Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s continuing journey toward authentic Catholic tradition – one that in some ways resembles my own – took another major step forward in June as he publicly took aim at “the principles enunciated or implied by Vatican II.”
In a missive dated June 9, 2020, Viganò accused the Council vis-à-vis its treatment of religious liberty of “contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both.”
He said that the Council’s concept of ecumenism “was configured in a way that was in direct opposition to the doctrine previously expressed by the Magisterium.”
He even went so far as to identify Satan as the true author of “the Council presided over by John XXIII and Paul VI,” saying:
Just as the Truth comes from God, so error is fed by and feeds on the Adversary, who hates the Church of Christ and her heart: the Holy Mass and the Most Holy Eucharist.
In a follow up letter dated June 14, Archbishop Viganò sharpened his criticism, charging the Council with behavior “intended and conceived for its subversive value, and which as such has caused many evils.” He said that rather than selectively condemning its errors, “it is preferable to let the whole thing drop and be forgotten” and to “declare its oblivion.”
These are strong words from Archbishop Viganò, and they necessarily lead to some very important questions concerning ecclesiology and the papacy.
With regard to the former, he leaves little room for confusion as he identifies the acts of the Council as “voluntarily different and opposed to the Catholic Church.” In other words, he makes it clear enough that the Second Vatican Council did not come from the one true Church of Christ. As Our Lord said:
Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. (Mt 12:25)
Furthermore, the Catholic Church is a Holy Mother who always and everywhere nurtures her children in that which is good. The Council, as Archbishop Viganò stated, was “intended and conceived for its subversive value,” and it “has caused many evils.”
With this evidently in mind, Archbishop Viganò says as plainly as possible:
From Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.
And yet, in spite of so much clarity, Archbishop Viganò’s conception of the papacy remains clouded and confused. For example, he refers to the Bergoglian Reign of Terror as coming from “the highest Throne” and “the present Pontificate.”
This is the same man that Archbishop Viganò excoriates for having signed and promoted the infamous Abu Dhabi Declaration, a text that he calls a “triumph of the Masonic plan in preparation for the kingdom of the Antichrist!”
He even suggests that Bergoglio is little more than a Masonic puppet, referring in the same discourse to “the directions he has received.”
Are we really to believe that such a man reigns from the Throne of St. Peter, the occupants of which have been divinely endowed with the gift of truth and a never failing faith, that the entire flock of Christ may be protected from the poisonous food of error? (cf First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus)
More broadly speaking, are we to imagine that the man at the helm of the “parallel church” – the same that Archbishop Viganò correctly identified as being “diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ” – is at one and the same time the Holy Roman Pontiff and Vicar of Christ?
The very thought that this describes the man known as “Francis” is growing more absurd with every passing day.
But why stop there?
Bergoglio is just one of half-a-dozen men who, whilst laying claim to the papacy either presided over or promoted the conciliar revolution, leading the parallel church in its diametric opposition to the true Church of Christ.
At this, we have arrived at the most noteworthy aspect of Archbishop Viganò’s essay.
You see, in spite of his unsustainable ideas concerning the Bergoglian “pontificate,” it appears that he isn’t stopping there in his assessment of the papacy as a whole. Rather, there are signs that he is privately exploring some of the same sedevacantist arguments that I am currently weighing.
We’ll return to those signs momentarily, but first I wish to point out that which is far more obvious; namely, the fact that Archbishop Viganò is evidently entertaining doubts as to the legitimacy of conclave 2013.
Referring to the events of 13 March 2013, he mentioned “the first appearance of the ‘newly elected’ Pope,” with the words newly elected conspicuously placed within quotation marks.
This can only mean one of two things; either he is not convinced that the resignation of Benedict XVI was valid and/or he believes that the activities of the so-called St. Gallen Mafia may have nullified the outcome even if it was.
About those events, Archbishop Viganò stated:
The mask fell from the conspirators, who were finally free of the inconvenient presence of Benedict XVI and brazenly proud of having finally succeeded in promoting a Cardinal who embodied their ideals, their way of revolutionizing the Church, of making doctrine malleable, morals adaptable, liturgy adulterable, and discipline disposable. And all this was considered, by the protagonists of the conspiracy themselves, the logical consequence and obvious application of Vatican II, which according to them had been weakened by the critiques expressed by Benedict XVI.
The logical consequences of Vatican II were weakened by Benedict XVI? No, that dog won’t hunt; in fact, that beast won’t even get out of bed and, deep down, I think knows it.
Benedict was a staunch defender of the Council’s version of religious liberty; he was also a dyed-in-the-wool ecumenist who convened his very own Assisi abomination – the very two conciliar errors Archbishop Viganò chose to condemn by name.
So, what gives? My guess is that Archbishop Viganò is struggling to come to terms with the disastrous tenures of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI for the simple reason that he had a personal relationship with both men and genuinely liked them.
Even so, I believe that he is sincere in his efforts to find and speak the truth, whatever it may be, in preparation for the day of reckoning that awaits us all. As such, I think it is reasonable to imagine that he is privately and prayerfully applying everything that the popes, councils and theologians taught about the papacy in the centuries leading up to Vatican II to the scoundrels who laid claim to the Chair of St. Peter both during and after the event.
Sure, I may be projecting my own experience on the Archbishop, but I sense that there’s more to it than that.
For one, he mentions by name John XIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict and Francis (who he more often calls “Bergoglio”) – some of them multiple times. Curiously, however, he doesn’t refer to any one of them as “Pope,” nor does he refer to any of the former three as “Saint.”
One also notes the fact that when Archbishop Viganò first made a splash with his testimony of August 2018 concerning Uncle Ted McCarrick, he was very careful not to say anything that might reflect poorly on either John Paul II or Benedict XVI in spite of their obvious responsibility for allowing the predator to roam more or less freely.
Now, almost two years later, we see that the gloves are slowly coming off.
In his latest essay, Archbishop Viganò openly pointed to the example of “John Paul II surrounded by charmers-healers, Buddhist monks, imams, rabbis, protestant pastors and other heretics” as that which led to “the point of seeing Bishops carrying the unclean idol of the Pachamama on their shoulders.”
Elsewhere in the text, he wrote about the hermeneutic of continuity that Benedict XVI invented as a means of interpreting and implementing the Council, openly admitting that it had “shipwrecked miserably.”
In August of last year, I wrote in this space: It would seem only a matter of time before Archbishop Viganò will be moved to admit that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI were not only agents in, but leaders of, the gigantic subversive operation that was launched at Vatican Council II.
Now that there is evidence that this moment is at hand, I will leave you with this:
It would seem only a matter of time before Archbishop Viganò will be moved to openly postulate whether or not any of the men who served at the helm of the parallel church that was born at Vatican Council II have any legitimate claim to the Roman Pontificate. This is, after all, the next logical step in his journey toward tradition.