Is Francis a legitimate Pope?

[Stella]

My question is how does an ordinary everyday Catholic determine something like that? There are many, many ordinary Catholics doing just that across social media these days and I can only imagine that they defer their knowledge to those they believe are representative of Catholic Truth.

The majority of my adult life has been during the papacy of StJPII and he represented the Truth of Christ powerfully in me. In moments of doubt I would always fall back on "if JPII believes, then so will I".

With Pope Francis, up until the last couple of years I found myself deferring to "if Pope Benedict supports him, then so do I". At some point though, I've taken that leap of faith based on genuinely 'getting' Pope Francis mission and committing wholly to live and spread it without fear.

For a young or newbie Catholic, I would advise as Canon law teaches, faithful submission to the Pope without fear that your faith is at risk.

So my question is for those who believe they are mature in faith, how do you determine if the Pope is legitimate or not?

[Doom]

Duh, of course he is. You know because if the see is not vacant following the death of a Pope pending the election of his successor, there will always be a Pope and Francis is the only candidate. The fact that he is a terrible POPE does not mean he is not legitimate, the Church has had bad Popes before and will again, the faith will survive.

[Stella]

Duh, of course he is. You know because if the see is not vacant following the death of a Pope pending the election of his successor, there will always be a Pope and Francis is the only candidate. The fact that he is a terrible POPE does not mean he is not legitimate, the Church has had bad Popes before and will again, the faith will survive.

Is saying that Francis a a 'terrible Pope' just a defacto rejection of his legitimacy though? I researched the Popes that are traditionally considered 'bad' Popes in history, and Francis seems to be the opposite of them ie. he rejects riches, he focuses on the poor, he is against 'phariseeism', he is accepted as morally wholesome. There's never been a 'bad' Pope like that before. He seems more aligned with Popes that were attacked for their goodness by the heretics of the day.

https://www.vaticancitytours.it/blog/wh ... n-history/

[Doom]

No it isn't, are you suggesting that it is a teaching of the Church that all Popes are perfect with flawless judgement and can never be criticized by anyone even when they make obvious mistakes?

So when Pope John XII died of a heart attack while having sex with a married woman, or how Pope Benedict IX sold the Papacy to the highest bidder and then retired these weren't wrong and they weren't bad Popes? Or when Pope Pius V excommunicated queen Elizabeth I of England thereby creating a wave of persecution of Catholics by the state that lasted nearly 250 years that wasn't a serious mistake? Or when Pope Pius V (again!) ordered the singing of a Te Deum and the striking of a medal in response to news of the St Bartholomew's massacre in France when thousand of non-violent French Protestants who posed no threat to social order or to the state, were slaughtered this wasn't a huge mistake?

If we can't say a Pope is bad, how do we account for things like this? Pretend they didn't happen?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

He was lawfully elected. He is the legitimate pope.

Look back at Church history. There have been some outright debauched popes, yet they were still legitimate.

[Doom]

He was lawfully elected. He is the legitimate pope.

Look back at Church history. There have been some outright debauched popes, yet they were still legitimate.

And I'm not even claiming he is debauched, only that he has bad judgement and tends to speak ambiguously and sometimes scandalously, creating confusion

[Stella]

No it isn't, are you suggesting that it is a teaching of the Church that all Popes are perfect with flawless judgement and can never be criticized by anyone even when they make obvious mistakes?

So when Pope John XII died of a heart attack while having sex with a married woman, or how Pope Benedict IX sold the Papacy to the highest bidder and then retired these weren't wrong and they weren't bad Popes? Or when Pope Pius V excommunicated queen Elizabeth I of England thereby creating a wave of persecution of Catholics by the state that lasted nearly 250 years that wasn't a serious mistake? Or when Pope Pius V (again!) ordered the singing of a Te Deum and the striking of a medal in response to news of the St Bartholomew's massacre in France when thousand of non-violent French Protestants who posed no threat to social order or to the state, were slaughtered this wasn't a huge mistake?

If we can't say a Pope is bad, how do we account for things like this? Pretend they didn't happen?

You've listed some really abominable acts of previous Popes we note as bad. So that is what I'm trying to equate. Why is Pope Francis 'bad'? What makes him bad like these other Popes? I mean with literal examples such as you've listed for other bad Popes?

[Doom]

Pope Francis is a bad Pope because he creates confusion instead of clarity, he makes scandalous comments that tend to offend and alienate not just traditional Catholics but traditional Christians of every stripe, evangelicals, mainline Protestants, and Orthodox, and as a result, Catholics are leaving the Church and non-Catholics are deciding not to convert. He is an authoritarian who has no respect for the traditional norms that have governed the Papacy for 1,000 years, he treats cardinals and bishops who disagree with him with extraordinary disrespect, and he constantly demeans and insults the lay Catholics who criticize him and reject his approach to governing the Church, calling them insulting and demeaning names. It is beneath the dignity of his office to describe Catholic laity as Pharisees, phony Christians, and tools of Satan, he has said all that and worse about people who have done nothing but express their reservations about his leadership style. He is a dictator.

