JULY 6, 2024
Archbishop Vigano has a right, canonically, to reject these public errors. He had a moral duty to reject Vatican Council II ( irrational) as held by the Vatican.
Translation from the Italian text by Mike Lewis at the blog Where Peter Is
DICASTERIUM PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI
Prot. No. 194/2024
H.E. Archbishop Carlo Maria VIGANO titular archbishop of Ulpiana
Extrajudicial criminal process ex can. 1720 CIC coram Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith
Can. 1364 CIC, art. 2 SST
CRIMINAL DECREE
PREMISE
1. H.E. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was born in Varese on January 16, 1941, was ordained priest on March 24, 1968 for the Diocese of Pavia and consecrated bishop by Pope St. John Paul II on April 26, 1992. He has held the following positions: Apostolic Nuncio to Nigeria, Delegate for Papal Representations, Secretary General of the Governorate of Vatican City State, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America.
2. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, taking into account the public statements of H.E. Archbishop Viganò, traceable on the web (statements published in writing and video recordings), from which it appears that he rejects submission to the Supreme Pontiff, communion with the members of the Church subject to him, and the legitimacy and magisterial authority of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in a letter dated March 25, 2024, sent to the prelate via e-mail ([the mailing address of] Archbishop Viganò is unknown), invited him to the headquarters of the Dicastery “to deepen his positions.” (Lionel: There are numerous reports on the Internet which state that there is a rational and irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), Vatican, has chosen the irrational version whose conclusion is heretical and schismatic. There has been no comment or denial from the DDF. Also the Vatican Press Office and Department of Communication has not respond or denied the allegation.
Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernadez interpret the Council irrationally creating a schism with the Magisterium over the centuries on doctrine, faith, morals and mission, for example. So Archbishop Vigano has a right, canonically, to reject these public errors. He had a moral duty to reject Vatican Council II ( irrational) as held by the Vatican. Pope Francis has broken communion with the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the popes of the Middle Ages, the doctors and saints of the Catholic Church with his irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Catechisms and Church Councils. This has been mentioned often on soical media but has been ignored by the DDF.
CONCLUSION
1. Archbishop Vigano rejects the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. This is expected of all cardinals, bishops, priests, religious sisters and juridical persons in the Catholic Church.
2.Pope Franics accepts the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II and rejects the rational option.
3. Pope Francis is not in communion with the Magisterium over the centuries. They interpreted Magisterium Documents ( Creeds, Councils etc) with a rational premise.Pope Francis chooses an irrational premise to produce an artificial rupture with Tradition which Archbishop Vigano rightly rejects.
Archbishop Vigano is in harmony with the popes over the centuries who are not contradicted by Vatican Council II, rational.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/07/translation-by-mike-lewis-from-blog.html
IN LAW
10.
Code of Canon Law:
a. can. 209 § 1: “The faithful
are bound by the obligation always to preserve, even in their manner of acting,
communion with the Church.”
Lionel. Catholics are not in communion with the pope
and the DDF when they interpret Magisterial Documents irrationally and not
rationally and do not deny it and then force Catholics to do same with threats
of excommunication.The DDF must interpret Magisterial Documents rationally only.
_____________________
b.
can. 750 § 2: “One must also firmly accept and hold firmly also all and
every one of those things which are proposed definitively by the Magisterium of
the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, those things
which are required in order to keep holy and faithfully expound the same
deposit of faith; one is therefore opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic
Church who rejects the same propositions to be held definitively.” (Lionel. Yes. Vatican Council II the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms
have to be interpreted only rationally. The Vatican offices are not doing this.
c. can. 751: “There is called heresy, the obstinate denial, after having
received baptism, of some truth which is to be believed by divine and catholic
faith, or obstinate doubt about it; apostasy, the total repudiation of the
Christian faith; schism, the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of
communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” ( Lionel: The pope and the DDF have to accept the Athanasius Creed intact.
For some reason they are not doing this. There is no denial on social media.
They admit that they reject this Creed. They are also changing the
interpretation of the Nicene and Apostles Creed. This is first class heresy
according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II .
d. can. 1321 § 4: “Post external violation, imputability is presumed unless
it appears otherwise.”;( (Lionel: Agreed . The onus lies with the DDF to
prove it is not heretical and schismatic in the face of so many reports on
social media which they ignore )
e. can. 1322: “Those who do not habitually have the use of reason, even if
they have violated the law or precept while appearing sane, are presumed
incapable of crime.”
f. can. 1323: “He is not liable to any punishment who, when he violated the
law or precept: 1º was not yet 16 years of age; 2º through no fault of his own
was unaware that he was violating a law or precept; ignorance is equated with
inadvertence and error; 3º acted by physical violence
[PAGE 3]:
or by an unfortunate event which he could not foresee or foresee it could
not remedy; 4º he acted out of grave fear, even if only relatively so, or out
of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act was intrinsically
evil or tome to the harm of souls; 5º he acted out of legitimate defense
against an unjust aggressor of his own or of a third party, with due restraint;
6º he was deprived of the use of reason, subject to the provisions of cann.
