Canon Law itself declares Pope Francis, AntiPope

anti-pope-francis

The clear, precise, and sound reading of the Code of Canon Law leads to the inescapable conclusion that Pope Francis is an “antipope” in every sense of the word, and that the law itself declares it.

As has been demonstrated in the article, “How and Why Pope Benedict’s resignation is invalid”, there is no other authentic reading of Canon 332 §2 other than that the renunciation of munus is the necessary sine qua non condition of a papal resignation.

This canonical argument is supported by 35 reasons, debated in Scholastic form, in the article, “The Validity of Benedict’s Resignation must be questioned, Parts I and II”, why a renunciation of ministerium, in the form had in the papal declarations of Feb. 11, 2013, cannot signify a renunciation of munus as per Canon 332 §2, Canon 188 etc..

Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI remains the one and only true Pope of the Catholic Church with all the powers and prerogatives of that office.

As I pointed out in my rebuttal of Roberto de Mattei, canon 359 guarantees that the College of Cardinals has no authority to convene to elect a pope, when there has been an invalid papal resignation.

Therefore, the Conclave of 2013 is without any right in Canon Law to elect a successor to Pope Benedict. Therefore, the one it claimed to elect, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has no authority whatsoever conferred upon him by accepting that election. He is in truth a usurper of the papal office, and must be punished in accord with Canon 1381 §1 for that crime (if he knowingly has done this, otherwise upon demonstration of the delict, he must publicly disavow his claim to the office).

Since Bergoglio never had any canonical authority as Pope, all his nominations to the  Roman Curia are null and void. Therefore, all actions taken by the Congregation of Religious against religious communities, or by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith against anyone, or the Secretary of State vis-a-vis treaties with nations, such as China, or appointments of Bishops, etc. etc. are NULL AND VOID.

Since the papal resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is invalid, among other reasons, in virtue of containing a substantial error (canon 188) regarding what words must be expressed to conform to canon 322 §2, that resignation is invalid by the law itself (lege ipso). That invalidation spreads to the Conclave and all acts of Bergoglio as Francis, which are canonical, because they too are founded upon the same substantial error, though compounded.

Therefore, since the invalidity of Bergoglio’s papacy depends upon the law of the Church itself (canon 188), there is no need for a judgement of any ecclesiastical office to intervene to establish that it is so. And thus, Catholics may and indeed are obliged BY DIVINE FAITH and OBEDIENCE to the Apostolic See and to Canon Law to hold Bergoglio to be an Anti-Pope and to insist to Cardinals and Bishops and civil authorities that he be driven from the Vatican as a usurper.

Let all Catholics who love Christ, who are obedient to the Code of Canon Law and who seek the salvation of souls act now and today. Write your Bishop and the Cardinals. Write the Italian Government, which is bound to uphold only the canonically elected governments of the Vatican. Insist with all that the fact of Bergoglio’s invalidity be publicly affirmed and his usurpation denounced.

Its either that, or the end of the Vatican as we know it, as being part of the Catholic Church.

 

Advertisements

4 comments on “Canon Law itself declares Pope Francis, AntiPope

  1. The Editor says:

    I will point out immediately, that the primary and in some cases the only tactic liars will take against this article, will be to boo hoo me that I said what I said, rather than whether the statement is founded upon the truth. They will do this because they cannot contest the truth upon which it is founded with any valid reasons. Next they will call me a sedevacantist, even though in the article I expressly affirm that Benedict is the pope. Other than that, they will probably call me names such as heretic, or schismatic, since for them only the heresies and false claims of Bergoglio remain as the definition of truth: the Gospels, Tradition, the perennial magisterium, the recent magisterium of Benedict XVI, Canon Law be damned, they will say under their breath.

