians.
And yet Marko Rupnik and James Martin SCH are still members in good standing. Woe to those who call good evil and evil good.
Aboutism will not solve Vigano’s case. At any rate, it’s over.
Dear Margarita: “At any rate, it’s over.”
Drawing a parallel with Saint Athanasius – it may only have just have begun.
Have you ever read anything by St. Athanasius? Vigano is more parallel to Milingo, or even to Martin Luther.
But it seems many of the people commenting on this mag are effectively Protestants, so maby that’s a fit. After all, even the Council of Trent agreed with Luther that the selling of indulgences was wrong, so he had something in his favor … just not enough.
Eccentric!
Have you ever read Luther and Francis to identify an honest parallel? A seat of authority can be as opposed to the authority of Christ and His Church as any childish fallible arrogant blowhard.
Of course it’s not over. It won’t be over until we see white smoke emerge from the chimney of the Sistine chapel and the next Pope on the balcony of St. Peter’s. What we have is another Babylonian Captivity – the Church is being held hostage.
Correct.
Margarita Locuta Est Causa Finita Est.
We cannot leave the Barque of Peter. It only leads to division, and a prime example of this are the various Eastern Orthodox churches, some of whom aren’t even in communion with each other. I agree with Vigano’s views on abortion and the covid vaccine, but I cannot support Vigano and his schismatic views on our (validly) elected Pope and the second Vatican council, which ironically laid the groundwork for the reunification efforts with the schismatic Orthodox Churches.
Didn’tThinkSo, maybe, just maybe, it is this validly elected Pope who has become schismatic (cf his worship of the false Pachamama god).
“Validly elected”? . . you mean: politically manipulated through the St. Galen “Mafia”. All this still has seriously to be re-visited and
weighed and pronounced on by “Competent Authority”.
When you remove the first stitch the sweater will come apart. Scripture tells us that we must respect authority even when it is abusive. It’s better to follow a bad Pope than to become your own pope. There is only one key to the door and Francis is the one holding it.
The problem with your position is that one cannot follow a heretical pope and remain in the Barque of Peter at the same time.
Good comment, dear Anna.
Yet, one might wonder how many good, practicing Catholics actually ‘follow this pope’ in any meaningful or substantial way.
Is it possible that all his hyped-up, publicity-seeking, ‘song & dance routines’ are – on a day-to-day basis – of zero significance to real followers of our LORD Jesus Christ?
These mischievous rebels in Rome think they’re making a massive difference.
Probably not!
What would make a massive difference for all Catholics is if Rome issued an edict of self-excommunication for every cleric who indulged in pornography, molested a child, abused a vulnerable adult, or furthered a clerical culture of homosexuality.
It would also make a tremendous difference for everyone in the Church if Rome insisted every cleric – from Pope down to deacon – return to daily saying, singing, & refelecting on the Catholic Breviary, that is The Daily Office.
It would give us clergy who are learned in Christ’s Word and full of prayer.
Today’s pope & far too many clergy are largely ignorant of the actual reality of Christ & deficient of any proper prayer life.
Are not all such are failed leaders, unqualified to shepherd God’s flock?
This appalling situaltion is not ‘fixed-in-stone’ and it could be fixed by a reforming pope & leaders who’re obedient to Christ & full of His Holy Spirit.
As Moses exhorted: “Today, I set before you LIFE & DEATH – so choose LIFE!”
Ever longing for the return of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Anna, there is no problem with my position. I only stated that we cannot leave the Barque of Peter. Vigano does not appear to recognize Francis as our divinely chosen Pope. This is a heresy. Look at Martin Luther and Henry VIII. They rejected the authority of the Pope, and that’s precisely what Vigano has done. Look how far it got them. Two heretical religions developed because the authority of the Pope was rejected. I’m not the biggest fan of Pope Francis, but I would rather stand with the valid successor of Peter and remain in communion with Rome than stand with a schismatic, excommunicated Cardinal, even if said Cardinal is more conservative than Francis. The Holy Spirit guides the Church and the faithful. Francis is our divinely chosen, validly elected Pope with full authority. We should trust and respect God’s decision to have made Francis our Pope. Let’s remain faithful Catholics in union with Rome.
From The Holy Spirit Does Not Choose the Pope
Dr. Jared Staudt
Excerpt:
It’s amazing how many times I’ve heard from fellow Catholics that they think that God directly chooses the pope. Just yesterday someone said that they refused to criticize the pope because he was given to the Church by the Holy Spirit. The Church does not teach that position. According to the laws of the Church, the Cardinals choose the pope while praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If you don’t believe me, just listen to a previous pope, Benedict XVI. While still Cardinal Ratzinger, he was asked by Bavarian television in 1997 if the Holy Spirit is responsible for the election of a pope. His answer:
“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. . . . I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined. . . . There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”
Ok, I read about that shortly ago on Catholic Answers. Thanks Flynn.
My main point in this comment section is to implore everyone to stay in union with the Pope of Rome. That should never be a controversial stance.
Well, the Holy Spirit does not choose a president either, or our boss for that matter. Authority does not require a purely supernatural decision to be valid. I dare say not a single decision you have ever made has been “supernatural” and purely the result of the Holy Spirit, including, if you are married, your choice of spouse; yet some of your decisions are still authorative.