1324, § 1, n. 2 and 1326, § 1, n. 4; 7th without his fault believed there to be
any of the circumstances of referred to in nos. 4 0 5″;
g. can. 1324: Ҥ 1. The offender is not exempt from the punishment
established by law or by. g precept, but the punishment must be mitigated or
replaced by a penance, if the crime was committed: 1st by a person who had the
use of reason only imperfectly; 2nd by a person who lacked the use of
reason because of drunkenness or other similar perturbation of the mind, of
which he was guilty, subject to the provisions of can. 1326, § 1, no. 4; 3rd by
grave impetus of passion, which, however, did not precede and prevent all
deliberation of the mind and consent of the will and provided that the passion
itself was not voluntarily aroused or fostered; 4th by a minor who had attained
the age of 16 years 5º by a person compelled by grave fear, even if only
comparatively so, or who acts out of necessity or grave inconvenience, if the
crime committed is intrinsically evil or tomes to the harm of souls; 6º by one
who acts in self-defense against an unjust aggressor of his own or of a third
party, but without due restraint; 7″ against someone who has gravely and
unjustly provoked him; 8º by one who by an error, of which he is guilty,
believed there to be any of the circumstances mentioned in can. 1323, nos. 4 or
5; 9º by one who without fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the
law or precept; 10º by one who acts without full imputability, provided that
this still remains serious, § 2. The court may act in the same manner when
there is some other circumstance mitigating the seriousness of the crime. § 3.
In the circumstances referred to in § 1, the offender does not incur the
punishment latae sententiae, however, milder punishments may be imposed on him
or penances may be applied to him for the purpose of repentance or
reparation of the scandal”;
h. can. 1331: “§ 1. The excommunicated person is forbidden: 1º to celebrate
the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the other sacraments; 2º to receive the
sacraments; 3º to administer the sacramentals and to celebrate the other
ceremonies of liturgical worship; 4º to have any active part in the
celebrations enumerated above; 5º to exercise ecclesiastical offices or offices
or ministries or functions; 6º to place acts of governance. § 2. If
excommunication ferendae sententiae was inflicted or excommunication latae
sententiac was declared, the offender: 1º if he wishes to act against the
provisions of § 1, nn. 1-4, must be removed or liturgical action must be
discontinued, unless a grave cause is opposed; 2º invalidly poses acts of
government, which according to § 1, no. 6, are illicit; 3º incurs the
prohibition of making use of privileges previously granted to him; 4º does not
acquire salaries held in a purely ecclesiastical capacity; 5º is incapable of
attaining offices, positions, ministries, functions, rights, privileges and
honorific titles.” (Lionel: This would apply to Pope Francis,
Cardinal Fernandez and Msgr. Kennedy. The must affirm Magisterial Documents
interpreted rationally only. This includes Vatican Council II)
i. can. 1336: Ҥ 1. The expiatory punishments, which may be applied to a
delinquent in perpetuity or for a predetermined or indefinite time, in addition
to others which the law may possibly have established, are those listed in §§
2-5. § 2: Injunction: 1º to dwell in a certain place or territory; 2º to pay a
fine or sum of money for the purposes of the Church, according to the
regulations defined by the Bishops’ Conference. § 3: Prohibition: 1º to dwell
in a certain place or territory; 2° to exercise, either everywhere or in a
certain place or territory or outside of them, all or some offices, positions,
ministries or functions or only some tasks inherent in the offices or
positions; 3º to place all or some acts of power of order; 4º to place all or
some acts of power of government; 5º to exercise some right or privilege or to
use insignia or titles; 6º to enjoy active or passive voice in canonical
elections and to participate with the right to vote in ecclesiastical councils
and colleges; 7º to wear the ecclesiastical or religious habit. § 4
Deprivation: 1º of all or some of the offices, positions, ministries or
functions or only of some duties inherent in the offices or positions; 2º of
the faculty of receiving confessions or the faculty of preaching; 3º of the
delegated power of government; 4º of some rights or privileges or insignia or
titles; 5º of all the
[PAGE 4]:
ecclesiastical remuneration or part thereof, according to the regulations
established by the Episcopal Conference, except as provided in can. 1350, § 1.
