Archbishop Viganò and the Question of Pope Francis

Mr Gaspers looks at Archbishop Viganò's allegations that Francis is not the Pope and explains why the good Archbishop is wrong, quoting pre-conciliar sources. 

From One Peter Five

By Matt Gaspers

Part 1

From the release of his initial Testimony in August of 2018 to the present, I have followed Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s public statements with great interest and reported on them frequently. I wrote, for example, in September of 2019, when he was just beginning to examine the Second Vatican Council more thoroughly (both the historical event and the documents it produced): “Let us pray for Archbishop Viganò, that he will continue to study Vatican II in light of Tradition and be given the grace not only to recognize the rupture that has occurred, but also to testify accordingly, even if he must do so alone.” And I rejoiced two months later when he denounced the “terrible discontinuity” that exists between “the pre-conciliar Magisterium and the new teachings of Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae,” writing at the time: “By the grace of God, it seems our prayers have been answered in magnificent detail via Archbishop Viganò’s new essay!”

Notwithstanding the Vatican’s penal decree against him, I have assured His Excellency that he continues to have my esteem and gratitude for everything he has done over the past six years to sound the alarm against both moral and doctrinal corruption in the Church, which he rightly connects back to the “Revolution in Tiara and Cope” (Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita)[1] that occurred during and after Vatican II, as well as for reigniting a healthy critique of Conciliar novelties. He also has my deepest thanks for answering some of the questions I recently sent him, despite all the many demands on his time.

Nevertheless, I have some concerns about certain aspects of his current position, in particular, his belief that Francis is not the Pope, something which he no longer presents as a mere possibility but asserts as an established fact — whether based on what His Excellency has called “serious irregularities” in the 2013 conclave, or on an alleged defect of consent when Francis accepted his election, or on the claim that Francis was a heretic prior to his election and thus ineligible. And most recently, in answer to a question from Dr. Taylor Marshall, His Excellency has publicly asserted that Benedict XVI’s resignation, “due to the procedural defects and the canonical monstrum that it produced [of two apparent ‘popes’], is certainly invalid,” which logically means he also holds that the See of Rome was not actually vacant when Francis was elected.

Two days after he made public the Vatican’s penal decree, Archbishop Viganò recalled his response to an article by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (Sept. 2020) and said: “I recommend reading it in full, in light of recent events, inviting a serious theological discussion.” I agree that such a discussion is necessary, which is precisely why I sent him the questions I did, and which now prompts me to respectfully pose some counterpoints to his position.

Viganò’s Position on Francis

Let us begin with a summary of Archbishop Viganò’s position on Pope Francis, whom he regards as a usurper. One year ago, I interviewed His Excellency about a wide range of topics, including his then-recent comments that certain Cardinals “created by Benedict XVI have proved to be completely inferior to the expectations of faithful conservatives,” and that some of them “at the last Conclave witnessed things that they do not denounce publicly.” When I asked him to elaborate, he said:

Some cardinals who entered the Conclave in 2013 do not seem to understand the gravity of what happened in the Conclave and continues to happen, under false appearances of formal legality. …As for their silence on the events that took place during the Conclave, I see here as well a certain formally legalistic mentality prevailing over the urgent need to put an end to the subversive coup d’état of the deep church. …I find it incomprehensible that a member of the College of Cardinals can confide to friends that he has witnessed facts that render the election of Jorge Mario null and void, and at the same time he does not want to denounce them publicly so as not to break the Pontifical secret… The indiscretions of these Cardinals focus on the evidence of serious irregularities, without providing further details. …[I]f evidence were to emerge of some serious irregularity in the 2013 Conclave, this would ipso facto render the outcome of its election null and void, and consequently all the acts of government and magisterium carried out by the one elected. (Emphasis added)

Regarding an alleged defect of consent, Archbishop Viganò stated last October that he believes Francis’s “acceptance of the papacy is invalidated, because he considers the papacy something other than what it is, like a spouse who gets married in the church but excludes the specific purposes of marriage from his intention, thus making the marriage null and void precisely due to his lack of consent.” At the time, he spoke in terms of “the possibility that Bergoglio intended to obtain the election by means of fraud, and that he intended to abuse the authority of the Roman Pontiff” (emphasis added), which in his view would invalidate the 2013 conclave.

