@Alex A
There is a thing called authority, which comes from God as Our LORD taught when before Pilate.

All of the acts of the Church via a Pope that he can do and has done are valid acts. One of those acts is canonization of saints. Another would be saying Mass and consecrating the Eucharist (cf Rev 13:13).

Who continues to appoint Bishops?

God is all knowing and foresaw this even as he was telling Peter and the rest of the 12 that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church.

PS And it it not “my logic” - that’s YOUR non-sequitur logic. What I now assert about this Pope is now plain beyond any shadow of a doubt. The Church already has had Popes accused of Apostasy as I have commented elsewhere here on GTV.

PPS Another example: Canon Law mandates that Bishops can only be consecrated by permission of the Pope. Yet the Bishops Abp Lefebvre consecrated in disobedience even though illicit and at that time automatically excommunicated, are nonetheless valid Catholic Bishops, because any Bishop has power in him from God to consecrate those others who can be consecrated, as Bishops.

PPPS Sex is only permissible within marriage, yet children can result out of wedlock even though the rights of the future prospective spouses were usurped.

PPPPS Cf The chief priests and the elders of the people’s treatment of Christ. It is by the Supreme Pastor, the Bishops, and priests in our day that the Church is enduring her passion in the footsteps of the LORD, her Head and Groom.

A pagan cannot be at the same time, a Christian. One is either one or the other. To assert differently makes mockery of God's word, Canon Law as well as plain commonsense. Francis, by your own comments, is "The Apocalyptic False Prophet" ergo, he is not Catholic, Not being so, his actions with respect to 'usurping' the role of Pope- again your word- must by any legal definition, negate the legitimacy of his actions. If this is not so, then who determines who is false and/or a usurper? God, gave authority to Peter and his successors, but we know that 'infallibility' is limited to questions of faith and morals. Popes, can and do, make mistakes outside those parameters. What I'm suggesting, is that you can't have it both ways, either Francis is, or is not, the legitimate Pope? Your position on that question determines the legitimacy of his actions. Otherwise, in the immortal words of S'chn T'gai Spock, "It's illogical"

@Alex A Where have I stated that he is a Christian? Cf A Devotee of the Ancient Mystery Religions, Pope Francis is an Idolater and a Pagan

The reasoning and conclusions are your own and not from anything I have written,

@F M Shyanguya If the Pope is Catholic then, he is Christian. That is not semantics but a simple fact. All I'm trying to do is follow the logic of your assertions, not that of mine. Again, you have repeated that you believe Francis to be an "Idolater and a Pagan" which implies he is not a Catholic/Christian. If that is your position then, logically it follows he is an anti-pope, or, in your own words, a "usurper of the Papacy." That makes his pontificate 'null-and-void' along with every decision he has made. My position is that, Francis was legitimately voted to the chair of Saint Peter. Whether he is a 'good' Pope, is another question altogether.

@Alex A:

- You say he is Catholic, I assert he is an apostate Bishop. Cf After nearly 236 years, the plan to destroy all the thrones and overturn all the altars in Europe has met with incredible success with the conquering of the final and most priced throne, that of St. Peter – THE WAR

- You say he is a Christian, I assert he is a pagan. Cf A Devotee of the Ancient Mystery Religions, Pope Francis is an Idolater and a Pagan

And yes, those terms are mutually exclusive. He ceased to be a Catholic Christian when he went over from the camp of the saints to the camp of the enemy by being initiated into the society of the impious.

So Francis is not an Anti-Pope, ergo, he is the Pope and legal successor of Saint Peter. That being clarified, we can then state the following condensed facts and conclusions. Francis was baptised a Catholic, He was ordained a priest in 1969 took his final vows in the Jesuit order in 1973 and subsequently served as superior (head) of the Jesuit province of Argentina. He became an Archbishop in 1998 and elevated to a Cardinal in 2001 by Pope John Paul 2. Following the resignation of Pope Benedict XV1, he was elected to the Chair of Saint Peter in 2013. These are facts, each step up the Episcopal ladder was ratified on the unquestioned assumption that he was a Catholic/Christian. Pope Francis, from a V2 perspective, has simply continued the 'evolution/revolution' which openly started as a consequence of Vatican 2. We need to keep in mind the following, a) There was no pressing need for a Council-the church was 'flourishing' by any measurement one might apply specifically, Baptism numbers, Confirmation, Weddings, and Religious-vocations. b)Pope John XX111on being alerted by his advisors to the 'shenanigans' of the 'left-wing perite,' tried to find away for bringing the Council to a close, but as one scribe attested, "It was too late, as the Council had an unstoppable momentum." c) Pope Paul V1 promulgated the 'Novas Ordo Missae' despite that no Cardinal, (other than the commission cleric members convened by Pope Paul.) or Bishop was desirous of such a monumental change to the Mass. d) Subsequent Popes have all continued with the 'frenetic need' for change, seemingly change for the sake of change, and in doing so, whether wittingly or not, did so on the 'evolutionary assembly line' that has no end game in sight. Thus, to simply blame Francis for the current ills of the Church is to discount prior historical influences. If, as Christ himself stated, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit." then applying this to the consequences of an unnecessary Council, well.......... it is what it is. fli.org.au-What the Church Fathers said about the Council (1)