Quick summation of all the reasons Bergoglio is not now, nor ever was, nor ever will be Pope… to share with scandalized faithful

Let’s review:

Canon 188: A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.


  1. Substantial Error renders a resignation invalid by the law itself
  2. If Pope Benedict thought he could remain in any way “papal” AFTER his resignation, that would certainly rise to the level of Substantial Error (either you are pope, or you aren’t pope)
  3. Visual evidence of “papal” feels: Retained white cassock, retained Fisherman’s Ring, retained residence in the Vatican, retained papal name, retained form of address “His Holiness,” retained the Apostolic Blessing.
  4. Written evidence of the “impossibility” of truly stepping down: Last General Audience on 27 Feb 2013, and Abp. Ganswein’s speech at the Gregorian on 20 May 2016. HERE and HERE
  5. Do you think he intended to remain papal IN ANY WAY? YES OR NO?

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.


  1. The papacy is an OFFICE (the Latin text of these canons has it as muneri/munere)
  2. If the Roman Ponitiff resigns his OFFICE… but wait, he resigned the Ministry instead (ministerio…renuntiare “I renounce the ministry”)
  3. It must be properly manifested, but it wasn’t, neither in formula HERE nor in practice
  4. It must be made freely… jury is out on that one, but at least the ATMs and credit cards started working again inside the Vatican the following day
  5. Who accepts the resignation means nothing, acceptance has no bearing on validity

Do you think that Pope Benedict didn’t know Canon Law? That he didn’t know, in particular Canon 332.2, the canon which specifically governs Papal resignations?

Now that we are in an Interregnum, could Bergoglio be confirmed as true pope? Well, if only he were Catholic, yes. It has happened before where the true pope dies, and then the antipope of the time is “grandfathered in,” so to speak.

But Bergoglio isn’t Catholic, because he is a public heretic, and public heretics are outside the Church. There is no way for him to hold any ecclesiastical office, let alone pope. We don’t need anyone in authority to tells us this, we have a duty to recognize it on our own, and call it out. Not only is he a manifest heretic on his own accord, he has also inserted heresy into the official magisterium of the Church, something which is entirely impossible for a true Vicar of Christ to do. All of this stands as a robust secondary dataset pointing back to the root cause of failed partial resignation of Pope Benedict.

The faux conclave that “elected” Bergoglio was invalid, because the true Roman Pontiff yet lived. But like putting a cherry on top, the conclave was doubly invalid, because the dirty dealings behind the scenes violated every rule in the book, making the election illegal anyway!

The number of different ways Bergoglio isn’t pope, and never has been, is truly astounding. As is the number of people who claim there is nothing to see here.

The fruit of the third sorrowful mystery (Crowning with Thorns) is Moral Courage. It wouldn’t take much.

Stay Confessed.

“The “always” is also a “forever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this… I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.” HERE

11 thoughts on “Quick summation of all the reasons Bergoglio is not now, nor ever was, nor ever will be Pope… to share with scandalized faithful”

  1. I suggest you guys read “The Book of Destiny”. It interprets the book of the apocalypse. It talks about the Church being in a state of sede vacante, and seems to correlate with what is happening now. I have to reread it also.

    1. Thank you for the book recommendation. There are several books by that same title listed on Amazon, but fortunately a good description is provided which made it possible to select the right one.

  2. But here is the real question: Can cardinals appointed by a false pope elect a real pope?

    If not, then not only does the ability ro elect a pope cease after Francis, but Benedict could not have been validly elected since JPII was a voodo accepting heretic.

    But if cardinals appointed by a false pope can elect a true pope, why don’t sedes just appoint cardinals and elect a pope?

    1. Interesting question. But that is not the topic nor the argument for the invalidity of Bergoglio. So it is a non sequitur. The argument against Bergoglio is based on the Law.

      There are problems with Canon 332.2 regarding Benedict’s resignation.

      There is Canon 188 regarding substantial error.

      The problem of Universi Dominic Gregis (UDG) paragraph 81, which notes that all pacts, agreements or promises forged under any kind of obligation, however light or strong, merit for the participants who are electors the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae (aka, automatically). Herein we see clearly the admission of a St Gallen Mafia and its implications.

      There is Canon 1329. In conjunction with the above, it extends the crimes to those who participate as well as those who benefit. Again the penalties are “latae sententiae” or automatic.

      There is also Canon 171 §2 which establishes the unique case under which the nullity of a vote causes the invalidity of the election. Since one of the seven St Gallen blabbermouths also noted that Bergoglio won by (supposedly) only 2 votes, it causes a problem that those who admitted to the indiscretion cannot cast a valid vote. So even if one were to believe (erroneously) that Benedict resigned, Bergoglio is still not pope, regardless of what a barista writes on his cup at Starbucks.

