VIGANO SEDEVACANTIST – II ?

January 13, 2024
ELEISON COMMENTS DCCCLXI (861)



If a soul seeks God’s Authority, let it search
In one direction mainly – the Catholic Church!

Ever since Archbishop Vigano, once Number Four in the Secretariat of State, left behind the Second Vatican Council and all its pomps and all its works, some of his observations concerning Pope Bergoglio have been so caustic that many Catholics have wondered if the Archbishop still considers him to be Pope at all. Has he not joined the ranks of the “sedevacantists,” ie. those Catholics who consider that the See of Peter has been vacant ever since that accursed Council did so much damage to the Catholic Church? How is it possible that truly Catholic Popes presided over that Council and its aftermath?

The problem is agonising, because by that Council, Catholic Authority split itself from Catholic Truth, forcing Catholics to abandon one or the other, wholly or in part, because they could no longer follow both. Catholics either clung to the Truth and more or less “disobeyed” what seemed to be Catholic Authority, or they clung to falsified “Authority” and were more or less unfaithful to the unchanging Truth. As for Archbishop Vigano, for tens of years after the Council (1962–1965) he was faithful to his colleagues and comrades in the highest ranks of Church Authority, because, on his own confession, he “could not believe that they meant to destroy the Church.” But in 2018, he met with such corruption in the United States of America where he was Papal Nuncio and also in the Vatican Curia, that he was forced to seek the proportionate cause, and he found it in the Council. From there he found it especially in the Conciliar Pope of his own time, the “Argentine Jesuit,” as he calls him, about whom he has made such scathing remarks that many observers have been driven to wonder if the Archbishop still believes that Bergoglio is Pope. Let us see what he said on December 9.

See the “Eleison Comments” of last week (#859 of December 30) for a six-paragraph summary of what he said, to which the following numbers in heavy print correspond. Better still, look up on the Internet his full original words, accessible in English at catholicfamilynews.com or lifesitenews.com

1- Over the last 10 years, the Catholic Church has been turned over to revolution and chaos. 
2 – Cardinals, Bishops should be blocking this destruction, but they are too Conciliar themselves to do so. 
3 – Church Authority, so paralysed, is explicable only by the “operation of error” foretold for world’s end. 
4 – It makes Bergoglio a usurper on Peter’s Throne. He is a false prophet. We need not obey him. 
5 – However, we have no Authority to declare officially that he is not Pope, so there is no human solution. 
6 – Nor is our whole battle merely between men, and to think so is to invite still further serious trouble.

Here is the merest skeleton of the Archbishop’s rich argument – do see the original to let him speak for himself – but it is enough to indicate that he is hanging back from public “sedevacantism.” After building up his case against the one he calls “Bergoglio” for the large part of his discourse (1–4), just as he arrives at the climactic point where he will propose his own solution (5), he may well himself share the conviction of many serious Catholics that this or that Conciliar Pope, anywhere from John XXIII to Francis inclusive, has not been a true Pope, but that conviction, shared by however many of them, can never amount to an official Church declaration, and any such declaration will have to wait until Mother Church has recovered from her present deadly attack of modernism, a barely curable mental disease.

In the meantime this apparent stop of Archbishop Vigano on the road to sedevacantism is highly reasonable, because it safeguards in a Catholic mind and heart a measure of respect for Catholic Authority which might otherwise go completely by the board. Woe to Catholic Tradition, or to its “Resistance,” that would lose all respect for Catholic Authority, because that Authority is divine, and it must and will come back, in full force, one day, just like the sun after an eclipse, and before world’s end.

Kyrie eleison.

It appears St. Bernard Clairvaux wouldn't agree with his Excellency that Catholics are without a human solution to Bergolio's usurpation of the Seat of Peter.

Because after eight years of toil, he lead a Catholic army in 1138 to unseat the jew anti-Pope, Anacletus II.


Reflection on the Lessons St. Bernard gives us

Saint Bernard was not a “recognize and resist” do nothing. He was not interested more in the money he could make at his Monastery by being friends with the antipope, than his duty before God to support the true Pope. Nor was he one of those who said, “there is no mechanism in the Church” to judge an antipope. And he certainly was not one to say of someone with a doubtful claim, that those who oppose such a claim are “extremists”. Nor was he one of those fakers, who claims that a Schism of the Church must only be settled by the clergy, and not by political intervention of the sovereign powers.

