Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

If Francis is an Antipope, We Can’t Know It Yet

The same day Pope Benedict XVI announced his abdication, lightning struck the Vatican twice. (Source)
The same day Pope Benedict XVI announced his abdication, lightning struck the Vatican twice. (Source)

Over the weekend, noteworthy Catholic blogger Ann Barnhardt published an essay in which she states that she believes “Jorge Bergoglio, ‘Francis’ to be an Antipope, never having been canonically elected, and that Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI is still the Roman Pontiff.” She goes further, asserting that

The sheer quantity of evidence, and the diversity of the confluent evidence sets, is now so utterly overwhelming that I believe that a person, fully informed of the dataset, would have to engage in the willful suspension of disbelief to continue to acknowledge Bergoglio as Roman Pontiff.

I am friendly with Ann. We’ve done a couple of podcasts together, and we correspond occasionally. When she’s right, she’s a rhetorical weapon of mass destruction, and one that can be a wonder to behold. That said, I don’t always agree that she’s completely dialed in (or needs to go to 11). And in this case, to be honest, I find her argument significantly less persuasive than she does. Nevertheless, I’m beginning to see it referenced in our comment box, as well as in other places online. This makes it difficult to ignore – in particular since opinions along this spectrum have, in the wake of one papal scandal after another, been showing up with increasing frequency in online Catholic discourse.

I’m not going to devote the time and research necessary to write a deeply substantive critique of Ann’s theory. Briefly, though, I do want to address some issues I have with her argument.

To begin with, three of the five prophecies she cites are of questionable provenance. The St. Francis of Assisi prophecy is the most significant of these, since to read it one feels as though it is meant for our present time. Nonetheless, it is considered apocryphal by scholars of Catholic prophecy like Desmond Birch and Emmett O’Reagan (among others). No one has traced this prophecy back to St. Francis himself — it does not appear in his existing works. The prophecy as Ann cites it comes from the 1882 book, Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, by R. Washbourne. The introduction to this book itself states that it is a translation “made from the edition of the ‘Works of St. Francis’ published at Cologne in the year 1848. As the work is intended to be a practical and devotional one, no critical notes have been introduced, nor references to the authors from whom Wadding made his collection.” The Wadding in question was the 17th century Franciscan Friar Luke Wadding, whose own work is considered by some scholars to include spurious texts. In the editor’s introduction to a 1906 edition of Wadding’s text, now available online, we read that

Wadding’s edition of the Opuscula differs mainly from all preceding collections in this, that whereas the latter contained only those pieces which as regards both matter and form were the handiwork of St. Francis, Wadding felt justified in including among St. Francis’ writings many dicta of the Saint found in the early Legends.

[…]

Thus it comes to pass that in Wadding’s edition, side by side with the undisputed writings of St. Francis, we find doubtful, even spurious, extracts from different sources attributed to the Seraphic Father. It must ever remain a matter of regret that Wadding, instead of following the oldest MSS. that he had at hand, was content to transcribe the incomplete and often interpolated parts of them he found in second-hand compilations, like that of Mark of Lisbon. His work from our standpoint is vitiated by imperfect research and unreliable criticism.

This 1906 edition, in fact, had many of these questionable writings removed by the Friars Minor of Quaracchi, including “all the colloquies, prophecies, parables, etc…”

The message of La Salette concerning Rome becoming “the seat of the Antichrist” bears some merit according to the Church’s prophetic understanding of that figure, but this section of the otherwise-approved La Salette apparitions has been in dispute for some time as a possible later invention of the seer Mélanie Mathieu, who was struggling with cloistered life at the time. Many scholars do not therefore consider this portion of the messages authentic. In any case Francis is most certainly not the Antichrist, though one could argue that he is a type thereof.

Finally, the Fatima message Ann cites is part of a rumored text, not part of any of the officially released secrets of Fatima. Fr. Paul Kramer — himself also of the same opinion as Ann about Benedict being the true pope — attributed this quote to a paraphrase of Cardinal Oattaviani concerning an unrevealed Fatima secret in May of this year. With no official documentation of this language, it serves as a point of interest, but cannot be relied upon for accuracy until the full texts of those messages is finally published.

Moving on to the question of Pope Benedict’s resignation, Archbishop Gänswein’s statements about an expanded papal ministry, though newsworthy because of his closeness to both popes, are still technically nothing but his own theorizing. Similarly, the idea that Pope Benedict’s abdication falls under the canonical invalidity of “substantial error” is, as far as any outside observer is concerned, tenuous at best. We don’t know that he actually believed that he could expand the Petrine Ministry into a diarchy (and in fact he has flatly denied the theories that there was some defect in his resignation) regardless of what Gänswein theorizes. Recall the letter that the Pope Emeritus sent to Andrea Tornielli in 2014:

“There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry” and the “speculations” surrounding it are “simply absurd”. Joseph Ratzinger was not forced to resign, he was not pressured into it and he did not fall victim to a conspiracy: his resignation was genuine and valid and there is no “diarchy” (dual government) in the Church today. There is a reigning Pope, Francis, who leads the Catholic Church and an Emeritus Pope whose “only purpose” is to pray for his successor.

I understand why people question this, but barring something concrete from Benedict himself, it remains within the realm of conjecture, not certitude, to assert that his abdication took place under different circumstances than he himself has admitted.

The questions surrounding the election of Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio are, I think, somewhat more meritorious, inasmuch as we have the admission of the members of the so-called “St. Gallen Mafia” of a conspiracy to put Bergoglio on the Petrine throne. That said, we do not know that Bergoglio himself colluded with them, and if he did not, even their offenses would not invalidate his election (though they should, if Universi Dominici Gregis is to be believed, result in the automatic excommunication of those involved.)

Ann goes on to list “Bergoglio’s Litany of Heresies,” and she’ll get no argument from me that these are all deeply troubling. Are they all manifestly heretical, though? Are they obdurately and formally so? Again, this is where certitude fails. And if they did amount to material heresy, theologians remain uncertain about whether the Bellarmine/Suarez hypothesis really plays out as hypothesized.

The rest of Ann’s nearly 5,000 word essay deals mostly with her own competence to make such claims, and rebuttals to anticipated responses. Her argument, such as it is, is expended in the first half of her piece. In fact, if one removes her introductory statement and the sections on prophecy, Bergoglian heresies, her authority to make such statements, and anticipated objections/rebuttals, one is left with less than a thousand words of actual argumentation about the improper resignation of Benedict and the invalid election of Francis.

And I find neither section persuasive, for the reasons I’ve already stated.

Is it possible that Ann is correct? Yes, it is, but we can’t know it with certainty until the Church makes a declaration as such. Is it possible that she’s wrong? Yes, and I find this to be more likely. Not that it improves things — it’s a much harder situation to deal with if Francis is a validly elected pope than if he isn’t; in the latter case, he can simply be dismissed, and his works undone. In the former case, we have to contend with the reality of the most theologically destructive pope in Church history, and the fallout of that is most likely going to take generations to set right.

But again: I think arguments like these waste valuable time. Someone wrote to me a few weeks ago to get my opinion on another article along the lines of Ann’s essay. My response was as follows:

Frankly, I tend to stay away from these kinds of arguments. They can be interesting, but they can also tempt us to try to ascertain with some degree of certitude what can only be known by an authoritative judgment from the Church.
Is it possible that Francis was invalidly elected or that Benedict invalidly resigned? Yes. It’s possible. Will attempting to reach these conclusions on our own give us any peace of mind, or even a form of actionable certainty? Nope.
For my part, I trust that while Christ may be asleep in the boat as the storm worsens, He can quiet the waves with a word. He is asking us to simply be faithful enough to trust that He will do so when the time comes.
Eventually, this will all get sorted out. Whether Francis is an antipope or a valid pope, his papacy will undoubtedly be condemned by future generations. The charisms of indefectibility and infallibility still apply, and Francis will not be able to unmake them. Instead, he’s forced to go around them. And that means being sneaky and underhanded, which is what we’re all picking up on. He will lead many souls astray, but  Our Lord predicted that there would be such false teachers and prophets, and St. Paul said (Acts 20, IIRC) that there would be wolves who would enter in amongst the shepherds.
We’ll get through it. The way I see it, we all have enough headaches without trying to sort out a juridical mess that might just require divine guidance. And nobody wants to be a sedevacantist. They’re about as much fun as lemonjuice at a papercut party.
Ann is NOT a sedevacantist, as she makes clear. She just thinks we still have the same pope we had in February, 2013. Is she right? Not my call. Does it matter? On an objective level, of course it does. To know the true pope from the false one is better than not to know it. But we can’t know that with the certitude of an ecclesiastical judgment. Not yet.
Trying to figure out whether a man who claims to be pope is or is not the pope by reading things on the Internet and drawing conclusions from them is like trying to diagnose your own ailment by Googling your symptoms: the odds are you’re going to convince yourself you have some rare or incurable condition instead of whatever ordinary malady you’re actually suffering from; but even if you get it right and it’s something just awful, what are you going to do about it? You still have to go to the doctor to get it taken care of. You can’t just treat yourself.
Ann herself admits, practically speaking, that her conclusion really changes nothing for the average Catholic in the pews:

First and foremost: Masses in which an antipope is commemorated in the Canon by the priest offering the Holy Sacrifice IS A VALID MASS.  The Eucharist is confected, the Holy Sacrifice is offered.   

Further, I have been assured in the strongest possible terms that for me to receive Holy Communion in a Mass in which I know that Bergoglio has been commemorated as Pope is NOT an act of hypocrisy on my part. I know that the Mass is valid.  I know that the Eucharist was confected. I know that Our Lord is desirous to come to me and I to Him in the Sacrament of the Altar, provided I am in a state of grace.

If my position on Bergoglio is correct, which I obviously believe that it is, what this means is that the commemoration of him as Pope in the Canon is either ILLICIT, or MISTAKEN.  We have a clear historical precedent for this.  During the Great Western Schism, due purely to political intrigue and NOT any questions of heresy, there were three men simultaneously claiming to be pope.  One of these men was the True Pope, and the other two were antipopes.  These antipopes were not blaspheming heretics like Bergoglio.  Again, the entire situation was due purely to POLITICAL INTRIGUE.  And so, two giants of the Church – both saints and one a Doctor of the Church, backed different “popes”.  What this means is that one of these saints was wrong, and one was right.  Who was the saint that backed the True Pope?  It was St. Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church, and laywoman. Did you know that St. Catherine was NOT a professed nun?  She was a Dominican tertiary (third order) who was given permission to wear the Dominican habit.  She was a laywoman.

And who was the saint, one of the true intellectual giants of the Church, who was wrong and backed an antipope?  It was St. Vincent Ferrer, who was a priest, and thus offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass many, many times having commemorated an antipope in the Canon.

Here is an interesting precision: St. Vincent Ferrer’s commemoration of an antipope is not even called “illicit” – it is called “mistaken”.

My suggestion is this: rather than worry about which one of the two popes in Rome is the real one — something the Church will resolve in time, without our help — I believe we should focus our efforts on combating the errors that Francis is promoting and Benedict is doing nothing to stop. And we should do so by promoting authentic Catholic teaching as an antidote. Coming to a better understanding of that teaching, and finding new and effective ways to disseminate it, is far more efficacious than idle speculation over something we can’t determine definitively and will never have the power to remedy.

299 thoughts on “If Francis is an Antipope, We Can’t Know It Yet”

  1. I find great value in your arguments as well as Ann’s. You both teach me a great deal. I don’t always agree with either of you. So thanks for the response. Between the two of you I have much to ponder.

    Reply
    • I’m with you RantingCatholicMom, I feel the same about ALL the traditional Catholic sites I visit. They ALL have a great deal to offer even if I can’t agree with every aspect of every issue they put forth. But…..we ARE STILL ALL ON THE SAME SIDE! With Christ in His true Church. This I believe, is the important thing. That we unify with Christ in His Church and defend her and proclaim her truth even unto death. Besides, I also believe there are some facts about this Mega Spiritual War we are in that God does not think is necessary YET for us to know.

      Reply
      • How sad – we are all on the same side, and it is not the same side Bergoglio is on. And how many sides are there? – Two.

        Reply
  2. I commend you for this article, though I too concur with Ann B.on a great many things. Especially appreciated is your pointing out the dubious/unauthenticated “prophecies” she referenced. I see this mistake all over the Catholic ‘net, and I’m glad you addressed it. Just one quibble: Archbishop Ganswein wasn’t “theorizing” about the papacy in that incredible, recent talk. The post-abdication actions of Pope Emeritus BXVI make it clear that it’s HIS theory and view of his current role in the Church.

    Reply
  3. I think it is good to question some of the points that Ann is basing her opinion on, we always should look at things rationally, and as one comment put it, we need “to stay away from the ledge.” but still the things that have happened in this affair are rather irregular. Despite all the reasons and explanations given, I do wonder.

    Reply
  4. Well there are all kinds of other little curiosities…

    Steve you included the image of lightning striking the Vatican, on the day Benedict resigns, which reportedly occurred twice. Which is unusual, but okay…

    Then there is Benedict’s decision to ignore what St. Celestine did, and instead keep the Papal title, court of arms, the robes and introduce some novel confusing statements in his little going-away speech as if he somehow still retains ‘something’ some indelible mark that like the sacrament of baptism or the priesthood now remains with him because he was the Pope… but not-to-worry everything else is now in Francis’ hands, he’s just going to keep this one thing…

    Then we have Francis being very coy about referring to himself as the Pope, not using the papal apartments and preferring to be called bishop… but other times he does refer to himself as the Pope by telling us to trust him when he relaxes the rules on annulment etc… but maybe he’s just being collegial and doesn’t personally like all the primacy stuff… except when he uses it to get his way and things done to his liking.

    Then we have Francis releasing 2 doves for the sake of peace. Both of which are subsequently attacked as soon as they leave the cages by a crow and a seagull. I guess this is God’s answer to Francis’ display of peace. And given the situation in the Middle East and the tensions between the NATO and Russia, and in the Asia pacific, things aren’t looking rosy. The world is effectively divided in two just as in the good ol’ cold war days.

    Then we have the curious case where the blood of St. Januarius half-liquifies in the hands of Francis. Most curious indeed…

    Admidst all the prophecies and even obvious signs that the Catholic Church is divided spiritually between the trads and the apostates who continue to have masses, between the Traditional Church and the Vatican II era church, between the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Mass, etc. etc. etc. It’s as if there is a symbolic diarchy in just about everything… would it not be typological and the perfect practical joke by God that this symbolic division and stupidity can reach right up to the Papacy itself to highlight the actual reality of the situation?

    I obviously don’t know. I’m just a guy on the internet… but oh boy is there is a lot of smoke and signs and symbols and the dual-papacy would just be the icing on the whole rotten chocolate/vanilla cake.

    Reply
    • Thanks for these comments Johnno..I vaguely remember hearing about the attacks on the doves….I wasn’t Catholic yet.

      Reply
    • “Then we have the curious case where the blood of St. Januarius half-liquifies in the hands of Francis.” Could you tell me more about this please.

      Reply
    • Pope St. Pius X (Giuseppe [Joseph] Melchiorre Sarto):

      “I have seen one of my successors, ‘of the same name’ who was fleeing over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in some hiding place; but after a brief respite, he will die a cruel death”.

      Servant of God Sister Lucia of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary:

      “And we saw in an immense light that is God: “something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it” a Bishop dressed in White “we had the impression that it was the Holy Father”….”

      The ‘impression’ it was the Holy Father? Was it Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI ([Joseph] Ratzinger) or the Bishop of Rome Pope Francis (Jorge [George] Bergolio)? It is worth pondering.

      Reply
    • Convincing explanation of the events surrounding PF. Benedict could have
      simply said I resign and walked away. He did not do that. That is not speculation.

      Reply
  5. Steve, you’ve done us a great service with this leveled critique of Ann’s proclamation. Thanks especially for the history behind the Franciscan prophecy.

    As odious as he is, Francis is still our Pope. He needs our prayers. So does Benedict and ALL priests. We must be extra good to battle all the evil around us and not waste mental energy worrying who is Pope. Every day we see hell breaking loose again and again.

    Our Lady seems closer than ever. She knows our tears. The rosary brings great peace.

    Reply
    • How can you call him ‘our pope’ when he does not hold to the true Faith? He is not our pope, he is a wolf under the guise of a shepherd. He just came out and proclaimed that Amoris Laetitia is doctrinally sound, right? That poisonous document, which affirms and encourages sin, is anything but ‘doctrinally sound’. It is misleading into sin those too blind to find what the Catholic Church really teaches. He is not ‘our pope’ at all. Wake up.

      Reply
      • I said he is odious. Amoris Laetitia is exactly what Louie Verrechio said it is–chocolate covered anthrax infected horse manure!

        The seat is not empty. He is our pope–like it or not. Wishing he wasn’t won’t make it so.

        Reply
        • I agree with Ann Barnhardt. He is indeed an antipope if there ever was one. This monster is not to be followed. A true pope is.

          Reply
        • Deitrich von Hildebrand states that when any prelate (include Bergoglio)
          teaches error, he loses his authority. This is exactly how things are with the Bishop of Rome. Follow him at you r own peril.

          Reply
          • Where does he teach this? How does he explain it? If he believed it, why is his wife not speaking out in defense of his theory?

            And even if you could answer all of the above, what authority does he have, as a single philosopher/theologian, to make such a definitive claim?

            It’d be far easier if this were true, but there seems to be nothing easy about any of this.

          • I found von HIldebrand’s views under his teaching about obedience. Just google it. St. Thomas Aquinas says the very same thing under his view of obedience. The primacy of adherence to the fullness of the Faith trumps all the arguments being presented. It trumps canonical legalities too. I do not believe that anyone could give you enough evidence, Steve. You will still be mulling over the pros and cons of this dilemma when the Church is underground. and Rome is the new world order mega church, Bergoglio’s ‘big tent’. You just love the debate.

          • No, I’m not going to just google it. You’ve pulled this before. Stop making assertions without substantiation if you want to be taken seriously.

            You’re chock full of hyperbolic opinion, but when it comes time to actually demonstrate that you’re not full of you know what, you never do. I’m growing very tired of the game you play.

          • Mr. Skojec, keep your deep anger to yourself. You have written an article. You do not like it when you are challenged. The information is there for you easily to find, but you want me to do it. It is not a game I am playing. I am telling you what is common knowledge, a click a away. Anyway, you have already stated in one of your answers that if indeed von Hildebrand did state this (he did) he is not enough of an authority. You are attached to your own way of thnking and those who seriously challenge you are given short shrift.

          • Deep anger? Try exhausted patience. You’re a tiresome bore, nagging and negative but too intellectually lazy to do the work to prove your own assertions. I watched you go around and around with another reader because you simply could not prove a thing you said was easy to look up. It’s embarrassing. I do too much work here to have you assign more to me simply because you can’t be bothered.

          • I’m not “following” him. I said he is “odious”. Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls.

            Is Steve here “following” him? Acknowledging he is Pope is not following him.

  6. But if Father Benedict dies tomorrow she is in fact a sedevacantist so lets just call a spade a spade and not be mushy mouthed about it

    Reply
    • If Bergoglio is an antipope and Pope Benedict ‘dies tomorrow’, Ann would no more be an ‘sedevacansit’ than any other Catholic who would wait for the white smoke after a conclave would be a sedevacanist. A new pope would have to be elected. An antipoe would not be part of the process.

      Reply
      • but your premise is based on a theological novelty to begin with about being able to separate the Papal office. That’s the joke in desiring a quick fix modernism gets the last laugh among traddies. To renounce the office then continuously declare yourself under the authority of another… what other intention is needed here. The rest is for itchy ears seeking a quick answer

        Reply
        • No.,my premise is not based on ‘a theological novelty’. If you read Barnhardt’s article, you will see that she states that the theological novelty which Pope Benedict believes ( a split papal authority) is false. Since the theological novelty under which he is laboring is not genuine, he (Benedict) is still pope. He abdicated under a false idea, i.e. ‘a theological novelty’ and his abdication is not valid. He is still pope..Your logic is very faulty.

          Reply
          • She is, again, conjecturing that he believes this. She does not know that this is any more than Ganswein’s own theory. Benedict himself has not indicated that he believes in a split papal authority.

            And even if he did, it’s not immediately obvious that this would result in an invalid resignation. That determination is not ours to make, any more than we get to decide Supreme Court cases.

      • If Pope Benedict died tomorrow, there would be no conclave. There would only be a conclave upon the death of Pope Francis. Hypothetically speaking, if Pope Benedict dies and Pope Francis lives another 10 years, that should be an indication that he is in fact the Pope should it not? I think historically there have been conclaves that didn’t get around to electing a Pope for months and months but there has not been, to my knowledge, a time when we have been without a true Pope for years and years. I don’t think that can happen.

        Reply
    • If Francis dies tomorrow she is not in fact a sedevacantist is she? Or if he resigns next year and some new guy from the ST Gallen Mafia takes over then she still isn’t a sedevacantist is she? We are going to get another one of those guys you can bet on it and B16 will be the last to die.

      Reply
    • All of this discussion is nonsense. Pope Francis teaches error and we do not listen to him, resist and contradict him when he does. Our recognition of his papacy seems limited to lip-service and remembering to parrot the special courtesy due a pope when are able remember to do so when indignation subside. The parroting seems a social signal that we are not “sedevacantist” and are thereby “ritually pure”. Its a shameful situation in all respects.

      If we are to call “a spade, a spade” is lip-service and occasional courtesy significant enough to differentiate ourselves from where you put Ann or where *shudder* those others are? I don’t know. But I do know that I would not trust Pope Francis to shepherd any of my family to heaven, and that should he shepherd them I fear for them and where they would go.

      Honestly, I don’t think the shibboleths of propriety that “tradition minded Catholics” are reduced to signify anything.

      Reply
  7. At the bare minimum, if Ann is right, Francis has the plenipotentiary powers of a Papal Legate for the ENTIRE globe from B16. So it doesn’t really matter so long as he doesn’t try and define any dogmas Ex Cathedra. The people will never be able to tell the difference.

    Reply
    • Of course it matters. It I matters in the most important way possible. He is trashing the Faith and leading souls astray.

      Reply
  8. Thanks for this perspective Steve….though I tend to side with Ann, as her writings are exactly what opened my eyes to the Truth of Catholicism and then that led me to people such as yourself and Michael Matt… I value and weigh all opinions, including those in the combox. Something this newby needs as I lack Catholic history. I do though want to comment on the validity of the prophesies, and this is so captain obvious, I know….but wouldn’t the Church not want to declare these prophesies as true? Thanks.

    Reply
    • wouldn’t the Church not want to declare these prophesies as true?

      That’s an argument that is sometimes made. That said, the Franciscans themselves abandoned the apocryphal prophecy of St. Francis long before the Church began to resemble it in the 21st century.

      Melanie’s later secret has been held suspect for a long time as her own invention, largely because it took place so long after the original apparitions. In fact it is quite likely that Rome will become a seat of the Antichrist, as Cardinal Newman’s own treatises (IIRC) on the Antichrist explain. But nonetheless, her statement on that comes from questionable material.

      And I think I’ve already tipped my hand in the articles we’ve published about the Third Secret of Fatima. I do believe there’s more, and Cardinal Ottaviani’s paraphrase, if actually his, rings true…but we don’t know that it’s true.

      We don’t want to predicate arguments upon questionable sources if at all possible, especially not arguments of this much importance. Even if the sources may be right in fact, if they are not credible, then it’s just broken clock syndrome.

      You see, in all of this, my point is that we can’t have the kind of certitude about the situation that permits us to proclaim it as undeniable, which is what, if I’m not mistaken, Ann is doing here. That’s for the Church to decide, not us, and it’s a distraction, I think, from the real problem. And if the Church hasn’t favored certain prophecies with its own imprimatur, then we wait for exactly that to happen before we can have confidence there, either.

      Remember, if Francis is not an antipope, he’s actually far more dangerous. I happen to believe that this is the case. I’m not arguing that it’s not as bad as Ann thinks. I’m only arguing that it’s different.

      Reply
      • Thanks for responding so quickly Steve. You’ve stated your case well and it gives me much to think about. I pray though that there will be no division between the good Catholics I find here and elsewhere….that would cause me much pain and sorrow.

        Reply
      • It seems to me that the part of the LaSalette prophesy that says “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the antichrist” doesn’t mean that the Pope will be the antichrist but that there will be mass apostasy in Rome including much of the hierarchy (maybe even but hopefully not the Pope himself) and that the antichrist (or type thereof) will set up in the city of Rome. I don’t see how the prophesy references an antipope other than the likely-hood of the antichrist having a sort of antipope high priest while the real Pope is in hiding somewhere. Regarding the LaSalette prophesy though, I always thought it was going to play out before the actual end times and that the antichrist mentioned in it was only a type of the main one at the end of the world – that’s just the opinion I formed of it by trying to read it in conjunction with what the Scriptures and Saints have said of the end times.

        Reply
        • Most men think “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist” must refer to the Holy See.

          But that is insanely evil and it is impossible Mary ever said any such thing for then we would be presented with the absurd situation that the Mother of God appeared to tell the chidden that the promises of her son failed miserably.

          Vatican 1 infallibly taught that the Holy See would forever remain faithful and that ,of course, is exactly what Jesus promised.

          Those believing Melanie must also believe Jesus lied and was THE worst liar in history for His lies resulted in hundreds of millions of souls being cast into Hell for following His Church which He let Satan take control of.

          And many believe Melanie because her lies were quoted as accurate prophecy by Mons Lefevbre during the sermon of the mass of consecration for Bishops.

          Yes, he promoted that vile insane lie as part of his attempt to justify what he was doing

          O, and he also referenced another prophecy by Mary that said one Bishop had been chosen to save the faith but, said he coyly, he would not say that prophecy identified him as that Bishop.

          Lord have Mercy; wadda crock of **** by that crackpot but it is largely due to him that the condemned message of Melanie enjoys such spiritual currency to this day; but it is a malign spirit passing off a counterfeit message as some sort of coin of purchase in the economy of Divine Love.

          Reply
      • Because people behave as if Francis is pope, the idea that he is worse if a real pope doesn’t really matter in the end. He is fully dangerous no matter the situation.

        Reply
        • And therein lies the biggest problem. Think “the church” would approve any prophecies that point to the rot at the top?

          Reply
      • So Melanie’s can be doubted after being written down years after but Sister Lucy’s are not? Come on. The truth surely is that once you have an encounter with Mary, a saint or an angel you never forget.

        Reply
        • My understanding is that there have always been concerns that Melanie fabricated this last message later on, whether as a cry for attention (she was living a cloistered life, and perhaps missed the buzz of being a seer) or for some other reason. The earlier visions of La Salette are not in dispute.

          And of course, it’s possible that this message is real. But without being able to verify its authenticity, it strikes me as a tenuous data point in arguing a case for moral certitude on an issue of this importance. I myself have cited this same message in the past, though with the caveat that we don’t know if it is authentically from the Blessed Virgin.

          I’m not seeing the comparison with Sister Lucia, since to the best of my knowledge, none of her statements about what she was told have ever been called into question.

          Reply
          • From my understanding Melanie was so vilified and hounded by the French clergy that she may well have suffered a persecution complex, but I read I think on the Abbe de Nantes site that Melanie was in a room with a priest when she wrote her vision down and asked him how do you spell “antichrist”. This much we should know that it appears in the message. I think that there was a similar situation with Maximin. It is a Church approved vision.
            Re Lucia, didn’t Cardinal Ratzinger call into question her veracity as a witness in the shameful debunking of 2001?

          • Vatican 1

            [Holy See]

            The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,

            sometimes by

            summoning ecumenical councils or

            consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by

            special synods, sometimes by

            taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence,

            defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with

            sacred scripture and

            the apostolic traditions.