Thanks. It’s somewhat analogous to the old joke, “What do you call the guy who graduated at the bottom of his class in medical school?” “Doctor.”
You remarked “but I would rather stand with the valid successor of Peter and remain in communion with Rome than stand with a schismatic, excommunicated Cardinal, even if said Cardinal is more conservative than Francis.”
There’s is no need to take sides here between the Pope and Vigano, regardless of how strongly people’s feelings are running and how polarized the discussion has become. As Catholics, we do not have to “choose our team” whenever a dispute involving the Pope breaks out. And I am speaking as a sports fan who is attached to several teams and kniws what it is to support a team. The Catholic faith is rooted in Jesus Christ and therefore transcends all wordly teams, or should.
I agree that as Catholics, we should stay in communion with Rome. But I do not understand why you believe stayng in communion with Rome is necessarily tied to a need to “stand with the Pope.” Stand with the Pope against what, exactly? That suggests showing a degree of personal loyalty and support for a Pope that is not necessary to remain in communion. So as you’ve phrased it, I can’t agree with you. We aren’t required to agree with all of a Pope’s actions or to support them, or to take his side against challengers such as Vigano or even to like him.
If you are truly only trying to emphasize thst Catholics should remain in the Barque of Peter, maybe it would be better to drop the references suggesting that to do that, we must also “stand with the Pope.” Similarly, comments indicating that God choose the Pope and therefore, our attitude toward a particular Pope is tied to whether we respect God’s decision. They may express your feelings but they aren’t binding on anyone else.
So if you jump ship where does that leave you?
To “jump ship” from a counterfeit papacy, is, in essence, to remain in communion with The One Body Of Christ.
“You cannot be My disciples if you do not remain in My Word.”
It’ll leave you in an ocean outside of full communion with the Catholic Church, akin to the Orthodox. Jumping ship is not an option. We must stay in union with Rome. I know there is a deacon and a priest who frequently comment on CWR, do they believe that we must stay in union with the Pope of Rome? God bless, everyone and stay close to the unified Church, stay in union.
Outside of Sodom. Not a bad place to be. Better to be out of the city when the judgment falls.
Or outside the Barque of Peter when judgement fall? Thanks, Martin Luther! Though I don’t recommend it.
You can acknowledge a heretical Pope to be Pope, and cheerfully point out that he has never made an ex cathedra statement and probably never will. Or that if he did, it is somewhat questionable whether anyone would be able to interpret it correctly. Other teachings have no authority if they clearly contradict Tradition, or if they are simply uninterpretable. You’re basically left with: Yeah, that’s definitely a sheepdog, but whenever he ignores the shepherd or chases his own tail, we ignore him.
The problem with having a bad Pope has always been the scandal it has given, and the difficulty it creates, both emotional and practical, in remaining in communion with St. Peter’s See. The worse it gets, the more people it catches who otherwise would have remained faithful.
Can a gaggle of vindictive prelates, directed by a materially heretical Pope, who appears contemptuous of the Catholic religion without inhibition, perform a valid excommunication?
Yes.
Explain how cardinals can place themselves above Canon Law?
Yes, if the Papacy is valid and legit. No, if he’s not.
Still, you have to show us proofs of your authority to declare the Pope is a material heretic. By what authority do you say he is?
Any baptized Catholic has the authority to judge material heresy in any other Catholic. Your contention that I do not have the authority speaks to the enforced ignorance among today’s Catholics. Formal heresy declarations are for ecclesial proceedings.
And how many dozens upon dozens of citations of material heresy by Francis need I list? Should I begin with his denial of immutable truth or his belief that God is unsure of himself and changes His mind a lot as He learns from His creation? From there we can go on to his denial of the divinity of Christ or the sinlessness of Mary.
By the authority that is found in The Deposit of Faith that Christ entrusted to His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, we can know through both Faith and reason, grounded in The Deposit of Faith the difference between a Gospel preached for Christ, and a gospel that is preached against Christ.
“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. ”
Our Call to Holiness is a Call to be Temples of The Holy Ghost. A validly elected Pope would never reject Our Call to be a Temple Of The Holy Ghost. Jorge Bergoglio, by this statement alone, made while a cardinal rejecting God’s Universal Call to Holiness, ipso facto separated himself from Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church:
This is what Jorge Bergoglio stated.
prior to his election as pope, on page 117 of his book, On Heaven And Earth, demonstrating that he does not hold, keep, or teach The Catholic Faith, and he continues to act accordingly:
“If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected. Now, if the union is given the category of marriage, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help shape their identity.”- Jorge Bergoglio, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and the fact that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, while denying sin done in private is sin.
Where in The Deposit Of Faith did Christ withdraw His Universal Call to Holiness?
Isn’t supporting, protecting, and blessing sexual abuse and homosexuality heretical, because Francis has done all those things and more.
You are right, dear EJB:
PF, CF and co-travellers are themselves in a state of auto-excommunication through manifest bad faith, by giving Holy Communion to public advocates of infanticide, through teaching against the clear instructions of our LORD Jesus Christ & His founding Apostles, & through fostering a culture of pornography & sexual promiscuity.
AV – despite his imperfections – is better qualified to excommunicate than they are!
If the excommunicated excommunicate us, is that not a confirmation of our communion?
G-o-o-o-d question !
Well Vatican II certainly ended in a debate debacle which I suppose became more and more of a tangled web due to the fact that it was no longer considered to be Loving or Merciful to use The Charitable Anathema for a multitude of our beloved prodigal sons and daughters.
That being said, why do I feel as though this tangled web is being untied as we speak, given the fact that by this particular excommunication, I have only lost faith in this particular anti -Papacy, retaining both my mind and my Faith?
Such is the essence of Truth and of Love.
Dear Blessed Mother Mary, Mirror of Justice , Untier Of Knots, And Destroyer Of All Heresy, Who Through Your Fiat, Affirmed The Filioque, and thus the fact that There Is Only One Son Of God, One Word Of God Made Flesh, One Lamb Of God Who Can Taketh Away The Sins Of The World, Our Only Savior, Jesus The Christ, thus there can only be, One Spirit Of Perfect Complementary Love Between The Father And The Son, Who Must Proceed From Both The Father And The Son, In The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity (Filioque), hear our Prayer that your Immaculate Heart Will Triumph soon for the sake of Christ, His Church, all who will come to believe, and all our beloved prodigal sons and daughters, who, hopefully, will return to The One Body Of Christ, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost(Filioque).
This is a sad story. There is so much wrong on all sides in my opinion, which I freely admit could be wrong due to lack of facts.
In humble prayer I seek blessings be upon Archbishop Viganò and the Holy Catholic Church.
Recall well that reported in DER SPIEGEL by Walter Mayr on December 23, 2016, this comment made by Pope Francis to a small of colleagues “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.” This is two years before Archbishop Viganò began his public examination of the state of the Church. It stirred quite the dust at the time. The writing was on the wall eight years ago, but it wasn’t Viganò in his hand.
The behavior of this Pope is absolutely disgusting.
My prayers are with the Archbishop, that God’s merciful love may prevail.
From Viganò’s conscientious perspective considering what he may have gleaned from personal contact he may possess what he honestly believes substantiates his accusations. A consideration of the legitimacy of Archbishop Viganò’s allegation, likely based on the Papal Coronation Oath, where Viganò said, “I maintain that the errors and heresies to which [Francis] adhered before, during, and after his election, along with the intention he held in his apparent acceptance of the papacy, render his elevation to the throne null and void”, may be examined in the wording of the Oath.
The Papal Coronation Oath: “I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein; To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort”.
Although we may surmise that a pope did not intend to adhere to the oath, it doesn’t appear feasible that it can be canonically proven. Although, can it be morally proved? As Fr Thomas Weinandy OFM Cap recently argued in his article Pride and Prejudice, It’s not what Francis says, it’s what he does. Others have said the same. And many have identified errors and have refused to follow them. And thankfully so. And significantly, a number of clergy have been warning the faithful of the dire consequences in carrying out what some of Pope Francis’ remarks, writings, and actions suggest.
From Pride and Prejudice
Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Cap.
Tuesday, July 2, 2024
Excerpt:
Robert McElroy, the bishop of San Diego, who was made a Cardinal by Pope Francis while the archbishops of San Francisco and Los Angeles were passed over, has also issued revisionist statements about homosexual acts, implying that, given what we have now learned from the social sciences concerning human nature, homosexuality needs to be doctrinally and pastorally reconsidered.
Likewise, Fr. James Martin, S.J., a close confidant of Pope Francis, has for many years been a supporter of gay culture. Pope Francis has met with and even applauded the leadership of New Ways Ministry, a group condemned by the Vatican decades ago and further criticized by the USCCB in 2010 for its pro-gay advocacy.
Thank you, dear Fr Peter for these relevant facts.
It seems there is evidence Jorge Bergoglio was elected after debarring machinations; took his oath of office in bad faith; then – heavily disguished by pr as a legitimate pope – proceeded to act against the commands of our LORD Jesus Christ and against the teachings of His Apostles (that is against The Catholic Church).
If that’s even half true, AV is lawful in saying there is currently no legitimate papal authority in Rome.
CWR needs an article by one or more competent canon lawyers to help explicate this.
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
About the “vow to change nothing of the received Tradition,” what does it mean when the Tradition is reaffirmed, but carve-out exceptions are then seemingly compartmentalized in the mind? Not a “change”?
Four points:
FIRST, one is reminded of a homosexual cardinal who, when he was asked whether he had violated a former accuser of sexual abuse, did not say “no”; but instead “I have never violated my vow of chastity.” Meaning that chastity applies only to men and women together.
SECOND, what are we to make of Veritatis Splendor (VS) and Natural Law and moral absolutes, as now part of Tradition (!): “This is the first time, in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church [!] has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this [‘moral’] teaching, and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment necessary in practical and cultural situations which are complex and even crucial” (VS, n. 115).
THIRD, the globally divisive Fiducia Supplicans makes no mention anywhere of Veritatis Splendor. But again, is the supposedly “non-liturgical” crypto-blessing of “irregular couples” sufficiently oblique to sidestep a “change” in formal Tradition, even while “walking together” with the zeitgeist?
