Believing Bergolio to be anti-pope is not sede

[St.Justin]

So "Look at every sedevacantist priest or bishop" now have the power to change the meaning of terms. Oh that is right that is how they have to their erroneous conclusions. To put it simply they are wrong.

[christulsa]

Ironically, we have an anti-pope who is more pope than the actual pope.

http://okietraditionalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/okie-trad-exclusive-second-interview.html

[KingTheoden]

There is a fairly good case that some people have presented that Benedict's abdication could have been invalid not due to duress, but rather due to Benedict's faulty will with regard to his abdication.

The idea is that Benedict sought to divide the Petrine ministry into two parts: an active one and a spiritual one. This would be an impossibility as the Pope is per se the Bishop of Rome.

Incidentally this does not exactly fix various problems that we have because Benedict was, objectively speaking, rather progressive and committed to the new theology of the 20th Century and to the Council. Indeed, the invalid abdication theory is in my view a viable possibility and one that merits serious investigation.

[Santantonio]

Reverting to Benedict is not a solution in any way. It could only happen if he said he resigned under duress
and that isn't going to occur. Francis was uncanonically elected if we can prove the St Gallen mafia conspired
to elect him because Universi Dominici Gregis expressly prohibits cardinals from forming pacts, agreements, promises, or commitments of any kind. Unfortunately we must question the Church's fortitude to make this happen it would take
a lot of effort. Bishops aren't going to do it unless they are forced by blackmail. This is why the laity is critical along with the press and even secular authorities who can press and push all the buttons.. then Francis will resign rather than face being declared illegitimately selected Pope. The former would be best theologically because it would erase all the bad he's done,
but even if he only resigns it will be a lot better than where we are. This is not the time for real Catholics to argue over semantics, it is time to go for the throat and clean house. Sedes aren't going to help. They only bark from the sidelines.

[Michael Wilson]

G.P. Is correct about what an "anti-Pope" is; its an un-canonically elected claimant to the Papal throne. During the Great Western Schism there were two then three competing  claimant lines  to the Papal See, only one line was legitimate. When the legitimate Pope died, the false claimant(s) did not  cease to be false and become true; they remained anti-Popes.

[St.Justin]

G.P. Is correct about what an "anti-Pope" is; its an un-canonically elected claimant to the Papal throne. During the Great Western Schism there were two then three competing  claimant lines  to the Papal See, only one line was legitimate. When the legitimate Pope died, the false claimant(s) did not  cease to be false and become true; they remained anti-Popes.

Just curious/ Have you got a source?

[Michael Wilson]

My primary source was a little booklet published by TAN on the prophecy of St. Malachi on the Popes. The author has a short introduction as to the history of the prophecy, with a definition of what makes a legitimate Pontiff; which was in reference to the Great Schism; in it he stated that what differentiates a true Pope from a false Pope (election wise), is "Canonicity"; viz. The man that is elected according to the norms of canon law then in effect is the true Pope.

[St.Justin]

"A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected. At various times in the history of the Church illegal pretenders to the Papal Chair have arisen, and frequently exercised pontifical functions in defiance of the true occupant. Hergenröther enumerates thirty in the following order: "

From New Advent

"one elected or claiming to be pope in opposition to the pope canonically chosen"
From Merriam

[Michael Wilson]

What you stated from your sources is true. But also, an anti-Pope does not cease to be one if the real Pope dies, or if a real Pope dies and an illegal election is held and a false Pope is elected, before a true one; this falsely elected "Pope" would still be an anti Pope. Take the current case of "Pope Michael"; he was elected in 1990 during the reign of J.P. II; he was then an "anti-Pope"; when J.P. II died and before Ratzinger was elected, David Bawden aka "Pope Michael" continued to be an anti-Pope. He will continue to be an anti-Pope until the day that he stops pretending to be the Pope.

[TradGranny]

G.P. Is correct about what an "anti-Pope" is; its an un-canonically elected claimant to the Papal throne. During the Great Western Schism there were two then three competing  claimant lines  to the Papal See, only one line was legitimate. When the legitimate Pope died, the false claimant(s) did not  cease to be false and become true; they remained anti-Popes.

Remember the group of prominent Catholics questioning NSA's involvement in the Papal Conclave? Perhaps Francis was un-canonically elected.

Prominent American Catholics have questioned whether it was this same Soros conspiracy, aided by the Obama/Clinton regime, that led to the strange resignation of the previous Pope Benedict and his replacement by the current anti-Pope Bergoglio. Earlier this year, they published a letter in the American Catholic newspaper Remnant asking the Trump administration to investigate these claims, demanding an explanation of why the NSA was intensively monitoring the Papal Conclave.

The letter mentions a "Cardinal Daneels mafia" allegedly involved in ousting Benedict and replacing him with the "modernist" Bergoglio. Even prior to these Wikileaks revelations,  evidence had surfaced that Bergoglio's election was, in part, the result of a conspiracy by the "Sankt Gallen Group". Daneels is part of this Sankt Gallen Group. If Bergoglio's election was, in fact, the result of a conspiracy, this would theoretically render it null and void, because the rules governing Papal elections specifically prohibit prior understandings or agreements among the electors. You can see serious case made for this point of view here.

Bergoglio seems intent on destroying the Catholic Church and even Christendom itself. Today, the conservative Italian newspaper reports that he is thinking of abolishing the Vatican (!), claiming the Pope could live outside Rome, even in Bogota.

https://diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2017/09/24/catholic-church-rebels-against-the-anti-pope/

[Prayerful]

When there is a Pope who is Catholic as understood from Peter to Pius XII (although Pius did put Msgr Bugnini in the liturgical driving seat in '48), it would be likelier that the grossest errors of V2 will be clarified out of existence, simply to turn the ambiguity of V2 on itself. Ambiguous things can be rightly understood, and then forgotten. Better things can be said, again and again. Urban VIII promulgated a misguided breviary revision, but that fell from use. So too will the V2 junk, all of it, given time.

[Santantonio]

My primary source was a little booklet published by TAN on the prophecy of St. Malachi on the Popes. The author has a short introduction as to the history of the prophecy, with a definition of what makes a legitimate Pontiff; which was in reference to the Great Schism; in it he stated that what differentiates a true Pope from a false Pope (election wise), is "Canonicity"; viz. The man that is elected according to the norms of canon law then in effect is the true Pope.

In order for the "Malachy" prophecy to be accurate, Bergoglio must either be an Antipope
or Petrus Romanus. If he is an Antipope, Petrus Romanus is next. If he is Petrus Romanus,
he's going to have to change his ways most significantly.

[TradGranny]

My primary source was a little booklet published by TAN on the prophecy of St. Malachi on the Popes. The author has a short introduction as to the history of the prophecy, with a definition of what makes a legitimate Pontiff; which was in reference to the Great Schism; in it he stated that what differentiates a true Pope from a false Pope (election wise), is "Canonicity"; viz. The man that is elected according to the norms of canon law then in effect is the true Pope.

In order for the "Malachy" prophecy to be accurate, Bergoglio must either be an Antipope
or Petrus Romanus. If he is an Antipope, Petrus Romanus is next. If he is Petrus Romanus,
he's going to have to change his ways most significantly.

My bet is that the Malachi prophecy was tampered with long ago by Freemasons who had access to the Vatican Library.

[Michael Wilson]

Lets go over the list;  If I'm not mistaken, Pius XII was supposed to be "Pastor Angelicus"; that would have made J. XXIII "Pastor et Nauta"
i.e. Shepherd and Navigator (he was the Patriarch of Venice); Paul VI "Flos Florum"; either a reference to martyrdom; which he didn't suffer or more likely to the "Fleur De Lis" in reference to the influence of the French philosophers and theologians on his thinking; J.P. I: "De meditati lunae" of the half moon; a reference to Islam or to the shortness of his reign. J.P. II "De Laboris solis" i.e. Of the labor of the sun: in either reference to  a solar eclipse or to the jurney of the sun through the sky during the day. J.P. II did journey around the world several times. "De Gloria Olivae" i.e. The Glory of the Olives; a reference of either the Benedictine order or to Israel (land of olives); but apart from taking the name "Benedict" there doesn't seem to be much relationship here. Here is the problem, the next Pope after "Glory of the Olives" is supposed to be "Peter the Roman"; but Peter the Roman is then Bergoglio and we are in the "last days".  So there will not be any more Popes. If Bergoglio resigns or dies and another Pope is elected, then the prophecy is a forgery.

[Kirin]

My bet is that the Malachi prophecy was tampered with long ago by Freemasons who had access to the Vatican Library.

Does occams razor not enter this at any stage?

I'm sure if evil anti-Catholic Freemasons had access to the Vatican library, they could find something far more damaging and scandalous to start publishing rather than embellishing random prophecies that have never enjoyed official sanction to begin with.