            For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter

            not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,

            but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

            Indeed, their apostolic teaching was

            embraced by all the venerable fathers and

            reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,

            for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren 60] .

            It was Mons Lefebvre who is responsible for popuarising this delusion of Melanie and trying to pass it off as legit.

            It show that Lefevbre had LOST the faith. He no longer believed in Infallible doctrine and the promises of Christ for if he did he would never have promoted Melanie’s delusion that Mary said Rome would lose the faith.

          • Does the Church recognise the vision of La Salette as authentic? How dare you, a mere layman, vilify the good name of archbishop Lefebvre. By the fruits of his good society you can see that it compares to the unsullied fruits of the post Vatican 2 new church. I don’t care who the frig you are, but my sensus catholicus is with the good archbishop. If you can’t see that Rome has lost the faith and that we are in the great apostasy as prophesied by St. Paul, then you need to go back to your meds.

          • Dear Paul Dale. Then you deny infallible doctrine that the Holy See will never lose the faith and we know that is infallible truth because that is what Jesus promised and what he promised was infallibly reiterated by Vatican 1.

            Following Lefebvre has led you into dying Catholic Tradition and Infallible Dogma; so, you got that going for ya, which is nice

          • And the corollary is that following the conciliar church into the sunlit uplands of apostasy has led you into delusion. Donchaknow!

          • Dear Paul Dale. That response ricocheted off that Hard Infallible Dogma at such an oblique angle and with such force that it spiraled out of control and ended-up in the fever swamps of schism where its meaning rapidly sank beneath the surface.

            IANS will simply ask you whether of not you accept the infallible dogma that The Holy See can never lose the Faith?

          • But IANS hasn’t answered my question: is Salette an authentic Catholic vision of Our Lady?
            We are told that the gates of hell shall never prevail. But at the fateful hour of the cross Peter ran away, In this age of apostasy, Peter denies Christ; we are told that at the time of Antichrists age on earth – 3 1/2 years – Satan will believe that he has conquered God. It will only be by the grace of God that Peter will prevail.
            Now stop bashing the good archbishop. There is truly no bishop to compare with him in over 50 years.

            BTW I do not frequent Society chapels, except when in France, but diocesan churches with the TLM

          • Dear Paul Dale. So you have followed Lefebvre down the road to denying Infallible doctrine.

            Good luck with that…

            Adios

          • The fathers of V1 knew the See of Rome would keep the Faith even as this promise does not pertain to governance, the moral life of a pope, and his opinions about anything including the Faith. It pertains to promulgations of Faith and morals under specific conditions.

          • Dear Mr. Ortiz. Yes, but the majority of soi disant traditionalists do not accept that Infallible Dogma for the majority of them have followed Mons Lefebvre in his heresy which he tried to justify by citing the condemned hysterics of Melanie.

            So it is good to revisit these truths from them to time.

          • The Sermon of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

            On the Occasion of the Episcopal Consecration….

            excuse myself for continuing this account of the apparition but she speaks of a prelate who will absolutely oppose this wave of apostasy and impiety – saving the priesthood by forming good priests. I do not say that prophecy refers to me. You may draw your own conclusions. I was stupefied when reading these lines but I cannot deny them, since they are recorded and deposited in the archives of this apparition.

            Of course, you well know the apparitions of Our Lady at La Salette, where she says that Rome will lose the Faith, that there will be an “eclipse” at Rome; an eclipse, see what Our Lady means by this…”

            Simply disgusting. He had to have known Melanie’s message was condemned but he referenced it to justify his perfidy.

            He had lost the Faith and he was starting his own petite ecclesia

          • Dear Paul Dale. Lefebvre said this:

            The See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by Antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below.

            and you are his faithful acolyte and so you would not accept any condemnation of Melanie’s message unless it came from Lefebvre his own self.

            So, whats’ the point?

            ….After years of moving from convent to convent, and never progressing beyond the novitiate, Melanie stayed in Castellamare from 1867 onward. When new religious orders were being formed at La Salette in 1878, Melanie claimed she was authorized to provide their rules and habits. This request was denied by the bishop and by the Pope himself in an interview with Melanie.

            It is in reaction to this thorough rejection by the Church hierarchy that Melanie wrote her new tract, full of bitter invective against a supposedly faithless clergy. Not contrary to faith and morals in the narrow sense, it received an imprimatur, but in 1880 the Holy Office forbade her to write further tracts. Few copies of the 1879 tract were circulated, and it was published again more widely in 1904. A third printing in 1922, with a new imprimatur, finally resulted in Rome’s placing of the tract on the Index of Prohibited Books in 1923. The decree of the Holy Office reads:

            DAMNATUR OPUSCULUM: “L’APPARITION DE LA TRÉS SAINTE VIERGE DE LA SALETTE”

            DECRETUM

            Feria IV, die 9 maii 1923

            In generali consessu Supremae Sacrae Congregationis S. Officii Emi ac Rmi Domini Cardinales fidei et moribus tutandis praepositi proscripserunt atque damnaverunt opusculum: L’apparition de la trés Sainte Vierge sur la montague de la Salette le samedi septembre 1846.—Simple réimpression du texte intégral publié par Mélanie, etc. Societé Saint-Augustin, Paris-Rome-Bruges, 1922;

            [Acta Apostolicae Sedis (1923) {PDF}, pp. 287-288. See also related decrees of the Holy Office.]

  9. There have been 30 plus anti-popes recognized as such by the church. In the last three years there are multiple examples of Jorge Bergoglio attempting to diminish or undermine the miracles and divinity of Jesus, the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mortal sin of sex outside sacramental marriage and the unworthy reception of the eucharist. We are way past the wake up call on Jorge Bergoglio as “Pope Francis”. it seems that there are many who prefer to continue sleeping rather than see and understand the harsh reality we are living in. Be wary lest your lamps run dry before the bride groom appears. Call Jorge Bergoglio what you will. He what he is and does what he does. We should remember the words of Jesus.

    Matthew 7:15-20 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

    Reply
  10. The issue with Bergoglio is not whether or not Catholic prophecy describes him. The issue is what he is doing. By the fruit the tree is known. He is only producing evil fruit: confusion, distortion of doctrine, and outright heresy. He is leading the Catholic faithful away from the true Faith. There have been other ‘bad popes’ but none so arrogant and far-reaching as this man. No genuine pope would do what he is doing. Should we wait until all doctrine is trashed before we admit what we are in and who is leading the way? Now the heretics are planning to write a new catechism, right? These debates are useless and prolong the agony of confusion. Will we still be debating whether or not he is an antipope when the Faith is lost? There is indeed enough evidence to know he is not a true pope. No pope ever has done what he has done and continues to do.

    Reply
    • He plays to both sides, the Trad’s and the Modernists. What did Christ firmly say? You either are for me or against me. This pope straddles both sides of the fence

      Reply
      • Yes, this is not of God. What makes him different than all other bad popes is his focused strategy of destruction. How easy it is to see.

        Reply
  11. Something you wont see:

    FROM THE HOLY SEE PRESS OFFICE FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION:

    Several articles have appeared recently, including declarations attributed to Abp. Georg Gänswein according to which Pope Benedict XVI, after the announcement of his intended resignation from the Papal Office (which took place on February 2013), had confided to him that the Papacy was changed into an “expanded” Petrine Office with two members.

    In this regard, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI declares “never to have spoken with Abp. Georg Gänswein about an “””expanded””” Petrine Office, clearly affirming that the remarks attributed to Abp. Georg Gänswein on the matter “are pure inventions, absolutely untrue”, and he confirms decisively that “the intentions of his resignation are completely stated”.

    Reply
  12. I would like to point out that heresy itself is no indication of whether Francis is an antipope or not. Valid Popes can be heretical, as the history of the Church shows. Pope Honorius was a valid Pope, not an antipope, yet he was condemned as a heretic. So all the heretical statements of Francis has no bearing on him being an antipope. It all comes down to whether Pope Benedict’s resignation was valid and the succeeding election of Francis valid.

    Reply
    • PF is the worst one in the history of Catholic Church. Luther and past heretical popes are nothing comparing to him. Lord, give us a new holy pope.

      Reply
        • Your comments here seem a bit of the sort that evoke a scholar thanking God that he’s not a dirty tax-collector.

          Forgive me if I misinterpret your tone through text.

          Reply
          • more of the tone of challenging rhetoric that x is the worst in it is unlikely the fellow could actually put forward the needed evidence for such sensationalism.

  13. No quantum of “proof” from any commentator can establish that a Pope is an antipope. Amateur declarations that the Holy See is vacant add nothing to our ability to deal with this situation, as no one is bound by them.

    Nor does a declaration by a commentator that Benedict is really the Pope have any more weight than the declaration that Francis is not.

    To declare that Francis is not the Pope but that Benedict is the Pope involves the defense of two positions of no practical use to us whatsoever. They do make for good click bait, however.

    Reply
      • Siscoe’s article was mere speculation. There was no declaration that Francis is an anti-pope. Ganswein himself has indulged in such speculations, which are the very thing that prompted Siscoe’s article.

        I have no idea about whether Barnhardt will keep writing for The Remnant. That’s between her and the editor.

        Reply
        • As I explained earlier in the thread. I am Catholic, and not just Catholic but a Traditional Catholic because Ann’s writings were brutally honest and straight forward. It all rang true to me…so I know I have a soft spot for her, but knowing her only through her writings and videos (see her 3 part Boston Speech, if you haven’t), I know that accusing her of writing for “click bait” is false and deserving of an apology. It will be very sad for me personally if the Catholics here, at Remnant and any other Traditional sites start attacking each other…especially attacking what you cannot know is or is not in the other’s heart. If you want to attack what she said about PF being the antipope…fine. If you don’t like her style…fine. But you sir owe an apology. Click bait….smh.

          Reply
          • Yep. She’s a true capitalist where morality and character are presumed. She wouldn’t sell us (her readership) out. She could have done so many, many times for a heck of a lot more than she’d get for a few clicks.

            It’s preposterous to suggest any motive other than fearlessly sharing her (generally miles ahead) interpretation of the truth.

          • Here I disagree. I don’t think it is “fearless” to declare that the Pope is not the Pope. Nor do I say that she published this just to get clicks.

            Her motive is not the issue here. The issue is the pointlessness of the whole exercise. One cannot be “miles ahead” on declaring the papal seat vacant. That would be like saying that a crime reporter was “miles ahead” in declaring a criminal defendant guilty before the trial. The “miles ahead” reporter adds nothing to the process of conviction but his own opinion, which is irrelevant to the outcome and rashly prejudges it without any competence to do so.

          • 1. Fair enough? That’s the apology? Fr. Longenecker did better than that.
            2. Her motive is not the issue here. You sir, made it an issue by implying her motive might be “click bait”. And then continue the insult with “Nor do I say that she published this just to get clicks”.
            3. Don’t think it “fearless”? Really? She put herself out there for the ridicule she knew she would receive (maybe not anticipating the ridicule would come from a fellow contributor/attorney at Remnant)…but knew in advance it would come nonetheless.
            4. She NEVER claimed the papal seat vacant. Read it again.

          • Chris, your analogy is way off. A crime reporter cannot “declare a person guilty” before a trial. A crime reporter can report facts. Society benefits by knowing of a crime in their midst. Hopefully, competent authorities will do something about it. Crime reporters inform society and help them connect to each other in matters of safety and interest. I don’t see her doing anything much different from yourself in your capacity as a writer of opinions; a crime reporter in YOUR OWN way.

            She is reporting facts. She presents opinions. She does not purport to present herself as a court of law. She informs. You do this yourself, all the time. I enjoy your opinions. I subscribe to the Remnant. I’ve considered donating extra money to the cause. Because I think your opinions are helpful. As are Anne Barnhardt’s! Why calumny Anne for likewise presenting a controversial opinion, on a topic of great interest to Catholics puzzled over the strange sequence of Papal events?

            If her opinion is pointless, then what makes your own opinion(s) any more valid? You are no more than the same “miles ahead reporter that adds nothing to the process of conviction but your own opinion that rashly prejudged the outcome”, after all.

            I truly do not get it. Her opinion was fascinating, reasoned, calm and a paradigm shift from the common narrative. I found it interesting and informative. I do not see it as a judicial conviction. I see it as an opinion; like yours. I read you both. I spend time reading you both because you both inform me to make better judgements. Disagreement with her is one thing. Disrespect is another. I really don’t understand the lack of respect for Miss Barnhardt on this matter. It really bothers me.

          • She is not “reporting facts,” she has declared him an antipope, and is now calling him “antipope Francis” on her blog.

            No one said she purports to be a court of law. That is precisely the point. She is not a court of law.

            I have a lot of respect for her obvious talent. I think she is wasting her talent on a rhetorical excess—I hereby conclude Francis is an antipope and will call him such from now on—that pretty much reduces her commentary to a novelty act.

          • Well, I don’t see the difference between Anne drawing the conclusion of Antipope from her set of facts, and you or other writers of note who draw similar conclusions, such as “heretic”, from their sets of facts.

            If you note a heresy, (and you and others have noted plenty) you call it a heresy. You do not wait for the juridical outcome before your personal pronouncement; based on the facts as you report them.

            I suppose the difference is that you do not pronounce Pope Francis a formal “Heretic”. Only that his judgement(s) is or are heretical. But that is a difference in degree, not kind. If you think that admitting open homosexuals and adulterers to Holy Eucharist is heretical, then I think you can (and must) state that openly. Calling Pope Francis a “formal” Heretic over the topic is perhaps formally inaccurate, but not entirely uncalled for. I place Anne’s timely topic in that category. And I think it is too bad her point was obliterated by focusing on her choice to apply “antipope”, not entirely accurate perhaps, but in keeping with her personality and style, and the conclusions of her facts.

