Ann, Aqua, Evangeline… thank you. Let us start with the OBVIOUS true base premise, that Bergoglio is an antipope, and proceed in rationale thought and fact finding from there. How did this come to be? Did anything strange happen in February 2013? Dear Cardinal Burke, shouldn’t we initiate a canonical investigation of the irregularities of Pope Benedict’s rather unusual not-quit, you know, when he kept “pope” in his title, invented emeritus but never wrote it into canon law, kept wearing white, kept being adressed as His Holiness, residing in the Vatican, and imparting his Apostolic Blessing? Is there any evidence at all that Pope Benedict intended to retain some portion of the papacy? That he intended to remain in any way papal? Because if that’s the case, his resignation was totally invalid. Does that merit an investigation? Or would it be better to continue insisting Bergoglio is definitely pope, and so we need to destroy the office, tear down its powers and protections, to “prove” how an arch heretic can not only be pope, but how he can also officially promulgate heresy into the Magisterium. By the way, “proving” that last part would make Catholicism a false religion.
Jorge Bergoglio is OBVIOUSLY an antipope. A heretic places himself outside the Church, and a non-Catholic cannot be pope. But how did we get here? Did anything unusual happen in February 2013? Did the old pope sort of half-quit, then hang around for another ten years, in the Vatican, wearing white, with Pope still in his title, addressed as His Holiness, blessing new Cardinals, and imparting his Apostolic Blessing? Because a half-quit in Canon Law means didn’t-quit-at-all.