Articles have been published on LifeSiteNews and Catholic Family News with the claim that the Conclave that elected Pope Francis in 2013 may have been invalid. But in this article, I refute that claim based on the dogmas of the Catholic Faith.

LifeSiteNews: “Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has claimed that a cardinal who participated in the conclave told friends ‘that he has witnessed facts that render the election of Jorge Mario null and void.’ ” [Source]

However, LifeSiteNews is reporting this story based on an interview of schismatic Archbishop Carlo M. Vigano by the editor of Catholic Family News. So let’s take a look at that interview and its claims.

I should begin by pointing out that Archbishop Vigano is not in good standing in the Church. He is manifestly persevering in a complete rejection of the authority of the Roman Pontiff Pope Francis. For at least several years now, Vigano has rejected the papacy of Pope Francis completely, refusing to call him “Pope Francis” or “Roman Pontiff” and instead referring to him as “Bergoglio”. Vigano has accused Pope Francis of heresy, schism, apostasy, and idolatry. Vigano has also separated himself from the body of Bishops who are led by and united to Pope Francis, accusing the Bishops of supporting the alleged grave errors of Pope Francis. These public longstanding acts constitute public formal schism. Then, making this sin worse, are the many exceedingly malicious accusations and expressions used by Vigano against the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis. Vigano also rejects the authority and teaching of the Second Vatican Council. In the present interview, for example, he continues this rejection, using the expression: “the pseudo-magisterium of Vatican II”.

In the interview, Vigano discusses the report of a Cardinal-elector (2013) who privately said that he witnesses certain events during the Conclave that elected Pope Francis, which he claimed would make the election null and void. Vigano then adds the following assertion: “But if 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.”

There are several reasons why the above statement is false.

1. Universal Peaceful Acceptance

It is a longstanding principle in regard to papal elections that the universal peaceful acceptance of a Pope (whose election is disputed) by the Church heals in the root any errors or failings in the election itself. Pope Francis has this universal peaceful acceptance by the Church. The vast majority of the faithful of every rank throughout the Church accept that Pope Francis is the valid Pope — even those who say “Recognize and Resist”. For the “Recognize” expression means they accept him as the valid Pope. Then the majority of the faithful do not have any grave reservations about Pope Francis, as has been expressed by some conservatives and traditionalists. Universal acceptance does not requires absolute unanimity. It is sufficient that the faithful as a body of believing and practicing Catholics accept a Bishops as the Roman Pontiff.

Therefore, Pope Francis is the true Vicar of Christ.

2. The Church is always Apostolic

The characters of the Church, one holy catholic apostolic, can never be lost, as a matter of dogma. But if the body of Bishops, the successors to the Apostles, were to go astray by following an invalid successor of Peter, the Church would no longer be apostolic, as She would have lost her successors to the apostles in this way. Since the Church can never fail in her essential character, the Bishops as a body can never be accused of following an invalid or false Pope. But the body of Bishops follow Pope Francis, accept his authority, and hold him to be the true Roman Pontiff, as is verified in every Mass, where the Roman Pontiff is acknowledge by name.

Therefore, the Pontificate of Pope Francis is valid, and he is the true successor of Peter.

3. The Indefectibility of the Church

The gates of Hell can never prevail over the Church, as our Lord himself taught. The claim that an Ecumenical Council, Vatican II or any other, has led the faithful astray with grave errors on doctrine or discipline is contrary to this dogma of indefectibility. The claim that the Popes since Vatican II led us astray in the same way is also contrary to indefectibility.

The current claim, that the election of Pope Francis was so disordered that his entire Pontificate is invalid, and he was never truly the Roman Pontiff, is also contrary to indefectibility. If the claim were true, then the gates of Hell would have prevailed over the Church for over ten years now, as Francis was elected in 2013, and this is 2023. But the meaning of this indefectibility, taught by Christ, in the Church’s constant interpretation, is that the gates of Hell can never, at any time, for any length of time, prevail over the Church. So it is contrary to indefectibility to claim that the body of Bishops and the body of the faithful have followed an invalid Pope — who is also claimed to have taught many grave errors. Indefectibility is dogma, and the contrary is heresy.

