February 28, 2026 (Steven O’Reilly) – A couple of days ago, John Henry-Westen and LifeSiteNews published a petition for Catholics to sign. This current effort petitions the Church’s cardinals on the question: “Can’t we consider the possibility that Francis and Leo are anti-popes?” The full text, and links to sign the petition may be found at LifeSiteNews.
Unfortunately, as one Catholic writer suggested on X, Mr. Westen with this latest petition has now “jumped the shark.” And, indeed, he has. Traditional and or conservative cardinals and bishops, who have in the past been interviewed by LifeSiteNews or who have appeared on its podcasts, would be wise to reconsider future associations with that platform. They can only suffer by this association.
The truth is, the possibility that either Francis or Leo are anti-popes is zero. Given that today, February 28th, is the 13th anniversary of the Benedict XVI’s resignation, this may be a good occasion to specifically address Mr. Westen and his question regarding the potential anti-papacies of Francis and Leo.
Addressing Mr. Westen’s Question
If Mr. Westen’s podcasts and or petition have raised the doubt, or solidified that doubt in the minds of some Catholics, that is unfortunate. I’ve written much defending the validity of Benedict’s resignation, including a book (Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI), and a series of articles (see The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”). There are also several articles appearing on LifeSiteNews (see my articles here LifeSiteNews Articles Debunking Benepapism). Also, I was interviewed in a wide-ranging interview on these topics on the Conor Gallagher Show (Was Benedict XVI Forced Out? Conspiracy, Canon Law, & the Conclave), and have done a series of my own videos on related topics (see HERE). I hope these resources might serve to counter the doubts of some Catholics on these question. In addition, other writers have addressed these questions as well, including Ryan Grant, and Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, among others.
Below I’d like to briefly address a few of the main questions that keep coming up in these discussions of Francis or Leo as an anti-pope:
Is it possible Francis and Leo are anti-popes?
The quick and simple answer is “no.” The Catholic Church universally and peacefully accepted both the elections of Francis, and Leo as pope. The vast majority – if not entirety – of all cardinals and bishops, along with the faithful, have accepted Francis and Leo as popes. Therefore, given that universal acceptance of a papal election is an infallible sign of its legitimacy, it necessarily follows Francis was, and Leo is a true pope.
To claim the Church could accept an anti-pope as its head would deny the indefectibility of the Church. The Church cannot, and has never universally accepted an anti-pope as a its head (see Anti-popes were never as universally and peacefully accepted as Pope Francis). Some of the Benepapists who have now turned into sedevacantists have attempted to attack the doctrine of universal acceptance, but their arguments are ahistorical and tendentious (see rebuttals here: Dr. Mazza, PH.D., and Universal Acceptance: Another Failed Argument, Dr. Mazza: A Semivacantist?).
What about violations of conclave rules in 2013?
First, there is a claim the St. Gallen mafia violated conclave rules (e.g., UDG 81) by campaigning for the election of Cardinal Bergoglio. However, there is a problem with suggesting that ‘campaigning’ might invalidate the election. The conclave rules explicitly state that simony (e.g., the ‘buying or selling’ of an office) would not invalidate a papal election (cf UDG 78). Given that ‘campaigning’ is a lesser crime than outright simony – and would likely coincide with it(!), common sense would dictate that the election of Francis would not have been invalidated (see Why a Violation of UDG 81 Does Not Nullify the 2013 Conclave).
Second, if there were violations of conclave rules in 2013, universal acceptance of the man elected as pope by the cardinals, bishops and faithful would heal any defects in the election. Consequently, the universal acceptance of Francis is in itself a proof the resignation of Benedict was valid (see articles addressing various aspects of Universal Acceptance: Anti-popes were never as universally and peacefully accepted as Pope Francis; Dr. Mazza, PH.D., and Universal Acceptance: Another Failed Argument, Dr. Mazza: A Semivacantist?).
Is it possible Benedict XVI did not resign freely?
No, not unless you intend to call Benedict XVI a liar and a coward. Benedict XVI on multiple occasions affirmed his resignation was free. He did so publicly in a consistory, he said so in his written Declaratio. Benedict also affirmed his resignation was free in his interviews with Peter Seewald, specifically denying he was forced out due to the Vatileaks scandal.
Claims that the shut-off in the Vatican ATMs forced him out have failed to address the entirety of the context. The full context of the shut down shows Rome was not surprised by it, and had begun working immediately to find another provider of payment services, and expected the shutdown to be of only a short duration. In other words, there was no pressure that amounted to some insurmountable crisis that would forced Benedict to resign.
I discuss all these issues in my article Pope Benedict XVI Resigned Freely.
