Archbishop Response to Accusation of Schism

J'ACCUSE

DECLARATION by H.E. Msgr. Carlo Maria Viganò, Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana, Apostolic Nuncio on the accusation of schism.

"Even if we or an angel from heaven preach to you a gospel other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we have already said, I repeat it again even now: if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than that which you have received, let him be?accursed."

Gal 1:8-9

?"When I think that we are in the palace of the Holy Office, which is the exceptional witness of Tradition and of the defense of the Catholic Faith, I cannot help but think that I am at home, and that it is I, whom you call 'the traditionalist,' who should judge you."?Thus Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1979, summoned to the former Holy Office, in the presence of the Prefect Cardinal ?eper and two other prelates.

As I stated in the Communiqué of June 20, I do not recognize the authority of the court that claims to judge me, nor of its Prefect, nor of those who appointed him. This decision of mine, certainly painful, is not the result of haste or a spirit of rebellion; but dictated by the moral necessity which, as Bishop and Successor of the Apostles, obliges me in conscience to bear witness to the Truth, that is, to God himself, to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I face this trial with the determination that comes from knowing that I have no reason to consider myself separate from communion with the Holy Church and with the Papacy, which I have always served with filial devotion and fidelity. I could not conceive a single moment of my life apart from this one Ark of salvation, which Providence has constituted as the Mystical Body of Christ, in submission to His divine Head and His Vicar on earth.

The enemies of the Catholic Church fear the power of Grace which works through the Sacraments, and above all the power of the Holy Mass, a terrible?katekon?which frustrates many of their efforts and wins to God so many souls who would otherwise be damned. And it is precisely this awareness of the power of the supernatural action of the Catholic priesthood in society that lies at the origin of their fierce hostility to Tradition. Satan and his minions know full well what a threat the one true Church poses to their antichrist plan. These subversives – whom the Roman Pontiffs have courageously denounced as enemies of God, of the Church and of humanity – are identifiable in the?inimica vis, Freemasonry. It infiltrated the Hierarchy and succeeded in making it lay down the spiritual weapons at its disposal, opening the doors of the Citadel to the enemy in the name of?dialogue?and?universal brotherhood, concepts that are intrinsically Masonic. But the Church, following the example of her divine Founder, does not dialogue with Satan: she fights him.

THE CAUSES OF THE PRESENT CRISIS

As Romano Amerio pointed out in his seminal essay?Iota Unum, this cowardly and culpable surrender began with the convocation of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and with the underground and highly organized action of clergymen and laity linked to the Masonic sects, aimed at slowly but surely subverting the structure of government and magisterium of the Church in order to demolish it from within. It is useless to look for other reasons: the documents of the secret sects demonstrate the existence of an infiltration plan conceived in the nineteenth century and carried out a century later, exactly in the terms in which it was conceived. Similar processes of dissolution had previously taken place in the civil sphere, and it is no coincidence that the Popes were able to grasp in the uprisings and wars that have bloodied the European nations the disintegrating work of international Freemasonry.

Since the Council, the Church has thus become the bearer of the revolutionary principles of 1789, as some of the proponents of Vatican II have admitted and as is confirmed by the appreciation on the part of the Lodges for all the Popes of the Council and of the post-conciliar period, precisely because of the changes that the Freemasons had long called for.

Change, on the contrary:?updating?has been so much at the center of the conciliar narrative that it has constituted the hallmark of Vatican II and placed this assembly as the?terminus post quem?that sanctioned the end of the?ancien régime?– that of the "old religion," of the "old Mass," of the "pre-council" – and the beginning of the "conciliar church," with its "new mass" and the substantial relativization of every dogma. Among the proponents of this revolution appear the names of those who, until the pontificate of John XXIII, had been condemned and removed from teaching because of their heterodoxy. The list is long and also includes Ernesto Buonaiuti, excommunicated?vitandus, a friend of Roncalli, who died unrepentant in heresy and whom just a few days ago the President of the CEI, Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, commemorated with a Mass in the cathedral of Bologna, as reported with ill-concealed emphasis?by Il Faro di Roma?(here):?"Almost eighty years later, a cardinal who is completely in line with the Pope is starting again with a liturgical gesture that has in all respects the flavor of rehabilitation. Or at least a first step in that direction.?"

