Author Topic: Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? NOPE (Read 3800 times)

Mr G · « **on:** July 30, 2024, 10:19:05 AM »

Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

Does Viganò refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff?

It is clear from his public statements that Viganò refuses submission to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who currently claims to occupy the See of St. Peter under the papal name of Francis.

However, it is equally clear that Viganò does not, by this act, intend to refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff because he does not believe that Francis holds that position. One clear example, taken from his statement in response to the Vatican’s accusation of schism, will suffice to express the archbishop’s position:

Quote

I strongly reject the accusation of having torn the seamless garment of the Savior and of having departed from being under the Supreme Authority of the Vicar of Christ: in order to separate myself from ecclesial communion with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, I would have to have first been in communion with him, which is not possible since Bergoglio himself cannot be considered a member of the Church, due to his multiple heresies and his manifest alienness and incompatibility with the role he invalidly and illicitly holds.

It is clear therefore that Viganò intends to refuse submission to Francis, but does not intend to refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff. He does not consider Francis to be the Supreme Pontiff.
Two questions therefore arise:

Is it schismatic to refuse submission to a doubtful claimant to the papacy?

Are Francis’s claims to the papacy truly doubtful?

Is rejection of a doubtful pope schismatic?

To refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff, or to the Successors of the Apostles who govern the Church in union with him, is schismatic.
However, one has no obligation to obey a superior whose claim to an office is doubtful.

In their commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Fr. Francis X. Wernz and Fr. Peter Vidal state that it “would be rash to obey such a man who had not proved his title in law.” They explain further:

Quote

[J]urisdiction is essentially a relation between a superior who has the right to obedience and a subject who has the duty of obeying. Now when one of the parties to this relationship is wanting, the other necessarily ceases to exist also, as is plain from the nature of the relationship.^[6]

In other words, a person only has an obligation to obey when there is someone who has the capacity to receive that obedience. One can only have the obligation to submit to a pope, when there is a pope to whom one can submit.
They continue:

Quote

However, if a pope is truly and permanently doubtful, the duty of obedience cannot exist towards him on the part of any subject. For the law, ‘Obedience is owed to the legitimately-elected successor of St. Peter,’ does not oblige if it is doubtful; and it most certainly is doubtful if the law has been doubtfully promulgated, for laws are instituted when they are promulgated, and without sufficient promulgation they lack a constitutive part, or essential condition.

As explained elsewhere, for a law or command to be legitimate, it must be duly promulgated by a legitimate authority. If the legitimacy of an authority is doubtful, then so too is the law or command, and there can be no intrinsic obligation to observe it. If this were otherwise, it would lead to the absurd position that anyone with some claim to plausibility could claim to hold authority, and others would be bound to obey them.

For example, if that were so, one would be obliged to obey someone who acted in the role of police officer, or army officer, or bishop, for as long as one was in doubt as to whether their claims were genuine. An obligation to obey doubtful authorities would be the end of legitimate authority and true freedom.

Hence, with reference to the papacy, Wernz and Vidal continue:

Quote

But if the fact of the legitimate election of a particular successor of St. Peter is only doubtfully demonstrated, the promulgation is doubtful; hence that law is not duly and objectively constituted of its necessary parts, and it remains truly doubtful and therefore cannot impose any obligation.
Indeed, it would be rash to obey such a man who had not proved his title in law.

And they continue:

Quote

The same conclusion is confirmed on the basis of the visibility of the Church. For the visibility of the Church consists in the fact that she possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned, especially on the part of her legitimate officers. But in the supposition we are considering, the pope cannot be found even after diligent examination. The conclusion is therefore correct that such a doubtful pope is not the proper head of the visible Church instituted by Christ.

If one cannot see, after due diligence has been deployed, that a man possesses all those signs and identifying marks proper to a pope – such as being male, baptized, publicly professing the Catholic faith, in communion with the members of the Church, in possession of the use of reason, and duly elected and accepted by the Church – then one cannot reasonably conclude that such a man is in fact the pope. (For more on what is required for a valid papal election see here.)

A doubtful pope is to be regarded as not the pope. Indeed, there is a traditional maxim “papa dubius, papa nullus.” A doubtful pope is no pope.

To refuse submission to a doubtful pope is an act of prudence, not an act of schism.
Wernz and Vidal write:

Quote

They cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation.^[7]

This is the standard teaching of Catholic theologians.

