Archbishop Viganò: Pope Francis wants to create a ‘schism’

[Stone]

Archbishop Viganò: Pope Francis wants to create a ‘schism’ by excommunicating Latin Mass devotees
Pope Francis 'has placed in key positions in the Roman Curia those characters who guarantee the worst possible management of the dicasteries entrusted to them, with the worst possible result and the greatest damage to the ecclesial body,' Viganò said.



Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Pope Francis

Mon Jul 24, 2023
(LifeSiteNews [emphasis mine - slightly adapted]) –– The outspoken former apostolic nuncio to the U.S., Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has argued that Pope Francis is looking to corral devotees of the traditional Mass into the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and then excommunicate the Society.

Speaking with veteran Italian journalist Aldo Maria Valli in a July 15 interview, Archbishop Viganò commented on the recent cardinal-designates announced by Pope Francis and the Pope’s moves against the traditional Mass.

The archbishop stated that the Pope was looking to “create the premises for a schism, which he denies and deplores in words, but which he has been preparing for some time.”

Such a move, argued Viganò, would be “to separate, in one way or another, the good part of the faithful and clerics from the official Church; and to achieve this, to ensure that they distance themselves from the modernist Sanhedrin, he [Pope Francis] has placed in key positions in the Roman Curia those characters who guarantee the worst possible management of the dicasteries entrusted to them, with the worst possible result and the greatest damage to the ecclesial body.”

To this perceived end, Viganò suggested that the Pope’s restrictions on the traditional Mass were part of a larger move aimed at orchestrating a de facto schism.

This could be achieved by channelling traditional Catholics into the SSPX, he argued, and then issuing an “intolerable provocation” that would “force at least one faction of the Society of Saint Pius X to distance themselves from Bergoglian Rome, sanctioning the ‘excommunication’ of traditionalism, no longer represented within the official Church, if it ever was.”

He argued:

The progressive restrictions on the celebration of the ancient liturgy serve to confine conservatives to hunting reserves, in order to then channel them towards the Society of Saint Pius X, as soon as the Synod leads the doctrinal, moral and disciplinary changes that are in the pipeline to their tragic consequences, causing an exodus of Catholics into what, after the suppression or normalization of the Ecclesia Dei Institutes, will become the “monopolist” of Tradition.

But at that point — that is, when the traditional Catholics have migrated into the Society and its leaders believe they have won a victory over the competition from the suppressed Summorum Pontificum — a new intolerable provocation will force at least one faction of the Society of Saint Pius X to distance themselves from Bergoglian Rome, sanctioning the “excommunication” of traditionalism, no longer represented within the official Church, if it ever was. For this reason, in my opinion, it is important to maintain a certain fragmentation, in order to make the malicious maneuver of expelling traditional Catholics from the ecclesial body more complex.

Highlighting Pope Francis’ promotion of heterodox prelates—such as Cardinal-designate Victor Manuel Fernández—Viganò stated that the Pope’s aim is “to create confrontation, let it grow, encourage the supporters of the most extreme requests with appointments and promotions.” This, he stated, would lead to a “predictable reaction of condemnation” from the “few good remaining bishops, priests, and religious,” who by doing so would encounter “Bergoglio’s trap door.”

They would then “have two choices: either to return to suffer in silence, or or to stand up, denounce the betrayal of Catholic Truth, and be forced to leave one’s post and exercise the ministry clandestinely or at least in apparent canonical irregularity.”

By this method, “the Bergoglian hierarchy will be able to exercise full control over the clergy and people, certain of the obedience of those who remain,” Viganò argued. “And this sect, which will only have the name of Catholic (and perhaps not even that anymore), will totally eclipse the Bride of the Lamb, in the paradox of a traitorous and corrupt Hierarchy that abuses Christ’s authority to destroy his Church.”

The archbishop expanded on these statements in a subsequent conversation with Valli, in which Viganò recalled how Pope Francis had already stated “I am not afraid of schisms.” Viganò commented:

And while he [Francis] stated that “schismatics always have one thing in common, they detach themselves from people, from the faith of the people, from the faith of the people of God,” he added: “The morality of ideology leads you to rigidity, and today we have so many schools of rigidity within the Church, which are not schisms, but they are pseudo-schismatic Christian ways that will end badly: when you see rigid Christians, bishops, and priests, there are problems behind them, there is not the sanity of the Gospel.” As usual, he accused Catholics of doing what he himself was about to do.

Referring to Pope Francis’ July 2021 motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, Archbishop Viganò argued that the text was a means to effect such a plan of fomenting a schism. To this, he added the current practice of how “the Vatican does not hesitate to limit the rights of Bishops to prevent them from helping certain traditional communities to survive, [and] it significantly extends the rights of other Bishops beyond the law – by sanating the irregularities and abuses of its own lackeys – whenever it serves to suppress and persecute such communities.”

“To this we may add the Constitution Vultum Dei Quærere and the Instruction Cor Orans, with which Bergoglio has deprived monastic communities of their autonomy and arranged them into federations under the strict control of ultra-progressives – along with Chinese-style reprogramming – of the self-styled Dicastery for Religious,” he continued.


What about an impending schism?

