The interview includes a question many have wondered about:

M. Matt: Do you still offer the New Mass on occasion?

Msgr. Vigano: No, I have not celebrated the Novus Ordo for a few years now, and I do not see how I could retrace my steps by agreeing to celebrate it even occasionally...Returning to the Montinian rite, after having received the Grace to follow the Lord on the way to Calvary thanks to the traditional Mass, would represent for me a betrayal, which – unlike those who do not know this venerable rite – would be even more serious.

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/6174-vigano-interview-by-michael-j-matt-for-the-catholic-identity-conference-pittsburgh-october-2-2022

I'm sure that part of the problem is the translation, but.....

Can someone tell me what he said IN ENGLISH?  

On Vatican II:

"There is no phantom “Good Council” that was supposedly “betrayed” by the modernists. It was conceived in form in such a way as to prevent it from being Catholic in substance, disguising the pitfalls it contained (and that it would soon reveal) behind verbiage and equivocal concepts."


Faulting BXVI:

"It should also be said that the Renunciation of Benedict XVI and the canonical monstrum he gave birth to of the “Papacy Emeritus” has dealt a deadly blow to the Church, making it possible to carry out the plot against her that included electing a pope who would support the agenda of the world’s elite."


Flirting with Sedevacantism?

"To those who still persist in distinguishing between which part of the Bergoglian “magisterium” is binding and which part is not, I think it is not necessary to reiterate that this formal approach can perhaps save the doctrine of papal infallibility, but certainly not the image of the Church, and at the same time it demonstrates the fact that Bergoglio is totally extraneous to the papacy. This fact is instinctively perceived even by simple members of the faithful, just as a transplanted organ is rejected by an organism that recognizes that it does not belong to it. The sensus fidei makes them understand the same thing that the analysis of his heretical declarations confirms to theologians and canonists. His famous “buona sera” uttered from the balcony of the Loggia of Saint Peter’s on March 13, 2013 contains in a nutshell the essence of the irremediable fact that he is entirely alien to the papacy."

He's made even strong statements about Ratzinger.

In that last paragraph, he basically lays out the premise for SVism and is subtly making the same argument that I've long emphasized here, that this isn't about the kind of reductionism that would salvage papal infallibility, but leaves a stain on the Church, i.e. per +Vigano, does not "[save] the image of the Church", but, rather, asserting that Bergolgio is pope would compromise the overall Holiness and Indefectibility of the Church.

+Vigano has swung far to the right of SSPX, and is just a hair's breadth away from declaring the Holy See to be vacant.  His last paragaph pretty much does so without using the phrase "sede vacante".  And yet he's ruthlessly attacked by many here who object to the fact that 1) he USED to be Conciliar (news-flash, most of us older folks here were also Conciliar), and 2) hasn't explicitly declared the Holy See to be vacant, 3) had some dealings with some people who belong to Opus Dei (I've known many people who were tied to Opus Dei, some who even tried to recruit me, and 4) issued some guarded and qualified praise to Donald Trump.  Some also object to the fact that he hasn't denounced Putin as The Antichrist (neither does Bishop Williamson).

I have rarely seen any individual attacked this much.  These same people are not excoriating Bishop Williamson for praising Putin, have not ruthlessly attacked Archbishop Lefebvre for, after 30 years of fighting the Modernists, STILL not becoming Sedevacantist (they merely disagree respectfully with Archbishop Lefebvre).  Meanwhle, +Vigano is THIS close to coming out as SV and IMO is already privately convinced of it.  He's NEVER referred to Bergoglio as Holy Father, and only once as "Francis" (and in a very unflatterig context while quoting someone else).  There's some kind of animosity toward this man that I simply can't comprehend.  His theological dismantling of the "Hermeneutic of Continuity" in the letter to Bishop Schneider was by far the best ever done against that position ... which +Fellay has actually championed of late.

Not only do R&R not believe that Bergoglio is entirely alien to the papacy, but neither to Sedeprivationists or Sedeimpoundists say that.  They would say that there's some material overlap.

What's unclear about it?

He's reiterated that the V2 phenomenon is not a question of people misinterpreting the Council but that V2 is radically defective on its own.

He states that he could not in good conscience ever offer the NOM again.

He comes a hair's breadth from SVism.  He says that Berogoglio's being pope would constitute a destruction the Church's "image", that this isn't just about the strict limits of papal infallibility, and he concludes that Bergoglio is completely "entirely alien to the papacy" (which is a circuмlocution for saying that Bergoglio is not the pope).

Think about those words for a second.  "[Bergoglio] is ENTIRELY ALIEN TO THE PAPACY."  Alien means that a disjunction between the two, and ENTIRELY means that there's a 100% disjunction between Bergoglio and the papacy, and there's no overlap between the Papacy and Bergoglio.

That bolded basically means ... Bergoglio is not the pope.  Bergoglio and the Papacy are separated with no overlap.  Papacy is one thing, and Bergoglio is another ... and the two do not meet or have any conjunction with one another.  It's basically a declaration of SedeVacate.

What does he mean by that "buona sera" on March 13, 2013.  That was the first speech Bergoglio gave after it was announced that he had been "elected".  So the implication is that this was a non-papacy out of the gate.  There's nothing particularly heretical in that opening speech.

I'll read it again in the morning.  Maybe it was me.  

Saying Donald Trump is the last great hope for Western Civilization is guarded and qualified praise? 

I knew this would draw out the howling banshees.  You've been exposed for exaggerating the scope of +Vigano's praise of Trump, and slandering him with your exaggerations, and yet you persist in your calumny.  In +Vigano's most famous "praise" of Trump, it was a very carefully worded letter in which he was attempting to work Trump's ego (known to be yuge) in order to persuade him to do good, and where he stated that he "dared hope" that Trump was on the side of good.  HE, +VIGANO, DARED HOPE that Trump was on the side of good, and was using that to work Trump's ego (which is considerable).  He never once called Trump the "last great hope for Western civilization".  That is a total slander, but your malice knows no bounds.

+Vigano was a diplomat by profession, and he was skilled at it to the point where he could read personalities and knew how to "work them".  His prudential judgment was that the most potentialy beneficial approach would be to praise Trump and appeal to his ego.  He, unlike many others, did not fail to notice that if Trump was every attacked (or had his feelings hurt), would lash out with insults in the matter of a 3rd-grader.  Even if Trump happened to agree with you in principle, his ego can't take even the slightest hint of criticism.  And yet the letter was very carefully worded, with phrase like, "[+Vigano] dared hope ..." that Trump would do good, an expression that clearly indicates that he does not really trust Trump, but that was worded in such a way as to float over his head, as Trump's ego is programmed to filter out the negative if it isn't obvious and direct (in which case he would lash out).

It's a matter of prudence .  If you had a child who did some good things, but then was involved also in various sinful things (maybe getting roped into a gang), if you decided that by attacking him for associating with the gang, he would react with hostility (based on his temperament with which you're very familiar), possibly running away from home to join them and therefore get even more deeply embedded with them, maybe you would adopt a tactic, out of prudence, of praising the good he was doing and then on the side attacking gang membership IN PRINCIPLE.  +Vigano was one of the most courageous and vocal opponents of the jab (along with +Schneider).  Strangely, not Traditional Catholic clergy stand out in this regard.  Most were ambivalent about it at best, with a great number of them condoning it.

But imagine for a second Trump's reaction had +Vigano wrote a public letter excoriating him for the jab.  Trump would have blown up, ripped at the Catholic Church, probably mocked it, become more contemptuous of Catholicism, etc.  But we saw with the letter that Trump was very proud of it, retweeting it.  That would make him more inclined down the road to listening to someone like +Vigano ... vs. putting up a mental block and reacting with hostility against what +Vigano stood for (Traditional Catholicism).

I swear that half the forum participants here have serious psychological problems, and some days I feel like someone unleashed an insane asylum into CathInfo.

What's unclear about it?

He's reiterated that the V2 phenomenon is not a question of people misinterpreting the Council but that V2 is radically defective on its own.

He states that he could not in good conscience ever offer the NOM again.

He comes a hair's breadth from SVism.  He says that Berogoglio's being pope would constitute a destruction the Church's "image", that this isn't just about the strict limits of papal infallibility, and he concludes that Bergoglio is completely "entirely alien to the papacy" (which is a circuмlocution for saying that Bergoglio is not the pope).

Think about those words for a second.  "[Bergoglio] is ENTIRELY ALIEN TO THE PAPACY."  Alien means that a disjunction between the two, and ENTIRELY means that there's a 100% disjunction between Bergoglio and the papacy, and there's no overlap between the Papacy and Bergoglio.

