Francis Is Not An Antipope



In the present, very confused situation, I think it is important to put Francis’ papacy in the proper perspective. 

An Antipope is – and this is the only meaning the name ever had – a person who claim he is the Pope – and is believed by many – in opposition to one who is generally seen as being the Pope. Basically, an Antipope is someone who has a widely approved claim to the throne of Peter instead of another person generally seen to be the legitimate Pope. 

Therefore, for it to be an Antipope there is the need for two men in white, with competing claims: one who is seen as being the legitimate Pope, and claims his right to be Pope; and one who is not seen to be the legitimate Pope, but claims that the first one is not a legitimate Pope and he himself is. 

If there were an alternative Conclave in Berlin, and Cardinal Woelki were to be elected “Pope” by this alternative conclave, and were to be seen as the Pope by the clergy of Germany, Austria Switzerland and many others in Catholic gaga land, then Woelki would be seen as an “Antipope”, claiming that not Francis, but he, is the legitimate Pope. Of course, we would call him “Antipope”, but the Austrians and Germans would call him “Pope”, and Francis “usurper” or something like that. Not even in this scenario Francis could be seen as an “Antipope”. Antipope could only be the pretender to the throne, never the man already sitting on it. 

Francis can never be an Antipope. There is (barring children playing with toys) no self-styled Pope questioning the legitimacy of Francis to be Pope. Benedict does not question that Francis is the Pope. Gaenswein does not even hint that Francis is not a legitimate Pope. No (sane) Bishop or Cardinal around questions Francis’ role as the legitimate Pope. The SSPX has no doubts as to who is Pope. Even most Sedevacantists say that he is not Pope, but they could never say that he is an Antipope: because they would have to tell us who the legitimate Pope is, and being Sedevacantists they claim that there is no one around. 

Francis is the Pope. Unpleasant as the fact is, it is a fact. As they say in the US: deal. 

Now, we can create all sorts of fantasy scenarios and conspiracy theories. We can fantasise about Pope Rapunzel. We can create a bespoke fantasy world perfectly suited to our discomfort. But it is just that: fantasy, willed self-deception, and escape from reality. 

Francis is Pope. No alternative council and alternative conclave elected a pretender to the throne of Peter. Therefore, there is no Antipope around. Francis is the Pope elected under the normal way, and universally recognised. He could never claim that he (Francis) is not the Pope, and that he (Francis) should be the Pope instead. The only conclusion to that is that Francis is the legitimate Pope, with no competing claim anywhere (among the sane of mind, I mean; the children playing with alternative papal elections aren’t even worthy of the mention).

Now, once we have come to grips with the facts, we must find a way to interpret facts we know in light of the truth we know. This is not difficult. It only requires to stop dreaming, and look at reality instead. 

The Holy Ghost has never promised us that the like of Francis would never be Pope. The Pope is elected by the Cardinals. If the Cardinals are stupid, or evil, or faithless, or a mixture of that, it is not unlikely that the Pope will end up reflecting those who elected him. The Cardinal must pray the Holy Ghost for inspiration to elect a good Pope, but there is no guarantee that they will do so, much less that God will force them to do so. Cardinals aren’t remote-controlled toys in God’s hands. Gos respects their own free will. Like everyone of us, they can choose between good and evil and can be more or less pious, more or less inspired in their decisions. God allows evil, and he does so with a providential aim: that out of every evil he allows, good may come out.

God allows evil, and God punishes. Can anyone tell me why the Church as a whole, and we as collective entity, have not deserved Francis? How many have praised all the rubbish of Vatican II for 60 years? Shall we call it, erm, 95% percent? How many call JP II oh so good as a Pope, who allowed Assisi 1986 to happen, nay: to be even thought of? Shall I make you the list of all the ways in which the Church has encouraged heresy and apostasy in the last 60 years? Shall I even begin to tell you all the ways in which the Church has betrayed Her Master in almost all aspects of Catholic doctrine – from the doctrine of war to the doctrine of wealth, from capital punishment to subsidiarity to the social kingship of Christ -? Seriously, there’s no time for that. Buy yourself Iota Unum, and reflect on how much has happened after that and before Francis; and then you will rather wonder how Francis was so long in coming!  

The reality is very simple: Francis is Pope, and God is punishing us by giving us exactly the Pope we have deserved. A wise, perfect, all-merciful punishment for our stupidity and arrogance. A punishment so obvious that is astonishes me there are still people who think they are being “duped”, and deprived of a fantasy papacy they think they entitled to. A punishment that allows us to wake up to the reality of serious Catholicism by way of forced, brutal comparison with this obscene clown. 