          • I agree with this. Ann writes things that certainly come across as sensationalist, but I’ve had personal conversations with her and we have mutual friends who know her in person. This is who she is. I don’t believe she ever publishes something she doesn’t truly believe in. I don’t think it’s fair to call this clickbait, though of course no web-savvy person could doubt that it would get attention. That’s not a reason NOT to publish something you believe is important, though.

          • Fair enough. Although I didn’t mean to say that she published it just for the sake of publishing clickbait. Of course she believes what she wrote.

    • Granted. But I see no harm in airing the subject in any case. People are looking for answers, as I was back in 1986 when my vocation was wrecked in the seminary along with six others.

      I’ll be quite clear about it – we were attacked because of our faith. In the seminary of all places. We were told that everything that we had been taught in the Catholic schools we had attended was somehow suddenly wrong. That the bible was a collection of myths. That Christ rose “only in the minds of the apostles’. That you could receive the Eucharist ‘just as fully as looking at a beautiful sunset’.

      You can’t even begin to imagine the suffering we went through. Two of my fellows left the Church and never returned. It’s only now, 30 years later, that some of the error we were subjected to is now bubbling to the surface – through the Pope of all people.

      As for dealing with the situation – I’d encourage members of The Faithful to continue to speak out about their concerns without fear nor favor – and to pray about the issue and to do penance as our Mother Mary has asked us to do. Personally I don’t believe Christ is asleep in the boat – He’s wide awake and will act sooner than we may believe.

      Reply
      • Can’t argue with any of this. In fact, I think the subject should be aired, if only to prompt the cardinals to consider whether they can take any action. My only objection is to any of us making final forensic determinations based on “overwhelming evidence” and then announcing our verdict as a tribunal of one. It’s a rather silly exercise.

        Perhaps a better approach is to amass the evidence and send it to every cardinal, demanding they convene and issue the kind of judgment Bellarmine contemplated in this situation: not that the Pope is deposed, but that he has deposed himself. Such a hypothetical conclave would offer the Pope an opportunity to explain himself.

        Reply
        • I hear you. My main concern at present, is that the bullying we were subjected to 30 years ago now appears to be aimed at all the members of The Faithful.

          Many feel helpless, in that the attacks on their Faith come directly from the Pope. They are confused and they are hurt – and in some cases now feel betrayed – as we felt we had been.

          Reply
        • Here is a news flash: The Cardinals are not going to take any action. You can send them anything you want to send them. They are not going to act. If they were, they would have already done it. Thye are afraid and they have too much to lose. Bergoglio knows they are already compromised. How he must laugh at them.

          Reply
      • Makes two priesthood vocations wrecked (among the tens of thousands). Your experience in the major seminary sounds much like mine. Too bad for the Church. However, God did lead me to a wonderful Catholic wife! And I am happily married. Hang in there.

        Reply
    • It is spiritually useful to stand for the fullness of the Faith which is not being preached at all by Bergoglio. Keep waiting for some magical person or prelate or sign from Heaven to tell you what is obvious. It is not coming. This is not going to be rectified by the institutional structure of the Catholic Church, nor by canonical strictures that give you comfort. The institutional structure has been corrupted. Those who should speak are not able to do it . They are not up for the martyrdom that it will entail. One must hold to the fullness of the Faith, and it is no longer in Rome. You wait in vain for enough ‘evidence’ to do what each individual is going to have to choose to do or not choose to do. We have had enough time and encounters to see that the Magisterium will not act, will not speak strongly, will not confront Bergoglio. We have not had this extreme situation in the Church–ever. Yes, we have had bad popes, popes who stubbornly held to a particular error, those who lived dissolute lives. But we have never had what Bergoglio is doing. He is systematically undermining, trashing, and distorting our Catholic Faith. He is moving forward each day with fresh errors, and he is emboldened because the Magisterium does not confront him with full force as they should. They are not going to to do it. What is clear is that the love of the fullness of the Faith is not the number one priority of many in the Church, both prelates and all those who are still in deep denial about the gravity of the situation. Your error is to place canonical legalities before the reality of what is being done by Bergoglio and his allies. Believe me, it is very useful to face facts as they really are.

      Reply
      • Let’s posit that JB does a weekly live-telecast black mass at St Peter’s and no bishop says anything. We can see it happen. What are we supposed to do?

        Reply
        • You are supposed to hold to the fullness of the Faith and realize it no longer is held in Rome. The true Church will be underground where the true Mass will be said. Bergoglio is going to tamper with it and invalidate it you can be sure. The institutional Church is now in overt apostasy and this is hard for people to admit, but not admitting it causes more harm to souls and offense to God.

          Reply
  14. Steve,
    Thanks for debunking the “prophecies.” Even if they were to be true, who says how they apply or just what situation they describe?
    As regards Pope Francis, it may be too early to say that he is an antipope, but every time he opens his mouth, I start to suspect that he is. Still, I think he is auditioning for the job of the Prophet of the Antichrist, and so far central casting is very impressed with his performance. He certainly is the strangest and most worthless pope one can imagine, because the faithful have to sift through everything he says, looking for the Faith, separating the little wheat from the overwhelming chaff. If the Church learns nothing else from this papacy, she will learn just how little of any pope’s comments are worthy of a submission of mind and heart.
    And I had better stop now before I talk myself into becoming a sedevacantist.

    Reply
  15. Thank you Steve. For adult faithful, these discussions can be interesting and informative.

    My question is, in the current confusion we find ourselves in how do we respectfully guide our children to respect and love the Petrine ministry while teaching them, as in today’s Gospel reading, to be aware of wolves in sheep’s clothing? Particularly those children of ours in the 6-10 years age group.

    Our Lady doesn’t seem to shy from telling young humble souls the Truth that will set us free.

    Is it courage I lack or a yearning for a nostalgic ‘life is beautiful’ faith I can pass on?

    Thanks for any feedback from anyone.

    Reply
  16. The St. Malachy prophecy would also indicate anti-pope since the popes for centuries have been named. Benedict is the glory of the olives – the name being related to St. Benedict. The next pope would be Peter the Roman, who feeds the flock in tribulation. Francis is definitely not feeding the flock and we faithful Catholics certainly have spiritual tribulation with Francis. The physical side cannot be too far behind now that sodomy is the law of the land in almost every “Christian” country on earth. Fire from the sky, just like what happened in the Fatima miracle, for which the 100th anniversary is only 16 months away.

    There is a Emmerich prophecy that I read before talking about how much evil would occur of the weak pope leaves Rome. I will have to find that again to get the exact wording versus my remembered paraphrasing (that’s right, I didn’t take written notes). We can say that Benedict has left Rome in an official capacity, where physical residence doesn’t matter.

    That God would allow such a prelate is another major sign. You cannot get any worse than a bad gay in the Throne of Peter. With all the apostasy today, we deserve him.

    The wording of the 3rd secret of Fatima hints that Benedict is the “bishop in white – we thought he was the Holy Father” who will be really killed. That wording always seemed strange to me, but with Francis it lines up in my opinion.

    Never in the history of the Church has there been a “Pope Emeritus.” That’s quite an innovation. Going against Tradition is a major factor. Throwing out Tradition is something the modern Church is quite good at, so almost no one even notices (altar girls, Holy Communion in the hand, etc).

    What about Bible prophecy? Rev 13:11 “And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns, like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon.” The two horns indicate leadership. The lamb should be obvious – who speaks for Christ? His Vicar. Recall even Moses had two horns of light (see the interesting Michelangelo statue). Notice the bishop’s mitre has two horns.
    I am not so quick to dismiss prophecy such as La Salette. That was the first revelation to have an official secret, so horrible that most people don’t want to hear it. There were several versions of each secret in successively more detail over the years from both Melanie and Maximin. There is a French book which explains the details, with one contributor being Fr. Rene Laurentin who is a Marian apparition expert, and it has an imprimatur. The secrets were all obtained from opened Vatican archives.

    The weight of all the evidence put together aims at anti-pope, especially with the cardinal mafia Gallen group.

    So what do we do? We are to be obedient to the true teachings of the Church regardless of what anyone says, bishop, cardinal or pope. I have much experience living in a heretical bishop diocese for a large number of years in the past and so “consider the source” when it comes to faith matters. In short, check *everything* coming from the mouth of a priest or prelate. There is a very good side effect of that – you really have to learn your faith. And we continue to pray for all these Judas priests who are on the “Highway to Hell”, just like the song says.
    So let me ask all here: if Francis declares a “more obvious heresy” like ordaining women deacons, or a merging with the Lutheran ecclesial community (not a real Church), would you accept that because the promulgator wears a white zucchetto? Remember also that Cardinal Muller said that divorcing pastoral practice from doctrine is also a heresy.

    Reply
    • I took the “bishop in white” as to be Jorge Bergolio because she (Lucia) said, “we had the IMPRESSION it was the holy father”. Jorge refers to himself as “BISHOP of Rome” and he gives us the IMPRESSION of being the holy father (impression, but not really?)

      Reply
      • Actually the 3rd secret of Fatima has elements of St. John Bosco’s prophecy, where ships and books and all kinds of weapons are used against the ship of the Church. Applying that same style to Fatima would point to Benedict because he is faithful while Francis is not. The world loves Bergoglio but hated Benedict, as the Gospel says. Hence it would be Benedict who will be martyred.

        Reply
  17. If we love our Church, truly love Her, then we must deal with the present moment at hand.
    We have one pope; his name is Pope Francis. I do not know why Pope Benedict XVl left, who does. He stated it was for health reasons, and I believe I read, that he stated God wanted him to resign. Or was he simply weak, tired, under pressure? I will choose to believe the words of Pope Benedict XVl. Call me naive. But, as a Catholic it is my duty to do so. The imagination can be the work of the devil, as well.

    The question we must ask ourselves at this moment is this; can we keep the faith, in spite of the musings of Pope Francis? Can we keep our anger in check so as not to disrupt the souls of faithful Catholics who are weak, anxious, while still speaking out to statements which cause scandal and heresy?

    Unfortunately, the battle we are in, is one of such a spiritual nature, than our limited reasoning skills will not give us answers to many questions that seem to crowd the mind these days, and understandably so. Prophecies, Fatima, the Consecration to Russia may all be valid means to help gain some sense of understanding in the realm of all this chaos.
    The only problem with that: it takes our eye off the battle. We become anxious, weak, and have greater difficulty in simply ” keeping the faith.”

    Time to get off the roller coaster and get steady through this muck. Our Lord is depending upon us to guide this ship through the storm and to do so, we must keep our eyes focused on the ahead, on the present moment and TRUST our captain – God the Father,God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

    Reply
    • But Benedict SAYS that he’s pope. Emeritus pope is still pope, a kind of pope is a pope.

      And what of the message he got to resign? I remember that as “clearly” stated by him. If he thought it wasn’t from a demon but it was, then his intent is indeed mistaken. Irrelevant because we can’t judge, but it’s not unambiguous.

      Just because I can’t solve my equations relating gravity and strong force does not mean that they are wrong or that they cannot be solved. Just that I can’t do it – now. Physics is harsh about certainty too. But while I can’t use them, I don’t forget them or burn my notes. In fact, they underpin much of my thinking. I just can’t rely on them in a certain way.

      Reply
      • I have been grateful as I appreciate so much of Pope Benedict XVl’s writings, his initial attempt to bring back the beautiful TLM. Quite honestly, I believe that is one of his greatest gifts to the Church.
        But, he may be prone to error as good men are. i would respectfully disagree with him on that specific score. Our Lord gave Peter the keys, not Peter and John.

        Reply
  18. Steve, I think the article’s title says it all. We, the laity. can no more declare an antipope than a vacant see. I believe that at some point in the future the Church will make this declaration; but I don’t count on living long enough to see it. Meanwhile, I try to maintain this hope with some degree of serenity, and take the long view. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who lived and died during the Great Western Schism without knowing its resolution. Whatever our historical circumstances, we have to maintain the Faith. (I also recognize that I say this not having children to raise, and not having any suggestions for those who do.)

    Reply
        • I am not talking about your interior decision to believe. I am talking about the treasury of grace of the Church will be trashed. Bergoglio has trashed Matrimony; he has trashed Confession, and I am waiting for him to start on the Holy Eucharist and the Mass. It is coming soon. Please don’t tell me that will never happen. If you wait for the Magisterium to face the reality that Bergoglio is an antipope, you will find that the whole doctrine of Catholicism will have already been trashed. I can know when a pope is no longer a pope. It is my responsibillity and my duty to see what is happening right before my eyes. This refusal to see what is right before your eyes and this constant belaboring and debating everything that comes out of that satanic tool’s mouth is only causing the fullness of our Faith to be more and more harmed and more and more hollowed out. Incidentally. I am am not ‘having difficulties’. I am at perfect peace about this and am so glad that Ann B said it all out loud. You just keep debating and writing articles about how shocking it all is that Bergoglio said this and Bergoglio said that, and see how it helps the Church and souls. This refusal to admit what is being proven every day is playing right into the hands of evil. The demons love your mistaken loyalty. Our obedience is to the fullness of the Faith.

          Reply
          • I will be ready to follow the fullness of the Faith, underground if need be. By staying quiet or ‘polite’ while the substance of the Faith is trashed, demeaned and contradicted is to fail Christ Who gave us the Church from His pierced side. Those is authority–read Meuller–who should be speaking up are not, or are doing so very timidly so that there words have no effect. They are not going to stand for Christ, so don’t wait for it..

          • I think for me declaring PF as anti-pope is somewhat crucial. I have very nominal “Catholics” in my family, liberal agnostics in my family (who love PF), and many, many Protestant friends and family. As a divorced and “remarried” Catholic (now separated for obvious reasons), it is important to me that those I love most don’t follow this false teacher into hell. It’s hard enough to point Protesters to The Truth and damn near impossible to convince my nominal and liberal Catholic family members. Yeah, you must be Catholic, but not like the pope Catholic.

          • If you wait for the Magisterium to face the reality that Bergoglio is an antipope, you will find that the whole doctrine of Catholicism will have already been trashed.

