Archbishop Carlo M. Vigano Has Lost All Jurisdiction (part 1)

In 2018, in an open letter, Cardinal Ouellet (Prefect of the Congregation of the Bishops), with permission of the Roman Pontiff, replied publicly to accusations made by archbishop emeritus Carlo M. Vigano. One important point of the letter is this statement:

“Dear fellow brother, I truly want to help you retrieve communion with him who is the visible guarantor of the Catholic Church’s communion. I understand that bitterness and disappointments have been a part of your journey in service to the Holy See, but you cannot conclude your priestly life in this way, in open and scandalous rebellion, which is inflicting a very painful wound on the Bride of Christ, whom you claim to serve better, thus aggravating the division and confusion in the People of God!” [1]

Ouellet publicly states that Vigano, at that point in time, needed to “retrieve communion” with the Roman Pontiff. In other words, Vigano was clearly not in communion with the Pope, as Faith and Canon Law requires. Please note that as a public communication to the whole Church and world, from the head of the congregation of the Bishops, given “With due pontifical permission”, the faithful should not be guided by Vigano, a retired archbishop with no diocese and no flock — other than those who choose to follow him in his rejection of the Roman Pontiff:

Lateran V: “It arises from the necessity of salvation that all the faithful of Christ are to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Lateran V: “the person who abandons the teaching of the Roman pontiff cannot be within the Church….”

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

Rejection of the dogmas of the Church on the Roman Pontiff is heresy. Refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff is schism. Formal heresy or formal schism incurs an automatic excommunication. One cannot reject an Ecumenical Council, such as Vatican I or II, on any excuse or explanation. The same is true for any Roman Pontiff. Submission is required for the sake of salvation, and refusal of submission carries the penalty of automatic excommunication.

Since the above 2018 letter, the open rejection of the Roman Pontiff by Carlo Vigano has worsened to an extreme beyond most schismatics in the history of the Church. He refuses to even call the Roman Pontiff “Pope Francis”, and instead calls him “Bergoglio”. The Holy See or Apostolic See is called by him as “the Bergoglian Hierarchy”. Vigano has spent the last several years issuing numerous articles and interviews in which he attacks Vatican II, the post-conciliar Church, the Roman Pontiff and the body of Bishops. He speaks as if almost the whole Church has gone astray, especially the Pope and Bishops. Such claims are contrary to the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.

His most recent communication with his audience “asks Catholics to take cancelled priests into their own homes” in order to say Mass [2].

Vigano: “The Catholic faithful open their homes to priests persecuted by the tyranny of the bishops allied to globalism, making them available for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass…. And may fraternal charity, nourished by the sharing of the one Faith and prayer, mark the beginning of a rebirth of the Holy Church, today obscured by mercenaries and traitors.” [2]

These are priests suspended a divinis or otherwise forbidden by proper authority in the Church to dispense the Sacraments (other than Confession at the hour of death, as is always the case). If a cleric or layperson follows the suggestion of Vigano to give “cancelled priests” a place to say Mass illicitly, that is an act of formal schism by the priest and the person who provides their own home, deliberately and knowingly, for an illicit Mass, contrary to Church authority. And it doesn’t matter what the argument is for or against the case regarding the priest. Once the Church decides, the clergy and faithful must obey. Holding Masses in homes with priests who have had their faculties suspended is an act of schism.

But notice also the vicious attack on the Apostolic College in the same quote above. Vigano refers to “the tyranny of the bishops,” claims they are “allied to globalism”, even though they have clearly dedicated their lives to the Church and to Christ, and also refers to “mercenaries and traitors” — which appear to refer to either the Bishops or those faithful to them. As for the assertion of being “nourished by the sharing of the one Faith”, it is dogma that this one Faith obtains its unity, in part, by obedience to the Roman Pontiff.

Saint Cyprian: There is “one Church founded by Christ our Lord on Peter, by the source and reason of unity”.

Vatican I: “For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world — to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to a head, with that See, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body.”

Vatican II: “And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion…. The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.”

Pope Saint John Paul II: “Another firmly established point to be kept in mind is that the unity of the Church is grounded in the unity of the episcopate, which, in order to be one, requires that there be a Head of the College. Analogously, the Church, in order to be one, calls for a Church that is Head of the Churches, the Church of Rome, whose Bishop, the Successor of Peter, is the Head of the College.”

