VATICAN “Dicastery” charges Archbishop Viganò with Schism

Commentary and Canonical Critique by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

Editor’s Note: You can read the news from the source, at the Archbishop’s Italian Website, which now has an official English translation of the accusation and surrounding circumstances.

As I have said before, since this Dicastery was never erected by a man holding the Petrine Munus, the entire procedure against the Archbishop is null and void de jure. However, since he nominally recognizes the papal conclave of 2013 as being valid and as Pope Benedict XVI validly resigning, he is caught in the same juridical problem of all Pope Francis’ opponents, of putting himself, as it were, in the mouth of the crocodile on his own accord.

In addition, the Archbishop is being accused of violating a Canon, 1364, which does not exist, since it was published by Pope Francis before his juridically valid election, that is, during his antipapacy from March 13, 2013, to January 29, 2023.

Finally, it is indeed revealing, that the only person yet to be put on trial for heresy or schism by this new fake Dicastery is one of the most Catholic Archbishops of all the Roman Rite.

If the Archbishop publicizes the trial step by step, he will surely win over the entire Catholic world, as the proceedings of the trial will put on show the entire rotten ideological basis upon which the Bergoglian revolution is being perpetrated.

And if he defends himself, he will be able to argue that the conclave of 2013 was canonically invalid, that pope Francis was not therein validly elected. However, if he argues that Benedict XVI validly renounced the papacy, that it would seem that he is actually playing a game with the Globalists to confirm that the election of Pope Francis was valid and could only be considered invalid by mean-spirited presumptuous individuals like himself, since to accuse Bergoglio of not having the good will to be pope, while reasonable, has no basis in canon law for a determination by anyone but a future pope, and would thus expose him to an irrefutable counter-argument of making a false accusation, since the internal forum cannot be judged except by a  superior according to the principle de internis praetor non iudicat.

So while it seems that the anti-Church is moving against the Catholic Archbishop, the intersection of this other possibility makes is more likely that he has joined a public dispute with Pope Francis that is designed to make the latter win and the former lose, so as to undermine the true Catholic position expressed in the Sutri Initiative.

However, if someone were to convince the Archbishop to appeal immediately to a Provincial Council he could save himself and the Church by attacking all his problems at the core, by addressing the invalidity of a resignation of petrine ministry to effect a papal abdication. If he took that position he would indeed then force Pope Francis to recognize publicly his juridically valid election on Jan. 30, 2023 or to admit publicly that he was never the Roman Pontiff.

Let’s see if the Archbishop decides to play a game he can only lose, or fight on the field of the true battle, where he can only win. For true Catholic militancy belongs to the latter, and fake Masonic opposition belongs to the former.

Finally, I find it an indeed strikingly revealing, that the Archbishop entitles his response to the juridical accusation, with the words of Our Lord, recorded in the Gospel of Saint Mathew, chapter 7, verse 15, from the Vulgate: “Attendite a falsis prophetis”, “Beware of false prophets” in the plural. Because this juridical accusation and the Archbishop’s respond are excellent examples of the kind of narrative psyops the Globalists use to divide and conquer, when they put on the chess board of history two public opponents lauded by all controlled media sources, both of whom are wrong, because they accept the Globalist Big Lies as the truth. Thus, no matter which appears to win, the Big Lie is the winner, because the supporters of both prefer the football game-like ruckus and battle more than the truth.

Here the big lie is that Pope Benedict XVI abdicated, when the patent obvious truth is that he never actually renounced nor intended to renounce the Papal Dignity, and thus never renounced by word or intent the petrine munus. Thus, Pope Francis was not validly elected in 2013, and his changes in the Roman Curia in 2022 and penal code of the Church, therefore, are uncanonical and without force. Consequently, the Archbishop can not only NOT be charged, the “Dicastery” charging him has no more authority than a dry fig.

With Globalist Censorship growing daily, No one will ever know about the above article, if you do not share it.

7 thoughts on “VATICAN “Dicastery” charges Archbishop Viganò with Schism”

  1. Dear Brother Bugnolo,
    The following sentences seem confusing to me. Did you mean to say BXVI’s resignation was invalid? Or that Bergolio was validly elected?

    And if he defends himself, he will be able to argue that the conclave of 2013 was canonically invalid, that pope Francis was not therein validly elected. However, if he argues that Benedict XVI was validly elected, that it would seem that he is actually playing a game with the Globalists to confirm that the election of Pope Francis was valid

  2. Br. Bugnolo,

    I was just discussing the Vigano situation and his “lack of conscent” theory with my wife, who also read your commentary. And she asked if there was a canon law which regulates the acceptance of the papal office just as there is a canon regulating the renunciation of it. Is there such a canon regulating either the wording when accepting or some other aspect of the acceptance?


    1. The Papal Law for conclaves requires that the one accepting give a verbal response affirming his acceptance. I wrote about this in

      However, in elections by Apostolic Right, only acceptance is required, and it can be explicit or tacit, as there is no rule governing this.

      However, the problem with the Archbishop’s theory is that a judgement by authority needs to determine the lack of consent. It cannot be contested as a means of defense by the Archbishop. He has to appeal to a canonical body which can judge this matter. And there exists only one, the provincial council in the Roman Province, as the Sutri Initiative specifies in regard to accusations of heresy or invalidity in being elected. Invalidity in accepting can also be considered there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.