            If I don’t wait for the Magisterium, I have nominated myself to replace them. We have a word for that: Protestant.

            This refusal to see what is right before your eyes and this constant belaboring and debating everything that comes out of that satanic tool’s mouth is only causing the fullness of our Faith to be more and more harmed and more and more hollowed out.

            I don’t refuse to see anything. In fact, it’s pretty damned ironic that you think that, considering how much work I’ve done in the last two years to wake people up.

            But for the umpteen-millionth time: this is quite literally one of the few times where “Who am I to judge?” is a legitimate question. The answer is: I am nobody to judge. I have no legislative or ecclesiastical authority. I can point out the things that are wrong, but I cannot, by any power invested in me, make them right.

            Incidentally. I am am not ‘having difficulties’. I am at perfect peace about this and am so glad that Ann B said it all out loud. You just keep debating and writing articles about how shocking it all is that Bergoglio said this and Bergoglio said that, and see how it helps the Church and souls. This refusal to admit what is being proven every day is playing right into the hands of evil.

            Your behavior suggests otherwise. You show up here with alarming frequency for someone who thinks we’re just playing into the hands of the devil. I think you are having difficulties. If you were confident in your conclusions, there’d be nothing else to see, or to talk about.

            You perhaps forget that there are many people who still struggle with the idea that Francis says this or Francis says that. They deny, obfuscate, blame mistranslations and second-hand information, etc. They publish lists of things to know and share that attempt to tell us our eyes and ears are lying.

            I know who this man is, and what he is doing. We are documenting his program as it unfolds, and thereby exposing it for what it is. Do you really think I’m just sitting here, wide-eyed and scandalized? (It IS scandalous, but I’m not naive.) I’ve been warning people about him since only a few months into his pontificate. Long before the evidence was so clearly on display.

            Nevertheless, my loyalty is to the office of Peter, which the Church tells us this man holds. If he ever found it within himself to actually exercise his authority in a way that was binding, I would be obedient to it, as a faithful son.

            I know I’ve said this before, but your father doesn’t stop being your father because he’s an abusive, drunk, womanizing jerk. He still has a God-given authority, he is still covered, if more obliquely, by the 4th commandment.

            So it is with Francis. And like any child of an abusive father, I’ll resist his evil actions while recognizing and respecting who he is, even if I don’t want him to be.

          • I am not nominating myself to place of the Magisterium or anyone else. I am speaking for myself. Evidently you think that the day will come when the ‘proper legislative and ecclesiastical authority’ will speak, and then we will know for sure that Bergoglio is an antipope.. You are waiting for that because you think that is going to happen. Am I right? Know this: They will not declare him antipope because they have not. They are compromising with apostasy instead of taking this devil in Rome by the throat as they should. Meanwhile the faithful is misled and the Church treasury of grace is destroyed.
            Your expectation of the proper legislative and ecclesiatical authorities’ is naïve and on a par with Christopher Ferrara suggesting that we write to all the Cardinals about our concerns. Does he think that they will act? They will not. There surely is ample proof of that.
            You have an article on this blog saying Francis thinks AL is ‘sound doctrine’. You have another article on this blog saying Francis ‘theologians’ want to write a new catechism in light of AL. Aside from a timid mumble from Cardinal Meuller, there will be no confrontation of these Roman devils at all. The faithful will continue to be misled. Those who should speak will not because they have already shown that they will not.
            Your ‘loyalty to the Office of Peter’ is misguided. Loyalty to the ‘Office of Peter’ does not trump obedience to the Truth. You wait in vain for the ‘proper legislative and ecclesiastical authorities’ to speak. They are not going to do so. You will be waiting while the true Church moves underground without any status from Rome. It will just be faithful Catholics adhering to the fullness of the Faith. And that is where, according to Deitrich von Hildebrand, the true Church will be: where those who believe the fullness of the Faith are.
            You mentioned that you do not believe that I am at peace because my ‘behavior says otherwise’. The LOVE of Christ compels me, Sir. As one responder to my declaration about Bergoglio states, the confusion would diminish if it were understood what he really is. Your behavior indicates you will never have a enough proof and that you are attached to your own musings and stubborn refusal to have enough proof.

          • I am not nominating myself to place of the Magisterium or anyone else. I am speaking for myself.

            This is your own inference. I didn’t accuse you of anything specifically. I said that if *I* don’t wait for the Magisterium, I’m nominating myself in its place. If from that you draw the conclusion that I am accusing you of the same…well, if the shoe fits.

            Evidently you think that the day will come when the ‘proper legislative and ecclesiastical authority’ will speak, and then we will know for sure that Bergoglio is an antipope.

            Yes. In fact I’m certain we’ll know the truth of it one way or another, just as we have in every confusing papal situation of the past.

            You are waiting for that because you think that is going to happen. Am I right? Know this: They will not declare him antipope because they have not.

            Your confidence in your own predictive abilities is dizzying. So far, I have a pretty good track record on that myself. I’ll stick with my own interpretive “hermeneutic,” thanks. And the humility to know that God works in ways we can’t anticipate.

            They are compromising with apostasy instead of taking this devil in Rome by the throat as they should. Meanwhile the faithful is misled and the Church treasury of grace is destroyed.

            I don’t mean to belittle the seriousness of what is happening, but you’re being a touch melodramatic. Yes, he seems in league with the devil. Yes, the faithful are being misled. No, the “treasury of grace” is not being destroyed. It can’t be. Those essential characteristics of the Church that it must possess in order to retain its identity cannot be drummed out of it. They can only be diminished in their potency or accessibility.

            Your expectation of the proper legislative and ecclesiatical authorities’ is naïve…

            I’m many things. Naive isn’t one of them. People don’t come here to revel in my naivete. If you think you’ve got this locked down, you should start your own publication and let all of us gullible folks have it. Since you’re the only one who sees it, you may even have a moral duty to do this!

            Your ‘loyalty to the Office of Peter’ is misguided. Loyalty to the ‘Office of Peter’ does not trump obedience to the Truth.

            I’m sorry for you if this is what you think these things are mutually exclusive. You must be very lonely amidst the towering windmills. My loyalty to the office of Peter is a necessary prerequisite to my Catholicism; it is not an unthinking loyalty, but it is a fidelity bound by the very established order of the Creator of the Universe, and it is not optional.

            I tell the truth here every day, and you come into the comment boxes wailing and gnashing your teeth because however bad anyone thinks it is, it must be worse.

            Stop wallowing in it. If you can’t handle reading about what is going on without it damaging your faith, your hope, or your charity, stop looking at the train wreck. Focus on prayer, and penance, and whatever your duties are in your state in life.

            Staring at the monster all day is something not everyone is cut out for. It makes some people lose their grip on what is Real.

          • I don not think there has ever been a comment on your site wherein you let it just be out there. You need the last word. For some reason, what I am writing is getting under your skin. Keep musing, keep wondering, keep allowing the evil to be a puzzle. Wallow in your obtuse wonderment, son. You are never going to have enough proof. If Aquinas and von Hildebrand won’t do it, no one will. Meanwhile you contribute to the confusion for many others, many of them in this discussion.

          • Again with the absurd and easily disprovable assertions. There are tens of thousands of comments on this site, and it’s patently obvious that 50% of them are not mine.

            I participate on some threads more than others, depending on the topic. Often I do this for the sake of those who read but don’t post, or because only so much error can go uncontested here.

            You, however, clearly don’t belong here. You have a problem with clear thinking, with the work we do, and with me. I’ll show you out.

          • Really disappointed you booted this guy 3221 Steve. I think you could have handled that better. Just sayin…..

      • That is a risk for the weak in faith. The great schism will occur (Akita) when some prelates get some backbone and stand up to say enough! We already saw a minor version of this at the two Synods. Then everyone will have to pick sides – follow the “church” promoting approval of sin as mercy or the real Church.

        Reply
    • However, Alexander VI never proclaimed anything contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church….he just practiced gravely sinful sexual behavior.

      Reply
    • Canon Law does NOT govern papal elections. The current document that does is the late Pope St. JPII’s Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis (left unchanged by Benedict) governs papal conclaves/elections. Google and read it. Then, draw your own conclusions.

      Reply
      • Um, I think you misunderstood my post.
        I linked to an article with the title, “Why are Some Suggesting that Francis’ Election was Invalid.”
        The article is at a blog with the name “Canon Law Made Easy”.
        The article from that blog explains that Universi Dominici Gregis governs papal conclaves.

        Reply
  19. Really the whole issue of governance in the catholic church is a bunch of nonsense. I recognize pope Francis as pope, but I wouldn’t trust him to teach the faith to anyone and actively work against the confusion he spreads. This is insanity. Similar insanity exists at the local parishes, dioceses, and so forth straight up to the Papacy. I don’t see it getting better until this accursed generation dies and the church is truly a remnant.

    Reply
  20. At least she still plans to attend mass where the Pope is mentioned in the Canon. I have a close family member who has been sedevacantist for over 30 years and has come to the point where she is now a “home aloner”. Home aloners essentially don’t believe there are any valid priests or bishops known to them, so they stay home on Sunday and say their rosary.

    Which brings up a rather ironic situation. Having missed mass and failed to perform her Easter duty they have to hope that their objective mortal sin is not culpable in their cases.

    Reply
      • I have been pondering this position, since I have recently met families who do this. It was shocking to me at first, but then it occurred to me they are behaving exactly as the Essenes did in Jesus’ time. They felt the Temple was so corrupted that they could no longer have any dealings with it which meant, among other things, that they could not have a lamb for Passover (which, of course, was a strict requirement similar to our current Easter duty). They instead opted to pray fervently that God would understand their “disobedience”. Where did Jesus choose to eat the Pasch? With the Essenes.

        Reply
        • I’ve wondered about this too. The Essenes. As I just learned about them and wondered what it could mean for our times.

          Reply
  21. The simple and nearest rule of faith according to Catholic tradition has always been the ordinary magisterium of the Church. What the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach us can be trusted and if we follow their teachings sincerely we will be saved in the end and inherit eternal life.

    Well, this very basic rule of Catholic life no longer holds, is simply no longer true. And it has not been true for a long time, for about half a century. For about fifty years Catholics haven’t received the basic religious teachings of their Church from their supposed shepherds, the Pope and the bishops. Elementary and all-important concepts like “state of grace”, “mortal sin”, “venial sin”, have not been taught anymore at all and gone out of the window. The same holds for elementary and all-important practices like daily prayers, regular confession of sins and the necessity of sincere repentance, preparation for Holy Communion, &c, &c.

    So how can Catholics still claim that by following the daily magisterium of the Church they’ll go to Heaven? The very contrary is the case. The ordinary magisterium teaches and preaches things that will cause you to go to hell! Well, since the teaching that following the ordinary magisterium will bring you to Heaven is a de fide teaching of the Church, the conclusion seems inevitable that what nowadays is called the Catholic Church is in fact no longer the same entity. For if it is impossible that the Church teaches evil and that by following the Church’s daily and ordinary teachings you’ll end up in hell, the thing that nowadays is named the Catholic Church can in fact no longer be the Catholic Church. It is as simple as that.

    Reply
    • I don’t think God “put” JB in the chair. I think He “allowed” it (as you say, by $atan). And I believe that when the pope (John XXIII) refused Heaven’s request by putting away the Third Secret of Fatima, we lost some of our protection from our Father. As I tell my boys constantly — “Choices have consequences”. When children do not listen to — and worse, go against — their father, they are left to their own peril. To make their own mistakes and live the consequences thereof. We are living the consequences. This was the beginning of the train wreck of the 60’s and the free reign of evil over the earth.

      Reply
  22. I’ve also read in a few Catholic end times that we will be without a Pope for a period of time. Steve, have you read this?

    Reply
  23. Our Church is producing much bad fruit. Great quantities of bad fruit. Increasing harvests of rotten moral, theological fruit. This is clear to see. Even the secular world sees this now.

    What is the tree that is producing such a harvest? THAT is the key question. Not, ultimately, the fruit that is making us all sick. One is the cause. The other is the symptom.

    I suggest that the very strange two-headed Pope is the cause. It is the core; the bad tree. Jesus closed His earthly ministry by establishing the Rock of His Church upon Peter. Peter is the Cornerstone. Everything depends upon him. Our Fathers have altered this work of God. God is not blessing it. It does not have Life in it. It has something else. It is producing bad fruit. We judge the fruit, mainly so we can judge the tree, and remain in God’s grace and do God’s work while there is time.

    We not only CAN make this judgement about the strange thing at the center of all of this chaos; we MUST make it.

    Reply
    • Is it possible that the first wet thud of spoilage to drop and fester is in fact V2? I used to even defend it in catechesis. Now I see error and error and error.

      A full-field-goal kick jettisoning seems like it might be the first “primary debulking” called for in the upcoming therapy cocktail.

      Of course, a massive house cleaning throughout the episcopate would make sense. I wouldn’t be surprised if 95% of our shepherds were in the hireling class. Cleanse that perhaps? (Keep going until Burke is the one called “the modernist” and I think the ballance would be about right.)

      Reply
  24. Thanks for your clearly reasoned and linear reply.

    I still think that if it doesn’t matter, then it doesn’t matter. Ultimately we know that truth cannot change so there’s something a’matter with ol’ JB. And I suspect that you too incline toward his being something other than just the worst pope ever.

    If it doesn’t matter, then why does it?

    My greatest concern is that you and Ann are the brightest burning stars in the pedestrian theologian universe; it would be a horrific victory for the enemy were you two not to continue to connect.

    Reply
      • Your article is great Steve. I love Ann and I have no idea if she’s right or not. I will continue to read you both. None of us are the definitive magisterium of the Church. Eventually the Church herself will put us right, as you say. Meanwhile both you and Ann will try and keep us focused. We have to be as discerning as we can in light of the teaching of the Church throughout the the ages. May God help us all to not fall into error. We can none of us be sure we are not infected by the ‘diabolical disorientation’ Sister Lucy warned us about.