FOURTH, so “schism,” but not more. And, Vigano and the Vatican, both, seem to have left some chips on the table—about governance, complex prudential judgments of engagement, silences, informal signaling, and the overall principle (?) of Gradualism (see Vigano: Open Letter, June 20, 2024).
Possibly overstated, or possibly clarified instead by Dignitas Infinita, or not, but still worthy of factual “dialogue”?
But wait…there’s the difference between the “real” Vatican II of the Documents, and Hans Kung’s “virtual” Vatican II marketed by his talking-head media (Benedict’s terms). About the Documents, the angels are in the details.
A “schismatic,” and likely Vigano’s intended this outcome. But what are we to say, then, about the 400,000 in Germany who refused to be fleeced by the Church-tax last year alone, and who now are automatically excommunicated from the German near-schism/heresy of der Synodal Weg—for “apostasy”?
In the big dance, methinks the Vigano episode could (“could”) now serve as a useful signal to the more wayward and Kungian Marx, Kasper, Batzing & Co.
In any event, Vigano’s litany of grievances can stand by itself and apart from his overreaching accusations. Are we reminded of Luther’s 95 Theses at Wittenberg, before the tin-cup-indulgences thingy also escalated and morphed into a heresy about all works—and then into a simplifying Canon Law showdown?
SUMMARY: For the “non-synod” in Germania, thank ewe for shearing.
The title is wrong. The Vatican ruled that Vigano excommunicated himself. It’s the same difference as a doctor pronouncing a man who has shot himself in the head to be dead and a doctor killing the man, except that the dead man is unlikely to insist that he is, in fact, actually alive.
Dear ‘Outis’: “Vigano excommunicated himself”.
If it IS possible for a practicing Catholic to excommunicate themselves by perceiving the non-papal character of the rebels against Apostolic Catholicism who have been fomenting in Rome, then’re are hundreds of millions of practicing Catholics, all around the world, who are excommunicating themselves!
Yes, AV is imperfect but, sad to say, his discernment of the anti-Apostolic character of our current Church leadership is well based on facts.
Ever seeking to hear & follow Jesus Christ, our True Shepherd; blessings from marty
Excellent.
Excellent!
There’s plenty of room in the barque of schism for Vigano, for you, and for “Father” Peter Morello (if “call no man father” applies to ANYONE, it certainly applies to oneself!).
You can call yourself Ph.D. or Dr. for what I care. I have a Ph.D. in physics. It matters as little as yours does in this kind of conversation, which is to say, not at all.
Weird!
But you’re missing the point. THE VATICAN MAKES NO CLAIM OF HAVING EXCOMMUNICATED VIGANO. The Vatican claims he excommunicated himself. He claims otherwise, as apparentlydo you and Peter Morello, who calls himself Father. (Because respect to a Pope is optional, but respect to someone on the Internet who says he is a priest is MANDATORY.)
Weirder!
Yes, and defending Francis at all costs is mandatory as far as your thinking goes.
Good point, dear ‘Athanasius’.
Makes one wonder if dear ‘Outis’ would’ve opposed Saint Paul’s correction of the errors of Saint Peter, our first pope?
Now the pope can issue a new document which authorizes priests to give blessings to excommunicated individuals and couples.
Dear A. Angelopoulos – you are right, the whole thing is like vauderville . . !
I believe that even excommunicated individuals (couples?) can still receive a blessing.
It might depend on the specific terms of their excommunication.
No, Andrew Angelo, not a new document from the pope. Close but no cigar…
Instead, might a minority report from the Synod on Synodality suggest that individual hierarchies or even individual bishops within a polyhedral Church can experiment with non-ordained deaconesses? And, then, that under the globally too- divisive Fiducia Supplicans, these non-ordained deaconesses can be the ones to offer the “non-liturgical,” “spontaneous” and “non-scandalous” non-blessings to “irregular” couples, as “couples”?
Be the first to welcome unisex Gradualism into your diocese and neighborhood parish!
Later, might it be suggested that deaconesses might be ordained after all, a suggestion probably from just another couple: the archdeaconess Jeannine Gramick and Jiminy-Cricket Martin, S.J.? A church (lower case) within a Church, and therefore not schismatic? Down with ecclesial colonialism!
SUMMARY: A metastatic “growth” within the Church, as in secular society where civil unions were a half-way house toward quarantining binary marriage within gender theory, as a special case alongside “gay marriage”?
Only if they’re gay 🙄
LOL.
Revisiting the 2016 quotation of bergoglio reported in DER SPIEGEL by Walter Mayr on December 23, 2016, “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”, previous popes would have done everything in their power, even gladly accepting martyrdom to defend the Faith before seeing the Church torn asunder as happened in Luther’s time. I would, without question, take this statement, in light of everything that bergoglio has not only subsequently said and done, but failed to do during this sad folly of a pontificate, as tacit evidence that he never intended to fulfill the papal vows. In fact, I think he made this statement as a challenge to anyone who might try and stop him.
No pope has yet been deposed, but with his cadre of wicked and perverted minions now holding all the offices of power, it will take Christ Himself to clean this house. But clean it He will.
In 1431 Joan of Arc was excommunicated as a heretic and burned at the stake. About 25 years later, she was rehabilitated and those who excommunicated her were declared full of fraud and malice. In 1920 she was canonized as a saint. So much for excommunications!
