Cardinal Müller: "There Is No Doubt That Francis Is a Legitimate Pope" - So?

Yes, what he is or isn't does matter.....for if you believe a pope can be a manifest heretic, blasphemer & idol worshipper, your understanding of what a pope is becomes totally destroyed. Whereas for those who see that it is impossible for a heretic to be a valid Pope....their understanding of what a True and authentic Pope is, remains intact. A false understanding of what a valid Pope is.....is very likely.....of itself.....to be a heresy.

The Church is quite clear on what the pope is: 1) the Vicar of Christ on Earth, 2) the visible head of the Church Militant, 3) visible source of unity for the Church Militant, and 4) proximate rule of faith.

From those, it necessarily follows that a true pope cannot, as pope, bind the faithful with a law that would damage souls, teach anything contrary to the ordinary Magisterium, teach anything harmful to faith and/or morals. If you have to question if what the "pope" is saying, if it is consistent with Catholic doctrine, then you have just admitted to yourself he's probably not a pope.

Bergoglio's actions against the faith began in Argentina. If we discover that a man committed perjury before getting married by making the priest and his fiancée believe that he did not have a concubine and that he wanted to continue his relationship with that concubine, his marriage is invalid. Bergoglio was disqualified from became a pope due to his heretical, apostate and schismatic past in … – Gloria.tv And Bergoglio himself says that he does not remember if they made him swear the oath of fidelity.
Jorge Bergoglio: I don't know if they made me take the oath – Gloria.tv

Dementia is also a cause of inability to be a Pope.
Bergoglio does not remember if he promised to be faithful to the Church. He does not remember if he promised to defend the deposit of Faith.

@yuca2111 First, when you understand the theology behind the sedevacantist position, you realize that it is entirely consistent with Catholic theology and Dogma. Sedevacantism is not a heresy (but tell that to those who insist a manifest, pertinatious heretic is a Catholic, let alone pope).

Second, if one rejects Bergoglio in 2024, they are necessarily sedevacantist, as if Jorge isn't pope (he's not), then the "sede" is "vacante". Now, when Anacletus II claimed the throne, and you rejected his claim, then you supported Innocent II, and thus could not be sedevacantist. This also doesn't explain St. Vincent Ferrer, who argued, at the end of the Western Schism, that the See was vacant because the claimants became schismatics by refusing to heal the split by resigning for the good of the Church.

Seeing as the Church has declared St. Vincent Ferrer a saint and doctor, I don't really think you can argue that "sedevacantism" is an impossibility.

I disagree with the notion that we, as faithful Catholics, are free to decide “if the pope is really the pope.” Nevertheless. I have read, like everyone else, of the outrageous and anti-Catholic statements and behavior reported about Pope Francis.

But if I understand the reasoning being advanced by some commenters on this site, as a Catholic I am obliged to accept a duly elected pope as the spiritual leader of the Church…… unless I have read about reports of either papal behavior or the papal electoral process that I accept as being true and which give me concern. If then, after carefully study I believe the process for electing him pope was flawed in some way, or that he has said or engaged in acts that I have concluded are manifestly heretical, I am free to conclude that the current pope is a false pope. In either of those cases I can remain a faithful, Catholic even though I would be professing sedevacantism.

If those who reject Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ believe that statement is not sound, I would appreciate it if they would kindly advise me as to where it is in error.

@Irishpol Apart from the natural and divine Law, the sensus fidei gives you to be able to work it out, spiritual sensitivity etc, I would recommend the oeuvre of Ann Barnhardt. She has 200 + podcasts and hundreds of hours discussing this very topic. Dr Ed Mazza and Fr Paul Kramer in particular also I recommend for English language. The hierarchy has been infiltrated by bad people and bishops who you even think are more orthodox, even they are Modernists. Confusion abounds, but there are oases of clarity if you know where to look.. , just they are few and far between and you need to really be looking. It is not sedevacanist. It is an interregnum. It has been 563 days now since the Petrine See is vacant. Barnhardt | Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta.

Irishpol very simple , card. JM Bergoglio was elected when pope Benedict XVI claimed (munus) Petrine Office untill 31.12.2022. Therefore whether the election was corrupt or he is heretic is irrelevant to the fact that more than one pope claiming Petrine Office is forbidden in Catholic Church and any following pope is material usurper as such pending to be formally declared by Church. Unfortunately, majority don't accept this fact for being confused and continuously rejecting the true pope Benedict XVI....

@Irishpol 1) It is a matter of Divine and Catholic Faith that the pope must be a member of the Catholic Church.