The renowned fifteenth century theologian Cardinal Cajetan states:

Quote

If someone, for reasonable motive, holds the person of the pope in suspicion and refuses his presence and even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delict of schism, not any other whatsoever, provided that he be ready to accept the pope were he not held in suspicion.^[8]

And noted seventeenth century theologian Juan de Lugo comments:

Quote

[H]e will not be a schismatic who denies submission to the Pope because he doubts probably about his legitimate election or his authority.^[9]

And mid-twentieth century theologian Rev. Ignatius J. Szal writes:

Quote

Nor is there any schism… if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.^[10]

Therefore, it is clear that to refuse submission to a claimant to the papacy because their claim is doubtful, is not schismatic.
We must now ask whether the claims of Francis to the papacy are doubtful.

Is Francis a doubtful pope?

An increasing number of Catholics regard it as morally certain or at least probable, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected to the papal office or, if he was, has since lost that office.

There are a number of different arguments that are put forward to support this position.

To do justice to all these arguments and provide them in their fullest and most comprehensive form, is beyond the scope of this article. Instead, we will briefly summarise some of the more important arguments, while giving references to more detailed presentations or supporting material.

Quote

(i) The argument from membership of the Church

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that public heretics are not members of the Church. This doctrine has been explained in great detail in this article on public heresy and Church membership.

Dutch theologian Monsignor G. Van Noort summarizes the position as follows:

Quote

Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors – baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy – pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership of the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church.^[11]

Monsignor Van Noort, like other theologians, makes clear that what severs a person from membership of the Church is the public nature of the heresy and not an individual’s personal culpability. He writes:

Quote

By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic).^[12]

It has also been clearly demonstrated that Francis is a public heretic. For example, the 2017 filial correction identified numerous distinct heresies which Francis has publicly professed and never retracted, despite being publicly corrected.
The pope, as head of the Church, must be a member of the Church, as theologian Rev. Sylvester Berry writes:

Quote

He must be a member of the Church since no one can be the head of any society unless he be a member of that society.^[13]

Therefore, if Francis is not a member of the Church, he cannot be pope.

The argument can be expressed in the following syllogisms:

Quote

Major premise: A public heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church
Minor premise: Francis is a public heretic
Conclusion: Francis is not a member of the Catholic Church

Major premise: The pope is a member of the Catholic Church
Minor premise: Francis is not a member of the Catholic Church
Conclusion: Francis is not the pope.

Another line of argument that could be pursued is that Francis is a public schismatic, and therefore neither a member of the Church nor the pope, due to his persecution of the traditional rites of the Roman Church.

As famed sixteenth century Jesuit theologian Francisco Suarez, the Doctor Eximius, wrote: “And in this second mode the Pope could be schismatic, in case he did not want to have due union and coordination with the whole body of the Church as would be the case if he tried to excommunicate the whole Church, or if he wanted to subvert all the ecclesiastical ceremonies founded on apostolic tradition, as we observed by Cajetan (ad II-II, q. 39) and, with greater amplitude, Torquemada (1. 4, c.11).”^[14]

Quote

(ii) Argument from lack of intention to fulfil the office of Pope

Archbishop Viganò has argued that Francis did not assume the papacy because he never intended to carry out the papal office. His position can be read in detail here. Others have put forward similar arguments over the years, such as proponents of the Thesis of Cassiacuм.
The general position could be expressed as follows:

Quote

Major premise: A man who resolutely refuses to fulfil the duties of an office which he putatively holds either tacitly resigns, or never accepted the office to start with.
Minor premise: Francis resolutely refuses to fulfil the duties of the office of the papacy which he putatively holds.
Conclusion: Francis has either tacitly resigned or never accepted the office to start with.
(iii) Argument from the unity of the Church

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church possesses four marks by which she is to be always easily identified. These are the marks of (i) unity, (ii) sanctity, (iii) catholicity, and (iv) apostolicity.

These marks must always be clearly visible. As the First Vatican Council taught:

Quote

[T]o enable us to fulfil the obligation to embrace the true faith and to persistently persevere in it, God has instituted the Church through his only-begotten Son, and has bestowed on it manifest marks of that institution, that it may be recognized by all men as the guardian and teacher of the revealed Word.^[15]

The first of these marks, that of unity, manifests itself as (i) unity of faith, (ii) unity of worship, and (iii) unity of government. The Church is always visibly united in faith, such that that unity is obvious to any honest observer. This unity of faith is brought about by the submission of all the members of the Church to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium of the Church.
Monsignor Van Noort explains:

Quote

The unity of faith which Christ decreed without qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office. In fact, our Lord requires nothing other than the acceptance by all of the preaching of the apostolic college, a body which is to continue forever; or, what amounts to the same thing, of the pronouncements of the Church’s teaching office, which He Himself set up as the rule of faith. And the essential unity of faith definitely requires that everyone hold each and every doctrine clearly and distinctly presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office; and that everyone hold these truths explicitly or at least implicitly, i.e., by acknowledging the authority of the Church which teaches them.^[16]

The visible principle of this unity is the pope, who is the supreme teacher of the faith. By being submissive to the teaching of the pope, the Church is united in that remarkable unity of faith which is one of her visible marks. The word principle here means origin. The Church is visibly united because every member submits to the teaching of the pope.