[peregrinator]

You've listed some really abominable acts of previous Popes we note as bad. So that is what I'm trying to equate. Why is Pope Francis 'bad'? What makes him bad like these other Popes? I mean with literal examples such as you've listed for other bad Popes?

How about his record on abuse?

[Doom]

You've listed some really abominable acts of previous Popes we note as bad. So that is what I'm trying to equate. Why is Pope Francis 'bad'? What makes him bad like these other Popes? I mean with literal examples such as you've listed for other bad Popes?

How about his record on abuse?

I'm not sure any Pope about Pius X has a particularly good record on that issue

[Stella]

Pope Francis is a bad Pope because he creates confusion instead of clarity, he makes scandalous comments that tend to offend and alienate not just traditional Catholics but traditional Christians of every stripe, evangelicals, mainline Protestants, and Orthodox, and as a result, Catholics are leaving the Church and non-Catholics are deciding not to convert. He is an authoritarian who has no respect for the traditional norms that have governed the Papacy for 1,000 years, he treats cardinals and bishops who disagree with him with extraordinary disrespect, and he constantly demeans and insults the lay Catholics who criticize him and reject his approach to governing the Church, calling them insulting and demeaning names. It is beneath the dignity of his office to describe Catholic laity as Pharisees, phony Christians, and tools of Satan, he has said all that and worse about people who have done nothing but express their reservations about his leadership style. He is a dictator.

(The main question was regarding by what process do random Catholic laity and even Bishops, determine a Pope is an antipope both to publicly condemn and dismiss his teachings/encyclicals/exhortations etc, as invalid and ignored. I don’t accept that Catholic laity or even random bishops can make that call but it is being made so freely and publicly.)

Let’s discuss the authoritarian/dictator accusation. Most people know what a dictator is due to Putin, Xi Jinping, Pinochet, Trujillo etc. They don’t/didn’t allow any criticism as free speech and persecuted, jailed or executed anyone who opposed them. On the opposite end of that spectrum, the criticism of the Pope is unrestrained, vitriolic and very public. No consequences at all

And...Catholics all over the world break the rules everyday without the Pope and the Church punishing them.

He called abusive clergy ‘tools of Satan’ and most people would agree that there’s no doubt of Satans hand in their behavior true?

In March 2018, he used the term ‘fake Christians’ and ‘mafia Christians’ talking about the different facets of immoral corruption being undertaken by those who then call themselves Catholic. That is a fair correction for a Pope to make, true?

Francis is careful to detail the exact sins that were condemned by the Pharisees in Scripture to distinguish between the sect itself and how some behaved. If Jesus reserved His most severe condemnation to that sort of behavior ie rigidly enforcing the letter of the law without considering the spirit. Judging others while refusing to self examine. Praying out in public as a demonstration of their piety. Obsessing on their wrist prayer boxes and long garments and tassels and expecting to sit at the head of the banquet tables etc. Why would it not be most prudent to call out those behaviors today. Are they no longer serious sins? Do these corrections which insult some people, make him a bad Pope?

I challenge Catholics to get all their information about Pope Francis from his own words/homilies/encyclicals/letters etc. rather than Catholic shock jocks. For the sake of a healthy faith life.

[Stella]

You've listed some really abominable acts of previous Popes we note as bad. So that is what I'm trying to equate. Why is Pope Francis 'bad'? What makes him bad like these other Popes? I mean with literal examples such as you've listed for other bad Popes?

How about his record on abuse?

He has actually done more than any other Pope regarding addressing abuse. He has made mistakes such as with Rupnik but to his credit, media outrage resulted in his opening an investigation.

[Doom]

You've listed some really abominable acts of previous Popes we note as bad. So that is what I'm trying to equate. Why is Pope Francis 'bad'? What makes him bad like these other Popes? I mean with literal examples such as you've listed for other bad Popes?

How about his record on abuse?

He has actually done more than any other Pope regarding addressing abuse. He has made mistakes such as with Rupnik but to his credit, media outrage resulted in his opening an investigation.

No he hasn't, he reversed the reforms of Benedict XVI on both abuse and financial reforms to prevent money laundering through the Vatican Bank, when Francis was elected, there was a massive independent audit of the Vatican Bank to make sure it would comply with international accounting standards, it was a major reform, and Francis ended it almost immediately after his election. Nearly 11 years later, the audit has never been restarted.

Francis is the chief obstacle to serious reform.

[Stella]

How about his record on abuse?

He has actually done more than any other Pope regarding addressing abuse. He has made mistakes such as with Rupnik but to his credit, media outrage resulted in his opening an investigation.

