(LifeSiteNews) — The [November 30] statement published by former Archbishop Monsignor (Mons.) Carlo Maria Viganò on his website Exsurge Domine immediately stands out for its ambitious hermeneutical approach. Structured as a lesson in the philosophy of history and employing a genealogical method, it seeks to explain the current state of the Church, tracing its roots back to the Second Vatican Council.
On the Second Vatican Council
It is widely recognized that my position on the Council and many other issues differs radically from that of Mons. Viganò. The only point we share in common—though for very different reasons—is the conviction regarding the invalidity of the Declaratio due to Benedict’s not renouncing the Petrine munus. Even on this matter, however, there is complete divergence between us concerning the motivations behind Benedict XVI’s actions.
Nonetheless, Mons. Viganò inexplicably omits the combined implications of Articles 76 and 77 of Universi Dominici Gregis, which stipulate that if a resignation is invalid, any subsequent election is automatically invalid without requiring a formal declaration to that effect. Regardless of the reasons behind Benedict’s resignation—whether he was a saint under duress or a heretic modernist, as Mons. Viganò asserts—the act itself is invalid and could therefore be reasonably contested to establish Bergoglio’s nullity as pope.
Mons. Viganò asserts that Francis is not pope either due to heresy or by virtue of his affiliation with what he terms the “conciliar sect,” which he claims includes all popes [from the Second Vatican Council] up to Benedict XVI. Clearly, a profound chasm separates our perspectives.
This initial observation alone is revealing, as it demonstrates that the “illegitimist” front has expanded to accommodate markedly diverse positions. How can one summarize the complex thought of Mons. Viganò, expressed through years of frosty statements and complete withdrawal? In a few words: it is all the Council’s fault. Indeed, this is the single thesis that consistently underpins his analyses, as if the Church prior to 1960 were a congregation of angels, and since the start of the Council a domain of devils.
Mons. Carlo Maria Viganò believes that the Second Vatican Council marked the beginning of the Church’s decline, initiating a permanent revolution that continues today, more ferociously than ever. According to him, the conciliar and post-conciliar popes—from John XXIII to Benedict XVI—were all complicit in the theological and spiritual subversion of the Church, which he views as having naturally culminated in the papacy of Bergoglio. Even Pope Benedict XVI is not spared: Mons. Viganò accuses him of being Hegelian, of contributing to the papacy’s downfall, and of being merely the “positive moment” in the revolutionary process that disfigured the Church—ultimately aligning him with the destructive intentions of Cardinal Bergoglio.
For Viganò, there exists only the Ratzinger who was a friend of Rahner, the “progressive” Ratzinger. Such a portrayal is both unjust and malicious, as the same Cardinal Ratzinger, after the Council, repeatedly declared—and demonstrated through his actions—his criticism of certain post-conciliar theologies[1] that exploited the Council as a pretext for their own abuses.
I have already explained that the Masonic infiltration of the Church, systematically initiated at the start of the 19th century, unfolded gradually with the intent of occupying positions of power within the ecclesiastical hierarchy to pervert Catholic doctrine. This shows that nothing new began with the Second Vatican Council. Rather, it is part of a long-standing process that has unfolded more or less silently over the decades. The Second Vatican Council has nothing to do with it.
I have already explained that the documents produced by the Second Vatican Council do not teach anything erroneous or contrary to Catholic doctrine. Rather, it is the post-conciliar applications of the Council that have disseminated a neo-modernist revolutionary spirit among the clergy and the faithful. Freemasonry, both inside and outside the Church, has controlled the ecclesial and media communication of the Council and its documents, fostering the manipulation of its teachings and promoting a series of changes that have caused the grave problems culminating in the situation we all witness today.
Even a single expression from Mons. Viganò would suffice to close any dialogue on this matter: the new heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II.
How a Council—meaning the Pope in communion with all the bishops—could produce heretical doctrines is a question entirely unanswered. Mons. Viganò’s position, on the other hand, is clearly schismatic, as it radically calls into question the sanctity of the Council and, by extension, the Church itself. After all, there is no institution more sacred and solemn than an ecumenical Council.
