Tag Archives: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

News

Msgr. Bux: Pope Benedict validly resigned, his letter to me proves it!

6 Comments

Y’a think so, Monsignor?

Breaking News & Commentary on the same by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Recently, Archbishop Viganò brought to the attention of the whole Catholic world, a stunning claim made by Monsignor Nicola Bux, former advisor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Cause of the Saints, that he possesses a letter from Benedict XVI affirming that the same did in fact intend to renounce the munus and ministerium of the Papacy.

Here is the excerpt of the recent letter of the Archbishop, published in English by Aldo Maria Valli, the renowned Vaticanista, who works with the Archbishop:

“During a meeting at the Renaissance Mediterraneo Hotel in Naples with Catholics from the local Cœtus Fidelium held this past November 22 [2024], Msgr. Nicola Bux mentioned an exchange of letters with “Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI,” dating back to the summer of 2014, which supposedly constitute the definitive denial of the various theories that are out there about the invalidity of Benedict’s Renunciation. The content of these letters – the first, written by Msgr. Bux on July 19, 2014 (three pages), and the second, by Benedict XVI, on August 21, 2014 (two pages) – was not released ten years ago, as would have been more than desirable. Instead, only today has their existence been barely mentioned. It so happens that I am aware of both this exchange of letters as well as their content.

Why did Msgr. Bux decide not to promptly disclose Benedict XVI’s response when Benedict was still alive and able to confirm and corroborate it, and instead to reveal only its existence, without disclosing its content, almost two years after his death? Why would he hide this authoritative and very important declaration from the Church and the world?

Evidently, therefore, the Archbishop possesses a copy of the correspondence. And to the knowledge of FromRome.info, so do many other persons who have worked in the Vatican.

The stunning claim of Msgr. Bux, I cannot find on any website or video platform, so I cannot quote what he is exactly saying or not.

The Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to Msgr. Bux, August 2014: Exceprt

But the Committee to Restore Pope Benedict XVI (@B16Restore), which has Vatican contacts has published an excerpt from the Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to Msgr. Bux, on twitter, which is as follows (I here include the image, not the tweet, lest Twitter erase the tweet):

The Letter of a Roman Pontiff is in the public domain and FromRome.info, being published in the USA, has the legal right to reproduce and translate it. I have chosen to do this as a journalist covering news of great public interest to Catholics in the USA, and for the good of the Church, and on the basis that the Msgr. Bux has already shared this letter freely with numerous persons in the hierarchy, thus forfeiting any right to privacy.

So here is my English translation of this excerpt.

Dear Don Bux,

finally I find a bit of time to reply to your writing of July 19th, left for me on the occasion of your visit to  the Monastery “Mater Ecclesiae”. The true answer to the questions, aired by you, is found in the first six lines of number 1 of your text. The rest of the text — as you yourself say — is a “non objective but only our, mental, problem”.  I would write, therefore, only a few brief observations.

The “authoritative historians” and the “other theologians” according to me are not true historians nor even theologians. The speculations proposed by them are for me absurd. To say that in my renunciation I had left “only the exercise of the ministry and not also the munus” is contrary to the clear dogmatic-canonical doctrine, cited by you in number 1. If some journalists speak “of a creeping schism” they do not merit any attention.

To point 2, second chapter on page 2 I would say, that the parallelism between a diocesan Bishop and the Bishop of Rome in reference to the question of a renunciation is well founded.  I know that Pope John Paul II in …

What is Pope Benedict XVI trying to say?

Until we have the full letter from Msgr. Nicola Bux to Pope Benedict XVI and his full letter in response, one cannot say with certainty what he is referring to.

Is the letter authentic? How is it signed, Pope Emeritus, Pope Benedict XVI, Benedict XVI? These will be clues to whether to pay it attention and how to read it. — Moreover, I join with Archbishop Viganò’s perplexity and consternation that, having received such a letter in 2014 Msgr. Bux did not disclose it to the Catholic world then or thereafter! In addition, since it was Msgr. Bux who quipped in October of 2018, during a public conference, that it would be easier to prove Benedict’s renunciation was invalid than that Pope Francis is a heretic, what in the name of decency is he up to, if he now claims there is certain evidence in this letter of the validity of the renunciation?

But on the basis of what the excerpt of the Letter cited above says, it is clearly an equivocal statement (cf. The Ratzinger Code, by Andrea Cionci, for an encyclopedic review of such statements after Feb. 11, 2013). For to say, that ‘Anyone who claims that in my renunciation I split munus and ministerium is wrong or absurd’, is to say nothing: because it can equally mean that they are wrong to say this, because I did not do that for the reason that (1) I never renounced the font of power for ministerium, in that I never renounced the munus, or (2) I never intended not to renounce the munus when I said I renounced the ministerium.

In the former case, the renunciation of ministry is not an abdication of the papacy, and Pope Benedict XVI remains the pope as of the time of writing this letter. In the second case, the renunciation of the papacy intended to be effected by the renunciation of ministerium is canonically invalid as per canon 188 and juridically invalid by natural right, for reasons of substantial error, as I explained in my Scholastic Question on the Renunciation, published 6 years ago, here and as Ann Barnhardt has explained in numerous videos and blog posts since 2016. So regardless of how you read it, objectively speaking it means that Pope Benedict XVI by this letter has given canonical proof that he is still the pope and never abdicated. If this is true, I will bet that the Letter to Msgr. Bux is signed, “(Pope) Benedict XVI”, which is the real reason he has not published it along with his recent statement.

To write this way seem strange, but remember, that in his advanced age, this letter certainly went though many hands before it arrived at Msgr. Bux’s desk. And Pope Benedict XVI understood that. So he wrote what he could write, in a way an intelligent person could understand it. In other words, it is logically equivalent to saying “The owner of the house is one”, while being held hostage in the basement by the Mafioso who took possession of the house. To read it as the affirmation of the Mafioso being the rightful owner, is possible, just as it is possible to read it as inferring the hostage is the true owner.

Moreover it is more important to remember, that in the last analysis, what a man who was validly elected pope but “renounces” says years after his renunciation, means nothing. Because the act must be juridically valid in itself, not only in the mind of its author before, during or after the act is publicized. For the canonical validity is not judged on the basis of anything secret, such as in the heart or in unpublished letters years later, but on the public contents of the juridical act, expressed in word and/or in written form.

Msgr. Bux needs to publish the whole correspondence, and stop making false canonical claims (something he has been doing since at least 2020): because no matter what he has in these letters, they have no canonical value, since an interpretation not expressed in the words of a papal abdication, even if expressed before or after (outside of any juridical act), cannot be the basis of interpreting an act of papal abdication.

As for Archbishop Viganò, his letter basically says Benedict XVI intended to deconstruct the Church, and thus his abdication is invalid. I have written on the topic of his intentions, frequently, preferring to side with the presumption of innocence and good will, for it is a dangerous thing to condemn another man on the basis of what you or I think was his intention in doing this or that.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Due to the extreme importance of the above news, I give permission to all publishers to reproduce the entirety of my article and translation, in English or in any other language translated, so long as they omit nothing of it, asking only a link to the original so that their readers can confirm the authenticity of the text or translation therefore, that they publish. — It remains, however, expressly forbidden to reproduce any part of this without all the other parts, especially my English translation of the Italian letter to Msgr. Bux, the English translation which in U. S. copyright law belongs by right to myself.

Debates, Editorials, News

Viganò’s Criticism of Bishop Schneider & Michael Matt is a potent boomerang

5 Comments

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

First, the critique given by Archbishop Viganò on twitter, against Michael Matt and Bishop Athanasius Schneider:

After Michael Matt censored my speech last year, believing that I had crossed the red line he had set, I was not surprised that I was not invited to this year’s Catholic Identity Conference.

The insurmountable line is that indicated by Bishop Schneider, who denounces “Francis” for having violated the First Commandment and contradicted the Gospel, asserting however that he remains Pope, finding an authoritative precedent in the denial of Peter. In fact, Bergoglio not only violated the First Commandment but denied the two main Mysteries of the Faith: the Unity and Trinity of God; the Incarnation, Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. A total abjuration of the Catholic Faith!

According to Bishop Schneider, would it therefore be possible to be a heretic and apostate and still belong to the Catholic Church? and even preside over it as Supreme Shepherd? while all it takes to incur excommunication is to declare that a heretic and apostate who has usurped the See of Peter cannot be Pope! Evidently this red line – which for me, who denounces Bergoglio as a usurper because he is an apostate and heretic, is insurmountable – can be crossed with impunity by Bergoglio, continuing to be recognized as Pope precisely by those “moderate conservatives” who also accuse him of heresy and apostasy, but without drawing out the necessary consequences.

In this way they become his accomplices, because they attribute legitimacy to the acts that Bergoglio carries out, but at the same time they boast of being able to disobey him (which they then do not do, starting with the slavish application of Traditionis Custodes, because they fear being removed), without realizing that this sycophant behavior confirms how distorted the universal and peaceful recognition of the Pope by Catholics is.

Michael Matt prematurely applied to me that ostracism that Bergoglio’s “excommunication” would sanction a year later. And it is difficult to believe that he wants to defend a comrade in the battle for Tradition, when with his own behavior he supports and even anticipates the reckless revenge of the enemy of both; an enemy whom he persists in considering Pope.