Did Benedict fully resign the papacy?
Benedict fully resigned the papacy, and he said so. Below, I’ll concentrate on some statements demonstrating what Benedict XVI actually said, in his own words, about his resignation of the papal office — and these words demonstrate he fully resigned the papacy:
I. From the Declaratio:
In the official instrument of his resignation, Benedict XVI make clear he would no longer be pope, first by stating the See of Peter would be “vacant”, second a new conclave would be necessary to fill that vacancy with a “new Supreme Pontiff.” Benedict wrote:
“…For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry (ministerio) of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is…” (Declaratio, Pope Benedict XVI, February 10, 2013)
Pope Benedict met all the conditions required by canon 332.2 [1]. His resignation was “properly manifested” and it was “free.” No formula is specified by canon law for a valid resignation. Benedict said “for this reason” went on to declare that he was renouncing “the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Peter…in such a way…the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.”
If the “See of Rome, the See of Peter” is vacant, then there is no one holding the primacy over the Church as Bishop of Rome, Peter’s successor, in short — there is no pope. His words are clear.
II. Benedict XVI’s Statement on February 28, 2013
On February 28, 2013, just over two hours before the hour his resignation would go into effect, Pope Benedict XVI addressed pilgrims in Albano, to whom he explicitly said:
“…I am no longer the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, or I will be until 8:00 this evening and then no longer. I am simply a pilgrim beginning the last leg of his pilgrimage on this earth.”
Here, just hours before his resignation would become effective, Benedict explicitly stated “I am no longer the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church” as of 8pm that evening. “Supreme Pontiff” is the title and office a man explicitly accepts upon his election by a conclave. Thus, “Supreme Pontiff” encapsulates all involved in the papal office. Thus, by saying he will ‘no longer by Supreme Pontiff’, it is abundantly evidence Benedict both intended and understood he was fully giving up the office of the papacy. There can be no doubt about this. Benedict says he will no longer pope. He does not say he will still partly be pope.
Benepapists of all kinds have no good response to this. The principle of noncontradiction rules out any other interpretation but the obvious one. Benedict is saying he will no longer be pope. Full stop. He is not leaving a shred of possibility that he would remain partially pope. He is not leaving a shred of possibility he’d be a pope in some other way. The ‘substantial error’ Benepapists have never offered an explanation of how this statement fits into their theory. Barnhardt nothing. Mazza nothing. Acosta nothing. Coffin nothing. They haven’t because they can’t. If they were to try, the best they can do is say Benedict must have contradicted himself! So, instead of admitting that they are wrong in understanding Benedict, they must claim Benedict is wrong in understanding Benedict. Absurd.
The only one who attempted an explanation of Benedict’s words was Andrea Cionci, but his explanation was debunked in my book, in chapter 4. Even Cionci was forced to admit I had demonstrated a thing he had previously said ‘did not exist’ (see A Response to Andrea Cionci and his “Ratzinger Code”).
III. Benedict on the title of ‘Pope Emeritus’
The Benepapists, inclusive of the excommunicated Carlo Vigano, claim Benedict’s use of ’emeritus’ or ‘pope emeritus’ as his post-resignation title, demonstrates he retained, or at least believed he retained the papal office in some way — thus invalidating the resignation. There are many proofs against this which I provide in an article entitled Dr. Mazza and the “Pope Emeritus”.
Briefly, here, let us consider a statement by Benedict XVI, post resignation, in which he explains what ‘pope emeritus’ actually means. The statement below is from a Peter Seewald interview. Benedict responded to the question “What is an emeritus bishop or pope?”; Benedict said:
“… The word ‘emeritus’ said that he had totally given up his office, but his spiritual link to his former diocese was now properly recognized…”
[Source:
While I provide more commentary on Benedict XVI’s response in my article Dr. Mazza and the “Pope Emeritus”; here Benedict clearly says by use of emeritus, “he had totally given up his office,” i.e., he had “totally” given up the papacy.
In this interview, conducted in Benedict’s native German, the word for “office” in the original German of the interview is “Amt.” The German word “Amt” is the word used to translate the Latin word munus, when referring to “office” in Canon 332.2 which speaks of the renunciation of the Roman munus/office/Amt.[2] Consequently, in a plain reading of his words, Benedict’s is saying his use of “emeritus” meant he had “totally given up his office” — in other words, he had ‘totally given up the munus.’ That is, Benedict says ‘he had totally given up the papal office.’
Benedict’s words above cannot be reasonably interpreted or construed in a manner favorable to any Benepapist argument.