It’s impossible not to see the pattern here. It is as if God would tell us: “You do like heresy, don’t you? Well then, how do you like this? Enjoy the “springtime of the Church” in its full blossoming! Savour the Aggiornamento to the full! Have another serving of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue!”

It’s so obvious, so evident, so brutally clear, that I do not think anyone is authorised not to see it. And the reason Francis has happened is evident every day even three years after the beginning of his pontificate: silent Bishops, silent Cardinals, fluffy priests all around! An obviously heretical Pope is met by nothing more than “discomfort” by most faithful and most bloggers, so devoted to the golden calf of the saintly Pope that they prefer to betray their religion rather than criticise the heretic! Not only has the Catholic world at large fully deserved Francis, but it keeps deserving him day is and day out as almost daily provocations are met with no more than vague mumbling and effeminate claims of “confusion” from the vast majority of the faithful! 

God will free us from this scourge – possibly, in form of successors the likes of him – only when we have been punished enough and – very likely – have reacted to the shock with a work of regeneration, rediscovery of Catholicism, and utter refusal of heresy and blasphemy. 

Are we there? No. Expect this circus to go on for a while, then. 

Do not take refuge in a fantasy world. Do your bit to improve the real one instead. 







Posted on July 2, 2016, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 26 Comments.

  1. Exactly correct Mundabor. If a survey were to be taken most Catholics would agree with a merger with ‘high end’ Protestant Churches, i.e., those with Communion services.

    There should be no real surprise about any of this. Pope Francis is merely going where most Catholics already are. The only folks out of steps are those who read this and other Orthodox Catholics blogs.

  2. Superbly Blunt Truth! Amen!
    As they say down South? Stick a fork in it! Its Done!
    To paraphrase John Houseman on the classic TV commercial for EF Hutton
    “CHASTISEMENT?” We do things the old fashion way! WE EARN IT!

  3. Mundy,
    Your diction from a historical perspective is obviously correct. But we could have here an expanded antipapal situation, thus altering the definition. The currently available facts on the ground are insufficient to prove this, but it’s possible. And things have certainly gotten more interesting in the past month. You don’t have to be crazy to think something is amiss, especially when a heretic is reigning from the chair of St Peter. (we think)

    • in this case, however, Francis should not (and could never) be called an “Antipope”.
      The proper reading of the situation would then be that *the Pope is an enemy of the Church*.
      The situation is what it is. We can’t remake the definition of words, or invents a fantasy situation, in order to make it better fit with our shocked reaction at this shocking papacy.

      I can think of twenty ways I could call this Pope. None of them fit for children.

      But none of them including the word “Antipope”.

      Beware of those who tell you you can decide who is Pope and who isn’t.


  4. Francis is a heretic in the internal and external forum
    (who cannot be deposed by anyone since the Papacy is set up so that no Pope may be canonically judged let alone stripped of his office–especially now with modernists salivating to be like Lutherans or Episcopalians), the Sedes want a headless Catholic Church, since they refuse to realize they are not Catholic if they have no Pope and won’t even attempt to elect a Pope because the conclavists burned that bridge with their Pope Michael’s and Pope Pius XIII’s….all desperate and unqualified men…not to mention the nutty factor involved with these so-called “elections”

    The SSPX is divided and those faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre are demonized…sectarianism has filled the traditionalist movements….the recognize and resist crowd seems to be in a state of constant bitterness and pain over the state of the Church since Francis: while being in denial that the modernists while having touched and corrupted the sacred Liturgy and other sacred Rites of the Sacraments would ever touch the moral theology–now all of us have realized that Vatican II and its cadre of perverts of all stripes and closeted liberal hierarchs and Cardinals had the full intention of not merely “reforming” external rites and ceremonies but the whole corpus of Catholic theology and practice including moral theology, rejecting natural and divine law.

    Some have thought to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy as the solution but the schismatics just had their “Holy and Great Council” as some mockery of an Ecumenical Council which was only a Greek Love Fest and cannot agree on simple matters of moral theology or even if they are in communion or out of communion all the while mocking the Papal model as inferior to their synodal model of chaos being pawned off as the ancient practice of conciliarity coming from the early Church….

    This whole situation of being a faithful Catholic today is horrendous…an age when the faithful or the sheep who cry out for shepherds have to fend for themselves…to starve…or worse die because within the Gates of the Church they have been attacked by wolves wearing the vestments of the Church.


