Is Bergoglio an Anti-Pope

[Stone]

The following was taken from the TIA website. While The Catacombs does not support every position taken by TIA with regard to the crisis in the Church, they post many good articles. From a recent Q&A there:

Is Bergoglio an Anti-Pope?

TIA,

I have enjoyed your website with its erudite commentary and faithful support of Catholic tradition for years. Keep up the good work.

Question: There is an article recently published in sfero (Social italiano) titled, Benedict XVI signaled the impeded see by his resignation at the Roman “hora vicesima” – “the twentieth hour”. The article asserts that the late Pope Benedict was coerced by the Cardinals, but he pulled a fast one and resigned only the administrative responsibilities as Bishop of Rome. And isn't that what the anti-pope Bergoglio calls himself?

The article claims Pope Benedict XVI never abdicated and remained the only pope until the end of his life: He renounced the ministerium, the exercise of power, ironically just as Benedict VIII did – exactly 1000 years earlier in 1013.

The article is by Andrea Cionci, and appears somewhat compelling providing a clear roadmap in the historical subterfuge by traitorous co-religious to remove, even murder the true Pope in office. I also recall the he had asked for prayers at the start of his pontificate to protect him from the “wolves” who were out to get him.

So is the "Moose on the table"? Is the Church "Sede Vacant"?

I realize that the Church has had numerous anti-popes; the question begs itself: Should we now await for a proper enclave to elect a new, legitimate pope? I wonder. Is this an “Interregnum” or is the present situation an all out “Sede Vacant” situation? What makes matters worse are all the Cardinals who are cronies of Bergoglio. Catholic prophecies talk about a pope who will be forced to leave Rome and die a cruel death in exile. I do not think that is Bergoglio.

N.F.



TIA responds:

N.F.,

Thank you for your kind words and for your question.

It should be enough to clarify your doubts to state the following points:

1. We do not give credit to the theory which imagines that Benedict XVI was coerced to abdicate by a group of Cardinals. He himself denied this possibility several times. His secretary, Arch. Georg Ganswein, who knew him quite well, also has denied it.
   
2. In order to continue to sustain this theory after Benedict XVI's formal denial, one must imagine that he was also obliged to deny it later. Now then, this is tantamount to admitting that either he lost his mental faculties, that is, he did not know what he was talking when he denied the coercion, or to imagine that those Cardinals continued to exercise that same pressure over him until he died. If this last possibility were accepted, then any document he wrote after his abdication and any verbal declaration he made should also be denied for the same reason. Since he had many opportunities to let other persons know about this supposed pressure and never did, this hypothesis lacks common sense.
   
3. Besides, on this topic the motto applies: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur, "what is freely asserted is freely dismissed," or paraphrased, "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
   
4. We also do not give credit to the theory that pretends Pope Francis was not duly elected while Pope Benedict XVI was. Both Popes were elected by the College of Cardinals obeying the same rules established for the Papal Election.
   
5. We do not think the Seat of Peter is vacant. We sustain that since the death of Pius XII it has been usurped by partisans of Progressivism.
   
6. We do not consider Pope Francis as an anti-pope. However, he may be an Anti-Christ, to use the words of Our Lady of La Salette: “Rome will become the seat of the Anti-Christ.”
   

We hope these considerations answer your questions.