Can someone explain to me why Bergoglio is pope?

Bishop Williamson may presume that Bergoglio is the legitimate successor of St. Peter and spiritual leader of the world’s Catholics, but he surely doubts this as being fact. He has made that clear many times over.

The real question is why would anyone want to, as a lay Catholic, fight aggressively to support the idea that Bergoglio is your spiritual leader and the successor of St. Peter. I would never waste my time arguing such a point. I mean, look at Canon 188 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law and its foot notes referencing cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. Why would you ever waste your time defending Bergoglio after reading that unless you yourself were not a Mason or some other anti-Catholic. Well, you could always spend time explaining how anti-sedevacantist Archbishop Lefebvre was. I guess. I don’t necessarily buy it though.

Plenus Vehemeter,

This is where things get dicey and I am inclined to side with the dogmatic sedevacantist to some extent. Allow me to explain.

You begin by stating that no Catholic should cause division by elevating their opinion that the See of Peter is vacant. To support this you cite the opinion of two priests without ordinary jurisdiction.

However, when one looks closely at the matter, there is plenty of pre-Vatican 2 material written very clearly in black and white. For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia which states that about the election of the pope that a heretic, woman or insane person could not legitimately be elected pope. If you choose to follow your own OPINION and decide that a heretic can be legitimately elected pope then why not a woman or even the Dalai Lama? See where your opinion despite the Catholic encyclopedia statement leads you.

Then you have Canon 188 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (which I doubt you have read but include here as a snapshot). Notice rightly that the original cites Ex cuм Apostolatus as support for what it emshrines in law. No simple matter. Canon 188 clearly states: one will lose office without the need of any declarations whatsoever if one publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.

At this point, your opinion that me believing Francis is no true pope is to be elevating my own opinion is now proven to be based on the opinion of two priests without ordinary jurisdiction and weighted with the opinion of a heroic deceased Archbishop who has not been alive for the the last 30 years of this Crisis and very well may have sided with my “opinion” (neither you nor I know).

The problem here as analyzed objectively is that we both posit two opinions. My opinion is that Francis is not pope and it is absurd to fight in honor of defending his papacy. Your opinion is that it is absurd to negate the papacy of Francis and elevate one’s own opinion. The difference is that my opinion is based on what the pre-Vatican 2 Church taught regarding heretics and defected Catholics and the papacy in black and white. Your opinion is supported by, well, other people’s opinions. So I choose to take the safer course, ignore the opinions you have quoted and side with the Catholic Encyclopedia and 1917 Code of Canon Law. (188)

The only out you have as I can see it is if you reject openly the claims of both the sources I cited and maintain the very novel opinion that a pope can be a Non-Catholic and a heretic. Or you could choose the second option of claiming that Francis has not publicly defected but does indeed hold the integral Catholic Faith. Of course, your third option is to murder your ego and investigate for yourself without the pride of being right.

3 options for you. I wonder which you will choose.

the guide that was given us in Archbishop Lefebvre

Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?  (1 Cor 1:12-13)

The real question is why would anyone want to, as a lay Catholic, fight aggressively to support the idea that Bergoglio is your spiritual leader and the successor of St. Peter. 

What I'm hearing is that the Quran-kisser's and Mass-wrecker's papacies aren't even doubtful.

Lefebvre isn't the guide of faith and principle of unity given to you by God, that would be the Pope. YOU chose Lefebvre,