Edward Snowden, victim of the deep state for having denounced with Wikileaks the subversive plan for surveillance of the population hatched by the Anglo-American deep state, stated: “When reporting a crime is considered a crime, you are led by criminals”. In the synodal church and under the reign of Bergoglian “mercy”, denouncing heresy and apostasy is considered a crime worthy of excommunication. I leave it to the acumen of Michael Matt and Athanasius Schneider to coherently conclude the sentence.

As one can see, an honest Catholic can agree 99% with this criticism. In fact, nearly everything the Archbishop has been saying in the last year are doctrinally identical to past things written or published at FromRome.Info. Indeed I even defended him against Matt’s censorship last year here. And I have many times faulted Bishop Schneider for his ludicrous theory that a pertinacious manifest formal heretic should be recognized to hold an office in the Church.

But the Archbishop seems to be unaware that his criticism is a boomerang which will come back to hit him at high velocity. Because you cannot fault others for failing to denounce a heretic but then rest in your own private judgement and pretend no judgement of the Church is necessary.

An Archbishop incardinated in the Vatican who has a solemn right to ask for the convocation of a Provincial Council to reprehend and if necessary depose a heretical pope, and who also has a personal reason, the uncanonically and unjust sentence of excommunication imposed upon him, but FAILS to call for such a Council, is HE NOT ALSO AN ENABLER SINCE BY HIS SILENCE HE ALLOWS THE CRIMINAL TO CONTINUE IN OFFICE?

The Archbishop  is not a protestant. He is not ignorant of Canon Law. He is not ignorant of Church History. Therefore he has no excuse to have spent an entire year ignoring even the existence of the Sutri Initiative, brought to his attention by numerous private individuals, including those who are his personal assistants.

Unless of courses he is merely pretending to oppose the disastrous “pontificate” of Pope Francis and does not really want a solution to the greatest problems in the Church. I am not making this accusation, let us be clear. It is the silence of the Archbishop which does.

And now that he has launched this criticism against Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Michael Matt the boomerang which demands sincerity of others but not from oneself is going to return lightning fast.

In fact, all these men hold 99% of the Catholic Faith, but agree 100% with the Masonic Doctrine of the Skull and Bones Lodge, namely, that none of their agents is ever to be removed from office, nor is it to be tolerated that anyone demand or ask for this.

I asked for it and called for it and demanded it. And in the last 12 months I have been utterly silenced on social media and in search engines. Each of these 3 men have already silenced and ignored such calls for years despite numerous individuals who have written to them (in com boxes, letters, emails) and asked them to act otherwise. So make of that what you will.

News

Archbishop Viganò says Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid

16 Comments

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

French Translation

Finally, the Archbishop did the decent thing and confronted the canonical problems with Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation.* In his judgement, it is “clearly invalid” to effect the loss of the office of Pope.

The Archbishop, throughout his interview and the explanation of his viewpoint, still omits the distinction between someone who is a heretic before God and someone whom the Church declares to be a heretic. If one continues to ignore this distinction, one will end up usurping the authority of the Church to put someone outside the Church, as I have said many times. Personally, if our faith persuades us that a certain person is a heretic, we are obliged to avoid him and to denounce him, but we must never take the next step, on our own authority, and say he is not a member of the Church, nor that on our judgement alone he no longer has canonical rights, including the right to hold office or be appointed to an office before the Church has condemned him. Otherwise there would be chaos in the Church and we would fall into the error of Protestants and the Greek Orthodox, who have new and ever newer schisms among themselves unto this very day.

Moreover, how can a man who decries the rape of a woman and molestation of her children, be content to announce this to the world but fail to come to the police station and file criminal charges to identify the culprits? What kind of man would he be? As an Archbishop incardinated in the Vatican his duty is grave and immediate. That is why, it is not enough that he say what he says, he has a most grave obligation to bring a canonical complaint to the competent authorities, which in this case is a Provincial Council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome, or indeed, in any ecclesiastical province.

Because it is no small crime that a man claim the papacy but not have the Catholic Faith or the canonical basis to validly do so. And it is no small danger to the entire Mystical Body throughout the world that such a depraved man’s claim be allowed to tacitly go unchallenged.

All these things Archbishop Viganò will be answerable for before God if he should pass from this life having left undone. And this is why I have been publicly reproving him for his behavior for a long time.

Let us pray, therefore, that all urge the Archbishop to do these things (you can petition him through his website here), and that they urge other Bishops to undertake similar actions as has already been advocated by myself in the Sutri Initiative.

For, if because of my own status as no-one-with-any-more-importance-than-a-layman may have kept others from urging this very course of action, now that this eminent, bold and courageous Archbishop, incardinated at the Vatican has agreed on the fundamental canonical issues (that Pope Francis was NOT canonically elected pope on March 13, 2013, and that he does not appear in the judgement of honest and serious men to hold the Catholic Faith, and that he is destroying the Church), there can be no other course of action for honest Catholics, clerical or lay, than to urge a trial and reprehension of the man, to obtain either his willing deposition or his canoncially valid removal from office on the grounds that he has not the canonical qualifications to claim it).

All other Bishops, who are ordinaries of a  diocese, or hold any office, and indeed all retired Bishops, are also now gravely bound to see this matter resolved canonically. For it is a grave public scandal to the world, and if a Bishop of God has not the integrity of moral character to urge such a thing — an action which risks nothing, since any one of them can do so without taking any side in his appeal other than that the Church resolve such a grave public crisis — of what value is he to Jesus Christ and His Church? — And as a Catholic, YOU personally have the right to tell them this to their faces when you meet them!

Finally, as a postscript, I wish to publicly thank and acclaim Dr. Taylor Marshall for having conducted this interview and published the Archbishop’s responses, especially in those matters contrary to his own habitual positions. This is what Catholic journalists and commentators should be doing, always.

FOOTNOTES

* If you have been a reader of FromRome.Info, you knew the resignation did not cause Pope Benedict XVI to cease being pope at least from 2018, though I have covered this controversy since 2014.

https://twitter.com/CarloMVigano/status/1821938282189443458
News

Archbishop Viganò issues an Apologia in his defense

6 Comments

Editor’s Note: The Archbishop has written his own apologia pro sua vita, which is now available in English, through the linked image above.

What he says therein is more completely an exposition of his doctrinal and juridical position than in other documents.

Essentially, however, he has not modified or changed anything of what he has said in the past. He holds the Catholic position, which so many others, including myself hold as the only possible approach a Catholic can have to these subjects.

But he does take one step which he has not taken before.

He now asks his brother Bishops to hear his case and he formally accuses Pope Francis of being a usurper, heretic and schismatic.

But he continues to omit the necessary juridical specification of calling on a specific tribunal to hear this appeal.

Yes, he has appealed ostensibly to all the Bishops of the world. But juridically such an appeal means nothing unless he addresses a specific body, such as a provincial council or a general council.

If he ever realizes that in failing to do this he is making meaningless all he has said and is serving up all that his enemies need to condemn him, he will make a formal canonical appeal to the Bishops of the Province of Rome to convoke a Provincial Council, on the grounds mentioned in the Sutri Initiative. For that is the only body which can convene without Pope Francis’s permission and which can judge the accusation of usurpation of the Papacy.

Let’s pray for the Archbishop that he take that last but decisive step!

Canon Law, Debates, Editorials, Moral Theology

Why Archbishop Viganò is smarter than Michael Matt

5 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

French Translation

Earlier this month, Michael Matt, the editor of The Remnant and a descendant from what appears to be a Frankist Jew, on his mother’s side, who began the family’s tradition of printing Catholic news information, won international notoriety by squelching the video of Archbishop Viganò at the former’s Catholic Identity Conference, even though he has sold the conference on the promise of an exclusive interview with the famed Vatican monsignor.

FromRome.Info reported on that here.

The substance of the Archbishop’s talk, however, was lost in the news cycle, and therefore, because it is important and impinges on the canonical questions regarding the validity of the papacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a.k.a. Pope Francis, I want to take it up in this essay.

The thesis of the Archbishop touches on the principal of acceptance of a canonical or juridically valid election.

And the Archbishop’s thesis is that a man who intends to destroy the Church or who has a heretical intention in wanting to be the Pope, cannot validly consent to accepting the office. He calls this the vitium consensus, or the vice in the act of consent.

Matt squelched the talk because he insists that those who participated in the conference did not want or deserve to have their reputations smeared with the accusation of sedevacantism.

But this argument of Michael Matt is absurd on the face of it. Sedevacantism is the ideology that there is no pope, no matter what the evidence is; but the argument of the Archbishop is a profound one, namely, that inasmuch as being the pope requires a man to receive the Mandate given St. Peter, it is impossible for a heretic to do this, since he has no relationship with Jesus Christ and thus no intention to do so, even if he says yes.

That “yes” then is a deception.

I have briefly commented on this before, saying, while the argument is a good one theologically or morally, it is canonically a difficult solution. This is because, being a baptised, confirmed Catholic, consecrated a Bishop and lawfully nominated as a Cardinal, in law he must be presumed to have consented validly to be the pope, when asked, and when responding, “Yes”.

As I pointed out in my satirical article about the Cardinal from Guadalajara, Spain, here, presumption has its limits. But presuming yes, when someone says yes, is clearly within the ordinary limits.

So from a juridical point of view, it is impossible to prove the case advanced by the Archbishop against Bergoglio. He could sufficiently remain silent and the presumption of the law would be that he validly consented.

