Brighton’s erudite Fr. Ray Blake is furious with apologist Louie Verrecchio for co-opting his suggestion that Benedict may have abdicated under pressure into an argument against Pope Francis’ legitimacy.  Father’s reaction is not unusual, since many clergy and professional Catholics insist the Francis papacy must be taken on faith, and faith in the process.  But really, if Francis is our ‘Peter’ then his barque isn’t only storm-tossed, but it’s also full of leaky holes.

I do not maintain that Francis is NOT pope.  I simply don’t know for certain.  It is not, as Fr. Blake indignantly claims, “irrational” to doubt that Francis is pope.  It is perfectly normal under the circumstances.  Trying to assert definitively one way or another, however, distracts from the fact that Francis isn’t Catholic and should be corrected, then formally removed. Father uses honest questions as opportunities to hurl ‘sedevacantist’ and other insults at faithful Catholics in order to marginalize them.  It’s a strategic piece of rhetoric and it only serves Francis and his faithless court.

Writers have put forth several cases against Francis’ legitimacy.  While many may turn out to be conclusive, the sheer number is compelling alone.  Altogether, there are several reasons why we must look at Francis as someone who may not actually be the pope.  I’ve included one or two of my own:

1. Benedict abdicated the papal throne

Popes should never abdicate and they almost never have.  It immediately casts a shadow upon the next papacy.  Popes, whose business is shedding light upon things, cannot function under shadow.  There is absolutely NO good reason for a pope to abdicate unless he is forced out by his own heresy.  Since Benedict expressed no valid reason to step down, and indeed had none, we must contend with an assortment of bad possibilities.  The ones which he gave are clearly dishonest, even ridiculous.

2. Benedict abdicated the papacy while claiming to continue to be pope, but in a different way

Benedict plainly felt the papal charism would continue in him and made that clear to the world when he stepped down.  Abp. Georg Ganswein, his enigmatic minder, confirmed this ‘contemplative pope’ invention later.  Can one relinquish the papacy while thinking that he remains spiritually pope at the same time?  In order to think Francis is pope today, you must believe that one can.

Not only is it unfathomably irresponsible and extremely unusual for a pope to step down, but Benedict did so in this contrived and incomplete way.  Furthermore, Benedict’s very weird abdication strikes me as the kind of thing a pope might say if he actually DIDN’T want to abdicate, but felt he had no choice, and wanted to console himself and his heartbroken planet.

3. A lobbying group of cardinals was active for several years prior to the conclave specifically for the purpose of electing Francis

This type of planning is proscribed in Canon law.  In order to believe Francis is pope one must assert that Canon law does not apply here or that its violation would not invalidate the election.  I don’t think either of those ideas would be true, but I am not an expert.  I have not read any convincing material to the contrary, though.  Perhaps no authority could be found to prove that the St. Gallen group invalidated the election.  Nevertheless God may think it did, since perhaps it is true.

4. Benedict may have been pushed

What happened to that huge dossier of paper, higher than Obamacare, which was compiled to root out corruption, sex abuse, and other illegality? Why did the banks lock out the Vatican just prior to abdication?  Why did Benedict say he was too weak to be pope any longer and too feeble to make World Youth Days?  What normal person isn’t ‘too feeble’ for those?

Did he have powerful enemies who wanted him gone?  Yes.  Did he please them by forsaking the Church?  Yes.  Was he threatened with something apparently more damaging than his abdication?  The fact that he has not clearly named the pressures he and his close bishops have alluded to does not mean they didn’t exist.  That’s why abdication is a bad idea for popes.  Of course they happen under pressure.  How could they not?  The essence of a papacy is to stand against pressure.

God does not protect the Church from popes being discreetly forced out and replaced by heretic mobs.  He will continue to bless the removed pope and curse the mob and their thief.  Peter and the many martyred popes understood this.

The scenario is not workable.  It’s like the modern practice of permitting mixed marriages so long as they raise the children Catholic.  A non-Catholic father is incapable of raising Catholic children, so it simply can’t happen.  But one can always pretend like the bishops do.  It’s very likely that Benedict quit because powerful forces wanted him gone.   That puts his, and any papal abdication in doubt.

5. Benedict’s movements and press releases are restricted and appear compelled

Benedict remains right in the Vatican under close control.  He has even admitted that he only goes anywhere when Francis ‘invites’ him.  He is rarely seen without Abp. Ganswein.  He has only spoken a few brief words on camera in these four years, and some of these sound almost like cryptic cries for help.  Statements and publications released in his name often do not sound like him.  Instead they sound like people trying to sound like him.  No one seems to report accurately or meaningfully on recent conversations they’ve had with him.   One wonders what would happen were he to try and take a holiday, perhaps in Germany with only a few friends.

6. A significant chunk of the cardinal electors were heretics

I excerpted a section of Canon Law on elections:

Can. 171 §1. The following are effected to vote:

  • 1/ a person incapable of a human act;
  • 2/ a person who lacks active voice;
  • 3/ a person under a penalty of excommunication whether through a judicial sentence or through a decree by which a penalty is imposed or declared;
  • 4/ a person who has defected notoriously from the communion of the Church.

Was it legal for Cardinal Kasper to vote in in the Francis conclave?  I seem to recall that heretic cardinals are NOT able to vote in conclaves.  Many of those voting for Francis were ‘notorious’ heretics.    One would hope that such cardinals would be removed prior to conclave, but in the event they make it all the way there, can the Church truly rely upon the results of such votes?  The next conclave will consist almost entirely of heretics, and every one thereafter, until such force is applied to eradicate faithless men from episcopal office (in the absence of any remaining formal legal authority to do so).

If you take issue with my assessment of the faith of many cardinals, remember heretics embedded behind enemy lines are cagey about it.  A process of ‘inquisition’ must be applied to carefully verify what any normal human can already see.

In short, does a conclave with a substantial block of faithless men, perhaps over half, and separated from the Church militant, have the power to elect popes?  Would not a Catholic pope emerging under such conditions require a miracle?  Is that our faith?

7. It has been reported (Wikileaks) that the Vatican was bugged by the White House ahead of the conclave

Why then not the conclave too?  This means there may have been guidance, threats, powerful influence from the outside as things proceeded.  A tossed empty ballot disqualified one of the rounds, suggesting other manipulation may have occurred. Obama and the Democrats were well known for election fraud and exerting pressure, also for toppling regimes.  Francis is clearly an element in the Left’s political schemes today.  If the White House was a force behind his uncatholic takeover, they would most certainly have wished to influence the conclave voting process. It’s only the matter of a few votes, really, instead of their standard millions.

8. Those who assert Francis’ legitimacy do so on moral and emotional grounds, falling to insults rather than arguments

There have been few straightforward arguments to address these doubts, or assert the unquestionable legitimacy of Francis.  Instead they typically resort to moralizing and demeaning deflections.  The biggest obstacle to their assurances is Francis himself, who constantly demonstrates his unsuitability and reveals his evil agenda. With their serene acceptance continuously undermined this way, they grow angry and demanding.

Appeals to the ‘universal acceptance’ of Francis as pope are hollow, much like those to the sensus fidei.  ‘Universal’ does not mean Buddhists, secularists, and apostates.  Very few men are actual Catholics, and many of those are simply too unaware to guess.  On the other hand, plenty of Catholics as well as Protestants, even atheists rightfully judge this situation to be highly sketchy.

9. Francis and his party have no respect for due process or rules, and employ dirty tricks as seen in the Synods

If Benedict were to have stepped down under duress, and political outsiders contracted to guarantee as far as possible a man who would work the will of the Church’s enemies, Francis and his regime are exactly the type of men who they would install.  They are all imposters, liars, thieves, homosexuals, and ruthless attack dogs.  The two Synods were manipulated and misrepresented.  Every dirty trick was employed to achieve their goals.  If Francis and his backers both in and outside the Church act like that now, why should we dream they were different during Benedict’s abdication and the conclave?  They would have to have behaved in ways which were completely out of character.

10. Francis isn’t Catholic

There have been heretical popes, corrected and renounced on points of doctrine, but there has never been one so manifestly foreign to the Christian faith.  A Pope this uncatholic has never happened.  In light of God’s promises for the Church it might actually be impossible.

11. Francis is incapable of performing the function of pope

To bishops, clergy, religious, Francis does function as a superior, but to lay Catholics, who must only show deference to his teaching and guidance, he means nothing.  There is no papal role for Francis to perform and for which lay Catholics can respond.  While he may have an official, formal relationship to us, in reality he has no connection  since we cannot rely on him for his intrinsic purpose.  I would consider that since Our Lord has bequeathed in His Church a ‘functional’ and permanent system, if a pope is dysfunctional like this, then he must not be any true part of the Church.  After all, the Church has three tiers, Triumphant, Suffering, and Militant.  Outside this there is only heresy, apostasy, and Hell.  A true pope absolutely must be capable of being spiritually part of the Church Militant.  He must hold the Faith or he is not true.


This is where I stand among all these realities and the questions they engender.  Francis is not necessarily the pope.  But his formal legitimacy doesn’t really matter so much since he is incapable of performing the task.  An apostate or Protestant father cannot raise Catholic children.  And such a man cannot be our Holy Father either.  Even if he is, formally yet dubiously, he still must be corrected, removed, and marked for posterity, the sooner the better.



About fgwalkers@att.net

Editor, Canon212.com


  1. Anonymous on July 26, 2017 at 7:36 pm said:

    Is it possible to agree with you 200%? Well stated. I simply dont know. I pray for the pope, either N or N. I know we have one. I figure, but also don’t know, that the other is the prophesied bishop in white.

    • Donna Allen on July 30, 2017 at 7:57 am said:

      I too agree with this article. We owe allegiance to Christ and the truth is clear. If anyone is in doubt or confusion over Francis’ authenicity (in his love for the Most Holy Trinity), his position and their own, pray to God Almighty who has always known the Truth of every matter. Francis is an apostate and he is destroying the church.

  2. Anonymous on July 26, 2017 at 9:23 pm said:

    It takes courage to speak the truth. One of Christ’s most noble characteristics was his courage to face that he could not avoid.

  3. Ronald Sevenster on July 26, 2017 at 10:01 pm said:

    Is it perhaps not better to simply forget of the Papacy? I mean, the Popes have been modernist destroyers of the Church sinds John XXIII or Paul VI. What is needed today is a reconnect to Church tradition as it was before the revolution of Vatican II.

  4. Liam Ronan on July 27, 2017 at 12:06 am said:

    I realize that under certain circumstances and conditions what a Pope declares is infallible and binding.

    However, is the declaration of a Papal Conclave in proclaiming the result of a papal election infallible, i.e. Cardinals stating infallibly that Cardinal X is the Pope?

    • fgwalkers@att.net on July 27, 2017 at 6:43 am said:

      I would think there may be scenarios where the outcome of a conclave isn’t binding. For example, if the other pope still reigns. In the Great Western schism there was more than one conclave which elected more than one simultaneous pope, yet only one of the men was legitimate.

  5. Antigon on July 27, 2017 at 4:44 am said:

    Chapeau, M. Walker, tho would suggest your arguments establish a moral certainty that Benedict’s abdication was invalid, & accordingly that he remains the sole Pontiff of he Catholic Faith, not the antipope Bergoglio.

  6. James on July 27, 2017 at 5:25 am said:

    You have articulated in a reasonable and clear manner questions and concerns which have been dismissed without serious discussion. I appreciate your effort in providing this list. It is agonizing to have to review these legitimate concerns. You have done well.

    • fgwalkers@att.net on July 27, 2017 at 6:54 am said:

      Thank you. It’s not wrong to doubt this situation. When the false Church is five times worse, it will be good to remember where it all went South.

    • JTLiuzza on July 27, 2017 at 11:36 am said:

      I second this. I appreciate the author’s position and his efforts as well.

  7. Benedict may have set a very dangerous precedent, but this article sets another one. If it’s true, we’re in enough trouble. If not, someone else is.

    Therein lies the danger.