Now, however, Viganò holds as certain that “the errors and heresies to which Bergoglio adhered before, during, and after his election, along with the intention he held in his apparent acceptance of the Papacy, render his elevation to the throne null and void.” Furthermore, he maintains that “Bergoglio himself cannot be considered a member of the Church, due to his multiple heresies and his manifest alienness and incompatibility with the role he invalidly and illicitly holds.” These words appear in his statement J’Accuse, which he released on June 28, 2024, the deadline set by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith for him to either appear in person or send a written defense in response to the DDF’s charge of schism.

Conclave Irregularities, Defect of Consent, and Heresy: Rebuttals

What are the “serious irregularities” that certain Cardinals allegedly “witnessed” in 2013? They may include the now-notorious lobbying of the St. Gallen Mafia — a group of Modernist conspirators bent on imposing a destructive agenda upon the Church (see Julia Meloni’s book for details) — whose efforts appear to have violated the terms of Universi Dominici Gregis (1996), the Apostolic Constitution that remains the “special law” (can. 349) governing papal conclaves. Chapter VI of UDG prohibits the Cardinal electors from entering into “any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I [John Paul II] decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition” (no. 81).

Note, however, that UDG also states: “No Cardinal elector can be excluded from active or passive voice in the election of the Supreme Pontiff, for any reason or pretext” (no. 35), which would seem to include even those who are excommunicated. This interpretation is logical in light of Paul VI’s Romano Pontifici Eligendo (1975), which says: “No cardinal elector may be excluded from active and passive participation in the election of the Supreme Pontiff because of or on pretext of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment. Any such censures are to be regarded as suspended as far as the effect of the election is concerned” (no. 35). And Paul VI was simply repeating Pius XII’s prior legislation (cf. Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, no. 34).

Other “irregularities” may include claims that five rounds of balloting were allowed on the second day of the conclave, the day on which Francis was elected (March 13, 2013), instead of four. If true, this would also seem to be a violation of UDG, since the document specifies that only “two ballots shall be held in the morning and two in the afternoon” on each day following the first day of a conclave (no. 63).

Those who hold that UDG was violated ultimately point to the following proviso: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected” (no. 76).

But in order to know with certainty that UDG was violated, surely it would be necessary for at least one eyewitness (presumably a Cardinal elector) to publicly testify to that effect. According to Scriptural standards, two or three witnesses are necessary (cf. Deut. 17:6, 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1). Thus, in the absence of such eyewitness testimony, we cannot assume that UDG was violated in such a way as to render the election of Francis null and void.

Regarding the intention necessary for a valid acceptance of the papal office, the closest that UDG comes to specifying a right intention is found in the oath that all Cardinal electors are required to take prior to voting:

We likewise promise, pledge and swear that whichever of us by divine disposition is elected Roman Pontiff will commit himself faithfully to carrying out the munus Petrinum of Pastor of the Universal Church and will not fail to affirm and defend strenuously the spiritual and temporal rights and the liberty of the Holy See. (UDG, 53, emphasis added)

However, if a right intention is necessary for the man elected to validly accept the office, then it seems that several past popes should be declared invalid, beginning with the degenerate and virtually pagan John XII (r. 955-964), who clearly had no interest in “reverently guard[ing] and faithfully explain[ing] the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the Apostles” (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4; D.H. 3070).

As for allegations that Francis was a heretic prior to his election and thus ineligible for the papacy, it is simply not the case that he was considered pertinacious by the Church. Neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI ever declared him to be a heretic, nor did they ever warn him that he needed to recant any particular heresies — and warnings must necessarily precede a judgment of guilt, according to such eminent theologians as Cardinal Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534), St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), and John of St. Thomas (1589-1644), all of whom cite the same Scriptural teaching. Bellarmine, for example, says that the fact “that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, a heretic is to be shunned” (emphasis added), referring to Titus 3:10-11.[2]

Moreover, even if then-Cardinal Bergoglio privately held heretical beliefs prior to his election, that alone would not have been enough to disqualify him from the papacy. To quote Bellarmine once again, “a secret heretic, if he might be a Bishop, or even the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head of the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will….”[3]

Benedict XVI’s Resignation: Was it Valid?

