But History tends to disagree:
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
Martin Luther (like Francis) opposed many of the ancient teachings of the Church. But how could he convince people that the historic church was wrong in its beliefs, and that he was right? He needed an authority that he could appeal to, and claim was higher than that of the Universal Church. He seized upon the Bible, introducing a new doctrine, Sola Scriptura, which said that Scripture Alone could be used to define Christian doctrine. The ancient teachings and Apostolic tradition of the Church could then be discarded as of no value whatsoever. So how can Francis do away with that which he is opposed to?
Francis acts as if no pope or council came before he and Vat II and that they arent subject to the council of Trent, other councils, and popes who taught opposite if Francis.
Francis is doing the same, he is introducing tbings contrary to numerous popes, councils, etc. His inviting of the pagan, demonic Pachamama devotees onto sacred ground and blessing the idol and allowing it to be paraded in front of the high altar goes against everything past.
Francis acts as if he and Vat II are pope of popes, council of councils, look upon them and despair! But he cannot ovverride the following:
Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful, to Francis, etc, and must be a continuation of them from Sacred Scripture all the way through church history until now:
“But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it *in accordance with Revelation itself,* which all are obliged to *abide by and be in conformity with,* that is, *the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety* through the legitimate succession of bishops and *especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself,* and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”
Francis has repeatedly said that non-Catholics, schismatics, protestants, etc, all have martyrs, which contradicts Pope Eugene IV AND the Council of Florence, and the centuries and centuries of precedentband church tradition they built upon then at this council, all of which overrides Francis as they have precedence before him.
Francis shows time and again he IS Martin Luther II.
Pope Francis invited the devotees of the pagan, demonic Pachamama onto sacred ground, ends up now no better, actually worse, than Pope Honorius I. You missed him:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I
“In 680, Honorius was anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople along with the Monothelites, for “having followed them in all things”.[7]
Citing his correspondence with Sergius, the Council accused Honoris of having “confirmed his impious doctrines”.[8]
Pope Leo II’s letter of confirmation of the Council altered the Council’s condemnation so as to criticize Honorius not for teaching or committing heresy, but for “imprudent economy of silence”.
[9] Leo’s letter states that Honorius is anathematized because he “did not purify this apostolic Church by the doctrine of the apostolic tradition, but rather he allowed the immaculate [Church] to be stained by profane treason.”[7]...”