      Heresy is a far far different animal. Yes popes in the past have done heretical things. But they have remained in OFFICE because of the chance of recanting. But the difference between ‘recanting to retain’ something is far different than never having possessed it. And you too believe this, otherwise you would have picked Pope Alexander VI in the 15th century (to be intellectually honest) instead of JPII or any other modern pope….

    2. I’m willing to wait 7 years to see what happens. 2023 sedevacantism would be bizarre if Francis did indeed have successors without a chastisement. And yet it is the only way I can see that Catholicism has not contradicted itself.

    3. Q. Can cardinals appointed by a false pope elect a real pope?

      A. Yes. Cardinals created by an antipope were later recognised by true Popes. Thus, they later elected Popes. Let us not forget “Ecclesia Supplet” (The Church supplies); where authority is lacking, the Church Herself supplies that authority. Let us not forget also that the Cardinals created by Antipope Francis were presented to Pope Benedict for his blessing and recognition when he was alive. If the true Pope recognised them, then for me at least, that was enough. Going forward, any cardinals created will most likely be true cardinals because of Ecclesia Supplet.

      If my memory serves me correctly, cardinals are a creation of the Diocese of Rome not the Catholic Church. Thus the Bishop of Rome creates cardinals, not the Vicar of Christ. Although these two offices are held by the same man, if the Bishop of Rome were to be a normal diocesan bishop he’d still create valid cardinals. Thus, for the sake of argument, if Francis were only the Bishop of Rome, his cardinals would be valid. However, as Mark points out in his article above, Francis isn’t even Catholic so we have no Pope and no Bishop of Rome.

      Christ obviously foresaw all that is happening now, so He made darn sure there was a fail-safe in place to keep His Church from failing in Her government. We’ve gone over two years without a Pope a few times and the Church made it through. How? Because Christ isn’t an idiot. He swore that Hell would never prevail against the Church and that includes Her government.

  3. I think the best argument is the one from common sense: God is Goodness Itself and would never allow a heretic like the vile Bergoglio to become Pope. The fact that there were “two popes,” an impossibility, and the first pope to supposedly resign in 500 years, should have made it obvious to any Catholic that Pope Benedict was the only Pope and that the resignation was coerced.

    We need to investigate why so many otherwise conservative and orthodox priests were fooled into thinking Bergoglio was actually pope and why they fell for the CoVid scam.

    I think it is because so many priests are products of the public schools.

  4. People will gladly ruin their lives before they admit they been scammed. I’ve seen it, several times per week even. No matter how many websites on your phone explaining how this is a scam to get money, showing them that the IRS doesn’t accept gifrtcards as payment, they’ll get angry at me for pointing it out, and demand I take their money for this obvious scam transaction. Even bringing aside a police officer to explain it to them (I’ve done just that!). To the tune of hundreds or even thousands of dollars per week, they will wreck their lives before saying, “I was wrong, and I was scammed.”

    No different than buying a car with no breaks, and repeatedly saying, “The breaks will kick in now, I just know it!” As you go down a snow covered hill to a large body of water and ice.

    It is no different with this bergoglian antipapacy.

    I think many of the more intelligent ones don’t want to think about it. “If I’m wrong about francis being the Pope… What else am I wrong about?” That’s a rabbit hole people don’t want to go down.

    A lot of people out there don’t know what to look for with scams, there are Catholics who are so poorly catechized they are incapable of recognizing all the signs that point to this being a dangerous antipapacy. Read Catholic websites, and you’ll see there are a lot of people who have been scammed by bergoglio and company. They think he’s a great Pope, who makes great points, and… They don’t actually quote him, or even know that what he’s saying is horribly heretical.

    “The Pope calls abortion hiring a hitman! What a BASED Pope we have!” Or “The Pope says pornography is like a poison, we have a fantastic Pope speaking truth today!” Those are the kind of comments you see online. If I say one thing that’s Catholic, but then say AND DO ten other things which are NOT Catholic, such as appointing pro-abortion people to important positions, what am I most likely? A Catholic? or not a Catholic?

    This is probably the worst antipapcy in Church history. Antipopes never touched doctrine and dogma. You had the choice between two guys claiming to be Pope, one in France, and one in Rome. Neither one is a very “good/saintly” guy, but neither one is touching doctrine and dogma or the Mass.

    I am just one simple Catholic layman, and if I were on a Jury, and I had to give the presumption to “Francis is Pope, and Benedict resigned without issue, and the other side has to make their case.” Ms. Barnhardt has done a better job than the ARMY of scholars on the other side, and I would award her the victory.

  5. They could only admit they were wrong by God’s grace. It would be like going back to TLM from V2 – they’d be burning what they adored and adoring what they burned, an anon writer said.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.