But it is quite clear that Francis is not the cause of the visible unity of the Catholic faithful. In fact, rejection of the heresies taught by Francis is something that is common to all faithful Catholics. Indeed, if a person were to submit to the whole body of doctrine proposed by Francis they would, as a result of that submission, depart from the visible unity of the faith.

As Francis is not the visible principle of unity of the Catholic Church, he cannot be the pope.

Quote

(iv) Argument from the disciplinary infallibility of the Church

This argument is based on the infallibility of the Church’s universal laws.

The pope can never make universal laws or establish disciplines which are intrinsically evil.

Pope Pius IV in the 1578 papal bull Auctorem Fidei, condemned the following proposition:

Quote

‘…the Church, which is ruled by the Spirit of God, could establish a discipline not merely useless and insupportable for the Christian spirit, but even dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and to materialism.’

Dom Prosper Gueranger summarized the standard teaching of theologians:

Quote

It is an article of Catholic doctrine that the Church is infallible in the laws in which her general discipline consists – so that it is not permissible to maintain, without breaking with orthodoxy, that a regulation emanating from the sovereign power in the Church with the intention of obliging all the faithful, or at least a whole class of the faithful, could contain or favor error in faith or in morals.
It follows from this that, apart from the duty of submission in conduct, imposed by general discipline on all those whom it governs, we must recognize a ‘doctrinal value’ in ecclesiastical regulations like this.^[17]

Cardinal Louis Billot sums up this doctrine as follows:

Quote

[T]he Church is assisted by God so that she can never institute a discipline which would be in any way opposed to the rule of faith or to evangelical holiness.^[18]

The Church is a sound guide. The faithful can always submit to her laws and disciplines, assured that they will assist souls to heaven. However, Francis’s norms lead souls into error and sin. For example, in Amoris Laetitia he has given permission for those living in public adultery to receive Holy Communion and in Fiducia Supplicans he has permitted the blessing of same-sex “couples.”

In establishing dangerous norms for the whole Church, Francis would seem to be doing that which a true Roman Pontiff could never do.
These are just four of a number of a different theological approaches that could be taken to demonstrate that Francis is not the Roman Pontiff. Each one will be expounded with greater depth and rigour in articles to follow.

These are arguments based on sound theological principles and they render the claims of Francis to the papacy to be, at the very least, doubtful.

Other Catholics have raised doubts about the conclave which elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio. In particular, they have pointed to machinations by the “Saint Gallen group,” a self-confessed “mafia” of cardinals and bishops who admitted to plotting to secure the “election” of Bergolio. More can be read about the “Saint Gallen Mafia” here.

Some have argued that this plotting may have invalidated the papal election, because they hold the election to have been governed by norms established by Dominici Gregis of John Paul II, No. 78, of which states: “Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope’s lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings.”

No. 76 of the same docuмent states: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” Other Catholics have raised doubts about the resignation of Benedict XVI and its impact on the validity of the 2013 conclave.

While the present author considers the theological arguments to be the more compelling and more fruitful approach to the question, there is no question that doubts about the conclave have been a cause for some to doubt the validity of the papacy of Francis.

Is Viganò a schismatic?

In this article we have seen that refusal to submit to the Supreme Pontiff is schismatic.

However, we have also seen that refusal to submit to a doubtful pontiff is an act of prudence, not of schism.

The strong theological arguments that can be made against Francis’s claim to hold the Roman Pontificate make him, at best, a doubtful pontiff.

Therefore, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò must be regarded as “not guilty” of the grave crime of schism.

2Vermont · « **Reply #1 on:** July 30, 2024, 10:52:45 AM »

Have any of the "conservative" Novis Ordo bishops/cardinals made any public statements regarding Vigano since the excommunication?

Mr G · « **Reply #2 on:** July 30, 2024, 11:14:38 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on July 30, 2024, 10:52:45 AM

Have any of the "conservative" Novis Ordo bishops/cardinals made any public statements regarding Vigano since the excommunication?

Yes, it will take some searching but you should be able to find the various statements.