        Reply
    • Couldn’t agree with you more. I have grown to look more often at both Ann’s site and her writings since Bergolio days upon us and grateful for finding Steve, which I check regularly. Appreciate and respect both to a great degree.

      Reply
  25. You’ve just written an article I would have liked to have written myself.
    Very true. The way out of the mess is to proclaim the truth and counter the false teaching at every turn.
    God is in the boat even though captain and crew seem determine to steer the barque to hades.

    Reply
  26. Whether Pope Francis is the real Pope, the anti-Pope, or not the Pope doesn’t make much difference. Most can agree that whatever he is, he is not good for the Catholic faith.

    On Ann Barnhardt’s essay, I agree with her but also agree with Steve that it is, while well documented, still a matter of opinion. Nonetheless, we should congratulate Ann for stirring up more conversation on the Godzilla level of damage Pope Francis perpetuates nearly every day. Ann is a kind of St Catherine of Siena of our time. Let us pray for her safety, sanity and the continuation of her courage.

    Reply
    • I congratulate Ann for her courage in identifying that Bergoglio may not, in fact, be THE pope. I’d like to think that Benedict is still the pope, since this would demonstrate continuity in the Church and God’s wisdom and active will in providing it. But for me it doesn’t really matter. I have come to the conclusion that it’s clear that Bergoglio isn’t even Catholic. That’s enough for me. I would point out also that those who criticize Cardinal Burke for not being tough enough on Bergoglio should now realize the problem they have if they don’t strongly support Ann’s stand (as her own opinion but a realistic possibility). Frankly, I’m amazed at how many criticize Cardinal Burke (whom I know) and then also criticize those who exercise their own personal nuclear option on the whole issue of whether this probable heretic/apostate is still/ever was pope.

      Reply
      • Neither Jorge or Ratzinger are the pope. I’m done. I will stop supporting the Novus Ordo church, and am a full blown Sedevacantist now. This comes after a decade of waffling… just like the waffling continues in people like Ann, and Steve, and Hilary White, whose opinion is parroted by Steve in this blog. WhiteSmoke1958.

        Reply
          • Oh, for goodness sake. The Holy Ghost Himself doesn’t elect the pope. If He did, why would we need conclaves in the first place? Do you think the cardinals are somehow stripped of their free will the second they go into conclave?

            The cardinals in conclave may listen to the Holy Ghost, or they may choose to ignore Him. That’s called God’s permissive will. Back when Thomism was actually taught, this was fairly well understood.

    • “Ann is a kind of St Catherine of Sienna…” What you mean might be more nuanced than your actual words, but I’ll go with my impression anyway. Her intelligence and take no prisoners personality are very attractive. Her sincerity and zeal are a joy to me. I believe she is a gift to the Catholic blogosphere, in spite of my misgivings concernings some of her posts about the interior life.

      But with regards to the holiness of St. Catherine(a doctor of the church)Ann is not a “kind” of…. She is not holy. The holiness of Catherine, and all the saints is of a transcendent spiritual order that is only possible with an inflow of Sanctifying Graces into the soul united with suffering that transcends the lot of ordinary Catholics.

      Ann is a convert and devoutly and authentically Catholic. Will she accept Christ’s call to radical holiness? I hope so. Time will tell.

      Reply
  27. I appreciated Ann’s article very much. The prophecy stuff aside she makes sense. She, like many of us, is working through the mess Francis is making. We are all trying to wrap our heads around this unprecedented situation. That she has the courage to speak openly and present her perspective should be applauded. Of course the same goes for the writers here. Respectfully, I sensed a tiny bit of a reactionary spirit in this article. It touched a nerve, whether of concern for your readers or a desire to distance the editorial stance from Ann, or whatever. It is the first time I have felt that particular spirit of leviathan here. Both you and Ann must be doing great good. The enemy attacks.

    Reply
  28. Thank you for some good, practical reflections. I think orthodox Catholics are spending way too much time poring over prophecies, which ends in nothing but confusing and distressing ourselves even more. Bergoglio may or may not have been validly elected and I do think this will eventually be considered by someone with the authority to do so. But the problem is that in the meantime he has the title and is acknowledged as pope by the rest of the world, so his cruel, arrogant actions and words have a massive negative impact that must be combatted on a daily basis.

    That said, I think he himself is aware that he’s under scrutiny, because he goes to great lengths to avoid making any outright proclamations of heresy and merely lets them filter out through his cronies or lets them be deduced from his ambiguity. Notice how quickly they tried to alter and erase his recent words about marriage; there was some genuine fear there. So perhaps there is more resistance than we thought, even though he has tried to disempower the people whose job it is to protect orthodoxy. He’s getting bolder and cockier all the time, however, so it is possible that soon his arrogance will trip him up and he will clearly identify himself as heretical or even apostate and there will be clear cause to proceed against him. And in the meantime, we need to build up our intellectual and spiritual weaponry and not be caught off guard and miss the opportunity. As someone pointed out, even if he should be removed tomorrow, the enemies of the truth would work immediately to replace him with someone similar, and in fact they probably already have a replacement lined up. So the faithful must be prepared for the moment when he clearly reveals himself, which I do think will happen.

    Reply
    • I would have thought calling Jesus a sinner would have been the final nail in the coffin.
      Anyway, regarding his ambiguous language — I’ve always said that the #1 tool that $atan uses to deceive is LANGUAGE.

      Reply
      • If I recall correctly too, he also called the Cross a failure and our Lord weak, all the while leaving out any context of why he (Francis) would say such a thing. He did not go on to say that in His weakness, by pouring Himself out and obeying the will of God He died on the cross for our sins and transgressions. Or, that the Cross to the eyes of humanity appears to be a failure was indeed a glorious victory by defeating evil. No he just calls our Lords Passion and death as being a failure by a weak man.

        This especially for me is the confusion he spreads, his inability to speak clearly, completely, and like those particular statements makes me wonder why would he say such a thing which without explanation can be considered blasphemy.

        Reply
        • Believe me, I’m not defending him! I was just pointing out that he avoids making any firm doctrinal statements. The things he has said about Our Lord are quite bizarre, but he would probably explain them as literary license.

          Reply
          • I wasn’t criticizing you, but just pointing out another strange comment that made one wonder why he would say what he did without follow up context.

      • Oh, that’s true, and Francis has made it abundantly evident that ambiguity is his tactic – and was also the tactic of Vatican II, or at least in the bad documents. Someone further down the thread said that what Catholics really need to do is reexamine Vatican II, and I think this is true.

        Reply
  29. In my opinion, None of the Cardinal will move, they are too scared, Russia is the key and might be the solution to our Problem.

    Reply
    • Well, Russia did consider itself the “Third Rome.” That is, the Orthodox thought that Rome (in its metaphorical sense) had moved to Constantinople, but with the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the title then passed to Moscow.

      Reply
  30. As much as Pope Francis gets my Tweets virtually daily of his failures in teaching, that doesn’t make him an invalid Pope. What would make him anti Pope is if Pope Francis wasn’t telling the truth about being coerced to resign.

    Reply
  31. I’m surprised the Saint Malachy supposed prophecy was not cited. It is quite odd that this prophecy was fiercely talked about at the time of his election. With lightening strikes as such happening and talk about St Malachy’s prophecy pointing to a last Pope… I am not saying our current Bishop of Rome is Peter the Roman but the words words from his own mouth could make him not the Pope. Those words seem to be inspired by something within.

    “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. ”

    Reply
    • But you do agree that Barack H. Obama is a vile and wicked man produced by a union of two vile and wicked persons no matter where he was born…right?

      Reply
      • God’s already judged his parents, but I voted against him when he ran for US senate (first election where I was old enough to vote,) because I knew his position on abortion was vile, and I never for a second believed he wasn’t in the pocket of LGBT militants.

        Reply
    • What’s wrong with the “birther train”?

      Here is a single fact. Explain it.

      The “birth certificate” bears the typefaces of half-a-dozen different typewriters. Explain to me why a clerk in a hospital would dash from typewriter to typewriter, typing various words on one sheet of paper on different machines.

      Reply
  32. Well, it is beyond both my ability and strength to determine or declare that Christ has handed over the church to an Anti-Pope so your conclusion is perfect and the only one the faithful can assume.

    Popes are mortal but the truth is not.

    Reply
  33. Just my humble opinion here:

    If you are starting to question whether the pope is the pope, it’s time to take a break from the internet, especially Catholic blogs. It is the role of the laity to keep the faith and attend to our duty of state, not sift who is or is not the pope.

    It is no comfort to suggest that Benedict is still the pope. If that’s the case, he’s like Honorius on steroids in his negligence for the care of the faithful. So by the same judgment you conclude that Francis isn’t pope, you’d conclude that Benedict isn’t pope either.

    Reply
    • The real question is WHEN exactly does a sitting pope lose the Chair of Peter? Most folks, including me, have come to the conclusion that by Francis’ very actions/written/oral statements, he has lost the papacy. However, it is not for laity to decide that. It falls to the College of Cardinals, or to the College of Bishops in Council (if the Cardinals punt), or to a future pope.

      Reply
      • The real question is WHEN exactly does a sitting pope lose the Chair of Peter? When the likes of Pelosi and Biden are excommunicated?

        Reply
  34. There are so many questions that come up regarding this, I would very much like to see someone do an in depth series.

    One of my concerns regarding B16 and F is why would B16 step aside if he was the least bit concerned about who would be next? Yes, there is a lot of speculation found in prophesy which I would think that B16 had at the very least cursory knowledge of them as well as having read the actual 3rd prophesy from Fatima. Would a pope really step aside if he thought the next pope would inflict evil not only with in the church, but on the faithful as well? If he was blackmailed into resigning, would he not have the faith to endure for the sake of preventing evil from taking the Chair of Peter? While there is a lot that is rotten in the Vatican these days, rotten to the point of actual evil, it is an evil that has been tended and fed for quite some time. So why would he abandon his post for something evil to continue and grow, bring the faithful to ruin?

    Then one must look at Francis himself, what has he been doing, saying, changing. Can we trust him in what he is doing? Is it all smoke and mirrors? He has caused much confusion as he walks the razors edge with contemporary issues and topics. Then one has to factor in that there has been colossal size scandals to deal with since being elected and when one considers the snails pace at which change happens in the church, perhaps that is to account for “drastic” changes. However, the changes that I think would require drastic and immediate change, such as the abuse crisis in all its facets, and to the lesser extent the mess that is the IOR we see more foot dragging than other issues that while important are not of the same immediacy are pushed for harder.

    There is something definitely different with Francis that on the surface seems great, but call it second catholic nature, what is beneath this surface can be drastically different. I do not like the company he keeps with celebrities, in which I find rather odd since it implies we should be listening to those people because they are celebrities who are neither Catholics and are all considered liberal progressives ( not that that is necessarily bad) who pledge to change things for the better ( which is never defined by the way). Then there is a suspicion I have in general with this neo-Social Justice movement going on in that I find it rather peculiar so many people are suddenly concerned with the plight of the world (not that they should not) or their benevolence in caring. Is it a movement of God? They do not mention God. Something just does not add up, and it really bugs me.

    Then of course I must take a step back and reflect on all this, pray to God/Jesus and wonder if the problem is not with me. But then that missing piece presents itself and I am back at square one. If the Anti-Christ has indeed claimed the papacy, one has to ask what if anything can be done. Is the the will of God in his plans for the end times before the return of our King and Savior (which cannot come soon enough for me)? Are we to storm the Vatican, do we even know what we are doing? If the AC is or will claim the papacy for himself, we as catholics should be able to tell when something so rotten invades the church, remove ourselves from its influences, partake not of it’s sinfulness, and remain faithful while in the desert. Then look up to the sky for our redemption draweth nigh!

    Reply
    • A good friend of mine submitted an expose to 1Peter5’s editor with well
      over four hundred footnotes documenting the so called conspiracy.
      Perhaps it will get published. Until then, I stand by my remarks. The
      corroborated facts that my friend collected and researched took well
      over a year to obtain.

      If published, readers will find it very difficult to refute the conclusions.

      Reply
  35. Well said Steve Skojec, the most sensible commentary I have read on-line regarding the endless speculations concerning the Pope’s standing. Thanks

    Reply
  36. Whether or not Ann is on the money with this one, I applaud her courage and devotion to the Church and for stating her views very clearly, albeit acerbically. It is clear that this present Papacy is highly questionable on so many levels.

    Reply
  37. Benedict threw in the towel. Slice it, dice it any way you like but that’s what it amounts to.

    I don’t believe it’s a great idea for Popes to quit. It’s not a position where the occupant can say….”OK, I’m done with this……see ya!” The first occupant of the Chair of Peter was crucified. Whatever Benedict was going through wasn’t as bad as that.

    The fact that Benedict’s successor is now creating scandal and chaos should therefore be no surprise to us. Even if Francis is the true Pope and validly elected, that doesn’t mean that there’s not going to be fallout from Benedict’s walk-out.

    Reply
  38. As the emeritus bishop of Rome, Benedict, stated two years ago…”Pope Francis and I have the same theology.” Let’s get real…the present pope and the pope that quit are both modernists with very unsound theology. Benedict hid it well behind all the lace and fooled traditional Catholics for years. Thank God that Francis is a more open revolutionary that is being resisted.

    Reply
  39. The only person who can declare a Pope not-a-Pope is another Pope. Hindsight. End of life. All the facts. All the lies. Practiced analysis. All of that goes into making such a decision.
    Do we have any of that? NO.
    We can pull together prophecies out the wazoo. Papal antics. All that…it still doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.

    I find that the smarter and more creative people have the durndest time staying within Church teaching because they are SO creative in their apostasy, sins, calumny. Smart people tend to think they are better at figuring out God. Well they aren’t … see: Jesuits.
    Not that dummies don’t have issues too.

