top of page

the DAILY KNIGHT

  • jmj4today

SSPX Supports Vatican Charge that Archbishop Viganò is “Schismatic”

David Martin | The Daily Knight

On June 24, the Society of St. Pius X founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre issued a statement declaring Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò to be “sedevacantist” because he denies the legitimacy of Pope Francis.  


This is hypocritical. Why is it perfectly fine for SSPX members to reject Francis' legitimacy and a crime for Viganò to do the same? Is the SSPX envious of Vigano’s traditionality? Their statement attempts to differentiate Viganò from Lefebvre when in fact there is no essential difference between them.


The statement says:


“There is, however, one point which significantly differentiates him from the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X: Archbishop Viganò makes a clear declaration of Sedevacantism in his text. In other words, according to him, Pope Francis is not pope.”

 

Since when did Archbishop Viganò declare that all the popes since 1958 were antipopes? Sedevacantism is the crackpot theory that there has existed no pope since 1958, something that Lefebvre did not believe (yet many SSPX members hold to this). Both Viganò and Lefebvre honored the popes since 1958, and very much so. It is Archbishop Vigano’s love of the papacy that has compelled him to speak out against Francis’ pontifical debacle – something that every loyal bishop should do.

 

Continuing with the SSPX statement…


“How does he [Viganò] explain this [Francis’ illegitimacy]? Because of a ‘defect of consent’ from Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio when accepting the papacy. That is, according to Viganò, Cardinal Bergoglio considered the papacy as something other than what it really is.


Note that to be an eligible candidate for pope one must know what the papacy “really is” and must be fully resolved to live up to it.


The SSPX says that according to Viganò…


“He [Francis] accepted the pontifical office without fully consenting, and this error resulted in the nullity of his acceptance. His pontificate would therefore be that of a place-holder.


“Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society he founded have not ventured down that perilous road.”


Vigano’s allegation isn’t that Francis didn’t “fully consent” to be pope but that he “fully consents” to destroy the papacy. Vigano’s assertion is not “perilous” because Francis never had a true intention of being pope.

 

That is to say, his formation is Masonic and Communistic, i.e., to destroy the Church, which prevents one from being a priest, bishop, or pope. The 2013 papal election seemingly was null because it was the result of an illicit political campaign to oust Benedict XVI and install Francis. The evidence is mountains high! Lefebvre would have been the first to condemn this!

 

There are three major arguments to support this.

 

(1) Pope Benedict XVI never renounced his papal office but simply resigned from the active exercise of the papacy without abandoning the Petrine office. It can be compared to a person in an crippling situation who gives up driving his car while retaining his driver license. Benedict under duress gave up driving the Petrine Barque while retaining his Petrine license, making it impossible for a new pope to be elected. He was forced into stepping down against his will.


(2) Francis was illicitly installed into the Chair of Peter through an intense vote-canvassing campaign that violated Pope John Paul II’s 1996 Apostolic Constitution (UDG) governing papal conclaves. We know from the late Cardinal Danneels of Brussels that he was part of the "San Gallen Mafia" reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. Danneels, known for his support of abortion, LGBT rights, and gay-marriage, said in a taped interview in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of this "mafia" group that was calling for drastic changes in the Church, to make it "much more modern," and that the plan was to oust Benedict and have Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio head it.

 

(3) Francis hasn’t ceased from denying Catholic doctrine since the day he was elected. For instance, he says that Jesus didn’t miraculously multiply the loaves, that adherence to Apostolic tradition is “idolatrous” and “suicidal,” that Mary wasn’t born a saint, that homosexuality “isn’t a crime,” and that “God wills diversity of religions.”

 

Moreover, Archbishop Vigano and others have evidence that Francis abused seminarians, which coincides with Francis’ ongoing efforts to promote homosexuality in the Church. His repeated praise of LGBT advocate Fr. James Martin should be enough proof of this. 


Traitorous and Ignoramus

 

Archbishop Viganò has always supported the SSPX, so to call him “sedevacantist” is both traitorous and shows ignorance.  One cannot be “sedevacantist” until he unequivocally rejects the validity of all the popes since John XXIII – something Viganò has never done.

 

We should point out, too, that there have been 34 antipopes throughout Church history and those that acknowledged them as such were not “sedevacantist” but were the enlightened friends of God who refused to be deceived by a “place-holder.” It was those of lesser grace who followed the place holders (antipopes). Their “prudence” earned them no points.

 

SSPX Catholics are flattered that Francis now allows traditional 'Novus' Catholics to go to confession at SSPX churches, but they fail to see that he only allows this because he wants to drive the tradition-minded Catholics from the Church with the hint that they 'go to confession' for holding to tradition. Francis is very political in his every move – a salesman and no apostle. He hates the idea of traditional Catholics maintaining tradition within the main body of the Church, so he says, “leave and go somewhere else.”

 

To SSPX and misled ‘Novus’ Catholics we say, “don’t heed Francis.” He regards neither misled Catholics nor traditional Catholics because his affiliation is Masonic. He resents the SSPX and everything it stands for and equally abhors the idea of promoting tradition within the parish church framework.


Driving the good Catholics from the Church makes it much easier for the Modernists to take over, which is a key reason Sedevacantists promote this. Many of them are just modernists in trad costumes.


Hence the SSPX should always encourage Catholics to fight for tradition within their parish Churches while at the same time encouraging them to periodically attend TLM Masses to help ‘clear their head’ and show to others what type of spirituality they relate to.




 

 

2,968 views

10 Comments


Paulo Elliot
Paulo Elliot
Jul 01

The SSPX is indirectly funded by an Rothschild affiliate in Austria known as the Gutmann family. The Rothchilds wanted to fund the SSPX but in such a way that it is done through a third party. The Gutmanns and the Rothchhilds are one.... The Rothschild-Gutmann Money Behind the SSPX Kosher Imperative | Maurice Pinay (wordpress.com)

Like

Joseph Regiobronxus
Joseph Regiobronxus
Jul 01

I’m extremely disappointed with the SSPX Leadership if this is True !


Like

Paulo Elliot
Paulo Elliot
Jun 27

It's quite something that the SSPX has sided with modernist Rome in accusing Vigano of schism.

Like
Mj Balaskovits
Mj Balaskovits
Jun 28
Replying to

I hope by "something" that you mean horrible and two faced.

Like

perasperagus
Jun 26

Seems to me, there are 1958 sedevacantists, 12/31/2022 sedevacantists, etc. Has Bergoglio lost the Papal office, or did he never have it?

Like

Joe Boudreault
Joe Boudreault
Jun 26

There is no biblical basis for a pope, but plenty secular basis for antipope.

Like
jmj4today
Jun 26
Replying to

To say there is basis for antipope is to say that true popes exists since an antipope competes with the true pope.

Like
SHOP NOW - SUPPORT THE DAILY KNIGHT
Featured Posts