According to the “Consitutio de Sede Apostolica Vacante,”  [Constitution of the Apostolic See is vacant] promulgated by Pope Pius XII (Prince Eugenio Pacelli 8 – 12 – 1945, paragraph 99, the Roman Pontiff may NOT resign.
            It follows that the resignation of Benedict XVI is “res nullius” and therefore THE ELECTION OF CARDINAL JORGE MARIO BERGOGLIO S.I., IS NOT ONLY ILLEGAL BUT NULL AND VOID.
            The above fact was made known in the Chiesa Viva Magazine, the July/August, 2014 issue.  But more importantly than that are the following reasons why Bergoglio cannot be the pope.
Bergoglio is a Freemason as is evidenced by the Masonic and Satanic symbols which he wears or has surrounded himself with such as the Satanic cross of Baphomet, the god of Freemasonry.  He is also an honorary member of the Rotary Club of Buenos Aires.  In 1928, the Bishops of Palencia, Orense, Tuy, Leon, and Almeria wrote that the Rotary is “a new Satanic organization, abominable and perverse, close to Freemasonry,” and that the Rotary “explicitly professes an absolute secularism, universal religious indifference and tries to moralize individuals and society through a radically naturalistic doctrine, rationalist and atheist too.”  [ As quoted in Chiesa Viva, July/August, 2014, p 6.]

Bergoglio has been photographed and seen publicly to give the Masonic “Hidden Hand” sign.  For those that think, “Oh, he was just reaching into his pocket for something.”  – think again!  When compared to the position of the hand as seen by other known Freemasons, it is unmistakable that this is a Masonic signal to other Freemasons.  Besides, how many photos do you have of yourself or anyone else for that matter with your hand in that position knowing it will be in a news article?
Furthermore, not even mentioning all the satanic symbols of Bergoglio’s so-called “papacy,” he has, in particular, adopted the pastoral “Bent Cross” of Paul VI.  This “Bent Cross” has been worn by the Vatican II “popes” Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI as well as the present “Francis.” Concerning this Satanic symbol:
“This example of the new school of ‘expressionism’ as applied to sacred art is not a recent invention, but originates from the Belgian artist, Albert Servaes, who, in 1919, created charcoal drawings for the 14 stations of the ‘Via Crucis’ of the Chapel of the Monastery of Luithagen.  This ‘Via Crucis’ was condemned by the Inquisition in 1921.  The Decree was not just about the specific works of Servaes, but the condemnation and interdiction (prohibition) of an entire school of art that was in opposition to the Faith and Tradition.  This, however, was not the first sentencing of this kind:  On September 11, 1670 Clement X banned crucifixes made ‘in gross and coarse form, in an indecent pose, with distorted features of pain that causes disgust rather than a pious attention.’”  (Ibid).
As for further evidence of Satanic symbolism used by Bergoglio, see the above cited Chiesa Viva Magazine.
Bergoglio is a manifest heretic as evidenced by his many heretical statements and acts and therefore is not a member of the Catholic Church.  He is not a “vicar” of Christ but acts contrary to and against Christ’s teachings.  One journalist has called him “a motor-mouth of heresy.”  Lets us consider some of the more terrible heretical statements of this man.

Bergoglio (Francis):  “God does Not Exist!…”   “There is no Catholic God!”
Bergoglio on October 9, 2014 in his homily published by Vatican Radio was quoted as follows:  “So often (people ask):  ‘But do you believe?’; ‘Yes, Yes!’; ‘What do you believe in?’, ‘In God!; ‘But what is God for you?’, ‘God, God.’  But God does not exist: Do not be shocked!  So God does not exist!  There is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, they are persons, they are not some vague idea in the clouds… This God Spray does not exist!  The three persons exist!”  (Pope at Santa Marta:  What we dare not hope for.  News va, Oct. 9, 2014).
While Bergoglio claims “God does not exist,” he does say “the Three persons exist.”  The Novus ordo and even some traditional Catholics will claim Bergoglio’s statement was taken out of context.  But consider Bergoglio’s statrement (which was quoted just as he said it) in the light of the Roman rite of the Holy Mass, the prayer in the preface of the canon of the Mass.  It is eloquent and precise in its statement of doctrine:

“It is truly meet and just, right for our salvation, that we should at all times and in all places, give thanks unto Thee, O holy Lord, Father almighty, everlasting God; Who, together with Thine only-begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost, art one God, one Lord: not in the oneness of a single Person, but in the Trinity of one substance.  For what we believe by Thy revelation of Thy glory, the same do we believe of Thy Son, the same of the Holy Ghost, without difference or separation.  So that in confessing the true and everlasting Godhead, distinction in persons, unity in essence, and equality in majesty may be adored…”     (Preface of the Most Holy Trinity) 

His Excellency, Bishop Sanborn, firmly and competently exposes the blasphemous Bergoglian error for the outrageous heresy that it is:

            “[Francis] is denying the unity of substance in God.  When he says, ‘God does not exist,’ but ‘the three persons exist,’ the only possible way in which to take it is that there is no single divine substance which each of the Persons has equally.  If these three Persons exist by a single act of existence, or in other words, as one God, then one must assert the existence of one divine substance.  If, however, this one divine substance does not exist, as he says, then we must conclude that each Person of the Trinity has His own act of existence, and each one is different from the other according to substance, and not merely according to relation.
“The inevitable conclusion from what Bergoglio says is that there are three gods.  There is no other possible conclusion than that there are three gods.  If each of the divine Persons has an act of existence separate and distinct from the other Persons, then there are three separate substances or three gods.  If there is not one divine substance which they all have, then there are three divine substances, or three gods.  In such a case none would be God, since God, by His very nature, is one.  Bergoglio is giving us polytheism, pure and simple.
The Athanasian Creed is explicit in condemning the idea of three gods:  ‘And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.’
“Bergoglio, to make matters worse, flippantly, stupidly, and blasphemously refers to the sacrosanct divine essence as ‘God spray.’  ‘This God spray does not exist!’  The angels of God tremble before the ineffable majesty of the divine substance, the One God.  Bergoglio calls the divine substance ‘God spray.’”   

            [ Excerpt from the October 2014 MHT Seminary Newsletter] 

Bergoglio also insults the Mother of God.  On December 20, 2013 Vatican Radio reported his words:

“The Mother of Jesus was the perfect icon of silence.  From the proclamation of her exceptional maternity at Calvary.  The Pope said he thinks about ‘how many times she remained quiet and how many times she did not say that which she felt in order to guard the mystery of her relationship with her Son,’ up until the most raw silence ‘at the foot of the cross.’
“The Gospel does not tell us anything:  If she spoke a word or not…  She was silent, but in her heart, how many things (she) told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that was read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’  Our Lady was human!  And perhaps she even had the desire to say:  ‘Lies!  I was deceived!’  John Paul II would say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment.  But she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.’”  
[ “Pope:  Silence Guards One’s Relationship with God.”  Vatican Radio, Dec. 20, 2013: Underlining added for emphasis.] 

The Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Sorrows, the Co-redemtrix of mankind, was immaculate from the first moment of Her Conception.  She was entirely sinless and therefore could not, did not entertain such irreverence to the Most High God, much less blasphemy accusing God of lying.  Bergoglio’s supposition of what the Blessed Virgin Mary “perhaps desired to say” is a manifest heresy along with all the others.  Contrast Bergoglio’s suppositions with the following:

“We must never forget that our Lady was a willing victim.  Never was a murmur heard to fall from her lips.  There was never a murmur in her heart.   Her will was as perfectly at one with the Will of the Divine Victim dying upon the Cross, as it is possible for the will of the creature to be attuned in suffering to the Will of the Creator.  She consented as freely, as fully on Calvary to the Passion of Christ, as at Nazareth she had consented to His Incarnation. During the three hours of the first Good Friday, our Lady never wavered.  ‘Be it done unto me according to Thy Word’ still expressed all that she would say.  Everything was left by her to God.  For us men and for our salvation she offered her Son without reserve, and thus was granted to her that which shall be hers for ever, her special place, by itself apart, in the work of man’s redemption.”  [ O. R. Vassall-Phillips, The Mother of Christ; Or, the Blessed Virgin Mary in Catholic Tradition, Theology, and Devotion.  2nd ed.  London:  Burns Oates & Washbourne LTD, 1922, pp. 121-122.]
Yet another heresy concerns Bergoglio’s teaching on sin.  “I often say the only glory we have, as St. Paul says, is that of being sinners.”   (St. Paul does NOT say this). He goes on to say, “ That’s why, for me, sin is not a stain I need to clean.” [ Francis:  “On Heaven and Earth.”]  So according to this man, there is no need for confession since “sin is not a stain I need to clean.”  This from a man most Catholics call “pope.”
The sad state of affairs in the modern church of today is at its worst ever in history.  Yet the Ubiquitous apostasy, and blasphemy is not covered by the neo-traditional media:  The Remnant, Michael Voris’ Church Militant TV, Catholic Family News, etc.  John Vennari did say, to his credit, the following telling statement:  “I must say I would never allow Pope Francis to teach religion to my children.”  He calls Bergoglio, “a theological … train wreck.”  Yet Vennari still says he’s the pope, the Vicar of Christ.  In other words, he would not allow the man who he considers to be the Vicar of Christ to teach religion to his children.  Think about that.  Let that sink in.  But of course, Vennari is laboring under a false conception of reality.  We will get to that later.  But first one more of Bergoglio’s many heresies.
The next example of heresy is the fact that Bergoglio has blessed pre-marital cohabitation.  He not only blesses such pregnant women, but also touches them in violation of the rules of touching in force in the Catholic Church until Vatican II.
Furthermore, “When the Pope blesses the pregnant womb of a woman who is just getting married, he is also blessing her previous sins against chastity that produced the pregnancy.  That is, he is approving and encouraging pre-marriage cohabitation.  Now then, this papal action frontally opposes Catholic Morals, particularly the Sixth commandment.
‘In brief, Francis is promoting sin and, consequently, giving public scandal.  This is inconceivable for a Pope, whose mission is to confirm the faithful in the Catholic Faith and Morals.
“Now, we ask:  What efficient measures can the coming Synod take against pre-marriage cohabitation when the Pope is already approving it?  Many conservative Catholics, who are correctly calling for a less revolutionary Synod, refuse to see that Francis has already opened the moral dikes, no matter what the future Synod says or does. 

            “Another shocking contradiction:  the white dress of a bride represents that she is a virgin until the marriage.  With Bergoglio’s pregnant brides in white, another symbol collapses as well…”    [ “Francis Blesses Pre-marriage Cohabitation” – Church Revolution in Pictures.]
Concerning the Family Synod, Bergoglio made another heretical statement.  The headlines on July 6, 2015, for the National Catholic Reporter online read:  “In Ecuador, Francis calls for intense prayer for ‘miracle’ at synod.”  This article stated,

The point of the meeting, known as a synod, is ‘to mature a true spiritual discernment and find concrete solutions to the many difficult and important challenges families must confront in our times”  Francis told the crowd in his native Spanish:  ‘I ask you to intensify your prayer for this intention so that what still seems to be impure to us, to scandalize us, or frighten us, God … can transform it into a miracle’ he then exhorted them.  Families today need this miracle.’ He added to his prepared text.” 