2) It is a matter of Divine and Catholic Faith that a manifest and pertinatious heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church, as their heresy is a tacit resignation of their membership. A heretic, whether formally declared as such or not, has absolutely no position or authority in the Church.

3) The pope is the proximate rule of Faith, and all the faithful are guaranteed to be safe from error and damnation in following the teachings of a valid pope.

4) It is a matter of Divine and Catholic Faith that the Church is infallible in Her teachings on Faith and Morals. That infallibility does NOT extend to papal elections: there have been invalid popes (antipopes) elected in the past.

Conclusion: A valid election does not guarantee a valid pope. A man who is a heretic at the time of his election CANNOT be pope because he is not Catholic. There is no evidence that Bergoglio was ever pope, because he was a heretic in Buenos Aires. And one seriously has to question Benedict XVI, because he legitimately thought he could bifurcate the papacy, which seems to me to be heretical.

[For those that argue his heresy wasn't declared, that is irrelevant: the consistent teaching of the Theologians and doctors is the heretics have no position, with or without a declaration.]

In Argentina, Bergoglio had been denounced as a heretic on several Argentine Catholic blogs and even in a book by Argentine professor Antonio Caponnetto in 2010 called The Betrayed Church (La Iglesia Traicionada). Let us not forget that the Jesuit order to which Bergoglio belongs was reprimanded by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for their heretical positions. In 2008, following the election of the Spanish progressive Adolfo Nicolás, Pope Benedict issued a strong warning to the Jesuits and asked them to strictly obey the teachings of the Church regarding "the relationship between Christ and religions, some aspects of liberation theology and various points of sexual morality, especially with regard to the indissolubility of marriage and the pastoral care of homosexual persons." This demonstrates not only the persistent heresy of the apostate Bergoglio but also his schism.

Los jesuitas eligieron a un "Papa Negro" progresista (clarin.com)

Bergoglio's Homosexual Subversion Already Began in Buenos Aires

If I could explain it briefly, I would say that the problem is that several documents of Vatican II contain heresies maliciously introduced by internal heretics and external enemies of the Church who influenced Vatican II. The general darkening of the Church was caused by homosexuals, masons, communists who infiltrated the Seminary and Bergoglio is one of them. With and after Vatican II, two currents emerged: one ultra-progressive and another more conservative (John Paul II and Benedict XVI). That is why Pope Benedict XVI began to speak of the “hermeneutics of continuity” because they wanted to interpret Vatican II in accordance with the Tradition of the Church, but the problem is that the ecumenical movement is incompatible with Catholic doctrine. This conservative approach provoked confrontation and hatred from the ultra-progressive current that saw in Benedict an approach to tradition and an obstacle due to his positions against homosexuality and his defense of the Family and the sacraments. But now we see no continuity but a total rupture. In fact, the gay mafia got rid of Benedict because he was no longer useful for their evil purposes. There is no hermeneutics of continuity. Bergoglio broke the thread that remained. Bergoglio has caused a “SCHISM” between the Catholic Church of all times and the Novus Ordo.

I believe that many Catholics have not learned to distinguish between what is an “urgency” and what is an emergency. Because if we see that a man wants to kill a group of people, the first thing we must try to do is disarm him. At that moment, it is of no use getting lost in discussions about who opened the door for the man to “kidnap” those people, etc., but we must resolve the immediate problem. AND THE SERIAL KILLER THAT WE MUST DISARM is called Jorge Mario Bergoglio Sívori.

We certainly need Divine intervention. Regarding the murderer of souls Jorge Mario Bergoglio, we must unmask him so that his rebellion against God and the Church is exposed to all. Following the advice of Pope Leo XIII who recommended us, our duty is to remove the mask from Masons like Bergoglio. Or the recommendation of St. Francis de Sales to shout out to warn others that Bergoglio is a wolf who is preying on souls.

Sean Johnson the fact you ignore is card. Bergoglio being elected when pope Benedict XVI (not declared formally by Church nor heretic and/or antipope) claimed Petrine Office which is contrary to Church Constitution. Thereby it is irrelevant whether following claimant is also heretic or not. Finally your private opinion, which is false, or anyone else does not change the fact of card Bergoglio's usurpacy pending formal declaration in accordance with Church canonic history and practice.

la verdad prevalece popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI had the progressive enemies in the coexisting antichurch identified by the latter as the supporters of Cologne declaration 1989. Pope John Paul II was pressured to resign and pope Benedict XVI was forced. Many "trads" have replaced philosophy with ideology and don't know and not use metaphysical distinctions, i.e. fr Hesse has many times spoken about. Very helpful cognitive tools which facilitate to conform thoughts to reality.