FSSPX Distances Itself from Monsignor Viganó

[Stone]

FSSPX Distances Itself from Monsignor Viganó

gloria.tv | June 26, 2024

The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX) issued a statement on 2[4] June distancing itself from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.

In his recent public defence, Viganò compared himself to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the FSSPX.

But the FSSPX objects that there is a crucial difference between them: "In his text, Archbishop Viganò makes a clear declaration of sedevacantism. In other words, according to him, Pope Francis is not a pope".

But: "On this point, neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor the fraternity he founded would agree."

On the other hand, as bad as it was when Mgr Lefebvre rebelled [and Viganó was a happy employee of the Holy See], what is happening now in the Church is at least ten times worse, and the shockwave that Mgr Lefebvre created was much greater than the one that Monsignor Viganó is causing today.

The Vatican Activates Extrajudicial Proceedings Against Archbishop Viganò

JUNE 24, 2024
SOURCE: FSSPX NEWS

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò published on the internet the letter from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF). It notified him of his summons to appear at the DDF Palace on June 20, after the opening of an “extrajudicial” criminal trial against him.


A Little Explanation

What is an extrajudicial criminal trial? According to the DDF Vademecum published on June 5, 2022, the extrajudicial criminal trial, sometimes called an “administrative trial,” is a form of criminal trial which reduces the formalities provided for in the judicial trial in order to accelerate the course of justice. It does not eliminate the procedural guarantees required for a fair judgment.

For offenses reserved to the DDF, it is up to the DDF alone, on a case-by-case basis, ex officio or at the request of the Ordinary, to decide whether to proceed this way. Just like a judicial trial, an extrajudicial criminal trial can take place at the DDF – which is the case for Viganò – or be entrusted to a lower authority.


The Accusations Made by the DDF

The decree of summons mentions the charge Viganò will face during the trial. The crime of schism is put forward, because of certain public affirmations negating 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.

Following this summons, Viganò published a communiqué, available online, to respond to these accusations. He defends himself in various ways, invoking the doctrinal wanderings of the current pontificate; rejecting neo-modernist errors; and asserting his case compares to that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, also summoned in his time to the Palace of the former Holy Office .

There is, however, one point which significantly differentiates him from the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X: Archbishop Viganò makes a clear declaration of sedevacantism in his text. In other words, according to him, Pope Francis is not pope.

How does he explain this? Because of a “defect of consent” from Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio when accepting the papacy. That is, according to Viganò, Cardinal Bergoglio considered the papacy as something other than what it really is. He accepted the pontifical office without fully consenting, and this error resulted in the nullity of his acceptance. His pontificate would therefore be that of a place-holder.

Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society he founded have not ventured down that perilous road.

[Stone]

Short commentary on the above SSPX article/reaction by the Non Possumus blog [machine translated from the Spanish, slightly reformatted]:

✠ ✠ ✠

The first thing that impacts this Neo-FSSPX article is the coldness - which seems derogatory - regarding a prelate who is risking everything in his war against Roman antichrists. Also very shocking is the subtle and implicit defense made by the [SSPX] of the current pope, minimizing his devastating and devastating action in this passage: "Monsignor Viganò ... defends himself in various ways, invoking the doctrinal wanderings of the current pontificate"... ¿The "doctrinal wanderings" of the current pontificate? According to the dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy of Language, that word means "Vicissitudes, adventures, trances." It is truly incredible that the FSSPX thus bleaches this monstrous and horrifying pontificate.

The Neo-FSSPX behaves with Archbishop Viganò in the manner of the brother of the prodigal son, as evidenced by these words of Fr. Gleize, the favorite theologian of Ménzingen: He (Archbishop Viganò) takes note of what is happening in the Church, but for us it is not something new... for us, priests of the Fraternity, it is touching and naive because we have been doing this for 50 years. So we are happy about it, of course! But it's like the youngest in the family finally realizing that the world is evil. He's a very zealous neophyte. They (Msgr. Schneider and Msgr. Viganò) speak loud and clear, they lament, they are sometimes harsher than us, but what do they do? Lefebvre left something behind him, not words, not wind. These are voices that are welcome in the Church, but they are only words of outcasts (source).