The rejection of the Roman Pontiff, the body of Bishops, and the authority of the Church per se is a clear public severe schism. Using the term “one Faith” for Masses held in private homes, in contradiction to the authority of the Church, by suspended priests, especially when these persons openly reject Popes and Councils, is self-contradictory and self-condemnatory. They are NOT in full communion with the one true Church who reject the Pope, the body of Bishops, the authority of the Church, or the teachings of Ecumenical Councils.

Carlo Vigano’s public call for this type of schismatic act, especially given his broad reach and influence, such that he can reasonably anticipate that some persons will follow the suggestion, is not only per se schismatic, but can be anticipated to cause grave scandal to the faithful, to lead others into schism, and to cause confusion and even encourage rebellion against the Vicar of Christ. No explanation is sufficient to excuse this type of behavior.

House of Abraham

But there is more evidence of the schismatic and very public acts of Carlo Vigano. On 11 November 2019, Carlo Vigano issued a diatribe against Pope Francis, due to his approval of the House of Abraham project, which was intended by the Pope to house a church, a temple, and a mosque, so that the three great monotheistic religions, all related to Abraham, could worship together in peace [3].

Vigano called the project: “Babelesque enterprise, designed by the enemies of God.” [3] In the letter, Vigano refers to a past Roman Pontiff as “Supreme Pontiff Pius XI”. He then calls Pope Francis, “Pope Bergoglio.” In later communications, Vigano refused to even use the term “Pope”, calling the current Roman Pontiff “Bergoglio” only.

Vigano: “In the garden of Abu Dhabi the Temple of the World Syncretic Neo-Religion is about to rise with its antichristic dogmas.” [3] Here Vigano is clearly accusing Pope Francis of approving of idolatry (“world syncretic neo-religion”) and heresy (“antichristic dogmas”).

Vigano then accuses the Second Vatican Council of grave error as well: “Pope Bergoglio thus proceeds to a further implementation of the apostasy of Abu Dhabi, the fruit of the pantheistic and agnostic neo-modernism that tyrannizes the Roman Church, germinated by the conciliar document Nostra aetate . We are forced to recognize it: the poisoned fruits of the “conciliar spring” are under the eyes of anyone who no longer lets himself be blinded by the prevailing lie.” [3]

It is contrary to dogma to accuse any Roman Pontiff of failing in faith, as the Church has always taught the never-failing faith of the Roman Pontiff, based on the prayer and promise of Christ: “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail….” [Lk 22:32]. And this teaching is also found in Vatican I as the charism of truth and of never-failing faith (Pastor Aeternus, 4, 7). Then it is also dogma, again from the ordinary universal Magisterium and Vatican I, that the Apostolic See is unblemished by any grave error. Thus, no Ecumenical Council and no Roman Pontiff can err gravely, even when not teaching infallibly. The errors that are possible are only those that are less than grave. [4]

It is also contrary to dogma to claim that the indefectible one holy catholic and apostolic Church is either no longer holy, or has defected, or that the body of Bishops led by the Pope, the successors to the Apostles, have gone astray. Any of these claims is heretical, as it contradicts the indefectibility of the holy and apostolic Church. The Church cannot cease to be apostolic, nor holy, nor can She lead the faithful astray at any time. To claim that a Pope and an Ecumenical Council are leading astray is blatant heresy. [4]

Vatican II

On June 10, 2020, Carlo Vigano continues to reject the alleged “deviations” of the Second Vatican Council [5]. Vigano: “The Council was used to legitimize the most aberrant doctrinal deviations, the most daring liturgical innovations, and the most unscrupulous abuses, all while Authority remained silent.” [5] He also accuses the Church of “the most serious apostasy to which the highest levels of the Hierarchy are exposed, while the Christian people and the clergy feel hopelessly abandoned and that they are regarded by the bishops almost with annoyance.” [5] And in other communications he has certainly made it clear that this expression, the highest levels of the Hierarchy, is intended to include the Roman Pontiff.