    • fgwalkers@att.net on July 27, 2017 at 9:57 am said:

      The truth can be scary but never threatening. Blindness is dangerous. Light is a welcome comfort.

  8. Thank you for writing these truths plainly in our view …

  9. Mark Docherty on July 27, 2017 at 9:56 am said:

    Nice work!

  10. Stephen MarkS on July 27, 2017 at 11:25 am said:

    I was… in the ‘Music business’.. I would like to make a ‘correlation’ of sorts. First and foremost, I thank God for my ( late ) Mother who raised my sisters & I as ‘Traditional Catholics’.. Being over 60, I recall the ‘reverence’ of going to Mass, that it was in Latin.. women covered their heads and there was an ethereal ‘mystery’ to everything. Then, here in America ( and France- once a bastion of Catholic faith ( as was Russia- the REAL reason for the removal of Tsar Nicholas and family ) the ‘tiny changes’ began. They changed ‘Holy Ghost’ to (Spirit).. because the word ‘Ghost’ ( scared ) children?? All I remember is ‘Caspar’ was ‘friendly!’ Then they started to ‘shorten’ the Mass.. then outright ‘change’ the Mass to the post Vatican II ( easy to understand/contrived ‘English’ ) saying, ‘It will help people be more involved… to ‘understand’ the Mass?? The ‘list’ goes on & on.. And people ( Catholics ) accepted it all! Why? Because it made them FEEL good… By the 70’s… only the tiniest percentage attended Confession- named changed to ‘reconciliation’- and eventually? Less than 1/10th of 1% went at all. ( It is a mortal sin to receive communion in even a state of ‘venial’ sin! ) Then, no longer was the host to be ‘touched’ ONLY by the CONSECRATED hands of Priests… but by ANYONE! ( In our Church, which was among MANY recently CLOSED by the Diocese ) I once found a bunch ‘lying on the floor!! I’d read of such things… and frankly was in shock! I immediately went to the Rectory to ‘inform’ someone and a very ‘modern’ Priest explained ( there’s an explanation!? ) that.. ‘Oh… they weren’t ‘consecrated’ and the sisters were only teaching them about communion’.. ( he left out the word HOLY ) So, I thought… doesn’t that teach them it ISN’T to be ‘treated reverently- HOLY’…. Now for the ‘correlation’ about the ‘music business’… Years ago… in the 80’s mainly, it was the ‘fragmentation’ of radio that pretty much did the major recording/music industry in ( as did the internet ).. There used to be ‘genre’s of music’.. Country, Rock, Blues, Swing, Jazz… You follow? Suddenly, these ‘categories’ had a zillion ‘sub-categories’ like Rock, Blues rock, Soft Rock, Folk Rock, Art-Rock, Progressive Rock’… The ‘lists’ went on & on & on.. Suddenly.. anyone and EVERYONE was ‘talented’ ( even if in fact- they were NOT ).. And, people just blindly went along. THIS is what happened ( and continues to happen ) with our beloved Catholic Church. And? There WILL be hell to pay…

    • Anonymous on August 1, 2017 at 10:44 pm said:

      I loved your post, but I would like to make one extremely important correction in regards to “it is a mortal sin to receive Holy Communion in even a state of venial sin.” The Catholic Church teaches that a Catholic can AND SHOULD receive Holy Communion even if one has venial sin on his or her soul because that Holy Communion received reverently can take away the venial sin and assiat one in further not committing mortal and venial sin. It is a mortal sin to receive Hoky Communion in mortal sin and also sacrilege against Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

  11. Colleen on July 27, 2017 at 11:45 am said:

    There simply cannot be two living popes. Historically, whenever this has happened one of them was NOT the pope. This instance alone legitimates a serious questioning of the Francis papacy.

  12. Anonymous on July 27, 2017 at 11:52 am said:

    Don’t forget the Cardinal Mccarrick video on YouTube entitled “Who Is Pope Francis?” He meets with an Italian who tells him to “push bergoglio” during the preconclave speeches. Mccarrick also possibly alludes to Simony, though it is a stretch, regarding some kind of betting/odds maker. Lastly, don’t forget the possibility that Benedict may not have been of sound mind; was he on mind altering “medications”?

