Many seem to think that Jorge Bergoglio is not a valid pope.  Some seem to think that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope and some that the Seat of Peter has been empty for decades.  Not so interested in the sedevacantist argument, but more in the argument that PF1 is an antipope.

I believe that Pope Francis is the valid and legitimate head of the Church presently.

What are the counterarguments?

Did they use Dominion voting machines?  If so I might question his election.  Otherwise you might not like him for being a socialist piece of garbage but I think he is a properly elected pope given the Catholic church can probably change any rule they want at any time.

Lol

I won't go so far as to say heretic, but he is definitely less concerned with keeping to 2000 years of doctrine and more concerned with his stupid liberal agenda.


But yes, he is the valid Pope. BTW, whoever says the Chair of St. Peter has been empty for decades is an idiot. St. John Paul II was a valid and EXCELLENT pope.

They can't. The structure of the Church has an inherent check and balance system that makes altering the Word impossible and doctrine very difficult. Now, traditions (small "t") is a different matter.

Ann Barnhardt and others have looked at this from a variety of angles.

The main argument is that Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was invalid due to meeting the onus of Canon 188 in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Specifically, either an unjustly inflicted grave fear (threats against life, family, etc.), substantial error (splitting the Petrine office into spiritual and administrative), or a combination of both. While some might retort with the idea that the Pope is not subject to Canon Law, that's false. Yes, he may change Canon Law but he must abide by it unless changed. To place the Pope above Canon Law is to essentially make him lawless, and that's nothing short of tyranny -- something the papacy certainly is not.

A quick breakdown is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8h1ti84ww4j8lcj/Bergoglian%20Antipapacy%20Part%202.pdf?dl=0

You can also watch two videos here (these aren't short, so set aside some time):



There are other issues as well:

The collusion of certain cardinals to elect Bergoglio, himself included, contra Universi Dominici Gregis, mainly as regards Chapter VI (http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html) and earning themselves ex communication per the procedures set in place by UDG. If such is true, and it is certainly not doubtful it is since Bergoglio himself admitted it in a 2014 interview (https://www.ilmessaggero.it/PRIMOPIANO/VATICANO/papa_francesco_serve_argine_deriva_morale/notizie/770510.shtml), then how are we to approach a conclave that resulted in a doubtful election due to collusion by the cardinals, including the one putatively elected, when such collusion faces excommunication -- especially when the agenda of this putative Pope and his cronies is in line with secular agendas, and likely came from outside influence, as pertains to UDG #80?

Further, Bergoglio is a known, public heretic from his time in Argentina; he is potentially an apostate as well. Heretics are already excommunicated latae sententiae and cannot be elected to office.


-1983 Code of Canon Law

It is widely suspected that Bergoglio is also a Freemason, for he certainly is in line with their humanist agenda and there are pictures of him using masonic gestures and symbols, and if such is the case, he also incurred excommunication under Canon 2335 (1917 code) if prior to the promulgation of 1983, and if since, is subject to Canon 1394 of the 1983 code.

He also is a known Modernist heretic who, in his attempt to confuse the Church, has attempted to engage the universal ordinary magisterium in reversing itself on the moral permissibility of the death penalty. the change is not phrased in prudential terms, as did John Paul II (which i disagree with as well), but moral terms. Ergo, for almost 2000 years, if this is to be believed, the Church taught incorrectly on a moral issue. Insanity! That's modernism, pure and simple. Ergo, Modernistic doctrinal changes impacting the infallible universal ordinary magisterium are coming from a supposed Pope. That's quite simply impossible. But, infallibility is not granted to anti-Popes, so the appearance of this change is simply that: appearance. He simply has no authority to make such a change, and so the change is null and void.

etc.

Why is that difficult?
Man is fallible with a sinful nature, robes and a pointy had don't change that.

Believe in Christ and worship God and don't worry about what some religious politician across the globe is doing or saying you should be doing.