IV. Benedict XVI’s Letter to Msgr. Bux
In a letter written by Benedict XVI to Monsignor Bux in 2014, the year following his resignation and in response to certain questions posed by Msgr Bux to him, Benedict XVI wrote:
“In my opinion, the “authoritative historians” and the “other theologians” are neither true historians nor theologians. The speculations they propose are, in my opinion, absurd. To say that in my resignation I would have left “only the exercise of the ministry and not also the munus” is contrary to the clear dogmatic-canonical doctrine you cited in point 1. If some journalists speak of a “creeping schism,” they deserve no attention.”
(See La Nuova Bussola, HERE, and Here by Riccardo Cascioli)
First, note, Benedict calls theories contesting his election as being “abusrd”! Second, the quote falsifies the more popular Benepapist theories (e.g., Barnhardt’s, Cionci’s). What Benedict writes is utterly devastating to the Benepapist case, which necessarily depends on a supposed distinction or separation between the petrine munus, and the petrine ministerium. The above passage is devastating because Benedict XIV rejects any thought of a separation of the ministerium and munus. He writes (bold added):
“To say that in my renunciation I had left “only the exercise of the ministry and not also the munus” is contrary to the clear dogmatic-canonical doctrine…”
The import of his statement is clear. Benedict intended to not “only” give up the “exercise of the ministry” (ministerium) ” but to give up “also the munus.” That is, by giving up the petrine ministry, he in fact also gave up the petrine munus. Indeed, Benedict says that to suggest it is possible that one could resign “only the exercise of the ministry and not also the munus” is contrary to “dogmatic-canonical doctrine.”
Consequently, Benedict is arguing if one resigns the ministerium, one necessarily resigns the munus. If one resigns one, one necessarily resigns the other. Benedict XVI speaks of this being the “clear dogmatic-canonical doctrine.” His letter does not provide the references, but I cite two brief demonstrations that seem appropriate. The doctrinal and logical demonstration of this vary point was provided in another Roma Locuta Est article (see Lumen Gentium Destroys Benepapism in Toto).
[NB: We have elsewhere provided analysis and commentary on how Benedict’s letter completely undermines various Benepapist theories, so no need to rehash it here (see Vigano and the Spontaneous Combustion of Benepapism; Intellectual Honesty and the End of Benepapism; The Stake through the Heart of Benepapism; The Authenticity of Benedict XVI’s 2014 Letter).]
In sum, in just these few examples above, we demonstrated from Benedict’s own words alone that his resignation was valid, falsifying the claims of the Benepapists who either ignore the clear import of these words, or who offer up bizarre and or tendentious interpretations of them.
Final Thoughts
Above, various arguments have been provided demonstrating that Benedict’s resignation was valid. There was no force. There was no pressure. Benedict said he freely resigned – several times. To argue the contrary is to call that saintly man a liar and a coward. Further, Benedict explicitly stated in various ways that he had fully resigned the papacy.
In addition, claims there were violations of conclave rules lack a smoking gun. However, even if we grant a violation of UDG 81, in view of the rules on simony, UDG 78, common sense suggests that the election of Francis was still valid. Even that aside, if there were violations of conclave rules in 2013, universal acceptance of the man elected as pope would heal any defects in the election. The universal acceptance of Francis is in itself a proof the resignation of Benedict was valid. Finally, universal acceptance by the Church’s cardinals, bishops, and faithful is in itself a proof that Francis was, and Leo is, a true pope.
Now, let us recall Mr. Westen’s question in his petition: “Can’t we consider the possibility that Francis and Leo are anti-popes?” From the arguments above, we see the answer to this question is clearly “no.” The answer is “no” because there is no possibility that Francis or Leo are anti-popes.
Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. He writes for Roma Locuta Est He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com. Follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA.
Notes:
[1] Canon 332.2: If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office [Latin: munus], it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.
[Source: Coriden, James A., et al, eds. The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 437. Latin and German translations added in brackets by O’Reilly.]
[2] On the Vatican website, the German language translation of the Latin in Canon 332.2 uses “Amt” for the meaning of “munus” in the sense of office
Canon 332.2: Falls der Papst auf sein Amt verzichten sollte, ist zur Gültigkeit verlangt, daß der Verzicht frei geschieht und hinreichend kundgemacht, nicht jedoch, daß er von irgendwem angenommen wird. (see HERE)
Here is the English of the canon (emphasis and bracket comments added):
Canon 332.2: If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office [Latin: munus; German: Amt], it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.
[Source: Coriden, James A., et al, eds. The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 437. Latin and German translations added in brackets by O’Reilly.]
Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. He writes for Roma Locuta Est He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com. Follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA.
Roma Locuta Est 