  2. Albinus Falco says:

    Your thesis entails that not only every Cardinal and Bishop in union with the Church but also the Pope himself (Benedict) gave public approval (at least tacit) in 2013 to the fact that Francis became a valid Pope in 2013. Your thesis thus entails that the Magisterium has erred in a matter of dogmatic fact. This is impossible. Therefore your thesis is false. You haven’t satisfactorily responded to this objection in any of your articles thus far on this site. In my opinion it is an insurmountable objection. For if your thesis is correct, then you must concede that the Church can err in dogmatic fact. But if that is the case, then the Catholic Faith falls apart.

  3. The Editor says:

    The Church has not erred in a dogmatic fact, because the dogmatic fact is that Pope Benedict XVI is validly elected, Bergoglio not. A fact does not admit an error. If you mean to say that the Church has erred in its opinion regarding a dogmatic fact, then again you assertion is false, because those who err in matters of dogmatic facts are ignorant and their ignorance is not ascribed to the Church. If you mean to say that the Bishops and Cardinals are infallible in matters of dogmatic facts, that would only apply if the Magisterium of the Church were enacted to declare the fact, and then we agree the Church could not err. But no such canonical judgement has been made on the validity. As Canon 332 §2 shows, if its invalid by the law itself in virtue of any defect, no matter HOW many Cardinals or Bishops think otherwise, its still invalid. Sorry, your sophistic argument is completely invalid.

  4. Perhaps yet more notable, regarding Mr. Falco’s flawed analysis, is that in the mid/late 4th c., virtually the entire episcopate, including the pope of that era, either apostatized or acquiesced to the Arian heresy denying Christ’s eternal divinity; & that the laity of the Empire, as revealed in Bl. JH Newman’s magisterial study, not only substantially held to the Faith, but eventually helped to bring the lost bishops back to Her.
    *
    That laity to be sure had Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers & but a handful of other bishops with them (& the Faith), whereas so far we have the illustrious Bishop Gracida, to some extent Msgr. Bux in his call to investigate the validity of BXVI renouncing the ministerium of his papacy (tho not its Munus as the Church thru Canon Law mandates for a legitimate abdication), & perhaps those who for imperfectly admirable reasons have yet publicly to join Bishop Gracida, despite knowing he is, like Athanasius was in his time, obviously right.
    *
    Mr. Falco’s chief error is holding that tacit acquiescence means dogmatic fact. T’is of course quite true the Church cannot err when She upholds truth, to wit, a dogmatic fact, just as it is that tacitly accepting Bergoglio’s a pope has no more a dogmatic quality in se than the tacit & often explicit 4th c. claim that the ‘magisterium’ of its day demonstrated Arianism, not Catholicism, must necessarily be true.
    *
    While a serious & honest exploration would be welcome of why the great 4th c. episcopal apostasy did not in fact constitute any Magisterium of Christ’s, & thus comparably how tacit acquiescence to a substantial error in our own time is no more the voice of the Magisterium than acquiescence to Arianism was then, it’s not even strictly necessary.
    *
    It’s not for the excellent reasons outlined in the editorial above, but – save for declaring tacit acceptance equals dogmatic fact – it isn’t even so by Mr. Falco’s own reasoning.
    *
    Because at no point, despite all the quite undogmatic tacitness, has the Church made any formal declaration regarding the validity of BXVI’s supposed abdication, not to say of the 2013 Conclave. She has not, despite Msgr. Bux’s call for the episcopacy to investigate said legitimacy, even tho that would be the perfect means to declare its validity formally, which is to say arguably dogmatically.
    *
    It seems accordingly fair to propose the reason Msgr.’s call has been met with so little enthusiasm stems from awareness that an honest investigation must reveal what the evidence clearly demonstrates: that BXVi did not renounce his papacy’s Office, or Munus (as well as that his effort to renounce its ministerium, or function, was a substantial error rendering that too invalid, ‘by the law itself,’ according to Church teaching via Canon 188), that he accordingly remains, however inactive, the sole living Pontiff of the Catholic Church, & thus that Bergoglio’s but another in the Faith’s long list of pathetic antipopes.
    *
    Those are not tacit agreements, but instead, as the evidence does & any serious investigation will reveal, quite simply dogmatic facts.

Contact Editor of this Site

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s