Vigano: Is Francis Really The Pope?

Please review post

He’s not endorsing the Benedict is the true pope position, just to be clear. Text in English below.

YouTube:

Spotify:

Source:

https://www.stilumcuriae.com/scambio-epistolare-fra-una-monaca-di-clausura-e-mons-carlo-maria-vigano

Translation:

Letter one, from the cloistered nun:

October 19, 2022

Most Reverend Excellency,

I am writing to you on the occasion of the approaching feast of Christ the King and allow me to share with you some fundamental questions:

Does it still make sense to celebrate and invoke the grace that this liturgical feast so aspired to when it was instituted?

If the King of kings and Lord of rulers (cf. 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 19:16) were to return today in His glory, would He still recognize His bride, the Church?

With these questions I will seem to you irreverent and untrusting in that promise “the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Matt. 16:19), in that promise that resonates as a hope to be clung to by those few survivors of the wind of deadly apostasy that has invaded the Church. Well, the provocative tone of such questions sums up the feeling of confusion of the few remaining faithful, faithful in search of some reference of Magisterium, valid Sacrament and consistency of life of pastors. I turn to you as the “Voice in the Wilderness,” which so many times has enlightened so many lost and challenged people.

I wanted to tell you about this little episode that happened to me:

a few days ago a lady who brought some providence to the monastery said to me, “But you know, I don’t follow these things much, however, it seems to me that the direction the Church has taken lately is not so good…!” From the wheel, in the tone of voice, I sensed the embarrassment of the one who was expressing herself to someone she felt represented that very “Church” that had just been questioned. I could make no great speeches: my response was a simple appeal to the need to intensify personal prayer, leaving the lady in her ignorance and allowing myself to “identify” with that “church” which I really do not feel I represent… The feeling was one of great helplessness, in the impossibility of being able to give comprehensive and truthful answers. A few minutes earlier I had read the exhortation of Pontiff Pius XI, when, a hundred years ago, in the Encyclical Ubi arcano Dei he exhorted Catholics to the duty of hastening the return to the social kingship of Christ. A kind of “moral duty,” of personal and collective commitment.

Is this commitment still valid?

And how to put it into practice if the “Church” is no longer “Church”?

The Ubi arcano Dei was the incipit for the institution of the Feast of the Kingship of Christ which then took place in 1925 precisely to avoid the havoc we experience in these years. In that Encyclical, the Kingship of Christ was understood as the remedy for secularism and all those errors that – a hundred years later – have been generously embraced by many prelates, bishops, cardinals and even by the one who presents himself as the representative of Christ and who under that banner has promoted the ruinous acceleration of the flock “deceptively” entrusted to him.

Francis is considered pope, albeit apostate, but is he pope? Has he ever been?

When Pilate asked Jesus what truth was, though he had it before him, the gaze of Christ the judge of the world penetrated the mediocrity of the weak man before him. Pilate trembled for a moment but the cloudiness of his own personal pride prevailed. Christ the King returns today in the same guise and looks into the eyes of bishops and cardinals who do not recognize that Crown of Thorns that He wore in their place, taking on the price of their betrayal, their pride, their unworthy blindness.

I remember reading in the diary of St. Faustina Kowalska-the saint of Mercy-that one day Jesus appeared to her all scourged, bloodied and crowned with thorns: He looked into her eyes and said, “The bride must be like Her Bridegroom.” The saint understood well what that call of “spousality,” of sharing, meant. This is probably the form of recognition of Christ’s Kingship that our historical moment is personally demanding of every true Catholic.

Yes, it seems to me that this is the vocation of the “true Church” in our time: of that small remnant that, crossing the gaze of Christ the King abused and disfigured by blasphemy and perversion, still has the courage of a response of love, fidelity and consistency of conscience that it cannot deny, for otherwise it would deny Christ the King as did Pilate, Herod and all the leaders of the people.

I will not hide from you that with these lines I wanted to solicit one of your interventions, full of Christian hope for that small remnant that is lost because it is without a Pastor, without that representative of Christ who should guard and defend the Church entrusted to him.

I have asked her questions that many are asking with so much pain in their hearts and I am sure that the Holy Spirit will be able to give her those answers that will rekindle the expectation for the return of the triumph of Christ’s Kingdom over society, in every heart, over the entire face of the earth!

“Pacificus * vocabitur, et thronus eius erit firmissimus in perpetuum”!

a cloistered nun.

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Letter 2: Vigano’s Response

Reverend and dearest Sister,

I read with lively interest and with edification, the letter that you sent me. Allow me to respond to you in what I can.

Your first question is as direct as it is disarming: “If the King of kings and Lord of rulers were to return today in His glory, would He still recognize His bride, the Church?” Of course He would recognize her! But not in the sect that eclipses the See of Peter, but in the many good souls, especially in the priests, the men and women religious, in so many simple faithful, who, though they may not wear horns of light on their foreheads like Moses (Ex. 34:29), are nevertheless recognizable as living members of Christ’s Church. He would not find it at St. Peter’s, where an unclean idol has been worshipped; not at St. Martha’s, where the contrived poverty and truncated humility of the Tenant is a monument to his outsized ego; not at the Synod on Synodality, where the pretense of democracy serves to complete the dismantling of the divine edifice of the Catholic Church and to impose scandalous conduct of life; not in the Dioceses and Parishes where Conciliar ideology has replaced the Catholic Faith and erased Tradition. The Lord, as Head of the Church, recognizes the pulsating and living members of His Mystical Body and those dead and rotting ones torn from Christ by heresy, lust, pride, now subjugated to Satan. So yes: the King of kings would recognize the pusillus grex, even should he look for it around the altar in an attic, in a cellar, in the middle of the woods.

She mentions that the promise of Non prævalebunt may sound “like hope to cling to,” and that “the provocative tone of such questions sums up the feeling of confusion of the few remaining faithful, faithful in search of some reference of Magisterium, valid Sacrament and consistency of life of pastors.”

Our Lord’s promise to St. Peter is provocative, in a sense, because it starts from two assumptions: the first is that the Gates of Hell will not prevail, which tells us nothing about the level of persecution the Church will have to endure. The second, logically consequential from the first, is that the Church will be persecuted but not conquered. For both, we are asked for an act of Faith in the word of the Savior and in His omnipotence, along with an act of humble realism in our weakness and in the fact that we would be deserving of the worst chastisements, both among “modernists” and “traditionalists.”

She asks me how to put into practice Pius XI’s call for the restoration of the Social Kingship of Christ, “if the ‘Church’ is no longer ‘Church’.” Certainly the visible Church, to which the world recognizes the name of the Catholic Church and of which it considers Bergoglio as Pope, is no longer Church, at least limited to Cardinals, Bishops and priests who wholeheartedly profess another doctrine and declare themselves to belong to the “conciliar church,” in antithesis to the “preconciliar church.” But are you and I, and the many priests, religious and faithful, part of that church or the Church of Christ? To what extent can we superimpose the Bergoglian church and the Catholic Church, assuming they are superimposable in anything? The problem is that the conciliar revolution tore the bond of identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Hierarchy. Before Vatican II it was unthinkable that a Pope could shamelessly contradict his Predecessors in doctrinal or moral matters, because the Hierarchy was very clear about its own role and moral responsibility in administering the power of the Holy Keys and the authority of the Vicar of Christ and the Pastors. The Council, beginning precisely with the anomalous definition it gave of itself and the break with the past represented by the elimination of the Canons and anathemas, showed how it is possible for those who have no moral sense to hold a sacred role in the Church while being unworthy in the three aspects that She punctually enumerated: “Magisterium, valid Sacrament and consistency of life of the pastors.” These people, deviant in doctrine, morals and liturgy, do not feel bound by the fact that they are vicars of Christ, and can therefore govern the Church only if their authority is exercised consistently with the ends that legitimize it. For this they abuse their own power, usurp an authority whose divine origin they deny, and humiliate the sacred institution that in some way vouches for the authority of those pastors.

This rupture, this violent tearing, was consummated on the spiritual level at the moment when the authority of the Prelates was secularized, on a par with what happened in the civil sphere. Where authority ceases to be sacred, sanctioned from on high, exercised in place of the One who sums up in Himself the spiritual authority of Supreme Pontiff and the temporal authority of King and Lord, there it corrupts into tyranny, sells itself with corruption, commits suicide in anarchy. She writes, “Christ the King returns today in the same likeness and looks into the eyes of bishops and cardinals who do not recognize that Crown of Thorns that He has worn in their place, taking on the price of their betrayal, their pride, their unworthy blindness.” In those very features, dear Sister, we must recognize the Holy Church. And just as we were scandalized to see her Head humiliated and mocked, scourged and bleeding, with the garment of fools, the reed and the crown of thorns; so we are scandalized now, to see prostrated in a similar way the whole militant Church, wounded, covered with spit, insulted, mocked. But if the Head was willing to face the Sacrifice by humbling Himself to the point of death, and to the death of the Cross; for what reason should we presume to deserve a better end, being His members, and if we really want to reign with Him? On what throne is the Lamb seated, if not on the royal throne of the Cross? Regnavit a ligno Deus: this was the triumph of Christ, this will be the triumph of the Church, His Mystical Body. Rightly She gloried, “The Bride must be like her Bridegroom.” She continues: “Yes, it seems to me that this is the vocation of the ‘true Church’ in our time: of that small remnant which, crossing the gaze of Christ the King abused and disfigured by blasphemy and perversion, still has the courage of a response of love, fidelity and consistency of conscience that it cannot deny, for otherwise it would deny Christ the King as did Pilate, Herod and all the leaders of the people.”

Your letter, dearest Sister, is an opportunity for all of us to reflect on the mystery of the passio Ecclesiæ, so close to what is happening in these terrible times. And I conclude by recalling the “provocation” of Non prævalebunt: as the Savior knew the shadow of the tomb, so we must know it will happen to the Church, and perhaps it is already happening. But He will not let His Holy One know corruption (Ps. 15), and He will raise her up as a resource Himself from death. In this sense, the words “The Bride must be similar to her Bridegroom” acquire their full meaning, showing us how only by following the divine Bridegroom on the Golgothan scaffold could we merit to follow Him in glory at the Father’s right hand.

I urge you to profit spiritually from these thoughts as I impart to you and to your dear Sisters my widest and most paternal Blessing.

• Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

November 4, 2022

S.cti Caroli Borromæi, Pont. Conf

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

© 2022, Anthony Stine. All rights reserved. You may reuse or copy this post by giving credit and providing a link.