The question is self explanatory. Also, why do these people refer to him as “The Bergoglio”? (I know that’s his last name I’m just wondering why these folks call him that.)
Are you looking for “breakaway Catholics” to answer the question?
I am not one, but I would guess they protest anything that threatens (or threatened) the status quo. Don’t waste a lot of time looking for explanations. I imagine there are many breakaway groups, as there are Protestant denominations, with different objections and different agendas. Do what you can and pray that the Church will someday be united.
I don’t know. I think he’s a very traditional pope:
Pope Francis Is No Liberal: 24 Examples
There are some out there that want the Pope to say only what they want to hear. They will claim that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and then when they disagree with him they want another Pope. It does not work both ways! You can disagree with the Pope on his statements that are not doctrinal, but in my opinion, we should never turn our back to him and mock him with such statements!
The groups that assert that there has been no valid pope starting with St. John XXIII,are similar to the conspiracy theorists that popped up after 11/22/63, except that in this case those involved are risking their souls. If you look at some of the seds websites, it is quite clear that the 99.99% of Catholics are deluded and that they (the seds) Only celebrate the Holy Eucharist in the correct form.:eek:
What you are talking about are sedvacantists. They say that since Vatican 2 the popes have all believed in heretical beliefs, thus they aren’t the pope. They criticize the Church for being too liberal and not adhering to Tradition. They call him Bergoglio because they don’t believe he is pope.
What are “seds?”
There are some breakaway Catholic groups that I’ve usually seen think any pope after Vatican II is an anti-pope.
“Sedevacantists.” Sedevacantism is the belief that there are no valid popes after the Vatican II council.
I think this might be a reason too, the whole “Pope Francis is progressive” idea might have caught on with more traditionalist Catholics too.
I am not aware of any “breakaway Catholic groups” who consider Francis an antipope but who accepted Benedict XVI and previous popes as valid. Do you have some examples?
There are tiny groups who broke away from the Church after Vatican I and after Vatican II, but that was long before Pope Francis.
Sedevacantism is not an all-or-nothing type thing.
True, the few groups such as the Society of St. Pius V that are explicitly sedevacantist broke off before Pope Francis. But there are other groups or websites that don’t call Francis an antipope, but don’t exactly consider him fully as pope, either. They may have his picture in their chapel, and may even offer prayers for him. But they oppose (or restrict) most of his teaching, in an indirect way. For instance, they describe a given Francis teaching as “not dogmatic” therefore not infallible, so ignore it. Or a Francis teaching is described as conditional (only applies to a small audience, or only for a limited time, or only under restricted conditions) - so ignore it. But the breakaway groups identify certain other documents from prior years, even centuries ago, and demand that these teachings are authoritative for all times, all persons, all situations.
Why would a group continue to affirm Francis as a pope, in the sense of honoring him, accepting his ceremonial role, and as a symbol of Catholic unity - when they don’t regard him as their pope, in the full sense? Because if they denied the papacy of him or his predecessors, they would lose many of their supporters, who vary among themselves; some supporters admire Pope Benedict, for instance, and he regards Francis as pope. Furthermore, by totally denying Francis as pope, they would deny themselves the ability to negotiate with the Vatican. Some of their followers would say good riddance, but other followers would then leave.
So they adopt de facto what I call the “partial sede” position. This way every time Francis says anything, it generates traffic on their websites, because some of what he teaches might be authoritative; and if it isn’t, you need the websites to tell you why not. I also think these groups will seek to continue negotiation with the Vatican, forever.
I don’t know this for sure, but perhaps they wish to maintain internal consistency by refusing to acknowledge his papacy and along with it the papal name that came with him becoming pope. Which he actually did do, and he sits on the chair of St. Peter, that chair is not in fact vacant. But to someone who denies that the chair is occupied, perhaps they refuse to use his chosen papal name in order to avoid implying that they accept his papacy in any way whatever.
I find it interesting that Pope Francis is much less controversial and absolutely on message with the gospel on sites like EWTN, Catholic.com or .org, and vaticano.va rather then on the New York Times and Washington Post. Just like with anything else you read about on the internet, know your sources.
I wish that you had cited some examples of “partial sede” groups. SSPX? They broke decades ago, long before Francis. One can criticize a pope or another bishop or criticize something he says without necessarily being disloyal to the Church.
There are websites, newspapers, YouTube channels, and conferences that identify as Catholic, but encourage skepticism towards Pope Francis; they evaluate the bishops, do not in any sense obey their own bishop. I seek to categorize them properly; they are not like Protestants or ultra liberal Catholics who deny the authority of the papacy itself. They are also not like traditional Catholics who do accept the authority of the popes, including current popes and bishops, not just certain popes of the past, on faith and morals.
We need a new category, for people who rely on the authority of popes from the past to build their credibility: for instance, “my argument deserves attention because I quote from this document from the late Pope X” - but then they don’t regard Pope Francis as authoritative, or their local bishop either. I think “de facto partial sede” is an accurate way of classifying some groups. They aren’t really “traditional Catholic”, because traditional Catholic obeys the current pope and bishop; they aren’t Sola Scriptura, and they aren’t like liberal groups that oppose all Catholic authority. Unlike Baptists, for instance, their websites focus constantly on Pope Francis, but only to evaluate what he or his appointees are saying, not to be guided or converted through the pope or bishop.
But one can ask what authorities are you relying on to evaluate them? It’s not the pope from a century ago I question, it’s the website that quotes passages from here and there. And omits data from here and there.