When questioned by Valli about what devotees of the traditional liturgy and faith should do when such devotion is deemed to be increasingly hostile to the current Vatican program, Viganò outlined an image of an abducted Church. He stated that since the Second Vatican Council “we have become accustomed to seeing the authority of the Pastors used against the faithful and against the Church herself, all while maintaining an appearance of formal legitimacy.”

The “Council” itself – the only Council that is dear to the heart of the Modernists, because it is the only one of which they are the architects and that has nothing Catholic about it – was a colossal deception against the ecclesial body, because it maintained the authority of an Ecumenical Council while fraudulently insinuating heretical doctrines; it maintained the authority of the Council Fathers and the Roman Pontiff precisely as it was being used to demolish the Catholic edifice; it imposed blind and servile obedience to norms in contrast with the uninterrupted and immutable Magisterium.

Addressing the “abolition of the traditional Liturgy,” which he said was “intended by Paul VI using his apostolic authority,” Viganò described this action as “a fraud.”

And the current attempt to cancel Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum with an analogous Motu Proprio – apparently carrying the same canonical efficacy – is no less malicious.

Such an action – meaning Traditionis Custodes – is intended for the “ruin” of the Church and of souls, argued the outspoken prelate:

Its aim is not the good of the Church and the salvation of the faithful, but the ruin of both. On the other hand, even the accusation of blasphemy that the Sanhedrin brought against Our Lord had all the appearances of a formally unexceptionable action, even though it was intrinsically illegitimate and null, because it was used against the Divine and Innocent Legislator.

He alluded to Pope Francis’ campaign against the traditional liturgy as a form of “authoritarianism,” by which an individual governs in his own name but “not because he is a vicar of the authority of Christ.”

“This makes it a subversive power,” he said, “unchained from any duty to conform itself to the will of Christ in pursuing the common good, and for this reason it is inexorably destined to transform itself into hateful tyranny.”

[Stone]

Archbishop Viganò: The Bergoglian sect serves as the handmaiden of the global elite
It is important that the fringe of dissent against this cupola of heretics and perverts who occupy the highest levels of the Church is increasingly present in the media and on social networking platforms, so as to encourage those who still hesitate between resigned silence and the necessary opposition to apostasy.

Jul 28, 2023

(LifeSiteNews [emphasis mine, slightly adapted]) — This is the second part of a two-part interview Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò gave to veteran Italian journalist Aldo Maria Valli. LifeSiteNews’ coverage of part one can be found here. Below follows the full-text of part two.

Part Two: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Aldo Maria Valli

Valli: Your Excellency, let us pick up where we left off in the first part. There is a clear parallel between what is happening in the Church and what is happening in the secular sphere. An expression you often use is that “everything holds together.” Can you explain this more?

Viganò: The authoritarianism of democratic national and supranational institutions – yesterday with the pretextual pandemic emergency, today with the absurd environmental emergency – is not at all different from the authoritarianism of the synodal Vatican institutions, yesterday with the pretextual ecumenical dialogue and today with the no less pretextual encouragement of sexual and moral deviance. Both are also corrupt expressions of true authority, one with the deep state of the global coup, the other with the deep church of the St. Gallen Mafia coup. In both, the corruption of their members is a guarantee that they remain subservient, because it makes them easily blackmailed. For this reason, it is not possible that those who ascend to certain levels in these institutions to be honest, since honesty would remove them from the control of those who want maneuverable puppets in the key roles, puppets in the hands of a ventriloquist.

Schism is therefore Bergoglio’s ultimate goal, because it is the pharisaical way – that is, the way of a hypocritical and false formalism – with which to oust good Catholics from the Church, leaving her totally in the power of traitors and renegades, free at that point to do with her what they want.

The same thing is happening also in the civil sphere: the rulers and the entire ruling class of Western countries are totally subservient to a power that no one has elected, they obey it even against the interest of the nation and violating the fundamental rights of citizens, without there being any organ or judiciary that is willing and able to try and condemn them for high treason.

Bergoglio’s ostracism towards conservatives is identical to that of the globalist elite towards the “deniers” of COVID and global warming. It does not matter that the psychopandemic and the environmental farce have no scientific basis and are disavowed by eminent scientists and irrefutable evidence: science is replaced by scientism, any scientific literature on these topics has now been removed, canceled, and censored. And here too the parallel with the Church appears in all its evidence, if we consider the blatant contradiction of the “magisterium” from Vatican II onwards with respect to the Catholic Magisterium: doctrine has been replaced by heresy, morality by the subjectivity of the individual, liturgical rituality by sacrilegious improvisation. And those who question the official narrative – for example by highlighting the sudden deaths of the vaccinated alone or the crisis of vocations of the post-conciliar period – are criminalized, because their dissent is reasoned and rational and cannot be refuted. Instead, it is delegitimized by attacking the individuals who express it.


Valli: At this point the question returns: how do we get out of it? Here at Duc in Altum for some days there has been a wide debate on the subject, with the participation of many readers. It seems clear that Bergoglio and his troops have failed to chloroform Catholic public opinion.

Viganò: Some suggest that we must get out of it by means of prayer. And thus is true: asking the Almighty to take the reins of history in hand is certainly an effective tool. But at the same time, this is not enough: prayer – which is always indispensable – must also be accompanied by action, as our fathers in faith – the Apostles, the first Christians and all Catholics – have always done, they who over the course of the past two thousand years have confronted tyrants and satraps who were convinced that they could “crush the infamous thing” – écrasez l’infame, blasphemed Voltaire – while the enemies of the Church are now all dead and buried, and behold, the Church is still alive.