But I think that the thesis of Viganò, however, is not to be lightly cast aside, because it does have its place where juridical right is determined by theological discernment. That is, where rights come into being and are extinguished by the authority Christ gave to the Church, under the guide of the Holy Spirit, to judge all things in the light of God.

And that place is a juridically valid Council of Bishops, whether universal or particular, that is, whether in a General Council of the whole Church, or in a Provincial Council of an ecclesiastical province.

Because there, what a man has done and said can be judged. And this judgement can regard whether these acts constitute heresy, apostasy or schism, whereupon if they be judge there to attain to this, the person who is presumed to consent, can be discerned in a juridically valid manner never to have consented and/or in a juridically valid manner to no longer so consent.

In the case of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, if it can be proven, for example, that he became a member of the Masonic Lodge before 1983 he fell under excommunication in the old Code of 1917 for that, and such a council could judge him to be invalidly nominated a Cardinal and invalidly elected and incapable of validly consenting to be the pope. Likewise if he joined after 1983, when the new Code of Canon Law, without this penalty, was approved, on the grounds that he was incapable of validly consenting inasmuch as he holds heretical views or is an apostate in virtue of the Masonic creed.

And that is why the thesis of the Archbishop must be considered in a Provincial Council of the kind proposed in the Sutri Initiative.

So the Archbishop is far smarter than Michael Matt. He is also more of a gentleman and cares more for the whole Church and the salvation of souls than others do of their own reputations.

Michael Matt is a graduate of Christendom College, an institution founded by 3 CIA agents. That Bergoglio was put into power by the CIA under the auspices of Hilary Clinton can be discerned when reading his homilies, which channel Barack Obama 99% on the same issues, such as globalism, immigration, poverty, discrimination, etc..

Editorials

Viganò Gives Battle Cry against Great Reset, from the wrong side of the Lines

22 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

June 1, 2021 — Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has given a remarkably complete critique of the Great Reset during his recent talk at a Venice Conference on the matter, hosted by the Italian Philosopher Francesco Lamendola.*  The talk in Italian was recently translated into English and has been published by Catholic Family News. You can read it here.

There is no denying that Archbishop Viganò has been the instrumental cause of many Catholics who hold fast to Bergoglio to begin to doubt, criticize and oppose the Great Reset.

So much have these Catholics been intellectually and morally part of the system of control or under that system of control, that the exclamations of the Archbishop in these weeks are met with acclamation which a true leader on the issue would merit.

They call the Archbishop a “voice in the wilderness” or “the only one who is speaking the truth”, or the “only Bishop who is denouncing the Great Reset”.

For those who do not know what has been going on for the last 18 months, because they have not been zealous to follow the news from trusted sources, but rather have been zealous to buckle down and comply with their Bergoglian Bishop and Globalist political leaders, such acclamations have their sense.

But the truth is that Archbishop Viganò is a Johnny come lately, and he has not yet even changed sides in this battle.

Indeed, the Archbishop has not only made some questionable alliances with arguably Masonic entities, but still refuses obedience to the norms of Canon Law regarding who is and who is not the Pope, preferring to sustain the party of the Globalist Bergoglio, against the Catholic Benedict XVI.

First, the Archbishop undertook a public media campaign which was a “touch all the bases and return home” strategy which is the hallmark of self serving politicians. According to this strategy, while not officially breaking from the ruling party, you speak and visit all the opposition to give them the false hope that you are now on their side, but in the end you return to stand at the right hand of the ruling elites.  The Archbishop did this in the summer of 2018, when he called Bergoglio to resign. But just this past Winter, Viganò insisted that Bergoglio is the Pope and it is divisive to question that!

To those who are really paying attention, the self-contradictions do not end there.

His writings in English are published by Angelico Press, notorious for promoting among Catholics spiritism and divination, the mixture of the occult into Christian Family life.

He wrote the political leader of the Skull and Bones Masonic Lodge Faction in the USA, Donald Trump, and was immediately accorded a personal recommendation by the President — a thing that no Catholic Bishop in U. S. history was ever accorded.

And he studiously refuses to speak in person or via correspondence with anyone versed in the canonical arguments that Benedict XVI is the true pope, despite the fact that Pope Benedict XVI is the one who drew him out of an obscure career in the Vatican Secretary of State to make him Secretary of the Vatican State Governorate and subsequently, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, arguably the most important foreign post in the Vatican diplomatic staff.

He has repeatedly attacked and insulted not only the Catholic Church, blaming Her for sins, but also the Catholic Faithful for not opposing Vatican II.  In the first, he transgressed a rule of faith, whereby Catholic never attribute sin to the Bride of Christ. In the second, his comments are exceedingly cruel, seeing that the Catholic Faithful obediently accepted Vatican II precisely because of the actions and silence of the clergy, not excluding his own.  But both are remarkable forms of despicable clericalism which refuses to admit that the chief problem in the Church today is clerical corruption and chiefly in the Vatican, where he has worked for several decades.

To shout out a battle cry is a good an honorable thing, when you are standing on the right side of the Battle lines. But to do so, from the enemies’ Camp, is at least disingenuous, and at most a diabolic trick of deception to disarm your allies’ enemies.

The story has not ended, and is still in act. But those of us who are Catholics from the cradle and who know that sincerity only has value with fidelity, are finding it more and more incredible that Viganò’s words and actions remain in stark contradiction.

Credibility begins not with speaking, but with action. You have to switch sides in this war, and stand with Christ and His people, against the Globalists and the Bank of International Settlements, in Basel Switzerland, through which they rule the world.

_______________________

*  Lamendola is a high school philosophy teacher, and a staunch denier that Benedict’s renunciation is invalid. He is known, during conferences with those who support Benedict, of intentionally talking as long as possible simply to prevent the supporters of Pope Benedict XVI from having any time to speak at all.

News

Archbishop Viganò: Benedict’s Renunciation might be purposefully invalid

5 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Good Friday — April, 2, 2021: In a wide ranging interview by Aldo Maria Valli, published yesterday, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has openly conceded that the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI might be invalid, and intentionally crafted for that purpose.

Click HERE above to read the original.

The comments of the Archbishop regard a question posed by Aldo Valli, in response to the crusade by Andrea Cionci of Il Libero here in Italy (see HERE), who has published numerous articles in March, of this year, exposing the invalidity of the Renunciation and the precise meaning of it in the mind and writings of His Holiness, Pope Benedict. In Cionci’s latest piece, he reports that the Secretary of State had approved the text of the Renunciation with all its errors!

Here is an English of the key passage in that interview:

Valli: You may have seen, Your Excellency, that again the question of “who is pope and who is not pope” has been brought up. Some say: since Bergoglio was elected on the basis of the maneuvers of the Mafia of St. Gallen and perhaps with irregularities during the Conclave, he is not pope. But Ratzinger would still be, who would have renounced the throne not freely, but because forced by strong pressure, and would have deliberately written incorrectly the Latin text of the renunciation to make it invalid. Church-Fiction? Or is there some element to be taken into serious consideration?

Viganò: Several causes – strong and undue pressures from outside the Church and from prominent members of the Hierarchy, as well as Joseph Ratzinger’s personal character – might have led Benedict XVI to formulate a declaration of renunciation in a totally unorthodox way, leaving the Church in a state of grave uncertainty and confusion; machinations of a group of progressive conspirators might have indicated in Bergoglio the candidate elected later during a conclave marked by violations of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis that regulates the election of the Roman Pontiff: these elements might be such as to render Ratzinger’s abdication null and void, the Conclave of 2013 null and void, and the election of his successor. However, although widespread and undeniable, these elements require confirmation and above all a declaration by the supreme authority of the Church. Any pronouncement made by one who does not have the authority to do so would be reckless. I also believe that, at present, the dispute over who is the reigning Pope serves only to weaken the already fragmented healthy part of the ecclesial body, sowing division among the good.

Let us confidently pray to the Lord to bring the truth to light and show us the way forward. For now, strengthened by the virtue of Prudence that orders the means to the ultimate end, let us remain faithful and jealously guard what the Church has always believed: quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est.

To the Archbishop’s assertion that, “Any pronouncements made by one who does not have the authority to do so would be reckless”, I can only respond that, not only does every man by natural right have the authority to say munus does not equal ministerium, but every Catholic as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ knows that the only true and authentic unity of the Church is founded upon acknowledging the truth of things and of law, and not upon a political consensus!

But the Archbishop does point out, if in an obscure manner, that all roads now lead to another Synod of Sutri, to which all Catholics, but especially the faithful and clergy of the Diocese of Rome, have a right to ask to be convened and to have an official response.

Finally, however you regard the Archbishop’s position, his statements will leave every honest Catholic the opportunity to at last put to rest and bury the “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” narrative, pushed by the controlled Catholic traddie media, so shamelessly and with so many fraudulent claims, arguments, reasons, during the past 5 years.

News

Viganò openly questions whether China forced Benedict to resign, St Gallen Mafia plotted invalid election

10 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Many Catholics have been waiting for it for more than a year: the time when Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò would publicly admit that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI may be invalid, or that the Conclave of 2013 may be invalid.

Yesterday, in his interview with Marco Tosatti, Archbishop Viganò opened both questions, saying (Red added on key passages):

Marco Tosatti: Don’t you think that in the end the Report that everyone is waiting for will be published?

