![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.markmallett.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/popefrancisWhoBG.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\nR<\/span>ecent headlines from Catholic news outlet LifeSiteNews (LSN) have been shocking:<\/p>\n “We shouldn\u2019t be afraid of concluding that Francis isn\u2019t pope: here\u2019s why”<\/strong><\/a> (October 30, 2024) The authors of these articles must know the stakes: if they are right, they are on the vanguard of a new sedevacantist movement that will reject Pope Francis at every turn. If they’re wrong, they are essentially playing chicken with Jesus Christ Himself, whose authority resides with Peter and his successors to whom He has given “the keys of the Kingdom.”<\/p>\n What is certain is that these headlines will further divide Catholics and tear at the hem of unity, if not completely rip it asunder. For as of today, not a single Cardinal who voted in the conclave that elected Jorge Bergoglio to the pontificate has even subtly suggested that:<\/p>\n A) the resignation of Benedict XVI was invalid, or That includes one of the Church’s top canonical experts, Cardinal Raymond Burke, former Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura. As such, it would seem that any discussion revolving around the licitness of Pope Francis’s pontificate should be one that is delicately framed, in the proper forum, careful not to injure the faith of Catholics or those seeking out the Catholic Church in their journey toward Christ. A blaring headline unilaterally declaring that Francis is not pope made apart from the discernment of the conclave, a council, or a pope himself \u2014 comes off as reckless hubris rather than genuine concern for the Body of Christ.<\/p>\n Benedict XVI explicitly and manifestly declared that the See of Peter would become “vacant” on February 28th, 2013, and that “with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome.” In subsequent statements, including a new biography, Benedict rejected every “conspiracy theory” that contradicted his resignation from the papacy.<\/p>\n With that, I republish the following article that presents counter viewpoints to the above authors that cannot be ignored either \u2014 thus putting into serious question the wisdom and prudence of the LSN editorial staff to publically reject the papacy, thus potentially leading a schism \u2014 just as Our Lady has repeatedly warned about:<\/p>\n My dearly beloved children, pray much for my beloved Church: pray, children. Pray for the Holy Father: pray, children. The Church will have to face bad times \u2013 there will be a great schism.<\/em><\/strong> \u2014Our Lady of Zaro di Ischia to Angela<\/a> on June 8th, 2022<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n First published on September 13, 2022…<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n WHO<\/strong> is the true pope?<\/p>\n If you could read my inbox, you’d see that there is less agreement on this subject than you’d think. And this divergence was made even stronger recently with an editorial<\/a> in a major Catholic publication. It proposes a theory that is gaining traction, all the while flirting with schism<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In the article “The final confrontation: Examining the end times through the lens of Fatima and Benedict XVI<\/a>\u201d, the author makes the following case \u2014 in summary:<\/p>\n \u2022 He claims that Pope Benedict XVI is hinting that the theology of Tyconius, a member of fourth-century schismatics known as Donatists, is applicable to our times.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2022 In this view, the “apostasy” or “falling away” described by St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians is really the true Church\u00a0<\/em>withdrawing from a false Church (isn’t that what Martin Luther did?).<\/p>\n \u2022 The author claims that Benedict XVI is cryptically hinting that he has been aware that a false church under a false pope would emerge after him.<\/p>\n \u2022 The author ties this into the vision of Fatima where the children see a “bishop dressed in white” whom they had the “impression” was the “Holy Father.” The author claims that this is really a vision of two people and that the Holy Father is Benedict XVI and that the “bishop dressed in white” is a false pope.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2022 The author claims that Benedict XVI intentionally resigned so that the false pope and a false church would emerge into plain view.\u00a0<\/p>\n Writes the author:<\/p>\n Did Benedict XVI have the foresight to comprehend that his apparent successor would be the bishop dressed in white, long before Bergoglio was even \u201celected\u201d? Did Benedict understand, well in advance, what Socci would one day speculate was the meaning of the Third Secret? Was he the first Pope to grasp that the Third Secret denotes a true pope and a false one \u2014 an apparent pope who is actually only a bishop dressed in white \u2014 which was what Sister Lucia was trying to say (and of course also the Blessed Virgin) from the start?<\/strong> \u2014Marco Tosatti, lifesitenews.com<\/a>; first published on his blog here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In the vision to the three seers at Fatima:<\/p>\n The Angel cried out in a loud voice:\u00a0\u2018Penance, Penance, Penance!\u2019<\/em>. And we saw in an immense light that is God: \u2018something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it\u2019 a Bishop dressed in White \u2018we had the impression that it was the Holy Father\u2019. <\/strong>\u2014The Message of Fatima,\u00a0<\/em>July 13th, 1917;\u00a0vatican.va<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Since the last three popes since St. John Paul II have worn white, a plain reading of what Sr. Lucia states is simply that the bishop dressed in white is whom she thought: representative of the Holy Father. From that point, all is speculation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But where the article becomes problematic is in the notion that Benedict XVI remains<\/em> the true pope and that Francis is the false pope. But this is only possible if either the election or the resignation of Benedict XVI were not valid. An “anti-pope” is by definition one who claims the Seat of Peter, but who is not legitimately placed there. He could be a great sinner or even a saint \u2014 but he would still be an anti-pope. Such would be the case with Pope Francis if Benedict XVI had not validly received or passed the Keys of the Kingdom on to his successor.\u00a0<\/p>\n While few are questioning Benedict’s legitimacy, some hold that he is still<\/em> the pope today because “election interference” invalidated the last papal conclave. This has been the subject of much rancour. It is the claim that a so-called \u201cSt. Gallen group\u201d or \u201cmafia\u201d (as some of them called themselves) lobbied for Francis in
\n“Prominent Italian priest claims Francis is not the pope in viral sermon”<\/strong><\/a> (October 24, 2024)
\n“Doctor Edmund Mazza: Here\u2019s why I believe the Bergoglian pontificate is invalid<\/a>“<\/strong> (November 11, 2024)
\n“Patrick Coffin: Pope Benedict left us clues that he did not validly resign”<\/a><\/strong> (November 12, 2024)<\/p>\n
\nB) the election of Pope Francis was invalid, meddled with, or fraudulent<\/p>\n\n
My children, I ask you again to pray for the Holy Church, for my favored sons [i.e. priests] and even more so for the Pope; serious decisions depend on\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>him. My children, as I said in Fatima, there will be a great division and schism in the Church: pray children, pray! Satan is unchained and is tormenting the whole world. <\/em><\/strong>\u2014Our Lady to Marco Ferrari<\/a>, January 1, 2016
\n<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
\nThe densest and subtlest of fogs have penetrated within the Church of my Divine Son at the same time in order to confuse God\u2019s people, causing division until schism is reached. <\/strong><\/em>\u2014Our Lady to Luz de Maria de Bonnilla<\/a>, February 18th, 2023<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n\n\n\u00a0<\/div>\n\u00a0<\/div>\n\u00a0<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nA Controversial Theory<\/h5>\n
\n
\n
The St. Gallen “mafia”<\/h5>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.markmallett.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/11\/wolves-woods-1024x681.jpg\")
an unlawful manner before the papal conclave. However, a clarification was offered by the biographers of Cardinal Godfried Danneels (one of the group\u2019s members) who initially implied this. Rather, they said, the \u201celection of Bergoglio corresponded with the aims of St. Gallen, on that there is no doubt. And the outline of its program was that of Danneels and his confreres who had been discussing it for ten years.\u201d[1]<\/sup><\/a>cf. ncregister.com<\/a><\/span><\/span>