This action must first of all – as I said in our first interview – foresee a strategic fragmentation of traditional movements, which must be coordinated but remain independent so that it is impossible to strike them all with one blow. The fragmentation of the traditional movement is in my opinion the only possible response to the present attack: we must not institute any new pseudo-ecclesial entity, but rather maintain that minimal coordination between different forces, which sooner or later will find themselves regaining full citizenship rights in the Church, the only true and legitimate place where true Catholics must stay. Obviously, this does not mean standing by and watching what happens as passengers on a sinking ship: on the contrary, our permanence in the Church must spur us – as her children – to defend her from the attacks of those who, from within, act as the enemy’s fifth column.

If on the one hand Bergoglio wants to close all our escape routes, then on the other hand it is necessary for us to open others. If his action aims to isolate us in order to intimidate us and make us desist, we must denounce embezzlement by all means at our disposal. And since sooner or later the persecution will necessarily I repeat: necessarily – spread – also to those who delude themselves that they are somehow protected from possible Vatican retaliation, it will be the case that they too can now begin to organize forms of resistance, strengthened by an increasingly pressing state of necessity, which will guarantee the Holy Mass and the Sacraments to the faithful.


Valli: What do you suggest to your brothers in the Episcopate in this regard?

Viganò: I invite them to consider – onerata conscientia – whether it is not appropriate to think of forms of ministry in clandestinity for their conservative priests, in view of possible further maneuvers by Bergoglio or where the civil authorities undertake actions of open persecution of traditional Catholics. The FBI’s investigations into groups of faithful linked to the Tridentine Mass in the United States suggest that deviant parts of the intelligence services consider Catholics a threat to their subversive plan, while they have an ally in the Bergoglian church.

Traditional religious communities – especially those of women in contemplative life – must keep in constant contact in order to give each other mutual support and help, both material and spiritual. It is important that the fringe of dissent against this cupola of heretics and perverts who occupy the highest levels of the Church is increasingly present in the media and on social networking platforms, so as to encourage those who still hesitate between resigned silence and the necessary opposition to apostasy. Let these priests speak: let us give them a voice, let us comfort them, let us make them feel welcome in our homes, in our churches, in our monasteries.

Let us not forget that the mentality that guides the globalist elite – and the Bergoglian sect that is its handmaiden – is of a mercantile matrix that is typically Protestant and usurious. The dominant idea is power and profit, obtained through the commodification of everything, that is, the transformation of every aspect of life into a commodity, into a sellable and purchasable product. And commercial strategies always follow a well-determined process to conquer the market.


Valli: Can you give us an example?

Viganò: Certainly. Imagine having two companies, a foreign multinational corporation that produces a poor-quality article at low prices in the Third World and an Italian artisan company that produces the same article with high-quality raw materials produced strictly in Italy alone, with expert skill and at an honest price. In these conditions it is clear that the multinational has no hope of being able to impose itself on a new foreign market, also because under normal conditions the government provides forms of protection of its country’s own domestic entrepreneurial excellence and imposes heavy duties on imported goods. But membership in the European Union prohibits member states from giving priority to their own companies, imposes onerous taxes and duties, causes the costs of raw materials and production to rise, facilitates credit to multinationals and drastically restricts its availability to small and medium-sized enterprises. Behind these economic and fiscal policies, of course, are the lobbyists of the large financial groups.

At this point our Italian company is forced to increase prices, while the multinational corporation immediately becomes competitive. The multinational therefore enters the Italian market, with an impressive media campaign, which the small competitor cannot even remotely afford; after a while the multinational acquires the small company and lets it work for a while; then it eliminates the valuable artiginal product in favor of the poor-quality manufactured one. What has the multinational gained? The cancellation of the alternative product and the general lowering of the product’s quality. The competition has been eliminated, and the manufactured product will be able to increase its price simply because it is the only one offered on the market. In this process it is essential to remove the quality product, because it is an annoying term of comparison for the product that is mass-produced in a Chinese prison or in an Indian village. So what solution is proposed to deal with foreign competition? After the lowering of raw material costs, all that remains is the cut in labor costs, with the reduction of wages and the introduction of an underpaid foreign workforce, also thanks to the pressure of the landings of illegal immigrants ferried from North Africa or entered Europe from Turkey. If we add to this coordinated assault the increases in the cost of energy – all of which are deliberately provoked – and the obligation to balance the budget for the EU member nations (or at least for some), we understand that in this case too all escape routes have been closed, except for the only one that is desired, which is then the one that will prove fatal for those who take it.


Valli: Forgive me, Archbishop, but when you express yourself in this way, some say: Archbishop Viganò speaks of things that do not concern him as a pastor.

Viganò: I realize that here we are on at least “unusual” ground for a topic being addressed by a Bishop, even if in my former duties as Secretary General of the Governorate of Vatican City State I also had to deal with economic issues. If you notice, the commercial strategy I have just illustrated is also adopted in the ecclesiastical sphere. The high-quality product is represented by Catholic doctrine, morals and liturgy. Competition from the low-quality product is constituted by modernist ideological rubbish, mainly the reformed rite of the Mass.