It is highly probable that Mons. Viganò has indeed incurred excommunication for the crime of schism due to this grave ecclesiological stance, which he frequently reiterates.
The Argumentative Structure of Mons. Viganò’s Text
As I previously noted, Mons. Viganò’s approach resembles a lecture on the philosophy of history. The contribution of a philosopher is unmistakable, as is the forced attempt to frame everything within Hegelian dialectics. The text contains at least five references to the dialectical process of thesis–antithesis–synthesis. These stages are populated with various elements which, once synthesized, supposedly produce specific aspects of the current crisis. This persistent emphasis on Hegel stems from the claim that Benedict XVI, until the very last day of his life, was an unrepentant Hegelian shaped by German idealism—allegedly capable of reconciling opposites and harmonizing good and evil, sanctity and impiety.
I will not delve into the philosophical debate to avoid making this response, which is intended to be accessible, overly complex. However, I challenge the method employed by Mons. Viganò: it constitutes a misuse of philosophy, applied to matters that cannot be adequately addressed in terms of ideas alone. It seems sufficient, in his analysis, to identify in the Church’s recent Magisterium (pre-Bergoglio) any thought diverging from pre-conciliar tradition to condemn everything wholesale. The Second Vatican Council, Canon Law, and the Magisterium of the popes are all judged before Viganò’s crypto-sedevacantist tribunal. Democratic, synodal, or progressive initiatives—ideas alien to pre-conciliar tradition—are presented as having disfigured the Catholic Church. Ultimately, Mons. Viganò’s vision reflects a rigid ecclesial immobility, suggesting that the Church should have remained frozen in 1961. Yet, as Ratzinger famously stated, the Church is a community semper reformanda[2].
Allow me to draw your attention to an important point: it is true that some theological elements promoted by Vatican II—such as the historical dimension of revelation, the hierarchical decentralization outlined in Lumen Gentium, the rethinking of human dignity, or the value of religious freedom—are also present in heterodox or even heretical doctrines like modernism. Similarly, the emphasis on the Word of God is also common to the Lutheran Reformation. However, this does not constitute evidence against the Council.
The Church possesses the wisdom and sanctity to examine everything and retain only what is good, as St. Paul reminds us (1 Thessalonians 5:21). St. Thomas Aquinas drew heavily from Aristotle (a pagan) and Avicenna (a Muslim); many of his ideas were shared with pagans and Muslims, yet no traditionalist would even think of calling him a heretic. How, then, is it possible that an ecumenical Council, far more authoritative and normative than St. Thomas, is so vehemently accused of heresy simply for incorporating certain elements shared with “other” movements? Let us always remember Thomas’s statement: Omne verum a quocumque dicatur a Spiritu Sancto est—“Every truth, no matter who speaks it, comes from the Holy Spirit” (Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 109, a. 1, ad 1).
Performing a genealogy of ideas purely through a philosophical lens, without a vision of faith, ultimately leaves nothing of the Church intact except for doctrines or ideas that align with our own subjective and limited understanding of faith and the Church. Mons. Viganò’s approach is a textbook example of how NOT to use philosophy, and for this, I thank him—because, albeit by contrast, it still provides an opportunity to learn the correct method of philosophical inquiry.
Ironically, Mons. Viganò has fallen into the same error as the early modernists he would passionately oppose: misusing philosophical tools to interpret the recent history of the Church in an all-encompassing and improper manner.
RELATED: Is Francis really the pope? — The debate
But turning now to the matter at hand, what does Mons. Viganò mean regarding the Declaratio of Pope Benedict and its consequences?
On this subject, [Mons. Viganò’s] position and “proposal” appear increasingly irrational, though, regrettably, many may find it courageous and appealing. I am compelled to place the word “proposal” in quotation marks because, as we shall see, the statement published by Mons. Viganò on November 30 offers nothing that can truly be considered a “proposal,” a solution, or anything deserving of such terms. Instead, [Mons.] Viganò assumes a radically defeatist stance, harshly criticizing everyone and everything without providing a shred of evidence to substantiate his accusations and, crucially, without proposing any solution to the outlined problems.