THE CHURCH AND THE ANTICHURCH

I am therefore summoned before the tribunal that has taken the place of the Holy Office to be tried for schism, while the head of the Italian Bishops – indicated among the papabili and?completely in line with the Pope?– is illicitly celebrating a Mass of suffrage for one of the worst and most obstinate exponents of Modernism, against whom the Church – the one from which according to them I am separated – had pronounced the most severe sentence of condemnation. In 2022, in the newspaper of the CEI?Avvenire, Prof. Luigino Bruni praised Modernism in these terms:

[...] "a process of necessary renewal for the Catholic Church of his time, still impervious to the critical studies on the Bible that had been established for many decades in the Protestant world. For Buonaiuti, accepting scientific and historical studies on the Bible was the main way for the Church's encounter with modernity. A meeting that did not take place, because the Catholic Church was still dominated by the theorems of neo-scholastic theology and blocked by the Counter-Reformation fear that the Protestant winds could finally invade the Catholic body.?"

These words would suffice to make us understand the abyss that separates the Catholic Church from the one that was replaced by the Second Vatican Council, when?the Protestant winds?finally invaded the Catholic body. This very recent episode is only the latest in an endless series of small steps, of silent acquiescence, of complicit winks with which the very leaders of the conciliar hierarchy have made possible the transition?"from the theorems of neo-scholastic theology" – that is, from the clear and unequivocal formulation of the Dogmas – to the present apostasy. We find ourselves in the surreal situation in which a Hierarchy calls itself Catholic and for this reason demands obedience from the ecclesial body, while at the same time professing doctrines that before the Council the Church had condemned; and that he condemns as heretical doctrines which until then had been taught by all the Popes.

This happens when the absolute is taken away from the True and relativized by adapting it to the spirit of the world. How would the Popes of the last centuries have acted today? Would they judge me guilty of schism, or would they rather condemn him who pretends to be their Successor? Together with me, the modernist Sanhedrin judges and condemns all Catholic Popes, because the Faith they defended is mine; and the errors that Bergoglio defends are those that they, without exception, condemned.

HERMENEUTICS OF RUPTURE

I ask myself, then: what continuity can be given between two realities that oppose and contradict each other? between Bergoglio's?conciliar and synodal church?and the one "blocked by counter-reformation fear" from which he ostentatiously distances himself? And from what "church" would I be in a state of schism, if the one that claims to be Catholic differs from the true Church precisely in its preaching of what it condemned and in its condemnation of what it preached?

The adepts of the "conciliar church" will reply that this is due to the evolution of the ecclesial body in a "necessary renewal"; while the Catholic Magisterium teaches us that the Truth is immutable and that the doctrine of the evolution of dogmas is heretical. Two churches, certainly: each with its doctrines and liturgies and saints; but for the Catholic the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, for Bergoglio the Church is conciliar, ecumenical, synodal, inclusive, immigrationist,?eco-sustainable, gay-friendly.

THE SELF-DISMISSAL OF THE CONCILIAR HIERARCHY

Would the Church then begin to teach error? Can we believe that the one Ark of salvation is at the same time an instrument of perdition for souls? that the Mystical Body separate itself from Its divine Head, Jesus Christ, and break the Savior's promise? This cannot, of course, be admissible, and those who support it fall into heresy and schism. The Church cannot teach error, nor can her Head, the Roman Pontiff, be at the same time heretical and Orthodox, Peter and Judas, in communion with all his predecessors and at the same time in schism with them. The only theologically possible answer is that the Conciliar Hierarchy, which proclaims itself Catholic but embraces a faith different from that constantly taught for two thousand years by the Catholic Church, belongs to another entity and therefore does not represent the true Church of Christ.

To those who remind me that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre never went so far as to question the legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff, while acknowledging the heresy and even apostasy of the conciliar Popes – as when he exclaimed:?"Rome has lost the Faith! Rome is in apostasy!"?– to them I remind them that in the last fifty years the situation has dramatically worsened and that in all probability this great Pastor today would act with equal firmness, publicly repeating what he said then only to his clerics:?"In this pastoral council, the spirit of error and lies has been able to work at ease, planting time-bombs everywhere that will blow up institutions in due course"?(Principes et directives, 1977). And again:?"He who is seated on the Throne of Peter participates in the worship of false gods. What conclusion should we draw, perhaps in a few months' time, in the face of these repeated acts of communication with false cults? I don't know. I wonder. But it is possible that we will find ourselves forced to believe that the Pope is not Pope. Because at first sight it seems to me – I do not yet want to say it in a solemn and public way – that it is impossible for someone who is a heretic to be publicly and formally Pope"?(March 30, 1986).

