Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 8, 2023

Is Francis a Valid Pope? Archbishop Vigano Appears to be Saying No.

The talk below is the one Archbishop Vigano intended to give at the 2023 Catholic Identity Conference (CIC). The original plan was for an interview with Michael Matt, the same format as Archbishop Vigano's zoom appearance at the 2022 conference.

That was the plan. But the Archbishop changed the agreed upon agenda just a few days before the conference was to begin and sent in the transcript of his talk. 

Inside the Vatican Magazine framed the issue as if a planned talk was cancelled, but there was no talk on the agenda. It was to be a live zoom interview with Matt similar to the one at the 2022 CIC. Frankly, I don't blame Michael Matt for canceling the talk. There were many speakers who agreed to participate in the conference with the theme of unity, not to get into the controversy over the validity of the papacy. Those speakers may have chosen not to participate if they knew it was going to involve arguing over the papal election, especially coming at the tail end of the CIC when there would be no opportunity for real discussion. 

If Inside the Vatican knew the format and original agenda for the CIC, I think their statement about the talk was a little dishonest. However, in their defense, they may have been misled by Archbishop Vigano's own words which he posted on his website:

This address was prepared in order to be given at the Catholic Identity Conference. However, at the last minute, it was "deleted" from the roster. It is unfortunate that, in the current climate of fear within the Church, the free exchange of ideas and viewpoints is no longer tolerated. Let us pray for the unity of the Church, that unity which can only be grounded in the Truth, who is Jesus Christ.

I'm sorry to say this did not build my confidence in the archbishop although I agree with much of the transcript. I would be happy to see a conference debating the issue of the Francis papacy with speakers for and against the validity of his reign. 

However, that was not the subject of the CIC.  To jump from the cancelation over changing the agenda to implying that it was done out of "fear" and "intolerance" is, I think, unfair.  I don't think Michael Matt and CIC deserve the vilification that has arisen over this. Let some of the critics join together and offer a conference debating the issues. I respect Archbishop Vigano, but I also respect Bishop Schneider who disagrees with him and I respect Michael Matt and the speakers at the CIC. This is one more unfortunate circular firing squad. 

I invited readers yesterday to read Bishop Schneider's opinion. I offer readers Archbishop Vigano's today. 


Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

VITIUM CONSENSUS [“A defect in consent”]

Catholic Identity Conference 

Pittsburg – October 1st, 2023

[Not given at the conference because the archbishop changed horses! in the middle of the race.]

 “A fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos.

Numquid colligunt de spinis uvas aut de tribulis ficus?

Sic omnis arbor bona fructus bonos facit; mala autem arbor fructus malos facit. Non potest arbor bona fructus malos facere, neque arbor mala fructus bonos facere. Omnis arbor quæ non facit fructum bonum exciditur et in ignem mittitur. Igitur ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos.”

 “By their fruits you will know them.

Does anyone pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

Just so, every good tree bears good fruit; and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.

A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.

Every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”

–Matthew 7:16-20

    Allow me to greet and thank the organizers of the Catholic Identity Conference and all who are taking part.

    In a moment of great confusion it is important to clarify what is happening, even by comparing different positions. That’s why I am grateful to my friend Michael Matt for giving me the opportunity to share some thoughts with you.

    In this speech I will not try to give answers, but to pose a question that can no longer be postponed, so that we Bishops, the clergy, and the faithful can look clearly at the very serious apostasy present as a completely unprecedented fact, one that cannot be resolved, in my opinion, by resorting to our usual categories of judgment and action.

    The Evidence of the “Bergoglio Problem”

    The proliferation of declarations and behaviors completely foreign to what is expected of a Pope – and indeed in contrast with the Faith and Morality of which the Papacy is the guardian – has led many of the faithful and an increasingly large number of Bishops to take note of something that until some time ago seemed unheard of: the Throne of Peter is occupied by a person who abuses his power, using it for the opposite purpose to that for which Our Lord instituted it. [I totally agree!]

    Some say that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is manifestly heretical in doctrinal questions, others that he is tyrannical in matters of government, still others consider his election invalid because of the multiple anomalies of the resignation of Benedict XVI and the election of the one who took his place.

    These opinions – more or less supported by evidence or the result of speculations that cannot always be shared – nevertheless confirm a reality that is now incontestable.

    And it is this reality, in my opinion, that constitutes a common starting point in trying to remedy the disconcerting, scandalous presence of a Pope who presents himself with ostentatious arrogance as inimicus Ecclesiæ [“an enemy of the Church”] and who acts and speaks as such. An enemy who, precisely because he occupies the Throne of Peter and abuses papal authority, is capable of inflicting a terrible and disastrous blow, such as no external enemy in the entire history of the Church has ever been able to cause. The worst persecutors of Christians, the fiercest adherents of the Masonic Lodges, and the most unrestrained heresiarchs have never before succeeded, in such a short time and with such effectiveness, in devastating the Lord’s vineyard, scandalizing the faithful, disgusting the Ministers, discrediting its authority and authoritativeness before the world, and demolishing the Magisterium, Faith, Morals, Liturgy, and discipline. [I don't disagree with any of this.]

