I really regret getting involved in this discussion but want to make it clear that I didn't equate with the Reformers people who discuss the possibility of Francis being an anti-Pope. I did point out the similarities in language used by some of his critics with the language of the Reformers, especially speculation that the Pope is the AC or the False Prophet of Revelation. If memory serves me, it was you who said that people making those claims are among those who believe Francis to be an anti-Pope, as though such a belief could justify the allegations. I find much to criticise in Pope Francis and believe that the majority of his critics are good, faithful Catholics - better Catholics than I will ever be - but some critics take it too far, way beyond the bounds of charity and sincere belief. It's those elements who cause me to think that Catholics troubled by this papacy are in danger of being manipulated by enemies of the Church. Sodomy isn't the only sin thay cries out to Heaven for vengeance. While I agree with criticism of this Pope's handling of the pressure from the alphabet crowd within the Church, I wish some of the other sins calling out to Heaven were given more attention, not just by the Pope but by all our Bishops. I had hoped that Pope Francis would address issues like oppression of the poor and the labourer being worthy of his hire but it seems that he's all talk and no action on them while he rolls out the red carpet for abortionists and sodomites. I'd best say no more or I'll have to go to confession.
Multiple people have told me that explaining to them that it’s ok to believe we have a pope who is most likely an antipope, and there is nothing wrong in holding and sharing this opinion, and that such a claimant to the papacy will be declared as such eventually, negating all his heresies and actions, kept them from leaving or losing the Faith. So for me explaining the situation is indeed a serious matter and grave obligation. To deny that souls are literally at risk of perdition by following the heresies and heterodox actions of Bergoglio is …. simply erroneous and absurd.
Everyone is called to respond to our current situation differently. Some are called to a hidden quiet life of prayer. Some are called to a robust yet dispassionate and charitable open opposition to this situation. And a man’s proper response by nature is different than a woman’s. No one is called to a sanctimonious uncharitable self centered or vitriolic response, or to a condemnation of others or pious platitudes towards others whose call is different than their own.
16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
I hear ya. And I’m standing up. At a dinner this week so many spoke wonders of Bergoglio, and I couldn’t. And I’m not apologizing.
Small correction, Brian. While I agree with you otherwise, the law governing papal elections, Universi Dominici Gregis, states that no "declaration" is necessary. 76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.
Surely, it cannot be disrespectful of the papacy to discuss known facts? Are these facts: 1/. In a side-letter to Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis indicated to the Argentinian bishops that divorced and remarried Catholics could carry on having sex with their new women, not their wives, and still receive communion. 2/. That he has changed, seemingly inverted, the doctrine of two millenia on capital punishment. 3/. That he placed a symbol of the pagan demon (I have seen a transcript of a video of an event in the Vatican a few years ago, attended by many bishops, in which a speaking South American devotee of Pachamama described the latter as a 'demon'), Pachamama, on the altar of St Peters, while saying Mass? Am I expected to agree with these things, if they're true as reported, because of papal authority?
Thank you for these clarifications, dear PNF and BrianK. May I ask which clause of the constitution was violated in 2013 in your opinion?
My questions above were rhetorical, simply to remind us where we are. I think the questions emphasise the futility of trying to convince oneself that Pope Francis is really not so bad but has become surrounded by undesirable people (whom he appointed, himself) who have twisted his message.
Thank you. The idea that we can drink the Bergoglio KoolAid while straining out the cyanide with our teeth is simply not credulous.
Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG) states, without any exception, that a papal election can take place only AFTER the death of the Pope: 49. When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated according to the prescribed ritual, and everything necessary for the regular functioning of the election has been prepared, on the appointed day — and thus on the fifteenth day after the death of the Pope or, in conformity with the provisions of No. 37 of the present Constitution, not later than the twentieth — the Cardinal electors shall meet in the Basilica of Saint Peter's in the Vatican, or elsewhere, should circumstances warrant it, in order to take part in a solemn Eucharistic celebration with the Votive Mass Pro Eligendo Papa.19 This celebration should preferably take place at a suitable hour in the morning, so that in the afternoon the prescriptions of the following Numbers of this Constitution can be carried out. UDG further makes it clear that a papal "resignation" does not change the necessity that the papal election must occur AFTER the death of the Pope: 77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. Taken together, these above two sections state clearly that a papal election cannot occur until "AFTER the death of the Pope" and, this is the case, "EVEN IF the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as the result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff." Pope Benedict XVI was not dead in March 2013. Therefore, the papal election in March 2013 is unlawful and "null and void" according to this section of UDG: 76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected. If you want, you can read a more complete explanation at www.antipope.com.