§ 5. The dismissal from the clerical state.”
j. can. 1345: “Whenever the delinquent either had the use of reason only
imperfectly or committed the crime out of necessity or grave fear or impetus of
passion or, subject to the provision of can. 1326, § 1, no. 4, in a state of
drunkenness or other similar perturbation of the mind, the judge may also
refrain from inflicting any punishment, if he thinks it can be better provided
for in some other way; however, the offender must be punished if justice cannot
otherwise be restored and the scandal possibly procured repaired.”
k. can. 1364: Ҥ 1. The apostate, heretic, and schismatic incurs
excommunication latae sententiae, without prejudice to the provisions of can.
194, § 1, no. 2; he may also be punished with the penalties set forth in can.
1336, § 2-4. § 2. If prolonged contumacy or the gravity of the scandal, other
punishments may be added, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.”; (Lionel: This must apply to the clerics of the DDF. They do not interpret
Vatican Council II rationally and so honestly. When they are rational they are Magisterial. There
would be the hermeneutic of continuity with the Magisterium over the centuries)
l. can. 1608: Ҥ 1. In order to pronounce any sentence, moral certainty is
required in the mind of the judge as to what he must decide by it. § 2. The
judge must draw this certainty 1. From the acts and from what has been
proved. § 3. The judge must then evaluate the evidence according to his
conscience, subject to the provisions of the law on the efficacy of certain
evidence. § 4. The judge who has not been able to obtain that certainty, shall
rule that he does not know of the plaintiff’s right and acquit the defendant,
unless the case is one that enjoys the favor of law, in which case he must rule
in favor of the same.” (Lionel: The evidence against the DDF is
still there on social media.They have a moral duty, for example, to interpret
at least Vatican Council II rationally, since this is their error which has
been well documented )
m. can. 1717 § 1: “Whenever the Ordinary has news, at least probable, of a
crime, he is to investigate with prudence, personally or through a suitable
person, the facts, circumstances and imputability, unless this investigation
seems absolutely superfluous.”
n. can. 1720: “If the Ordinary has deemed it necessary to proceed by decree
extrajudicially: 1º make known to the accused the accusation and the evidence,
giving him an opportunity to defend himself, unless the accused duly summoned
has neglected to appear; 2º carefully evaluate with two assessors all the
evidence and arguments; 3º if he ascertains with certainty the crime and the
criminal action is not extinguished, issue the decree in accordance with cann.
1342-1350, setting forth at least briefly the reasons in law and fact.”
11.
Norms on crimes reserved to the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith:
a. art. 1: Ҥ 1 The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in
accordance with art. 52 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, judges,
pursuant to art. 2 § 2, crimes against the faith, as well as more serious
crimes committed against morals or in the celebration of the sacraments and, if
necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions in accordance with
the law, whether common or proper, without prejudice to the competence of the
Apostolic Penitentiary and without prejudice to the Agendi ratio in doctrinarum
examine. § 2. In the crimes referred to in § 1, subject to the mandate of the
Roman Pontiff, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has the right to
judge the Cardinal Fathers, Patriarchs, Legates of the Apostolic See, Bishops,
as well as other individuals referred to in can. 1405 § 3 of the Code of Canon
Law (CIC) and can. 1061 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO).”
b. art. 2: Ҥ 1. The crimes against the faith, referred to in art. 1, are
heresy, apostasy and schism, in accordance with canons 751 and 1364 CIC and
canons 1436 and 1437 CCEO. § 2. In the cases mentioned in § 1 it is the duty of
the Ordinary or Hierarch, according to law, to conduct the judicial process in
the first instance or extrajudicial by decree, without prejudice to the right
of appeal or recourse to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. § 3.
In the cases referred to in § 1 it is the responsibility of the Ordinary or the
Hierarch, in accordance with the law, to remit to the external forum,
respectively, the excommunication latae sententiae or the major
excommunication;
c. art. 7: “He who commits the crimes referred to in articles 2-6, let him
be punished, if appropriate, in addition to what is provided for individual
crimes in the C/C and CCEO, as well as in the present Norms, with a just
punishment according to the gravity of the crime; if a cleric he may also be
punished by resignation or deposition from the clerical state.”
[PAGE 5]:
d. art. 9: Ҥ 3. Crimes reserved to this Supreme Tribunal are to be
prosecuted in judicial trial or by extrajudicial decree. § 4. 1 pronouncements
of this Supreme Tribunal, issued within the limits of its competence, are not
subject to the approval of the Supreme Pontiff.”(Lionel. All the judges of
the Supreme Tribunal would agree that LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in
Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only and so are not practical
objective examples of salvation outside the Church and so do not contradict the
Athanasius Creed which is still valid today.)
e. art. 19: Ҥ 1. When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has
decided that an extrajudicial process should be initiated, cann. 1720 CIC 0
1486 CCEO must be applied. § 2. Subject to the mandate of the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith, perpetual expiatory penalties may be imposed.”
