Roma Locuta Est

August 9, 2024 (Steven O’Reilly) – Taylor Marshall just released on his YouTube channel a two part interview with Archbishop Viganò. In the videos, Marshall reads Viganò’s written responses to written questions that had been submitted to him.

Here I will only focus on one of the questions and Viganò’s response.  Question #10 reads as follows:

“What do you think of the munus vs. ministerium argument that Benedict XVI did not truly resign?”

(Source:  Dr. Taylor Marshall, Vigano interview, Part II)

I don’t intend to go into great detail on Viganò’s reasoning, which readers can read or hear for themselves at around the 25:00 mark in Marshall’s video.  The key takeaway is that Archbishop Viganò replied, in part, saying (bold added):

“The resignation of Benedict XVI, due to the procedural defects and canonical monstrum that it produced [of two apparent “popes”], is certainly invalid…”

Clearly, Viganò says that Benedict’s resignation was invalid.  He goes on to say that “The fact that Ratzinger may have subjectively believed that he abdicated from the papacy does not affect the nullity of the Renunciation.”

Thus, following the logic, if Benedict remained pope till his death, it would obviously follow the conclave that elected Bergoglio, and his election was invalid as well. So, here it is clearly evident that Archbishop Viganò now firmly holds the Benepapist (or Benevacantist/Beneplenist) position.

What puzzles me about Viganò’s answer and this position is that until recently — or so it seemed to me at least — he was leaning toward a different theory as to why Bergoglio, in his view, is not pope. The prior theory offered by Viganò can be seen in his response to the charge schism brought against him. In this response, Viganò said that Bergoglio had a defect in consent in accepting his election. Therefore it was for this reason, according to Viganò, that Bergoglio’s election was invalid. There was no mention of it being due to the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation.

We can see this was in fact his position as recently as June 20, 2024, when he responded to the charges of schism leveled against him, Viganò wrote in part (bold added):

The resignation of Benedict XVI and the appointment by the St. Gallen Mafia of a successor in line with the diktats of the Agenda 2030 was intended to allow – and has succeeded in allowing – the global coup to take place with the complicity and authoritative support of the Church of Rome. Bergoglio is to the Church what other world leaders are to their nations: traitors, subversives, and final liquidators of traditional society who are certain of impunity. Bergoglio’s defect of consent (vitium consensus) in accepting his election is based precisely on the evident alienity of his action of government and magisterium with respect to what any Catholic of any age expects from the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles. Everything that Bergoglio does constitutes an offense and a provocation to the entire Catholic Church, to her saints of all times, to the martyrs who were killed in odium Fidei, and to the popes of all times until the Second Vatican Council.

(See LifeSiteNews.com:  Archbishop Viganò responds to schism charge: ‘I regard the accusations against me as an honor’)

If Viganò held the Benepapist position at this point in time, there would be no reason in arguing Bergoglio’s consent was defective. Viganò’s position outlined in his response above was also the same position he outlined in his video last year, which as titled Vitium Consensus (see transcript).  Granted, in the transcript where he briefly mentions various theories as to why Francis is not pope in the opinion of some, inclusive of Benepapism; Viganò says was not his purpose to give answers.  Still, having said that, there is only one theory he goes on to discuss at length:

“…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.”

Viganò asks whether the election of Bergoglio was “in some way invalidated by a lack of consent.” Viganò poses the question, and then answers it in the affirmative.  He says that Cardinal Bergoglio’s “…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.”

In an article on Roma Locuta Est, I replied to Viganò’s thesis, as well as the problem with his attempt to use the case of Pope Urban VI and Clement VII to dismiss the applicability of the doctrine of Universal Acceptance in the case of Bergoglio (see Thoughts on Vigano’s ‘Mens Rea’ Thesis). Dr. Mazza, a Benepapist, appears to have taken up Viganò’s erroneous argument on this point, and I responded to his theological and historical errors in another article (see Dr. Mazza, PH.D., and Universal Acceptance: Another Failed Argument).

Unfortunately, Viganò has hopped from one bad theory to another in turning to Benepapism.  The appearance, to me at least, is that Viganò went ‘theory-shopping.’ The one constant here has been that Viganò is convinced Bergoglio is not a true pope; but he seems to have been less certain of a theory to support that conviction — a case of shoot first, ask questions later.  This is unfortunate.

But for those tempted by the theories of Viganò, Barnhardt, Cionci, etc., or who are dealing with folks who are; then I invite the reader to explore some of the resources this blog offers on the topic of Benepapism.  There is a collection of key article links in my article titled The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”, there is also a video series on key topics (see HERE), as well as my book on these topics, titled, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. These materials look at all the key claims made by the Benepapists, such as regarding the munus vs. ministerium, “the always is also a forever,” the “Ratzinger Code,” apostolic blessings, wearing white, “pope emeritus”, etc.

This article is not intended as an attack on Viganò, as he has done much good for the Church, e.g., his testimony regarding the McCarrick affair.  However, I do think, what began as valid concerns about this pontificate has taken him beyond the pale. I pray he reconsider his present course.

This article is not a defense of Pope Francis and or his pontificate, or its origin (see HERE, HERE). This writer has no desire to offer any such defense, as I share the concerns of many Catholics regarding the current crisis in the Church.  A resolution to this crisis will come in time—perhaps not in our time, but certainly in the Lord’s time.  Consider, the case of Pope Honorius was not ultimately decided until some forty years after his death by Pope St. Leo II.[1] Furthermore, such an example, and others like it, should be a healthy reminder for Catholics that the ultimate authority within the Church to judge such matters rests with the pope.  It does not rest with Viganò, Barnhardt, Cionci, etc. Thus, what the Church needs is prayer, patience, and prudence.

Let us pray for Viganò, and the Benepapists, that they give up on their present course which will lead them into schism. And, let us pray for Pope Francis that he remembers the Lord’s words to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com  or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on GETTR, TruthSocial, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).

Notes:

---

[1] Pope Leo II in his letter of confirmation to the 6^th Ecumenical Council wrote: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.” See Chapman, J. (1910). Pope Honorius I. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved August 7, 2022 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm