(LifeSiteNews) — Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is doubling down on his belief that the upcoming conclave is invalid due to irregularities with its members.
“At most, the College will be able to designate its own representative, someone who will renew and continue the usurpation of the recently deceased predecessor, and see the ongoing fraud further ratified by a complicit or cowardly episcopate,” His Excellency told Italian journalist Francesco Borgonovo this week.
Following Francis’ death, Archbishop Viganò has spoken out on a number of topics, not only about Francis’ legacy, which he has described as a “usurpation” of the Throne of St. Peter, but also about the upcoming meeting of the cardinals, which is set to kick off on May 7.
In an April 23 letter sent to an Italian television program, His Excellency commented that due to “Bergoglio’s acceptance of the Papacy [being] flawed,” the clergy he has named cardinals are “false.”
“Of the 136 Cardinal electors, 108 were ‘created’ by [Bergoglio]; which means that whatever Pope is elected in the upcoming Conclave – even if he were a new Saint Pius X – his authority will be compromised by having been elected by false cardinals, created by a false Pope,” His Excellency said.
Archbishop Viganò re-iterated that position in his interview with Borgonovo.
“A College of Cardinals composed of 108 ‘cardinals’ created by a Jesuit who usurped the Papacy for twelve years cannot validly elect a legitimate pope,” he stated.
Exactly…
Read the entire interview. Was saddened to hear not one Cardinal reached out to Archbishop Viganò after he was excommunicated. He was a faithful servant to the Church for years before Bergoglio.
He is a man of integrity, a faithful Catholic. Not one kind word from even Cardinal Burke.
How vicious Bergoglio was—stealing Archbishop Vigano’s home in Rome from him.
What a sad state of affairs. I think our chastisement is only beginning.
I hate to say it but the hierarchy seems like a real corporation-like snake pit. You have to watch your back constantly.
Watching & praying.
As to this bit, “His Excellency commented that due to ‘Bergoglio’s acceptance of the Papacy [being] flawed,’ the clergy he has named cardinals are ‘false.'” — It does not sound right.
B16 resigned invalidly i.e. not at all. But, B16 clearly *delegated his ministry* of appointing Bishops & Cardinals to the heretic Bergoglio. Which is something B16 must account for.
Yes I am correcly applying the munus / ministerium distinction. An office (munus) is a state of being, that has attached to it, many ministries (activities & authorities) which the office-holder delegates as he sees fit.
Plus, for the period since Dec 31 2022, there’s ecclesia supplet.
So, although I respect Archbp. Vigano a great deal, it is not obvious to me that his teaching here would be correct.
Certainly, the College of Cardinals needs a reboot. God, Jesus & the Holy Spirit can, if they choose, will the College to choose someone good – despite themselves. But will that happen? If yes, we won’t deserve it.
The Pope cannot delegate the authority to make Cardinals. He cannot delegate his “Ministry” while keeping his “Munus”. Which is why it is observable that all those “Cardinals” are invalid electors in a “Conclave”.
Furthermore, it is most doubtful that parading them past Benedict for a blessing somehow sealed them as Cardinals; just as it is most doubtful that ecclesia supplet can somehow supply for 108 invalidly voting Bishops, many of whom are clearly not even Catholic.
I understand and deeply know the desire to have this Conclave valid and be able to move on from the past 12 painful years. But this is not the way: this “Conclave” is a deception and many will be deceived as they desire false unity and unholy submission.
Stay the course: many are now tempted to proverbially drop anchor in the middle of the storm, but that is a very sure way to the bottom.
Sean – Kings & Popes, in the Middle Ages, would send out delegates with their signet rings or other seal, to literally sign treaties for them that they hadn’t even seen. OF COURSE an office holder can delegate his office’s authorities, if he wants. It’s inherent in being the office-holder.
In this case, I ought to have mentioned the intervening step: that B16 did not delegate to Bergoglio by name, but rather, to whomever the College would pick.
But Bergoglio did not usurp, and although he may have been a fake Pope (Antipope), “his” Cardinals are all too real. Because B16, as Pope, certainly intended Bergoglio (or whomever the College should choose) to exercise the Papacy’s administrative functions.
It’s right in B16’s declaratio. And if that doesn’t cover it: Yes, ecclesia supplet applies even when it’s a vast number or vast majority of Cardinals who were appointed by an Antipope.
Because that is exactly what happened in the Great Western Schism, and is what was decided, when that schism was resolved.
The Pope can delegate anything he wants to delegate, and when he does so, canon law specifically states that his Office is not transferred whatsoever. Can. 131 §1: “The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself; delegated, that which is granted to a person but not by means of an office.”
Mark – I’m nobody, just 1 guy – but to me, invalidating Bergoglio Cardinals only makes sense under a *new* interpretation of ecclesia supplet and/or the Pope’s power (meaning B16’s power) of delegation.
Namely, that they become defective (only) if & when the Antipope, delegate or official is a manifest public heretic.
I ain’t saying that interpretation is wrong! Merely that it’s new. Some people will have to step up and, so to speak, “go there”.
Which brings us back to Bergoglio’s heresy still being an important factor, even after his Anti-papal status is widely granted.
Some say Bergoglio’s heresy, although real, is irrelevant because his mere status as Antipope is enough to invalidate everything he’s done. Nuh uh. Sorting out the mess of Bergoglio’s heresy is, sadly, all too relevant.
It’s messy, because Bergoglio wasn’t even Catholic. Can a non-Catholic appoint Cardinals? I presented the Archbishop’s opinion here, but I’m leaning toward the conclave being valid, provided it produces a Catholic pope.
What do we do if it’s Franciscus II.