The depth and scope of Pope Francis's utter apostasy to not only Christianity, but traditional Roman Catholicism, creates an impasse, where I firmly believe that anyone who takes even a little bit of time to study what he has said, and then contrast that with previous Popes, will either have to leave the Roman Catholic Church, or otherwise, they have demonstrated that they are the kind of person who will never leave the Roman Catholic Church, regardless of what they are shown:
James White
The massive problem that Rome is facing today, that is - just go read some Popes from 150 years ago, and compare them to Pope Francis - and anyone who can say, "Oh yeah, mm-hm, same thing" - what can I say? You'll believe anything, so go ahead - I can't help you.
To demonstrate why so many express the above sentiment, I've put together a very brief compilation of some of the heterodox things that Francis has said or produced - things which the vast majority of historical Popes would have found utterly ridiculous, and heretical:
If you can watch the above - which is but a small sample of Pope Francis's departure from traditional Catholicism - and then read Quanta Cura, and the attached Papal Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX (1792-1878 AD), and not conclude that Papal Primacy is an unreliable, fraudulent doctrine, that only serves to create confusion and innovation, then it's almost certain that nothing will convince you otherwise. Can anyone, with an honest heart before God, believe that Pope Francis would ever issue something like the Syllabus of Errors? And similarly, can anyone believe that Pius IX would ever make the statements that Francis has made? If not, why not, given that the two occupy the exact same role as Christ's representative here on earth? Has Jesus changed, in accordance with the agenda of modern Liberalism, over the last 100 years?
Can anyone who has read the Bible even a single time earnestly regard Francis to be "the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church, and the father and teacher of all Christians" (Council of Florence, 1439 AD)? Isn't that the definition of blasphemy? I would trust any 10 year-old at my Church to teach me the Bible before Pope Francis. He is a Liberation theologian, who views whatever he believes in the Bible through that lense, and teaches accordingly. He's not qualified to pastor a local church in your city, let alone be the "Vicar of Christ", were such a position available.
Pope Francis believes and teaches scores of things that are utterly opposed to historical Catholicism, and he would be burned at the stake as a heretic by the Catholic Church, had he lived during the Middle Ages. In light of the Roman Catholic system that he subscribes to, his near-universalism makes him a walking contradiction, and there is no way for an honest person to believe that his views can be reconciled with previous Popes.
Further, the amount of cognitive dissonance required for any sincere student of the Bible to call Pope Francis "The Vicar of Christ" is beyond any and all reason. Pope Francis understands less about the Bible than, in all likelihood, anyone reading this article. The dogma that the whole world must submit to this Inclusivist, Socialist theologian as if he were Christ is not only blasphemous, but contrary to the God-given common sense of any even slightly conservative Christian who is aware of the attacks on the Bible by modern Liberalism.
In both of these points, Pope Francis reveals the Papacy to be a fraudulent office, created by usurpers, attempting to steal the authority and glory of Jesus Christ. If studying Pope Francis doesn't clearly reveal that to a person, then such a person has merely proven that they are going to remain a Catholic in spite of any and all contrary evidence that could be presented to them.