The Catholic Church is the one True Church on Earth that was instituted by Christ, as evident from Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and secular History. Since Catholics believe in Christ and worship God, dealing with His Church is also important and does not detract from either.

Moreover, by saying "Man is fallible with a sinful nature, robes and a pointy had don't change that", it is as though you are implying that Catholics think the Pope is infallible. That is not the case, so this point is irrelevant.

See what i was quoting for the point i was trying to make.

Joe Biden is president
Joe Biden is also a criminal
There is no reconciling that, you just have to accept that the system is flawed.

This is not the first time religious authority was wielded for personal or political gain.
If it weren't for the printing press you would still be entirely dependant on one man's (surely unbiased) interpretation of Scripture.

He's a jesuit  ......

The Pope isn't solely in charge of interpretation. That falls within the purview of the Magisterium alongside Papal contributions. One man cannot provide interpretation of Scripture in the RCC. That's something seen more in American Evangelical churches.

Secondly, the RCC hand wrote and distributed Bible's in the tens of thousands during the middle ages alone with most monasteries having a dedicated Scriptorium for just that purpose. Without the mass production capabilities of a printing press, the RCC did everything in its power to distribute the Bible to the masses, despite the overwhelming illiteracy of the World. The idea of a suppression of the Bible by the RCC is ridiculous and does not stand up to historical criticism.

Why would it suppress a book that it created?

As ValleyGunner said, the Pope isn't really responsible for interpreting scripture. It's a thing a true Pope can do, yes. But it's not the only point of his office. Typically, scripture commentaries/interpretation/etc., is done by a theologian/scripture scholar. He then presents said work for review and it's given what is known as an imprimi potest (letting it go to print) and nihil obstat (nothing objectionable). In effect, there are many men's interpretation which goes into it and yet, it's an interpretation subject to Church Tradition and adherence to known positions. In short, it's back by the security of hundreds and perhaps thousands of men's interpretation over the centuries, through language evolution, etc. It's the equivalent of preventing some upstart young soldier writing a bad book on tactics or survival. They can write one, sure. But it is subject to review for exactitude and correctness.

The Catholic Church has never had a problem with greater availability of scripture to the public. It's just that before the printing press everything had to be copied by hand, on vellum, and it was often highly decorated. The cost and storage needs alone simply make such a collection impossible for everyone to own. Hence, the reason the Gospels were often chained to their stand: to keep them from being stolen.

The Church's "problem" once the printing press arrived was making sure the copies being printed were correct (cf. the Sinners' bible, a la "Thou shalt commit adultery" when the printers accidentally omitted the "not"; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible).

Additionally, they sought to prohibit unauthorized commentary so as to ensure the correctness of what was being said. Imagine a person without good training writing a book on theology. They might get certain things wrong, or phrase it where it can be read multiple ways. That's highly dangerous and we don't tut-tut at the medical community for having similar safeguards, nor the engineering community. But somehow, when one's immortal soul is on the line, we are supposed to find it ok that people are being given incorrect info? That makes no sense.

Thank you for the comprehensive reply.  Obviously, I agree with the sentiment against the scandalous things FI has said and done.  Barnhardt (hadn't heard of her in some time) appears to have done a very thorough dive into the subject.  I was not aware.  I read all 79 slides and watched most of her videos (skipped some of the rambling since I had already read the slides).  For the sake of brevity, I'll restrict my comments to what is primarily, directly, and intimately related to the question of who the pope is currently, BXVI or FI.

It seems to me that the chief arguments are:

1. BXVI resigned under duress, in error, or similar (cc 188).  I did not see convincing evidence to prove duress, error, or similar.  Further, if there was such fear, why does BXVI and/or why do they allow him to continue creating confusion by wearing white, calling himself "Pope Emeritus", etc.?  If that were the case, it makes sense that he would have made a clean cut and completely disappeared.