    Inimicus Ecclesiæ [“an enemy of the Church”], not only with respect to the members of the Mystical Body – which he despises, ridicules (he never ceases to launch poisonous epithets against it), persecutes, and strikes; but also with respect to the Head of the Mystical Body, Jesus Christ: whose authority is exercised by Bergoglio no longer in a vicarious way, which would therefore be in necessary and dutiful consistency with the Depositum Fidei, but rather in a self-referential and thus tyrannical way.

    The authority of the Roman Pontiff is in fact derived from the Supreme Authority of Christ, in which it participates, always within the boundaries and scope of the goals which the Divine Founder has established once and for all, and which no human power can change.

    The evidence of Bergoglio’s alienity to the office he holds is certainly a painful and very serious fact; but becoming aware of this reality is the indispensable premise for remedying an unsustainable and disastrous situation.

    Agere Sequitur Esse (“Action follows being”) [Note: meaning that how one acts or what one does follows from what or who one is…]

    In these 10 years of his “pontificate” we have seen Bergoglio do everything that would never be expected of a Pope, and vice-versa everything that a heresiarch or an apostate would do.

    There have been occasions when these actions have appeared manifestly provocative, as if by his utterances or certain acts of government he deliberately wanted to arouse the indignation of the ecclesial body and urge priests and faithful to react by giving them the pretext to declare them schismatic.

    But this typical strategy of the worst Jesuitism is now uncovered, because the whole operation has been conducted with too much arrogance and in areas on which not even moderate Catholics are willing to compromise.

    The sexual scandals of the clergy, and in particular the response of the Holy See to the scourge of moral corruption of Cardinals and Bishops, have shown a shameful disparity of treatment between those who belong to Bergoglio’s so-called “magic circle” and those he considers adversaries.

    The recent case of Marko Rupnik is evidence of one who exercises power like a despot, legibus solutus [Note: The formula princeps legibus solutus (Latin “The prince is not bound by the laws”) is a paroemia, an axiom taken from Roman law, concerning the powers of princes, particularly the right to legislate, from the high Middle Ages onwards] who considers himself free to act without being accountable for any of his actions. It often happens that the consequences of the decisions taken personally by the Argentine are then passed on to his subordinates, who find themselves accused and discredited for choices which are not theirs.

    I think of the case of the London building in which officials of the Secretariat of State were involved, while the contract of sale bears the august chirograph. I think of the shameful handling of the Rupnik case, which in addition to having rehabilitated a criminal responsible for horrendous crimes, in contempt of the numerous victims, has also discredited the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ladaria.

    I am thinking of the McCarrick case, which with the farce of a secret administrative procedure was hastily liquidated without any compensation to the victims, and declared res judicata unappealable. And the list goes on and on. It remains evident that the unfortunates who willingly or unwillingly collaborate with Bergoglio find themselves thrown overboard as soon as the press discovers the Vatican scandals. Many are noticing this cynical utilitarian behavior, which in fact brings them to decline appointments and promotions precisely so as not to find themselves in the uncomfortable role of scapegoat.

    Breaking Down the Wall of Silence

    The silence of the Episcopate in the face of the Bergoglian nonsense confirms that the self-referential authoritarianism of the Jesuit Bergoglio has found servile obedience in almost all the Bishops, terrified by the idea of being made the object of the retaliation of the vengeful and despotic satrap of Santa Marta.

    Some diocesan bishops are beginning to no longer tolerate his devastating action, which undermines the authority and authoritativeness of the whole Church. Bishop Joseph Strickland, for example, has commendably reiterated immutable doctrinal truths that the Synod on Synodality in the coming months is preparing to demolish. And Cardinal Gerard Ludwig Müller has rightly recalled that the Lord did not give power to the Pope to “bully” good bishops.

    Something therefore is beginning to change: alignments are taking shape, and we see on the one hand Bergoglio’s “synodal church” – which he emblematically calls “our church” – and on the other hand what remains of the Catholic Church, towards which he does not fail to reiterate his absolute extraneousness.

    The Sanatio in Radice [“healing at the root”] of the Irregularities at the 2013 Conclave

    Bishop Athanasius Schneider maintains that any irregularities that may have occurred in the 2013 Conclave have in any case been healed in radice by the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been recognized as Pope by the Cardinal Electors, by the Episcopate, and by the majority of the faithful. Practically speaking, the argument is that, regardless of the events that may have led to the election of a pope – with or without external meddling in it – the Church, practically speaking, places a time limit beyond which it is not possible to challenge an election if the person elected is accepted by the Christian people. But this thesis is called into question by historical precedent.

The Great Western Schism

    In 1378, after the election of Pope Urban VI, the majority of Cardinals, Prelates and the people recognized Clement VII as pope, even though he was in reality an antipope. Thirteen out of sixteen cardinals questioned the validity of the election of Pope Urban due to the threat of violence from the Roman people against the Sacred College, and even Urban’s few supporters immediately retracted their election, convoking a new Conclave at Fondi which elected the antipope Clement VII. Even Saint Vincent Ferrer was convinced that Clement was the real pope, while Saint Catherine of Siena sided with Urban. 

