Andrea Cionci: Viganò undergoes a trial to legitimize Bergoglio by discrediting Ratzinger

A new article by Andrea Cionci

The Italian journalist Andrea Cionci has requested I publish an article of his regarding Archbishop Vigano. The translation is his.

Update: This post was accidentally unpublished and I just noticed. The substack app has some serious issues it seems…

_____________________

Don't trust anybody. Nothing in the Vatican is ever as it seems. The news that the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (Tucho Fernandez) has summoned to trial the (perhaps) former archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò (he has never denied that he had himself reconsecrated bishop by the schismatic Msgr. Williamson) is blowing up in the media.

Very, very strange: since 2019, at least since the McCarrick story, Viganò had not been considered by the mainstream: now all the spotlight is on him instead.

Even stranger is that the same Viganò, up to now ignored by the Vatican hierarchies and left immune from sanctions, just yesterday, coincidentally two weeks after the filing with the Vatican Tribunal of the petition for the recognition of the nullity of Benedict XVI's abdication (and of his impeded See), is suddenly summoned to answer for what he has said and done in the last five years. The summons also explicitly mentions Viganò's questioning of Bergoglio's legitimacy, but the prelate himself, in one of his last conferences with American professor Edmund Mazza, in a contradictory speech where he recommended refraining from abstract canonical speculations while at the same time theorizing Bergoglio's impeachment due to an imaginative "vice of consensus," categorically affirmed:"What we cannot do, because we do not have the authority, is to declare that Bergoglio is not pope. The terrible impasse in which we find ourselves makes any human solution impossible."

Viganò completely and purposely avoids (since he has been abundantly informed) citing the combined provisions of Articles 76 and 77 of Universi Dominici Gregis where it is explicitly stated that if the pope's renunciation is not made in accordance with can. 332.2, in which the renunciation of the munus is required (and this never took place) the election is null and void, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DECLARATION NEEDED. 

So Viganò could just as easily have declared that Bergoglio is not the pope according to that constitution as any Christi fidelis.

But he did not and does not.

What is worse, is that despite being literally bombarded by Andrea Cionci, in correspondence over the last few years, with hundreds of articles, books, public and private letters regarding the obvious issue of Benedict XVI's impeded See, Viganò has never wanted to talk about it, has never refuted it, he has only limited himself to discrediting the writer on a personal level by affixing to him the overused and ridiculous cliché of the "Dan Brown novelist," in spite of the four-year inquiry in which Latinists, canonists, church historians, lawyers, and renowned philosophers have participated.

We say it again then: if our inquiry were a novelette, it would have been well risky to file it in court.

Why then, avoiding like the plague is the only definitive solution? Yet, Viganò himself on April 5, 2022, on Aldo Maria Valli's blog stated, "But before discussing the next conclave, IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO STICK LIGHT ON THE ABDICATION OF BENEDICT XVI and on the issue of the fraud of the 2013 Conclave, which sooner or later will have to give rise to an official investigation. Should there be evidence of irregularities, the conclave would be null and void, Bergoglio's election null and void, just as all his appointments, acts of government and magisterium would be null and void. A reset that would providentially return us to the status quo ante, with an Assembly of Cardinals composed only of cardinals appointed by Benedict XVI, ousting all those created since 2013 who are notoriously ultra-progressive."

So, given that we served on a silver platter to the cardinal a comprehensive study of Benedict's abdication as null and void, exactly to achieve this goal, how come he avoided it without even examining or denying it?

Did he have another strategy? No. The Archbishop of Ulpiana did not in fact do anything to counter Bergoglio or question him. He merely founded an association, Exsurge Domini, to raise money (something that happened in a controversial way, as shown by the story of the nuns of Pienza that created bewilderment even among his supporters) and establish a sort of traditionalist enclave.

