Schneider: Francis Was “Ill-Advised” On Roman Mass

How is it a falsehood when I say Bergolio isn't pope? Your proof and the Church's proof is lacking.

If you're going to the Church has to label Bergie a heretic, and we have unanwered dubia, then it's safe to say he could be an antipope, since any heretical pope would have to, by definition not be a pope. And therefore, if this man offers heresies, and is therefore immediately not a pope (no vicar of Christ can dogmatically not be in communion with Him) but he's still sitting on the throne, he has to be an antipope too.

Also, there's even more proof that Biden isn't the president than there is that Bergie isn't the pope. And the proof with Bergie is thoroughly convincing.

Logic. A gift that God gives us. Faith works with it, not against it.

If Bergie was a bad pope, he'd be like JP2 or Ratzinger. Or Paul 1.But he has spoken heresies, time and again, and has even put it in print (Amoris, Pachemama, etc). He never clarifies, he never apologizes. He. Is. A. Heretic.

You have never offered a defense of Bergie's heresies, but just follow the others in saying well, he's the pope because the college of cardinals voted, etc. Never occured to you that his heresies mean he cannot be pope by election or definition. The devil cannot cast out the devil, etc.

You accused me of saying God encouraged demons by intentionally misrepresenting what I said about the prophecy of Francis. But if you believe a man who has stated time and again that Jesus was from God but not God, that hell doesn't exist, that divorce may be licit, that Pachemama is the Virgin Mary, and fraternity is more important than CHristian orthodoxy (which is, dude, freemasonry), maybe you are the problem.

He's not just a "bad" pope. He's a heretic and an antipope. And relying on the same group of demons who installed him to accuse him of this is disingenuous and you know it.

I have to follow the pope on his infallible statements. Any true statement is "infallible". So even if Bergie says something true I will accept it. But nowhere do I have to abide by a heretic. That's not in Christian law or tradition.

Bergoglio isn't the Pope. He was campaigned for in 2005 by the Sankt Gallen Mafia lead by Cardinal Carlo MAria Martini, and also Cardinals Murphy-O'Connor and Danneels among others...all radical liberals who wanted to destroy the Church, and who had opposed JPII his whole term. Their efforts failed and Bergoglio came in 2nd place. Then, when these thugs had had enough of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, they forced him to quit, and put up their man Bergoglio again..campaigning for him outside and inside the conclave. Bergoglio campaigned for himself as well. All that crap is illegal in a papal conclave according to Canon LAw. If a cardinal openly campaigns for himself, or is others campaign for him, he is illegit, even if he manages to win in the end. Bergoglio won.....but he is illegit, for the reasons stated below. No one should feel compelled to obey him about anything, least of all over "Traditiones Custodes".