f. art. 20 § 1. “The extrajudicial process may be carried out by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or by the Ordinary or the Hierarch
or their Delegate. (…) § 7. The offender must always avail himself of an
Advocate or Procurator who must be a member of the faithful who has a doctorate
or at least a license in canon law, admitted by the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith or by the Ordinary or the Hierarch or their Delegate. If
the offender fails to do so, the competent Authority shall appoint one, who
shall remain in the office until the offender has constituted one of his own.”
g. art. 24: Ҥ 1. Against the singular administrative acts of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the cases of reserved
crimes, the Promoter of Justice of the Dicastery and the accused have the right
to appeal within the peremptory term of sixty useful days, to the same
Congregation, which shall judge the merits and legitimacy, eliminating any
further recourse referred to in Article 123 of the Apostolic Constitution
Pastor Bonus. § 2. The accused, in order to present the appeal referred to in §
1 must, under penalty of inadmissibility of the appeal, always avail himself of
a Lawyer who is a faithful person, equipped with the appropriate mandate and
possessing a doctorate or at least a license in canon law. § 3. The appeal
referred to in § 1, for the purpose of its admissibility, must clearly state
the petitum and contain the reasons in iure and in facto on which it is based.”
h. art. 25: “The extrajudicial penal decree becomes final: 1st if the time
limit provided for in can. 1734 § 2 CIC or that provided for in can. 1737 § 2
CIC has elapsed unnecessarily; 2nd if the time limit provided for in can. 1487
§ 1 CCEO has elapsed unnecessarily; 3rd if the time limit provided for in art.
24 § 1 of the present Norms has elapsed unnecessarily; 4th if it has been
issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ex art. 24 § 1 of the
present Norms.”
IN FACT
Allegations
12.
The charges brought against H.E. Archbishop Viganò
concern the crime of schism: these are the prelate’s public statements from
which it appears that he refuses submission to the Supreme Pontiff or communion
with members of the Church subject to him.
Evidence
13.
Some statements of the accused confirm his refusal of
submission to the Supreme Pontiff and refusal of communion with the members of
the Church subject to him:
a. “We must confront a painful and terrible reality: Bergoglio poses
himself as hostile to Catholics faithful to the Magisterium that he mocks,
condemns and marginalizes and complicit with chỉ openly contradicts what the
Church has been teaching immutably for two thousand years. Not only: he
wants to lead good Catholics, and with them the few bishops and priests who
still profess the Faith in its integrity, to separate themselves from the sect
that has infiltrated and invaded the Church, provoking them with shameless
arrogance so that they feel scandalized and offended. The inclusiveness that
Bergoglio is inspired by in his demolition work is the exact opposite of what
Our Lord taught us” (Nov. 9, 2023, https://exsurgedomine.it/231109-
statement/);
[PAGE 6]:
b. “In these ten years of “pontificate” we have seen Bergoglio do
everything that one would never expect from a Pope, and vice versa everything
that a heresiarch or an apostate would do. (…) The silence of the Episcopate in
the face of Bergoglian enormities confirms that the self-referential
authoritarianism of the Jesuit Bergoglio has found servile obedience in almost
all of the bishops, terrified by the idea of being made the object of
retaliation by the vindictive and despotic satrap of Santa Marta. (…) Bergoglio
is heretical and blatantly hostile to the Church of Christ. (…) Having
therefore taken note that Bergoglio is heretical (…) we must ask ourselves
whether the 2013 election was in any way tainted by a flaw of consensus. (…) I
believe instead that the acceptance of the Papacy is vitiated because he
considers the Papacy to be something other than what it is, like the spouse who
marries in the church excluding the specific purposes of Marriage and thus
making the nuptials null and void due to a vice of consent, precisely” (Oct. 1,
2023, https://exsurgedomine.it/230930-CIC-ita/, the video was published under
the title “Resist The Bergoglian Fury” with the date of Nov. 17, 2023);
c. “Hearing Jorge Mario Bergoglio speak today and comparing his words with
those of Pastor angelicus makes us understand the abyss that separates a Pope
from his grotesque parody, the chasm that divides the Vicar of Christ from the
simia Pontificis. (…) His heterogeneity to the Papacy is now obvious. (…) The
intention to harm the Church by acting on behalf of an enemy power is not
compatible with the ACCEPTATION assumption of the Papacy, and there is
therefore a flaw of consent given by the will confirmed by the words and deeds
of these last ten years of wanting to act in fraudem legis, circumventing canon
law and dissimulating one’s intentions. (…) The Lord is outraged, the Church is
humiliated and souls are lost because of the stay on the Throne of a usurper,
whose actions of government and magisterium can be judged in the light of the
words of Our Lord: Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s
clothing, but inside are ravening wolves. By their fruits you will know them.
Does one gather grapes from thorns, u figs from brambles? So every good tree
produces good fruit and every bad tree produces bad fruit; a good tree cannot
produce bad fruit, nor a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not
produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire, By their fruit
therefore you will be able to recognize them (Mt 7:15-20). You heard correctly.
a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit,
which means that Bergoglio’s uninterrupted behavior before, during and after
his election stands alone as evidence of his inherent iniquity. Can we
therefore be morally certain that the tenant of Santa Marta is a false prophet?
My answer is: Yes. Are we therefore authorized in conscience to revoke our
obedience to one who, presenting himself as Pope, actually acts like the
biblical boar in the Lord’s Vineyard, or like the hireling, qui non est pastor,
cujus non sunt oves propriæ (Jn. 10:12), et non pertinet ad eum de ovibus
(ibid., 13)? Si.” (Dec. 9, 2023, https://exsurgedomine.it/231209-aspicite-
ita/): d.
d. “The delirious Declaration Fiducia supplicans, recently published by the
parody of the former Holy Office renamed Dicaster opposed to the Petrine
Mandate or, definitively rips open the blanket of hypocrisy and deception of
the Bergoglian Hierarchy, showing these false pastors for what they are:
servants of Satan and his zealous allies, beginning with the usurper who sits
abomination of desolation on the Throne of Peter (…). What does Bergoglio want
to achieve? Nothing good, nothing true, nothing holy. He does not want souls to
be saved; he does not proclaim the opportune, importunate Gospel to call souls
back to Christ; he does not show them the scourged and bloodied Savior to spur
them to change their lives. No. Bergoglio wants their damnation, as an infernal
tribute to Satan and shameless defiance to God. (…) The mark of the conciliar
and synodal church, of this sect of rebels and perverts, is falsehood and
hypocrisy. (…) Those in the Bergoglian church who continue to follow the
doctrine and precepts of the Catholic Church are out of place and sooner or
later will end up separating from it or giving in (Dec. 20, 2023,
https://exsurgedomine.it/231220-fiducia-supplicans/);
e. “Jorge Mario Bergoglio was put on the Throne to demolish the Church of
Christ. (…) While waiting for this unworthy parody of the Catholic Hierarchy to
be replaced by holy bishops and holy priests” (Dec. 30, 2023, https://exsurgedomine.it/231230-caldart-ita/);
[PAGE 7]:
f. [The thesis] “formulated by me on the vice of consent that would render
null and void Bergoglio’s assumption of the Papacy because of a deliberate
willful desire to appropriate it in order to use it in a manner opposed to the
ends given it by the divine Founder of the Church. (…) The paradox-c the
Luciferian cunning-of this ecclesial coup has consisted in maintaining the
appearances of the Papacy for the sole purpose of being able to demand
obedience from those who still believe that he who sits on the Throne of Peter
is the Vicar of Christ chosen by the Holy Spirit, while in reality he is a
mercenary who abuses the trust and respect of the faithful in order to disperse
them. (… ) We are not in a Church whose Hierarchy is Catholic and you find a
Pope who professes heresy but at the same time is sincerely intent on
shepherding the Lord’s flock, but rather before a Church eclipsed by a coup
d’état, in which every Dicastery, every Athenaeum, every seminary, every
diocese, every parish, every convent are directed and managed by the deep
church, in ostracism and open persecution of anyone who dissents even limiting
themselves to the recent Magisterium without questioning the Council” (Feb. 5,
2024, https: //exsurgedomine. it/240205-habemus-papam/).
g. “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 to that of Christ, and as such must obey Him
alone. This separation of the Papacy from its legitimizing principle which is
Christ the Pontiff transforms the ministerium into a self-referential tyranny.