    Some have said remain holy and practice alone, others to attend the Novus Ordo and put on the blinders, others to attend an independent traditional chapel and pray for the end of the world and the coming of Christ, others atheism and despair…along with a multiplicity of so-called solutions and pious answers…I remain sorrowful and alas without any…

    If some accuse me of bitching…alas…I don’t give a damn anymore…

    In Mary,


    • I have a very short, simple, and Catholic solution for you.

      Keep doing what your grand-grandfathers did.

      Defend Truth on every occasion.

      Pray the Lord that he may free us from the scourge of Modernism.

      Persevere until death.


  5. Robert Horwath

    You are correct….he is not an Anti-Pope.

    Sincerely, Robert aka #anathemasit

  6. I take the view that there were and are irregularities in Pope Benedict’s resignation, and subsequent activity since then. You discuss competing CLAIMS to the Papal Office. This is not the problem. The problem is the INVALIDITY of the NEW claim, ACCEPTED by BOTH Popes, in the context of an “expanded Petrine Ministry”.

    I will use the New Advent definition of “antipope”.

    “A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected.”

    The Papal claim of Francis AND those that elected him depend on the Papal Seat being canonically vacant. IS the seat “canonically” vacant?

    And then, to draw that to its conclusion, here is an extract from EWTN’s definition written by Warren Carroll: “Anyone claiming to be Pope, while another duly elected Pope is still living and has not resigned is ipso facto antipope.”

    For the seat to be vacant, there are only two options: death or valid resignation. The question centers on resignation. Yes, he submitted his resignation. Was it valid? Canon Law 188A defines invalidity as: “A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.”

    I focus on “substantial error”. What is it? I think it embodies the concept that Pope Bendict sees himself practically speaking as retired, not resigned. He specifically stated in his resignation address that he considers himself “still within the enclosure of St. Peter”. In his resignation address he specified the nature of his altered and reduced but CONTINUED Papal role in the “expanded Petrine Ministry”, (a gift to the Church for all time).

    “Anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any private dimension. […] My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this …. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the GOVERNANCE of the Church, but in the service of PRAYER I REMAIN, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.”

    He resigned active ministry. He did not resign prayer and suffering ministry. He still claims a portion of the Seat of Peter. The word resignation was applied to what is in reality a form of retirement from activity, but not the Seat itself. Which leads to the key word EMERITUS (retired); never before seen in all of Church Tradition.

    But a Pope cannot retire. He cannot retain the smallest portion, even a molecule, of Papal ministry, even in his own mind. He can have nothing more to do with Papal ministry. At all. He must resign in full, with an active will to do so. Emeritus is thus impossible. Retaining the apostolate of prayer and suffering, while resigning from active ministry is impossible. He cannot retain the title of Holiness. He cannot wear Papal White or live in the Vatican Gardens or act as Papal Grandfather or share in the Office of Pope in any way. Benedict is either Pope until he is dead …… or he is no longer Benedict XVI, (emeritus); he must be Card./Fr. Ratzinger, and he MUST leave the stage and the side of Christ as Christ’s Vicar in ANY form.

    The Code of Canon Law states, “If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone” (Canon 332, No. 2). Nevertheless, when a pope is elected as the Successor of St. Peter, the Church expects that he will remain in office until his death.

    IOW: No “Emeritus”. No resignation. Still Pope.

    • This is sheer absurd.
      You can’t decide that one who says that Francis is the legitimate Pope is Pope, and the one whom the Pope says is the legitimate Pope isn’t.
      Similarly, the definition you quote does not make sense if Benedict does not contest Francis’ legitimacy, then in this case Francis is an… unchallenged “AntiPope”.

      It’s no logic at all. Sheer absurdity.

      It’s one inch away from Sedevacantism, as the proposers of this theory think that they can decide who is Pope and who isn’t.


  7. General Cornwallis’ speech at the surrendered at Yorktown 1781. “Your churches will be used to teach the Jew’s religion and in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire. All religions will be permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses, and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye of the Grand Architect of Freemasons.”
    Hollywood for more than one hundred years has been promoting the base instincts of Jewish morality from the Old Testament which Jesus rejected. Much of this material has neutralized the teachings of Jesus, the Church and Parents. Is Francis telling ‘Sleeping Christians’ to wake up?

  8. For more than one hundred years Hollywood and governments have been promoting Old testament basic instinct morality which neutralizes the teachings of Jesus, Church and Parent. Is Francis alerting Christians to evils of secularism?

  9. Mundabor. You missed the point completely.

    Canon 188. Did Benedict’s resignation contain “substantial error”?

    You ignore that .