It is a dogmatic fact that Pope Francis is the valid Roman Pontiff.

4. The Example of Vigilius

Before becoming Roman Pontiff, Vigilius was a traitorous man, weak in faith and willing to betray the Faith in order to become Pope. And betray the Faith he did, by accepting and promoting the heresy favored by Theodora the Empress.

Saint Robert Bellarmine: “Vigilius wrote an epistle to Theodora the Empress and other heretics, whereby he confirmed their heresy and declared anathema on those who confessed that there are two natures in Christ.”

Theodora the Empress then decreed that Vigilius was the Roman Pontiff, even though the true Pope, Saint Silverius [or Sylverius] was still in office. So Vigilius was initially an antipope, and as antipope, he asserted heresy, though mainly to Theodora and her fellow heretics. To the people of Rome, he confirmed and promoted the true Faith. Thus, it is clear that his heresy was formal, as he knew the truth and still asserted the heresy. He was also in schism, as he rejected the true Pope, Silverius.

After Vigilius continued as antipope for a brief time, the true Pope of that time, Silverius, passed away. Vigilius was then accepted as the true Roman Pontiff by the clergy and people of Rome, as well as by the body of Bishops and the body of the faithful in the world. He then ceased to be an antipope and became the true Pope.

Then something amazing happened which serves to prove that the Roman Pontiff has the charism of truth and of never-failing faith from the prevenient grace of God (which no person can resist). From the point in time when he first became true Pope, Vigilius rejected his previous heresy and steadfastly held and taught only the true Faith.

Bellarmine: “From this time neither error nor feigning of error was discovered in Vigilius, but rather, supreme constancy in the faith even to death, as it shall appear. For he received with the pontificate the strength of faith and he was changed from a weak chaff into the most solid rock. When the Empress Theodora, having relied upon the secret letters as well as the promise of Vigilius, asked from him that he would restore the aforementioned Patriarch Anthemius, as he had promised, he wrote back that he had promised rashly and gravely sinned in that promise. Therefore, he could not, nor would, fulfill what he had promised, lest he would add sins to sins. For that reason, when the Empress became angry, he was sent into exile, and miserably tortured even to death.”

There could hardly be a more corrupt path to the See of Peter than that taken by Vigilius, and yet the Church has always held him to be a valid successor of Peter, from the time of Silvarius’ death. Vigilius is the Pope who confirmed the Second Council of Constantinople, making that Ecumenical Council valid, and reinforcing the validity of his own Pontificate.

So we see, in the example of Vigilius, that a Roman Pontiff need not have been elected in a conclave that is above reproach. But the main point of the example of Vigilius is that every Roman Pontiff has the papal charisms, including the charism of truth and never-failing faith (taught by Vatican I), so that each Roman Pontiff has a protection from God against apostasy, heresy, schism, idolatry, and any other claimed grave failings of faith, as well as protection from grave error under the Keys of Peter. And we know that some unfaithful Catholics constantly seek ways to nullify the teachings, decisions of discipline, and even the entire pontificate of Pope Francis, because they falsely accuse him of grave failings of faith or grave errors against truth, contrary to the dogma of the charism of truth and never-failing faith. Pope Francis is necessarily innocent of all these accusations, as a dogmatic fact, because he is the valid Pope, and every valid Pope has the charism of truth and never-failing faith.

{7:15} Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
{7:16} You shall know them by their fruits. Can grapes be gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
{7:17} So then, every good tree produces good fruit, and the evil tree produces evil fruit.

Those who reject Ecumenical Councils, or Roman Pontiffs accepted by the body of Bishops and the body of the faithful, are showing us the evil fruits of their weakness in faith, of their desire to rule the Church in place of the Popes, Bishops, and Council, and of their rejection of the teachings of Christ through His Church.

Ronald L Conte Jr