 Abp. Viganò: If it is possible to shed light on this affair, this will happen despite the Vatican: the interests at stake are enormous and directly affect the very top of the Church, and not only for questions of a doctrinal, moral, or canonical nature, but also for political and diplomatic aspects that have seen the Holy See become the object of a coup d’état with the complicity of those who should have defended it in its sovereignty and independence. What did not succeed during the pontificate of Benedict XVI was brought to fruition after his resignation. How can we hope that the one who is indebted for his own election to McCarrick – who was one of the main proponents of the secret agreement with China – will be able to clarify a series of events that involve him personally, demonstrating the connivances with the Chinese dictatorship against Catholics faithful to the Holy See and perhaps also the responsibility of that regime for the resignation of Pope Benedict? How can we imagine that the murky events of Saint Gallen will become clear, when it was there that the conspirators organized the election of Bergoglio? And how can we believe that the Church will purify herself of the corruption and vice of her clerics and prelates, when they are the ones who have taken power and who are promoted to the highest levels in a web of complicity between heretics, perverts, and traitors?

The one who ought to investigate the scandals is heavily involved in the appointment, promotion, and protection of those who are guilty: Bergoglio has surrounded himself with compromised and thus blackmailed personalities, whom he has no qualms about getting rid of as soon as they risk compromising him in his media image.

Let’s not forget that the legitimization of homosexuality is part of the agenda of the New World Order – to which the Bergoglian church adheres openly and unconditionally – not only for its destabilizing value in the social body, but also because sodomy is the principal instrument with which the Enemy intends to destroy the Catholic priesthood, corrupting the souls of the Ministers of God.

For this reason, at least as far as what seems possible, the entire truth about McCarrick will never officially come to light.

News

Tosatti interviews Viganò: Conte’s shameful delusions of Omnipotence in his COVID-19 response

5 Comments

 

logo

by Marco Tosatti

An English Translation of the Original, entitled: Intervista a Viganò. Conte, delierio di onnipotenza indecoroso. E illegale.

Dear Stilumcuriali, today we offer you an interview with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. Which touches on all the main themes of the moment we are living in Italy and in the Church. We think we should thank the Archbishop for the frankness and courage with which he expressed opinions that many people share, and fears that many live.

The interview comes out on 29 April, in memory of Saint Catherine of Siena. Enjoy reading.

§ § §

Your Excellency, the last Decree of President Giuseppe Conte dashed the hopes of the Italian Bishops’ Conference (CEI) and prolonged the lock-down of Masses throughout Italy. Some canonists and experts in concordat law have expressed many reservations about the behavior of the Government. What are your thoughts on the matter?

The Concordat between the Holy See and the Italian State recognizes, as Her native right, the Church’s full freedom and autonomy in carrying out Her own Ministry, which sees the celebration of Holy Mass and the administration of the Sacraments as Her social and public expression, in which no authority can interfere, not even with the consent of the ecclesiastical authority itself, which is not the mistress but the administrator of the Grace conveyed by the Sacraments.

Jurisdiction over places of worship therefore belongs in its entirety and exclusively to the Ordinary of the place, who decides in full autonomy — for the good of the souls entrusted to his care as Shepherd — the functions that are celebrated there and by whom they are to be celebrated. It is not for the Prime Minister to authorize access to the churches, nor to legislate on what the faithful or the Minister of worship can or cannot do.

In addition to this, the pronouncements of eminent jurists and magistrates – including those of the Supreme Court – are very authoritative and they question the legitimacy of legislating through Prime-Ministerial Decrees, which violate the superior and prevailing rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Italian Republic. Even if we are not talking about the Catholic Religion, particularly protected by its special status, the suspension of the right to freedom of worship implied by the Prime Minister’s Decrees is clearly illegitimate, and I trust that there will be those who wish to declare it officially, putting an end to this indecorous delusion of omnipotence of civil authority not only before God and His Church, but also before the faithful and citizens.

Many faithful and priests have felt abandoned and little protected by the Episcopal Conference and the Bishops.

It must be made clear, for the avoidance of misunderstandings, that the Episcopal Conference has no authority over the Bishops, who have full jurisdiction in their own Diocese, in union with the Apostolic See. And this is even more important at a time when we have understood how much the CEI is all too condescending, indeed succumbing, towards the Italian government.

Bishops do not have to wait for a body without any jurisdiction to tell them what to do: it is up to them to decide how to behave, with prudence and wisdom, to guarantee the Sacraments and the celebration of Mass to the faithful. And they can do so without having to ask either the CEI or the State, whose authority ends in front of the churchyard of our churches, and there it must stop.

It is unheard of that the Italian Episcopal Conference continues to tolerate such an abuse, which violates the divine right of the Church, violates a law of the State and creates a very serious precedent. And I believe that the communiqué issued on Sunday evening is also proof of the consent of the leaders of the Episcopate not only to the means, but also to the ends that this government proposes.

The supine silence of the CEI, and of almost all the Ordinaries, makes clear a situation of subordination to the State that has no precedent, and that was rightly perceived by the faithful and priests as a sort of abandonment of themselves: the scandalous raids of the public force in the church, even during the celebration of Mass, with sacrilegious arrogance that should have provoked an immediate and very firm protest by the Secretariat of State, are emblematic of this. The Ambassador of Italy to the Holy See should have been summoned, been presented a harsh Note of Protest for the very serious violation of the Concordat by the Government, and reserving the right to recall the Apostolic Nuncio to Italy if the illegitimate measure had not been withdrawn.

Cardinal Parolin, as sponsor of the President Conte, is in great embarrassment and in conflict of interest. It is clear that, instead of protecting the sovereignty and freedom of the Church in fidelity to its high institutional function as Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin has shamefully chosen to side with his lawyer friend. Not even the economic interests of so-called Catholic volunteerism could justify such an option.

What interests are you referring to?

I am referring to the scandalous distribution of public funds intended for the hospitality of illegal immigrants, of which Pope Bergoglio and the CEI are largely beneficiaries and, at the same time, strenuous promoters. Another conflict of interest, this one, which places the Church in a position of gratitude towards the State, making it not entirely illegitimate the suspicion that the multiple silences of the CEI, including the one we have witnessed in recent months on the occasion of the alleged pandemic, are motivated by the fear of seeing the lucrative proceeds from the reception fade away. Let us not forget that the funds deriving from the 8×1000 are decreasing more and more, confirming the estrangement of the Italian faithful from a Church that seems to have no other purpose than that of favoring the ethnic substitution strongly desired by the globalist elite. I fear that this trend will be confirmed in the coming months, in response to the silence of the Bishops.

In all this, the position of Pope Francis seems contradictory: at first he ordered the Cardinal Vicar to close the churches of Rome before Conte issued the Decree; then he embarrassed him, publicly denying it and having them reopened. He encouraged the Masses in streaming and then spoke of a Gnostic attitude, encouraging the CEI to take a stand against the Government; but just yesterday he recommended to the faithful obedience to the provisions of the Decrees…

Bergoglio is no stranger to this kind of sudden change. As everyone well remembers, before the scandal broke out within the Order of Malta concerning the distribution of condoms in its hospitals, Francis had written a letter to the Cardinal Protector, Burke, in which he gave him very clear instructions about his duty to watch over the Order so that Catholic morals would be scrupulously followed. But when the news became public he did not hesitate to disavow His Eminence, commissioning the Order, demanding the Grand Master’s resignation and reinstating the Councillor who had been expelled precisely because he was responsible for that deplorable violation of morals.

In the case you mentioned, the Cardinal Vicar tried to defend his correctness, explaining that the order to close the churches had been given to him by His Holiness. In the most recent case of the CEI, the Communiqué issued on Sunday evening clearly had the approval of President Cardinal Bassetti, who in turn must have consulted with Francis. He disconcerted that, in the space of a few hours, St. Martha’s pulpit contradited the CEI and invited the faithful and priests to obey the government’s instructions, which is not only undue, but also a violation of conscience, harmful to the health of souls.

No one intends to expose the faithful to possible contagion, admitted and not granted that it is such a formidable eventuality; but the size of our churches and unfortunately the very small number of the faithful who normally attend them, allow safe distances to be respected both for individual prayer and for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice or other ceremonies. Evidently the diligent legislators have not been going to church for a long time…

Let us not forget that the faithful have the right, as well as the duty, to attend Mass, to confess, to receive the Sacraments: this is a right that comes to them from being living members of the Mystical Body by virtue of Baptism. Pastors, therefore, have the sacred duty – even at the risk of their health and life itself, when required – to comply with this right of the faithful, and for this they must answer to God, not to the President of the Italian Episcopal Conference nor to the President of the Council.

In recent days, H.E. Mons. Giovanni d’Ercole has launched a stern warning to Count and the “scientific committee” in which he intimated: “You must give us the right to worship, or else we will take it back”. Strong and courageous words that seem to suggest a certain awakening in the consciences of the Pastors.

Monsignor D’Ercole spoke as a true Bishop does, with the authority that comes from Christ. Like him, I am sure, there are many other Pastors and priests who feel the responsibility towards the souls entrusted to them. But many remain silent, more so as not to uplift souls than out of fear. Precisely at this Easter time the Gospel parable of the Good Shepherd resounds in the liturgy; Jesus also mentions the mercenaries who do not care about the salvation of the sheep: let us not render in vain the divine warning and the example of the Savior, who gives his life for the sheep!