No he hasn't, he reversed the reforms of Benedict XVI on both abuse and financial reforms to prevent money laundering through the Vatican Bank, when Francis was elected, there was a massive independent audit of the Vatican Bank to make sure it would comply with international accounting standards, it was a major reform, and Francis ended it almost immediately after his election. Nearly 11 years later, the audit has never been restarted.

Francis is the chief obstacle to serious reform.

What source are you getting your information from? I can cite Cardinal Pell as recently as April last year, praising Pope Francis' reforms and how they have protected the Vatican from further devastation through criminal and incompetent practices.

https://religionnews.com/2022/04/28/car ... -scandals/

[peregrinator]

I'm not sure any Pope about Pius X has a particularly good record on that issue

Well Francis has the experience of John Paul II and Benedict XVI to refer to. But the Church has actually regressed rather than moving forward.

[Doom]

(The main question was regarding by what process do random Catholic laity and even Bishops, determine a Pope is an antipope

Do you even know what an antipope is? It appears that you do not have any idea what the word means.

An antipope is an illegitimately elected Pope. Antipopes arise in a number of ways, the most common way, throughout history is that a given secular ruler, usually the emperor, decides that he does not like the current Pope, declares him deposed, and then chooses his own Pope.

Another common way for an antipope to arise is for a faction of the college of cardinals to publicly reject the Pope who won the election and declare their intent to elect a different Pope. This is how the Great Western Schism, which at its peak had 3 rival claimants to the Papacy only one of whom was legitimate and the other two were antipopes, happened.

Antipopes always arise as the result of a disputed Papal election. There hasn't been a disputed Papal election since the election of Martin V in 1415 which ended the Great Western Schism more than 600 years ago. Therefore, there can be no antipope. And probably never will be again.

Francis cannot possibly be an antipope, the legitimacy of his election has never been in doubt, no faction in the college of cardinals has suggested his election was illegitimate, there is no provision in Canon Law that would invalidate his election and no one except the usual Sedevacantist conspiracy theorists who have rejected every Pope for the last 60 years has suggested it wasn't valid.

It is not an opinion, it is not disputed,it is not at all confusing or subjective, it is simply a matter of objective fact that Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, who upon election took the name Pope Francis, is the validly elected successor to Saint Peter the 266th Pope and no who isn't an idiot disputes this.

[Stella]

(The main question was regarding by what process do random Catholic laity and even Bishops, determine a Pope is an antipope

Do you even know what an antipope is? It appears that you do not have any idea what the word means.

An antipope is an illegitimately elected Pope. Antipopes arise in a number of ways, the most common way, throughout history is that a given secular ruler, usually the emperor, decides that he does not like the current Pope, declares him deposed, and then chooses his own Pope.

Another common way for an antipope to arise is for a faction of the college of cardinals to publicly reject the Pope who won the election and declare their intent to elect a different Pope. This is how the Great Western Schism, which at its peak had 3 rival claimants to the Papacy only one of whom was legitimate and the other two were antipopes, happened.

Antipopes always arise as the result of a disputed Papal election. There hasn't been a disputed Papal election since the election of Martin V in 1415 which ended the Great Western Schism more than 600 years ago. Therefore, there can be no antipope. And probably never will be again.

Francis cannot possibly be an antipope, the legitimacy of his election has never been in doubt, no faction in the college of cardinals has suggested his election was illegitimate, there is no provision in Canon Law that would invalidate his election and no one except the usual Sedevacantist conspiracy theorists who have rejected every Pope for the last 60 years has suggested it wasn't valid.

It is not an opinion, it is not disputed,it is not at all confusing or subjective, it is simply a matter of objective fact that Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, who upon election took the name Pope Francis, is the validly elected successor to Saint Peter the 266th Pope and no who isn't an idiot disputes this.

Perhaps you could speak out against those proliferating the notion that Pope Francis is an antipope rather than attacking the messenger. That would be the likes of Archbishop Vigano.

https://exsurgedomine.it/en/230930-cic-eng/

Dr Taylor Marshall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozloQ7GahLI

Patrick Coffin.

https://catholicconvert.com/patrick-cof ... anti-pope/

I won't overburden the thread with anymore citations at the moment.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I am not aware that any of those people are members of this forum.

[zeno]

I am not aware that any of those people are members of this forum.

Exactly.

I challenge Catholics to get all their information about Pope Francis from his own words/homilies/encyclicals/letters etc. rather than Catholic shock jocks. For the sake of a healthy faith life.

Again, I don't know who here you think is in need of this advice. Frankly, I find it insulting.

[peregrinator]

I don't listen to/watch any of those people - I barely know who Coffin is, and Viganò and Marshall strike me as traddy-come-latelies - that is, they weren't "trads" 10 years ago when Francis acceded to the Papal chair! This might be difficult for some to accept, but ordinary Catholics can discern on their own that Francis is a bad Pope.