    If universal consensus were an indefectibly valid argument for a pope’s legitimacy, Clement would have had the right to be considered the true pope, rather than Urban. Antipope Clement was defeated by Urban VI’s army in the battle of Marino in 1379 and transferred his See to Avignon, leading to the Western Schism, which lasted thirty-nine years. Thus we see that the universal acceptance argument does not withstand the test of history. [The archbishop illustrates the problem and shows how people of good will differed in the past. And obviously the confusion continued throughout the Western Schism. We are in a similar mess today.]

    Bishop Schneider’s Via Tutior

    Bishop Athanasius Schneider reminds us that the via tutior, or surer way, consists in not obeying a heretical Pope, without necessarily having to consider him ipso facto fallen from his office as separated from the Church and therefore no longer capable of being at its head, as St. Robert Bellarmine believes.

    But even this solution – which at least recognizes that Bergoglio is a heretic – does not seem decisive to me, since the obedience that the faithful can deny him is only marginal compared to all the acts of government and magisterium that he has carried out and continues to perform without his subjects being able to do anything about them.

    Of course, one can organize the clandestine celebration of the Catholic Mass, but what can a priest or a layman do when a subversive group of Bishops maneuvered by Bergoglio is preparing to introduce unacceptable doctrinal changes through the Synod on Synodality? And what can they do when in their parishes a deaconess blesses the “wedding” of two sodomites?

    Certainly disobeying the illegitimate orders of a heretical or apostate Superior is a duty sub gravi, since obedience to God comes before obedience to men, and because the virtue of Obedience is hierarchically subordinated to the theological virtue of Faith. But the resulting damage to the ecclesial body is not prevented by an action of simple resistance: the root of the question must be resolved.

    The Defect of Consent in the Assumption of the Papacy

    Thus, taking notice of the fact that Bergoglio is a heretic – and Amoris Lætitia or his declaration of the intrinsic immorality of capital punishment would be enough to prove it – we must ask ourselves if the 2013 election was in some way invalidated by a lack of consent; that is, if the one elected wanted to become Pope of the Catholic Church or rather head of what he calls “our synodal church” – which has nothing to do with the Church of Christ precisely because it stands as something other than it. In my opinion, this lack of consent can also be seen in Bergoglio’s behavior, which is ostentatiously and consistently anti-Catholic and heterogeneous with respect to the very essence of the Papacy.

    There is no action of this man that does not blatantly have the air of rupture with respect to the practice and the Magisterium of the Church, and to this are added the positions taken that are anything but inclusive towards the faithful who do not intend to accept arbitrary innovations, or worse, full-blown heresies.

    The fundamental question hinges on understanding the subversive plan of the deep church, which, using the methods denounced at the time by St. Pius X with regard to the Modernists, has organized itself to carry out a coup d’état within the Church and bring the prophet of the Antichrist to the Throne of Peter. The mens rea in infiltrating the Hierarchy and ascending its ranks is evident, just as it is evident that the plans of the ultra-progressive faction could not stop in the fact of Benedict XVI, whom they considered too conservative, and whom they hated above all because he dared to promulgate the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

    And so Benedict XVI was pressured to resign, and immediately there was ready the unknown Archbishop of Buenos Aires.

    On October 11, 2013, in a conference at Villanova University (here), then-Cardinal McCarrick, Bergoglio’s longtime friend, revealed that Bergoglio’s election was strongly desired by a “very influential Italian gentleman,” an emissary of the deep state to the deep church: those who work in the Curia know well who is called “the gentleman” par excellence and what his links are with the power on both sides of the Tiber [the Vatican and the Italian Government], and they also know his embarrassing penchants that explain his close connections to the Vatican homosexual lobby. It is also significant that McCarrick said he was convinced that Bergoglio would “change the Papacy within four years,” confirming the malicious intention to tamper with the divine and unreformable institution of the Church.

    Seeing Bergoglio participate in an event sponsored by the Clinton Foundation, after other no less scandalous endorsements from the globalist elite, confirms his role as bankruptcy liquidator of the Church, with the purpose of substituting the constitution of that Religion of Humanity that will serve as the handmaid of the synarchy of the New World Order. Ecumenism, ecology, vaccinism, immigrationism, LGBTQ+ and gender ideology, and other instances of the globalist religion are appropriated by Bergoglio, not only through an action of ostentatious and proud support for the proponents of the 2030 Agenda, but also by means of the systematic demolition of everything that opposes it in the Magisterium, and the ruthless persecution of those who express even prudent perplexities.

    So: Bergoglio is a heretic and blatantly hostile to the Church of Christ. To carry out the task assigned to him by the deep church, he concealed his most extreme positions, so as to find a sufficient number of votes in the Conclave. To ensure total obedience, those who hatched the plan made sure that he was widely blackmailable, as always happens. And once elected, Bergoglio was able to show himself for what he is and begin the demolition of the Church and the Papacy.

CNS Photo - Paul Haring

    But is it possible for a pope destroy the papacy that he himself embodies and represents? Is it possible for a pope devastate the Church that the Lord has entrusted to him to defend? And again: if a cardinal’s participation in the Conclave is intended to be malicious, if it intends a subversive act against the Church, if the aim is to commit a crime, then even if the procedures and norms of the election are apparently respected, there is undoubtedly a mens rea. And this criminal intention emerges from the cunning by which the cardinals who were accomplices to the plot collaborated in deceiving the cardinals who voted in good faith.

    I wonder, then: are we not in the presence of a defect of consent that affects the validity of the election? Without saying that the very co-presence of a renouncing pope and a reigning pope is already in itself an element that leads us to believe that they had a false concept of the essence of the papacy, considered to be a role that can be shared with others.

    Let us not forget that the distinction between munus and ministerium is arbitrary and that there cannot be a Pope who dedicates himself to the “ministry of prayer” and another one who governs. Christ is one; the Church is one; and there is only one Successor of Peter: a body with two heads is a monstrum that is repugnant to nature even before the divine constitution of the Church.

    Possible Objections

    Some may object: But even if Bergoglio acted with malice, he still accepted what the Cardinals offered him: his election as Bishop of Rome and therefore as Roman Pontiff. And so he assumed office and must be considered to be the Pope. 

    I believe instead that his acceptance of the papacy is invalidated, because he considers the papacy something other than what it is, like a spouse who gets married in church but excludes the specific purposes of marriage from his intention, thus making the marriage null and void precisely due to his lack of consent. [It seems to me that this is problematic because it presumes knowledge of the inner forum. I agree that the pope's actions are evil, but can anyone know for certain his intentions?]

    Not only that: what conspirator who acts maliciously in order to ascend to an office would be so naive as to explain to those who must elect him that he intends to become Pope in order to carry out the orders of the enemies of God and the Church? “Good morning. I am Jorge Mario Bergoglio and I intend to destroy the Church by getting elected Pope. Will you vote for me?” The mens rea lies precisely in the use of deception, dissimulation, lies, the delegitimization of annoying opponents, and the elimination of dangerous ones.

    And the proof that Bergoglio intended to carry out the criminal plan of the globalist elite is right before our eyes: all the desired goals of the emails of John PodestaHillary Clinton’s right-hand man, have been or are being carried out, from the adoption of gender equality as a premise for the female priesthood to LGBTQ+ inclusion, from the acceptance of gender theory to the participation in the Agenda 2030 on climate change, from the condemnation of “proselytism” to the exaltation of immigration as a method of ethnic replacement. And at the same time, there is the removal and condemnation of the other Church, the “pre-conciliar” one, composed of rigid intolerant people, starting with Our Lord, as Antonio Spadaro blasphemously wrote. And with the cancel culture applied to Faith and Morals, there is also the elimination of the Mass that intrinsically belongs to that Church, which Bergoglio considers to be in conflict with the “new ecclesiology,” to the point of prohibiting it as incompatible with the “synodal church.”

    So here I am, throwing the proverbial stone into the pond.

    I would like us to take seriously, very seriously, the possibility that Bergoglio intended to obtain the election by means (of) fraud, and that he intended to abuse the authority of the Roman Pontiff in order to do the exact opposite of what Jesus Christ gave a mandate to Saint Peter and his Successors to do: confirm the faithful in the Catholic Faith, feeding and governing the Flock of the Lord, preaching the Gospel to the nations.

    All the acts of Bergoglio’s governance and magisterium – since his first appearance on the Vatican Loggia, when he introduced himself with his disturbing “Buonasera” – has unraveled in a direction diametrically opposed to the Petrine mandate: he has adulterated and continues to adulterate the Depositum Fidei, he has created confusion and misled the faithful, he has dispersed the flock, he has declared that he considers the evangelization of peoples to be “a solemn nonsense,” and he systematically abuses the power of the Holy Keys to loose what cannot be loosed and to bind what cannot be bound.

    This situation is humanly irremediable, [Exactly!] because the forces at play are immense and because the corruption of Authority cannot be healed by those who are subject to it. [Isn't this what Bishop Schneider said?] We must take note that the metastasis of this “pontificate” originates from the conciliar cancer, from that Vatican II which created the ideological, doctrinal, and disciplinary bases that inevitably had to lead to this point. But how many of my confreres, who also recognize the gravity of the current crisis, have the ability to recognize this causal link between the conciliar revolution and its extreme consequences with Bergoglio?


    If this passio Ecclesiæ [Note: “passion of the Church”] is a prelude to the end times, it is our duty to prepare ourselves spiritually for moments of great tribulation and of true and proper persecution. But it will be precisely by retracing the Via Dolorosa of the Cross that the ecclesial body will be able to purify itself from the filth that disfigures it and merit the supernatural help that Providence reserves for the Church in times of trial: where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.

    Finally, allow me to remind you that the Exsurge Domine Association I founded aims to give spiritual and material help to priests and religious brothers and sisters who are persecuted by the Bergoglian church because of their fidelity to Tradition.

    If you would like to make a donation towards the realization of our projects, you may do so at the Association’s website – – or by sending a text message: Text 502027 to 1-855-575-7888 (for USA & Canada).

    Laudetur Jesus Christus. [“Praised be Jesus Christ.”]

