Archbishop Viganò Summoned to Vatican Tribunal on Charge of Schism
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò contacted The Remnant this morning to make known that he has been summoned to the Vatican today, June 20, to "take notice of the accusations and evidence concerning the …More
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò contacted The Remnant this morning to make known that he has been summoned to the Vatican today, June 20, to "take notice of the accusations and evidence concerning the crime of schism of which he has been accused (public statements which result in a denial of the elements necessary to maintain communion with the Catholic Church: denial of the legitimacy of Pope Francis, rupture of communion with Him, and rejection of the Second Vatican Council)... The accused is also advised that in the absence of an appearance or a written defense, which must be forwarded to this Dicastery by 28 June 2024, he will be judged in his absence." The notice was signed by Mons. John J. Kennedy, Secretary for the Disciplinary Section.
It is unclear if the Archbishop has gone to Rome as summoned, but he included in a written statement:
"I regard the accusations against me as an honor. I believe that the very wording of the charges confirms the theses that I have repeatedly …More
It is unclear if the Archbishop has gone to Rome as summoned, but he included in a written statement:
"I regard the accusations against me as an honor. I believe that the very wording of the charges confirms the theses that I have repeatedly …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Sean Johnson
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Is +Vigano Schismatic?
No doubt, tomorrow all the media around the world will report that +Vigano was excommunicated for the crime of schism, for questioning the legitimacy of Francis.
But does questioning the legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff (or papal claimant) always present a clear cut case of schism?
Not according to many approved theologians and canonists.
Here’s what a few of them have to say …More
Is +Vigano Schismatic?
No doubt, tomorrow all the media around the world will report that +Vigano was excommunicated for the crime of schism, for questioning the legitimacy of Francis.
But does questioning the legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff (or papal claimant) always present a clear cut case of schism?
Not according to many approved theologians and canonists.
Here’s what a few of them have to say on the subject:
1. “Finally, those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person worthy of suspicion or doubtfully elected cannot be counted among the schismatics…” (Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicum , vol. vii, n. 398)
2. “There is no schism if one…refuses obedience to the extent that one…suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election…” (Szal, Abbot Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics , CUA, 1948, p.2)
3. “…is not a schismatic who refuses submission to the pontiff for having probable doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power…” (de Lugo: Disp ., De Virt. Div ., disp. xxv, sect. iii, nn.
These approved writers except from the charge of schism those who refuse submission to the pontiff because of doubts or suspicions regarding his election, and this is precisely the root of Viganò’s rejection of Francis (ie., that The St. Gallen Mafia forced BXVI out, and put their candidate on the throne, thereby violating the norms governing papal elections and invalidating it).
My only point is that when tomorrow the world reports the new “schism” of Vigano for refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of Francis, he would appear to have some considerable firepower in his corner to exonerate him from the charge.
No doubt, tomorrow all the media around the world will report that +Vigano was excommunicated for the crime of schism, for questioning the legitimacy of Francis.
But does questioning the legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff (or papal claimant) always present a clear cut case of schism?
Not according to many approved theologians and canonists.
Here’s what a few of them have to say on the subject:
1. “Finally, those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person worthy of suspicion or doubtfully elected cannot be counted among the schismatics…” (Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicum , vol. vii, n. 398)
2. “There is no schism if one…refuses obedience to the extent that one…suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election…” (Szal, Abbot Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics , CUA, 1948, p.2)
3. “…is not a schismatic who refuses submission to the pontiff for having probable doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power…” (de Lugo: Disp ., De Virt. Div ., disp. xxv, sect. iii, nn.
These approved writers except from the charge of schism those who refuse submission to the pontiff because of doubts or suspicions regarding his election, and this is precisely the root of Viganò’s rejection of Francis (ie., that The St. Gallen Mafia forced BXVI out, and put their candidate on the throne, thereby violating the norms governing papal elections and invalidating it).
My only point is that when tomorrow the world reports the new “schism” of Vigano for refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of Francis, he would appear to have some considerable firepower in his corner to exonerate him from the charge.
Everyday for Life Canada
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Well said. The “firepower” would suffice if you have a holy pope and those who are advising him.
Everyday for Life Canada
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
This is projection. Who has actually caused the schism in Germany and brought confusion and division?
Bazsó-Dombi Attila
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The rethoric question holds the obvious answer: The same old apostate caused the schism.