Since the “clientele” is not willing to freely give up the high-quality product it has always had in exchange for something incomparably inferior, this is when the “conciliar multinational” acquires the “small artisan company” and lets it offer its product under Summorum Pontificum, only to then close almost all the points of sale and prevent the formation of clergy and religious according to the traditional ratio studiorum by imposing the legislation of Traditionis Custodes. And in order to prevent people from seeing that the imported product is poor, it avoids comparison with the high-quality product by simply making it disappear. But these maneuvers, however effective from an organizational point of view, cannot prevent the gulf between the two alternatives from being very evident. If the “clientele” resigns itself to buying what is imposed on them by the “large retailer,” it is only because they have been deprived of the possibility of a free choice due to to fraud and market manipulation.

I know well that in religious matters this “shopkeeper” approach is inappropriate and offensive, especially because the good of the Faith is of such an inestimable value, freely granted to us by the magnificence of God, while the alternative that is proposed to us cannot compete in the least and has as its price our eternal damnation. But I believe it does not escape any of us that the usurious cynicism of the sellers of heresies and perversions is not able to go beyond seeing the matter as commercial exchange, giving a price to everything: the thirty denarii paid by the Sanhedrin for the betrayal of Judas confirm this, and there are always High Priests ready to pay the sum, as well as renegade apostles who are willing to hand the Lord over by means of a kiss to the temple guards.

This is the mentality that moves and orients merchants – let’s not forget that the World Economic Forum is a lobby of entrepreneurs thirsty for money and power – when it has to force the adoption of new lifestyles in society: social manipulation is an integral part of marketing actions, and if the “product” to be sold is an experimental serum or an electric vehicle, the modalities of creating demand and placing it on the market will include a media campaign of pandemic or environmental social alarm thanks to the cooperation of the press, individual journalists, so-called “experts” – virologists or climatologists, for example – and politicians. All of them are in fact employed by the technocratic lobby of the WEF, because they are owned by large investment funds such as Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street or directly or indirectly sponsored by them. If a newspaper spreads certain news, it is because this or that multinational corporation controls it, because they buy advertising space and finance events. And the same applies to research institutes, universities, and foundations that are assigned the task of publishing studies that confirm the narrative. This is accompanied by interference and lobbying activities at public institutions, whose officials sign agreements with private entities that in return finance their activities or that hire them at the end of their term of office, according to the well-known practice of revolving doors.

The circle closes with the last missing piece: the cooperation of the Catholic Church – and of other religions, but in a completely secondary way – to the coup d’état of the globalist elite. The deep church has not hesitated for a moment to lend itself to this ugly alliance, because it is totally occupied by characters linked to the deep state. It did so by pandering to the psychopandemic farce, then aligning itself with the Ukrainian crisis, then embracing the green narrative in an Amazonian flavor through the worship of the Pachamama, and finally prostituting the Synod to woke ideology.

And even when this libido serviendi of the sect of Santa Marta has not been spontaneous, we know well that the blackmail of leading figures would have persuaded them to align themselves without skipping a breath: the scandals of the former Cardinal McCarrick and his minions who are still in power – Cupich, Gregory, Farrell, Tobin, McElroy… – are not so different from those of Joe Biden’s son. The pathetic and grotesque attempts at whitewashing and cover-up may perhaps postpone the redde rationem that awaits the pedophile-satanist cupola currently in power, but they will not succeed in preventing the truth from emerging in all its terrifying gravity, and from doing justice to these perverts who are devoted to the Evil One. We must be ready, at this juncture, to open our eyes to a vast network of complicity, which will make it clear why this infernal machine has worked so well so far.


Valli: But how to effectively cope with such a widespread and organized network? The forces of those who oppose it, although sustained by a great passion and spirit of sacrifice, appear far insufficient…

Viganò: Look, I believe that the very efficient organization of the forces of the Enemy is certainly a strength, compared to our disorganization and fragmentation; but at the same time it is also the Enemy’s Achilles’ heel. It will be our disorganization, our ability to move autonomously, the unpredictability of our moves that will prevent the deep church from succeeding in its quest to oust us from the Church – and, likewise, the effort of the deep state to oust us from civil society. And vice-versa, it will be precisely their soulless organization and the identifiability of their chain of command that will allow us to sabotage their plans, denounce their authors, and frustrate their actions.

So let’s start looking at short-term projects and long-term projects. We must not just resist: we must become actors rather than reactors: we must take the initiative, as I believe is already happening in many quarters. Only in this way will we realize that the pusillus grex is not so small, and that the gates of hell, just like a haunted house at an amusement park, are only an impressive stage set constructed by those who have already been definitively conquered by Our Lord.

Let me conclude with an appeal to support the activity of Exsurge Domine, the Association I have founded to give assistance to priests, seminarians, and men and women religious being persecuted by the Bergoglian junta. Your help will allow us to respond to the many situations of discrimination against these good souls, who are being targeted by unscrupulous mercenaries who are without Faith and above all without Charity. You can find all the information and how to send a contribution by visiting the website www.exsurgedomine.org.