Regarding the claim that Benedict’s XVI’s resignation was invalid, which would mean the See of Rome was not actually vacant when Francis was elected, I addressed the topic at length earlier this year in the first of a two-part series.[4] As explained therein, most people who hold this position base their belief on an alleged convergence of evidence based on several texts — those from Benedict XVI (including some from decades before his pontificate) and others, read in light of two particular canons from the current (1983) Code of Canon Law — all of which proves to them that Benedict’s resignation was invalid, typically, for one of two reasons: (1) he did not use the correct Latin term in his Declaratio (resignation announcement) and/or (2) he held an erroneous understanding of the Papacy and was thus in “substantial error” (can. 188) when he attempted to resign. Granted, others consider Benedict’s resignation invalid based on the so-called “Ratzinger Code” theorized by Italian journalist Andrea Cionci.

In his recent interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall, Archbishop Viganò referred to “Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli” as having “excellently explained” the position that Benedict did not validly resign. While I am not familiar with Professor Radaelli’s specific arguments, he has endorsed Dr. Ed Mazza’s thesis and praised Mazza for his “intuition to focus on canon 188 (which is much more decisive and germane than 332 § 2), and was totally violated by the Renunciation, because: 1) 188 strikes at the root of the heretical act; 2), it strikes a decisive blow to the act in its substance.” Thus, it is clear that Radaelli agrees with Dr. Mazza’s central argument that Benedict’s resignation was invalid due to “substantial error” (can. 188).

Those interested in viewing a full presentation of Dr. Mazza’s position may watch this online lecture from last December, as well as this friendly debate from earlier this year. For a comprehensive and systematic refutation of the “Benevacantist” position, I highly recommend reading Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI by Steven O’Reilly, which features a foreword by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

Regardless of the particular arguments involved, the belief that Francis is not the Pope is ultimately contradicted by one simple fact: he was peacefully and universally accepted as the “true Pope” (UDG, 88) by the entire Church following his election and acceptance of office on March 13, 2013. In the words of Cardinal Louis Billot (1846-1931), the renowned French theologian who served in the Holy Office under Pope St. Pius X, “the adhesion of the universal Church will always, in itself, be an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for the legitimacy itself.”[5]

This will be the focus of the second half of this two-part series.

---

[1] The full text of the Masonic document is provided by Msgr. George Dillon in Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked (London: Britons Publishing Company, 1965), p. 95. For background and commentary on the document, see John Vennari, The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita (Rockford: TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., 1999; republished in 2017 by The Fatima Center). See also Taylor R. Marshall, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within (Manchester: Crisis Publications, 2019).

[2] Bellarmine (trans. Ryan Grant), De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Ch. 30 (Post Falls: Mediatrix Press, 2016), p. 313. In our times, Cardinal Raymond Burke has also mentioned “the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff,” which he describes as “a formal act of correction of a serious error.” He made these remarks in the context of the dubia that he and three other Cardinals submitted to Pope Francis in 2016 following the publication of Amoris Laetitia. Sadly, he and his fellow Cardinals never issued a formal correction, which Burke said they would probably do in early 2017.

[3] Bellarmine (trans. Ryan Grant), De Ecclesia, Book III, Ch. 10 (Post Falls: Mediatrix Press, 2017), p. 293.

[4] See Matt Gaspers, “Is Francis the True Pope? Revisiting the Debate — Part I,” Catholic Family News, February 2024 issue (pp. 1, 18-20).

[5] Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (Third Edition, 1909), Tomus I, Question XIV, Thesis XXIX § 3 (pp. 620-621). Quoted by Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira in Can a Pope Be… a Heretic? The Theological Hypothesis of a Heretical Pope (Caminhos Romanos, 2018), p. 143.