Does Carlo Vigano believe Pope Francis is an Antipope?

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.

Gallery | This entry was posted in papal accusers. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Does Carlo Vigano believe Pope Francis is an Antipope?

  1. Robert Fastiggi says:

    Thank you, Ron, for this good article. Archbishop Viganò clearly needs prayers. He’s underming his own credibility with such unjust accusations against Pope Francis and Vatican II. Some of the papal critics seem to have forgotten the eighth commandment.

  2. Alex says:

    Vigano is crazy! So he wants all those Muslims and Jews who otherwise would get in touch with the risen Christ and be saved, to simply go to hell or what? It is good though that he accuses pope Francis openly, so we all know from an official what hundreds of thousands illiterate fanatics think and write in forums. They all think that pope Francis is either the false prophet or prepares his way. Let therefore they manifest their new cult openly, through Vigano and others, and be separated from the faithful people of God.

    And btw the real antichrist when he comes (maybe not in my time) will be welcomed exactly by those fanatics, whose predecessors built stakes, and farther back they are those who killed the prophets, as Jesus himself scorned the pharisees (not the Jews).

    • Ron Conte says:

      Heaven is a place of love of God and neighbor, so the path is like the destination. Those who love God and neighbor are on the path to Heaven, even if they err by rejecting Christianity. An atheist who loves his neighbor, in full cooperation with grace, implicitly loves God, so he can be saved without converting also.

      As for the Antichrist, he will not be born for hundreds of years, according to my study of eschatology. Many events must occur first, including the rise and fall of kingdom after kingdom.

  3. Alex says:

    btw pope Francis is not the first one to make a common prayer house. At the airports there are prayer rooms for all religions. The UN invites the representatives of all faiths to pray or reflect in their own way. But such unimportant details don’t matter for people like Vigano, who look for the big stuff…and that is to find the antichrist because somehow they believe they hold the finger of god…not our God of Love and Mercy though.

  4. Alex says:

    I slowly recognize the full extent of Vigano’s words
    ” “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.”

    As Ron said, he rejects Vatican II as well. As I commented before, it is not about the wooden figure of pachamama or about the married priests. It is a rebellion about Everything introduced by three saints John Paul II, Paul VI and John XXIII. Like it or not, John XXIII is canonized therefore declared “ex cathedra” to be as saint in heaven (Ron correct me if my terminology is wrong). How could an apostate pope be a saint?

    The words of Vigano (and Schneider, Muller, Burke, Sarah) lead the common catholics to either think of pope Francis as “apostate, servant of the devil”, or to declare those cult leaders as being actually the mouthpiece of Lucifer the great accuser. There is no middle way with such strong accusations by people who still sit in honorable positions. Although the accusations range between the 5-6 top prelates, they essentially cover the same matter. I choose the second, that they and not pope Francis are the apostates.

    However , their words are accepted among the community of ultraconservative fanatics.
    Here is what I read in the comment section of Churchmilitant about the same Vigano statement:

    ___________________________________________________________________
    “The Cardinals, Bishops, and most of the priests who are trying to lead need to be eliminated from the Vatican election process in order for the light of the Tabernacle to be lit again. Most, if not all priests, are cowardly, silent and steeped in darkness taking many into hell with their failures as priests.”
    “I recommend Archbishop Vigano as our new Pope immediately to replace Apostate Pope Francis”
    “Pope Bergoglio is not only a heretic but also is an apostate. No heretic can be Pope. Such a one must be delivered over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, ”
    “If Pope Bergoglio isn’t anathematized the Church will be totally run over by demons. The Abomination of Desolations came into the heart of the Church by the apostate Bergoglio. The Church needs to pronounce anathema on him. ”
    ________________________________________________________________________

    It is hard to even read those comments of people full of hatred. As Jesus said, in Luke 19:22 His master replied, ‘You wicked servant, I will judge you by your own words. So you knew that I am a harsh man, withdrawing what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then did you not deposit my money in the bank, and upon my return I could have collected it with interest?’

    The leaders of the new cult must be anathematized, stripped of all their positions including the cardinalate, and those priests who follow them must be excommunicated, with a warning to all common catholics not to attend their masses under penalty of excommunication too. If we wait until they walk out of the Church voluntarily, we will wait for too long, as long as they could complete their coup inside. Because they want nothing short of overrunning Vatican II and the popes who followed it since then. They want to grab the 1.2 bln Catholic Church and turn it into direction of past centuries. They may even resort to acts as the one that saw John Paul I die so fast. They must be stopped now, or we all will pay a very costly price. No one from the normal cardinals want to be the |servant of the antichrist”. I.e. the dillema I presented here for the common catholics, stay before the cardinals too. In case of such public statements they must use the excommunication tool, or some of them will fall too – that is the goal of the cult. Lefebre did less damage to the Church than the above mentioned 5 prelates individually and collectively.

    • Ron Conte says:

      If the rebellion were only a handful of conservative leaders, it would not be so serious. But a vast number of conservatives are following them. When they walk out of the Church, the result will be stunning.

Comments are closed.