YES.
As everyone knows, I’m no fan of our current Pope, let alone Cardinal Tucho. However, what Vigano did is objectively schismatic. It’s one thing to criticize a Pope, saying he is doing a bad job, accusing him of misconduct, or even calling for him to step down (which Cardinal Burke, a Canon Lawyer, noted is legitimate if accusations of misconduct are true), but it’s quite another to refuse to recognize a Pope at all, and even refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Church itself or it’s institutions, as Vigano has done.
I think Vigano told the truth about McCarrick, but he has tried to stay relevant through infamy by changing from Whistleblower to Conspiracy Pundit, jumping on the Trump bandwagon and his accusations of Election “Fraud”, and becoming an apologist for the Russian Dictator Putin and his invasion of Ukraine. His open association with Richard Williamson, another tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist and open Holocaust denier who was excommunicated for Schism (after being kicked out of the SSPX), also didn’t help his case.
His biggest mistake, in my opinion, was to refuse to even attend the DDF hearing at all, assume it was rigged, and let them make a ruling without his input. As an attorney, my advise id always to never boycott a hearing you have been summoned to, as you thereby waive your rights in terms of Audi Alteram Partem and guarantee a ruling will be made against you (something Steve Bannon also learned at his expense).
Dear JdT, your thoughtful analysis is valued but its core tenet hinges on the very matter in question.
Many practising Catholics throughout the world (a substantial part of our ‘sensus fidei’) suspect that Jorge Bergoglio – by manipulation of process – was illegitimate from the start and consider Jorge has, over a decade, provided ample evidence for that in his many un-papal, anti-Apostolic & scandalous words, appointments, and decisions.
Just think what, face-to-face, First Pope Saint Peter would say to Jorge!
It is commonly argued that Jorge is not a Christian, nor a Catholic, nor a godly man. Catholic legal experts consider that, de jure, he is unable to be a legitimate pope.
That, de facto, Jorge is known as ‘Pope Francis’ & occupies the wheelhouse of the Barque of Saint Peter is the biggest challenge the Church has faced in recent history.
It’s not helpful when some, in misplaced loyalty, chant:
“The pope is the pope, is the pope, is the pope . . .”
Archbishop Vigano is imperfect but is perfectly right in drawing our attention to the illegitimacy of the election & operation of current Catholic Church administration.
Many are praying: “Dear Father God, in Jesus’ Name, please give us a proper pope.”
This would be more palatable if Francis was as vigilant in prosecuting questions of the validity of Church Doctrine as he is here where the question is of his legitimacy.
Personally, I have no idea whether the “St. Gallen Mafia” machinations made Francis’ election invalid or if anything he has done subsequently has caused him to be in a state of heresy.
What I do know is that he is a wrecking ball who has followed his injunction to make a mess.
If invited to have a Papal audience, I would decline. If the invitation became a summons, I would refuse. There is enough in his public record for me to find him arbitrary, capricious, imperious and petty. I can experience those failings in any number of other settings.
There is one of his initiatives I will work to advance. “a poorer Church”, I will direct my donations to my local church and charities I deem to be saving souls.
The Vatican of Francis has not given ear to the Audi Alteram Partem principle. Not to Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum. Not to Cardinal Zen who claimed Francis’ China policies were schismatizing Catholics in China. Not to Cardinals presenting Dubia re Amoris Laetitia. Not to the African Bishop Conference which would not obey Fiducia Supplicans. Not to the American Bishop Conference which claimed the longstanding Church tradition of denying Eucharist to politicians promoting and enshrining abortion. Et sic porro.
No reasonable person would expect Francis to listen to Vigano. After all, Francis asked Vigano to appear on the charge of excommunication. Could Francis not have asked for a private audience? Could Francis not have attempted to understand Vigano’s motives prior to issuing an Edict?
Francis appears to require positions like this: “I will serve you, Holy Father Pope Francis, and I will obey and assist you by honoring and furthering all non-traditional and materially heretical pastoral practices you wish me to honor, uphold, and teach.”
Francis appoints men after his own heart. Skirts such as Martin, Hollerich, McElroy, McCarrick, Rupnik, and others of their ilk have made perfectly clear a charity of such a heart.
As a long-time computer-chair observer and follower of Pope Francis and the would-be “judges” of this Kangaroo Kourt “justice”: IS Archbishop
Carlo Maria Viganó a schismatic [ in the sense that HOLY Mother Church
means “schismatic” ]? What a joke !
Once again, an 80-year-old cradle Catholic like myself will continue to wait for a Competent Authority to rule on all this Ecclesial Schmozzle.
“Popes are not infallible when making excommunications, or any disciplinary judgment, for they are limited by the information they have on the individual or situation in question.” https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/has-any-pope-been-guilty-of-heresy-1118
During the 4th century, St. Athanasius found himself in a similar position as Archbishop Vigano. Athanasius was almost the lone voice against the Arian heresy held by majority of bishops. Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius who refused to accept the validity of the excommunication as Vigano also has.
It was Athanasius against the world, and in the end, the excommunicated voice of Athanasius was right.