With this “Bergoglian church,” no Catholic worthy of the name can be in
communion, because it acts in blatant discontinuity and rupture with all the
Popes in history and with the Church of Christ (June 20, 2024,
https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2024/06/20/monsignor-vigano-convocato- by
the-dicastery-for-the-doctrine-of-the-faith-to-respond-to-delict-of-schism-the-response-of-arcivescovo/);
h. “Bergoglio’s “church is not the Catholic Church, but that “conciliar
church born of the Second Vatican Council and recently rebranded under the no
less heretical name of ‘synodal church.’” If it is from this ‘church’ that I am
declared separated by schism, I make it my reason for honor and boasting” (June
21, 2024,
https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2024/06/21/vigano-non-ho-alcuna-intenzione-di-recarmi-al-
sanctuary-and-submit-me-to-a-process-farce/);
i. “These words would be enough to make one understand the gulf that
separates the Catholic Church from the one that replaced it with the Second
Vatican Council, (Lionel: False. This is a reference to Vatican
Council II interpreted irrationally. The DDF has a moral duty to interpret the
Council rationally and then the conclusion would be traditional . With Vatican
Council II (traditional) and Pope Francis accepting it, Archbishop Vigano would
no more have reason to reject the Council and the pope. ) when the Protestant winds finally invaded the Catholic body. (…) I wonder,
then: what continuity can be given between two realities that oppose and
contradict each other? Between Bergoglio’s conciliar and synodal church and the
one blocked by Counter-Reformation fear” from which he ostentatiously distances
himself? And from which “church” would I be in a state of schism, if the one
that claims to be Catholic differs from the true Church precisely in its
preaching of what that one condemned and in its condemnation of what it
preached? (…) Two churches, certainly: each with its doctrines and liturgies
and saints; but for the Catholic the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and
Apostolic, for Bergoglio the church is conciliar, ecumenical, synodal,
inclusive, immigrant, eco-friendly, gay-friendly. (…) the Conciliar Hierarchy,
which proclaims itself Catholic but embraces a different faith from that
consistently taught for two thousand years by the Catholic Church, belongs to
another entity and therefore does not represent the true Church of Christ. (…)
From what do we understand that the Synod Church” and its leader Bergoglio do
not profess the Catholic Faith? By the total and unconditional adherence of all
its members to a multiplicity of errors and heresies already condemned by the
infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church and by the ostentatious rejection
of any doctrine, moral precept, act of worship and religious practice that is
not sanctioned by the “golden” council. (…) The heterodox teachings conveyed by
the so-called “conciliares church and the “popes of the Council” since Paul VI
constitute an anomaly that seriously questions the legitimacy of their
magisterial and governing authority. (…) I believe that the errors and heresies
to which Bergoglio adhered before, during and after his election and the
intention placed in the alleged acceptance of the Papacy render his elevation
to the Throne null and void. (…) On the day when I should appear to defend
myself before the
[PAGE 8]:
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, I have decided to make public this
statement of mine, to which I join a denunciation of my accusers, their
“council” and their “pope.” I pray to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, who
consecrated the land of the Alma Urbe with their own blood, to intercede with
the throne of the divine Majesty, so that they may obtain for the Holy Church
to be finally liberated from the siege that eclipses her and from the usurpers
who humiliate her, making the Domina gentium the handmaiden of the
anti-heretical plan of the New World Order. (…) In order to separate myself
from ecclesial communion with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, I would have to have first
been in communion with him, which is not possible since Bergoglio himself
cannot be considered a member of the Church, because of his multiple heresies and
his manifest alienation and incompatibility with the role that he invalidly and
illicitly holds. (…) Before my Confreres in the Episcopate and the entire
ecclesial body, I accuse Jorge Mario Bergoglio of herest and schism, and as a
heretic and schismatic I demand that he be judged and removed from the Throne
he has unworthily occupied for over eleven years. This in no way contradicts
the adage Prima Sedes a nemine judicatur, because it is clear that a heretic,
insofar as he is unable to assume the Papacy, is not above the Prelates who
judge him” (June 28, 2024, https://exsurgedomine.it/240628-jaccuse-ita/).
14.
Some statements by the accused confirm his rejection
of the Second Vatican Council and its magisterial authority ( Lionel: It needed to be clarified that he is
referring to Vatican Council II irrational only)
a. “The Council has been used to legitimize, in the silence of Authority,
the most aberrant doctrinal deviations, the most daring liturgical innovations
and the most unscrupulous abuses. This Council was so exalted that it was
referred to as the only legitimate reference for Catholics. clerics and
bishops, obscuring and connoting with a sense of contempt the doctrine that the
Church had always authoritatively taught, and forbidding the perennial liturgy
that for millennia had nourished the faith of an unbroken generation of
faithful, martyrs and saints. Incidentally, this Council has proven to be the
only one that poses so many interpretive problems and so many contradictions to
the previous Magisterium, while there is not one from the Council of Jerusalem
to Vatican I that does not harmonize perfectly with the entire Magisterium or
that needs any interpretation” (June 9, 2020,
http://www.unavox.it/ArtDiversi/DIV3627_Mons-Vigano_Siamo_al_redde_rationem.html);
b. “[T]he Innovators maliciously managed to put the label “Sacrosanct
Ecumenical Council on b their ideological manifesto, just as, at a local level,
the Jansenists who maneuvered the Synod of Pistoia had managed to cloak with
authority their heretical theses, which were later condemned by Pius VI. (…) If
