© @tempoweb
Archbishop Vigano was recently summoned to answer accusations of committing three canonical offences: fomenting schism, questioning the legitimacy of the current Pope, and rejecting the second Vatican council of the Roman Catholic church which was held sixty years ago and whose controversial reforms have been agitating traditionalist Catholics ever since.
It is a delicious irony which will not be lost upon the students of Vatican affairs that the church organ now prosecuting Vigano, the innocuous sounding Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, historically is the direct successor to the Holy Office, the very agency that used to direct the Inquisition.
The Archbishop has declined to present himself before his accusers at the initial hearing held on 20 June. He has also refused to dignify the proceedings with, as he put it, "a predetermined outcome," by sending an advocate to plead his cause.
Since retiring as apostolic nuncio in the United States in 2016, Vigano has become a powerful voice denouncing moral lapses in the ranks of the Roman Catholic clergy. With increasing stridency, he has been taking the Vatican to task for failure to adequately address its in-house scandals. Over time, the scope of Vigano's public denunciations has continued to expand. Besides calling attention to the sordid moral atmosphere pervading the Roman Catholic church, Vigano has also been a persistent personal critic of current Pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio, specifically his failure to discipline the wrongdoers. Vigano's contrarian stance concerning the Covid emergency enlisted him even more enemies. Whilst Bergoglio publicly urged strict adherence to the Covid regime as practically a religious duty, Vigano used his bully pulpit to massively disseminate evidence to the contrary, echoing assertions by Prof. M. Chossudovsky that the "official 'corona narrative' is predicated on a 'Big Lie' endorsed by corrupt politicians".
Does Vigano have a case to answer with regard to the Roman Curia's vaguely formulated accusations against him? We should perhaps delay our response to that question until the trial, when presumably the evidence in support of the Vatican's charges shall be made public. There is little doubt, however, that Vigano and those who adhere to the traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic faith do have a coherent case for the current Pope and his entourage to answer. Without mincing words, in his response to the Curia's indictment Vigano has charged that it is the current pontiff who in his preaching and actions appears to be guided by quite another doctrine:
"Globalism calls for ethnic substitution: Bergoglio (Pope Francis) promotes uncontrolled immigration and calls for the integration of cultures and religions. Globalism supports LGBTQ+ ideology: Bergoglio authorizes the blessing of same-sex couples and imposes on the faithful the acceptance of homosexualism, while covering up the scandals of his protégés and promoting them to the highest positions of responsibility. Globalism imposes the green agenda: Bergoglio worships the idol of the Pachamama, writes delirious encyclicals about the environment, supports the Agenda 2030, and attacks those who question the theory of man-made global warming. He goes beyond his role in matters that strictly pertain to science, but always and only in one direction: a direction that is diametrically opposed to what the Church has always taught. He has mandated the use of experimental gene serums, which caused very serious damage, death and sterility, calling them 'an act of love,' in exchange for funding from pharmaceutical companies and philanthropic foundations. His total alignment with the Davos religion is scandalous".Compared to the gravity of those objections, the best indictment that the Curia was able to muster against Vigano does appear rather contrived and frivolous.
The Vatican has good reasons to fear that Vigano's bold dissidence could spin out of control. Dissatisfaction amongst the laity is such that it could produce a split with repercussions even more severe and far-reaching than resulted from Archbishop Lefebvre and his conservative followers' departure from the post-conciliar fold several decades ago. Note should be taken that the canonical status of that splinter group still remains unresolved. As presently constituted, the Society of Saint Pius X, originally founded by Lefebvre, is the archenemy of Modernism, which is the earlier designation for the globalist trap into which the Vatican has fallen. Lefebvre's vibrant traditionalist synod exhibits the disconcerting characteristics of a non-compliant "church within a church," which in fact is an unacceptable anti-church from the Vatican's standpoint. The Society steadfastly adheres to the nearly proscribed Latin Mass, has its own hierarchy, traditionalist parishes, seminaries, and other institutional structures that are required to sustain it. The Vatican may not be reading Vigano's intentions with regard to schism very accurately, but given the painful experience with Lefebvre its apprehension is understandable.
Why should these convulsions within Roman Catholicism even matter to Orthodox Christians?
Because the Orthodox communion is itself thoroughly infiltrated with globalist and, now perhaps indistinguishably, Crypto-Roman Catholic, prelates and theologians whose ultimate objective is the "ecumenist" fusion of world Orthodoxy with the religiously apostate Vatican. The Patriarch of Constantinople, titular "first in honour" amongst Orthodox hierarchs, is fully on board with this syncretistic project and so are several other influential Orthodox jurisdictions.
Union with a decadent Roman Catholicism that is by all accounts, and not just crediting Archbishop Vigano's grave allegations, shedding the last vestiges of traditional Christianity whilst embracing eagerly and at every level servitude to the toxic tenets of globalist ideology, for Orthodoxy is a suicidal proposition.
Reader Comments