Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist

I don't like the writing style, but BANG ON:
Frontpagemag:
Francis: The First Anti-Pope in Centuries? The case is airtight - and foolproof - that he is

[snip]

It is well known that orthodox minded Catholics have felt considerable consternation with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, known to the world as Pope Francis. On issue after issue, year after year, Catholics have had no shortage of occasions to feel perplexed, alarmed, and alienated - justifiably so.

There's been his positioning on the issue of remarriage and Holy Communion, for example, or his punitive attacks on the traditional liturgy. Even if non-Catholics may be indifferent to those matters, anyone of good will would also be troubled by his oblivious stance vis-a-vis Islam, his kowtowing to the Chinese Communist Party, his subservience to the globalists (whose "new world order" he condones), and so forth.

Let's also not forget about his accommodation of priestly pederasty during his Argentinian days and, as Pope, his calculating association with and elevation of prelates known for their own similarly egregious deviancy. It is baffling that he gets little to no bad press about this.

Our society's overlords, normally keen to seize upon any occasion to attack Christianity, have rather curiously refrained from pouncing on his - the Pope's - record on this front; that they turn a blind eye to this giant bulls-eye is worth pondering. Evidently this Pope is off limits. After all, Bergoglio is their man - not the 'Vicar of Christ', a title he himself has tellingly shelved.

But cataloguing all his misdeeds and deviations from the deposit of faith, and from common sense and common decency, is not my aim here. My intent is to briefly mention a couple of reservations circulating about the legitimacy of Francis' papacy - and to share a firm conclusion I unexpectedly and belatedly reached about Bergoglio.

Many Catholics have wondered: is Francis a heretic? Several well-respected scholars and religious have formally claimed so. If any Pope were indeed an explicit heretic, he would automatically forfeit the Papacy, and place himself outside the Christian fold. I have some views on the subject, but I wish to explicitly distinguish the question of heresy with the conclusion I have reached about Bergoglio - because it does not depend on any particular issue, or any of his statements or actions.

There is also the matter of the St. Gallen Mafia, a group of high-ranking cardinals vehemently opposed to Benedict XVI, named for the town in Switzerland where they regularly met. According to a recent autobiography by the late Belgian Cardinal Daneels, one of its members, they maneuvered in advance to install Bergoglio. Such manipulative scheming, if true, would automatically invalidate the outcome of the conclave.

Both these issues do appear to be massive red flags but even they may be cast aside, because there is a more germane consideration - one that led me to believe, with moral certainty, that Bergoglio is not really the pope.

He is an anti-pope because Benedict XVI did not validly renounce the Papal office as required by Canon Law - the most recent 1983 version of which he himself helped craft. Therefore there should never have been a conclave following his surprising February 11, 2013 announcement known as the Declaratio. This would be the case even if someone other than Bergoglio had been chosen, and even if Bergoglio hadn't done and said all the things he's done and said.

My comment: I have said similar things many times. Glad to see others are catching on.