2. BXVI  attempted a partial abdication.  Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S. had a detailed article in the Summer 2020 edition of the Latin Mass Magazine on munus, officium, and ministerium.  He did not see the merit in this argument.  Personally, I lack the depth in canon law to opine with confidence, but overall, this point seems to grasp at straws.  I spoke with an SSPX priest (best priest I've ever had the honor of knowing) on this topic some time ago, and his take was that this distinction in terms is rather new as it applies to the pope and has no substantial support in the history of the Church; therefore, as much as he disagrees with the scandalous things FI has said and done, he still recognizes him as the valid pope.  Does this settle it?  No.  I only mention it because no one would accuse the SSPX of modernism or cowardice.  On the other hand, I know a superb diocesan priest who thinks that FI is an antipope.

3. Excommunication for those who would collude to elect a pope (UDG 78-86).  This is the most compelling argument for me because there is significant evidence of collusion.  I'll have to re-read those paragraphs and cogitate on it some more.  A concern I see with this is that it seems to lead to sedevacantism perforce.  More on this below.

Overall, I think Barnhardt makes a convincing case why BXVI may still be pope and FI may be an antipope, but I don't think she settles the matter conclusively.  It certainly doesn't help that Ratzinger keeps adding the confusion by wearing white, going by the title of Pope Emeritus, etc.

My main concern is that if FI is not the valid pope, all Catholics will be sedevacantists automatically upon Ratzinger's death.  At that point, we'd be left with an antipope, a college of cardinals mostly appointed by an antipope, and a good chunk of bishops appointed by the same antipope.  I don't see how we would get a valid pope at that point, unless the antipope and all of his appointed cardinals were to drop dead at the same time.  Overall, it seems like a recipe for disaster, as if the gates of Hell would prevail against the Church.  Further, the First Vatican Council anathematized objections to the perpetual successors of Peter; therefore, BXVI dying and FI remaining as antipope seems against FVC.  Granted, BXVI is not dead yet (and I wish him a long life), but that is what makes this discussion difficult.

Bottom line: While I acknowledge the possibility, I am not convinced that Pope Francis is not a valid pope.

It’s really a lot to digest, research, etc., so I’m not gonna back you against the wall on taking a position.

At any rate, the issue of who is or is not the Pope is merely an error of fact, not faith, so no heresy or schism is achieved by believing him to be an antipope. Nor by following him as Pope.

Fwiw, the longest interregnum was 2 years and 10 months between Clement IV and Gregory X. I don’t doubt that God can undo the doodle on this etch-a-sketch, write straight with crooked lines, etc. The idea of Bergoglio being an antiPope strengthens my faith. If Benedict had died and we got Bergoglio out of it, and it was unsure how he couldn’t be Pope, I’d be pretty sketched out.

I suspect that in God’s Providence, Benedict will die and Bergoglio will “resign”, opening the way to an unquestioned Pope with a bow on top.

The other issue is the reality that for pretty much all Church history the idea of the Pope being some tweeting, YouTubing, oracle of knowledge just wasn’t there. And frankly it’s against subsidiarity for it to be like this. The resulting neo-ultramontanism  is unhealthy and forces an almost micromanaging papacy, confuses the laity, and essentially “federalizes” the Church. The Bishops then become but mere middle management lackeys, particularly with the scourge of collegiality, and faithful bishops become pariahs amongst fellow bishops, are forced to enact insane conference initiatives, etc. The result is that some moron in Rome is waxing poetic about best grazing practices and putting out confusing drivel instead of letting local shepherds figure out what’s best for their flock.

The result in all of this is lay and clerical confusion, clerical in-fighting, and a divided congregation.

As of now, he has made no changes to Doctrine or reversed anything while in ex cathedra, though he has "skirted around" and come very close in his wording that, while not OFFICIALLY changing doctrine, DOES present it in a new perspective. Socialism is a good example.

I do think this is done on purpose so as not to officially counter doctrine.


I have NO ISSUE with JP II, and he was in no way an anti-Pope.

