Bergoglio “Inimicus Ecclesiae”. Important statement by Msgr. Viganò.

2 Ottobre 2023 Pubblicato da 10 Commenti


Marco Tosatti

Dear friends and foes of Stilum Curiae, we offer for your attention this important video by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, in which the former apostolic nuncio to the United States takes stock of the current situation in the Church, and in particular the figure, role and standing of Jorge Mario Bergoglio on his election. Enjoy viewing and circulation.


Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò


Catholic Identity Conference

Pittsburg – October 1st, 2023




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.


Mt 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.


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, 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.


Inimicus Ecclesiæ, 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


In these ten 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, 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 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.


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.


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.


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 andministerium 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. 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 Podesta, Hillary 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 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, because the forces at play are immense and because the corruption of Authority cannot be healed by those who are subject to it. 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 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).


Aiutate Stilum Curiae






Condividi i miei articoli:

Libri Marco Tosatti

Tag: , ,


10 commenti

  • Spada di Dio ha detto:

    Habemus Episcopum.
    Deo Gratias!

  • Mara ha detto:

    Invito tutti a guardare il video integrale del discorso di Monsignor Viganò presente su Visione TV. E poi a metterci la faccia tutti insieme, mettendo da parte la politica dello struzzo.

  • Terminus ha detto:

    Réponse à ENRICO NIPPO – commentaire du 3 octobre 2023 à 19h04
    Ce sont vos propos qui ne sont pas du tout convaincants et qui prouvent que vous ne connaissez pas le Saint Évangile et que vous discourez de ce que nous ne connaissez pas du tout. Car il est bien écrit dans l’Evangile selon Saint Mathieu au chapitre 24, versets 15 à 18 :
    ”Lors donc que vous verrez l’abomination de la désolation – dont a parlé le prophète Daniel – , installée dans le saint lieu – que le lecteur comprenne ! – , alors que ceux qui seront en Judée s’enfuient dans les montagnes (pour se protéger d’un grave danger), que celui qui sera sur la terrasse ne descende pas dans sa maison pour prendre ses affaires (trop tard, danger imminent !), et que celui qui sera aux champs ne retourne pas en arrière pour prendre son manteau ! (inutile de vouloir revenir en arrière).
    Heureusement que des personnes comme GABRIELA DANELLI cherchent la vérité un peu plus que vous et tentent de vous la faire comprendre pour votre salut. Car la Sainte Écriture nous avise bien que ceux qui suivent le faux prophète vont se perdre avec lui.
    Mais c’est votre droit de ne rien vouloir voir, savoir, comprendre et croire. Cependant, comme on dit ”Un homme averti en vaut deux” , est deux fois plus responsable.

  • Terminus ha detto:

    Merci ! Vos commentaires sont remarquables, très intéressants et motivants ! Ils sont empreints de logique, de sérieux, de sincérité et d’authenticité, ce qui manque tellement aujourd’hui. Permettez-moi d’y joindre le mien pour autant que l’honorable Docteur Marco Tosatti daigne accepter.

    Incroyable mais vrai ! En apparence, Monseigneur Vigano est un saint. En réalité …, Monseigneur Vigano nous abuse !
    C’est aux résultats obtenus qu’on peut reconnaître l’objectif poursuivi. Quel est l’objectif que poursuit Monseigneur Vigano ?
    Depuis plusieurs mois, il nous ressasse les mêmes choses :
    1) Bergoglio est un très mauvais pape hérétique qui fait partie de la ”Deep Church” et du ”Deep State”.
    Mais pour cela, les personnes consciencieuses n’ont pas besoin de Monseigneur Vigano pour le savoir. C’est une conclusion qui s’impose à la bonne foi et à la raison lorsqu’on examine le comportement de Bergoglio :
    ▪︎ dans son ouverture à l’islam (immigration – déclaration d’Abou Dabhi) et au protestantisme,
    ▪︎ dans ses atteintes envers les sept sacrements (Amoris Laetitia- Traditio Custodes),
    ▪︎ dans son ouverture au paganisme (pachamama d’Amazonie, chamanes du Canada),
    ▪︎ dans sa collaboration criminelle, immensément grave et antichist, au génocide planétaire planifié Covid19,
    ▪︎ dans sa justification de l’immoralité (affaire Rupnik, nomination de cardinaux homosexualistes à des postes importants, ouverture “Todos, todos, todos _”)