    [End, Viganò’s October 1 talk]


  1. Thank you for clearing up the furor over the "censoring" of the Archbp.
    at the CIC.
    Circular firing squad, indeed.
    I also agree that we need something more concrete than
    mind-reading the participants, Benedict and Francis both, to solve this dilemma.
    I think the impression this gives is that Archbp Vigano is
    throwing out any and all possibilities to save us from
    Francis at this point.
    We cannot blame him, but that doesn't mean he's correct.

    My short prayer for these times is for no one to be so
    frightened, angry or despairing that they harm their own
    soul or the souls of others.

  2. Just because one rejects that Bergoglio was elected validly because of rumors to the effect does not mean one is a schismatic. Catherine of Sienna was not a schismatic. If we accept that Bergoglio is the pope but we have to separate ourselves from his teachings, we have separated ourselves from him and are in schism. If we accept Bergoglio as pope and accept his heresies, we are in schism from the Church because we reject her teachings. God does not put is in no win situations.

  3. I don't quite understand your comment, Anonymous. Who said anything about being in schism? Unless you're referring to the Great Western Schism.

    I presume that everyone is of good will and doing the best they can in difficult circumstances. That's why I think we need to stop attacking fellow Catholics who see things differently. Ultimately each of us has to do his best to love God and to form his conscience according to the mind of the Church of the apostles and then follow that conscience. Prayer and mortification can help us retain an attitude of charity toward those with whom we disagree.

  4. Don’t get me wrong Mary Ann, I am not attacking anyone or calling them as being in schism. I am only responding to Archbishop Vigano as “ I'm sorry to say this did not build my confidence in the archbishop although I agree with much of the transcript.” It is not intended to be an attack on anyone including yourself, but only an observation that Archbishop Vigano as well as Bishop Schneider can’t both be right, and those who subscribe to either position are still accepted as being in the Church. My comment that God does not place us in impossible situations was meant to fortify that belief and is in agreement with you.

  5. Read The St. Gallen Mafia by Julia Meloni. Instead of all this senseless speculation on is he or isn't he, did he, does he, etc., just look at the facts. Read his history and that of his collaborators. The papacy issue isn't a matter of opinion. What anyone THINKS at this point has little bearing on what IS. It is natural for Catholics to be repulsed by the idea of such a wicked evil conspiracy but our desire for a hierarchical Church cannot, must not, blind us to the FACT the modernists have taken over by lies, deception, and crooked tactics. The plan of these evil doers was to put in a revolutionist who would wear white but think like a pure red communist and accept the job of destroying the Church, instead of defending it. Bergoglio accepted the mission.

  6. I don't care anymore if Bergoglio is the pope or not. I don't pay attention to him at all because the sight of him makes me queasy; he looks like what he is - an old leftist liberal who hates me because I'm not a leftist liberal too.

    The Barque of Peter is sinking in the storm with men falling overboard who've decided to jump amd swim instead of being sucked under with the ship. With everyone screaming and yelling, Jesus will wake up at some point. ....Won't He?


  7. 'Keep It Simple Susan'! (KISS); we know the true teaching of the Church through the Gospels and lives of our Catholic ancestors, including thousands of Saints and Martyrs and holy men and women, both religious and lay. We have at our disposal huge libraries confirming Christ's life and teachings, and the thousands of miraculous events occurring through the grace and merits of those loyal to Him and His Church. To my mind stick to the established truths and practices of the traditional Catholic Church, and ignore those new 'fangled' ideas put forward by a man who appears and acts with little, if any, respect for the divine reality of Christ's Church, the 'Body of Christ'.

  8. Susan, Catholics don't have the luxury of not caring if one man is or isn't the pope or for that matter, who is the pope at any given time. We must care because we love the papacy itself. The Vicar of Christ position isn't a figurehead leader that we can embrace or ignore. Every Catholic who loves the Church has to care about who holds the keys to our faith and whether that faith is in the good hands of a true shepherd or under the control of a tyrant, like Bergoglio who is slowly but surely eroding centuries of unchangeable teaching.

    People who say, well, that's above my pay grade, or I just don't care, or we can never know for sure, or I have better things to focus on, don't realize that when we stop caring and stop resisting, Bergoglio will have nothing in his way to reduce the Catholic Church we love and so many have died for, to a hollow doctrine that has little about it that the world full of sin can object to. It is an insult to every martyr in history for any of us to say, we just don't care.

  9. Well, Chriss, I don't care, because it's Christ's Church and not mine or Bergoglio's or yours or anyone else's. The Church belongs to Christ....and when He decides to wake up and care about the papacy Himself and fix His Church we'll all be a lot happier. Meanwhile I have a life to lead and cannot worry about the papacy, especially since there're millions of Catholics already doing that.

    I spent years and years writing the Orlando Truth and all for nothing. All that energy and time and cost...and not a thing has changed in this diocese, except at least I like Bishop Noonan who's a kind man.

    So I'll just live my little Catholic life here in the middle of nowhere and be myself. I'll continue to go to the SSPX where there are awsome priests, go to confession and enjoy the few friends I have at that parish and also my former diocesan parish.

    I'll manage to squeak out a few prayers on a daily basis and be on genial terms with God, whether He decides to fix His Church in my lifetime or not.

    Meanwhile I pray for the hostages in Gaza, pray for Israel, pray for innocent Palenstinians, pray for my family and friends, the SSPX, read great books and enjoy serial killer movies on Netflix and Amazon Prime. I'll go to thrift stores and add to my Icon collection.

    I have a new grandchild soon to be born, still worry about my children, wonder if I'll move to the NC mountains to be near them since they up and left Florida in June.

    There's so much in my life to see and do and experience that there's just no time for me to do Jesus' job too in worrying about the Church. That's His job and when He's ready to wake the H-E-double-L up then it'll all be fixed. I've done my time worrying with publishing the OT. Now I'm old and tired and finito with agonizing especially about Bergoglio. Not wasting anymore precious time on even thinking about him.

  10. Thank you, Umblepie. I'll remember your advice of "Keep It Simple Susan" (KISS). I think that's what I've been trying to do lately...ignoring Bergoglio and merrily continuing on with my life. I've been a lot happier since I decided not to think about him

  11. So much private interpretation about who is pope.

  12. I'm curious about how "caring" about whether Francis is a valid pope changes anything?

    You can argue and treat those who disagree with you with contempt because you are sure you are right. I tend to agree with Susan. (We don't always.) What difference does it make to your relationship with Jesus Christ. Can any one of you change what's happening at the Vatican? God has allowed it and He promises to bring good out of all bad situations for those who love Him and serve according to His purpose. I believe Him.

    I'm praying the serenity prayer today:

    God grant me the serenity
    to accept the things I cannot change;
    courage to change the things I can;
    and wisdom to know the difference.
    Living one day at a time;
    Enjoying one moment at a time;
    Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
    Taking, as He did, this sinful world
    as it is, not as I would have it;
    Trusting that He will make all things right
    if I surrender to His Will;
    That I may be reasonably happy in this life
    and supremely happy with Him
    Forever in the next.

  13. Mary Ann, It makes a big difference when your TLM parish priest in a sermon says you cannot receive the Sacraments in his parish (or any other Catholic Church for that matter) if you don't believe Bergoglio is a valid Pope. I believe he is wrong, but there are very serious ramifications for some people regarding this question. I don't know if I am the only person in my parish who is dealing with this situation because nothing shuts down honest dialogue faster than potentially being denied the Sacraments. 🥲

  14. Canon law 748, paragraph 1 says:

    "All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and His Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know."

    Note the law says all persons. ALL. Not just cardinals, or bishops, or pastors. ALL. And the law doesn't simply say may seek the truth, it says ALL are BOUND to seek the truth. And thus I restate my comment above that by this law we are all BOUND to care what goes on in the Church. Not only are we bound to be informed we are bound to embrace the truth and to OBSERVE the truth, which we through understanding know is right.

    So when people say, he or she, or we, don't have the authority to say whether Bergoglio is the pope, I think it is appropriate to refer to this law.

    These are the gifts of the Holy Ghost at confirmation:
    "Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety, and Fear of the Lord."

    These gifts given to ALL who are confirmed in the Church provide us with the ability to understand and come to right conclusions about what goes on not just in the world at large, but also inside the Church. So, the argument, "but you have 'no authority' to say this is corrupt doctrine, or that person is not the pope, is simply not true. I can know, and others CAN KNOW even if we are discouraged for whatever reason from expressing what COUNSEL leads us to observe.

    To the person who commented about the TLM priest demanding a person believe Bergoglio is pope in order to receive I would like to say, that priest is badly mistaken to say such a thing and his threat interferes with your own right to observe the truth which you have come to through knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and counsel, for the last 10 years.

  15. Anonymous,

    I've never heard a priest say that a person couldn't receive the Sacraments if they didn't believe Bergoglio was pope. I've never heard that in a sermon anywhere and I don't ask priests that question either.


    I sought the truth 38 years ago and converted to the Catholic Church. As for being "bound to care what goes on in the Church" I think that goes for God too. Isn't He bound to care about His Church seeing as how He founded it and it belongs to Him? So when he decides to fix it - at this point it will take divine intervention - is when HE DECIDES TO FIX IT. Other than that all I can do is to remind Him, in case he's forgotten, to calm the seas so that the Barque of Peter stays afloat and not sink to the bottom of the ocean.

  16. Well, Bergoglio has now fired faithful and beloved Bishop Strickland. Are you still going to say you don't care?

  17. Of course God cares, Susan. The pope is His vicar on earth. But He allows men to abuse their free will by making evil choices. All our choices, good and evil, will be rectified at the personal judgment and everyone will see them at the general judgment. No wrong will go unrighted. But God promises that all things, ALL THINGS, work together for good to those that love Him and serve according to His purpose. This is Bishop Strickland's St. Athanasius moment. May God pour out His grace and blessing on this good and holy bishop.

  18. Good grief! I KNOW that God cares, Mary Ann!! That was my unspoken point. The original point of all this is whether I Matthiesen...think Bergoglio is a true pope or not. And my answer is that I don't care whether he's a true pope or not because what am I going to do about it other than pray?

    You want me to write articles about it? Write a book? Go over to Rome and toss him in the Tiber? Stand at the doorway of St Peters jumping up and down yelling for him to Get Out? Really - seriously. Please tell me what am I supposed to do about the problem of Bergoglio being a true pope or not.

    I have no power on earth. What do you and Chriss and anonymous suggest I do? Make a YouTube video of me walking around tearing my garments in public while screaming He's Not The Pope! He's Not The Pope! ??? Or make a video of me calmly telling the planet decisively that I think this evil man is a legit pope? The bishops and cardinals do nothing so my opinion one way or the other doesn't alter the scales at all.

    I read The Jesuits years ago (you did not, I remember) and KNEW back then by page 78 of that 600 page book what Bergoglio was up to. He's an evil man. But like you say, God allows this. Am I a member of the St Gallen Mafia? Was I at the conclave? Do I have access to the inner workings of the Vatican? Am I a brilliant canon law scholar? Do I know the mind of God and why Bergoglio is where he is? And like you always say, do I have the authority to do something about it?

    My final answer is that when God does His Divine Intervention thing we'll all be happier. Whether we have three more like Bergoglio or not, I do not know since I have no access to the inner workings of the Holy Trinity's thought process. God will do what He will do and so I'm letting Him handle the problem. I rely on HIM. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? So if I am not a bishop or movie star and have no power other than personal prayer, why should I burden myself with Bergoglio? Is he the pope? Is he not the pope? YOU and CHRISS decide! Leave me out of it.

  19. Wow, Susan!

    You and I agree on this which I'm surprised you don't know after my blogging about it over and over. I have always said whether Francis' papacy is legitimate, it has no impact on my faith and I won't take a stand.

    But I think your question, "Does God care?" is easily misunderstood by readers which was MY POINT and why I responded.

    I'm disappointed by this. But thank you for clarifying what you meant.

  20. I don't claim to speak for all the "Francis isn't pope" crowd, but I don't think any of us expect a commenter on this blog to "fix" the problem. We are suggesting that maybe you should review your thought process when it comes to whether or not he is pope. Recall that this contention on the blog started with the article on Fr. Altman (which was fine to print but you should have expected blowback).

    If Francis is a legit pontiff, then you owe him your submission and obedience as a Catholic. This is what the Church has always taught, just like it also taught that a pope's teachings are considered "infallibly safe" to follow, even when not infallibly defined. Many of those who believe Francis is a legitimate pope but can't accept his teachings are now either saying Vatican I was mistaken or are becoming Orthodox. Neither option is viable for a Catholic. Francis as pope may not affect your daily life, but it is having an impact on those seeking to be logically consistent, however erroneous their approach.

    If you say Francis isn't pope -especially given the obvious evidence- then the papacy and Church are ultimately preserved. The Francis situation is unprecedented - at no time before have Catholics been told they must resist the teachings of a pope as harmful to their faith. The belief that Francis is pope renders the Church a house of cards.

  21. "The Francis situation is unprecedented - at no time before have Catholics been told they must resist the teachings of a pope as harmful to their faith. The belief that Francis is pope renders the Church a house of cards."

    Not sure where you've been for the last 50 years, but SSPX, and many other traditionalists, have been saying for 50+ years that one must not follow the teachings/commands of the pope. A riot could break out in almost every parish just by mentioning the changes implemented by Vatican II. I remember one such Bible Study that I attended around 2011 in where just one question was asked and suddenly people were standing up shouting, "they took hell out of the creed!"

    1. I'm not a 1958 sede but I agree Vatican II was a disaster. It was also just a pastoral council - no new doctrine declared. If you can point to a pope after Pius XII formally teaching heresy, I'll certainly take it under consideration, but parish anecdotes won't suffice.


  22. We know that such pact/agreement/promise was made prior to the abdication of Benedict XVI by the admission of those participants of the "St. Gallen Mafia" (as they called themselves) and that they were "Team Bergoglio". "Their objective was to secure at least twenty-five votes for Bergoglio on the first ballot. An ancient Italian cardinal kept the tally of how many votes they could rely on before the conclave started."
    ["The Great Reformer," Austen Ivereigh, 2014, p.355]

    So what?

    well...... the items that Vigano is touching upon is "Universi Dominici Gregis" (UDG), specifically article 81:
    "The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition."

    Notice that the mere participation results in excommunication latae sententiae ! Thus all the votes cast by those who were involved is null and void. And Bergoglio being both a participant in the St Gallen Mafia and the beneficiary of their scheming cannot benefit from its result.

    It doesnt matter if you dont think Benedict XVI properly resigned the office. Bergoglio cannot be pope based on the publicly available information and admissions. Not per me... Per the "Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis" governing "the Apostolic See and the Election of the Roman Pontiff."

  23. Edison Frisbee, Not sure what you mean by 'formally teaching a heresy' and not sure you do either, but he certainly gave the impression to the Jews that they did not have to convert/believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and the Messiah - i.e. he denied Jesus Christ and the Trinity.

    "Symbolism was critical. The images of the Pope entering the synagogue in Rome spoke volumes. His decision not only to visit Israel and not only to visit the Western Wall, the holiest spot of the Jewish people, but to place a message in the Wall, a custom that Jews all over engage in, showed the sensitivity to Jewish mores.

