Skip to main content

Debate on "[Francis] Bergoglio being an Anti-pope... [and] pressur[ing] the Cardinals"

Top 100 Catholic Blogs and Websites To Follow in 2022Looking for Edu blog commenter - SEOClerks

The Catholic Monitor has some of the best readers and commenters. I learns so much from them and enjoyed this debate on "Bergoglio being an anti-pope... [and] pressur[ing] the Cardinals":

https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/04/francis-is-in-schism-from-all-valid.html

Anonymous said…
Has the church declared Francis to be a heretic? Has any council been gathered to try to depose him? Nope.

You sound like the sedevacantists, even use their arguments (that have been refuted by Mr. John Salza on trueorfalsepope.com).
Debbie said…
You're funny anonymous. The whole world is going to hell and the Church (the magisterium) has done nothing to stop the decay these past 60+ years, most especially within the Church Herself.

As the Church goes, so does the world. It's not rocket science and Fred has said nothing that isn't true or difficult to see.
T said…
It is doctrine that God hives enough grace to avoid sin, both mortal and venial. Read it in Denzinger’s Sources of Dogma during Lent.
Anonymous said…
First anon:

Surely you understand the distinction between legal truth and ontological truth? Even canon law cannot contravene divine law? God has no need for anyone to declare something for it to be actually true.
Anonymous said…

@Debbie: You are funny too. Fred has good points, but what you fail to see is that Freddy, Ann Barnhardt, Patrick Coffin etc do not speak for the Catholic church, they have no authority at all in the church to declare anything such as Benedict is still Pope. Their personal opinions are just that opinions to share. You are all going to fall into sedevacantism once Benedict is gone. I don't like modernism in the church just like you don't, but there's only so much one can do that is not part of the hierarchy of the church.

The Church is a legal institution, the papacy is a legal office, jurisdiction is a legal power, heresy is a legal crime, and to lose a legal office requires a legal judgment by the requisite legal authority.

It's an over reaction to the crisis which has had the ironic effect of him leaving the Church which is how the devil has orchestrated the crisis.


The devil's key strategy is to lead souls out of the Roman Catholic Church and into the false church of tradition. There is no such thing as schism in this false church. Mission and ordinary jurisdiction are unnecessary. Even subjection to the Pope is unnecessary. It is a brilliant plan of Satan himself. These souls will be damned, or EENS is a meaningless dogma.
Anonymous said…
Correction to last post: "It's an over reaction to the crisis which has had the ironic effect of him leaving the Church which is how the devil has orchestrated the crisis."

I meant to say them instead of him, meaning Barnhardt and all the beneplenists.
Debbie said…
It's never, ever wrong to point out the emperor has no clothes. I feel sorry for those who are in "second" marriages and are receiving sacrilegious Communions because they believe Francis is Pope....he affirms them in their sins, just as Satan does. Beneplentism on the other hand could help those who are receiving sacrilegious Communions by forcing them to look at the arguments, see what the Church truly teaches about such unions, admit their error and repent. Insisting Francis is Pope (note, not being certain is NOT the same as insisting) is straight up indifference and we all know what Our Lord thinks about indifference.
T said…
Can no one think that 2+2=4 unless the math teacher says so? That is analogous to the situation. Whether someone has the authority to morally bind others to their ideas is irrelevant. I do understand when someone asks Taylor Marshall if he thinks Francis is an antipope nobody is asking for his legally authoritative judgement, because he has no authority.

Is it schismatic to be open to what the teacher will say but still in the meanwhile think 2+2 looks a lot like 4, spiritually speaking?
Anonymous said…
@Debbie you make fair points, but here's the issue...neither you nor Ann Barnhardt, Freddy and the others can prove that he's not the Pope. His conclave never had a legal challenge...so your argument falls apart right there. I don't like him saying that Lutherans are apart of the mystical body of Christ, I don't like him saying that good atheists go to heaven, etc. Francis is most likely going to be declared an Anti-Pope in 60-100 years if a traditional Pope is ever back on the Chair.

As Catholics, you and I (and the other Beneplenists) are not part of the formal hierarchy of the church. None of us have the authority to declare anything, so as part of the universal acceptance of Francis's conclave from the church you are then obligated as a Catholic to accept that he had a valid conclave that had been legal. He is to be accepted as the Pope then in that case because he's not been called out by any Cardinals to have a formal dubia against him. The dubia that the SSPX and others presented had been a very fair dubia, but it had no support from any Cardinals. Cardinal Burke has not once called for Francis to be declared a heretic, nor any of the so called traditional Cardinals out there.

Until that happens, you cannot declare Benedict to be the Pope, it is clear as day that his intention had been to resign the Papacy. In his Declaratio he says there's going to be sedevacante and a conclave is going to elect the next Pope. He cannot be the Pope anymore, as he isn't even naming Cardinals or doing anything from an administrative sort of function that a Pope has to do. He's retired and he did not even lead the consecration to Russia. Until Francis is declared by the church to be a heretic, your group/position has no leg to stand on.
Debbie said…
Anonymous "Francis is most likely going to be declared an Anti-Pope in 60-100 years if a traditional Pope is ever back on the Chair.'

Indeed. And so that means that right now, today in reality he is "most likely'an anti-pope.

Great! Then we agree. ☺️

The "formal hierarchy" (except Ab. Lefebvre) has done nothing to stop the rot (modernism) within the Church and Her institutions these past 60+ years and now we should sit on our hands and wait for the same said hierarchy to declare what is glaringly obvious? Obviously I, nor Ann nor Freddy can declare with any authority that Bergoglio is an anti-pope, but we certainly can voice our opinions....and then maybe, just maybe if enough people speak out the "conservative" cardinals will be emboldened to actually do something.
Anonymous said…
@Debbie

I'm not a fan of modernism...but I don't say that Francis is a definite Anti-Pope or formal heretic because he has not been declared by the church as one yet. Francis only backpedals if he's pressured to in some cases.

I don't think that Benedict is Pope at all anymore, and I don't say it lightly. Could it be a better alternative? No, because he's not even governing the church in any capacity. So to me it makes no sense to support Benedict is Pope because it's not like he's returning into St.Peter's and sitting on the chair and declaring his return as Roman Pontiff. He's done. He's retired. Pressure the Cardinals to act, Bishops ,etc.
Debbie said…
"Pressure the Cardinals to act, Bishops ,etc."

Yes! Once again we agree!

So raising our voices that point to the invalid resignation, and therefore Bergoglio being an anti-pope, is doing exactly what you suggest.....pressure the Cardinals etc.

Debbie said…
And even if what you say is correct....that Benedict won't return and is done....declaring his resignation invalid and he is still the pope (and most importantly that Bergoglio is not nor ever was) would help with the next conclave. If this isn't resolved before Benedict's and/or Bergoglio's death, the next (fake) conclave could be even worse than the (fake) 2013 one.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Is Francis like Schrondinger’s cat? Is he both the pope and the antipope until someone declares it? How could he be the pope today if someone in 60-100 years may declare him an antipope? Wouldn’t that mean he was always an antipope?

Do we live in a quantum papacy? Does our normal expectations of space, time and casualty not apply?
Anonymous said…
Francis has not been declared an Anti-Pope by the church yet. If he's commanding you to do something mortally sinful (and he knows it's a mortal sin) then you're able to resist such a command because it's putting your salvation at risk.
Anonymous said…
@Debbie I do agree with you on some things but I'd advise you to not call the 2013 conclave fake yet until Francis is declared a heretic by the church. I'm trying to keep you from being in schism from the true church. His conclave had no legal challenges at all..
Anonymous said…
The question is if God is bound by human law. Heresy is more than a crime, but a sin too. If you think after 60-100 years he’ll be declared an antipope you think he is one now. Until the cardinals declare him one, will you let him teach your kids the faith? If not, why not? Whether he has been officially declared a heretic or not, you already think he is one.

We don’t have any moral authority to bind everyone, but it would be completely irrational to claim we have no permission to think so.
Anonymous said…
By which I mean we are not schismatics because we are open to be corrected by the Church whenever the cardinals decide to speak up. There is more than enough evidence to make us doubt his legitimacy, and which is not schism, as long as we do want to submit to the pope, whoever he is.
Debbie said…
Anonymous 1, the 2013 conclave being fake is the logical conclusion to the belief that PBXVI's resignation was/is invalid. This is not a hard concept.

As a former heretic (Protestant) my conversion was first because of my belief in the Real Presence, and second for the need of authority amongst God's people. Perhaps you're a cradle Catholic and are not as aware of the need for conversions among family and friends who are still prots. Please do explain to me how we as Catholics can explain the need for authority while our supposed Pope spews heresies on a daily basis.

Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Wernz-Vidal: "One cannot consider as Schismatics those who Refuse to Obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person Suspect or, because of Widespread Rumors, Doubtfully Elected"

    Pope Francis is tottering on the precipice of Hell. None of this means he isn't the pope, and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right. Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave has come out and said the election was rigged and Bergoglio isn't the pope, that he is in fact an anti-pope . If he is, a future pope can declare that, when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope. But if the very men gathered in conclave haven't made that public accusation,  anyone who is suggesting that better take into account that they too will have to give an account of themselves to Almighty God when they die . Such talk adds to the scandal of the "little ones," the simple, even potential converts, who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media saying he's not really the pope, draw back from approaching the Church. Do any of us desire to stand in front Our Blessed Lord as the Supreme Judge and explain why, in our desire for more c

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk