Les Crispi

Schism: What is, What Isn't.

The standard of schism in the Catholic Church is unity with the pope.

We have many tradionalist Catholics who believe that if you question the legality of Pope Francis, you're a schismatic.

But we have big issues with Bergoglio's "election".

*Benedict XVI, as Ratzinger, frequently wrote of expanding the papacy. This is a modernist idea. His basic thrust was since there was nothing saying it couldn't be done, perhaps it should be done.

*When B16 resigned, he did not satisfy Canon Law requirements. He did not resign the office AND the ministry of the office. Canon Law is not esoteric, it was promulgated specifically for the Catholic world to see.

*B16 was reportedly pressured to step down, and indeed when he first became pope he openly worried about "fleeing" due to the wolves. (Wolves meaning the Satanists in the Church including the St. Gallen Mafia and their acolytes, including Bergoglio).

*When B16 resigned, he said he would create a new office, that of an "emeritus". Nowhere in Canon Law, CHurch dogma, or history has this ever been done. In the past, resigned popes reverted back to a bishop, or priest, whatever. Further, he fully gave approval to his handler Ganswein's explanation of his move, declaring it part of the papacy.

*This simply cannot be done. It is a substantial error in resignation. Canon 188 is invoked.

WHY Bergoglio did this could be for many reasons. One, he always tried to merge the modernist and traditional, and he always tried to tinker. He was a modernist who pivoted to the right a little. In short, he tinkered with the Church like a man tinkers in a hobby.

Or it could be he was forced to resign and used his cleverness to try and stick around.

No matter the reason WHY he did it, the fact is according to Canon Law, he is still the pope.

Therefore, an illegal conclave was held (weeks after the resignation), a conclave that was rife with corruption and Bergoglio was crowned Francis.
(Interesting that when Bergoglio was elected, he refused to don the red cape at the loggia appearance saying "the carnival is over").

Now, we have had awful popes in the past. Bad, bad people. NONE OF THEM, however, have spewed the heresies and done more to injure and damage the church than Bergoglio.

Yet, strangely, when any Catholic mentions Bergoglio's heresies and unCatholic behavior, that Catholic gets slammed as a schismatic.

But if Bergoglio isn't the pope, how can that person be in schism?

Indeed, if Bergoglio is an antipope, then these so called traditionalists are in schism.

Benedict XVI is still pope, whether he likes it or not. I say this as there is more evidence to this conclusion than Bergoglio is doing the work of Jesus Christ.

I'm no schismatic. ANd neither is anyone who feels this way. Maybe someday the Church will solve this issue, but I WILL NOT LEGITIMIZE ILLICIT BEHAVIOR AND HERESY.

And no Catholic should.