VIGANO SEDEVACANTIST? – I 

January 6, 2024
ELEISON COMMENTS DCCCLX

Readers, prepare next week to analyse
These thoughts of a churchman, valiant and wise.

1 On the ninth of this last month of the year, Archbishop Vigano gave another of his splendid Conferences, asking whether Pope Bergoglio is truly Pope. The problem is well-known to Catholics: over the last 10 years Catholic Authority has been twisted into arrogant authoritarianism, God’s own priesthood into man’s clericalism, and God’s revealed Truth into man’s permanent revolution and chaos.

2 As for the Church authorities beneath the Pope to help him to protect that Truth, they are either his accomplices or they are so scared of him, that the few discordant voices do not dare to draw the necessary conclusions, mainly because they idolise Vatican II. One may criticize Bergoglio, and dissent from him, but not from Vatican II. These good men do not want to acknowledge that the revolutionary process that allowed a person like Bergoglio to be made a bishop and Cardinal and finally to enter the Conclave and to come out “pope”, was due to the Council, which is in their minds untouchable. One is driven to conclude that certain people care more about the doctrine of the Papacy than about the salvation of souls. They find themselves preferring to be governed by a heretic and apostate pope rather than recognize that a heretic or an apostate cannot be head of the Church to which, as such, he does not belong.

3 No Doctor of the Church has ever contemplated the case of such an apostate Pope as Bergoglio. Such an enormity could only happen in a unique and extraordinary context such as that of the final persecution foretold by the Prophet Daniel and described by St. Paul. And this “operation of error” (II Thess. II, 13) is so efficient and well organized that it clearly shows a Luciferian intelligence at work. This is why the “Bergoglio problem” cannot be solved in any ordinary way: no society can survive the total corruption of the authority that governs it, and the Church is no different.

4 Nor is this “operation” merely the matter of a pope adhering to a specific heresy (which, moreover, Bergoglio has done repeatedly). We are dealing with a personage sent to the Conclave with orders to revolutionize the Church from atop the Chair of Peter. It is this malicious intention to abuse the authority and power of the Papacy, acquired by deception, that makes Bergoglio a usurper of the Throne of Peter.  Nor can we behave as if we were solving a question of Canon Law: the Lord is outraged, the Church is being humiliated, and souls are being lost because the one sitting on the Throne of Peter is a usurper. Bergoglio’s unchanging behaviour – before, during and after his election – is enough evidence of his inherent iniquity. Can we therefore be morally certain that he is a false prophet? Yes. Are we therefore authorized in conscience to revoke our obedience to one who, presenting himself as Pope, acts like the biblical boar in the Lord’s Vineyard? Yes.

5 However, we can make no official declaration that Bergoglio is not Pope because we have no Authority to do so. This terrible impasse in which we find ourselves makes any merely human solution impossible. Our task must not be to grapple with abstract canonist speculations, but to resist with all our strength – and with the help of God’s grace – the explicitly destructive action of the Argentine Jesuit, rejecting with courage and determination any collaboration, even indirect, with him or his accomplices.

6 Let us not delude ourselves: those who persist in reading the present situation with merely human eyes expose not only themselves but all of mankind to the continuation and aggravation of this situation: For our battle is not against creatures made of flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, against the spirits of evil that dwell in the regions above (Eph. VI:12).

Kyrie Eleison.

Just to clarify and make sure I understand:

Are these bullet points all recapitulations of Vigano's thought, which Bp. Williamson plans to analyze next week?

In other words, we are not to take these reasonings to be the reasonings of Bishop W, but of Vigano.

Is that correct?

That's my impression, yes. 

This may be the conference +W refers to. In it, +V calls Bergoglio The False Prophet ("the prophet of Satan").

Not likely as Bishop Williamson says, "On the ninth of this last month of the year," which is December, thus it was from this conference, which was given on the 9th of December:

Aspicite nobis illusiones - EXSURGE DOMINE

When someone posted it from a different source, I mentioned that 90% of it was just direct quotation from +Vigano, and Bishop Williamson says that he'll provide an analysis next time.

I could see Bishop Williamson agreeing with his statement of not being able to make an official declaration.

Everyone should agree with the statement, because it's true.  The only entity who can make a declaration (that matters) is the Church.  And until God cleans house and restores orthodoxy to Rome, we have to wait.

Well, here's a start! Vigano calling for the Swiss Guard to arrest Bergolgio and Fernandez after the discovery of another one of Tuchy's filthy books:



Arcivescovo Carlo Maria Viganò

@CarloMVigano
The blasphemous sewer regurgitations of Tucho’s repulsive pamphlet show such a level of perversion and alienation to the Faith as to demand the expulsion manu militari of the Argentinean and his accomplices.

The Swiss Guards have sworn to defend the See of Peter, not the one who is systematically demolishing it. Let them therefore be faithful to their oath and arrest these heretical perverts!

https://x.com/dianemontagna/status/1744337098923024466

Here's what Sarah said:

In so doing, we are not opposing Pope Francis, but firmly and radically opposing a heresy that seriously undermines the Church, the Body of Christ, because it is contrary to the Catholic faith and Tradition.

Sounds like a distinction without a difference ... constantly walking the tight-rope of claiming not to be "opposed to Francis".  So, Cardinal Sarah, who is it that's pushing this heresy if not Francis?