Such accusations are heresy. The Church is indefectible, and therefore cannot be subject to “the most serious apostasy” at the highest levels. Even the great apostasy, in the distant future, only sweeps a third of the stars from the sky (Rev 12:4). And the promise of Jesus that the gates of Hell will never prevail over the Church, precisely because She is founded on Peter and his successors, implies that Peter and his successors will not fail in faith. The claims made by Vigano are contrary to the clear teachings of Christ, the Church, the Saints, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Roman Pontiffs. [4].

Church Authority never remained silent about Vatican II. Instead, most magisterial documents since the Council have included references to, and quotes/teachings from the Council, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church and many papal documents. The Bishops’ Conferences often used Vatican II teachings in their documents as well. The teachings of Vatican II have therefore been approved by Church authority by the constant teaching of those same doctrines by the successive Popes and the body of Bishops continuously.

The Roman Pontiff has the charism of never-failing faith, and so he can never fail in faith by apostasy, heresy, or schism. Any Ecumenical Council approved by the Roman Pontiff shares in the never-failing faith of the Pope, as well as that of the body of Bishops, for as Jesus clearly stated, Peter and his successors, having been confirmed with a never-failing faith, will then not fail to confirm their brethren in that same faith. Thus, the body of Bishops also cannot fail in faith, though this applies only to the body as a body, in communion with, and in obedience to the Roman Pontiff. Those Bishops, like Vigano, who fall away into heresy and schism by refusing to be confirmed in the faith taught by the Roman Pontiffs and the Ecumenical Councils they approve lose their participation in that charism.

Vigano: “it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by Our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was first theorized by Masonry.” [5]

Again, this claim rejects the indefectibility of the Church, the unblemished nature of the Apostolic See, and the constant tradition of the Church that what Ecumenical Councils teach on faith and morals cannot err gravely (or perhaps at all, as Bellarmine says). Certainly, an Ecumenical Council approved by every Roman Pontiff since the Council cannot be the source of a “parallel church” that is imposed upon, and contrary to, the true Church of Christ. That is contrary to indefectibility. Vigano is essentially claiming that the gates of Hell have prevailed over the Church, in direct contradiction to the promise of Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, and the constant teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium. It is therefore Carlo Vigano, instead, who is attempting to impose a parallel church, opposed to the true Church: by teaching heresy and promoting schism, by promoting illicit Masses by suspended priests, by attacking Vatican II and Pope Francis, and by implying that all the Popes since Vatican II are culpable in these alleged grave errors.

It is also important to know that “archbishop” Vigano is retired, and has no diocese or current authority in the Church. Then, as Pope Leo XIII teaches in Satis Cognitum, Bishops Separated from Peter and His Successors, Lose All Jurisdiction:

“15. From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.”

It could not be more clear that archbishop emeritus Carlo Vigano has lost all jurisdiction. His communications to the faithful cannot be considered to come from a true Pastor, nor a true Shepherd, as he has clearly deliberately publicly separated himself from the Roman Pontiff and the body of Bishops by his rejection of Vatican II and the subsequent Popes, especially Pope Francis. At times, he appears to have some merely human respect for Pope Benedict XVI, but Benedict clearly accepted, supported, and taught from the Second Vatican Council, which Vigano utterly rejects as the source of the current supposed-apostasy.

Vigano explains: “In reality, I think that many people, including myself, did not initially consider the possibility that there could be a conflict between obedience to an order of the Hierarchy and fidelity to the Church herself. What made tangible this unnatural, indeed I would even say perverse, separation between the Hierarchy and the Church, between obedience and fidelity, was certainly this most recent Pontificate.”

But such a division is impossible under Catholic dogma. The Church is founded on Peter and his successors. One cannot accuse the foundational Rock of apostasy, heresy, and idolatry, as so many have done, and claim to be obedient to the Church. One cannot call the successors of the Apostles in the Apostolic Church a corrupt and apostate “hierarchy”, while claiming to adhere to the indefectibility of the Church. If the Roman Pontiff or the body of Bishops were truly corrupt or apostates or heretics, etc. then the Church would have defected, contrary to dogma. So the perversity of this separation is found only in the false claims of Carlo Vigano and his adherents.

Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum (10-16), Vatican I and II, the Councils of Florence and Lateran V, Pope Pius XII in Mystical Body of Christ (40-41), all confirm that the Church has an indefectible successor of Peter and an indefectible body of Bishops, confirmed in the faith by him (Mt 16:18; Lk 22:32).