    People are really good at, it seems, confusing the sheep and putting fear in their hearts.
    The favorite pastime today, is discrediting authority so that we don’t have to listen to anybody. I mean really…. its because WE know better. Right? And you can’t tell ME what to do. You can’t fool ME. see: Revolution, Rebellion, individual rights…

    Leave it to God. Pray the Rosary. Stay in the visible Church. Don’t go murdering people even if the hierarchy tells you to [i.e. obey in all but sin, even if its silly, nonsensical, could-be-done-better]. Obedience is just that…obedience, even in the worst cases. That is what makes obedience so hard. And obedience is impossible for the devil to penetrate.

    Reply
    • “The only person who can declare a Pope not-a-Pope is another Pope.”

      Not so. Read Pope St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis (left unchanged by Pope Benedict). You can find it online by Googling it.

      Reply
      • I don’t find anything in the this document that refers to deposing a Pope. Can you point me to what you refer? thx.
        The document describes elections.

        Reply
        • Among other things, the document says that if ANY conspiring prior to or during the conclave is made among the voting cardinals (even if it is found out later- which it has with Cardinal Danneels’ public admission, among other prelates), then the one elected has no rights whatsoever associated with his election, and the election is invalid.
          The bottom line is: we now know through open sources (and corroborated) that the St. Gallen Mafia conspired behind the scenes to elect Bergoglio.
          As I wrote in my previous post, it falls to the College of Cardinals to decide the question of whether or not the pope has lost the Chair of Peter. However, no cardinal to date is willing to do this. Neither is the entire College of Bishops in Council. More than likely, Francis is with us until he either dies or retires. The whole situation is a mess. It will take a future pope or a Council to make the formal pronouncements.
          Until then, stay faithful, pray, and receive the sacraments!

          Reply
          • Thanks for the reply 🙂

            This doesn’t address the present mania for laity, and even low-level clergy, that think they know how to judge the present Pope.
            The Abbe de Nantes, who lived during the reign of the worst of all, Pope Paul VI, and other Popes, stated that only a Pope can identify a fake Pope.

            We could say that Pope Paul VI was uncanonically elected when Siri was convinced to step down from his election so they could put their man in – and also making aged Cardinals irrelevant in the votes. We are in chaos. I’m not denying the crisis and the confusion – its been going on since the 60s [with roots long before].

            None of it makes sense. But we aren’t Popes, we aren’t even Cardinals. This is all BS to create chaos and distrust, make excuses for disobedience.

            I’m sorry I’m so cynical…But I watched the reign of Paul VI and all the ‘hes an imposter’, yelling about ‘blind obedience’, the screams over the New Mass and changes to EVERYTHING, Lebfebrve’s treachery, courageous, Ottaviani’s heartbreaking betrayal, De Nantes’ fascinating treatises on the hierarchy, the uprising of much better European analysis in French and Scottish journals. Today’s current generation demonstrates no clue about the context that Francis comes from. Thinking we know whether he’s Pope or not, is outrageous arrogance, and demonstrates utter lack of understanding of Apostolic Authority and our need for it.

            My basic point is: if you start on the road of judging Popes, the end result is despair and nihilism. Believe me. I have lived it and recovered. Don’t go there.

  40. Latest thing from Pope Francis. Inviting migrants on the podium with him during his public assembly then telling the western world to open their borders to everybody

    Reply
  41. The sedevantists i know are quite fun. Jesus called us to be child like, not childish. It seems Francis has been given an almost magical quality by those who want so much to believe him. He just told us that most of our marriages are null. The great non-judger is judging intent. Refreshing really. Intent is the glittering diamond at the center of this vatican 2 craze. It is a stool left by the devil himself.

    Reply
  42. Ann Barnhardt is unquestionably a seditious apostate to the Faith; consumed in a self-immolation of bigotry, hate, and self-loathing.

    Her self-styled (and contrived) term of “diabolical narcissism” applies squarely upon her shoulders.

    Reply
    • I’d cut her some slack. I think she’s only been Catholic for a few years and will need time to sort things out. Hopefully, she won’t end up like those monks in New Mexico who think we haven’t had a real pope in like 800 years.

      Reply
      • If her indictments were not of the gravity they are, I’d otherwise find amusement in the audacity of one who’s converted to the Faith, or otherwise returned to the Faith, only to protest it as not “Catholic enough” to those of us who’ve remained within the Faith.

        The vulgarity and boorish manner of Ann Barnhardt’s blogs and videos betray one who is not aligned in the Catholic Faith, let alone the teachings of Jesus Christ.

        Reply
    • Plus, Ann has an almost pathological, murderous hatred for all Muslims (she claims there is no such thing as a “moderate Muslim”). Yet she fails to see that the Jews have been the number 1 enemy of the Church and Western Civilization as a whole. Where did Marxism, Communism, feminism, cultural Marxism, etc, come from? Not Islam! Who pushed pornography, abortion, feminism, the undermining of traditional sexual values, etc? Who infiltrated the Church in the 30’s with the intent to bring it down from the inside? (Google Bella Dodd’s testimony to Congress on this topic). Hint…it wasn’t the Muslims!

      Ann also has a strange hatred for Hitler and the Nazis. Even though Hitler lowered the abortion rate in Germany by 90% within 2 years of taking power (this is still unprecedented and unmatched to this day) and cleaned out the sexual degeneracy Berlin had become famous for in the 20’s, emphasizing strong family values instead (and promoting motherhood as a sacred calling). Hitler also supported the Catholic and Lutheran churches in Germany with taxpayer money – at the same time the Communists to his east were trying to exterminate religious practice at gunpoint!

      I guess Ann never stopped to consider what Our Lady of Fatima had to say about this. In 1917, she warned (with tears in her eyes) the children about the evils of Jewish-Bolshevism, and how this error would spread and how it would persecute the Church around the world. The Nazis on the other hand, the Mother of God didn’t even bother mentioning.

      Ann has her priorities screwed up.

      Reply
      • Not just her, a lot of Catholic websites are constantly saying muslims this, islam that. People need to read the alta vendita, protocals of the elders of zion, the war of the antichrist against the Church and Christian Civilization, and Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical on Freemasonry. St. Maximilian Kolbe stated that the freemasons are controlled by the jews. The SSPX states that the main enemy of God and the Catholic Church is the devil, with talmidic judaism and freemasonry. Why are Catholics proccupied with Islam when the jews themselves state that freemasonry is theirs and that their goal is to destroy the Catholic Church?

        https://watch.pair.com/catholic-gazette-b%27nai-b%27rith.pdf

        Yet, as Our Lord said the gates of hell will not prevail. However, many traditional Catholic websites refuse to name the main human agents working for the enemy. Who do you think the promoters of the new world order are? I’ll give you a hint: Not Islam!

        Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us, defend us, guide us, protect us, and exhort us with love and courage to fight for Thee and Thy Divine Son, The Heavenly King, Jesus Christ!

        Reply
  43. Bergoglio was openly teaching heresy as a cardinal, before his election to the papacy. Namely, the heresy that today’s Jews are still the chosen people and still have a valid covenant with God. No one can deny this is a major heresy.

    Pope Paul IV put out a binding rule several centuries ago – if any Cardinal deviates from the Faith and publicly teaches heresy, and is subsequently elected pope, his election is automatically null and void. Period.

    So what is there to discuss? Bergoglio is not the pope and never has been.

    Reply
    • However, there is debate about whether or not Pope Paul IV’s apostolic constitution is infallible or not. Most of the research I have done bears this out.

      Reply
        • So the question remains: By virtue of Francis’ written and/or oral statements, is he still the Vicar of Christ- in your opinion?

          Although the laity possess the “Sensus Fidelium”, and we surely can (logically) deduce that Francis has spewed heresy, it is not for the laity to pass such judgment(s). That belongs to the College of Cardinals or to a future pope.

          I really do not know what the solution is.

          Reply
  44. “Page 117, of the pope’s book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex unions
    “If there is a union of a PRIVATE NATURE, THERE IS NEITHER A THIRD PARTY NOR IS SOCIETY AFFECTED. Now, if this union is given the category of marriage and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and female mother that can help them shape their identity. – Jorge Mario Bergoglio
    Approval of same-sex sexual unions is approval of same-sex sexual acts.
    Prior to being elected pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, by denying that God Is The Author of Love, of Life, and of Marriage, denied The Divinity of The Blessed Trinity.
    The election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not valid.

    During the time of the Council of Trent Pope Paul IV issued his Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolic Officio of February 15, 1559:

    “…6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

    (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
    (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

    (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

    (iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

    (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

    (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”

    Reply
  45. Are they all manifestly heretical, though? Are they obdurately and formally so?

    Jorge Bergoglio publishes AL in which he teaches that fornication is accompanied by grace and later says the same thing publicly and then he says that A.L is sound doctrine.

    Three for three, to IANS that is batting 1000 and, thus, leading the OHL (Obvious Heresy League) in average and he is a surefire bet to win the MVH.

    Reply
    • You’re missing the elephant in the room. He publicly teaches (both before and after 2013) that today’s Jews are still the Chosen People, who have a valid Covenent with God, based on their fleshly decent from Abraham. Can you think of a more blatant heresy than that! Or one more insulting?

      This means Bernie Sanders goes to Heaven, no matter how much he pushes even partial birth abortion! Why? Simply because he is a Jew! Bergoglio never said Jews (whose salvation is “unquestionable”) need to avoid mortal sin – how could he? Why would a Jew care what the Catholic Church teaches about what is or is not a mortal sin! And if a Jew falls into mortal sin, are we to expect him to go to confession at the nearest Catholic Church?

      Also, who is a Jew? Does anyone know their genealogy going back millenia? What if I marry a Jewish girl and raise our kids as Jews – does Bergoglio say they get the free pass to Heaven because they are “descended from Abraham”? What if my wife’s family have themselves only been Jews for 2 or 3 generations? What then?

      Also, if the Jews still have the valid (Old Law) covenant, then they need to rebuild the temple, appoint a new Levite class of priests, and start sacrificing rams and sheep to God again. For the forbearance of their sins. After all, it’s not like Our Lord’s sacrifice on Calvary was sufficient for all times and everyone! No, better start slitting the throats of those sheep!

      Need I say more? And since Bergoglio was teaching this openly before his election to pope (it’s in the book he published in 2012 with his rabbi buddy), then the rule Pope Paul IV issued comes into play. To whit: “If any Cardinal publicly deviates from the Catholic Faith and teaches heresy, and is then elevated to the papacy without formally and publicly retracting said heresy and repenting of it…then his election to pope is null and must considered so by all the faithful, including laymen. And no amount of time passing can make his election valid”.

      Isn’t that clear enough for you? So how are people still debating if this man of perdition Jorge Bergoglio is a valid pope? (Obviously I paraphrased Paul IV’s instruction, but feel free to look it up yourself and you’ll see I am entirely accurate here)

      Reply
      • Pope St. JPII’s Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which governs papal conclaves (and left unchanged by Benedict) also said the same. The issue is that not ONE cardinal is willing to come forward to challenge the election OR to declare that Francis’ written and oral words are heretical. That is the state of the Church.

        Reply
      • Dear No Comment. O ,there certainly are more examples than what IANS listed and you are adding to the list (Bergolio-Denzinger also has an excellent compilation).

        You prolly know the Jews have assembled a Sanhedrin and are in the process of planning to rebuild the Temple,restore the sacrifices – beginning with a red heifer – etc etc and you just know that Zionism is of such strength amongst putative Catholics that such moves will be morally applauded, if not, necessarily, receiving financial support of christian zionists.

        As to the faithless Jews claiming descent from Abraham (he was ante-semitic)
        based on race, Jesus told them they had Satan as their father.

        The Jews are the new nazis in that they are racial supremacists, superior to all other races on earth whereas Mit Brennender Sorge formally condemns racism.

        Reply
      • Yes, IANS can think of a more blatant heresy. It was the one said publicly by Bergoglio inside his Cathedral, Saint John Lateran

        Reply
      • “Ecumenism of blood” which he himself admitted before saying the heresy: that it would in fact, sound heretical. Nuff said

        Reply
  46. This is from Saint Faustina’s diary Divine Mercy in my Soul…an entry on the day Jorge Bergoglio was born #823 December 17, 1936. I have offered this day for priests. I have suffered more today than ever before, both interiorly and exteriorly. I did not know it was possible to suffer so much in one day. I tried to make a Holy Hour, in the course of which my spirit had a taste of the bitterness of the Garden of Gethsemane. I am fighting alone, supported by His arm, against all the difficulties that face me like unassailable walls. But I trust in the power of His Name and I fear nothing. #824 In this seclusion, Jesus Himself is my Master. He Himself educates and instructs me. I feel that I am the object of His special action. For His inscrutable purposes and unfathomable decrees, He unites me to Himself in a special way and allows me to penetrate His incomprehensible mysteries. There is one mystery which unites me with the Lord, of which no one-not even angels- may know. And even if I wanted to tell of it, I would not know how to express it. And yet, I live by it and will live by it for ever. This mystery distinguishes me from every other soul here on earth and in eternity……

    Reply
  47. I think it’s merely just a trickle down effect; we’ve finally got the typical novus ordo parish Priest in the Vatican. It was just a matter of time. The next couple of pontiffs will probably be along the same lines.

    It could also be that Our Lord is destroying the false shell we’ve built up surrounding the papacy over the last couple of centuries and has come to a head under the current ‘papalotry.’ The Pope is not the paradigm of Catholicity, never has been, never will be. There’s some house cleaning happening right now to get rid of that idea and it’s painful but necessary.

    No big deal here guys. God is just pulling a few teeth that have to go.

    Reply
  48. Sorry – I’m with Ann on this one. His election WAS canonically invalid thanks to the St. Gallen Group… That fact alone makes him an anti-pope.

    Reply
  49. Don’t mean this as a cheap shot, but in your first quote from AB she can’t even line up her subject and verb.

    Come on.

