Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, in his latest public article (11/19/19), accuses Pope Francis of apostasy: Abp. Viganò: The World Neo-Religion Will Have Its Temple — With the Pope’s Approval.

The first accusation in the article is in its title: The title suggests that Pope Francis has approved of a new world religion, a synchronism of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, merely by approving of a building which contains within it three different places of worship, one for Islam, one for Judaism, and one for Christianity (mosque, temple, church). In fact, no new religion is being proposed by anyone, and the Pope gave no such approval to any “world neo-religion”.

Vigano: “Abrahamic Family House is therefore the name of this structure that will house a synagogue, a mosque and a church, naturally dedicated to the Poverello [the poor one].”

Note that the building merely houses three different places of worship. The claim that this produces a new religion which merges the three is absurd. It is a blatantly false accusation against the Pope, and therefore a false accusation of apostasy.

Vigano: “Pope Bergoglio thus proceeds to further implement the apostasy of Abu Dhabi, the fruit of pantheistic and agnostic neo-modernism that tyrannizes the Roman Catholic Church, germinated by the conciliar document Nostra Aetate. We are forced to recognize it: the poisoned fruits of the “conciliar spring” are before the eyes of anyone who doesn’t allow himself to be blinded by the dominant Lie.”

Wow. An Archbishop of the Catholic Church has publicly referred to Pope Francis under the term used by persons who consider him to be an anti-pope or an invalid pope: “Pope Bergoglio”. [The original article in Italian is here.] Combined with the claim that Pope Francis is further implementing “the apostasy” of the Human Fraternity document signed at Abu Dhabi, this implies that Vigano considers Pope Francis to have lost his validity. For, according to the claims of some critics, an heretical or apostate Pope ceases to be a member of the Church and so ceases to be a valid Pope.

Notice also that, after rejecting Pope Francis as a faithful Roman Pontiff, Vigano rejects Vatican II, calling its fruits poison and its work a Lie. Even if Vatican II taught no infallible doctrines, to reject the Council itself, or its teachings as a set, or its authority over the faithful, or to claim that the Holy Spirit is not at work in each and every Council (and Pope), is schismatic.

** Now I will take a moment to remind the reader that the faithful need not judge or explain the Pope’s words and deeds. The First See is judged by no one. We need only trust in the promise of Jesus that He would pray for Peter and his successors, as Vatican I authoritatively interpreted His words, to the effect that the faith of each Pope would never fail.

{22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

The First Vatican Council infallibly taught that the faith of Peter cannot fail, and this certainly means that a valid Pope cannot become invalid by committing apostasy, heresy, or schism, nor by committing idolatry. And though Vatican I did not mention this point, Jesus also says that the Pope, protected from failing in faith by grace from the Holy Spirit, will then confirm his brethren, the other Bishops, in faith. Therefore, the faith of the body of Bishops also cannot fail. And finally, the Church Herself cannot fail in faith (or in any other way) due the teaching of Mt 16:18.

All this implies that when the body of bishops — whose faith cannot fail — accepts a man as Roman Pontiff, he must be the valid Pope. Otherwise, the Church would have defected and the faith of the body of Bishops would have failed. And since the Pope’s faith cannot fail, a valid Pope cannot lose his validity.

Abp. Vigano seems to be unaware of the teaching of Vatican I, and he clearly has little regard for Vatican II, as his own words prove. He calls the fruits of Vatican II “poisoned fruits”. By comparison, Pope Saint John Paul II — whom papal critics are beginning to doubt is really a Saint! — said about the Second Vatican Council: “the fruits of the Council are manifold and everywhere there are signs that the Council has brought a new steadfastness in the faith, new signs of holiness, and a new love of the Church….” [12 March 1998]. What a contrast! And whom should we believe, a Pope-Saint or an archbishop in hiding who is accusing a Pope of failing in faith, contrary to dogma?

** And I also must point out that when a Catholic, in this case an Archbishop, publicly accuses a Roman Pontiff of apostasy and then refers to him by a term indicating that Roman Pontiff is no longer a valid Pope, it is the accuser who is in error, as Popes have a never-failing faith. I therefore conclude, unfortunately, that Archbishop Vigano may possibly be in a state of formal schism for falsely accusing Pope Francis of apostasy and speaking as if Francis were no longer a valid Pope (by saying “papa Bergoglio”).

Schism is refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff. No one submits to a Pope he thinks is guilty of apostasy. And accusing the Pope of being invalid, by refusing to refer to him by his chosen papal name Francis, further supports the conclusion of refusal of submission.

As said in my previous post, I see nothing wrong with the Human Fraternity document. And, the way it is written, it could have been signed by John Paul II, instead of Pope Francis. It sounds much like his theology, and Pope Francis has stated that he follows John Paul II in many ways.

But for Abp. Vigano to call Human Fraternity “the fruit of pantheistic and agnostic neo-modernism that tyrannizes the Roman Catholic Church” is a severe distortion of the document’s contents. It merely speaks of freedom of religion, in a world where people of good will often disagree. And religion is defined narrowly, so as to exclude idolatry and the worship of evil, as well as to exclude any religions that are not based on “wisdom, justice and love.” In fact, the document focuses mainly on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: “The protection of places of worship – synagogues, churches and mosques – is a duty guaranteed by religions, human values, laws and international agreements.” Nothing in the document is even open to an accusation of heresy or apostasy or idolatry.

Then to approve the construction of a building that merely houses three “places of worship – synagogues, churches and mosques” is not in any way prohibited by divine or natural law.

Three Houses of Worship

This project reminds me of a passage from the Bible, and it supports the Pope’s position that nothing is wrong with such a structure.

[Matthew 17]
{17:1} And after six days, Jesus took Peter and James and his brother John, and he led them onto a lofty mountain separately.
{17:2} And he was transfigured before them. And his face shined brightly like the sun. And his garments were made white like snow.
{17:3} And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, speaking with him.
{17:4} And Peter responded by saying to Jesus: “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you are willing, let us make three tabernacles here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”

This passage is said to refer to the Three Booths of the Transfiguration. It proves that nothing is wrong with making three tabernacles (or booths), three places of worship, one for Christianity (“one for you”), one for Judaism (“Moses”), and one for Islam. “Elijah”, as one of the most prominent prophets, stands for Islam, which was not yet founded at the time this verse was written. A building with a synagogue, a mosque and a church under one roof would fit this wording nicely. And since it is Peter making this suggestion, it is not apostasy or idolatry.

A building which puts into practice the suggestion of the first Pope, Peter, in his personal response to seeing the transfiguration of Jesus is in no way a type of apostasy or idolatry. It is in accord with the Gospel (Mt 17:4, Mark 9:5-6, Luke 9:33). Carlo Vigano’s rejection of papal and conciliar authority proves that he should not be followed or supported by any of the faithful.

Ronald L. Conte Jr.