Increasing Attacks on Pope Francis

On 21 October 2020, Vigano made further accusations against the Church: “It appears that Bergoglio is impudently trying to “raise the stakes” in a crescendo of heretical affirmations, in such a way that it will force the healthy part of the Church — which includes bishops, clergy and faithful — to accuse him of heresy, in order to declare that healthy part of the Church schismatic and “the enemy of the pope.” ”

Vigano: “Jorge Mario Bergoglio is trying to force some cardinals and bishops to separate themselves from communion with him, obtaining as a result not his own deposition for heresy but rather the expulsion of Catholics who want to remain faithful to the perennial Magisterium of the Church. This trap would have the purpose — in the presumed intentions of Bergoglio and his “magic circle” — of consolidating his own power within a Church that would only nominally be “Catholic” but in reality would be heretical and schismatic.”

The never-failing faith of the Roman Pontiff prevents him from ever teaching or committing heresy. Similarly, it would be a grave failure of faith, and therefore a type of act absolutely prevented by the prevenient grace of God, for a Pope to force the faithful into schism, so that the Church would be “only nominally Catholic” and in reality would supposedly be an heretical and schismatic Church. Such a plan is impossible. No Roman Pontiff can even desire such a plot against the faith, as it is contrary to the charism of truth and of never-failing faith. And the claim is false and heretical that the Roman Pontiff leads an heretical and schismatic Church, which clearly must include almost all Bishops as the Bishops openly follow Pope Francis. Such a claim is contrary to indefectibility and the charisms given to the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops to lead the Church. The implied idea that the Church has defected so much so that the faithful can only find the truth by following a retired archbishop who openly rejects an Ecumenical Council and multiple Popes is absurd.

Vigano: “We painfully acknowledge that, in this epochal clash, he who ought to be guiding the Barque of Peter has chosen to side with the Enemy, in order to sink it.” [6]

The above claim is schismatic, rejecting the authority and person of the Roman Pontiff entirely, and accusing him of siding with Satan. It is also heretical, as it accuses the visible head of the Church, the Roman Pontiff, which by dogma is one Head with Christ, of being allied with Satan. This implies either a rejection of the dogma “that Christ and His Vicar constitute one only head” of the one Church [Pope Pius XII, Mystical Body of Christ, 40; cf. Unam Sanctam, confirmed by Lateran V], or the blasphemous claim that the Pope, still united to Christ as one Head, can somehow also be allied with the Enemy, Satan. It also implies a rejection of the indefectibility of the Church, founded on Peter and his successors. For as Pope Leo XIII states in Satis Cognitum, 12, quoting Origen: “neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church nor against the Church shall the gates of Hell prevail”.

Further, no Pope can even desire or plan to sink the Ark of Salvation, as such a desire or plan is contrary to never failing faith; a Pope who so desires or so plans has failed gravely in faith, which is not possible due to the prayer of Jesus and prevenient grace [Lk 22:32].

On Oct 1, 2020, Vigano claimed: “I want to emphasize that the universal religion desired by the United Nations and Freemasonry has active collaborators at the highest levels of the Catholic Church who usurp authority and adulterate the Magisterium. They are opposing the Mystical Body of Christ, which is mankind’s only ark of salvation, with the mystical body of the Antichrist…. A “tiny remnant” remains, made up of fervent Catholics, just as the Mother of God, Saint John, and Mary Magdalene remained at the foot of the Cross.” [7]

Wrong. The Church is indefectible, one, holy, universal, apostolic and founded forever on Peter and his successors. The Church can never become merely a “tiny remnant” which does not include the Roman Pontiff or the body of Bishops. For then the Church would not be apostolic, nor founded on Peter and his successors, nor universal. The indefectibility of the Church and the never-failing faith of the Roman Pontiff absolutely prevents, as a dogma on which we can rely even for our very salvation, that the Church, any Roman Pontiff, or the body of Bishops as a body would ever fall into apostasy, heresy, idolatry or any other grave failure of faith, per the prayer and promise of Christ (Mt 16:18; Lk 22:32). And if you cannot base your salvation on the prayer and promise of Christ, then where is your faith?