Ex cathedra is merely an infallible exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium of the papal office. Universal Ordinary Magisterium is also infallible and he has "made" a change to that via his erroneous, novel, modernist take on the way the Church approaches the death penalty: no longer a prudential condemnation of it under other circumstances, but a moral condemnation. Which means that until Bergoglio the Great, the Church taught moral error. Just think about that for a few minutes.

He's a heretic, pure and simple. And he's not the Pope.

Assuming pope Francis is an antipope...
(to be clear, I personally think he IS pope, and I take a different position, but that's another discussion)

Maybe the common Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18 would just need to be rejected in favor of an Eastern interpretation.  I don't think it would necessarily mean the gates of Hell would prevail against the Church.  The Church cannot be defined as an institution in communion with an antipope.  The Church would still exist, and communion with an antipope would be irrelevant.

Assuming Pope Francis is antipope, then how would we define the Church?  I think valid sacraments and legitimate apostolic succession are valid sacraments and legitimate apostolic succession.  Neither of these depend upon the papacy.  The Church has never left.  Maybe we've painted ourselves into a corner with Vatican I.

We've had heretical popes in the past.  Pope Francis has nothing on pope Sergius III.  It happens.  During the Arian controversy, the majority of the church fell into heresy, including St Constantine the Great.

You are correct regarding the Universal Ordinary Magisterium on some issues, and the death penalty certainly is the closest and best example I have seen regarding the possibility of heresy. However, I recently saw an interview by a priest who is NO FAN of Pope Francis explain how this wasn't quite heresy. I'm off to try and find it and will get back to you.

ETA: Here's this one, but it's not the one that I am thinking of. Still, I am putting it up while I look for the other one.

If one accepts this line of argument, then they might as well apostasize, since it is accepted doctrine that when a valid, universal (regional don't count) ecumenical council infallibly defines something it is an action of the Church which has authority to do so and is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. In short, to accept this line of reasoning is to admit the Church has no protection of the Holy Spirit and everything she teaches is open to debate, correction, etc.

That's effectively to nullify the Church in total.

Vatican 1 as concerns the ex cathedra authority of the Pope was merely addressing that issue. The issue of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was not in question and was settled by then. But, like things which appear "new" (note for Protestant readers: this was not a new doctrine, but like all doctrine as various points in history [divinity of Christ, etc.] it was facing scrutiny and needed to be clarified), it's the focus of people.

Strict, singular ex cathedra authority has been invoked so rarely in the history of the Church it is absurd to use it as a data point on which to hang an argument so grave as saying the Church is effectively null, particularly when that claim is based on the false premise of Bergoglio being the Pope.

It's no different than saying, "welp, cavsct1983 was totally wrong on that one. Church must be false!" when cavsct1983 has no more protection against committing error and holding to heresy than an antipope does.

Only if one were to hold that somehow my credibility is the hinge on which the Church's truth rest would that argument make any sense. But it's still false.

We should also keep in mind that the Church teaches the Pope is infallible under certain conditions and in certain circumstances only, not that he is impeccable or that his mere opinion on any given subject is infallible

IF the statement were conditional, it could slide. But instead it's a blanket statement with moral gravity and is completely at odds with what the Church has taught for centuries, in concert with multiple Doctors of the Church (Aquinas, Augustine, Ligouri, etc.). To say things like morals can change wholesale is modernism pure and simple.

I'd suggest reacquainting yourself with Pascendi: http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html

The Catechism of Modernism breaks down how to understand the terminology and application in the Encyclical:
http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/Fr.%20J.B.%20Lemius%20-%20Catechism%20on%20Modernism.pdf

I'd suggest grabbing a paper copy if you can for hi-liting, note taking, etc.

I believe Pope Francis is pope and that I have not referred to him as "Bergoglio" except in reference to his service as an Archbishop or earlier.  I don't believe that I have ever referred to him as "Francis" except either to say something like "Francis, as Pope" where I use the name Francis as a substitute for a pronoun, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary.

...

Ok guys:

I can't find that video I was looking for, but the gist of it was that the "change" was not so much a change but a "development of doctrine". He cited Thomas Aquinas as well and some others who essentially said that while a state was always permitted the right, it was never condoned by the Church but rather allowed given the reality of poor criminal justice systems, jails, etc. The inability of some states to safely protect its citizenry against the most dangerous of killers made it an unfortunate necessity that led to its allowance, but always with the understanding that it could, and hopefully would, change sometime in History.

I haven't seen too much evidence for this so I can't say that I agree or disagree with it as of yet. I will keep looking for and into this argument.

Conversely, I did find another video of a priest who argues that this DOES represent a real and troubling change. I found it very compelling, and I will add it here. He raises, in my opinion, some very valid questions.

Thank you, I will most certainly look into it. Do you have a link where he was said to have attempted to reframe it as a "moral" change?

@H46Driver
Seriously?

You have got to let this go, bud. I have said MULTIPLE times both to you and on here that I did not find a post where you said that, and that if you did not indeed say it, I was wrong and sincerely apologetic.

Past this...I don't know what else I can say. Don't wallow in the resentment.

It's in the new phrasing itself.


https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html

It's as if they are trying to get people to believe the Church didn't know/understand the idea of the dignity and inviolability of the person until recently. Uh, what?

This is no longer the prudential line of reasoning of JP2/B16, but has entered squarely into the moral sphere.

If this reasoning is true, then the only logical conclusion (since the nature of man doesn't change, nor his dignity due to being made in the image and likeness of God), is that the Church and multiple Doctors of the Church, were in error on a basic moral issue: when is killing allowed. Not exactly like we are talking the validity of interest in an totally different economic system than when Aquinas wrote on usury or something. We are talking about something so ancient, known, and dealt with, that its first scripturally recorded instance was God telling Noah to implement the death penalty (Gen 9:6).

To argue that morals on basic issues can change is outright modernism, pure and simple. To argue that the Church was wrong to permit and even in certain cases extol the death penalty is outright insanity and nullifies the Church.

Thanks, I've read this, but I was asking if you had a link where he is explicitly citing that it is a moral wrong. I can understand how you could arrive at that conclusion, but I also see how the wording leads some to arrive at the conclusion that it is a "development". Do you have something more?

On this I agree with your assessment. To do so would be heresy.
"To argue that morals on basic issues can change is outright modernism, pure and simple. To argue that the Church was wrong to permit and even in certain cases extol the death penalty is outright insanity and nullifies the Church."

I don't want to speak for BushBoar, but I think the mixed record comment refers mainly to ecumenism and hostility (at best lack of charity) toward Catholics who desired the traditional Mass.  On ecumenism, in addition to some dubious statements about other religions, you are likely familiar with him kissing a diabolical book and placing a statue of Buddha on an altar in front of the tabernacle in Assisi (later, the roof collapsed and destroyed that altar; God will not be mocked).  As for the traditional Mass, it wasn't until BXVI issued Summorum Pontificum that we saw the gates fully open.  BXVI assured us that it was never abrogated, but many clergymen hold that reality was different with regard to TLM under JPII.

Another tidbit that does not come up much is that he softened significantly and in some cases completely removed canonical penalties for sexual deviancy in priests.

None of this is to say that he did not do good things for the world; just addressing the mixed record comment.

I agree; that's slippery slope.  Christ founded a visible Church on earth.  Unam, Sanctam, Catholicam, et Apostolicam... The Catechism of PSPX has covers the four marks of the Church succinctly  in IX article of the Creed, questions 13-20.

Attached File

Because he declaring it as a universal principle (in all cases), just like abortion, not based on circumstances of unjust regimes and criminal courts (e.g., Soviet Russia executing people for anything and everything), but as against the Gospels and in light of the dignity and inviolability of the human person, i.e., their soul which is made in the image and likeness of God (from which such dignity comes).