How do we understand that the "synodal church" and its head Bergoglio do not profess the Catholic Faith? From the total and unconditional adherence of all its members to a multiplicity of errors and heresies already condemned by the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church and from the ostentatious rejection of any doctrine, moral precept, act of worship and religious practice that is not sanctioned by "their" council. Neither of them can in conscience subscribe to the Tridentine Profession of Faith and the Anti-Modernist Oath, because what they both express is the exact opposite of what Vatican II and the so-called "conciliar magisterium" insinuate and teach.

Since it is not theologically tenable that the Church and the Papacy are instruments of perdition rather than of salvation, we must necessarily conclude that the heterodox teachings conveyed by the so-called "conciliar church" and the "popes of the Council" from Paul VI onwards constitute an anomaly that seriously calls into question the legitimacy of their magisterial and governing authority.

THE SUBVERSIVE USE OF AUTHORITY

We must understand that the subversive use of authority in the Church aimed at its destruction (or transformation into a church?other?than the one willed and founded by Christ) constitutes in itself a sufficient element to render?null and void?the authority of this new subject who has maliciously superimposed himself on the Church of Christ by usurping its power. That is why I do not recognize the legitimacy of the Dicastery that is putting me on trial.

The manner in which the hostile action against the Catholic Church was carried out confirms that it was planned and desired, because otherwise those who denounced it would have been listened to and those who cooperated in it would have immediately stopped. Certainly, with the eyes of that time and the traditional formation of most of the Cardinals, Bishops and Clergy, the "scandal" of a Hierarchy that contradicted itself appeared as such an enormity as to induce many prelates and clerics not to believe that it was possible that revolutionary and Masonic principles could find acceptance and promotion in the Church. But this was precisely the?masterstroke of Satan?– as Archbishop Lefebvre called him – who knew how to make use of the natural respect and filial love of Catholics for the sacred authority of the Pastors to induce them to put obedience before the Truth, perhaps hoping that a future Pope could in some way heal the disaster that had been accomplished and whose disruptive results could already be guessed. This did not happen, despite the fact that some had bravely sounded the alarm. And I myself count myself among those who, in that troubled phase, did not dare to oppose errors and deviations that had not yet fully shown their destructive value. I do not mean by this to say that I did not see what was happening, but that I did not find – because of the intense work and the all-encompassing tasks of a bureaucratic and administrative nature at the service of the Holy See – the conditions to grasp the unprecedented gravity of what was taking place before our eyes.

THE CLASH

The occasion that led me to clash with my ecclesiastical superiors began when I was Delegate for the Pontifical Representations, then as Secretary General of the Governorate and finally as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States. My war on moral and financial corruption unleashed the fury of the then Secretary of Sato, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, when – in accordance with my competences as Delegate for the Pontifical Representations – I denounced the corruption of Cardinal McCarrick, and opposed the promotion to the Episcopate of the corrupt and unworthy candidates presented by the Secretary of State, who had me transferred to the Governorate, because "I was preventing him from making the bishops he wanted." It was also Bertone, with the complicity of Cardinal Lajolo, who hindered my work aimed at countering the widespread corruption in the Governorate, where I had already achieved important results beyond all expectations. It was again Bertone and Lajolo who convinced Pope Benedict to expel me from the Vatican and send me to the United States. Here I found myself having to deal with the ugly affairs of Cardinal McCarrick, including his dangerous relations with political figures in the Obama-Biden Administration and internationally, which I did not hesitate to denounce to Secretary of State Parolin who took no account of them.

This led me to consider many events I had witnessed during my diplomatic and pastoral career in a different light, to grasp their coherence with a single project that by its nature could be neither exclusively political nor exclusively religious, since it included a global attack on traditional society based on doctrinal teaching. moral and liturgical aspects of the Church.

CORRUPTION AS A TOOL OF BLACKMAIL

This is why from being an esteemed Apostolic Nuncio – for whom Cardinal Parolin himself recognized my exemplary loyalty, honesty, fairness and efficiency the other day – I have become an uncomfortable Archbishop, not only for having asked for justice in the trials against corrupt prelates, but also and above all for having given a key to understanding that shows how corruption in the Hierarchy was a necessary premise for controlling it. to manipulate it and force it by blackmail to act against God, against the Church and against souls. And this?modus operandi?– which Freemasonry had described in detail before infiltrating the ecclesial body – mirrors that adopted in civil institutions, where the representatives of the people, especially at the highest levels, are largely blackmailable because they are corrupt and perverted. Their obedience to the delusions of the globalist elite leads peoples to ruin, destruction, disease, death: and death not only of the body, but also of the soul. Because the true project of the New World Order – to which Bergoglio is enslaved and from which he draws his legitimacy from the powerful of the world – is an essentially satanic project, in which the work of the Creation of the Father, the Redemption of the Son and the Sanctification of the Holy Spirit is hated, obliterated and counterfeited by the?simia Dei?and his servants.

IF YOU DON'T SPEAK, THE STONES WILL CRY OUT

Witnessing the total subversion of the divine order and the propagation of infernal chaos with the zealous collaboration of the leaders of the Vatican and the Episcopate, makes us understand how terrible are the words of the Virgin Mary at La Salette –?Rome will lose faith and become the seat of the Antichrist?– and what a hateful betrayal is constituted by the apostasy of the Pastors, and by the even more unheard-of betrayal of the one who sits on the Throne of the Most Blessed Peter.

If I were to remain silent in the face of this betrayal – which is being carried out with the fearful complicity of many, too many prelates who are reluctant to recognize in the Second Vatican Council the principal cause of the present revolution and in the adulteration of the Catholic Mass as the origin of the spiritual and moral dissolution of the faithful – I would break the oath taken on the day of my ordination and renewed on the occasion of my episcopal consecration. As the Successor of the Apostles, I cannot and will not accept to witness the systematic demolition of Holy Church and the damnation of so many souls without trying by every means to oppose all this. Nor can I consider a cowardly silence preferable to the witness of the Gospel and the defense of Catholic Truth in order to live?quietly.

A schismatic sect accuses me of schism: it should be enough to prove the subversion that is taking place. Imagine what impartiality of judgment will be exercised by a judge who depends on him whom I accuse of being a usurper. But precisely because this event is emblematic, I want the faithful – who are not required to know the functioning of ecclesiastical tribunals – to understand that the crime of schism is not consummated when there are well-founded reasons to consider the election of the Pope doubtful, because of the?vitium consensus?and the irregularities or violations of the norms that govern the Conclave. (cf. Wernz – Vidal,?Ius Canonicum, Rome, Pont. Univ. Greg., 1937, vol. VII, p. 439).

The Bull?ex apostolatus officio?of Paul IV establishes in perpetuity the nullity of the appointment or election of any Prelate – including the Pope – who had fallen into heresy before his promotion to Cardinal or elevation to Roman Pontiff. It defines promotion or elevation?as null, irrita et inanis, that is, null, invalid and without any value, "even if it has taken place with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the Cardinals; nor can it be said that it is validated by the receipt of office, consecration or possession?[...]?, i.e. for the enthronement?[...]?of the Roman Pontiff himself, or for the obedience rendered to him by all, and for the lapse of any length of time in the said exercise of his office. Paul IV adds that all acts performed by this person are to be considered equally null and void, and that his subjects, both clerics and laity, are freed from obedience to him,?without prejudice, however, on the part of these same subordinate persons, to the obligation of fidelity and obedience to be given to future canonically succeeding Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiffs. Paul IV concludes:?And to the greater confusion of those thus promoted and elevated, if they pretend to continue the administration, it is lawful to ask for the help of the secular arm; nor for this reason are those who withdraw from fidelity and obedience to those who have been promoted and elevated in the manner already mentioned, subject to any of those censures and punishments imposed on those who would like to split the tunic of the Lord."

For this reason, with serenity of conscience, I believe that the errors and heresies to which Bergoglio adhered before, during and after his election and the intention placed in the presumed acceptance of the Papacy render his elevation to the Soglio null and void.

If all the acts of government and magisterium of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, in content and form, prove to be extraneous and even in conflict with what constitutes the action of any Pope; if even a simple believer and even a non-Catholic understand the anomaly of the role that Bergoglio is playing in the globalist and anti-Christian project carried out by the?World Economic Forum, the UN Agencies, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the World Bank and all the other sprawling ramifications of the globalist elite, this does not in the least demonstrate my willingness to schism in highlighting and denouncing this anomaly. And yet I am being attacked and put on trial because there are those who delude themselves that by condemning and excommunicating me, my denunciation of the coup d'état will lose its substance. This attempt to silence everyone solves nothing, and indeed makes those who try to conceal or minimize the metastasis that is destroying the ecclesial body more guilty and complicit.

THE "DEMINUTIO" OF THE SYNODAL PAPACY

Added to this is the Study Document?The Bishop of Rome?that the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity recently published (here) and the downgrading of the Papacy that is theorized in it in application of John Paul II's Encyclical?Ut uum sint, which in turn refers to the Constitution?Lumen Gentium?of Vatican II. It seems entirely legitimate – and a duty, in the name of the primacy of Catholic Truth sanctioned in the infallible documents of the papal Magisterium – to ask whether Bergoglio's deliberate choice to abolish the apostolic title of Vicar of Christ and choose to call himself?simpliciter?Bishop of Rome does not in some way constitute a?deminutio?of the Papacy itself, an attack on the divine constitution of the Church and a betrayal of the?Munus Petrinum. And on closer inspection, the previous step was taken by Benedict XVI, who invented for himself – along with the "hermeneutic" of an impossible "continuity" between two totally alien entities – the?monstrum?of a "collegial Papacy" exercised by the Jesuit and the Emeritus.

It is no coincidence that the Study Document quotes a phrase of Paul VI:?The Pope?[...]?is undoubtedly the most serious obstacle on the path to ecumenism?(Address to the Secretary for Promoting Christian Unity, 28 April 1967). Montini had begun to prepare the ground four years earlier, emphatically laying down the triregnum. If this is the premise of a text that must serve to make the Roman Papacy "compatible" with the denial of the Primacy of Peter that heretics and schismatics reject; and if Bergoglio himself presents himself as?primus inter pares?in the assembly of Christian sects and denominations not in communion with the Apostolic See, failing in the proclamation of Catholic doctrine on the Papacy solemnly and infallibly defined by the First Vatican Council, how can one think that the exercise of the Papacy and the very will to accept it are not vitiated by a vice of consensus?(here?and?here), such as to render null and void or at least highly doubtful the legitimacy of "Pope Francis"? From which "church" could I separate, which "pope" would I refuse to recognize, if the former defines itself as a "conciliar and synodal church" in antithesis to the "pre-conciliar church" – that is, the Church of Christ – and the latter shows that it considers the Papacy its own personal prerogative to be disposed of by modifying and altering it at will, and always in coherence with the doctrinal errors implied by Vatican II and the post-conciliar "magisterium"?

If the Roman Papacy – the Papacy, to be clear, of Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII – is considered an obstacle to ecumenical dialogue and ecumenical dialogue is pursued as the absolute priority of the "synodal church" represented by Bergoglio, how else could this dialogue take shape, if not in the removal of those elements that make the Papacy incompatible with it, and thus tampering with it in a completely illegitimate and invalid way?

THE CONFLICT OF SO MANY CONFRERES AND FAITHFUL

I am convinced that among the Bishops and priests there are many who have experienced and still live today the heartbreaking inner conflict of being divided between what Christ the Pontiff asks of them (and they know it) and what the one who presents himself as Bishop of Rome imposes by force, blackmail and threats.

Today it is more necessary than ever for us Pastors to wake up from our slumber:?Hora est jam nos de somno surgere (Rom?13:11). Our responsibility before God, the Church and souls requires us to denounce unequivocally all the errors and deviations that we have tolerated for too long, because we will not be judged either by Bergoglio or by the world, but by Our Lord Jesus Christ. To Him we will render an account of every soul lost through our negligence, of every sin committed by it for our sake, of every scandal before which we have been silent out of false prudence, out of quiet living, out of complicity.