    "And he knew that doctrine was critical in changing the dynamic, the most important being to give for the first time recognition to Judaism, not only as the forbearer of Christianity but as a continuing living truth that exists alongside the Christian religion."

    John Paul’s words at the Wall contained no hint of a prayer for Jewish conversion, but instead carried a note of penitence: “God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the Nations: we are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.” [JPII never mentioned conversion to his Jewish friend who died a Jew, but told that boy if anyone asked him why he was in a Catholic church again to say that he was a Child of God --well, then, who isn't a child of God?]

    The Pope also envisions ''joint meetings at places of significance for the great monotheistic religions.'' One scenario has him walking up Mount Sinai with Jewish and Muslim leaders on New Year's Eve 2000 and leading a joint prayer at the top as the sun rises. Another has him simulating the ''walk of Abraham'' -- traveling from Iraq through Syria, Lebanon and Israel, then arriving on the banks of the Nile in Egypt.

    You don't have to have faith in Jesus Christ to be reconciled with God and freed from original sin. Everyone can get together just as they are and pray for peace. Buddha can be set upon a tabernacle.;UHVibGljYXRpb246Nzg=

    Who permitted altar girls? Who permitted sodomites and pedophiles in the priesthood? Who promoted the new mass and excommunicated Lefebvre? Who promoted Bergoglio and McCarrick and all of the cardinals who elected Bergoglio. Not sure how you can reject bergoglio w/out rejecting them also.

  24. Entering Amoris Laetitia into the Church's magisterium under the AAS is formal teaching, "giving an impression" is not. JPII was not a good pope, but that doesn't make him a heretic.

  25. Mark V, Maybe you never read this article: "Ivereigh said he was trying to show that as opposed to the 2005 conclave, Bergoglio's supporters in 2013 "were convinced he wouldn't resist his election." "The conclave rules do not prevent cardinals from urging other cardinals to vote for a particular person," he added. "And indeed that is exactly what happens. That is part of the discernment that happens in a papal election." Ivereigh said he will be changing the wording of one paragraph in future editions of the book to clarify Bergoglio's role."

    Unfortunately, like Vigano (and Schneider and Strickland), Ivereigh is a satellite of opus dei.

    2006 Da Vinci Code.

    "Co-founder of Catholic Voices, Jack Valero, is also press officer for Opus Dei in the UK. He was joined by Austen Ivereigh who works with the Opus Dei Pontifical University of the Holy Cross on conferences and making videos for their School on Church Communications."

    Funny thing is he also worked Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
    and is now calling trad catholics 'feces' according to opus dei mag "crisis"

    Can't believe any 'fact' from opus dei as they are always spinning and changing (revealing) their spots. It was reported in Feb 2013 that B16 made decision to resign the day he rec'd the report on Vatileaks which was prepared by Opus Dei Cardinal Herranz (so opus dei KNOWS what is in the report)--in December of 2012--which wasn't denied by the Vatican.

    Pope's staff decline to confirm or deny La Repubblica claims linking 'Vatileaks' affair and discovery of 'blackmailed gay clergy'

    Opus Dei investigated Vatileaks, but what was their role in perpetrating the scandal?

    "Italian journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi published letters from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in which he exposed corruption that caused the Holy See to pay increased prices for contracts.

    "An anonymous document described a conversation with Cardinal Paolo Romeo of Palermo, Sicily, in which he allegedly predicted the Pope would be dead within twelve months. According to John L. Allen Jr. (opus dei satellite), none of the information leaked seemed "especially fatal". "It's not so much the content of the leaks, but the fact of them, which is the real problem".[4]

    "One of the reasons listed for the dismissal of Ettore Gotti Tedeschi (opus dei) as president of the Vatican Bank was the "Failure to provide any formal explanation for the dissemination of documents last known to be in the president's possession."[22]

  26. Don't forget Vatileaks II which was traced to Opus Dei - may be the reason Francis turned against them.

    Vatileaks: Recordings of Pope Francis published

    11.3.15 Vatileaks, Chapter Two
    Francesca Chaouqui and Opus Dei-affiliated Msgr. Lucio Vallejo Balda were appointed by the Pope in 2013 to an economic advisory board.

    VATICAN CITY — A Vatican court on Thursday found two former members of a papal oversight commission guilty of having conspired to leak confidential information and documents to the press. But as the trial known as “Vatileaks 2” came to a close, the tribunal declared that it did not have the jurisdiction to try two journalists charged with disseminating that information via separate books....The court did not rule on the merit of the charges against the journalists, Gianluigi Nuzzi(same journalist who broke vatileaks 1)and Emiliano Fittipaldi, who wrote separate exposés on supposed mismanagement and corruption at the Vatican, declaring that as the two were not Vatican officials it did not have jurisdiction to try them. But the ruling specified that freedom of the press was guaranteed by Vatican law, which the two journalists interpreted positively.

  27. Anonymous, nothing you presented is a refutation of what I wrote. You seem to think that because I provided a reference, the veracity of the argument is dependent on it. It does not. Additionally it matters not whether Ivereigh changes his texts because the participants corroborated the meeting, its location, and its members. Thus the contents of UDG are a valid point of conversation, and specifically those alluded to by Vigano.