[Stone]

Archbishop Viganò: World Youth Day has confirmed Bergoglio’s plan to provoke a schism
‘Let us prepare ourselves for a crescendo of unprecedented provocations: time bombs ready to explode in order to sow disorientation, confusion, and division.’

Aug 7, 2023
(LifeSiteNews [emphasis mine, slightly adapted]) — This is the third part of an interview that Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò gave to veteran Italian journalist Aldo Maria Valli. LifeSiteNews’ coverage of part one and part two of the interview can be found here and here. Below follows the full text of part three.

Part Three: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Aldo Maria Valli

Valli: Your Excellency, we often say “motus in fine velocior” – “movement is faster towards the end” – about Francis’ attitude aimed at liquefying what little remains of Catholic doctrine and espousing the thought of the world. The most recent news confirms this, including yet another one of his interviews. What is your assessment?

Viganò: World Youth Day, celebrated this year in Lisbon, Portugal, has confirmed the acceleration of Bergoglio’s plan to provoke a schism: his latest appointments, which are provocative to say the least; the statements of the newly-appointed Cardinals, all of which confirm the “Bergoglian revolution”; the presence of James Martin to propagandize the acceptance of LGBTQ ideology by young people; Bergoglio’s recent statement to a transgender person: “God loves us as we are; go ahead” (here). The only thing missing was an interview in which the Argentine “confessed” to an editorial staff of genuflecting and cheering journalists to complete the picture (here). 

The adoring tone of the interview is beyond embarrassing, which, for someone who claims to detest hypocrisy and servility, would sound tragic if it were not so grotesque. The cloying obsequiousness of the journalists went so far as to say that Bergoglio is “like a country priest accustomed to treating everyone equally, or a woman who from dawn to dusk goes out of her way to support her family.” The abject lyricism of Vida Nueva, however, has the drawback of exposing the false spontaneity of the interviewee’s words, which were in fact carefully dropped like time bombs waiting to detonate. 


Valli: From the interview it appears that Bergoglio expected everything but to become pope. But the story says something very different…

Viganò: I am amazed by Bergoglio’s literary gifts. The evocative re-enactment of how surprised he felt at the election does not reconcile with what we now know happened at the 2013 Conclave, which has also been confided by a Cardinal–elector who is unable to reveal it publicly. And in presenting himself as a speculum totius humilitatis – a mirror of all humility – he speaks of himself as a “victim of the Holy Spirit and Providence,” as if to attribute the misfortune of this “pontificate” to God Himself and not to the maneuvers of both the deep church, through the Mafia of St. Gallen, and the deep state, through the emails of John Podesta and Hillary Clinton.


Valli: So, let’s get to the time bombs…

Viganò: The first time bomb: “The Synod was the dream of Paul VI. When the Second Vatican Council ended, he realized that the Church in the West had lost the synodal dimension.”

These words are a way to confirm the subversive character of the “collegiality” of Vatican II as a counterweight against the Petrine Primacy solemnly and infallibly proclaimed at Vatican Council I by Blessed Pius IX. Thus we learn that the episcopal collegiality theorized by the innovators in Lumen Gentium had to make use of the Synod of Bishops precisely as a parliamentary body on the model of civil forms of government.

In essence, “collegiality” was the application in the ecclesiastical sphere of the Masonic principle spread by the French Revolution to overthrow the Catholic monarchies. “It is a question of moving forward to recover that synodal dimension that the Eastern Church has and we have lost,” Bergoglio said. But this “synodal dimension” is a modernist Newspeak term for not admitting their actual intent to deliberately subvert the papacy as a monarchical form of authority. This is an attack on the divine institution of the Church, perpetrated by the one who should instead be defending her from heretics. We are witnessing the demolition of the supreme magisterial and governmental authority of the Roman Pontiff, which is the bond of Catholic unity, by the one who sits on the Throne of Peter and who acts and is obeyed by virtue of the authority recognized to the Roman Pontiff. It is like watching the fire chief giving orders to his subordinates to pour gasoline into the bush and set it on fire after emptying the tanks and draining the water supplies. 


Valli: There is also talk of the Synod of 2001…

Viganò: Yes, in the worrying sequence of Bergoglian “reworkings of reality” there also appears a recollection of the Synod of 2001, when Bergoglio evokes this episode: “Then the cardinal in charge of coordination came, examined the papers, and began to say: ‘This is not voted on … nor this.’ I replied: ‘Your Eminence, this has come out of the groups…’” And the naïve listener thinks: “See how good Bergoglio is; he wants the basis for telling the Bishops what the real problems of the faithful are, etc. etc.,” only to discover that what had then “come out of the groups” was presented as such, no more and no less than what happened farcically at the 2015 “Synod on the Family,” for which the documents were prepared ahead of time by Bergoglio’s circle and had been previously approved by him; and now even more evidently with the “Synod on Synodality,” for which the questionnaire sent to the dioceses, parishes, and groups was formulated in such a way as to exclude certain questions and steer the answers in the desired direction.

When Bergoglio reassures us, “But things have been ‘purified’; we have made progress, and today everything is voted on and listened to,” we must understand that the obstacles previously represented by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by other Congregations, have now been eliminated either through the appointment of perfectly–aligned heretics or through the ouster of the Roman Curia from any coordinating role, in deference to the “national churches” or the Episcopal Conferences, all of which are occupied by heretics and corrupt individuals who are subservient to Santa Marta. 

“We also have the example of the Synod on the Family. From the outside, Communion for the divorced has been imposed on us as a great theme. In this case it was the psychology of the wave, which was trying to expand. But, fortunately, the result went much further… much further.” So much further, I would say, as to arouse the formal protest of some cardinals and numerous prelates, priests, religious, and theologians, in the face of distancing from traditional doctrine in matters of adultery, public concubinage, and the family. Let us not forget the fraudulent operation with which some of Bergoglio’s minions stole from the mailboxes of the Synod Fathers the book about the errors of Amoris Lætitia that denounced the interference by progressives in the conduct of the Synod.

Even in areas where the dissent of the faithful and pastors against the current Vatican regime is greater, such as Africa, key roles of authority have been entrusted to people who enjoy Bergoglio’s support, even if they are completely inadequate to hold certain positions of great responsibility.

It therefore seems that the affirmation, “In the Synod, the protagonist is the Holy Spirit,” serves to clothe with an aura of authority the decisions taken by Jorge Mario, which have absolutely nothing divine about them, and indeed reveal themselves as intrinsically opposed to the Catholic Magisterium. 


Valli: There is also talk of “Vatican III”…

Viganò: Yes, a journalist from Vida Nueva provocatively asks: “This Synod on synodality seems to cover everything: from proposals for liturgical renewal to the need for more evangelizing communities, passing through a true preferential option for the poor, a true commitment in terms of integral ecology, and the acceptance of LGBTQ collectives. Has it ever been thought of giving it the form of the Third Vatican Council?”

It ought to horrify us even to hear the hypothesis that a Synod could address such very delicate issues – liturgical reform and the evangelization of communities – and others completely foreign to the purposes of the Church, such as “a true preferential option for the poor, a true commitment in terms of integral ecology, and the acceptance of LGBTQ collectives.”

Yet these are the themes being addressed at WYD 2023 during these days, with the criminal indoctrination of thousands of young people on the theme of the “ecological emergency” and woke ideology. And they are the themes – repeated obsessively by the media, in schools, in the workplace, and in politics – of the Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset, both of which are ontologically incompatible with the Catholic religion because they are intrinsically antichristic and anti-Christian.

Bergoglio’s response is disturbing: “Things are not ripe for a Third Vatican Council. And it is not even necessary at this time, since Vatican II has not yet begun to be realized. This was very risky and had to be taken into account. But there is always that fear that spreads among us at the hands of the ‘old Catholics,’ who already at Vatican I called themselves ‘depositories of the true faith.'”


Valli: What is the ultimate goal?

Viganò: We have come to understand that Bergoglio’s main purpose is to sow division and destroy. His modus operandi is always the same.

First of all, he artificially provokes a “debate” on issues that cannot be the object of controversy in the Church, since they already been defined by the Magisterium. He pits the “ultra-progressives” against the “conservatives.” Traditional Catholics, as I explained earlier, have not followed these delusions of the neo–church for a long time, and that is good.

Then he makes sure that what he wants to achieve – a doctrinal, moral, disciplinary, and liturgical change – is proposed by a mediator who appears to be neutral, who presents himself as trying to find a compromise, while in reality he panders to the progressive side. At this point, Bergoglio, from on high and as if discovering only then that there is a question to be clarified on which an authoritative pronouncement is needed, imposes a change that seems less serious than what the ultra-progressives had requested, but which remains inadmissible for those who are Catholic, who at that point are forced to disobey. And this disobedience is instantly denounced as heresy or schism, simply by recalling the errors of the Old Catholics, who rejected Vatican I.

But here lies the most treacherous deception: the doctrinal deviations of the Old Catholics are simplistically dismissed by Bergoglio as having claimed to be “depositories of the true faith” – something that every heresiarch has always claimed to be doing – while the Old Catholics have shown that they share many more heresies with the Bergoglian Church than whatever they may have in common with traditionalists, beginning with the female priesthood. And it is surprising that Bergoglio does not remember that the doctrinal instances of the Old Catholics began well before the First Vatican Council, with questions regarding papal appointments of bishops in the Netherlands, but they soon showed their closeness with the modernists both by adhering to the Protestant ecumenical movement – which was firmly condemned by the Catholic Church – and by theorizing a return to the “faith of the undivided Church of the first millennium,” a theme that is so dear to the supporters of Vatican II. 

We have therefore understood that the identification of an enemy – in this case “the rigid,” meaning Catholics who are faithful to the immutable Magisterium – is the corollary of the deification of the Revolution in the Church. The Synod is presented as the work of the Holy Spirit and Bergoglio is simply a victim of Providence. So, either we accept apostasy as being willed by God – which is absurd, as well as blasphemous – or we end up ipso facto in the circle of Bergoglio’s enemies, deserving for this very reason the condemnation reserved for heretics and schismatics. It is a strange way of understanding the parrhesia [frankness] and “inclusiveness” of the church of mercy. 


Valli: The interview also takes up the theme of the “rigid,” who are so disliked by the pope…

Viganò: “Francis is in no way oblivious to the resistance to reform that he is about to carry out,” a journalist comments. And he cites the words of a priest “who has one foot in the Curia and the other in his diocese” – “I am concerned about the rigidity of young priests,” Bergoglio concludes. Of course!

