wordpress.com

The Vatican has now accepted that Bergoglio is an AntiPope

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo Rome: September 9, 2019 A. D.: The Vatican has conceded that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an AntiPope. The concession came …
Ultraviolet
Let's not move the goalposts, BrAlexisBugnolo This is a very basic point of law. Silence doesn't imply consent the way the article is claiming. inb4 "argumentum ad nauseam".
The article title is flat-out false. The Vatican has not "accepted" any claim of the sort. They didn't bother to even legitimize the accusation with an refutation. If every foolish, inaccurate or even entirely lunatic accusation …More
Let's not move the goalposts, BrAlexisBugnolo This is a very basic point of law. Silence doesn't imply consent the way the article is claiming. inb4 "argumentum ad nauseam".

The article title is flat-out false. The Vatican has not "accepted" any claim of the sort. They didn't bother to even legitimize the accusation with an refutation. If every foolish, inaccurate or even entirely lunatic accusation doesn't get an answer, that doesn't prove any of those accusations are true. It is not "tacit concent". That doesn't change regardless of whether the example is "absurditate" or not.

In practice, there's very little difference between "Francis isn't human" and "Francis "isn't Pope." Anyone can make any claim they please about the current Pope. It is up to the prosecution to prove the validity of their claims, not the defense to discount them.

...and, no, I don't like deriding the Pope. Providing a silly hypothetical example that ultimately defends the legitimacy of the Pope and the Papacy is still infinitely more respectful to the man and the office itself than yet another deadly-serious and spurious claim Francis isn't the current Pope at all.

Since you seem engaged on the subject, and you're a step up from the usual "Francis doesn't real" crowd, answer me this:

Let us suppose you are correct. If Benedict XVI is truly still the Pope and Francis supposedly is not (the way you claim), what happens when Benedict dies? If Francis was invalidly chosen then he can not be pope regardless of whether Benedict is alive or not. Who, in your opinion, is pope then? Or is there none?

Even if, somehow, Francis expired tomorrow, the next (anti)pope will be chosen by the supposedly invalid cardinals appointed by a supposedly invalid Francis. Consequently, this next hypothetical pope will also be an antipope since Benedict XVI would still, miraculously, be alive.

But at some point Benedict XVI will not be here anymore and the Church will be left with... who? Who is the valid Pope then? Or will the Church have no Pope at all?

That leads to a kind of perpetual sedevacantism. If you favor that line of reasoning, why start only now? There have been numerous "questionable" resignations of Popes in the past, many of which were very likely under pressure. Any and every Pope chosen afterwards could. conceivably be invalid -up to and including Benedict XVI.

The only reason this has become such an issue right now is because a.) Benedict XVI is still alive and b.) Francis is highly unpopular with traditionalists (myself incuded). It's more than fair to say at this point if Benedict XVI's (invalid) successor was a traditionalist bringing the Church back on course, all this faux-outrage over the "antipope's" legitimacy wouldn't be raised at all.