  13. A great commentary. If Francis is the pope, then we have learned that is it possible for a pope often to mislead the faithful and the world as to what the Church teaches. In the case of future popes we will know that it is our duty to question everything they say and compare it to traditional teaching. In short, if Francis is the pope, then we can never trust popes again and we have been wrong to trust them in the past.

    Now the argument can be made that Pope Francis’s teaching is not infallible and does not even constitute the ordinary, not always infallible, magisterium. But how many of the faithful or non-believers makes that distinction? And so the best thing for a Catholic of the future to do is not to trust the pope. Is this the papacy as Christ established it?

    • fgwalkers@att.net on July 27, 2017 at 2:18 pm said:

      I think Christ established a papacy that was exclusive to Catholics, like Peter. He wasn’t perfect but he believed.

  14. John Flaherty on July 27, 2017 at 2:52 pm said:

    I find articles like this to be most unhelpful. I am not a big fan of Pope Francis either, but then I was not thrilled with some of St Pope John Paul II’s moves either. For the view that Pope Benedict was pushed illegally into resigning, I remind everyone that such question was addressed within a few months after Francis ascended from the College. In addition, Pope Emeritus Benedict was quite clear in his resignation from the active papacy that he felt his health was such that he could not fulfill his duties properly. For a pope to resign is not unprecedented, though thankfully has happened only once.
    Not only that, but Pope Emeritus Benedict stated plainly on more than one occasion that he was not pushed into resigning and that we have one pope, our current Holy Father, Pope Francis.
    We are not required to love and adore our pope. We do have a need to cease searching for excuses to reject him.

    • fgwalkers@att.net on July 27, 2017 at 3:30 pm said:

      It’s unfortunate that the little word ‘unhelpful’ is used so often by smug, ensconced, bureaucratic elites when confronted with someone who doesn’t toe the party line. It’s almost a giveaway when you hear it.

      • You criticize Fr. Blake for his insults, yet you do the same to John without even attempting to defend your post against his mild criticism.

        And John, Jesus said to love our enemies. How can you suggest that we not love the Vicar of Christ?

    • c matt on July 28, 2017 at 4:17 pm said:

      Well, #s 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9 are based upon widely reported evidence, which is about as close as your average net-surfer is going to get to “evidence.” Along with #10, much of this comes straight from the pen/mouth of Francis or those (the Galen mafia) who committed the act. Those are enough to call in question “moral certainty”, therefore it is not illegitimate to have some doubts. Unhelpful, indeed.

    • Elaine on July 31, 2017 at 11:58 am said:

      It is patently false that Francis is holy and also a loving father would never lead his children to perdition. We don’t need to search for excuses to reject him as his words and acts have condemned him.

  15. Magdalene P on July 27, 2017 at 3:25 pm said:

    Whether legit or not, Francis ‘sits on the papal throne’ so to speak–not particularly of course because he likes audiences in the homosexually managed Santa Marta place.

  16. John on July 27, 2017 at 4:32 pm said:

    “He is not capable of performing the task [of Pope].” Well, that depends on which task you mean. If this is the Passion of the Church, then the task he is performing is that of Judas – who also performed the task of Apostle. And he is doing it quite well…..

  17. Matt on July 27, 2017 at 7:08 pm said:

    “There have been few straightforward arguments to address these doubts, or assert the unquestionable legitimacy of Francis.” This is interesting since there are no real arguments in this post either. There are only absurd claims which are based on nothing but conspiracies with no evidence presented. How could one argue against such absurdities?

    Trust Jesus! He built His Church on the foundation of Peter (and his successors). If the foundation fails, so does the Church, but Jesus promised that would not happen (as noted in this post). Serious and persistent doubt about the legitimacy of Pope Francis is nothing short of schism and failure to trust in the Lord.

    • fgwalkers@att.net on July 27, 2017 at 8:29 pm said:

      So Francis is a faithful Catholic, but if you think he might not be a pope then you’re outside the Church? Is Francis inside the Church?