    • You ignore the fact that it’s not you who decide whether his resignation contains an error.
      He himself keeps saying that there was no foul play, and he did exactly what he wanted to do.
      But there’s no way no explain this to those who don’t want to see the facts.

  10. blueskirtwaltz

    “When God is angry with His people, He sends them bad priests…” (St. John Eudes) My own personal words to live by: “Cling to the Rock and bleed.”

  11. And by the way, lest you think I came up with this on my own, I was persuaded by articles such as that published by Chisea’s Sandro Magister and also The Remnant, in which its editor, Michael Matt, explains the depth of problem caused by a Catholic Church that now has two Popes, (“the unprecedented innovation that Ratzinger wants to put into practice”). He quotes Sandro Magister who laments, “But no one would have expected from him such an unheard-of act of rupture in the history of the papacy, totally without precedent”.

    And then Michael Matt’s comment on the innovation that snuck in to the Church, the “gift to the Church for all time”:

    “The only explanation for why the Catholic world has so blithely accepted this ludicrous notion of two Popes in Rome is that Catholics just don’t care anymore. The spirit of Vatican II has so stripped away the sensus Catholicus that Catholics — those still bothering to tune in to “As The Vatican Turns” — literally don’t give a damn. They have no traditions left to help keep them afloat in the veritable ocean of novelties in which they’re drowning. ”

    Amid all the innovations and sacrilege being pushed from the Seat of Peter is this cold, hard FACT behind it all: there are two Popes. The fact that Benedict has added the appellation “emeritus” does not change the fact he retained the title of Pope.

    There is no Church mechanism to retire. No mechanism to reduce your duties and responsibilities and share them with another. One is Pope until death or valid resignation (abandonment).

    Remnant article:

    Sandro Magister article:

    • Non sequitur.
      You can find shocking that there are two popes (I don’t), but this does not make of Francis an “antiPope” in the least.
      Benedict retained the title of Pope, not the function.
      It is obvious by considering Benedict’s thought that Celestine V was still Pope after he resigned. I think Celestine was, if memory serves, arrested just because of this.
      However, the fact is clear and both Benedict and Gaenswein have repeated it many times: the pope is Francis. Benedict is a former Pope who now retains a honorific title.

  12. Francis may not be an anti-pope, but he’s sure an Anti-Catholic one!

  13. I agree completely. And the first thought that popped into my mind when I heard Benedict had resigned was God telling him, “Okay Joseph step aside. I am going to allow them to have the pope that they want.” I remember being filled with dread.

    Recall that “a father disciplines the child he loves”. God is showing us just how much He loves us.

    As one wise commenter once said, “If we got the pope that we deserved we’d have Pope Snoop Dogg right now.” We deserve much worse than Francis, who is truly within the norm of a typical contemporary bishop or priest.

  14. The contention is not that both Popes don’t claim a valid resignation. The contention is whether it is in FACT a valid resignation. The claim is obvious. The reality is less so.

    The Pope obviously makes many claims that are anything but true. That does not make them true.

    By his own words and actions, Benedict retains, by choice and intent, one of the two functions of the Papal Office. I would contend that the function he retained is the MORE important of the two. That does not sound like a resignation to me. It sounds to me like he still sits firmly on a portion of St. Peter’s Seat; the portion directly connected to God, not man.

    And it is just a plain fact, regardless of what they say, IF he did not validly resign, Benedict is still Pope. Reality is what it is, no matter who declares the opposite.

    • Your comment drips Protestantism and, I must say, suffers of the same arrogance.
      You want to decide whether a resignation is valid.
      You question what a Pope himself said about his resignation.
      Heavens, do you listen to yourself?
      What is next, “the whore of Babylon”?
      Don’t embarrass yourself with this crap further, or I will have to act and do not allow you to sully this blog with your stupid protestant fantasies anymore.

  15. PF is not an anti-pope, but an antichrist since he so far opposes all Jesus’ teachings.

    • With respect, This is also wrong.
      The Antichrist is a well-defined figure of whom there will be only one. Therefore, Francis can never be “an” Antichrist.
      If he is “the” Antichrist we’ll soon know, but frankly I think he does not even begin to qualify.

  16. Francis of Assisi prophesied the coming of a “destroyer” Pope. The Third Secret of Fatima alleges that Rome itself will become apostate. Prophesy aside, Pope Francis is not an anomaly but the logical consequence of an ecclesiastical system that has valued intellectual fashion, secular influence, wealth and power over fidelity to divine revelation — and has done so for centuries.

%d bloggers like this: