Posted on 06/21/2026 1:50:56 PM PDT by ebb tide
The letter to Leo XIV from Monsignor Carlo Maria Viganò [here] has the merit of confronting the Pope with inescapable questions. And since it comes not from a fanatical ideologue but from a faithful servant of the Church, it fully warrants being taken seriously by anyone questioning what has become of a Church that still calls itself Catholic but, in essence, no longer is.
The story of his journey within the Church speaks for Viganò. His was a long career in the service of the Holy See: the diplomatic corps, the Secretariat of State, Nigeria, the Governorate, and the Nunciature to the United States. His efforts to combat corruption in Vatican City are well known to those familiar with that world. His 2018 dossier—accusing Francis and other high-ranking officials of covering up the McCarrick scandal—remains a formidable indictment. The isolation and threats he faced in return demonstrate that he struck a raw nerve.
That council was not an “aggiornamento”—an updating. It was a revolution. It was a process of subversion, carefully planned and affecting every sector of the Church’s life: doctrine, liturgy, sacraments, discipline, canon law, and ecclesiology. When Viganò describes the post-conciliar Church as an occupation from within—aimed at imposing a theological design different from the previous one—he is simply capturing reality. History confirms it.
And so, a retired apostolic nuncio—who ought to be commended for his service and courage—is forced to beg for a meeting with the Pope. Yet the Pope does not reply.
Rome excommunicated Viganò using a Stalinist method. The Church of dialogue and inclusion brought the axe down on this faithful servant of hers. All this for having questioned Vatican II—a council that sought to be pastoral rather than dogmatic.
Let us reflect on this. Viganò was not excommunicated for denying, for example, transubstantiation, the Virgin Mary’s virginity, or the resurrection of the dead. No. He was cast out for critically analyzing a pastoral council and the path the Church has taken in the wake of that rupture.
The archbishop’s letter has the merit of backing into a corner those conservatives who still toy with the hermeneutic of continuity. And the very policy of Rome—according to which adherence to Vatican II, rather than to the Deposit of Faith, is the proof of fidelity—demonstrates that Viganò is right.
When Monsignor Viganò asks Leo XIV to show him where he, as a servant, has contradicted the depositum fidei, he confronts him with a decisive challenge. And perhaps this is precisely the reason why an audience has not yet been granted. The burden of proof lies with the Pope. Can Rome seriously demonstrate that Viganò is a schismatic? Or is it not, in fact, Rome that has excommunicated itself?
The final passages of the letter also deserve to be highlighted.
“I trust,” writes Monsignor Viganò to the Pope, “that Your Holiness will grant me an audience, following the cancellation of the one previously scheduled for last December 11th. I will then be able to communicate to you in person certain matters of the utmost importance regarding my apostolic ministry and the need to ensure its continuity and future.”
Note well: Viganò speaks not only of “matters of the utmost importance” linked to his episcopal ministry but states that they concern the need to ensure “continuity and future” for that ministry.
Are sensational developments in store?
Ping
ebby, “Are sensational developments in store?” Why yes! The excommunicated vig wants to make amends for his anti-Catholic behavior. Amen!
Now look who the liar is.
You’re such a hypocrite.
no, ebby make no mistake, vig is excommunicated. Sorry liar it ain’t a lie:
Yes. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has been formally declared excommunicated for the canonical crime of schism by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
On 4 July 2024, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith concluded an extrajudicial penal process against Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, accusing him of the reserved delict of schism under canons 751 and 1364 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. At the end of this process, he was found guilty of schism, and the Dicastery declared that he had incurred a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication in accordance with canon 1364 §1.
Being excommunicated by Jorge the Heretic from his damnable synodal “church” is a badge of honor.
The above is a lie, oystir. But you are known for spreading those lies.
“The letter to Leo XIV from Monsignor Carlo Maria Viganò [here] has the merit of confronting the Pope with inescapable questions. And since it comes not from a fanatical ideologue but from a faithful servant of the Church, it fully warrants being taken seriously by anyone questioning what has become of a Church that still calls itself Catholic but, in essence, no longer is.” What are these inescapable questions?
The excommunicated vig can’t even partake in sacraments. vig ain’t one to seek your personal advice from. vig, in fact, needs to make amends. It’s really pretty simple, ebby. Why would you mislead other souls?
Why else would an excommunicated fool wish to speak with the Vatican, a Bishop, Church authorities or the Pope other than to seek repentance? Even vig knows this, ebby
ebby, why you have problems with simple ideas vexes most of FR. Here is today’s lesson:
Excommunication is a serious sign that someone (vig; lefebrve died in such a state) is objectively in a spiritually dangerous situation, cut off from the ordinary channels of grace in the sacraments (except in some cases, like the possibility of absolution if there is repentance and the Church’s law allows). That is why the Church urges prayer and hope for the conversion of those who are excommunicated, rather than presuming the fool knows what he is talking about - sound familiar, ebby? It’s time for a conversion, ebby. Quit misleading the faithful, ebby.
Sorry, oystir, but as long as the Vatican allows German, and other, bishops to continue promoting womyn “priests”, homosexual “marriages”, women’s right to abortions, lay-led Masses, etc., the “excommunication” of traditional priests and bishops is a joke.
Especially when the homo Tucho Fernandez is the one threatening “excommunications”.
Bergoglio’s synodal “church” is queer-loving joke; it is not the Catholic Church.
Excommunication was an invention of Pope Gregory VII to punish Henry IV for being naughty. Henry begged for forgiveness in 1077 but a second dispute resulted in Henry’s forces taking Rome in 1084.
The Investiture Controversy is interesting history but not really based on scripture. There is Matt. 16:18,19 and Matt. 18:18 but only God can determine the destiny of anybody’s soul.
Not true.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
While excommunication ranks first among ecclesiastical censures, it existed long before any such classification arose. From the earliest days of the Christian society it was the chief (if not the only) ecclesiastical penalty for laymen; for guilty clerics the first punishment was deposition from their office, i.e. reduction to the ranks of the laity. Subsequently, when ecclesiastical discipline allowed clerics more easily to resume their ministry, the ancient deposition became suspension; thenceforth even clerics were subject to excommunication, by which they lost at once their rights as Christians and as clerics. Both laymen and clerics were henceforth threatened or punished with excommunication for offences that became daily more definite and numerous, particularly for refusing obedience either to special ecclesiastical precepts or the general laws of the Church. Once the forum externum, or public ecclesiastical tribunal, was distinctly separated from the forum sacramentale, or tribunal of sacramental penance, say from the ninth century on, excommunication became gradually an ever more powerful means of spiritual government, a sort of coercive measure ensuring the exact accomplishment of the laws of the Church and the precepts of her prelates. Excommunication was either threatened or inflicted in order to secure the observance of fasts and feasts, the payment of tithes, the obedience of inferiors, the denunciation of the guilty, also to compel the faithful to make known to ecclesiastical authority matrimonial impediments and other informatio
Thank you for posting this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.