Obedience to the pope presupposes pope is obedient to Christ and His Deposit of Faith. When pope contradicts Christ and His Deposit of Faith, then there is an obligation NOT to follow him.
There is ample evidence of Francis’ departure from the Deposit of Faith like the Arian bishops & Pope Liberius. The following is but a small sample:
• Telling seminarians to forgive unrepentant sinners even “if we see that there is no intention to repent, we must forgive all” https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2023/01/25/repentance-for-sin-and-sacramental-absolution/
• Veneration of pagan idols in Vatican (pachamama)
• Claim that God wills false religions (Abu Dhabi)
I liked the Babylon Bee coverage, “Pope Excommunicates Archbishop For Being Christian”.
Babylon covered it well
If a criminal boasts of his crimes, declares himself proud of them, and boasts of doing many more all in advance of making a formal plea it is ridiculous to complain about a summary judgement. His court appointed defender doubtless did a good job with an insanity defense or he would have been laicized. Since he is in hiding it would have been difficult to try and get an exorcist to check him out.
Who could possibly be concerned about a decree of “excommunication” from Jorge Bergoglio and his henchmen? Or, put another way, who would not be embarrassed and humiliated to be described as being in “full communion” with the pornocrats currently in charge of the Church? It requires a particularly dishonest or gymnastic intellect to believe that anything coming from Rome these days represents the Mind and Will of the Almighty. I am no theologian and no Church historian, and thus I have no idea how all this mess will be explained one day. But I am unwilling to declare that 2 + 2 = 5, or that a starkly naked and malevolent emperor is robed in truth and beauty.
And millions of good, practicing Catholics will say: “Amen!” to that, dear TJW.
Vigano has said and done things that I won’t defend. It is probably accurate to say that he was asking to be excommunicated and made this latest move inevitable. While he bears guilt for what he has done, Francis and the Vatican shoulder heavily responsibility for this deplorable situation. Vigano has acted rashly and wrongly at times, but he and many others have been pushed to the limit by the unbroken record of scandal and outrage that defines this papacy. Vigano crossed a line that many of us have been pushed to by the hostile and aggressive regime in Rome. There is a little reason to think that he would been radicalized under JPII and Benedict. Indeed, he wasn’t despite the problems associated with the reigns of both men. The egrigous offenses of the Francis papacy have brought us to this point.
Finally, there is something deeply wrong in a church where heresy, molestation, theft, and Marxist political scheming bring about lesser penalties, if any are imposed at all. Ed Feser has posted on his X account that, according to Aquinas, heresy is worse than schism. Yet, Gregory, Cupich and many others have risen to powerful positions and wield tremendous influence. Vile criminals like Zanchetta and Rupnik remain clerics in good standing. On the other hand, Vigano, who has not tainted himself with personal misconduct or tried to subvert Church teaching, gets a spiritual death sentence.
Some others would say PF has said and done things that I won’t defend.
“No one can exclude themselves from the Church, we are all saved sinners. Our holiness is the fruit of God’s love manifested in Christ, who sanctifies us by loving us in our misery and saving us from it. …”
“Let’s think about those who have denied the faith, who are apostates, who are the persecutors of the Church, who have denied their baptism: Are these also at home? Yes, these too. All of them. The blasphemers, all of them. We are brothers. This is the communion of saints. The communion of saints holds together the community of believers on earth and in heaven, and on earth: the saints, the sinners, all.” – Pope Francis February 2022 as reported by Catholic News Agency
I think Vigano might have been smarter to remain in his job and not attack the Pope so directly. That being said, I would imagine the Pope has bigger fish to fry if Church Orthodoxy, such as respect for the Pope’s office, is REALLY what he seeks. Public figures who are known world wide for their pro-abortion stance might be the first ones to put in their place. Here I am thinking of Biden, Pelosi, Whoopie Goldberg, and others of their radically pro-abortion ilk. Abortion right up to the day of birth?? Clearly they dont respect him, or the church or anything the church teaches. Given his jolly attitude when meeting them, its hard to think resisting abortion, even late term abortion, is a doctrinal priority for him. If anything, they were challenging the Pope by meeting him face to face on his on ground. Daring him, essentially. Yet he meets them, shakes their hand cordially, even encourages Biden to continue to go to communion. None of it makes sense.
Vigano’s crime was to expose the McCarrick Church, and the Vatican’s complicity with promoting the grave sin of homosexuality (since openly proclaimed by Bergogluo’s “blessings.”
No one believes that a pope should worship Pachamama, align the Church with the secular global elite, betray the authentic church in China by allowing the CCP to nominate bishops, etc. The Bergoglio “papacy has been unending heresy.
Good riddance. Archbishop Vigano was a Vatican insider who spat the dummy after a catfight with the worst insiders, with whom he had been smilingly rubbing shoulders for years, partaking in their “mistakes” too. His “ministry” for the last seven years has been an internet screen (WHY is he hiding???????), and his missives authored by Pietro Siffi (see Dr. Roberto Mattei for details on that). Vigano has been reconsecrated a bishop by Bishop Williamson, but M. Siffi hasn’t explained why that was necessary. Vigano is a sedevacantist (Pope Francis “defect of intention” etc.), but hasn’t the guts to say do in so many words). Vigano cannot be compared to Archbishop Lefebvre, who never questioned the authority of the Pope (while refusing to follow in certain matters), and had a fruitful ministry. Archbishop Lefebvre did not base his criticism of the Council on calling the Popes who came after it pedophiles.