Fratelli Tutti

On Oct 6, 2020, Vigano wrote about Fratelli Tutti, calling section 274 “erroneous and heretical”, adding that: “To argue that the presence of false religions ‘benefits our societies’ is equally heretical, because it not only offends the Majesty of God, but also legitimizes the action of dissidents, attributing merit rather than responsibility for the damnation of souls and for the wars of religion waged against the Church of Christ by heretics, Muslims and idolaters.” [8]

Accusing a papal teaching document of heresy is contrary to the indefectibility of the Church and the never-failing faith of the Roman Pontiff. The Church has always taught [4] that the Roman Pontiff and the Apostolic See are each unblemished by any grave error. The freedom of every Roman Pontiff from heresy is also a teaching of the Magisterium and the Saints, and is necessarily implied by the dogma of never-failing faith. For if a Roman Pontiff could fall into heresy, then the prayer of Christ itself would have failed, which is impossible, when the Lord said to Peter: “that thy fail may not fail”. Heresy is certainly a failure of faith, whether one teaches it or believes it. And Christ would never have given the Roman Pontiff the role to confirm his brethren, the Bishops in the Apostolic College, in faith, if the Roman Pontiff himself could fail in faith: “confirm thy brethren”.

About Fratelli Tutti n. 277, Vigano says: “The reference to the conciliar document Nostra aetate is the confirmation of the ideological link of the Bergoglian heretical thought with the premises earlier set by Vatican II.”

This rejection of Pope Francis, in the entirety of his authority, by refusing to call him Pope Francis, is schismatic. This accusation of heresy against Pope Francis is both schismatic and heretical, as no one submits to the authority of one who is believed to be a heretic. But that a Pope would teach or commit heresy is contrary to dogma. Then the accusation of heresy against Vatican II is also heretical and schismatic. The teachings of Ecumenical Councils are binding on all the faithful, and are certainly free from every grave error. Otherwise, what would be the usefulness or benefit of such a gathering? And when the successors of the Apostles, of Peter and of the others, gather and agree, they cannot possibly be guilty of heresy as the Church is both Apostolic and Indefectible.

Vigano calls n. 279 of Fratelli Tutti heretical. Then he says: “The human being has no right to error….” But Vigano errs very gravely, in many different public expressions, contrary to multiple clear dogmas and the teaching of Christ in the Gospels (Mt 16:18; Lk 22:32). If human beings have no right to follow conscience, when it errs sincerely, then Vigano is condemned absolutely, by his own perverse standard. But if Pope Francis is right (and he is), then perhaps Carlo Vigano will avoid the fires of Hell, despite his public sins of heresy, schism, scandal, and the rest, due to a sincere but mistaken conscience. By the teaching of Pope Francis, we can only judge the objective acts of Vigano — which still imply a loss of jurisdiction due to manifest heresy and schism. But we cannot judge his soul. But if he were correct, and no one has a right to error, then he would be without excuse or defense. (Fortunately, for him, he is very wrong on Catholic doctrine, including on this point.)

On FT 279, Vigano also writes: “It is unbelievable that the Vicar of Christ (I forgot: Bergoglio has renounced this title!) can recognize any right to false religions, since the Church is the Lamb’s Bride, and it would be blasphemous to just think that Our Lord could have more brides.” Here, Vigano is rejecting the freedom of religion taught in Fratelli Tutti, which is nothing other than the freedom of religion taught by Vatican II, and by the subsequent Popes, who all taught from this same Council, rejected by Vigano.

On FT 281, Vigano writes: “The proposition ‘God’s love is the same for every person, of whatever religion’ is gravely equivocal and deceptive, more insidious than a blatant heresy.” Yet again, Vigano accuses Pope Francis of heresy, this time for a faithful teaching on the love of God. Do I even need to defend this teaching? It is clearly a teaching of Christ, who taught the two great commandments of love. Vigano is falsely accusing the Roman Pontiff of heresy, in contradiction to the perennial teaching of the Church on the never-failing faith of the Roman Pontiff and the freedom from grave error of the Apostolic See.

Claims of an Anti-Church

In October 2020, on the 23rd or 24th, Carlo Vigano gave a talk at the Catholic Identity Conference, titled: “Scapegoating Francis: How the Revolution of Vatican II serves the New World Order”. The talk is bizarre and represents a new step in the progression of the heretical and schismatic doctrines that Carlo Vigano disseminates. Here, he begins to talk about the “the Bergoglian anti-church” and the “eclipse of the [true] Church”. He claims that this began with Vatican II, hence the repeated references to 60 years ago. And this is then claimed to be a preparation for the Antichrist. Vigano calls the schismatic archbishop Marcel Lefebvre farsighted and appears to approve of his position rejecting Vatican II. Lefebvre died without returning to communion with the Church.

Do I need to point out, again, that the indefectible Church, cannot have a corrupt hierarchy, as this term is simply being used to disguise the accusation, which — across many articles, interviews, and talks — is clearly directed at Pope Francis, the vast majority of Bishops, and Vatican II. Vigano’s claims about the hierarchy are against the successors of Peter and the successors of the other Apostles. But the indefectible Church is always the one holy universal and apostolic Church. Thus, Vigano cannot be right in accusing the hierarchy, that is, the Pope and body of Bishops, of heresy and other very grave errors.

Vigano: “But with the Second Vatican Council, the darkness of this spurious entity came over the Church. Initially it obscured only a small part, but the darkness gradually increased.”

This rejection of Vatican II, simply by claiming that the Council is evil (“the darkness of this spurious entity”), is contrary to indefectibility. The indefectibility of the Church is not merely that She will never be completely destroyed, nor that She will never be completely overcome, but, in addition to those truths, that She will never go astray, or lead astray. Since the Second Vatican Council is an Ecumenical Council approved by the successive Popes and the body of Bishops continuously, the Council’s teaching is approved by the ordinary universal Magisterium. But neither can any Ecumenical Council err gravely on faith or morals (nor even on discipline) as Vigano claims.

Lateran Council of 649 (not Ecumenical): “If anyone does not, following the holy Fathers, confess properly and truly, in word and mind, to the last point, all that has been handed down and proclaimed to the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God by the holy Fathers and by the five venerable ecumenical councils, let him be condemned.”

Since the early Church, it has always been the custom and the absolute requirement for full communion with the true Church to do as the Lateran Council states above, accepting “all that has been handed down and proclaimed” by all the Ecumenical Councils. Those who do not, are condemned. It is never possible, as archbishop emeritus Vigano has done, to accuse a Council of evil or of leading the faithful astray, and thereby reject what you have accused. When the Roman Pontiff approves a Council, it must be accepted by the whole Church.

Vigano: “The case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and a few other Prelates confirms, on the one hand, the far-sightedness of these shepherds and, on the other hand, the disjointed reaction of their adversaries….”

Vigano speaks as if Lefebvre were a faithful bishop, when in fact he was suspended a divinis by Pope Saint Paul VI, and declared subject to automatic excommunication in 1988 under Pope Saint John Paul II (when Lefebvre illicitly consecrated four bishops without permission of the Holy See). Lefebvre continued to reject the authority of the Roman Pontiffs and Vatican II, and he died in 1991 separated from the communion of the Church. This shows that Vigano has rejected the authority of the Church, and sided with schismatics.

Pope Saint Paul VI wrote to Lefebvre to require of him certain conditions, stated in a declaration, to have his suspension a divinis removed. Lefebvre never complied. Notice the reasonableness of the requirements, and that these things are also required of ALL Catholics. But Vigano is not in compliance with these requirements himself:

Pope Saint Paul VI to Lefebvre: “This declaration will therefore have to affirm that you sincerely adhere to the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and to all its documents — sensu obvio — which were adopted by the Council fathers and approved and promulgated by Our authority. For such an adherence has always been the rule, in the Church, since the beginning, in the matter of ecumenical councils.
[…]
“As far as concerns Our person, you will make a point of desisting from and retracting the grave accusations or insinuations which you have publicly leveled against Us, against the orthodoxy of Our faith and Our fidelity to Our charge as the successor of Peter, and against Our immediate collaborators.”

Vigano does not “sincerely adhere” to Vatican II. He rejects the Council as if it were literally the result of an evil influence on the Bishops. And yet the documents of Vatican II were accepted by a vote, in all cases of greater than 92% of the Bishops, in most cases greater than 99% of the Bishops. Then the teachings of the Council have clearly been approved and taught by every successive Roman Pontiff since the Council, from Pope Saint Paul VI to Pope Francis. About 2000 Bishops attended Vatican II. It is incomprehensible that any bishop today, such as Vigano, would claim that Vatican II erred gravely and led the Church astray (and continues to do so today). Such a claim would certainly contradict the indefectibility of the Apostolic Church, due to the acceptance of Vatican II by the Bishops during and after the Council, and by the successive Popes.

Vigano has not ceased from public grave accusations against the Roman Pontiff, Pope Francis, against the orthodoxy of his faith, and his fidelity to his charge as the successor of Peter, and against his immediate collaborators, the Bishops working with Pope Francis. In both these ways, Vigano is imitating Lefebvre, a schismatic bishop who died separated from the Church.

Blessed Pope Pius IX, 1873, on those who write against the teachings of Vatican I: “For these writings attack and pervert the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops, who are the successors of blessed Peter and the apostles; they transfer it instead to the people, or, as they say, to the community. They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred.”

There is no difference between Vatican II and other Councils. One cannot single out a Council approved by the Roman Pontiff and decide to reject it for any reason. It is required as a matter of faith to accept every Ecumenical Council and every Roman Pontiff. Non-infallible decisions of a Roman Pontiff can be subject to licit theological dissent, to a limited extent, but never to the extent of accusing the Pope of heresy or grave error of any kind. Notice what Pius IX says, by rejecting Vatican One, these writings “attack and pervert the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops”. And the same is true for Vatican II. Then we know that many accusers of Pope Francis also accuse both Vatican I and II of grave error. So we see this attack on Church authority ‘naturally’ extending itself to other Popes and Councils. For an attack on Vatican I is an attack on the Pope who approved the Council, Pius IX, and the same for Vatican II and Pope Saint Paul VI.

Vatican I on the Council of Trent: “Everybody knows that those heresies, condemned by the fathers of Trent, which rejected the divine Magisterium of the Church and allowed religious questions to be a matter for the judgment of each individual, have gradually collapsed into a multiplicity of sects, either at variance or in agreement with one another; and by this means a good many people have had all faith in Christ destroyed.”

The accusers of Pope Francis like to contrast the Council of Trent with Vatican II, to the detriment of the latter. But we see the same principle with Trent: when an Ecumenical Council teaches, some of the members of the Church will reject the Magisterium and substitute the judgment of the individual. And so Vigano substitutes his own particularly perverse personal judgment for the authority of Pope Francis and Vatican II. And the result is only a sect, or, as we also see today, a multiplicity of sects, agreeing and disagreeing with one another, but acknowledging no authority over any of them. And this always happens when the authority of Christ in His Church is judged and rejected for any reason.

Now we return to more of the heretical and schismatic claims of Carlo Vigano in his talk: “Scapegoating Francis: How the Revolution of Vatican II serves the New World Order.”

Vigano: “For sixty years, we have witnessed the eclipse of the true Church by an anti-church that has progressively appropriated her name, occupied the Roman Curia and her Dicasteries, Dioceses and Parishes, Seminaries and Universities, Convents and Monasteries. The anti-church has usurped her authority, and its ministers wear her sacred garments; it uses her prestige and power to appropriate her treasures, assets, and finances.”

It is contrary to the indefectibility of the Church to claim that an anti-church can eclipse the true Church for any length of time, especially sixty years.

Vigano: “To continue the analogy: we can say that, in the sky of the Faith, an eclipse is a rare and extraordinary phenomenon. But to deny that, during the eclipse, darkness spreads – just because this does not happen under ordinary conditions – is not a sign of faith in the indefectibility of the Church, but rather an obstinate denial of the evidence, or bad faith. The Holy Church, according to Christ’s promises, will never be overwhelmed by the gates of hell, but that does not mean that she will not be – or is not already – overshadowed by her infernal forgery, that moon which, not by chance, we see under the feet of the Woman of the Revelation.”

The claims that Vigano makes about indefectibility are false. One cannot at the same time pretend to profess faith in the indefectibility of the Church, and yet reject Vatican II, reject the adherence of the body of Bishops, continuously since then, and of the successive Pontiffs to the Council, and utterly reject Pope Francis — so much so that Vigano refuses to utter his papal name — and then claim to believe in indefectibility. It is false to reduce indefectibility to merely a protection from the absolute worst case, of being overwhelmed by the gates of hell continuously. Indefectibility is also protection from ever being overwhelmed by the gates of hell, from ever teaching heresy or leading astray. Indefectibility keeps the Church always in Her four characters of one, holy, universal, and apostolic. So when Vigano accuses the successors of the Apostles of leading astray and going astray, that is contrary to indefectibility. One cannot reject Popes, the body of Bishops, and an Ecumenical Council and claim to believe the Church is indefectible simply because the absolute worst case did not occur: “but that does not mean that she will not be – or is not already – overshadowed by her infernal forgery.” Yes, indefectibility does exclude being overshadowed by anything infernal (hellish) in doctrine or discipline, in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or the body of Bishops led by the Pope.

to be continued in part 2

Ronald L. Conte Jr.

[1] Open Letter of Cardinal Ouellet
[2] LifeSiteNews.com, “Abp. Viganò asks Catholics to take cancelled priests into their own homes”, Oct 3, 2021.
[3] On the blog of Aldo Maria Valli, full text of the letter of archbishop Vigano, 11 November 2019.
[4] See the articles at Catholicism.io
[5] LifeSiteNews, “Abp Vigano on the ‘roots of deviation’ of Vatican II and how Francis was chosen to revolutionize the Church”, June 10, 2020; website
[6] LifeSiteNews, “Vigano Responds To Pope’s Nod To Homosexual Civil Unions”, by Abp. Carlo Maria Vigano, October 21, 2020.
[7] LifeSiteNews, “Biden win would create new ally for apocalyptic ‘dictatorship of the New World Order’ “, Oct 1, 2020.
[8] LifeSiteNews, “Abp. Vigano on Pope’s new Fratelli Tutti document: Brotherhood against God is ‘blasphemous,’ ” Oct 6, 2020.
[9] LifeSiteNews, Catholic Identity Conference, “SCAPEGOATING FRANCIS: How the Revolution of Vatican II serves the New World Order”, Oct. 23 or 24, 2020.

This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Archbishop Carlo M. Vigano Has Lost All Jurisdiction (part 1)

  1. ddd says:

    Of course Vigano is wrong, but schism will be a good thing in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. An entire diocese could enter into schism. If there evolves an apartheid at Church which matches what is evolving in secular society, I for one will seek out clandestine Masses by legitimate priests. When a priest or bishop demands vaccination in order to enter the Church building, such would be reminiscent of racial segregation or against the disabled. After much sorting and shuffling and discord on many topics, especially among the bishops themselves, I know Pope Benedict will prove correct that the Church is going to be smaller and holier. These will be fascinating times.

  2. Karen Meno says:

    I am no Bible scholar nor a theologian, however, in reading the verse, I am considering the entire verse.

    Luke 22:32 “but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

    The second phrase indicates that failure WILL occur. We know Peter’s faith DID fail him. If the pope truly is the successor of Peter, will he be any holier and less prone to failure than Peter? Peter left Christ; Peter returned to Christ. I would think that any pope would be allowed the same choice as Christ allowed Peter. The key here, though, appears to be that Peter returned. I would think that a pope could at one point be heretical (plain wrong) but later return to Christ.

    • Ron Conte says:

      Vatican I: “I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures”

      The Magisterium has always interpreted that verse to mean that Peter and his successors have a never failing faith. The starting point of Peter’s Pontificate is the Ascension of Christ, according to Lyons I and Pope Pius XII (Mystical Body of Christ 40). Peter’s faith, like any Pope, can fail before he becomes Pope. Every Pope has the charism of truth and of never failing faith; that is the constant teaching of the Church.

  3. Barbara King says:

    Ron, you mention Archbishop Viganos broad reach and influence .He seems to release letters and interviews on a regular basis .I am wondering if an official statement about him would help .

    • Ron Conte says:

      I would like to see the Apostolic See issue a statement on him and his claims. But Pope Francis has chosen not to rebuke his accusers, but simply to continue teaching and guiding the Church.

Comments are moderated.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.