 At the same time, he terribly vilified Pope Benedict XVI by writing on Twitter, "We are ruled by apostates and this has lasted since the Council," or by liking a tweet that stated, "Ratzinger is as much a heretic as Rahner."He used writings of the 25-year-old Ratzinger to discredit him, calling him a Hegelian (as if that was an insult) and a modernist. In this work he was willingly aided by the writings of Professors Massimo Viglione and Enrico Maria Radaelli. They argue, showing only a few different nuances, that Benedict XVI, while driven out by the modernists, had wanted to give a shot in the arm by creating a sort of modernist double papacy, mistaking the real, obvious dichotomy between an active antipope and an impeded pope for a legal aberration with a legitimate active pope and a legitimate retired pope. A tragic misunderstanding: it is not clear why Ratzinger should have given the double modernist papacy to the modernist enemies. Just to cite an obvious point, if there had been two legitimate popes, why would Benedict in his nine years as emeritus-imposed reiterated "there is only one pope"? Answer not forthcoming. This simply moonshine doctrine, held up perhaps out of mere intellectual punctiliousness, may prove, however, to be a most useful tool in Bergoglio's hands.

The proof that Benedict XVI was impeded lies in the falsification that has been made of the Declaratio, especially in the German version, where the munus (Amt) and ministerium (Dienst) have been artfully switched places, as we already denounced with a dozen lawyers .

So if no one had noticed the illegality of his Declaratio, and everyone was in good faith, gulled by the "heretical modernist Ratzinger," why should one operate this mystification?

Viganò knows, but does not care. 

His modus operandi, after years of desperate attempts to establish a dialogue about the patented reality of the impeded See, has led us to think that the archbishop is a perfect GATEKEEPER, that is, a promoter of controlled dissent: he actually channels so many traditionalists and good Catholics by leading them to the dead end track of absolute inoffensiveness to Bergoglio. Now so many will come back to see him as an anti-Bergoglian champion, and they will end up in the sack.

Here is where the strange timing of the strange summons to trial promulgated by Tucho Fernandez fits coherently into this context. Viganó could prove most useful in several respects. At an elementary level, such a measure could function as an intimidation toward prelates who might want to take a stand against Francis' legitimacy. It would also be an excellent media diversion to deflect attention away from a possible trial on Ratzinger's impeded see, either by obscuring it or by confusing people with smoky and divergent arguments. If the trial in the Dicastery for the Faith tribunal were to convict Viganò, this could cause the impeded See to lump everything together and/or attempt to influence the work of the magistrates of the Vatican tribunal, creating a sort of confict between the two bodies.

Bergoglio is trying everything, as we saw yesterday. In his desperate rush for cover, in addition to having rocket-published in advance in Italian the propaganda book "El Sucesor" (the translation was scheduled for next fall) he also appointed a new chancellor to the Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. HERE .

He is really in trouble, but the most daring and cunning move could knowingly or unknowingly exploit Viganò himself. Let's imagine a scenario: the archbishop defends himself to the hilt by talking about the nullity of Ratzinger's abdication NOT BY IMPEDITED SEE, but by peddling to the media the blasphemous joke of the heretical and modernist Benedict XVI and the impossible double papacy.

The Dicastery for the Faith might unexpectedly agree with him and so, darn it, the whole thing is up for grabs: they convene the pre-2013 cardinals for a conclave-farce just to formally re-elect Bergoglio, or rather validly elect him for the first time. Thus Bergoglio would be healed, the temporary impasse would be all the fault of a heretical, senile, modernist Ratzinger, and this little disaster, healed thanks to the good Viganò-who would get absolution and his perks in return-would even better justify the final demolition of all that remains of the old Church of the post-Conciliar popes.

Don't you believe it? You will soon have EVIDENTAL PROOF of this design in the fact that Viganò, in his defense, WILL CONTINUE TO AVOID IN A CHIRICALLY WAY TO TALK ABOUT THE IMPEDITED SEE OF BENEDICT XVI. He will not make the slightest mention of it, and even the media confiscated by Bergoglio will beware of it. But it will be precisely the deafening silence on the issue that will put it even more in the spotlight.

Beware: until now it has never paid back to try to discredit the Vicar of Christ; it has always been a terrible boomerang. Such an operation, besides earning its promoters hell by directness (from a spiritual point of view), (impugning the truth, an unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit) is also doomed to failure because the truly Catholic world will not accept to see the greatest pope of the last centuries, who purified the Church by wiping out the ancient serpent of Gnosticism and ecclesiastical Freemasonry, thus discredited. The important thing is that those who know about the impeded seat (and everyone knows in the Vatican, even the museum custodians) stop being afraid, and allow the truth and the law to sweep through and overwhelm the enemies of the Church.