It is, in fact, well known that authoritative voices worldwide, supported by objective evidence, argue that Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio and the subsequent election of Cardinal Bergoglio are invalid under Church law. Yet none of this is present in the text published by Mons. Viganò. On the contrary, Mons. Viganò dismisses such arguments as “inconsistent theories unsupported by any evidence [which] have misled many faithful and even priests, increasing confusion and disorientation.” He references the invalidity of the Declaratio only to disparage the motivations behind Pope Benedict’s actions, without highlighting the canonical grounds for such invalidity.
Thus, he questions Bergoglio’s papacy but on grounds entirely unrelated to the canonical invalidity of an election held while a reigning pope, who had not abdicated, was still alive. This stance persists even though his philosophical mentor, Professor [Enrico Maria] Radaelli, has repeatedly referred to Bergoglio as an “antipope” in his book Al cuore di Ratzinger. Yet, it is worth recalling that roughly a year ago, Mons. Viganò himself advised against engaging in abstract canonical speculations regarding Bergoglio’s election, stating categorically: “What we cannot do, because we lack the authority, is to declare that Bergoglio is not pope. The terrible impasse we face makes any human solution impossible.”
In the text recently published by [Mons. Viganò] in four languages, Canon Law and the Magisterium are never cited, nor are the canons or documents that establish the canonical situation of the Church since 2013. As Dr. Andrea Cionci has frequently pointed out:
Viganò completely and deliberately avoids (despite being thoroughly informed) citing the combined implications of Articles 76 and 77 of Universi Dominici Gregis, which explicitly state that if the pope’s resignation does not comply with Canon 332 §2—requiring a renunciation of the munus, which never occurred—the election is null and void without the need for any formal declaration.
The Monsignor never mentions the Sede impedita in which Pope Benedict was relegated following the convocation of the 2013 Conclave. He makes no reference whatsoever to the manipulations of the Declaratio, nor does he address the falsified translations published by the Holy See. He makes no mention of the fact that Pope Benedict never confirmed or ratified his supposed resignation, which, as we know from the text of the Declaratio, was presented with a temporal deferral. Mons. Viganò does not speak even once about the numerous messages in broad mental reservation that Pope Benedict gave to help us understand the issue of the invalid resignation and the canonical solution.
When addressing the topic of Pope Benedict’s presumed resignation, there are numerous issues, substantiated by ample and accessible evidence, that Mons. Viganò could have raised but chooses to censor. However, he has no hesitation in giving ample space to theological theses and speculations unsupported by any evidence or demonstration. In fact, at least four fundamental points in Viganò’s argument rely on “rumors” or “confidences” for which he provides no sources:
- A confidence shared with Viganò by Cardinal Brandmüller, supporting the claim that Ratzinger, as early as the 1970s (together with Rahner), was already considering the concept of the “emeritus papacy.”
- Another confidence from a “trusted assistant” of Benedict XVI, who reportedly told Viganò in 2020 that Ratzinger, while still pope, wanted to retire to private life.
- The confidence of an “eminent Prelate”, allegedly confirming the invalidity of the conclave that elected Bergoglio.
- Finally, Viganò implies that he knows for certain that Mons. Gänswein and Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone worked to dismantle the Papacy. Even here, we are expected to trust him without any evidence. He writes: “Both the Personal Secretary and the Secretary of State exerted strong pressure on Ratzinger to remain ‘part-time,’ so to speak, playing on the fictitious separation between munus and ministerium.”
We would expect [Mons. Viganò], when making such a grave accusation against Pope Benedict, to provide unquestionable evidence. Unverifiable secret revelations should not even be cited as proof of supposed heresy against a Supreme Pontiff. In essence, Mons. Viganò is telling us that Pope Benedict was a heretic because anonymous sources allegedly said so. All of this is unacceptable!