That bolded basically means ... Bergoglio is not the pope.  Bergoglio and the Papacy are separated with no overlap.  Papacy is one thing, and Bergoglio is another ... and the two do not meet or have any conjunction with one another.  It's basically a declaration of SedeVacate.

What does he mean by that "buona sera" on March 13, 2013.  That was the first speech Bergoglio gave after it was announced that he had been "elected".  So the implication is that this was a non-papacy out of the gate.  There's nothing particularly heretical in that opening speech.

OK, so it's the last paragraph's wording that isn't clear to me.  Yes, we could translate the bolded to mean that he's really saying "he's not the pope", but once again why doesn't he just say it if that is what he means?  So sick of trying to translate clerical "meanings". 

Of course, let's also keep in mind that he was interviewed by Michael Matt.  Do you really think MM would interview him if he thought he was a "hair's breath away from sedevacantism"?

The sections included in the OP are also not the full interview [as are the headings the OP used].  It would be interesting to read them in context. Here is the full Q and A from the "Flirting with Sedevacantism?" heading: 

7. It seems at least possible that Pope Bergoglio was installed in the Chair of Peter in order to undermine the theology of the Papacy. When we criticize Francis, are we not contributing to that same agenda where the papacy is concerned?


Those who managed to get Bergoglio elected to the Conclave of 2013 knew very well that he intended to obtain the discrediting of the Papacy and the humiliation of the Catholic Church as the main result of his installation on the Throne of Peter, as well as the spread of heresies, moral errors and very serious scandals. Indeed, it is precisely in the constant action of this man, in the ruthless steady stream of the last ten years, that the Papacy has known the most serious and powerful assault, carried out by the one who owes his authority over the ecclesial body to the Papacy. An action attacking the Church from the outside would not have had the same results. It should also be said that the Renunciation of Benedict XVI and the canonical monstrum he gave birth to of the “Papacy Emeritus” has dealt a deadly blow to the Church, making it possible to carry out the plot against her that included electing a pope who would support the agenda of the world’s elite.

Criticizing Bergoglio for what he is doing to the Church does not play into the hands of his instigators, the St. Gallen Mafia or the globalist Masonic elite who have intentionally placed him there. The unworthiness of the Argentine on the throne of Peter is, on the other hand, a clear sign of the premeditated and malicious action of those who know well that the most effective way to demolish an institution consists in the work of discrediting it carried out by those who hold the highest authority in it. It is no different from what is happening today in the civil sphere, in which the entire political and ruling class is corrupt and subservient to the criminal interests of the same anti-Christian elite, which on the one hand corrupts souls with LGBTQ+ propaganda and gender theory, and on the other makes use of corrupt Bishops – as is happening in Belgium with the “blessings” of gαy unions – to bring Bergoglio’s words to their extreme consequences, starting with “Who am I to judge.”

I would like to make clear an extremely grave (and inevitable) implication of this progressive legitimization of LGBTQ+ doctrine and gender ideology in the life of the Church. We know that the Magisterium of the Church condemns ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts as “intrinsically perverse”: they are an evil; those who do them sin gravely, and if they do not repent their souls are destined for eternal damnation. This is taught unequivocally by Sacred Scripture in both the Old and the New Testament. Conversely, Bergoglio’s words and the acts of his accomplices are intended to remove any moral condemnation of sodomy and the practice of “sex changes.” But what will happen, within a few years, when there will be “faithful” transsɛҳuąƖs who ask to be admitted to Holy Orders? I will not say anything further: I leave it to you to comprehend the abyss that has opened up before us.

To those who still persist in distinguishing between which part of the Bergoglian “magisterium” is binding and which part is not, I think it is not necessary to reiterate that this formal approach can perhaps save the doctrine of papal infallibility, but certainly not the image of the Church, and at the same time it demonstrates the fact that Bergoglio is totally extraneous to the papacy. This fact is instinctively perceived even by simple members of the faithful, just as a transplanted organ is rejected by an organism that recognizes that it does not belong to it. The sensus fidei makes them understand the same thing that the analysis of his heretical declarations confirms to theologians and canonists. His famous “buona sera” uttered from the balcony of the Loggia of Saint Peter’s on March 13, 2013 contains in a nutshell the essence of the irremediable fact that he is entirely alien to the papacy.