Cionci: Archbishop Viganò reveals himself at the American conference on Bergoglio
Cioncis response to the Conference
At Dr Cionci’s request, I am publishing his response to the conference on December 9.
Archbishop Viganò reveals himself at the American conference on Bergoglio
There was some excited anticipation in the world of Roman Catholic traditionalists for the online conference held on Saturday, 09 December 2023 and just published by its organizer, the American Dr. Edmund Mazza, on whether or not Bergoglio is the pope (“Is the Pope Catholic”, YouTube channel “SuperNerd”).
‘Twas a sort of “Festival of Gatekeeping” that took place -EXACTLY AS EXPECTED - in the public letter sent to Father Paul Kramer, the first speaker on the list and published in English and Italian on the American blog and substack author PopeHead HERE. We had predicted that not the slightest regard would be given to the fundamental and decisive issue of the impeded See and, in fact as some of our readers confirm, their proposed questions to the organisers on the impeded See position were dismissed. Not even Father Kramer, who is a staunch supporter of the “impeded See” position, was allowed to talk about it.
Instead, the fantastical “substantial error” theory was highlighted as the main event, which claims that Pope Benedict XVI, after just 60 years of his ecclesiastical career, had not fully understood what the role of the pope is and that, alas, he was mistaken as a “modernist” by renouncing the ministerium (doing pope) instead of the munus (being pope). It is a bit bold to assume that Ratzinger did not know that he had to renounce the munus, i.e. to abdicate it, having himself introduced that norm into canon law in 1983 (CIC can. 332.2), having later rigorously insisted on the difference between munus and ministerium in Pastor bonus (1988), having reiterated the need to respect can. 332.2 in Universi Dominici Gregis (1996), and having reconfirmed it with the motu proprio Normas Nonnullas in 2013.
It is not surprising that the most tenacious supporter of the “substantial error” theory is the cattle breeder and blogger Ann Barnhardt, a self-described "illiterate laywoman", “spinster”, and longstanding serial insulter of the present author, who accused Pope Benedict XVI of running away when faced with critical situations. Nothing could be more false, despite the apparent meekness of the man Ratzinger.
Best-in-show must be awarded to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò who, despite having noted in the video the irregularity of Pope Benedict's abdication, (on the basis, however, of the “substantial error” theorist Radaelli), never even wanted to consider any analysis of Ratzinger's canonical procedure for rectifying the conundrum of an impeded See that you will find collected in three short documentaries HERE. Viganò has not denied it and indeed has fought it from the beginning by sponsoring publications of the FSSPX that have attempted to attack the Ratzinger Code, now in its 77th pesentation, from September 2022, which will take place Monay, 11 December 2023 in Trent.
Until two days ago, the titular Archbishop of Ulpiana had made a sort of tour of the seven churches by proposing, in rotation, completely ineffective strategies for the removal of Bergoglio, dismantled systematically by other traditionalists. As for Bergoglio's heresies, there is nothing to be done: there is no jurisprudence to depose the heretical pope, as stated by Bishop Schneider, Fr. Curzio Nitoglia, and Prof. Massimo Viglione. As for the alleged irregularities in the (contradictorilly deemed legitimate) conclave of March 2013, these can be remedied by the “universal peaceful acceptance” of the cardinals (as Schneider, Siscoe, Salza claim). The proposal on Bergoglio's flawed consensus (as we immediately pointed out) is totally impracticable as historian Roberto de Mattei explains, since evidence is needed. All are obsessed with rabbit holes and dead ends and, instead, tip-toeing around the elephant in the room, which remains the unmentionable “impeded See”.
And so, on Saturday, 09 December 2023, Archbishop Viganò was finally able to get to what he had been aiming at for a long time: sheepishly shrugging and saying: I'm sorry, we tried, but you must retain – for reasons unexplained - along with the successive antipopes that will follow with the next conclave comprised of his illicitly and invalidly named non-cardinals. Here are his contradictory statements: ‘The Church is reviled because of the permanence on the throne of a usurper [...] (Bergoglio) actually acts like the biblical boar in the vineyard of the Lord, yet what we cannot do, because we do not have the authority, is to officially declare that Bergoglio is not pope. The terrible impasse we find ourselves in MAKES ANY HUMAN SOLUTION IMPOSSIBLE. Our task must not be to engage in abstract speculations of canonists'.