It reassures the readers, amazed that Bergoglio has not yet ventured into one of his monologues against priests who I will not call traditional, but who are even vaguely conservative. From the very first days of his “pontificate” it is precisely against those “rigid priests” that he has woven an unmatchable series of insults and scorn. The provocation of the priest “who smells of the smell of sheep” – I imagine also wearing jeans and tennis shoes – offers an opportunity to this actor, who does not fail to capitalize on it, promptly replying: 

“They react this way because they are afraid of a moment of insecurity that we are experiencing, and that fear prevents them from moving forward. We need to remove this fear and help them.” This is a psychoanalytic approach that leaves us astonished, in truth, and that betrays the desire to reprogram the clergy, who are rightly worried about a “moment of insecurity” that has been going on for the past 60 years so as to induce them to give in to the innovations and deviations of the Council. But the words of pharisaic understanding immediately turn into accusations and insinuations: “On the other hand, that shell hides a lot of rottenness. I have already had to intervene in some dioceses of various countries with similar parameters. Behind this traditionalism we have discovered serious moral problems and vices, double lives. We all know of bishops who, needing priests, resorted to people who had been expelled from other seminaries because they were immoral.”

One must remain astonished before Bergoglio’s determination to eradicate the unmentionable vice of the Greeks from conservative seminaries, but not wanting to acknowledge it even in the face of the denunciations of the victims of the serial predator McCarrick, the molester of seminarians and young clerics, along with the lavender mafia of his minions, who have been appointed as cardinals and placed in charge of the Roman dicasteries. And it does not seem that this new Peter Damian of Santa Marta considers the former Jesuit Rupnik worthy of his arrows, for whom he revoked excommunication for the very serious crimes and unmentionable sacrileges with which he has been stained. If you want to see Rupnik in shackles in a cell in Castel Sant’Angelo, put the cappello romano [the Roman hat] on his head.   

Is not Bergoglio’s indulgence towards his protégés – among whom appears a long list of Jesuit confreres, united by heresy on the doctrinal front and sodomy on the moral front – not perhaps explained by the fact that when he was master of novices, the Argentine behaved in a manner not unlike that of the former Archbishop of Washington? Qui legit intelligat.

Let us therefore forget the words of Our Lord in the Gospel: “Come, good and faithful servant, for you have been faithful in small things” (Mt 25:21), and let us instead listen to the “victim of the Holy Spirit”: “I do not like rigidity because it is an ugly symptom of one’s interior life. The pastor cannot afford to be rigid. […] Someone recently told me that the rigidity of young priests arises because they are tired of the current relativism, but this is not always the case.” And here we find re-proposed the typical cliché of the anticlericals of the nineteenth century: those who appear virtuous are Pharisees who are hiding unclean vices, while those who seem vicious and immoral are actually good and just need acceptance. 

And then he speaks of the “blessed Imeldas” – I suppose he is referring to Blessed Imelda Lambertini, a Dominican nun who died after miraculously receiving the Most Holy Eucharist brought to her by the Angels – that is, the priests of an unreal and irreverent model of religiosity, who act like ostentatious nuns, who put on “the face of a saint,” who are to be contrasted with the “normal seminarians, with their problems, who play soccer, who do not go into the neighborhoods to dogmatize.” Better to be a good layman than a bad priest, as the mangiapreti [priest-haters] of the past summed up with less hypocrisy, knowing well that the paradox had to serve to stigmatize the majority of the good ones and not the minority of the bad ones. 


Valli: The comment of the editorial staff of Vida Nueva is disturbing: “Once those priests identified as ‘rigid’ have been ordained, how are they accompanied to enter Vatican II?  Because, deep down, they suffer from not being able to accept what comes….”

Viganò: In effect, it is like hearing a member of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party speak: how shall we reprogram these priests, in order to force them to accept the innovations of the Council?

With blackmail, with authoritarianism, with intimidation, and above all by showing them what happens to those who do not bend. Making them “soften”: “There are people who live trapped in a theology manual, unable to get into trouble and keep theology moving forward.” To “get into trouble,” as Bergoglio affirms, one does not need today to be heretical or corrupt, but rather faithful to the Magisterium, “trapped in a theology manual.” And he concludes with one of his pearls of wisdom: “Stagnant theology reminds me that stagnant water is the first to be corrupted, and stagnant theology creates corruption.” It should be observed that this “stagnation” of theology is actually a characteristic of the innovators: for half a century now, they have been stuck clinging to the heretical claims of the Protestants of the early twentieth century, to the social claims of the “preferential option for the poor” of the 1970s, and they are unable to understand that the vitality of Catholic Revelation is quite different from the permanent revolution imposed by Vatican II.

The solution proposed by Bergoglio goes in the direction of a secularization of institutes of clerical formation: “We must emphasize a humanistic formation. Let us open ourselves to a universal cultural horizon that humanizes them. Seminaries cannot be ideological kitchens. Seminaries must form pastors, not ideologues. The problem of seminaries is serious.”

Let’s remember that the “humanistic” disciplines are the humanæ res et litteræ, the humanities, which the “humanization” of a secular and “universal” formation has nothing to do with. It goes without saying that if a seminary does not give an intellectual and doctrinal formation – hastily defined as “ideological cuisine” – the new priests will have nothing new to teach the world, thus making themselves useless and superfluous. 