Pray tell, what could be “impure” that would “scandalize us or frighten us”?  There is only one thing that could cause such a reaction in the Catholic Faithful i.e. turning mortal sins into non-sinful acts plain and simple!
Bergoglio has made quite a number of heretical statements (which we cannot include all here – it would fill a book) and rejects proselytism, accepts Darwinian evolution, says God being able to do everything is NOT so; says atheists who do good are redeemed; approves and praises Communist leaders (in other words approves of atheism), and is working and cooperating in establishing a world church and a New World Order.  Freemasonic organizations around the world praise him as do the homosexual/lesbian groups as well.  He’s their “Man of the Year.”  Bergoglio approves of the abomination of sodomy and says, “If someone is homosexual, seeks the Lord and is of good will, who then am I to judge him?”
            Bergoglio is the man who has said,  “Thank God, I have no church.”  “I believe God is not a Catholic God – There is no Catholic God.”  If he does not believe in a Catholic God – pray tell, what kind of a God does he believe in?  Is it a pantheistic god?  Or is it in Lucifer as god?  After all, according to Father Malachi Martin and confirmed by some bishops in Rome, Lucifer has been enthroned in the Vatican on June 29, 1963, the Feasts of Saints Peter and Paul.  Bergoglio has declared his desire to build a World Government and a New World Order with a One World Church.  He is now completing the final establishment of a world apparatus along with his fellow Freemasonic World Elites.  His visit to America and his meeting at the U.N. will bring about the final phase for the birth of a New World Order in preparation for the coming of the Antichrist.  Is he the False Prophet?  He sure is acting as one, but time will tell.
Regardless of Bergoglio’s heresies and blasphemies, we still have millions of Novus Ordo “Catholics” and “recognize and resist” traditional Catholics who regard him as their “pope.”  We will now show you the fallacy and absurdity of this position.
First of all, the Catholic Church teaches that a heretic would cease to be pope, and a heretic couldn’t be validly elected pope.  “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”  [ The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p 261.]
It should be noted that the teaching from the saints and doctors of the Church, which is quoted in this article – that a pope who became a heretic would atomatically cease to be pope – is rooted in the infallible dogma that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,”  1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”   

            Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” 

Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt by a baptized person of an article of divine and Catholic Faith.  In other words, a baptized person who deliberately denies an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church is a heretic.  Besides antipopes reigning from Rome due to uncanonical elections, the Catholic Church teaches that if a pope were to become a heretic he would automatically lose his office and cease to be the pope.  This is the teaching of all the doctors and fathers of the Church who addressed the issue.
It should be further noted that there are three classifications of heresy:

  1. Dogmatic – heresy as false doctrine. 
  2. Moral – heresy as sin.
  3. Canonical – heresy as an ecclesiastical crime (dilictum).

Here we need only discuss points one and two, false doctrine and sin, because a pope’s public sin of heresy – the offense against God’s Law – strips him of Christ’s Authority.  Point 3 does not apply, because as supreme legislator a pope cannot commit an ecclesiastical crime (delictum) against canon law.
This is a key distinction, because anti-sedevacantist tracts like those of Michael Davies routinely misapply to the sin of heresy criteria that pertain only to heresy as an ecclesiastical crime –  much as if one insisted that a sin of murder could not exist without meeting state criminal law’s criteria for the crime of murder.
The objection against the pope losing his office automatically because of heresy and having no need of trial or judgment of the Church is usually put this way:  “You cannot know if someone is a heretic or denounce him as such without a trial and declaratory sentence.”
This is not so.  The declaratory sentence which follows an automatic excommunication is merely a legal recognition of something which already exists.  If this were not true, the automatic excommunication would be meaningless.

Canon 2314, 1917 Code of Canon Law“All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:  (1.) Incur ipso facto (by the very fact) excommunication…”  

The excommunicated person is already severed from the Church.  Most heretics are known to be heretics without a trial or declaratory sentence, and must be denounced as such.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:    “47.  Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect’ – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous 

            As we see here, the Catholic Church teaches that formal processes and judgments are NOT necessary for ipso facto (by that very fact) excommunications to take effect.
            When heresy is manifest and clearly obstinate, as in the historical case of Luther or in the ongoing present case of Bergoglio (as well as several of the Vatican II “popes”), Catholics not only can denounce him as a non-Catholic without a trial, but must do so.  That is precisely why St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, in addressing this precise question, states unequivocally that the manifest heretic is deposed and must be avoided as a non-Catholic with no authority before any “excommunication or judicial sentence.”  In this context St. Robert uses the word “excommunication” to refer to the ferendae sententiae penalty (the formal declaration by pope or judge).

Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30, speaking of a claimant to the Papal Office:  “For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed.  The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentenceAnd this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.”

The anti or non-sedevacantists argue that Catholics cannot denounce manifest heretics such as Bergoglio without a formal trial and sentence.  But they are wrong!

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#22)“As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.  And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Chruch let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican.  It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.” 

To state that Catholics should hold communion with such a manifest heretic (such as Bergoglio) because no process against him had been completed, is contrary to Catholic teaching, Catholic Tradition, and Catholic sense.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30“…For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.” 

Regardless of the foregoing, we have civil lawyer, Christopher Ferrara of the “Recognize and Resist” camp saying, “Indeed, both the 1917 and 1983 codes of canon law provide that no one may insist that an ecclesiastical office has been lost due to heresy unless this has been established by a declaration of competent authority.”   [ “A Challenge to the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II” – The Remnant, Sept. 30, 2005, p 18. ]
This is simply NOT TRUE!  John Paul’II’s heretical and invalid 1983 Code states that such a declaration is necessary in Canon 194.3.  But the 1917 Code doesn’t.  The 1917 Code’s parallel canon to canon 194 is canon 188.  Canon 188 of the 1917 Code does not contain this provision, but simply declares that a cleric who “Publicly defects from the Catholic Faith” (188.4) loses his office by that very fact “without any declaration.”   

            Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law“There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration.  These causes are…(4) if he has publicly fallen away from the faith.” 

Notice that the 1917 Code doesn’t say anything about a declaration being necessary;  it says just the opposite –“without any declaration”!  When one compares the two canons, one sees the glaring difference.

Canon 194.1-3, 1983 Code of Canon Law“One is removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself: …2 – who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church…  The removal from office referred to in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.” 

This is probably why Ferrara provides no citation to the 1917 Code in his footnote, he only provides a reference to the 1983 Code.  So here we have another falsehood from Ferrara.  It should be further said, that the 1983 Code of Canon Law put in place by the Vatican II revolutionaries within the Church, was a deliberate corruption of and even negation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.  This was done purposely to remove any roadblocks to the final takeover and makeover of the Church.
It is further argued that the Council of Constance condemned the idea that a heretic would cease to be the pope.

Errors of John Hus, Condemned by the Council of Constance, #20  “If the Pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown (as a reprobate), then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it. – Condemned.”  

            The truth is, no, the Council of Constance didn’t condemn the idea that a heretic would cease to be the pope at all.  This is a serious misunderstanding of this proposition.  As we see clearly above, the Council condemned something significantly different.  It condemned the proposition that a wicked man would cease to be the head of the Church, since be is not a member of it.  The proposition from the heretic Hus rightly asserts that one who is not a member of the Church cannot be the head of the Church, but it falls into trouble by stating that the pope ceases to be a member if he is “wicked.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#23), June 29, 1943“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.

A merely wicked pope doesn’t cease to be pope, but a heretic, a schismatic and an apostate does.  (Bergoglio fits the description).  This is because heresy, schism and apostasy separate one from the Church, while other sins, no matter how grave or wicked they may be, do not.  Thus we can clearly see that the Council of Constance is condemning the idea that wickedness separates one from the Church.  There is no reference to heresy.

Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Ponifice, Book II, Chap. 30“This Principle is most certain.  The non-Christian cannot in any way be pope, as Cajetan himself admits.  The reason for this is that he cannot be a head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian … St. Athanasius …St. Augustine … St. Jerome … and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be pope.” 

It must be further said on the SIN OF PERTINACITY (one who holds to an opinion by design, obstinate, stubborn, perversely persistaent) that the act of heresy is an erroneous judgment of the intelligence.  From the moment that one sufficiently knows the existence of the rule of the faith of the Church and that, on any point whatsoever, for whatever motive and in whatever form, one refuses to submit to it, formal heresy is complete.
In line with the truth that a heretic cannot be the pope, the Church teaches that heretics cannot be prayed for in the canon of the Mass.  A pope is prayed for in the Te Igitur prayer of the canon of the Mass.  But the Church also teaches that heretics cannot be prayed for in the canon of the Mass.  If a heretic could be a true pope, there would be an insoluble dilemma.  But it’s actually not a dilemma because a heretic cannot be a valid pope as we have shown.
Libellus professionis fidei, April 2, 517, profession of faith prescribed under Pope St. Hormisdas:  “And, therefore, I hope that I may merit to be in the one communion with you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which there is the whole and the true solidity of the Christian religion, promising that in the future the names of those separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, those not agreeing with the Apostolic See, shall not be read during the sacred mysteries.  But if I shall attempt in any way to deviate from my profession, I confess that I am a confederate in my opinion with those whom I have condemned.  However, I have with my own hand signed this profession of mine, and to you, HORMISDAS, the holy and venerable Pope of the City of Rome, I have directed it.” 

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (#23), March 1, 1756:
            “Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. De Ligu. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist 19. But the sacred conons of the Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2, and chap. Sacris on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass.”  

            Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (#9), January 6, 1873:
“For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared – and the entire Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later – ‘that the names of those who were separated from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries.’” 

It is is to be further noted that many of the Cardinals (besides Bergoglio) are Freemasons and heretical.  So for them to judge another heretic in their own false church is ridiculous.  The Vatican II church is NOT THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST!  (See:  “The Great Harlot of Babylon” on our Remnant Church webpage).   The Church’s universal ordinary magisterium, speaking through pope after pope and theologian after theologian, has repeatedly explained exactly what unity of the Church means:  “The property of the Church by which, in the profession of faith, in governance and in worship, she is undivided in herself and separated from any other.” [ J. de Groot, Summa Apologetica de Ecclesia Catholica (Regensberg: Manz 1906) 153.  “indivisa in se et divisa a quolibet alio.” ]
Pope Leo XIII stated, “The practice of the Church, has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
Instead today we have the false church of Vatican II developing into a pantheistic world church inclusive of every kind of religion except the true one of Jesus Christ.  Every sect imaginable as well as Protestant religions, traditional Catholic groups (the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) are being drawn into this Whore of Babylon.  (See Chapter 17 of the Apocalypse of St. John).  Archbishop Levebvre stated “Rome has left the Church!”  This church that the Archbishop speaks of is the same one that head of the SSPX , Bishop Fellay is working to be regularized into.  (In the year of Mercy, Bergoglio has even granted jurisdiction to SSPX priests to hear confessions).
How can a true Church have a false heretical pope?  Or how could a true pope be head of a false church?  Good trees don’t bear bad fruit and bad trees can’t bear good fruit.  It is by their fruits you shall know them according Sacred Scripture.  Wake up to what is going on in what was once the Catholic Church.
So there is no way that Bergoglio can be pope in any manner whatsoever.  What is presented here is only the tip of the iceberg.  Please see: and for starters.

“Belief in the innocence of rulers depends upon the ignorance of those ruled.” 

                                                                     ~  Hugh Ross Williamson   

“The veil covering the greatest deceit ever to have mystified the clergy and baffled the faithful, is doubtless beginning to be torn asunder.”   

                                                                       ~  Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

“(Satan) will set up a counterchurch which will be the ape of the (Catholic) Church…  It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content.”  

                                                                     ~ Mgr. Fulton J. Sheen – “Communism and the Conscience of the West (1948).    

“Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ.”   

                                                                                              ~  Fr. Sylvester Berry (1927)  

            Lucifer was “enthroned in the Catholic citadel on June 29, 1963”  

                                                                                              ~  Fr. Malachi Martin

“To adhere to a false Bishop of Rome (a false “pope”) is to be out of communion with the Church.”            

                                                                                            ~  St. Cyprian 

`           “Masonic powers have taken over the Vatican.”   

                                                                                           ~ Necedah – August 15, 1977 

            “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”  

                                                                                          ~  La Salette – September 19,  1846 

            “After the three days of darkness, St. Peter and St. Paul, having come down from Heaven, will preach in the whole world and designate a new Pope.  A great light will flash from their bodies and will settle upon the cardinal who is to become Pope.  Christianity, then, will spread throughout the world.  He is the Holy Pontiff, chosen by God to withstand the storm.  At the end, he will have the gift of miracles, and his name shall be praised over the whole Earth.  Whole nations will come back to the Church and the face of the Earth will be renewed.  Russia, England, and China will come into the Church.”   

            Prophecy of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi (1769-1837) who was beatified by Pope Benedict XV in 1920.