Here’s why I believe the Bergoglian pontificate is invalid
“If Benedict believed he could resign administrative duties, but nevertheless, remain papal, then according to the canonists his resignation was invalid. Thus, the conclave that elected Francis would likewise be invalid.”
“Joseph Ratzinger’s 2013 resignation led to a situation entirely unprecedented in the history of the Church. For virtually the next decade in Vatican City, two men wore the signature white papal cassock, two men bestowed apostolic blessings on the faithful, and two men were formally addressed as “His Holiness.”
“Surely this inspires the question over whether there can be two “Popes” at the same time. In fact, as I detail in my book The Third Secret of Fatima and the Synodal Church, a small but growing number of experts now believe Benedict’s renunciation was invalid…
…
“If Benedict believed he could resign administrative duties, but nevertheless, remain papal, then according to the canonists his resignation was invalid. Thus, the conclave that elected Francis would likewise be invalid, as I cover in my upcoming series: Conclave/Antipope.”
Please read the whole thing:
I like to see Bergoglio’s heresy mentioned always, as a confirming proof set.
I understand that the primary argument made by Dr. Mazza is that the 2013 conclave was invalid due to material defects in B16’s resignation.
But I’m talking hearts & minds.
Some people will never be reached by the “defective resignation” argument, who can be reached or at least feel included, by the “manifest public heretic” argument.
Mark – by the way – to jump off topic – what do you think of women voting? Not every opinion of Ann B’s must be agreed with. But, as Ann B has written against women who vote, I’m curious. and myself, undecided.
I have certainly noticed that not all women are insightful political commentators. Then again, not all men are. No great insight, on that score.
The horrible decade of progressives gave us the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Amendments, all of them disastrous. Ann is spot on with her analysis of the 19th.
As a woman I think she is 100% right. Women should not vote or hold any kind of political office. Most women are more emotional than logical and in high stakes decisions that could end badly.
Girl bosses, as they call them these days, are precisely why we’re in this mess. Now we have abortions, kids not knowing what their gender is, moms having to work to assist with bills, and the destruction of the family. These same girl bosses couldn’t work in a sewer. They don’t realize we NEED masculine men.
But no. They choose the soy boy their birth control makes them think is compatible with them.
See? Too much emotion there.
The problem is that it’s not possible for a heretic to be pope. Bergoglio isn’t an antipope because he’s a heretic, he’s an antipope because of Canon Law, and a heretic to boot.
This is an illusion. Just like Vatican 2. In truth Vatican 2 has no dogmatic relevance and Bergoglio has no authority. But as long as no one says so, and no one (the cardinals) speak up, very little can be done short of direct divine action.
But formal heretics are, by nature and not positive law, removed from the body of the Church. Natural law has more authority than canon law, an a lower authority cannot contravene a higher authority.
What I am telling you is that the mechanism to remove this evil man is based on Canon law.
Canon Law, whatever is not also under divine or natural law, gets its authority from the pope, so you’d end up with claims like only a future pope can judge him. But if it’s a matter of divine or nature law, he has no authority already whether anyone on earth juridically judges him or not. Didn’t Burke say it’s ipso facto? It’s a matter of fact, not law,
The hard part is convincing people that.
I saw this excerpt from a podcast with Roseanne, and I found what she says about “I don’t consent” applicable to the Bergoglian antipapacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VSXYx6kMtg (warning, there is an f-bomb in the video).
She has been around these type of people in Hollywood and knows what she is talking about. It is particularly interesting how, according to her, when you watch and then talk about these celebrities and Democrats, they take it as you giving your consent.
As it applies to Bergoglio, it seems that if you are complaining about him and yet are still calling him “Pope Francis” and accepting his authority, you are giving your consent. This could be the very purpose of the controlled opposition, like Taylor Marshall, Eric Sammons, Kennedy Hall, and others.
It is very important that as soon as anyone around you mentions “Pope Francis,” you immediately say, “No, he is Antipope Bergoglio” to show you are not giving consent.
Also, at the end she mentions the importance of arresting these people, and it is the same with the usurpers in the Vatican.