Vigano is heretic himself, calling Moscow the Third Rome, and claiming (Letter to Trump, 2020) that the Republicans were the “Sons of Light” mentioned in the Apocalypse. Vigano’s religion of Lockdown/Vaccination is very much old hat. Good riddance. Thank you, and well done, Papa Francisco!!!
Thank Papa for Hollerich and McElroy too. They are most definitely in communion with Francis.
LOL, Miguel!
Now do Rupnik.
The Third Rome is a title assumed historically by Moscow following the fall of Constantinople to Islam in A.D. 1453. Not a recent invention. Would like to see a link demonstrating whether, as you allege, Vigano has been consecrated by Bishop Williamson?
Vigano did not incur excommunication for his years of highlighting alleged poor governance and prudential judgments, omissions, coddling, leveling, ventriloquism, moral ambiguity, and signaling from the Vatican, but INSTEAD for also, finally, and explicitly refusing to respond to the summons and his stated refusal to recognize the (“schismatic”) Prefect for the DDC and even the pope himself, and probably Vatican II.
A very red line.
So, a precise distinction that matters; the underlying concerns still exist, and merit real “dialogue” somewhere within the perennial Catholic Church. The opportunity for Appeal within the allowed 60 days could (!) theoretically invite a small “walking together” step in that direction.
SUMMARY: A plausibly overstressed Archbishop Vigano clearly overreached, but perhaps the Holy Spirit will still surprise all of us.
Here’s a link to an unofficial English translation of the Vatican Decision: https://wherepeteris.com/english-translation-of-viganos-excommunication-decree/
Peter, here are a couple of references to Vigano’s reconsecration by Bishop Williamson in Italian daily newspapers These claims have never been refuted by Bishops Williamson or Vigano.
https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/politica/vigan-vescovo-ribelle-riconsacrato-lefebvriano-cresce-2267257.html
https://lanuovabq.it/it/la-crisi-genera-scismi-ora-tocca-a-monsignor-vigano
Moscow as the “Third Rome” was not widely believed (or known) in Russia before the second half of the nineteenth century, when Russian Conservatives began to copy Western European jingoism to justify imperialism. Monk Filofei of Pskov to the Grande Duke of Moscow (almost a hundred years after the fall of Constantinople) was simply a reminder to the prince to remain religiously faithful because, if Moscow became Islamic, there would be no more “chances”. The letter did NOT make the headlines at the time. “Third Rome” notions were NOT used as a justification for the Russian state during its expansion in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. It’s a nineteenth-century myth. (Marshall T. Poe, Moscow, Third Rome, National Council for Soviet and East European Research, Harvard University 1997).
Catholics know there has always been but one Rome.The flow of occultist, gnostic nonsense coming out of Moscow into the ears of Western conservatives is proof of this. The errors of Russia have arrived.
Miguel Cervantes could you list at least some of what the Russia errors would be?
What does any of this have to do with Russia??
I guess I’m a bit slow but I’m not connecting the dots.
We should be praying for everyone involved here I think. And for unity in the Body of Christ. Satan divides and breaks things apart. That’s not what we want to see.
Thank your for the links.
and, yes, “Moscow as the ‘Third Rome’ was not widely believed (or known) in Russia before the second half of the nineteenth century.”
And yet an oblique assertion of this stature (not yet the title) appears as early as A.D. 1492 and again as you report in the early 16th Century–still apart from any later Russian-state expansionism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow,_third_Rome
But who are you to judge, right, Miguel?
LOLOL!
Finally, he’s gone. Praise the Lord. Thank you Pope Francis.
An honest and sincere question: Are we who agree with Archbishop Vegano’s declarations in his letter “J’Accuse” also considered excommunicated “Latae Sententiae” by virtue of the transitive property of logic?
It seems to me that it does, given the definition of latae sententiae –
“A latae sententiae penalty is a penalty that is inflicted ipso facto, automatically, by force of the law itself, at the very moment a law is contravened, hence a broadly applied judgment. A ferendae sententiae penalty is a penalty that is inflicted on a guilty party only after a case has been brought and decided by an authority in the Church.”
Lastly, it seems to me that the DDF (or is it DDT) erred in issuing a judgement against Archbishop Vigano “latae sententiae” rather than “ferendae sententiae”.
We read: “…agree with Archbishop Vigano’s declarations…” Which “declarations”?
The accusations over grievances of the past eleven years are one thing…And quite another–and for which the penalty specifically applies–are the two added and very public and pertinacious assertions that Vatican II was not a Council and that the pope is not a pope…
In these cases, to formally and directly promote schism would be one thing, while to indirectly enable or not prevent an immoral culture seems to be cleverly or incompetently quite another. Hypothetically, is the smoke of Satan more inhaled than clearly defined—and therefore canonically below the radar? The diffuse Gradualism of ecclesial climate change!
SUMMARY: For canon lawyers, something like trying to pinpoint and kill a marine sponge with a needle.
Vigano (and also the few remaining orthodox bishops) would have done better to simply issue frequent public letters addressed to: “Your Holiness, the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church, Successor of Peter” and then proceed to admonish the Pope for each of the many occasions when he failed as Shepherd of the Universal Church. It would have served to recognize his authority in the Church and then point out his failures (which again are many).
Unfortunately, Vigano is not orthodox. Calling the opposition to the US Democrats in 2020 “the Sons of Light” is blasphemous. The Sons of Light are the Catholics in the last days. On no account does this include that pro-abortionist, pro-same-sex marriage, Hispanic-Catholic hater, WASP Donald Trump and co.
Granted,there are terrible clerics in our Church, and this Pope is liberal, LIKE HIS FOUR PREDECESSORS, but the Church has seen it all before. Vigano adopts Luther’s Rome=Babylon/AntiChrist narrative that ALWAYS, ALWAYS leaves one outside the Body of Christ.
Pope Francisco, I don’t agree with you on so many things, but you have providentially shown up the blot on the Church landscape that is U.S. conservative Catholicism, which is going down because IT HAS HOPELESSLY COMPROMISED ITSELF WITH ANGLO-CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY.
Traditional Catholics can see modernists and liberals coming a mile off. The conservatives who have tried to graft their ideology onto the Church have been harder to spot. But it’s all coming out in the wash in this gran lio. Thanks again Papa Francisco. Bien hecho!
Miguel, I give you credit for trying but your popesplaining doesn’t carry any water. Unfortunately, it seems to me that you have a terminal case of TDS.
Dear ‘mc’ – your comments are unique in their heights of emotion, gung-ho loyalty, & paucity of connection with the facts already put before us in this and other CWR scholarly articles & in many comments by faithful & learned Catholics.
If you despise US Catholics because they are in your words compromised by Anglo conservative ideology (whatever that is!), why post your comments in a US Catholic journal that is respected and valued by US Catholics and around the globe?
It’s all very mysterious. As things stand you appear to have been purchased by the PF media machine to bad-mouth all the pro-Apostolic work being done in CWR & throughout the Catholic world.
As with all in the PF machine, the opportunity to repent & side with the truth is before you, whilst there is yet life.
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Wow, Miguel! Aren’t you supposed to, like, not be judgey?
If I didn’t know you were a morally enlightened, highly virtuous and always compassionate progressive Catholique, I’d suspect you were a rigid and subversive Trump adorer.
Those here who stand with Vigano, who despise and disrespect Pope Francis, who resist and reject Vatican II reforms – especially the liturgy, and those who persist in refusing to give “obedience of faith” and “religious assent” to the supreme and ordinary Magisterium (Catechism of the Catholic Church 891 & 892), can now freely crossover to the Church of Viganism, began with the seminary Vigano launched, priests he illicitly ordained, and now that he proudly admitted he’s a schismatic sedevacantist (“It’s an honor”), he can now unchallengingly proclaim himself the Pope of.
Hey, Deacon!
You forgot to say, but who are you to judge?
LOLOL!
Excommunication, the equal of a fatwa, and equally petulant.
Benedict XVI did not excommunicate Hans Küng, a priest whose views were far more «eccentric».
Matt 23:2-3 “The scribes and Pharisees have their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.”
Let’s do what Jesus tells us!
This argument will be never-ending until someone more schooled and lettered than myself has addressed Archbishop Vigano’s latest letter, entitled “J’Accuse”, in which lists and backs up, point by point, each element of and for which he was excommunicated.
The category of excommunication of “Latae Sententiae” is automatic (ipso facto) for anyone who violates Church Law, such as Bilious Biden’s frequent reception of Holy Communion whilst, at the same time, issuing Executive Orders that the U.S. Government directly assist, encourage and finance abortion with tax dollars. JB is, by his actions, is automatically excommunicated Latae Sententiae. Just ask him if he cares…that’s another issue.
The DDF held a hearing to decide whether or not a person has violated Church law to the point that lawful and proper Church authorities are compelled to arrive at a judgement of excommunication. The DDF stated that ArchBishop Vigano was guilty of the first point in the list of LS offenses: “Being an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic.”
I, for one, would like to see a detailed and specific itemization of charges against AV by the DDF.
I’m willing to bet that with a good Canon Lawyer at his side, Archbishop Vigano would have come out of such a fair and honest trial fully intact.
However, it is obvious that the DDF had made up its collective mind ,or it was made for them, long before the summons of Archbishop Vigano to appear before them. That is why he didn’t bother to appear – The writing was on the latrine wall deep in the labyrinthine bowels of the Vatican.
Under the current pontificate did not the Vatican issue a commémorative stamp for the schismatics who fronted the Protestant revolt?
Make a mess, be illogical, have fun.
The times politically, culturally, spiritually are out of joint.
Maybe we need to read these things as signs and portents of something awesome.
While it’s true God can write straight with crooked lines, what has to happen first at least is He lets the crooked lines run and show themselves; and then second, if He warrants, He leaves them going to reveal how far they will reach going crooked and how how much lateral room they will use for stretching out their crookedness getting there. One of the reasons God writes straight with crooked lines when He chooses to do it, is so that poor critters like me won’t have to say, I told you so. Same thing when God never straightens out the crooked lines for them, Who is free to do this as well. Sounds funny and it’s ultra grave.