Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: BREAKING: Archbishop Viganò Summoned to Vatican Tribunal on Charge of Schism  (Read 19009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline Jr1991

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Reputation: +313/-89
  • Gender: Male
Jorge has been on an absolute rampage as of late. Rumors of the total ban of the indult and now this. 


Offline MarcelJude

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 163
  • Reputation: +180/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • h
ATTENDITE A FALSIS PROPHETIS

Announcement regarding the start of the extrajudicial criminal trial for schism
(Art. 2 SST; can. 1364 CIC)

-Msgr. Carlo Maria Viganò-

:incense:https://exsurgedomine.it/240620-attendite-eng/
TradCathSermon
.
.
.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 43503
  • Reputation: +24907/-4360
  • Gender: Male
Jorge has been on an absolute rampage as of late. Rumors of the total ban of the indult and now this.

Perhaps he too feels his time is running short, and so he wants to complete his mission.  If you recall, "Tucho" stated that Jorge like to implement changes gradually, to make them "permanent", aka admits to using the "boil the frog" tactic, but would acclerate things if he felt that time was running out.  So perhaps Jorge thinks his days as "pope" (or days in general) might be winding down.

Offline Incredulous

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8966
  • Reputation: +8752/-850
  • Gender: Male

But I thought the ex-consiliar, muckraker Archbishop was in hiding for the safety of his life? 

:popcorn:
"Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi


Offline 2Vermont

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10790
  • Reputation: +5784/-942
  • Gender: Female
But I thought the ex-consiliar, muckraker Archbishop was in hiding for the safety of his life?

:popcorn:
Incred,  it turns out that he did not go to Rome after all. 
Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. (Romans 12:19)

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 43503
  • Reputation: +24907/-4360
  • Gender: Male
Incred,  it turns out that he did not go to Rome after all.

Did he even bother to send a representative?  It doesn't sound like it, since he has concluded that they've already made a decision.  Reminds me a bit about why Father Feeney didn't go to Rome, because he felt that the decision had already been made.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 14186
  • Reputation: +5762/-873
  • Gender: Male
^^Exactly.
"But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


Offline Marulus Fidelis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 745
  • Reputation: +380/-115
  • Gender: Male
Did he even bother to send a representative?  It doesn't sound like it, since he has concluded that they've already made a decision.  Reminds me a bit about why Father Feeney didn't go to Rome, because he felt that the decision had already been made.
His stated reason was because the summons was uncanonical. The process broke six canons I think, the first being that no charge was stated which alone makes the whole cause null and void per the canon.

Offline Marulus Fidelis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 745
  • Reputation: +380/-115
  • Gender: Male
You can't just say you feel like the trial would be unjust and ignore a court summons to Rome, you actually need a canonical reason why you don't have to go, the very best of which would be that the summons is uncanonical.

Offline Mr G

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2273
  • Reputation: +1458/-89
  • Gender: Male

EXCLUSIVE: Archbishop Viganò confirms he has not and will not attend Vatican 'schism' trial - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

I therefore wish to make it clear that I did not go to the Vatican yesterday [June 20], and that I have no intention of going to the Holy Office on June 28, and that I have not delivered any statement or docuмent in my defense to the Dicastery, whose authority I do not recognize, nor do I recognize the authority of its Prefect, nor do I recognize the authority of the one who appointed him. 

I have no intention of submitting myself to a show trial in which those who are supposed to judge me impartially in order to defend Catholic orthodoxy are at the same time those whom I accuse of heresy, treason, and abuse of power. And among them are precisely the Jesuits, the first proponents of all the moral and doctrinal deviations of the last sixty years, starting with James Martin, S.J., the LGBTQ+ activist who is a regular visitor at Santa Marta. 




This anonymous “canon lawyer” considers my statement as a proof of my schismatic will: but the whole question concerns which is the “church” to which Bergoglio belongs and the de facto schism from the true Church that he has already accomplished over and over again with his declarations, with his acts of government, and with his most eloquent behavior of open hostility to all that is Catholic. Bergoglio’s “church” is not the Catholic Church, but rather that “conciliar church” born from Vatican Council II and recently rebranded with the no less heretical name of “synodal church.” If it is from this “church” that I am declared to be separated by schism, it will be for me a cause for honor and pride.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop





Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 43503
  • Reputation: +24907/-4360
  • Gender: Male
You can't just say you feel like the trial would be unjust and ignore a court summons to Rome ...

You can "say" whatever you want to.

Offline B from A

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1153
  • Reputation: +735/-130
  • Gender: Female
... but the whole question concerns which is the “church” to which Bergoglio belongs and the de facto schism from the true Church that he has already accomplished over and over again with his declarations, with his acts of government, and with his most eloquent behavior of open hostility to all that is Catholic. Bergoglio’s “church” is not the Catholic Church, but rather that “conciliar church” born from Vatican Council II and recently rebranded with the no less heretical name of “synodal church.” If it is from this “church” that I am declared to be separated by schism, it will be for me a cause for honor and pride.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Reminds me of this:


Quote
Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin - July 6, 1988

Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin
Prefect of the Congregation
for Bishops



Ecône, July 6, 1988

Eminence,

Gathered around our Superior General, the Superiors of the Districts, Seminaries and autonomous houses of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X think it good to respectfully express to you the following reflections.

You thought it good, by your letter of July 1st, to inform Their Excellencies Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, and the four Bishops whom they consecrated on June 30, at Ecône, of the excommunication latæ sententiæ.We let you judge for yourself the value of such a declaration, coming from an authority who, in its exercise, breaks with all its predecessors down to Pope Pius XII, in worship, teaching and government of the Church.

As for us, we are in full communion with all the Popes and Bishops before the Second Vatican Council, celebrating precisely the Mass which they codified and celebrated, teaching the Catechism which they drew up, standing up against the errors which they have many times condemned in their encyclicals and pastoral letters. We let you judge on which side the rupture is to be found. We are extremely saddened by the blindness of spirit and the hardening of heart of the Roman authorities.

On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecuмenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.

To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism. In union with these faithful, we make ours the words of the Prophet: “Præparate corda vestra Domino et servite Illi soli: et liberabit vos de manibus inimicorum vestrorum. Convertimini ad Eum in toto corde vestro, et auferte deos alienos de medio vestri—Open your hearts to the Lord and serve Him only: and He will free you from the hands of your enemies. With all your heart return to Him, and take away from your midst any strange gods” (I Kings 7:3).95

Confident in the protection of Her who has crushed all the heresies in the world, we assure Your Eminence of our dedication to Him Who is the only Way of salvation.

Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior General
Fr. Paul Aulagnier, District Superior, France
Fr. Franz-Josef Maessen, District Superior, Germany
Fr. Edward Black, District Superior, Great Britain
Fr. Anthony Esposito, District Superior of Italy
Fr. François Laisney, District Superior, United States
Fr. Jacques Emily, District Superior of Canada
Fr. Jean Michel Faure, District Superior of Mexico
Fr. Gerard Hogan, District Superior of Australasia
Fr. Alain Lorans, Superior, Seminary of Ecône
Fr. Jean Paul André, Superior, Seminary of France
Fr. Paul Natterer, Superior, Seminary of Germany
Fr. Andrès Morello, Superior, Seminary of Argentina
Fr. William Welsh, Superior, Seminary of Australia
Fr. Michel Simoulin, Rector, St. Pius X University
Fr. Patrice Laroche, Vice-Rector, Seminary of Ecône
Fr. Philippe François, Superior, Belgium
Fr. Roland de Mérode, Superior, Netherlands
Fr. Georg Pflüger, Superior, Austria
Fr. Guillaume Devillers, Superior, Spain
Fr. Philippe Pazat, Superior, Portugal
Fr. Daniel Couture, Superior, Ireland
Fr. Patrick Groche, Superior, Gabon
Fr. Frank Peek, Superior, Southern Africa

No answer was received.

95. Antiphon at Matins, read in the beginning of July.

(emphasis added)

Offline Cera

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5743
  • Reputation: +2491/-1100
  • Gender: Female
  • Pray for the consecration of Russia to Mary's I H
You can't just say you feel like the trial would be unjust and ignore a court summons to Rome, you actually need a canonical reason why you don't have to go, the very best of which would be that the summons is uncanonical.
Let us step back and look at the big picture.
Who is schismatic?
Who is breaking with the eternal teachings of the Catholic Church?
Who invites idols to be worshipped in the Vatican?
Who invites anti-Catholic, pro-abortion, pro-lgbt revolutionary "celebrities" to the Vatican. Who is protecting pederasts in the Church?
Who is trying to re-write Vatican I?
Who says the miracle of the loaves and fishes was merely "people being generous"?
Who is incidiously atttempting to destroy the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

Who is in schism? It is Bergolio.
A schismatic, regardless of his address, has no right to call on the carpet a loyal Catholic
Pray for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 4600
  • Reputation: +2750/-639
  • Gender: Male

EXCLUSIVE: Archbishop Viganò confirms he has not and will not attend Vatican 'schism' trial - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

I therefore wish to make it clear that I did not go to the Vatican yesterday [June 20], and that I have no intention of going to the Holy Office on June 28, and that I have not delivered any statement or docuмent in my defense to the Dicastery, whose authority I do not recognize, nor do I recognize the authority of its Prefect, nor do I recognize the authority of the one who appointed him.

I have no intention of submitting myself to a show trial in which those who are supposed to judge me impartially in order to defend Catholic orthodoxy are at the same time those whom I accuse of heresy, treason, and abuse of power. And among them are precisely the Jesuits, the first proponents of all the moral and doctrinal deviations of the last sixty years, starting with James Martin, S.J., the LGBTQ+ activist who is a regular visitor at Santa Marta.




This anonymous “canon lawyer” considers my statement as a proof of my schismatic will: but the whole question concerns which is the “church” to which Bergoglio belongs and the de facto schism from the true Church that he has already accomplished over and over again with his declarations, with his acts of government, and with his most eloquent behavior of open hostility to all that is Catholic. Bergoglio’s “church” is not the Catholic Church, but rather that “conciliar church” born from Vatican Council II and recently rebranded with the no less heretical name of “synodal church.” If it is from this “church” that I am declared to be separated by schism, it will be for me a cause for honor and pride.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

This is top notch!!! R&Rers you better start listening to this man. I’m just waiting for him to openly reject Montini onward. I give him leeway, or any one else for that matter, to be iffy on Roncalli, even though I reject him.
For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?