(LifeSiteNews) — LifeSite recently published Dr. Edmund Mazza’s analysis of why Benedict XVI’s arguably invalid resignation of the papacy would have caused the conclave that ostensibly elected Bishop Jorge Bergoglio to also be invalid. In addition to Dr. Mazza’s argument, which has persuaded many Catholics, there are at least two other serious arguments that Francis is not pope:
- That Francis has lost the papal office because he has “publicly and pertinaciously contradicted a number of central teachings of the Catholic faith,” as suggested in a May 2, 2024 “Call for the Resignation of Pope Francis”
- That Francis is the head of the anti-Catholic Synodal Church, and therefore an apostate who cannot simultaneously be head of the Catholic Church
Any of these three independent reasons could, if true, suffice to show that Jorge Bergoglio is not the pope. Thus, if Dr. Mazza’s argument is true, then Francis would not be pope even if he was perfectly orthodox and there was no such thing as the Synodal Church. Or, if Francis was validly elected, he would still not be pope if either of the other two arguments is true.
The rationale for evaluating whether Francis is the pope would be strong even if his words and deeds were relatively benign and we expected that the next conclave could elect a truly Catholic pope. However, that is clearly not the case: Francis is actively trying to destroy the Catholic Church and, to perpetuate that objective even after his death, he has stacked the College of Cardinals with like-minded opponents of true Catholicism. Thus, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which it would be more obvious that serious Catholics should consider what steps can be taken to remove Francis from the papacy (or declare that he never legitimately occupied it) and elect a truly Catholic pope…
There is another reason. The conclave violated three of the rules of Universi Domenici Gregis. Any one violations, said JPII, invalidates the election, and the person so elected has no right and there need be no declaration on the matter.
How’s about that round table discussion with the ’58ers Ann said would be fascinating? I think it’s time. Maybe have ‘Vanessa’ and Louie Verrecchio.
I think so highly of AB; and amazed she can’t see past ‘the trees’, to discern the actual forest, viz. that none of these Conciliar men could have been popes: neither Roncali nor the suit & tie wearing Modernist Ratzinger (as he was at VII).
Something happened in the ’58 conclave and, whatever it was, it snapped the succession of successors to St. Peter.
Roncali’s wretched ecumenical document (the name of which eludes me), in and of itself, gives witness that he could not have been the Vicar of Christ. Orthodox, Pre-conciliar teaching, tells us that a pope would be struck dumb or dead before he was permitted to enact some public act of heresy upon the Church (Sixtus V apparently gives example to this though I am not familiar with the particulars).
A bishop in a white cassock isn’t necessarily the pope.
“I think so highly of AB”….as do I. When I began discerning true SVism and read Mario’s refutation of Ann’s smack down of SVism in her long, B16 is the true pope video; I was devastated and cried much….because it was so obvious he was correct. I begged Ann to refute SVism or apologize/walk back her remarks ..she never, ever did. Sad.
Ann WAS right and you cried because she was right yet your pride won’t allow you to accept that you’re in a little cult.
I mean look at you, all you talk about is your little cult.
And if the Church went back to the old ways you’d still be part of it.
Nah. ‘58s aren’t cultish. I’ve been to a Latin Mass in a sede church. It was beautiful and full of zeal. Not once have I heard a priest speak in such a way during a homily. It was moving. I’d attend it weekly myself if I lived closer to it. But alas, my family only has Tridentine access once in awhile.
There is evidence for both sides and frankly as long as you know that Bergolio ain’t the Pope, you’re a lot more aware than most Catholics. My point is that there is strong authentic faith in both ‘22s and ‘58s.
Good to know Mikey that you know my heart better than I do. If you looked around on social media or even some old blog sites, you’d see how I ALWAYS defended Ann from her attackers. I was devastated because I truly admired her.
How about you write up an essay refuting SVism? Maybe Mark would publish it here. And if not, he could forward it to me. What say you?
I suppose it must be a difficult (and material) position for her; people hear ‘Sede’ and run. Also, within the Catholic spectrum, I reason, whilst she obviously has ample intelligence, insight & valour it’s doubtful she could possess the knowledge to go up alongside the Sede blogs (e.g. Introibo).
For my own miserable part, I have a particular interest in Catholic prayers and have spent the last year and a half putting together Latin-English prayer booklets (which can be downloaded at traditional Catholic prayers dot com) and suggest that a straight line can be drawn between Montini’s 1967 ‘reform’ of Indulgences and the wreckage of Catholic devotional life.
The Church won’t arise until Her members, clergy, religious & laity, are holy and sanctified and that can’t happen without a heroic prayer life.
It is doubtful Ann Barnhart lacks the knowledge to go up against the Sedes?
Look, man, Barnhardt is THE reason everyone has accepted or is accepting that Bergoglio is an antipope. She is exquisitely intelligent and while I have my problems with her, she can handle the errors of the Sedes quite well.
I mean I can, and I’m fairly sure she’s as smart as I am.
I would love to see that but with someone truly well versed on the “anti-sede” position…because I have yet to see a good refutation of ’58 SV (not saying it’s not out there, I just haven’t seen it…suggestions welcome). I’m a ’22 sede FWIW and very much want the ’58ers to be wrong but they make a good case.
Nice comment Edison. What got me looking into SVism was that virtually no one I knew at my large ICK parish was on board with B16 still being the valid pope (when he was still alive of course). My ‘pride’ was such that I couldn’t understand how my holy priests and fellow Catholics couldn’t see what I could see. How could these pious, prayerful, lovely Catholics not see that Francis couldn’t possibly be pope? It’s a mystery I suppose.