On the day when I am supposed to appear before the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, I have decided to make public this statement of mine, to which I add a denunciation of my accusers, of their "council" and of their "pope." I pray the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, who consecrated the land of Alma Urbe with their own blood, to intercede before the throne of the divine Majesty, so that they may obtain for Holy Church that she may at last be freed from the siege that eclipses her and from the usurpers who humiliate her, making?Domina Gentium?the servant of the antichrist plan of the New World Order.

IN DEFENSE OF THE CHURCH

Mine, therefore, is not a personal defence, but a defence of the Holy Church of Christ, in which I have been constituted Bishop and Successor of the Apostles, with the precise mandate to guard the deposit of faith and to preach the word, to insist on?opportune importunities, to reprove, to rebuke, to exhort with all patience and doctrine (2 Tim 4:2).

I strongly reject the accusation of having torn the inconsequential garment of the Savior and of having withdrawn from 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, because of its many heresies and its manifest alienity and incompatibility with the role it invalidly and illicitly holds.

MY ACCUSATIONS AGAINST JORGE MARIO BERGOGLIO

Before my Brothers in the Episcopate and the entire ecclesial body, I accuse Jorge Mario Bergoglio of heresy and schism, and as a heretic and schismatic I ask that he be judged and removed from the Throne that he has unworthily occupied for over eleven years. This in no way contradicts the adage?Prima Sedes a nemine judicatur, because it is evident that a heretic, because he is unable to assume the Papacy, is not above the prelates who judge him.

I also accuse Jorge Mario Bergoglio of having caused – because of the prestige and authority of the Apostolic See that he usurps – serious adverse effects, sterility and death in the millions of faithful who have followed his relentless appeal to undergo the inoculation of an experimental gene serum produced with abortive fetuses, going so far as to have a Note published indicating its use as morally licit (here?and?here). He will have to answer before the Tribunal of God for this crime against humanity.

Finally, I denounce the secret agreement between the Holy See and the Chinese communist dictatorship, by which the Church is humiliated and forced to accept the government's appointment of bishops, the control of celebrations and the limitations on its freedom to preach, while Catholics faithful to the Apostolic See are persecuted with impunity by the government of Beijing in the complicit silence of the Roman Sanhedrin.

THE REJECTION OF THE ERRORS OF VATICAN II

I give myself a reason for honour to be "accused" of rejecting the errors and deviations implied by the so-called Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which I consider to be completely devoid of magisterial authority because of its heterogeneity with respect to all the true Councils of the Church, which I fully recognize and accept, as well as all the magisterial acts of the Roman Pontiffs.

I firmly reject the heterodox doctrines contained in the documents of Vatican II and which have been condemned by the Popes up to Pius XII, or which in any way contradict the Catholic Magisterium (cf. Annex I). I find it disconcerting, to say the least, that those who prosecute me for schism are those who make their own the heterodox doctrine that there is a bond of union "with those who, being baptized, are given the Christian name, but do not profess the faith in its entirety or preserve the unity of communion under the successor of Peter" (LG:15). I wonder with what impertinence one can accuse a Bishop of the loss of a communion that is also affirmed to exist with heretics and schismatics.

I condemn, reject and reject alike the heterodox doctrines expressed in the so-called "post-conciliar magisterium" originating from Vatican II, as well as the recent heresies relating to the "synodal church", the reformulation of the Papacy in an ecumenical key, the admission of concubinians to the sacraments and the promotion of sodomy and "gender" ideology. I also condemn Bergoglio's adherence to climate fraud, a crazy neo-Malthusian superstition born of those who, hating the Creator, can only detest his Creation, and man with it, made in the image and likeness of God.

CONCLUSION

To the Catholic faithful, today scandalized and bewildered by the winds of novelty and false doctrines that are promoted and imposed by a Hierarchy that rebels against the divine Master, I ask you to pray and to offer their sacrifices and fasts?pro libertate et exaltatione Sanct? Matris Ecclesi?, so that Holy Mother Church may regain her freedom and triumph with Christ, after this time of passion. May those who have had the grace to be incorporated into it in Baptism not abandon their Mother, who today suffers and prostrates:?tempora bona veniant, pax Christi veniat, regnum Christi veniat.

Given in Viterbo, on the 28th day of the month of June, Year of the Lord 2024, the Vigil of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

?Carlo Maria Viganò,?Archbishop

?