Archbishop Viganò and the Neo-FSSPX are like two ships that are very close to each other, only this is because they are going "in opposite directions: Viganò is on a rapid path towards Tradition, while the FSSPX is practically committed to mitigated conciliarism" (date of this article). What FSSPX wants is "the canonical recognition [from the] modernists, then the conversion of Bishop Viganò to Tradition will simply be described by Menzingen as inappropriate" (idem), contrary to what happened with Monsignor Lazo in the times when the Fraternity remained faithful. And that is why Monsignor Huonder's approach was also seen as something convenient and very opportune by the leadership of the Fraternity. The cases of Bishop Lazo (hosted liberal), Msgr. Huonder (hosted "right" liberal) and Msgr. Viganò (rejected liberal), clearly prove the deviation of the congregation.

But let's continue: as we have repeatedly denounced in this blog, the Fraternity [SSPX] has normally chosen to ignore Bishop Viganò. This time, however, since the facts are of the utmost gravity, it was necessary to say something, but what? Well highlight the worst (real or supposed) of him: Attention: Viganò is a sedevacantist! Taking a step further than the brother of the prodigal son, the FSSPX adds its voice to those of those who persecute Bishop Viganò when he accuses him of being a sedevacantist: "Monsignor Viganò makes a clear statement of sedevacantism in his text. In other words, according to him, Pope Francis is not Pope. ¿How do you explain this? Due to a "consent vice" of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, when accessing the supreme power: considering the papacy as something different from what it really is, the elected of 2013 accepted the papal office without fully consenting to it, and this error led to the nullity of its acceptance. His pontificate would therefore be a troupe."  But this accusation of the Fraternity is false.

Archbishop Viganò does not do that in his statement. Instead, this is what it says: "Bergoglio's default consent (vitium consensus) by accepting your choice, it is based precisely on the evident alienation of its action of government and teaching regarding what any Catholic of any time expects from the Vicar of Christ and Successor of the Prince of the Apostles." And in the conference which explains in detail the possible vice of consent in the papal election (vitium consensus), ends by saying this another (min. 33:50): "This situation is humanly incurable because ... the corruption of authority cannot be remedied by those who are subject to it". In other words, the Archbishop recognizes that Catholics are subject to the authority of Bergoglio. ¿Why? Because - unfortunately - he is the pope. The Neo-FSSPX article is then unfair and misleading. In the worst case, ideas about a possible vice of consent in the papal election bring Bishop Viganò closer to the sedevacantist position, but it is totally false that "Monsignor Viganò makes a clear statement of sedevacantism in his text."

FSSPX's attitude towards Archbishop Viganó, which ranges from ignoring to attacking him, is a clear consequence of the liberal drift of the congregation. "In the early 1990's, an archbishop on the way to integral traditionalism would have been the greatest news of Tradition. We would have read about it on every FSSPX website and blog. We would have heard sermons on it in chapels around the world. It would have been received as a tremendous stimulus and a miracle of grace.  That's how Monsignor Lazo converted to Tradition, but... Viganò is a persona non grata at the FSSPX." (del article cited above).

It is clear, once again, that for the Neo-FSSPX, the courageous Archbishop Viganò is a dangerous leper, for any rapprochement with that enemy of Bergoglio can destroy hopes of "normalization". He is a leper, yes, or - worse than that - another uncomfortable John the Baptist who must be removed from the middle, or - worse still - another who is better left in the hands of those who subject him to an unjust judgment to crucify him...

Nihil novum sub sole ( nothing new under the sun ).

[Stone]

An article dedicated to this issue from the Non Possumus blog [machine translated from the Spanish, slightly adapted]:

A FRATERNITY EVERY TIME LESS FRATERNAL, EVERY TIME MORE FRATRICIDAL



Cain and Abel, Mironov

June 25, 2024 [emphasis mine]

Now that Archbishop Viganò has been claimed by the “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith” (DDF) to be judged in “schis ”, the Neo-FSSPX, far from solidarity with a prelate who has been summoned by the worst enemies of the Church through a Vatican dependency that, far from being interested in defending the faith defends heresy, apostasy, and sodomitic aberration (Doesn't anyone know that their ultimate manager, “Tucho Fernández”, is a notorious depraved promoter of degeneration sexual?), has brought out its haughty disdain for the Archbishop. ¿Is this surprising? Not for us who know well the unfair and suicidal orientation adopted by those who occupied the command posts, after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre.

In effect, the Neo-FSSPX, which no longer has prominent columnists or responsible opinion makers (if there are any of their writings no transcend some limited parish bulletin from somewhere from France), but only with a gray official information site from where, always in a dry style, supposedly ironic and successful, more always carefully cushioned with respect to Rome Modernist, he makes known his position on various topics. In this case, through a short text of just over a page, reflects the hot news without the slightest sign of solidarity or understanding towards the archbishop persecuted by the modernists Romans. Rather take advantage of – once again- detach from Archbishop Viganò, whom he has never been able to swallow for his language so close to that of Archbishop Lefebvre, inopportune of course for any type of compromise, acquiescence, or peaceful coexistence with the Council Church of Francis. Time to speak is over “yes, yes, no, no”. It is dangerous. Especially after the lifting of the “excommunications”, begged by the Neo-FSSPX to become drinkable to the Roman council authorities.

Let's pass to the mentioned article (above). After giving one brief explanation on “What is an extrajudicial criminal trial?”, evidently timely, it goes on to refer “the accusations presented by DDF”. So far, in its informative asepsis, the Neo-FSSPX has delimited fully inform the reader that the aforementioned DDF it is in the hands of people not only incompetent, but themselves they should be tried and expelled from where they have been posted, as usurpers who are. They mention that the DDF body is chaired by “Tucho ” Fernández – whom Viganò takes good care of describe in some of his nauseating background- shines for his absence. Thus, one might believe that things are “normal ” in the Church, when it comes to criminals, spiritual and doctrinal, agents of the Counter-Church and of the counter-nature, they are preparing to avenge an archbishop for having publicly challenged through his complaints, the tyrannical power that he perched such characters in positions of power in the Vatican.

Daring that, of course, cannot be attributed to the new one and FSSPX function, previously attended in the operating room of the plastic surgeon to remove your scars from combat. Can not then but pretend to keep sine macula. That is also what the warnings recently launched by the P. de Jorna, on the occasion of announcing upcoming episcopal neo-consecrations, opening the umbrella long before time.

Or maybe wanting to give the image that they are going to do the same thing that Mons. Lefebvre did, and therefore they will be “persecuted”, when in truth they are the only ones in tradition who have not stopped receiving favors from Francisco.

But if you look closely, the newsletter where the letter appears of the Superior of the District of France is accompanied by images of major projects underway to build expensive and large churches in France, in addition to a long list of benefits. ¿Can allow yourself such a developed congregation to lose its clients, putting your assets at risk? (Excuse us for talking like that, but it is not a secret that for many years the FSSPX was put to the consideration of a business branding company, so that the model and advertise according to how it is done with the big ones trademarks, operation that has been very successful).

Towards the end, the article from the FSSPX news site brings out what would be the sin of Viganò that separates him from them themselves: “Monsignor Viganò makes a clear statement of sedevacantism in its text. In others words, according to him, Pope Francis is not Pope.

¿How do you explain this? Due to a "lack of consent" of the cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, when accessing the supreme power: considering the papacy as something other than what it really is, the 2013 chosen one accepted the papal office without fully consenting to it, and this error derived in the nullity of its acceptance. His pontificate would be, for so much, a troupe." But, como is explained very well in an article by Non Possumus, “this accusation of the Fraternity is false. Archbishop Viganò does not that in his statement. Instead, this is what it says: "The Bergoglio defect of consent (vitium consensus) when accepting his choice is based precisely on the evident alienation of his government and teaching action regarding what any Catholic of any time awaits the Vicar of Christ and Successor of the Prince of the Apostles." AND in the conference than explains in detail about the possible vice of consent in the papal election (vitium consensus), ends by saying this another (min. 33:50): "This situation is humanly incurable because ... the corruption of the authority cannot be remedied by those who are subject to she". The Archbishop recognizes that Catholics are subject to Bergoglio's authority. ¿Why? Because - unfortunately- he is Pope. The article of the Neo-FSSPX [assumes] the worst case, ideas about a possible vice of consent in the papal election they bring Bishop Viganò to the sedevacantist posture, but it is totally false that "Monsignor Viganò makes a clear statement of sedevacantism in its text."

Now Well, although Viganò may not always be as clear as Mons. Lefebvre, and without having to adopt a sedevacantist position, right it is, however, in the duty to respectfully consider the position of one who has shown himself to be serious and consistent in his actions and statements, what is Monsignor Viganò? ¿Is there not the right to allow great doubt, perplexity and questioning that the Archbishop Viganò believed he could solve the way he has (“defect of consent”), to explain the behavior no longer anomalous, heretical, scandalous or solvent of Bergoglio, but its modus operandi that goes much further than the previous popes councilors?

As one of the many examples, recently the Dicastery for the Promotion of Christian Unity has proposed to “review the form of the papacy and its exercise of authority at the service of the ecclesial communion”, in a reflection “made together”, between all Christian denominations: “Has the time has come to take new steps in the ecumenical dialogues”, and “put on agree on an acceptable exercise of a unity ministry for the whole Church”.

So Francisco is taking accelerated steps to finish both with the Catholic [Latin] Mass and the papacy, in order to install the [up]coming version of the Conciliar church: the Synodal Church.

It is true that, as the Neo-FSSPX article ends, “Monsignor Lefebvre and the Fraternity that he founded [did not] want to venture into this point” (questioning of the legitimacy of the authority of the pope), but it is also true that no other pontiff ever ventured as much as Francisco does now, in a series of measurements, gestures, and words that tend to completely destroy every Catholic vestige in the Church.

It is true, Archbishop Lefebvre was not afraid of harsh words, [though he] believed [then] necessary and fair, and today I would not stop saying if not everything, practically the same as Bishop Viganò. So e.g., when Mons. Lefebvre wrote his letter to the four consecrated future bishops, on 29 August 1987, he did not hesitate to say that “the See of Peter and the positions of authority in Rome are occupied by antichrists”, and than “ the destruction of the Reign of Our Lord continues rapidly within his Mystical Body on this earth, especially for the corruption of the Holy Mass, demonstration splendid of the triumph of Our Lord on the cross”.

Bergoglio goes beyond the corruption of the Mass and tries directly make it disappear. ¿Is there a conditional FSSPX response to  that? Oh, we will be told that you are going to consecrate new bishops. ¿Perhaps from Huonder style? In 1987 - almost forty years ago! - Mons. Lefebvre said (in the quoted letter) that “this Modernist and liberal Rome continues its destructive work of the Reign of Our Lord”. In change now, in the dark times of “Fiducia supplicans”, timidly says the superior of France P. de Jorna: “Not having the ecclesial situation has improved since 1988, we have to think about give helpers [to the current three bishops], who one day will become their substitutes”. With a calculated language harmless, avoid in your letter any reference to modernism and liberalism of the Vatican authorities, I dare not even mention the Second Vatican Council. ¿How, then, could [there be] any allusion to Bergoglian Iscariotism? Nothing of that. Once you raised the “excommunications”, were they going to risk being newly excommunicated?

Let's meditate, to finish, these words of a saint: “St. Chrysostom asks: "What is the cause for the primitive Church Christians being so good and so fervent, and today are they so lukewarm and reluctant?" And he answers, "that the cause is because then they went out to fight the demon naked, stripping themselves of their assets and estates; but now they come out very dressed in benefits, estates and honor: and those garments hinder and impede them a lot. For this we leave wealth, and get rid of all things of the world, so that free and unraveled we can better fight the devil, and follow Christ. The most naked fighter strongly fights: the swimmer strips off his clothes to pass the river; the walker leaving the load and burden walks more uprightly.” (San Alonso Rodríguez, “Treatise on perfection and virtues Christian”).

- F.M.


N.B.: To reflect: “No, we would say that the good God wants to make us atone for our adherence to the goods of the earth and force us to practice poverty, put that we don't want it voluntarily? The best spirits have thought that the atrocious cataclysm that swept from France so many teaching congregations was for many a providential punishment of this unfortunate mania to bury large sums in huge constructions that had multiplied to excess during the last twenty years” (“Pourquoi notre ministère est stérile pu peu fructueux ”, par un prêtre, 1905).

Perhaps it is worth noting that, e.g., while the FSSPX in the USA was carrying out large ("pharaonic") and multiple building works, and sumptuously publicizing its exponential growth, the superior of that same district was engaged in the sexual predation of minors, a matter to which he himself confessed and for which he has just been sentenced to two years in prison in France. Has the punishment for the Neo FSSPX come to an end, or is it still to come?