I take the liberty of addressing my confreres in the Episcopate: do you believe that, when in Mexico or Spain they closed the churches, banned processions, prohibited the use of the religious habit in public, things began differently? Do not allow the freedom of the Church to be restricted under the pretext of an alleged epidemic! Do not allow it either by the State or by the CEI! The Lord will ask you for an account of the souls who died without the Sacraments, of sinners who could not be reconciled with Him, of having allowed the faithful, for the first time in history since Constantine’s Edict, to celebrate Holy Easter with dignity. Your priests are not fearful, but heroic witnesses, and they suffer for the arbitrary orders you give them. Your faithful implore you: do not remain deaf to their cry!

These words seem to invite disobedience to ecclesiastical authority even before civil authority.

Obedience is ordered to Truth and Good, otherwise it is servility. We have arrived at such a dulling of consciences that we no longer realize what it means to “bear witness to the Truth”: do you believe that Our Lord will judge us for having been obedient to Caesar, when that means disobeying God? Is not the Christian bound to conscientious objection, even at work, when what is required of him violates divine law? If our Faith were based only on obedience, the Martyrs would not even have to face the torments to which civil law condemned them: it would have been enough to obey and burn a grain of incense to the statue of the Emperor.

We are not yet, at least in Italy, faced with the crucial choice between life and death; but we are asked to choose between the duty to honor God and worship Him, and obedience to the diktats of self-styled experts, a thousand times contradicted by the evidence of the facts.

I find it paradoxical that in this deception, which is now being revealed even to the most moderate observers of what is happening around us, the thankless task of having to bear witness to one’s own Faith before the wolves is imposed on the People of God, without being able to have their Shepherds at their side. That is why I exhort my Brothers to proudly resume their role as leaders, without camping as a pretext the observance of illegitimate and unreasonable norms. I make mine the words of Monsignor D’Ercole: “We do not need favors from you: we have a right to claim and this right must be recognized”!

Some might think that his words are “divisive” at a time when it is easy to exasperate the already proven souls of the citizens.

Unity in Faith and Charity is based on the salvation of souls, not to their detriment: neither the “interventions” of the CEI nor the smiling papal meetings with the Prime Minister, who has been granted an indulgent collaboration, which reveals connivance and collaboration. Proclaiming the truth is necessarily “divisive”, because truth is opposed to error, just as light is opposed to darkness. So said the Lord: “Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division.” Luke 12:51

Admitted and not allowed that the coronavirus is so virulent and so deadly that it justifies the segregation of an entire people, indeed the whole world, well: at this very moment the sacraments and Mass are denied when they are most needed for eternal salvation?

From what you have said, Your Excellency, I seem to understand some of your perplexities about the nature of the Coronavirus: is it my impression or do you believe – as many doctors say – that someone wanted to take advantage of the pandemic for other purposes?

This is not the place to express my reservations about the so-called “pandemic”: I believe that authoritative scientists have been able to demonstrate what really happens, and what the masses believe, through a air-tight control of information that does not hesitate to resort to censorship to silence voices of dissent. It seems clear to me, however, that Covid-19 has provided an excellent opportunity, whether desired or not — we shall soon know — to impose on the population a restriction of freedom that is neither democratic nor good.

These are technical proofs of dictatorship, in which people are even being programmed to track people under the pretext of health and a hypothetical future resurgence of the virus. They think they can impose a tyrannical regime in which people who are not elected by anyone claim to determine what is lawful and what is not, what treatment to impose and what punishment to inflict on those who want to evade it. What is even more serious, all this happens with the support of part of the Hierarchy: if they had told us about it a few years ago, we would not have believed them.

A word of hope in conclusion?

There’s always a reason for hope, if you have a supernatural look. First of all, this epidemic has brought down many masks: those of the real powers, of the international lobbies that patent a virus and are also preparing to patent the vaccine, and at the same time push for it to be imposed on everyone, in a clamorous conflict of interest. At least now we know who they are and what they look like.

The masks of those who lend themselves to this farce have also fallen, sounding unjustified alarms and spreading panic among the people, creating a crisis not only in terms of health, but also in terms of economics and world politics. Here, too, we know who they are and what their plan is.

Finally, the mask of the anonymity of so many good people has fallen. We realized how much generosity, how much self-sacrifice, how much goodness is still around, despite everything. Doctors, nurses, priests and volunteers, certainly; but also many faceless and nameless people who help their neighbors, who bring comfort to those who suffer, who wake up from the torpor and begin to understand what is happening around them. An awakening of the good, of which the Lord is undoubtedly the author. He governs the destiny of the Church and the world, and He will not allow Evil to prevail.

Let us not forget that – as I recalled recently – Our Lady of Fatima promised Sister Lucy that before the end of time a Pope would consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, and that this gesture of obedience would be followed by a period of peace. Let us therefore entrust ourselves, our families and our dear Italy under the mantle of the Most Blessed Virgin, trusting in Her words.

§ § §

logo

An English Translation of the Original, entitled: Intervista a Viganò. Conte, delierio di onnipotenza indecoroso. E illegale.

News

Archbishop Viganò: COVID-19 & Fatima

12 Comments

logo

by Marco Tosatti

Translated from the Italian original.

Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, Archbishop Caro Maria Viganò has granted an interview to the Portuguese media-outlet Dies Irae, which we find it interesting to share with you. The theme of the Third Secret of Fatima, and its dissemination, is widely covered. We take the liberty of remembering, in this regard, that the present writer has dedicated a book to this theme, illustrating all the perplexities and contradictions linked to the tormented history of this message, – or messages – … Enjoy the reading.

§ § §

INTERVIEW WITH ARCHBISHOP CARLO MARIA VIGANÒ

* * *

Your Excellency, thank you so much for giving us this interview. We are dealing with the COVID-19 epidemic which, in recent months, has affected the lives of millions of people and even caused the death of many of them. In light of this situation, the Church, through the Episcopal Conferences, has decided to close practically all churches and deprive the faithful of access to the Sacraments. On March 27th, in front of an empty St. Peter’s Square, Pope Francis, acting in a manifestly mediatic way, presided over a hypothetical prayer for humanity. There were many reactions to the way the Pope conducted that moment, one of which tried to associate the solitary presence of Francis with the Message of Fatima, i.e. the third secret. Do you agree?

Allow me first of all to tell you that I am pleased to give this interview for the faithful of Portugal, which the Blessed Virgin has promised to preserve in the Faith even in these times of great trial. You are a people with a great responsibility, because you may soon find yourself having to guard the sacred fire of Religion while other nations refuse to recognize Christ as their King and Mary Most Holy as their Queen.

The third part of the message that Our Lady entrusted to the shepherd children of Fatima to deliver to the Holy Father remains secret to this day. Our Lady asked to reveal it in 1960, but John XXIII had a communiqué published on February 8th of that year in which he stated that the Church “does not wish to take responsibility to guarantee the truthfulness of the words that the three shepherd children say the Virgin Mary would address to them”. With this distance from the message of the Queen of Heaven, a cover-up operation was started, evidently because the content of the message would have revealed the terrible conspiracy against the Church of Christ by its enemies. Until a few decades ago it would have seemed incredible that even Our Lady could be gagged, but in recent years we have also witnessed attempts to censor the Gospel itself, which is the Word of Her divine Son.

In the year 2000, during the Pontificate of John Paul II, the Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano, presented as the Third Secret a version of the Gospel that from some elements appeared clearly incomplete. It is not surprising that the new Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, tried to divert attention to an event of the past, in order to let the people of God believe that the words of the Virgin had nothing to do with the crisis of the Church and the combination of modernists and Freemasonry contracted behind the scenes of Vatican II. Antonio Socci, who carefully investigated the Third Secret, unmasked this malicious behavior on the part of Cardinal Bertone. On the other hand, it was Bertone himself who heavily discredited and censured the Madonnina delle Lacrime of Civitavecchia, whose message perfectly agrees with what she said at Fatima.

Let us not forget Our Lady’s unheeded appeal for the Pope and all the Bishops to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, as a condition for defeating Communism and atheistic materialism: consecrate not “the world”, not “that nation which You want us to consecrate to You”, but “Russia”. Did it cost so much to do that? Evidently so, for those who do not have a supernatural gaze. One preferred to walk the path of détente with the Soviet regime, inaugurated precisely by Roncalli, without understanding that without God no peace is possible. Today, with a President of the Russian Confederation who is certainly a Christian, the Virgin’s request could be granted, averting further misfortune for the Church and the world.

Benedict XVI himself confirmed the relevance of the Virgin’s message, even though – according to the interpretation spread by the Vatican – it should be considered complete. Those who have read the Third Secret have made it clear that its content concerns the apostasy of the Church, which began at the beginning of the 1960s and today has reached such an evident stage that it is even recognized by lay observers. This almost obsessive insistence on themes that the Church has always condemned, such as relativism and religious indifferentism, false ecumenism, Malthusian ecologism, homoheresis and immigrationism, has found in the Abu Dhabi Declaration the fulfillment of a plan conceived by the secret sects for more than two centuries.

In the middle of Holy Week and after the Panamazzonic Synod, Bergoglio decided to establish a commission to discuss and study the female diaconate in the Catholic Church. Do you believe that this aims to pave the way for the clericalisation of women or, in other words, for the attempt to tamper with the Priesthood established by Our Lord Jesus Christ on Holy Thursday?

The Sacred Order cannot and can never be modified in its essence. The attack on the Priesthood has always been at the centre of heretics’ action and their inspirer, and it is understandable that this is the case: hitting the Priesthood means destroying the Holy Mass and the Holy Eucharist and the entire sacramental building. Among the sworn enemies of the Sacred Order there was not even a lack of modernists, of course, who since the nineteenth century theorized a church without priests, or with priests and priestesses. These delusions, anticipated by some exponents of Modernism in France, subtly re-emerged at the Council, in an attempt to insinuate some equivalence between the ministerial priesthood deriving from Holy Orders and the common priesthood of the faithful deriving from Baptism. It is significant that, precisely by playing on this intentional misunderstanding, the reformed liturgy also suffered from the doctrinal error of Lumen Gentium and ended up reducing the ordained Minister to the simple president of an assembly of priests. On the other hand, the priest is alter Christus not by popular designation, but by ontological configuration to the High Priest, Jesus Christ, whom he must imitate in holiness of life and in the absolute dedication represented also by Celibacy.

The next step had to be taken, if not by annulling the Priesthood itself, at least by making it ineffective by extending it to women, who cannot be ordained: exactly what happened in the Protestant and Anglican sects, which today also experience the embarrassing situation of having lesbian bishops in the so-called Church of England. But it is clear that the ecumenical “pretext” – that is, approaching dissident communities by acquiring even the most recent errors – is based on Satan’s hatred for the Priesthood and would inevitably lead the Church of Christ to ruin. On the other hand, ecclesiastical Celibacy is also the object of the same attack, because it is distinctive of the Catholic Church and constitutes a precious defence of the Priesthood that Tradition has jealously guarded through the centuries.

The attempt to introduce a form of ordained female ministry within the Church is not recent, despite the repeated declarations of the Magisterium. John Paul II also unequivocally defined, and with all the canonical requirements of an infallible former Cathedra declaration, that it is absolutely impossible to question the doctrine on this subject. But just as the Catechism could be used to declare the death penalty “not in conformity with the Gospel” – something unheard of and heretical – so today an attempt is being made to create ex novo some form of female diaconate, evidently preparatory to a future introduction of the female priesthood. The first commission created by Bergoglio years ago gave a negative opinion, confirming what should not even have been the subject of discussion; but if that commission could not obey the wishes of Francis, this does not mean that another commission, whose members, chosen by him, are more “docile” and relaxed in demolishing another pillar of the Catholic Faith, cannot do so. I do not doubt that Bergoglio has persuasive methods and that he can exert pressure on the theological commission; but I am equally certain that in the unfortunate event that this consultative body were to give a favorable opinion, one would not necessarily have to come to an official declaration by the (anti-)Pope to see himself multiplying deaconesses in the dioceses of Germany or Holland, in the silence of Rome. The method is well known, and on the one hand it makes it possible to strike at the priesthood and on the other hand it gives a convenient alibi to those within the ecclesiastical structure who can always appeal to the fact that “the Pope has not allowed anything new”. They did likewise by authorizing the Episcopal Conferences to legislate autonomously about Communion in the hand, which, imposed by abuse, has now become universal practice.

It should be said that this will to promote women in the hierarchy betrays the urge to follow the modern mentality that has taken away the woman’s role of mother and wife to unhinge the natural family.

Let’s keep in mind that this approach to the Church’s dogmas confirms an undeniable fact: Bergoglio has adopted the so-called theology of the situation, whose theological places are accidental facts or subjects: the world, nature, the female figure, young people… This theology does not have as its founding centre the immutable and eternal truth of God, but, on the contrary, it starts from the observation of the binding impellence of phenomena in order to give answers consistent with the expectations of the contemporary world.

Excellence, according to historians of recognized merit, the Second Vatican Council represented a rupture of the Church with Tradition; hence the appearance of currents of thought that want to transform it into a simple humanitarian association that embraces the world and its globalist utopia. How do you see this serious problem?

A church that poses itself as new with respect to the Church of Christ is simply not the Church of Christ! The Mosaic Religion, that is, the “church of the ancient law” willed by God to lead His people until the coming of the Messiah, had its fulfillment in the New Covenant, and was definitively revoked on Calvary by the Sacrifice of Christ: from His side was born the Church of the New and Eternal Covenant, which replaces the Synagogue. It seems that even the post-conciliar church, modernist and Masonic, aspires to transform, to overcome the Church of Christ, replacing it with a “neo-church”, deformed and monstrous creature that does not come from God.

The purpose of this neo-church is not to bring the chosen people to recognize the Messiah, as for the Synagogue; it is not to convert and save all people before the second coming of Christ, as for the Catholic Church, but to establish itself as the spiritual arm of the New World Order and advocate of Universal Religion. In this sense, the Council’s revolution first had to demolish the Church’s heritage, its millenary Tradition, from which it drew its vitality and authority as the Mystical Body of Christ, then get rid of the exponents of the old Hierarchy, and only recently has it begun to offer itself without pretence for what it intends to be.

What you call utopia is actually a dystopia, because it represents the concretization of Freemasonry’s plan and the preparation for the advent of the Antichrist.

I am also convinced that the majority of my brethren, and even more so almost all the priests and faithful, are absolutely unaware of this hellish plan and that recent events have opened many people’s eyes. Their faith will allow Our Lord to gather the pusillus grex around the true Shepherd before the final confrontation.

To restore the ancient splendour of the Church, it will be necessary to question many doctrinal aspects of the Council. What points of Vatican II would you question?

I believe that there is no lack of eminent personalities who have expressed the critical points of the Council better than I have. There are those who believe that it would be less complicated and certainly wiser to follow the practice of the Church and the Popes as it was applied with the Synod of Pistoia: there was something good in it too, but the errors it affirmed were considered sufficient to let it fall into oblivion.

Does the present Regime represent the culmination of a process that opens with the Second Vatican Council, desired in the so-called “Pact of the Catacombs”, or is it still in an intermediate phase?

As is the case with every revolution, the heroes of the first hour often end up falling victim to their own system, as Robespierre did. Who yesterday was judged to be the standard-bearer of the Conciliar spirit, today appears almost a conservative: the examples are before everyone’s eyes. And there are already those who, in the intellectual circles of progressivism (such as the one frequented by a certain Massimo Faggioli, haughty in his first name and ungrammatical in his surname), start spreading here and there some doubts about Bergoglio’s real ability to make “courageous choices” – for example, to abolish Celibacy, to admit women to the Priesthood or to legitimize communicatio in sacris with heretics – almost hoping that he would step aside to elect an even more obedient Pope to those elites who had in the Catacomb Pact and the St. Gallen Mafia their most unscrupulous and determined followers.

Your Excellency, we Catholics today often feel isolated from the Church and almost abandoned by our Pastors. What can Your Excellency say to the hierarchs and the faithful who, despite the confusion and error that are spreading in the Church, try to persevere in this hard battle to maintain the integrity of our Faith?

My words would certainly be inadequate. All I do is to repeat the words of Our Lord, the eternal Word of the Father: Behold, I am with you every day until the consummation of the ages. We feel isolated, of course: but didn’t the Apostles and all Christians feel so too? Did not Our Lord even feel abandoned in Gethsemane? These are the times of trial, perhaps of the final trial: we must drink the bitter chalice, and even if it is human to implore the Lord to take it away from us, we must repeat confidently: Not as I wish, but as you wish, remembering His comforting words: In the world you will have tribulations, but have courage: I have conquered the world! After the trial, no matter how hard and painful, the eternal prize is prepared for us, which no one can take away from us. The Church will shine again with the glory of her Lord after this terrible and prolonged Easter Triduum. But if prayer is certainly indispensable, we must not fail to fight the good fight, making us all witnesses of a courageous militancy under the banner of the Cross of Christ. Let us not find ourselves being pointed out as the handmaiden did with Saint Peter in the high priest’s courtyard: “You too were one of his followers”, only to then deny Christ. Let us not be intimidated! Let us not allow the gag of tolerance to those who want to proclaim the Truth! Let us ask the Blessed Virgin Mary that our language may proclaim with courage the Kingdom of God and His Justice. Let the miracle of Lapa be renewed when Mary Most Holy gave the word to little Joana, born mute. May She also give voice to us, Her children, who for too long have been mute.

Our Lady of Fatima, Queen of Victories, Ora pro nobis.

§ § §

logo

News

Archbishop Viganò writes letter of support to Cardinal Zen

9 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

This report is a follow up to Cardinal Re’s outrageous circular letter to all the members of the College of Cardinals, against Cardinal Zen’s letter to all the Cardinals on the betrayal of the Catholics in China.

Cardinal Viganò, as an expert diplomat of proven record, in response to the letter from Cardinal Re, writes in support of Cardinal Zen, in an open letter.

First the Italian Original (source), and then my English translation.

Eminenza Carissima,

sono l’arcivescovo Carlo Maria Viganò, già Nunzio Apostolico negli Stati Uniti d’America.

Ho seguito con profonda partecipazione, condividendo la Sua sofferenza nella preghiera, i Suoi numerosi accorati Appelli a papa Bergoglio, per la drammatica situazione della Chiesa Martire in Cina, che lui stesso ha colpevolmente aggravato con il proditorio e sciagurato Accordo segreto firmato dalla Santa Sede con il Governo Comunista Cinese.

