International Scientific Ratio et Spes Award Winner & Award-winning Author: "It is Right and Just for Catholics to Grapple with the Evidence that Bergolio is an Anti-Pope... the Case is rather Airtight"
About the Author
The National Catholic Bioethics Center
There hasn’t been an anti-Pope in centuries, so it’s not as if this matter is on most people’s radar. People are in so many in different places spiritually and intellectually, with different dispositions, dealing with the pressures of daily life. A bit of time is needed to absorb all this.
Yet it is right and just for Catholics to grapple with the evidence that Bergolio is an anti-Pope. The facts and the arguments are out there, and the case is rather airtight – foolproof, in my humble estimation. This is not an arbitrary or agenda-driven personal judgment but the outcome of a sincere reading and dutiful application of the pertinent Canon law, which alone dictates the verdict. - International Scientific Ratio et Spes Award Winner Matthew Hanley [https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/08/francis-first-anti-pope-centuries-frontpagemagcom/]Dear Ann / Miss Barnhardt,
I just saw your post where you referred to my recent anti-pope article. Thank you for that. Let’s hope this matter keeps gaining further traction!
With respect to your observation:
So one day I said to myself: I am going to look into it. I am going to read what people who claim Bergoglio is an anti-Pope have to say – and evaluate their arguments. Not their personality or writing style, nor their position within “society” or the Church, but the thrust of their arguments.
[He’s totally talking about me – at least a little. Yay! ]
Let me just briefly say that, actually:
1) that was kind of a generic comment (even if, sure, it pertains “a little” to you too – because I have come across many different folks weighing in on this topic, and appreciated (& acknowledge) even some of the pointed differences, mannerisms etc. I’ve also gained in some respects from reading those not on board with the anti-pope thesis. But here’s the other thing:
2) I *like* your personality/writing style. I like your verve or tenacity or whatever the right word is. Boldness. I think there is definitely a place for that, and in fact that quality you have in spades is in too little supply, as far as I am concerned.
So I just wanted to say hi, and that I’ve benefited much from your work, and your zeal for the truth. And so I thank you for all that…and send you much encouragement going forward.
God bless you!
Matt [Hanley] 
[https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/08/14/mailbag-matthew-hanley-author-of-frontpage-mags-benedict-is-pope-piece-checks-in/]
International Scientific Ratio et Spes Award Winner Matthew Hanley, who was also awarded a best book prize by the Catholic Press Association, in an article for Front Page Magazine established that "it is right and just for Catholics to Grapple with the Evidence that Bergolio is an anti-Pope... the case is rather airtight":
The main problem is that the Roman Pontiff Benedict XVI did not renounce the office itself – munus in Latin – but rather a set of functions or ministry (ministerium in Latin) that one may exercise by virtue of holding a specific office in the first place. The Latin text of the Declaratio, it must be emphasized, is the binding version. Whether or not his Declaratio was composed and delivered with cavalier imprecision (which seems unlikely given its consequential nature, his record of erudition, and aversion to sloppiness), parsing it is more than warranted.
At the very least, his use of one Latin word over the other for the object he was renouncing can yield various interpretations. Where interpretation is possible and clarification is needed, there is doubt; where there is doubt, there cannot be the clear and proper manifestation of the juridical act in question. Ergo, we have an invalid Papal renunciation.
Some have claimed that the Latin terms munus and ministerium are close enough if not interchangeable, so that the meaning is clear: Benedict XVI basically intended to stop being the Pope. This is sharply contested; my understanding is that canon law decisively distinguishes between these two terms; that nowhere does the term ministerium correspond to the dignity, charge or office denoted by the term munus; and that the proper, precise meaning of words must inform our understanding of ecclesiastical law and related juridical acts.
This is not necessarily to say that the specific word munus must be included in a valid papal renunciation, only that something unambiguously synonymous with office/munus must be renounced, such as the Papacy, charge, Roman Pontiff, sovereign title, or Pontificate. The term ministerium simply does not signify an ontological equivalence with the sovereign dignity of the Papacy itself; renouncing it, therefore, does not mean Benedict XVI stops being the pope.
There are other common objections to the view that Bergoglio is an anti-Pope, such as the claim that Benedict XVI has stated, ex post facto, that Francis is the Pope. My understanding is that he has never done that. What he has done is vaguely say that “the Pope is one” – without ever specifying who is that one. Meanwhile he still dresses and blesses as befits the Pope alone, while still residing in the Vatican; all while he has never plainly said Bergoglio is the one and only pope. Curious, don’t you think?
Another typical objection goes like this: distress over the fact that Bergoglio routinely flouts traditional Catholic belief, orthopraxis and metaphysical reality has led some Catholics to manufacture a convoluted hypothesis about Benedict XVI’s Declaratio so that everything Bergoglio has ever done will have no standing whatsoever. In other words, they have invented a pretext to dispatch with someone they deem to be an errant pope.
But that too evades the central issue: how does what Benedict XVI’s Declaratio actually says comport with binding canon law?
[...]
History provides a further measure of peace: two contemporary saints, both Dominicans, had opposing views about who was the legitimate Pope over 600 years ago. It turns out that St. Catherine of Siena was right all along, and for decades the great St. Vincent Ferrer was aligned with an anti-pope. He did not know this, of course. He had been deceived – by a Cardinal who also went on to become an anti-Pope for a time. But once he realized the truth, he promptly shifted his loyalty. This provides proof – and hope today – that people of faith and good will can live holy, productive lives even if they happen to be holding differing views.
There hasn’t been an anti-Pope in centuries, so it’s not as if this matter is on most people’s radar. People are in so many in different places spiritually and intellectually, with different dispositions, dealing with the pressures of daily life. A bit of time is needed to absorb all this.
Yet it is right and just for Catholics to grapple with the evidence that Bergolio is an anti-Pope. The facts and the arguments are out there, and the case is rather airtight – foolproof, in my humble estimation. This is not an arbitrary or agenda-driven personal judgment but the outcome of a sincere reading and dutiful application of the pertinent Canon law, which alone dictates the verdict. [https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/08/francis-first-anti-pope-centuries-frontpagemagcom/]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.