That's definitely an argument on moral grounds and is not historically circumstantial, nor based simply on prudence in application.

Don't 3Xpert this where you want a Honda technical manual in lieu of what is clearly intended in a few sentences.

You won't see it anywhere explicitly.  It's what Msgr. Pope coined as weaponized ambiguity.  Vague enough for plausible deniability and vague enough for modernist interpretation and implementation.

Ask yourself this question: Is it morally right or morally wrong to attack the inviolability and dignity of a person?  I would hope that you say it is morally wrong to do so (even if simply by virtue of semantics of the word inviolable).  Therefore, it seems to follow that while he did not say explicitly, the logical conclusion is that it's a matter of morals (loosely defined as conduct that is properly ordered).

I won't go so far as to call a valid pope a heretic (because I don't think I have the authority to do so), but the change of teaching in the death penalty is certainly problematic.

In this article, Fr. Rutler deals with some of the issues regarding this position of Bergoglio:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/12/18/pope-francis-new-comments-on-the-death-penalty-are-incoherent-and-dangerous/

In the comments, Fr. Peter Morello basically calls a spade a spade. Unfortunately, he operates from a false premise that Bergoglio is a valid pope, and therefore won't follow the spade's thrust into the logical conclusion of digging the slit trench to put this skubala.

LOL! I'll try not too, and I do see your point. I find it a bit of a leap to get from A to C, as the B is a bit vague. However, I will agree that your analysis is most certainly possible and depending on other statements, perhaps even probable. I'm off to see what else he said on this topic. Perhaps the more he spoke the more his words lean to your conclusion. I shall return!!!!

Ah, ok. NOW this is clearer. If this is what Cavsct is arguing as well, then the argument is indeed much stronger.

And yes, I agree that he is the master at this kind of "weaponized ambiguity", in fact, I said as much in an earlier post.

It drives me insane!

My post, above, was passive-aggressive and not the way men should handle disagreements.  I apologize for that and will contact you directly to work this out.

You did in fact reach out like a true gentleman.

H46Driver HAS NOT asked me to do this, but I feel it is the only correct thing to do:

I was WRONG when I said that I believed He had said Pope Francis was an anti-Pope. I INCORRECTLY attributed words to him that he did not say. Nowhere that I could find, did he ever state that, and I offer him my sincere apology if I placed him in a negative light.

Thanks!

-I believe that the resignation of B16 was troubling and there was definitely the possibility of undue pressure

-I believe that the college of cardinals validly elected Pope Francis, not the least of reasons being that the cardinals accepted him as pope

-I believe that Pope Francis has said things that are at best heterodox, if not heretical; in fact it seems like he often speaks mostly in heterodoxy and throws in a couple orthodox crumbs so his supporters can say "Look how Catholic PF is"

-I believe that Pope Francis is a bad pope

-I believe that Pope Francis may be an antipope

-I believe that it is entirely possible, if not likely, that a future pope and magesterium will look back on PF and say that he ceased being pope at some point due to some of the heterodox/heretical things he has said and continues to say

One thing that Pope Francis has inspired me to do is to pray for the Church and its clergy, including Pope Francis.  I probably should have been doing that all along, but with JPII and B16, I never felt the need to do so because I trusted where their intentions and leadership.  I started out that way with PF, but...

Very interesting thread.

Edited ~ medicmandan

Welcome, neighbor.

I haven't heard about this. Have any info? Thanks

Amoris Latetitia Footnotes 329 and 351

WOW! This one never hit my radar. NOT GOOD and indeed heretical. Thanks for the info.

ETA: Did you hear Cardinal Robert Sarah is retiring?

This is what caused Cardinals Burke, Brandmuller,  Caffarra, and Meisner to submit the Dubia to the Pope in late 2016.  Two of those cardinals have since died and Pope Francis has not answered the questions they ask.

Confusing the matter even more, Pope Benedict did answer the Dubia.




https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2019/05/11/the-dubia-were-answered/

Again...wow!