He not only was in favor of imperfect Synods, as we call them today, he convened them. He was not only in favor of armed military solution, but he led them into battle! He was not oblivious to canonical facts, he accepted them and preached them. He was so unlike nearly everyone in the Sacred Hierarchy today, that he is an example and role model to be imitated by all, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Monks and Laymen.

So when next you hear someone say, there is nothing that we can do to rid the Church of an Antipope or heretic, or restore a true Pope to power, remember the example of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux and his 9 year long war against Anacletus II. Because Saint Bernard, a most devout son of the Blessed Virgin, a most zealous disciple of Jesus Christ, patron of the Templars and zealous supporter of the Second Crusade, did it all!


Source

As 'fun' as this would be in today's modern world, I don't see how it would happen.

Bergoglio will be dead soon. But then what?

I never thought to ask this in the past:  why is Vigano called "Archbishop" in the NO?  He was never an ordinary of a diocese.

This actually answers the key question for me.

+Vigano says that it's morally certain that Jorge is not the pope.

+Vigano says he's not a "sedevacantist".

So how do they define the term "sedevacantist"?

When Bishop Williamson says that +Vigano stopped sort of sedevacantism (but doesn't rule out that +Vigano might go there), he subtly defines what he means (and likely +Vigano means, since they talk often).

+Williamson:

he may well himself share the conviction of many serious Catholics that this or that Conciliar Pope, anywhere from John XXIII to Francis inclusive, has not been a true Pope, but that conviction, shared by however many of them, can never amount to an official Church declaration

So, for them, the term "sedevacantist" refers to holding that all the V2 papal claimants were not legitimate.

We see also here Bishop Williamson's attitude about sedevacantism, calling it "the conviction of many serious Catholics".  Hardly characterizing it as some "danger to souls" that must be avoided at all costs, as Plenus Venter alleged the Resistance holds.  Of course, we also have a CI member who posted some correspondence with Father Chazal, where Father Chazal also holds that Bergoglio is not a true pope.

As for the "official declaration" part, I think almost every sedevacantist and certainly every sedeprivationist would absolutely agree with that, so that does not distinguish them from sedevacantists.

+Williamson also hints at the MAJOR of "sedevacantism", as I've laid it out before.

Has he not joined the ranks of the “sedevacantists,” ie. those Catholics who consider that the See of Peter has been vacant ever since that accursed Council did so much damage to the Catholic Church? How is it possible that truly Catholic Popes presided over that Council and its aftermath?

But, Your Excellency, Archbishop Lefebvre answered this question quite clearly:

ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this.  There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...

Archbishop Lefebvre only hesitated on account of the MINOR, and the certainty with which he could explain how this destruction could have happened.

I never thought to ask this in the past:  why is Vigano called "Archbishop" in the NO?  He was never an ordinary of a diocese.

You don't have to be the head of a diocese to have the title Archbishop.  That title is commonly given to Vatican prelates.  It's referred to as being a "Titular Archbishop" ... having the title.

According to this site, he was made "Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana".
https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bvigano.html

If you click the link to "Ulpiana", it shows the past Titular Bishops of that "See".

• Luigi Zaffarami † (10 Feb 1933 Appointed - 19 Sep 1939 Died)
• Bl. Vasile Aftenie † (12 Apr 1940 Appointed - 10 May 1950 Died)
• János Bárd † (20 Nov 1950 Appointed - 23 Sep 1982 Died)
• Raúl Horacio Scarrone Carrero † (13 Oct 1982 Appointed - 15 Jun 1987 Appointed, Bishop of Florida)
• Salvatore Boccaccio † (29 Oct 1987 Appointed - 17 Mar 1992 Appointed, Coadjutor Bishop of Sabina-Poggio Mirteto)
• Carlo Maria Viganò (3 Apr 1992 Appointed - )

But the important point is that there's a holy Catholic precedent for unseating an usurper.

... by official members of the hierarchy, especially Cardinals.

One could "unseat" Bergoglio all you want, and even elect a new "Pope" in some Traditionalist conclave, but probably only a small percentage of Traditional Catholics would accept such an election.  So what then, another Michael I or Pius XIII?

Is there any one in NewChurch that you would accept as a true pontiff?  My question is serious not sarcastic.

What does that have to do with the point you posted?  And what does it matter who I personally would accept?  What's at issue is whether there could be Universal Acceptance, and there's no way that a group of Sedevacantists holding a conclave could ever acquire such acceptance.  Something dramatic would have to happen first, such as if the entire SSPX and even some Novus Ordo "Trad, Inc." types all finally concurred that the Holy See is vacant.