  18. Theresa Moore on July 27, 2017 at 10:44 pm said:

    This is dangerous ground. If Francis is not the Pope then Hell has won, and there goes the promise of Christ.

  19. Anonymous on July 27, 2017 at 11:34 pm said:

    Hell has won this skirmish but won’t win the war –Christ’s promise will prevail in the long run. Til then I am content to remain a sedevacanatista.

  20. Anonymous on July 28, 2017 at 6:26 pm said:

    Good morning we have two popes!

  21. Ricardo Ontiveros on July 29, 2017 at 6:11 pm said:

    I would like to throw a wrench into all of this discussion of the legitimacy or not of Bergoglio and of his Predecessors. What, IF IN FACT, at the conclave held after the death of Pope Pius XII, Guissepi Cardinal Siri was REALLY elected Pope, chose the name of Gregory XVII, but was coerced and threatened, not only himself but his family, by his peers to back away from accepting the throne of Peter OR ELSE! Bear in mind I said “WHAT IF” I am not making any assertions as I was not there to witness any of it personally. If it is true that Cardinal Siri was, IN FACT elected Pope but due to threats to himself and his family rejected the papacy, did this, then, make the elections of Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Woytiwa, Ratzinger and Bergoglio invalid. I am just wondering since I did read something and saw some videos on this subject. I am not a theologian I am just a poor man asking the question, hoping to get a good answer. I am not saying these happened or didn’t happen>

    • fgwalkers@att.net on July 30, 2017 at 7:53 am said:

      I haven’t read about that story, but I don’t think it helps in this case to apply too many hypotheticals. Hollywood is like that. They take what if scenarios and treat them like reality, but reality is full of Divine sparks. They leave all those out.

      • Ricardo Ontiveros on August 23, 2017 at 10:39 am said:

        Dear fgwalker: Perhaps this story is not just a “hypothetical” Perhaps it is true that Cardinal Siri was, in fact, elected to the Papacy in 1958, after the death of Pope Pius XII. Just google “Cardinal Siri” or “Guisseppi Siri” and you might be surprised of what you can find about this story. I believe it is very helpful for us to dig into several things that the curia has done in Rome. This could open our eyes and our minds to alot of things,

  22. …And this is One reason why the Holy Bible says ”You will Know them by their Fruits”. Francis IS A FALSE POPE. PERIOD. I’ve said this from Day ONE. Benedict WAS Pushed out by the Homosexual/Predators/Pedophiles Demonic Vatican leaders. Francis IS ONE OF THEM. Period. I said I will BET ALL he’s a false pope; if SO-he MUST SHOW his HAND. Step by step by step. WHAT happened? He has shown his hand. Step by step by step. Saying who was he to ‘judge’ homosexuals, when GOD spoke Against it FIFTY-TWO TIMES/BOTH BOOKS OF HOLY WORD. Showing a Publication for World Youth Day which implied Open Sexual Relationships-without abstinence-when GOD spoke AGAINST SEX OF ANY KIND B4 MARRIAGE NINETY-TWO TIMES BOTH BOOKS OF HOLY WORD. This man has Invited PAGAN leaders of false religions (FIRST Commandant) ”You shall love the Lord your God before all else”’. (God Ordered His Chosen the Israelites to DESTROY ALL pagan folks in lands He was giving to His chosen). SO NOW this ‘pope’ Invites them upon the Holy ALTAR of GOD to ‘pray’ to their ‘god’…in OUR RCC????!!!! He has Deleted almost ALL conservative, holy and traditional leaders in the Vatican & replaced them with False and Hereticals who say ‘Believers and Followers’ can now DO any OLD SIN and it is all NOW OK!!! OUR BISHOPS, CARDINALS, PRIESTS AND LEADERS NEED TO MEET AND DEMAND HIS AND ALL PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL HERETIC SO CALLED CATHOLICS BE KICKED OUT!! AND YES I AM SHOUTING!!!

  23. Ricardo Ontiveros on August 2, 2017 at 8:37 am said:

    let us not forget ASSISI and Karol Woytiwa (?) invitng his heretic pals. If I am not mistaken, I believe Ratzinger did too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Post Navigation