2Vermont · « **Reply #3 on:** July 30, 2024, 01:26:55 PM »

Quote from: Mr G on July 30, 2024, 11:14:38 AM

Yes, it will take some searching but you should be able to find the various statements.

Can you point me to a few? Where did you see them? Lifesite too? X?

Because I have yet to see anyone post them.

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** July 30, 2024, 01:45:03 PM »

Quote from: Mr G on July 30, 2024, 10:19:05 AM

Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

It is clear then that anyone who refuses submission to the Supreme Pontiff is a schismatic, though it is important to make clear that there are forms of disobedience to legitimate authority which do not comprise rejection of the authority itself. Theologian Sylvester Hunter S.J. writes:

The sin of schism specially so called is committed by one who, being baptized, by a public and formal act renounces subjection to the governors of the Church; also by one who formally and publicly takes part in any public religious worship which is set up in rivalry of that of the Church. It is not an act of schism to refuse obedience to a law or precept of the Supreme Pontiff, or other ecclesiastical Superior, provided this refusal does not amount to a disclaimer of all subjection to him.[5]

I just wanted to post this part from the link that was not posted in the OP.

2Vermont · « **Reply #5 on:** July 30, 2024, 02:25:29 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on July 30, 2024, 01:26:55 PM

Can you point me to a few? Where did you see them? Lifesite too? X?

Because I have yet to see anyone post them.

This post by Fr Desposito on July 12th was the last I heard about the NO hierarchy and Vigano:

Rev. Nicolás E. Despósito on X: "A credible source has confirmed what I already suspected: Cardinal Burke and the rest of the 'conservative' cardinals have cut off all contact with @CarloMVigano as they believe that he has gone too far. Those who are in a position to do something about the crisis in the Church" / X (twitter.com)

A credible source has confirmed what I already suspected: Cardinal Burke and the rest of the 'conservative' cardinals have cut off all contact with @CarloMVigano as they believe that he has gone too far.

Those who are in a position to do something about the crisis in the Church have chosen, once again, to do absolutely nothing.

Are there any NO hierarchs who currently support Vigano since then? If so, who?

Seraphina · « **Reply #6 on:** July 30, 2024, 06:26:06 PM »

I think possibly Bp. Strickland may have said something in his defense.
SSPX hasn’t said anything of which I know.
SSPV? Don’t know. Last What Catholics Believe, Fr. Jenkins made some surprising (to me) and confusing statements pertaining to Vigano, Williamson, and Archbp. LeFebvre.
Resistance Bps? Perhaps. At least Bp. W. mostly agrees with him. Is it certain Bp. W. conditionally ordained and consecrated him?
Bp. Sanborn supports him, at least does not think he’s in schism because the rulings of someone who is not a pope are meaningless.

My opinion, for what little it’s worth, is that the excommunication and declaration of schism are invalid, whether Francis is Pope, antipope, just a priest or just a layman. If pope, it’s unjust and against the Faith. If any of the others, it’s like being fired by someone for whom you don’t work! Or a the lady in my old chapel who told me I was excommunicated for attending Bp. W.’s anniversary celebration! Sort of ridiculous, no? She later clarified I wasn’t excommunicated from the Catholic Church, but from the SSPX. That’s also ridiculous. Lay people do not “belong” to the SSPX. And even if someone who does belong to the SSPX, like a priest or Bishop, doesn’t get “excommunicated” from the Catholic Church. He gets dismissed? expelled? from the priestly fraternity, not from the Church. Not one person in the SSPX has the authority to excommunicate anyone from the Church. It’s certainly possible for someone, SSPX member or not, to excommunicate himself from the Church by committing certain sins, but voluntarily leaving or getting thrown out of the Society isn’t one of them.

Yeti · « **Reply #7 on:** July 30, 2024, 11:08:45 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on July 30, 2024, 02:25:29 PM

Are there any NO hierarchs who currently support Vigano since then? If so, who?

.

Since we would probably have heard if they had, and they would likely have been excommunicated for supporting him as well, I think it's safe to say the answer is no.

And in case it needs to be said, I understand your term "support" to mean "publicly support", as I think you intended it to mean. I feel the need to say this before some

pipes up and says, "Oh yeah, there are 25 bishops who support Vigano. They just don't want to do so publicly."

2Vermont · « **Reply #8 on:** July 31, 2024, 02:14:26 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on July 30, 2024, 11:08:45 PM

.

Since we would probably have heard if they had, and they would likely have been excommunicated for supporting him as well, I think it's safe to say the answer is no.

And in case it needs to be said, I understand your term "support" to mean "publicly support", as I think you intended it to mean. I feel the need to say this before some pipes up and says, "Oh yeah, there are 25 bishops who support Vigano. They just don't want to do so publicly."