Among the sources cited by Mons. Viganò are the alleged letters exchanged in 2014 between the priest Fr. Nicola Bux and Pope Benedict XVI. According to him, these documents would refute the invalidity of the resignation. However, it seems contradictory that Viganò supports the invalidity of the resignation while being aware of the existence of this source, which would appear to disprove his position. It should also be noted that Viganò openly criticizes the fact that these letters were revealed only recently and in a partial manner, raising doubts about the reasons for such delay and the lack of transparency in disclosing their content. On this point, I find particularly brilliant the remarks of the dear and always sharp Dr. Barbara Tampieri in one of her recent articles:
Amidst a whirlwind of unproven and likely unprovable certainties, Viganò brings up the famous letter—or rather, the exchange of letters—that supposedly took place between July and August 2014 between Benedict XVI and the monsignor from Bari, which, according to the latter, contained Benedict XVI’s handwritten confirmation of the validity of his resignation, sufficient to dispel any doubt on the matter. Viganò wonders why Mons. Bux has not yet disclosed this correspondence. Or perhaps he is asking Bux for permission to reveal it, as he himself admits to knowing both of its existence and content.
However, here we encounter an initial temporal paradox in the Viganò hypercube.
In 2014, only Antonio Socci had published a book on the subject of the two popes, and Andrea Cionci’s Codice Ratzinger investigation, which began in 2020, did not yet exist. Neither had Fr. Minutella yet spoken on the issue of Bergoglio’s supposed antipapacy.
If Mons. Bux had known the truth about the modalities of Benedict XVI’s resignation as early as 2014, why, in 2018, in an interview with Aldo Maria Valli, did he propose: ‘…to examine and study more thoroughly the question of the legal validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation’?
Why did he not reveal the truth himself?
What is the true meaning of the title ‘Pope Emeritus,’ misunderstood by Mons. Viganò?
Viganò writes:
Benedict resorted to the invention of the “Emeritus Papacy,” seeking, in violation of canonical practice, to preserve the image of the “fine theologian” and the defensor Traditionis that his entourage had crafted.
As Dr. Andrea Cionci has clearly explained, basing his demonstration on Canon Law rather than on unverifiable revelations, the meaning of the Emeritus Papacy is very different from that of a bishop emeritus and directly connects to the sede impedita in which Pope Benedict was forced by the convocation of the Conclave while “not deceased and not having abdicated,” as his resignation did not comply with Canon 332 §2.
Let us briefly explain this concept: all bishops, from the day of their episcopal consecration, receive both the munus—which corresponds to “being a bishop,” that is, the title and investiture—and the ministerium, the practical power to “act as a bishop.” The munus of a bishop is sacramental in nature and, as such, is indelible. Canon 402 regulates the emeritus status that a bishop attains upon reaching 75 years of age, at which point he loses the ministerium, the practical authority to perform the duties of a bishop, but retains the munusprecisely because it is an indelible characteristic.
In the case of the Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff, the matter is different: his papal election is not sacramental in nature but is an office, a primacy of jurisdiction granted exclusively to the Bishop of Rome. Thus, in the case of a valid resignation, the Supreme Pontiff would validly renounce both the munus and the ministerium. There is only one case in which a pope retains the munus while losing the ministerium: it is the case of the sede impedita (cf. Canons 335 and 412), in which he is “confined, exiled, imprisoned, and not free to express himself.” In this condition, the pope remains pope but cannot exercise his office, his ministerium, precisely because he is impeded. This is what happened with the convocation of the Conclave on March 1, 2013. In fact, Benedict XVI lived exactly as a pope in a fully impeded see, with his pontifical name, wearing the white cassock, and confined to Vatican City.
Thus, Benedict can be defined as “emeritus,” similarly to a bishop emeritus, only in this sense: he retained the munus but lost the ministerium, as happens with a bishop emeritus, but due to the abuse he suffered! Certainly not by his own will or by a canonical provision!
And here is the explanation of the much criticized “expanded ministry,” which Viganò misunderstands and explains incorrectly. Until December 31, 2022, there were two popes in white: one was the Pope Emeritus, that is, the impeded one, who held the munus and was relegated to a contemplative role (“suffering and praying,” as he himself wrote in the Declaratio), and the other who abusively exercised, and still exercises, the ministerium without possessing the Petrine munus.
Mons. Viganò even goes so far as to demonstrate his lack of knowledge about the most glorious recent history of the Papacy: Pius VII, a remarkable example, whom we recall as a prisoner of Napoleon’s army between 1809 and 1814, taken far from Rome first to Savona and then to France. Despite being impeded in his office, can we say that Pius VII did not retain the munus, that is, his unique and legitimate status as Supreme Pontiff?
How does Mons. Viganò conclude his statement?
He concludes by calling for faith and perseverance, citing the episode of the boat in the stormy sea and the sleeping Christ; addressing the faithful, priests, and religious who feel scandalized, indignant, and confused; pointing to the reality of the Passion of the Church and the Mystery of Iniquity, to be accepted as a truth that will set them free, and invoking the Lord’s intervention.
This is how Mons. Viganò concludes, as I mentioned at the beginning, without offering any solution. “The Lord will take care of it; we await His return”—exactly the same conclusion drawn by all sedevacantists! This is fatal defeatism, detached from reality and the present moment.
As St. Pius X taught us, “we are born to fight,” and today our weapons are those of Canon Law, provided by the Church to restore the legitimacy of the Petrine See.
We must declare the estrangement of this illegitimate hierarchy from the Catholic Church and cling to the latter, determined to be faithful to Jesus Christ, strengthened solely by faith in His promise: “You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). We will await the Cardinals validly created before March 13, 2013, to declare the See vacant and elect a new Pontiff. Precisely because we believe in the Church and trust in its indefectibility, we are certain that the Lord will intervene and, in due time, ensure that it is governed once again by a legitimate Pope.
Those who recognize the truth are called to proclaim it with vigor, cooperating for the good of the Church, in accordance with Canon 212 §2 and §3 of the Code of Canon Law, which is itself inspired by Article 37 of the Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council, granting all the faithful the right to express their needs and even the duty to share their thoughts on matters concerning the good of the Church[3].
RELATED: Does Bishop Schneider peacefully adhere to Francis as pope?
ENDNOTES
[1] I quote a portion of the interview with Prefect Ratzinger published in Vittorio Messori’s book The Ratzinger Report. Messori writes, quoting the words of Cardinal Ratzinger: ‘[Card. Ratzinger] says: “I am convinced that the damage we have encountered in these twenty years is not due to the ‘real’ Council but to the unleashing within the Church of latent aggressive, centrifugal forces, perhaps irresponsible or simply naïve, characterized by facile optimism and an emphasis on modernity that confused today’s technical progress with authentic, integral progress. And, externally, to the impact of a cultural revolution: the rise in the West of the upper-middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie,’ with its liberal-radical ideology rooted in individualism, rationalism, and hedonism.” Therefore, his watchword, his exhortation to all Catholics who wish to remain such, is certainly not to “go backward”; rather: “return to the authentic texts of the authentic Vatican II.” For him, he repeats to me, “to defend the true Tradition of the Church today means defending the Council. It is also our fault if we have at times given the pretext (to both the ‘right’ and the ‘left’) to think that Vatican II was a ‘rupture,’ a break, an abandonment of Tradition. Instead, there is a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward; neither anachronistic nostalgia nor unjustified impatience. It is the Church’s present to which we must remain faithful, not its past or its future: and the Church’s present is the documents of Vatican II in their authenticity. Without reservations that mutilate them. And without arbitrary interpretations that distort them”.’
[2] Cardinal Ratzinger in his address at the Rimini Meeting in 1990.
[3] §2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires. s§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons (Code of Canon Law, Can. 212 §2 §3).