    Reply
  50. Antonio Socci’s claim about the proposal put to Benedict XVI while still in office & his theories arising from that as reported by Maike Hickson in “Pope Francis Praises Amoris Laetitia as Sound Doctrine”, is far more important & revealing & (if true) could support Ann Barnhardt’s own hypothesis. No-one has so far questioned his veracity as a journalist, nor will his livelihood be in anyways affected by his reasoning, yet most of the Catholic media have rounded on Ann which doesn’t seem justified. With the obstinate attitude of the Hierarchy in not breaking rank even in the face of the calamity in the CC, there will be many people offering their own opinions on whether the abdication was allowable & if the election of PF was carried out in accordance with the rules set down by JPII. A lot is riding on the outcome & we won’t be around for the historians to give us the full picture so it is entirely understandable that people will make-up their own minds on these events & the follow-on as it happens.

    Reply
  51. Dear Dr. Ambiguity: Let us assume that you, in your wisdom, know it all, and that Ann Barnhardt is wrong.
    That being said, can we agree that Frankenpope is nothing but a BUM?

    The Catholic Church since John XXIII has become an INTELLECTUAL JONESTOWN.

    Reply
  52. I came across the following vision a little while after Francis was elected. It gave me chills because I believed then and believe even more so now that it is a warning to us of the devil’s designs to deceive by promoting false humility as actual humility in the person of Berfoglio on the throne of Peter. It is like he (Satan) wants revenge for the fact that St Francis has the very place originally intended for him (Lucifer). But that is just my humble but honest opinion….

    The vision of Brother Pacificus, wherein he saw and heard
    that the throne of Lucifer was reserved for the humble Francis

    In the morning Brother Pacificus returned to him. Blessed Francis was standing before the altar in prayer, and Brother Pacificus remained outside the choir, also praying before the crucifix. And while he was absorbed in prayer he was lifted up in spirit and rapt into heaven, whether in the body or out of the body God alone knoweth; and he saw in heaven very many seats, and one amongst them was raised above the others, glorious to behold, adorned with splendour and many precious stones, so that he marvelled at its great beauty, and wondered whose seat this could be. And he heard a voice that said: “This was the seat of Lucifer, and in his place will be seated the humble Francis.”

    When he had returned to his senses St. Francis suddenly came out to him, whereupon this friar fell at his feet, and stretching out his arms in the form of a cross, as if he already saw him on that throne in heaven, cried, “Father, grant me your forgiveness, and pray God to have mercy on me and condone my sins.” Taking his hand, Blessed Francis raised him up, knowing at once that he had seen some mysterious vision during his prayer, for he spoke to Blessed Francis not as if he were still in the body, but as if he were already an inhabitant of heaven. Afterwards, as he did not like to speak of it directly to Blessed Francis, he hinted at it, as it were, and while talking of other things, said, “What do you believe of yourself, Brother?” To which Blessed Francis answered, “It seems to me I am a greater sinner than any one else in the world.” At this instant Brother Pacificus heard an inner voice say: “By this may you know the truth of the vision revealed to you, since Lucifer for his pride was hurled from his seat, while Francis by his humility has merited to be exalted and gloriously enthroned!”

    Reply
  53. Wouldn’t an antipope with an agenda as revolutionary as Francis’ vision for the church appears to be attempt to fix that heterodox agenda more formally and unquestionably in Catholic doctrine by using definitive and authoritative language in an encyclical? Instead, we get mostly interviews, addresses, and official exhortations. Maybe Francis really is the pope and Christ will only allow him to go so far. On the other hand, even an antipope may be able to see what a tightly integrated collection of historic concepts, assertions, and officially prescribed practices makes up official Catholicism; a too obvious adulteration could give the game away.

    Reply
  54. This is pertinent and ought to be of interest:

    Catholic Encyclopedia > C > General Councils > Can a council depose the pope? [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm]

    This question is a legitimate one, for in the history of the Church circumstances have arisen in which several pretenders contended for papal authority and councils were called upon to remove certain claimants. The Councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope on two main grounds:

    – ob mores (for his conduct or behaviour, e.g. his resistance to the synod)
    – ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy).

    In point of fact, however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience.

    But the question assumes another aspect when a number of claimants pretend to be the rightful occupants of the Apostolic See, and the right of each is doubtful. In such a case the council, according to Bellarmine (Disputationes, II xix, de Conciliis) has a right to examine the several claims and to depose the pretenders whose claims are unfounded. This was done at the Synod of Constance. But during this process of examination the synod is not yet Ecumenical; it only becomes so the moment the rightful pope assents to its proceedings. It is evident that this is no instance of a legitimate pope being deposed by a legitimate council, but simply the removal of pretender by those on whom he wishes to impose will.

    Not even John XXIII could have been deposed at Constance, had his election not been doubtful and himself suspected of heresy. John XXIII, moreover, abdicated and by his abdication made his removal from the Apostolic See lawful. In all controversies and complaints regarding Rome the rule laid down by the Eighth General Synod should never be lost sight of: “If a universal synod be assembled and any ambiguity or controversy arise concerning the Holy Church of the Romans, the question should be examined and solved with due reverence and veneration, in a spirit of mutual helpfulness; no sentence should be audaciously pronounced against the supreme pontiff of the elder Rome” (can. xxi. Hefele, IV, 421-22).

    (My emphasis)

    Reply
  55. St. Vincent Ferrer O.P.
    Sixth. It is true of faith that the pope has full authority over all. As Christ said to Peter: and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.(Mt. XVI, 19). If there were two popes at once one would have more power than the other, or not? If one did not have more power than the other, neither would be pope because the pope has authority over all, as stated above. If the lower had it he would not be pope. So the Lord promised speaking by Ezekiel: I will save my flock, and will never be prey to the nations; I will raise up for her only one pastor, who will shepherd them (Ez. XXXIV, 28 and 31). For all these reasons it is clear that it is wrong to believe that the two chosen in question are true popes. Therefore, erring very seriously who, in an effort to obtain graces and dispensations, or achieve any kind of privileges, go to each other, revering like real popes. For being true that both cannot be popes one of them is an apostate and anti-pope. It is clear that those in their pleas revere both as such; they can not escape to the penalties and curses prescribed at the canon of the Decree begins in the name of the Lord …(J. Gratianus, Decretum (Concordantia discordantium canonum) 1, dist. 23, e. 1 : 44 In nomine Domini”). And no one can be excused in this ignorance, as will be seen in what follows http://fundacionsanvicenteferrer.blogspot.com/2013/01/tratado-del-cisma-moderno-2.html

    Reply
  56. The situation is very simple, if you put together some simple facts:

    1) On January 1st, 2013, electronic transactions were blocked by the Bank of Italy in Vatican City State.This reportedly cost the Vatican as much as 30,000 euros a day. READ: http://insidethevatican.com/news/vatican-cash-only

    2) This situation lasted until February 12th, 2013, the day after Pope Benedict announced he would resign. That day, by some kind of magic coincidence, electronic transactions were made possible again. READ: http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/12/news/economy/vatican-payments/index.html
    Some newspapers said Vatican lost millions of euros. https://ilsismografo.blogspot.fr/2013/06/vaticano-il-blocco-delle-carte-di.html

    3) To block electronic transactions, or to threaten to do so, is officially considered by the European Parliament as a way of pressuring governments in order to obtain something. For instance, the European Parliament resolution of 18 September 2014 on the situation in Ukraine (n. 13) « calls for the EU to consider excluding Russia from civil nuclear cooperation and the Swift system », which allows electronic transactions. READ : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2014-0025+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

    4) The Code of Canon Law states (n. 332) : « If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely… » and : the election of the Roman Pontiff must be « legitimate ». READ : http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM

    CONCLUSION :
    Please do not forget what the Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga publicly stated : « It is difficult to believe that Pope Benedict XVI freely renounced his ministry as successor of Peter. » (READ :
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/02/rorate-exclusive-open-letter-by.html)

    If the Bank of Italy pressured Pope Benedict to resign, then this resignation cannot be valid. And if it is not valid, then the election of Bergoglio as Pope Francis is not legitimate. Of course, it is not the task of lay people to decide who is pope and who is not. But if there are some serious elements which indicate that the election of Bergoglio is not valid, we must ask our bishops and cardinals (and Francis himself) to explain us how can such an election be valid in such circumstances.

    Is my reasoning correct ? My English is not.
    Sorry : I am French.

    Reply
    • For those complaining about comment moderation, please take note: Antoine’s comment is the kind that is welcomed here. He presents evidence worthy of consideration on the controversial topic of the validity/invalidity of the resignation of Benedict and the election of Francis. He lays out the dots as he sees them, but does not declare, with certitude, that he has completed the picture. He reserves judgment on the matter to the Church. He does not scornfully chastise others for not declaring from the rooftops that “Bergoglio is an antipope.”

      I don’t have a problem with speculation. It would be pretty odd not to speculate under the circumstances. I have a problem with declaration and derision. The latter will be summarily excised from the discussion here.

      Reply
  57. I’m already 3/4 of the way out the door. The ONLY things still holding me to Catholicism are these end-time prophecies, because they do seem in an uncanny way to be coming true. And if they’re true, then this trouble will be short-lived and overthrown. But if they’re not true, then the Catholic Church and even Christianity are going the way of the Greek and Roman gods, and will join the catalogue of dead religions. At least I won’t have to wait long to find out. If Benedict dies, then this unnatural era of the “two popes” will have passed without the confrontation of good and evil that was prophesied, and I’ll know that there’s no point waiting any longer.

    Reply
    • Don’t leave the Catholic Church. Jesus is telling the Truth. Moreso, He is the Truth. Please stay, comfort Jesus, and offer your sufferings to Him.

      Reply
  58. “it’s a much harder situation to deal with if Francis is a validly elected pope than if he isn’t;”

    Was about to say that.

    “In the former case, we have to contend with the reality of the most theologically destructive pope in Church history”

    At first I thought this was an exagerration but then I remembered that most of the “Bad Popes” didn’t say or do anything thelogical

    “and the fallout of that is most likely going to take generations to set right”

    No argument here…that being said, I really hope Francis is neither a heretic nor an antipope. I have shaken the man’s hand after all and he blessed my marriage. :-/

    Reply
  59. “I believe we should focus our efforts on combating the errors that Francis is promoting and Benedict is doing nothing to stop.” I find both situations equally troubling.

    Reply
  60. I like that Ann referenced the historical mess of the Western Schism. I think another appropriate historical precedent to cite for this situation is the Liberian Controversy in the mid-fourth century. Roman Emperor Constantius II, who was an Arianizer, exiled Pope Liberius for refusing to excommunicate St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who was a staunch defender of orthodoxy. Liberius was exiled along with three other Western bishops: Sts. Eusebius of Vercelli and Hilarius of Poitiers, and Lucifer of Cagliari. In the place of Liberius, Constantius installed the antipope Felix II, who was ardently opposed by the Roman people. After two years, largely because of pressure from the Romans, Constantius recalled Liberius from exile.

    However, the recall was in dubious circumstances. Constantius said that Liberius had signed a creed that, while not overtly heretical, did not affirm the consubtantiality of the Son with the Father in the definitive way in which the Nicene Creed did. For this reason, some in the Church considered him a heretic. Hilarius stated that Liberius signed nothing and that the whole affair was fabricated by Constantius to discredit the pope. Athanasius believed that Liberius had signed something but had done so under the duress of exile and constant imperial pressure and thus was not cupable. Lucifer believed Liberius had lapsed into heresy and started a schism because of it.

    Liberius died in A.D. 366 but the controversy lived on. His archdeacon Damasus was elected to succeed him. However. a sizable minority opposed Damasus on the grounds that he had broken an oath he made to Liberius to follow him into exile and supported Felix. This minority elected another deacon, named Ursicinus, as an antipope to oppose Damasus. The resultant violence was so bad that the Emperor had to intervene and banned Ursicinus and his followers from coming within eight miles of Rome. Ursicinus would outlive Damasus and continued to cause problems for him.

    To review: The legitimate pope was opposed by an antipope on the grounds that before he was pope he had supported a previous antipope.

    Moral: Let’s not make the situation worse by declaring whether the apparently reigning pope is an antipope or not. Let’s just pray for him.

    Reply
  61. Well Steve….after reading PF’s remarks regarding Luther…I am believing more than ever Ann is right. This really hits home for me. I am married to a Protester. Most all my friends are Protesters. Really, really makes it hard to tell people they need to be Catholic with THIS pope. The most effective and thorough way to do this is to declare him an antipope. Though I understand that I, nor Ann or any lay person has that authority. He certainly is making a mess. Oy vey.

    Reply
  62. I won’t quote theologians, canonists, commentators, cardinals etc.

    I will quote:
    Bull of Pope Paul IV — Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559 (Infallible)
    “Further [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:], if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
    — “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
    — “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
    — “Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way . . .
    — “Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
    — “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and WITHOUT the NEED to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

    Given in Rome at Saint Peter’s in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.
    + I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church of Rome
    ________________________________
    Note: This Constitution was reinforced in his Papal Bull Inter multiplices [December 21, 1566] by Pope St. Pius V

    Reply
  63. What we do know for sure by now is that anyone calling the Holy Father ‘anti-pope’ is either ignorant, arrogant, anti-Catholic, or any combination of these three. Martin Luther would be so proud, 500 years next year of his revolution.

    Reply
    • And Francis and his cohorts are proud of Luther, or they wouldn’t be in Lund right now. You realize you are accusing people on this forum of acting like the very man the Pope himself is celebrating today, right? Irony, much?

      Reply
  64. Why not take it as Benedict himself said it. He resigned the active ministry of St. Peter. No more, no less. You may take it that Christ would have said to him ‘Quo vadis?’, But that’s obviously for God to judge. He is still there. He went nowhere. It is as it looks. Benedict XVI still is Pope, albeit not active. Francis is, well just Francis, as he himself says it. Bishop of Rome. One who does the deeds of being Pope, who according to Francis himself comes in his own name and follows the church. Well. A real pope ‘leads’ the church. After all A Pope can really do as he decides, even if it means taking as many to hell with him as he likes. In the meantime I would think people who regard themselves as ‘true’ catholics do well to do as Benedict does. Be very very quiet and pray. In that sense perhaps he is leading the church…

    Reply

Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...