Bergoglio shows once again that he denounces the behavior of others as reprehensible at the very moment in which he himself adopts the very same behavior. With regard to the need to privilege the relationship of the Bishop with his flock, he does not realize that his words sound mocking when he says: “You already see that in the new appointments of bishops – not only in Spain, but throughout the world – I apply a general criterion: once a bishop is in residence and assigned, he is already married to that diocese. If you look at another [if you’re hoping for a transfer], it’s ‘episcopal adultery.’ Anyone who seeks promotion commits ‘episcopal adultery.’” Yet bishops who are loved by their faithful – such as Bishop Joseph Strickland in Texas – are subjected to intimidation and apostolic visitations, in order to remove them, forcing them to resign. And there is the added paradox that the greatest author of “episcopal adultery” is Bergoglio himself, in his obsession to assimilate the episcopate to his subversive plans, promoting corrupt characters in all the principal sees: see the endless list of Cupich, Gregory, Tobin, McElroy, Tagle, Hollerich, Grech, Zuppi….


Valli: The group interview also touches on the theme of the “green” initiative…

Viganò: Yes, inevitably. “For November, before the UN Climate Summit takes place in Dubai, we are organizing a peace meeting with religious leaders in Abu Dhabi. Cardinal Pietro Parolin is coordinating this initiative, which will take place outside the Vatican, in a neutral territory that invites everyone to the meeting.” Because – as we have come to understand – the most important thing is to meet, to walk together, “in a neutral place,” even if the road taken leads to the abyss.

And we know well that “neutral” means ostentatiously non-Catholic, in which there is no room for Our Lord: Bergoglio’s eagerness to appear in all the events that are openly hostile to Christ ought to be enough for us to understand how completely alien, foreign, incompatible, and heterogeneous he is with respect to the role he holds. The only ones to whom he shows no mercy are Catholics, and especially Catholic priests, because they have the power to offer the Holy Sacrifice to the Divine Majesty and to pour out infinite graces on the Church, graces that hinder the plans of the workers of iniquity.


Valli: What do you foresee for the immediate future?

Viganò: Let us prepare ourselves for a crescendo of unprecedented provocations: time bombs ready to explode in order to sow disorientation, confusion, and division. But let us also prepare ourselves for the awakening of consciences, above all the consciences of the faithful and the clergy, but – if Heaven wills – also the conscience of some Bishop, in the face of such enormities, in defense of the Church of Christ. Very soon we may have at our side courageous, honest, and good people who cannot further indulge the rantings of a sect of heretics who are without faith, without hope, and without charity.

[Stone]

While we all agree with Archbishop Viganò regarding his comments on Vatican II and the havoc being wrecked under Pope Francis, it should be mentioned that he is not always clear on meaning.

For example, Archbishop Viganò suggests an almost guerilla-like functioning of traditional Catholics, i.e. unorganized and unpredictable. 

But he does not clarify if this is supposed to be within the Indult circles of the Conciliar Church or as Archbishop Lefebvre acted with the SSPX:

From Part 2 of the above interview with Aldo Valli:

Valli: But how to effectively cope with such a widespread and organized network? The forces of those who oppose it, although sustained by a great passion and spirit of sacrifice, appear far insufficient…

Viganò: Look, I believe that the very efficient organization of the forces of the Enemy is certainly a strength, compared to our disorganization and fragmentation; but at the same time it is also the Enemy’s Achilles’ heel. It will be our disorganization, our ability to move autonomously, the unpredictability of our moves that will prevent the deep church from succeeding in its quest to oust us from the Church – and, likewise, the effort of the deep state to oust us from civil society. And vice-versa, it will be precisely their soulless organization and the identifiability of their chain of command that will allow us to sabotage their plans, denounce their authors, and frustrate their actions.

And this distinction is important. Does he envision these traditional Catholics to be within or without the Conciliar Church? 

It is my opinion he deliberately does not specify or clarify his meaning as to not alienate, or discourage perhaps is a better word, those priests and laity still in the Indult circles of the Conciliar Church (e.g. Fraternity of St. Peter's, etc.) who continue to stand for Tradition but are too afraid to do so as Archbishop Lefebvre did, without the umbrella of the Conciliar hierarchy.

Another important lack of clarity in the above interview: recall in Part One, Archbishop Viganò argues the opinion that "Pope Francis is looking to corral devotees of the traditional Mass into the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and then excommunicate the Society."

If this were to happen, the excommunication (just as with the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops) would be null. But Archbishop Viganò speaks as if such an excommunication against the SSPX as  whole would have the force of legitimacy, and therefore its death knell.

Though in Archbishop Viganò's defense, perhaps he is all too well aware that such a (phony) excommunication would scare the weaker priests and laity within this expanded SSPX back into the Conciliar edifice. 

However, what we in the Resistance ask, but what Archbishop Viganò does not, is whether or not the SSPX leadership will buckle under such an 'excommunication.' They have already accepted the New Mass as legitimate, the new Sacraments, the new Code of Canon Law. It stands to reason that some within the SSPX leadership would submit to Conciliar Rome and bring vast numbers of priests and faithful with them.