“Francis is the face of the Catholic religion...”
WRONGO!
Francis is the face of the liberal MODERNIST HERESY, calling itself the Catholic Faith ... IOW, a false Church, led by a false pope, guided by a counterfeit dogma (Vatican II’s declaration that “dogma evolves” ... If dogma is truth, then it cannot “evolve” - what was true then must be true now, otherwise it was never true to begin with.)
This leftist jackass, presently warming the Chair of Saint Peter, no more represents the true religion than does any of the phony snake oil salesmen (and women) that make up the plethora (over 23,000 last count) of false “denominations” posing as “Christian” ... The ones which I and Ann Barnhardt comically refer to as the “superfun rockband church.”
No, this fool is nothing more than a manifestation of the false ecumenism and ongoing heretical auto-destruction brought about by the liberal innovators who infiltrated the Church in the 50s and 60s ... Vatican II was their brainchild - and “Pope” Francis is just one more evil spawn of their handiwork - which began with the “New Mass.”
A good tree cannot produce bad fruit - a bad tree cannot produce good fruit ... And by their fruits you shall know them. High time to jettison Vatican II (”an evil council,” as it was prophesied) the Novus Ordo Church and all its manifestations
AND
No need to worry. He isn’t a valid pope. There hasn’t been a valid pope since Pope Pius XII
But how could anyone hold to those concepts, thinking they were still "Catholic" (and thus also --- possibly thinking all "Protestants" were wrong from the beginning of the Protestant Reformation) without leaving and taking the name, or better put, the adjective catholic with them?
The position which bomb-throwers like Ann Barnhardt seems to take is illogically sedevacantist, similar to the illogical expressions of individuals such as Rev. Anthony Cekada in his own apparent agreement with sedevacantistism/sedeprivationism, when Cedaka turns to Rev. Donald J. Sanborn as a source.
For example, from that same link which "Repent and Believe" provided http://www.traditionalmass.org/issues/#c which I assume is Cedaka, or at least has his editorial approval (nothing hinders, bwaahahaa!) he endorses self-defeating contrariness such as;
What about the Vatican II popes?FAQs from "Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass" by Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
1. If what you are saying is true, what does it say about the Vatican II popes? It says that it is impossible that they be true Catholic popes.
2. Why can they not be true Catholic popes and true Catholic bishops?
They cannot be true Catholic popes because it is impossible that the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, which is Christ's authority, give to the universal Church false doctrines, false liturgical practices, and false disciplines.
3. Why cannot the authority of the Roman Catholic Church give to the universal Church false doctrines, false liturgical practices, and false disciplines?
Precisely because it is the authority of Christ. The Pope is assisted by the Holy Ghost in the promulgation of dogma and morals, and in the enactment of liturgical laws and pastoral disciplines. In the same way that it is unimaginable that Christ could promulgate these errors or enact these sinful disciplines, so it is unimaginable that the assistance which He gives to the Church through the Holy Ghost could permit such things. Hence, the fact that the Vatican II popes have done these things is a certain sign that they have do not have the authority of Christ.
Vatican II was indeed officially conducted & supported by RCC popes, both during and after (albeit not entirely without some criticisms).
If the RCC was in error previous to Vatican II, then there goes infallibility for 'ex cathedra' right out the door. If in error since Vatican II, then good-bye all the same to infallibility, even when squeezed & very tightly limited.
How then could it be logically possible, if Vatican II is seriously wrong, and that those popes during and since then be all invalid, while at the same time the RCC is being claimed to act with the "authority of Christ", for the RCC, in the persons of it's foremost bishops, ministers & theologians conducted, then approved & adopted documents produced in those 'Church Council' sessions as official, as surely as *they*, in college of Cardinals isn't it(?), elected all the popes since that college and method of election to office of Papacy, has been the way of the RCC to select it's own leadership, for many long centuries.
Maybe, just maybe the perceived-to-be RCC model and ecclesiolgy is itself central to the problem?
Somethings amiss, that should be obvious enough to anyone. I not sure that pointing towards other ecclesiastical organizations failings (either real or perceived) at this point, would make things any better...
Like his predecessor John Paul II, Benedict XVI was present at all four sessions of the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. Whereas Karol Wojtyla took part as a bishop, the young Joseph Ratzinger did so as a theological expert. During and after the council he taught successively at the universities of Bonn (1959-1963), Münster (1963-1966), Tübingen (1966-1969), and Regensburg, until he was appointed Archbishop of Munich in 1977. In 1981 he became prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a post he held until the death of John Paul II in April 2005.
In his many publications Ratzinger continued to debate questions that arose during the council and in some cases expressed dissatisfaction with the council’s documents. In this respect he differs from Pope John Paul, who consistently praised the council and never (to my knowledge) criticized it.
Some may have found refuge in what they like to refer to as the hermeneutic of continuity, but the phrase itself is something of a mirage.
When the haze of special pleadings is swept away, then details (some significant) can seen to have evolved and changed, at times leaving stated positions & teachings which went before (and had produced particular attitudes widely held to be and repeated to be "truth" within RCC realms) or the latter changes (aimed at adjusting attitudes within the RCC, for example; as for ecumenicism) to be strikingly at odds with one another, the differences worked out only with loads & loads of blathering talkety-talk (oftentimes including special pleading) when those differences are caught sight of, and more closely examined.