    2) l’élection pontifical de Bergoglio serait – possiblement – invalide.
    Mais pour cela aussi, les personnes consciencieuses n’ont pas besoin de Monseigneur Vigano pour le savoir. Ce n’est qu’un stratagène qu’il utilise pour nous séduire puisqu’il tourne autour de la vérité en refusant de la reconnaître et qu’il ne semble pas en être très convaincu lui-même.
    Ceux qui ont vraiment aimé Benoît XVI (ce n’est pas le cas de Vigano) se sont de suite intéressés à son étrange soudain retrait le 13 février 2013 ainsi qu’à l’étrange conclave qui a suivi et qui est entaché d’irrégularités :
    ▪︎ ils ont évidemment fait un rapprochement entre cet événement et la deuxième épître de St Paul aux thessalociens, chapitre II, qui annonce la venue de l’homme impie et la mise à l’écart de celui qui retenait la venue de l’homme impie.
    ▪︎ ils ont aussi fait le rapprochement incontournable avec la prophétie des papes attribuée à Saint Malachie (De Gloria olivea qui est directement suivi par Petrus romanus) en laquelle croyaient St Pie X et Benoît XVI.
    ▪︎ et bien sûr, ils ont de suite été réceptifs à la thèse remarquable avancée par Andrea Cionci, thèse étrangement ignorée par Monseigneur Vigano qui ne reconnait pas en Benoit XVI le katéchon annoncé par l’épître 2 Th 2/7 ni en Bergoglio l’homme impie annoncé par la même épitre.
    Ainsi, ceux qui ont aimé Benoit XVI et l’Eglise traditionnelle ne doutent plus du tout :
    ▪︎ que Bergoglio est un usurpateur du trône pontifical (epitre 2Th 2/4),
    ▪︎ que les nominations de cardinaux qu’il a faites ne sont pas valides,
    ▪︎ que le prochain conclave serait donc invalide,
    ▪︎ que l’Eglise régulière instituée par le Seigneur Jésus-Christ est déjà éclipsée et ne peut plus être restaurée que par une prodigieuse théophanie universelle qu’ils attendent.

    3) Bergoglio serait le “faux prophète de l’Antéchrist”. ÇA AU MOINS, C’EST NOUVEAU !. Mais ce n’est qu’une invention chimérique de Monseigneur Vigano. Car nulle part dans toute la Sainte Ecriture, on ne parle d’un personnage qui serait “le faux prophète de l’Antéchrist”. C’est un personnage qui n’existe donc pas du tout et que Monseigneur Vigano a entièrement imaginé pour tromper les gens en plaçant ce personnage entre le katechon (Benoît XVI) et l’homme impie (qui suit BenoîtXVI) , pour détourner l’attention de la réalité contemporaine de cet homme impie.

    Voilà l’incroyable tromperie de Monseigneur Vigano pour nous masquer la réalité contemporaine de l’homme impie antichrist/Antéchrist. C’est un peu comme celle du prêtre espagnol Père Juan Manuel Igartúa (jésuite) qui essaye de nous faire croire que, dans la prophétie des papes attribuée à St Malachie, il y a un pape “sans nom” entre ”De Gloria olivea” et ”Petrus romanus”. Et, selon lui, ce “sans nom” serait Bergoglio que le Père Igartúa présente comme un vrai pape, UNIQUE, Bon Pasteur, qui souffre la persécution jusqu’au bout et guide le troupeau parmi de nombreuses tribulations. L’erreur est tellement flagrante qu’elle ne peut que ridiculiser ceux qui la proposent et ceux qui y croient.

    Monseigneur Vigano nous dit que Bergoglio n’est pas du tout l’Antéchrist annoncé mais seulement “le faux prophète de l’Antéchrist”, le faux pape faux prophète qui prépare la venue de l’Antéchrist et qui lui ouvre la voie.
    Donc, selon Monseigneur Vigano, l’Antéchrist doit venir après le faux pontificat de Bergoglio. Mais Monseigneur Vigano ne nous dit pas du tout qui est cet Antéchrist, quand il doit venir et comment on pourra le reconnaître. Il ne saurait rien nous en dire puisque cela n’est pas réel, cela est entièrement FAUX et entièrement CONTRAIRE à ce que nous a révélé la Sainte Ecriture.
    Car la Sainte Ecriture nous donne tous les éléments nécessaires pour savoir qui est cet Antéchrist, quand il doit venir et comment on peut reconnaitre sa présence parmi nous.

    Celui qu’on appelle L’Antéchrist est inexorablement un personnage humain qui se substitue à la personne du Seigneur Jésus-Christ, qui invalide son Evangile et qui détruit son Eglise. Et ce personnage humain ne saurait parvenir à cela qu’en occupant la place de Vicaire du Christ sur la terre, la place du pape au Vatican, dans “le sanctuaire de Dieu” (comme le dit l’épitre 2Th2/4). De fait, bien d’autres personnages humains ont tenté de détruire l’Evangile et l’Eglise catholique romaine mais ils n’y sont jamais parvenu parce qu’ils n’étaient pas chef suprême de cet Eglise.
    En outre, la ”toile de fond de l’apocalypse ” ne traite pas du tout de la domination universelle par un seul personnage humain ou par une organisation mondiale mais seulement de la destruction du vrai christianisme et de la vraie Église du Christ. De fait, aucun personnage humain ni aucune organisation mondiale ne saurait parvenir à dominer le monde entier. (Sauf en faisant usage des armes nucléaires, ….. mais alors, pour dominer quoi ?)

    Monseigneur Vigano fait croire :
    ▪︎ que l’Antéchrist/antichrist annoncé par la Sainte Écriture n’est pas un personnage humain mais la ”Bête à sept têtes et dix cornes” dont parle l’apocalype 13/1-8 , et qui doit dominer le monde entier.
    ▪︎ que le faux prophète dont parle l’apocalype 13/11-17 n’est pas l’Antéchrist/ antichrist mais seulement celui qui est au service de l’Antéchrist et qui prépare sa venue, sa domination universelle.

    Or, la ”Bête à sept têtes et dix cornes” est un ensemble de sept idéologies antichrists, elle n’est pas du tout un personnage humain, elle ne saurait donc pas du tout “s’asseoir en personne dans le sanctuaire de Dieu, se produisant lui-même comme Dieu” (comme le dit l’épitre 2Th2/4), elle ne peut donc pas du tout être l’Antéchrist antichrist annoncé et qui ne peut être que le faux prophète faux pape décrit par l’apocalypse 13/11-17

    Voici les résultats des investigations de Monseigneur Vigano :
    ▪︎ même les catholiques qui ne reconnaissent plus Bergoglio, ne réalisent pas qu’il est l’Antéchrist/antichrist annoncé par la Sainte Écriture et qui suit directement le katechon. Ils attendent donc une autre époque future pour la venue de l’Antéchrist. Ils ne se posent pas de questions et ne cherchent pas de réponses.
    ▪︎ de ce fait, ils n’attendent pas du tout la proche manifestation universelle de la venue du Seigneur Jésus-Christ qui va écarter Bergoglio et restaurer sa Sainte Eglise. Il n’y a pas d’autre solution qui soit humainement possible.
    ▪︎ ils n’ont pas de raison véritable d’espérance au travers des tribulations qui s’amplifient, ils pensent même et espèrent qu’un prochain conclave serait valide et pourrait nous rendre un bon pape (Vigano ?)

    L’objectif de Monseigneur Vigano est donc aussi de détourner de la Vérité, de la réalité et du temps le petit reste qui s’oppose encore à Bergoglio, ”au point d’abuser, s’il était possible, même les élus” (Mathieu 24/24)

    N’oublions pas que c’est un humain, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, qui a rêvé d’être ”celui qui s’élève au-dessus de tout ce qui porte le nom de Dieu ou reçoit un culte, allant jusqu’à s’asseoir en personne dans le sanctuaire de Dieu, se produisant lui-même comme Dieu.” (deuxième épître de St Paul aux thessaloniciens, chapitre II, verset 4)
    Il est donc possible que d’autres que lui rêvent aussi.

  • Marco ha detto:

    Mi spiace che ancora Viganò crei un altra soluzione e non consideri quell0 che Cionci (e l’innominabile) hanno dimostrato. Sembra davvero che Viganò avesse dei problemi con Benedetto e che per orgoglio e forse superbia non voglia perseguire la strada della sede impedita. Il fatto che non la valuti mai … e dico mai… neppure per confutarla (ma nei fatti please) è sintomatico di quanto possa essere vera.
    Tra l’altro chi ha l’onestà di leggere la documentazione rimane stupito della chiarezza e pulizia della soluzione. Mentrre questa proposta da Viganò è tutta da creare l’altra si rifà al diritto canonico in un modo che anche un bambino la capisce… strano…davvero strano questo atteggiamento.

    • Gabriela Danieli ha detto:

      Caro Marco, concordo in pieno.
      Per deporre Bergoglio e seguaci, basterebbe avere l’umiltà di riconoscere l’invalidità delle sue elezioni per le invalide dimissioni di Benedetto XVI, ascoltando la dichiarazione ufficiale in latino di quest’ultimo dell’11 febbraio 2013 e quella in italiano del 27 febbraio.
      (dal min. 14) in cui rinunciava solo all’ “ESERCIZIO”(ministerium), ma non al “MINISTERO”(Munus Petrinum), così come invece previsto dal Can. 332§2, confermando ufficialmente di rimanere lui l’unico detentore del MUNUS Petrino riservatogli da Cristo, se pur nello stato di “sede Impedita”. (Can. 335).

      Non solo, non avendo manifestato, per la “VALIDITÀ” di tale atto, la necessaria “RINUNCIA” al  “MUNUS PETRINUM” (Mandato Divino di successore di Pietro) ma solo al “MINISTERIUM” (esercizio) … per il can. 126, è evidente che il Santo Padre ha “voluto” dar luogo all’azione RESCISSORIA di tale atto rendendolo nullo:
      ◾can. 126 – L’atto posto per ignoranza o per ERRORE, che verta intorno a ciò che ne costituisce la sostanza, o che ricada nella condizione SINE QUA NON, È NULLO; altrimenti vale, se dal diritto non è disposto altro, ma L’ATTO compiuto per ignoranza o “PER ERRORE” PUÒ DAR LUOGO ALL’AZIONE RESCISSORIA A NORMA DEL DIRITTO.

      Si Marco.
      Basterebbe avere l’umiltà di riconoscere la SCOMUNICA LATAE SENTENTIAE già comminata a Bergoglio e seguaci da papa S GIOVANNI PAOLO II attraverso la Costituzione Apostolica

      77. Stabilisco che le disposizioni concernenti tutto ciò che precede l’elezione del Romano Pontefice e lo svolgimento della medesima, DEBBANO ESSERE OSSERVATE INTEGRALMENTE, anche se la vacanza della Sede Apostolica dovesse avvenire per rinuncia del Sommo Pontefice, a norma del can. 332, § 2 del Codice di Diritto Canonico ..

      🔴 76. Se l’elezione fosse avvenuta altrimenti da come è prescritto nella presente Costituzione o non fossero state osservate le condizioni qui stabilite, L’ELEZIONE È PER CIÒ STESSO NULLA E INVALIDA, SENZA CHE INTERVENGA ALCUNA DICHIARAZIONE IN PROPOSITO e, quindi, ESSA NON CONFERISCE ALCUN DIRITTO ALLA PERSONA ELETTA.

      79… proibisco a chiunque, anche se insignito della dignità del Cardinalato, di contrattare, mentre il Pontefice è in vita e senza averlo consultato, circa l’elezione del suo Successore, o promettere voti, o prendere decisioni a questo riguardo in “CONVERTICOLE” private.

      81. I Cardinali elettori si astengano, inoltre, da ogni forma di patteggiamenti, ACCORDI, promesse od altri impegni di qualsiasi genere, che li possano costringere a dare o a negare il voto ad uno o ad alcuni. Se ciò in realtà fosse fatto, sia pure sotto giuramento, decreto che tale impegno sia NULLO e INVALIDO e che nessuno sia tenuto ad osservarlo; e FIN D’ORA COMMINO LA SCOMUNICA LATAE SENTENTIAE AI TRASGRESSORI DI TALE DIVIETO.


      ◾ Per deporre Bergoglio, basterebbe avere l’umiltà di riconoscere le SCOMUNICHE latae sententiae già comminate da papa GPII per elezioni invalide, non solo per l’invalida rinuncia di papa Benedetto XVI, ma anche perché programmate in anticipo dalla massoneria ecclesiastica (Mafia S Gallo).
      Prove documentali:

      ◾Il dott. José Galad presidente dell’Università della Gran Colombia spiega come il gruppo dei cardinali cospiratori (Mafia S Gallo) ha programmato in anticipo di destituire il papa legittimo per sostituirlo con l’antipapa Bergoglio, e ne fa l’elenco:

      ▪️Walter Kasper,  Reinard Marx,  Carlo Maria Martini,  Achille Silvestrini, Godfried Danneels,  Christoph Schönborn,  Ivo Furer, Oscar Marradiaga, Carl Lehman,  Murphhy O’Connor, André Vintrois, Santos Auril Castello,  Sean O’Malley,  Lauren Monseguo,  Basil Hume,  Adrian Van Lyun,  Armand Ving Trois, Lauren Monseguo, Oscar Rodriguez…


      ◾Mons. Negri:
      Bergoglio è stato eletto dalla massoneria

      ◾Mons Antonio Livi:
      la mafia s Gallo ha stabilito in anticipo le elezioni di Bergoglio per portare avanti la riforma luterana.

      È proprio vero che per salvare la Chiesa è assolutamente neccessario avere l’umiltà di riconoscere il legittimo Pietro stabilito da Gesù Cristo, attraverso il quale Lui stesso ha promesso di governare in “perpetuo” e in modo “infallibile” la Sua Chiesa.
      (Mystici Corporis Christi – Pio XII)


  • Cristiana Cattolica ha detto:

    Mons. Viganò, se la massoneria ecclesiastica è riuscita a colpire il Pastore Benedetto e a rubargli il trono per distruggere Cristo e la Sua Chiesa dal di dentro, la colpa non è affatto del CVII, (che è VALIDO, perché guidato e confermato dallo stesso Cristo, secondo la verità di fede ribadita da papa Pio XII in Mystici Corporis Christi).
    Né è colpa dei legittimi papi concilio e post concilo, come Lei gravemente insinua.

    Vceversa, la colpa è del DISPREZZO e della DISOBBEDIENZA sempre più generale a tali papi e sopatutto all’ultimo Papa Benedetto XVI.

    E.R. se Lei ama la Chiesa di Gesù Cristo e desidera davvero far qualcosa per liberarla dalla grande impostura in atto, conformemente a quanto richiesto dal S. Mag. della Chiesa, dia per primo l’esempio nel ridare la Dignità rubata a Benedetto XVI, riconoscendoLo ultimo e legittimo Pontefice che mai ha abdicato, se pur costretto in sede mpedita.
    Condizione urgente e neccessaria per poter procedere alle elezioni del suo legittimo successore

    La prego pertanto, ER di dissociarsi dalla posizione scismatica di chi intende si, giustamente, DISCONOSCERE Bergoglio, ma non per eleggere il legittimo successore di Pietro (Benedetto), ma un altro antipapa successore di Bergoglio.

    Ascolti perfavore questo appello filiale di noi fedeli del piccolo resto cattolico:


Lascia un commento