As Church historian Prof. Luca Brunoni has reiterated in the heat of the moment HERE, what Viganò says is resoundingly belied by Universi Dominici Gregis, Article 3, which imposes on cardinals the duty to protect the rights of the Apostolic See and not to let them fall, directly or indirectly, "not even to avoid dissensions". So, the cardinals have the duty and the power to intervene in the case of an impeded See, which was provided for by the true pope precisely in this way.
The combined provisions of Articles 76 and 77 of UDG (Universi Dominici Gregis) expressly state that the conditions precedent to the election of the pope must be fully respected, and among these - as chance would have it - is the vacancy of the See due to the pontiff's renunciation in accordance with canon 332.2, which never happened because Pope Benedict XVI, by said canon, had to renounce the munus and did not do so. If these conditions have not been met, the election is null and void, i.e. the person elected has no rights without the need for a declaration to that effect. For details, review the documentary Redde Rationem HERE
Thus, in order to remove Bergoglio it is enough for an authentic cardinal of pre-2013 appointment to simply tell the truth, “vere papa mortuus est” (the true Pope is dead). This is the obvious, canonically, theologically, and eschatologically consistent conclusion of the Ratzinger-Wojtyla preventitive anti-usurpation system.
Why does, therefore, Archbishop Viganò avoid this decades-old canonically established fast-track like the plague, even though he has been informed, since we sent him this summer, the entire enquiry, also through the Secretariat of State, where everything remains notarized, protocolled, and registered?
Unverified rumor has it that Viganò recently met with Bergoglio, and that he currently lives near Rome where he is ordaining priests and forming seminarians.
It has been proven completely that Viganò initially had launched a fund-raising campaign (between half a million to $1.5 million) with the declared aim of giving a convent back to the nuns of Pienza, who were about to be kicked out by Bergoglio and his minions. The nuns claim, however, to have been abandoned by Viganò (for whom, instead, they themselves would have accepted a unilateral decision), and the traditionalist website Ecclesiadei.it has been asking unsuccessfully the archbishop questions for some time about the fate of these funds collected under the pretext of saving the nuns. HERE
In the meantime, journalists and YouTube creators and personalities connected to Archbishop Viganò proceed in a continual attempt to discredit the present author with tons of condescension or explicit insults, which more often than not backfire on themselves HERE. Just take a look at the comments on Francesco Toscano's social networks, where several people, outraged, have deleted subscriptions and donations.
Archbishop Viganò is proving to be an even more insidious enemy for Catholics than Bergoglio: he channels dissent but renders it inert and ineffective, actively fighting the only ones who illustrate the only viable exit strategy planned by the Vicar of Christ.
It is paradoxical how Bergoglio's Secretary of State, Parolin, has courteously responded to our enquiry HERE while the antipope Francis' seeming enemy, Archbishop Viganò, attempts to scorch the earth around it.
His declared aim is to “parcel” the traditionalists by locking them up on an archipelago of little ghettos, gulags, and echo chamber islands where they can continue to celebrate invalid Latin Tridentine Masses, mincing and nancing about decked out in machine-sewn lace surplices and cheaply embroidered fiddlebacks but devoid of communion with a true Pope and, consequently, the Catholic Church.
We can, also, recall how Viganò publicly endorsed a Twitter post claiming that Ratzinger was as much a heretic as Rahner, and on the same social networking site he opines: 'We are governed by apostates, and this has been going on since the Council'. So, we’re to deduce that Pope Benedict XVI was an apostate, also. What, then, of the validity of Viganò’s own consecration as a bishop?
In the meantime, Viganò continues to ask for funds and refuses to provide clarification regarding those monies’ destinations.
An all too obvious and predictable pattern, and a parable that is sphinctering badly – the gatekeepers’ control stops are backfiring.
For Andrea Cionci's Libero newspaper article in the original Italian click here: https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/37803616/mons-vigano-si-svela-alla-conferenza-americana-su-bergoglio.html