the evidence shows that some propositions contained in the Council documents
(and similarly, in the acts of Bergoglio’s magisterium) are heterodox, and if
doctrine teaches us that the acts of the Magisterium do not contain error, the
conclusion is not that these propositions are erroneous, but that they cannot
be part of the Magisterium. Period” (September 21, 2020,
https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/);
c. “The cancer of Vatican II confirms that it is at the origin of the
Bergoglian metastasis” (26) October 2020,
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5124-archbishop-
vigano-addresses-the-catholic-identity-conference-2020-francis-the-new-world-order);
d. “All of this stems from a postulate that almost everyone takes for
granted: that Vatican II can claim the authority of an Ecumenical Council,
before which the faithful should suspend all judgment and humbly bow their
heads to the will of Christ, expressed infallibly by the Sacred Pastors, albeit
in a pastoral and not dogmatic form. But this is not the case, because the
Sacred Pastors can be misled by a colossal conspiracy aimed at the subversive
use of a Council. (…) If, therefore, Vatican II was, as is evident, an
instrument whose authority and authority was fraudulently used to impose
heterodox doctrines and Protestantized rites, we can hope that sooner or later
the return to the Throne of a holy and orthodox Pontiff will heal this
situation by declaring it illegitimate, invalid,
[PAGE 9]:
null and void, on a par with the Council of Pistoia” (Jan. 21, 2023,
https://exsurgedomine.it/230121- pro-Council/);
e. “The Council represents the ideological, theological, moral or
liturgical cancer of which the Bergoglian “synodal church” is necessary
metastasis. (…) I repudiate the neo-modernist errors inherent in the Second
Vatican Council and in the so-called “postconciliar magisterium, particularly
in matters of collegiality, ecumenism, religious freedom, the secularity of the
state and liturgy” (June 20, 2024,
https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2024/06/20/monsignor-vigano-convocato-
by-dicastery-for-the-doctrine-of-the-faith-to-respond-to-the-delict-of-schism-the-response-of-arcivescovo/);
f. “I make it a point of honor to be “accused” of rejecting the errors and
deviations implied by the so-called Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which I
consider to be completely devoid of magisterial authority because of its
heterogeneity with respect to all the true Councils of the Church, which I
fully recognize and accept, as well as all the magisterial acts of the Roman
Pontiffs. I firmly reject the heterodox doctrines contained in the documents of
Vatican II and which have been condemned by the Popes up to Pius XII, or which contradict
in any way the Catholic Magisterium” (June 28, 2024,
https://exsurgedominc.it/240628-jaccusc-ita/).
Defense of the public defender
15.
The public defender highlighted the following issues:
a.
although the objective evidence of schism is clear, subjectively the
accused is not chargeable with the reserved crime. Moreover, the imposition of
any censure or sanction would not serve the purposes outlined by the Supreme
Lawgiver in the provisions of the CIC, nor would it benefit the salvation of
Archbishop Viganò’s soul; ( Lionel : There cannot be an objective evidence
of schism based upon Vatican Council II irrational. This is a fundamental point
that has to be understood )
b. for several decades, H.E. Archbishop Viganò has enjoyed an established
reputation for dedication to his work and devotion to the Successors of St.
Peter. As a result of his diligence, in 2009 the defendant was appointed
Secretary General of the Governorate of Vatican City and later Apostolic Nuncio
to the United States of America,(Lionel. He is correct when he rejects Vatican
Council II, irrational. All Catholics have the moral duty to do the same)
c. the lawyer argues that Archbishop Viganò does not habitually lack the
use of reason (his intelligence is not in question). However, based on the
statements of the accused, how can the Dicastery obtain the necessary moral
certainty that His Excellency is fully imputable? If the imputability issues
could be established despite Archbishop Viganò’s refusal to participate in his
own defense, how can a canonical criminal trial overcome them to declare a
decision of guilt?
d. the lawyer also points out that the latae sententiae censure of
excommunication for the reserved crime of schism, if it were declared, would
have no medicinal effect toward the person of His Excellency, who according to
the mens rea of the Supreme Lawgiver is the basis of such canonical censure. By
its very nature, a censure exists to urge a person to reconciliation with the
Church. When a request for remission of censure is made and the requirements
have been met, Mother Church revokes it so as to effect the healing that this
measure was supposed to bring. However, Archbishop Viganò has already stated
that the declaration of the censure of excommunication would be a badge of
honor for him;
e. the reality is that imposing such a censure on H.E. Archbishop Viganó
would be a fruitless act and would only serve to inflame an already divided
public opinion,
Evaluation of the evidence and
the defense
16.
The assessors, after reviewing all the evidence,
together with the defense of the public defender, came to the conclusion that
the statements of H.E. Archbishop Viganò are more than sufficient to integrate
the extremes of the crime of schism under CIC can. 751. In particular, the
words and actions of the prelate highlight his rejection of submission to the
Successor of Peter and his rejection of communion with the members of the
Church subject to the Supreme Pontiff. At
the basis
[PAGE 10]:
of the accused’s teaching, the assessors reached certainty about the rejection
of the legitimacy and magisterial authority of the Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council as clear evidence of the Prelate’s schismatic disposition. Regarding
imputability, the assessors believe that the accused cannot be presumed to be
under the influence of a psychological factor that would mitigate his
imputability. From the acts, one perceives a person who is mostly serene,
rational, free and intentional in making his statements, and there are no
well-founded indications to be able to consider him not imputable (cf. can.