Yes, thank you. I meant publicly.

2Vermont · « **Reply #9 on:** July 31, 2024, 05:19:33 AM »

Is Viganò a schismatic?

In this article we have seen that refusal to submit to the Supreme Pontiff is schismatic.
However, we have also seen that refusal to submit to a doubtful pontiff is an act of prudence, not of schism.
The strong theological arguments that can be made against Francis’s claim to hold the Roman Pontificate make him, at best, a doubtful pontiff.
Therefore, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò must be regarded as “not guilty” of the grave crime of schism.

Would Life Site News come to the same conclusion if we were talking about all of the Vatican II popes? Or is it just that they agree with Vigano's stance on Bergoglio? Would Life Site News continue to (publicly) support Vigano if he went full-on sede?

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #10 on:** July 31, 2024, 08:55:29 AM »

Burke and pseudo conservatives are afraid of losing their homes, health insurance with 100 percent free hospital coverage, free food, car, air travel, 5 star hotel stays and vacations, pilgrimages etc.

Most popes going back to Paul vi, John Paul , Benedict were owned by Freemasons of satanic united Nations. They were great actors. They were the real schismatics and blasphemers. With the Internet, much truth has come to light.

They never excommunicated perverts who raped and molested. They even paid for their attorneys while the victims paid for their own. That is not Catholic at all. They further persecuted the victims while protecting perverts and they are doing this evil today which is not Catholic. They are pagans who reject Jesus Christ.

The rapists, murderers, thieves, sodomites etc should have been excommunicated.

We pray for Archbishop Vigano that he may continue to serve God instead of man.

Archkanzler · « **Reply #11 on:** July 31, 2024, 12:40:41 PM »

Quote from: Seraphina on July 30, 2024, 06:26:06 PM

I think possibly Bp. Strickland may have said something in his defense.
SSPX hasn’t said anything of which I know.
SSPV? Don’t know. Last What Catholics Believe, Fr. Jenkins made some surprising (to me) and confusing statements pertaining to Vigano, Williamson, and Archbp. LeFebvre.
Resistance Bps? Perhaps. At least Bp. W. mostly agrees with him. Is it certain Bp. W. conditionally ordained and consecrated him?
Bp. Sanborn supports him, at least does not think he’s in schism because the rulings of someone who is not a pope are meaningless.

My opinion, for what little it’s worth, is that the excommunication and declaration of schism are invalid, whether Francis is Pope, antipope, just a priest or just a layman. If pope, it’s unjust and against the Faith. If any of the others, it’s like being fired by someone for whom you don’t work! Or a the lady in my old chapel who told me I was excommunicated for attending Bp. W.’s anniversary celebration! Sort of ridiculous, no? She later clarified I wasn’t excommunicated from the Catholic Church, but from the SSPX. That’s also ridiculous. Lay people do not “belong” to the SSPX. And even if someone who does belong to the SSPX, like a priest or Bishop, doesn’t get “excommunicated” from the Catholic Church. He gets dismissed? expelled? from the priestly fraternity, not from the Church. Not one person in the SSPX has the authority to excommunicate anyone from the Church. It’s certainly possible for someone, SSPX member or not, to excommunicate himself from the Church by committing certain sins, but voluntarily leaving or getting thrown out of the Society isn’t one of them.

The CSPV and SSPV priests regard these rumors of a conditional consecration by Msgr. Williamson as just that: rumors. That's about as much as I heard from them this past Sunday, as relates to this matter.

Geremia · « **Reply #12 on:** July 31, 2024, 03:23:47 PM »

Has Avrillé said anything? Previously a big Viganò supporter, they seem to be silent since the "excommunication".

Geremia · « **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2024, 03:26:27 PM »

Has +Williamson said anything?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2024, 03:31:25 PM »

+W had an entire weekly email about +Vigano.

Author Topic: Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? NOPE (Read 3800 times)

Mr G

Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? NOPE

2Vermont

Re: Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? NOPE

Mr G

Re: Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? NOPE

2Vermont

Re: Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? NOPE

Stubborn

Re: Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? NOPE

2Vermont

Re: Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? NOPE

Seraphina

Re: Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? NOPE

Yeti

Re: Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? NOPE

2Vermont

Re: Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? NOPE

2Vermont

Re: Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? NOPE

Viva Cristo Rey

Re: Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? NOPE

Archkanzler

Re: Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? NOPE

Geremia

Avrillé said anything about Viganò's "excommunication"?

Geremia

+Williamson said anything about Viganò's "excommunication"?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism? NOPE