I have tried many times to show the flaws but I don’t think anyone listens. Probably because it leads one to either question what trads believe about Vatican II or leave the faith all together. If Vatican II taught errors/heresies, the Church defected, how ever you try to reason your way out: or you say that ecumenical councils can err, and what the Church teaches about herself is just rhetoric. But if the Catholic Church before VII was the one true Church it is impossible that it can defect. In fact there are reasons to think that VII is a development of doctrine, not contradiction. Those who don’t believe development of doctrine exist have to explain how the Church went from a persecuted faith to a confessional state and if they really believe the apostles were told this. If we accept this as a legitimate development, then the Church can go other way too without defecting. That is, development of doctrine is real.
I’m not saying there are no modernists, heretics and apostates abound. But some explanations for why are impossible, according to Catholicism.
I decided to just stop trying. Hopefully Jesus will be gentle with 1958 sedes, as these times are very confusing. In fact I was one myself until I realized we are living the third secret, the bishop dressed in white, the great apostasy, the false prophet, the abomination of desolation.
What most Catholics forget is that INTENTION matters. For instance, if a priest does not believe in the Transubstantiation, he will not validly consecrate the bread and wine–even if he uses the correct formula and the correct species. That is why you have to be careful about whether the priest is orthodox or not. If the priest is a liberal, there is a good chance that he does not believe in the Transubstantiation, and you are not receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.
Likewise, Vatican II cannot be a valid ecumenical council if the ringleaders, those in charge, had bad INTENTION, and it has been proven that they were freemasons who wanted to destroy the Church; therefore, Vatican II was not a valid council and does not bound anybody and can be completely ignored.
And, similarly, a man cannot be pope if he does not have the INTENTION to be a real Catholic pope. If he is there only to destroy, obviously he is not the pope.
It is as simple as that.
If this is the passion of the Church, we are living through “strike the shepherd, and the sheep will scatter”.
It’s sad, very sad, that practically the only way men of good will are united is by descrying evil. Even if some men of good will see too much, and others too little.
Its been done before, i.e. Florence, and it asserted a council has this right. But Vatican I asserted this is no ponger the case. So you’d have to throw out Vatican I. You’d have to have a council that declares Vatican I invalid. Also technically how Florence dealt with the situation of the 3 popes was threatening all 3 with execution if they would not abdicate, and they abdicated in fear of their lives, then the council elected a new pope. That’s probably what was done to Benedict, not by a council but a kabal or cardinals. But note Florence claimed a general council of bishops can elect a pope, and they did so. Vatican I however says no. So Vatican I is the problem that caused this whole mess, not to mention how it caused a schism into Old Catholic and Roman Catholic because it declared the Gallicans heretics so they said “Ok, we only recognize popes up to the one before this.” Sedevacantism didn’t start in 1958. There have been Sede movements before, and Vatican I spawned one in Old Catholicism.
Your history is a bit off.
The Council of Constance was called precisely to end the Great Western Schism, and it had the support of two claimants to St. Peter’s Chair. Those two had agreed to 1) resign their claims, and 2) allow the Council to elect a True Pope. The third claimant was declared excommunicated for schism and heresy, mainly because he was causing schism by harming the Church…and a True Pope cannot cause schism. Most theologians around the Vatican Council agreed that Constance was convened under the authority of a Soviet Pontiff, and acted within the scope assigned by that Pontiff (even if they didn’t know who it was). Its election of Martin V was “abnormal”, but the authority of the previous pope (and antipope) convinced the Faithful provide universal peaceful acceptance of Martin as pope.
Unlike Trent, which paused its sessions in the interregnum periods, when the See was vacant, Constance continued to meet outside the scope of papal authority. These sessions were not considered part of an ecumenical council, and thus needed review by the Sovereign Pontiff. Anything that hinted at conciliarism (that a council or Synod had the ability to remove a valid Pontiff) was condemned as heretical.
St. Vincent Ferrer is the first noted “sedevacantist”. He withdrew his support from the antipope who was excommunicated at Constance because that claimant was pridefully retaining his claim to the Chair, despite the harm he was doing to the Church. St. Vincent determined that his intransigence in spite of the obvious harm to the Church meant that the claimant had tacitly resigned from the office, and had separated himself from the Church.
A true pope or a true Council cannot cause schism. Only schismatics cause schism. Vatican I defined matters of Faith and morals. It was a gift to to the Church. The Old Catholics followed heresy and then fell into schism to support their heresy (the opposite of the Photian schismatics, who fell into schism and then embraced heresy to support their schism).
I am not a big fan of the wording. A true pope cannot be deposed. No theologian prior to V2 would agree to that. An imperfect council would be convened to declare that a papal claimant had fallen into heresy and thus had tacitly resigned from his see, OR that there were gross problems prior to election that rendered the election invalid.
Neither of those is a true deposing.
It’s impossible for a heretic to be pope. God protects the papacy from that. Bergoglio is an antipope, and was invalidly elected. Canon Law 188, 332. Bergoglio is a heretic and an antipope.
So he cannot be deposed, there is nothing to depose.
If those are Mazza’s positions he misses the central issue: his illicit election. Everything he says is true, but he didn’t “lose” the papal office, he never had it.
The cardinals should convene, elect a pope, since the See has been vacant since 2022, and that pope can use his power to force Bergoglio out.
That’s how it is done. Yep, will be messy. But it must be.
Most useful comments, thank you.