I Suoi accorati Appelli, Caro Fratello in Cristo, sono rimasti sistematicamente inascoltati e persino derisi in modo ipocrita e perverso. Quanto al Cardinale Parolin, ha agito da mero sconsiderato esecutore di un malvagio ordine superiore.

Ho letto stamane la ignominiosa e vergognosa Lettera che il Card. Giovanni Battista Re ha indirizzato a tutti i cardinali contro di Lei. Ne sono profondamente rattristato e indignato, e desidero esprimerLe tutto il mio affetto, la mia preghiera e la mia solidarietà fraterna nell’episcopato.

Lei è un coraggioso Confessore della Fede a cui va tutta la mia venerazione e ammirazione!

Purtroppo la menzogna in Vaticano è eretta a sistema, la verità è totalmente stravolta, l’inganno più perverso è spudoratamente praticato anche dai più insospettabili, che ora si prestano ad agire da strumenti complici dell’Avversario. Si è giunti addirittura ad affermare che “papa Benedetto XVI aveva approvato il progetto di Accordo” firmato nel 2018, quando invece tutti sappiamo della sua strenua resistenza e della sua reiterata riprovazione delle condizioni poste da un Regime persecutorio e sanguinario.

Il Vaticano ha fatto di tutto e di più per consegnare nelle mani del Nemico la Chiesa Martire Cinese: lo ha fatto siglando il Patto segreto; lo ha fatto legittimando “vescovi” scomunicati, agenti del regime; lo ha fatto con la deposizione di Vescovi legittimi; lo ha fatto imponendo ai Sacerdoti fedeli di registrarsi presso la chiesa succube della dittatura comunista; lo fa quotidianamente tacendo sulla furia persecutoria che proprio a partire da quell’infausto Accordo è andata inasprendosi in un inaudito crescendo. Lo sta facendo ora con questa ignobile missiva a tutti i cardinali, volta ad accusarLa, a denigrarLa e ad isolarLa.

Nostro Signore ci assicura che niente e nessuno potrà mai strappare dalla Sua mano coloro che resistono al nemico infernale e ai suoi accoliti, trionfando su di loro “per mezzo del Sangue dell’Agnello e grazie alla testimonianza del loro martirio” (Ap. 12, 11).

Il Vostro esempio, Caro Cardinale, e il prezzo altissimo che state pagando per difendere la Causa di Dio e della sua Chiesa, provochi in noi un salutare scossone, ci strappi dall’inerzia e dall’assuefazione con le quali assistiamo supini alla resa della Chiesa Cattolica nei suoi più alti vertici e nella sua gerarchia, all’eresia e all’apostasia, per essersi messa a seguire il Principe di questo mondo, menzognero e omicida sin da principio.

Parce, Domine, parce populo tuo,

quem redemisti, Christe, sanguine tuo,

ne in aeternum irascaris nobis.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò

Arcivescovo tit. di Ulpiana

Nunzio Apostolico

Now my English translation:

Your dearest Eminence,

I am Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America.

I have followed, with profound attention and sympathy, Your suffering in prayer, your numerous heartfelt Appeals to pope Bergoglio, for the dramatic situation of the Martyred Church in China, which he himself has culpably aggravated with the prodigious and wretched secret Accord signed between the Holy See and the Communist Government of China.

Your heartfelt Appeals, dear Brother in Christ, have gone systematically unheeded and even derided in a hypocritical and perverse manner. As much as regards Cardinal Parolin, he has acted as the mere inconsiderate executor of a malign order of his superior.

I read, this morning, the ignominious and shameful Letter which Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re has addressed to all the Cardinals against You. I am deeply saddened and indigant on this account, and I desire to express to You my entire affection, my prayer and my fraternal solidarity in the Episcopate.

You are a corageous Confessor of the Faith who has all my veneration and respect!

Unfortunately, systematic lying is now the structure of the Vatican, truth has been entirely turned on its head, and the most perverse deceit is shamelessly practiced even by the most unexpected persons, who no present themselves to act as complicit instruments of the Adversary.  They have gone so far as to affirm that “Pope Benedict XVI approved the project of the Accord” which was signed in 2018, when, on the contrary, everyone knows of his strenuous resistence and of his repeated reproval of the conditions proposed by Regime of persecutors and blood-letters.

The Vatican has done everything and even more to consign the Martyred  Church of China into the hands of the Enemy: it did this by signing the secret Pact; it did this by legitimizing excommunicated “bishops”, agents of the regime; it did this by deposing legitimatte Bishops; it did this by imposing puon faithful Priests the duty to register at the local church subjected to the Communist Dictatorship; it does this daily by remaining silent at the mad persecution which indeed after the signing of this inauspicious Accord grows worse and worse in an unheard of crescendo.  It is doing this now with this ignoble missive to all the Cardinals, aimed at accusing You, at denigrating You and at isolating You.

Our Lord assures us that nothing and no one can ever snatch from His Hand those who resist the infernal enemey and his altar-boys, as He shall triumph over them “by means of the Blood of the Lamb and thanks to the testimony of their martyrdom” (Apocalypse 12:11).

Your example, dear Cardinal, and the very high price which you are paying for defending the Cause of God and of His Church, provokes in us a salutary response, it snatches us from idleness and from accomodation with those who supinely assist at the surrender of the Catholic Church by Her highest officers and in Her hierarchy, to heresy and apostasy, so as to follow the Prince of this world, a liar and a murderer from the beginning.

Parce, Domine, parce populo tuo,
quem redemisti, Christe, sanguine tuo,
ne in aeternum irascaris nobis.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Arcivescovo tit. di Ulpiana
Nunzio Apostolico

As always, I do not think I need to add anything to this most noble letter. Let us pray for Archbishop Viganò and Cardinal Zen, that they are led by this event to see that Pope Benedict XVI is the true Pope and that Cardinal Bergoglio is a usurper, a destroyer and a false prophet.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Guest Editorials, News

Viganò reveals the friendship between Maciel and Cardinal Sandri, who will oversee the next Conclave

3 Comments

logo

by Marco Tosatti

Authorized English Translation by FromRome.Info

READ THE ORIGINAL IN ITALIAN AT MARCOTOSATTI.COM

Dear Friends and Enemies of Stilum Curiae, we offer you today an extremely interesting document from the ex-Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, regarding one of the recent nominations by the Bridge-Builder: that of Cardinal Leonardo Sandi, as Vice Deacon of the College of Cardinals.  It will be Leonardo Sandri, who at 76 years of age, who will oversee in reality the functions of the Dean of the Conclave, Giovanni Battista Re, who being 85 years of age cannot participate.  It is a nomination which has stunned us, seeing that Leonardo Sandri was the Sostituo to the Secretary of State (then, Cardinal Sodano) when there was published the unsigned “note” in which it was affirmed there was no ongoing investigation against Marcial Maciel, the diabolic founder of the Legionaires of Christ.  Moreover, the good will of the reigning Pontiff towards Sandri is extraordinary. He has already completed two tours of duty of 5 years each, since 20o7, as Prefect of the Congregation for Oriental churches (and is in the middle of a third) and has completed 76 years, when 75 is already the limit imposed for heads of the Dicasteries and for Bishops. But let us read what Archbishop Viganò has written:

§§§

The Faithful have the right to know

We have just been witnesses to one of the most indecent episodes where we have looked upon the work of the prince of lies intent upon falsifying the book of Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah, by covering them with ignoble insults and vulgar insinuations, by means of the actions of the papal prison guard, who is now serving as a hit-man.  And now again we find him to be involved in another masterpiece of trickery: the confirmation on the part of the Bridge-Builder in the election of Cardinal Bishops and of the new Dean and Vice-Dean of the College of Cardinals.  These acts have passed unobserved, while they conceal a subtle strategy.  It is necessary to keep in mind, indeed, that in June of 2019, Papa Francesco increased the number of Cardinal Bishops, which had remained unchanged for centuries, by promoting 4 new ones at a single stroke. In this manner he insured for himself a majority favorable to himself, a thing which he has always done with new members of the College of Cardinals.

To Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, named Dean at the age of 86, but excluded form the next Conclave, I wish a longer life than his father. But his nomination is a cover for the more decisive one – that of Cardinal Sandri – who is now positioned to steer the next Conclave secundum Franciscum, that is, according to the updated and augmented version of the Mafia of St. Gall.

With Cardinal Leonardo Sandri I am bound by a long friendship, which had its beginning in the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, and then throughout 11 years in the same office as secretary to the Sostituto of the Secretary of State, and then 7 years of collaboration, from when he returned from a mandate as Nuncio to Mexico, after only 6 months, and was named the Sostotuto.

Amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas — This maxim, attributed to Aristotle, and then taken up by Plato in regard to Socrates, and successively by Cicero, is explained in this way by Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Sententia libri Ethicorum, Book 1, Lesson 6, nn. 4-5:

Quod autem oporteat veritatem praeferre amicis, ostendit hac ratione. Quia ei qui est magis amicus, magis est deferendum. Cum autem amicitiam habeamus ad ambo, scilicet ad veritatem et ad hominem, magis debemus veritatem amare quam hominem, quia hominem praecipue debemus amare propter veritatem et propter virtutem… Veritas autem est amicus superexcellens cui debetur reverentia honoris; est etiam veritas quiddam divinum, in Deo enim primo et principaliter invenitur. Et ideo concludit, quod sanctum est praehonorare veritatem hominibus amicis.

In my own translation, it goes like this:

Then, that it be necessary to prefer truth to friends, is demonstrated with this reckoning. To him to whom one is more a friend there goes greater honor.  Being friends of both, that is, of truth and of neighbor, we ought to love more the truth than our neighbor, because we ought to love the neighbor above all according to truth and virtue. Truth, indeed, is the most excellent friend to which one owes the reverence of honor. Truth is something of the divine, it finds itself in the first seat, and in its first principle in God.  From which one must conclude, that it is something holy to prefer the honor of truth to friends.

Moreover, what constrains me to write about Cardinal Leonardo Sandri is inspired solely by the friendship which binds me to him for nearly 50 years, for the good of his soul, for the love of the Truth which is Christ Himself and for the Church His Bride, whom we have served together.

In the first audience which Francis conceded to me after that which I already mentioned on June 23, 2013, in which he asked me about Cardinal McCarrick, he asked me a similar question: “What is Cardinal Sandri like?” Struck with surprise by that question in regard to my dear friend, I did not reply out of embarrassment. Francis, then, opened his hands and moved them up and down like scales — as if to say: “Which one is heavier?” — and he looked me straight in the eyes to see if I agreed.  In reply, I moved to confide in him: “Holy Father, I do not know if you know that the Nuncio Justo Mullor, President of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, was removed from the Apostolic Nunciature in Mexico because he opposed the directives coming from the Secretary of State aimed at covering for the grave accusations against Marcial Maciel”. I said this to the pope, so that he might reckon it for an eventual remedy to the injustice which Mons. Mullor suffered for not joining in the compromise, for remaining faithful to the truth and for his love of the Church. And this is the truth, which we reaffirm to the honor of this faithful servant of the Holy See, on the tomb of which I celebrated a Holy Mass in suffrage, in the Cathedral of Almeria, Spain.

I have already written in my first testimonial that the principal responsible for covering the misdeeds committed by Maciel was the then Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the recent acceptance of whose own resignation as Dean of the College of Cardinals was tied to his being implicated in the affair with Maciel. He, in addition to having protected Maciel, was certainly not outside of the loop in regard to the promotion of McCarrick … In the mean time, it is just that it be known that Cardinal Francis Arinze duly opposed himself, inside the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to the attempt by Sodano to coverup the case of Maciel.

Unfortunately for him, even Sandri let himself be involved by Sodano in this coverup operation for the horrible misdeeds of Maciel.  To replace Mons. Mullor in Mexico City, it was necessary to name someone securely loyal to Sodano. Sandri had already given proof as Assessor of the Secretary of Sate. And so, the Nuncio in Venezuela, who was only there for 2 years, was transferred to Mexico. Of these shady maneuvers, which the ones in charge qualified as normal events, I was a direct witness in a conversation held by them on January 25, 2000, the Feast of Saint Paul, while we were on our way to the Basilica which bears the Saint’s name, for the closure of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.  The connection of these dates for the transfers is also significant: June 19, 2000, the transfer to Moscow of Mons. Giorgio Zur, after being President of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy for only 1 year; February 11, 2000, the nomination of Mons. Justo Mullor as President of the same Academy, after having been only 2 and a half years in Mexico; March 1, 2000, the transfer to Mexico of Mons. Sandri after only 2 and a half years spent in Venezuela. Only six months after this, on Sept 16, 2000, Sandri was promoted to the position of Sostituto of the Secretary of State, as the right hand man of Sodano.

The Legionaires of Christ did not omit to show Sandri their thanks. In the occasion of a pranzo held in the Paul VI Hall in honor of the Cardinals created in the consistory of Nov. 24, 2007, among whom was Sandri himself, we were left shocked when he cut in front of me as I stood in line to speak with Pope Benedict, as the Pope was making his entrance, saying: “Holy Father, excuse me, but I cannot stay for Pranzo, as I am the invited guest of 500 Legionaries of Christ.”

Look how Francis, after having repeatedly and obsessively indicated as the cause of sexual abuse a very vaguely defined “clericalism”, to avoid in this way denouncing the plague of homosexuality, has himself exhibited the worst kind of clericalism, which he has accused others of: to promote Sandri, the Cardinal-Priest in May 2018 to being Cardinal-Bishop only one month later, so that he might be able to name him as Vice-Dean of the College of Cardinals, as the candidate chosen beforehand by Francis to preside over the next Conclave.

The Faithful have the right to know of these sordid intrigues in a corrupt court. In the heart of the Church, it seems to us, there has invaded the shadow of the synagogue of Satan (Apocalypse 2:9).

+ Carlo Maria Viganò

Arciv. tit. di Ulpiana

Nunzio Apostolico

This is an authorized English translation of the Italian Original

from MARCOTOSATTI.COM

logo

Guest Editorials

Archbishop Viganò: The hour has come to clarify the role of Gänswein

12 Comments

by Archbishop Carolo Maria Viganò

LAVERITA.INFO

FULL TEXT

Authorized translation of the Italian original by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Dear Editor,

It is time to reveal the control that has been abusively and systematically exercised by Msgr. Gänswein towards the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, ever since the beginning of his pontificate.

Gänswein has habitually filtered information, assuming the right to judge for himself how much or how little to tell the Holy Father.

I can testify that, when Pope Benedict received me in audience on April 4, 2011, a few days after I had sent him my first letter (later abusively published in the course of Vatileaks) I said to the Pontiff: “I will not speak to you about the situation of corruption in the administration of the Pontifical Villas, because I presume that you have already reviewed the Memorandum in this regard that I gave to your secretary for you, in view of this Audience.”

The Holy Father, in all simplicity and innocence, and without showing any surprise, said “No, I have seen nothing.”

I further testify another fact that reveals how much Msgr. Gänswein controlled information given to the Holy Father and conditioned the liberty of action of the Same. On the occasion of the canonization of Marianne Cope and Kateri Tekakwitha, having requested in writing to the then-Prefect of the Papal Household, Msgr. James Harvey, to be received in an audience with the Pope, and not having received any response, I asked the Prefect, on October 23, 2012, why I had not received any response to my request for an audience.

I recall the circumstance perfectly, because Msgr. Harvey suggested to me that I would participate in the General Audience the following day, so as to at least be able to personally greet the Holy Father with the other bishops present. Msgr. Harvey responded with the following words: “Gänswein said to me: ‘Monsignor Viganò is the last person who can approach Pope Benedict!’”

Harvey then added that at the beginning of the Pontificate, Benedict XVI, pointing at him [Gänswein] with his finger, exclaimed, “Gestapo! Gestapo!”

This unscrupulous attitude was shown from the very beginning of the pontificate in the determination with which Gänswein succeeded in distancing the Pope from his dear assistant and secretary Ingrid Stampa, whom then-Cardinal Ratzinger wanted at his side for well over a decade after the death of his sister, Maria Ratzinger.

And then I note that in order to escape from this total control exercised over his person by Gänswein, Pope Benedict often went to his previous personal secretary, Msgr Josef Clemens, also inviting to said family meeting Ingrid Stampa.

I make this declaration following what has been asserted by Msgr. Gänswein to the Ansa agency, in contradiction of what Pope Benedict himself wrote in the exchange of letters made with Cardinal Sarah. It is a sensational as well as slanderous insinuation towards the most eminent Cardinal Robert Sarah, promptly denied by the same.

 

ORIGINAL: https://www.laverita.info/padre-georg-ha-isolato-il-pontefice-emerito-2644822455.html

 

 

 

News

Archbishop Viganò unmasks Gänswein

5 Comments

FromRome.Info has just published the entire TEXT in English Translation HERE

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

BREAKING — Rome, January 16, 2020 A. D.: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in a front page leading article in today’s edition of La Verità, one of the leading conservative Italian Daily Newspapers, blasts Archbishop Gänswein as someone who has habitually put himself between Pope Benedict XVI and the Roman Curia, blocking and filtering things which he personally did not want Pope Benedict to see or respond to.

The revelations are personal and stunning. in a short article, written by Viganò himself, which follows on p. 2 of today’s edition. While I cannot legally give a translation of the whole article, I can summarize its contents:

  • He characterizes Gänswein’s activity as the personal secretary of the Pope as “a control abusively and systematically exercised … from the beginning of his pontificate”.
  • Viganò says that on April 4, 2011, when he personally met with Pope Benedict, he asked if he has received through Gänswein his complaints about the abuse and corruption of the Pontifical Household (which was not under Gänswein’s authority at that time). But Pope Benedict said that the information never arrived in his hands.
  • On the occasion of the canonization of Marianne Cope and Kateri Tekakwitha, Viganò sought an audience with Pope Benedict, but was told by the Prefect of the Pontifical Household, Mons. Harvey, that Gänswein had told him “Monsigno Viganò is the last person to approach Benedict!”

For the full article, see La Verità at https://www.laverita.info/padre-georg-ha-isolato-il-pontefice-emerito-2644822455.html

For Marco Tosatti’s Discussion of this news, in Italian, see https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/01/16/ganswein-benedetto-sarah-un-intervento-di-mons-vigano/

[simple-payment id=”5295″]