1321 § 4 CIC). The assessors therefore find it necessary to declare
excommunication latae sententiae.
17.
Conclusions:
a. given that:
·
§ the evidence of
the crime consists of the public statements of the prelate;
§ there is no
doubt that H.E. Archbishop Viganò is the author of these statements:
➤ regarding the statements published in writing: they bear his name, surname
and the bishop’s coat of arms; they are enriched by his photos; for the most
part they are published on the website exsurgedomine.it, which is connected with the prelate and
his activities; the prelate has never denied being the author of them;
➤ there are video recordings of his statements in which the Prelate is
recognized;
·
§ the Prelate:
➤ presents his theses
consistently, with use of reason, motivating them amply (though in the wrong
way) theologically and legally,
➤ acts voluntarily: there is no evidence or clues that could confirm that
the Prelate acts out of physical violence or compelled by grave fear,
➤ acts knowingly: he is not unaware that he is violating canon law, since he
knows that he has been accused of the crime of schism;
➤ turns out to be Patron of the Exsurge Domine Foundation and undertakes
various activities in society;
·
§ the prelate
directly rejects attempts to seredict him regarding his mental status, and
there is no medical documentation of his possible mental illness;
it does not appear that H.E. Archbishop Viganò is a person who:
·
§ does not
habitually have the use of reason (can. 1322 CIC);
§ is without the
use of reason (can. 1323, п. 6 CIC);
§ has the use of
reason only imperfectly (can. 1324 § 1. n. 1 СІС);
§ acts without
full imputability (can. 1324 § 1, no. 10 CIC);
b. taking into account the above, the arguments presented by the assessors
and the provisions of can. 1321 § 4 CIC, i.e., “Given the external violation,
imputability is presumed unless it appears otherwise.”
it clearly appears that in the present case the circumstances of schismatic
conduct referred to in can. 751 C/C (refusal of submission to the Supreme
Pontiff and refusal of communion with members of the Church subject to him)
have occurred;
·
§ the Prelate
directly, explicitly and consistently denies the legitimacy of Pope Francis,
claiming that his election is invalid;
§ he does not
consider himself in communion with Pope Francis and those in communion with
him;
§ he believes that
the Church at the head of which Pope Francis stands is not the Catholic Church;
he rejects the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, believing it lacks
magisterial authority;
[PAGE 11]:
c. the circumstances indicated in can. 1324 § 1, nos. 1-10 CIC have not
occurred and, as a result, moral certainty is reached that the offender has
incurred the penalty latae sententiae (cf. can. 1324 § 3 CIC).
DECISION
18.
Having carefully considered the laws applicable to the
case at hand, taking into account all the evidence and arguments in the case
(can. 1720, no. 2 CIC) and referring to the arguments presented above, this
Dicastery, for the public good of the People of God, declares that:
a. H.E. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is guilty of the reserved crime of
schism;
b. the offender has incurred excommunication latae sententiae ex can. 1364
§ 1 CIC.
19.
The removal of the censure in this case is reserved to
the Apostolic See.
20.
The offender is warned that, in accordance with can.
1364 § 2 CIC, if prolonged contumacy or the gravity of the scandal so requires,
he may be punished with other penalties, not excluding dismissal from the
clerical state.(Lionel : There has been no
denial from the DDF that Vatican Council II can be interpreted rationally or
irrationally depending upon how one looks at LG 8,14,15,16 etc. Does one see them as visible or
invisible cases in 2024 ? In this case the DDF is heretical and schismatic for
interpreting LG 8 etc as being visible and so exceptions for
Tradition.The evidence on social media has not been denied by Msgr Kennedy or
Cardinal Fernandez. This is a scandal ).
21.
Pursuant to Article 24 SS7, the cleric may interpose
an Appeal against this decision to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith
within the peremptory term of sixty (60) useful days from the notification of
this Decree. The Appeal, for the purposes of its admissibility, must be
presented with the assistance of a Patron, provided with the appropriate
mandate, and clearly determine the petitum and contain the reasons in iure and
in facto on which it is based.(Lionel : The DDF must also
deny Archbishop Vigano’s charge of heresy and schism against the DDF. They must
admit that they interpret Vatican Council II only rationally and are honest in
the interpretation of the Creeds,
Councils and Catechisms.In this way they reject the evidence against them on
social media and in the charges of the defendant.) –Lionel Andrades
From the Palace of the Dicastery, July 4, 2024
+ Victor Fernández
Victor M. Card. FERNÁNDEZ
Prefect
John J. Kennedy
Msgr. John J. KENNEDY
Secretary for the Disciplinary Section
https://wherepeteris.com/english-translation-of-viganos-excommunication-decree/
______________________________